SoxProspects News
|
|
|
|
Legal
Forum Ground Rules
The views expressed by the members of this Forum do not necessarily reflect the views of SoxProspects, LLC.
© 2003-2024 SoxProspects, LLC
|
|
|
|
|
Forum Home | Search | My Profile | Messages | Members | Help |
Welcome Guest. Please Login or Register.
The Big Bad Mookie Betts Thread
|
Post by thelavarnwayguy on Oct 1, 2014 11:36:30 GMT -5
What if?
Mookie actually played 2nd base and got the benefit of maybe a defensive boost in his dWAR? Greater than he would ever have in CF? Mookie actually stole 35+ bases at a high rate of success? Mookie hit even better than he has so far in the majors in terms of BA, OBP with similar pop going forward?
Mookie is potentially an even more valuable player than we are seeing now. It's very possible he is an above 5 War player. Maybe quite a few 6-8 WAR years.
It's certainly possible
|
|
|
Post by gregblossersbelly on Oct 1, 2014 20:29:56 GMT -5
I'm calling the next #featofmookie He takes Hamels deep to kick-off 2015, a la Dewey in 86. And, Mookie did in Reading this past spring. Just don't ask me what position he'll be playing. Hitting a home run off his own team's staring pitcher is probably going to be a bit awkward though. If Hamels is pitching for us, Mookie will lead the bottom of the first off with a HR. There will be much sadness in The Nation
|
|
nomar
Veteran
Posts: 10,806
Member is Online
|
Post by nomar on Oct 1, 2014 21:02:57 GMT -5
Hitting a home run off his own team's staring pitcher is probably going to be a bit awkward though. If Hamels is pitching for us, Mookie will lead the bottom of the first off with a HR. There will be much sadness in The Nation Highly doubt Mookie would be in a deal for Hamels
|
|
|
Post by larrycook on Oct 3, 2014 21:09:04 GMT -5
Mookie should not be included in any deal, including a Stanton deal. He is just too valuable.
Somehow the sox need to play mookie everyday and not leave him on the bench.
I know he and Castillo both have pop gun arms, so neither works in right field.
Somehow cherrington has to unload some of the excess outfielders and give mookie a spot.
Ps: bogey is untouchable.
|
|
|
Post by maxwellsdemon on Oct 3, 2014 21:25:38 GMT -5
Mookie may not be Carl Furillo but he certainly has a better arm than many who have roamed CF for the Sox including Ellsbury and Damon. In fact while there have been a number of comparisons of Mookie to illustrious ballplayers including Ben Zobrist, Joe Morgan and Tim Raines (always with the usual caveats) the one best comp for be is Rickey Henderson. And yes I know all about comps to HOFers and of course no one is going to approach Rickey's base stealing numbers. But overall it is not the most outlandish projection for Mookie if his trajectory of development continues for just another year or so. I think we'd all settle for fewer SB and a better arm and maybe 90% plus of Rickey's production
|
|
|
Post by iakovos11 on Oct 3, 2014 21:32:47 GMT -5
Mookie should not be included in any deal, including a Stanton deal. He is just too valuable. Somehow the sox need to play mookie everyday and not leave him on the bench. I know he and Castillo both have pop gun arms, so neither works in right field. Somehow cherrington has to unload some of the excess outfielders and give mookie a spot. Ps: bogey is untouchable. Not even for Tulo or Darvish?
|
|
pd
Rookie
Posts: 238
|
Post by pd on Oct 3, 2014 21:46:45 GMT -5
I'm usually considered a delusional optimist, but:
What if Mookie Betts is a .240 hitter with limited powers? What if Mookie Betts tears an ACL and plays 12 games this year? What if Mookie Betts never really figures out how to throw from the outfield?
It's possible.
