Jump to content
Twins Daily
  • Create Account

Article: Twins Daily Top Prospects: #3 Nick Gordon


Recommended Posts

Big fan of Thrylos. Sometimes gives pretty good info and observations. Sometimes he's probably a bit too biased towards his own opinions but he clearly loves baseball and provides a heck of a lot more to this site than I do.

 

It is going to be a fun year for the Twins middle infield future. Dozier is in the last year of his contract. We'll see if Polanco can keep hitting and improve on his defense. Nick Gordon will be at AAA. A lot to figure out just with those three, then you add in Lewis and Javier down the line.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The footwork thing....we'll see. I tend to give guys with a really good arm a lot more leash at SS than others. A strong arm can make up for a lot of ... awkwardness. It can even make up for range if the shortstop plays back further in the field, and that's especially true at the major league level where the ground balls are hit harder and the fields are smoother. And by the accounts I've heard, Gordon has a lot of arm.

 

The struggles last year against left-handers scares me more. That's the second year he's done posted about a 530 OPS against LH pitchers. On the other hand, I don't think he has even 500 AB against them in his entire minor league career, and he was just 21 years old. It could also only mean he won't be a star, not that he won't be a regular. If a LHed shortstop can hit right-handers at a good clip, he's good enough overall to be an everyday player.

"That's the second year he's done posted about a 530 OPS against LH pitchers."

 

John, were you by chance vacationing in a shack in the foothills of West Virginia when you wrote this article? ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

IMO so far the only two prospects in the top 10 that I would worry about trading and coming back to really haunt us is Javier and Graterol and possibly Enlow but that is probably 5 years away.

I think a few will be decent to good in the majors.

I

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd have Gordon further down on this list too. If he can't stick at SS, that's huge. And there's questions about how much upside there is to the bat. High floor, low ceiling seems to be the label. That's not necessarily a bad thing, but those types of players are usually readily available and we (appear) to have at least a couple better internal options (Now: Polanco/Adrianza Future: Lewis). Plus, I'm always turned off by fast players who can't steal bases efficiently. Is this a skill that can be improved as players advance? I'm not sure what history says on this, but if he can't increase his success rate then that major part of his game is much less valuable. 

 

I hope the FO is shopping him for pitching unless the Twins are sky high on his intangibles, which we as fans know next to nothing about. He has the wheels, projects to be stronger than his brother, and has pretty good contact skills. If he can improve his SB%, cut his K's just a bit, and bump up the SLG, all while developing better instincts at SS, he'd probably be a top 15 SS. That's a lot of ifs, but if the Twins truly believe he can do those things before Lewis catches up to him, then fine. 

 

A little thought experiment. Forget where Gordon was drafted and about his brother's career. Would he still be as highly regarded? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

A little thought experiment. Forget where Gordon was drafted and about his brother's career. Would he still be as highly regarded? 

I would think so. Obviously, blood lines are pretty important in sports so that does help Gordon but that wasn't why he was drafted so highly. But even if he was just a fourth round pick, he'd be pretty highly regarded (and perhaps some of the negativity wouldn't be there since, like Gonsalves, he'd be an overachiever).

 

Right now I think the main negatives come from people who are reading the stat line too much and ignoring the scouting reports we're getting. mlbpipeline has him as the #10 shortstop in the game and they aren't as high on him as Klaw and BP are. Pretty much every review has him as at a minimum a starting level regular player. That's a pretty good prospect.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I'd love to hear baseball-based counter arguments about the value of Gordon or whether the above is accurate or not based on data.   Saying BA said so, or KL said so, are not baseball-based...

 

You DO realize, don't you, that most of us here rely on credentialed experts like BA, Sickles, KLAW, Fangraphs, Mayo, and others BECAUSE their opinions are based on data and and their opinions are ENTIRELY baseball-based and objective? The icing on the cake is that some of these very authentic experts also talk to other expert observers and even personally observe prospects.

 

The opinions offered by the true experts on Gordon are a bit more wide-ranging than with most prospects, but it appears that your own point of view is occupying a territory of its own.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

A little thought experiment. Forget where Gordon was drafted and about his brother's career. Would he still be as highly regarded? 

I think he would be a little lower ranked but everybody would be higher on him. Meaning a fourth round pick that has moved this fast and played in AFL would have everybody excited and would be hoping that this is the year he really turns it on to be considered a real top prospect and if he didn't they/we would be saying we got a real good utility infielder or at least a real good prospect until Lewis gets here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Took a look back at middle infielders at AA as comps to Gordon (who posted a wRC+ of 117 in the Southern League last year and was 13/20 in SBs). Fangraphs link.

 

One thing that really stood out was Gordon's K% versus other MI's with significant PAs. The guys that made good had a lower K%. There just isn't a precedent for a player succeeding after posting a similar OPS, wRC+, and K% as Gordon. 

 

Gordon has also benefited from a pretty high BABIP during his minor league career, likely a product of him being a fast, LH hitter. But you have to wonder if that will hold once his tendencies are subjected to the scrutiny of big league shifts. 

 

I realize that his K% was lower in previous years, but still he had nearly 600 PAs in AA last year (and was healthy all year long I believe). It's a significant sample. 

 

This is all important context, but it's past performance. There's good reason to believe he COULD become a serviceable big leaguer, but there's a lot of reason to think he may fall short of that. So, given all that, the obvious answer is to move him if we can get a good offer. If we can't, keeping him as an insurance policy for Polanco isn't a bad idea but until he shows otherwise, I don't think his name should be automatically penned into the lineup in 2019 or beyond. Again, I'm much more optimistic about some of the names further down this Top 20 list.  

 

 

Edited by alskntwnsfn
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

The opinions offered by the true experts on Gordon are a bit more wide-ranging than with most prospects, but it appears that your own point of view is occupying a territory of its own.

 

 

But so what?  In this case Thrylos could be right.  Gordon has some red-flags that get missed due to his past rankings and draft position.  From what we hear, his D is not a strength.  His bat has been consistently not great. His lack of power is a concern.  He doesn't steal bases very well.  He doesn't seem to have the best bat control.  And He has never had an over .800 OPS.  

 

It could be he improves - he made some interesting strides last year especially to start the year.  But Thrylos has a point here.  Nothing in Gordon's past performance indicates he will be anything but a spot starter with no pop.

 

Edited by clutterheart
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

But so what?  In this case Thrylos could be right.  Gordon has some red-flags that get missed due to his past rankings and draft position.  From what we hear, his D is not a strength.  His bat has been consistently not great. His lack of power is a concern.  He doesn't steal bases very well.  He doesn't seem to have the best bat control.  And He has never had an over .800 OPS.  

 

It could be he improves - he made some interesting strides last year especially to start the year.  But Thrylos has a point here.  Nothing in Gordon's past performance indicates he will be anything but a spot starter with no pop.

 

 

Exactly what red flags have the pros missed?

 

You, like thrylos, are entitled to your own opinions of course, and as always, they're welcome here. I will say that I completely disagree with your statement that "nothing in Gordon's past performance indicates he will be anything but a spot starter with no pop." A ton of evaluators are examining Gordon's past performance and concluding something different than this.

 

You did a good job in your comment of reciting all the areas of concern that have been commonly expressed. There's nothing new in either yours or thrylos's assessments in this regard. There's nothing at all wrong with holding a minority opinion, but my post had mostly to do with this odd notion that what the pros are saying isn't based on data and baseball-based, thereby calling what they say into question.

 

Edited by birdwatcher
Link to comment
Share on other sites

IMO so far the only two prospects in the top 10 that I would worry about trading and coming back to really haunt us is Javier and Graterol and possibly Enlow but that is probably 5 years away.

I think a few will be decent to good in the majors.

I

I think you are really underselling Royce Lewis then. He's got a really good chance of being an outright superstar, IMO.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Exactly what red flags have the pros missed?

 

You, like thrylos, are entitled to your own opinions of course, and as always, they're welcome here. I will say that I completely disagree with your statement that "nothing in Gordon's past performance indicates he will be anything but a spot starter with no pop." A ton of evaluators are examining Gordon's past performance and concluding something different than this.

 

You did a good job in your comment of reciting all the areas of concern that have been commonly expressed. There's nothing new in either yours or thrylos's assessments in this regard. There's nothing at all wrong with holding a minority opinion, but my post had mostly to do with this odd notion that what the pros are saying isn't based on data and baseball-based, thereby calling what they say into question.

I think the response to your question is that the pros don't point to anything Gordon has done on the baseball diamond as the evidence for his relatively high rankings. Instead, they frequently project  physical tools that don't actually exist yet. Almost every prospect write-up about Gordon involves saying something along the lines of "Gordon should fill out and gain strength, which will provide more pop at the plate and allow him to make it through a full season without wearing down."

 

While I don't doubt their expertise about the physiological development of players, it certainly is an inexact science at best to guess exactly how a 21-year-old will put on weight and strength, and how that will impact their overall athleticism and quickness. You can make some educated guesses based on their frame and maybe looking at their parents/siblings. But a big part of mental makeup, which is hard for scouts to really figure out. And another big part is his biological makeup, which is basically unknowable. 

 

I think everyone would agree that in his current physical form, Nick Gordon will not be even an average major leaguer. He needs to add strength. He needs to add endurance. And he needs to add both without loosing the athleticism that allows him to play shortstop effectively. That is an added risk that I think frequently gets down played by the professional analysts. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the response to your question is that the pros don't point to anything Gordon has done on the baseball diamond as the evidence for his relatively high rankings. Instead, they frequently project physical tools that don't actually exist yet. Almost every prospect write-up about Gordon involves saying something along the lines of "Gordon should fill out and gain strength, which will provide more pop at the plate and allow him to make it through a full season without wearing down."

 

While I don't doubt their expertise about the physiological development of players, it certainly is an inexact science at best to guess exactly how a 21-year-old will put on weight and strength, and how that will impact their overall athleticism and quickness. You can make some educated guesses based on their frame and maybe looking at their parents/siblings. But a big part of mental makeup, which is hard for scouts to really figure out. And another big part is his biological makeup, which is basically unknowable.

 

I think everyone would agree that in his current physical form, Nick Gordon will not be even an average major leaguer. He needs to add strength. He needs to add endurance. And he needs to add both without loosing the athleticism that allows him to play shortstop effectively. That is an added risk that I think frequently gets down played by the professional analysts.

 

Yes, when reading the write-ups, most pros articulate the red flag related to his physical state, and yes, pretty much all of them assume he gets his man muscles as he matures. I have yet to see a minority viewpoint, meaning a viewpoint that predicts a utility man outcome, where they cite this as the factor. They cite all of the other red flags that the pros also cite, and it's fine that they come to their own conclusions about Gordon. The pros express doubts and cite risks. I certainly don't see lots of conclusions that Gordon is on a certain path to be a utility guy, or that his comp id Pero Florimon and Lombo, do you?

 

Again, what I was trying to get to was expressing disdain for the opinions of the pros because they aren't data-driven or baseball-based, whatever that means, as if one's own lofty opinion is somehow more factual or something, especially when the opinion has been accompanied by more nebulous negatives.

 

Gordon has a good chance of failure, and I think the pro evaluators rank him highly because they think he has a chance to overcome his current deficiencies and not because of other things, klike draft position and pedigree.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I think you are really underselling Royce Lewis then. He's got a really good chance of being an outright superstar, IMO.

Sorry I meant the top 10 that we have seen so far, I think Lewis is one of those prospects that have a really, really good chance of being a good major league regular.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Wasn't straight up.  Was D'Arnaud + Syndergaard.  I'd still do that trade.

 

 I'm technologically challenged, and therefore can't figure out how to post the screenshot, but on August 11, 2015, in a thread called "Offseason Mock Trades", you expressly said "I'd trade Buxton for D'Arnaud straight up though".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
The Twins Daily Caretaker Fund
The Twins Daily Caretaker Fund

You all care about this site. The next step is caring for it. We’re asking you to caretake this site so it can remain the premier Twins community on the internet.

×
×
  • Create New...