Will Gary Brown's Offense Survive the Move to the Eastern League?

No question about it, outfielder Gary Brown is the Giants' top prospect in the system and it isn't really close. Brown, the Giants' first round pick in the 2010 draft, had a killer year in the California League, as he posted a batting average of .336, an on-base percentage of .407 and an OPS of .925 in 131 games and 638 plate appearances in San Jose. While the home runs were nice for a guy with leadoff potential (14), his speed (his calling card when he was drafted), was on full display in the Cal League as he had 13 triples and stole 53 bases on 72 attempts.

Without a doubt, offensively, it was a banner year for Brown, but as most Giants fans know, High-A tends to be a banner year for most position prospects in the Giants system due to the hitter-friendly environments of the California League. The big question now will be how his bat will transition to the Eastern League where he will not only face better pitching, but hitting environments that favor the pitchers considerably so.

If you don't believe me, let's take a look at two formerly touted outfield prospects who mashed in High-A, but took dips the following years in Richmond: Thomas Neal and Roger Kieschnick.

2009 was a coming out party for Neal, as he posted a solid .242 ISO in San Jose, thanks to 22 home runs and a slugging percentage of .579. Neal, not previously a highly touted prospect in the Giants system (he was a 36th round draft pick out of junior college), climbed up the boards after his monster year, as Fangraphs had him listed as the the third best prospect in the Giants system in 2010 after Buster Posey and Madison Bumgarner (quite good company). In addition to the power numbers, a lot of analysts were high on Neal because of his improved approach at the plate in San Jose, as his BB/K ratio went up from 0.47 in 2008 in Augusta to 0.66 in SJ (he posted a BB percentage of 11.6 percent and a K percentage of 17.5 percent). Fangraphs writer Marc Hulet said this about Neal in his 2010 Giants write-up.

"In fairness, his ’09 numbers may have been helped by a good hitting environment. Even so, the 22-year-old outfielder hit .337/.431/.579 in 475 at-bats. His ISO rate jumped from .168 in low-A in ’08 to .242 in high-A in ’09. Neal has also shown solid patience at the plate over the past three seasons, topping out at 11.6 BB% this past year. He did a nice job of trimming his strikeout rate by 4% over ’08′s 24.1%. It will be hard for Neal to improve upon his .444 wOBA from ’09 but he has the talent to be a star corner outfielder for the Giants."

Neal's impressive 2009 performance merited a Spring Training invite in 2010, but the transition to the Eastern league proved to be a challenge for the 23-year-old from Riverside Junior College. Despite having 26 more plate appearances in 2010, his home run total dipped to 12 and his ISO fell to .149 (and consequently his wOBA tumbled almost a 100 points to .359). Also, he seemed to struggle against the better pitching as well, as his BB/K ratio fell to 0.49, with the walk rate taking the biggest hit, as it dropped to 7.9 percent, the lowest percentage since 2006, his first year in pro ball. While the numbers were not bad by any measure on a hitting standpoint, considering he was the third-best prospect in the Giants system, and his calling card was his bat (especially the power), the regression was a bit of a disappointment for Giants fans who envisioned him a future corner outfielder for the Giants in 2012 or 2013.

Things seemed to only get worse for Neal in 2011 (though it started well with him getting put on the 40-man roster), as his power continued to wilt even in the Pacific Coast League, as his ISO and wOBA fell to .114 and .336, respectively. Even worse, he looked even more lost at the plate with the Grizzlies than with the Flying Squirrels, as he had a 0.26 BB/K rate in 239 plate appearances, amplified by a 20.9 strikeout percentage, the second highest percentage in his career. Neal's decline from top-prospect to most likely a utility outfielder made him expendable to the Giants brass, as he was traded in a mid-season deal for middle infielder Orlando Cabrera (any time you get traded for a player like Cabrera, it means that management doesn't think much of you).