Lets be realistic, nobody knows what's going to happen, and no one is really untradeable.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Oct 3, 2014 21:48:34 GMT -5
I'm usually considered a delusional optimist, but: What if Mookie Betts is a .240 hitter with limited powers? What if Mookie Betts tears an ACL and plays 12 games this year? What if Mookie Betts never really figures out how to throw from the outfield? It's possible. Lets be realistic, nobody knows what's going to happen, and no one is really untradeable. What if whoever he's traded for tears his ACL? This is kinda dumb.
|
|
|
Post by xanderbogaerts2 on Oct 3, 2014 23:05:01 GMT -5
when he started playing everyday Aug. 18 - Sept. 28 his stat line was: 148 AB 28 R 45 H 10 2B 4 HR 16 RBI 20 BB 26 SO 6 SB .304/.391/.466/.857 He had a 2.1 WAR (6.3~)in a third of a season. Makes you wonder what he's worth especially if you think he will get better with more experience.
|
|
|
Post by bryce on Oct 4, 2014 11:00:55 GMT -5
If Hamels is pitching for us, Mookie will lead the bottom of the first off with a HR. There will be much sadness in The Nation Highly doubt Mookie would be in a deal for Hamels It is undoubtful that Phillies will ask Red Sox about Mookie actively !
|
|
|
Post by fenwaythehardway on Oct 4, 2014 11:13:00 GMT -5
I'm usually considered a delusional optimist, but: What if Mookie Betts is a .240 hitter with limited powers? What if Mookie Betts tears an ACL and plays 12 games this year? What if Mookie Betts never really figures out how to throw from the outfield? It's possible. Lets be realistic, nobody knows what's going to happen, and no one is really untradeable. What if whoever he's traded for tears his ACL? This is kinda dumb. The whole "prospects are unreliable" shtick is a little silly. Yes, prospects are unreliable-- because they are baseball players. You think trusting Jackie Bradley was a bad decision? Try signing Proven Veteran Shin-Soo Choo and his .242/.340/.374 line to a multi-squillion dollar deal. And yes, vets are more reliable than prospects. I'm not saying there's no difference. But it's a smaller difference than it's often made out to be. And Mookie in particular has a fairly low-risk profile as a prospect: contact oriented guy who doesn't strike out a lot, and who can provide value on the bases and with the glove if he's not hitting. And one last minor point... what if Betts never really figures out how to throw from the outfield? I don't care even a little bit. As long as he can catch the ball he's fine.
|
|
|
Post by FenwayFanatic on Oct 4, 2014 12:07:59 GMT -5
I'm usually considered a delusional optimist, but: What if Mookie Betts is a .240 hitter with limited powers? What if Mookie Betts tears an ACL and plays 12 games this year? What if Mookie Betts never really figures out how to throw from the outfield? It's possible. Lets be realistic, nobody knows what's going to happen, and no one is really untradeable. What if whoever he's traded for tears his ACL? This is kinda dumb. Especially when you take into account Stanton is the one who has had prior injuries... who knows how he will recover from that scary accident he had.
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Oct 4, 2014 13:13:38 GMT -5
What if? Mookie actually played 2nd base and got the benefit of maybe a defensive boost in his dWAR? Greater than he would ever have in CF? Mookie actually stole 35+ bases at a high rate of success? Mookie hit even better than he has so far in the majors in terms of BA, OBP with similar pop going forward? Mookie is potentially an even more valuable player than we are seeing now. It's very possible he is an above 5 War player. Maybe quite a few 6-8 WAR years. It's certainly possible I'm usually considered a delusional optimist, but: What if Mookie Betts is a .240 hitter with limited powers? What if Mookie Betts tears an ACL and plays 12 games this year? What if Mookie Betts never really figures out how to throw from the outfield? It's possible. Lets be realistic, nobody knows what's going to happen, and no one is really untradeable. Pretty sure that the latter post was responding to the former, and that he's making the same point all of you who are responding to him are.
|
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 8,931
|
Post by ericmvan on Oct 5, 2014 16:26:50 GMT -5
I've got some cool stuff about guys with great rookie seasons age 21 or younger, but the details will have to wait until I return from vacation and get reliable Internet access.
Short version: in terms of aWAR (average of fWAR and bWAR) per 150 games, Mookie had the 13th best age-21 or younger rookie season (season in which eligibility was lost) of all time. The top 30 seasons belong to an impressive group of players; details to follow, but I will say that, by the classic, slightly more lenient Hall standards, there are more HOF-caliber players than not. Like 18 out of 27, with 3 still up in the air (Heyward, Harper, and Mookie).
