Gotta chime in here regarding one of our original favorites, Michael Saunders.
It wasn't that long ago that everyone in the room was shouting "Wells" and I was off in my little corner saying "Saunders." Well, look who's DFA'd now, and who's on their way to the All-Star Game. So I think I have some room to speak on this one.
The whole thing with Saunders starts with his bio.
First, imagine Nick Franklin's teen life. Sunny Orlando. Ballpark and cages all day, every day, year-round. Well-manicured infields. Select teams with real coaches.
Now what was Michael Saunders doing? Lugging around skates and lacrosse sticks. Or a basketball. Or a soccer ball. Or a fishing rod. And, even when he was on the diamond, he spent some of his time pitching. It's all here in his Canadian Olympic team bio in 2008 (for no apparent reason, still on the Internet). And he was doing all this in Canada, not Orlando.
***
Here's the thing: Because of his great athletic talent, Michael Saunders was always promoted as if he had a Nick Franklin baseball background. But. He. Didn't. Even so, he kept up ... until he hit the majors.
***
Gotta do some parallel time-travel here (imagine Doctor Who landing on a minor-league field, maybe?)
Age 19:
Franklin (in 2010) goes from high school in sunny Florida to the Midwest League. He shows genuine power, but strikes out a fair amount. His "three numbers" -- 92-104-96
Saunders (in 2006) goes from the Great White North (OK, I'm not super-familiar with B.C., and, sure, Victoria is not the Arctic Circle or anything, but it's not Orlando either) to the Midwest League. He doesn't show much power, but he shows an immediate gift for drawing walks. His "three numbers": 92-62-54.
In other words: Saunders and Franklin had the identical "Plate Skills Index" at age 19 in the Midwest League. Remember: the Midwest League is an "aggressive" placement for a 19-year-old, even a warm-climate "baseball rat."
Age 20:
Franklin (in 2011) splits between High-A and AA. Again, aggressive for a 20-year-old. Struggles a bit and deals with injuries: 82-80-62
Saunders (in 2007) splits between High-A and AA. Still striking out, but high walk rate and more power: 96-89-85
At age 20, Saunders ranked higher on the "Plate Skills Index" than Franklin.
Age 21:
Franklin (in 2012) splits between AA and AAA. Still aggressive promotion. 89-99-88
Saunders (in 2008) splits between AA and AAA. Also aggressive promotion. 85-93-77
Age 22:
Franklin (in 2013) in AAA. Pulling it all together. K% drops, keeps power. As of April 30: 203-139-242 (17 games; won't stay that high)
Saunders (in 2009) in AAA. Pulling it all together. K% drops, keeps power. A "golden year" (something that Casper Wells never approached). Full season: 110-120-130
***
Saunders then spent most of 2010 in the majors, where he turned out to be terribly overmatched. He got another extended shot in 2011 and was even worse. In the minors, however, he drew 50 walks in just 64 games and his "three numbers" were 129-91-120.
It should be clear: Saunders struggled when he was less-advanced than the pitchers he was facing.
The Bavasi regime promoted him as if he were a Florida baseball rat, not a Canadian hockey (and multi-sport) kid, and the amazing thing is that he held up as well as he did.
When Saunders got a chance to show his natural talent while facing the level of pitching that he was "ready for" ... he was excellent. That's happening again in 2013.
***
So ... to resolve Doc's dilemma. The "arc" is there ... you just have to "explain-away" his 2010 promotion, and the 2011 follow-up that are the aberrations. He really shouldn't have been in the majors at that stage; it's just that after years of the Bavasi regime, there wasn't anyone else to promote.
That 2011 season Doc starts with is really the only time that Saunders has had a poor walk rate ever.
And the K% creeping down as he becomes accustomed to his level is also nothing new.
***
And I've said it before, but ...
Michael Saunders 2013: 4.8% HR% | 8.3% XBH% | 20.5% K% | 12.1% BB%
Jim Edmunds career: 4.9% HR% | 10.7% XBH% | 21.7% K% | 12.5% BB%
I'm just saying it's not outlandish that Saunders could put up some of those kind of numbers.
I always forget about him somehow. I would like to add though, that I was on Saunders bandwagon too, though I wasn't vocal about it until I read about his training program in Spring Training last season. I believe there is a very naive comment of mine on Lookout Landing asking why everyone was so upset about trading Jones in the Bedard deal when Michael Saunders was tearing up A+.
are quite illuminating. Excellent stuff and now I'm even more bullish on Saunders.
Some respectful partial disagreements, Spec.
1. By the time Saunders was up in '10, he had spent 4.5 seasons getting there. One might argue that he should have started in Rookie ball, rather than A-, but his numbers that year (.270-.363-.474) don't indicate a guy who was overmatched at that level. (Interestingly, those A- numbers were almost exactly what I suggested he might be able to sustain, year after year, in the Majors).
After that season he struggled at A ball, in '06, and then got better as he moved up the ladder. There was no indication he was overmatched. His AAA numbers in '09 suggest he was ready for a MLB shot. Even his K rate was down. Lots of needy teams would have given him the call. He struggled in Seattle that year, certainly, but I don't know if that was any less valuable than another 60 games in Tacoma. There is no clear proof it was.
In '10 he showed considerable MLB improvement. He was getting better. As a guy who was A + defender, he was showing he was a MLB player. His Eye and Power jumped upwards from the previous MLB year. He wasn't Trout or Harper, but he was improving. One might say dramatically.
