Why is Jo Adell considered a top prospect?

[Skeely]

Originally Posted by rwperu34

I think I've found your blind spot that would make you think Adell is not a top prospect but Aquino is worth dumping over 20 large. You are fooled by small sample size. When you isolate on 245 PA and the guy has well over 1,000 total, you will be misled. Especially when those are the worst 245 PA of his life. Obviously he's got to bounce back from those 245 and it's not guaranteed he will, but it's just as likely he lights up AAA this year and gets called up and does well in The Show as it is he struggles.

When I do my own prospect list, I scout the stat line. To be successful at that the very first stat you have to look at is age relative to level. I have a formula I use and Adell ranks near the top in ARL.

You also need to use the MLB scouts to your benefit. Guys don't get 100+ PA in AAA at 20 and 100 in The Show at 21 unless they are a top prospect. Adell adds quality production and a top draft pick pedigree to go with it. Notice I haven't even touched on his scouting reports yet. I was able to infer all of that from just his stats. You throw in 50 hit and 70 power upside and yes, this is a top prospect.

The consensus had him at #4 last year, which is right around where I'd have put him if I had done my own list. I see no reason to dock him based on 120 PA....in The Show...in his age 21 year.

Im hardly basing adell not being a top prospect on just his major league at bats. Im basing it on the backwards progression of his statistics. When you combine his massive struggles at AAA with his MLB struggles and the fact that as he moved from single A to double A his stats got worse i dont understand the justification for him being a top prospect. Those 254 do speak to me much more than his AA and AAA at bats though to be fair though. Its certainly fair to not write the possibility of him being great off due to the smallish sample size but i do believe we have seen enough to not be calling him a top prospect. I have been very clear that im not writing him off completely I just don't think he has the statistics to back up his top prospect hype. I probably base my consensus on what a top prospect is on much more of a basis of actual on field performance then most though. I really couldn't care where someone got drafted if they have had the opportunity to back that up and i dont think adell has. I also couldn't care less what scouts say generally because until i see the performance on the field that is just talk and words based on opinions not factual information. I probably have a unique view of basing who i think is a top prospect and other than Aquino, Oscar Taveras and one or two more its served me pretty well.

[Trueblue]

Originally Posted by Skeely

Im hardly basing adell not being a top prospect on just his major league at bats. Im basing it on the backwards progression of his statistics. When you combine his massive struggles at AAA with his MLB struggles and the fact that as he moved from single A to double A his stats got worse i dont understand the justification for him being a top prospect. Those 254 do speak to me much more than his AA and AAA at bats though to be fair though. Its certainly fair to not write the possibility of him being great off due to the smallish sample size but i do believe we have seen enough to not be calling him a top prospect. I have been very clear that im not writing him off completely I just don't think he has the statistics to back up his top prospect hype. I probably base my consensus on what a top prospect is on much more of a basis of actual on field performance then most though. I really couldn't care where someone got drafted if they have had the opportunity to back that up and i dont think adell has. I also couldn't care less what scouts say generally because until i see the performance on the field that is just talk and words based on opinions not factual information. I probably have a unique view of basing who i think is a top prospect and other than Aquino, Oscar Taveras and one or two more its served me pretty well.

Maybe you should start caring about what scouts say to add context to your purchases.

The biggest difference between AA and AAA is the sharp increase in breaking balls. You need to pay attention at almost a forensic level to see how a prospect adjusts to that. There's a reason that GMs rely on these scouting reports. It's a reality check of a player being a stat accumulator versus big league regular. Aquino is a great example of a guy who was only able to punish fastballs but couldn't do anything against non-straight stuff. You would have saved a lot of money if you read those scouting reports that you think are silly.

[noaskiecards]

Sam Huff > Joe Adell?
Series 2 gonna be good ?

Sent from my SM-G970U1 using Tapatalk

[Skeely]

Originally Posted by Trueblue

Maybe you should start caring about what scouts say to add context to your purchases.

