MiLB.com's Top 50 (31-40)

by NFA Brian on Nov 27, 2007 9:42 AM EST Comment 31 comments

MiLB.com has moved on to their #31 to #40 prospects

Chris Marrero
Reid Brignac
Andy LaRoche
Joey Votto
Max Scherzer
Scott Elbert
Ross Detwiler
Elvis Andrus
Chris Volstad
Luke Hochevar

0 recs | Comment 31 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

MiLB

puts out the worst prospect lists bar none.

Send your top 50-100 prospects to slurveone@yahoo.com!!!

by slurve on Nov 27, 2007 9:36 AM EST reply actions 0 recs

so i take it you won't use their top 50 in your

community list?

ORGANIZATIONAL DEPTH REPORTS (link fixed)
variables don't; constants aren't

by overlord on Nov 27, 2007 9:43 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Only

if mine were to ever come out looking similar - I would then know I need to re-work it significantly.

Send your top 50-100 prospects to slurveone@yahoo.com!!!

by slurve on Nov 27, 2007 9:44 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

fwiw 41-50

Ian Stewart
Alcides Escobar
Jeremy Jeffress
Tyler Colvin
Radhames Liz
Jeff Clement
Johnny Cueto
Carlos Triunfel
Austin Jackson
Dexter Fowler

by mckeeno on Nov 27, 2007 10:00 AM EST reply actions 0 recs

MiLB List

Laughable.

I heard Tim Lincecum will win 1 Cy Young & 11 Tim Lincecums. Question is, how many Cole Hamels will he win?

by the pinstripes on Nov 27, 2007 11:00 AM EST reply actions 0 recs

LaRoche

34?? haha

by smk1363 on Nov 27, 2007 11:50 AM EST reply actions 0 recs

33****

by smk1363 on Nov 27, 2007 11:51 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Something to take into account...

this isn't a traditional "list." Milb.com editors aren't in a room debating whether Cueto is better than Jeffress, etc. They basically polled 20 scouts to rank their top 30 prospects. So if one scout is unusually high on a player, it's going to skew the entire list, or at least make an impact. The lists come out a little funky, but I actually appreciate it in contrast to all the other lists traditionally compiled.

by templeUsox on Nov 27, 2007 11:55 AM EST reply actions 0 recs

+1

by my dixie wrecked on Nov 27, 2007 4:07 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

What's

Votto doing way way down there?

by Rangerchick on Nov 27, 2007 3:29 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

for the same reason Volstad is so high

No one really knows.....

http://www.redsminorleagues.com

by dougdirt on Nov 27, 2007 3:39 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Votto

Because he isn't as good as most people on this site think he is. He's got a nice OBP, but a career minor league BA of .289 and SLG% of .476 for a first base prospect just ain't all that good. Nate Schierholtz is a better prospect.

by DrBGiantsfan on Nov 27, 2007 4:20 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Ha!

NS is not a better prospect. Votto has more upside and those two numbers you cite are a tad misleading as his 2005 was a management debacle that drove his numbers down significantly. I have no doubt that Votto will outperform NS in the majors.

Send your top 50-100 prospects to slurveone@yahoo.com!!!

by slurve on Nov 27, 2007 6:21 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

2005?

What about his 2007 AAA numbers?

by DrBGiantsfan on Nov 27, 2007 6:27 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

2007

what about 'em? Votto started out TERRIBLE. After that he was pretty good. You get rid of the 2005 season and he's got a lifetime minor league OBP around .400. NS just isn't in the same neighborhood as Votto when it comes to raw talent.

The other thing about Schierholz is that he doesn't walk - hardly at all. Players like this don't seem to be able to adjust to the majors very well. Votto walked 75 times last year.

Send your top 50-100 prospects to slurveone@yahoo.com!!!

by slurve on Nov 27, 2007 7:52 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Except, Except.....

Let's see, if you don't count 2005, and don't count the beginning of 2007, and don't count any other times he was down....yeah, he's a great prospect. I think his career minor league stats are a pretty good read on what he's done. What makes you so sure he has such a huge upside?

by DrBGiantsfan on Nov 27, 2007 8:02 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Scouting

"Let's see, if you don't count 2005, and don't count the beginning of 2007, and don't count any other times he was down....yeah, he's a great prospect."

Now that's just f'n stupid. That's not what I was saying and you know it. Votto's numbers were poor out of the gate last year due to a highly irregular streak of bad luck - he was hitting the ball pretty well, just right at people and it didn't start showing up in the stat lines for about a month - so no, they aren't a "pretty good read on what he's done." In 2005 he was made to take EVERY first pitch by management. I'd love to what NS would have done given that order.

Again - plate discipline is pretty important when trying to figure out how these guys will succeed fail. Votto > Schierholz when looking at that and it's not even close.

Send your top 50-100 prospects to slurveone@yahoo.com!!!

by slurve on Nov 27, 2007 8:11 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

First Pitch

Well, a lot of people seem to think an order like that might have done Nate a lot of good. LOL!

As it is, aside from the brutal park factors, Nate lost a pretty significant loop in the beginning of his swing between High A and this season, so maybe his slow start in AA was partly due to working on that?

I just don't think you can go around cherry picking stats and throwing out the ones you don't like. If Joey had a huge 2007 in AAA, I might give him a break on 2005, but he didn't.

Votto is #34 on milb's list. I think that's about right. He's rated way too high on the community list. I also think Nate should be in the top 50 or very close to it.

by DrBGiantsfan on Nov 27, 2007 8:26 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Fair enough

I didn't really see it as cherry-picking, more like providing context, but I see where you're coming from.

I agree Votto is a bit high, but disagree with 34. I have him at 16, but the difference betwen 16 and 34 isn't all that great in the overall scheme of things I suppose.

Send your top 50-100 prospects to slurveone@yahoo.com!!!

by slurve on Nov 27, 2007 8:42 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Context

I have no problem with context. In fact, I've been a passionate advocate for taking context into consideration when evaluating stats. You have to realize, though, that while you may know some context about Votto's stats, I may know some context about Nate's that are just as valid.

by DrBGiantsfan on Nov 28, 2007 12:09 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Also

Nate's numbers include a very rough AA season in the toughest pitcher's park in all the minors, Dodd Stadium in Norwich, CT.

Nate beats Votto by subtantial margins in BA, SLG% and IsoP, so you can't say his SLG% superiority is all BA driven.

by DrBGiantsfan on Nov 27, 2007 6:34 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Maybe

Nate needs a tester?

Vacuums: where sock puppets go to die.

by siddfynch on Nov 27, 2007 7:11 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Tester

Don't bother. Nate doesn't get any respect on this site, except a bit from John a few weeks ago when everybody jumped down John's throat for even giving him a mention.

by DrBGiantsfan on Nov 27, 2007 7:22 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

No...

that was pretty much the late not so great Joba that dissed John about using him for a topic. Pretty much just him and another member of the SPT.

Hardly qualifies the statement of "everybody jumped down John's throat."

Send your top 50-100 prospects to slurveone@yahoo.com!!!

by slurve on Nov 27, 2007 7:56 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Re:

By your "career minor league" numbers logic I guess you'd take what Schierholtz is today over the prospect Jeremy Hermida was post 2005 because Jeremy slugged only .434. Maybe David Wright too because his career minor league SLG was only .474.

What matters is AA and AAA production at an appropriate age. Low BA or SLG in A-ball can be cast aside if a player kills AA/AAA in a large sample.

Fact of the matter is, Votto has shown good power with superior plate discipline over Schierholtz. He's got the more well rounded offensive game and .20 points of career minor league slugging doesn't mean much at all.

by McLovin on Nov 27, 2007 7:12 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs