Scout releases prospect rankings

by novaoakland on Jul 26, 2006 12:47 PM EDT Comment 31 comments

Not sure of Scout.com track record on prospects but I found list interesting.

http://scout.scout.com/a.z?s=243&p=9&c=12&nid=287&lnid=287&pid=88&yr=2006

A few surprises:
Sowers # 6
Felix pie # 25
Eric Patterson #49
Javier Herrera # 50 (despite missing yet another chunk of time.

Interested to hear others thoughts.

0 recs | Comment 31 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Where's...

Marte? Even if his prospect status has slipped, he's still EASILY a top 40 guy.

-peter

by PeterF on Jul 26, 2006 12:57 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

marte was in the 50's

I forgot to add him to my list of questionable placement... their list is very bad in my opinion.

www.redsminorleagues.com

by dougdirt on Jul 26, 2006 12:59 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

looks horrible to me.

Homer Bailey at #16?
Jay Bruce at #52?
Carlos Gonzalez at #5? I like him, but #5?
Volstad at #30?
Joey Votto at #93?
Andrew McCutchen at #24?

www.redsminorleagues.com

by dougdirt on Jul 26, 2006 12:58 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Gallardo

isn't even ranked
Slowey is ahead of Garza?

Well, I can ignore what Scouts.com puts out from now out.

by Galt on Jul 26, 2006 1:07 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

list goes to 150

by novaoakland on Jul 26, 2006 1:10 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Actually

It goes to 300.

And by saying they didn't have him ranked, I meant the top 100. They actually had Garza ranked 253.

I didn't think about it, but does anyone know when this thing came out? It could very well be from February. Though, if that's the case, I can't imagine why they'd have Field, Brigna, and Pence so high, and why they wouldn't have Ian Stewart ranked AT ALL!

by Galt on Jul 26, 2006 1:32 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

sorry

Gallardo, at 253, not Garza

by Galt on Jul 26, 2006 1:32 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Today I got email from scout

announcing its release.

by novaoakland on Jul 26, 2006 1:43 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Patton at 134?

Looks like someone is playing with the darts again.

by Duman on Jul 26, 2006 1:14 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Does anyone know when this was put out?

I couldn't find a date

by Duman on Jul 26, 2006 1:22 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Its not that bad imo

I think a lot of the ranking is where he feels guys will end up, not just where they are now. But, no Ian Stewart at all?

by Havok1517 on Jul 26, 2006 1:21 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Heh, don't look if you're a twins fan

They had Matt Garza at #48

by Jgaztambide on Jul 26, 2006 1:22 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

or...

if you own him in a keeper ;)

by cooper7d7 on Jul 26, 2006 1:26 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

these rankings

are they for roto purposes or for real baseball purposes? that could partly explain the ranking of gonzalez at #5... i don't know if there's any explanation for gallardo at #253, though.

by jpahk on Jul 26, 2006 1:46 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

pretty sure this has nothing to do with

roto. . . and probably is based on him scouting the players, and not purely stats. I'm pretty sure he is working for the A's now.

by SoCalSoxFan on Jul 26, 2006 3:48 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

i take that back,

different guy

by SoCalSoxFan on Jul 26, 2006 3:49 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Willy Aybar

Willy Aybar draws walks and was hitting against major league pitching when he was starting for Mueller, before being sent down, and is trying to get back into some rhythm since being called up. And he's #272. Weird.

by elephunkadelic on Jul 26, 2006 2:03 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Ian Stewart

NOOOO Ian Stewart???!?!!?!??!!? ANYWHERE

I know there something wrong when they dont even have him in the Top 300!!

by bballfanlvnv on Jul 26, 2006 2:53 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Email

I got the email too, and the list looks pretty ridiculous to me.

Rios is the next Juan Gonzales, thats right, I said it.

by KaoticKlown on Jul 26, 2006 2:57 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

pretty weird list

although i like the scout.com sites

by PooNani on Jul 26, 2006 3:10 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Partial explanation

AFAIK, this is a collaborative effort by the guys who write all the different Scout team sites, and they don't have writers for every team. (Brewers and Rockies, among others, don't have one.) So it doesn't surprise me that those teams' prospects aren't ranked as highly as they should be.

Brew Crew Ball: Brewers Blog and Online Community

by jeffbcb on Jul 26, 2006 3:29 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Yup

It's a collaboration with all of the individual team site editors. And it's obviously the first time they've done this. So there's a clearly a few mistakes in there.

Some of the individual teams have really good coverage. And because they have guys focused on one team, they often know that team better than some other sites out there would. But the quality of coverage and evaluation is going to vary from team to team.

Kind of funny that they missed Stewart though. I think they need to at least update that and put him in there.

Still I don't think the list overall is that bad. But they do have a few kinks to be worked out.

by acerimusdux on Jul 26, 2006 4:19 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Eric Hurley

218!?

by yacck23 on Jul 26, 2006 4:22 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Longoria

I saw Brad Lincoln on there while quickly skimming the last 200 and he was the only 2006 draftee I noticed but they failed to even put Evan Longoria in the top 300, pretty ridiculous.

Waiting for Travis Buck

by Furious George on Jul 26, 2006 4:35 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Bet some of the lists are old

They're probably doing this from the 30 teams individual lists. And some of those editors have updated their lists while others haven't.

So they don't account for alot of guys who have risen up the charts this season (Gallardo, Erbe), while they do account for others (Hunter Pence, Josh Field), just as they are missing some recent draftees and not others.

So I'd guess half of the list is old. And even that doesn't explain all of the omissions.

by acerimusdux on Jul 26, 2006 4:57 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Sowers = #6?!?

Sowers is going to be an OK MLB pitcher, but he's not anywhere near the #6 prospect in baseball.

by limozeen on Jul 26, 2006 5:19 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

...and this is why BA gets all the cred/publicity.

...because nobody else can make anything other than a laughable half-assed attempt at a Top 100....hopefully we can change this with our list...I'm certainly enjoying it and I think we can do more in the future...

by daveh33 on Jul 26, 2006 5:57 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

man

do you even think on what site you are posting on before you say these things...

John's work matches up with job anybodies top lists. Also to give one other person some props, check out Scott Rex.

I respect BA, but come on now...

by SLK on Jul 26, 2006 10:11 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I lumped John in with "we"....

...of course I respect John...otherwise I wouldn't have joined his site...his name/previous work with ESPN was the only reason I became interested in this site...I guess I should've said "John and our"....sorry for the confusion.

by daveh33 on Jul 27, 2006 12:26 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

hahahaha

Felix Pie is # 25 while Jay Bruce is # 52...

ROFLMAO!!!!!

by TheBlues on Jul 26, 2006 6:33 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Another con

I like to see different prospects lists, even if many of the selections are questionnable (this list certainly qualifies there!). But to me even worse than some of the rankings is the fact that some players are included that shouldnt even be eligible. The list includes Eveland, S. Hairston, S. Burnett, Orvella, B. Eldred and W. Aybar, all of whom have exceeded 130 MLB AB/50 IP. If the list is a consolidation of team lists, some of which are old, that could explain Aybar and Eveland, but Eldred exceeded the threshold last year and Hairston exceeded it about 3 years ago! And if they're including all minor leaguers regardless of rookie eligibility, where is B.J. Upton? This just looks like they didnt do their homework very well, which to me affects the credibility of the list more than the questionnable rankings.

Also, no write-ups were included, so there's no explanation offered for the controversial selections.

by rhd on Jul 26, 2006 7:37 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs