Why is Jo Adell considered a top prospect?

[awz50]

Check out his IG

Posts more than he practices

[Skeely]

Originally Posted by speedyjg13

People buying because they don't know better and hope he turns it around. Each level Adell moves up in the organization, he gets worse.

Maddon already said he will start 2021 in the minors.

Angels already got Dexter Fowler for RF.

If the Angels are smart, they trade Adell while his stock is "high" for some pitching.

One hundred percent agree that they should cash him in for some pitching. Lets be real although the angels hitting hasnt been the absolute best in the league its far from there most significant problem. Putting up runs does nothing for you is u give up more runs anyways. I read a statistic the other day that the angels were 25th in team era in the league last year. Doesnt matter if you have the best player in the league in mike trout as well as some other solid bats. Averaging 5 plus earned runs a game is not going to get you a playoff run and thats that.

[Trueblue]

We have a lot of keyboard major league scouts in this thread! Very impressive!

[katho]

I think anybody who played in the weird 2020 season,should be given a pass...Nothing went as it should

[BigSlim16]

Originally Posted by awz50

Check out his IG

Posts more than he practices

I just sold all my Trout cards because all he does is post pictures of his stupid wife and kid, he's clearly not practicing either

(not comparing Adell to Trout, just think it's ridiculous to judge someone's work ethic on what they post on instagram)

[Skeely]

Originally Posted by katho

I think anybody who played in the weird 2020 season,should be given a pass...Nothing went as it should

True. But as others have pointed out Adell has gotten much worse as he moved up through the minors far before 2020. I would expect even a top level talent to have some drop off moving through the minors as its obviously a better level of pitching most of the time. But Adell has managed to make noticeable strides backwards statistically at every level that are beyond what you would expect from a supposed top upcoming rookie.

[Skeely]

Originally Posted by BigSlim16

I just sold all my Trout cards because all he does is post pictures of his stupid wife and kid, he's clearly not practicing either

(not comparing Adell to Trout, just think it's ridiculous to judge someone's work ethic on what they post on instagram)

Agreed. If he really is posting more than he practices than he should be judged on that but there is no way for anybody to really know that hes not practicing unless your in the angels system or know him personally. Citing the amount of instagram posts as a poor work ethic is far from practical or realistic.

[oldgoldy97]

Originally Posted by Trueblue

We have a lot of keyboard major league scouts in this thread! Very impressive!

Because of the guys saying he will do poorly?

[Skeely]

Originally Posted by Trueblue

We have a lot of keyboard major league scouts in this thread! Very impressive!

I hardly think anybody is saying they are a scout or think they are absolutely right. Simply stating an opinion and doing my best to back it up with some statistics. It is a baseball card forum after all.

[Trueblue]

Originally Posted by oldgoldy97

Because of the guys saying he will do poorly?

There's nothing wrong with saying someone is poor if you have a sound reasoning. Most of the reasons however are one of "Mike Trout didn't struggle this much" or "he looked bad in his 124 ABs, complete bust" or "Angels should trade him while other teams still think he's worth something" or "he's old now at 21, Acuna was a star at 20" -- it just looks like the bottom of a MLBTR article with a bunch of people yelling at clouds.

There are some critical perspectives that are valid and credible - kudos to those people. I don't own a lot of Jo Adel, but it's just hard to not laugh at this thread.

[Skeely]

Originally Posted by Trueblue

There's nothing wrong with saying someone is poor if you have a sound reasoning. Most of the reasons however are one of "Mike Trout didn't struggle this much" or "he looked bad in his 124 ABs, complete bust" or "Angels should trade him while other teams still think he's worth something" or "he's old now at 21, Acuna was a star at 20" -- it just looks like the bottom of a MLBTR article with a bunch of people yelling at clouds.

There are some critical perspectives that are valid and credible - kudos to those people. I don't own a lot of Jo Adel, but it's just hard to not laugh at this thread.

The mike trout argument is never credible and neither is the acuna argument. Its foolish to compare any rookie to those guys. But when you combine his lack of impressive performance in the minors with those 124 at bats in majors it does start to resemble that there is a problem. Nobody's saying he cant fix those problems but the hype and current prices for him just arent justified of stats. they are justified based on a "he might turn it around argument" and a whole lot of unwarranted hype. should he be considered a possible breakout player with his rookies selling at 2 dollars per. Probably. Should he be considered a top rookie going into the year and his base selling for 4-7 dollars on ebay. Definitely not. Show me actual performance based statistics that back the current hype or prices and ill eat my words.

[Trueblue]

Originally Posted by Skeely

The mike trout argument is never credible and neither is the acuna argument. Its foolish to compare any rookie to those guys. But when you combine his lack of impressive performance in the minors with those 124 at bats in majors it does start to resemble that there is a problem. Nobody's saying he cant fix those problems but the hype and current prices for him just arent justified of stats. they are justified based on a "he might turn it around argument" and a whole lot of unwarranted hype. should he be considered a possible breakout player with his rookies selling at 2 dollars per. Probably. Should he be considered a top rookie going into the year and his base selling for 4-7 dollars on ebay. Definitely not. Show me actual performance based statistics that back the current hype or prices and ill eat my words.

Whoa whoa, I'm not making any argument with you that his current S1 prices are justified. Calm down, dude.

All I said there is a lack of definitive data to make generalized statements. 124 ABs is incredibly small and there have been slumps from HoF superstars longer than that.

[Skeely]

Originally Posted by Trueblue

Whoa whoa, I'm not making any argument with you that his current S1 prices are justified. Calm down, dude.

All I said there is a lack of definitive data to make generalized statements. 124 ABs is incredibly small and there have been slumps from HoF superstars longer than that.

im calm lol. i promise you im not heated over one rookie that im not even buying. Just responding to your comment. You are correct though that making a generalized statement is irrational at this point. The title of the thread is asking why hes considered a top prospect and in my opinion he should not be. You never know if hes going to turn it around as your right that plenty have stars have started out rough and turned it around. However based on his current statistics he should not be hyped up as much as he is nor should his prices be what they are. We will see this year how he does. I wouldnt mind him doing well and eating my words because him playing very well would put us one step closer to seeing playoff mike trout lol.

[Trueblue]

Originally Posted by Skeely

im calm lol. i promise you im not heated over one rookie that im not even buying. Just responding to your comment. You are correct though that making a generalized statement is irrational at this point. The title of the thread is asking why hes considered a top prospect and in my opinion he should not be. You never know if hes going to turn it around as your right that plenty have stars have started out rough and turned it around. However based on his current statistics he should not be hyped up as much as he is nor should his prices be what they are. We will see this year how he does. I wouldnt mind him doing well and eating my words because him playing very well would put us one step closer to seeing playoff mike trout lol.

Hobby and player/prospect value are two different things. See the below as an example:

Summary: Over a 3+ year career, Adell has shown great set of player-age relative statistics up to the point of a 124AB COVID MLB debut season. He was originally supposed to start in AAA to tighten his strike zone to maximize his plus (or plus plus) batspeed and power. He ended up being called up earlier to fill a short term team need and ended up showing poor plate discipline and a high K-rate, as expected by many scouts. Even his defense was effected adversely from his frustration at the plate.

Based on the factual summary above, you will gravitate to different parts depending on your interest. Anyone from an organizational/player dev side is going to say: no problem - bumps are expected and he just needs to tighten the strike zone, which is very common at his age. He is still a top prospect. On the hobby side however: he did terrible in the majors at 21 when Tatis was the same age - my Adell cards are worth half now. This guy is not following the path of a superstar player like Trout, Acuna, Soto, or Tatis. He is definitely not a top prospect.

It's just polar opposite in terms of logic and patience. Scouts don't always get it right, but they rely on a multitude of measurements other than who's priced too high in Topps Series 1. Adell, by all definitions is still a top prospect.

