BA PHI Top 10

by rdf8585 on Jan 6, 2009 12:35 PM EST

http://www.baseballamerica.com/today/prospects/rankings/organization-top-10-prospects/2009/267393.html

Brown is a solid prospect, but him being #1 here might be more due to a mediocre system than anything else.

1.	Dominic Brown, of
2.	Carlos Carrasco, rhp
3.	Lou Marson, c
4.	Jason Donald, ss
5.	Kyle Drabek, rhp
6.	Michael Taylor, of
7.	Travis D'Arnaud, c
8.	Zach Collier, of
9.	J.A. Happ, lhp
10.	Jason Knapp, rhp

Tweet Comment 18 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

Knapp

Glad to see him in the Top 10. I like this kid

by NYSOX on Jan 6, 2009 12:38 PM EST reply actions

It’s very interesting to compare it to BA’s list I think. BA has Donald and Brown more closely to where I feel they should be but BA has Marson closer to where I think they should be. Something like:

1. Brown
2. Carrasco
3. Donald
4. Drabek
5. Taylor
6. D’Arnaud
7. Collier
8. Happ
9. Marson
10. Knapp or Savery is probably what I’d go with. /me shrugs

by jfish26101 on Jan 6, 2009 1:14 PM EST reply actions

1. Who?

2. Still?
3. Who?
4. Who?
and so on and so forth.

by Galt on Jan 6, 2009 4:28 PM EST reply actions

BA is long on projection again

It annoys me that BA is always swinging for the fences and putting their stock in the guys who are years from the majors but could be stars if everything goes right. I usually want to see lists where the focus is on guys who are more likely to make an impact in the majors instead of dreaming and wishcasting guys into future stars.

Both and John and Kevin Goldstein balance this better by taking a wait and see approach on these low level toolsy guys who have some obvious flaws. BA seems to assume that when Brown gets some power that his average and obp won’t drop with the change in style. They are also assuming his defense develops to the point where he can be a regular outfielder. There are lot of "if"s there to say he’s a better prospect than Carrasco or Donald or Marson. Better star potential? Sure. Better prospect? Not the way I see it. I stopped buying their book when they ranked Cedric Hunter above Kevin Kouzmanoff and Kouz was projected to be the Padres starting 3B in 2007. It just didn’t make sense to me.

1-10-DEN 18 (9:52) (Shotgun) 6-J.Cutler pass short right intended for 19-E.Royal INTERCEPTED by 93-L.Castillo (95-S.Phillips) at DEN 18. 93-L.Castillo to DEN 14 for 4 yards (62-C.Wiegmann). 6-J.Cutler pouts ob to DEN 25 for 11 yards.

by Wonko on Jan 6, 2009 5:16 PM EST reply actions

Well prospecting certainly is open to interpretation and opinion, heck you can’t even agree what makes a great prospect. That in mind, I think it’s a bit harsh to completely give up a source of information like BA because they go out on the fence with young/raw players more than you would like. I don’t know about KG but I imagine BA sees more prospects in person than John does. That isn’t a shot at him or the work he does but just an attempt to show perhaps BA has more to go off of when projecting these players out. I agree the wait and see approach is better with young/raw players but I just keep that in mind when reading BA’s stuff. PP often goes far out on the limb with young players as well but I wouldn’t stop reading either BA or PP’s stuff because I think they are a little to gunho on their rankings. Saying Brown wont develop the power or the defense to be a regular in RF is just as bad as saying he will in my opinion. I’m not trying to say you are wrong but just that the way BA does their prospecting isn’t necessarily wrong either.

by jfish26101 on Jan 6, 2009 5:23 PM EST up reply actions

Disagree to an extent

First, before even discussing “Prospecting” you have to set out your aim. If your Aim to to find the best prospect for each organization, which is what BA does with this list, you then must define what the best prospect is.

Earlier in the community list Variablesdont said that Jason Donald needed to be considered because he was going to have major league playing time. Which raises the question, does playing time have any correlation or substantial effect on one’s prospect status? For Variables (and maybe others) it does, for me it has no bearing at all. The way I personally weigh prospects is what is their probable Wins Above Replacement (WAR). The word probable takes into account risk and ARL and WAR is accounting for their value in comparison to others. Obviously it is important to get as close as possible with predictions for each player.

Baseball American relies heavily on the WAR part (and sometimes forgets about the probability part). Lou Marson could be a decent prospect, but at the end of the day, he probably isn’t anything more an average catcher and is likely a back up. Likewise with Jason Donald.

Brown has a high ceiling (obviously a Darrel Strawberry comparison means a good deal to a Met Fan) and his chance to be an impact player at the next level is higher than that of any player on this list. There is nothing wrong with Baseball American highlighting a toolsy impact player over a back. Like there are risks with these players there are risks in these projections by BA. Yet, for BA and for most teams it is worth risking more on impact players than mediocrity.

Mediocrity does not pay. Neither for a team nor Baseball America. When we look at value we see that. When we look at draft bonuses we see that. The Washington Nationals, a relativity low income team, signed JP Ramirez for 1 million dollars in the 15th round. That is a risk, and hopefully it will pay.

Most people would rather see Baseball America take a chance on a 20th rounder like Brown, bringing his name into prospecting circles and the center stage than play it safe.

As I said before, Mediocrity doesn’t pay.

Remember: baseball guys... baseball...

by JD Sussman on Jan 6, 2009 6:36 PM EST up reply actions

I completely agree with everything you say

which is why I don’t like BA picking guys like Brown or Hunter who have a very good chance at mediocrity, but if everything goes right can become superstars. At some point you have to weigh that against a guy like Donald who is likely to at least have a long career as utilityman and therefore help a team towards a championship. I’m probably being too harsh on Brown, but based on where others are ranking him I think he’s a fair target. If he doesn’t start developing his power and defense then he becomes, at best, a 4th outfielder which is mediocre. Guys like this end up bouncing around organizations with everyone saying they should get a shot but never do. Obviously BA uses some discretion with regards to this considering that Anthony Hewitt isn’t in their top 10 (he has a lot more to fix). But calling Brown their top prospect while their are other guys that are going to help teams in the near future (and I don’t mean because the team has an opening, that is just silly) and still have some upside doesn’t make a lot of sense to me. Of course, BA could just be saying that Brown doesn’t have the flaws that everyone else sees, but that might be worse.

by Wonko on Jan 6, 2009 8:05 PM EST up reply actions

If your objective is 95 wins, you need 14 WAA. Your top prospects should be those who can get you those.

At least in the Top 5, I’d want to know who has the best chance of getting 2 or more WAA per year for at least 3 of their first six years. You can worry about filling in the 2 WAR (0 WAA) players and everything else after you’ve taken care of your core.

I’m not seeing how a guy who’s very likely to be a utilityman, but very unlikely to be a 2 WAA (4 WAR) player — not that Donald is that — is a better Top 5 prospect candidate than someone who’s less likely to make the majors, but has a much better shot at the 2 WAA (4 WAR) level.

Putting a high value on low-risk, low-reward players is putting a high value on 74 wins rather than 50. The Pirates may think it’s appropriate, but it’s not for me.

It's not the results, it's how you look going about those results -- Tim McCarver

by WaddellCanseco on Jan 6, 2009 8:31 PM EST up reply actions

Better said than I did.

Agreed 100%

Remember: baseball guys... baseball...

by JD Sussman on Jan 6, 2009 9:18 PM EST up reply actions

Fine

You don’t need utilitymen, you got me. Forget relief pitchers. Forget pinch hitters. Forget 5th starters. All worthless. Especially guys that are still in the minors that are already capable of those roles, but have the potential to do more. We just need a bunch of toolsy guys who 2% of which will be stars or 98% will end up as hitless, no-glove roster fillers. Makes sense to me.

I never said that you should put high value on low-risk, low-reward players. That’s insane. You just made that up. I’m just saying that if you have guys that ready to step in now and still have potential to become good players (like Carrasco, Donald, Happ and tons of other guys) then you it doesn’t make sense to rank them lower than a guy like Brown. I just have to believe that there is a reason Brown is not even close to being a top prospect by other evaluators, but BA can put him at the top. And its because he’s at a point where its “wait-and-see” not “future star”.

by Wonko on Jan 7, 2009 12:37 AM EST up reply actions

This thread got real dumb, real fast

I reacted to someone trying to pigeon-hole my statements as being pro “low-risk, low-reward players” by claiming they were only pro “high-risk, high-reward” players. And there is so much middle ground that it makes both theirs and my arguments sound dumb.

