GatewayRedbirds.com

My Little League coach said that a hit as good as a walk so I might as well get one.

TT I think you're right about it being over-simplified. Most at-home "scouts" are scouting box scores. It's easy to look at a guy who walks 5% the time and say "needs to walk more."

I think that it has manifested, it's just no one has looked for it and pointed it out. But it's there. To use the examples already in play:

Goldstein wrote:The Good: ________ is a classic first-baseman with the ability to hit for both average and power. He works the count well, waits for pitches to drive, and can crush mistakes. He's worked hard on his defense and projects to be average there.

Goldstein wrote:He'll need to improve his plate discipline; he swings at too many pitches and finds himself behind in the count too often.

Since I mentioned it's examples probably already in play, you can guess: A is Rizzo, B is Adams.

Rizzo "works the count well" and Adams needs "to improve his plate discipline." Rizzo landed on Goldstein's 2012 top 100. Adams was nowhere to be found on that list. Last year Adams out-wOBA-ed Rizzo by 40 points (!!!) as a part-timer (!!!!!). Despite Rizzo taking 50% more walks, Adams made fewer outs, got on base more, had a higher OBP. Last year, one year older but in a far tougher park, out-slugged Rizzo by almost 100 points.

The player whose "approach" is best will have the better line. There's no amount of luck or park or whatever to erase 20 points of OBP and 100 points of SLG. Adams is the better hitter, and I'll take Adams as the better player in the future. And I say that as someone who likes Rizzo a lot. It's just that Adams is better, and the blind spots of the traditional scouts (too fat) and the new-school scouts (doesn't walk/bad "approach" ((approach is in " " b/c I don't think Law gets it right enough to not mock him with the " ")) ) prevented them from seeing it when they were prospects.

I'll try to make some time and go back and look at both the highest-ranked hitting prospects of the last 5 years or so, and I'll take the players age 22-27 that had the best hitting seasons in MLB and look at their prospect write-ups and get back to y'all on what was said about them and how they turned out. I'm guessing there's something there, because I've read it enough that it's become Pavlovian: when I read "needs to take more walks" I immediately ask "yeah but does he really to improve his production, or do you just want him to fill a bias you're carrying around about a par level of walks?"

For my own information, which part out of this section is overly simplistic due to a low walk rate?

What could go wrong: The biggest concern with Taveras is health. Here are the game totals for Taveras in his career: 60, 97, 124, 47. Taveras needs to show his injuries are fluky, rather than a sign of a lack of durability. More and more teams are starting to view durability as a skill, one that some players have, while others do not. As the old saying goes, “You’re greatest ability is your availability.” The other issue that could come up for Taveras to limit his tools from actualizing is his plate discipline. A walk rate under 5% if not a great indicator in most cases, especially for a power hitter without a lot of speed. That said, his bat control is so outrageous, he has contact rates to overcome the low walk rate. He makes contact 84.9% of the time he swings at a pitch in the zone versus left-handers and at 90.9% of the time when he faces a righty. What’s unusual is that Taveras has virtually no split tendencies, swinging at pitches out of the zone 9.4% of the time against lefties and 9.3% of the time against righties. This tells me he actually controls the zone quite well- especially against lefties where you’d expect a much higher swing percentage due to the breaking balls a same hand pitch would bring. Taveras doesn’t walk a ton, but it’s because he swings the bat so well, not because he’s fooled so often.

Are you suggesting that when talking about causes for concern with Tavares, there should be no mention of his walk rate?

If I were to read that section in totality, I personally would come away from it saying to myself, "Damn, this guy basically thinks Taveras is going to be a star barring everything but injury."

Are you saying that reads differently to you?

Nope, I like your Top 21, I like your take on Taveras, I am commenting in general on the nature of the "needs to walk more" thing that I think has become overused. Please don't think that because it was your post (which, again, really, kudos, it's great great work as it is every year, you put a lot of time and effort into it and I'm grateful you do it every year) that spurred the thought and got me posting about it that it's a takedown of your Taveras outlook or your take on prospects in general or your post/posting.

Do, though, consider it honest feedback on how people, you included, talk about and write up prospects. If we're talking low walk rate as evidence of need to improve discipline, that should be counterbalanced with comment when the strikeout rate is prodigiously low (something you didn't bring up) and the contact rate is prodigiously high (something you did bring up.) Those are things people bring up w/ Taveras but never did with Adams. It's not just Taveras/Adams, those are easy reference points on a Cardinals board. It's lots of prospects/lots of prospects.

Love the feedback, always appreciated. I'll keep in mind for the future.

You might check out the season overview section, where I mentioned his elite K%. Next time, perhaps I'll repeat that in the what could go wrong section as well, but before this feedback it felt like I would put that in another section rather than a section reviewing possible causes for concern.

Skimming through Law's 2011 top 100 for significant comments about approach.

Freddie Freeman: "has never been a high walk guy."
What happened: 10.7% BB rate as a MLBer, higher than any single year in the minors. Is fine.
Was the approach comment predictive/meaningful? No.

Dom Brown: "shows some refinement at the plate where he works the count reasonably well."
What happened: Took a long time to get going at MLB, has never walked much at MLB and walked a lot less there than in the minors, has a decent K rate.
Was the approach comment predictive/meaningful? Only in part.

Jesus Montero: "We can all agree on one thing about Montero: he’s going to hit. And by that, I mean that he’s going to hit for average, get on base, and have huge power….a patient and disciplined hitter…”
What happened: The biggest position player bust in recent memory, but still young enough to maybe get there. Doesn't K much but doesn't walk much either, so his very low AVG is not bolstered by walks. He has been a victim of park and BABIP luck in part, but has been neither disciplined or patient.
Was the approach comment predictive/meaningful? No.

