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.
|
|
Post by chavopepe2 on Aug 23, 2015 18:06:38 GMT -5
Yoan Moncada since 7/3: .350/.440/.586, 12.4% BB%, 16.6% K%, .236 isoP, 31 SB-3CS Mike Trout in A-ball: .358/.452/.514, 12.9% BB%, 15.0% K%, .156 isoP, 45 SB-9 CS Just saying. Trout was 18. There was 15 months between them. |
|
|
|
Post by burythehammer on Aug 24, 2015 6:21:04 GMT -5
Yeah I'm not trying to take anything away from Moncada, I love him (was never worried about him, even with the slow start). It's great that we can even draw that comparison, even though there's a clear difference.
|
|
|
|
Post by chavopepe2 on Aug 24, 2015 9:45:21 GMT -5
Yeah I'm not trying to take anything away from Moncada, I love him (was never worried about him, even with the slow start). It's great that we can even draw that comparison, even though there's a clear difference. Yeah, I'm with you, but it is still exciting that we have a player who's extreme ceiling is Mike Trout. They have the same style. It may only be 2% that he achieves it, but the possibility is real. Oh and did I mention they were the same exact height and weight in single a? |
|
nomar
Veteran
Posts: 11,618
|
Post by nomar on Aug 24, 2015 10:01:34 GMT -5
Yeah I'm not trying to take anything away from Moncada, I love him (was never worried about him, even with the slow start). It's great that we can even draw that comparison, even though there's a clear difference. Yeah, I'm with you, but it is still exciting that we have a player who's extreme ceiling is Mike Trout. They have the same style. It may only be 2% that he achieves it, but the possibility is real. Oh and did I mention they were the same exact height and weight in single a? Also, while 15 months is definitely significant, Moncada also had time off from playing. Despite growing physically, some development only comes from actually playing baseball. Gotta give Moncada credit, he's been impressive. |
|
ianrs
Veteran
Posts: 2,451 
|
Post by ianrs on Aug 24, 2015 10:03:39 GMT -5
Yeah I'm not trying to take anything away from Moncada, I love him (was never worried about him, even with the slow start). It's great that we can even draw that comparison, even though there's a clear difference. Yeah, I'm with you, but it is still exciting that we have a player who's extreme ceiling is Mike Trout. They have the same style. It may only be 2% that he achieves it, but the possibility is real. Oh and did I mention they were the same exact height and weight in single a? I agree somewhat, but we should be careful to exclude defense. I feel like there's probably a 0.1% chance Moncada comes close to Trout's defensive ceiling, though of course he's athletic enough to improve with time. |
|
|
|
Post by jrffam05 on Aug 24, 2015 10:42:18 GMT -5
Yeah, I'm with you, but it is still exciting that we have a player who's extreme ceiling is Mike Trout. They have the same style. It may only be 2% that he achieves it, but the possibility is real. Oh and did I mention they were the same exact height and weight in single a? I agree somewhat, but we should be careful to exclude defense. I feel like there's probably a 0.1% chance Moncada comes close to Trout's defensive ceiling, though of course he's athletic enough to improve with time. They'd probably be thought about as similar defensive profiles if Moncada was an outfielder. From never seeing Moncada play, his reports would suggest he had a better arm than Trout at the time. That being the only knock on Trout coming up. |
|
|
|
Post by Oregon Norm on Aug 24, 2015 11:07:39 GMT -5
I've thought for a while that Trout looks like a big DB, or a small linebacker at his current 235 lbs. Maybe we need an all baseball NFL team. Sandoval is a little small, but we could try him at nose tackle.
|
|
steveofbradenton
Veteran
Watching Spring Training, the FCL, and the Florida State League
Posts: 1,840
|
Post by steveofbradenton on Aug 24, 2015 11:09:49 GMT -5
I've thought for a while that Trout looks like a big DB, or a small linebacker at his current 235 lbs. Maybe we need an all baseball NFL team. Sandoval is a little small, but we could try him at nose tackle. Machi could be a "pulling" guard! |
|
|
|
Post by Oregon Norm on Aug 24, 2015 11:34:32 GMT -5
And El Guapo could come out of retirement to play tackle.
