Gabriel Guerrero Is The Second Indication Of A New Approach

by Jeff Sullivan on Feb 10, 2011 11:41 AM PST in Seattle Mariners Transactions

Probably not the Gabriel Guerrero we just got

As the story goes, Moneyball introduced people to the concept of an undervalued skillset. At first, it was slow-footed sluggers with a high OBP. Next, it was...well I don't know what came next, but eventually fleet-footed glovemen seemed to come in vogue. And now that most everybody seems to be paying attention to the importance of defense, the question to which everyone wants an answer is, now what? What'll be the next great undervalued resource?

Based on recent indications, the Mariners seem to believe the next great undervalued resource is players who are genetically similar to good players. Yesterday, the team announced the signing of Moises Hernandez. And today, we get news from Baseball America that the M's have inked Gabriel Guerrero, Vladimir's 17-year-old nephew.

What do we know about Gabriel Guerrero? Barely anything. But we know genetics! Let's say talent is recessive. We can consider Vlad to be good/good, or g/g. That means he inherited talent from each of his parents. That means his siblings may have inherited talent from at least one of their parents. If Gabriel Guerrero's father inherited the talent gene, and reproduced with a mate who also has the talent gene, then there's a chance that Gabriel will be g/g as well, and therefore a superstar baseball player. It's science! And what does BA have to say?

Guerrero, a big-bodied righthanded-hitter, has shown good raw power and has made improvements at the plate and in the field since he became eligible to sign last year on July 2. He projects as a corner outfielder with an solid arm.

"Big-bodies" and "good raw power" implies that Gabriel may have won the Vladimir Guerrero genetic lottery, and avoided the Wilton Guerrero genetic disaster.

Excellent.

Tweet Comment 83 comments | 2 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

This reasoning would seem to eliminate Hosni Lopez from consideration

by lemonverbena on Feb 10, 2011 11:49 AM PST reply actions

Actually, it's other things that eliminate Jose Lopez's siblings from consideration

by seattlebruin on Feb 10, 2011 1:00 PM PST up reply actions 8 recs

Hosni is surprisingly resilient

by lemonverbena on Feb 10, 2011 1:35 PM PST up reply actions

Contact would also be genetic, though...

and “has made improvements at the plate since eligible to sign last year” suggests he had a pretty big problem making it with regularity last year.

by slamcactus on Feb 10, 2011 11:52 AM PST reply actions

He was 16

by Jeff Sullivan on Feb 10, 2011 11:53 AM PST up reply actions

He looks thirtyish in the picture

by Poochie on Feb 10, 2011 11:59 AM PST up reply actions

It's like Pineda.

Younger than he looks.

by msb on Feb 10, 2011 12:35 PM PST up reply actions

It's more the "failed to sign" because of problems at the plate part that got my attention.

Virtually all of the July 2 guys are 16. Most of them sign contracts the first year they’re eligible.

The last time we gave big money to a guy who failed to sign in the first go-round he played one short-season in the minors and then got too fat and injured to take the field again.

I’m not trying to be overly pessimistic – all IFA’s are lottery tickets, and the Ms have taken a bunch of guys with power and contact issues. I’m just saying that the thing that made Vlad a special hitter was the combination of power and the ability to make hard contact on virtually everything thrown near the strike zone. If the nephew was too raw at the plate to sign, I’m guessing he didn’t inherit that natural ability.

by slamcactus on Feb 10, 2011 12:01 PM PST up reply actions

Not worth mentioning

The last time we gave big money to a guy who failed to sign in the first go-round he played one short-season in the minors and then got too fat and injured to take the field again.

Without offering a disclaimer that you realize that one sample is a ludicrous poor predictor, it weakens your whole concern.

by Matthew on Feb 10, 2011 12:04 PM PST up reply actions

I agree.

There isn’t a lot of history of guys getting passed up for a whole year and making it, though.

Also, I’m not making a statistical argument.

by slamcactus on Feb 10, 2011 12:05 PM PST up reply actions

But if it makes you feel better:

*Disclaimer: although Jharmidy De Jesus turned into a useless lump of crap, his failure has nothing to do with the future prospects of Guillermo Guerrero.

by slamcactus on Feb 10, 2011 12:06 PM PST up reply actions

I am still holding out hope that Jharmidy can do something.

