Michael Taylor superstar

[GMUTrkstar]

Right, it was a great play.  The difference between Taylor and Span is, if it had been Span who made that play, nobody would be talking about it, because it would have been a routine play for Span, he would have made it look easy.

Why are some people so certain Span would've got to that ball? In the GDT people were saying Taylor got a bad jump and that span would have read it right and made the play look routine. But this article seems to contradict that sentiment:

MLB.com's Statcast showed Taylor traveled 97.172 feet at a top speed of 19.8 mph with a 98 percent route efficiency to make the dazzling play.
....
Amazingly, Statcast also revealed Taylor broke .05 seconds before Campbell connected with Gonzalez's heater. It's no surprise to Matt den Dekker, who has seen Taylor's special instincts since the two played at the same high school in Fort Lauderdale, Fla.

http://www.masnsports.com/nationals-pastime/2015/07/michael-a-taylor-leaps-through-the-air-for-show-stopping-catch.html

[mitlen]

Why are some people so certain Span would've got to that ball?   In the GDT people were saying Taylor got a bad jump and that span would have read it right and made the play look routine.    ....

Because Span has done it more than once?       

[varoadking]

I thought it was a pretty routine play, tbh.   

[Ray D]

Why are some people so certain Span would've got to that ball?

I'm not certain of it. But I'd bet money on it.

[GMUTrkstar]

I agree Span plays great D in CF but he hasn't posted a postive UZR for us since 2013. Either way there both great players but I think Taylor will be the one roaming CF for 2016+

[Ray D]

I agree Span plays great D in CF but he hasn't posted a postive UZR for us since 2013. Either way there both great players but I think Taylor will be the one roaming CF for 2016+

Those of us who think Span is better defensively would probably all agree that we would lose little by replacing him with Taylor.  Defensively, that is.  Offensively, Taylor doesn't come close to compensating for a loss of Span.  And losing Span leaves a big hole at leadoff. Taylor certainly is not a leadoff batter.

[GMUTrkstar]

Those of us who think Span is better defensively would probably all agree that we would lose little by replacing him with Taylor.  Defensively, that is.  Offensively, Taylor doesn't come close to compensating for a loss of Span.  And losing Span leaves a big hole at leadoff. Taylor certainly is not a leadoff batter.

Definitely has some improving to do a the plate. I doubt he ends up being a leadoff hitter especially if Trea Turner pans out.

[Slateman]

Player A batted .250/.285/.349 through this date in his first year in the bigs, walking 3.6% of the time and striking out 23.7% of the time and hit 5 HR with 32 RBI, a wRC+ of 68.

Player B batted .235/.283/.356 through this date in his first year in the bigs, walking 6.4% of the time and striking out 32% of the time and hit 6 HR with 32 RBIs, a wRC+ of 70.

One of these players is listed at 6'3, 220 lbs.  The other player is listed at 6'3, 210 llbs.

One of these players then went on to put up a 7.5 win season later on, and his considered one of the best defensive centerfielders of his generation.  That player is Carlos Gomez.

I'll let you figure out which slash line is his and which is Michael Taylor's.

Gomez was much more highly touted than Taylor.

[Matugi]

Gomez was much more highly touted than Taylor.

Gomez wasn't even the Mets' top prospect when he debuted.  Here's a snippet from BA:

“A true five-tool athlete, Gomez has game-changing speed and a well above-average arm, tools that help make him a premium defender in center field. He also has excellent bat speed that leads to projections of at least average power, if not more. Hitting will be the last tool to develop for Gomez. He’s still searching for the balance between aggressiveness and plate discipline.”

Resembles Michael Taylor, yeah?

[Slateman]

Gomez wasn't even the Mets' top prospect when he debuted.  Here's a snippet from BA:

“A true five-tool athlete, Gomez has game-changing speed and a well above-average arm, tools that help make him a premium defender in center field. He also has excellent bat speed that leads to projections of at least average power, if not more. Hitting will be the last tool to develop for Gomez. He’s still searching for the balance between aggressiveness and plate discipline.”

Resembles Michael Taylor, yeah?

Yea, except for the part where a year before his first full season, he was a top 75 prospect.

[Matugi]

Yea, except for the part where a year before his first full season, he was a top 75 prospect.

Baseball America has Taylor as the #32 prospect entering this season.

[Slateman]

Baseball America has Taylor as the #32 prospect entering this season.

What about last season?

[Matugi]

What about last season?

Outside their top 100 BOS, but the Nats #7 prospect, and their #3 midseason behind Giolito and Souza likely just outside the top-50.  Taylor is definitely a highly regarded prospect, 50/55 FV everywhere.  Maybe not the 60 FV of Gomez but that's Taylor's best comparison.

