Prospectus Idol Entry

Overall I liked it but did not love it. It was easier for me to follow than his earlier pieces and I didn't feel overwhelmed with stats.

At the same time, I wanted to see more analysis. perhaps a paragraph on why he might not be living up to his power potential (park factors?)... when he listed the pecota comparables, I was expecting a line like "none of his pecota comparables were five tool players especially in the power department"

I also don't know what the difference between a "normalized" projection and an Oliver projection was, and since the normalized projection wasn't included in any of the text I wondered why that chart was there. The major league eqivalency line of text which was supposed to refer to the Oliver projections of .27$ .431 .337 looked like it came from the normalized chart and not the Oliver chart.

The writing style also changed tone a few times which made the pace a bit choppy for me.

Good but expected more (and this is the first one I read) so I won't make a voting decision yet.

I didn't have trouble following Oliver projections or normalized projections. The "Oliver" is similar to "Marcel" with a longer memory, and normalized projections adjust for league and ballpark, per the article. Brian's point, I believe, was that McCutcheon had outperformed expectations every single year of his career save 2007, and that regression might be more likely for such a player than it would be for one whose range of likely outcomes were better defined by his MiLB career. Furthermore, neither reasonable projections nor after-the-fact normalized stats showed McCutcheon as the peer of McLouth.

Will, you wrote, "This is by far Brian's weakest article of the competition in a week where I was really expecting him to shine." I don't know why you would have expected that. Brian's strength is synthesis of data we've all know to be available in a way that offers us knowledge we didn't have before. If the week's assignment had been a league profile instead of a player profile, Brian would've been hard to beat. Writing about the history and future of a single soul on the mound or in the batter's box is, to my mind, not Brian's strength.

Frankly, many of this week's entries lacked the style that's present when current BP authors write a profile. That's good. I want the skill of the current staff to show, just as I want the Idol writers, at their best, to do better in a paragraph or an article than the established marks of excellence for the BP Staff.

Kevin and Christina, you both wrote of "expectations." It's hard for all of us to separate expectations from round-specific standards, especially for those contestants whose work we know. But I feel that this article missed two things: in the first half, it failed to capture Andrew McCutcheon as a living human being distinct from his stats; in the second half, it failed to bring together all of the excellent statistical anecdotes into a comprehensive picture of what we should expect McCutcheon to become. There was a whole lot of great information, but it came in impersonal bits and pieces, not as a single coherent theme.

In a week where I gave just two thumbs up, this article didn't make the cut.

I have read 3 of these now and am coming to the conclusion that there is not a lot to distinguish them by. They have all been solid and a lot like the BP Player Profiles. I don't particularly find the average Player Profile here all that interesting either, which is why I now only read the one's about Dodgers. This week is going to be tough for me to judge.

"After normalizing for league and ballpark, McCutchen's yearly statistics..." The normalized stats are single season, but are adjusted for the ballparks played in and the level of pithing in that league.

"The projections use a three year weighted mean, which will smooth out year to year fluctuations..." Projections are multi-year averages of the normalized seasons, with more recent data given more weight, and then 150 PAs of league average performance added.

I was hoping to find some statistical story in McCutchen's numbers, but it just wasn't there, and there wasn't enough time to research a replacement. I was hoping to find something like him hitting flyballs while being a fast runner with below average power, but it turned out he did hit more grounders than average.

Despire being labeled the best prospect in the Pirates' system, ever since he's been an 18 year old in rookie ball, he's projected as a league average hitter. I used my own Oliver projections because I feel they best show a prospect's year to year progress across levels. As I studied in my audition article, projections which chain tranlations from one level to the hext underestimate talent in the lower minors. PECOTA does do a better job than most, as it's projected wOBA for McCutchen the past 4 years have been 333, 326, 305, 322, while Oliver had 329, 331, 313, 314. They both show, on a major league scale, his talent level has been basically unchanged, and no more than average (330 for cf). The other two projections I have available, ZiPS has na, 302, 286, 317, CHONE has na, 290, 287, 318...below 300 not nearly MLB quality. Once at Triple-A, all four agree within 8 pts, but up to 40 pts apart at Double-A.

Okay, I'm an ignorant schmoe, but I would have liked a link or explanation or SOMETHING that told me what an "Oliver Projection" was. Sometimes your audience is not quite as experienced as you are.

I have read a lot about the expectations for various BP Idol contestants. Well Brian helped to show how expectations for a top prospect may not mesh with his performance on the field. As a Pirate fan I've followed McCutchen's career for several years and I was never particularly impressed with what he did on the field, but I found few that saw the same thing. It's nice to see somebody agree that he might not even reach what McLouth did offensively...though I hope we are both wrong at that front. Thumbs up for helping us to discern reality from expectations in this instance.

This article fell miles short of your others. I'm giving you a thumbs-up anyway because I liked your others so well. Looking forward to next week.

Content B

Brian C. jumps from simple Eisenhower era stats (HR, BA, SB) to his highly sophisticated Oliver slash stats. Two paragraphs later he is discussing McCutchen's slash stats in 2007 Altoona and I am confused as to whether those are "actual" or his "Oliver".

By the way, it is contentious as to what degree hitting a high BABIP is a skill or a matter of luck. Certainly, if a young player has a sudden dip in BABIP without a career hampering injury, I would prefer to see BABIP couched as a luck factor unless there was greater evidence his previous BABIPs were all flukes.

An interesting point was made about McCutchen's un-sustained power. However, that paragraph ended with a sarcastic remark about his comparables that was unwarranted. It is extremely rare for any prospect's comparables to be All-Stars, isn't it? The group he mentioned was actually fairly impressive. Most of them had very respectable careers, while Knoblauch had a string of impact All-Star seasons.

I needed reminding or a link to what wOBA was - and to his Oliver's projections for that matter. (Brian, thanks for providing the reminder about your Oliver projections in the comments here.)

I liked getting the bit of Pirates CF history.

Writing C

The writing was fairly clear, but lacks personality. It was a struggle to force myself not to skim to the end. After James, some sportswriters tried to imitate his style by doing their analysis with an obnoxious cutesy-ness, which can be worse than straightforward clarity. It is a difficult task to attain a likeable "voice", so I am not making a suggestion here, just laying out my feelings about what I have just read. The one notable attempt of flair here, "to the tune of" is a cliché.