Keith Law's top 100
by Brickhaus on Jan 31, 2008 2:16 PM EST
122 comments
It's Insider only, but right now there's a free Insider trial...
http://insider.espn.go.com/mlb/insider/columns/story?columnist=law_keith&id=3221365
Top 15:
- Evan Longoria
- Jay Bruce
- Joba Chamberlain
- Clay Buchholz
- Colby Rasmus
- Clayton kershaw
- Travis Snider
- Franklin Morales
- Homer Bailey
- Fernando Martinez
- Desmond Jennings
- Andrew McCutchen
- Cameron Maybin
- Matt Weiters
- Wade Davis
0 recs |
122 comments
Email
Print
Comments
Desmond Jennings
by Galt on Jan 31, 2008 2:17 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
I don't think...
by rmande09 on Jan 31, 2008 2:33 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
He has
by PujolsJunkie on Jan 31, 2008 2:28 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
hu
by jpahk on Jan 31, 2008 2:59 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
If that is the case...
by parrot11 on Jan 31, 2008 3:43 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Wow
by fartballs on Jan 31, 2008 2:46 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
in his chat
by nevin on Feb 1, 2008 3:16 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Awful
by CrimsonLiederhosen on Jan 31, 2008 3:03 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
+1million
Bro, you aren't going to be the genious that found that one rare pick, you are the idiot that put Fernando Martinez 51st (and I think he is overrated everywhere else, but 51?). He has people in the top 100 that probably could have gotten popped in the rule 5 draft they are so old, but no one wanted them. I am just going to stop because I know all of you agree, wow, get this guy out of here.
ESPN, you can do some writer recruiting on this website if you want, just post us a link.
Signed,
Some guy that deserves to be paid to do Keith Laws's job so it won't suck so bad.
by IHateMitchMustain on Feb 1, 2008 4:45 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
but youre forgetting his +15
i love it
by nms on Feb 1, 2008 3:01 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Rangers 2B
by nevin on Feb 1, 2008 3:18 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Mitch Boggs at #73!
by dougdirt on Jan 31, 2008 3:12 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
No
by PujolsJunkie on Jan 31, 2008 3:18 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Doug
by team name deleted on Jan 31, 2008 3:22 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
See
Its one thing if you make a case for someone over another or something like that.
But just saying a list is crap because you disagree makes NO sense.
The guy's list clearly has SOME value to you if you're worrying about it so much so why not take a second to think about his opinion.
It's not like this is an exact science, Boggs really could be the 73rd best prospect right now (for whatever thats worth). Thats not so far-fetched. None of us really know how guys are going to turn out, so there is almost no basis for bashing these things so strongly. You've got one opinion, hes got another. That doesn't make him wrong or stupid.
Hell, looking at his resume I'd trust him over you. He seems to have SOME idea as to what he is talking about, having actually worked in the game before.
by nms on Jan 31, 2008 4:29 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Because
His opinion is clearly more valuable and "right" than a guy who worked in baseball for a decade and is now employed by the most respected name in sports.
It's not like there's any uncertainty or gray area in projecting players who have been playing pro baseball for less than 3 years.
Doug is obviously right and any divergence from his opinion is obviously because the other person is stupid
by Galt on Jan 31, 2008 4:43 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Sorry
by CrimsonLiederhosen on Jan 31, 2008 5:05 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Come on now....
Am I really out of line questioning his inclusion in the Top 100 prospects in baseball? The guy was 23 years old and in AA last year with less than a 2-1 K-BB ratio.
The fact that I run a website or not is completely irrelevent.
by dougdirt on Jan 31, 2008 5:34 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Just because
And there is also more than just the numbers. One could point out for instance that Boggs is a good athlete, and a strong competitor with a major league fastball.
You don't have any better idea than Keith does as to whether Boggs will or will not become a solid major leaguer.
Me personally, I wouldn't put him in my top 100 but that doesn't mean Law is wrong or stupid or that his list is worthless.
It's just another opinion, and in this case a better informed one than your own or my own, how is that bad?
by nms on Jan 31, 2008 8:57 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
you are right
I'll admit I could be wrong about the Mitch thing, but how on earth could I know, he isn't worth a crap so I never read anything about him.
I did just go look at apparently he was a set-up man in college, who the hell is a set-up man in college? He couldn't even be a college closer or starter? He was a set-up man? Are you serious? BA says that he may be best suited to go back to that role as a lock-down reliever. WOW, awesome, so to attain his ceiling he should be a set-up man in the pros. What a stud prospect, cause I am sure all those real stud starters who don't develop 3rd pitches and starter stamina won't be better than this guy at that role too.
It's cool, thinking outside the box is how we come up with one sleeper in 20 that will make it big and you can say that betting $20, 20 times on something that pays 10/1 odds and hitting it once is a big win. That's how this guy thinks, and it is hilarious. Show us the way master Yoda Keith, or I'll just call you Special K for now one.
