First ... I agree it's too early to cash out on Smoak. He could indeed turn things around anywhere from tomorrow to 2014.
But ... I've never been high on Smoak based on two variables. The first is his minor league production.
The .859 minors OPS isn't horrible, (.283/.401/.458) ... but it is driven primarily by a huge patience factor (118 points of patience). His minors ISO was only .175. Not horrid ... but certainly not anywhere near elite.
Additionally, his AAA aggregate, (mostly at age 22/23) is worse ... a generally poor .794 total (.253/.379/.414). He still had the 120 patience and 171 ISO ... but 30 points of average is 60 points of OPS. The AAA evidence was of a guy who was NOT handling the competition upgrad well.
Beyond the overall numbers ... his HR power was tepid to non-existent. 24 total HRs in 773 MINORS PAs doesn't scream "next Howard".
As a comp: Michael Saunders
Similar (but lower) patience (90).
Similar (but lower) ISO (165).
But, where Saunders aggregate is only .810 ... his AAA line is .279/.372/.449 (.821) ... slightly better than his career ... and significantly better than Smoak's AAA line.
Saunders hit .674 in A Ball. (416 PAs). He *LEARNED* something to make the leap up to .850 AA hitter. That demonstrates an "ability" to adapt, which Smoak has never shown.
==========
The second part of the equation is the eyes on scouting. Not mine. Yours.
From day one, you were nothing but complimentary of Smoak's form. IMO, the idea that the best "looking" hitters will succeed as they rise is flawed. The best "looking" players have the least to fix. The profile suggests the QUICKEST route to optimal level of production. The "pure" hitters get there quickly, (AROD ... Griffey) ... because there is so little to change. The abiltiy leads to fantastic production in the minors AND a short adaptation period in the majors.
The "slow" developers should tend to be the ones like Saunders ... who are productive at lower levels DESPITE horrid looking swings. The key here is that if/when they can fix all the flaws, they have extended their upsides significantly compared to initial lower level production. Saunders after a lot of .800ish lower level seasons, put together his best year (.922) in AAA in 2009. That's while he was STILL a mess mechanically.
His 2011 minor league season included a 130 patience rating. So, more evidence of adjustment and adaptation.
From all scouting reports on Smoak (along with his actual production), the evidence suggests he's pretty much the same hitter he's always been ... except he's traded off 60 points of patience in order to convert a few doubles into HRs.
So ... I still consider Smoak a long shot.
But, while his 2010 stint at Tacoma showed an identical .859 OPS to his career minors line ... he did flash a .220 ISO in 2009 and a 210 in 2010. So, there was a small flash of something when he got returned to AAA. So ... I'm not completely discounting the possibility of him coming around. I just think the odds are against it because there is so little to fix, (based on YOUR visual assessments).
IMO, I think the org still has difficulty with patience. I think a 120 patience score is viewed as "passive" ... which is part of why guys like Smoak and Ackley have struggled. Their #1 natural trait is not valued.
Seager and Ackley were nearly identical hitters in college. The prime difference was that Seager didn't have Ackley's eye. His hit skills were nearly identical (with slightly less power) ... but the power difference could be explained by the very fact that Ackley was more selective and therefore hitting easier pitches to park.
I continue to have the impression that the club devalues patience, and this likely hurts players like Smoak and Ackley. I think Ackley will eventually come around. I think Smoak won't. But ... if he does, I think Smoak MUST get his patience score back up to 100+.
... Echo Canyon being about as much as I can think of right now, to refer to a shout-and-answer at SSI :- ) Cool Papa Bell shoutz,
Doc, what is your take on Cameron's post about Smoak?
Hmmmmm ... which said, what ... ok, here's the article.
:: taps chin :: The key premise is here:
But, at this point, history suggests that those hopes are probably not well founded.
In the last 30 years, there have been 55 first baseman (including Smoak) who have been given 1,000+ plate appearances through their age 25 season. Every single one of them hit better than Smoak has, and we’re not just talking raw numbers that can be explained away by Safeco Field or the change in run environments. By wRC+, which accounts for both a player’s home park and the average performance of the league at the time, Smoak’s 87 is the worst of the 55 players on the list.
=== Methodology, Dept. ===
All right, we can rephrase that premise by saying "Other first basemen who were given full-time jobs at ages 23 and 24 did better than Smoak did. Some a little better, some a lot better." The key editorial here is 1000+ PA's, which is a subjective (GM's) decision. :: taps chin again ::
So, what do we think about this editorial filter? Let's cull from the herd all first basemen who were given jobs at 23-24, like Smoak was, and look at those organizational Golden Boys. Let's not look at those who were kept in the minor leagues at ages 23-24 .... no, that's not right. The criteria is, 1000+ PA's, so those who were given jobs at age 24 will have fewer than 1000 PA's and will not be competing with Smoak.
Really we're talking about those first basemen who were given fulltime jobs at 22 and, at the latest, 23....
Hold it. Just checked Smoak's page. He had 900 PA's through his age 24 season ... he right now is in his age-25 season, in the process of that season now. We don't know what his age-25 season will be yet. I'm confused. Why "through age 25 season" when that doesn't include Justin Smoak's record? He's still in the process of constructing that record. By the end of his age-25 season, his OPS+ could easily be 95 or 100, not 87.
A disagreement with the methodology first off: "Smoak's 87 wRC+ is the worst of 55 players who completed their age-25 seasons with 1000 PA's" doesn't include Smoak himself. The characterization "last of 55" makes Smoak sound like a radical outlier, like everybody else is 110-150 and Smoak is far below the pack. Where would a 94 wRC+ rank among these 55 players? Within a few points of the middle of the pack. Smoak could still easily climb well into the pack by the end of this year.
.
=== Failure To Launch, Dept. ===
Forget all that for a second; we're going to lose clarity in quibbling about the method. So let's just grant this general premise, in a form less edited against Smoak, and proceed from here: Of those 1981-2011 first basemen who were given ML jobs at age 22-23, Justin Smoak's performance has been toward the bottom of the pack. That characterization is fair, and significant.
Two SSI reactions to that, one UP and one DWN.
......................
DWN: this factor suggests to me that Justin Smoak will not make baseball's Hall of Fame. My favorite marker for early HOF trajectory is "good ML player at the age of 22." There are guys who raked at age 22, who were 100-RBI men at age 22, and I'm guessing that you'll generally find that they become $100M players.
.....................
UP: Jack Zduriencik expressly stated, before 2012, that Justin Smoak should never have been in the big leagues at the ages of 23 and 24 - well, certainly not at 23. Z has made clear his opinion that Smoak was rushed, and rushed badly, to the majors.
Z also warned, in clear terms, that 2012 is NOT considered a make-or-break year for Justin Smoak: it is a developmental year, according to Zduriencik.
If you're a Mariners fan, Jack Zduriencik's opinions matter to you, because they're going to drive roster decisions. Zduriencik has stated that 2012 will not be the appropriate year to judge Justin Smoak a failure.
Ron Shandler of BaseballHQ echoed this:
Strong April, solid September 2011 bookend otherwise disappointing soph season which included loss of his father, and loss of 2H PT to jammed thumb and broken nose. 2H collapse of both plate skills and power indicates that adjustments are still needed. Keep 2012 expectations modest, as he is still work-in-progress.
In other words, HQ read Smoak as still early in his development arc, with a lot to learn before his game jells. It also advised some perspective as to the extenuating circumstances resulting in Smoak's 90 OPS+ to date.
Bill James, source three, echo'ed the above when we asked him about it. He compared Smoak loosely to Carlos Pena, who needed a long time to learn, and who then at age 29 posted a .286/.411/.627 season after years of disappointment.
.
=== Majoring In (the) Minors, Dept. ===
All right, now what happens when we compare Smoak's age 23-24 seasons to those first basemen -- or left fielders, let's say; we're talking about hitting, correct? -- who weren't even in the major leagues at age 23?
