Bill James Top 50 Young Players - No Cubs

by danimal15 on Nov 2, 2007 2:32 PM CDT Comment 33 comments

On SI.com, Bill James today listed who he thinks are the top-50 young players (under age 29) in baseball today.

Not a single Cub made the list, and Prince Fielder was ranked number one. Argh!

Seriously, what does it say about the Cubs' system of talent hunting that not a single player was in the top 50? Nothing good. I could try to quibble with James, and say that Carlos Zambrano should be on the list (he's 26 and deserved a place, in my opinion), but other than that, it's hard to think of a young Cub who deserves to be here.

James also breaks down the young talent team by team, and the Cubs finish 29th. Zambrano is the only A-class young talent on the team, according to James, while Rich Hill and Carlos Marmol get "B"s and Theriot, Marshall and Murton rate Cs.

This is a FanPost and does not necessarily reflect the views of SB Nation or Al Yellon, managing editor (unless it's a FanPost posted by Al). FanPost opinions are valued expressions of opinion by passionate and knowledgeable baseball fans.

0 recs | Comment 33 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

I have not read the article

but on the surface, I can't say I disagree. This is one of the major reasons I feel Jim Hendry should be thanking his lucky stars he is where he is today. He ran the farm from 95 - 02 and has run the whole show since that time. If that does not scream - flawed scouting philosophy and poor minor league instruction, I don't know what does.

For years, Hendry has over valued the old school 5-tool analysis, while other clubs have done a much better job at focusing on the skills that go beneath the surface. His flawed philosophy is still rearing it's ugly head in regards to how he puts one dimensional rosters together. Piniella was able to clean a little of this up in June, and I hope he is listened to and they can keep moving in the right direction.

"I don't like them fellas that drive in two runs but let in three" Casey Stengel

by MPH73 on Nov 2, 2007 2:38 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs

I haven't seen this either.

Do you have a link?

Plus, how does he define "young"? Under 25? In that case Z doesn't qualify, and neither does Rich Hill, but Marmol probably should be there.

"That's my opinion and if you don't like it, well, I have others." ~ Groucho Marx

by Al on Nov 2, 2007 2:43 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs

Marmol

was listed under the Cubs section. He's not in the top 50 and I don't think he should be yet. Maybe after next year.

by rlpete on Nov 2, 2007 3:13 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Link and answer to Al's question

Here's the link:

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2007/baseball/mlb/11/02/billjames.talent/index.html

He only excludes players 29 and over, so yes - Zambrano could have been included. Sabathia and Peavy (both of whom are 26) are in the top 50.

"Have Keith Moreland drop a routine fly. Give everybody two bags of peanuts and a frosty malt, And I'll be ready to die." -Steve Goodman

by danimal15 on soon

"Have Keith Moreland drop a routine fly. Give everybody two bags of peanuts and a frosty malt, And I'll be ready to die." -Steve Goodman

by danimal15 on Nov 2, 2007 2:54 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs

Its an interesting piece.

It's an article based upon an invented statistical measurement comparing actual "have made it" players and number of years to go through their prime. Prospects and players that have not lived up to potential do not qualify (Pie, Marmol, Soto, etc.)

The made players on the Cubs (Soriano, Ramirez, Lee, DeRosa, Lilly) are too old to qualify and Zambrano is good, but doesn't quite equal Santana, Sabathia, or Peavy.

It's an interesting read.

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2007/baseball/mlb/11/02/billjames.talent/index.html

by N Oakley on Nov 2, 2007 2:59 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs

Perhaps

But Zambrano is at least Adam Wainwright, no?

by NO100 on Nov 2, 2007 3:54 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

I think age is a big factor...

... some other guys who didn't make it include:
Victor Martinez, Joe Mauer, Johan Santana, Chase Utley, Mark Teixeira, Erik Bedard, and Adam Dunn.

by DGU on Nov 2, 2007 5:14 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Age is a HUGE factor...