Here's what's especially interesting to me. Of the 30 guys, only 6 to 8 had never played in the high minors before their rookie season year:
6. Albert Pujols (less than 10 games at AAA) 10. Frank Robinson (less than 10 games at AA) 13. Mookie 20. Salvador Perez 25. Del Ennis 26. David Wright 27. Willie Mays 29. Adam Dunn
Only 5 guys did not play full-season ball two years before their rookie season, which is to say, their rookie season was their second full year of pro play:
6. Pujols 13. Betts 16. Babe Ruth 23. Bryce Harper 27. Mays
So, looking at both lists, it's almost unprecedented to to have started this late, gotten to the majors this quickly, and been this good this young (Mays was 20, so he has to be counted as more impressive despite Mookie having a 5.8 to 4.8 aWAR/150 edge). And I have a long-standing belief that the whole "age matters" thing is as much or more about years of experience as it is about physical maturation. For a guy who was apparently more into bowling and basketball than baseball in HS, and had just 1311 PA in the minors, he's been pretty darn good.
|
|
|
Post by thelavarnwayguy on Oct 5, 2014 16:56:24 GMT -5
I think the main point I have been making for some time now is that Mookie's numbers have been so good, and particularly in light of his age and baseball experience level, we may still be underestimating him. I know it is safe to say "He's extremely likely to not be a HOF caliber player" or instead of being a top 2 prospect like Xander was, it's safer to say "he's a top 20-30 guy". I get it. A lot of you have been saying that for months and I know enough about statistics also to run those numbers. All that said, I think we should at least consider the possibility that he may even be worth more than we think at this time. He may continue to improve. With his speed and contact rates he may put up even better BABIP rates in the future. If he were a 2nd baseman, maybe his WAR value would be even higher...etc. I dropped everything, earlier in the year, to fly from California to Portland to watch this guy, Owens and Swihart play for 2 games. This guy has been a phenomena for a while now. It's about whether to trade him or where to play him to get maximum value from him. To me, he is the key guy in the team as of several weeks ago. And even though the likelihood of him being a game changing star player is not something we can expect even now, there is that possibility and to manage the team properly we should allow for all potential variables. We may have a superstar player in the process of developing. Our McCutchen, and we need to maximize his value: www.baseball-reference.com/players/m/mccutan01.shtml
|
|
alnipper
Veteran
Living the dream
Posts: 619
|
Post by alnipper on Oct 5, 2014 18:50:10 GMT -5
I think a few of us have asked this question. Would you rather have Pedroia or Mookie? I would rather have Mookie. The Sox luckily have both players.
|
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 8,931
|
Post by ericmvan on Oct 8, 2014 17:32:21 GMT -5
So, here are the top 30 rookie seasons (year eligibility was lost) of all time, for players ages 21 and below, as measured by aWAR (average of bWAR and fWAR) per 150 games.
In these tables, “HOF” is my own metric for HOF-worthiness, based on the actual constitution of the Hall for pre-expansion players. You may know of JAWS, which (arbitrarily, I’m pretty sure), averages career WAR and WAR7, which is to say, total WAR of the 7 best seasons. It turns out that the empirical standard for the Hall is (or used to be) ½ WAR + WAR5. In other words, instead of counting the 7 best years double, count the 5 best years triple. That does a much better job of including guys with short careers but monster peaks, like Kiner and Hack Wilson, and excluding some opposite types like Names Escape Me (because they're not famous, and I can't find my comparison of JAWS to my metric ... but Art Fletcher and Bobby Veach are two guys who have higher JAWS than Wilson and Klein but are much lower with me).
The resulting number has been tweaked for season length (including strike seasons), missing time due to military service, playing during WWII when the talent pool was diluted, being a catcher, and for the change in the size of the talent pool with both types of expansions (number of teams, and addition of black and Latin players -- both of which boost contemporary players).