I paid Good money for his Game used Jersey at an Aquasox fundraiser. I don’t need another expensive car washing rag.

(is that what happened he got fat and can’t play anymore? i couldn’t find any info after the 2009 season)

by ambrosia2112 on Feb 10, 2011 3:32 PM PST up reply actions

Shoulder issues too or something.

"Ever tried? Ever failed? No matter. Try again. Fail again. Fail better." - Samuel Beckett Mariners Minors

by JY on Feb 10, 2011 4:06 PM PST up reply actions

Had surgery on it just before the 2010 season I think.

Just rehabbing wasn’t working, so they tried to fix it. Maybe we’ll finally see something this year?

Writer: ProBallNW.com
Fan: Seattle Mariners, Seattle Sounders FC, Liverpool, Seattle Seahawks, Washington State Cougars, Buffalo Bills
Twitter

by c_dowley on Feb 10, 2011 4:58 PM PST up reply actions

I don't have high expectations at this point.

"Ever tried? Ever failed? No matter. Try again. Fail again. Fail better." - Samuel Beckett Mariners Minors

by JY on Feb 10, 2011 9:37 PM PST up reply actions

Expensive car washing rag teach many things

Wax on, right hand. Wax off, left hand. Wax on, wax off. Breathe in through nose, out of mouth. Wax on, wax off. Don’t forget to breathe, very important.

Also, minor league prospects always crapshoot.

by Ugly Dickshot on Feb 10, 2011 10:17 PM PST up reply actions

Yes you are.

There isn’t a lot of history of guys getting passed up for a whole year and making it, though.

is a statistical argument missing the statistics.

by Matthew on Feb 10, 2011 12:08 PM PST up reply actions

It would be if I was making a serious attempt to prove something.

Instead, I’m commenting on a blog post raising a small issue.

If Guillermo Guerrero comes into the minors and makes hard contact with anything and everything near the strike zone, I’ll gladly consume a slice of humble pie.

You’re kind of annoying.

by slamcactus on Feb 10, 2011 12:10 PM PST up reply actions

Also...

that so-called “statistical argument” was in the second post. Not the first.

by slamcactus on Feb 10, 2011 12:11 PM PST up reply actions 1 recs

I think you're taking this entire thing a little too seriously

Gabriel Guerrero is probably going to be terrible.

by Jeff Sullivan on Feb 10, 2011 12:23 PM PST up reply actions

Don't say that!

If he’s awesome then LAA fans will be mad. Mad angels fans make me happy.

by LonelyintheBleachers on Feb 10, 2011 12:25 PM PST up reply actions

It really wasn't my intention...

this is an example of tone being tough to convey over the internet. I was trying to flippantly read something conclusive into a very, very vague comment from Badler about GG’s abilities.

Sorry it took this turn.

by slamcactus on Feb 10, 2011 12:26 PM PST up reply actions

Most players who end up in the summer leagues are terrible but some of them have fascinating names.

Westlonder Marcelino!

"Ever tried? Ever failed? No matter. Try again. Fail again. Fail better." - Samuel Beckett Mariners Minors

by JY on Feb 10, 2011 12:31 PM PST up reply actions

No I think you're confusing Matthew with yourself

by Aaron Campeau on Feb 10, 2011 12:11 PM PST up reply actions 1 recs

So from now on, in an effort to not be annoying like Matthew, I’ll cherry-pick posts from among the hundreds of comments at Lookout Landing that fail to make a complete statistical argument, regardless of whether or not that was their intention.

by slamcactus on Feb 10, 2011 12:16 PM PST up reply actions

Actually you could just try not being a prick.

That’s probably your better bet.

by Aaron Campeau on Feb 10, 2011 12:20 PM PST up reply actions 6 recs

I'm with Aaron on this one.

by njd.aitken on Feb 10, 2011 1:27 PM PST up reply actions

I'm not so sure.

