Kyle Blanks (Padres) seems intriguing: Huge (listed at 6'6", 270), apparently fairly athletic (per BA), and his performance has been good in the Texas League this year with a line of .315/.397/.487.  John gave him a B- before the season.  The power hasn't shown up quite the way you might expect from a guy his size, and he has played in some hitters' leagues (CAL last year), but he's still only 21 and a relatively inexperienced player.  He's also blocked at the moment by Adrian Gonzalez, assuming his size confines him to 1B.  

So, what do you all think of Kyle Blanks?  Will the power come around?  Is he a guy who might be moved in the next year or so?  Would you target him for your team as a potential impact bat at 1B?  I ask this from purely a baseball (non-fantasy) standpoint.  

And while I'm at it, can anybody tell me where another guy from the same JC program, Milton Loo, has been?  He was an intriguing guy a few years ago, and now I can't figure out if/ where he is playing.  Thanks!

So this is really not a minor league question per se, but it is something I've wondered about for a long time and I thought it might be fun to discuss with other amateur baseball historians:

The sacrifice fly, as a statistical category, was eliminated from 1931 until 1954 (with the exception of 1939 when it was temporarily reinstated).  This means that during that time, batters were charged with an official at-bat for plate appearances in which they hit what we now call a sac fly.  Does anybody know if at-bat totals, batting averages and slugging percentages from that period have ever been adjusted to account for this (and thus be more in line with the rest of modern baseball history)?  I realize that the sac fly is probably not a common enough occurance that any statistics would be changed drastically.  Still, it might be interesting (or at least fun for us baseball geeks) to know, for example, that under modern rules Ted Williams would have batted .408 in 1941 instead of .406.  Or something like that.

I suppose it is also debatable whether it would be appropriate to adjust these numbers at all.  Perhaps it is better that they reflect the rules of the game at the time...

Anyway, I'd love to know if anybody knows more about this.

When Eric Chavez was shooting through the Oakland system the word on him was "great bat, shaky glove."  The stats backed up this assessment: His 1998 season was absolutely sick offensively, but he made 21 errors that year, following up a 32 error efffort in the Cal League the year before.

However, almost as soon as Chavez showed up at camp in 1999 we began to hear very positive things about his hands and range.  He continued to improve, and won his first Gold Glove in 2001 at age 23 and has since won five more (and by my estimation has deserved all of them).  He may be a tick behind Rolen as far as the best defensive third baseman in the game, but he's panned out nicely with the glove, indeed.

So my question is: How difficult is it to judge a prospect's defense?  Obviously the answer is "very hard" as defense is notoriously hard to quantify and we have a great deal of disagreement on the relative defensive values of many established major leaguers (Jeter?).  But was the knock on Eric Chavez's defense simply an overreaction to a large error total?  Or was it a legitimate concern that he put to rest through hard work and determination?  He would tell you that working with Ron Washington turned him around, and certainly good coaching is a crucial part of player development. But still, he must have had the tools to be great, so how did those go unrecognized?

And what of some of today's prospects?  Do you trust the defensive reputations of players you've never seen in person (or have seen only a couple of times)?  Are there any prospects you think might take a quantum leap forward?  Could the DRays eventually have a couple of Gold Glovers in Brignac and Upton?  If not for organizational need, are you confident that Brandon Wood could have developed into a plus defender at short?  Might Billy Butler be the next Roberto Clemente in the outfield?  Okay, I'm getting carried away.  

A question for everybody.  But first this disclaimer: I am in no way questioning the validity of anybody else's analysis nor am I suggesting that the people on this site do not know their stuff.  That said, on to the question:

How can a fan (I'm excluding people like John who do this for a living) get an accurate read on how a good a high school draft prospect is, to the point where they can feel comfortable ranking them (eg. 1:Kershaw, 2: Drebeck etc.)  Depending on where you live you might have a chance to see a few of these guys live, and in that case I can see how you'd form a pretty educated opinion of them.  But it is just almost impossible to see all these guys (and certainly to see them all more than once or twice).  And of course their stats don't really tell all that much, even if they are facing pretty good competition.

I'm assuming people are going based on scouting reports, and organizing the available information based on their own personal priorities.  For example, Pitcher A throws 90-92 and Pitcher B throws in the upper 90s but with less advanced feel for pitching.  The ranking then would be based on whether you personally favor stuff or pitchability...  Is this about right?

Again, I'm not questioning anybody's credibility-- I really am trying to figure for my own education how this is done.  I feel confident in my ability to rank young big leaguers or prospects with sufficient track records, but when I see everybody ranking the recent draftees I think "How did they do that?  I'd have nothing to go on except to take BA's list and switch a few names so that nobody knew I cheated."

So I wonder if folks would like to discuss how they go about this, and which pieces of the limited available information they prioritize...  Thanks very much.

What do folks think of this guy?  He had a nice college career (Fullerton), was great in the CWS, then had a so-so debut last season.  This year has been very good in both double-A and triple-A, going a combined 7-1 with a 2.66 era and 9.2 K/IP.  

Since moving up to AAA his BAA is up to .271 (was at .227 at Midland) but his K/BB ratio has held up nicely at 16/3 in 17 innings.  

So these are pretty good numbers for a pitcher in the Texas and Pacific Coast Leagues, albeit in a very small sample size.  What do you expect from him in the future?  Looks to me like he's now a good bet to make the majors and stick for a while, though everything I've read says he profiles more like a 3 than an ace.  Any chance he beats that projection?

I have always found the MLB draft fascinating, and in the past couple of years I have studied the process in greater detail and become more interested in its equalizing function.  It is the most effective way we have of evenly distributing talent, but I think it could be improved.  So in that spirit, here are some ideas to change the draft system, and a poll to see which people like the best.

1. International Draft.  As I see it this would benefit everybody.  It puts MLB teams on equal footing in terms of being able to acquire the big name-type int'l free agents (eg. Ichiro, Morales, etc.) and it also helps the majority of international players who are exploited essentially as cheap labor, signed in bulk for less money than their US counterparts, and if they don't make it are dropped without even airfare back to their native country.
2. End Draft pick compensation for losing free agents.  Stops rewarding teams for not keeping their star players.
3. Increase draft pick compensation.  Doesn't it suck that if you lose the MVP to a team in the first half of the first round you don't get their pick?  Why not get TWO supplemental firsts and just have that team forfeit their sencond rounder all together.  For example, when the A's lost Tejada they got the Orioles' THIRD round pick.  This would have remedied that a bit without punishing the Orioles any further.
4. Allow TRADING of draft picks.  How awesome would this be?  It would add some excitement, and "small-market" teams might benefit because they could trade down to avoid the ridiculous Scott Boras signing bonuses, instead of reaching for a cheaper option. Of course all you Giants fans would love it because Sabean Might be able to get rid of your picks for a bit more than Michael Tucker.
5. Conference call sucks-- televise rounds 1-5. Okay, so the NFL draft is not exactly an edge-of-you-seat thrill ride, but it does generate some excitement.  Of course, it is also during the off-season, so maybe it just doesn't make sense for baseball.  But I have a feeling some people on this site would watch.

John I was just curious:
Obviously Felix Hernandez' youth separates him from a lot of the pitching prospects we've seen in recent years, but from a talent standpoint, how would you say he compares to guys like Mark Prior or Josh Beckett as prospects?  

I know that age is a factor because because Felix is still growing and improving, but since Prior didn't turn pro until he was 20 please use proximity to the big leagues as the point of reference.  That is, please compare them as prospects when they were each about as close to the show as Hernandez is now.