The San-Man at Mariner Central explains why he's had his eye on Mike Carp since he was a Met:

Carp was high enough in the Mets organization (as judged by the mass punditry) that he was worth a gander...

At the point I start looking, I first look at overall production -- looking at most recent AND at career numbers in the minors. Lacking ANY sense of the physical or athletic gifts in play, I rely almost solely on the stats available, (no choice). So, I don't TRY to infer ATHLETIC development. I let the scouts handle that - and accept pretty much what I read.

Bill James once said that the performance analyst's (the sabermetrician's) view is from 30,000 feet, whereas the tools scout is a park ranger walking through the forest -- that the views are different.  Not better and worse, just different.

Personally, I like to hear viewpoints from VERY high (40,000 feet, using results ONLY) and from VERY low (in the clubhouse, from the guy sitting next to the player in question).  :- )

When a sabermetrician comes up with an idea like this one:  "You can tell which managers are most involved in the fight, by how quickly they change SP's who have ERAs+ under 80", that is a weird idea, and an outside-the-box idea, and a helpful idea.

I love running across attempts to understand baseball with nothing other than stats.  Provided that those attempts are profound, as Sandy's is.

What I'm attempting to get at with prospects is what is going on IN THEIR HEAD. This may be a fool's errand - attempting to discern the mental makeup of players based on stat sheets - but my underlying foundation principle here is simple. Players *DO NOT* get better "BECAUSE" they get older. They get better because they LEARN to do *something* better than before.

: taps chin :

Bill James once said that when judging pitching prospects, one of the things he looked for was intelligence.  ... it seems I remember his being high on the young Norm Charlton because Charlton had a high GPA at Rice, or somesuch (check me).

Ever hear of a saberdweeb using an Ivy League GPA to project a baseball player?  :- )   Outside the box, baby...

Mind you, I look for foundation traits -- (what is the INITIAL patience number for the player? -- OBP minus AVG). Then I look for patterns of "change" in the development process. Most players don't actually change all that much. Most come in and hit well in the low levels, and gradually LOSE ground as they rise up the minor league ladder. These guys are relying on ability - and as the ability against them rises, they just try to keep up.

This is great stuff!

The exceptional players show evidence of change. The exceptions don't hit .950 in A-ball, .900 in AA, and .850 in AAA. The exceptions struggle in the low levels, then put up BETTER numbers as they start facing more difficult competition. THESE are the guys that pique my interest. The guy who struggles for a year in AA, then kills it the next year is a GOOD sign in my book -- because it demonstrates the ability to adapt. And to survive in the majors you HAVE to adapt -- because the enemy WILL constantly try to exploit your weaknesses.

I'd never looked at it quite that way.

I mean, it seems obvious -- look for improvement.  But the idea of looking for a guy whose OPS rises as he goes up the ladder ... had you thought of it such simple terms?

Am not saying I think that's a magic bullet, but it's a very cool way to think about it.  And in hindsight, I can think of all kinds of guys who did that, who made impacts in the majors... the latest, Adam Jones, who was underestimated early, but who kept moving forward as he advanced levels.

Carp to me is an example of the "student" of the game. First off, he enters the pros from HS showing 90 points of patience.  .... Second clue - age 20 - A+ ball - 17 HRs in 490 ABs. Not great, but most 20 and under HR totals are low in the minors because the kids haven't finished developing.

I call this the Rusty Greer syndrome:  3 homers early on, 25 homers in the bigs.  Amazing how many fans figure that (say) 8 homers at 20 mean the guy has no power.  :coughTUIcough: No, the kid has to learn to recognize the pitch before he can load up.

His first shot at AA ... thing that intrigues me here is that while his average and power dropped, SO DID HIS Ks.

His 19-year-old line in A ball: 313-ABs; .249/.358/.476 - .834
His 21-year-old line in AA ball: 359-ABs; .251/.337/.387 - .724

First glance and you see a 100-point drop in production, coming almost exclusively from the power side. But, upon further review, we see this happen to his BB/K ratio: 35/96 becomes 39/75, in 40 more ABs. That's a pretty significant drop in Ks. This smells to me like a player TRYING to do something different, (with bad results).

Hm.

His 22-year-old line in AA ball: 478-ABs; .299/.403/.471 - .874 -- BB/K = 79/88

This is a COMPLETELY different guy at the plate than a year before. His K-rate drops even more, but his power returns AND he piles on more patience, going to 104.

Could be just a career year. That's always a possibility. But, my instinct is that this is a player who "got" something. That ability - to adapt AND thrive - is the trait that I tend to associate with Hall of Fame types. Those guys don't just use their God-given talent -- they are CONSTANTLY looking for improvement -- tinkering -- learning -- adapting. That's the trait that (IMO) allows a 25th-round draft choice - (or 67th) - to prove 100% of the scouts wrong and end up in Cooperstown.

: taps chin :

Bobby Abreu
Minors: .290 .371 .451 822
Majors: 300 .405 .498 903

Abreu's minor league lines got better as he moved up -- and his major league OPS is 80 points better than his minor league line.

Great, great example.

And the reason this whole line of thinking is worth the front page, is because we so often run into pushback when we advise that a player might be better in the majors than he was in the minors -- like Tuiasosopo, for example.  Or Jeff Clement.

Come to think of it, I'd like to hear Sandy's take on Tuiasosopo per the Baseball-IQ paradigm.

So, what do I see as his upside? A .900 OPS major leaguer. Oh, yeah. That's long-shot city. But, if he is what I think he is -- I'm thinking he could be an .850 producer in the majors with only about 3 months of struggle time.

And a big finish for Sandy as well :- ) he suggests that such a player might have a short transition time in the majors.  Hm.

..........................

If we were to grant Sandy's judgment that Mike Carp is the kind of player who will make a lot of progress, that's pretty cool for the M's .... because you're still left with the more "tangible" assets, like his K/BB and his powerful lefty swing.

One of San-Man's best.

..............................

image:  http://www-scf.usc.edu/~econroun/images/roundtable.bmp