I love how Melky's MLB experience is used as an argument against him. The guy has played on the highest level at a young age, and put up similar numbers to a guy who played AA at an older age, and you're telling me the older guy is going to progress more?
Ok- so if Mekly had stayed in AAA and dominated like he did last time he was there, at age 21, and continued to domainate for 3 seasons he'd now have more upside than Ellsbury who put up OK nubmers in A, AA, and AAA at ages 21 through 23, just because Melky could be a "rookie" now? No way. Ellsbury's choice to go to college may have made his parents proud, but it doesn't earn him any development points.
The three most important factors in judging young talent is (a) the numbers a guy puts up, (b) the level he does it at; and (c) the age he does it at. Nobody's impressed if a 26 year old hits 30 bombs in A ball, and nobody's disappointed if a 20 year old puts up only OK numbers in AAA or MLB. Ellsbury put up solid nubmers, but if you look at the competition he played against, he was at that level when he was about 2 years older than Melky was, and his numbers aren't materially better, even without accounting for the age difference.
How do you think Ellsbury would have fared if the sox took him right out of oregon state and put him in CF in fenway at age 21. No way he's better than .280, 7, 50 which is what Melky did in MLB at age 21. Ellsbury barely did that in A and AA at age 22.
To say Ellsbury has more upside because he's a "rookie", despite the fact that he's a year older and has played against inferior competition his entire career is ridiculous.
Grady Sizemore, a guy some Sox fan's like to compare Ellsbury to, came into MLB at age 21 and went .246, 4, 24 over 46 games. Would Sox fans be arguing Ellsbury has more "upside" because Sizemore's numbers weren't awe inspiring, even though they were put up at a younger age against better compeition? On the other hand, Reggie Willits batted almost .300 in his "rookie" year, but nobody's going to argue abuot his upside. A person who understands how talent is evaluated would look at all three categories prospects are evaluated by. They'd see that Sizemore had 13 hr in AA and 12 between AAA and MLB at ages 20 and 21. They'd see that good numbers, at a young age, against better competition can is a better measuring stick than "one's a rookie, the other is experienced".
Of course Sox fans see a fast outfielder and say Ellsbury's like Granderson and Sizemore. They should focus on Willits, Dave Roberts and Podsednik. Granderson had seasons of 11, 21 and 15 hr at A, AA and AAA when he was 22, 23 and 24. He wasn't as young as Melky or Sizemore when he was in AA and AAA, but he showed more power. Ellsbury had 7 hr between the Pac 10 and short season ball at age 21, 7 between hi-A and AA at age 22 and 5 between AAA and MLB at age 23. His numbers don't compare favorably to Melky, Sizemore, or Granderson when you consider age and experience level. (Cabrera had 13 between AA and AAA and 11 between AAA and MLB at ages 20 and 21).
Age and level of play is much better evidence of a guy's ability to evolve as a hitter than the fact that "he's a rookie". Willits had a nice "rookie" season last year, but nobody's arguing he's going to be the centerpiece of the organization. If Ellsbury was a better player, he'd have been a "rookie" two years ago, and if the Sox were so high on him, they'd have traded coco by now. He's much more likely to end up like Reggie Willits than he is like Sizemore/Granderson. Guys who hit 25+ hr have usually hit at least 10 in a season before they're 24 years old. Good average, lots of speed, bad arm, little power.= willits.
