BA Rays Top 10
by brok515 on Nov 12, 2008 11:11 AM EST
52 comments
1. David Price
2. Tim Beckham
3. Wade Davis
4. Reid Brignac
5. Desmond Jennings
6. Matt Moore
7. Nick Barnese
8. Jeremy Hellickson
9. Jake McGee
10. Jeff Niemann
I don't know what other people think, but this list, like most of the other BA lists this year, seems a little off. I have no idea how they can say that Hellickson is the 5th best starting pitcher PROSPECT for the team. Moore and Barnese are nice prospects but I'm not sure how they can be ahead of Hellickson and Niemann. I would have Hellickson at 4 on this list, because Brignac took a step back offensively and Jennings hardly played. I'm fine with Price, Beckham, Davis being top 3 though of course. Any thoughts on this list, and the BA lists in general so far?
0 recs |
52 comments
|
Email
Print
Comments
Stunned...
I was absolutely stunned when I saw Hellickson that low. I can’t wait to read their rationale for that.
http://mvn.com/mlb-tossingtherosin/
Typical BA stupidity
Theyre obsessed with fastballs so they ignore guys who can actually pitch and are getting phenomenal results.
BA is garbage. Stop reading it, people.
BA is what Isaiah Thomas would think if he was a MLB GM.
Keith Law: Idiot.
Yeah, but he's right
Calling BA stupid is akin to calling KG at BP an idiot, or calling John an idiot. They all have different standards, and I’d wager that BA (specifically Calis) knows a lot more than this board does about prospects.
by David Tokarz on Nov 12, 2008 10:25 PM EST up reply actions
BUT
BA IS mostly stupid, unlike John and KG. They come out with a bunch of stupid things every year. Jim Bowden works in a major league front office, but I would trust just about half the people on this board to run a major league team over him.
Youre welcome to disagree with me that BA is stupid, but there’s no need to call ME stupid. That’s what makes Slurve a jackass.
This is just an internet message board. You really dont need to take yourselves so seriously that i cant mock Keith Law or BA when I disagree with them. Chill out. The word stupid is not that big a deal. Get over it.
Keith Law: Idiot.
Hellickson's middling K-rate bothers me. I wouldn't have put him as high as John
Putting him below Barnese and Moore is further than I’d have gone though. I’m impressive with their convictions in sticking to their method.
It's not the results, it's how you look going about those results -- Tim McCarver
by WaddellCanseco on Nov 13, 2008 2:01 AM EST up reply actions
Middling K-Rate? He's struck out over a batter per inning this year.
Including a 9.44 K/9 once promoted to AA.
Tools Whore
Sign Bonds!
Middling K rate?
WTF? He struck out over a batter an inning. He put up video game numbers for most of the season. When he was in short season ball, the numbers he put up were just as dominant as Barnese’s.
Vogt early, Vogt often.
What so you can call BA stupid but if someone calls you stupid they are a jackass?
I’m going to go ahead and disagree and say BA is not stupid. Perhaps you should take your own advice when you say “Chill out. The word stupid is not that big a deal. Get over it.”
Yeah no
You dont see the difference between me insulting BA, and someone insulting me? I didnt insult Slurve, I was making fun of BA – then he made it personal. That crosses a line. He doesnt work for BA. You need to chill out, too, champ.
Keith Law: Idiot.
So because Callis isn’t here it’s OK for you to do it? Or because Callis is in the public eye and you are behind you’re computer it’s OK?
I’m perfectly calm, just trying to show why your logic is flawed. Either you’re a hypocrit or you are taking it to serious while telling others to calm down…which…well…you get the point.
No
its because SLURVE isnt BA. And I like Callis a lot, its everybody else at BA that’s worthless(well, almost everybody else).
But you and Slurve need to stop worrying about me knocking BA – its not a personal insult TO you, regardless of whether you agree with it, so it doesnt require a personal insult FROM you. If you want to defend BA when I knock them feel free to debate the merits, BUT even if I insult BA that doesnt give anyone here free reign to insult ME, unless either of you work for BA. Otherwise this will predicatably degenerate into insults. Its like if I called a baseball player – lets say Jeremy Hellickson(who I already made clear I think the world of) – its like if I called Jeremy Hellickson a “loser.” What we would be talking about is Slurve responding by saying “Hellickson’s not a loser, Your’e a loser!” See where this goes? I insulted a third party and then someone here insulted me. That’s exactly where the line is. Maybe I shouldnt have insulted the third party, but that’s not really 1) your business; 2) a big deal; and 3) anything to get worked up about and insult ME over. It happens all the time here and doesnt require this response.
Also, this was a conversation with Slurve carried over from another thread that you apparently didnt see and he’s just breaking my balls.
