1
Baseball America
5. Franklin
9. Miller
Fangraphs
4. Franklin
8. Miller
Jon Sickles
5. Franklin
6. Miller
Spec66
6. Miller
7. Franklin
.
One thing we hadn't gotten a triangle on yet: Miller's defense at shortstop. Heeeeeere's Johnny ... Johnny First Facts, that is:
- Miller's UZR is +18 runs per year, in his first two weeks
- His rep was for sloppiness and lazy errors, but ....
- ... he has only 1 error thus far. Must be the adrenaline
- His rep was "good around the bag" and "questionable in the hole" ...
- Early on he has looked average-solid going into the hole. He gets there quick
- He looks nimble, pretty blinkin' Gumby-like, and able to throw from angles
- His physical technique is (like Brendan Ryan's) inconsistent, sloppy, unconventional, and creative
- Physically he looks kind of underwhelming compared to (1) Furcal, (2) ARod, or (3) Andrus
- But he's got very good footspeed
Frankly, Miller looks like a 1970's shortstop to me.
It is interesting that Zduriencik has been associated with four consecutive white shortstops all cut from similar cloth:
- Brad Miller
- Brendan Ryan
CraigJack Wilson- JJ Hardy
But all of the above shortstops, Wilson et al., they're shortstops I associate with the 1970's... I think of physical freaks when I think of the modern MLB shortstop position, players who (like Furcal and Andrus and Guzman) look like they could play in the NBA or NFL. But you know what, that's probably an assumption on my part that's never been true. Now that I scan the almanacs, MLB has always held on to its share of Bobby Crosbys, Stephen Drews and Troy Tulowitzkis at short.
Miller doesn't look to me, physically, like he should be a quality defensive shortstop. And there were obviously some scouts who bought into the physical prototype issue, because Miller had his detractors.
Brad Miller looks like a bat-first shortstop, and he is going to hit like a bat-first shortstop, but I kind of doubt that he's going to field like one.
Comments
2
I assume you meant Jack Wilson, so I went ahead and edited it.
And next:
Chris Taylor v3.0?
.328/.426/.504 -----> Miller in 2012: .334/.410/.512; Seager in 2010: .345/.419/.503
Leads organization in walks with 59 -----> Miller led 2012 with 74; Seager 2nd in 2010 with 71
Leads organization in steals with 26 vs. 2 [2!] CS -----> Miller had 23 vs. 7 in 2012; Seager was 13/12 in 2010
Co-leads organization with 9 triples -----> Miller had 7 in 2012; Seager 3 in 2010
XBH + BB / PA = .228 -----> Miller in 2012 = .212; Seager .199 in 2010
3
The Mariners have now run two different ball clubs out there in one year that absolutely proves to my satisfaction that having more than one hitting black hole has been the primary source of our team's offensive struggles, both with runners in scoring position (relative to overall) and with run scoring (compared to team OPS+). If you go and look at the last three years of Mariner clubs and project their OPS+ to runs scored, you'll find that they scored less than their OPS predicts each and every year. And were doing the same as of mid-June of this year.
But a funny thing happened on the way to the fourth year of this happening. We plugged two of our three black holes, with CF being the only eyesore left (Ackley is still not really hitting...even Zunino is not a black hole by catching standards...though he isn't great obviously). We called up Franklin and Miller, replacing Chavez and Ryan as primary starters and lengthening the line-up such that your problems no longer ended if you were a pitcher getting to the #6 spot in the batting order.
The result...suddenly the club is scoring the way it should for its OPS...hitting with RISP...and winning lots of baseball games. It's not just that they added offensive talent. It's that they removed offensive anchors too. I believe this proves my point about the need to account for the supermargin and sub-margin as non-linear factors in run scoring.
4
Your having Miller ahead of Franklin, as you always have IIRC, that's a whale of a call Spec. And I don't think you backed off during Franklin's splash, right?
That's one for the resume :- )
..........
What do you got next? Which of the Big Four pitchers do you like? Does he drink Pearl?
5
Would be nice if Taylor was another Miller or Franklin. My hunch is a slightly better version of Willie Bloomquist. Don't see the same level of power when all is said and done. Hit tool is probably a notch or two lower as well. Happily, we aren't desperate for him to pan out. Instead it would be icing on the cake!
6
I moved Miller ahead at the point when they moved Gabriel Noriega out of the way so Miller could play SS every day, but they didn't move Carlos Triunfel out of the way for Franklin. That said to me that they didn't view Franklin as an everday SS. I also have always had the concern that Nicky's overall numbers weren't as good as they looked, and it was due to lack of power and high K% vs. LHP, though I think he's made good strides in that direction. Of course, he's a great prospect, too, and thrilled to have him.
Besides pumping Taylor (comment below) and Paolini (article), and, of course our man Ji-Man, my favorites for future MLB impact right now are relievers Carson Smith and Dominic Leone.
