Minor League Ball: An SB Nation Community

Navigation: Jump to content areas:


Sports blogs for fans, by fans.
New Blog: World Soccer Digest for Soccer Fans!

Project Prospect Top 150

PP has released their Top 150, an interesting read:

http://www.projectprospect.com/2008-top-150-prospect-list/

1   Jay Bruce   CF   Power hitter who can rope the ball all over the field; potential all-star and a class act   20.8   CIN   AAA
2   Colby Rasmus   CF   Has as much power as Bruce with better BB/K, just not as proven; highly focussed   21.5   STL   AA
3   Evan Longoria   3B   Good bet to be above-average bat; should hit 30 HR + reach base frequently in prime   22.2   TB   AAA
4   Clay Buchholz   RHP   Overwhelming arsenal paired with finesse mentality could make him a No. 1 starter   23.4   BOS   MLB
5   Joba Chamberlain   RHP   His stuff may be better than Buchholz's; needs to prove himself as full-season starter   22.3   NYY   MLB
6   Clayton Kershaw   LHP   Walk rate is only thing holding him back; strong bet to headline this list entering 2009   19.9   LAD   AA
7   David Price   LHP   Among top college arms in last decade; "wire-to-wire" consensus No. 1 pick for 2007   22.4   TB   NCAA
8   Jake McGee   LHP   One of the top power pitchers in MiLB; his secondary will make him at least a No. 2   21.5   TB   AA
9   Cameron Maybin   CF   Burner had .201 IsoP thanks to some huge power spurts last year; LD% is concerning   20.8   FLA   MLB
10   Andy LaRoche   3B   Should get chance to exhibit excellent power and patience in '08; Our pick for NL ROY   24.4   LAD   MLB
11   Johnny Cueto   RHP   It's difficult to debate his success; No. 1-2 depending on how often he gives up XBH   21.9   CIN   AAA
12   Homer Bailey   RHP   Supporters point to '07 injuries; doubters question BB% and how hittable he was   21.7   CIN   MLB
13   Travis Snider   RF   Utter hitting prowess is balanced by DH body; powerful lefty could reach AAA in '08   20.0   TOR   A
14   Matt Wieters   C   Top collegiate bat in his class; switch hitter with good power stroke, sound defense   21.7   BAL   HWB
15   Rick Porcello   RHP   Extremely advanced prep arm; top-of-the-rotation talent who figures to move quickly   19.1   DET   HS
16   Ian Kennedy   RHP   Good bet to become a No. 2; induces soft contact; has found success everywhere   23.1   NYY   MLB
17   Daric Barton   1B   Contact hitter who can draw walks and hit for power; expect smooth transition to bigs 22.4   OAK   MLB
18   Chris Marrero   1B   The kind of home-run hitter who gets pitched around when he's hot; just a bit streaky   19.6   WAS   A+
19   Gio Gonzalez   LHP   Gets called out for being under 6-foot; has made strides limiting HR; could be a No. 2   22.4   OAK   AA
20   Fernando Martinez   OF   Stayed more than afloat as teen in AA then broke hamate; expect modest improvement 19.3   NYM   AA
21   Joey Votto   1B   Line-drive machine excels at hitting the ball in the air and drawing BB; some speed, too 24.4   CIN   MLB
22   Jacoby Ellsbury   CF   Unlikely to be above-average hitter; strengths are speed and defense; very polished   24.4   BOS   MLB
23   Brandon Wood   3B   Questionable contact abilities; but tolerable due to his power; could play SS in a pinch   22.9   LAA   MLB
24   Andrew McCutchen   CF   May take a while for his game to translate to the bigs; plus speed with some power   21.3   PIT   AAA
25   Mike Moustakas   3B   Elite power hitter; good enough athlete to play SS in pro debut; could reach A+ in '08   19.4   KC   R
26   Franklin Morales   LHP   Was better than ever once he reached the bigs; expect him to get hit a bit harder in '08 22.0   COL   MLB
27   Wade Davis   RHP   Potential No. 2 does a great job limiting hard contact; really tired down the stretch   22.4   TB   AA
28   Matt LaPorta   LF   Awesome power hitter; should ascend through minors quickly; still profiles best at 1B   22.9   MIL   A
29   Angel Villalona   3B   Fresh off promising debut (.344 wOBA); power's his calling card; lots of uncertainty   17.5   SF   SS
30   Matt Antonelli   2B   Excellent walk rates, low K, and good power could put him among the game's top 2B   22.8   SD   AA
31   Jeff Clement   C   2004's 3rd overall pick punishes LHP, solid against RHP; arm strength is questionable   24.4   SEA   MLB
32   Josh Vitters   3B   Considered top prep hitter in '07 by some; pro debut (55 PA) was uninspiring - 0 XBH   18.4   CHC   R
33   Austin Jackson   CF   2nd-half surge was no coincidence - learned to pull the ball; expect a breakout year   21.0   NYY   A+
34   Reid Brignac   SS   Line-drive hitter with some pop; bat may only be average in bigs; should stick at SS   23.0   TB   AA
35   Jose Tabata   RF   More consistent but hasn't flashed as much power as Fernando; also broke hamate   19.5   NYY   A+
36   Nick Adenhart   RHP   Standout ability to keep ball in the park; limits hard contact well; good bet to be No. 2-3   21.4   LAA   AA
37   Jarrod Parker   RHP   2nd-best prep pitcher in his class; could move quickly...maybe surface as a No. 1-2   19.2   ARI   HS
38   Carlos Gonzalez   RF   Good LD hitter; his '06 success came in Lancaster; bat may only be average in bigs   22.3   OAK   AAA
39   Fautino de los Santos RHP   Winston-Salem is tough to pitch in - he dominated; AA is next step; could be a No. 2   21.9   OAK   A+
40   Jordan Schafer   CF   Broke out in '07 despite rigors of Myrtle Beach; promising power; D praised universally 21.4   ATL   A+
41   Desmond Jennings   CF   Crazy fast contact hitter also drew walks in Low-A; unproven but high-upside talent   21.2   TB   A
42   Jason Heyward   RF   Powerful 6'4'', 220-pounder lasted until the 14th pick of '07; top prep OF in his class   18.5   ATL   R
43   Beau Mills   1B   WAC star turned NAIA legend; improved K% and wOBA at each of three his pro stops 21.4   CLE   A+
44   Aaron Laffey   LHP   Extreme-ground-ball pitcher is a very safe bet to be a No. 3; that can't be said of many   22.8   CLE   MLB
45   Sean Gallagher   RHP   Matured from 12 rounder ('04) to good bet to be No. 3 starter; solid K%, good HR rates   22.1   CHC   MLB
46   Aaron Thompson   LHP   Amazing GB pitcher; had shoulder tendonitis last year and has been in pitcher's parks   20.9   FLA   AA
47   Bill Rowell   3B   Just a day older than Moustakas; slowed by oblique injury in '07; cut him some slack   19.4   BAL   A
48   Lars Anderson   1B   Doubles hitter last year; stock could explode in Lancaster; AA totals will mean more   20.3   BOS   A+
49   Trevor Cahill   RHP   Great at inducing soft contact - should translate well to A+AA; shot at being a No. 2   19.9   OAK   A
50   Kevin Mulvey   RHP   Posted an amazing .076 IsoPA in '07 - 3.16 FIP; a good bet to become a No. 3 starter   22.7   MIN   AA
51   Jed Lowrie   SS   Could easily be a league-average hitter; better fit at second than short - limits upside    23.8   BOS   AAA
52   Elvis Andrus   SS   Myrtle Beach is known for surpressing power; expect breakout offensive year in '08   19.4   TEX   A+
53   Brett Anderson   LHP   Picked apart Low-A hitters; reached A+ in first full season; a chance to be a No. 2-3   20.1   OAK   A+
54   Michael Burgess   RF   Not sure how he slipped to 49th pick in '07; big power potential and he can draw a BB   19.3   WAS   SS
55   Jair Jurrjens   RHP   Knows how to pitch; solid bet to be a No. 3 starter; 18.1% K combined in '07, 7.1% BB   22.0   ATL   MLB
56   Geovany Soto   C   Guys don't accidentally hit like he did in '07; could be a league-average bat this season 25.0   CHC   MLB
57   Justin Masterson   RHP   Sinkerballer has Brandon-Webb upside; still needs to prove durable enough to be a SP   22.8   BOS   AA
58   Tyler Robertson   LHP   Exhibited mastery over 102.1 IP...29.2% K, 2.20 FIP; still far away but a potential No. 2   20.1   MIN   A
59   Chase Headley   3B   LD approach allows him to lace the ball all over; could become a league-average hitter   23.7   SD   MLB
60   Chris Volstad   RHP   Good command, HR rates, GB tendencies; solid shot at being a No. 3, chance of No. 2   21.3   FLA   AA
61   Matt Latos   RHP   11th rounder ('06) signed for 1st round money, dominated SS hitters over 56.1 innings   20.1   SD   SS
62   Steve Pearce   1B   Annihilated A+, AA, and AAA last year; could become a 25+ HR guy in the bigs by '09   24.8   PIT   MLB
63   Ross Detwiler   RHP   6th pick in '07 has lots of upside; not the safest bet to harness it; high BB% in NCAA   21.9   WAS   MLB
64   Greg Reynolds   RHP   Talented GB pitcher; shoulder injury limited him in '07 (50.0 IP); No. 2 if healthy return?   22.6   COL   AA
65   Hank Conger   C   25th pick from '06 managed to hit for power in MWL; should devour CAL pitching in '08   20.0   LAA   A
66   Matt Dominguez   3B   12th pick in '07; said to be great defender; bat is the question...didn't hit much in debut   18.4   FLA   SS
67   Michael Bowden   RHP   Likely only No. 3-4 but well on his way; K% rose every month from May-August in AA   21.4   BOS   AA
68   Nick Weglarz   LF   Walks a lot, Ks a lot, hits for a lot of power; Totalled 8 HR and .473 wOBA in August   20.1   CLE   A
69   Deolis Guerra   RHP   Made strides in command dept.; was limited then shut down due to shoulder tendonitis   18.8   MIN   A+
70   Jesus Montero   C   $2.0 M Ven. signee was solid in 123 rookie PA; success could translate well to A-ball   18.1   NYY   R
71   Madison Bumgarner   LHP   Young for his draft class (10th pick of '07); raw athlete with potential to be a No. 1-2   18.5   SF   HS
72   Ryan Kalish   CF   Has mastered SS ball - great BB%, low K%, solid power; broke hamate bone in July   19.8   BOS   SS
73   Sean O'Sullivan   RHP   Has allowed just 8 HR in 229.2 pro innings; isn't overpowering; could become a No. 3   20.4   LAA   A
74   Cole Rorhbough   LHP   Signed for 2nd round money in '06; 40.3% K between rookie and A ball shows upside  20.7   ATL   A
