Project Prospect's Mid-Season Top 50
by auclairkeithbc on Jul 2, 2009 2:38 PM EDT
126 comments
Here's the link...
http://www.projectprospect.com/article/2009/07/02/top-50-prospect-list
Seems like people have more problems with the inclusion of guys like Jenrry Mejia, Jon Niese, Kris Medlen, Brad Lincoln (and the high ranking of Nick Weglarz), than with some of the notable omissions like Kyle Drabek, Mat Latos, Brett Wallace (all honorable mentions) and Michael Taylor and Naftali Feliz (who just missed the HM list). Interesting that Jordan Lyles made it at #50, since he's been discussed a lot over here.
1 recs |
126 comments
Email
Print
Comments
I love their logic there
Bumgarner has still been really good, especially for a 19 year old in AA, but with a decreased strikeout rate. Therefor he drops almost out of the top 20. Justin Smoak, on the other hand, has been so good at being injured that he actually climbed the list 9 spots.
Semi-proud adoptive father of Scott "Aaron" Barnes.
by boonitez on Jul 2, 2009 8:04 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
ITS SCIENCE
Chris Dominguez: Bringing dingerz back to The Bay (In a while)
by CB30 on Jul 2, 2009 8:09 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I’m not speaking for them but I believe their concern is the drop in K rate might mean his secondary pitches aren’t developing the way some thought they were when he was dominating the lower minors. Being that the lack of secondary pitches was the main concern with him early on, I don’t think it is out of the realm of possibilities that this could be the case. Could they be wrong and Bumgarner is simply working on one particular aspect of his game? Yes but being in 19th instead of 6th in all of baseabll isn’t that big of a difference.
by jfish26101 on Jul 2, 2009 8:12 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Well, a few things
We all know that after health, the major thing that will determine Bumgarner’s success in the majors is how his secondary stuff develops. We knew this before the season started and we know it now. A #6 ranking before the start of the year was aggressive, and it was presumably based on their belief that his breaking balls would develop sufficiently for him to have a good chance of becoming an ace. Now, they can change their minds about that, but if they’re doing so strictly on the basis of his strikeout numbers in 46 IP after he jumped 2 levels to pitch against batters 4-6 years older than him, well, that’s a little hasty. Of course the difference between #6 and #19 is largely illusory, and had they rated him #19 before the start of the year because of their concerns over the development of his breaking pitches, I would have had no problem with it. What I don’t get is what happened since the start of the year that made them change their minds. If they spoke to more scouts, looked at video, became increasingly concerned, and then looked at the stats, that would be one thing. It would be hasty, but understandable. If they did so strictly based on the K numbers…well, that’s just ridiculous
TheSouthWing.com - A Magazine of essays, prose and poems
by OldProspects on Jul 2, 2009 9:57 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Haha, did you even read the article?
In Bumgarner’s comment: “We saw him and weren’t impressed with breaking ball”
It was a great selection of awesome.
by battlekow on Jul 3, 2009 3:58 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Exactly
But were they impressed in the lead-up to the year? If they were, then what happened? If they weren’t, they why did they rate him higher earlier, and how come they gave up so fast?
TheSouthWing.com - A Magazine of essays, prose and poems
by OldProspects on Jul 3, 2009 4:06 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
You said:
“What I don’t get is what happened since the start of the year that made them change their minds. If they spoke to more scouts, looked at video, became increasingly concerned, and then looked at the stats, that would be one thing. It would be hasty, but understandable. If they did so strictly based on the K numbers…well, that’s just ridiculous”
They said: “We saw him and weren’t impressed with breaking ball”
Question answered.
It was a great selection of awesome.
by battlekow on Jul 3, 2009 4:07 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I'm not sure if you're following
We all knew that Bumgarner’s breaking balls were questionable. The question is would it improve. That line made it sound like they suddenly discovered that his breaking pitch was questionable, and that was the sole reason they were lowering their rating of him. That would be ridiculous
TheSouthWing.com - A Magazine of essays, prose and poems
by OldProspects on Jul 3, 2009 4:46 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Again, can’t speak for them, but I think the way he flat out dominated everyone in the lower levels perhaps gave them the false impression that he had made significant strides with his secondary pitches. As said in this thread elsewhere, Foster has commented multiple times that:
(1) He has had a great deal of confidence in Bumgarner since before the draft due to seeing him in person and speaking with him and his family.
(2) Despite the drop in ranking still is very confident in him and that he is perhaps overly critical due to how much he likes Bumgarner.
I don’t think a drop from 6 to 19 is to telling or that it is a statement that they are jumping off the Bumgarner wagon, I think it’s just they see the drop in K rate as a red flag and want to temper their expectations a bit until he adjusts to the level. If they feel other players have done enough in the months since March when they did their pre-season rankings then there is no reason you would drop Bumgarner a few spots. I don’t think you are being negative by any means but if Bumgarner dropped from 67 to 90, would it be as significant? As someone else said, I think people are focusing a little to much on the number to the left of the players’ names.
It’s odd Foster hasn’t commented, I think he still reads this forum. I think the last time someone called the site out on their rankings he was gracious enough to answer concerns with the lists. That is something that I’ve always respected Adam for, his ability to take criticism and explain his rationale has improved greatly over the past 3 years. Even if he doesn’t post I imagine he has taken all of the feedback (both positive and negative).
by jfish26101 on Jul 3, 2009 4:23 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
“no reason you wouldn’t drop Bumgarner a few spots”
Always wished we could edit posts.
by jfish26101 on Jul 3, 2009 4:26 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
by Adam Foster on Fri Jul 03, 2009 6:30 pm
My cousin is getting married today and I’m not sure how much I’ll be online tomorrow, but I’ll get to the questions in this thread soon.
And if anyone posts over at Minor League Ball, let them know that I’m planning on responding to some of their concerns soon, too.
by jfish26101 on Jul 3, 2009 6:32 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Brett Wallace
Im still not that impressed. I still think he’s a 1B.
by alskor on Jul 2, 2009 2:54 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Derek Holland
What what what?
I had to check his major league stats to see if I had missed something. Nope.
by Galt on Jul 2, 2009 3:02 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
He should be up there
Maybe not that high, but up there.
He’s a lefty who throws mid to high 90s. He showed the improvement in his stuff is real this year and not a one year fluke. He hasnt embarrassed himself in the majors and has decent components, very good K rates and good scouting reports – plus stuff, good poise, etc…
What’s not to like? I think youd be hard pressed to convince me he’s not one of the best pitching prospects in baseball right now (49.1 IP – so he’s 2 outs from qualifying as a rookie and losing prospect status).
To NOT include him among the top handful of pitching prospects would be unfairly putting a TON of weight on his first 50 IP in the majors. That’s a time period where even the best prospects should be expected to struggle. *cough*Hochevar*cough*. David Price?
I agree 2nd is too high, but lets not lose sight of how really good Holland is…
by alskor on Jul 2, 2009 3:25 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
MAYBE not that high?
LOL yeah id say “maybe not that high” is putting it nicelty
Holland isnt “mid to upper 90s” I am tired of reading crap that isnt true on the internet (alskor, I am not attack you, because you probably just read a souting report) but I have seen Holland pitch twice now and he has been 92-95 and touching 96 here and there…that is low to mid 90s..alot different than mid to high 90s..
by jsmall404 on Jul 2, 2009 4:15 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Right on...
So you are right on with his speeds, his average fastball this year is actually 93.2 MPH (I love Fangraphs). The interesting part about Holland though, is that his BABIP is at .350, so you would expect that to regress to the mean, his LOB % is also about 7% below ML average. His FIP (Fielder Independent ERA ) is a run and a half lower than his current ERA. The other thing you notice is that he is highly dependent on his fastball, which should change as he matures.
I guess what I am saying is… I wouldn’t be surprised to see this guy put together a few nice starts and end the year with an ERA in the mid-4 range.
I am not saying he is the #2 prospect, but that is a nice year for a 22 year old in a hitter’s park.
"God, I'm from Cleveland. When is it going to be our time?"
by BStal11 on Jul 2, 2009 4:55 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Fair point
First time out he was throwing harder… but as a reliever. I didnt really follow it religiously since then. AVG 94.40/ MAX 97.1
Last time out he threw AVG 92.14/ MAX 95.7
First start he threw AVG 93.49/ MAX 96.1
Fangraphs has his average fastball this season at 93.2.