A HOF of 1.0 or higher is a HOFer by the old standards (WAR5 + ½ WAR of 54 or higher). Every eligible old-timer with 1.20 or higher is in the Hall (the ineligible guy, of course, is Joe Jackson at 1.39), and 22 of the 29 guys from 1.00 to 1.20 are also in (while only 8 of the next 29 below 1.00 are).
It quickly becomes clear that the guys who were rookies at age 20 or younger were special, and really shouldn't be lumped with the age 21 guys. So here they are, with a separate HOF metric column for the active players:
Rnk Player Tm Year Age Pos G PA aWAR/ HOF aHOF 1 Mike Trout LAA 2012 20 CF 139 639 11.3 0.80 4 Ted Williams BOS 1939 20 RF 149 675 6.9 2.76 10 Frank Robinson CIN 1956 20 LF 152 667 6.1 2.16 11 Jason Heyward ATL 2010 20 RF 142 623 5.8 0.64 15 Vada Pinson CIN 1959 20 CF 154 706 5.7 1.05 16 Babe Ruth BOS 1915 20 P 42 103 5.7 2.80 19 Rogers Hornsby STL 1916 20 3B 139 550 5.5 2.18 23 Bryce Harper WSN 2012 19 CF 139 597 5.1 0.26 27 Willie Mays NYG 1951 20 CF 121 523 4.8 2.72 28 Jose Reyes NYM 2003 20 SS 69 292 4.8 0.82 30 Edgar Renteria FLA 1996 20 SS 106 471 4.7 0.71 This list includes the three greatest players of all time who are not proven steroid users (Bonds is 3.54), plus #12 Hornsby and #14 Robinson. Trout is already 80% to the Hall without even having played 5 seasons; he needs a full-season career worst 7.3 aWAR next year to make it to 1.0 with four real seasons and a venti cup of coffee. Heyward and Harper seem likely to make it before their days are over (and if you want to take this as an argument for grabbing Heyward, be my guest). Pinson has to be considered a disappointment given what he did as a rookie, but 50.8 career aWAR with a peak of 5 years at 6.0 a year is hardly chopped liver. And then there are the two Latin shortstops at the bottom of the list who were very good but not great (and Renteria's age is already in dispute; I'm not sure about Reyes).
Here are the age 21 guys:
Rnk Player Tm Year Age Pos G PA aWAR/ HOF aHF 2 Brett Lawrie TOR 2011 21 3B 43 171 10.6 0.27 3 Willie McCovey SFG 1959 21 1B 52 219 8.9 1.39 5 Tom Brunansky MIN 1982 21 RF 127 545 6.5 0.49 6 Jeff Francoeur ATL 2005 21 RF 70 274 6.4 0.26 7 Albert Pujols STL 2001 21 3B 161 676 6.4 2.10 8 Tim Raines MON 1981 21 LF 88 363 6.1 1.40 9 Donie Bush DET 1909 21 SS 157 676 6.1 0.87 12 Stan Musial STL 1942 21 LF 140 536 5.8 2.20 13 Mookie Betts BOS 2014 21 CF 52 213 5.8 0.06 14 Willie Randolph NYY 1976 21 2B 125 499 5.8 1.15 17 Richie Ashburn PHI 1948 21 CF 117 530 5.7 1.21 18 Joe Mauer MIN 2004 21 C 35 122 5.6 1.31 20 Salvador Perez KCR 2011 21 C 39 158 5.4 0.32 21 Joe DiMaggio NYY 1936 21 LF 138 669 5.3 1.74 22 Hal Trosky CLE 1934 21 1B 154 685 5.3 0.77 24 Joe Morgan HOU 1965 21 2B 157 708 5.1 2.33 25 Del Ennis PHI 1946 21 LF 141 583 4.9 0.72 26 David Wright NYM 2004 21 3B 69 283 4.9 1.14 29 Adam Dunn CIN 2001 21 RF 66 286 4.8 0.47 This list includes three more innermost circle HOFers in Morgan (8th in my ranking), Musial (12th), and Pujols (17th and climbing). DiMaggio, McCovey, and Raines are no-brainers (except, of course, if your brain has earned you admission to the BBWA), and Mauer will be. Ashburn is a HOFer by any standard, and Wright will end up in that territory. Randolph is a very likely HOFer by the pre-expansion standards. Trotsky was well on his way to the Hall when his career was essentially ended after age 27 by migraines. Bush and Ennis were very good players, and Perez (who has never again hit like he did as a rookie) will probably end up in that territory, though he obviously has a chance at more. Brunansky and Dunn were solid players, and Lawrie (who has not only never again hit like he did as a rookie, but hasn't been an elite fielder since his first two years) seems headed in that direction. Francoeur is the sole bust, and he of course had a well-known and potentially exploitable weakness. (More on why the latter group of players may have fallen short of the others in a moment.)