75   James Simmons   RHP   26th pick in '07 was thrusted to AA then AFL in pro debut; command is his strength   21.3   OAK   AA
76   Aaron Poreda   LHP   25th pick in '07 was held in rookie ball in his debut - thrived there; still has lots to prove   21.5   CHW   R
77   Adam Miller   RHP   His arm is spectacular when it's working; ranks this low because of injury concerns   23.2   CLE   AAA
78   Phillippe Aumont   RHP   11th pick of '07; raw with high upside; his HS (in Canada) didn't have a baseball team   19.1   SEA   HS
79   Wladimir Balentien   RF   Vastly improved contact abilities ('06 to '07); could be close to a league-average bat   23.6   SEA   MLB
80   Carlos Triunfel   SS   Teen reached A+ in debut; power is lacking, unproven on D, but a good contact hitter   17.9   SEA   A+
81   Carlos Gomez   CF   One of the fastest runners in baseball; breakout season haulted by broken hamate?   22.2   MIN   MLB
82   Anthony Swarzak   RHP   Good bet to be a No. 4; improved his walk rates last year (9.8 to 6.7%); good HR/TBF   22.4   MIN   AA
83   Kosuke Fukudome   RF   We only see him as an average regular for a year or two; then we expect a decline   30.8   CHC   INT
84   Will Inman   RHP   We love 25%+ K rate guys; but this one has had troubles staying strong for a full year   21.0   SD   AA
85   Kasey Kiker   LHP   BB% and HR rate are concerning given he was in Low-A; 27.6% K shows his upside   20.2   TEX   A
86   Chris Parmelee   RF   Showed impressive power (.175 IsoP) in full-season debut; 27.3% K is scary, though   19.9   MIN   A
87   Blake Beavan   RHP   17th pick of '07; 6'7'', 210-pound power pitcher has a lot of upside but unusual motion   19.0   TEX   HS
88   Tim Alderson   RHP   Dazzled in pro debut: 5.0 IP, 12 K, 0 BB, 0 XBH; 22nd ('07) pick could reach A+ in '08   19.2   SF   R
89   Jeffrey Locke   LHP   Masterful command + overpowering stuff; yet to pitch above rookie; very high upside   20.2   ATL   R
90   Jaime Garcia   LHP   Shut down in mid-July - soreness in pitching elbow; injury may have been slowing him   21.4   STL   AA
91   Jordan Walden   RHP   DNF from '06 signed a hefy bonus; mowed down rookie hitters; at least No. 3 potential   20.2   LAA   R
92   Joe Savery   LHP   Two-way NCAA players can learn quickly; that's what we expect from '07's 19th pick   22.2   PHI   SS
93   Esmailyn Gonzalez   SS   Big INT signee was decent in pro debut; good upside; shows how INT $ is deceiving   18.4   WAS   R
94   Collin Balester   RHP   Improved BB% and K% last season; strong bet to be No. 4; .140 IsoPA is concerning   21.6   WAS   AAA
95   Matt Harrison   LHP   Turf toe ended his '07 early; limits HR and hard contact; a solid bet to become a No. 4   22.4   TEX   AA
96   Scott Elbert   LHP   Had shoulder operation in '07; could reestablish himself in '08; BB% still major concern   22.5   LAD   AA
97   Tyler Colvin   CF   Was very strong in August (.362 wOBA, AA) but had 0 BB that month; 13th pick in '06   22.4   CHC   AA
98   Kevin Ahrens   3B   High-upside hitter who played SS in pro debut but will likely wind up playing third base   18.8   TOR   R
99   Manny Parra   LHP   Has spent bulk of his career in AA and below; maybe a No. 3-4; durability is a concern 25.2   MIL   MLB
100   Cody Johnson   RF   Another Braves' prospect being brought along carefully; crushed Appy pitchers in '07   19.4   ATL   R
101   Chris Nelson   SS   Heated up in June, caught fire in July; '04's 9th overall pick; breakout coming in 2008?   22.4   COL   A+
102   Taylor Teagarden   C   Glowing defense; bat was great in CAL League (A+) and AA - had lots of Ks, though   24.1   TEX   AA
103   Chin-lung Hu   SS   Bulked up and broke out in '07; good contact hitter w
some power; a stellar gloveman   24.0   LAD   MLB
104   Chris Mason   RHP   Succeeds by limiting HRs and throwing strikes (6.6% BB since '05); potential No. 3-4   23.6   TB   AA
105   Jeremy Jeffress   RHP   Partially met high expectations in Low-A - 26.0% K, 12.0% BB, 4.32 FIP; 16th pick ('06) 20.4   MIL   A
106   Omar Poveda   RHP   Maintained a promising 24.9% K as a teen in A/A+; big jump in BB% from MWL to CAL    20.3   TEX   A+
107   Steve Evarts   LHP   Exceptional GB pitcher so far - 80.0 pro innings without a HR; just 2.8% BB in '07, too   20.3   ATL   R
108   Michael Main   RHP   24th pick in '07 has quick, dangerous arm action - health concern; an amazing athlete   19.1   TEX   SS
109   Chris Tillman   RHP   Good in MWL, not so much in CAL; solid K% poor BB% and HR rate; potential No. 4?   19.8   BAL   A+
110   Mat Gamel   3B   Strong FSL finish after slow start; amazing in HWB (1.000+ OPS); solid all-around bat   22.5   MIL   A+
111   German Duran   2B   Huge power jump in '07 (.225 IsoP in AA); but just a average runner and low walk rate 23.5   TEX   AA
112   Dexter Fowler   CF   OBP threat without much power; projectability is a tough subject; eaten alive in AFL   21.9   COL   A+
113   J.R. Towles   C   Only has 95 PA above AA; easy to get too caught up in a C who looks like he can hit   24.0   HOU   MLB
114   Eric Hurley   RHP   Has allowed 42 HR over last 2 seasons; being brought along quickly; potential No. 4-5   22.4   TEX   AAA
115   Oscar Tejeda   SS   Raw, high-upside talent who was solid in rookie-ball and short-season in his US debut 18.1   BOS   SS
116   Engle Beltre   OF   Impressive power for a teenager in his first pro season; contact ability is questionable   18.2   TEX   SS
117   Adrian Cardenas   2B   Withstood pitcher-friendly Lakewood, FSL is next; OK contact hitter with some power   20.3   PHI   A
118   Chris Davis   3B   Mashed at home in CAL (.438 wOBA); continued success in AA - amazing 2nd half   21.9   TEX   AA
119   Neil Walker   3B   Hot Apr., May, June; steep drop in play from then on; enough bat to stick at third base? 22.4   PIT   AAA
120   Ian Stewart   3B   Great hitter in Colorado Springs but below-average on the road; bat may fit best at 2B    22.8   COL   MLB
121   Wilmer Font   RHP   Excellent strikeout rates considering his age; BB% is a concern; still, a lot of upside   17.7   TEX   R
122   James McDonald   RHP   Excellent K% (30.2 in '07), solid BB rate (6.7%); strong enough to make it as a starter?   23.3   LAD   AA
123   Trevor Crowe   CF   Things may have finally started clicking late last year - hit .314/.384/.428 in the 2nd half 24.2   CLE   AA
124   Bryan Anderson   C   40.9% of his '07 XBH came in April; has potential to be an average hitter as a catcher   21.1   STL   AA
125   Brett Cecil   LHP   Really limited XBH in R and NCAA - solid BB%, too; K% wasn't overpowering in NCAA   21.6   TOR   SS
126   Daniel Cortes   RHP   May have turned corner in August - BB% way down, K% up; lots of upside (No. 2-3?) 20.9   KC   A+
127   Max Sapp   C   Good contact and BB% in full-season debut - little power; makings to be an average C   19.9   HOU   A
128   Carlos Carrasco   RHP   His success has come in favorable pitcher's environments; could be No. 4-5 or a RP   20.9   PHI   AA
129   Gorkys Hernandez   CF   One of the fastest players in the lower minors; in a pitcher's park and league in '07   20.4   ATL   A
130   Brad Lincoln   RHP   From 4th pick in '06 to TJ patient; little pro history; excellent NCAA arm; potential No. 2   22.7   PIT   A
131   Clayton Tanner   LHP   Good GB pitcher with solid command and K rate; should be tested in CAL this season   20.2   SF   A
132   Cedric Hunter   CF   Didn't power through the MWL by any means - but solid; enough speed to stick in CF?   19.9   SD   A
133   Ben Revere   CF   Speedster was impressive in rookie ball after being selected 28th overall - .369 wOBA 19.7   MIN   R
134   Henry Alberto Rodriguez   RHP   Has makings to be a dominant RP; .056 IsoPA, 25.3% K, 13.8% BB in full-season debut 20.9   OAK   A
135   Casey Weathers   RHP   07's 8th pick had stellar year as Vandy's closer (2 XBH in 49.1 IP); signed under slot   22.6   COL   A
136   Nick Noonan   2B   Was pretty solid across the board in debut - poor BB%; selected 32nd overall in '07   18.7   SF   R
137   Oswaldo Sosa   RHP   A lot more dominant in FSL than AA; Ave. BB%, below-ave. K%; good IsoPA (.094)   22.4   MIN   AA
138   Andrew Brackman   RHP   2nd-highest upside of any NCAA pitcher in '07 draft?; '07 TJ patient and still very raw   22.2   NYY   NCAA
139   Tony Thomas   2B   Exploded on the scene as a Jr. at Florida; kept it up in the pros; 97th overall pick in '07   21.6   CHC   SS
140   Tyler Herron   RHP   Great BB% and solid IsoPA; may not be more than a No. 5 but good bet to reach that   21.5   STL   A
141   Kyle Lotzkar   RHP   Second-best prep arm out of Canada last year; solid pro debut; 53rd overall pick in '07   18.3   CIN   R
142   Jon Niese   LHP   Substantial BB% improvement from '06 to '07, though he couldn't sustain K%; No. 4-5?   21.3   NYM   A+
143   Edwardo Morlan   RHP   Among the top RP in the minors - 34.3% K, 6.9% BB; gives up a lot of extra-base hits   21.9   TB   AA
144   Jeremy Hellickson   RHP   A potential No. 4-5; solid command (7.6% BB) and stuff (23.8% K) - 3.45 FIP last year   20.8   TB   A
145   Alan Horne   RHP   Durability will decide if he's No. 5 or reliever; BB% rose every month from Apr. to Aug.   25.1   NYY   AA
146   Max Ramirez   C   Had a .396 wOBA in Kinston and Bakersfield; traded in '06 and '07; OK power hitter   23.3   TEX   A+
147   Drew Stubbs   CF   Couldn't get out of Low-A in full-season debut; big 2nd half; OK bet to reach bigs still   23.3   CIN   A
148   Max Scherzer   RHP   Strong chance he's converted to a reliever; 12.5% BB in AA to go along with 23.8% K   23.5   ARI   AA
149   Jack Egbert   RHP   Numbers are better than Horne's; potential No. 4-5 does great job limiting hard contact   24.7   CHW   AA
150   Colton Willems   RHP   Excellent IsoPA (.085) says something about his ability to pitch; 12.3% K in '07, though   19.6   WAS   SS

