Add new comment

Funny ... the only thing I feel I was a tad bit wrong on Ackley about was the speed at which he'd do exactly what he has done (to date). 
Of course, *I* am not a scout.  My talent (if one wishes to call it that) is an ability to see patterns in numbers that others miss.  My call on Ackley was based on his college numbers.  He was a student in all senses of the word.  I don't want this post to just sound like tooting my own horn for comping Ackley to Brian Giles -- but to explain HOW I could see that probable outcome from just an examination of stats.  The reason is the CHANGE. 
Every single Minor League Equivalency in existence predicts on the "curve".  So, they predict *ALL* players to perform worse in the majors than in the minors.  This makes sense on the surface - because the competition is better in the majors.
But clearly, some players perform better in the majors.  Who are they?  They are, by and large not simply guys that hit .400 in A ball and get steadily worse.  They are guys that are able to get better results from year to year against the same competition ... or who show signs of improving despite facing better competition.
The Lopez/Yuni template are great against weak competition and methodically get worse as they face tougher and tougher competition.  The "greats" behave a lot more like Ackley.  They transcend the competition once they figure out what THEY need to do with their skill set to optimize their production.
What is odd to me is that it seems few statheads notice one simple oddity.  That the MLE conversion is to get consistently worse until you reach the majors ... but that MLB production doesn't peak until age 27.  Does this indicate that when a 24-year-old hits the majors, that the competition gets worse for the next 3 years?!?
One of my standard saws is that players don't get better because they age.  They get better because they learn something.  Improvement in the majors isn't about getting athletically better.  It's about getting cerebrally better. 
While tomes of text are written on tweaking batting stances, pitching motions, arm slots, etc., boiled down to its essence, it is simply about making better choices (given the athletic skillset you're stuck with).  The greats figure out that they strike out on the slider outside and figure out a way to not do that quite as much.  The not-so-greats just accept that as an unavoidable outcome of their skillset.
The reason Ackley was voted best college hitter of the decade was because he showed, during college, all those signs of refusal to accept failure and an unwavering work ethic to get better at something.  Moreover, he showed the ability to improve at one thing largely without sacrificing in another area.  THAT is what makes a great player.
That statistical "tell" that you might be onto someone special is "chaos" in the minor league stat line.  Not simply good, then bad, then good seasons - but good/bad/good swings where the breakdown of "choice" stats (walk, K, ISO), swing wildly.  If a player's BA swings wildly, but his BB%, K% and ISO remain stable, he's not learning, he's just erratic.  (If the K-rate simply climbs, and everything else is stable, that is the tell that he's losing the game to better competition).
The organizational stampede away from the quick-twitch Yuni/Lopez model to the "chaotic" (teachable) prospect could hardly be more stark.  The club lucked into tanking the perfect season to land Ackley.  The "skill" for Z is in viewing the 'chaos' of mere mortal students like Carp and rolling the dice anyway.