Our gracious host no doubt feels somewhat dumped upon after expressing his preference for George Springer, OF, UConn, as the #2 pick in the 2011 draft, assuming Anthony Rendon is taken by the Pirates in the #1 spot. (He did not express a preference for Springer over Rendon, despite some of the comments to that effect.) (And, I guess, the Ms have not technically clinched the #2, but they are 2.5 GB Baltimore with 3 to play.)
The result was a good debate: is there a point where there are too many strikeouts in and of itself, or do you always have to compare K to BB? I can't speak for Taro, but it seemed that he was making the argument that Springer's 70 K rendered him unacceptable just on that basis. Doc countered that 70 K was just fine in light of the 60 BB (we're talking about 64 G and 243 ABs here).
I think they both have valid points. What I'm trying to get at is this: not whether George Springer is a fine player or a top-10 draft pick, BUT is George Springer enough of a sound bet to justify passing over the very talented pitchers at the top of the draft?
Clearly, there are higher risks with pitchers, even with Strasburg, supposedly the surest of sure things of all time. So, all things being equal, you take the hitter. I'm fine with that. And if it's a high school pitcher, then double the risk. I'm fine with that, too.
So -- George Springer with no red flags would trump even a very sound college pitcher. So how big are his red flags and how sound are the pitchers?
Here is my interpretation of Springer's red flags. I did not discount the 60 walks. I love the 60 walks. 60 walks makes him a top-10 pick for sure, given his power and speed. Here's the concerns:
1. He was not facing the same kind of pitchers as the guys in the power conferences. Nothing against the Big East, but the elite pitchers don't go there. The only truly elite pitcher in the league is Matt Barnes, who is Springer's teammate. He's not facing him (EDIT: forgot Louisville is in the Big East now, and they have one pitcher who might be a high draft pick, but still ...). So, he's not going against guys with the same stuff and command. I understand Get Your Pitch. But should it be that hard to Get Your Pitch against lesser guys, if you're the elite one?
2. He went on the world tour with Team USA, playing similar college all-star teams from Korea, Japan, Cuba, etc. A bunch of the college guys who might be top-10 picks were there (Rendon's ankle fracture came in an early game vs. Korea). He underwhelmed, with only 4 BB vs. 14 K in 18 G (.292/.342/.472).
I think that the international games use wood bats, but I am not 100% certain. Anyway, on the same tour, the pitchers were dominant.
3. The #2 pick is a valuable commodity, and while I understand about picking the best player, I think you just have to take into account that there is a grand total of one RH hitter (Edgar, obviously) who has demonstrated sustained success at Safeco Field.
Jay Buhner's 126 OPS+ in 2000 was a single year. Boone went 153-114-140-94-85. That's not really sustained success; that's two outliers. Sexson: 144-117-84. Beltre: 163 (pre-Safeco)-93-105-112-108-83-142 (post-Safeco). It's a problem. I'm not saying it rules him out, but you have to take it into account. We're talking about measuring the amount of upside and the chance of reaching it, and then the area of the rectangle. Drafting a guy to be a RH impact hitter at Safeco is going to depress his chances of maxing out.
Point being, even if Springer is a RH Sizemore, he's still a RH Sizemore, and that might not pan out. Adrian Beltre is no slouch, and he couldn't do it.
All of which just means you have to measure Springer's chances, in light of those considerations, against the pitchers and the odds that are against all pitchers. These particular pitchers (Cole, Gray, Purke) have major-league stuff on Day One. There is no "hoping they fill out" or "likely to add a few mph" or "needs to add another pitch." Purke is skinny (6-4, 180) and has a whippy motion, and Gray is shortish (5-11, 195), so maybe you factor that in. Cole is pure classic RH inning-eater with heat in the Clemens-Seaver mold, but so was Mark Prior.
I have no doubts about Springer being an excellent player and top-10 pick. I just think he's a reach at #2, when you consider the quality of the pitchers, even when you take into account the amount of risk involved in taking a pitcher that high.
Last year drafting 1 & 2 was pretty easy for even me. This year the higher up can earn their money! Springer looks like he belongs on my JV team. Great talent, just looks so young or I am feeling so old. The days ahead from now until June will be fun speculation.
Speaking of speculation, good work Spec. If you were GM and the draft were next week (assuming the M's hold number 2), is there one that you would pick at this point?
Last year drafting 1 & 2 was pretty easy for even me. This year the higher up can earn their money! Springer looks like he belongs on my JV team. Great talent, just looks so young or I am feeling so old. The days ahead from now until June will be fun speculation.
Speaking of speculation, good work Spec. If you were GM and the draft were next week (assuming the M's hold number 2), is there one that you would pick at this point?
Who was the last college player to K in over 20% of his PAs and become a star?
The best example I can come up with is Pedro Alvarez (19.4% K-rate), but he hasn't panned out yet and he really improved his K% in his Junior year (improved to 14.3%).
Who is a star at the MLB level right now that K'ed over 20% in college? This is really the base of my argument. They don't exist, because they don't pan out.
Kingman: Age 22 in AAA - 105 Ks in 434-PAs. (only 32 walks).
Jose Canseco K/BB was 114/40 in 333 PAs at age 18 in low A.
Mike Cameron - 101/27 in A ball at age 20, (451 PAs)
Rob Deer -- 146/70 in 555 PAs (age 20 - A ball) - 177/53 in AA in 474.
David Ortiz - 98/37 in his first 399 PAs in rookie ball.
Russell Branyan - 64/25 in first 201 PAs -- 120/27 in next 310.
Ryan Howard went 145/66 in 570 PAs in A ball.
(lot easier to find minor league numbers than college numbers).
But, that's really the issue, isn't it. What *IS* the difference between A-ball and college (Big East) talent from a conversion perspective. The Moneyball take is that college players are MUCH less riskier to draft than high schoolers - as the HS kids that can't cut it in college wouldn't cut it in A ball anyway.
None of 'em are college guys though and you're talking about a LOT of guys with much more power projection than Springer.
I do like the Cameron comp actually, even though he wasn't a college guy. Thats a very similar template both physically and skill-wise.
A lot of the Cameron hopefuls flame out though, but Cammy is a reasonable upside scenario (21.8 K% in minors).
This kills me, and I realize this is off-topic, BUT: we're sitting here with the number 2 pick in the draft; and we not only have to analyze the overall talent of said pick, but also very specific talents, specifically as they relate to our major league stadium...talents that are so difficult to discern that we end up twisting ourselves into pretzels just trying to figure out if a specific hitter is actually a fit for the Mariners by the time he is ready to hit the major leagues.
Every single RH hitter that is drafted or signed into the M's system has to be filtered through psychological profiles of hitters that have come before in Safeco...do we think this player has more mental aptitude than Jeff Cirillo? Richie Sexson? Beltre? Can he definitely hit the ball out to right field like Boone, so will it matter? In effect, it is as if every RH that enters the system has to be evaluated against the only comp that seemed to manage the stresses that Safeco places on RH-ers: Edgar. So if they aren't Edgar-like (or Edgar-lite), their skill set gets devalued to the point of why bother?
The upshot of this, is that we end up making reaches for lesser talent that other clubs do not have to worry about. It isn't "all things being equal, take the LH" - it's a much heavier devaluation of RH hitters that has to take place. The general consensus of baseball drafts is to not draft for need, but draft the best talent available. If you have a tremendous SS at the MLB level, and the best player when you pic is a SS, well, a lot can happen in the 3 years it takes that 'spect to reach the major league level. The M's can't do that, if the "best talent available" is a RH-hitter, because handedness doesn't change.
Again, the permutations of working this out in advance of bringing someone in - and this includes free agent signings too - are not limited to strictly physical tools, if a player can "use the whole field", but extend into the psychological effect the stadium has on the player. Player development takes on a whole new dimension.
Safeco Field is hindering the M's efforts to put the best product on the field. It's no less of an obstacle than the altitude of Coors Field or the summer heat of Arlington. It introduces too many variables into talent evaluation, and either causes the team to overlook the best possible talent or actively discourages the best possible talent from coming here. The boost that the pitchers get from the ballpark is not enough of an offset. Building a ballclub in this environment takes too much un-balance and skews the methodology to a point that it's difficult to compete with other teams on an equal basis.
I like Gerritt Cole. You can then take him or Pineda and swap him for your bigtime young hitter, if that's what you desire..
I tend to side with the "Springer is too boom or bust for the #2 overall" crowd