0 recs  |  Comment 85 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Display:

Really
you could have just posted the link along with a couple of selected highlights as you see it.

by t ball on Feb 19, 2008 10:42 AM EST reply actions   0 recs

glancing quickly down that list
I don't know what their criteria are, but Eric Hurley is #3 or higher on every other TX list I've seen, and here he's ranked as their 9th best prospect?  With Poveda and Duran ahead of him?  Really?  

by t ball on Feb 19, 2008 10:53 AM EST up reply actions   0 recs

You can click the link directly if you like.
Sorry for sharing:)  I realize it's long, and thought about posting only the link, but I thought it would be nice to have it on the same page for reference as people made comments.

by killa on Feb 19, 2008 11:06 AM EST up reply actions   0 recs

link
is it just me, or does the link go somewhere totally unexpected? did the domain name get taken over by some housing company?

by jpahk on Feb 19, 2008 11:27 AM EST up reply actions   0 recs

Just you
Vogt early, Vogt often.

by Brickhaus on Feb 19, 2008 12:37 PM EST up reply actions   0 recs

bizarre
link works from home. doesn't work from school. i don't really get it.

by jpahk on Feb 20, 2008 10:59 AM EST up reply actions   0 recs

lazy
I liked that you included the list.  It saved me a click - one less thing for me to do.

(Actually if I were TRULY that lazy, I wouldn't have wasted time replying, right?)

by journeymen on Feb 19, 2008 11:28 AM EST up reply actions   0 recs

Me too.
Me too.  I have a hard time criticizing someone for saving me work.  :)

by sharksrog on Feb 19, 2008 11:53 PM EST up reply actions   0 recs

Project Prospect Top 150
I was pleasantly surprised to see the Giants' Clayton Tanner at #131 on this list.  Was Angel Villalona merely overlooked?

Villalona has been #1 on every Giants' prospect list I've seen, while Tanner seldom breaks their top five.

Tanner, a 2006 product of local De La Salle High School, has indeed fared well in his two seasons of organized ball, pitching quite well in Low A last year until faltering in his last three starts.  His forte to date has been inducing lots of ground balls.

by sharksrog on Feb 19, 2008 11:05 AM EST reply actions   0 recs

oops...
re-read the post before you get all upset over a guy being "left off"
I'd give the guys at PP a bit more credit than that... leaving off a player like Villalona would only be something a community list might do.

by team name deleted on Feb 19, 2008 11:13 AM EST up reply actions   0 recs

Oops!
Sorry I missed Angel.  I even looked more than once -- but I guess it is easy for one name to get lost in 150.  Plus I just wanted to show I'm human.  :)

And,oh boy, am I HUMAN.  :)

by sharksrog on Feb 19, 2008 11:54 PM EST up reply actions   0 recs

Henry Sosa? Nate?
Maybe I missed it, but I didn't see Henry Sosa who should rank ahead of Tanner, at least.  