As for Kieschnick, his tumble in the Eastern League is much more evident, though to be honest, injuries have had a part in the hindering of his development. Much like Neal, Kieschnick went bonkers in the Cal League in 2009, as he hit 23 home runs and posted an ISO of .236 and an OPS of .876 in 563 plate appearances. Considering it was his first year of professional ball, there was a lot of hopes that the third round pick out of Texas Tech could be a better-hitting Nate Schierholtz in the future (his calling card was his rocket arm). Hulet of Fangraphs ranked him as the Giants' 5th best prospect in 2010, and remarked this in his report:

"The left-handed hitter did a nice job of handling southpaws by posting a .933 OPS on the heels of a .400 BABIP. His OPS against right-handers was .832. Kieschnick is a hustler on the base paths and in the field despite average speed. He also has the arm strength for right field."

However, Kieschnick's tumble in Double-A was even more dramatic than Neal's. Due to injury, he only had 246 plate appearances and posted a measly .251 average, .298 wOBA and .673 OPS. His home run total fell to four and he had only 15 extra base hits during the injury-shortened campaign. Consequently, he tumbled out of the rankings in 2011 and earned himself a second tour of duty in the Eastern League in 2011. Unfortunately, things did not get better despite a healthier year (he had 501 plate appearances). He hit only .255 and posted a OPS of .737 in his second season with the Flying Squirrles and his ISO remained pedestrian at .174. He did hit 16 home runs and had 22 doubles and five triples, but for the most part, the achillies heel of his game, his plate approach, still did not improve, as he posted a 0.28 BB/K ratio (amplified by a 24.2 percent strikeout rate, a career high) in 2011.

Granted, Kieschnick's flaw as a player has been his inability to make consistent contact (his strikeout percentage in his three pro seasons have been 23.1, 22.4, and 24.2 percent), while not drawing walks to make up for it (his career walk percentage is 6.83). So, in many ways, the Eastern League struggles were probably more predictable than Neal's. That being said, Kieschnick is a prime example of a guy who probably got lifted a little too high in the rankings for a one year sample in a league that obviously hides a lot of hitter's flaws.

As for Brown, is he going to have a similar tumble to Neal and Kieschnick? It's hard to say (because you never know about injuries), but I would say Brown has a lot more going for him than both guys. For starters, Brown is and always was a top prospect, as he was drafted in the first round. He was a top-5 guy in the Giants system last year before his season in San Jose, while Neal and Kieschnick were relatively under-the-radar prospects whose profiles got boosted thanks to impressive (though obviously inflated) Cal League campaigns.

Secondly, Brown's calling card isn't "home-run" power like Neal and Kieschnick. Rather, the strongest part of his game is his speed, and that should be able to transition to the Eastern League, even despite the pitcher friendly confines around the league. Last year, Brown hit 34 doubles and an insane 13 triples in 638 plate appearances. Neal and Kieschnick may have hit more home runs (22 and 23 respectively compared to Brown's 14), but their extra base hits minus home runs don't compare to Brown (Neal had 45 and Kieschnick 27 to Brown's 47; and it must be noted that Neal had 41 doubles, so if you look at it, Brown had more triples than Kieschnick and Neal did combined in 2009). Without question, I would be surprised if Brown launched 14 home runs in Richmond, but while that total will go down, I think he will still manage to post good slugging percentages, because his speed is such a plus-tool.

Of course, the plate approach has people a little worried about Brown and his transition to Double-A. While his BB/K ratio was solid (0.60 in 2011), his walk rates leave a little to be desired. He only posted a 7.2 percent walk rate in San Jose, and in a short stint in the Arizona Fall League before the 2011 campaign, he only drew one (that's right ONE) walk in 55 plate appearances. That being said, he doesn't strikeout a lot either (12.7 percent strikeout rate a year ago), so he's a guy that can make contact consistently, something you couldn't say of Neal and Kieschnick in their tenures in High-A.

Another sneaky factor that could work in Brown's favor is his toughness, as evidenced by his HBP count, which was 23 last year. Add that to his walk total and BB+HBP/K ratio jumps to 0.90. Granted, I don't know if that is a sustainable number, especially as he moves up and faces better and better pitching, but it shows that Brown has an aggressive approach at the plate and that he is willing to get on base any way necessary, which is definitely a plus in his favor.

Overall, I like Brown a lot, and if he can continue to progress in Double-A at the plate like he did in High-A, then it is very likely to think that he could push for a starting job in the Giants outfield in 2013 (he's probably blocked this year due to Angel Pagan and Melky Cabrera). In my opinion, the home run power most likely will take a dip, but he's probably an 8-15 home run guy at the majors anyways, so that shouldn't be too much of an alarm. His speed on the basepaths, his ability to stretch hits and make consistent contact should bode him well at the plate in Richmond, and I don't think Giants fans will see the dramatic drop off from Brown in 2012 like former outfield prospects Neal and Kieschnick in 2010.