It's cool I probably have a bias, I do hate people called mitch.
by IHateMitchMustain on Feb 1, 2008 4:59 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
This is why
by ajake57 on Jan 31, 2008 3:21 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
what makes this trash
Because he disagrees with you and/or the consensus?
He's worked in the game, I wouldn't be so quick to say he is wrong. Its not like you really KNOW if he is. It will be years before one can evaluate how well these guys do in the bigs..if they even make it
by nms on Jan 31, 2008 4:31 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
The point of my post
He said in his chat that Gio didn't make his top 100 because, and I may not be getting this worded exactly right: "the fact that he repeated AA hurt. It also doesn't help that his fastball is average at best." Yet he doesn't point out that he is one of the only left-handed pitchers to lead all of minor league baseball in strikeouts and to have spent two entire years in AA before turning 22 (which he did in September), ever.
Desmond Jennings, while I like, is not the 2nd best propsect in the Rays' system, even if you want to say he's the 11th best overall.
While I'm not the biggest LaRoche fan around, I wouldn't say that both Villalona and Vitters make better 3b prospects.
He devalues Moustakas because of a lack of position, but doesn't do the same for Clement, who he claims (I believe it was him, though I could have read it elsewhere) can't stay a catcher much longer. Am I to assume that Clement, who then has no position currently, is automatically suited to anther position he hasn't played then other players?
Mitch Boggs, which has been addressed above.
He also nearly completely devalues projection throughout his list, if you read his little blurbs on each prospect. Each evaluator has his own way of looking at players, but when you are looking at prospects, how can you not project athletes? Isn't that the entire point of making a list?
To me it looks like he went through and did a good job of finding current tools and abilities, but he doesn't grade equal things as equal anywhere on the list. For instance, he seems to value fastball velocity over any other asset a pitcher brings to the table. It also seems as though he completely ignores levels of success in some areas, and then rewards them in others.
Could this assesment be spot on? It most certainly could. But from what I see when I read it, it looks as though that would be more a result of luck then actually making tough and intelligent decisions.
But again, I was merely saying that paying to get that list would not be worth it, when I can get the same wide variety of opinions here, or elsewhere, for free.
by ajake57 on Jan 31, 2008 6:44 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
there are plenty of possible reasons
You say Desmond Jennings is not the 2nd best prospect in the Rays system. Well, how are you to know?
Is it really THAT unlikely that he is the second best future big leaguer in that organization right now? No, not at all.
As for Gio you say "Yet he doesn't point out that he is one of the only left-handed pitchers to lead all of minor league baseball in strikeouts and to have spent two entire years in AA before turning 22 (which he did in September), ever."
Well, it is because you were asking why he was LEFT OUT of his top 100. Of course one is going to mention the negatives if you are asking why someone was LEFT OUT. The attributes you mention are some of the reasons he was considered in the first place.
"He devalues Moustakas because of a lack of position, but doesn't do the same for Clement, who he claims (I believe it was him, though I could have read it elsewhere) can't stay a catcher much longer."
Well, again, you are quibbling with a one on one ranking. For one thing, there are surely lots of reasons besides position that go into his views on those two. Clement has shown the ability to destroy top level NCAA pitching and hit for power against AAA pitching. Moustakas, on the other hand, doesn't have any kind of real track record (outside of 40 short season ABs).
When talking about two guys with similar offensive upsides, I would take who has shown he can take high level pitching out of the park
And the general consensus is that Clement has a much better chance of being a MLB C than Moustakas does at being a MLB C or SS
" Am I to assume that Clement, who then has no position currently, is automatically suited to anther position he hasn't played then other players?""
Is this so ridiculous? That is why he has been paid SCOUT. To form opinions such as, who coudl stick at which positions.
by nms on Jan 31, 2008 9:12 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Again
by ajake57 on Jan 31, 2008 10:06 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I should go on to say...
Just because I disagree with him and state my opinion does not also make me wrong. I understand that, however, that due to my lack of experience on the subject it is more likely.
I don't think his opinion is worth paying for.
I don't agree with his opinion.
I don't think he is consistant in his list.
I don't think it's necessary to point out that he could be right.
If you think he's right, simply say so. It's not hard to have a solid argument, as you did above. Everybody here is entitled to their opinion, and to state it freely in a civil manner.
You could make a case for every single opinion ever stated on this site to be right or wrong, because all they are is conjecture until a player proves it in the bigs.
Also, I wasn't necessarily stating that Moustakas is a better prospect, but that he and Clement have a similar problem, yet he doesn't seem to hold that against Clement. You responded to that already, but I just wanted to make sure you realized I wasn't quibbling with their placement, but instead questioning the rationale for said placement. Incidentally, you could also point out that many scouts and instructors have the opinion that it is easier to make defensive transitions going outwards (ie c-1b, 2b-lf) than vice versa (ie ss-c - as Law theorizes could be a possibility in store for Moustakas).
by ajake57 on Jan 31, 2008 10:29 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
and i
by nms on Jan 31, 2008 10:50 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I learned something
by IHateMitchMustain on Feb 1, 2008 5:04 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
That's fine with me
by ajake57 on Feb 1, 2008 12:42 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Actually,
And that doesn't mean that it's wrong. I could buy a newspaper just for the comics, and that wouldn't make the headlines any less true or accurate.