[Skeely]

Originally Posted by Trueblue

Hobby and player/prospect value are two different things. See the below as an example:

Summary: Over a 3+ year career, Adell has shown great set of player-age relative statistics up to the point of a 124AB COVID MLB debut season. He was originally supposed to start in AAA to tighten his strike zone to maximize his plus (or plus plus) batspeed and power. He ended up being called up earlier to fill a short term team need and ended up showing poor plate discipline and a high K-rate, as expected by many scouts. Even his defense was effected adversely from his frustration at the plate.

Based on the factual summary above, you will gravitate to different parts depending on your interest. Anyone from an organizational/player dev side is going to say: no problem - bumps are expected and he just needs to tighten the strike zone, which is very common at his age. He is still a top prospect. On the hobby side however: he did terrible in the majors at 21 when Tatis was the same age - my Adell cards are worth half now. This guy is not following the path of a superstar player like Trout, Acuna, Soto, or Tatis. He is definitely not a top prospect.

It's just polar opposite in terms of logic and patience. Scouts don't always get it right, but they rely on a multitude of measurements other than who's priced too high in Topps Series 1. Adell, by all definitions is still a top prospect.

I can see your point reference differences between the hobbys definitions of a top prospect and an mlb organizations. However we have a clearly different view on what "a great set of player age relative statistics" are. I personally dont find his minor league statistcs anything to write home about especially on the offensive side of the ball. I see no reason to expect a .294 average or 35 homeruns through 1000 plus at bats or whatever it exactly is through 3 years of minor league ball to translate into success against big league pitching. I can give you that 124 games is a very small sample size and if he had put up outstanding numbers in the minors i would be all aboard that train. But the reality is his minor league numbers are less than what would be expected from a player of his past and present organizational and league wide ranking. Ill say it again, he might end up being a top talent but at this point i see nothing concrete to indicate that collectors nor scouts should be as high on him as they are or have the expectations they seem to have for him.

[Trueblue]

Originally Posted by Skeely

I can see your point reference differences between the hobbys definitions of a top prospect and an mlb organizations. However we have a clearly different view on what "a great set of player age relative statistics" are. I personally dont find his minor league statistcs anything to write home about especially on the offensive side of the ball. I see no reason to expect a .294 average or 35 homeruns through 1000 plus at bats or whatever it exactly is through 3 years of minor league ball to translate into success against big league pitching. I can give you that 124 games is a very small sample size and if he had put up outstanding numbers in the minors i would be all aboard that train. But the reality is his minor league numbers are less than what would be expected from a player of his past and present organizational and league wide ranking. Ill say it again, he might end up being a top talent but at this point i see nothing concrete to indicate that collectors nor scouts should be as high on him as they are or have the expectations they seem to have for him.

The key phrase was "player age relative"

Yes, it's not impressive when a 24 year old lights up single A. There aren't a lot of players that we're doing what Adell was doing at his age at that level. He was the youngest player at AA upon promotion if I can recall.

Now does great prospect and great player age relative stats = superstar? No. But he is still a top prospect that baseball should be excited about.

[Skeely]

Originally Posted by Trueblue

The key phrase was "player age relative"

Yes, it's not impressive when a 24 year old lights up single A. There aren't a lot of players that we're doing what Adell was doing at his age at that level. He was the youngest player at AA upon promotion if I can recall.

Now does great prospect and great player age relative stats = superstar? No. But he is still a top prospect that baseball should be excited about.

Did he not hit .264 with 0 home runs in triple A as a 20 year old in 121 at bats? I would not consider that "great" player age stats. Even in that small of a sample size from a top prospect I would expect some sort of results. How does that lack of success at AAA translate into major league success? Did 124 mostly unsuccessful at bats in the bigs make him learn so much or adjust so much that hes now going to be able to perform well? maybe but its highly unlikely.

[oldgoldy97]

Originally Posted by Trueblue

There's nothing wrong with saying someone is poor if you have a sound reasoning. Most of the reasons however are one of "Mike Trout didn't struggle this much" or "he looked bad in his 124 ABs, complete bust" or "Angels should trade him while other teams still think he's worth something" or "he's old now at 21, Acuna was a star at 20" -- it just looks like the bottom of a MLBTR article with a bunch of people yelling at clouds.

