Some of our best postseason walkoffs were preceded by George taking a walk in a big situation. 1.5 tools seems low. The only disappointment was he never improved the run game. Which is really criminal to the whole team when you have access to Bagwell and Biggio.
Whats your bar for calling it a tool/elite tool? Kiermaier and Andruw Jones were generational level defenders, basically 80 grades on defense. Springer is a solid 50 grade at defense in my book. He's not elite but he's solid average or better i'd count that as another tool.
Right. Tools don’t necessarily turn into production. Springer might’ve had a lot more steals on a crummier team. If “speed” is a tool, Springer obviously has it. Stolen bases isn’t a tool, it’s a stat. It may be semantics, but Springer is a player with 5 plus-to-elite tools whose defensive and baserunning stats didn’t reflect his speed and arm tools.
I was always taught 60 and above counts as a 'tool' for a guy ... meaning it is a 'plus' in their evaluation A tool, in scouting, meant something the player can use to impact the game positively For instance, a 99mph FB is not a 65-70 grade tool unless it is consistently thrown for strikes, and gets swings and misses regularly A 5 tool OF should be 60+ across the board Based on his 8 years, I'd grade only Springer's power as 60+ Arm I'd go right at 60 ... Reddick was better in RF The legs just don't impact enough on bases or in the field Glove is just 50 average Contact same maybe 55 for .270 career with twice as many Ks as BBs
I get that this fits with how the word "tools" are graded in baseball, but it makes me laugh that jargon can change so much from its origin. An actual tool's purpose is to perform a task (i.e., to produce). Is a tool that can't perform its task still a tool?
It just highlights how the traditional definitions of those “tools” isn’t aligned with the production they were created to predict. It would probably be a hard shift to get to take root, but changing the “tools” to be Baserunning (which could be split into “Speed” and “Instincts”), Defense (which could be split into “Range”, “Instincts”, “Glove”, “Arm strength”, and “Arm accuracy”), On-Base (which could be split into “Plate Discipline”, “Pitch recognition”, and “Contact ability”), and Power (which could be split into “Exit velocity” and “launch angle”) would make them more aligned with production.
Your idea of 5 tool is pretty high. Who is So generational talents like Trout are the only 5 tool players. If that is your definition, then that's your definition.
I've seen the 60-grade as the determining factor for whether a tool is a tool. 5-tool players should be rare by that definition.
Based off what Milos is thinking of what a 5-tool player is and having those tools show up in stats, outside of Trout and maybe Griffey Jr., I'm having trouble thinking of a stat-based 5-tool player. I believe that all the defensive stats out there, as flawed as they may be, showed that Springer was a better RF than CF. Also, while Reddick MAY have been a better RF than Springer (at some point), his bat was pale in comparison. And while Kiermaier certainly has been one of the best CF I have seen defensively, his bat was fairly average. If you pick and choose certain players and their best tool, yeah, that player would look better than Springer at that one tool. But comparing the players in their entirety, Springer would be better than most of them. Do I think Springer is a "5-tool player?" Not really. But he certainly is more than a 1.5-tool player. Billy Hamilton is a 1-tool player, and personally speaking, I believe that Springer has way more tools than Hamilton.
Whether or not Springer is 1.5 tool player or not, saying Springer is slightly better than Hamilton in a toolsy way is more on you than Milos. It is possible that a 1-2 tool player could be better than a 3-4 tool player. Springer's tools play. Each tool is not created equal. Personally, I would grade Springer high on hit (plate discipline is a part of hit tool in my opinion) and power.
Fair enough. I was trying to think of a better of putting it where it didn't across in that particular way and I obviously failed. I may just delete that part, even though it's quoted here. Edit: Changed it to reword it to what I should have probably said in the first place.
Other 5tool OFs I've seen play ... Trout Griffey Jr Acuna Beltran Otani Larry Walker Vlad Sr Eric Davis Rickey Strawberry Winfield Close 4 but not quite all 5: Judge (speed is iffy) Barry (weak arm) Andruw (contact not a plus) Yelich (arm) Ichiro (pop) On Springer as 1.5 ... Yeah I admitted before that was harsh Def has power 65 I'll add arm as 60 Speed on the border 55 or 60 Contact 55 Glove 50 So revised 2.5 - 3 ... def not 5
I should have thought harder about these lol. I'm going to be honest, didn't realize that Vlad and Walker were good base stealers. Walker was more consistent, while Vlad had a higher peak looking back at their stats. I thought about Ohtani, but with him pitching so much and DH'ing, it's hard for me to put a value on his defense. Also, a fringey one for me would also be Bo Jackson. Not sure if his hit tool would qualify him, but he'd be close.
Good pull on Bo ... cannot believe I overlooked him Larry, for me, is 'toolsy' in RF the way Baggy was at 1B There's really no athletic reason he should be, but the results are undeniable when he's swiping so many bases and scoring so many runs year after year
Not saying it isn't important as defense up the middle is most important, but having him in the field 30-35 times a year as opposed to 150+ just makes it harder for me to put him on the list that Milos had. Though I'm sure if Ohtani was run out to RF 150+ times a year, he would be on the list as I'm not sure if there is anything he can't do. But I was mainly thinking of it from an OF perspective since Milos had listed OFers. But if I take away Ohtani as an OFer, with his pitching, he would be up there on the list of toolsy players. Would his pitching actually be a sixth tool? Honest question.
Spot on By definition, guys who can 'do it all' are almost exclusively limited to SS, CF & RF It would be a wasteful to stick all that talent behind the dish, on the corners, at 2B, or in LF That does not mean every MLB team's best players are SS, CF or RF Pujols has built an argument as greatest RH hitter ever on just 2 tools Vlad Jr & Soto look like they may be similar HoF level hitters who are sub-par in every other phase of the game IMO, Springer is not below average at anything on a baseball field unlike the group above I'd grade him 50+ across the board But he's become a consistent AllStar primarily due to his elite power (65) If you can only be eilte at one thing, in the modern game, that's def the one to get you paid I'd grade Marisnick's glove as his lone borderline elite tool (65) Unfortunately for him, his contact is below average (45-) to the point he has never hit enough to stick as a regular starter in CF A great glove has far less value to teams in the OF than a great stick Thus, Springer has a shot at the HoF, while Jake is a journeyman
All I know is that the Angels have two baseball gods on their team and still manage to suck ass every year. Good for the Astros, but I feel bad for those two.
Was Bonds considered a 5 tool player? I know he won a bunch gold gloves and he was pretty darn fast in his youth. Even without the roids, Bonds was pretty darn amazing.