The first thing that jumps out at you from these lists is that this is largely a 21st century phenomenon. There are 18 players from last century, or 1.8 per decade, but there are 6 players from the 2000's and already another 6 from this half-decade.
Furthermore, players are getting to the majors much more quickly. Here are total PAs in MLB, the high minors, middle minors (A+ and A), and in short-season ball for all the guys starting from the 60's, when the minors settled into their current configuration, and when we have online BB, HBP, SF, and SH data (I had to fill in Randolph and Morgan from my Baseball Guides). The last column weights the levels 4-3-2-1.
Rnk Player Year Age aWAR/ PA-ML PA-hi PA-mid PA-ss TotPA WgtPA 13 Mookie Betts 2014 21 5.8 464 551 296 1311 1116 1 Mike Trout 2012 20 11.3 135 505 620 187 1447 1393 23 Bryce Harper 2012 19 5.1 231 305 536 521 2 Brett Lawrie 2011 21 10.6 991 423 1414 1528 20 Salvador Perez 2011 21 5.4 358 533 453 1344 1037 11 Jason Heyward 2010 20 5.8 208 747 48 1003 866 6 Jeff Francoeur 2005 21 6.4 443 934 167 1544 1346 18 Joe Mauer 2004 21 5.6 331 737 130 1198 1039 26 David Wright 2004 21 4.9 406 1131 138 1675 1447 28 Jose Reyes 2003 20 4.8 476 762 159 1397 1244 7 Albert Pujols 2001 21 6.4 15 529 544 441 29 Adam Dunn 2001 21 4.8 422 910 151 1483 1295 30 Edgar Renteria 1996 20 4.7 701 906 175 1782 1636 5 Tom Brunansky 1982 21 6.5 41 1128 596 238 2003 1991 8 Tim Raines 1981 21 6.1 27 1147 438 189 1801 1846 14 Willie Randolph 1976 21 5.8 70 935 534 194 1733 1739 24 Joe Morgan 1965 21 5.1 73 601 624 1298 1337 The first things that jump out at you: the four highest total PAs (raw or weighted) are found among the five guys from the last century. And four of the five guys who had MLB experience prior to their rookie season belong to the last century, too. (6 of the 13 guys who are too ancient to make this list had MLB experience prior to their rookie seasons, too, so that's 10 out of 18 before this century, versus 1 out of 12 since.)
You can also see what looks like a meaningful inverse correlation between amount of ml experience before the rookie season, and career success. For the five 20th century players, the correlation of total PA to HOF is -0.93 (p = .02); although that's almost totally driven by the endpoints Morgan and Brunansky, it still makes sense. And among the 21st century guys, Francoeur and Lawrie are among the leaders in PA (weighted and unweighted), while Pujols has the 1st or 2nd fewest.
Now, Mookie never missed time with injury and batted leadoff, so he actually piled up a ton of PA per seasons played. As a result, he's not quite as impressive here as he was in the last post, where I looked at career paths (data I may post, since I have it). But he is still on the very low side for total PA before the rookie season. Pujols, Harper, and Heyward are way ahead of him, Mauer's a bit ahead, and he and Perez are battling for the 5th least experience among the 17 guys here. Only Pujols and Heyward had better rookie seasons with less prior pro experience. That really augurs well.