'11 is the weird year. Something went wrong in the Majors. he appeared to be completely, totally, abysmally lost at the plate. His Eye collapsed and his K rate shot up again. Knowing what we know now, I'm tempted to say that it was his outlier year. He was lost AND he was unlucky (.212 BABIP). He certainly banged away at AAA throwers again that year. It may be that his MLB weakness had been exposed, to some degree. If so, it was bound to happen.
In '12 that BABIP was back up to .297. And he was a real MLB bat, which along with the + defense made him a real valueable guy. This year he's conslidated all that and made the next step forward.
I see a guy who regressed for one year, '11. And that was a small sample really (MLB-wise).
In '12 he did what any talented, thinking athlete would do, he eliminated he biggest weakness (the over-long loopey swing) and found himself. He got shorter and got gooder....or something like that.
The old swing was his, he owned it. He had had it a lifetime. It was always going to have trouble, of some degree, in the majors. He fixed it. That's what solid pros do, when a hole is exposed. It would have happened eventually. Given that he was smacking AAA guys around with that swing, it is unlikely that further exposure to AA or AAA pitching would have resulted in the fix. He needed MLB types to challenge him to improve AND prove it was needed. He responded.
I don't think his lack of "grooming" had much to do with it. His physical talent got him to Seattle in a hurry. His discipline and drive got him better. It is an age old process. The way it should be.
When a guy has the physical talent to be at this level, he generally ought to be here. The learning curve will be more painful (because your failures are more exposed) but it is a curve that must be navigated.
2. Talent is "real" regardless if it was groomed young or not. No modern athlete was more "groomed" than Tiger Woods. A rapid rise didn't seem to expose any lack of talent. The way of the modern athlete is to specialize. I actually think it harms development, but it is the way it is. A guy like Franklin's has talent that exists, you can't fake it for very long at the AAA level. The question is whether that talent (and his drive/desire/ability to adapt) translates to the majors. You can't/won't know until he gets there. Which should have been yesterday.
As an aside, Wedge said the other day that he would rather moved a guy up late than early (or words to that effect). He knows more about baseball than I, but I'm in the other camp. Once a guy was established a significant skill set at one level, hurry him to the next. If he has the skills AND can adapt, then you have a winner. but watching a guy beat up a level he's already conquered (to some degree) makes little sense and allows for little growth.
Some guys, especially some pitchers, are not very athletic to begin with. I remember a quote about David Clyde one time (remember him) in which one scout said (after the fact) that he was a tremendously terrible athlete, who happened to be able to throw a ball hard. The first skill doomed the second, regardless of a quick promotion or not.
Robin Yount hit .285-.370-.409 at A- as a 17-yr old. Saunders was .270-.361-.474 at the same level as an 18-year old. Yount jumped directly to the majors the next year becoming a fulltime MLB starter at 18. OPS+ed 79, 90, 76, 94 in his first 4 years. Never hit more than 8 homers. Then he became Robin Yount the HOF'er. Would three more years of MiLB ball have made a difference? Unlikely. That route isn't correct for all, certainly. But the guys that survive it are better for it.
Saunders survived because he made the change he would have had to make eventually anyway. MLB pitchers made that abundantly clear. A demotion to AAA didn't harm him.
Franklin's ready right now. Is he a finished product? Not at all, but 2 more years of feasting on New Orleans Zyphers' pitchers isn't getting him there, either.
Now is his time. Wedge is messing this one up.
moe
Writing the other article, the Concept of Bo Jackson occurred.
Deion Sanders, Jeff Conine, Danny Ainge.
Saunders' arc LOOKS like a guy who took up baseball, like at age 20 or something, and I didn't even know about (or at least remember) the hockey thing.
Lot of traction to this article IMHO. :daps: Spec
.................
I think Carl Crawford was a football player first, right? And there must be 12 parallels between him and Saunders. Power/Speed guy, left handed, "tweener" outfielder, major strike zone issues that he brought under control later.
Dave Winfield played everything, concentrating on baseball later ... and was a "long-lever" guy.
Do we have to wait for our pitchers to surpass the shortstops in batting stats before we make a move?
Props to B. Ryan tonight for going 1 for 4 but seriously...
14 Andino, R SEA 2B 25 65 5 11 3 0 0 4 6 22 0 0 .169 .239 .215 .455
15 Ryan, B SEA SS 30 85 5 11 0 0 0 4 8 20 2 0 .129 .202 .129 .332
I almost mentioned him, Doc. Multi-sport star in HS. Quarterback, baseball star, basketball two-time state champion. Once guys like that finally pick a sport (or it picks them) they do just fine, thank you.....and often early, too.
Until about 1990 or so, almost every talented HS athlete was multi-sport.
Pitched the Golden Gophers into the College World Series, threw one shutout and almost another and was named MVP. Oh yeah, be batted .467.
They should make a movie about him...
Different sport but Tony Gonzalez may be the best pure athlete of our generation. Shared California prep athlete of the year honors with Tiger Woods in high school, played both D1 football and D1 basketball at Cal and went on to an HOF career in the NFL. Probably the greatest tight end in NFL history. Tremendous man, to boot.
Winfield's Minnesota basketball team won a Big Ten title. He was one of the best rebounders in Big Ten history. He had great speed, great arm, and obviously could hit a baseball. At 6-6, 240 he would have made an astonishing wide- out, and was drafted as such, so, yeah, maybe the best since Thorpe.
Only person I can think of off the top of my head who might have been better is Wilt Chamberlain who during the smae period when he was the greatest scorer in NBA history was also the best beach volleyball player in the world. He boxed for entertainment and nobody wanted to go near him. Nor could they. His reach was freaky.
He claimed he could easily have been the best receiver in the NFL. Then you have the 10,000 women, well . . . the guy could do it all.