PDA

View Full Version : Callis not high on Jeremy Reed


SoxxoS
02-27-2004, 05:07 PM
Here is the questions about Reed on the ESPN.com/BA (they are a partnership, now) chat:

Dave Regan (Ventura, CA): Jim, Thanks for your time. Overall, nice list, but can you comment on why the relatively low ranking for Jeremy Reed? It would seem his numbers would speak for themselves but to put him behind someone like Gavin Floyd, who had a relatively sub-par 2003, seems questionable.
Jim Callis: We've always been big fans of Jeremy Reed at BA, since his days at Long Beach State and with Team USA. But he's a good example of how while performance is important, tools also have to be considered. Reed had a great year last year, and it's caused him to be a little overrated. He's not a pure center fielder, and if he has to move to a corner, his ceiling of 15-20 HR doesn't play as well there. He stole a lot of bases last year, but he's not a burner and he got caught more than he should have. Not trying to rip Reed here, and I hope people don't take it that way, just trying to balance all the optimism. A year ago, no one thought he was close to a Top 100 Prospect, so I'd say putting him at 25 is a pretty huge leap.

Don Henley Boston: Are you saying that Jeremy Reed is Mark Kotsay?
Jim Callis: Don, great observation. You know, I think that's exactly what I'm saying. And Mark Kotsay is my all-time college player.

Then these questions at BA-
Q: Steve from Birmingham, Ala asks:
How can Grady Sizemore be 9, while Jeremy Reed is 25? I acknowledge that Reed is a year older, but at the same level, Reed had much better stats and terrific batting eye, along with much more speed. Other than date of birth, what exactly does Sizemore do markedly better than Reed to justify such a ranking?

A: Jim Callis: We balance performance at tools. Personally, I value performance at least a little more, though the consensus at BA is closer to 50-50. I like Jeremy Reed, but I find it a little funny that he wasn't anywhere close to the Top 100 a year ago and now there's a lot of clamoring to put him in the top 5-10 prospects in baseball. That's just premature guys, and I like Jeremy Reed. He had a great year, but on the other hand, he might not be a CF down the road, he might not hit more than 15-20 HRs (and even that would be below average for a corner guy) and he doesn't have the blazing speed his SB totals might indicate. Sizemore is a gifted hitter in his own right, and he has more power, better speed and a better chance to play CF. There's not a huge, huge difference, but I have a little more faith in Sizemore right now

Q: David Carroll from Superior, Wisconsin asks:
If you go back and look, you will find that Jeremy Reed is very comparable to Brian Giles at a similar point in their careers. Giles also showed tremendous strike zone judgment before he showed much power. Of course, Giles was never considered a top-ten prospect either. But if we learn from experience, shouldn't Reed be?

A: Jim Callis: I don't buy this comparison. We missed the boat on Giles, as did most people until he got to the majors and kept raking there. But Jeremy Reed is not going to average 35 homers and 110 walks in his big league prime. He's just not that kind of player.


Read the whole BA chat (http://www.baseballamerica.com/chat/chat.php?id=2004022701)

Read the whole ESPN chat. (http://proxy.espn.go.com/chat/chatESPN?event_id=4878)

SoxxoS
02-27-2004, 05:08 PM
John Schneider (Winnetka, Illinois): I've been a diehard White Sox for my entire life, and I was curious how Neil Cotts did not make the top 100? I feel like you guys at Baseball America have been biased in favor of the Cubs over the last few years, evident by players such as Bobby Hill, Hee Seop Choi and Juan Cruz.

Jim Callis: I don't think we're biased toward the Cubs at all. They've simply had better talent, and we ranked the White Sox as having the best farm system in the game entering 2001. As for Cotts, I couldn't quite put him on my Top 100. He's deceptive and has a nice changeup, but he nibbles a lot and that got him into trouble in his brief big league stint.

Brian26
02-27-2004, 05:17 PM
Fascinating stuff, seriously. I don't completely disagree with him when he states that Reed's really only had one outstanding year at the minor league level and maybe it's a bit premature to rank him too high. Still, his use of the "tools" argument to say Reed is basically never going to amount to more than a mediocre outfielder is harsh.

Rex Hudler
02-27-2004, 05:22 PM
I don't think Callis is down on Reed at all. He is just not going on record saying he will be a superstar.

Reed has great potential, but there it is extremely reasonable to say that he may become no more than a solid everyday player. That is not the first time I have heard him compared to Kotsay. They have similar profiles.

jeremyb1
02-27-2004, 05:47 PM
I'm a long time BA reader and I've never been so disillusioned with them. Why does a corner outfielder have to hit home runs? Again, just because its traditional baseball knowledge so that must mean its true. If Reed hits .330 with 100 walks, 40 doubles, and 15 home runs in his prime he's not valuable because he doesn't have enough power in a corner spot? How many .400+ OBP hitters in baseball does Jim Callis think there are (there were 14 last season)? I'll take the guy who is the most productive and that's clearly Reed. BA can have fun with the Baldelli's of the world, I'll take the guy who actually produces.

Also, I hate the idea that because BA screwed up and didn't rate Reed's tools highly, his success is viewed as some kindof a fluke.

soxtalker
02-27-2004, 05:52 PM
I guess that I view it as more of a cautionary note. We've all gotten very excited by Reed's performance last year, and we're placing a lot of our hopes on him for the future.

jeremyb1
02-27-2004, 05:52 PM
Originally posted by Rex Hudler
I don't think Callis is down on Reed at all. He is just not going on record saying he will be a superstar.

Reed has great potential, but there it is extremely reasonable to say that he may become no more than a solid everyday player. That is not the first time I have heard him compared to Kotsay. They have similar profiles.

I think that's the problem here is how to define a superstar. Part of the problem may be that BA knows that Reed can be one of the best hitters in the game but if he doesn't hit a ton of home runs, he won't be considered a superstar and perhaps they'll look stupid. I know Jim Callis knows better than to completely ignore OBP and favor only home runs.

MRKARNO
02-27-2004, 05:59 PM
Originally posted by jeremyb1
I'm a long time BA reader and I've never been so disillusioned with them. Why does a corner outfielder have to hit home runs? Again, just because its traditional baseball knowledge so that must mean its true. If Reed hits .330 with 100 walks, 40 doubles, and 15 home runs in his prime he's not valuable because he doesn't have enough power in a corner spot? How many .400+ OBP hitters in baseball does Jim Callis think there are (there were 14 last season)? I'll take the guy who is the most productive and that's clearly Reed. BA can have fun with the Baldelli's of the world, I'll take the guy who actually produces.

Also, I hate the idea that because BA screwed up and didn't rate Reed's tools highly, his success is viewed as some kindof a fluke.

Shannon Stewart and Ichiro suzuki are pretty damn good outfielders who hit for average and not power

SoxxoS
02-27-2004, 06:01 PM
Originally posted by jeremyb1
I'm a long time BA reader and I've never been so disillusioned with them. Why does a corner outfielder have to hit home runs? Again, just because its traditional baseball knowledge so that must mean its true. If Reed hits .330 with 100 walks, 40 doubles, and 15 home runs in his prime he's not valuable because he doesn't have enough power in a corner spot? How many .400+ OBP hitters in baseball does Jim Callis think there are (there were 14 last season)? I'll take the guy who is the most productive and that's clearly Reed. BA can have fun with the Baldelli's of the world, I'll take the guy who actually produces.

Also, I hate the idea that because BA screwed up and didn't rate Reed's tools highly, his success is viewed as some kindof a fluke.


Good point, Jeremy.

Randar68
02-27-2004, 06:10 PM
Originally posted by SoxxoS
John Schneider (Winnetka, Illinois): I've been a diehard White Sox for my entire life, and I was curious how Neil Cotts did not make the top 100? I feel like you guys at Baseball America have been biased in favor of the Cubs over the last few years, evident by players such as Bobby Hill, Hee Seop Choi and Juan Cruz.

Jim Callis: I don't think we're biased toward the Cubs at all. They've simply had better talent, and we ranked the White Sox as having the best farm system in the game entering 2001. As for Cotts, I couldn't quite put him on my Top 100. He's deceptive and has a nice changeup, but he nibbles a lot and that got him into trouble in his brief big league stint.


I pretty-much agree with his assessment of Reed, but he must not have seen any of Cotts' starts for the Sox if he thought that was nibbling. The kid's mechanics went to hell...

MarkEdward
02-27-2004, 06:22 PM
Originally posted by jeremyb1
I'm a long time BA reader and I've never been so disillusioned with them. Why does a corner outfielder have to hit home runs? Again, just because its traditional baseball knowledge so that must mean its true. If Reed hits .330 with 100 walks, 40 doubles, and 15 home runs in his prime he's not valuable because he doesn't have enough power in a corner spot? How many .400+ OBP hitters in baseball does Jim Callis think there are (there were 14 last season)? I'll take the guy who is the most productive and that's clearly Reed. BA can have fun with the Baldelli's of the world, I'll take the guy who actually produces.

Well, I think that was pretty much Callis' point. A center fielder who hits .290/.350/.500 is much more valuable than a left or right fielder that hits at the same rate.

Also, I don't think Callis sees Reed as .400+ OBP player. At this point, even I would hesitate to call Reed that kind of player. Remember, only four AL players had OBPs above .400 last year. It takes a ton of talent to produce at that rate.

poorme
02-27-2004, 06:51 PM
I had been a BA subscriber for 15 years and finally realized they didn't know what they were talking about. Kind of like stock brokers.

Huisj
02-27-2004, 10:56 PM
articles like these demonstrate exactly what the tension is between two different ideas of scouting. there will always be "tools" guys, and there will always be "performance" guys. as for which one is better, it's tough to say.

i'm by no means any type of expert here, but it seems like the tools guys are guys with higher ceilings but higher risk for flopping, and the performance guys tend to be more consistent off the bat but not achieve superstar status as often.

anyone agree with that?

Tragg
02-28-2004, 12:38 AM
Originally posted by jeremyb1
I'm a long time BA reader and I've never been so disillusioned with them. Why does a corner outfielder have to hit home runs?

Because with rare exception, 2b, SS, C and CF will NOT hit 30 home runs.

I think that point's completely valid-whether his evaluation of Reed is valid, I have no idea

Rex Hudler
02-28-2004, 03:43 AM
Originally posted by Huisj
articles like these demonstrate exactly what the tension is between two different ideas of scouting. there will always be "tools" guys, and there will always be "performance" guys. as for which one is better, it's tough to say.

i'm by no means any type of expert here, but it seems like the tools guys are guys with higher ceilings but higher risk for flopping, and the performance guys tend to be more consistent off the bat but not achieve superstar status as often.

anyone agree with that?

I do..... Some players are high risk/high reward.... others are lower risk with a lower upside...... Occasionally one of the latter breaks through and reaches the potential of the former.

ChiSoxBobette
03-01-2004, 07:43 AM
Originally posted by SoxxoS
Here is the questions about Reed on the ESPN.com/BA (they are a partnership, now) chat:

Dave Regan (Ventura, CA): Jim, Thanks for your time. Overall, nice list, but can you comment on why the relatively low ranking for Jeremy Reed? It would seem his numbers would speak for themselves but to put him behind someone like Gavin Floyd, who had a relatively sub-par 2003, seems questionable.
Jim Callis: We've always been big fans of Jeremy Reed at BA, since his days at Long Beach State and with Team USA. But he's a good example of how while performance is important, tools also have to be considered. Reed had a great year last year, and it's caused him to be a little overrated. He's not a pure center fielder, and if he has to move to a corner, his ceiling of 15-20 HR doesn't play as well there. He stole a lot of bases last year, but he's not a burner and he got caught more than he should have. Not trying to rip Reed here, and I hope people don't take it that way, just trying to balance all the optimism. A year ago, no one thought he was close to a Top 100 Prospect, so I'd say putting him at 25 is a pretty huge leap.

Don Henley Boston: Are you saying that Jeremy Reed is Mark Kotsay?
Jim Callis: Don, great observation. You know, I think that's exactly what I'm saying. And Mark Kotsay is my all-time college player.

Then these questions at BA-
Q: Steve from Birmingham, Ala asks:
How can Grady Sizemore be 9, while Jeremy Reed is 25? I acknowledge that Reed is a year older, but at the same level, Reed had much better stats and terrific batting eye, along with much more speed. Other than date of birth, what exactly does Sizemore do markedly better than Reed to justify such a ranking?

A: Jim Callis: We balance performance at tools. Personally, I value performance at least a little more, though the consensus at BA is closer to 50-50. I like Jeremy Reed, but I find it a little funny that he wasn't anywhere close to the Top 100 a year ago and now there's a lot of clamoring to put him in the top 5-10 prospects in baseball. That's just premature guys, and I like Jeremy Reed. He had a great year, but on the other hand, he might not be a CF down the road, he might not hit more than 15-20 HRs (and even that would be below average for a corner guy) and he doesn't have the blazing speed his SB totals might indicate. Sizemore is a gifted hitter in his own right, and he has more power, better speed and a better chance to play CF. There's not a huge, huge difference, but I have a little more faith in Sizemore right now

Q: David Carroll from Superior, Wisconsin asks:
If you go back and look, you will find that Jeremy Reed is very comparable to Brian Giles at a similar point in their careers. Giles also showed tremendous strike zone judgment before he showed much power. Of course, Giles was never considered a top-ten prospect either. But if we learn from experience, shouldn't Reed be?

