REVISED Top 2009 Prospect
by RoyalsFan4Life on Oct 14, 2008 7:11 PM EDT
33 comments
Since the last post/poll generated quite a bit of discussion and there were some omissions, or some very strong alternatives, I am taking Heyward, Porcello and Feliz (the 3 top rom the last list), and including the following, Pedro Alvarez, Trevor Cahill, Madison Bumgarner, Mike Moustakas, Lars Anderson and Other.
Again, this list is obviously completely speculative, but represents a solid group, one of which, I believe is likely to be the Top 2009 Prospect (again this list assumes Wieters/Price/Snider won't qualify). Finally, if you choose, Other, let us know who you think that other will be and and give us your case for them.
0 recs |
33 comments
Email
Print
Comments
Banking on a bounce-back year
for Colby Rasmus.
by mateodh on Oct 14, 2008 7:35 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
I'm finally thinking about this substantively
Alvarez it is.
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
by PaulThomas on Oct 14, 2008 9:57 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
So let me
get this right. You refuse to listen to anything about Porcello’s projectability due to his highly context-laden K rate, but you’ll base a completely untested Alvarez pick purely on projectability? WTF?
This blog has fallen on hard times. We need to get some of he old posters back.
by slurve on Oct 15, 2008 1:43 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
If I read Paul's argument correctly...
…his objection was that Porcello’s statistics this past year would represent a stain in his campaign to be considered Top Prospect in 2009. Alvarez has no such stain and if he were to be in the running for Top Prospect, I would assume the only statistics available would be good ones. This is the difference. A record with no blemishes and one with blemishes.
If you read Paul’s argument as a rejection of projectability based on scouting, then you’ve misunderstood his argument.
Also, ad hominem arguments only lower the quality of debate and may be precisely what drove off some of the “old posters” away. That’s all I’ll say about that.
by Rocktopus on Oct 16, 2008 12:42 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Thank you
I would also point out that Alvarez has a track record, from college, which is pretty damned impressive.
Ad hom attacks are bad enough but it’s particularly atrocious when someone, like slurve, makes it a particular point of emphasis to start attacking everything that a fellow poster (me, in this case) writes. (Read the last 15 or so posts on his log for confirmation of this.) I’m basically an Athletics Nation guy who comes over here because SBN makes it really easy, so I’m not going anywhere… but a lot of people just wouldn’t feel the need to put up with his trash.
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
by PaulThomas on Oct 16, 2008 7:05 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Stains
Porcello’s “stain” is quite minor and is being blown out of proportion. Alvarez is far from being able to say that he has “no such stain” The fact that he hasn’t seen pitch one in a pro context is much more “stain-worthy” than Porcello’s K-rate.
It was not an ad hominem arguement – this is closely enough related to the Porcello topic to merit the cross-thread reference.
by slurve on Oct 19, 2008 3:46 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Wieters?????
Are you kidding me?? Where’s Wieters No list can start without Wieters on top!!!
by orioole26 on Oct 14, 2008 10:35 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
It's for next year, not this year.
He’s presumed to be losing his rookie eligibility this year. Read the intro next time.
by aap212 on Oct 14, 2008 10:43 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I'm Confused
So basically this guy should have titled his diary 2010 correct? If not, please explain to me how Wieters is going to lose his eligibility this year? He’s going to be rookie eligible for 2009, so is Price and Snider. So why not consider those guys? Unless he meant 2010? But if he didn’t mean that……..?
Same guy, new name.
by stillredsoxfan on Oct 15, 2008 12:06 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
He means 2010
This (these?) thread is dumb.
by mraver on Oct 15, 2008 1:16 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Wieters...
He gets my vote as top prospect..with Price a close # 2. I have a hard time putting guys like Alvarez # 1..not a single at bat.
by NYSOX on Oct 15, 2008 9:58 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Literacy rate!?
Did ppl forget how to read, or is it comprehesion that’s the problem??? As has been stated by the good people who took the time to read the post, WIETERS AND PRICE ARE NOT eligible!!! They will likely be in the majors next year.
