PECOTA's take on the top 100 prospects in the game

On LGT, we talked about some of these rankings, especially in regards to Scott Lewis (53) and Adam Miller (82) - you can see that here.

Let's face it, there aren't too many, if any, who would rate Scott Lewis higher on a prospect list than Adam Miller - for one thing, Miller has a higher ceiling - he's a true #1 at best, and at absolute worst (barring injury, of course) a very good #3.  He's very likely a frontline starter.  Lewis, on the other hand, is probably a solid #3 at best (maybe a fringe #2 if he really develops and regains some velocity, but is more likely a #3 at best,) and could be only a #4-#5 if he doesn't develop.

What one needs to keep in mind about PECOTA rankings is what Jay of LGT says here.  Therefore, I'd have to agree that it is not the best list of prospect rankings I've seen because it does not take everything into account like most prospect ranking lists do.  I think PECOTA takes other things into account; as Jay of LGT also mentioned in the link above, the main reason Lewis ranks ahead of Miller is because Lewis' elbow injury and subsequent TJ surgery did not factor into his pro performance, outside of his limited number of innings, whereas Miller's 2005 pro performance was directly related to his elbow injury, and 2005 was certainly an outlier compared to the rest of Miller's career.  

PECOTA's list is certainly interesting and different in the way it evaluates prospects, but I wouldn't just rely on it to determine which prospects are best since it doesn't coincide with virtually every other prospect list out there, and in my opinion, the best way to determine the best prospects is to see how many different lists they are on and where they are placed on those lists; if they only appear on one or two (like Lewis does,) then I'd seriously question whether that prospect is really that "highly-ranked."  Likewise, if one prospect list ranks a prospect much lower than other prospect lists (Miller at #82 here, whereas he was mostly in the #20s on most other prospect lists,) again, I would think Miller is one of the Top 25 Prospects in the game, rather than "just" one of the Top 100 best prospects.

Also, keep in mind PECOTA's first caveat:

"The Upside rating is designed to evaluate players in terms of value in their pre-free agency seasons. They are not, strictly speaking, intended to speak to who is going to have the most valuable career."

As I mentioned, virtually every one would rank Miller higher than Lewis, and it wouldn't even be that close.  Miller is starting to handle AAA (including a great performance on Friday night) at age 22; Lewis is starting to handle AA at age 23, so there's no doubt that virtually every other prospect list would rank Miller higher than Lewis, and quite possibly, Lewis wouldn't even rank on most, if not all, Top 100 Prospect Lists, whereas Miller most likely would (and probably higher than #82 as well, especially after his strong 2006 season.)

Just my 2 cents.  :-)

Take care and have a great day!

Of course, Miller, like any pitching prospect, could fail for any old reason, but I meant, "under normal circumstances," he should be no worse than a #3.  Sure, he could falter and not become a ML pitcher at all or only be a #4-#5, but it would probably take some type of extenuating circumstance (like a serious injury or a case of Steve Blass disease, especially for someone with Miller's stuff, command, and composure) for most to think he won't be at least a #3 starter.  I doubt anyone really thinks of him as a #4 or #5 starter at this point - that's what I meant.  

Just like most thought that Francisco Liriano was a #1 starter, barring injury, just like they did Mark Prior.  While Miller might not be at that caliber, I think most thought guys like Scott Baker were a #2-#4 starter or J.D. Durbin was a #1-#3 starter and Miller would very likely grade higher than both of them in terms of ceiling and likelihood to reach it based on both stuff and command.

Again, that doesn't guarantee Miller will reach his ceiling, but he's arguably more likely to reach it than guys like Baker (lack of velocity/stuff) and Durbin (questionable attitude and command) for the reasons mentioned.  That's what I meant.  

Obviously, with any pitching prospect, there's always the possibility of what-if - look at Liriano and Prior, but virtually NO ONE was saying that "Prior was NOT a #1 pitcher" when he was drafted and coming up through the Minors, nor were they mentioning possible injury, (though it was understood it could happen to ANY pitcher,) because his mechanics were so clean, yet, he became injured and is NOT a #1 now (depending on how he rebounds from shoulder surgery,) so I think in all analyses, it's understood that, a projection of one's talent is contingent on no unforeseen circumstances like injuries or total ineffectiveness due to an extreme loss of command.  

If you prefer, I'll exclude "very worst" in the future, but I meant, his likeliest "floor," if you will, barring total collapse or injury.  No offense, but that should be understood without specifically mentioning total failure or injury, since it's a possibility for any pitcher, no matter who the pitching prospect is, but few mention ace pitching prospects as turning out to be #4-#5 starters in the Majors.  That happens, but not without some unusual circumstances like injuries or total loss of command (such as Steve Blass disease - not everyday or every case occurrences.)

As for Lewis, I can understand why PECOTA ranked them as they did, but it doesn't really coincide with most prospect lists; after all, Miller doesn't have much to work on either, and it's probably agreed upon by most that Miller has a larger margin for error due to his better velocity - if he misses on the plate, he's more likely to get away with it than Lewis would, so it's still a bit controversial to rate Lewis 29 spots ahead of Miller, no matter what criteria you are using to grade them.

Just my 2 cents.  :-)

Take care and have a great day!