Starlin Castro

[leonardsipes]

"baseball players" vs. "athletes" is part of the fantasy created by Moneball. Makes sense as you read it, but does not really stand up to deeper thought.

1. The conclusion that baseball skill is seperate from athletisism because many 5 tool prospects don't make it, and the occasional short fat guy is a star. What makes baseball skills unique, is practicing them, but in general, it is atributes: agility, quickness, strength, speed, vision, coordination. Most people do not put in the time to develope major leauge skills, if the do not have basic athletic ability. In college, Adam Dunn was a quarterback, fast, and considered a great athlete.

2. Scouts like good athletes that can't hit. It is not like Corey Patterson had a .300 OBP in high school. If you are being scouted, you are probably a great hitter. Out of all these great hitters, the scouts pick who they think can make the majors. All things being equal, you are going to pick a guy with the ability to play up the middle. Most guys do not make the majors, but if you are a DH on your high school team, it is even less likely.

First you throw out tools, then you can throw out scouts, then a kid at home with a computer knows as much about baseball as the GM of his favorite team. Bingo. Best seller. Just because the book is about a 5 tool player that did not make it, tools are the basics of baseball skill. Tools should always be considered when scouting and drafting.

[Butcher]

Here's another fantasy: Moneyball, the book, is somehow a sabremetrics bible. Moneyball is a book about Billy Beane and how he takes advantage of inequities in the baseball marketplace. It was written by Michael Lewis -- not Beane (like Joe Morgan seems to think).

The point is, you're better off taking a pudgy guy with average speed who has great strikezone recognition than an athletic guy with great speed who is a free swinger and strikes out a ton. The downfall of some scouts is that they'll draft the speedy guy instead of the pudgy guy, thinking they can teach him plate discipline.

Nobody is saying we don't need scouts. Nobody, nobody, nobody.

And nobody is saying tools are bad. Whoever said that?

[Scarey]

<!--quoteo(post=69647:date=Nov 19 2009, 06:36 PM:name=Butcher)-->QUOTE (Butcher @ Nov 19 2009, 06:36 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->And nobody is saying tools are bad. Whoever said that?<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->


You have. Not directly saying "tools are bad" but you have referred to some players as "toolsy" in a negative way. I believe when the Cubs were going through the process of landing Hak-ju Lee, much was made about his being a 5 tool talent. I believe you said something to the effect of "Oh great, another toolsy guy that won't pan out." I think you in fact invented the word toolsy and have used it negatively on several players.

Who knows if Lee will pan out or not, but the point is you had written him off already because somebody mentioned 5 tool.

[Butcher]

<!--quoteo(post=69650:date=Nov 19 2009, 04:47 PM:name=Scarey)-->QUOTE (Scarey @ Nov 19 2009, 04:47 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=69647:date=Nov 19 2009, 06:36 PM:name=Butcher)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Butcher @ Nov 19 2009, 06:36 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->And nobody is saying tools are bad. Whoever said that?<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->


You have. Not directly saying "tools are bad" but you have referred to some players as "toolsy" in a negative way. I believe when the Cubs were going through the process of landing Hak-ju Lee, much was made about his being a 5 tool talent. I believe you said something to the effect of "Oh great, another toolsy guy that won't pan out." I think you in fact invented the word toolsy and have used it negatively on several players.

Who knows if Lee will pan out or not, but the point is you had written him off already because somebody mentioned 5 tool.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I should copyright that word.

That line of thinking is directly related to Corey and Felix -- two five-tool athletes who both happened to be free swingers without any sense of the strike zone and enormous holes in their swings. It seems like we were ignoring perhaps the most important "tool" that a batter should have. I'm hoping that has changed under Wilken. But when I hear "5-tool player" I immediately think of Corey and Felix.

Now...if we can draft 5-tool players that can lay off sliders three feet outside the strikezone, then that's awesome. I'm all in favor.

[veryzer]

<!--quoteo(post=69639:date=Nov 19 2009, 03:58 PM:name=KBwsb)-->QUOTE (KBwsb @ Nov 19 2009, 03:58 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=69581:date=Nov 19 2009, 12:56 PM:name=BT)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (BT @ Nov 19 2009, 12:56 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=69580:date=Nov 19 2009, 12:39 PM:name=KBwsb)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (KBwsb @ Nov 19 2009, 12:39 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->Scarey, there tend to be scouts who like "athletes," and there tend to be scouts who like guys who aren't as specifically "athletic," but have skills that are unique to the game of baseball.

When guys like Hendry and Gary Hughes were making their bones, there were some stars like the great Dave Winfield who were just plain "athletes;" he was drafted by the NBA and could have easily starred in basketball, he was courted by the NFL, he could do anything. He chose baseball, and kicked ass. So did Bo Jackson, and guys like that did things on a ball field that were seen as simply outlandish, freakish almost (like Jackson throwing out a runner on a line-drive throw from the wall). Teams suddenly wanted them.