There are some critical perspectives that are valid and credible - kudos to those people. I don't own a lot of Jo Adel, but it's just hard to not laugh at this thread.

I really can’t argue with this.

Or mock it.

You’re no fun.

[Trueblue]

Originally Posted by Skeely

Did he not hit .264 with 0 home runs in triple A as a 20 year old in 121 at bats? I would not consider that "great" player age stats. Even in that small of a sample size from a top prospect I would expect some sort of results. How does that lack of success at AAA translate into major league success? Did 124 mostly unsuccessful at bats in the bigs make him learn so much or adjust so much that hes now going to be able to perform well? maybe but its highly unlikely.

Look at the trends closer. Adell always struggles upon promotion to a new level and adjusts to crush it. He is a notoriously hard worker and coachable. It was an absolute mistake to promote Adell so early. If history was any indication he would have probably gone back to AAA and owned it. That clearly wasn't an option and the Angels sent an unprepared kid to the majors.

Coachability and adjustments are the things nobody talks about in the card world.

Also, do you know how impressive it is to even be in AAA at 20?

[Skeely]

Originally Posted by Trueblue

Look at the trends closer. Adell always struggles upon promotion to a new level and adjusts to crush it. He is a notoriously hard worker and coachable. It was an absolute mistake to promote Adell so early. If history was any indication he would have probably gone back to AAA and owned it. That clearly wasn't an option and the Angels sent an unprepared kid to the majors.

Coachability and adjustments are the things nobody talks about in the card world.

Also, do you know how impressive it is to even be in AAA at 20?

I agree that they promoted him way too early but that doesn't change his actual stats. Bad coaching can be detrimental to a player but just because its not essentially the players fault doesnt mean there stats wont still suffer. And for the top prospect level he is supposed to be according to many 20 at triple a is not that overwhelming. It is a huge thing for a 20 year old to be in AAA of course but when you put it in terms of him being a so called top prospect it is not that rare among players that were not drafted out of college originally. Also being in AAA means nothing if you cant put up numbers there. If you put a 16 year old international signee in AAA and he hits .180 is he a top prospect just because he was in triple A? Until i see actual solid above average statistics from play on the field I am simply not going to consider a player a top prospect. And Adell's numbers so far are not above average they are average at best. Hes a decent breakout candidate but he is far from a top prospect or top rookie from this class or in general. And as far as him being a hardworker and coachable that is a very bright sign for a possible future breakout but does not in anyway make him a top prospect in this moment .If he comes out and performs at a level that is expected from a top rookie this season i will be the first one to gladly eat my words.

[Trueblue]

Originally Posted by Skeely

I agree that they promoted him way too early but that doesn't change his actual stats. Bad coaching can be detrimental to a player but just because its not essentially the players fault doesnt mean there stats wont still suffer. And for the top prospect level he is supposed to be according to many 20 at triple a is not that overwhelming. It is a huge thing for a 20 year old to be in AAA of course but when you put it in terms of him being a so called top prospect it is not that rare among players that were not drafted out of college originally. Also being in AAA means nothing if you cant put up numbers there. If you put a 16 year old international signee in AAA and he hits .180 is he a top prospect just because he was in triple A? Until i see actual solid above average statistics from play on the field I am simply not going to consider a player a top prospect. And Adell's numbers so far are not above average they are average at best. Hes a decent breakout candidate but he is far from a top prospect or top rookie from this class or in general. And as far as him being a hardworker and coachable that is a very bright sign for a possible future breakout but does not in anyway make him a top prospect in this moment .If he comes out and performs at a level that is expected from a top rookie this season i will be the first one to gladly eat my words.

It seems you have a very hobby oriented definition of "top prospect." In the real world, there's more to it than stats. It's the presence of raw tools and ability to translate to skills. You can be 17 in single A hitting .250 but still be a top prospect if you have the tools and a path to translate it to skills.