I can see why some might leave Nate Schierholtz off a Top 100, although I consider him the Giants #2 prospect right now.  To leave him off a top 150 entirely confirms to me that he is, perhaps, the most underrated prospect in all of baseball.

by DrBGiantsfan on Feb 19, 2008 12:38 PM EST up reply actions   0 recs

nope...
That belongs to one Luke Hochevar...(underrated)
Rowdy Hardy Fan Club member.

by doublestix on Feb 19, 2008 12:41 PM EST up reply actions   0 recs

Sosa/Schieholtz
First off, thanks for the link and the comments so far.

Sosa had a good K% last year (26.7). But BB% is below average (11.3). And his jump in FIP from Low-A to High-A really concerns me (3.35 to 4.81) - I know he was in the California League but San Jose favors pitchers.

I can't really see Sosa becoming a No. 5 or a dominant enough reliever right now to be worthy of being ranked ahead of any of the guys who made our Top 150. Let's see how he fairs in the upper minors first.

I have a Schierholtz South Atlantic League baseball card displayed on my dresser - thanks Baseball America :). He's a good runner with some pop. The main reason he didn't make this list is because his walk rate is well below average. I don't know if he'll be able to get on base enough to become an average big leaguer.

Nonetheless, he just barely missed making our Top 150...came in at 155 - I have a list that goes 275+ deep that I put together to make sure I was giving enough candidates a close look.

by afoster on Feb 19, 2008 1:02 PM EST up reply actions   0 recs

Sosa and Schierholtz
Based on his stuff, Henry Sosa would seem to have the potential to be much more than a #5 starter.  I don't think he'll be a #5 starter either because he'll either be a #3 or higher or else he'll be a complete bust.  He's a classic high ceiling/high risk type prospect.

Not saying that BB's are unimportant, but are we getting to the point where we are undervaluing good hitters who are free swingers?  

by DrBGiantsfan on Feb 19, 2008 6:39 PM EST up reply actions   0 recs

Nah
There are a good amount of free swingers on this list. German Duran, Carlos Triunfel, Tyler Colvin, ect.

I think Schierholtz can settle in as a .175-.195 isolated power guy in the big leagues - maybe something like Casey Kotchman or Conor Jackson without the walks...11-18 home runs with a .355 OBP. That's solid but below the big-league average, I believe.

by afoster on Feb 19, 2008 7:58 PM EST up reply actions   0 recs

.355 OBP?
If Nate can get on base 35.5% of the time, I would really like him.  I am prejudiced for him anyway, since we share the same high school (although definitely in different decades) and the same family dentist.

I think Nate could be about a .290 career hitter, which certainly isn't bad.  I doubt the list of present hitters with a .290 or higher career average is very long.  As an example, the Giants just paid $60 million for Aaron Rowand, and Aaron's career BA isn't .290.

But Rowand is a center fielder, while Nate is likely to be an average to below-average corner outfielder defensively.  The hitting bar is clearly higher for corners.

I think Nate will hit for decent power, despite his being homerless in 112 major league at bats last season.  That's a very small sample, but how can a good hitter get just two walks and hit nary a homer in that many at bats?

I think Nate needs to develop a more patient approach.  For a power (sort of) hitter, he makes a lot of contact.  But until he develops the patience to wait for more pitches he can drive, I don't see him hitting for as much power as his well-developed body would imply.  And if he hits for contact but not power, I can't see him walking much -- ensuring a low OBP unless he becomes a .310 or higher career hitter.

I predicted last April when I first saw Nate play that he would be ready for the majors this year (not an especially bold prediction, although not without risk since it was only April).  But barring the approach change I suggest, I don't see him having a particularly high ceiling.

I'm not sure if he has the head for it, but if I were the Giants, I would have tried Nate behind the plate.  He played there through Little League, then moved to shortstop, then to third base.  But there are so few lefty-hitting catchers.  And Nate seems to have the arm and perhaps the agility to don the tools of ignorance.

If Nate could play behind the plate, at first base, both corner outfield slots and fill in in an emergency at third base, I would see him as a more valuable player.

That ship has likely already sailed.  But he still might have time to change his hitting approach.

Not that his present one has worked badly for him.  It's just not likely to work quite as well in the major leagues.  Nate is far more likely to be a .280 hitter than a .333 hitter as he was at Fresno last season.  Then his lack of walks become an issue.

by sharksrog on Feb 20, 2008 12:17 AM EST up reply actions   0 recs

.355 OBP?
If Nate can generate a .355 OBP whether mostly by BA or by increasing his walk rates, he's going to be an all-star, take that to the bank.  

by DrBGiantsfan on Feb 20, 2008 12:57 AM EST up reply actions   0 recs

It wouldn't take a bank shot
I agree with you, Dr., that if Nate can generate a .355 OBP, he likely won't have to hit a bank shot to make it to the All-Star game.  His shot would likely go straight in in one or more years of his career.

If Nate does it with average, that is perhaps the first thing many All-Star voters look at in a position player.  If he does it with walks, that will likely mean he is indeed waiting for more pitches he can drive, likely resulting in good power.

Either way, not only does Nate's OBP go up, so almost certainly will his SLG, which will boost his OPS (which might be an abbreviation for OPportunity to Star :).

by sharksrog on Feb 20, 2008 4:06 PM EST up reply actions   0 recs

Did he qualify?
Did Nate Schierholtz qualify for this list -- or was he up too long last season?  If he qualified, it might have been a minor oversight to leave him off.

That said, I figure if I put one guy ahead of another on a prospect list, that means I would trade the lower-rated guy for the higher-rated guy.  I wouldn't trade Angel Villalona, Tim Alderson, Madison Bumgarner or Wendell Fairley for Nate -- and I would have to think hard about trading Nick Noonan for him.

So without knowing the strength of the other 29 teams' top prospects, I certainly wouldn't think it was an oversight not to have Nate in a top 100 list.  And it might not be not to have him on a top 150 grouping.

But I can see your argument here, Dr., and don't necessarily disagree with you.

by sharksrog on Feb 19, 2008 11:59 PM EST up reply actions   0 recs

Trade Test
I would trade any one player on that list for Nate except Big V, although I would have to think long and hard about Bum and Alderson.  Not so long for Fairley, who I see as a similar ceiling, but less likely to reach it, or for Noonan who definitely is lower ceiling and much farther away.  Given the attrition rate for young pitchers, I'd pull the trigger with Bum and Tim II also.  Although Big V is a long, long way away, I see 40 HR potential there which I wouldn't want to give up.

by DrBGiantsfan on Feb 20, 2008 1:02 AM EST up reply actions   0 recs

Wait...
you would trade anyone on Foster's list for Nate except the other Giants' prospects that are ranked before him?

by jfish26101 on Feb 20, 2008 8:27 AM EST up reply actions   0 recs

Are You Kidding?
No!  I meant the Giants prospects on Shark's list.  I would not trade Angel Villalona for Nate Schierholtz, but I would trade Bumgarner, Alderson, Fairley and Noonan for him.

BTW, word is that Henry Sosa suffered a torn patellar tendon near the start of winter ball and will miss the first part of the season.  Bad news!

Ironically, Sosa got his chance in Augusta last year only because Orlando Yntema went down with the same injury in spring training.

by DrBGiantsfan on Feb 20, 2008 10:22 AM EST up reply actions   0 recs

Alright :D
I wasn't sure...my bad.  

by jfish26101 on Feb 20, 2008 12:35 PM EST up reply actions   0 recs

Isn't that the same injury that Cal's
backup center Jordan Wilkes had last season?

That knocked him out for the entire year, basically November through the middle of March (when the season ended-- I have no idea when he was cleared for practicing again).

Sounds like Sosa'll be out until midyear.

by PaulThomas on Feb 20, 2008 4:15 PM EST up reply actions   0 recs

I think
I think you see a higher ceiling for Nate than I do, Dr.  I feel the only way he can become an above-average starting corner outfielder is to change his approach at the plate.

But be it because he DOES change his approach or merely because I have underestimated him, I certainly hope he has a higher ceiling that I expect -- and that he reaches it!

Not that the Giants could use hitting.  :)

by sharksrog on Feb 20, 2008 4:09 PM EST up reply actions   0 recs

Wow
Cody Johnson 29 spots ahead of Gorkys Hernandez? It seems like this list is solely based off of numbers and not projection or anything like that.
Check out MVN.com/mlb-braves for the best Braves coverage

by was385 on Feb 19, 2008 11:43 AM EST reply actions   0 recs

Biggest Ommission
The biggest one I see thus far is Brandon Jones.

Also, if Fukudome can make it, Kuroda probably should as well.

The Dodgers won't win a playoff series until the Cool-a-Coo returns.

by mckeeno on Feb 19, 2008 11:43 AM EST reply actions   0 recs

Why?
There isn't much reason to believe that Kuroda will be significantly better than Kei Igawa.  
Vogt early, Vogt often.

by Brickhaus on Feb 19, 2008 12:38 PM EST up reply actions   0 recs

Very different pitchers
Igawa - Finesse lefty who was undone by inability to locate his breaking stuff.  Previous scouting reports had him slated as a #5 or RP.  Really only the Yankees thought he could be a 3/4.

Kuroda - Durable righty with a more powerful repertoire including a forkball.  Slotted as the #4 and should be an adequate (105 ERA+ or so) innings eater.

2007 ZiPs projection for Igawa - 4.77 ERA
2008 ZiPs projection for Kuroda - 3.95 ERA

The Dodgers won't win a playoff series until the Cool-a-Coo returns.

by mckeeno on Feb 19, 2008 2:05 PM EST up reply actions   0 recs

ZIPS
Does ZIPS adjust for park and league?  If so, is there a difference between a 4.77 in the AL East and a 3.95 in the NL West?  Further, those are average values, I'd like to see the complete spread of the results and the extent of the overlap.

by cooper7d7 on Feb 19, 2008 3:12 PM EST up reply actions   0 recs

Not true
Most people had Igawa pegged as a 3/4 (the Yankees obviously liked him even better than that) when he came over, and generally the scouting reports and general consensus were higher on Igawa than they have been on Kuroda.  Keith Law is the only guy I remember having Igawa properly pegged.  

I agree they're not the same pitcher, but I'm not sure I'd say Kuroda has the more powerful repertoire coming out of Japan.  When in Japan, Igawa was a lefty sitting at 89-91 (he was lower than that in the majors) with good control, a swing-and-miss change and a slider he used against lefties.  MLB hitters didn't miss his change much, which led him to start nibbling a lot more than he did in Japan.  Kuroda, on the other hand, is reportedly a righty sitting at 90-92 with a good slider, a swing-and-miss forkball (but, as with any forkball, it's only swing and miss if it fools people, because if the batter doesn't swing it will be a ball 9 times out of 10) and a shooto (which I've never seen used successfully against MLB hitters - it's like a slurve with less break, and every Japanese pitcher who's brought one over has scrapped it within a year).  In Japan, Kuroda had a slightly lower walk rate (because he pitches off his fastball more than Igawa), but also had a much lower strikeout rate.  His career ERA is also a half run higher than Igawa's was, and he's traditionally more homer-prone than Igawa, although I know next to nothing about Japanese park factors and the like.

In any case, coming immediately on the heels of Igawa, and being another Japanese pitcher who doesn't possess what most people would consider to be an elite arsenal, combined with the fact that he's already 33, I can see why a lot of people would be skeptical.  

Vogt early, Vogt often.

by Brickhaus on Feb 19, 2008 4:42 PM EST up reply actions   0 recs

Jones
Jones took a big step back in the power department once he reached Triple-A. And I think it would be hard to argue that he was more than an average hitter in Richmond.

He's a solid runner, though. I just don't see him as a solid bet to be an average regular. Seems like a No. 4 OF type - on a playoff-caliber team.

by afoster on Feb 19, 2008 1:08 PM EST up reply actions   0 recs

Netali Feliz
BP has him Texas' #1 prospect,not on the list?
Texas has non one in the top 50, 4 in the top 100 total, and 9 between 100 - 150. Out if those 8, Duran, Teagarden, Davis and Hurley are pretty much the top 4 or 5 from Texas...

Weird list.

Batting practice tomorrow you be there....I have Pop, everyday

by laxtonto on Feb 19, 2008 11:51 AM EST reply actions   0 recs

I also don' remember
Kiker, Beavan, or Harrison making any other top 100's.  Seems to me that at least Hurley, Davis, and Teagarden should be locks for anyones top 100, too.

by rothe on Feb 19, 2008 12:53 PM EST up reply actions   0 recs

Hurley
Hurley barely managed to put up a FIP below 4.00 when he was in Clinton - 3.95, the Midwest League.

He had a 4.26 in A+, 4.12 (37.0 IP) then 4.46 (88.2) in AA, and 5.47 in AAA. Granted he has been brought along quickly, but his production is pretty poor compared to most of the guys you see on this list.

Given that he was pretty much a No. 4-caliber starter in Double-A then a bad No. 5 in Triple-A, it's quite a gamble to expect Hurley to be more than a No. 4 in the bigs at this point.

by afoster on Feb 19, 2008 1:16 PM EST up reply actions   0 recs

in addition
Texas has the #5 organization acc. to BA, I don't care how you justify each individual omission, they cannot have that great of an overall organization, yet not have a single top 50 prospect.

I think the list is great as a whole, mainly because I respect how much work was put into just typing it all up, not to mention the decision making processes.

I applaud the work as whole, even if I have disagreements with the placement of some names.

by IHateMitchMustain on Feb 19, 2008 6:12 PM EST up reply actions   0 recs

IAN KENNEDY
IS THE MOST OVERRATED PITCHER IN YEARS. HE'S NOTHING MORE THEN KEVIN MULVEY, WON'T BE ANYTHING MORE THEN A #4 STARTER.

by Maine Man on Feb 19, 2008 12:22 PM EST reply actions   0 recs

Well
BA says #3 starter, and I'm pretty sure BP does as well. I do think he's a little overhyped, but a for-sure 3rd starter is a pretty damn good prospect.

by demondeaconbaseball on Feb 19, 2008 1:16 PM EST up reply actions   0 recs

+1
not to mention that kevin mulvey has a better upside than a #4 guy.

by auclairkeithbc on Feb 20, 2008 11:27 AM EST up reply actions   0 recs

I don't know if IK's over-hyped ...
But I find it hard to believe many folks would take Kennedy over Wade Davis ....
Paul Householder, Gary Redus, Tommy Lawless, Duane Walker ... prospects rawk!

by design28 on Feb 20, 2008 9:20 AM EST up reply actions   0 recs

inexperience
It's nice that they get these lists out and all, but the fact that they did a top 75 in October and didn't include Fautino De Los Santos and Jordan Schafer, yet now they are both top 40 prospects, shows that they probably don't have a complete grasp of the prospect universe.

It's completely understandable given that it's only 2 or 3 guys running that site and I don't know what kind of ins they have with teams and the scouting community, but it's an indication that they are relying more on what other scout evaluators produce than on their own opinions at this point.  

by Galt on Feb 19, 2008 1:01 PM EST reply actions   0 recs

Alot can change in 5 months.
I disagree with alot you have to say here. Especially that you say they are "relying more on what other scout evaluators produce than their own opinions." Many players on the PP list are not even listed on other lists. And visa-versa. The PP list is very original, but well put together. You can make a case for practically every prospect to be where they are on that list, which you just cannot do for every top 100 out their.

I enjoyed this list alot.

by sully10x on Feb 19, 2008 1:20 PM EST up reply actions   0 recs

what changed?
Schafer at least played winter ball.  Though I have a hard time believing that his .825 OPS in the AFL would have shot him up 35 spots (at least).  

Fautino didn't even play winterball.  He didn't set foot on a diamond yet moved up so precipitously?

Especially if their rankings are "largely based on statistics" as Adam mentions below, then there would be no reason to have such a move since their stats didn't change.  

Is it that hard to imagine that as of October the PP guys just hadn't heard much about either player?  And after an offseason of other people talking about the players (and BA releasing their top 20s, their handbook, Sickels, Law, and Goldstein putting out their materials, etc) that they became more informed about the prospect universe?

Like I said, it's not a bad thing, it just is indicative that they are just starting, don't have the contacts that they will hopefully develop, and that I currently view their lists a statistically-biased consolidation of other sites' prospect lists.

by Galt on Feb 19, 2008 1:31 PM EST up reply actions   0 recs

Stats
I put a ton of time into researching new statistical methods for evaluating prospects this offseason - in hopes of creating a clearer lens.

