Add new comment

James is saying the MiLB production is a VERY RELIABLE method of projecting MLB production. He says it is just as reliable as MLB production is.
Few players demonstrate a multi-year ability to rake in the minors and then don't hit in the majors. Few players just fall off the cliff (other than for age or injury) once they've hit in the majors.
I don't see that as an earth-shattering assumption.
Clearly there are examples like Jeff Clement.....but there are examples like Joe Charboneau or Jose Lopez, too.
He's right about Lopez. He was a decent hitter for a while. He demonstrated that ability at AAA as a precocious 20-yr old and then followed it up for several seasons in the majors. His collapse came after that. For 5 years, Lopez was generally a productive MLB hitter. For two years he was very productive. If Jason Bay produces like Lopez did in '08 and '09 we will all be giddy. Where did the projecgtions miss? It is, of course, an inexact science so there is some margin of error. Clements exemplifies this. But you don't completly write off the model because you have marginal errors.
Hamilton's past numbers are no guarantee he does it in California. they simply say, "barring injury or rapid aging...some level of + production is a very safe bet." He may still produce, like Pujols did...but it may be the worst MLB season of his career...like Pujols.
James didn't call Doc a "dishonest fool," either. The follow-up line was, "Well, of course, you are not; You are merely doing what all of us do all of the time."
So Myers will hit in the majors, but hitters the Royals have and Shields they didn't.
Franklin and Romero are pretty fair bets to be pretty fair hitters in the majors. Absolute locks? Nope, but two more years in the minors don't make that any more secure, either.
I'm struck by how many people here were aghast at the Myers trade, because they think his potential was wasted in a swap for a TOR near-ace. Yet there seems to be a driving energy around here for us to swap our Myers-types (Franklin, Romero, Paxton, Hultzen, Walker, Montero) for just the same type of proven MLB player.
But I digress......
I don't see much controversy in James' statements. Good whacking MiLB'ers (age arc guys) almost always are decent MLB bats. Great MiLB hitters almost always become, for some period, good MLB hitters.
There is some serendipity (or Dark Matter skill set) at play, of course. But the above general rule holds true.
If it doesn't, then we're dealing with a game that is a huge Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle.
If so, then we may as well swap Romero for Jose Lopez and bring him back.
moe