Add new comment

It's a valuable idea, no doubt.
Got to admit, it's a bit annoying the way that MINORS-K-RATE has become the be-all and end-all, the Swiss Army knife of saber analysis here.  Where is the study that says, X number of K's at Y level and you can forget about a career?
If a GM set an org policy -- hey, I don't want any player who fans more than 130 times per 550 in the minors -- I would take that as a reasonable and interesting org philosophy.  I would not share it, though.
.................
G pointed out a long set of players whose MINORS-K-RATES would have caused you to rule them out, but who went on to become impact players in the majors.
If we name another handful of impact ML bats who fanned a ton in the minors, are you just going to argue that they don't count for this or that reason?  ;- )
...............
Springer's K (and BB) rates reflect (1) the patience and deep counts; (2) probably unreliable 2-2 and 3-2 calls in college; and (3) possibly (who knows) some issues with his HIT skill.   ... Even if Springer's HIT were 40 or 50 -- unlikely -- it wouldn't mean he's not a blue-chipper.
But 60 walks and 70 strikeouts in 64 Big East games don't automatically equate to minus HIT the way you are portraying it.  
You are talking about a player with a .491 OBP, dude.  Let's not paint him as Dave Kingman.  :- )