While slamcactus certainly could’ve conducted himself in a more proper manner, I’m not sure Matthew was right in jumping the gun calling BS. Slamcactus wasn’t making any sort of argument whatsoever, and didn’t come to any conclusive decision on the matter. He simply stated facts, didn’t derive anything from them and let his thoughts flow out acknowledging that

I’m not trying to be overly pessimistic – all IFA’s are lottery tickets

While Matthew certainly has a right to do whatever the hell he wants, I don’t think he should be so quick to say “your argument sucks because you aren’t backing up claims with statistical evidence” when there originally was no claim.

M's fan in the Bay, soon to be LA

by perfectstrat on Feb 10, 2011 1:56 PM PST up reply actions 4 recs

The hell?

Your argument sucks? I didn’t say that. All I was attempting to point out was that this:

The last time we gave big money to a guy who failed to sign in the first go-round he played one short-season in the minors and then got too fat and injured to take the field again.

wasn’t needed in his comment. Slamcactus could have deleted that sentence and the thrust of the comment still stands. I find including it to be bad because what’s the point of bringing it up? It’s borderline irrelevant given the unique factors involved in player development and risks furthering belief that personal, anecdotal experiences stand for something larger.

Afterwards,

“There isn’t a lot of history of guys getting passed up for a whole year and making it, though.”

is a stiatistical argument. It’s a sentence saying that Guerrero’s a low percentage signing because he was passed up for a whole year, but he didn’t provide numbers to back that particular claim up. I’m not saying slamcactus is wrong in that assertion, simply that he issued a quantitative statement without quantitative evidence of support.

I don’t understand why my critiquing the way in which he presented his thoughts means I’m disagreeing with the content of them.

by Matthew on Feb 10, 2011 2:36 PM PST up reply actions

Maybe "your argument sucks" is too big an overt exaggeration from "it weakens your whole concern".

That was a mis-paraphrase on my part. I wholeheartedly agree with you in the second matter.

There isn’t a lot of history of guys getting passed up for a whole year and making it, though.

is a statistical argument and he didn’t back it up with necessary evidence.

My point is that he did offer a disclaimer in the form of

all IFA’s are lottery tickets

. Maybe I’m not so sharp on my close reading, but I think that means he understands that one sample of an IFA signing at 17 means nothing at all.

While you made your original comment with good intentions trying to point out what you saw as a flaw in his comment, we are all subject to a lackluster interpretation of tone on the Internet and everything (including this debate) has cascaded from there. Perhaps the Jharmidy de Jesus example didn’t fit or have any significance, but I don’t see the reason for calling him on it. If everyone was called on something that wasn’t worth writing (I probably do that a lot), then we’d ultimately get nowhere. But again, that’s not my call. It’s yours; it’s your blog.

M's fan in the Bay, soon to be LA

by perfectstrat on Feb 10, 2011 3:01 PM PST up reply actions

I've apologized twice...

My reaction was out of line. I still don’t see why you had to jump down my throat for throwing an anecdote into a post where I was plainly making a guess (you know, when I said “I’m guessing”), not trying to prove something.

You’re right. I didn’t need to write the sentence about De Jesus. You win.

by slamcactus on Feb 10, 2011 3:58 PM PST up reply actions

It wasn't meant to "jump down your throat".

It was meant as constructive criticism in the sense that, “I think your comment would have been better with the reference to Jharmidy”

The way I read it, juxtaposed between a valid concern and a benign summary of IFA risks, it doesn’t seem tongue-in-cheek. It seems like it flows from “why didn’t he sign last year?” We see that type of slippery slope point being made all the time so I simply wanted to point out that it didn’t fit.

It feels like you are being too defensive here.

by Matthew on Feb 10, 2011 4:47 PM PST up reply actions

Without the reference*

by Matthew on Feb 10, 2011 5:04 PM PST up reply actions

Well that's not very gentlemanly

by Poochie on Feb 10, 2011 12:16 PM PST up reply actions

What is wrong with people?

Matthew was being perfectly reasonable.

by wazzu93 on Feb 10, 2011 12:22 PM PST up reply actions

I said something, and concluded it with an acknowledgment that it was a guess,

and he started taking me to task for throwing in an anecdote because it doesn’t rise to the level of statistical proof. It was weird, and it put me off.

But you’re right, I shouldn’t be insulting people on their own blog. Sorry Matthew.

by slamcactus on Feb 10, 2011 12:25 PM PST up reply actions

He did say "all IFA's are lottery tickets..."

That sounds like a disclaimer to me.

by Lanky on Feb 10, 2011 1:22 PM PST up reply actions 1 recs

It's not really explicitly a disclaimer that the previous sentence shouldn't carry any weight

which is what I was trying to point out

by Matthew on Feb 10, 2011 2:39 PM PST up reply actions

Not explicitly, no.

And perhaps the ideal comment would have included it. But I think the polite thing to do would be to have faith in slamcactus’ intelligence and trust that he understands that. Also, given that Jeff’s original post is mildly tongue-in-cheek, we should probably expect comments to be in the same vein.

by Lanky on Feb 10, 2011 4:00 PM PST up reply actions

Also, given that Jeff’s original post is mildly tongue-in-cheek, we should probably expect comments to be in the same vein.

Exactly. My original post was intended to be a tongue-in-cheek comment about genetics along with calling attention to the fact that it’s weird he didn’t sign the first year he was eligible.

This has gotten absurd.

by slamcactus on Feb 10, 2011 4:01 PM PST up reply actions

Comments aren't just direct replies to the person,

but also for the community at large.

As stated above: the way I read it, juxtaposed between a valid concern and a benign summary of IFA risks, it doesn’t seem tongue-in-cheek. It seems like it flows from "why didn’t he sign last year?" We see that type of slippery slope point being made all the time, here and other places, so I simply wanted to point out that it didn’t fit.

It wasn’t a slam.

by Matthew on Feb 10, 2011 4:49 PM PST up reply actions

I agree it's for everyone. I disagree about how the comment should be addressed.

I understand that you make the rules in your house, but if it were me I would be trying harder to make people feel comfortable getting involved in the conversation, assuming they don’t seem like complete idiots. If slamcactus’ comment was part of a fanpost he wrote on the topic, your criticism would seem highly appropriate. Here, it doesn’t feel quite the same to me.

Perhaps it’s simply your brevity, but your originaly reply – while not coming across as a slam exactly – certainly didn’t lead me to think you thought much of the comment overall, either. And while I appreciate your attempts to discourage any poor logic from creeping into people’s thought processes, a blunt criticism of an offhand comment on this kind of post comes across pretty strong. I think something along the lines of “that’s a valid concern, but…” or something of that nature would have done wonders.

by Lanky on Feb 11, 2011 6:58 AM PST up reply actions 2 recs

Fair enough

I am blunt by nature in the comments as I have to keep tabs on all of them here in a very short amount of time, but I am working on softening the tone.

by Matthew on Feb 11, 2011 10:12 AM PST up reply actions

Vlad didn't sign with the Expos until he was 18

by Jeff Sullivan on Feb 10, 2011 12:06 PM PST up reply actions

Very, very different age.

Everything about Latin American recruiting has changed since the mid-90s.* Also, Vlad’s birth certificate was altered.

*Yes, I know what I’m talking about. I spent 3 months in the Dominican Republic on a research fellowship studying international baseball scouting.

by slamcactus on Feb 10, 2011 12:08 PM PST up reply actions

18*

Fans are typically idiots.

by The Typical Idiot Fan on Feb 10, 2011 12:39 PM PST up reply actions

Many autosomal dominant diseases show onset in adulthood.

by abender20 on Feb 10, 2011 12:00 PM PST up reply actions

Forget signing 16-year-old international free agents; there's just too much risk.

Instead the Mariners should invest in future talent by paying talent-gene adults to mate with each other and create a hitter youth program to encourage their genetically-superior abilities.

by ThomasG on Feb 10, 2011 12:00 PM PST reply actions 19 recs

I really don't like the looks of "hitter youth program".

by abender20 on Feb 10, 2011 12:01 PM PST up reply actions 30 recs

It's a successful program in the Red Sox Nation.

They’re creating boatloads of athletic white players.

by ThomasG on Feb 10, 2011 12:03 PM PST up reply actions 7 recs

The hitter youth program works great

It helps young kids work on their hitting skills naturally instead of turning to steroids. Soon they will have the final solution to the steroid problem and eliminate all the juice.

by Suburban Shocker on Feb 10, 2011 12:15 PM PST up reply actions 31 recs