Now, it's a serious question whether 213 PA in MLB can ever make it likelier than not that a player ends up as a HOF caliber guy. So let's just say that players who have done what Mookie has done have a really, really good track record.
|
|
|
Post by thelavarnwayguy on Oct 8, 2014 18:57:15 GMT -5
I don't know how anyone could interpret Eric's data above and not think we may even PROBABLY have a very special player in Mookie. It's not crazy to be talking about him and Mccutchen in the same sentence. A big factor in making the HOF is how early a player starts mlb. There have been a lot of good players who didn't start mlb until they were 23-24 or older and as longevity is a factor one would think just making it to the majors that young would be a huge factor in separating really good players from the HOF caliber guys.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Oct 9, 2014 9:05:17 GMT -5
I'd feel a littler better if Brett Lawrie wasn't on the list.
|
|
|
Post by greatscottcooper on Oct 9, 2014 9:56:36 GMT -5
I'd feel a littler better if Brett Lawrie wasn't on the list. Lawrie hasn't been bad, it's just very easy to fall short of expectations when you don't turn into a superstar. And FWIW, he's still only 24 years old, and I think it is perfectly plausible to suggest his production might have been much better if he hasn't been so injury riddled. But I understand looking at that list and seeing all the HOFer and wanting to assume that is Mookie Betts too. Maybe it's wishful thinking I don't know, but none the less everything he has done to date has been extremely impressive. As far as I'm concerned as long as Mookie Betts stays healthy, he should be better than Lawrie.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Oct 13, 2014 16:49:11 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by p23w on Oct 15, 2014 13:04:21 GMT -5
I'd feel a littler better if Brett Lawrie wasn't on the list. Lawrie hasn't been bad, it's just very easy to fall short of expectations when you don't turn into a superstar. And FWIW, he's still only 24 years old, and I think it is perfectly plausible to suggest his production might have been much better if he hasn't been so injury riddled. But I understand looking at that list and seeing all the HOFer and wanting to assume that is Mookie Betts too. Maybe it's wishful thinking I don't know, but none the less everything he has done to date has been extremely impressive. As far as I'm concerned as long as Mookie Betts stays healthy, he should be better than Lawrie. ITA. I had hoped Will Middlebrooks would develop along the line of Lawrie. Injuries have affected the development of both, but Lawrie shows much more upside at this point in time than does Middlebrooks. Comparing Lawrie to Betts is an apples to oranges comparison, "stats" notwithstanding. Betts has a far different skill set, and IMHO a greater upside to a team than does Lawrie.
|
|
|
Post by thelavarnwayguy on Oct 15, 2014 17:05:39 GMT -5
So, here are the top 30 rookie seasons (year eligibility was lost) of all time, for players ages 21 and below, as measured by aWAR (average of bWAR and fWAR) per 150 games. In these tables, “HOF” is my own metric for HOF-worthiness, based on the actual constitution of the Hall for pre-expansion players. You may know of JAWS, which (arbitrarily, I’m pretty sure), averages career WAR and WAR7, which is to say, total WAR of the 7 best seasons. It turns out that the empirical standard for the Hall is (or used to be) ½ WAR + WAR5. In other words, instead of counting the 7 best years double, count the 5 best years triple. That does a much better job of including guys with short careers but monster peaks, like Kiner and Hack Wilson, and excluding some opposite types like Names Escape Me (because they're not famous, and I can't find my comparison of JAWS to my metric ... but Art Fletcher and Bobby Veach are two guys who have higher JAWS than Wilson and Klein but are much lower with me). The resulting number has been tweaked for season length (including strike seasons), missing time due to military service, playing