Michael Stanton and Jason Heyward

[Swifty]

Swift contradicted himself in that post about Heywards ability to draw BBs.

Um, no I didn't.

A contradiction is a combination of opposing or differing opinions in the guise of a single opinion. Maybe the word you're searching for is incorrect, but that's not true either.

My only comment about walks is that he (Heyward) doesn't walk a whole lot. He has 105 in his entire minor league career, and he's never walked 50 times at any level. So, there was no contradiction at all. A contradiction would be me saying "you know, the thing about Heyward is no matter what he'll OBP like a monster, but his biggest problem is that he doesn't walk a lot." That's a contradiction. Nor was I incorrect about Heyward's walking ability.

Here's another fun fact re: walks

Stanton has more total minor league walks than Heyward (121 to 105) and has higher walk total at a single level (58 in 2008 to 49 in 2008) and combined total season (59 in 2009 to 51 in 2009).

Honestly, Stanton's the superior player.

[Bobbob1313]

I guess I'm the only one that would take Stanton.

I look at Heyward and I see a hell of a lot of Jeremy Hermida. Tons 'o tools, reasonably limited success (fun fact, he's never hit 12 homers at any level, or 18 in a combining levels minor league season, and he's only got 173 AB's above A ball).

Stanton - that power's not going away. Maybe he ends up being a .240 hitter, but he's still going to belt 30 or 40 if you give him 500 AB's.

So at one extreme you have a toolsy outfielder who's hit for a high minor league average and walked a bunch, and on the other is a toolsy outfielder who has the most minor league homers since his career became relevant. Based on what they're expected to do, it's a lot easier to look at Stanton and say, yeah, he'll keep doing it. Maybe Heyward turns into a .330 hitter with 30 bombs, but maybe he's the Jeremy Hermida special: .270 and claims that next year is the year he puts it all together.

Stanton, at the very least, is going to give you power. Heyward, brutally honestly, could have a very very very ugly bottom; he doesn't walk a whole lot and if that average dips, watch out. His swing is great, the ball jumps off his bat, but if you didn't attach a name to Heyward's minor league numbers, I don't know if you're dreaming about it at night.

I think the bolded parts are what he was referring to.

[Swifty]

The first part should say never, it'll be fixed now.
--------------------
And back on topic; I never jumped into Heyward's minor league numbers before today, but it's silly that this guy is considered the #1 prospect in all of baseball.

Is the high average impressive? Absolutely, but nothing comes with it. No homers to speak of, no doubles consistently (particularly troubling for a lefty) no triples (but those are flukes) and after a 15 steal campaign, no demonstration of consistently running. I mean, maybe this stuff develops at the major league level, but somewhere along the line, if you're declaring the guy a major league hitter at 20, you'd certainly hope it's been demonstrated and not just a pipe dream.

Like I said before, there's a whole hell of a lot of Hermida in him.

Stanton might never turn into a .300 hitter with 40 homers, but I'm a lot more confident he turns into something reasonably resembling that, and a lot more likely to do that than the pie in the sky .330 25-30 homer guy Heyward's being pegged as.

[Todd]

I think someone owes someone an apology.

[Swifty]

I'm sorry

[Bobbob1313]

Eh.

He's walked 10% of the time in the minors and his most recent performance has improved on that, bumping up to 14% in AA, albeit in a small sample size.

Last year he had a decent power year, especially for a 19 year old playing in pitcher's parks. 20 HR per 500 PA isn't bad, and there's every reason to think he'll grow into more power.

Yeah, Stanton's power is already there, but Heyward's contact skills and approach at the plate are as legit as they come.

It should be noted that over the course of their careers, despite Heyward never walking more than 51 times at any one level, or whatever, their walk rates are practically identical (0.10485268630849220103986135181976 for Stanton, 0.1046859421734795613160518444666 for Heyward. It's actually kind of odd.)

All other things being equal, which do you think is a bigger hole, Heyward's lack of power or Stanton's contact problems?

Ultimately, I think they are going to be kind of similar players in terms of overall production, I just think Heyward's the safer bet.

[Swifty]

I think Heyward's lack of power (and this isn't home run power, this is just power, period) is a bigger problem. It can't just be a "well, he's 20, he'll fill out and the XBH's will come." I'm actually amazed at how few extra base hits he has. When you hit for as high an average as he does, it's really amazing. And when you're thought of as highly as he, you need to show it and not just a promise of maybe developing it.

Stanton's lack of contact is a problem, but I think Stanton's shown "it" at 19, 20 whatever, the "upside" with him is that he becomes a generational talent, and if he doesn't, he's a 10 year fringe all-star.

For me, I think Stanton's floor >>>>> Heyward's floor (since I value the proven power over hypothetical power), and I think their ceilings are close to equal.

[Bobbob1313]

48 XBH in 422 PAs isn't exactly phenomenal power, but I think you are underrating him quite a bit.

I think you are looking a bit too much at gross numbers (ie comparing total walks between the two despite them walking at almost exactly the same pace) and not enough at the rates they pick them up at. Heyward's XBH pace last season would translate to roughly 73 XBH over a 650 PA sample. That's more than enough power for a 19 year old in pitcher's parks.

Very few players develop the type of power at a young age that Stanton has, and because of that he's got the highest upside. He's the best bet to win Multiple MVP awards. He's the best bet to be a guy you tell your kids about. He's that kind of ceiling. But Heyward is a safer bet to meet his most likely outcome, and that matters.

I'd say Stantons ceiling is 100, Heyward's is only 90, but Heyward's 50 is more in reach than Stanton's, but I think it's a negligible difference. I think they will provide roughly similar value for years in the most likely scenarios, but Stanton's good years should be better.

[nny]

late but

[00:48] Bobbob1313: Wouldn't you rate his approach damn near close to an 80?

no. An 80 approach is, like, 1.20+ BB/K in the majors. He aint doing that His OBP is not his approach but BABIP with above average (But not amazing) approach). His BABIP deflates, which is a lot more possible than Stanton's power deflating, things aint too pretty. Stanton does not have to develop another step and his power can let him float. Heyward does not develop another step and thing aren't exactly pretty

[Swifty]

Very few players develop the type of power at a young age that Stanton has, and because of that he's got the highest upside. He's the best bet to win Multiple MVP awards. He's the best bet to be a guy you tell your kids about. He's that kind of ceiling. But Heyward is a safer bet to meet his most likely outcome, and that matters.

Really? Based on what?

We spend this entire time going back and forth why Heyward hasn't shown power, or a strong eye and yet he's still your safer bet to be a super duper star because........................................... .............

[Ramp]

And back on topic; I never jumped into Heyward's minor league numbers before today, but it's silly that this guy is considered the #1 prospect in all of baseball.

He's the number 1 prospect in baseball because of what he's done as a 19 year old and the fact he's the size of a house. (also, and I don't love using makeup as a factor of who is a prospect and not but by all accounts he's a great kid and has a wonderful work ethic)

And just for shits... he's hitting 26+ homers (if he gets a normal amount of at bats) this year in the bigs

[Bobbob1313]

Really? Based on what?

We spend this entire time going back and forth why Heyward hasn't shown power, or a strong eye and yet he's still your safer bet to be a super duper star because........................................... .............

Didn't I say Stanton is the better bet to be an all time type player?

I just think Heyward's a safer bet to be an everyday player because his game is more ready and translatable.

I've already stated why I think you are overstating his lack of eye, as him and Stanton have identical walk rates. He's a more polished hitter with a fantastic approach at the plate, with a great sense of the strike zone. I also already explained why I think you are overstating his lack of power, as he had 48 XBH in 422 PA, a pretty solid number, with lots of room to grow. He's not going to walk 100 times a year out of the gate, but he's not going to strike out 100 times a year either. He's a good bet to translate because of his advanced approach.

Stanton's K rates are a big problem. Yes, he hits for a ton of power and he will hit for a ton of power regardless. But the K rates scare me as far as him being able to turn into an everyday player. He doesn't hae a killer eye like Adam dunn to make up for it, so he's very worrisome.

That being said, as I've said multiple times, I think they are both going to be great players.

[Todd]

And just for shits... he's hitting 26+ homers (if he gets a normal amount of at bats) this year in the bigs

That is...a tad too optimistic dont you think? That would put him into Pujols, Cabrera, Braun-equivalent slugging as a rookie. Very rare.

[Ramp]

That is...a tad too optimistic dont you think? That would put him into Pujols, Cabrera, Braun-equivalent slugging as a rookie. Very rare.

Preston Wilson hit 26 as a rookie. It's not that far-fetched

[Bobbob1313]

Preston Wilson was also 24 and had hit 27 home runs combined the year before.

I think high teens with about 35 doubles is about right, but he could go higher.