I meant to say that it wasn't worth paying for, because there is, in my opinion, seriously problems with how he put it together. However, I obviously did not make myself clear enough, so for that I apologize.
by ajake57 on Feb 1, 2008 1:50 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Diversity of thought
by aCone419 on Jan 31, 2008 4:21 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
Law is an idiot or misinformed
First off, Clay's curve is his best pitch. Also, multiple sources and multiple scouts have talked about how his curve is an 80 on the 20-80 scale and might be the best in the majors.
I dont know where he got this one from.
by alskor on Jan 31, 2008 4:34 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
On that one issue at least
by alskor on Jan 31, 2008 4:37 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Also
That one IS absurd.
This is a crowd pleaser type of list built on the consensus of what he's heard way more than it is original thought.
by alskor on Jan 31, 2008 4:38 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
you know
by nms on Jan 31, 2008 10:57 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
FACT
by alskor on Feb 1, 2008 1:12 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Thats not a
Especially in a pitcher so young, whose stuff is still developing.
Its your judgment of his stuff, vs someone elses.
Sure there are some cases where such things are obvious (Barry Zito's curve > Barry Zito fastball) but considering the mixed showings to different observers, plus the players youth and relative new-ness to the mound it is not all far-fetched to consider is change more effective than his curve, especially when you consider how his plus fastball gives the change more separation.
Keep in mind consistency of stuff is important as well. I'm no scout, and neither are you, but if a scout saw a guy throw 80% of his change ups at a 60, sometimes 70 level, and also saw a guy throw 50% of his curves at a 70, sometimes 80, level but saw the other 50% of those curves hang or hit the dirt he might very well call the change a better pitch right now - and rightfully so - since the pitcher has been control of it and has been able to consistently get movement and deception on it.
This isn't a black and white argument, please stop pretending it is.
Why do you feel the need to be so right about something there are no definitively correct answers for?
And why the need to spit out knee-jerk reactions and epithets of others' stupidity when you disagree with someone?
Why not APPRECIATE his opinion?
Think, "well many consider Bucholtz's curve his best pitch, but this observer likes his change more. I wonder what that means. Maybe Buchholtz has two 'best pitches' - a great thing for a pitcher to have - or maybe his repertoire still needs a little more fine tuning. How can I incorporate this new opinion into what I already know, think and have heard so as to think even more intelligently about this?"
Would that really be so awful?
by nms on Feb 1, 2008 2:55 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Appreciate his opinion?
The rankings seem very off to me. I dont really respect Law's opinion on some of this stuff, frankly. Read the rest of this page and youll see where others have pointed out that he has done a Shaugnessy-esque job of not doing his homework in a number of areas.
But, I guess you, having seen Brackman throw 10 times can say DEFINITIVELY say that he has an easy delivery. Whereas I, having seen Buchholz at least as many times, cant say that his curveball is his best pitch - Nevermind that your boy with the "easy' delivery has TJ surgery and is an extreme longshot and that most experts and scouts concur with what i said.
I guess its a black and white argument when it suits you. As for me, Ill just have to console myself with being correct about this and that Keith Law swung and missed here.
Seriously, man, Brackman? Can not defend that pick there. Terrible. I cant get past that.
Also, as for appreciating his opinion, I believe I did say that "I dont really agree with much of his list, buts its not absurd."
by alskor on Feb 1, 2008 3:17 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
READ what I said
"But, I guess you, having seen Brackman throw 10 times can say DEFINITIVELY say that he has an easy delivery...I guess its a black and white argument when it suits you. As for me, Ill just have to console myself with being correct about this and that Keith Law swung and missed here. "
I never said Brackman's delivery was DEFINITIVELY easy. All I said was that I certainly thought it was and that it was not crazy to say that he had an easy delivery.
I didn't say that anyone who said his delivery was not easy was a joker, or very damn wrong.
As for what "most scouts and experts" said, thats a pretty vague grouping, but I can tell you for a fact if you pull out some BA's from past years you will find positive remarks on BrackAttack's delivery
And a guy having TJ surgery is not a strong indicator of whether his delivery was or wasn't easy. C'mon you know that. All sorts of pitchers with all sorts of deliveries fall victim to TJ.
And where the hell do you live that you could see Bucholtz make over 10 starts?
