Blue Jays Minor League Highlights Thread

[Olerud363.354]

On 6/22/2026 at 11:01 AM, Laika said:

If there is ever a time to cherry pick a sample, it is probably to throw out the first few stateside weeks of pro ball for an 18 year old Dominikid 

Sanchez has had another streak of 3 weeks where he hit .100 or something.  Grand Slam last night I think but down to like .215 .285 .335 on the season even with the grand slam. 

Sadly he's probably not that good.  Yes.  He is only 18.  So I of course there is lots of time.  But 'not that good' as in like not Kirk/Moreno level.  No one knows, not us, not the scouts, if a guy will tear through the system, fly up the BA charts, and arrive in Toronto at 21 providing lots of fun and dreaming on the way... based on College or dominican ball.   You know after about 6 weeks of full season a-ball whether that will happen though.   

 

[Olerud363.354]

In other news Blaine Bullard starting to look good.  .268 ..340 .423 .... 30-4 in steals.  

Is he the next Jake Marisnick ? 

[John_Havok]

16 hours ago, Olerud363.354 said:

Sanchez has had another streak of 3 weeks where he hit .100 or something.  Grand Slam last night I think but down to like .215 .285 .335 on the season even with the grand slam. 

Sadly he's probably not that good.  Yes.  He is only 18.  So I of course there is lots of time.  But 'not that good' as in like not Kirk/Moreno level.  No one knows, not us, not the scouts, if a guy will tear through the system, fly up the BA charts, and arrive in Toronto at 21 providing lots of fun and dreaming on the way... based on College or dominican ball.   You know after about 6 weeks of full season a-ball whether that will happen though.   

 

You dont know s*** about a player after 6 weeks of full season A-ball.

[Olerud363.354]

26 minutes ago, John_Havok said:

You dont know s*** about a player after 6 weeks of full season A-ball.

This is where the board fails to understand statistics.   A exciting prospect should have good age appropriate numbers for their level.  Say .300 .400 .500 with decent k/bb ratio.  A major league caliber player should be .250 .350 .450.   I mean of course every situation is a bit different and there is random variation.  

If you take a sample of something and it is extreme, either you randomly took an extreme value, or the mean is different then you thought.   If you take 150 samples and it is extreme there is a good chance the mean is different than you thought. 

If a guy hits .140 .190 .250 over 6 weeks with a 8 to 100 k/bb ratio you have a good idea the mean isn't .300 .400 .500.   As in exciting prospect.    If a guy hits .350 .450 .650 over 6 weeks you know he is probably good.   If a guy hits .250 .350 .400 or so you don't know.  It's the extremes that tell you information.  

Like .250 .350 .400 isn't really that good for an elite teen-age hitting prospect in a ball, but doesn't convey enough information to give up on him.  Real bad stat lines do (there are exceptions of course). 

And the board loves find the exception that proves the rule.  Like a bad stat-line give you 98% confidence the player is bad, but the board loves to find the 2 of 100 that were the exception. 

Sanchez isn't that bad.  But not an exciting hitting prospect.  Jays right now don't have an exciting hitting prospect and haven't since Moreno.   They came up with one every year from 2017 to 2021.   

[Olerud363.354]

34 minutes ago, John_Havok said:

You dont know s*** about a player after 6 weeks of full season A-ball.

The other thing I've read, and guys on the board that have dabbled in college ball should know this, is that the stats don't tell too much until low a, because the breaking isn't good enough to fool guys.  The scouts can't really tell if a guy can hit good breaking stuff.  It's just an intrinsic hand eye thing.  Swing can look great, bat speed can be elite, but maybe they have 95% percentile had eye and not 99%.

It's like the real lesson in Money Ball.  Billy Beane kept getting told he was elite, but after 3 at bats in a ball he realized his hand eye wasn't there and the scouts were full of s***. 

There are all kinds of shades of gray here, but right now no elite hitters in the Jays farm system.   And you can tell this pretty quick with k/bb and even triple slash. 

I think even the most exciting prospects are Bradley Zimmer, Jake Marisnick, Paul Degjong, Cavan Biggio types, with the ceiling that they make it and have more good years then those guys, which actually would be OK players.  So let's hope our Biggio's and Dejong's have 4-5 3 WAR years instead of 1. 