This is a 2009 Top MINOR League Player of the Year. I thought the post was self-explanatory, but apparently not.
by RoyalsFan4Life on Oct 15, 2008 10:00 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
This is stupid
Isn’t this question just “Who is the top 2008 prospect who won’t be out of eligibility in one year?”
If so, why not just talk about how these guys rank out now?
by mraver on Oct 14, 2008 10:47 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Prospects
can change their ranking over the course of a year. People could be voting by who they think will take a big step forward next year.
by groundingout on Oct 14, 2008 10:59 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
That's stupid
If you think someone’s going to take a big step forward and be better than someone else next year, you should rank them higher this year.
Are you seriously saying that you’d rank someone who you expect to break out and be the top prospect below of someone you expect to tread water because of how they’ve done now? That’s got to be the oddest prospect-ranking criteria ever.
by mraver on Oct 15, 2008 1:11 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
For example
If I had a gut feeling that such and such was going to take a big step next year and become the #1 prospect then I would vote for him. That doesn’t mean that is who I think is currently #1. Also, in MadBum’s case, I could say that I think he is one of the better prospects in the game but I need to see him do it at a higher level. If I think that he will then I would vote for him, however, just because I think he will doesn’t mean I think he should currently be #1.
by groundingout on Oct 15, 2008 2:57 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Pretty dumb
Unless you want to go out on a limb and say that Fernando Martinez will take the baseball world by storm or something.
by Fanon on Oct 14, 2008 10:59 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
but even then
Wouldn’t you rank him ahead of everyone you think will be eligible next year?
by mraver on Oct 15, 2008 1:15 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Actually
no it’s not stupid. It’s taking arguably the best ‘eligible’ prospects heading into next year and gauging who will take that next step and be the ‘Wieters or Price’ for next year. It’s simply a poll, take it as something that’s fun, you don’t need to be overly critical of it.
by RoyalsFan4Life on Oct 14, 2008 11:06 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
If you think it's stupid, read something else.
by aap212 on Oct 14, 2008 11:31 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I'd like to
That’s why I suggested moving the discussion towards how players rank out this year. There was a nice series of posts about positional rankings. Seriously discussing topics like this only serves to distract people from the interesting, high-quality prospect discussion that occasionally goes on here.
by mraver on Oct 15, 2008 1:18 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
There have been a million threads about this year's top prospect
by aap212 on Oct 15, 2008 10:32 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
...
If you think someone is going to be the next Weiters or Price, why wouldn’t you factor that into your rankings this year??
The criteria for all of these lists are, “who is going to be the best major leaguer?” factoring in upside and likelihood of reaching that upside as the list writer wishes. If you think one player will be higher than another player next year, why don’t you think they should be higher right now???
by mraver on Oct 15, 2008 1:14 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
didn't there used to be a community list?
Isn’t that more efficient than one individual’s, essentially, opinion? (no offense, RoyalsFan4Life) It tends to weed out individual biases or areas of ignorance (by ignorance, I mean “oh, I’ve heard that player’s name mentioned a few times, but don’t really know very much about him”)
I don’t know who ran those lists, but that’s not a bad idea. Or just wait for John to post his individual team lists, and comment away on a team by team basis.
by El Duq of Hurl on Oct 15, 2008 6:35 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Source of confusion
I think a major reason for the confusion of the posters who have read this article is the semantic difference from the title to the content of this post.
The article is titled “Top 2009 prospect” which implies this survey is determining who the top PRE-Season prospect (for the 2009 year) should be.
In the intro paragraph, the poster asks for opinions on who readers think the minor league player of the year (which implies POST-Season of 2009) should be. And since the player that usually wins the minor league player of the year in one year is usually the next year’s top prospect, the title should read “2010 Top prospect” or “2009 Post-season award”.
by Grudyfan on Oct 16, 2008 3:24 PM EDT 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.
