BP Twins Top 15
by rdf8585 on Dec 7, 2009 12:09 PM EST
Email
Print
http://www.baseballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=9826
Five-Star Prospects
1. Aaron Hicks, CF
2. Miguel Jean (Sano), SS
Four-Star Prospects
3. Ben Revere, OF
4. Wilson Ramos, C
5. Kyle Gibson, RHP
Three-Star Prospects
6. Angel Morales, OF
7. David Bromberg, RHP
8. Carlos Gutierrez, RHP
9. Danny Valencia, 3B
10. Joe Benson, OF
Two-Star Prospects
11. Billy Bullock, RHPFour More:
12. Jeff Manship, RHP: This heady pitcher's skill set works better in long relief.
13. Tyler Robertson, LHP: A command-and-control lefty, he succeeds more on guile than stuff.
14. Adrian Salcedo, RHP: The Dominican product is long in size, command, and projection.
15. Rene Tosoni, OF: Hailing from Canada, Tosoni showed surprising pop in '09, but he profiles best as a fourth outfielder.
63 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Not surprising
I’m not surprised at all that he rated him that highly (he put Portillo on his top 100 last year), but I strongly disagree with it. He’s a C+ with potential for me.
As long as you understand
KG likes high upside as does BA. It doesn’t make them less valuable as long as you understand the bias.
I just got on twitter.Follow me at http://twitter.com/JDSussman
I'll be trying to post lines and analysis as much as possible.
Remember: baseball guys... baseball...
How many first round picks will get five stars?
Probably a pretty big handful, several of whom would not have been drafted over Jean.
5 stars
I would say that the only ones who will definitely get 5 stars are:
Strasburg
Ackley
Turner
Matzek
Wheeler, Green, Miller and Tate also have an outside shot, but I don’t expect them to be that high. I’d take most of the players drafted in the first round over Sano and I think most GMs would as well. If that weren’t the case, he’d have gotten a MUCH healthier bonus.
5 star draft picks
While he may not get it because of the injury risk, based on upside you would have to think that Scheppers would also be in the mix for five stars.
The Problem With Saying "C+ with Potential"
Is that you are completely hedging your bet. If Sano turns out to be as good as a lot of people think he will be you were right all because you acknowledged his potential. If he flames out you never had him that high anyway. When ranking a prospect you should indicate how good of a prospect he actually is. We all know that there is risk involved with every prospect, the younger the more risk. By saying he is a C+ you are ranking him along side many future utility players.
That's exactly what John gave him
And I absolutely agree with the way that he handles IFAs. They may have high ceilings, but they also have rarely even played organized baseball. He’s already projected to move to RF which means he’ll have to live up to the hype offensively. I would like some in game experience before I consider him more than a C+ prospect.
Automatically ranking the latest IFA phenom high on lists will lead to a lot of misses.
And by ranking him as a B+/A-
You’d be grouping him alongside a bunch of guys way more likely to reach their ceilings.
The track record for these guys shows that you get a lot more Joel Guzmans (or worse) than Miguel Cabreras.
Yes, but...
When you give A’s to the guys more likely to reach their upside, you screw up sometimes too. Gordon, Hermida, and Grieve come to mind. Grade them by trade value. I wouldn’t trade Sano for, say, Randall Grichuk.
Sure, we don’t know the future and are always going to have errors. That doesn’t mean that you just throw the highest rated IFA each year into the top 100 (or top 20 in KG’s case).
I probably wouldn’t either, but I would trade Sano for the majority of the first round picks in 2009 and quite a few of the overslot guys. I don’t think his trade value is very high at all; he only got a bonus of $3.15M
Sometimes, sure. But not nearly as often. If you compare the ’A’s John has given out to the list of bonus baby IFAs, you’ll get a pretty clear picture of which group is more reliable.
The guys you listed all had ceilings just as high as Sano; they weren’t just ’A’s based on closeness to the majors, but based on ceiling combined with the likelihood of reaching it.
+1
I get tired of reading “C+ with potential”. That is just hedging your bets. Personally I would like a more definitive answer of what a prospect evaluator BELIEVES is correct. I know that not every prospect will pan out as they expect, but I still would rather know is definitive feelings on a player, rather then just a long winded paragraph that seems to cover all bases regarding whether they will become stars, regulars, reserves, or just flame out.
"When a true genius appears in the world, you may know him by this sign, that the dunces are all in confederacy against him."
-Jonathan Swift
by King Billy Royal on Dec 8, 2009 6:43 PM EST up reply actions
What?
I’m sure John BELIEVES that “C+” is the correct grade, when you weight the upside with Sano’s likelihood of reaching it. I’m not as sure why you believe trying to assess a player probabilistically is so terrible.
It is simple
Too often I read “I gave him a C+ but noted that he could develop”. This is done constantly and I find it very tiresome. When you say things to that degree for a huge % of players it makes me lose faith. I’m not trying to cause trouble, as I enjoy contributing postively to the community, but am simply expressing my biggest complaint with the grading system/write ups.
"When a true genius appears in the world, you may know him by this sign, that the dunces are all in confederacy against him."
-Jonathan Swift
by King Billy Royal on Dec 8, 2009 9:49 PM EST up reply actions
A huge % of players?
That’s not true.
Regardless, the C+ is an accurate assessment of risk vs. reward. Players are incredibly risky. If every Sano-ceiling’d player got a B+/A-, the system would be useless, due to its unreliability and high rate of busts. The C+ accounts for the bust-rate. Again, I don’t know why factoring in probabilities annoys you.
It’s great that you’d like someone to tell you the future before it happens, but that’s not analysis works.
Once again
I stated that I am not asking someone to tell me the future. Reread my original post:
Personally I would like a more definitive answer of what a prospect evaluator BELIEVES is correct. I know that not every prospect will pan out as they expect, but I still would rather know is definitive feelings on a player, rather then just a long winded paragraph that seems to cover all bases regarding whether they will become stars, regulars, reserves, or just flame out.
I do not mind if John, or another evaluator is right or wrong, as long as they give me a somewhat clear view of how they see a player. Too often it seems that the write ups and grades are done so as not to rock the boat and to pander to the masses.
"When a true genius appears in the world, you may know him by this sign, that the dunces are all in confederacy against him."
-Jonathan Swift
by King Billy Royal on Dec 8, 2009 10:18 PM EST up reply actions
Again
John is giving you his EXACT view on that player (i.e. his probabilistic value is that of a C+ player, but his range of outcomes is greater than other C+ guys), it’s just you want a DIFFERENT view.
I don't want a different view..
Personally, I don’t really care at all about the Sano grade. I just want a better grading system, more similar to the one discussed by Mrkupe.
"When a true genius appears in the world, you may know him by this sign, that the dunces are all in confederacy against him."
-Jonathan Swift
by King Billy Royal on Dec 9, 2009 6:47 PM EST up reply actions
I don't totally disagree
One of the reasons you’d want to use a relative simple and self-descriptive system (especially one which is designed to be usable through its link to established social norms like John’s grading scale is) is that you should be able to easily categorize just how good of a prospect a player at a glance. When John says something along the lines of “C+ but you have to read the full comment to completely get what I’m saying,” you have a point in that he basically defeats the primary reason why he would use such a scale.
There’s an interesting comparison to be made between the Sickels grading system and the MLBA assessment system used by Deric McKamey and his successors. In the latter system, each prospect gets a number grade (an indication of their upside) and a letter grade (indicating their projected likelihood of reaching that upside). Of course, neither the number (which corresponds to a specific level of performance, e.g. All Star, Hall of Famer) nor the letter (which actually represents a rather arbitrary percentage) give instantly usable information – you have to spend more time working to understand the system than you would with John’s scale – or at least, what you SHOULD have to spend with John’s scale. Obviously your level of engagement with John’s scale to understand it is higher than it would initially appear – which John admits, so I’m not sure how much appeal your argument would have to him.
Personally I wouldn’t mind some clarification, but I don’t see too much of a problem. I tend to think that the reason why John would give a Sano a C+ and not, say, a B+ is because he really does think that Sano is a C+ prospect at this point, comment be damned.
by mrkupe on Dec 8, 2009 10:24 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
btw, just to help here
Miguel Angel Sano
is no Miguel Jean.
Deolis Guerra = Daniel Cabrera ?
I tend to think so
by SteveHoffmanSlowey on Dec 9, 2009 7:57 AM EST up reply actions
*now
(not no)
Deolis Guerra = Daniel Cabrera ?
I tend to think so
by SteveHoffmanSlowey on Dec 9, 2009 7:57 AM EST up reply actions
Best way to rank prospects.
You rank their ceiling, their floor, and then them overall. Try that sometime John; I bet the method will be a success.
by johnnycomelately9 on Dec 10, 2009 7:13 PM EST up reply actions
Equally as surprising...
is seeing Revere with a high-4-star rating, as much as he’s been panned by posters on this site.
There’s something to be said about Revere’s high floor, especially since a little power development or defensive improvement would turn him into a pretty good player.
If he'd been a mid-round draft pick
I don’t think he’d be rated as high as some rate him. I guess his worst case scenario is somewhere around Joey Gathright, but his best case scenario is in the same neighborhood as well. Very similar players in the minors either way.
Bad Left Hook - The SB Nation boxing blog
"Baseball is played on the field, not on a calculator."
Very similar?
Revere pairs phenomenal contact with an above-average walk rate at a very young age. Gathright was terrible at both, until he was 25 and still in the minors of course.
But they’re both fast black slap hitters, so I guess that makes them very similar to some.
I agree
while Revere’s floor may be similar to Joey Gathright. his ceiling is more like Juan Pierre in his prime years.
Deolis Guerra = Daniel Cabrera ?
I tend to think so
by SteveHoffmanSlowey on Dec 7, 2009 5:01 PM EST up reply actions
With a bit of Len Dykstra thrown in
or maybe even a bit of Matt Lawton.
He is not a slap hitter
Go read scouting reports and you will see that he is a linedrive hitter who drives the ball. He may not be a power guy, but that is not the same is being a slap hitter.
"When a true genius appears in the world, you may know him by this sign, that the dunces are all in confederacy against him."
-Jonathan Swift
by King Billy Royal on Dec 7, 2009 7:55 PM EST up reply actions
actually +1
I over sought that point pissmick made…
Deolis Guerra = Daniel Cabrera ?
I tend to think so
by SteveHoffmanSlowey on Dec 7, 2009 8:33 PM EST up reply actions
2009 ISOP - .058
Not sure how that can qualify for anything but a “slap hitter.”
ProspectTube.com
You Video. You Scout.
by ProspectTube.com on Dec 7, 2009 9:04 PM EST up reply actions
-1
While I agree that Revere has the potential to develop into more than a slap hitter, it’s ridiculous to say he’s not one at this point.
Revere led the FSL in hits with 145. 19 of those went for extra bases, despite the fact that he was one of the fastest men in the league.
He's pretty much a slap hitter.
He doesnt actually drive the ball very well at all. Its not just HRs. Anything he gets for extra bases is pretty much a function of his speed. With that ISO he’s more or less a slap hitter, b/c he only “drives the ball” for singles.
KG disagrees
This is a quote from KG:
"I think I was the only one to have him as Minnesota’s No. 1 prospect, so I’m pretty happy about that as well. He’s obviously going to hit for average, and he also has surprising pop for his size. He’s never going to be a home run hitter, but he’s not a slappy guy — he does drive the ball into the gaps pretty consistently, which also makes me happy because then I get to watch him run."
Considering that Sickels has compared him to Kenny Lofton, who was no slap hitter, I think people aren’t giving his abilities swinging the bat nearly enough respect.
"When a true genius appears in the world, you may know him by this sign, that the dunces are all in confederacy against him."
-Jonathan Swift
by King Billy Royal on Dec 8, 2009 6:38 PM EST up reply actions
That quote is from a chat from over a year ago, but it seems from recent comments that he still like him to be more than a slap hitter, but he also said “some scouts think he can develop double-digit power down the road” – which doesnt strike me as much of a recommendation.
I just don’t see it right now.
I'll take KG's sources over some fanboys
"When a true genius appears in the world, you may know him by this sign, that the dunces are all in confederacy against him."
-Jonathan Swift
by King Billy Royal on Dec 8, 2009 9:54 PM EST up reply actions
Im sorry, what?
What the hell are you talking about? Where did I name anything having to do with “sources?”
KG said “SOME” scouts see some power there – and not even much, just “double digits.” This implies other scouts disagree, which we already knew anyway. KG believes in him. I disagree. That’s it.
Kevin Goldstein is a professional, you are not
So KG is clearly right here.
"Chicks dig the long ball, although fat chicks will settle for warning track power" - Nick Diamond
But YOU are not a professional
So there’s no reason for me to respect your opinion on THIS, apparently. So YOU are wrong.
AND I guess none of us here should discuss anything, because none of us are professional, ergo none of us can respect anyone else’s opinion here. The only acceptable form of posting is apparently to quote, verbatim (no paraphrasing!) experts. When even the experts disagree a wave of mass suicides will ensue, as most of the posters here can’t reconcile this diversion.
Seriously, this is getting f***ing retarded. I didn’t say a goddam thing, other than that Revere isnt showing any power and it makes me skeptical he ever will. Then I used a KG quote to support my opinion that even though KG is categorized as “optimistic” on Revere, that the optimistic scouts he talked to only saw maybe double digit power.
I don't see
how the KG quote you claim to support your opinion isn’t anything but a positive for him. If he can hit 12 HR’s he’ll be one of the most valuable lead off hitters in the league with his speed, defense and bat control.
above average BB rate?
I agree on the contact rate, but I think we’re setting the bar low if a BB rate between 6.0% and 7.7% is considered above avg.
ProspectTube.com
You Video. You Scout.
by ProspectTube.com on Dec 7, 2009 9:01 PM EST up reply actions
Revere walked more than he struck out
Can you name a 1 other single hitter in the FSL last year that did that?
Deolis Guerra = Daniel Cabrera ?
I tend to think so
by SteveHoffmanSlowey on Dec 7, 2009 9:10 PM EST up reply actions
You're right.
Sloppy work on my part.
League average walk rate in the FSL was ~8.2%, while Revere’s was ~7.7%.
In related news though, the average strikeout rate in the FSL was 19%, while Revere’s was ~6.6%. If he wanted to take a few more pitches, he could afford to add some walks and Ks.
exactly
alright Mick !!!
Deolis Guerra = Daniel Cabrera ?
I tend to think so
by SteveHoffmanSlowey on Dec 7, 2009 10:34 PM EST up reply actions
I'm a Twins fan and this doesn't surprise me one bit
I think Minnesota’s system in general is underrated this year….
Mr John Sickles may have over-graded the Twins system a tad last year, but this year he was very conservative with many of his grades and ranks. -not that he was harsh, but tough on some guys….
Chris Parmelee
Deolis Guerra
and Mathew Bashore
are some names that aren’t even in this top 15 from BP.
Deolis Guerra = Daniel Cabrera ?
I tend to think so
by SteveHoffmanSlowey on Dec 7, 2009 4:55 PM EST reply actions
Deolis Guerra...
sucks. That’s all I’ve got.
by slamcactus on Dec 7, 2009 5:45 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
thank you cery kindly
for that vital piece of information that has now enhanced my knowledge when talking about the 20 year old pitcher in AA last season.