OTF's 32 Most Interesting Prospects: No. 18, Clayton Tanner, LHP

The Giants added left-handed pitcher Clayton Tanner to the 40-man roster this November, and he brings some interesting things to the table. In my opinion, he offers a bit more upside in comparison to other starting pitchers on the 40-man roster in the past (such as Kevin Pucetas, Ryan Sadowski and Joe Martinez). As a prospect though, his ceiling is a bit questionable, as his potential has leveled out a bit since making the transition to Richmond last season.

Originally out of Australia, Tanner played high school ball at De La Salle HS in Concord, Calif. A local Bay Area kid, the Giants took Tanner in the third round of the 2006 draft, hoping the six-foot, one-inch lefty would develop over time in the minors. In his first season of professional ball, Tanner was assigned to Short-Season ball, and performed admirably in 13 appearances in relief with Salem-Keizer. He pitched 26 innings and allowed 17 and 10 runs, with 25 strikeouts and only eight walks. His 3.13 K/BB ratio, 3.46 ERA and 0.96 WHIP were all impressive numbers for the 18-year-old in the Northwest League, and his FIP (2.82) and his xERA (1.96) outperformed his ERA, which were good signs in his debut stint.

In his first professional season, he earned a promotion to the Sally, this time as a starting pitcher (as many envisioned he would be when he was drafted). While the strikeouts went down a bit (his K/9 fell to 6.9), he still displayed good control (2.9 BB/9) and command (2.40) over the increased workload (he pitched 135 innings for the Green Jackets). He did prove to be more hittable in the Sally as his H/9 increased to 9.8 and his WHIP jumped to 1.41. However, he did suffer from a bout of bad luck (his BABIP jumped to .335), which explains his 3.19 FIP (though his xERA was 3.93, 33 points higher than his ERA). Nonetheless, at 19 years old and just a year removed from high school, Tanner was a starting pitcher with some upside whom the Giants expected to get better the more he got exposed to professional hitting and developed his secondary pitches.

Going into 2008, there was plenty of attention on Tanner from other baseball analysts. John Sickels ranked him as the 7th best prospect in the Giants system heading into his second full season, grading him as a B- prospect. He didn't disappoint in his promotion in San Jose, as he finished the season with a 10-8 record, a 3.69 ERA and 1.39 WHIP in 117 innings pitched. The strikeouts went down again (his K/9 fell to 6.5), but he allowed less hits in 2008 (his H/9 fell to 9.5), a promising sign considering the Cal League tends to be a hitter's paradise. His FIP in 2008 also improved to 3.08, as did his xERA, which finished at 3.56.

Though he started the year in San Jose again in 2009, the hype was still there for Tanner. Marc Hulet of Fangraphs ranked him as a potential sleeper going into the 2009 season, citing his excellent control and good pitch repertoire which consisted of a high 80's fastball that touched the low 90's, and a slider and curve. Sickels dropped him to No. 12 in his Giants Top-20 list, but he still liked him as a sleeper in 2009, much like Hulet.

Tanner pitched much better in San Jose in 2009, as he benefited from a much more generous BABIP (.289) as well as a better strikeout rate (7.8 K/9) and improved command (2.9 K/BB ratio). He finished his second season in the Cal League with a 12-6 record, 3.17 ERA and 1.25 WHIP in 139 innings of work, a career high at the time. Hulet commended him in his review of the Giants system in 2009 saying this about the lefty:

"Tanner received some consideration for 'The Riser' category before I realized he was listed as the sleeper prospect in the 2008 minor review. The southpaw can be labeled as a soft-tosser, which limits his ceiling to a degree, but the Australian continues to make improvements and have success. Tanner posted a walk rate of just 2.71 BB/9 while repeating high-A ball for the second year."