And when you say Big Four, you mean Sanchez, Gohara, Pike and Diaz, right? :-)
7
He's probably not the hitter the other two are, but then again, no one expected Seager and Miller to hit as well as they have, and Taylor is right in there matching their numbers.
I think it's fair to be skeptical that he would displace Miller, but it's also clear that he can draw walks and play true shortstop defense in addition to speed and "sparkplug" ability, so he seems to me to have a lot more than Bloomquist ceiling.
My sense is that athletically he's a better fit for short than Miller, though that's not an area where I'm strong at evaluating.
Thanks again for great input!
8
Closer to a Mark McLemore type? He drew lots of walks and stole a good number of bases. M's could really benefit having an upgrade at backup SS/2B/3B than Josh Wilson, Andino types.
9
Curious about the G-man's thoughts on these issues.
How likely that Taylor continues to hit these Seager/Miller-like numbers (but all those steals)?
All things being equal, is he a better shortstop than Miller?
Assuming he doesn't do a Vinnie-face-plant, and assuming our "Whitaker/Trammel Jr." is still lookin' good, what do you do with him in a year?
Super-utility? Does he make Franklin trade bait? Or does someone else follow Ackley to the outfield?
10
70s or earlier. Looks physically a lot like Ron Hansen or Tony Kubek; or Dave Concepcion with weight training. I think you're right, Doc, that he's unorthodox. Seems to run around a lot of balls rather than go to his backhand. Looks like me on a tennis court, but he definitely has the speed and arm for the position.
11
I like Taylor. He's playing a bit over his head right now at the plate. His BABIP both in Jackson and High Desert is over .400. That's what happened with Catricala and Romero. Cat fell off the edge of the earth by the "Here be Monsters" sign, but Romero has still been good - just not obscene like he was with a sky-high balls-in-play average.
Taylor never had power in college, but he had a good eye. I expect the walks to stay, but the power isn't gonna rise. My concern with him is he strikes out a lot for a supposedly light-hitting SS. Maybe that's because he's amping it up trying to keep the power numbers up, but power's not really his game. Gappers and speed is what he does.
He's a better hitter than Bloomquist (and walks twice as much). He's also a better fielder, both than Bloomie and IMO Miller. Taylor can make plays in the hole that Miller struggles with, but it's not a big enough difference IMO to justify a Taylor-over-Miller choice. Taylor isn't Omar or anything, and makes his own inconsistent throwaways.
But Miller is gonna be worth his weight in gold here in a minute. So do you move Miller for a huge piece and then just install Taylor? Taylor is also a leadoff man, with his OBP skills and ridiculous steals rate. Another year like this from Taylor isn't putting Franklin in danger, it'd be Brad who'd be on the move.
IMO Taylor's a .270/.360/.380/.740 kind of SS, with 35 steals a year. That has worth. Chone Figgins had a very nice, plus-WAR career doing that, and it wasn't at SS.
I expect Taylor to make the end of some top-100 lists this coming year, certainly honorable mentions. I have him ahead of Owings (another BABIP freakshow), Panik (about the same with the bat after you adjust for luck and some other things, but moving to 2B) Ahmed, and some others. He'll probably be a B- player for Sickels, maybe C+ if the BABIP scares him off. (Aside: How does the best hitter list in the system go now?)
He's a good prospect. He's neither Miller nor Franklin, though so unless one of those guys moves he's trade bait. Hard to make a top-150 prospect into a utility player. I do expect us to take it slowly with him. He may even start next year back in AA, trying to slow him down so we don't have to make any decisions about trading him or putting on the big league bench in the immediate future. In a perfect world I'd love to have Taylor's OBP and RH hitting available for this lefty lineup, so if the trade market doesn't like him, then move him around the infield next year, get him comfortable, and put him on the bench. Cuz I don't plan to cough up Miller or Franklin for anything less than Stanton. If Stanton's in RF, then Miller at SS is a good alternate to our historically unique MIF attempt as it stands.
Otherwise I'll take the history, and the players already manning those positions.
~G
12
Pretty much what I think too, but glad to get confirmation.
I don't think they'll rush into trading any of the three, so Taylor may get stuck in the minors or a utility role for awhile, which is probably fine. Or as a reserve shortstop he'd free up Miller to fill in at 2b or 3b.
It's possible that just the success of Seager, Miller and Franklin could bump up his trade value if folks start believing that Jack and Mac have the magic touch. But whatever they do with him, he's definitely proving to be a very valuable guy to have.
Like your question about top hitters and will try to post about it.
13
Gotta find things to talk about between October and March, after all. ;-)
But I think that's gonna get very interesting. I expect our top-5 hitters for 2014 to be pretty similar, but the next 5 could be radically different.
Or not. But either way, that top-10 list has changed A LOT since the start of the season. It's been a rather radical shift, and normally dumping 3 of the top-50 players in the minors out of the system (and on to the big club!) would decimate a system. Ours is lessened, but not devastated. Jack and Tom keep plugging along - a very good sign.
~G