Also in that era, speed was greatly coveted, and you didn't have to be a great hitter to help out your team if you could steal bases, chase down previously uncatchable fly balls, etc.

Many scouts since then have had the idea of "Draft the good athletes, and we'll MAKE 'em into ballplayers." Many of us on the site think that Hendry and Hughes fall into that camp.
Indeed, our 1st-round pick THIS year is yet another perfect example of that way of thinking.

I personally tend to disagree with it, simply because the game of baseball demands such a unique skill set, that even some of the world's most magnificent athletes (think Michael Jordan, Jim Thorpe, Deion Sanders) can't master these unique skills, while a lot of non-athletic-type guys (John Kruk, Yogi Berra) become great stars.

You can make a case for both sides, I suppose. But there sure are a lot of truly magnificent "athletes" (Corey Patterson, Felix Pie) who never truly learned to play baseball correctly, in recent Cub history.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

See, I agree with most of this. That's why arguing with you is so frustrating.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
BT, I don't disagree with you on most things. My main problem is that I don't take the time to perhaps properly explain myself.
My above post took a long time to compose, and indeed, my mind tends to "think" in Big Picture terms. However, I found out a long time ago, that on chatrooms like this one, people are often bored by long posts, and prefer quick, snappy posts, a kind of "shorthand." Guys like tom have even <i>specificall</i>y said, "Well whatever, but I'm not even gonna read that long post."

So I usually just write the absolute minimum; the only problem with that is I think I come across as much more clipped (and even sarcastic) than I really mean to be.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->



way too long.

[kbwsb]

Scarey, Sipes,

Butch and me (and our like) are not in ANY way against guys who have 5 tools. That would be insane.
But the <i>term</i> "5-tool ballplayer" comes from a time from WAY before advanced metrics added a lot to our understanding of the game. It's an archaic term from another era, like if one of your friends used the word "Bitchin'" to describe everything...at some point you have to say to yourself "Uh, have you been Rip Van Winkle-style asleep for 20 years?"

Also, it's inevitable that when talking about "5-tool guys," it becomes implied that all 5 tools are equal in value. In actuality, the ability to <i>hit</i> is like Mt. Everest compared to the rest of the tools. And yes, "hitting" includes knowing enough to lay off pitches out of the strike zone.

Many writers have mentioned that there should be included in the discussion a 6th tool: pitch recognition/plate discipline. As Patterson, Pie, Francouer and hundreds of others have found out, that one "tool" trumps all the rest.

[1060Ivy]

<!--quoteo(post=69659:date=Nov 19 2009, 05:04 PM:name=KBwsb)-->QUOTE (KBwsb @ Nov 19 2009, 05:04 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->Scarey, Sipes,

Butch and me (and our like) are not in ANY way against guys who have 5 tools. That would be insane.
But the <i>term</i> 5-tool ballplayer comes from a time from WAY before advanced metrics added a lot to out understanding of the game. It's an archaic term from another era, like if one of your friends used the word "Bitchin'" to describe everything...at some point you have to say to yourself "Uh, have you been Rip Van Winkle-style asleep for 20 years?"

Also, it's inevitable that when talking about "5-tool guys," it becomes implied that all 5 tools are equal in value. In actuality, the ability to <i>hit</i> is like Mt. Everest compared to the rest of the tools. And yes, "hitting" includes knowing enough to lay off pitches out of the strike zone.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

2 of the 5 tools are in regarding to hitting for average and hitting for power which a prospect shouldn't be able to do without a solid understanding of the strike zone.

With 40% of the tools are built around hitting, I don't think there is an issue with toolsy but rather how the Cubs have labelled their prospects. Any chance that some of the Cubs prospects labelled as 5 tool players were just great athletes that never learned to hit in the minors? Both Corey and Felix are good examples.

[kbwsb]

That could be, but as someone said in an earlier post, most of these guys <i>hit the hell</i> out of the ball in college or the low minors. I recall that Shawon Dunston played in a REAL competitive high school league, and hit .700.

Seven Hundred!
Too bad for the Cubs, he'd never seen a MLB curveball, or a pitcher smart enough to consistently pitch him fastballs <i>just</i> far enough outside of his hitting zone.

But it is my opinion that a modern-day scout <b>should</b> be able to identify which prospects are
free-swingers, and which prospects have plate discipline.
In fact, that would be the #1 talent/ability I'd look for if I were signing a scout.

[Ace]

<!--quoteo(post=69622:date=Nov 19 2009, 04:30 PM:name=Dirk)-->QUOTE (Dirk @ Nov 19 2009, 04:30 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=69617:date=Nov 19 2009, 03:43 PM:name=Coach)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Coach @ Nov 19 2009, 03:43 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--QuoteBegin-"Jayson Stark"+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE ("Jayson Stark")<!--QuoteEBegin-->One scout's review of the best player he saw in the Arizona Fall League -- 19-year-old Cubs middle-infield stud Starlin Castro: "A young Hanley Ramirez."<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I know some people have scoffed at the Hanley Ramirez comparisons because of Castro's lack of power, but Ramirez hit a grand total of 29 hrs in about 400 minor league games. Just sayin.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->

I will say this - Castro's minor league numbers, so far, compare pretty favorably to Ramirez's at the same age.

I am not anti-Castro. I'd probably put him as the one or two prospect in the system, too. I just don't want us to fall victim to the same old problem we've had with prospects whom other teams might salivate over. Statistically, most stud prospects do not pan out.

[Coach]

Let's remember that Hanley was the centerpiece of the deal for Beckett.
If we look to deal Starlin, it should be for someone on that level.

[Scarey]

<!--quoteo(post=69730:date=Nov 20 2009, 10:17 AM:name=Coach)-->QUOTE (Coach @ Nov 20 2009, 10:17 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->Let's remember that Hanley was the centerpiece of the deal for Beckett.
If we look to deal Starlin, it should be for someone on that level.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

That's an excellent point. You can argue that he will or will not build on his power, but the bottom line is his value is probably pretty damn similar to what Hanley's was when the Beckett trade went down.

[Scarey]

<!--quoteo(post=69653:date=Nov 19 2009, 06:53 PM:name=Butcher)-->QUOTE (Butcher @ Nov 19 2009, 06:53 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->But when I hear "5-tool player" I immediately think of Corey and Felix.

Now...if we can draft 5-tool players that can lay off sliders three feet outside the strikezone, then that's awesome. I'm all in favor.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

I can understand why you feel that way about 5-tool players, but the truth of the matter is being labeled a 5-tool player doesn't tell you anything about plate discipline.

[Dirk]

<!--quoteo(post=69727:date=Nov 20 2009, 08:53 AM:name=Ace)-->QUOTE (Ace @ Nov 20 2009, 08:53 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=69622:date=Nov 19 2009, 04:30 PM:name=Dirk)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Dirk @ Nov 19 2009, 04:30 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=69617:date=Nov 19 2009, 03:43 PM:name=Coach)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Coach @ Nov 19 2009, 03:43 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--QuoteBegin-"Jayson Stark"+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE ("Jayson Stark")<!--QuoteEBegin-->One scout's review of the best player he saw in the Arizona Fall League -- 19-year-old Cubs middle-infield stud Starlin Castro: "A young Hanley Ramirez."<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I know some people have scoffed at the Hanley Ramirez comparisons because of Castro's lack of power, but Ramirez hit a grand total of 29 hrs in about 400 minor league games. Just sayin.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->

I will say this - Castro's minor league numbers, so far, compare pretty favorably to Ramirez's at the same age.

I am not anti-Castro. I'd probably put him as the one or two prospect in the system, too. I just don't want us to fall victim to the same old problem we've had with prospects whom other teams might salivate over. Statistically, most stud prospects do not pan out.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Statistically as in, there's no mathematical evidence per se, you just kind of made it up? More like, you've seen the Cubs get burned by a few guys who didn't pan out and now it seems like no hyped prospect is ever going to pan out? The Cubs should be able to evaluate every minor leaguer independently. If you're going to take the stance that it is statistically unlikely that a 'stud' prospect is going to amount to much then why not make it an organizational policy that the second any guy has relative minor league success and receives any kind of media attention, it's time to trade him right away. (just make sure you get more than Curtis Granderson in return)

[veryzer]

<!--quoteo(post=69739:date=Nov 20 2009, 09:01 AM:name=Dirk)-->QUOTE (Dirk @ Nov 20 2009, 09:01 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=69727:date=Nov 20 2009, 08:53 AM:name=Ace)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Ace @ Nov 20 2009, 08:53 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=69622:date=Nov 19 2009, 04:30 PM:name=Dirk)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Dirk @ Nov 19 2009, 04:30 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=69617:date=Nov 19 2009, 03:43 PM:name=Coach)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Coach @ Nov 19 2009, 03:43 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--QuoteBegin-"Jayson Stark"+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE ("Jayson Stark")<!--QuoteEBegin-->One scout's review of the best player he saw in the Arizona Fall League -- 19-year-old Cubs middle-infield stud Starlin Castro: "A young Hanley Ramirez."<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I know some people have scoffed at the Hanley Ramirez comparisons because of Castro's lack of power, but Ramirez hit a grand total of 29 hrs in about 400 minor league games. Just sayin.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->

I will say this - Castro's minor league numbers, so far, compare pretty favorably to Ramirez's at the same age.

