Part of the beauty of baseball is its unpredictability. We need only look as far as the last two World Series winners to demonstrate that. Baseball interviews can be unpredictable, too.

John Sickels had agreed to conduct the interview through e-mail, and he and I had started exchanging some basic information when John threw me a curve. John had visited Da Box, read all of your questions, and decided to answer a number of them himself. I was out of a job! Later that day, John delivered a set of answers, and we then concluded with a discussion about some Blue Jay prospects and his latest books.

So without further ado, here is an interview with the person many consider perhaps the premier minor-league expert of his time. The part of John Sickels is played by himself. The part of BB (the interviewer) is played by many of you -- you know who you are.


Part 1: Meet John Sickels

Most of us know by now that that John worked as Bill James' research assistant from 1993 to 1996. Bill hired him initially because he needed someone who knew about the minor leagues to help him write his Player Ratings Books; Bill was more familiar with the major-league players. Studying the minors had always been a hobby for John, so it was a perfect fit.

When that "gig" ended, John went out on his own in 1996, and ever since then, things have worked out extremely well. He authored the Minor League Scouting Notebook for Stats Inc. for six years, and now writes (and self-publishes) The Baseball Prospect Book. John also writes the weekly "Down on the Farm" prospect reports for ESPN.com, the attendant "Down on the Farm" mailbag, and produces his own subscription newsletter. John feels he doesn't really do anything different today than he did when this was all just a hobby -- although he certainly knows more about how to evaluate players than he did back then.

John possesses a BA in European history and philosophy from Northwest Missouri State University in 1990, and a MA in Modern European History from the University of Kansas in 1993. He lives in Lawrence, Kansas, with his wife, Jeri; their son, Nicholas, and their cats, Toonces and Spot.


Part 2: Answering Da Box

You asked, he replied: here are John's responses to many of the questions that Batter's Box readers posed in an earlier thread. Take it away, folks!

BB: How do you prepare your ratings? Do you try to see as many prospects as you can?

JS: Yeah, I get to as many games as I can, but unless you have an unlimited travel budget (which I don't), you can't see everyone. For players I can't see, I rely on press reports, my network of friends and colleagues, and phone calls to teams. My ratings are based on subjective, traditional scouting, mixed with a heavy emphasis on statistical analysis. So I try to look at players with both sabermetrics and a more traditional approach in mind.

BB: In terms of the games you see, do you go to spring training? To the AFL?

JS: I haven't been to spring training in several years, but I will be heading there this year. I go to the Arizona Fall League every year, which is an excellent place to see prospects.

BB: Do you attend mainly AAA and AA games?

JS: In the past, I've gone to mainly AA and AAA contests. But over the last few years, as my ability to travel has improved, I've been going to more and more A-ball games. In 2004, I'll probably go mostly to A-ball.

BB: Can you rely on team's comments about their players? Are they not prone to being overly positive about their prospects, or trying to hype them for trade purposes?

JS: I'll talk to teams when I need information about a particular player that I can't get from another source. Talking with scouts at games is helpful, and you're more likely to get an honest answer. When you talk with a farm director or someone like that on the phone, you have to take at least some of what they tell you with a grain of salt.

It's not like they lie to you or anything, but some of them will try to spin things. They know that other teams read press reports, and sometimes they'll want to drop some information about a player into the public consciousness that may or may not be completely true. Some teams will give you a more honest answer than others. Some teams are very close-lipped and hard to pry information out of.

BB: What have been the most significant changes to your methodology (if any) over the years?

JS: Well, as I've gotten more experience on the subjective side, I'm more willing to make projections based on personal scouting of a player. Numbers-wise, I pay more attention to strikeouts than I used to. For hitters, I used to concentrate mostly on BB/AB, but now I look at BB/AB and K/AB and K/BB, all in relation to each other. For pitchers, I still use K/BB and K/IP as the primary focus. All these numbers have to be adjusted for league/park context and competition level, of course. I think I'm more aware of that than I used to be, too.

BB: When you watch a prospect, are you looking for the same things that traditional scouts do -- the five tools for hitters, and velocity, movement, control, etc. for pitchers?

