Click here to log in

Click here for forgotten password

Click here to subscribe

<< Previous Article

Prospectus Today: Chan... (02/17)

<< Previous Column

Future Shock: Royals T... (02/12)

Next Column >>

Future Shock: Twins To... (02/19)

Next Article >>

Utley in the Middle (02/18)

Printer-friendly

February 17, 2009

Future Shock

Los Angeles Angels Top 11 Prospects

by Kevin Goldstein

top 11 prospects

LOS ANGELES ANGELS
Team Audit | DT Cards | PECOTA Cards | Depth Chart

Four-Star Prospects
1. Jordan Walden, RHP
2. Nick Adenhart, RHP
Three-Star Prospects
3. Hank Conger, C
4. Trevor Reckling, LHP
5. Peter Bourjos, CF
6. Tyler Chatwood, RHP
7. Will Smith, LHP
8. Mark Trumbo, 1B
9. Manuarys Correa, RHP
10. Luis Jiminez, 3B
11. Sean O'Sullivan, RHP

Just Missed: Robert Fish, LHP; Kevin Jepsen, RHP; Alex Torres, LHP

Ranking Challenges: They were numerous. It's very hard to properly value Nick Adenhart's still-optimistic scouting reports against his mediocre performance record. As for Hank Conger—is it fair to assume he's still a catcher? There is a ton of dead wood in the upper levels of the system, and it's hard to determine which of the high-ceiling young players have the best chance to succeed.

The rest of this article is restricted to Baseball Prospectus Subscribers.

Not a subscriber?

Click here for more information on Baseball Prospectus subscriptions or use the buttons to the right to subscribe and get access to the best baseball content on the web.

Already a subscriber? Click here and use the blue login bar to log in.

31 comments have been left for this article.

BP Comment Quick Links

code of conduct

salamander

(15530)

Some nitpicking user feedback: is you're going to give all the systems 4 or 5 stars on the front page, what's the point of doing it at all? I mean, the Astros are pretty universally considered one of the worst systems right now, yet they still rate 4 stars?

I understand the difficulties of trying to define the difference between a 4 star and 5 star player or not wanting to try and rate players 1 star to 10 stars or whatever, but I suppose I'd have the same complaint if you rated every prospect 4 or 5 stars without any 3 or 2 or 1 star players.

Enjoy your work, though.

Feb 17, 2009 08:20 AM

rating: -1

ostrowj1

(8095)

I don't think the stars represent the team's system, they represent the team's top prospect. In this case, Jordan Walden is 4 stars.

Feb 17, 2009 08:30 AM

rating: 0

salamander

(15530)

You are an observant human.

I am not.

I will retreat from the field showered in shame.

Feb 17, 2009 09:22 AM

rating: 3

Dr. Dave

(1652)

Other readers have rated this comment below the viewing threshold. Click here to view anyway.

[Bourjos's] tools are that of a leadoff man, but he's an impatient hitter

Is this really a BP article? Avoiding outs is the only leadoff hitter tool that matters, to a first approximation. We've known this for decades now. Basestealing is a leadoff tool the way a powerful arm is a first baseman's tool -- great as a bonus, but irrelevant if he can't do the important things. Eddie Yost (who went 1-for-12 in SB attempts one year) was a much better leadoff hitter than Vince Coleman.

Feb 17, 2009 08:56 AM

rating: -5

fellajsmall

(39851)

Dr. Dave: "to a first approximation"? lol are you writing a dissertation or a wall post.

I shouldn't have to tell a doctor this, being a lowly grad student but the little inclusion of "but" means means that he would be a solid lead off hitter if he works on his plate discipline. It dosen't mean he is a good leadoff hitter with the lack of plate discipline.

Feb 17, 2009 09:20 AM

rating: 0

Dr. Dave

(1652)

I'm writing English, and trying to say what I mean without lying. I tend to do that whether it's a dissertation or a text message. YMMV.

Saying that he'd be a good leadoff hitter if he improves his plate discipline is exactly like saying he'd be a good cleanup hitter if he started hitting home runs. It's not quite as bad as saying I'd be a good goalie if I were 11 inches taller, but that's the flavor of it. It's misleading because it looks, at first glance, a lot like "he has a starting pitcher's tool set, but needs to perfect some kind of changeup", which is a much more plausible development.

Feb 17, 2009 09:48 AM

rating: -2

fellajsmall

(39851)

Developing a change up is more plausible than developing plate discipline?

I am not sure how to discuss baseball with someone who believes that.

Feb 17, 2009 10:05 AM

rating: -3

James Martin Cole

(31941)

Dude, he's 21 years old. It's not like he's 30 and increasing his number of BB's is out of the question. Anyway, Kevin acknowledged the limitation that you're complaining about in the very sentence you quoted. And then he goes on to say:

Glass Half Empty: His lack of plate discipline will make him a fourth outfielder.

What is the problem?