|
|
|
|
Post by burythehammer on Aug 24, 2015 12:22:36 GMT -5
Not to nitpick, but I don't think you can say anyone's ceiling is Mike Trout. Trout might, at the end of the day, be one of the five best players in the history of the game. I would say it's more like .002% chance that Moncada or anyone is that good.
|
|
|
|
Post by michael on Aug 24, 2015 12:30:22 GMT -5
And El Guapo could come out of retirement to play tackle. I thought that Machi was El Guapo, coming out of retirement |
|
|
|
Post by cologneredsox on Aug 24, 2015 16:22:20 GMT -5
Not to nitpick, but I don't think you can say anyone's ceiling is Mike Trout. Trout might, at the end of the day, be one of the five best players in the history of the game. I would say it's more like .002% chance that Moncada or anyone is that good. It might be because my native language isn't english and I don't understand what 'ceiling' really means, but: to be one of the five best players ever my understanding is that the certain player has to reach his own best (in my understanding: his ceiling) or at least get very near it. For example: I think trout does a very good job in reaching his personal best performance, given his proven adjustments and no long drop in his performance. Is he perfect? No, but no one is. From my understanding, Trout does a better job in playing up to his possibilities then most of the other players. Which is one of the reasons, he is the best player in the game. So I don't understand how no one can have his ceiling? I think not many do but some should have abilities very much alike. Moncada could be one of them. That still doesn't mean he'll be Mike trout, when he's finished developing. Like I wrote: not many players are able to reach their best and never come near their best possible performance, which is what makes Mike Trout so special. That being said, 2 % likelihood of reaching trouts performance doesn't really seem like a reach from my perspective... |
|
|
|
Post by soxfan1615 on Aug 24, 2015 16:41:51 GMT -5
Not to nitpick, but I don't think you can say anyone's ceiling is Mike Trout. Trout might, at the end of the day, be one of the five best players in the history of the game. I would say it's more like .002% chance that Moncada or anyone is that good. It might be because my native language isn't english and I don't understand what 'ceiling' really means, but: to be one of the five best players ever my understanding is that the certain player has to reach his own best (in my understanding: his ceiling) or at least get very near it. For example: I think trout does a very good job in reaching his personal best performance, given his proven adjustments and no long drop in his performance. Is he perfect? No, but no one is. From my understanding, Trout does a better job in playing up to his possibilities then most of the other players. Which is one of the reasons, he is the best player in the game. So I don't understand how no one can have his ceiling? I think not many do but some should have abilities very much alike. Moncada could be one of them. That still doesn't mean he'll be Mike trout, when he's finished developing. Like I wrote: not many players are able to reach their best and never come near their best possible performance, which is what makes Mike Trout so special. That being said, 2 % likelihood of reaching trouts performance doesn't really seem like a reach from my perspective... 2% is high imo. Think of this for a second Mike Trout has 35 WAR before the age of 24. How many players in baseball history do you think have done that? I can't check right now but my guess would be 1. Now how many prospects in history do you think had Moncada's talent? I'd guess more than 50 |
|
|
|
Post by thelavarnwayguy on Aug 24, 2015 16:48:20 GMT -5
I haven't read this entire thread but it would seem to make sense to just move him to the OF next year. Stocky guys like him are maybe never going to be flexible enough to play good middle infield and his speed should play extremely well in the OF. Of course how many CF prospects do we need?
I can see maybe 3rd base but my bet is he's an eventual OF.
|
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Aug 24, 2015 16:52:57 GMT -5
It might be because my native language isn't english and I don't understand what 'ceiling' really means, but: to be one of the five best players ever my understanding is that the certain player has to reach his own best (in my understanding: his ceiling) or at least get very near it. For example: I think trout does a very good job in reaching his personal best performance, given his proven adjustments and no long drop in his performance. Is he perfect? No, but no one is. From my understanding, Trout does a better job in playing up to his possibilities then most of the other players. Which is one of the reasons, he is the best player in the game. So I don't understand how no one can have his ceiling? I think not many do but some should have abilities very much alike. Moncada could be one of them. That still doesn't mean he'll be Mike trout, when he's finished developing. Like I wrote: not many players are able to reach their best and never come near their best possible performance, which is what makes Mike Trout so special. That being said, 2 % likelihood of reaching trouts performance doesn't really seem like a reach from my perspective... 2% is high imo. Think of this for a second Mike Trout has 35 WAR before the age of 24. How many players in baseball history do you think have done that? I can't check right now but my guess would be 1. Now how many prospects in history do you think had Moncada's talent? I'd guess more than 50 I'd guess 2. Or 5000. The only freaking thing you can take from Trout and Moncada is that they put up similar #s at the same level with a year and half age difference, though Moncada had a year and a half off. This is pretty silly. I have no idea how you can just pull that 50 # out of the air. |
|
|
|
Post by telson13 on Aug 24, 2015 17:19:58 GMT -5
I haven't read this entire thread but it would seem to make sense to just move him to the OF next year. Stocky guys like him are maybe never going to be flexible enough to play good middle infield and his speed should play extremely well in the OF. Of course how many CF prospects do we need? I can see maybe 3rd base but my bet is he's an eventual OF. Well, considering CF has premium defensive value, and thus any offense better than about .250/.320/.380 is considered desireable if a player's defense is solid, as many as we can get. Redundancy up the middle is never a bad thing, since those players have the highest trade value. When was the last time you heard a team's player development folks exclaim "dammit, we just have way too many shortstops with middle-of-the-order bats?" Granted, CF isn't SS, and CF/2b/3b have roughly similar defensive value, but Moncada clearly has the speed for CF, and the arm for 3b and RF. FWIW, I wouldn't call 6'1, 210 "stocky." He looks all muscle to me. It's not like he's Kirby Puckett. |
|
|
|
Post by telson13 on Aug 24, 2015 17:29:37 GMT -5
Yoan Moncada since 7/3: .350/.440/.586, 12.4% BB%, 16.6% K%, .236 isoP, 31 SB-3CS Mike Trout in A-ball: .358/.452/.514, 12.9% BB%, 15.0% K%, .156 isoP, 45 SB-9 CS Just saying. Trout was 18. Trout is also an English-speaking US native, who didn't take a year and a half off from playing. Obviously, it's beyond optimistic to think Moncada becomes the player Trout is, but it is a valid comparison, since Trout was barely a year older at the same point, again with the benefit of no time off and no cultural adjustment. If anything, Moncada's success looks even more impressive in that light. I agree with the idea of sending him to the AFL, even if he's relatively inexperienced. He could use the reps and the challenge, and it will prepare him for next year (look at Mookie's meh AFL performance, followed by a whirlwind 2014). |
|
|
|
Post by soxfan1615 on Aug 24, 2015 17:37:45 GMT -5
2% is high imo. Think of this for a second Mike Trout has 35 WAR before the age of 24. How many players in baseball history do you think have done that? I can't check right now but my guess would be 1. Now how many prospects in history do you think had Moncada's talent? I'd guess more than 50 I'd guess 2. Or 5000. The only freaking thing you can take from Trout and Moncada is that they put up similar #s at the same level with a year and half age difference, though Moncada had a year and a half off. This is pretty silly. I have no idea how you can just pull that 50 # out of the air. what? 50 is because if there's one player who produced through age 24 like Mike Trout (Mike Trout) then a 2% chance means a 1/50 chance. So to have a 1/50 chance, Moncada would have to be one of the 50 best prospects of all time. Because baseball has been played since 1871, I kind of doubt it. |
|
|
|
Post by Oregon Norm on Aug 24, 2015 17:44:17 GMT -5
I watched a few of Betts' games while he was in the AFL. He was quite good, actually, and really impressed scouts. That's a very small sample size but he was hitting the ball on the screws the times I saw him - and drawing walks. Those 68 PAs aren't worth much for evaluating a player. The defense at 2nd was good and he looked fluid in the field. I think that's why players are sent down there, to get more experience and to get seen by evaluators. The stats can vary wildly and alone they don't give you much of a feel for a player.