Hell, if Jim Callis was here and saw me call him an idiot – which isnt entirely impossible, Im sure some people like Callis read this site – Callis would probably not call me an idiot. He would probably just defend BA. Lastly, my comment was really not that big a deal.
Keith Law: Idiot.
Callis didn't make the list
Bill Ballew did. And it’s not a stretch at all to call Bill Ballew stupid. I’m not too sure how he still has a job there.
Vogt early, Vogt often.
You don't have to
take it personally – you just have to take it, “champ”.
You go around calling established/respected people/publications idiots, stupid, etc. and you don’t expect any backlash from that? I’ll be posting a thread for everyone to log thier personal top 50’s in the near future – I expect to see yours on there and we’ll see how well it holds up. Until your list outperforms theirs, you’re nothing more than an anonymous, wretched puke with no right to be calling anyone anything.
Wahhh
Somebody call the Wahhhmbulance.
Youre a lunatic. Why dont you take me insulting someone who isnt you a little more seriously, chief.
Keith Law: Idiot.
Search
“baseball notebook” or David Luciani on this site. you’ll see just how serious those casual insults can become.
My post above comes across as a bit harsh – hard to deliver good sarcasm on the internet. The difference between you me is that I actually realize I’m nothing more than an anonymous, wretched puke. Believe me, I haven’t called you every name I can think of, and I don’t have problems with insulting people – it’s no problem at all.
Care to expand?
TheSouthWing.com - A Magazine of essays, prose and poems
by OldProspects on Nov 13, 2008 4:23 PM EST up reply actions
A few years back
a website by the name of Baseball Notebook posted a prospect list. It got absolutely ripped to shreds on this site. The insults were flying all over the place and ended up degenerating into highly personal attacks – even personal threats. It ended up getting back to the person who composed the list, David Luciani. To make a long story short, he posted a letter on his website, sighting MinorLeagueBall and some of the particular comments posted (one of them was mine) and stated he was seeking legal action as well as quitting. I felt like shit and wrote him an apology.
The bottom line is that it was bad for all parties involved. John was understandably pissed because it made him look bad, someone lost their livelyhood and the community here in general looked like a bunch of juvenile assholes. Moral of the story – criticism is fine, just keep it real.
You can see the fiasco here: http://www.minorleagueball.com/2005/12/18/0255/4428#2261075
FWIW
Three years later, it’s still a crappy list :-) FWIW though, a few of the guys he rated highly who others didn’t rate as high have panned out pretty well (Pedroia, Wang, Sonnanstine), but you can probably chalk that up to a blind squirrel finding a couple nuts.
Vogt early, Vogt often.
I mean really
I called Keith Law an idiot and since then you have called ME every name you can think of – like “wretched puke.”
Youre the one who has problems with insulting people, Ace.
Keith Law: Idiot.
Got a response...
I asked in the Callis chat on ESPN, and he answered. Fair enough, I suppose.
Jake (KC): I was stunned to see Hellickson so low on the Rays list…what gives?
SportsNation Jim Callis: (2:07 PM ET ) Jake refers to our Rays Top 10 Prospectslist, which is up at baseballamerica.com. The thing to remember is that these are opinions, not facts, and just because someone ranks eighth on a good Top 10 doesn’t mean we don’t like him. I don’t see how he could rank ahead of David Price, Tim Beckham or Wade Davis. Hellickson could have ranked as high as No. 4 and no lower than where we put him. We like the chances of SS Reid Brignac and OF Desmond Jennings to become quality regulars, and LHP Matt Moore and RHP Nick Barnese are going to open eyes in 2009. None of this is a slight to Hellickson.
http://mvn.com/mlb-tossingtherosin/
by koolkerns101 on Nov 12, 2008 2:12 PM EST up reply actions
moore and barnese
I tell you what this kind of opened my eyes. They have great numbers, albeit in short season and rookie ball, now to hear BA say it, just adds to the riches of the rays farm system.
I was worried about hellickson’s homers allowed but he still seems like a good prospect. These two must be really good to push him down to 8.
But let’s see what they do in AA when they get there.
due respect
But this is a much more sensible list than John’s. I’ll be interested, too, in their explanation for Hellickson, but I’m not a big believer in him so not a shock there. And having Brignac where he should be is good to see.
This whole business
over Brignac is way overblown. He has him as a C+, which isn’t a poor grade – he’s a tough grader. People can make an arguement that 4 is a few spots too high and 10 is a few too low. Either arguement is like screaming about getting shorted a dixie cup full of water when filling a swimming pool – it’s splitting hairs and much ado about nothing really.
Personally, I don’t see Reid as being much more than a utility player. John seems to agree as he’s not rated that highly, as does BA’s list as they don’t have him in the 2012 line-up. The other thing to keep in mind is what John’s grades actually mean.