[John_Havok]

2 hours ago, Olerud363.354 said:

This is where the board fails to understand statistics.   A exciting prospect should have good age appropriate numbers for their level.  Say .300 .400 .500 with decent k/bb ratio.  A major league caliber player should be .250 .350 .450.   I mean of course every situation is a bit different and there is random variation.  

If you take a sample of something and it is extreme, either you randomly took an extreme value, or the mean is different then you thought.   If you take 150 samples and it is extreme there is a good chance the mean is different than you thought. 

If a guy hits .140 .190 .250 over 6 weeks with a 8 to 100 k/bb ratio you have a good idea the mean isn't .300 .400 .500.   As in exciting prospect.    If a guy hits .350 .450 .650 over 6 weeks you know he is probably good.   If a guy hits .250 .350 .400 or so you don't know.  It's the extremes that tell you information.  

Like .250 .350 .400 isn't really that good for an elite teen-age hitting prospect in a ball, but doesn't convey enough information to give up on him.  Real bad stat lines do (there are exceptions of course). 

And the board loves find the exception that proves the rule.  Like a bad stat-line give you 98% confidence the player is bad, but the board loves to find the 2 of 100 that were the exception. 

Sanchez isn't that bad.  But not an exciting hitting prospect.  Jays right now don't have an exciting hitting prospect and haven't since Moreno.   They came up with one every year from 2017 to 2021.   

Youre so full of hot air its ridiculous. 

You can find 6 weeks of dominace by Sanchez this season. You can find 6 weeks of dogshit too. 

So, in your view which 6 weeks explains the player?

[John_Havok]

1 hour ago, Olerud363.354 said:

The other thing I've read, and guys on the board that have dabbled in college ball should know this, is that the stats don't tell too much until low a, because the breaking isn't good enough to fool guys.  The scouts can't really tell if a guy can hit good breaking stuff.  It's just an intrinsic hand eye thing.  Swing can look great, bat speed can be elite, but maybe they have 95% percentile had eye and not 99%.

It's like the real lesson in Money Ball.  Billy Beane kept getting told he was elite, but after 3 at bats in a ball he realized his hand eye wasn't there and the scouts were full of s***. 

There are all kinds of shades of gray here, but right now no elite hitters in the Jays farm system.   And you can tell this pretty quick with k/bb and even triple slash. 

I think even the most exciting prospects are Bradley Zimmer, Jake Marisnick, Paul Degjong, Cavan Biggio types, with the ceiling that they make it and have more good years then those guys, which actually would be OK players.  So let's hope our Biggio's and Dejong's have 4-5 3 WAR years instead of 1. 

Biggio was never a truly exciting prospect. He was intriguing with a weird carrying skill of a good eye amd taking walks, but not exciting. Zimmer was exciting.  Marisnick had a good start to minor league career too and ended up carving out a decent MLB career as a back-up. DeJong i never followed so wont speak to him. 

Point is, theres not a single 6 week stretch in any of those players minor league careers that you can point to and say "this guy wont be X" 

Your own examples pretty much argue that exact point.

[Olerud363.354]

1 hour ago, John_Havok said:

Point is, theres not a single 6 week stretch in any of those players minor league careers that you can point to and say "this guy wont be X" 

We are not talking about a random stretch.  We are talking about the first 6 weeks when that is all the data you have. 

Two different statistical problems

1.  If a guy hits bad for 100 at bats, after having 500 good ones how do you project his next 500 at bats?  Use the 600 you now have. 

2.  If a guy hits bad for 100 at bats how do you project his next 500 if you only have those bad 100?  Use the bad 100 with high variance of course.

Let's say there is a 10% chance a guy sucks randomly for a 100 at bat stretch.  If you all you have is 100 bad at bats there is a 10% chance it was a fluke but a 90% chance it is real. 

If you have 1000 at bats, there is very likely a bad 100 in there.  

 

[Olerud363.354]

1 hour ago, John_Havok said:

Biggio was never a truly exciting prospect. He was intriguing with a weird carrying skill of a good eye amd taking walks, but not exciting. Zimmer was exciting.  Marisnick had a good start to minor league career too and ended up carving out a decent MLB career as a back-up. DeJong i never followed so wont speak to him. 