|
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Aug 24, 2015 18:02:48 GMT -5
I'd guess 2. Or 5000. The only freaking thing you can take from Trout and Moncada is that they put up similar #s at the same level with a year and half age difference, though Moncada had a year and a half off. This is pretty silly. I have no idea how you can just pull that 50 # out of the air. what? 50 is because if there's one player who produced through age 24 like Mike Trout (Mike Trout) then a 2% chance means a 1/50 chance. So to have a 1/50 chance, Moncada would have to be one of the 50 best prospects of all time. Because baseball has been played since 1871, I kind of doubt it. Where the hell are these #'s coming from? |
|
|
|
Post by chavopepe2 on Aug 24, 2015 18:36:07 GMT -5
Whether its 2%, .2%, or .02% isn't the point.
The statistical comparison is meant to show that Moncada has a similar style game to Trout. Others have fairly pointed out that the more accurate description is they have a similar offensive game. The comparison is also meant to show the kind of upside that Moncada has. Again, its always a long show that any prospect in A ball puts it all together like Trout has, but it is rare to have such a perfect perfect-world projection be the very best player in baseball and have the comparison be so spot on. Again, both statistically and in physical profile.
I also think there is something to be said for Moncada being somewhat underrated right now. He was signed to record bonus with a lot of fanfare. A bonus many times what anyone else has gotten. He then struggled some as he got back into the groove of the game. Its easy to overlook just how truly incredible his performance has been for the past couple hundred plate appearance. I'm not sure there are five prospects in baseball I take over him.
|
|
|
|
Post by burythehammer on Aug 24, 2015 19:47:38 GMT -5
Not to nitpick, but I don't think you can say anyone's ceiling is Mike Trout. Trout might, at the end of the day, be one of the five best players in the history of the game. I would say it's more like .002% chance that Moncada or anyone is that good. It might be because my native language isn't english and I don't understand what 'ceiling' really means, but: to be one of the five best players ever my understanding is that the certain player has to reach his own best (in my understanding: his ceiling) or at least get very near it. For example: I think trout does a very good job in reaching his personal best performance, given his proven adjustments and no long drop in his performance. Is he perfect? No, but no one is. From my understanding, Trout does a better job in playing up to his possibilities then most of the other players. Which is one of the reasons, he is the best player in the game. So I don't understand how no one can have his ceiling? I think not many do but some should have abilities very much alike. Moncada could be one of them. That still doesn't mean he'll be Mike trout, when he's finished developing. Like I wrote: not many players are able to reach their best and never come near their best possible performance, which is what makes Mike Trout so special. That being said, 2 % likelihood of reaching trouts performance doesn't really seem like a reach from my perspective... When Trout was Moncada's age he was already the best player in major league baseball. That's the simplest way I can put it. I don't want to belabor this because it's not about Moncada for me at all really. It's just about how ridiculous Mike Trout is. Yes, Yoan has similar tools/body and could be great. Let's just leave it at that. |
|
jimoh
Veteran
Posts: 4,202
|
Post by jimoh on Aug 24, 2015 21:22:18 GMT -5
Moncada has a chance to be an excellent mortal baseball player. Discussing similarities to Trout is just silly.
|
|
|
|
Post by feez732 on Aug 24, 2015 21:40:38 GMT -5
... I don't want to belabor this because it's not about Moncada for me at all really. It's just about how ridiculous Mike Trout is. ... For emphasis and because I completely agree. Yes it's a number pulled out thin air, but I'd be astonished if any player currently in the minors has a greater than 2% chance of becoming Mike Trout. |
|
|
|
Post by blizzards39 on Aug 24, 2015 22:40:29 GMT -5
Mike Trout is ridiculous. Image where the Halos would be without him.
|
|
|