during WWII when the talent pool was diluted, being a catcher, and for the change in the size of the talent pool with both types of expansions (number of teams, and addition of black and Latin players -- both of which boost contemporary players). A HOF of 1.0 or higher is a HOFer by the old standards (WAR5 + ½ WAR of 54 or higher). Every eligible old-timer with 1.20 or higher is in the Hall (the ineligible guy, of course, is Joe Jackson at 1.39), and 22 of the 29 guys from 1.00 to 1.20 are also in (while only 8 of the next 29 below 1.00 are). It quickly becomes clear that the guys who were rookies at age 20 or younger were special, and really shouldn't be lumped with the age 21 guys. So here they are, with a separate HOF metric column for the active players: Rnk Player Tm Year Age Pos G PA aWAR/ HOF aHOF 1 Mike Trout LAA 2012 20 CF 139 639 11.3 0.80 4 Ted Williams BOS 1939 20 RF 149 675 6.9 2.76 10 Frank Robinson CIN 1956 20 LF 152 667 6.1 2.16 11 Jason Heyward ATL 2010 20 RF 142 623 5.8 0.64 15 Vada Pinson CIN 1959 20 CF 154 706 5.7 1.05 16 Babe Ruth BOS 1915 20 P 42 103 5.7 2.80 19 Rogers Hornsby STL 1916 20 3B 139 550 5.5 2.18 23 Bryce Harper WSN 2012 19 CF 139 597 5.1 0.26 27 Willie Mays NYG 1951 20 CF 121 523 4.8 2.72 28 Jose Reyes NYM 2003 20 SS 69 292 4.8 0.82 30 Edgar Renteria FLA 1996 20 SS 106 471 4.7 0.71 This list includes the three greatest players of all time who are not proven steroid users (Bonds is 3.54), plus #12 Hornsby and #14 Robinson. Trout is already 80% to the Hall without even having played 5 seasons; he needs a full-season career worst 7.3 aWAR next year to make it to 1.0 with four real seasons and a venti cup of coffee. Heyward and Harper seem likely to make it before their days are over (and if you want to take this as an argument for grabbing Heyward, be my guest). Pinson has to be considered a disappointment given what he did as a rookie, but 50.8 career aWAR with a peak of 5 years at 6.0 a year is hardly chopped liver. And then there are the two Latin shortstops at the bottom of the list who were very good but not great (and Renteria's age is already in dispute; I'm not sure about Reyes). Here are the age 21 guys: Rnk Player Tm Year Age Pos G PA aWAR/ HOF aHF 2 Brett Lawrie TOR 2011 21 3B 43 171 10.6 0.27 3 Willie McCovey SFG 1959 21 1B 52 219 8.9 1.39 5 Tom Brunansky MIN 1982 21 RF 127 545 6.5 0.49 6 Jeff Francoeur ATL 2005 21 RF 70 274 6.4 0.26 7 Albert Pujols STL 2001 21 3B 161 676 6.4 2.10 8 Tim Raines MON 1981 21 LF 88 363 6.1 1.40 9 Donie Bush DET 1909 21 SS 157 676 6.1 0.87 12 Stan Musial STL 1942 21 LF 140 536 5.8 2.20 13 Mookie Betts BOS 2014 21 CF 52 213 5.8 0.06 14 Willie Randolph NYY 1976 21 2B 125 499 5.8 1.15 17 Richie Ashburn PHI 1948 21 CF 117 530 5.7 1.21 18 Joe Mauer MIN 2004 21 C 35 122 5.6 1.31 20 Salvador Perez KCR 2011 21 C 39 158 5.4 0.32 21 Joe DiMaggio NYY 1936 21 LF 138 669 5.3 1.74 22 Hal Trosky CLE 1934 21 1B 154 685 5.3 0.77 24 Joe Morgan HOU 1965 21 2B 157 708 5.1 2.33 25 Del Ennis PHI 1946 21 LF 141 583 4.9 0.72 26 David Wright NYM 2004 21 3B 69 283 4.9 1.14 29 Adam Dunn CIN 2001 21 RF 66 286 4.8 0.47 This list includes three more innermost circle HOFers in Morgan (8th in my ranking), Musial (12th), and Pujols (17th and climbing). DiMaggio, McCovey, and Raines are no-brainers (except, of course, if your brain has earned you admission to the BBWA), and Mauer will be. Ashburn is a HOFer by any standard, and Wright will end up in that territory. Randolph is a very likely HOFer by the pre-expansion standards. Trotsky was well on his way to the Hall when his career was essentially ended after age 27 by migraines. Bush and Ennis were very good players, and Perez (who has never again hit like he did as a rookie) will probably end up in that territory, though he obviously has a chance at more. Brunansky and Dunn were solid players, and Lawrie (who has not only never again hit like he did as a rookie, but hasn't been an elite fielder since his first two years) seems headed in that direction. Francoeur is the sole bust, and he of course had a well-known and potentially