The biggest difference between AA and AAA is the sharp increase in breaking balls. You need to pay attention at almost a forensic level to see how a prospect adjusts to that. There's a reason that GMs rely on these scouting reports. It's a reality check of a player being a stat accumulator versus big league regular. Aquino is a great example of a guy who was only able to punish fastballs but couldn't do anything against non-straight stuff. You would have saved a lot of money if you read those scouting reports that you think are silly.

I have watched plenty of tape on Adell as well as some full game reruns of his AA and AAA games on youtube that can occasionally be found. I prefer to form my own opinions on a player while also taking into context some of what the scouts say. Also I am pretty darn happy with my overall profits on the combination of my previous non pc purchases. Thank you for your concern tho. And as far as Aquino i did not do as much hw as one should and that is a big reason why i make sure that i do my hw now as i have done on adell and almost every other rookie in this class. I tend to learn from my mistakes rather than dwell on them.

[Trueblue]

Originally Posted by Skeely

I have watched plenty of tape on Adell as well as some full game reruns of his AA and AAA games on youtube that can occasionally be found. I prefer to form my own opinions on a player while also taking into context some of what the scouts say. Also I am pretty darn happy with my overall profits on the combination of my previous non pc purchases. Thank you for your concern tho. And as far as Aquino i did not do as much hw as one should and that is a big reason why i make sure that i do my hw now as i have done on adell and almost every other rookie in this class. I tend to learn from my mistakes rather than dwell on them.

I understand the angle you're taking to save some face, but as another member mentioned before, if you can add 1+1, it is really hard to not acknowledge that Jo Adell isn't a top prospect in both an organizational and overall baseball sense. Profits you make in this hobby are irrelevant to having a sound methodology in evaluating prospects. It is not related in any sense.

If you came here and said Jo Adell is a top prospect from a tools and rookie ball to AA perspective, but you do not believe his tools will translate to skills as his mechanics are not sound and you're doubtful he makes the appropriate adjustments, that's a perfectly acceptable answer and I would not disagree with you. Heck, I would probably say that's the likely scenario if you just look at history. It happens all the time!

Again, top prospect does not equal bonafide star.

[Skeely]

Originally Posted by Trueblue

I understand the angle you're taking to save some face, but as another member mentioned before, if you can add 1+1, it is really hard to not acknowledge that Jo Adell isn't a top prospect in both an organizational and overall baseball sense. Profits you make in this hobby are irrelevant to having a sound methodology in evaluating prospects. It is not related in any sense.

If you came here and said Jo Adell is a top prospect from a tools and rookie ball to AA perspective, but you do not believe his tools will translate to skills as his mechanics are not sound and you're doubtful he makes the appropriate adjustments, that's a perfectly acceptable answer and I would not disagree with you. Heck, I would probably say that's the likely scenario if you just look at history. It happens all the time!

Again, top prospect does not equal bonafide star.

I think when i say that i believed he was rightfully a top prospect up until his struggles in AAA and the bigs that is essentially what im saying. I could see some raw talent and some obvious tools when he was performing in AA and below. However i do not believe he can still be considered a top prospect at this point. Just because he showed talent in lower levels doesn't mean he is required to be a top prospect after not performing for a while. I think the main difference we have in opinions is that his lack of performance in AAA and the majors is enough that although he is a possible breakout star he should have been stripped by this idea of him being a top prospect by now in my mind. You seem to believe that it is not a big enough sample size to strip him of that title of a top prospect. But i believe being a top prospect requires some sort of consistency in performance to the current day. To count him out would be foolish cause we know that there was some obvious tools in the past and anybody who's watched him play can acknowledge that but i believe at its core a top prospect should be someone who has either started poorly yet put up solid consistent numbers for some time or someone who has been consistent throughout. The harsh but true reality is that Adell was a strong player with tools in AA and A but has gone downhill in his progression. How many at bats with poor stats does he have to have in your mind before hes not a top prospect. I feel we are already at that point but you don't so where is it. If he hits the same way he has been for another two hundred at bats this season is that enough of a sample size? u have to draw the line somewhere right?