Since October, I've created a speed score and begun using stats like isolated power against for pitchers.

I have a massive spreadsheet with hundreds of minor leaguers that some of my readers helped me enter data for. I've been frantically polishing that sheet for the last three months.

I learned a lot about guys by stacking them up against each other in some of my new preferred metrics.

by afoster on Feb 19, 2008 2:35 PM EST up reply actions   0 recs

FDLS
Your agreement might be merited on Schafer, but it is working against you on FLDS because though there is a lot of banter on sites such as this about his arsenal and future as a pitcher...he is generally way lower on the lists I have seen than on this list. I was actually shocked when I noticed how low he was going on the common top 100s...so for them to move him up that much on this list might show they have a better ear to the ground on the blogs, but not at all that they are copying other prospecting authority's top lists.

Mindsets change, it may mean they admitted a mistake before, it may mean they are influenced too much by people who shouldn't be influencing them, or it may mean that they are being influenced by other groups of writers, but none of that really matters or takes away from the fact that they sat down and compiled this list with at least some research and anecdotes to show for it.

You go sit down and make a top 150, i personally would take forever because I would take it seriously and critique most of my selections' placement.

by IHateMitchMustain on Feb 19, 2008 6:19 PM EST up reply actions   0 recs

de los Santos
I honestly wasn't sold on him as a top 50 prospect when we were initially creating the tiers for this list. Koby Schellenger of moundtalk.com was helping us out and he thought de los Santos had to be higher than 50.

He made a strong argument that sold me more on de los Santos. Then I looked through some park factors and saw that Winston-Salem is a park where a lot of home runs are hit.

That's what changed for me with de los Santos, in large.

by afoster on Feb 19, 2008 8:04 PM EST up reply actions   0 recs

Not sure about that
Our rankings are largely based on statistical analysis. We don't put much weight into scouting.

Have you seen anyone else do an end of the season top prospect list? Was it pretty?

I've learned a ton by studying all these guys this offseason. The differences you seen in that end of the year list and this one are the result of player-by-player analysis, not stealing other people's work.

You're making quite an unfair and disrespectful assumption here. Shoot me an email at adamf@projectprospect.com if you'd like more detail on my methods.

by afoster on Feb 19, 2008 1:20 PM EST up reply actions   0 recs

it's an assumption, but not disrespectful
If your methods are largely statistical, then there's no reason for DLS to move up so much in your lists, unless there were other inputs.  Ditto Schafer.

It's not blasphemy to assume that you use what other people/sites/experts write in regards to players to inform your rankings.  Especially over an entire offseason when those experts can digest the previous year's performance and more explicitly highlight some players who excelled.

by Galt on Feb 19, 2008 1:35 PM EST up reply actions   0 recs

Not to speak for PP but,
While true that stats have changed since Oct-07, most folks will only have had a chance, at least "stat-wise" (vs scouting-wise) to absorb the raw surface stats.

I do know that AF looks at lot of secondary stats (ISOP vs for pitchers), league factors, etc and once one individually analyzes ~ 300 players it does seem completely fathomable for a few to rise/fall quite a bit due to simply "peeling back the onion" over a few months

Fat Man is no more, Hinges burst off Heaven's door, Come on in, says Bill

by KABOOM on Feb 19, 2008 2:07 PM EST up reply actions   0 recs

Scouting vs Stats...
Interesting list Adam.  

I may have missed this somewhere, but do you reference the "largely based on statistical analysis" somewhere on your site? It may answer some questions right up front. Also, if this list is built using that metric, how do you explain guys like Porcello (no stats) and Villalona (merely ok stats in Rk league) being ranked so high.  Also, guys like Fmart, McCutchen, and Moustakas would      seem to fall into the scouting/tools category, and not really the stats category at this point, no?  I would think a Teagarden or Lowrie would be higher than based on stats.    

by ftheyankees on Feb 19, 2008 6:05 PM EST up reply actions   0 recs

Stats
I wrote a column on how our rankings work last July:

http://www.projectprospect.com/how-our-rankings-work/

Updated since then, I used a blend of BB/K, IsoP, wOBA, and a speed score that I created to grade each hitter's production this year. For pitchers, I went with K%, BB%, FIP, and HR/BF.

I'm already strongly considering using isolated power against rather than HR/BF for pitchers.

Numbers are only valuable in good sample sizes. I like having 200+ plate appearances for hitters and 50.0+ innings for pitchers.

But this isn't always attainable, like with recent draft picks - as you mentioned. Also, there's a difference between a 20-year-old mashing the ball in Triple-A and a 25-year-old accomplishing the same feat.

Blended based on the amount of pro experience a player has, I scored guys on their production, progression, and amateur value in my ranking program this year.

Production is described above. I use two-year weighted samples. Progression is a score based on the player's age compared to his level - two-year sample when possible. Amateur value is when a player was selected in the draft - amended for above-slot signing bonuses. I also look at signing bonus data for international players.

As a player gains more professional service time, I put less and less weight into his amateur value.  After a certain period of time, I completely ignore a player's amateur value.

Let me know if you'd like any more information. I'm very open to sharing my methods and looking for ways to improve them.

by afoster on Feb 19, 2008 6:30 PM EST up reply actions   0 recs

Funny
I find it funny when you attack someone who questions your list, when it is basically spam advertising your site.  If you want to have your list posted and commented on, I don't think it is very fair to put down someone who is critical about it.

by NMUWildcat027 on Feb 19, 2008 7:11 PM EST up reply actions   0 recs

Joe Pesci
Funny how?  Adam's response to Galt looked decidedly on the defensive side things, certainly not aggressive/attacking.  I don't see a single syllable where Adam "put down" Galt.

It's also NOT SPAM.  Adam wasn't the one who posted it here and John has said before that it's all good.  The list has generated discussion about prospects, which is all that really matters.

For the record, I think Galt raised a very good point, but I disagree severely with what he deemed the ommissions amounting to.  A bit of an over-reaction IMO.

Send your top 50-100 prospects to slurveone@yahoo.com!!!

by slurve on Feb 19, 2008 7:43 PM EST up reply actions   0 recs

I am Sorry
I would like to apologize to Project Prospect for any injuries that have been incurred by my opinions.  I would like to apologize to all John Sickles readers for expressing my opinion.  This is clearly not spam and not intended to drive traffic to another site supported by other advertisers.  It is also completely reasonable to scour the internet looking for your list being posted and take it personal when someone makes an observation on a message board.

Once again I apologize to everyone who read my post and was offended by any sentence in this post.  I realize now that this was a wonderful topic because at least it has generated a lot of good discussion about prospects.  I will spread the word of project prospect across the web in an effort to spur more excellent discussion.

by NMUWildcat027 on Feb 20, 2008 1:12 PM EST up reply actions   0 recs

Rowell and Mills
I just realized that neither of these guys were in the top 100 of either John or Goldstein.

I'm really surprised by that.

by Galt on Feb 19, 2008 1:03 PM EST reply actions   0 recs

Hey Adam
Did you consider Julio Teheran for your list?

by Dfarth on Feb 19, 2008 3:27 PM EST reply actions   0 recs

+1
What about these guys?
Tommy Hanson
Brent Lillibridge
Brandon Jones

by Jay212033 on Feb 19, 2008 4:23 PM EST up reply actions   0 recs

Braves
Here's a response to a Hanson email that I gave this afternoon:

I was huge on him in Low-A. Then some people who had seen him told me that he doesn't have the arsenal to succeed in the upper minors - was just overpowering hitters with his fastball in Rome and it's too straight of a pitch to be effective against more advanced hitters. Gets promoted to High-A and gets crushed. I'm really doubtful that he can be more than a mediocre reliever - if that - at this point.

Copy-pasting a Lillibridge response I gave to an emailer this morning:

I see Lillibridge as a filler-act SS or utility man in the bigs. His a solid all around player, just nothing sticks out with his offensive skill set for me. I think he was pretty much an average hitter in Double-A and Triple-A. And he's now 24 and hasn't made it to the big leagues.

I'm not sure why Lillibridge gets as much fanfare as he does - Futures Gamer. He was drafted 121st overall in 2005. His production has been pretty mediocre - compared to the top prospects in the game. And he hasn't exactly been brought along through the minors at a record pace.

