What Do MiLB Stats Tell You?

[GMinTraining]

Considering all the stats we look into as we promote prospects and analyze whether they are MLB ready or not - What do stats truly tell you and how does the MiLB truly prepare you for the MLB?  Consider this:

 

KEPLER

.345 vs Lefties AAA

.259 VS Righties AAA

 

.198 vs Lefties MLB

.249 vs Righties MLB 

 

 

BUXTON

.277 vs Lefties AAA

.315 vs Righties AAA

 

.211 vs Lefties MLB

.227 vs Righties MLB

 

VARGAS

.131 vs Lefties AAA

.283 vs Righties AAA

 

.425 vs Lefties MLB

.180 vs Righties MLB

 

ROSARIO

.294 vs Lefties AAA

.330 vs Righties AAA

 

.263 vs Lefties MLB

.270 vs Righties MLB

 

POLANCO

.293 vs Lefties AAA

.271 vs Righties AAA

 

.317 vs Lefties MLB

.265 vs Righties MLB

 

PARK

.091 vs Lefties AAA

.255 vs Righties AAA

 

.170 vs Lefties MLB

.198 vs Righties MLB

 

From these stats - it tells me that Polanco is the most consistent of the 6 batters and probably best overall hitter.  Rosario probably shows the second most consistency IMO.  I can't explain the reverse splits for Vargas and Kepler in terms of AAA vs MLB.  What stats do you judge prospects on as they move up to the MLB level?  What examples do you have to show minor league success translates to MLB success?  What is your explanation for the reverse splits?  I'm curious to know how people (fans) speculate future success, based on minor league numbers?

 

Note: I promise not to mention Walker once in this thread

 

 

 

 

[Doomtints]

Bill James claims that success in the minors will almost always translate to success in the majors.  If he says that, you can bet there are numbers which back him up.  

 

Part of the problem is what people call "success" when looking at minor league players.  Scouting reports often get blurred in, as do opinion pieces from respected baseball writers.  The "tools" conversation gets thrown around a lot and with many people "tools" trumps performance, which is a bit nutty.   "Tools" should only matter at draft time.  If you tune out all of this noise and only look at numbers, I think it's possible to get a clear picture of a player.

 

This is why I keep harping on that Polanco is going to be a truly great MLB player.  Those who weigh scouting reports/pundit reports over numbers see otherwise.  (And, yes, I feel like I'm in a minority when it comes to my opinion on Polanco).  

 

I think Rosario has already proven he can play in the majors and probably should not be on this list.  The Twins are treating him like a prospect, but he isn't one.  He is still learning but his baseline is more than acceptable.  

 

I think Kepler will be very good.  I would not put money on the other guys, even Buxton, even though I really hope Buxton figures it out.  

 

Vargas's success has just been weird, but the team should be OK with weird, inexplicable good play from a baseball player and keep him in the lineup.  Even moreso for a team which has so little talent that can perform at a major league level.

[Otto von Ballpark]

I notice this is 2016 data only.  Platoon splits, among others, can seem pretty variable year to year because of the nature of the smaller sample.

 

Furthermore, every one of these guys has split the 2016 season between the minors and the majors, so by comparing their platoon splits by level in 2016, you are effectively cutting an already small sample in half.

 

Not really any conclusions you can draw on this data, as presented.

[diehardtwinsfan]

I think you'd be better using career splits than AAA splits...  Much more telling.

[GMinTraining]

What stats tell you a player is going to be a solid MLB hitter IYO?  Longterm stats, etc.?  How do you know (in your heart) as a fan?  How have you as a fan been successful in predicting MLB success for minor league players in the past?  Do you have a track record of success in your predictions?  I'm truly curious as to how fans on this site have predicted over the years?  Grade yourself - A - B+ - B - B(-) - C+ - C - etc.?

[d-mac]

 

I notice this is 2016 data only.  Platoon splits, among others, can seem pretty variable year to year because of the nature of the smaller sample.

 

Furthermore, every one of these guys has split the 2016 season between the minors and the majors, so by comparing their platoon splits by level in 2016, you are effectively cutting an already small sample in half.