Deolis Guerra = Daniel Cabrera ?
I tend to think so
by SteveHoffmanSlowey on Dec 7, 2009 6:47 PM EST up reply actions
Wilson Ramos
Wilson Ramos is a beast…
He threw out 41% of runners, more so than just about all the top flight prospect catchers. His defense is second to none.
He also hit around .320 in AA ball.
In Winter Ball, he absolutely mashed last time I looked he was 1st in the league in hitting (average wise) and up there in Homers.
If Mauer ever does leave, It’s nice to know we have a guy who could be a solid MLB catcher, obviously not a Mauer, but darn good.
Ramos
OOPsss..
Here’s his Venezuelan winter ball stats.
Hitting .368
http://mlb.mlb.com/milb/stats/stats.jsp?sid=l135&lid=135&t=l_bat
Oswaldo Arcia...
What does this kid have to do to get noticed by somebody? Anybody? Seriously, power, plate discipline, patience, speed…he’s got it all. As best I can tell, he had bad luck in balls in play in the GCL, and because of that nobody has noticed how good he was.
I thought KG at least would notice this kid.
Thin at the top
The top 2 guys are far away, Sano and Gibson have yet to play pro ball, and Revere will be a useful player but has a limited ceiling. Ramos is solid and maybe gets a bit under rated.
I do like Carlos Gutierrez some, and I’m a Joe Benson fan; I think there may be more pop there than he’s yet shown. Valencia though, while decent, I like a bit less than what the numbers might suggest.
There’s maybe a bit of depth beyond the guys listed, but a lot of it is back end SP and such. What the heck happened to Shooter Hunt, though? Get that guy to throw some strikes and he might make this list look better. And Guerra maybe just needs to do better with men on base to get his ERA closer to his FIP. There are a few other young guys with some upside as well.
Still, while this system could look a lot better in another year, it might even be bottom ten for me right now. In another year, maybe Hicks will show more evidence he’s the stud people expect he will be, and maybe a healthy Gibson will do the same, and some of these other will guys step up as well.
-1 on bottom 10 farm system
I tend to side a little more with John Manual of BA, than yourself
Deolis Guerra = Daniel Cabrera ?
I tend to think so
by SteveHoffmanSlowey on Dec 8, 2009 7:09 PM EST reply actions
I wasn't a big fan of that list
I’m a John Manuel fan, but there seemed to be some odd placements:
Too low:
Padres
A’s
Nats
Too high:
Giants
Twins
White Sox
Yeah, that list was awful
My favorite part was how the A’s system thinned out after graduating all those top prospects last year.
Apparently Cahill and BA were our entire system. What depth?
"Chicks dig the long ball, although fat chicks will settle for warning track power" - Nick Diamond
yeah the A's should be a tad higher
however, when talking about pitching: Cahill, BA, Mazzaro, Gio Gonzalez, Andrew Bailey, and Outman pretty much was all you’re pitching depth…
Leon, Capra, Simmons, Figuera, Ynoa, are the only other names I can come up with – pitching wise for you guys….
Deolis Guerra = Daniel Cabrera ?
I tend to think so
by SteveHoffmanSlowey on Dec 9, 2009 6:47 PM EST up reply actions
I think ranking organizations is sort of like ranking C prospects.
Like Mr. Sickels says, you can adjust the rankings depending on what you want to emphasize.
Personally, I lean toward systems that have the chance to produce the most star talent. I still think depth is important, but I think it less important than others do. With that said, I could go with the Twins having a bottom-10 farm.
http://www.examiner.com/x-28775-MLB-Draft-Examiner
twitter | jesseburkhart -- draft-related content only
AIM | jb02186
by jesse.burkhart on Dec 8, 2009 8:02 PM EST up reply actions
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.