A: Jim Callis: I don't buy this comparison. We missed the boat on Giles, as did most people until he got to the majors and kept raking there. But Jeremy Reed is not going to average 35 homers and 110 walks in his big league prime. He's just not that kind of player.


Read the whole BA chat (http://www.baseballamerica.com/chat/chat.php?id=2004022701)

Read the whole ESPN chat. (http://proxy.espn.go.com/chat/chatESPN?event_id=4878)
You actually are going to beleive this rag of paper they're just another group of geeks who love the scrubs and simply hate the White Sox, I've never read anything good about the White Sox in this piece of crap that was'nt backhanded. How does this guy know anything about the White Sox is'nt he also an espn sports guy?

Dadawg_77
03-01-2004, 10:36 AM
Originally posted by Huisj
articles like these demonstrate exactly what the tension is between two different ideas of scouting. there will always be "tools" guys, and there will always be "performance" guys. as for which one is better, it's tough to say.

i'm by no means any type of expert here, but it seems like the tools guys are guys with higher ceilings but higher risk for flopping, and the performance guys tend to be more consistent off the bat but not achieve superstar status as often.

anyone agree with that?

Exactly, BA = Tools BP (Which has Reed at 2) = Performance. The thing is you can't exclusively use either, you have to mesh them together to form more of a concrete analysis of a player.

Rex Hudler
03-01-2004, 11:05 AM
Originally posted by ChiSoxBob
You actually are going to beleive this rag of paper they're just another group of geeks who love the scrubs and simply hate the White Sox, I've never read anything good about the White Sox in this piece of crap that was'nt backhanded. How does this guy know anything about the White Sox is'nt he also an espn sports guy?

It's a freakin conspiracy, I tell ya. The Cubs own the world and have turned EVERYONE against the Sox. It is now the duty of ESPN, Baseball America and every other media source that covers baseball to go out of their way to diss the Sox.

sas1974
03-01-2004, 12:20 PM
Callis might not be high on Jeremy Reed, but it seems like he's high on something. :D:

Seriously though...it just sounds like he's being cautious. I haven't seen Reed play yet, but that's just the feeling that I got from his report.

If he doesn't make the big club, I will get to see Reed play a couple of games while I am suck out here in Richmond, VA.

rdivaldi
03-01-2004, 12:37 PM
I don't think we should go ripping on BA for being a pro-Flubbie publication. The writers on the site usually jump on bandwagons when teams produce a couple of good prospects, so they are overrating the Flub farm system just like they overrated ours in 2000.

However Jim "Cubbie" Callis is a different story. He lives in Winnetka if I'm not mistaken and is a HUGE Flub fan. He loathes the Sox and rips the organization whenever possible.

kermittheefrog
03-01-2004, 03:24 PM
I'm actually surprised BA has Reed as high as 25, he's just not their kind of guy. One thing I have to say is that Reed isn't as "out of nowhere" as they are portraying him. He hit .319 and had a .384 OBP in 2002 and was a second round draft pick. There was no reason to quesion the guy's talent just no one knew he was so good.

MarkEdward
03-01-2004, 03:31 PM
Originally posted by Dadawg_77
Exactly, BA = Tools BP (Which has Reed at 2) = Performance. The thing is you can't exclusively use either, you have to mesh them together to form more of a concrete analysis of a player.

I think you're being a bit too hard on Baseball America. Yes, they do tend to favor tools over performance. However, they are open to Sabremetric view points. Allen Schwarz just did an article on defensive statistics that was posted on the front page of Baseball Primer. Many of the beat writers for BA use OBP and SLG in their columns.

I consider myself a hardcore stat head, but Baseball America is my favorite non-Internet place to get my baseball news. Their high school and college work is top notch, and I love the stuff they do with the independent leagues, as well as the business side of baseball. I could do without the Gammons', Ringolsby, and Stark columns, though.

rdivaldi
03-01-2004, 04:23 PM
Yes, they do tend to favor tools over performance.

Very true, however I'm still trying to figure out how they had Corey Patterson as the #1 prospect in baseball a couple of years ago...

kermittheefrog
03-01-2004, 06:06 PM
Originally posted by MarkEdward

I consider myself a hardcore stat head, but Baseball America is my favorite non-Internet place to get my baseball news.

That was the best line in your post. Baseball America is a wonderful news source and only occasionally a good source of analysis.

jeremyb1
03-01-2004, 06:15 PM
Originally posted by kermittheefrog
That was the best line in your post. Baseball America is a wonderful news source and only occasionally a good source of analysis.

I disagree. BA has its faults and their perspective is different from mine but I think the previous post was accurate. It is wrong to pigenhole them as relying entirely on tools. As MarkEdward stated, they frequently use OBP and SLG percentage and place a good deal of emphasis on plate dscipline. Personally, I would've guessed that BA would be liberal enough to place Reed higher. Maybe I should've expected a ranking around 25 but I think its way off to say that BA typically ranks players coming off the best performance in the minors much lower than 25 if they lack tools. The most certainly overemphasize tools but not to that degree.

rdivaldi
03-01-2004, 06:17 PM
Originally posted by kermittheefrog
That was the best line in your post. Baseball America is a wonderful news source and only occasionally a good source of analysis.

Exactly. Put BA's writers and BP's statistical analysis together and you would have an oustanding site. Alone though, they both lack something.

Dadawg_77
03-01-2004, 07:29 PM
Originally posted by MarkEdward
I think you're being a bit too hard on Baseball America. Yes, they do tend to favor tools over performance. However, they are open to Sabremetric view points. Allen Schwarz just did an article on defensive statistics that was posted on the front page of Baseball Primer. Many of the beat writers for BA use OBP and SLG in their columns.

I consider myself a hardcore stat head, but Baseball America is my favorite non-Internet place to get my baseball news. Their high school and college work is top notch, and I love the stuff they do with the independent leagues, as well as the business side of baseball. I could do without the Gammons', Ringolsby, and Stark columns, though.

I am not saying BA is bad just they overrate tools. Maybe I shouldn't have used = tools. It wasn't meant as dis to BA, just stating that is their perspective, while BP is a lot more stat/performance based. Yes, they are moving to use more performance based evaluating. That is a good thing since to get the full pic of player, you need to use both.

Rex Hudler
03-01-2004, 07:40 PM
Here is a chat transcript from the writers discussing their Top 100 list. It is them talking amongst themselves. I think it gives you a good idea of what they look for and it might surprise you. Don't just look for Sox related conversation, read it all. It is a good read.

I'll also once again, I don't interpret Callis' comments that he is down on Reed. He is just not ready to anoint him a Hall of Famer. They ranked him 25 out of roughly 4,000 Minor League players. That is no small potatoes folks.

BA Top 100: Inside the Process (http://www.baseballamerica.com/today/features/040227top100_chat.html)

TaylorStSox
03-01-2004, 08:41 PM
Does anybody know where you can get video of guys? There's a ton of guys in the Sox organization that I've followed but never had the luxury to actually see. I'm going by box scores and scouts opinions. I'd like to see for myself.

SoxxoS
03-01-2004, 08:51 PM
Originally posted by Rex Hudler
Here is a chat transcript from the writers discussing their Top 100 list. It is them talking amongst themselves. I think it gives you a good idea of what they look for and it might surprise you. Don't just look for Sox related conversation, read it all. It is a good read.

I'll also once again, I don't interpret Callis' comments that he is down on Reed. He is just not ready to anoint him a Hall of Famer. They ranked him 25 out of roughly 4,000 Minor League players. That is no small potatoes folks.

BA Top 100: Inside the Process (http://www.baseballamerica.com/today/features/040227top100_chat.html)

I wouldn't say he is too "high" on him if he compares him to Mark Kotsay.

jeremyb1
03-01-2004, 09:20 PM
Originally posted by Rex Hudler
Here is a chat transcript from the writers discussing their Top 100 list. It is them talking amongst themselves. I think it gives you a good idea of what they look for and it might surprise you. Don't just look for Sox related conversation, read it all. It is a good read.

I'll also once again, I don't interpret Callis' comments that he is down on Reed. He is just not ready to anoint him a Hall of Famer. They ranked him 25 out of roughly 4,000 Minor League players. That is no small potatoes folks.

BA Top 100: Inside the Process (http://www.baseballamerica.com/today/features/040227top100_chat.html)

I defended BA a few posts above but I probably have considerably less respect for them after reading that chat. I'm not sure anyone argues that Reed is going to be a .400 hitter. However, as I think I argued earlier in the thread .320 with 100 walks and a lot of doubles will make him a tremendous hitter. Its hard to argue that Reed couldn't dominate AA again when you look at his K/BB rate. He walked more than he struck out and hit over .400. Even if he doesn't hit .400 again, it is pretty clear he's a tremendous hitter for average. I'm guessing most of the best hitters in the majors never hit .400 at a stop. Perhaps most insulting is that plate discipline never figures into their discussion. Ridiculous...

MarkEdward
03-01-2004, 10:22 PM
Originally posted by kermittheefrog
That was the best line in your post. Baseball America is a wonderful news source and only occasionally a good source of analysis.

Well, this is what I pretty much meant. Sorry if I wasn't clear. I don't read BA for new stat formulas or any sort of in-depth analysis. I always skip Gammons', Ringolsby's, Crasnick's (not sure if that's his name, he's they guy with the mustache), and Stark's columns. I really wish they would add Rob Neyer or John Sickels to their monthly columnists. Anyway, I do read Callis and Schwarz frequently, as well as the Business Beat. I use the team reports to keep up with the doings of the other clubs. Their college baseball coverage has gotten me more interested in the college game. I also like the monthly reports on the various minor leagues. I wish they'd expand their coverage of the Independent Leagues, but I suppose that'd be hard to do.

I understand that they may tend to go a bit overboard on the tools, but you can't really get that type of non-statistical analysis anywhere else.

Rex Hudler
03-02-2004, 12:29 AM
Originally posted by jeremyb1
I defended BA a few posts above but I probably have considerably less respect for them after reading that chat. I'm not sure anyone argues that Reed is going to be a .400 hitter. However, as I think I argued earlier in the thread .320 with 100 walks and a lot of doubles will make him a tremendous hitter. Its hard to argue that Reed couldn't dominate AA again when you look at his K/BB rate. He walked more than he struck out and hit over .400. Even if he doesn't hit .400 again, it is pretty clear he's a tremendous hitter for average. I'm guessing most of the best hitters in the majors never hit .400 at a stop. Perhaps most insulting is that plate discipline never figures into their discussion. Ridiculous...

I guess I don't see what you are reading. I didn't really get anything negative out of that, other than they don't think he is one of the top 5 prospects. Where did they say he wouldn't dominate AA again? Or that he won't be a tremendous hitter for average?

Temporarily overrated doesn't mean he isn't any good. Just that they don't rate him among the elite. I have seen Reed play a lot and am very high on him, but I have no problem with their comments. I think each one of them would tell you they think he is a solid prospect. Where is the negativity?

jeremyb1
03-02-2004, 02:14 AM
Originally posted by Rex Hudler
I guess I don't see what you are reading. I didn't really get anything negative out of that, other than they don't think he is one of the top 5 prospects. Where did they say he wouldn't dominate AA again? Or that he won't be a tremendous hitter for average?

Temporarily overrated doesn't mean he isn't any good. Just that they don't rate him among the elite. I have seen Reed play a lot and am very high on him, but I have no problem with their comments. I think each one of them would tell you they think he is a solid prospect. Where is the negativity?

Saying he won't hit .400 again, implying he won't repeat the success of last season, or even assuming he needs to in order to be an outstanding major leaguer is negative in my opinion. Reed has accomplished far more than just about every prospect ranked ahead of him on the list so it is quite hard not to be negative I suppose. Look at someone like Sizemore, an outstanding prospect. His OPS in AA last season was over .200 points lower than Reed. Maybe in that context there is nothing BA could say that wouldn't suprise me. I'd certainly be happier if they'd simply said that Reed looks like a great player but doesn't project to a superstar based on tools instead of denying how much better of a player he was than guys like Rios and Sizemore last season. I dislike them glossing over if not denying the fact that he hit better than any player in the minors last season and would be an insane hitter if he ever had success like that at the major league level.

Man Soo Lee
03-02-2004, 04:54 AM
Originally posted by jeremyb1
However, as I think I argued earlier in the thread .320 with 100 walks and a lot of doubles will make him a tremendous hitter. Its hard to argue that Reed couldn't dominate AA again when you look at his K/BB rate. He walked more than he struck out and hit over .400. Even if he doesn't hit .400 again, it is pretty clear he's a tremendous hitter for average.

I'm excited about Reed and think he's the best position prospect the Sox have had in years.

That said, along with the Reed story in the Sunday Daily Herald was a graphic listing the top ten minor league averages since 1980. They were:

1. Erubiel Durazo, .404, 1999
2. LaVell Freeman, .395, 1987
3. Mike Kinkade, .385, 1997
4. Kent Hrbek, .379, 1981
5. Chris Smith, .379, 1983
6. Kevin McReynolds, .377, 1983
7. Scott Parsons, .376, 1986
8. Randy Ready, .375, 1982
9. Jeremy Reed, .373, 2003
9. Rufino Linares, .373, 1980
9. Mike Marshall, .373, 1980

Durazo, Hrbek, McReynolds, and Marshall are the only guys on the list to have been everyday players for a season in the major leagues.

Kent Hrbek (3 times) is the only one to hit .300 for a season in the majors. Ready did it once with 350 ABs.

So while Jeremy Reed is a great prospect, I think it's premature to be predicting he'll hit .320 or draw 100 walks (or collect 2000 hits or be Tony Gwynn as other threads have suggested).

kermittheefrog
03-02-2004, 09:15 AM
Originally posted by Man Soo Lee
I'm excited about Reed and think he's the best position prospect the Sox have had in years.

That said, along with the Reed story in the Sunday Daily Herald was a graphic listing the top ten minor league averages since 1980. They were:

1. Erubiel Durazo, .404, 1999
2. LaVell Freeman, .395, 1987
3. Mike Kinkade, .385, 1997
4. Kent Hrbek, .379, 1981
5. Chris Smith, .379, 1983
6. Kevin McReynolds, .377, 1983
7. Scott Parsons, .376, 1986
8. Randy Ready, .375, 1982
9. Jeremy Reed, .373, 2003
9. Rufino Linares, .373, 1980
9. Mike Marshall, .373, 1980

Durazo, Hrbek, McReynolds, and Marshall are the only guys on the list to have been everyday players for a season in the major leagues.

Kent Hrbek (3 times) is the only one to hit .300 for a season in the majors. Ready did it once with 350 ABs.

So while Jeremy Reed is a great prospect, I think it's premature to be predicting he'll hit .320 or draw 100 walks (or collect 2000 hits or be Tony Gwynn as other threads have suggested).

The problem with a list like this is it doesn't say what age the players were when they had these averages. It's a big difference if a guy hits nearly .400 at 30 and a guy like Reed who does it at 22.

Rex Hudler
03-02-2004, 10:17 AM
Originally posted by jeremyb1
Saying he won't hit .400 again, implying he won't repeat the success of last season, or even assuming he needs to in order to be an outstanding major leaguer is negative in my opinion. Reed has accomplished far more than just about every prospect ranked ahead of him on the list so it is quite hard not to be negative I suppose. Look at someone like Sizemore, an outstanding prospect. His OPS in AA last season was over .200 points lower than Reed. Maybe in that context there is nothing BA could say that wouldn't suprise me. I'd certainly be happier if they'd simply said that Reed looks like a great player but doesn't project to a superstar based on tools instead of denying how much better of a player he was than guys like Rios and Sizemore last season. I dislike them glossing over if not denying the fact that he hit better than any player in the minors last season and would be an insane hitter if he ever had success like that at the major league level.

Man I will go on record right now and say Jeremy Reed won't hit .400 again! Am I speaking of him negatively? Hell no.

I think you read way too much into that. I think they like Reed as a player very much, but they aren't basing who is the #9 prospect versus the #25 prospect based on one year's stats only. A lot goes into how you rate a player, and yes stats are definitely one of them. I don't think they were negative at all. Realistic, might be more accurate.

kermittheefrog
03-02-2004, 12:38 PM
Originally posted by Rex Hudler
Man I will go on record right now and say Jeremy Reed won't hit .400 again! Am I speaking of him negatively? Hell no.

I think you read way too much into that. I think they like Reed as a player very much, but they aren't basing who is the #9 prospect versus the #25 prospect based on one year's stats only. A lot goes into how you rate a player, and yes stats are definitely one of them. I don't think they were negative at all. Realistic, might be more accurate.

But we're not dealing with guys that have huge professional records. Reed has been in the minors a year and a half. Sizemore two and half years. Reed's numbers don't just beat out Sizemore's numbers, Reed's numbers are on a different planet. The difference between their performances in AA are about equal to difference between Magglio Ordonez at the plate and Jose Valentin at the plate.

fuzzy_patters
03-02-2004, 12:51 PM
While I certainly hope that Jeremy Reed turns out to be a great outfielder for the White Sox, I think we should use some caution before we portray him as a .320 MLB hitter. The Sox recently had another minor league outfielder that played centerfield, although he was probably more of a corner outfielder. This same player was not supposed to have much power, but he also won a league batting championship and had hit over .300 at every stop. He came through the Sox farm system as Magglio Ordonez, and many said that he would hit for higher MLB averages than Ordonez. The player's name was Jeff Abbott. Let us keep that in mind before we go off the deep end about our hitting prospects.

jeremyb1
03-02-2004, 01:51 PM
Originally posted by kermittheefrog
The problem with a list like this is it doesn't say what age the players were when they had these averages. It's a big difference if a guy hits nearly .400 at 30 and a guy like Reed who does it at 22.

