Hitting

Ross, I never had the opportunity to watch Peters play, but I saw a lot of Meyer when he was at Stockton in the Cal League. From checking a little on their past, I noticed that Peters was 23 years old when he finished at South Carolina and was drafted. Meyer was only 20 years old when he signed.

As a 23 year old, he must have been missing some tools, as he had not been drafted before that year. Putting up good numbers in college as a 23 year old is not necessarily going to excite a lot of scouts, and he was drafted in the 10th round. Did he have good numbers in the two previous years?

Watching Meyer play quite a few games at Stockton, I came away with the impression that he was a draft mistake. He could run and throw, but was a below average fielder and his arm was a scatter gun. His hitting was poor, and he hit from the top, much like a golfer who comes over the top and slices. He had no power and had a short stocky body that looked like it might become short and chunky. Meyer recieving a huge bonus and being a 1st rounder has helped him continue to get chances.

Peters had a pretty good year in the SAL but was 24 and when he was promoted to High Class "A", he had a tough time hitting at an age where most good prospects are in "AA" or "AAA" and the real good ones are in the big leagues. I don't know if his hitting approach was at fault, or if he lost confidence as time went on and his average fell.

The pitching in High Class "A" is much better than in college.

Doug,

Thanks for the response. I wondered about the age with Peters myself and your assessment of Meyer was exactly the same as mine. I figured that they gave him more time because of the millions spent up front.

If all other factors were equal, ie, fielding, arm, speed. Would you lean toward the high percentage hitter or the power guy? Also, from your experience, which type of hitters statistically would you say have a better chance of making it? Or is there simply no trend either way?

Thanks,
R.

There is not really a trend, as when you mentioned all other factors being the same (run, field throw). Very seldom are they the same.

I would rather have the kid who is a good hitter, as he could hit with more power in the future as long as he keeps hitting balls on the nose. The guys who make it who are big power guys, but are not real good hitters are usually guys who have other tools too. Rob Deer was a good example, he could hit it out of Yellowstone, but was a poor hitter. He was also a good outfielder who could run pretty well and had a strong arm. He was a legit 4 tool guy, but the tool that he was missing was the most important one.

If you can hit .300 in every league, you will end up in the big leagues, so I will take the good hitter........always.

That being said, I will never run away from power, as it is the hardest tool to find.

Speaking of Bonds and the original subject of this thread, one of the things think Bonds does very well is to start his swing as if he's going to the opposite field and then because he's got a very short swing for a power hitter he can still turn on the inside pitch.

Although you'll see Bonds finish quite open, if you look closely at clips his hips and pivot foot turn more like a hitter trying to drive the ball the other way or up the middle than a pull hitter up until contact.

This is consistent to some degree with the approach Schmidt and Ellis advocate in their book and probably one reason why Bonds strikes out so seldom compared the number of home runs he hits.

Disagree with Bonds doing most anything that Ellis teaches. Disagree with him looking like a hitter going the other way too.