The formula used multiplies by the number of years left until 33. So, a player who is 22-25 and a proven major leaguer has much more value in this formula than a 27-28 year old (because he has twice as many productive years).

In other words, a 28 year old (like Santana) has to be twice as good as a 23-24 year old, because the 24 year old has twice the years until 33.

by SouthernCub on Nov 2, 2007 5:58 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

I read the article

I think Zambrano belongs on the top 50 but I don't disagree with the Cubs overall rating. They are near the bottom. You might argue maybe a few spots higher but we are still talking near the bottom.

On Zambrano, I bet this past season impacted his fall. We'll see next year whether it was a blip or a downward trend.

by rlpete on Nov 2, 2007 3:11 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs

The next Pujols

I was really surprised to see Miguel Cabrera #13. I would hae thought he'd be higher.

by NO100 on Nov 2, 2007 3:52 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs

maybe because at the rate he is gaining

weight he will implode sooner than later.

But seriously, if Cabrera doesnt make his fitness a priorty his skills will dimish much more rapidly. What he has done to himself is sad.

Let me get back to you, will ya, Charlie? I got a guy on the other line asking about some white walls.

by JB 23 on Nov 2, 2007 4:05 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Maybe

Neifi Perez will begin orbiting him.

by NO100 on Nov 3, 2007 10:23 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Is it the Cubs drafting or their coaching?

Think of it this way - how many Cubs could have been on this list if things had gone a little differently from 2003-2006? Using Baseball America's rankings, the Cubs had the the #2 2001 prospect in Corey Patterson, the #s 2 and 6 2002 prospects in Mark Prior and Juan Cruz, the #22 2003 prospect in Hee Seop Choi, the #26 2004 prospect in Angel Guzman, the #21 2005 prospect in Brian Dopirak and #27 2006 prospect in Felix Pie.

If Patterson hadn't been rushed and taught a little patience, or at least not forced to try and become a kind of hitter he was not, would he be on that list?

What happened to Juan Cruz in 2003 that totally derailed his development?

What if Prior had been rested a little more down the 2003 stretch? Along those same lines, (we all know it's not just a coincidence that those 2003 pitchers have all broken down - Wood, Prior, Z, and Clement), where would Zambrano be with a little more rest all through 2003-2006?

When Hee Seop Choi collided with Kerry Wood, he was hitting .244/.389/.496. Was it really the collision that ruined him? Or was a manager who didn't value low-AVG, high-OBP offense just glad to have an excuse to bench him?

Not every prospect turns out, of course, but the Cubs have had a lot of good prospects under Jim Hendry's reign. I can see a different scenario in which the Cubs had three or maybe even more players on this list.

But even then, we should recognize that Jim Hendry has turned some of these prospects into good players through trades - Bobby Hill turned into Aramis Ramirez. Choi turned into D-Lee. Juan Cruz turned into Tim Hudson - oh well, that was for the Braves, but we got Andy Pratt! :)

by DGU on Nov 2, 2007 4:46 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs

2003

I can tell you where the Cubs would be had those starters been rested down the stretch; we'd have never made the playoffs that year. While it's possible we may have made them in the years after that, we made it that year because Dusty knew the bullpen sucked so badly that we had no chance without pushing those young studs. If the Bartman game hadn't happened and if we'd have continued rolling against the Yankees, nobody here would be saying a word about those abused pitchers. I fault Dusty for tons of stuff but not for his fear of the bullpen in '03.

Since I left, I've always missed Chicago but never as much as I do right now!

by TMOX on Nov 2, 2007 7:43 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Nice post TMOX

Couldn't agree with you more.

And Prior, Wood and Z weren't pushed any harder than hundreds of young pitchers had been in the past. In fact, not one of them ever threw a 230-inning season or had more than 4 CGs in a year.

"Have Keith Moreland drop a routine fly. Give everybody two bags of peanuts and a frosty malt, And I'll be ready to die." -Steve Goodman

by danimal15 on Nov 2, 2007 8:26 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

And how many young pitchers

actually do that nowadays? How it used to be in the past doesn't matter and the fact of the matter is that in this era most great young pitchers see their careers go down the drain when pushed too hard.