Also, its more or less equally important that Reed walked 70 times and slugged over .550 in AA. There's no mention of any other statistics there, just batting average.

jeremyb1
03-02-2004, 01:57 PM
Originally posted by fuzzy_patters
While I certainly hope that Jeremy Reed turns out to be a great outfielder for the White Sox, I think we should use some caution before we portray him as a .320 MLB hitter. The Sox recently had another minor league outfielder that played centerfield, although he was probably more of a corner outfielder. This same player was not supposed to have much power, but he also won a league batting championship and had hit over .300 at every stop. He came through the Sox farm system as Magglio Ordonez, and many said that he would hit for higher MLB averages than Ordonez. The player's name was Jeff Abbott. Let us keep that in mind before we go off the deep end about our hitting prospects.

Again, I think you're comparing apples and oranges here. I can't find Abbotts minor league numbers but I'm pretty confident he never hit over .400 at any stop when he was 22. He never even made it to the majors until he was 25 so I'm guessing he was probably in A ball putting up mediocre numbers while Reed was dominating AA at the same age.

MisterB
03-02-2004, 02:16 PM
Originally posted by jeremyb1
Again, I think you're comparing apples and oranges here. I can't find Abbotts minor league numbers but I'm pretty confident he never hit over .400 at any stop when he was 22. He never even made it to the majors until he was 25 so I'm guessing he was probably in A ball putting up mediocre numbers while Reed was dominating AA at the same age.

At age 22 Abbott hit .393 in 65 games at Low-A Hickory.

http://www.sports-wired.com/players/profile.asp?ID=1322

Dadawg_77
03-02-2004, 02:29 PM
Originally posted by MisterB
At age 22 Abbott hit .393 in 65 games at Low-A Hickory.

http://www.sports-wired.com/players/profile.asp?ID=1322

Shorten season A ball doesn't equal AA ball. So you will have to discount it more to compare to Major League level.

jeremyb1
03-02-2004, 03:13 PM
Originally posted by MisterB
At age 22 Abbott hit .393 in 65 games at Low-A Hickory.

http://www.sports-wired.com/players/profile.asp?ID=1322

So there you go. Reed performed better than Abbott at the same age at a level two levels above where Abbott played.

Rex Hudler
03-02-2004, 04:44 PM
Originally posted by kermittheefrog
But we're not dealing with guys that have huge professional records. Reed has been in the minors a year and a half. Sizemore two and half years. Reed's numbers don't just beat out Sizemore's numbers, Reed's numbers are on a different planet. The difference between their performances in AA are about equal to difference between Magglio Ordonez at the plate and Jose Valentin at the plate.

I think you have a point about Sizemore. From what I have read, they almost seem like the same player. Their scouting reports seem to be very familiar. Why they have him higher I don't know and wondered that myself.

But just because they rank Reed a few spots lower doesn't mean they don't like him. Maybe they just see something in Sizemore that makes them think he will get better and has a higher ceiling than Reed? Maybe they think Reed's .373 avg was somewhat of a fluke and that his production will level off closer to or below Sizemore's numbers. Rating players is very subjective and just because one guy is a few spots lower than another, I don't think it has to do with bias against the Sox or a flawed rating system. BA is not down on Reed, they just aren't ready to anoint him superman status.

rdivaldi
03-02-2004, 04:56 PM
Originally posted by Dadawg_77
Shorten season A ball doesn't equal AA ball. So you will have to discount it more to compare to Major League level.

I agree with this statement. Let's not forget that Nanita hit .384 in Great Falls this year at age 22, and I don't hear any hype for him. There's a mountain of difference between Rookie Ball and AA.

Randar68
03-02-2004, 06:34 PM
Originally posted by Rex Hudler
I think you have a point about Sizemore. From what I have read, they almost seem like the same player. Their scouting reports seem to be very familiar. Why they have him higher I don't know and wondered that myself.

But just because they rank Reed a few spots lower doesn't mean they don't like him. Maybe they just see something in Sizemore that makes them think he will get better and has a higher ceiling than Reed? Maybe they think Reed's .373 avg was somewhat of a fluke and that his production will level off closer to or below Sizemore's numbers. Rating players is very subjective and just because one guy is a few spots lower than another, I don't think it has to do with bias against the Sox or a flawed rating system. BA is not down on Reed, they just aren't ready to anoint him superman status.

Sizemore has more power and a bigger, "more projectable" frame. They just think Sizemore has a higher ceiling, that is all.