[Elvir Ovcina]

Baseball America has Taylor as the #32 prospect entering this season.

The big differentiator here is age.  Taylor is 24.  By his 24th birthday, Gomez already had over 1000 MLB plate appearances.  It took him 500 more to even reach league average on offense and his two best years happened at 27 and 28.  If you project similar development, Taylor's peak is an OPS+ of slightly over 100.

[NJ Ave]

What about last season?

Haha, give it a rest. Carlos Gomez was on top 100 lists for 2 years prior to coming up, but was never ranked as highly as Michael Taylor was. They're very similar prospects, right down to the point that it worries me that Carlos Gomez took like 4 years to develop his offense, and makes me wonder if we face the same thing with Michael Taylor.

Besides a pure [erroneous] mindfact that Carlos Gomez was rated more highly at the time he came up, what makes them dissimilar?

[NJ Ave]

The big differentiator here is age.  Taylor is 24.  By his 24th birthday, Gomez already had over 1000 MLB plate appearances.  It took him 500 more to even reach league average on offense and his two best years happened at 27 and 28.  If you project similar development, Taylor's peak is an OPS+ of slightly over 100.

At the same age Carlos Gomez was hitting .247/.298/.357 in the majors. I see no reason that Carlos Gomez gets credit for being on a crappy franchise and getting 1000 PA of well below average play - he was roughly a 1-WAR player until age 25.

[Smithian]

Carlos Gomez took a few years to become Carlos Gomez. I'm not sure if Taylor will ever have Gomez's 2013/14 seasons, but I expect him to best Gomez's first few seasons.

[Elvir Ovcina]

At the same age Carlos Gomez was hitting .247/.298/.357 in the majors. I see no reason that Carlos Gomez gets credit for being on a crappy franchise and getting 1000 PA of well below average play - he was roughly a 1-WAR player until age 25.

It depends on whether those crappy years helped him become the player he was later on or not.  If Taylor needs another thousand PAs to become an average player, that's not going to work out nearly as well as if he tracks Gomez year by year per age development.  (Also, before Gomez's age 24 season, he'd never played on a sub-.500 team. The Twins and Mets were both decent then.)

[Smithian]

Better comparison, in my mind, than Gomez.....

Would you rather Michael Taylor or Billy Burns right now?

[deeznatz]

Better comparison, in my mind, than Gomez.....

Would you rather Michael Taylor or Billy Burns right now?

Burns, no doubt.

[Matugi]

Better comparison, in my mind, than Gomez.....

Would you rather Michael Taylor or Billy Burns right now?

That's not a good comparison because the players are TOTALLY dissimilar.  Burns is a leadoff man who plays minus defense; Taylor is a bottom-of-the-order power guy who plays plus defense.  ONE DAY he may be a leadoff guy that strikes out a lot a la Gomez but Burns is a terrible comparison.

[Smithian]

That's not a good comparison because the players are TOTALLY dissimilar.  Burns is a leadoff man who plays minus defense; Taylor is a bottom-of-the-order power guy who plays plus defense.  ONE DAY he may be a leadoff guy that strikes out a lot a la Gomez but Burns is a terrible comparison.

Different players, but Burns is a CF we had in system recently who is having a good season. I have a feeling there are posters on OAFF.net crowing about Beane working over Rizzo on this one.

[Ray D]

That's not a good comparison because the players are TOTALLY dissimilar.  Burns is a leadoff man who plays minus defense; Taylor is a bottom-of-the-order power guy who plays plus defense.  ONE DAY he may be a leadoff guy that strikes out a lot a la Gomez but Burns is a terrible comparison.

Just because the players are dis-similar doesn't make the question of who you would rather have invalid.   Who would you rather have: Mike Trout or Clayton Kershaw?    The answer (to Taylor vs. Burns) depends on your needs.  It's a tricky question:  if Span is back (and Werth too), we don't need either.  Without Span, we need both.

[Smithian]

The only reason I am comparing Taylor and Burns is because we traded Burns out of the system for a reliever. I didn't like the trade at the time, even if Taylor and Goodwin (at the time) were better prospects.

I have gone back and forth this season wishing it was Taylor and not Burns in that trade.

[Slateman]

Outside their top 100 BOS, but the Nats #7 prospect, and their #3 midseason behind Giolito and Souza likely just outside the top-50.  Taylor is definitely a highly regarded prospect, 50/55 FV everywhere.  Maybe not the 60 FV of Gomez but that's Taylor's best comparison.

So the year before, he wans't a highly touted prospect, nor had he been one since coming in to the system? Between that and the age difference, I think there is a huge difference between them.

Taylor is more like Mike Cameron.