The age thing is interesting. I have noticed that trend when it comes to Luhnow prep picks. Correa, Phillips, Nottingham, Jason Martin, etc. have all been young for their class when drafted.
It's one of a couple of indicators of an undervalued prospect/prospect with hidden upside. Kiley McDaniels covered them into depth in his Evaluating the Prospects article on the Astros (and further on his Fangraph podcast about said article). -Young for draft class. -Cold weather player (i.e. from the northeast and didn't get to play year round and/or isn't yet playing to his true talent level). -Big, projectable McDaniel hypothesized that Luhnow was so hard after Colin Moran because he checks all those boxes in addition to having bloodlines and potentially a 60 hit tool. Luhnow doesn't just look for it with prep players. Derek Fisher was slightly more appealing because he was a young for his draft class college junior; he got drafted at age 20. So he's playing his first full pro-season in his age 21 year. Not to mention that young for their draft class players are also great because if they become big leaguers you get more of your team control in their athletic prime.
The problem with reading rankings is that it gives you the illusion that the dropoff in talent is linear. As in suppose #1 pick is 100, then #2 is 98…#10 80, etc. When in truth draft prospects are better separated by tiers. It’s possible that there’s very little difference between the top X players, so the Astros are simply finding the cheapest one among comparable talents. Supposedly this draft is light on blue chippers, so why should the Astros pay retail when there are no retail quality player to be had?
In 2012 the scouts universally had Buxton as the top prospect. The Astros loved Correa, and saw a chance to save money to spend on other prospects. So why exactly would anybody be confident that the number 1 prospect is so much better than the number 3 prospect. This could very well be 2012 all over again. The only tool that Rodgers has a decided advantage on is power potential (BTW Swanson has 9 HR in 201 AB this season and a .617 SLG, not exactly a lightweight). Swanson is equal or superior in everything else, and has proven himself against a much higher level of competition. I'm not saying Swanson is going to be better, but if the Astros were to pick him over Rodgers they would have good reason to believe he can be better.
It was an overwhelming majority, and I don't know if any major ranking released didn't have Buxton at the top at the end. Correa kind of popped up as a potential #1 the day before the draft.
Yes he was, him and Mark Appel were the top 2 on almost all boards leading up to the draft. Correa came on strong at the end as Juicy mentioned and was usually listed 3rd. That is not unlike this years draft. Rodgers has been the clear #1 almost universally, but Swanson is rising with a strong season. He is now clearly one of the top 3 prospects, and some even have him going #1.
IIRC there were a handful of prospects considered for the 1.1 that year. OIOW at draft time, there were no consensus 1.1 pick. Now after the short summer season following the draft, Buxton did become the consensus top pick from the draft. I hope (perhaps naively) that people will remember that again in 2105 there were no consensus 1.1 pick. The lack of consensus will benefit both the DBacks and the Astros. They will be able to sign the 1.1 and the 1.2 pick for under slot. Not because they are cheapskates but because that is what the market will bear.
What's the best case scenario for swanson? I saw a comparison to Ben Zobrist...not exactly the most exciting turn out
Uh, Ben Zobrist would be an amazing result... http://www.fangraphs.com/statss.aspx?playerid=7435&position=2B/OF
I know Sickels and Goldstein had Correa at the top of their list, but I think he emerged late. But those two are being major rankings and Buxton was ranked 5 and 3 on those lists.
1:08 Comment From Daniel Is Houston really out on Rodgers? 1:09 Kiley McDaniel: Not from what I’m hearing 1:10 Kiley McDaniel: But I do hear conflicting info on HOU’s preference re: Rodgers or Swanson. Close to coin flip according to the industry, don’t have a great feel for what HOU will definitely do, but I’m pretty sure that’s because they don’t know yet either. It would be dumb to have already decided. http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/kiley-mcdaniel-prospects-chat-51215/
I know Zobrist has had a productive career. But he's not an all-star caliber player. The question really is: @2, do we go w/ all-star potential (I've seen Tulowitzki comparisons for Rodgers) or settle for a solid MLB player? Now, if Luhnow and co. really think Swanson can be that an all-star caliber player, great, let's go for it. At the same time, this is (hopefully) our last time at the top of the draft, so I think we'd be foolish not to shoot for the stars and try to get a super-star quality player. If Luhnow and co. are expecting Zobrist-type production from Swanson, I don't think we should do draft him with the 2nd pick. I trust Luhnow's ability to find Zobrist-type production later in the draft.
So 2 time all-star, receiving votes for MVP three times, and leading all position players in WAR in 2009 is not all-star caliber?
Even with hindsight as his benefit, Keith Law picked Zobrist 4th overall in his re-draft of the 2004 draft (which he did in 2014)
I'm not saying Zobrist is a bad player. Perhaps I misspoke. Yes, he's had 2 all-star seasons in 7 years. Yes, his average WAR is very solid @5.8. What I'm trying to say is, he's not a player people come to watch. He's not a perennial all-star. In 6 full seasons, Zobrist has averaged 16HR, 76RBI, .264/.353/.428. Would you be happy with those results with the 2nd pick? I'm not overtly for or against Swanson nor his Zobrist comparison. I just think we should shoot for the stars with the 2nd pick, since we likely won't have this opportunity again. Now, if our brass doesn't think there is a perennial all-star players in the draft, I 100% understand and support the Swanson pick at 2. I'd also support the Swanson pick if our brass really truly believes he's a perennial all-star type player. .