Unless you live in the Greeneville-Spartanburg area I find this doubtful.. unless you are counting watching taped snippets of starts
by nms on Feb 1, 2008 3:42 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Rhode Island
Honestly, when you say things like this you really are trying an attack on all fronts thing and it really drags down the level of this board. I dont even know what youre arguing with me about. Are you unhappy I knocked Keith Law? B/c I really do think his list is pretty crappy at points. I dont think I particularly trashed the guy unfairly though, so let me ask you: 1) are YOU Keith Law? and if not, 2) are you related to Keith Law? If not...(and I know this sounds like a dick, but Im being serious and am not pissed here) what point are you trying to make...? Refuting every point I made and then questioning my credibility... really seems likes youre trying to discredit me rather than make a point. I dont get it, man.
by alskor on Feb 1, 2008 4:11 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
what the f
I was just curious where you happened to see lots of his starts. Christ, sorry to get your panties out of order
And its the knee jerk stuff like "oh this list is AWFUL BLAH BLAH" that drags the board down. I was just asking why you came to thse conclusions
by nms on Feb 1, 2008 4:57 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
for the record
I'm more annoyed by morons just yelping about how so-n-so's list is crap just "because," when really none of us have much of an idea whose precious list will prove to be the best complied 2-10 years from now.
by nms on Feb 1, 2008 4:59 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
that's enough Keith
by IHateMitchMustain on Feb 1, 2008 5:09 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I dont know
As for "refuting every point," well, I mean. What do you want me to say? Its a discussion.
If I disagree with your opinions or think that you are wrong about something.. and can explain how I disagree or explain how I think you are wrong.. I don't see what the problem with refuting that is.
Its a discussion.
by nms on Feb 1, 2008 5:04 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Defending the Brackman pick
I see no problem with the Brackman pick at #100. Its not like he put him in the top 30 or even top 75, this was the very last slot in his top 100.
by grozzy on Feb 1, 2008 10:15 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
But how...?
by alskor on Feb 1, 2008 2:45 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
He probably...
by grozzy on Feb 1, 2008 3:24 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I'm sure
by shakezula on Feb 1, 2008 12:26 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Personally
by alskor on Feb 1, 2008 1:13 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
RE: Brackman
Here's what KG has to say today:
"Steve (WI): Thoughts on Andrew Brackman?
Kevin Goldstein: Not a fan, never a fan, even less of a fan now with the TJ. His size and velocity as a lefty is incredibly rare, but he's barely pitched at all, anywhere, and even more rarely shown any consistant ability to get people out. Extreme longshot."
Terrible, inexcusable, indefensible choice for number 100. No other way to spin it. Terrible. "Easy delivery?" WTF are you talking about? That's 100% off.
THAT's the end of the story.
by alskor on Feb 1, 2008 1:15 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
again, see below
Such tripe gets a discussion nowhere.
And as a guy who has seen Brackman make at least 10 starts over the last 3-4 year saying he has an "easy delivery" is not at all 100% off.
by nms on Feb 1, 2008 2:58 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Kevin Goldstein
Lack of experience? Does CALEB CLAY ring a bell?
by shakezula on Feb 1, 2008 9:45 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Goldstein is
by alskor on Feb 1, 2008 10:34 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
RE: "end of story"
I'm just really at a loss to try figure out what even prompts ineffective posts like this.
by siddfynch on Feb 1, 2008 1:48 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
his overall point is not bad though
That is a pretty rare combination in a pitcher.
There are lots of "solid" pitchers out there.. guys with solid stuff and solid control.. who can become anything from a #3 to a MR in MLB. That is definitely valuable but there are so few guys with such great talent to become a 1/2 or a great closer that there is something to be said for valuing the rarity of such a player.
There is an Alan Horne/Kevin Mulvey/Scott Baker type pitcher in every class but there are so rarely guys with the unique potential that Brackman brings to the table.
Maybe I'm crazy but I would definitely take Brackman over any of those types of pitchers. I can draft another potential decent pitcher next year, but getting another Brackman is rarer and more expensive.
Minor league, and certainly college, statistics really are not especially effective in forecasting a pitcher's major league future. Sure, there is some correlation between minor and major league success but pitching is such a difficult craft many future studs take plenty of time to develop and take many lumps along the way.
At any rate, its not like he said he was the greatest prospect in the game. He said he was one of the best hundred. That isn't really putting him in some elite class. It is perfectly reasonable to look at a guy with elite upside, and some track record of collegiate success and occasional dominance (albeit with plenty of inconsistancy), and consider such a player to be one of the best 100 potential major leaguers in the minors
by nms on Feb 1, 2008 2:43 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Yes way
80 out of 80 according to the scouts.
Have you actually seen him pitch or are you just skeptical anyone is that good?
B/c Clay IS that good. Law is dead wrong here and it speaks to his credibility that he would say something like that.
by alskor on Feb 1, 2008 1:20 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
You are vastly
And "according to the scouts" is such a vauge term, and like others have said plenty of scouts reported seeing his change look better than his breaking ball at points in the season. This is normal.
And it in no way takes away from his credibility to make a subjective judgement you disagree with. That is lunacy
by nms on Feb 1, 2008 2:45 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I guess Keith could be right
Maybe Nostradamus here is on to something. I dont think you can knock me for pointing out factual mistakes in his scouting reports and consequently ridiculing his conclusions, though. Im hardly alone in this opinion and Im not just taking pot shots at the guy here.