Feb 17, 2009 10:16 AM

rating: 0

Kevin Goldstein

BP staff

(27460)

Drawing walks is a tool, not a skill, and avoiding outs is NOT the only thing that matters in a leadoff man in my mind. If you presented me with a .400 obp guy who can't run and a .365 obp guy who can fly, the second player is a better leadoff man. There are three other bases you need to guy to run to.

Leadoff men ideally need to get on base AND run well. When you don't have that combination, it's fine to go with a Yost-esque player, but it's hardly ideal.

Feb 17, 2009 10:19 AM

Dr. Dave

(1652)

Thanks for the reply, Kevin.

Drawing walks is a tool, not a skill

I suspect you meant that the other way around. I'm willing to be convinced I'm wrong about this, but it seems to me that developing unexpected power is at least as common as developing unexpected plate discipline as a pro. Sammy Sosa is pretty much the only example that springs to mind of the latter.

If you presented me with a .400 obp guy who can't run and a .365 obp guy who can fly, the second player is a better leadoff man.

That's precisely where we disagree. The difference between those 2 guys, over the course of a season, is that your #2-#5 hitters bat an extra 35-40 times behind the .400 guy. You can count on one hand the number of guys in the history of MLB who were good enough on the bases to make up that kind of deficit year after year in a modern run-scoring environment.

(Besides, if you lead the speed guy off, you waste part of the value of his speed, which is avoiding more outs by staying out of GIDP.)

Feb 17, 2009 10:56 AM

rating: 2

fellajsmall

(39851)

I think the main hang up here is that you think developing plate discipline is extremley hard to do.

Obviously, there can be varrying degrees of plate discipline but typically players do improve in that area as they get older.

Feb 17, 2009 11:12 AM

rating: -1

alskor

(39403)

Players do improve their discipline and patience as they get old, but think of it more as "slight improvements" and "over the course of their career."

Not so much "drastic improvements" and "upon reaching the high minors/MLB."

The ability of young players (like Andrus) to improve their OBP/walk rate is being dramatically overstated as of late.

Feb 17, 2009 12:36 PM

rating: 0

Matthew Avery

(39859)

There's a reason you don't see a lot of 1Bs leading off, and it's not their low OBA's. You can't compare these theoretical .400 OBA and .365 OBA + speed guys because "leadoff hitter" isn't the only spot you have in a lineup. You have to consider opportunity cost. A guy with elite speed and a strong OBA is used to maximum potential in the leadoff spot where he can get on base and move around them quickly. A guy with a .400 OBA can probably fit in most anywhere. If you bat him leadoff instead of 2nd or 3rd or 5th or something, that means you're putting someone else there like, say, your .365 OBA + speed guy. Surely that's not optimal.

The real problem is making blanket statements in a vacuum without considering who you've got in the other 8 spots of your lineup.

Feb 17, 2009 14:27 PM

rating: -1

Kevin Goldstein

BP staff

(27460)

Yes, I reversed those.

Can I use this space here to say that the story of Sammy Sosa developing unexpected plate discipline is pretty much a myth. He still had horrible plate discipline, it's just that nobody would throw him a strike.

As for the 2-players question; I poised it to many people in the industry, including many who are, shall we say, stat-inclined, and 4 out of 5 want the 70 runner.

Feb 17, 2009 21:24 PM

Pat Folz

(6254)

"avoiding outs" is not a tool, at least not in the traditional sense that KG has been using for years.

Feb 17, 2009 10:23 AM

rating: 1

tdrury

(12878)

I think the distinction here is maybe one between "tools" and "skills"?

Feb 17, 2009 11:51 AM

rating: 0

tdrury

(12878)

Wait a minute, I posted the above before reading Kevin's answer... nevermind. Nice to see I was on the right track though

Feb 17, 2009 11:52 AM

rating: 0

fellajsmall

(39851)

I am very underwhelmed by this list - especially for a team that people typically refer to as drafting well. Obviously they haven't had alot of first round picks.

They have a slew of early picks this year and I wouldn't be surprised to see 3 or 4 on this list next year.

Feb 17, 2009 09:21 AM

rating: 1

West21

(16224)

How is Brandon Wood's name still on there? Hasn't he proven to enough people he is awful?

Feb 17, 2009 09:29 AM

rating: -3

brianpsmith

(832)

Wood hit 296/375/595 with 31 homers in 103 games as a 23 year old at Triple-A Salt Lake, all while bouncing up and down between the majors and minors all summer, and moving back and forth between short and third. How is that "awful"? If you're the Angels are you really going to give up on him at this point, or would you just plant him at one position, give him 500 PAs in the majors, and see what he can do?

Feb 17, 2009 09:40 AM

rating: 1

Kevin Goldstein

BP staff

(27460)

Couldn't have said it better myself.

Feb 17, 2009 10:19 AM

alskor

(39403)

Anyone who doesnt burst on the scene as a ready made fantasy God like Evan Longoria is immediately labeled a "bust" or "awful" these days.

Feb 17, 2009 12:37 PM

rating: 0

Birdfan01

(45859)

Ya those are some impressive numbers for Wood, but lets not forget a couple of things. He put up those numbers in the PCL, one of the best hitter's leagues in the minors, and played his home games in one of the very best hitter's parks in the minors. Making those numbers look a little bit less impressive is the fact that Wood was repeating the league. Furthermore, he played extremely poorly in both the majors and the Dominican Winter league this year.

I'm not saying Wood should be forgotten about or labeled a bust just yet, but I think expectations should be tempered a bit. He is not a guarantee to hit in the majors, and I think KG would be hard pressed to find many GMs or scouting directors who would rather have him than Walden.

Feb 17, 2009 16:34 PM

rating: 0

James Martin Cole

(31941)

So what's the reason for their not playing Wood at 1st, and then some combo of Izturis/Figgins @ 3rd, Izturis/Aybar at SS, Wood at 1st, and Morales nowhere?

I mean, short of one of these guys hitting .210, this has got to be better than trotting Morales out there every day.

Feb 17, 2009 10:05 AM

rating: 1

DGBL

(32998)

I'd argue that Adenhart didn't get off to a great start. Sure, his 0.87 April ERA looked great, but he had a 15/19 BB/K and that isn't an indication of someone pitching that great. That promotion to the big leagues was ill-fated.

Among pitchers, I think I'd put Reckling and Smith ahead of him, but that's just me.

Feb 17, 2009 10:25 AM

rating: 1

ryanghan2000

(38998)

Any thoughts on Clay Fuller?

Feb 17, 2009 10:39 AM

rating: 0

jdelavalle

(6982)

I dont understand all the love for Brandon Wood, and the lack of appreciation for Sean Rodriguez. I agree that Wood is the better prospect, playing in the leftside of the infield and with better frame, but hasnt Rodriguez also shown that he can hit? His numbers in the minors last year were comparable to Wood's

Feb 17, 2009 12:35 PM

rating: -1

ryanghan2000

(38998)

Rodriguez can also play, and play pretty well, on the left side. The Angels chose not to give him a shot there last year, but he was one of the better shortstops in AA the previous year. He's also got a cannon for an arm.

Feb 17, 2009 12:47 PM

rating: -1

Kevin Goldstein

BP staff

(27460)

Scouts disagree with your evaluation -- almost universally.

Feb 17, 2009 21:26 PM

ryanghan2000

(38998)

Interesting - BA gave him best infield arm in the system rating in 2008 and he looked good getting the ball to first while turning the DP last year in the mlb. As far as defense goes, he was among league leaders in chances and errors (as in, among the fewest) at ss in AA, leading to good evaluations by both CHONE's and PECOTA's defensive metrics. That's what I'm going on - I wish I had the opportunity to talk to more scouts!

Feb 18, 2009 09:50 AM

rating: 0

Austin (Raleigh)

(5119)

"There is a ton of dead wood in the upper levels of the system,"

Was that a knock on Brandon? ;)

Feb 18, 2009 06:51 AM

rating: 1

Sorry, fantasy subscribers cannot comment on exclusive premium content.

<< Previous Article

Prospectus Today: Chan... (02/17)

<< Previous Column

Future Shock: Royals T... (02/12)

Next Column >>

Future Shock: Twins To... (02/19)

Next Article >>

Utley in the Middle (02/18)

RECENTLY AT BASEBALL PROSPECTUS Fantasy Focus: First Base Rankings Review Early Career Splits Prospectus Q&A: Lou Marson and David Huff Future Shock: Indians Top 11 Prospectus Q&A: Brian Butterfield Prospectus Today: Infield Free Agents Review On the Beat: Weekend Update	MORE FROM FEBRUARY 17, 2009 Prospectus Today: Changing the Game? Don't Build Angry Team Health Reports: San Francisco Giants Wait 'Til Next Year: The 2009 Pre-season Bas...
MORE BY KEVIN GOLDSTEIN 2009-02-25 - Future Shock: Athletics Top 11 Prospects 2009-02-22 - Future Shock: Yankees Top 11 Prospects 2009-02-19 - Future Shock: Twins Top 11 Prospects 2009-02-17 - Future Shock: Los Angeles Angels Top 11 Pros... 2009-02-13 - Top 100 Prospects 2009-02-12 - Future Shock: Royals Top 11 Prospects 2009-02-11 - Future Shock: Impact Rookies More...	MORE FUTURE SHOCK 2009-02-25 - Future Shock: Athletics Top 11 Prospects 2009-02-22 - Future Shock: Yankees Top 11 Prospects 2009-02-19 - Future Shock: Twins Top 11 Prospects 2009-02-17 - Future Shock: Los Angeles Angels Top 11 Pros... 2009-02-12 - Future Shock: Royals Top 11 Prospects 2009-02-11 - Future Shock: Impact Rookies 2009-02-08 - Future Shock: Tigers Top 11 Prospects More...