I actually was talking to someone last night who had seen him exhibit his skills this week - guy with lots of scouting and pro player connections. He wanted to know why Lillibridge has the amount of hype around his that he does. My answer was the same as what I'm giving you right now: I really don't know.

I'll be pretty surprised if Lillibridge becomes anything more than an average hitter in the bigs. I can't see him passing up Yunel Escobar on the Braves' depth chart. Perhaps others believe his speed and athleticism will make him a better player than I can envision. I believe speed and athleticism are weighted too heavily in some circles.

I responded to a question about Jones above. I see him as a No. 4 OF in the bigs. He may be fast and athletic, but his production doesn't lead me to believe he'll be an average big leaguer.

by afoster on Feb 19, 2008 5:04 PM EST up reply actions   0 recs

the reason
Lillibridge isn't in the majors is because Renteria and Yunel were ahead of him and it would be stupid to have him sit on the bench. He has the potential to be a well above-average major league shortstop. He can get on base, has a bit of power, good speed and running instincts, and very impressive defense. It's absolutely insane that he isn't on the list when someone like Cody Johnson, who has miles and miles to go before being remotely close to major league ready is.

Hanson, I've talked to a number of people who have seen plenty of him. He's got a mid-90's heat with a bit of movement, a knee-buckling curve, and a decent changeup. If that isn't the stuff to succeed, I don't know what is. Command is the only issue.

Jones may not have the highest potential but he has above average power, speed, plate discipline, contact ability, and pretty good defense in left. Again, absurd that he is not on the list.

It seems to me like this list was done so far from what anyone else thinks to get attention. The placement of some of these guys is just downright ludicrous. I remember reading the Braves top five and Jordan Schafer was fourth on the list. Fourth? Absolutely crazy.

Check out MVN.com/mlb-braves for the best Braves coverage

by was385 on Feb 19, 2008 5:24 PM EST up reply actions   0 recs

Ehh...
I'm going to disagree with your entire last paragraph.  Adam gave explanations within the rankings and was nice enough to come over here to explain them.  Everyone's list is going to be different, and as long as someone has justification for those rankings, then I'm ok.

Afterall, it's not YOUR ranking list.  Even after the answers given, I feel Jones should be on there, and probably Lillibridge too.  I've never really been that high on Hanson though.

John said something a while back about the subjectivity of lists- and Adam has clearly explained his reasons.  Chill out, and when you make your own list, remember to put all your Braves on there.

by killa on Feb 19, 2008 7:08 PM EST up reply actions   0 recs

Teheran
Yes, I did. But I don't feel like I'm in a position where I can really evaluate international guys with no pro experience.

That said, I definitely keep a close watch on reported six-figure international guys from the get go.

by afoster on Feb 19, 2008 4:55 PM EST up reply actions   0 recs

Reply
Some of the guys you have on your list have no pro experience but that didn't stop you from ranking them.

As for the reasons for not ranking some of the Braves prospects, did you ask around about some of the guys you did rank? Steve Evarts and Cody Johnson may not even be top 200 guys but their ranked ahead of guys like Jones, Lillibridge and Hanson. And your explaination on Hanson isn't going to cut it unless you see this guy in person, which I have, then you wouldn't know how good this his stuff really is. You should actually wait to judge him after this year when he has time to make adjustments.

by Jay212033 on Feb 19, 2008 7:39 PM EST up reply actions   0 recs

k
Evarts and Johnson were both coveted amateurs who have found success at the pro level. I'm not sure what you mean about ask around.

I have not seen Hanson in person, but I was able to learn a lot about him during my time at Baseball America. I was essentially the Low-A beat writer for BA from April to early-June and I requested a piece on Hanson from a Rome writer during that time. I tried to mirror his research with my own and reach a sound position from there.

Because Hanson's success varied so much from Low-A to High-A, I tried to find explanations for his struggles. But I've yet to hear an "excuse" for them...just anecdotes that detail what happened.

I wonder if he has the secondary to be an solid starter in the pros. I continue to hear that Hanson throws a lot of fastballs. Even guys with great fastballs have told me that they try not to rely on the pitch too much - Joba Chamberlain said he throws his 65-70% of the time, Clayton Kershaw told me about 65% of the time.

by afoster on Feb 19, 2008 8:19 PM EST up reply actions   0 recs

Kinda What I Was Thinking
I'm not sure what all separates him from Porcello...

by Dfarth on Feb 19, 2008 8:20 PM EST up reply actions   0 recs

No experience
The players who I ranked despite the fact that they have no pro experience were all 2007 Draft picks.

I saw Bumgarner and Brackman pitch in person last year. And I studied Price, Porcello, Parker, Aumont and Beavan pretty closely.

It was easy to get info on Price. And I did a fair amount of research on the prep side of the game last year.

by afoster on Feb 19, 2008 8:23 PM EST up reply actions   0 recs

OK but
If you could rank high school players with no pro experience but have potential why not rank an international player with potential, has impressed scouts in the instructional league and has been compared to King Felix?

And back to Hanson he's not the only guy to get moved up and struggle but still make the top 150 so like I said it premature to judge him based on one subpar half season. After this season if he struggles then you could jump to those conclusions.

by Jay212033 on Feb 20, 2008 12:21 PM EST up reply actions   0 recs

Teheran
It's a lot easier to get good information on top draft picks than it is international signees.

The San Francisco Chronicle published an article on Angel Villalona a few months after he signed with this headline and subhead:

"Big Kid, Big Hopes: 16-year-old holds 40/40 promise"

There isn't much information out there about Teheran right now. I don't feel like I know enough about him to rank him as one of the game's elite prospects.

by afoster on Feb 20, 2008 3:40 PM EST up reply actions   0 recs

Ok
If that's how you gather your info you won't learn much about many of the international prospects.

by Jay212033 on Feb 20, 2008 6:17 PM EST up reply actions   0 recs

No Chuck Lofgren?
I know his upside is more limited than most, but he would still seem to be top 150 caliber.

by kiloman on Feb 19, 2008 11:57 PM EST reply actions   0 recs

Lofgren
He's another guy who I think has been grossly overrated in some circles. I'm not confident in Lofgren earning a rotation spot on a playoff-caliber team.

His walk rate is below-average. His strikeout rate is below average...was hit hard in Double-A.

That said, Lofgren seemed like a really good guy when I talked to him at the Futures Game. I hope he has more big-league success than I project him to.

by afoster on Feb 20, 2008 2:36 AM EST up reply actions   0 recs

but what is his stuff like?
Going solely by stats in the minor leagues just doesn't make sense. There are tools guys who haven't completely developed, hitter friendly leagues/parks, pitcher friendly leagues/parks. I understand where you can take some value out of stats but when it's this much, it just doesn't make much sense. It isn't like all prospects are playing in the same league or even the same level.
Check out MVN.com/mlb-braves for the best Braves coverage

by was385 on Feb 20, 2008 12:08 PM EST up reply actions   0 recs

You again
I have done park factor studies. I follow the draft closely and put some weight into what kind of amateur success U.S. players had. I've spent a lot of time trying to pick out statistics that are good indicators of future success.

Maybe you should think about the flip side of the coin?

I try to make decisions around the quantifiable aspects of the game. Scouting has a lot more room for subjectivity.

The term stuff is so subjective to begin with. What makes a guy's stuff good. Does command play a large roll in how a pitcher's stuff is graded? Can some pitchers have better stuff than others but don't use it as well? Does a guy who has mediocre stuff but four offerings that he can locate have better overall stuff than a guy with three solid offerings that he can't throw in any count?

Pitch sequences. Ability to locate the ball down in the zone. How do those two factors weigh into the stuff debate?