I certainly wouldnt have a problem saying Joba Chamberlain has one of the best fastballs in the majors even though he will be a rookie. You might as well have ridiculed me for saying Ryan Braun would be one of the best power hitters in the majors in 2007. Clay threw a no hitter in THE MAJORS in which his curveball was unbelievably filthy. Go watch tape of it... and make Keith Law watch with you.
(AND NO, Im not basing my opinion of him on one start or his no hitter, before you take your attack on all fronts strategy in that direction).
by alskor on Feb 1, 2008 3:22 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I think Keith Law has a scouting background...
I actually like Keith Law's write-ups on prospects, because he explains the finer technical details of stuff like swing mechanics, release points, etc. so well, stuff that I don't have the training to always see. He explains his reasonings behind his opinions, rather than saying something like, a scout I really respect likes him. Not that there's anything wrong with that, it just seems so secondhand sometimes. The problem I have with KLaw is sometimes he will seem to base his entire opinion on a player on only a few appearances which he has personally observed, and seem to discount the rest of that player's body of work. So whether he catches that player on a good or bad day will really seem to inform his opinion.
by thinmints on Jan 31, 2008 4:34 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
I think
by Kanst42 on Jan 31, 2008 6:06 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
+1 on both comments
by PrincetonCubs on Jan 31, 2008 10:45 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Chill out
He's Keith Law, he's been employed in the Jays' front office, I have read reams of his commentary, which is generally well-researched and well-argued. On the other hand, I have no idea who any of you people are, or why I pay any kind of attention to what you have to say. While his views are based on his front office experience, having attended games featuring the prospect in question, having spoken with people in the industry, and having access to the same stats that you do, what are your views informed by? I don't know, because these commenters are silent on that subject.
Maybe Law suspects that Liz will end up as a reliever. Maybe he scouted Donaldson at Auburn, thinks he'll stick at catcher, and that he'll have an above average bat. (Don't mean to pick on you Crimson, I know that you have provided better comments here and on soxprospects). Further, he stated in the chat and in his write-up that Antonelli will likely have to move to CF, where his bat isn't as loud. In any event, it seems that every time an analyst, whether it be BA, KG, KLaw or John takes a view on a player that is out of line with the consensus, they are pilloried for it. I'd rather read an analyst with independent views, who will go out on a limb for a Neftali Feliz or a Lowrie or a Kalish, and who backs up that view with intelligent analysis.
If you happen to disagree with a particular opinion, fine. It's way better to objectively explain why you disagree with a particular view than it is to insult someone, apparently because you disagree with 2 out of 100 rankings, especially if your comment is without any explanation for your views. It doesn't make you look any smarter to say that Law or someone else's rankings are garbage without further comment, in fact, the effect is quite the opposite.
by Mario66 on Jan 31, 2008 4:42 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
different opinions
by thinmints on Jan 31, 2008 4:43 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
Exactly,
by Rox Girl on Jan 31, 2008 4:55 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
"trash"
sure, you don't have to go with consensus by any means -- that is worthless. but, when you don't go with consensus, you have to be right in some predictable way.
there are a lot of people who are consistently good at, say, projecting back-of-the-rotation pitchers (or pitchers, period). there are people who i consistently trust to tell me whether "elite-talent" players are good bets or not. there's people who find "scouts' players" well, and people i trust to find me older, more production-centric players. all of these people are useful.
for me, Keith Law doesn't do any of those. he just picks different people than anyone else, and, best i've found, not in any "pigeon-holeable" way. in fact, i'd say he's consistently worse than the consensus opinion.
if there were a single type of player he liked (and was good at identifying as either over- or underrated), then he'd be useful for that. maybe other people know what his strengths are. to me, his lone strength is being an arrogant prick with no basis for the high opinion he has of his own work.
by bleedjaxblue on Jan 31, 2008 4:46 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
law
well, he does seem to be very big on the ARL freaks (martinez, tabata, and triunfel all in the top 20). bigger than i'm comfortable with, in fact, but who knows whether he's right or wrong about them.
what makes you say he's consistently worse than the consensus opinion? i mean, other than the fact that most any individual opinion is probably going to be consistently (a little) worse than the consensus opinion?
by jpahk on Jan 31, 2008 4:54 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
correction
by jpahk on Jan 31, 2008 4:55 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
response
just been my experience reading his lists over the past two years. there'd always be five to ten players (depending on the size/type of the list) who i'd have a "what the hell?" reaction to in each direction. every time, i'd say something to myself like, "he's undervaluing the scouting" or "he's overvaluing his initial performance in the big leagues." and, almost without fail, within a year, he's been wrong. i'm sure there's times he's been "right," too, but normally those times, he coincides with someone else i read and trust too, and that other person is easier to pigeonhole.
as for the ARL thing, i'm a huge ARL fan too (more than i can almost respect myself for sometimes). i also STILL think he overvalues it. the problem is, at this point, there's no way of telling whether he's especially good or bad at projecting which ARL prospects will or won't be good. from what i've noticed, he's no different from the consensus as to how he ranks them -- he just indiscriminately bumps them all up a notch on the lists. i could do that myself -- i don't need his help.
anyway, that's just my take. maybe his opinion will prove itself years down the line. but i've never found much use for his opinion.
by bleedjaxblue on Jan 31, 2008 5:14 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
umm
two years? Seriously what can 2 years tell you about top 100 lists? These lists take 4 to 5 years to see who pans out.
by niallmack on Jan 31, 2008 7:14 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
sure....
but it's already been enough time for him to have been horribly wrong about people he arrogantly told the rest of the world were overrated who have, in fact, been smashing successes.
honestly -- go through his archives and read the titles of his stories, if nothing else. it's rich with embarrassments.
i can't get on Insider right now, otherwise i'd pull out some really good ones. here was one of the ones i can find for free that i remember really rolling my eyes at at the time:
http://mobileapp.espn.go.com/mlb/mp/html/news?story=2501325&dvc=1
his top 10 rookies pitchers from '06 in terms of performance for the next five years?
- Chad Billingsley (laughed my ass off at this at the time)
- Jered Weaver
- Ricky Nolasco (again -- seriously? ahead of those last two??)
- Matt Cain
- Anthony Reyes (better than Cain??? somebody thinks they're pretty damn smart for taking walk rate into account. and that somebody happens not to be very smart)
- Jon Lester
- Justin Verlander
- Joel Zumaya (not that he's BAD...but you thought he was better than Cain and Billingsley???)
- Jonathon Papelbon
- Francisco Liriano
again -- what insight did he offer? every "risk" he took looks stupid. the only times he was "right" was when he followed consensus. and these are projections of people already in the majors! incidentally, i think his "analysis" is completely unsophisticated and hopelessly predictable.
also, check out, for instance, his "expert" comps of players in the futures game: http://insider.espn.go.com/mlb/allstar06/insider/columns/story?columnist=law_keith&id=2513602&am p;action=login&appRedirect=http%3a%2f%2finsider.espn.go.com%2fmlb%2fallstar06%2finsider%2fcolumn s%2fstory%3fcolumnist%3dlaw_keith%26id%3d2513602
this is insight?
and i'm not just slamming him on his "worst" examples. these are just a random sampling of the few times i've actually bothered reading what he has to say.
-------------
OK -- so maybe someone's entire work won't show it's strength until more than two years. maybe that'll be true. and, if he'd been around for longer, i'd definitely turn to the older lists first and judge accordingly.
but why on earth is the benefit of the doubt on his side? why should you PRESUME, blindly, that he IS doing a good job until he proves otherwise???? should i listen to everybody on the internet who posts an opinion? only people who get paid? frankly, that would be stupid.
like i said, maybe Keith Law's work will validate itself down the line. but i certainly don't have a problem trying to make a judgment before it's already "too late" and i've spent 7 years following some arrogant but well-paid dumbass's advice. projecting is what prospecting is all about, no? if you want to continue to listen to his advice, by all means, do so. i'm just happy to have what i foresee as the advantage to pay him no heed.
by bleedjaxblue on Jan 31, 2008 7:51 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
He said in the discussion afterward
by niallmack on Jan 31, 2008 8:08 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
credit
so he just figured out that Francisco Liriano and Jonathan Papelbon were good on his own? impressive.
seriously, though -- it doesn't really matter if you technically "look" at someone else's list or not. everybody around baseball is aware of how prospects are ranked by others in the industry. if you didn't, you wouldn't be doing your job.
i'm quite sure he's aware that other people think Longoria, Bruce and Chamberlain are all good prospects. (if for no other reason than because he doesn't receive an influx of questions about their placement, though i'm positive he would "know" anyway.)
it also doesn't take a prospect expert to tell you that Jay Bruce is going to be good. NOBODY gets credit for that. a chimp could tell you a 20-year-old first-round draft pick with a .305/.358/.567 line in triple-A is going to be something special. what you get "credit" for is picking things that other people might not see.
it doesn't really matter WHY you see something different -- whether you're bucking convention or just ignorant to it. it's that you see something both different and, more importantly, useful. he doesn't.
by bleedjaxblue on Jan 31, 2008 8:29 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
BA's top 10 pitchers -- 2003
- Jesse Foppert
- Jose Contreras
- Gavin Floyd
- K-Rod
- Scott Kazmir
- Adam Wainwright
- Jeremy Bonderman
- John VanBenschoten
- Sean Burnett
- Rafael Soraino
In 2004, BA's top two pitchers were Edwin Jackson and Greg Miller. Adam Loewen, Gavin Floyd, Chin-Hui Tsao and Angel Guzman, VanBenschoten and Merkin Valdez also ranked ahead of Cain, Blanton and Francis.