exploitable weakness. (More on why the latter group of players may have fallen short of the others in a moment.) The first thing that jumps out at you from these lists is that this is largely a 21st century phenomenon. There are 18 players from last century, or 1.8 per decade, but there are 6 players from the 2000's and already another 6 from this half-decade. Furthermore, players are getting to the majors much more quickly. Here are total PAs in MLB, the high minors, middle minors (A+ and A), and in short-season ball for all the guys starting from the 60's, when the minors settled into their current configuration, and when we have online BB, HBP, SF, and SH data (I had to fill in Randolph and Morgan from my Baseball Guides). The last column weights the levels 4-3-2-1. Rnk Player Year Age aWAR/ PA-ML PA-hi PA-mid PA-ss TotPA WgtPA 13 Mookie Betts 2014 21 5.8 464 551 296 1311 1116 1 Mike Trout 2012 20 11.3 135 505 620 187 1447 1393 23 Bryce Harper 2012 19 5.1 231 305 536 521 2 Brett Lawrie 2011 21 10.6 991 423 1414 1528 20 Salvador Perez 2011 21 5.4 358 533 453 1344 1037 11 Jason Heyward 2010 20 5.8 208 747 48 1003 866 6 Jeff Francoeur 2005 21 6.4 443 934 167 1544 1346 18 Joe Mauer 2004 21 5.6 331 737 130 1198 1039 26 David Wright 2004 21 4.9 406 1131 138 1675 1447 28 Jose Reyes 2003 20 4.8 476 762 159 1397 1244 7 Albert Pujols 2001 21 6.4 15 529 544 441 29 Adam Dunn 2001 21 4.8 422 910 151 1483 1295 30 Edgar Renteria 1996 20 4.7 701 906 175 1782 1636 5 Tom Brunansky 1982 21 6.5 41 1128 596 238 2003 1991 8 Tim Raines 1981 21 6.1 27 1147 438 189 1801 1846 14 Willie Randolph 1976 21 5.8 70 935 534 194 1733 1739 24 Joe Morgan 1965 21 5.1 73 601 624 1298 1337 The first things that jump out at you: the four highest total PAs (raw or weighted) are found among the five guys from the last century. And four of the five guys who had MLB experience prior to their rookie season belong to the last century, too. (6 of the 13 guys who are too ancient to make this list had MLB experience prior to their rookie seasons, too, so that's 10 out of 18 before this century, versus 1 out of 12 since.) You can also see what looks like a meaningful inverse correlation between amount of ml experience before the rookie season, and career success. For the five 20th century players, the correlation of total PA to HOF is -0.93 (p = .02); although that's almost totally driven by the endpoints Morgan and Brunansky, it still makes sense. And among the 21st century guys, Francoeur and Lawrie are among the leaders in PA (weighted and unweighted), while Pujols has the 1st or 2nd fewest. Now, Mookie never missed time with injury and batted leadoff, so he actually piled up a ton of PA per seasons played. As a result, he's not quite as impressive here as he was in the last post, where I looked at career paths (data I may post, since I have it). But he is still on the very low side for total PA before the rookie season. Pujols, Harper, and Heyward are way ahead of him, Mauer's a bit ahead, and he and Perez are battling for the 5th least experience among the 17 guys here. Only Pujols and Heyward had better rookie seasons with less prior pro experience. That really augurs well. Now, it's a serious question whether 213 PA in MLB can ever make it likelier than not that a player ends up as a HOF caliber guy. So let's just say that players who have done what Mookie has done have a really, really good track record. Eric, when I read this, my first thought was "this is a fan graphs article". You should be publishing this stuff instead of giving it away. Seriously. We appreciate it but you have the goods and you certainly are prolific. I would recommend you submit these sorts of articles around to the places which pay.
|
|
|
Post by jdb on Oct 16, 2014 19:51:26 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by larrycook on Oct 16, 2014 21:24:47 GMT -5
The sox should not trade mookie for a pitcher. And while I think they need him at the top of the order for the next five years or so and not trade him. If the sox traded him I would hope it would be for an impact power bat.
|
|
|