All I am really getting at is that guys like Brown can’t make an impact now and there is not even close to a smidgen of guarantee that they will make any impact, but they have the right makeup that there is a path that they can. But, if you compare these guys with players that can already make an impact either now or within the next year (Donald, Happ, Marson, Carrasco, etc.) and still have their own paths by which they can get better. Even if the paths of the close-to-ready players don’t finish quite as high as the early-development guys (Brown) could, there is still so much value tied with actually helping the major league club sooner that it mitigates the prospective gain from the early development guy. Especially, considering that they are all in the same system anyway so you aren’t trading one for the other. You always have time later to elevate the younger guys as the move up and correct the problems that are keeping them from the major leagues. I suspect BA is just out to be the first to plant their flag on guys and hope that everyone forgets their mistakes, but remembers their successes. And I find that strategy annoying because it doesn’t help fans to understand how their farm system is doing.

This is about evaluating players in the farm system right now. And saying that Brown makes the Phillies farm system better right now than the guys polished enough to make the majors doesn’t make sense (to me at least).

by Wonko on Jan 7, 2009 1:16 AM EST up reply actions

Prospecting Theory

Of course, all of us have different opinions on how to rank prospects. Some like the more conservative route and thus agree more with John. Others like the home run approach better (high risk, high reward) and thus like the BA approach better. Personally, I like the KG approach. Kevin tends to lean conservative like John, but he also likes to blend in those high upside guys when the upside is tremendous. That is how someone like Neftali Feliz gets ranked #42 on his pre-2008 list, when other sites either did not rank him at all or ranked him in the 80s or 90s.

There is no right or wrong answer here though. If you do not like BA’s way of ranking, then do not buy the book or support them whatsoever. Same with KG and John. Just try not to call out their rankings as crap because their prospecting theory is different than yours.

by guru4u on Jan 7, 2009 12:16 PM EST up reply actions

All the Prospect Sites

Its just further proof that the art of prospecting is an inexact science, and that baseball is the hardest predictor of the major sports.

I think having all these different sites, talking heads, scouting, opinions, and so forth is a good thing.

Clearly some are better than others, but more information on players is always better than less.

Its up to everyone else to lean to one site or another, or to form their own opinions. Given the bust rate, I’m not sure there is a right or wrong way to go about it.

Everett, Laird, Treanor, and E. Jackson. Print those WS tix now!

by sportznut3081 on Jan 6, 2009 5:54 PM EST reply actions

BA rankings

2 years ago Edgar Garcia rocketed to #4 on Chris Kline’s BA top 10 list. He was compared to Carrasco, so I’m thinking borderline top 100 prospect on the rise. That didn’t exactly happen, did it? After Garcia’s descent I realized that there is a significant writer’s bias that plays into these lists and you can’t read too much into the ranking. It’s more a range and probability based on tools than anything else.

This year John Manuel did the PHI list so you have a different perspective than Kline. Manuel’s not perfect, but I think anyone who ranks prospects will have their share of over-ranked players.

I was surprised that Brown was #1, but not shocked cause he’s gotten a lot of glowing write-ups. He likes Brown better than Taylor and Collier, and that’s defensible. Carrasco didn’t exactly blow away AA hitters so it’s fair to argue he doesn’t own the #1 ranking.

Also I expected a lot of new blood because the Phils traded 4 of last year’s top 10 since last year (Cardenas, Outman, Golson and Jaramillo). I think knowing who they placed 11-15 which you can see in their Prospect Handbook helps give some perspective, cause in many cases placing players into top 10 is a close call just like 10 is an arbitrary cutoff. Last year Happ was #11, Donald #15 and D’Arnaud #16. Actually Kline had Brown #6 last year and I thought this was another Edgar Garcia over-hype.

It will be interesting to see how many of these guys make the top 100. I would say the top 2 for sure, maybe Marson too though I don’t think he should.

by thebroman on Jan 6, 2009 9:10 PM EST reply actions