The point that I'm trying to make is that if you go back and look at ANYBODY's lists, they will all have been "horribly wrong" at some time. Law provides a well informed analysis to support each of his rankings that is refreshingly different from the same tired rehashing of what a player's organization has to say about him, or a recounting of the same stats with which we are now all familiar and don't need to pay money to have regurgitated back to us.
Due to the relatively low batting averages in prospecting, especially for pitchers, isn't the process as important as the product? The benefit of the doubt should not necessarily be on his side, but I don't think that he's done or said anything that warrants his views being summarily dismissed either, especially without reference to any specific comments about any player.
by Mario66 on Jan 31, 2008 8:45 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
you see....
has he found a bunch of people who turned out to be underrated though? because i've never found anything but crap in his list.
(btw, i strongly disagree that he has anything "fresh" to say.)
by bleedjaxblue on Jan 31, 2008 8:59 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
what i like best about Law
by Kanst42 on Jan 31, 2008 9:06 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Fresh (he's so fresh)
- That McCutchen's development has been hampered by the Pirates' system, so that he fails to incorporate his lower half in his swing -- due to the strength in his wrists and forearms, he could have 30 HR power when this problem is rectified.
- Explaining that the benefits of Brignac's bat speed are mitigated somewhat by his unusual bat position at the start of a swing.
by Mario66 on Jan 31, 2008 9:44 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
so fresh and so clean
Or on Masterson: "His changeup is well below average, and it's hard to turn a pitch like that over from his arm slot; as a result, lefties have hit him increasingly hard as he's moved up the ladder."
There was plenty good/new firsthand info in there, I'd say..
by PrincetonCubs on Jan 31, 2008 10:50 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
new info?
by IHateMitchMustain on Feb 1, 2008 5:22 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
"Common Masterson knowledge"
by Brickhaus on Feb 1, 2008 8:09 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
lol
Law, unlike the people at BA writing about prospects, has actually seen all of these guys in person, and actually has a background in scouting. He's not just reading reports he gets from scouts, he's the one writing the reports. I don't know how you can dismiss his list, but take lists from BA to heart, especially when BA is moving toward the "mouthpiece for teams" service even more. If I have to read "The Dodgers really like so and so" or "The Mets think he'll add more velocity" again, I think I'll puke. Of course teams like their own prospects, and of course teams think their guys are going to be world beaters.
Law may be brash, but he backs up everything he says with reasoning, which is a lot more than the "his list is trash" people can say.
Again, I challenge everyone who comments on these Top 100 lists to post their own list, 1-100 and do it here so everyone can see it. Then we can look back at the end of the year.
by phuturephillies on Jan 31, 2008 5:06 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
It's not an individual's list...
by beastball on Jan 31, 2008 5:18 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
you apparently
by IHateMitchMustain on Feb 1, 2008 5:31 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
In other words
by NYYLover1000 on Jan 31, 2008 5:29 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
just a note
by phuturephillies on Jan 31, 2008 5:06 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
Does
by sagecoll on Jan 31, 2008 5:08 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
Keith Law
by Phil Gurnee on Jan 31, 2008 5:26 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
Kinda disappointed
You'd think he still would have Cortes on though.
(Sorry for the Royals homering, but its something I know I can look out for)
I like Law for the most part, and his chats are usu entertaining to read, because he does take a wide range of questions, but sometimes I wonder if he takes a lot of the random questions just to selectively prove his erudition. And possibly he is doing the same here in his top 100 list. It's not like anyone is going to check him at ESPN, its a subjective list and as long as it sounds good to them hes not going to get the hook.
by wildthang on Jan 31, 2008 7:24 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
Re: Cortes
by dougdirt on Jan 31, 2008 7:48 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
+1
I know there were PLENTY of questions submitted about Cortes, and when one question finally got to him, he completely ignored Cortes.
Q: Does Law know who Cortes is?
by doublestix on Jan 31, 2008 10:59 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Horne
by hallofamer2000 on Jan 31, 2008 7:41 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
Triunfel?
by DrBGiantsfan on Jan 31, 2008 8:38 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
I believe
by Brickhaus on Feb 1, 2008 8:13 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
That's just Giantsfan being Giantsfan...
by ftheyankees on Feb 1, 2008 2:27 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I encourage
by baseballjunkie on Jan 31, 2008 9:38 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
Just because someone has
by dougdirt on Jan 31, 2008 11:47 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
but right now
by nms on Feb 1, 2008 1:22 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
My thoughts on the Keith Law list...
I also wanted to take into micro-evaluation one player who was cited earlier as being an example of shoddy analysis on Mr. Law's part, Mitch Boggs.
Quoting Keith here:
Boggs could pitch in the majors right now as a reliever, although the Cardinals have been developing him as a starter due to his durable frame and ability to hold his stuff through 90-plus pitches. Boggs has a plus pitch in his 93-96 mph fastball and a future-plus pitch in his sharp downer breaking ball at 82-84 mph. His fastball command, especially to his glove side, needs work and may just result from a little herky-jerky movement early in his delivery. More troubling is that for some reason he has struggled to miss bats despite his solid stuff, which would portend a move to the bullpen long term unless he finds a way to finish hitters off.