Now, whether making it to the playoffs in 2003 was worth ruining the career of two great young pitchers is open to debate, but to me it seems like a pretty stupid debate.

GREAT SUCCESS!!!

by Chitown Mojo on Nov 2, 2007 8:33 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

The debate is still open

as to whether their careers were ruined by "overwork." And Zambrano certainly doesn't seem to have suffered any.

"Have Keith Moreland drop a routine fly. Give everybody two bags of peanuts and a frosty malt, And I'll be ready to die." -Steve Goodman

by danimal15 on Nov 2, 2007 9:03 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Sure?

I don't see how you can be sure the Cubs wouldn't have made the playoffs by saving Prior and Wood 10-20 pitches a start. But let's say you're right. It still doesn't change my point that the Cubs had real talent in their farm system that somehow didn't become the valuable players scouts expected. I think a good case can be made that while Dusty tends to bring out the best in veteran players, he tends to quash talent among young players.

In fact, your point about Dusty's bullpen highlights one of my points. Juan Cruz was a good pitcher before Dusty and was a phenomenal pitcher in 2004 when traded to the Braves. Why was he no good under Dusty? Would a different manager have been able to bring out the value in Juan Cruz, bolstering his pen so that he could have saved his starters some pitches?

by DGU on Nov 2, 2007 9:28 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Considering the circumstances

of that 03 stretch drive, Baker used both Prior and Wood the same way many other established managers would have. This Dusty ruined Wood and Prior talk, is getting to the Bartman level, and is way off base.

"I don't like them fellas that drive in two runs but let in three" Casey Stengel

by MPH73 on Nov 3, 2007 8:13 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Getting back on base...

I find it hard to contend that Dusty's continual 130 pitch counts is the norm among "many other established managers." There may be a handful of managers still willing to build their repuations at the expense of their pitchers, but all you have to do is look at the other 2007 playoff teams to see that most teams now see the folly of letting exhausted pitchers test the limits of their arms.

Boston shut down Clay Buchholz despite a no-hitter and did not put him on their post-season roster even after Tim Wakefield's injuries.

The Yankees created "Joba Rules" to protect their young pitcher and never let Phil Hughes get his pitch count over 106. He only had two outings over 100.

The Phillies kept Cole Hamels generally under 110-115. Kyle Kendrick was kept under 90 pitches with a few outings up to 100.

The Rockies kept Franklin Morales under 90 pitches and Ubaldo Jimenez generally under 100.

The Padres kept Peavy and Young under 110 with just a handful of outings getting up to the 115 level.

The Angels, suffering a late-season breakdown of Scot Shields, still kept Jered Weaver under 110.

The Indians, stuck with that Joe Borowski guy as closer, kept Fausto Carmona under 110 and let their horse, C.C. Sabathia, push up to 119 a few times but generally kept him under 110, too.

The Brewers kept Gallardo under 110 and half the time under 100.

Find me any pitcher, let alone a young pitcher with a history of arm troubles, on a contending team that got his pitch count over 120 once. Then we can talk about Bartman levels.

As a reminder, here are the Prior and Wood 2003 pitch counts from September on: Prior: 131, 129, 110, 124, 131, 133, 133, 116, 119.
Wood: 120, 122, 114, 125, 122, 124, 117, 109, 112.

by DGU on Nov 3, 2007 11:27 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

On your original question

In terms of pitchers, I think the Cubs have done ok with drafting and coaching. Injuries obviously have played a part there.

In terms of hitters, I think it is a complete organizational failure. Scouting, drafting, coaching. The Cubs for a long time have preferred drafting the toolsy type players. Unfortunately they haven't been able to draft the right ones and coach the ones they do draft. When Patterson and Pie are the highlights of the past 10 plus years, something is wrong.

by rlpete on Nov 3, 2007 9:07 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Not sure

Maybe it's a "complete organizational failure" but the Cubs got 2 SSs, 4 OFs, 2 1Bs, 1 3B, and 1 2B into the Baseball America Top 100 in the 2000s, for a total of 10 position players. Next year they may add a C, a 3B, and an OF to that list, maybe more.