Paul Dejong was sort of like Biggio but more tools I guess.  College guy, who was pretty intriguing but never put it together.  

I feel like good outcome for Nimmala and Parker are Dejong and Biggio but with an earlier start, more athleticism and a longer good stretch.

Don't mean that as an insult.    

Jays 50 question.  Who are the top 5 position players the Blue Jays have drafted or signed?  Top 5 WAR for all teams they played for.   Probably missing someone obvious. 

1.  Olerud 58 fWAR - 

2.  Jeff Kent? 50 fWAR - 

2.  Delgado 45 fWAR -

3  Fernandex 40ish fWAR ? 

4  Wells/Barfield ?? 

[metafour]

4 hours ago, Olerud363.354 said:

This is where the board fails to understand statistics.   A exciting prospect should have good age appropriate numbers for their level.  Say .300 .400 .500 with decent k/bb ratio.  A major league caliber player should be .250 .350 .450.   I mean of course every situation is a bit different and there is random variation.  

Actually, an exciting prospect should have exciting underlying data. It is 2026, nobody in baseball gives much of a s*** if a prospect hits .300/.400/.500 with poor underlying metrics (average EV's, average contact rates, etc).

It is for that reason why Jojo Parker is still evaluated as a top hitting prospect despite "only" hitting .242 on the season. Why? Because he produces consistently hard contact at an elite rate, and he shows well above average plate discipline and chase rates. His regular slash line would actually be better if he were more aggressive at the plate.

By the way, here is Parker's writeup on Fangraphs from the Futures Game. Notice how positive the writeup is?:

JoJo Parker, 3B, Toronto Blue Jays
Parker turned around a 101-mph fastball at the knees and lined it off the top of the right field wall in the seventh. It was the most impressive moment a hitter had all day and, as much as any single at-bat or pitch can, strengthened my conviction that he can hit. He also had a couple good takes on fastballs just off the plate and stayed back on a slider on another occasion, all of which made for a good day at the plate. Defensively, he looks destined for third; that’s not just my opinion either, as two scouts I spoke with also have him shifting away from short in the long run.

[BlueBaller]

Does anyone know why Tim Piasentin hasn't played since June 8th?

He's been listed as active for that duration. 

[Olerud363.354]

10 minutes ago, metafour said:

Actually, an exciting prospect should have exciting underlying data. It is 2026, nobody in baseball gives much of a s*** if a prospect hits .300/.400/.500 with poor underlying metrics (average EV's, average contact rates, etc).

It is for that reason why Jojo Parker is still evaluated as a top hitting prospect despite "only" hitting .242 on the season. Why? Because he produces consistently hard contact at an elite rate

Parker is hitting about the same as Vlad and Bo did on balls in play.  He hits the ball hard, just like they did, but hits .240 because he strikes out a lot more than they did. 

It's hard to hit .300 .400 .500 and have bad underlying stats.  It doesn't happen.  Either you hit .300 .400 .500 because you hit the ball hard and take balls, or because you have elite hand eye and contact rates with mediocre exit V.   Or somewhere in between.  Kevin McGonigle sucks at hitting the ball hard, the information you need to know about is in his .300 .400 .500.

[Olerud363.354]

39 minutes ago, metafour said:

nobody in baseball gives much of a s*** if a prospect hits .300/.400/.500 with poor underlying metrics (average EV's, average contact rates, etc).

I don't think this is true at all.   If a guy hits .300 .400 .500 over any sample size and age appropriate level he's a guy.  

Interestingly we are now seeing two types of hitters, high bat speed high EV hitters, and low bat speed low EV hitters with elite contact succeed.   The latter group is interesting.  McGonigle, Horwitz, Luis Arraez, Clement and a few others.   Not triple crown threats, but above average hitters with way below average bat speed and exit velocity. 

Likely cases will exist between the two extremes and this will muck up trying to evaluate them with underlying metrics.  Of course if their underlying metrics all suck, bad EVs, bad contact, then their stat line is a fluke.  But some guy with average EV, average contact rates, launch angle optimized, could be a legit good hitter.