Project Prospect mid-season Top 50

Yeah I was going to post that earlier but didn't

He has Ellsbury at 21, that's way too high for me as Ellsbury doesn't have much power. Then he says that Gomez is completely overmatched in MLB, Hello he's hitting .279 and hit a bomb tonight. He feels that Pie and Gomez will never develope into anything special, dude Pie is 22 and Gomez is 21.

by Bravesin07 on Jun 25, 2007 11:12 PM EDT reply actions

Wow

your love fest with Gomez is unreal. Yeah, he's batting .279. He also has an OBP just over .300 and is slugging under .400. He has 5 extra base hits in over 80 ABs. You are right, he did hit a homer tonight, on an 86 MPH fastball right down the pipe with 2 strikes.

by nyy601 on Jun 26, 2007 12:21 AM EDT up reply actions

He's 21 and in the majors

by Brett Perryman on Jun 26, 2007 7:09 PM EDT up reply actions

Plus, he has Lars Anderson

higher than Jose Tabata.

by NYYLover1000 on Jun 25, 2007 11:16 PM EDT reply actions

Please

Do you mind bookmarking this thread and revisiting it after the season is over? I bet Lars Anderson will be ranked ahead of Jose Tabata all over the internet by then.

by afoster on Jun 26, 2007 6:11 AM EDT up reply actions

Upton

at 11 is insane. I also don't see how Sonnanstine can be ranked ahead of Niemann despite what the stats say, Sonny isn't close to the prospect Niemann is.

by Tyler on Jun 25, 2007 11:16 PM EDT reply actions

when I saw that

I laughed and hit the red X at the top the screen

by nyy601 on Jun 26, 2007 12:41 AM EDT up reply actions

Well...

Niemann is a 24-year-old who is still pitching in the minors and isn't putting up staggering numbers (plus his injury history).

I saw Niemann pitch a few times this season and met him. He was very friendly and it was fun watching him pitch. I'm just not sure if he really isn't going to be more than a mid to back-of-the-rotation starter.

Sonnanstine has pitched much better this year. And my lists lean more on production than most prospect lists you see.

If Niemann is such a better pitching prospect than Sonnanstine that you'd laugh at the idea of Sonnanstine being ranked higher, why is the younger Sonnanstine in the big leagues while Niemann is still in AAA?

I saw both of these guys pitch a few times while I was living in Durham. What's so laughable that you see but I'm missing?

by afoster on Jun 26, 2007 6:18 AM EDT up reply actions

Niemann

His stuff is just so far and away better. Sonny is nice, and he has great control, and gets K's, but I've always been of the opinion that he's going to be very hittable. His fastball just doesn't have enough velocity. It has ok movement, but is still a below average pitch. His slider is slightly above-average, but he'll hang it from time to time. And his lone plus pitch, his change, he doesn't have confidence in and rarely throws it (which blows my mind). I've seen it, and when he throws it right, it's a legit pitch, but he just doesn't throw it.

I just can't see how barring injury (and it's definitely a concern), how Niemann won't be the better pitcher. Even if you see Niemann as a middle of the rotation starter, Sonny's ceiling is no higher than a middle of the rotation starter, and I see that as a stretch. A #4 starter is as good as he'll be IMO. A 4.50 ERA guy in his good years.

by Tyler on Jun 26, 2007 2:53 PM EDT up reply actions

I was talking about the Upton part

by nyy601 on Jun 26, 2007 3:09 PM EDT up reply actions

well...

While i agree with most of the statements here, its always good to have different opinions on things, not everyone is supposed to see these things the same way.

I have upton in my farm, but he makes an interesting note with the home/road splits... could be nothing, could be something, who knows.

"You also must admit, that outside of the facts, I made a compelling argument!"

by jbluestone on Jun 25, 2007 11:43 PM EDT reply actions

yeah....

I like the site for what it is and that is a different perspective. Plus they field questions and back up their opinions. If a poster makes a good enough case, when they update their rankings they will take it into consideration.

Prospects are always hit and miss. I've heard Upton has some attitude problems to boot. There isn't a site on the net that I agree with 100% but I still like reading them all.

by jfish26101 on Jun 25, 2007 11:46 PM EDT up reply actions

joba, dont quite get it...

from his 6/18 list:

comment: "I'm waiting for a longer stint of good health before I jump onto his bandwagon"

...but ranks him #24, and was dropped to 31 this week

perhaps #24 was a bit high, but i dont get the comment then

by nyybaseball99 on Jun 25, 2007 11:51 PM EDT reply actions

Kind of weird, but...

I cut back how much weight I was giving 2006 stats when I did this Top 50 update. So guys who are having excellent seasons this year but weren't as good last year received a boost and visa versa. I used Joba's HWB stats. So he took a bit up a dip when I gave those less weight.