In contrast, the Cardinals have only 2 position players to make that list in the 2000s. The Brewers had 6. The Astros had 7. The Pirates had 7. Only the Reds in the NLC surpass the Cubs with 12.

Several of those Cubs prospects were successful up through at least AAA: Felix Pie, Ronny Cedeno, Hee Seop Choi, and Bobby Hill.

Corey Patterson was not successful in AAA (until 2005) but got promoted anyway, which may have been the mistake that ruined him.

The ones who flopped or stalled in the minors include Brian Dopirak, Ryan Harvey, Nic Jackson, David Kelton, and Luis Montanez.

I think the jury is still out on Pie and Cedeno. There are plenty of great players that struggled their first year in the majors. I believe Pie will succeed. I'm not so sure about Cedeno.

But you look at Cedeno, Choi, Patterson, and Hill and you can at least wonder if they had been given different opportunities at the major league level if their development would have continued as it had in the minors.

Regardless, the Cubs will likely enter 2008 with two and probably three up-the-middle sarting position players from their farm system, and if it were not for the excellent FA signing of Mark DeRosa, they could have all 4 up-the-middle positions played by guys from the farm system. Their corner infielders came from trades of former top prospects. Their bench will have a number of guys that at least spent time in the Cubs farm system. I'd argue that that is fairly productive. It's not Tampa Bay, but the Cubs are in a much better position than, say, the Cardinals.

by DGU on Nov 3, 2007 12:07 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

I agree the Cardinals are worse

but that's not saying much. The Cubs have two issues. The first is that their prospects have stalled out. I'm not sure if it's that the players aren't that good to begin with or the coaching is bad. They still don't make it to the majors and contribute. That's organizational failure. Corey Patterson is the best position players in the last 10 years?

The second problem is they can't develop an impact player. It's been 20 years. I call that failure. The Cubs may have had 10 on the BA list compared to the Brewers' 6 but I'll take Prince Fielder over all 10 of the Cubs players.

by rlpete on Nov 3, 2007 2:12 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

But the Brewers have concentrated on hitters...

... while the Cubs have concentrated on pitchers. I'm not sure it's fair to indict the Cubs farm system on not having produced an impact hitter, when it has produced three impact pitchers.

Not counting relievers, the players that came up out of the farm system and made a major impact from 2000-2006 in the NL Central were:

Cubs: Wood, Zambrano, Prior
Brewers: Fielder, Sheets
Astros: Oswalt, Berkman
Pirates: Gorzelanny, Bay (And Bay they got by trade)
Cardinals: Pujols
Reds: Dunn

Am I missing anyone?

I think it's too early to judge those emerging in 2007.

The other thing I think is relevant is that the value of Hee Seop Choi gets undersold because he looks like a flop now. But he got the Cubs Derrek Lee, and a 28 year-old Lee is at least close to being on a par with today's Fielder, once you take their defense into account.

I also think 2002-2007 Carlos Zambrano will end up being worth more wins than 2006-2011 Fielder, again when his defense is taken into account.

by DGU on Nov 3, 2007 5:45 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Concentrating on pitchers

is a BS excuse for going over a decade with such a poor track record of developing position players. By accident, they should have been able to spit out 3-4 guys, but it was no accident the way they chose to go about their scouting, development and most importantly, how they value hitting skills.

Hendry's value system is flawed and it has showed up in the lack of good young hitters and also in how he puts together the major league roster. Bottom line, the baseball world zipped right by Hendry about 10 years ago, and he has yet to adapt.

"I don't like them fellas that drive in two runs but let in three" Casey Stengel

by MPH73 on Nov 4, 2007 1:46 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

What do you mean?

