Comments on: Updated Positional Depth Chart Part 1

By: zuke354

zuke354 — Tue, 16 Aug 2011 21:41:53 +0000

A good defensive catcher is hard to measure.

Here is how I know if I have a good catcher. It’s 0-2, 2 outs and the winning run is on third. How much faith do I have in throwing in a curveball, or am I scared that it might bounce away making me change the pitch/location.

By: zuke354

zuke354 — Tue, 16 Aug 2011 21:37:25 +0000

Agree with that. I can buy a temporary promotion of Pags over Anderson becasue of the glove (didn’t see enough to know if it was that great).

However, Cruz has not really been anything all that special defensively.

By: cariocacardinal

cariocacardinal — Tue, 16 Aug 2011 16:05:44 +0000

All things being even, I think Cruz sticks longer in the majors due to his versatility.

By: bc

bc — Tue, 16 Aug 2011 15:21:10 +0000

Fair enough. We’ll have to disagree about Anderson’s “sustained success” offensively at the upper levels. Looks more like sustained mediocrity. Last year, he appeared to be taking a step forward, but it’s looking more like a fluky (minor) power spike now. At this point, I don’t see that Anderson has more “potential” than Cruz; if anything, it’s the opposite since Anderson has plateaued and Cruz has yet to stall out in the same fashion that Anderson has.

I haven’t see enough of Cruz’ or Anderson’s defense to make a judgment; the few times I’ve seen them play I haven’t been overly impressd with either of them.

By: Jimmyjoe

Jimmyjoe — Tue, 16 Aug 2011 14:34:57 +0000

Always fun to analyze. Thanks for taking the time, Hawkeye (Pierce).

By: Pierce

Pierce — Tue, 16 Aug 2011 14:17:01 +0000

Then I assume you believe Matt Pagnozzi is a better prospect than Anderson.

By: Pierce

Pierce — Tue, 16 Aug 2011 14:15:55 +0000

That statement was mostly me being facetious. Anderson has had better sustained success in the upper levels offensively than Cruz. I don’t think either guy is going to have an extended career in the majors, but Anderson’s “offensive potential” may give him a longer look than Cruz. I also wasn’t blown away by Cruz’s defense.

The fact is that the Cardinals don’t have a catching prospect who sticks out, and Anderson has been the only prospect to show some sort of aptitude offensively at an upper level for a sustained amount of time and at a reasonable age to assume that he might be able to have a few years in the major leagues.

By: zuke354

zuke354 — Tue, 16 Aug 2011 13:46:18 +0000

True. But I really don’t see that translating to the ML level.

By: bc

bc — Tue, 16 Aug 2011 13:31:27 +0000

Why the last statement? I find it hard to believe it’d be someone other than Cruz at this point. Cruz has a a better wOBAr than Anderson at AAA – the primary difference between Anderson and Cruz has been BABIP. Perez’ offense has been abominable this year; he has a 2% walk rate. Stock has played the best at A+ – maybe he’s the best prospect, actually. Stanley has had a middling offensive year at QC with about a .310OBP; he’ll be 23 at the end of this year, a year older than Stock. Cruz had much better numbers at QC than Stanley at a younger age. There are others, like Geoff Klein, who is hitting better than Stanley at QC, but is a bit older. I don’t know much about his defense but it’d be hard to make a case someone like that in Low A is a better prospect than Cruz, who is only 1.5 years older (and Cruz hit as well or better in Low A as a 20y/o). There are some interesting guys at GCL and lower but they’re so far away, and have little pedigree, it’s hard to get excited yet.

By: cariocacardinal

cariocacardinal — Tue, 16 Aug 2011 13:00:44 +0000

Looks like Tony/Mo do – at least above Anderson.