 

Not really any conclusions you can draw on this data, as presented.

 

That is to say nothing of the fundamentally flawed stat that is batting average, which has nearly zero predictive power of its own. 

[gocgo]

 

Bill James claims that success in the minors will almost always translate to success in the majors.  If he says that, you can bet there are numbers which back him up.  

 

Part of the problem is what people call "success" when looking at minor league players.  Scouting reports often get blurred in, as do opinion pieces from respected baseball writers.  The "tools" conversation gets thrown around a lot and with many people "tools" trumps performance, which is a bit nutty.   "Tools" should only matter at draft time.  If you tune out all of this noise and only look at numbers, I think it's possible to get a clear picture of a player.

 

This is why I keep harping on that Polanco is going to be a truly great MLB player.  Those who weigh scouting reports/pundit reports over numbers see otherwise.  (And, yes, I feel like I'm in a minority when it comes to my opinion on Polanco).  

 

I think Rosario has already proven he can play in the majors and probably should not be on this list.  The Twins are treating him like a prospect, but he isn't one.  He is still learning but his baseline is more than acceptable.  

 

I think Kepler will be very good.  I would not put money on the other guys, even Buxton, even though I really hope Buxton figures it out.  

 

Vargas's success has just been weird, but the team should be OK with weird, inexplicable good play from a baseball player and keep him in the lineup.  Even moreso for a team which has so little talent that can perform at a major league level.

I would argue that Buxton has figured it out.  Early on, he was up at the plate guessing and reacting.  Now, he's looking for a particular pitch to hit and anticipating.  His swing early on was long and loopy, he seems to have shortened it up.

 

I do think that the difference between MLB pitching and MiLB pitching is very significant in some ways and not so different in others.  The window to hit a pitched baseball is very small.  That's why they try to teach guys to swing with the barrel of the bat in the hitting zone for as long as possible (and we are talking about thousanths of a second).  A good swing in the minors should translate to a good swing in the majors.  What the guys coming up haven't seen is the explosive breaking breaking balls and fastballs that dart and they can easily get caught up in that and start trying to do something other than what got them promoted in the first place...the good swing.  I really think that is what happened to Buxton.

[diehardtwinsfan]

 

What stats tell you a player is going to be a solid MLB hitter IYO?  Longterm stats, etc.?  How do you know (in your heart) as a fan?  How have you as a fan been successful in predicting MLB success for minor league players in the past?  Do you have a track record of success in your predictions?  I'm truly curious as to how fans on this site have predicted over the years?  Grade yourself - A - B+ - B - B(-) - C+ - C - etc.?

 

Successful players will eventually move towards their MILB career norms. Unsuccessful ones never get there.  Guys that come up very early are typically the ones that succeed their MILB numbers.  I'd call that a rule, though there will always be exceptions to it...

 

Not sure what you mean by grading ourselves.  We've all been attached to various minor league prospects.  We were all right about some.  We were wrong about some.  It's how it works.

[goulik]

Great question, what do the stats tell us?

What is our Ability to predict, ability to scout, ability to be a GMintraining

MiLB stats reveal odds to us not facts. The odds are what you see is what you will get. Baseball is all about playing the odds. The best scouts, the best GMs and the best managers know not only how to use statistics but their own feel for predicting the games, situations, tools, makeup, and the players themselves for when someone will defy the odds (see Jack Morris, 1991, game 7)

Who could have predicted Mauers implosion/concussionhumaness at the plate? Who would have known Dozier was going to hit 40+ Homers? I hoped that would be his 2016-17 combined total! I am predicting Buxton HoF... We will see if I'm right or a moron. Heck, what were the odds of the Twins winning it all in '87? I'll tell you, slim to none won it all that year.

What do MiLB numbers tell us? They tell us what the odds are they will be successful long term but in the end, it's still playing the lottery to an extent.

[Danchat]

After enduring this season, I'm going to rethink how I see MiLB stats. There's just been too many instances of a guy tearing up AAA and then falling apart upon reaching the bigs.