[clocsta2323]

The biggest self deception or maybe even outright BS perpetuated on these forums is how many people claim to watch "Tape" on prospects as if they know the first thing about scouting.

Look at Age, BB:K ratio/OBP, projected position and move on. Takes 3-5 minutes.

Everyone thinks they are a Keith Law or would be an MLB scout if they didn't have something preventing them from traveling 300+ days a year. Cracks me up.

NO ONE IS TAKING YOU PSUEDO SCOUTS SERIOUSLY

[Skeely]

Originally Posted by clocsta2323

The biggest self deception or maybe even outright BS perpetuated on these forums is how many people claim to watch "Tape" on prospects as if they know the first thing about scouting.

Look at Age, BB:K ratio/OBP, projected position and move on. Takes 3-5 minutes.

Everyone thinks they are a Keith Law or would be an MLB scout if they didn't have something preventing them from traveling 300+ days a year. Cracks me up.

NO ONE IS TAKING YOU PSUEDO SCOUTS SERIOUSLY

lol you can definitely watch tape to form an opinion without thinking your a scout or could be one. forming your own opinions on someone while taking the things scout say seriously but with a grain of salt is always the way to go in my opinion. I would personally prefer to put more than 3-5 minutes into a player before making any type of significant purchase but maybe that's just me. That being said if someone told me they thought they could be a scout on this board i would most likely laugh in there face.

[rwperu34]

Originally Posted by clocsta2323

The biggest self deception or maybe even outright BS perpetuated on these forums is how many people claim to watch "Tape" on prospects as if they know the first thing about scouting.

Look at Age, BB:K ratio/OBP, projected position and move on. Takes 3-5 minutes.

Everyone thinks they are a Keith Law or would be an MLB scout if they didn't have something preventing them from traveling 300+ days a year. Cracks me up.

NO ONE IS TAKING YOU PSUEDO SCOUTS SERIOUSLY

One problem I've found with the scouting reports is unless you're connected, to a group of scouts, you are probably just getting one person's interpretation of their observations. In many cases that will be of just one or two scouts to begin with.

On John Sickles old blog there were plenty of commenters who's opinions I trusted, in many cases over the "scouts". I definitely trust my own eyes more than the scouting reports for guys I've seen. The problem is that is limited to 10-15 minor league games a year. So in a good year I'll see the same guy maybe three times. I don't feel I gain anything from watching video that I can't tell from stats.

[Trueblue]

Originally Posted by rwperu34

One problem I've found with the scouting reports is unless you're connected, to a group of scouts, you are probably just getting one person's interpretation of their observations. In many cases that will be of just one or two scouts to begin with.



On John Sickles old blog there were plenty of commenters who's opinions I trusted, in many cases over the "scouts". I definitely trust my own eyes more than the scouting reports for guys I've seen. The problem is that is limited to 10-15 minor league games a year. So in a good year I'll see the same guy maybe three times. I don't feel I gain anything from watching video that I can't tell from stats.

This is very true. I liked John a lot cause he acknowledged when he was bias and also called out what would have to occur for his ranking or opinion to be off or on - he was usually right. Vox media really soul sucked a sanctuary of knowledge from minor league baseball when they cut the site. It's a real shame.

And yes, you should absolutely diversify with a multitude of scouts, opinions, and of course - indicative stats. This becomes even more true when you're talking about international guys with limited tape. I also agree that the average prospector on this forum has no damn idea what they are looking at on video, including most people in this thread.

[rwperu34]

So here's the question, I guess. Who are the better prospects than Jo Adell?

Wander-No doubt

Julio Rodriguez-Maybe I could buy that. He's not as athletic as Adell but is a big dude and has hit well at a young age, but he's only got 622 career PA and hasn't played above A+.

Kelenic-He's a year younger than Adell but only has 92 PA in the high minors. His production is very similar to Adell including getting worse up the ladder. No way.

Adley-Another maybe, but keep in mind he's older than Adell and only has 154 career minor league PA.

Torkelson-Again, same age as Adell with no minor league record.

ROyce Lewis-GTFO

Luciano-He's only had a solid run in the AZL and is an even worse defender than Adell. He's younger though, so at least there's that.

Abrams-Similar to Luciano except with defense.

I'm just not buying Adell as anything worse than a top 10 prospect, and even then you are stretching.

[Trueblue]

Originally Posted by rwperu34

So here's the question, I guess. Who are the better prospects than Jo Adell?

Wander-No doubt

Julio Rodriguez-Maybe I could buy that. He's not as athletic as Adell but is a big dude and has hit well at a young age, but he's only got 622 career PA and hasn't played above A+.

Kelenic-He's a year younger than Adell but only has 92 PA in the high minors. His production is very similar to Adell including getting worse up the ladder. No way.

Adley-Another maybe, but keep in mind he's older than Adell and only has 154 career minor league PA.

Torkelson-Again, same age as Adell with no minor league record.

ROyce Lewis-GTFO

Luciano-He's only had a solid run in the AZL and is an even worse defender than Adell. He's younger though, so at least there's that.

Abrams-Similar to Luciano except with defense.

I'm just not buying Adell as anything worse than a top 10 prospect, and even then you are stretching.

If you want to throw in Arozarena as a "prospect" by definition, I would not disagree - floor is valuable. Other than who you already mentioned (and Arozarena), there aren't any other bat prospects that you can make an intelligent argument to put ahead of Adell.

[rwperu34]

Originally Posted by Trueblue

If you want to throw in Arozarena as a "prospect" by definition, I would not disagree - floor is valuable. Other than who you already mentioned (and Arozarena), there aren't any other bat prospects that you can make an intelligent argument to put ahead of Adell.

Floor is valuable for an MLB team, I agree. For the hobby though...

[JWBlue]

Interesting for sure.

Huge difference between floor and ceiling.

[Trueblue]

Originally Posted by rwperu34

Floor is valuable for an MLB team, I agree. For the hobby though...

Normally, I would dismiss a 25 year old. But I mean, the floor is a .265/20/20 guy batting around Wander Franco and the ceiling is a sub .300 average and 30/30. I know he's 25, but his prices are already high for what he did in the post season. If he heeds closer to his ceiling, 26 be damned, he is hobby relevant as a five tooler.

Edit/Add - No I am not buying his stuff. I'm just saying he shouldn't be written off from hobby-relevant.

[doowopbruce]

Originally Posted by Trueblue

Normally, I would dismiss a 25 year old. But I mean, the floor is a .265/20/20 guy batting around Wander Franco and the ceiling is a sub .300 average and 30/30. I know he's 25, but his prices are already high for what he did in the post season. If he heeds closer to his ceiling, 26 be damned, he is hobby relevant as a five tooler.

Edit/Add - No I am not buying his stuff. I'm just saying he shouldn't be written off from hobby-relevant.

His ceiling is higher than 30 homers for a full season.

[Trueblue]

Originally Posted by doowopbruce

His ceiling is higher than 30 homers for a full season.

Won't disagree with yah! Who knows how the new balls effect power numbers.

[oplum29]

Originally Posted by cardsin47

I don’t know about you Guys, but since I’m a collector/ not a flipper, this is EXACTLY what I look for in a Prospect. One other guy comes to mind with a very similar resume —- his name is Juan S

there was another kid i remember absoultely ripping it up in the minors...his name is Ronald Acuna

[oplum29]

Originally Posted by speedyjg13

The next Garret Anderson or Tim Salmon maybe?

awesome examples! i always remember another Angel though...Troy Glaus.

there's too much of a "next Mike Trout" buzz right now though, that there is almost unrealistic expectations for prospects, it's crazy.

i know it's been around forever, but the truth is, for every stud prospect, you're gonna have an average player and for every average player, you're gonna have a bust.

you could look at some of the top players in MLB and they all fell under "the next" and landed in one of those three categories.

be it Heyward, Acuna, Soto, Baldelli, Meyers, etc

[rwperu34]

I've been on a bit of an Adell kick before the minor league season starts on May 6. Plenty of Heritage and Flagship parallels, but here is numero uno;

[cardsin47]

Originally Posted by premium1981

Can someone please fill me in on why Jo Adell is considered a top prospect? I will admit that I have only seen him play a few games but his numbers just do not back up him being a top level guy like I always hear people say. What am I missing?