JS: Essentially, yes. I've never had formal scout training, but I've been doing this stuff informally or otherwise for over 20 years now. You do it long enough, you know what to look for. I do pay close attention to plate discipline within games -- does the batter swing at bad pitches, that sort of thing. One of the reasons I was so impressed with Hank Blalock when he was in the minors was due to this. I saw him play three games in two days once. He saw over 50 pitches, and not once did he swing at an offering outside the zone. I'm still not very good at analyzing hitting mechanics per se, but I can pick up how good a hitter's mental approach is.

For pitchers, I look for velocity, movement, and control. I also look for consistency of mechanics, plus I look for signs of unusual stress in his delivery. Kerry Wood's elbow was the best example -- I saw that injury coming, due to all the torque he put on his elbow.

BB: How much validity do you put in A-level statistics?

JS: Well, the closer you get to the majors, the easier it is to make projections. So A-ball numbers are, by nature, less reliable than Double-A or Triple-A. But they can't be ignored. You just have to know how to put it in context. But yeah, I do put some validity into them.

BB: What's new in the book for 2004?

JS: The main change is better editing. We were very rushed last year, having never self-published before, and we made a lot of sloppy, amateur mistakes. This year, we allowed a lot more time for editing. We changed the page font to a more readable size, fixed some production issues, etc. But the content and analysis should be the same as ever.

BB: The cool thing about last year's book was its simplicity. The cover is maroonish and all it says is The Baseball Prospect Book, by John Sickels on the cover. I read that the book is going to be more polished and professional-looking this year.....too bad.

JS: Well, you'll be happy to know that the cover is the same, though we changed the background color to a dark green. We also changed the size of the book from 8"x 11" to 7"x 9", in keeping with the old STATS book. It's still a simple, elegant look, but less messy on the inside.

BB: Do you believe there is any fail-proof scouting, drafting, and development plan to allow a club to maintain a top minor league system indefinitely, or is luck (or a whack of money) absolutely necessary?

JS: Well, it certainly takes luck. And money. But there are ways to load the odds in your favour. Don't draft high-school pitchers in the first round, or at least don't do it very often. Concentrate on college pitchers, college hitters, and high-school hitters who have faced good competition. If you can afford it, draft a mixture of college and high-school talent, leaning to the college side, but occasionally pulling the trigger on an occasional high school player. I'm something of an Aristotelian in that regard … all things in moderation. At least that's the way I would run it. I generally prefer college guys, but sometimes there are high schoolers that are worth the risk, in my view.

I don't think there is any way to be fail-safe about it, though. The Oakland/Toronto approach can work. But the Minnesota Twins and Atlanta Braves have good farm systems too, and they take a much more traditional approach. I do think that teams with severe financial constraints are better off taking the Oakland/Toronto tack, since the risks are not as high. No matter your philosophy, you always run the risk of a busted draft. The key is to limit that risk as much as possible.

BB: What skills do you view as ones that can be "learned" and ones that cannot? I often read baseball people talk about strike-zone judgement and defensive footwork as examples of skills that can be learned (and hence things that, when you see a player in the minors not doing well, you can still project them to acquire those skills).

JS: Well, I think strike-zone judgment, in a certain sense, can be learned, at least at an early age. But pitch recognition is something you either have or don't have. Note that strike-zone judgment and pitch recognition, while related, are not the same thing. One GM told me this summer that his club is attempting to identify young players who have excellent vision and pitch recognition, but who swing at pitches they should not swing at. His idea is that if you get hold of someone like that early enough, you can teach him to lay off the bad pitch. It's a fuzzy distinction, but I think it's worth additional study.

I do think that defence is something that can be improved with experience and work, at least for some players. I mean, you can't teach someone to run faster than they organically can. But you can, I believe, improve the mental side, improve accuracy of throws, clean up footwork. It takes a lot of practice, and not everyone can do it. But some people can.

The best thing that a young player in the low minors can have defensively is range. Reliability can be improved with experience, but pure range generally can't.


Part 3: Your Toronto Blue Jays

John answered a number of Blue Jays-related question in his Q-and-A session, and we followed up with some additional conversations about Toronto prospects. Here's what he said.

BB: Dustin McGowan's hits allowed are quite high in AA. Is it a flaw, or do you think the Jays are trying to teach him command of the strike zone by forcing him to throw strikes?

JS: This is a good example of the need to look at things in context. McGowan's H/IP was actually better than Eastern League average last year, even at more than one-per-inning. So I'm not really worried about it.

BB: Can you comment on a couple of the surprises who have become Blue Jays? What was your assessment of Chris Woodward and Reed Johnson during their minor-league careers?

JS: I never had a great feel for Woodward, not having a strong opinion about him one way or another. As for Johnson, in the 2002 book, I wrote that he "was a better player than a dozen guys making a million bucks a year." That looked stupid after he got hurt in '02, but his performance in '03 makes it a good call.

Of course, I have plenty of bad calls in my books, too, and most of the time I'm far more aware of the players I was wrong about (George Arias, Ruben Rivera) than the ones I was right about. But when one pans out, you have to be happy.

BB: Do you agree that Kevin Cash initially seemed overmatched as a hitter at each new level, before eventually improving? Do you think he will ever contribute with the bat in the big leagues?

JS: Yes, I agree with that. Cash tends to struggle at first, then make some adjustments. In his case, I'm not sure he'll ever be more than an adequate offensive player. But given his glove, that's OK. At the least, he'll have a Kelly Stinnett-like tenure in the Show, and he might be able to get beyond that.

JS: Thanks for all the questions. I wish I had time to answer each one.

Here are John's thoughts on some other Jays prospects.

Russ Adams
His prospect status has been debated as length here at the Box. John does not think Adams will hit enough to be a superstar, but he does think he'll be a solid leadoff guy, someone who can hit .280+, draw some walks, steal some bases and hit some doubles. John gave Adams a Grade B in his book this year, which means "future regular," but not a star.

Jason Arnold
John is worried about him. His numbers really tailed off at Syracuse, and he heard from several different sources that his velocity was down at the end of the year. This could be temporary, of course, but it could also be a sign of an upcoming injury. We'll just have to see. John has spoken with Jason before, and as many others have said, Jason is a really good kid, with a strong idea of how to go about his business on the mound. John hopes he rebounds.

David Bush
John likes him. David doesn't have quite the ceiling of guys like McGowan or Brandon League, but John think he's going to be fine. Good number-three guy in the rotation.

Others
John agrees that Chad Pleiness has lost his prospect status and has to show something this year to get back on track. DJ Hanson and Jesse Harper are both Grade C+ type guys, useful role pitchers. He wants to see what they do at higher levels: will they step up to the competition, or fade?

We asked John about his Blue Jays' Top Ten list. Here's what he said:

"I haven't sat down and figured out a top Blue Jays prospect list, but I'll go ahead and share some grades from my book with you. There are 985 prospect reports in the book. Here are some of the Blue Jay grades. This is not a complete Blue Jay list … I have to leave something out to tempt you guys to buy the book, after all. [grins]

Dustin McGowan RHP A-

Josh Banks RHP B+
David Bush RHP B+
Gabe Gross OF B+
Aaron Hill SS B+
Alexis Rios OF B+

Russ Adams SS B
Jamie Vermilyea RHP B

John-Ford Griffin OF B-
Adam Peterson RHP B-

Jason Arnold RHP C+
D.J. Hanson RHP C+

Jesse Harper RHP C
Talley Haines RHP C
Jayce Tingler OF C

Obviously, John left Guillermo Quiroz off the list he shared with us. He rated McGowan ahead of Rios, and he is high on Josh Banks.


Part 4: Buy the Books!

We would be remiss if we didn't promote John's latest works. As mentioned, his 2004 Baseball Prospect Book should ship in the first week of February. The cost of the book for US residents, including shipping, is US$24.95. You can pay by PayPal or by cheque or money order.

The cost to Canadian residents is US$27.95; we need to send a money order to John to order the book. With the declining value of the US dollar, the book is actually about C$7 cheaper this year than last. Full details are at www.johnsickels.com.

Finally, John's latest work (and first non-statistical baseball book) is a biography of one the all-time great pitchers. Coming out at the end of the month, Bob Feller: Ace of the Greatest Generation is, in John's own words, "the first balanced, historical portrait of this controversial player whose commitment and talent inspired his teammates, and whose outspoken opinions just as frequently exasperated them." It can be ordered on Amazon.com; check John's Website for more publication details.

A big thank you! From Batter's Box to John Sickels for generously giving us his time and opinions today. When you buy the book, say thank you to John for helping us out.