Of course relying on numbers is going to be a little shaky when sample sizes are small. But if you want to see rankings that aren't based almost purely on ceiling (which by the way would have little room for movement) you have to realize there will be some odd shifting among guys who haven't played much.

by afoster on Jun 26, 2007 6:23 AM EDT up reply actions

Its principle, ok....

...Im a man of principle...and I dont like my intelligence to be insulted....or my bandwidth to be wasted....and with where Homer, Upton, and Briggy are placed...I can safely say that I wont be going back there again...that list is asinine.

by daveh33 on Jun 26, 2007 3:12 AM EDT reply actions

OK...

I've heard the Upton arguements and I know I'm an outlier with him. And I have been pretty harsh on Bailey this year. But what is your gripe with where Brignac is ranked?

by afoster on Jun 26, 2007 6:09 AM EDT up reply actions

hahahaha

forgot that was your site, and you visited here...just so you know, i didnt mean to sound that insulting...But Brignac has one bad month....all Im saying....He has improved his K rates....but I remember now you didnt rank him so highly after last year, so I guess its probably not as bad as I thought....I have to remember that....just because I had him Top 10 last year, doesnt mean other people picked up on it....

by daveh33 on Jun 26, 2007 8:15 AM EDT up reply actions

Hehe

No worries.

I really think Brignac has been pumped up too much because he is a shortstop. Yes, he has a lot of potential, but will be ever be an above-average big leaguer? I'd bet against that happening.

by afoster on Jun 26, 2007 12:50 PM EDT up reply actions

well Id bet the other way....

....what part of his Cal-league domination did you not like? And do you not trust BA's ranking of him as the #1 prospect there, or whoever votes for the Cal-league MVP? Because he topped both...and wouldve been the best prospect in a loaded Drays system if it werent for 2 guys named Delmon and Longoria....

by daveh33 on Jun 27, 2007 12:32 AM EDT up reply actions

Right

He's a very good prospect, but I don't think he's going to be the Southern League MVP.

by afoster on Jun 27, 2007 9:29 PM EDT up reply actions

um

Josh Fields? What?

Also I find the idea of moving guys many, many positions on a top 50 list based on a few weeks of minor league production to be completely backwards.

by limozeen on Jun 26, 2007 6:26 AM EDT reply actions

prospect shuffling

limozeen, you hit something here

all lists, pre-season, post-season, mid-season are based on very short samples. Also for the most part the difference in 30 or even 50 spots isn't major... So a lot of times, rankings are by necessity a "what have you shown lately" kind of game.

What past seasons indicate is whether we are ready to accept the present season as reality or whether we view it as fluky...

by SLK on Jun 26, 2007 8:38 AM EDT up reply actions

Ellsbury

How did he go from Honorable Mention in the 6/18/2007 rankings to #21 in the 6/25/2007 rankings after having a pretty bad week? He went 6 for 30(all singles) from 6/18-6/24.

by bob420 on Jun 26, 2007 9:41 AM EDT reply actions

Because

I switched gears and changed the weight I was giving 2006 stats (I've been combining 2006 and 2007) for my midseason rankings.

by afoster on Jun 26, 2007 12:52 PM EDT up reply actions

couple comments

10 Jarrod Saltalamacchia C On pace to hold onto rookie status through August; .310/.355/.451 in bigs

I doubt he has any eligibility left because of active roster time (45 days?).

With Upton I would ignore the splits for now.

Hanley Ramirez didn't hit so well in pitching friendly AA Eastern league.
BJ Upton didn't show much power in the minors.

Many of these guys with immense talent and very fast bat speed but have small frames don't have the strength yet for most parks. It will develop.

Upton deserves top 5 IMO. I personally would put him 1st overall but then again I would have had him 1st before the season started.

by pedrophile on Jun 26, 2007 9:46 AM EDT reply actions

Great Comments

He doesn't like tool guys like Pie and Gomez but is obsessed with Brandon Wood, he thinks he's going to be the next Sosa. He doesn't realize that Gomez is outperforming Ramirez at the same age. Hanley at 21 was in AA and hit .275 with just 7 HR. Gomez is going to be off the elgible list soon because he's been up for 30 plus days and I don't think he's going to be sent down until at least late July.

by Bravesin07 on Jun 26, 2007 9:59 AM EDT up reply actions

re: hanley

So everyone with tools who hits >= Hanley's .275 with 7 home runs is destined for big things? Because Juan Encarnacion hit .323/.394/.560/.954 in a pitchers park in AA at age 21. Hanley was an enigma in AA. It's useless to use him as a statistical benchmark.

sig: Karim Garcia posted dominant AAA stats at 19. So can we stop acting like ARL trumps all in every discussion...

by natsfan2005 @ Minor League Ball on Jun 26, 2007 10:05 AM EDT up reply actions

reply ( to both )

First off I'm not that down on Wood. I was never a big fan of his but things have swung too far the other way. Besides, Wood is not lacking in tools.

Encarnacion could only hit a fastball. That is a serious problem and it's why I'm concerned with Maybin who also oozes tools.

Hanley Ramirez didn't just have tools. He oozed tools. And he was a bit lazy, similar to Upton. But the 6 Hr's comment is so far off the mark.

Ramirez:
2004 Avg 310 OBP 360 SLG 512 HR's 5 AB 129
2005 Avg 271 OBP 335 SLG 385 HR's 6 AB 465

So he already proved he could kill the ball in AA in 2004 and he was playing with wrist injuries for the full 2005 season.

Giving him a big downgrade based on the 2005 season was as dumb as the same thing that happened with downgrading Salty and also Barton.

And Juston Upton doesn't just have tools. He was compared to Griffey by scouts. Now he's starting to hit. What more does he need to do?

by pedrophile on Jun 26, 2007 10:34 AM EDT up reply actions

Ramirez was lazy?

Can anyone prove that Hanley Ramirez is lazy (or Justin Upton, or any other super-toolsy prospect who hasn't put up great production, for that matter)? I'm 99% sure that nobody here has a clue about Hanley's work ethic, his drive, his dedication to hitting, etc. Yet whenever a tremendously talented player like Ramirez or Justin Upton doesn't put up numbers that meet our expectations, we tend to call him "lazy" or "lacking focus" or "bored" because we need some reason to justify his performance. Unless I read something from people who are in regular contact with Ramirez about him being a slouch, I'm not going to believe any of that talk for even a second.

Do I understand why Hanley didn't produce in AA? No, I don't. Frankly, he's somewhat enigmatic. But I'm not going to label him as lazy just because I don't have any other reasoning for his subpar numbers.

by Badler on Jun 26, 2007 11:19 AM EDT up reply actions

Ramirez

had questions about his attitude from day 1. The good side of this is that they gradually got better as he aged, being a kid and all, but people tend not to forget.

His poor year in AA was a simple matter of playing hurt. He killed the ball in AA the year before when healthy.

by pedrophile on Jun 26, 2007 11:23 AM EDT up reply actions

nice list

seems to me to be well defended, kind of amusing that all the 'experts' here are doing their best to be snide and condescending. to me this isn't a cookie cutter list, and I definitely disagree some....but I see the logic.

by scooter on Jun 26, 2007 10:26 AM EDT reply actions

I think this is a great list

Particularly a fan of the placing of Butler, Wood, Maybin, and Lars Anderson, all of whom I've been a big fan of for a while. However, I think Niemann belongs on the list over Sonny, and I think Snider's ranking is a bit harsh considering his upside. Surprised to see Barton so high as well since he was looking like a dud only a few weeks ago. Then again you could have said the same for Wood.

Hey fish, leave those kids alone!

by The Congo Hammer on Jun 26, 2007 10:42 AM EDT reply actions

Snider

I'm a little worried about Snider's back. He missed time in Spring Training because of it. I believe he missed some time this season because of it. Back injuries of that kind of severity at his age spook me.

And I didn't bump Snider down because of his back. I just didn't amend his value to cut him extra slack for his sub-par last two months.

by afoster on Jun 26, 2007 12:57 PM EDT up reply actions

I think he missed time this year due to his mom

I guess she's really sick, that's why he was off for a time in May.

by Bravesin07 on Jun 26, 2007 1:18 PM EDT up reply actions

No

It was his back. I wrote about it in BAPR but I couldn't find a link after a quick search.

http://www.baseballamerica.com/today/bapr/bapr070510.html

by afoster on Jun 26, 2007 1:25 PM EDT up reply actions

ok thanks for pointing that out.

by Bravesin07 on Jun 26, 2007 1:46 PM EDT up reply actions

this list

Here's the thing. There's nothing wrong with a hot list, if that's what this is. There's nothing wrong with admiring a good week or month or season in the minors. But if this is a list that purports to rank prospects based on future value there's something really wrong when the justification for leapfrogging 10-20 guys in a week is that so-and-so is batting .400 with who the hell cares because it's not MLB production, it's hardly predictive or indicative of future performance, and there is absolutely no effort to look beyond the numbers to what they mean for future value.

Minor league stats are great tools to understand how talent will turn into performance at the highest level...probably the best tools out there. But correct statistical analysis of prospects will always involve selectively explaining away bad numbers of players you suspect will be successful major leaguers, or good numbers of players you suspect will suck. In order to do this, you have to separate yourself from the notion that minor league stats matter other than as diagnostic tools.