Looks like the tougher the competition gets the worse he gets.

I see him being an average, AT BEST, player throughout his career. And yet, for some reason, he is constantly talked about as if he is some top tier talent. I just don't see it. Am I the only one? Am I missing something?

I love doing my new year research on all of the games top young talent, but he is a head scratcher for me.

The answer is - there is no answer! Baseball Prospecting is the most unreliable ( outcomes ) guessing games in all of SportsCards ( IMO ). In 2009, Mike Trout was the 25th pick in the June Amateur Draft - 25th! Put it all together - Scouts are like weather men —— might be right / might be wrong ~~ getting paid either way

[EastonElite]

Originally Posted by cardsin47

The answer is - there is no answer! Baseball Prospecting is the most unreliable ( outcomes ) guessing games in all of SportsCards ( IMO ). In 2009, Mike Trout was the 25th pick in the June Amateur Draft - 25th! Put it all together - Scouts are like weather men —— might be right / might be wrong ~~ getting paid either way

The problem is, you cannot scout or watch tape on the biggest factor, as to whether or not a player will make it.
All these prospects are talented. They can all play the game to some extent, or they wouldn't be signed/drafted.
What you cannot see is the mental side of a prospects game. Mental approach is HUGE in this game and virtually impossible to scout.

Never mind the fact that now, more than ever, players are getting signed on athleticism and projection as well, as opposed to whether or not they are a good baseball player. The belief that the organization can turn random "athletes" into hitters is not working well.

[cardsin47]

Originally Posted by EastonElite

The problem is, you cannot scout or watch tape on the biggest factor, as to whether or not a player will make it.
All these prospects are talented. They can all play the game to some extent, or they wouldn't be signed/drafted.
What you cannot see is the mental side of a prospects game. Mental approach is HUGE in this game and virtually impossible to scout.

Never mind the fact that now, more than ever, players are getting signed on athleticism and projection as well, as opposed to whether or not they are a good baseball player. The belief that the organization can turn random "athletes" into hitters is not working well.

Good points —- and of course the inability to predict how a Player will adjust to MLB Pitching. If your an NFL Prospect - Wide Receiver let’s say - catching the ball thrown from either a high level College Quarterback or NFL starting Quarterback is going to feel / be about the same.

Now in our world ( Baseball ) —- hitting the ball consistently is evidently a WHOLE lot different if the Pitcher is in AA or AAA vs. a Starter in The Show

[rwperu34]

Originally Posted by EastonElite

The problem is, you cannot scout or watch tape on the biggest factor, as to whether or not a player will make it.
All these prospects are talented. They can all play the game to some extent, or they wouldn't be signed/drafted.
What you cannot see is the mental side of a prospects game. Mental approach is HUGE in this game and virtually impossible to scout.

Never mind the fact that now, more than ever, players are getting signed on athleticism and projection as well, as opposed to whether or not they are a good baseball player. The belief that the organization can turn random "athletes" into hitters is not working well.

This hasn't stopped teams from trying. I was at a talk many years ago with Jon Daniels and the Rangers top scout at the time. Even back then they said the scouts job was more about figuring out who could handle it mentally rather than physically. I imagine that is even more so now that they have the cameras and radar.

[Vegemight]

Originally Posted by cardsin47

Now in our world ( Baseball ) —- hitting the ball consistently is evidently a WHOLE lot different if the Pitcher is in AA or AAA vs. a Starter in The Show

Yes, I can only imagine how difficult a transition it must be to come to the big league with your possibly gaudy looking AAA stats, and then find yourself facing the likes of Jacob deGrom, Max Scherzer, Gerrit Cole, or Clayton Kershaw.

The great players are the ones who successfully make this adjustment.