G-Money did the legwork for us, going back and checking on the youngest players to overmatch the hitter-unfriendly MWL in recent years.  A sample of G's findings:

I thought so too about Bruce (that Franklin's topping of Bruce's exploits was provocative - Dr D).  I'd like to say the MWL guys I picked weren't entirely random, but there weren't a lot of guys to choose from. It's a rare feat in the last half-dozen years.  :)

Over .800 OPS in the MWL as a teen:

 

2005: Carlos Gonzalez (killing it for Colorado now as a 23 & 24 year old CF/OF)

2006: Bruce, Maybin

2007: Snider, Gerardo Parra (in the bigs at 22 in '09, not yet successful splitting time at CF/LF)

2008: Mike Moustakas (ravaging AA and AAA at 21), Andy Lambo (average in AA, same age)

2009: Jaff Decker (top 100 prospect)

2010: Nick Franklin, Mike Trout, Matt Davidson - all 1st round picks who will be top 100 if not top 50 players on next year's Baseball America rundown.  Some are calling Trout the undeniable #1 hitter in baseball, after all.

 

There were a few 20 year olds that cleared .800 this year, which is up from past years, so maybe this year the MWL is easier and drawing the line at "teenagers" is too arbitrary.  Still, the comps looked accurate to me as far as skillset goes:

 

Franklin's EYE:  .42

Bruce: .42

Snider:  .38

Maybin: .43

 

Franklin's AB:K : 4.2

 

Bruce: 4.2

Snider: 3.6

Maybin: 3.3

 

Franklin's ISO: .208

Bruce: .225

Snider: .212

Maybin: .153

 

3 guys is not a scientific sample, but when a guy has power, a decent average, and a survivable K-rate in that league at 19, I have to like his chances.  

 

BTW, neutralized for park and luck:

Franklin: .309/.375/.527/.902

Bruce: .299/.370/.533/.903

 

Before Jay stomped on the Midwest League at 19, he was the #76 prospect in the country.  After?  #14.

 

I think Franklin's a top-20 hitting prospect in the minors, EASY.  And for all that Mike Trout impressed the universe in his MWL stint, Franklin outhit him using neutralized stats.  There's a danger of overselling this year for sure, but it's impressive any way you slice it, and even when you look at its weaknesses.

 

The fact that he can improve and STILL did what he did is a good thing, not a bad one.  When Smoak and Ackley leave the system, it's hard to see a better hitting prospect in it than Franklin.  Maybe Choi. ;)

 

~G

1.  Agreed:  when you go back and search the league-leaders tables in any minor league, you're going to find just a couple of the leaders who are far younger than the league. 

G's not cherrypicking here; it's uncommon for a prospect to be playing guys 4 years older than him, and uncommoner for him to overmatch them.

..............

2.  I would argue that G's being a little modest, in lessening the force of his own logic .... by conceding that perhaps the difference between age 19 and age 20 is "arbitrary."

The difference between a toddler aged 2.5 years, and one aged 4.0 years, is massive -- the 4-year-old is about twice as old. Consider where a 19-year-old pro, vs a 20-year-old pro, are at on their career arcs.  The difference is large.

.

Franklin, at 19, is essentially a pro newborn.  The guys who are 20 years old probably have twice his at-bats.  If you were talking about the difference between 23 and 24, sure, the difference can be subtle -- and even lost in the variables of injury time and so forth.

But Nick Franklin, in the year 2010, is ewwwwwwww covered in birth water.  The 20-year-olds were experienced pro's by comparison.

Absolutely.  You show me any kid RIGHT out of high school, doing the things that Franklin is doing, and I'll put him on a yellow sticky list by my monitor. 

Dr. D is a saberdweeb and template-historian at heart.  Show him a HS kid who picked up a bat and instantly slugged .567 (LH, adjusted) in a serious full-season A league, and he'll show you a guy whose ceiling is the Hall of Fame.

...............

3.  As G goes a little further into the Jay Bruce / Nick Franklin comp, you can see for yourself that they are pitch-perfect mirror images at age 19.  If anything, Franklin is better, in the sense that Franklin's numbers are suppressed by his RH failures.

................

4.  If Nick Franklin were 6'2", 200, he'd be just about as revered as anybody in the low minors.  The only question remaining is:  how much does his size affect his projection.

This is a legit Q.  But it can't be assumed either way.  The Gazoo arguments, and a re-review of Tulo vs. Franklin at the same age, have me very dubious indeed that Franklin won't actually be a pretty big guy at age 22.

If Franklin were short and slim, that would be one thing.  But he's a good six-footer, moves like a big man, has good sized feet, swings (kind of) like a young Ted Williams, in the sense of "lanky power."

I don't know whether he'll hit 12 homers or 30 in his prime.  But I'm pretty sure you can't cap it right now.

...............

5.  The right attitude for all M's fans right now is this:  Boy, I'm excited to see how Nick Franklin develops.

.

Good stuff,

Dr D