I am not anti-Castro. I'd probably put him as the one or two prospect in the system, too. I just don't want us to fall victim to the same old problem we've had with prospects whom other teams might salivate over. Statistically, most stud prospects do not pan out.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Statistically as in, there's no mathematical evidence per se, you just kind of made it up? More like, you've seen the Cubs get burned by a few guys who didn't pan out and now it seems like no hyped prospect is ever going to pan out? The Cubs should be able to evaluate every minor leaguer independently. If you're going to take the stance that it is statistically unlikely that a 'stud' prospect is going to amount to much then why not make it an organizational policy that the second any guy has relative minor league success and receives any kind of media attention, it's time to trade him right away. (just make sure you get more than Curtis Granderson in return)
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->


if that's the way ace feels, isn't it understandable? there's is a literal laundry list of cub prospects that were supposed to be the next big thing and almost none of them has panned out, or if they did, it was for a year or two.

i really don't know shit about castro, but when i hear the hyperbole surrounding this guy, i have a hard time not rolling my eyes. based solely on past experience, i'd trade this guy now while he still has value, that's me. it's based on nothing but my ample gut, which when it comes to the cubs, is right more than it's wrong.

just my opinion, rip it if you want. i've been cubbed for too long now to get excited about a 19 year old kid. the next hanley ramirez? sure, no problem.

[Dirk]

<!--quoteo(post=69741:date=Nov 20 2009, 10:12 AM:name=veryzer)-->QUOTE (veryzer @ Nov 20 2009, 10:12 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=69739:date=Nov 20 2009, 09:01 AM:name=Dirk)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Dirk @ Nov 20 2009, 09:01 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=69727:date=Nov 20 2009, 08:53 AM:name=Ace)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Ace @ Nov 20 2009, 08:53 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=69622:date=Nov 19 2009, 04:30 PM:name=Dirk)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Dirk @ Nov 19 2009, 04:30 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=69617:date=Nov 19 2009, 03:43 PM:name=Coach)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Coach @ Nov 19 2009, 03:43 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--QuoteBegin-"Jayson Stark"+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE ("Jayson Stark")<!--QuoteEBegin-->One scout's review of the best player he saw in the Arizona Fall League -- 19-year-old Cubs middle-infield stud Starlin Castro: "A young Hanley Ramirez."<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I know some people have scoffed at the Hanley Ramirez comparisons because of Castro's lack of power, but Ramirez hit a grand total of 29 hrs in about 400 minor league games. Just sayin.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->

I will say this - Castro's minor league numbers, so far, compare pretty favorably to Ramirez's at the same age.

I am not anti-Castro. I'd probably put him as the one or two prospect in the system, too. I just don't want us to fall victim to the same old problem we've had with prospects whom other teams might salivate over. Statistically, most stud prospects do not pan out.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Statistically as in, there's no mathematical evidence per se, you just kind of made it up? More like, you've seen the Cubs get burned by a few guys who didn't pan out and now it seems like no hyped prospect is ever going to pan out? The Cubs should be able to evaluate every minor leaguer independently. If you're going to take the stance that it is statistically unlikely that a 'stud' prospect is going to amount to much then why not make it an organizational policy that the second any guy has relative minor league success and receives any kind of media attention, it's time to trade him right away. (just make sure you get more than Curtis Granderson in return)
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->


if that's the way ace feels, isn't it understandable? there's is a literal laundry list of cub prospects that were supposed to be the next big thing and almost none of them has panned out, or if they did, it was for a year or two.

i really don't know shit about castro, but when i hear the hyperbole surrounding this guy, i have a hard time not rolling my eyes. based solely on past experience, i'd trade this guy now while he still has value, that's me. it's based on nothing but my ample gut, which when it comes to the cubs, is right more than it's wrong.

just my opinion, rip it if you want. i've been cubbed for too long now to get excited about a 19 year old kid. the next hanley ramirez? sure, no problem.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You know what- I actually don't know much about Castro myself other than a cursory glance at his stats. He could be completely over-hyped, he could be the next Hanley Ramirez, I have no idea, that's not really my point. I understand the trepidation over a Cubs prospect when the track record is not good. I even think a healthy amount of cynicism when it comes to prospects is a very good thing. My whole thing is this- we have to be able to independently evaluate every prospect and not just lump them in with Corey Patterson and Felix Pie and unload them to the first team that dangles a .250 hitter in our face. Them, if the evaluation comes back that the guy probably won't live up to the hype, shit man, trade em. Just make sure you get maximum value.