Looking at last year's starting ML first basemen ... Carlos Santana would not have made this "1000 PA's by age 25" filter, because he wasn't allowed in the majors at age 23. He would be considered a "failure" to a greater degree than Smoak, because he didn't graduate to the majors at all at age 23. Santana is raking now, of course, with a 122 career OPS+.
Mike Morse posted a 147 OPS+ last year for the Nationals; he wasn't a quality ML hitter at age 23.
Carlos Lee ... at ages 23-25 he was very mediocre and had a line roughly comparable to Smoak's so far; he jelled only at age 26 and later became very rich.
Ryan Howard, a notorious figure in cyber-M's-ville, was not a quality ML hitter at age 23... he wasn't in the majors at all at age 23, and if we recall correctly there were locals recommending a trade for him, and various authors saying that the time had passed to give up on Howard. Correct?
We could go down the line, but you're going to reach an obvious conclusion. The fact is that many good ML hitters were not yet capable of hitting ML pitching when they were 23. Neither was Smoak. Once you compare Smoak to hitters who (1) were mehhhh in the bigs at 23, and to (2) hitters who did not make the bigs at 23, you've got a relevant capture of his career arc.
How many hitters couldn't hit MLB pitching very well at age 23? Most of them. Those who could, threatened to establish HOF-type career arcs. No, I wouldn't bust a hitter's chops for not raking in the American League at age 23 or 24. Neither would I give up on him for not doing so. Neither do real GM's give up on hitters for not becoming stars by age 24.
The decision of Smoak's teams to throw him into the fire at age 23 is the "live" issue here.
.
=== Blame Smoak? or the Organizations' Projections? ===
Okay, now we're ready to answer Cool Papa. My take? Smoak wasn't one of those players who was ready to excel at age 23, age 24. That's all. It's somewhat unusual that his organizations pushed him up front-and-center, despite the fact that he wasn't yet ready.
Smoak isn't hitting well in the first half of his age-25 season, either, and he doesn't look real good as we speak. That's frustrating. It's not decisive, for reasons analogous to those listed above. He's got a lot of competition rising up around him.
In this organization, Smoak is getting to where he's going to have to fight for his job, but that's not the same thing as saying "History advises us that Justin Smoak is done." It advises us no such thing.
How did Raul Ibanez do at age 25? Jose Bautista? Alex Gordon? Kevin Youkilis? Mike Morse? Jayson Werth? Josh Willingham? Nelson Cruz? Any number of current MOTO hitters were actually in the minors at 24, 25, 26. Or were absolutely nowhere, yet, in the majors.
The sound conclusion out of this? Most "Golden Boy" org darlings who MLB general managers deem worthy of age-23 jobs are --- > more ready to hit than Smoak was. GM's thought that Smoak would be an early bloomer, and he turned out not to be. That's an interesting observation, one that Jack Zduriencik and Ron Shandler made before the season started.
Cheers,
Jeff
Comments
"Zduriencik has stated that 2012 will not be the appropriate year to judge Justin Smoak a failure."
Smoak is a GMZ creature, he picked him over Montero from a club (Texas) who obviously had given up on him. I would have been really surprised to read different words from GMZ and I do believe Smoak will be in the M's lineup until a fans' bloody revolution will erase him, no sooner.
Maybe a stint in the minors to work with Dr. Elliott on strengthening and rotational power will help with his warning track power.
Smoak should give serious consideration to spending the off season with that guy that fixed Saunders' swing. That big uppercut swing just isn't going to play in Safeco for him.
These years Cruz got cups of coffee with the big club, while the team struggled in the aftermath of losing Teixeira in the last half of 2007 and 2008. Arguably, they needed Cruz's bat with the big club just like we need Smoak to perform now. But Cruz wasn't ready until 2009. He put up 1.100+ OPS numbers in the minors in 2007-8, so he appeared ready ("nothing left to prove"), but he struggled in the Bigs until earning his full-time gig in 2009.