And this list, if it purports to be anything other than a hot list, does more than ignore the problems with trusting minor league stats at face value; it willfully does so, then elevates those stats, broken down into meaninglessly small splits, to a holy pedestal of determining future value.

Here's the thing about player value. There's only going to be one order of total career value of players currently in the minors. It seems like these guys are going to be leapfrogging each other left and right, but in the end there's only one outcome. Why on earth would you readjust your guess as to what it will be every week?!

by limozeen on Jun 26, 2007 11:17 AM EDT reply actions

to be honest...

everything is small sample size. even a year is too short a period to really judge. so...what the hell, what's wrong with a series of constant adjustments? i noticed justin upton up at the top of our community list, and no controversy there. he was a long ways from there 2 months previous, no?

someone had Scherzer in his top 25 and then after a bad start at AA said, ooops, guess not.

it's all perspective. really a series of adjustments every few weeks amounts to the same thing as waiting to adjust in 3 month increments.

by scooter on Jun 26, 2007 12:11 PM EDT up reply actions

scherzer

that was me. and yes, it was due to an overreaction based on small sample size--but the sample was his 3 starts in the cal league, not his first AA start.

scherzer, because he became eligible for these rankings and then immediately started dominating, is a very hard guy to rank. i think a reasonably large amount of volatility is appropriate with a guy like him, so i'm not totally ashamed of my waffling. having said that, i probably did overreact to his manhandling of cal league hitters, though that wasn't the only reason i had him so high. i really liked him in college too.

by jpahk on Jun 26, 2007 12:22 PM EDT up reply actions

Disclaimer

Here's the disclaimer that I wrote up (post it with the Top 25s) after I got a lot of similar complaints to yours a few months ago:

Our in-season Top 25 rankings are a tool that we've chosen to implement for the first time this season. We realize that this weekly exercise cannot be as thorough as creating a Top 100 prospect list - which involves months of thought and research. So why even bother publishing these rankings? For fun.

Just like any coaches poll or other in-season rankings, our rankings won't be as concrete as the ones that can be made when you're looking at something somewhat after-the-fact. (We're still adjusting to the volatile nature of in-season rankings as well.) Lists will stray far from then maybe come back to looking like our previous prospect lists. A few odd names will work their way into the rankings--emphasis is on recent performance.

Think of these rankings like a giant coliseum battle. Everyone will be going after everyone; the air will be cluttered with dust. Then our Top 100 prospect list will be our take once the dust settles. Until then, just remember that's we're trying to judge a battle while it's still in progress.

We hope to provide an entertaining glimpse of our thought process, and a snapshot of how the prospect scene changes throughout the season.

by afoster on Jun 26, 2007 1:01 PM EDT up reply actions

this is why i dont like lists

TO take people and try to compare them to one another and put them somewhere on a list will never satisfy all, as im sure u could justify putting the 50th prospect 25th etc.

I really like the way one site (wont advertise them here) gives you a strengths weaknesses, how far from where they are, and in a perfect world this is how good he will become blurb. For example a guy like Slowey is outperforming other pitchers, but in a perfect world, he becomes a solid mid rotation innings eater (think radke)... where someone like a Gaby Hernandez in a perfect world could become a #2 on a good team, but obviously slowey has much better performance so far etc.

To me that allows me to look at prospects in a different light then just a list.. a List is a nice idea.. but for example, a guy like Villalona wont be found on most prospect lists because hes all projection at this point... but i think we could all agree we might prefer him to a other guys who would be ranked ahead of him on a top 50 list or top 100 list...no?

"You also must admit, that outside of the facts, I made a compelling argument!"

by jbluestone on Jun 26, 2007 1:33 PM EDT reply actions

villalona

no, not at all. in fact, that's the whole point of a list--who would you rather have, if you could trade one guy for another? if you'd rather have villalona than, say, kevin slowey, you should rank villalona ahead of slowey on a list, instead of ranking slowey higher but then saying the list is dumb because you'd rather have villalona. of course it's far from clear which is better. some would take the sure thing and some would take the chance to get a superstar.

by jpahk on Jun 26, 2007 2:05 PM EDT up reply actions

Lists

Lists obviously need to be supplemented with other information, such as scouting reports and statistics. But lists are also vital for prospect valuation. Let's say you are the general manager of a team, perhaps say, the Chicago White Sox. Would you trade Mark Buerhle for Michael Bowden, or Buehrle for Elvis Andrus? I completely pulled those prospects out of my backside, there is no truth to anything there, I just chose a hitter and a pitcher. The point is that you need to know which prospect is more valuable, and a list accomplishes just that. Things that you talked about like a player's strengths, weaknesses and how far away he is from the big leagues or from his ceiling all must be factored into that valuation. The person who you speak of who formats his reports as such even does lists himself.

by Badler on Jun 26, 2007 2:22 PM EDT reply actions