"By accident, they should have been able to spit out 3-4 guys,"

Do you mean the farm system should have been able to spit out 3-4 major leaguers or 3-4 impact players? You can't mean the latter, because from 2000-2006, the Cubs are the only team in the NL Central to spit out 3 impact players.

If you mean 3-4 major leaguers, well, the Cubs have done that, from 2002-2003.

I think I'd be more inclined to agree with your indictment if I believed Pie and Soto were going to flop, which I don't. I also think that Eric Patterson could start in the majors next year and be a successful 2B. The only reason he won't (unless he is traded) is that DeRosa has been such a success. In addition, Theriot, Fontenot, Cedeno, Fuld, and Fox are all going to be useful parts, if not starters. That's a productive system.

And I don't think concentrating on pitchers is such a bad idea when they are so expensive and so few are getting to free agency. If the Cubs had not concentrated on pitchers, there would have been no 2003 pennant. Without Zambrano, Hill, and Marmol, there'd have been no 2007 pennant either.

by DGU on Nov 4, 2007 3:09 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Do you call

their inability to produce productive everyday players from the mid 90's until the present acceptable? If you do, we have different scales to measure the success of scouting and player development. In fact, this lack of player development, has put tremendous pressure on them to patch fill holes every year, and they signed (and overpaid) a ton of middle of the road free agents to compensate for their lack of player development.

Concentrating on pitchers is fine, but you should still be able to produce an acceptable number of everyday players over a 15 year period - if you know how to scout and value talent properly. Now, if they happen to have 2-3 guys pan out now, that does not excuse their 15 year period of producing virtually nothing.

"I don't like them fellas that drive in two runs but let in three" Casey Stengel

by MPH73 on Nov 4, 2007 7:47 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

I don't think Z belongs anywhere on that list.

Not how he's defined it anyway. Look at any of the guys that are 26/27 and they're all superb. All you have to do is look at where C.C. Sabathia, K-Rod and Dan Haren are to see how much age affects the rankings.

by tyger1147 on Nov 2, 2007 5:51 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs

Yeah...

This is all young MAJOR LEAGUERS, not PROSPECTS. We have our proven major league All-Stars, and we have our young kids.

The thing is, most of our young kids have just got the chance to prove themselves.

So they didn't have overnight success, so what. That's not a measure on their potential. Not everyone is Albert Pujols, and figures it out about five minutes after picking up a ball.

Still, Z should be on that list, as should A-Ram who is in fact 29 (by my math) if they counted 29 and down.

by Snake Plissken on Nov 2, 2007 7:18 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs

I could discuss the specifics...

...of this, but.

But, and I'm sorry, but this list sucks.

Runs Created is inferior to BaseRuns, there's no positional adjustment (a shortstop and a first baseman's offensive production are NOT just as valuable), and rather than using a REAL defensive metric he uses speed scores. Then he piles on a few arbitrary measures that don't correlate to anything that he bothers to explain, and voila, rankings!

It's a toy stat with little effort to try and make it MEAN anything, and it ignores -- oh, pretty much the last ten years of baseball research.

I like Bill James well enough, I suppose, but this is junk -- straight, no chaser.

FREE CARMEN PIGNATIELLO!

by cwyers on Nov 2, 2007 7:23 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs

Ryan Braun

Tell me if I'm wrong but Ryan Braun is not an A class player. Sure with his hitting but he made many fielding errors and one can even point out if he hadn't made as many errors in the final two weeks The Brewers might have won the division. Thankfully that didn't happen.

I just found that surprising yet people like Theriot are C Class (who I think should be B).

Sometimes I find these people to be very biased to or against the Cubs. I'd love to read someone who is truly impartial.

by ak123 on Nov 2, 2007 7:45 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs

Question

If you want to downgrade Braun to a B and upgrade Theriot to a B, are you implying these two are on the same level of prospect? Who's not being impartial?

by rlpete on Nov 3, 2007 8:52 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs