Keith Law's Top 25 is a mess
by The Scout on Feb 22, 2009 8:19 PM EST
Email
PrintHas anybody seen Keith Law's top 100? I only saw the first 25 because I'm not an ESPN insider, but I must say I think he could have done better.
I like Heyward but he's not the 3rd best prospect in baseball.
Desmond Jennings at #25? I never agree with people calling for a mans' job, but in this case it might apply. How he gets paid to put a list together and puts Jennings at 25 is beyond me.
I fall in love with prospects too, but you can't place him there.
58 comments
|
2 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
actually
Heyward is the next God according to some. You haven’t heard?
Founder of the Johnny Giavotella fan club.
Opinions Are Like Keith Laws
Everyone has one. You could have at least linked to his top 25 if you are going to rag on the guy. All you have to do is click on that little thing that says link, and then copy and paste. Like so. Keith Laws top 25 prospect list. See, not so hard.
Same guy, new name.
by stillredsoxfan on Feb 22, 2009 11:24 PM EST reply actions
Actually...
I did a consensus averaging of 6 Top 100 lists (and 1 Top 60 list) that have come out, and Heyward is #3.
Um...
Not all lists are created equally.
Heyward’s not the 3rd best prospect in the minors.
Isn't that a matter of opinion?
To some he may be? Since we are working with so many variables (position, different stat importance, ability, ceiling, and desire to name a few) he very well may be the third best prospect to many out there. We will never know because even in 15 years, unless every other prospect currently in the minors is a complete waste, we can’t even compare them then. I hate trying to compare pitchers to hitters. It’s impossible to accurately do that.
I think I might have Heyward at #3 on my list (if I ever did one). Frankly, I see it as Price and Wieters as the top 2, and then no one else I like as a Top 5 guy… but someone has to be #3.
"My mom always taught me it's better to laugh at yourself than to laugh at others. She was so wrong. ;)" -Pedrophile
+1
TheSouthWing.com - A Magazine of essays, prose and poems
by OldProspects on Feb 23, 2009 11:22 AM EST up reply actions
Heyward...
You’re right, I just think Heyward’s overrated as all hell. He’s a classic “looks good in a uniform” guy, and people forget that he’s already a corner outfielder at the age of 18 and he’s got a huge frame that’s going to need to fill out a lot before he’s got the power to become an elite hitter at the position. When that bulk comes, I’ll be shocked if he’s not a liability in the field. Players like that need to be HUGE offensive contributors, not just good ones, to be elite players. Heyward’s got a good chance to reach that level, but he’s way too far away and with far too many questions to call him the #3.
In particular, I don’t know how you can rate Heyward above Snider, who’s already an above average major league hitter at age 20. I’d also take Feliz, Bumgarner, Rasmus, Maybin, and Fowler over him because of positional scarcity – if they’re the same defensively relative to their positions, Heyward will need to be 15 runs better with the bat to be as valuable as the CFs. I doubt they’ll even be on that relative defensive footing when all’s said and done.
I consider Heyward a push with Mike Stanton – Stanton has more power, Heyward is a year younger and makes better contact, but Stanton’s glove is better. Mike Stanton isn’t in the running for the 3rd best prospect in the game. Jason Heyward shouldn’t be, either.
Wait...
Actually, Stanton isn’t a year older. Heyward’s actually 3 months older. Doesn’t catapult Stanton ahead IMO, but I’m even more convinced now that it’s a total push.
Stanton strikes out twice as often
What’s exciting about Heyward is that at age 18, he already has solid power that’s expected to rise dramatically while he also can control the plate. He has a decent chance to become not simply a very good power hitter, but a terrific hitter. You’re right that Snider is already a good major league quality hitter, but strange as it is to say about a 20 year old, I’m not quite sure how he improves. His power could increase dramatically, but I have a little difficulty in imagining him eventually having Ryan Howard power. He could dramatically increase his walks, or he could dramatically cut his strikeouts. All of these are possible, I suppose, but I’m more optimistic that Heyward will develop than that Snider will dramatically improve his plate control.
In terms of comparing him to Rasmus or Maybin or Fowler, you make a good point about positions, that Heyward will have to be a significantly better hitter than they are to be as valuable, let alone more. I think it’s a push between him and the former two, with my personal preference being a mild one to Heyward. As for comparing him with pitchers, that’s always difficult. I’d rather have Bumgarner than Heyward, but I can see going either way. I’d also rather have Pedro Alvarez, but that’s another story.
TheSouthWing.com - A Magazine of essays, prose and poems
by OldProspects on Feb 23, 2009 6:22 PM EST up reply actions
Yeah - I'd rather have
a player who has a good approach at the plate with promise of more power than have a power hitter and hope he can improve his approach…
I probably would too...
If defense was equal. Stanton’s better in the field by all accounts.
No.
Heyward is no slouch in the field. It’s not like Stanton is Andru Jones in the field where Heyward is Jack Cust. There’s simply not a big enough gap in their defensive ability to justify that statement.
to justify...
that Stanton is better? Stanton can potentially handle center field. He won’t end up there, but he’s better in the field than Heyward.
Defense isn’t an abstract quality that lumps people into categories. It’s difficult to quantify, but a guy doesn’t need to project out at 20 runs better than another defender to boost his prospect status. Stanton is better in the field. That gives him an edge over Heyward, because he doesn’t need to hit quite as well to be just as valuable.
Evidence of Stanton's superiority in the field?
Do you have any actual evidence of this, or are you basing it solely off the fact that Stanton played CF this year and Heyward didn’t? If that’s the case, you’re clearly talking out of your butt. Heyward could certainly handle CF at this point in his career at the minor league level, but the Braves realize that would be a waste of time that could be spent grooming him for his big league position. By all accounts Heyward has very good range in RF with a cannon for an arm. Everything I’ve read points to him being somewhere between above-average and elite defensively in RF. That’s pretty much exactly what I’d predict for Stanton defensively too, and you’d seem to agree, as even you admit that Stanton won’t end up in CF. So what exactly is the difference again, other than their respective minor league positions?
"Looks good in a uniform" ...
and actually produces, see: 323/388/483. Doesn’t the term, “looks good in a uniform,” apply to guys who can’t actually play baseball?
ProspectTube.com
You Video. You Scout.
by ProspectTube.com on Feb 23, 2009 8:36 PM EST up reply actions
No.
It applies to anyone whose value is inflated because they fit the classic idea of what a star baseball player looks like.
Most star position players could sell jeans
I know there’s a bias against players who don’t look great in the uniform, and that being orthodox about players’ sizes, builds, etc. has cost a lot of teams and created a lot of steals. But most star position players, especially when young, look good in the uniform.
You're...
missing the meaning of the phrase.
ummmmm...
Care to expand on that?
TheSouthWing.com - A Magazine of essays, prose and poems
by OldProspects on Feb 24, 2009 9:25 AM EST up reply actions
Sure.
“looks good in a uniform” doesn’t mean a guy can model – it isn’t a comment on the attractiveness of a player, it’s about how close they resemble the physical archetype of a star baseball player.
And that's what I was responding to
So maybe read my response again and tell me how I missed the meaning of the phrase. Because that’s exactly what I thought you meant.
You may want to find another example...
I think everyone understands what the phrase “looks good in a uniform means,” but the point you’re missing is that you chose it for the wrong type of player. While Heyward may LGIAU, he’s also universally acknowledged as a Top Ten prospect in baseball, and hasboth production and scouting reports to backs up those claims. In this example, the comparison you’re making fails.
ProspectTube.com
You Video. You Scout.
by ProspectTube.com on Feb 25, 2009 1:12 PM EST up reply actions
It's not...
a phrase that only applies to bad players.
Ken Griffey Junior’s value was inflated because he reminded people if Willie Mays. I say this as a HUGE Junior fan. He was more like the 6th-9th best player in baseball during his prime than one of the 2-3 best, which was where he was billed.
Really?
You don’t think Junior was one of the two or three best players in baseball during his prime?
Well...
It depends on how you define his prime. If you define it as his best single seasons relative to the league, then yes, he was one of the 2-4 best players in 1991, 1993, and 1994. If you expand it to the “Griffey Era” in Seattle that takes you through 1999, he was one of the handful of best players during the period, but he was pretty consistently in the 6-9th best range during the latter half of those years. He was actually only the best hitter on his own team during those 3 seasons. In all of the other seasons with the Ms he was outhit either by Edgar Martinez, Alex Rodriguez, or both (using wOBA).
All this is splitting hairs: Griffey was one hell of a player. I do believe he was elevated to historic proportions in part due to the fact that he so closely matched the archetype, though.
Disagree
And let’s be fair here: Griffey was a better player than Edgar due to huge positional difference, and A-Rod is one of the handful of best position players ever.
Oh, I know.
I never said Edgar was the better player. I just think Griffey was slightly overrated. We’re talking about the difference between “sure-fire hall of famer” and “one of the best players in the history of the game” here. Griffey belongs more in the former category than the latter.
Just what this site needed
Another nobody calling someone in the business an idiot.
by slurve on Feb 23, 2009 8:29 AM EST reply actions 1 recs
Especially someone who has an MBA from Harvard.
That doesn’t make him a baseball expert, but it does mean he’s clearly not an idiot.
Tools Whore
And not that
I agree with all of the placements on our community list – but Heyward is #3 there as well (I think I even voted for him there.) It wouldn’t shock me to see him in BA’s top 5. This is just a lot of hot air over something that is essentially splitting hairs.
I agree
I think that there is no clear #3 after Wieters/Price, and though I probably wouldn’t personally go with Heyward, I don’t think that there is anybody else who is clearly superior to him. It’s certainly an arguable ranking
TheSouthWing.com - A Magazine of essays, prose and poems
by OldProspects on Feb 23, 2009 2:44 PM EST up reply actions
I almost just had a heart attack in my butthole
You’ll know what I mean March 14, 9 pm Eastern, live on HBO.
Vogt early, Vogt often.
Amen Slurve
I have no issue with people disagreeing with others opinions, but why not debate the issue instead of making blanket statements like, “I fall in love with prospects too, but you can’t place him there.” So what are your issues with Heyward and Jennings?
ProspectTube.com
You Video. You Scout.
by ProspectTube.com on Feb 23, 2009 9:46 AM EST reply actions
Lars Anderson at 7 makes me chuckle.
ESPN is beyond biased at this point.
by schmosterballs92 on Feb 23, 2009 9:57 AM EST reply actions
Yes
Keith Law, former employee of the Toronto Blue Jays and world class misanthrope is a total SAWX homer.
And he grew up a Yankee fan, too
Such a Boston homer.
I love how KLaw gets called a Yanks hater
Just because he ranks many of the Red Sox prospects as better than the Yanks. Well guess what folks, the Red Sox have done a great job boosting their system while the Yanks have made a little progress but not enough to make them an elite system, let alone above avg. The Yanks have a couple of high ceiling guys and a couple other potential above avg regulars, but that’s about it. They pale in comparison to the Red Sox. That’s not a bias, it’s the truth.
Nope. The Sox system is overrated. Their system is ranked # 7??? No way..
Next year the Yankees will have a top 10 system easily. Maybe even top 5 if the expected players deliver.
by schmosterballs92 on Feb 24, 2009 12:03 AM EST up reply actions
Now THERE'S a biased comment
I have no particular love or hatred for either organization, but the Sox have pretty great depth and some nice high-end talent, and it takes a lot of wishcasting to see the Yankees in the top five next year.
Actually, I follow many team farm systems.
The depth the Yankees have is great. Definitely one of the top farms for pitching..the names go on and on. And come July 2nd they will be stacked.
by schmosterballs92 on Feb 24, 2009 8:44 AM EST up reply actions
Care to name names?
And why do you expect the Yankees to do so well in international signings this year – did they sign anybody of note last year? They got outspent by the As for Michel Inoa, and missed out on a whole slew of other people. I agree that the Yankees do have some interesting pitching prospects, and if Brackman, Betances and Garcia all suddenly remember how to pitch without getting injured for a whole year, they could theoretically have a top-10 or even top-5 system, but that isn’t very likely at all and I really have no idea why you think they have so many more, or such better bets than a dozen other teams, or why you expect them to improve so much. The basic problem with the Yankees’ system is that the closest thing they have to a solid pitching prospect is David Robertson, and that with the exception of Jesus Montero, none of their hitting prospects look like potential stars.
TheSouthWing.com - A Magazine of essays, prose and poems
by OldProspects on Feb 24, 2009 9:17 AM EST up reply actions
McCutchen ahead of
both Maybin and Fowler is just bizarre. And I don’t know how anyone can justify Triunfel at 22.
Law...
absolutely loves Triunfel. He called him top-10 after the ‘07 season. Everyone’s got their own irrational prospect man-crushes, and Carlos Triunfel is Law’s.
Deric McKamey...
has Triunfel at #20, so it’s not like Law is the only one high on him. A high school senior holding his own in A+ ball, there’s a lot to like about him.
ProspectTube.com
You Video. You Scout.
by ProspectTube.com on Feb 23, 2009 8:40 PM EST up reply actions
Keith Law is just one man
And his rankings are just one man’s opinion. Take them for what they’re worth. Unlike just about every other prospect ranker, he’s seen every player he ranks in person.
Vogt early, Vogt often.
"he's seen every player in person"
maybe thats his problem.
It's only a problem
… if you want his rankings to be something they are not. And that is your problem, to boot.
Or maybe he accounts for a lot of factors others aren't looking at
Here’s what we know about Keith Law:
1) He doesn’t subscribe that highly to age relation to league theory
2) He double-checks his sources by scouting players himself
3) He claims not to rely at all on what managers and the teams say
4) He’s probably a bit more statistically advanced than most of the prospect rankers out there (i.e., he doesn’t really look at stats like ERA, he attempts to adjust for park and league, etc.
5) He doesn’t have as long of a track record as some of the other guys, so he’s still figuring out what works for him.
The way I think of it, I see Law’s rankings as more like the way one scout would rank prospects. A scout’s views tend to diverge pretty wildly from Baseball America’s (which is why the MiLB scouts survey of top prospects always looks pretty off the wall every year). If you don’t like his opinion, don’t read it. Personally, I think he has some kinks to work out. If you look at his guys in last year’s list who were way out of whack with the consensus, most of them didn’t tend to do all that well, but there were a few guys he rated highly that others didn’t that he was right on.
Vogt early, Vogt often.
hm...
I’m not so sure about 1): see: placement of Carlos Triunfel.
Other than that, Brickhaus is right on. Law is another data point.
Heyward’s still way overrated, though.
OK, let me revise point 1
He is positively affected by being young in relation to league, but doesn’t tend to be so negatively affected by being old in relation to league if it was a college player who’s moved at a normal pace.
Vogt early, Vogt often.
My assumption from last year's list
Is that law seems to value upside a little more at times, where he looks like he’s trying to hit homeruns rather than find solid contributors… which in many ways is how you go about building a team since you need those impact players if you’re going to go anywhere and they’re a lot harder to find than the solid guys.
Vote with your mouse
If you don’t like a guy’s writing, don’t read it. Calling for someone’s job because you specifically don’t agree with his ranking is asinine. Also, one important thing that keeps getting lost this time of year is that the rankings themselves aren’t that important. These lists are about giving guys who follow the minor leagues a chance to show who they believe in and offer a little analysis. Do you think Heyward belongs in the top ten, at least? Because if so, then seven spaces on another man’s list really doesn’t mean much.
Law
Everyone’s list is different. Everyone has different biases, different strengths, different weaknesses as an analyst. Listen to what Keith says, listen to what BA says, listen to what Kevin Goldstein says, listen to what I say….you can ALWAYS find something to pick on in someone’s list. Don’t get personal about it.
I have no problem with Law
I never called him an idiot or anything else. I would never presume to know more about prospects than somebody in the “business.” That being said, as far as I know, Harvard doesn’t offer a major in baseball prospect studies.
My main problem with his top 25 was Jennings at 25. I really liked him last year and even with the nice numbers he put up in 2007, I still don’t think he is a top 25 prospect. So after he collects only 85 at bats due to injury in 2008, I sure as hell don’t think he should be 25.
As for Heyward, I just think there’s a few guys who have as much upside and are closer to the majors that could have been at #3. Travis Snider comes to mind.
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.