Helickson
Having seen him on 3 occasions last year, I thought he was generally over rated. He has very average stuff, and even then he hasn’t yet shown an ability to sustain it deep into games. He has outstanding command and pitchability, which enabled him to put up some extraordinary numbers at low levels. But there’s a reason he struggled a bit on hitting AA. His ceiling is still probably a #4 SP.
That’s still a good prospect. But I think it’s debatable whether he should really be ahead of Niemann. Niemann has better stuff, and put up impressive numbers last season in AAA (1.14 WHIP; 8.66 SO9; 2.56 SO/BB; .207 BAA). I think Niemann is one of those guys who gets overlooked because he is no longer an exciting new name, whereas Hellickson last season unexpectedly put up some great stats at lower levels and got some buzz.
by acerimusdux on Nov 12, 2008 12:28 PM EST up reply actions
I like John's more overall
But my opinion differs from him too. I’d say the top 5 should be
1. Price
2. Beckham
3. Davis
4. Brignac
5. Hellickson
But honestly, 2-5 are all reasonably close depending on what you’re looking for.
The 2008 Rogelio Moret League Fantasy Baseball Champions!
by The Congo Hammer on Nov 12, 2008 11:24 AM EST reply actions
New Arms?
BA seems to be putting even more emphasis on the really young arms in systems, as if further discounting arms closer to the majors (E.g. Having to defend Hagadone so profusely).
Closer does not equal better.
Especially when talking about prospects that don’t have that big of a ceiling.
Agreed
It doesn’t always equal better. However, there needs to be a balance between ceiling and likelihood of reaching that ceiling. A person who is at best a #3 and is in AA or AAA is just as good as a prospect who is in rookie or SS who could be a #1. The surety of the one balances out with ceiling of the other. Between the two, it will be a judgment call. BA consistently makes the judgment call towards the higher ceiling player when comparing the two.
Yes, it does
and it always has.
It’s an inherent institutional bias.
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
Ya but they're pretty upfront about their methods. We just need to understand the context
of their conclusions based on their scope of work.
It's not the results, it's how you look going about those results -- Tim McCarver
by WaddellCanseco on Nov 13, 2008 2:04 AM EST up reply actions
I agree with what youre saying.
Depending on who you are and what you value more is where you would rank the potential ace in SS ball vs the #3 in AA. I value the potential ace more, since they are rare. The potential three is pretty common and I feel I can live without. If a team wanted a pitcher from me and it was between Inoa and Hellickson, I would give up Hellickson. But Im a risk taker and I prefer the guy who has the higher ceiling. I feel potential #3’s can be easily replaced.
They can't be
but thanks for playing.
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
How can they not?
Notice I said POTENTIAL # 3s. but hey good argument back though, lots of knowledge stored there
Potential #3s that have advanced up to AA and still look like they will be big league #3 are not easy to replace
They’re a lot harder to replace than all the guys in rookie/complex ball that “could maybe become an ace if everything comes together in terms of developing secondary pitches and/or developing command”.
Agree
So far, Hagadone, Brackman, Moore, and Barnese have all been overrated by this criteria, in my opinion
I thought the Hagadone argument was weird
because didn’t he have the exact same arm last year (particularly before he got injured)? Why was he rated #7 then, and #3 now, when all he did in the meantime was get injured and have a serious surgery?
TheSouthWing.com - A Magazine of essays, prose and poems
by OldProspects on Nov 12, 2008 12:19 PM EST up reply actions
I assume
because they graduated a bunch of prospects. I can’t see them arguing that Hagadone is a better prospect now than he was last year.
http://mvn.com/milb-yankees/
Writers
I’m not too familiar with all of the writers at BA, so could anyone please give me their opinions on who is the most credible, or seems to usually have the best, rankings and opinions?
solid
some guys at BA are better than others. Some are very good, some not so good. I would say overall BA has been better the past few years than it was 7+ years ago. It takes more consideration into #s than it used to while before it was just all about tools. Now at least they try to mix and match the two
Callis
I don’t have all my data in front of me now. But I have run some regression models to predict player value against prospect grades 5 years after the prospect came to the majors. Of the people I analyzed I found the top 3 list to come from John, Callis & Nate Silver.
I’d have to get out my data to be more specific. But I do remember Callis was the best of the BA folks.
Curiousity
What was your metric for measuring player value?
I find it interesting
That most on here are getting up in arms about Hellickson’s ranking but ignoring the guy who they put at #5.
I for one am suprised that Jennings is that high considering he’s missed considerable time with injuries. Maybe his potential is still high, but I would have figured his stock would drop some.
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2010 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.