And I think tools labels are just as subjective as stuff. Not to say their isn't value in looking into tools and stuff, but those aspects of evaluation are occasionally weighted a lot more heavily than I'm comfortable with.

by afoster on Feb 20, 2008 3:51 PM EST up reply actions   0 recs

You again
but as someone who obviously follows prospects a lot, you've got to know that it is hard to rank them based on quantifiable statistics. They can be so misleading in the minors and even beyond that, there are so many tools guys that are considered top prospects even without polish or great stats. It seems to me like too much weight is being put into quantifying minor leaguers when that is a very shaky thing to go off of. I agree that normal scouting is very subjective and you're worried about that subjectiveness being inaccurate but I'd argue that going so heavy on minor league numbers is going to be more inaccurate. I like to see minor league production but when you're looking at players across 5 or 6 levels in tons of different leagues, it's very difficult to compare players based off of that. Tools aren't affected by playing environment and competition, numbers are.
Check out MVN.com/mlb-braves for the best Braves coverage

by was385 on Feb 20, 2008 6:19 PM EST up reply actions   0 recs

Also,
that whole last part about stuff are all things that scouting can show a lot more than numbers. Take for instance Jair Jurrjens. Just from what is available to the normal reader, I've gathered that he has good movement on all of his pitches, good velocity, a lot of sink on his changeup, and an inconsistent breaking ball that has flashes of brilliance. Also, while his control is good, his command is not, which leads to a lot of pitches up in the zone or over the heart of the plate. He  doesn't really set up hitters and is uncomfortable throwing a ball to try and get a strikeout. That is just from small tidbits here and there and I'm sure you have the connections to get even more than that. That is very telling about a player.
Check out MVN.com/mlb-braves for the best Braves coverage

by was385 on Feb 20, 2008 6:23 PM EST up reply actions   0 recs

I agree with you...
but in PP's defense (not that they need it), they have been trying to get more of a scouting based opinion into their lists.  I've really giving Foster a hard time about it here and there over the past few months but am slowly coming to the realization that I'm not sure PP is as statistically based as I was lead on to believe.  I think because so many places (outside of BP) put scouting far ahead of numbers, PP is just trying to close the gap.  I think they started off being very quantitative about their lists but I see a lot of "toolsy" players without the numbers being ranked fairly favorably.  

You need to remember that a top 100 is a pretty small percentage of the players out there.  Arguing over a guy being ranked in the 20's as opposed to the 80's really isn't that big of a deal.  He is still being placed in the top tier of talent.  They probably do miss some people who aren't on the list but everyone does.  I don't always see eye to eye with Foster/Loberstein and I don't necessarily agree with some of the metrics being used but I do think they are moving towards a blend of scouting/quantitative analysis which is where everyone should be moving.  I know you have read JS's book, stats are just a tool in your tool box to use in player evaluation.  I think they are doing a hell of a job for only being up and running for 16 months or so and basically only have 2 writers with a little help from the community.

by jfish26101 on Feb 20, 2008 8:03 PM EST up reply actions   0 recs

my original beef
was that Brent Lillibridge wasn't a top 150 prospect. No matter how you do it, that is just ridiculous. It seemed almost like they had just forgotten him and then were trying to defend it so they didn't have to admit they were wrong.
Check out MVN.com/mlb-braves for the best Braves coverage

by was385 on Feb 20, 2008 8:10 PM EST up reply actions   0 recs

Well that is fine but...
does it really matter?  I mean McKamey didn't have Lillibridge in his top 100 last year and barely has him in it this year (98 I believe).  He was a graduate of MLB's scout school but simply likes some other players more.  Does that really make his opinion any less credible?

I know you are a Braves fan and I'm not trying to insinuate that you are being biased but if Lillibridge was never a Brave, would you care?  If he never came over in the LaRoche deal, would you have gotten that fired up over it?  I'd guess probably not.  It's their opinion and they are entitled to it.  I know some said they felt they were just pumping out the same old lists but I think it's the opposite.  I think PP has sometimes over reached on certain players trying to be different than the rest of the sites/publications out there.  Heck I think they still are in certain cases but everyone does that.  Sickels has made stands on players that have generated uproar from the community, does that make his opinion any less credible?

It's far to early to tell if they are wrong or not.  For all you know, they could be right and you could be wrong.  Even if they are wrong, I think a study came out that said 50% of BA's top 100 list fail to become MLB average starters?  I might be off but I know it's a fair portion of the list.  You really should try not to be so overly critical when the jury is still out.

by jfish26101 on Feb 20, 2008 8:49 PM EST up reply actions   0 recs

Also if you remember...
you missed Locke on your list last year.  I tried to make a case for him but in the end accepted that you wanted to wait and see.  Sure he is younger than Lillibridge but you are being just a tad hypocritical I think if you are going to act like they should some how accept they missed Lillibridge before he has done anything at the ML level.  You really have no idea what will become of him yet.

by jfish26101 on Feb 20, 2008 8:51 PM EST up reply actions   0 recs

no one
has a perfect idea of what a prospect will be at the ML level. That's what makes them a prospect. Also, Locke was a very different situation. He was an 18-year old lefty coming off an average at best season in rookie ball with a great fastball but by his own account, really nothing else. Lillibridge is a consensus top 100 and pretty polished AAA prospect. He obviously has the defense to stay at short and I remember the guy saying he didn't believe he could be anything more than an average hitter in the majors. Even if that is true, above average defense at short, and average offense with speed should easily be able to get a player into the top 100 much less the top 150. The reason I focused on Lillibridge is because I know Braves prospects much better than any other team's. I just feel that after reading some of the other comments, it is a microcosm of a lot of this list. Then I got my explanation and for the three guys it seemed like he didn't really know what he was talking about after his descriptions are way far from what I've heard of the players.

Whenever I've given my opinion of things on this list, it seems that people say why do you care or that I shouldn't be giving my opinion. The whole point of posting it here was to have a discussion and I did so, which I guess offended some people.

Check out MVN.com/mlb-braves for the best Braves coverage

by was385 on Feb 20, 2008 11:25 PM EST up reply actions   0 recs

It isn't why do you care...
it's why are you being a dick about it.  I simply asked if Lillibridge was never a Brave and still a Pirate, would you have a huge problem with him not being on someone's list?  I seriously doubt you would have such a problem with it.  Go ahead and say whatever you want though.  Have a great evening.

by jfish26101 on Feb 21, 2008 12:34 AM EST up reply actions   0 recs

did I not just go over that
Obviously the only reason I bring up Lillibridge is because I am a Braves fan and have a good knowledge of atlanta's farm system. It is just that from the other comments I read, it seemed to be the same thing with a ton of other prospects.

Seriously, your first response to me where I guess you inferred that I was being a dick was after I argued that scouting could dissect the term good stuff, citing Jair Jurrjens as an example. One of us is being a dick but I'm pretty sure it's not me.  

Check out MVN.com/mlb-braves for the best Braves coverage

by was385 on Feb 21, 2008 12:43 AM EST up reply actions   0 recs

Debates
My experience is that the best debates occur when both sides make an effort to respect each other. The ability to act maturely throughout a debate is pretty crucial, too.

I didn't forget Lillibridge. I've been following him since he was a Pirate.

His wOBA was .327 last year. That's not very impressive. He was primarily an up-the-middle hitter with pull power in Triple-A - all his home runs went to left according to Firstinning.com's data.

And his walk rate went from 14.3% in High-A to 8.4% in Double-A and then 5.7% in Triple-A.

I don't see him as a safe bet to become an above-average MLB hitter.

by afoster on Feb 21, 2008 8:19 PM EST up reply actions   0 recs

Lofgren
He certainly took a step back last year (John rated him a B+ then, and now rates him a B).  He sits 90-94 but had some command issues.  The hope is he sharpens his command a bit -- with the K's rising and the hits declining.  Only time will tell.  I'm certainly pulling for him though, since he's on my fantasy reserve list!  ;-)

by kiloman on Feb 20, 2008 1:25 PM EST reply actions   0 recs

Comments For This Post Are Closed


User Tools

Minor League Ball: Where the Future of Baseball is Discussed
Start posting on Minor League Ball »

Join SB Nation and dive into communities focused on all your favorite teams.

FanPosts

Community blog posts and discussion.

Recommended FanPosts

Small
Arizona Fall League 2009 Video Posted
Small
Top-10 Prospects of the Last 20 years: Hitters

Recent FanPosts

413niegoftl__sl500_aa280__small
Open Thread: Best of the Unprotected; Top Rule V Prospects
Small
Last year's rookies, top community prospects for future performance #11
Adam_jones_small
Dustin Ackley to 2nd base
Super_grover_small
Throwing stuff against the wall: What would it cost the A's to trade for Florida's Josh Johnson?
Small
AFL Championship Game Thread
Small
Last year's rookies, top community prospects for future performance #10
Small
Any surprises with your team's 40 man protection today?
Small
Mock MLB offseason: Should A's trade for Reid Brignac?
Small
This Stephen Strasburg guy

+ New FanPost All FanPosts >


Managers

Carew_small John Sickels


Site Meter