Add new comment

I definitely get where Taro is coming from.  And he's done a STELLAR job in assembling "aggregate" data to support the idea of a K-rate "tipping point".  Bravo.
That said ... I will bring up a few points I "think" might help the Trayvon cause. 
In my years of scanning minor leaguers (informally), I seem to recall a tendency for high SPEED guys with high Ks to 'generally' beat their counterparts in "stickability".  As Doc notes, there are still some Ryan Howard slug successes.  But, after you go ... 25% K = 25% chance of success, I want to go see if there are any traits which seperate the 25% and the 75% in the high K group.
The REASON high Ks are bad is they are outs without a BIP.  And given "standard" BIP rates, (.300), you can't get back to near a .300 average unless you hit a LOT over the fence, (the Howard profile). 
Trayvon stole 47 bases in 2009.  His percentage isn't great ... but he's a switch-hitter with speed, so he's almost guaranteed to run a higher BABIP than "normal". 
The utterly ridiculous 2011 HR/2B rate is also a typical sign of "sluggers" who "got it".  Even counting 2/3 of the triples as doubles, he's got a 2:1 HR/2B ratio ... which is one of my tells on sluggers taking it to the next level.
Another point is ... BA.  The stat statheads have all but forgotten.  If a K-rate is going to crush a guy, it'll tend to crush him in the minors too.  You show me a .250 high-K minors guy, and I'm betting on MLB failure, too.  You show me a .300 average high-K guy ... I'm gonna look further.  Trayvon hit .300 in 2010 and .293 in 2011. 
As for career minors rates ... *I* am one of those who "foolishly" look at career MiLB rates.  My rationale?  I want to try and temper my enthusasiasm for "career years".  The biggest trap (IMO) with prospects is the core belief that every stat produced is based on ability.  You can't tell the difference between an "outlier" year and "real" improvement until after the fact.  Examination of career lines is good for tempering fixation on the "latest greatest" season of data.  (Not the whole story - and you have to look when & WHERE the big numbers were produced, of course).
Trayvon's .293/.375/.436 (.794) line isn't astounding.  But, a .293 career average with a 25% career K-rate ... THAT is.  Or, at least encouraging.
Another primary key for me with high-K guys is simple.  Do their Ks rise as they do?  The high-K failures I've noted tended to get progressively worse as they came up.  That's an indication of being overmatched and unable to adapt.  The successes seemed (IIRC) to have flatter K-rates.  They struck out a ton in A, but got no WORSE in AAA.
I see Trayvon getting worse from AA to AAA, (but not outside normal variance), but he's doing it at the same time he went from 23:9 2B:HR to 9:26 2B:HR.  His ISOBB dropped, his K-rate goes up, but his ISO goes completely off the charts, (150 career compared to 270 in AAA). 
Trayvon morphed in 2011.  And the subtlest tell of all?  He went from 53 SB "attempts to 14.  Trayvon *became* a HR stalker in 2011.  Whether by choice or by coaching, he ditched his speed game almost entirely. 
Trayvon Ks roughly once per game played.  Been true since he was 18.  Still true.  It's not a "pattern" of being overmatched.  And his line from 2011 shows a massive change in approach, with only a nominal rise in K-rate (in exchange for a massive increase in ISO). 
I see the danger.  But, I'd gamble on Trayvon waaaay before I'd bet on Saunders.  The biggest danger (IMO), is not the K-rate ... but the risk that 2011 is an outlier.  But the sheer magnitude of the 2011 power surge demands that "some" of it is legit.