After a solid campaign in San Jose in 2009, Tanner was ranked as the Giants' 23rd best prospect in Baseball America's Prospect Handbook for 2010. Sickels also ranked him at 16, grading him as a C+ prospect, though noting that  he was a borderline C prospect and "that he needed to see if game will work against better hitters" (Sickels noted that he was a bit of a soft tosser that didn't have intimidating stuff).

His first season in the Eastern League though proved to be a reality check for Tanner of sorts. At 23 years old, he didn't blow away guys as easily as he did in the Sally and Cal League. His K/9 fell to a career low 4.8, and he struggled with his command as he sported a K/BB ratio of 1.23. The hit rate also jumped to 9.1, as he allowed 150 hits in 149 IP. While his ERA wasn't bad at 3.68, his WHIP (1.44), FIP (4.44) and xERA (4.04) were a bit disappointing, especially considering his solid 2009 showing in San Jose, and the fact that the Eastern League tends to favor pitchers.

Tanner's stock took a bit of a tumble, as he tumbled to No. 30 in Baseball America's Giants prospect rankings this year, and fell out of John Sickels Top-20 list for 2011. Still despite the regression in Richmond, the Giants still thought somewhat highly of Tanner, as evidenced by naming him to the 40-man roster (though it might have simply been a formality, as he is 24 years old and going into his sixth year of professional ball).

This year, much like his 2009 in San Jose, Tanner has improved in his second go-around in the Eastern League. In six starts and 32 innings pitched, he still proves to be quite hittable (34 hits allowed; 1.44 WHIP), but he has increased his strikeouts (7.1 K/9) and showed better command (2.17). He is not dominating by any stretch of the imagination. That being said, the Giants brass and fans expected some kind of improvement in 2011, and while his ERA (3.94) doesn't suggest it, his FIP (4.20) illustrates that Tanner is figuring it out a little bit better this second time-around in Richmond (his FIP was 4.44 last year).

With a pitching staff loaded with good, young starters at the Major League level, and some promising arms lingering in the minors (Eric Surkamp especially), Tanner doesn't present the promise and upside he once did back in 2008, when he was a sleeper prospect who could be in the Noah Lowry mold. Rob Gordon in his Minor League Baseball Analyst annual for 2011 rated him as a 7C prospect, not exactly disheartening, but evidence that Tanner may not be a slam dunk at the big league level (Gordon rates his potential as a No. 4 starter). Here is what Gordon said in his writeup about Tanner:

"Athletic pitcher with plus slider and fastball location, which compensates for average velocity. Continues to pitch effectively despite a below average FB. Isn't overpowering, but knows how to locate and keep batters off balance. Not a lot of upside, but could see a few seasons as a backend starter."

Considering he's on the 40-man, you would hope as a Giants fan you'd see that potential being realized sooner rather than later. However, with Ryan Vogelsong performing admirably in the absence of Barry Zito, and Zito due to come off the disabled list soon (and you know the Giants are going to pitch him considering how much the Giants are paying him), Tanner seems to be on the outside looking in at this point in terms of breaking into the Majors. The best case scenario for Tanner at this point seems to be a callup to Fresno, and even then, I'm not even sure if the Giants feel Tanner is ready enough to make the jump up to Triple-A.

I still like Tanner for a variety of reasons. I think he has displayed good control over his professional career (he has a career walk rate of 3.1) and good control and command can never be underestimated. That being said, without powering stuff and his tendency to get knocked around by batters, it is safe to say that Tanner's outlook as a prospect is a bit cloudy. It's his sixth season of professional ball, and while has been good at various levels, he has never displayed any real dominance in the minors, and one has to wonder if how that will bode in the Majors (His Minor League Equivalents produced a 4.83 ERA, 1.61 WHIP and 1.00 K/BB ratio based on last year's numbers).

Still, I ranked him at 18 because he is showing some signs of bounce back this year and I think his outlook is still sunny considering his potential. Is he going to be a future front-end starter that's going to pitch 200-plus innings a year? Obviously not. But a back-end starter who could produced decent numbers over 120-150 IP a season in the bigs? I think that's more attainable for Tanner, and not a bad weapon for the Giants to have.