You're basically saying that Jo Adell doesn't have great tools and a path to translate it to skills. Not everyone can be Mike Trout or Ronald Acuna.

You are also saying that writers and scouts far more knowledgeable than you and I are wrong. Keep in mind "top prospect" doesn't mean bonafide superstar.

[Skeely]

Originally Posted by Trueblue

It seems you have a very hobby oriented definition of "top prospect." In the real world, there's more to it than stats. It's the presence of raw tools and ability to translate to skills. You can be 17 in single A hitting .250 but still be a top prospect if you have the tools and a path to translate it to skills.

You're basically saying that Jo Adell doesn't have great tools and a path to translate it to skills. Not everyone can be Mike Trout or Ronald Acuna.

You are also saying that writers and scouts far more knowledgeable than you and I are wrong. Keep in mind "top prospect" doesn't mean bonafide superstar.

i dont think its just a hobby oriented definition at all. We measure production for a baseball player through stats both for hobby love and to see if they are actually helping there team and playing well. If its a pitcher we look for a good era, a good k rate etc. When its a hitter we look at average and beyond that we look at home runs and on base percentage and slugging percentage etc. Jo Adell does not have the stats to back up the idea of him being a top prospect. And i would argue that a 17 year old whos seen one year max of time in the minors is much different than a 21 year old who we have got to see play at multiple levels of the minors and have seen some actual major league at bats. That's comparing apples to oranges in my book. Jo Adell has had enough time to back up that he actually is a top prospect and although i believe he was at one point his lack of ability to produce has to have him stripped of that imaginary title by now.And if we actually went purely off what writers and scouts said and didnt form our own opinions of players we would just be a bunch of sheep following people who have been wrong before and will be wrong again at times.

[Trueblue]

Originally Posted by Skeely

i dont think its just a hobby oriented definition at all. We measure production for a baseball player through stats both for hobby love and to see if they are actually helping there team and playing well. If its a pitcher we look for a good era, a good k rate etc. When its a hitter we look at average and beyond that we look at home runs and on base percentage and slugging percentage etc. Jo Adell does not have the stats to back up the idea of him being a top prospect. And i would argue that a 17 year old whos seen one year max of time in the minors is much different than a 21 year old who we have got to see play at multiple levels of the minors and have seen some actual major league at bats. That's comparing apples to oranges in my book. Jo Adell has had enough time to back up that he actually is a top prospect and although i believe he was at one point his lack of ability to produce has to have him stripped of that imaginary title by now.

Dude. 6 or 7 of the first 10 draft picks this *past year are older or born in the same year as Adell. It seems increasingly clear that you have no idea how tools work in baseball and what constitutes a prospect.

For the third or fourth time, it's about the tools to skills and development curve in relation to age - this is everything. You're not going to get around it. Sorry.

[rwperu34]

Originally Posted by Skeely

Did he not hit .264 with 0 home runs in triple A as a 20 year old in 121 at bats? I would not consider that "great" player age stats. Even in that small of a sample size from a top prospect I would expect some sort of results. How does that lack of success at AAA translate into major league success? Did 124 mostly unsuccessful at bats in the bigs make him learn so much or adjust so much that hes now going to be able to perform well? maybe but its highly unlikely.

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.

[StraWMyerS]

I don't know if Adell is the next Lewis Brinson or the next Albert Belle, but he is definitely a top prospect. Even the best prospects have a very low chance of reaching their ceiling. He is just one of those guys with a ton of tools but a wide range of potential outcomes, due to some significant weaknesses in his game.. which is to be expected for 21 year olds.

From a hobby perspective, yeah... we are looking at a ton of risk. Obviously the market cap on a guy like Adell is very high and there are much safer options. That said, there is plenty of money in other guys that are unlikely to pan out but also don't have half of the raw potential that Adell has.

Full disclosure: I have a pair of high end Adell cards and still not certain what my plan is at this time..