Eric Hosmer: "has shown both patience and a high contact rate"
What happened: True on both counts. Doesn't walk a lot, but makes a lot of contact. On the other hand. Here's a player--a career .277 AVG on a BABIP just over .300 who only walks 7% of the time--who should be walking a tick more. Wanna juxtapose another guy to MMGA?
AA Hosmer: 313/365/615, 7.1% BB rate, 12.8% K Rate
AA MMGA: 300/357/566, 7.8% BB rate, 17.5% K Rate
Is there enough difference between the two that one has a bad approach and the other has a good one? There's not, but they were described by prospects writers and night-and-day. Adams's MLB wOBA over his career is currently 20 points higher than Hosmer's.
Was the approach comment predictive/meaningful? Only in small part.

Wil Myers: Law makes a bunch of comments about his video game OBA in high-A, "showed…strong on-base skills”
What happened: Myers had a 350 OBP last year, mostly driven by a high-BABIP fueled AVG. He didn't take a lot of walks or show a particularly high amount of discipline and he whiffed in 1/4 of his PA.
Was the approach comment predictive/meaningful? Jury is still out.

All this stuff is....meh, it's whatever. It's a bunch of guys that one writer who didn't see those guys a whole bunch (Law lived in New England then, was not in Spring Training full time the way he was before, and was not near much meaningful minor league baseball) knocked based on what he heard from scouts and their stat lines. I think in order to talk approach, you have to see the player, and see him quite a bit. Call the following the TM54 Approach Mainfesto.

This is where you have to start with approach: "What can the player hit?" If you plotted a point at the middle of the plate, about 26 inches off the ground, you might say that Joey Gallo for example has a reach of X inches left, Y inches right, A inches up, B inches down. That's where Gallo can make contact, and within that range there's a smaller zone where he can drive the ball really well.

But Oscar Taveras's range is different. His left range is Gallo's X plus some. The same applies maybe to two more of the directions. Possibly all four. And he sees breaking balls better. So what Taveras can hit is a completely different animal than what Gallo can hit. There are pitches that Gallo has to take for balls that Taveras can drive. Gallo, hopefully, is taking those pitches 85% of the time, and drawing walks in doing so, while Taveras, hopefully, since he can drive them, is offering at them 75% of the time and putting them into play and getting base hits frequently.

That Gallo walks more does not make Gallo more selective, more disciplined, or possessing of a better approach than Taveras. Gallo could have a better BB rate and a better K rate but be a far less productive hitter because Taveras is getting hits (more valuable than walks) and extra base hits which are far more valuable than walks.

Think of it like this. Here's where MIggy can crush baseballs:



Here's where Manny Machado can crush baseballs:



Machado should swing at fewer pitches than Miggy, and both will still have an optimal "approach."

To do this, to get an idea of approach, and having to start from "what can the player hit?", you have to see them. Kind of a lot. I know, phins, that you do this and that you see a lot of Springfield baseball, so please don't think I'm pointing a finger your way. I know you put in your eyeball time on these guys, and that you wouldn't be foolish enough to try to pass off a T21 list or any kind of scouting report on players you haven't seen enough.

I think that after you've figured out "what can they hit?" you have to look at what they're offering at. If you have player like Gallo who can hit that range of pitches and he's regularly getting fooled and there's a lot of swing-and-miss, that that is probably the single biggest indicator of "bad approach." Way more than walks. Whiff rate is probably the first stat I'd look at if I had never seen a player and I wanted to form some kind of rough but possibly wrong idea about his discipline. But more than I want to see on FG that the guy has a Z% whiff rate, I want to sit in the park and watch the guy. Does his bat change planes when he's in mid-swing? He's getting fooled. Is he making loud contact regularly? Great! He's putting balls in play he can drive. Is he taking hard cuts and missing at balls where he recognizes the pitch but he just can't get to it? That's where I want him to take more.

When I'm reading or listening to an opinion on the "approach" of a minor league player, I want to hear that kind of stuff from an eyewitness or second hand from a Jason Parks who has heard it from a scout. I don't want to hear that some guy had only a 5.6% BB rate at AA and therefore has a "bad approach." I'd much rather read here than someone saw Piscotty in Springfield and "boy he never looks like he's fooled" than read what percent his BB rate was last year. Not taking a full look, and allowing statistical and body bias to inform us. That's how we obscure guys like MMGA and Hosmer--and one has been (insert that D word you all hate) better than the other, and it's not the one who got all the glory as a prospect--is when we apply a decision without the proper evidence for reaching it. Being fat and not walking a bunch doesn't mean you have a [expletive] approach, any more than walking a bunch in the minors means your approach is solid. Players in MLB might be walking too much (Rizzo) and their approach is kinda bad. There's no "right" number or benchmark that a player should hit in walks to be considered possessing of a "good approach." Just, the player should offer a lot at the stuff he can drive and not offer on the stuff he can't. That's approach, all the percentages be damned. You can't figure out approach with nearly enough confidence from a stat line.

33anda3rd wrote: Keith Law hated Adams. I'll bet you dollars to donuts Law saw Adams play maybe 3 times max before spring training this year, and that his opinion was formed entirely off other people's opinions.

Then he didn't read GRB, as I saw Adams play exactly once in the minors and absolutely loved his approach:

http://gatewayredbirds.com/forum/viewto ... ms#p950993

btw - good comments on the initial post. Insightful and well thought out.

jim wrote:
btw - good comments w/r/t the initial post. Insightful and well thought out.

ftfy