The first thing I noted upon reading this is:
a) [Boggs has the] ability to hold his stuff through 90-plus pitches.
b) He has struggled to miss bats despite his solid stuff, which would portend a move to the bullpen.
Now, at the risk of being called dense here, don't these two statements taken in conjunction lead to a conclusion that his stuff isn't very good, regardless of the pitch count?
Then, taking his other points:
- Boggs has one plus pitch, a FB which tops out at 96.
- Boggs can't really control it well yet.
- Boggs MIGHT get another plus pitch, in his "sharp downer breaking ball".
- His delivery is "herky jerky".
- Boggs has good height, 6'3".
- Boggs suffered from somewhat "unlucky" BABIP and HR% in 2007.
- Boggs GO/AO rate was 1.38 in 2007.
- Opposing hitters hit .279 off of Boggs, and he struck out 117 in 152.1 IP.
Boggs has failed as a (front-line) starter already.
He's going to be 24 in 2008. He was 23 at AA, and he wasn't good. He wasn't particularly good in 2005 or 2006. His career minor-league WHIP is 1.45, and in his best season it was 1.41. To rank him as an SP prospect among the top 100 prospects in all minor-league baseball is just irresponsible journalism.
For the record, my MLP system shows him as having a 6.08 ERA in his prime, allowing 11.6 H9, 4.5 W9, and striking out 5.6 per 9 IP. Obviously, if he masters that 2nd pitch, and/or if he moves to the pen, these numbers could improve, but which minor-league pitchers can't say that? Heck, even Justin Miller held batters to a .228/.301/.375 batting line against in 2007(!)
by BobbyMac on Feb 1, 2008 1:48 AM EST reply actions 0 recs
Irresponsible journalism?
Really?
I mean, I... shoot, I can't even respond to that.
That is such a hopelessly overblown comment.
And what if Boggs moves to the pen and becomes a shutdown reliever? That still makes him a worthy selection for the bottom half of the best HUNDRED prospects in the minors.
Strong athleticism, competitive instinct, 96 mph fastball potential, plus hard breaker (if he gets it).
That sounds like a good recipe for an above-average closer quality reliever to me.
A sure thing? Of course not.
But we're talking about the 66th!!! place on a freaking list. I do not see how it is unreasonable for someone with the potential to be an impact late-game reliever to be the 66!!!th best prospect in the minors in someones opinion.
In everyones opinion, of course not.
But him going out on a limb with hig judgment does not make for IRRESPONSIBLE JOURNALISM (for Christsake, give me a break..) or even "trash".
Hell, he isn't even wrong yet. Give him at least a few years before you rush to your judgement.
It is great to disagree but to vilify someone for presenting their well-informed opinion for your entertainment and knowledge is just such a joke
by nms on Feb 1, 2008 3:07 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
CORRECTION
Not that this substantially changes any points made above..
by nms on Feb 1, 2008 3:13 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
by the way
That is a fairly serious charge to level at a member of the media.
What standards or practices did Law violate?
In what ways did he wield his status as a media member in an irresponsible or inappropriate manner?
Did he commit libel or slander?
There are other questions I could list but I am sure you get the jist.
I mean this honestly by the way. In your opinion how is anything Law wrote or did journalistically irresponsible?
by nms on Feb 1, 2008 3:11 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I'm on my feet...
by ftheyankees on Feb 1, 2008 9:20 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
you people are insane
You can disagree with their placement and argue about it, fine. But to say in an absolute sense that because Law put Boggs on his list he's an imbecile and you are smarter and blah blah, is idiocy.
Goldstein (and Law) had Desmond Jennings in their top 20s. John had Desmond Jennings like 78th. So who's stupid? Clearly having such divergent opinions has to be because at least one of them is stupid right? They can't just have different opinions and see different things?
You all sit on messageboard and think you can talk down about professions. It's embarrassing. You think you know so much, try and make a living doing it.
by Galt on Feb 1, 2008 10:28 AM EST reply actions 0 recs
Amen
One of my biggest pet peeves, if not the biggest, is armchair BS like this.
by slurve on Feb 1, 2008 1:37 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
+2
I disagree with a lot of the placements on Law's list. It does not make him a moron, and it does not make the list something that I would wipe certain parts of my body with.
This reminds me a lot of the nice little discussions we've had in the past on Luciano's lists whenever they get published on Notebook. More hatred here though, and I am not quite sure why.
by guru4u on Feb 1, 2008 3:21 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
on prospect lists
by John Sickels on Feb 1, 2008 11:13 AM EST reply actions 0 recs
The interesting thing
John - if nothing else, it would make for an interesting smackdown. Two very different players that come from very different backgrounds, but both have huge power potential.
by guru4u on Feb 1, 2008 3:23 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
WOW
Matt
by WayneCampbell05 on Feb 2, 2008 12:08 AM EST reply actions 0 recs
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2009 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