Smoak's MiLB numbers never looked as good as Cruz's best. Smoak may still need more time in Tacoma.
"IMO, I think the org still has difficulty with patience. I think a 120 patience score is viewed as "passive" ... which is part of why guys like Smoak and Ackley have struggled. Their #1 natural trait is not valued."
Right on, right on, right on.
I've wondered if the org has asked Ackley to become a doubles hitting pitch stalker rather than letting him be the guy who commands the zone and hits the ball, with gusto, where it is pitched. Those aren't the same thing. Wedge seems to demand "professional" AB's and that seems to be all about sitting on a pich and then riding it. Ackley's natural game is eye, patience and contact. I think, to some degree, he's been asked to move away from that approach. Ackley is a kind of Pete Rose and I think Wedge has asked him to be more of a Tony Perez.
Anyway, back to Smoak. I'll give you guys that Smoak might have been best left in AAA at age 23. He was a .244-.363-.360 AAA player as a 22 year old (.328-.449-.481 in AA that same year, both with about 230 PA's).
His impressive AAA line at age 23, before the Rangers called him up was .300-.470-.540, but it was in 15 games. That's it. 15 games.
But all that aside, my concern is Smoak in his age 25 year....this one. Smoak is worse than he's ever been before.
I wonder if MLB pitchers haven't figured him out. In essence, is he just a AAAA hitter?
All season's statistics are built on those hot streaks that batters get. But Smoak's streak was only a matter of days, and then it all disappeared.
He looks wonderfully "purty" at the plate, He doesn't hit enough to stay around and carry a team, however.
I'm beginning to think my Casey Kothman comparison is a fair one. Smoak will have a year, eventually, like Kotchman had last year: 128 OPS+.
But Kotchman is down into Smoak territory this year, (75). Stick with Smoak long enough and you'll get a very nice year, maybe two. But you're going to put up with a lot of 80-90 OPS+ years to get there. Bad recipe for a 1B.
Is it worth the wait?
(And I'm not sure that giving Soak tha last 1/2 of the year in Tacoma is a bad idea. It clears room for Carp's bat AND it get's Smoak out of Wedge's clutches, where perhaps he'll find his eye again)
moe
He's had two themes when talking to the media about his players batting practices: 1) They need to have a plan, and 2) Do NOT let hittable pitches go by because it wasn't the type of pitch you wanted, which is the opposite of pitch stalking.
Looking at the M's of these past few seasons and it's no surprise that Justin Smoak was in the majors ahead of schedule. I realize that Texas gave him a cup of coffee prior to us - but both situations where similar in that he was rushed in order to fill a need at the big league level.
It's not like he was a young stud forcing his way into the line-up - which I'd guess the majority of those that performed better than him where. It's an example of what happens when you need to replace a Casey Kotchman who's OPS+ was 73.
The logic of this article is analogous to my thinking when I defend Blake Beavan (and a good start tonight in Tacoma may mean an earlier than than expected return). Age-wise Blake should be in AA. Again, not arguing that he's good, nor am I arguing that he should be in the rotation, just saying it should be unconstitutional to declare him quad-A with no chance of parole at such a young age.
Aaaand it does provide a cautionary tale for those clamoring to bring up Franklin and the other hitters ahead of schedule...
- Ben.
They also rush the wrong prospects. If you rush Harper or Junior they are players who can defeat the rush. Smoak was not an all-world talent, but was given just 500-and-change plate appearances before his big league callup. He was definitely rushed, and wasn't the sort who could be.
So now you ride it out. Maybe he won't pull out of the tailspin, or maybe it'll happen after we give up on him. Or maybe it'll happen in July. We're coming up on cut-bait time, but Liddi or Carp needs to step forward first and be better.
My money's on Carp for that, if it happens, but it's probably still better for Smoak to figure it out. I'm getting tired of contingencies.
The big-trade, high-draftpick, crucial players need to start playing like it soon. Having Saunders and Jaso and Furbush drag the team around is bad form.