OTF's 32 Most Interesting Prospects: No. 21, Roger Kieschnick, OF

Roger Kieschnick is an outfield prospect who broke onto the scene fast in 2009, but took a big step back in 2010. After producing big numbers in three years at Texas Tech (he hit 39 homers and posted ISO numbers of .319 and .327 his last two years with the Red Raiders), he was drafted by the Giants in the third round of the 2008 MLB Draft. Considering his college pedigree and five-tool potential, many experts felt that the Giants got a steal in the third round with Kieschnick (Baseball America rated him at the time as one of the system’s best prospects).

In 2009, he earned a promotion to San Jose right off the bat, and he was perhaps the Giants’ most dynamic hitter in the system in his first professional year. In 517 plate appearances, Kieschnick hit 23 home runs, drove in 110 RBI, and posted an ISO of .236 and an OPS of .874. He also displayed some good speed and athleticism, as his defense earned good reports, and he stole nine bases on ten attempts in 2009.

Kieschnick’s campaign in the California League was far from perfect, however. While his power numbers were nice, there were major concerns about his swing (scouts noticed that he had a lengthy swing and didn’t always stay back on pitches) as well as his plate approach. He didn’t walk very much (6.4 percent walk rate) and he whiffed at a very high rate (25.1 percent), which produced very alarming BB/K ratios (0.28). Also, Kieschnick showed slightly below contact ability (75 percent contact rate) in a league that favored hitters. That being said, a lot of people cut him some slack, mainly because it was his first year in professional ball and his plate approach would improve as he got more at-bats under his belt in the minors.

The breakout season earned him some nice attention from a lot of publications and scouts. Baseball America in 2010 named him in the seventh best prospect in the Giants system, and Fangraphs writer Marc Hulet had him pegged as the fifth-best prospect in the Giants system, behind only Buster Posey, Madison Bumgarner, Thomas Neal, and Dan Runzler.

Unfortunately, Kieschnick struggled to build upon his solid California League campaign in 2009, as he regressed statistically in Richmond. Back spasms and issues limited Kieschnick to only 60 games and 246 plate appearances, but even in the limited action, he didn’t impress. He only hit .251, with a .117 ISO and .673 OPS, all dramatic drop offs from the previous season. His eye at the plate improved a little bit (his BB/K ratio rose to 0.33), but it still was far from impressive and didn’t make up for the lack of power and overall regression he suffered in the Eastern League.

Of course, there were a couple of things that lessened the blow of Kieschnick’s down year. First off, he was injured, and it was an injury that obviously affected his production mightily (it took an 0-for-34 slide before Kieschnick finally admitted that something needed to be done). Also, the Eastern League tends to favor pitchers greatly, so while the massive offensive drop off was surprising, some kind of regression was to be expected, especially considering he was in his second season of professional ball and he was a year younger than the average EL player.

The Giants assigned Kieschnick for a second year in Richmond this season, hoping that he’d fare better against Eastern League pitching now that he is healthy and with a year of Double-A under his belt. Unfortunately, Kieschnick hasn’t shown much sign of improvement during this first month of play, as he is hitting .200 with a .529 OPS and only nine extra base hits. Striking out continues to be an issue as he has punched out 24 times in 120 at-bats, and sports a BB/K ratio of 0.38. His approach and eye at the plate is probably going to be a continuing issue for Kieschnick as evidenced by the past couple of years in Double-A. That being said, without the power to make up for the lackluster plate approach, Kieschnick doesn’t offer much as a prospect, and that makes his future with the Giants organization a little bleak (especially considering the talent in the Giants system in the outfield).

There are some things to like about Kieschnick. He’s a good defender (the Minor League Baseball Analyst has him as four-plus rated defender), and he showed in college and in the California League that when he gets behind the ball, he can drive in runs and extra base hits. The only problem is that he’s struggled to make consistent contact and his plate discipline needs to improve, especially when it comes to swinging at pitches he can drive. It is still early in the year of course, and there are some signs that Kieschnick can turn things around in the Eastern League at the plate (he doubled twice in a game against the Bowie Bay Sox on May 11th).

That being said, his status is a little bit questionable as a prospect, and one has to wonder if he was just a beneficiary of the California League’s hitter friendly environments. He looks to have some Nate Schierholtz potential, especially with his solid defensive skills and Team USA baseball pedigree. However, Kieschnick this year needs to start showing at least a semblance of the power he displayed in San Jose if he wants to be considered a serious prospect again like he was prior to the 2010 season.