Red Sox 2012/2013 Offseason Thread - Page 205 - Talksox

Palodios · 12-24-2012, 08:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by User Name?

The word "elite" gets thrown around way too liberally around here.

I'm assuming this is referring to me. If the #5 ranked prospect in the minor leagues isn't an elite pitching prospect, than what is?

User Name? · 12-24-2012, 09:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Palodios

I'm assuming this is referring to me. If the #5 ranked prospect in the minor leagues isn't an elite pitching prospect, than what is?

That's not quite how it works. The top 5 prospects at any position at given time aren't necessarily elite. Elite refers to a generational talent, which Bauer certainly is not. A prospect's ability and makeup makes them elite, not something as subjective as ranking.

Palodios · 12-24-2012, 10:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by User Name?

That's not quite how it works. The top 5 prospects at any position at given time aren't necessarily elite. Elite refers to a generational talent,

You're arguing semantics here, and even so, missing an important distinction. Generational is a step beyond elite. Pedro is generational. Greinke is elite. In just the same way, an elite pitching prospect can be very different from a generational pitching prospect.

BSN07 · 12-24-2012, 10:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Palodios

You're arguing semantics here, and even so, missing an important distinction. Generational is a step beyond elite. Pedro is generational. Greinke is elite. In just the same way, an elite pitching prospect can be very different from a generational pitching prospect.

I agree. I would consider Bauer and say Myers as "Elite" prospects. Strasburg, Harper, Felix and Trout were "Generational" prospects.

Bellhorn04 · 12-24-2012, 10:27 AM

This reminds me of the 'ace' debate. There's no objective definition for any of these terms, at least not that I'm aware of.

Dojji · 12-24-2012, 10:31 AM

I've seen the word to mean both. But all that really means is neither of you can say with any confidence that the other is wrong.

When I think of something being elite, depending on the context what I think of is something in the range of top 10% to top quartile. A relative statement in other words. Generational talent is a whole different plane of discussion. A player can be the best in the league at his position -- elite in any reasonable definition of the word -- and not be generational.

CC Sabathia is probably elite. He was the ace of a very good team and in play for the Cy a few years straight. NWIH is he generational. Pitchers have come and gone on a regular basis that stand out more than he does. Ditto for Cliff Lee. The only real generational talent I can think of right now who's currently playing is Justin Verlander. That's the guy who's going to get remembered after he's done, if anyone is. I'm not convinced any other SP, or any hitter, is special enough right now. Stanton is on his way but has a ways to go. No one else is really doing it for me yet.

And then of course just to muddy the waters a bit, there's generational PLAYERS who are not generational TALENTS. A classic example is Curt Schilling. He's generational in the sense that Bill Mazeroski was generational. What he did over a short period of time was far bigger and added far more to the game than the sum of his numbers.

BSN07 · 12-24-2012, 10:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dojji

I've seen the word to mean both. But all that really means is neither of you can say with any confidence that the other is wrong.

When I think of something being elite, depending on the context what I think of is something in the range of top 10% to top quartile. A relative statement in other words. Generational talent is a whole different plane of discussion. A player can be the best in the league at his position -- elite in any reasonable definition of the word -- and not be generational.

CC Sabathia is probably elite. He was the ace of a very good team and in play for the Cy a few years straight. NWIH is he generational. Pitchers have come and gone on a regular basis that stand out more than he does. Ditto for Cliff Lee. The only real generational talent I can think of right now who's currently playing is Justin Verlander. That's the guy who's going to get remembered after he's done, if anyone is. I'm not convinced any other SP, or any hitter, is special enough right now. Stanton is on his way but has a ways to go. No one else is really doing it for me yet.

And then of course just to muddy the waters a bit, there's generational PLAYERS who are not generational TALENTS. A classic example is Curt Schilling. He's generational in the sense that Bill Mazeroski was generational. What he did over a short period of time was far bigger and added far more to the game than the sum of his numbers.

Miguel Cabrera is a generational hitter.

User Name? · 12-24-2012, 11:48 AM

The problem is that i have not seen anywhere other than some talksox posters who are enamored with Bauer for some strange reason, the kid being referred to as an upper echelon talent. The scouts refer to him as a very good talent with control and maturity problems, not elite. I will trust the scouts on this one.

Lucienbel · 12-24-2012, 01:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by User Name?

The problem is that i have not seen anywhere other than some talksox posters who are enamored with Bauer for some strange reason, the kid being referred to as an upper echelon talent. The scouts refer to him as a very good talent with control and maturity problems, not elite. I will trust the scouts on this one.

I'm also going to agree with this one. Especially after watching a few of his starts. The attitude problems even seemed to stand out some when he was on the mound. I've seen a lot of people speculating that this is why Arizona got rid of him, even though they claim it isn't. It certainly seems like it is to me though. Either way, it kind of seemed like they didn't want to deal with him anymore.

Dojji · 12-24-2012, 03:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BSN07

Miguel Cabrera is a generational hitter.

No he isn't. He's elite. but he's not a player that makes my gut churn to see my best pitchers facing him the way Manny must have in his heyday, or the way Ichiro did as a generational caliber contact hitter. He's an exceptional cleanup type, incredibly valuable, I'd love to have him on the Sox, but he's no more generational than Kevin Youkilis was at his peak. Nor is he any more generational than, say, Adrian Gonzalez.

a700hitter · 12-24-2012, 03:46 PM

It's silly to argue over these terms which are themselves just part of current day popular parlance. Ten or twenty years from now we will be using different terms. Miggy is pretty great and he would be a top hitter in any generation. He is the best hitter in the game right now without question, and he's in his prime. He may be better than Manny, and he doesn't have the stigma of PEDs.

SCM33 · 12-24-2012, 03:53 PM

......are we really arguing stupid terms like "generational" and "elite"?

a700hitter · 12-24-2012, 03:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SCM33

......are we really arguing stupid terms like "generational" and "elite"?

It looks like that.

What's next, arguing current pitching terms like whether a guy' s stuff is "filthy" or "electric".

Emmz · 12-24-2012, 04:17 PM

Haha Dojji. No, Miggy isn't a generational talent. As a constant MVP candidate and the first triple crown winner since 1967, he is only elite. Technically speaking, ofc.

Bellhorn04 · 12-24-2012, 04:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dojji

No he isn't. He's elite. but he's not a player that makes my gut churn to see my best pitchers facing him the way Manny must have in his heyday, or the way Ichiro did as a generational caliber contact hitter. He's an exceptional cleanup type, incredibly valuable, I'd love to have him on the Sox, but he's no more generational than Kevin Youkilis was at his peak. Nor is he any more generational than, say, Adrian Gonzalez.

I think Cabrera qualifies as a 'generational' hitter. His career OPS of .956 is 20th on the alltime list.