milb.com 2009 Top 50
by rdf8585 on Dec 1, 2008 10:02 PM EST
Email
PrintThey're releasing 10 per day, here's #41-50 in order. These rankings are usually controversial, but are worth a read. Lou Marson being 43 will probably result in another controversy over him. Recall that there was enough arguing when he was given a C+ by John :)
Adam Miller
Brett Wallace
Lou Marson
Jeremy Jeffress
James McDonald
Derek Holland
Kyle Blanks
Angel Villalona
Matt Dominguez
Jeff Samardzija
51 comments
|
2 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
why?
Last year’s MiLB list was actually very similar to our community list.
MiLB list:
http://web.minorleaguebaseball.com/milb/news/top50/y2008/
Our list:
http://www.minorleagueball.com/2008/1/9/113756/8968
Aside from #22, Daric Barton, and #26, LaPorta, every member of our top 30 made their list.
by my dixie wrecked on Dec 2, 2008 4:06 PM EST up reply actions
How this list is made
or was made last year makes no sense at all. There is a panel of people who rank their top 30 guys. From those lists, the top 50 is made. One person overrating a guy while everyone else potentially having that player in the 70s puts this guy in the top 50, while ideally everyone could universally agree that player X is their #31 prospect and he wouldn’t even get a sniff for this list.
I can’t say that the list is the same way this year, but I doubt its changed.
More the merrier
When you have a “panel” of about 5-10, then that is possible. But, if lets say the amount of people spreads to 30 or so, then the outliers will have limited effect on the overall ranking.
Here's the next 10
31. Wade Davis
32. Fernando Martinez
33. Phillippe Aumont
34. Yonder Alonso
35. Nick Adenhart
36. Jake Arrieta
37. Scott Elbert
38. Freddie Freeman
39. Jeremy Hellickson
40. Jesus Montero
Aumont is too high, Adenhart may be too high and I don’t like F-Mart here either.
Has He Even
Been considered for our top 83 so far?
The evidence that he's a bad prospect is sure piling up thenq
BA… damn. That’s like the kiss of death.
Yeah
Glad we have superior knowledge like your around seeing as BA doesn’t have the first clue or connections to people who actually know how judge talent.
Complainers
I think some of you guys need to take a ride on the WAAAHmbulance.
While i disagree with a number of the rankings, I always appreciate lists from sources outside the groupthink of prospecting blogs and the like.
Who is to say that some bloggers
didn’t have something to do with the list? I know last year of a specific blogger who was asked to submit their top 30 prospects for inclusion in this. How many more I don’t know, but at least one was included.
That said, the one thing I do enjoy about this, is the information added along with it. Its always good to get as much information on these guys as possible.
That wasn't my point
I didn’t say “thank god no bloggers sullied this list.” I appreciate differing perspectives.
I know what you were saying
But I was just kind of throwing it out there to everyone that there were ‘blog’ types who had input into the list last year. Your post just made a good place to put it.
Whats wrong with the list
I appreciate other types of rankings because that is how it works in baseball really. When teams are discussing trades one GM might rate one teams prospects differently then another. Its good to get an overall feel of where a large group of publications feel prospects should be ranked. I look forward to every ranking system that comes out and this year I think i will be happy because there will be at least two more Braves on this list hopefully three more with the inclusion of Schafer, but I doubt that.
Whats wrong with the list
in terms of the list itself? Nothing.
in terms of how the list is generated? A lot. One renegade thinking on a player will vault him into the top 50, while a universally ranked #31 player will not get a single vote to appear in the Top 50. Lets say that there are 15 people asked to fill out their top 30 and its weighted at 30 points for #1 and 1 point for #30. Lets say Player X gets voted by only one person at #20, he then has 10 points. Lets say player Y gets 0 votes, he then has 0 points. Now lets say that they actually have to rank 50 players and player X still only gets that 1 vote at #20, they now have 30 points (where being #1 is worth 50 now and being #50 is now worth 1). Lets say that Player Y is voted ass #31 by all 15 voters, they now have 435 points. The problem is, with the current way the list is determined, Player Y doesn’t get a single vote, while player X is now a top 50 prospect because 1 person has a renegade idea of the players value compared to everyone else polled.
Not true in this case
The 50th guy, Samarzzizjzjzzdadsa, has over 30 votes, so even the worse case scenario for you (a scrub being put #1 by some random guy and getting 30 votes and 0 votes from anyone else) wouldn’t result in a player making the list regardless of how many lists were aggregated. The player getting 10 votes in your scenario wouldn’t be anywhere near this list.
While it probably makes the bottom of the list a little prone to quirkiness, I don’t think it is a very big deal. What it does is emphasize the players that somebody somewhere thinks has top 30 talent at the expense of guys who aren’t seen that way by anybody. That’s a choice made by the architect of the list, not necessarily a flaw.
Votes
I am curious if that means votes or points. For example, the #30 prospect is Wade Davis. He has 57 ‘votes’. That probably puts the #1 prospect on pace for somewhere over 100 votes. Were 100 people really polled for this? I really doubt that.
last year Jay Bruce was #1 and had ‘562 votes’. They didn’t poll 562 people. Its a point system.
I imagine its even more than that
Given that I doubt they polled 30 people for it. I could be wrong, but I think its more like 15 people that are polled for it.
I was reading votes as points
I was just using the nomenclature of the list. It doesn’t affect the point I was making.
Sure
but I still think its fairly flawed to make a list that way because it doesn’t give a true representation of a top 50.
I agree with aCone419
Everybody loves to complain about every single list that comes out.
I’ve only seen 31-50 so far, but it doesn’t look too bad. And by the way, check out our community list- it’s pretty bad. For example, I’m not an Adenhart fan, but even I have to admit that the possibility that he reaches his very high ceiling should have him in the top 50 or so. But obviously a bunch of guys on this site dropped him from their fantasy rosters this year and now act like they never liked him and he has no talent.
by my dixie wrecked on Dec 2, 2008 3:37 PM EST reply actions
Yeah...
What have you done for me lately syndrome like a motherf*cker…. He was 21 AAA this year for Christ sake.
BA has him as the #1 Angel and now he’s 35 on this list. Not that I agree completely with either, but I think some people around here are completely drunk with their own sophomoric prospecting “skills.”
He was 21 in AAA this year
so what?
His periphs have been dropping every level he advanced. Then this year he was legitimately pretty friggin bad. Im willing to write off the HR jump because of the hitting environments he played in, but his walk totals are soaring in the wrong direction and his K rates are trending the wrong way, too. He let up 173 hits in 145 IP.
Im not ready to write him off, but I think we’d be foolish not to drop him a good bit on prospect lists. I think he is getting a bum rap of sorts, and being downgraded too much now. I dont agree that he should be the #1 prospect in the Angels system, but I dont think he should be the #10 either.. and closer to #1.
Adenhart was a guy I always liked and I wouldnt be shocked to see him reestablish his prospect status next season with a strong performance… but for now, I cant look at what he’s done and place him all that high.
Ok, well, where should Adenhart be?
Like I said, I’ve never been much of an Adenhart fan so I’m not pushing for him, but we’re at #84 on our prospect list and he hasn’t even had a tester as far as I know. Clearly a bunch of people that frequent this site have jumped off the bandwagon- big time. Even Jacob McGee, who is probably a RP even if he ever makes it back from TJ is at #78.
Basically, I’m just defending the MiLB list. This site gets a bad case of group think this time of year and everybody rips all of the other lists. I actually think other lists are better if only because they don’t have a rooting interest in where guys rank.
by my dixie wrecked on Dec 2, 2008 4:49 PM EST up reply actions
He'd be in my top 100
I was saying I didnt like him at 35 on the MiLB.com list. He was around that spot last year… Id probably put him around 50ish off the top oh my head- I havent done my list yet. I love his stuff. We ignored these trends last year and kept him where he was on most prospect lists… given what he’s done now, I think you have to drop him a bit and take the risk he makes you look foolish by coming out and doing well. Adenhart doesnt have like Sabathia or Harden stuff… he has really good stuff, a nasty moving fastball in the low-mid 90’s and a good change and curve. With one year of bad numbers where he was getting hit I can ignore that… but now we are two years of struggles and getting hit.
Another downside is that the scouting reports have been negative now, too. Maybe it was just an adjustment year… and he is still young… but that just means, to me, that he can get back to where he was. He still has to go out and do it. The negative trends have been building for years and I was willing to write them off as slips/adjustments/etc… He also got worse as the year went on.
Top pitching prospect Nick Adenhart 1 was plagued by control problems throughout the year and went backwards in terms of stuff as well
http://www.baseballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=8088
Another thing… I think the entire problem is his approach. Well, control a bit… but approach, mostly.
Ok, well, where should Adenhart be?
Like I said, I’ve never been much of an Adenhart fan so I’m not pushing for him, but we’re at #84 on our prospect list and he hasn’t even had a tester as far as I know. Clearly a bunch of people that frequent this site have jumped off the bandwagon- big time. Even Jacob McGee, who is probably a RP even if he ever makes it back from TJ is at #78.
Basically, I’m just defending the MiLB list. This site gets a bad case of group think this time of year and everybody rips all of the other lists. I actually think other lists are better if only because they don’t have a rooting interest in where guys rank.
by my dixie wrecked on Dec 2, 2008 4:47 PM EST reply actions
Elbert higher than McDonald?
That makes no sense. No way Elbert should be in the top 75 let alone 37.
+1
This is the first thing i noticed as well.
Go Pirates!!!
by cool hand Charlie on Dec 3, 2008 8:11 AM EST up reply actions
Last years list was great
So I ma excited to see the list.
The voting makes it most accurate I think
Glad I read this site
So many people here who apparently know more than a group of 20 professional scouts!!!
Connundrum
Players who still need to make this list:
Wieters, Price, Heyward, Moustakas, Snider, Rasmus, Maybin, Bumgarner, Feliz, Cahill, Laporta, Smoak, Alvarez, Alderson, Porcello, Fowler, Mccutchen, Tillman, Posey, Parker, B. Anderson, Chacin, Matusz, Santana, Morrison.
Thats 25 players for 20 spots. So who out of these players won’t make it? And whoever they are, it is a crime, because they all belong at least SOMEWHERE in a top 50 list.
Matusz, Chacin
What’s more likely: they made the top 20 or they didn’t make this list?
11-20 have been posted:
They are:
Mike Moustakas
Andrew McCutchen
Brett Anderson
Matt LaPorta
Dexter Fowler
Chris Tillman
Trevor Cahill
Jarrod Parker
Buster Posey
Brian Matusz
My guess at the top 10:
Wieters
Price
Heyward
Snider
Porcello
Rasmus
Maybin
Bumgarner
Feliz
Alvarez
My guess at guys left off the list:
Alderson
Smoak
Chacin
Santana
Morrison
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2012 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.