Exaggeration notwithstanding, this is really hard for a LHP, and Holland is one of the hardest throwing lefty starters in baseball…
by alskor on Jul 2, 2009 4:56 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Definitely...
Only 3 lefty starters who throw harder on average…. Sabathia, Lester and Kershaw. Pretty solid company.
"God, I'm from Cleveland. When is it going to be our time?"
by BStal11 on Jul 2, 2009 6:40 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
That average could be a bit inflated by being used out of the bullpen for most of the season.
by jar75 on Jul 2, 2009 6:53 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
right
he is a great prospect..like stated, he isnt #2 lol…i just used that time to rant about all these scouting reports of guys with “mid 90s fastballs” and then i see them they are 89-92 lol
by jsmall404 on Jul 3, 2009 12:26 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
It is...
PitchFx data, and just giving more detail….
34% of his pitches have been thrown in relief, so 1/3 of the data is coming from relief and 2/3 from starting. If you take a look at his velocity charts, he did let it go (max speed) a little more in relief on some pitches, but from an average velocity standpoint, there really is little to no difference.
Hit FanGraphs and take a look at all of the data. I am not sitting her making this stuff up.
"God, I'm from Cleveland. When is it going to be our time?"
by BStal11 on Jul 3, 2009 8:28 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Just to clarify a little...
I agree he is not the #2 prospect, as I said above. But I don’t think we should be piling on a guy that obviously has a lot of talent and should end up being a #2 or #3 starter in the majors.
And looking at the prospects out there, there are only a few I would take over him (Tommy Hanson, Chris Tillman, Madison Bumgarner)
"God, I'm from Cleveland. When is it going to be our time?"
by BStal11 on Jul 3, 2009 8:43 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Not sure why I'm jumping in here...
but in Holland’s last start, his FB average was 92, and his max was 96. So he seems low to mid 90s.
To compare in their last games…
Kershaw was around 95 average, 97 peak.
Lester was 94 average, 96 peak
Sabathia was 95 average, 97.5 peak.
So, Holland looks to be a step behind these guys, his velocity is mid-90s for the first couple of innings, then it quickly falls to low-90s.
Check this site to review velocity game-by-game…
http://www.brooksbaseball.net/pfx/
Poster formerly known as artie
by beastball on Jul 4, 2009 10:09 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I swear
I didn’t create that list, LOL!
Now raise your goblet of rock. It's a toast to those who rock!
by Dewey Finn on Jul 2, 2009 4:15 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Project Prospect kinda sucks.
Semi-proud adoptive father of Scott "Aaron" Barnes.
by boonitez on Jul 2, 2009 3:06 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
kinda?
stop by Waving the Wheat (http://wavingthewheat.wordpress.com/) and The College Hockey Blog (http://thecollegehockeyblog.wordpress.com/)
by fetch9 on Jul 2, 2009 3:31 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
+ a billion
i dont know why people read what they have to say
by jsmall404 on Jul 2, 2009 4:16 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Same as always
Their lists should just be called “Who has put up good numbers lately?”
They always have wild fluctuations if a guy is hitting well or in a slump.
Moustakas went from #11 to out of the top 100 in the matter of a couple months.
Keep in mind, this is the same bunch that said back in March that Casper Wells and Giavotella were top 125 prospects, not to mention McGeary was number 89 overall.
by bereasonable on Jul 2, 2009 3:21 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
yeah
it is done monthly so whatever guys are making noise move up in the rankings…i dont think its an overall list as much as a monthly hot list
by miraclemets on Jul 2, 2009 3:28 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
It doesn’t suck, they just take a different approach. From the comments, I think people are mostly confused by the lack of consistency in applying their method not their method.
by jfish26101 on Jul 2, 2009 3:22 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Darn, that was meant to be a reply to boonitez, you would think by now this wouldn’t happen. :D
by jfish26101 on Jul 2, 2009 3:51 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
eh
Most of the stuff I’ve read from them seems to be way off. They’re definitely nowhere near BP or BA quality. I remember their draft board had Josh Phegley going in the top 10, and they also compared Matt Davidson to David Wright.
Semi-proud adoptive father of Scott "Aaron" Barnes.
by boonitez on Jul 2, 2009 9:23 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Well +1 a bit on Phegley so I wont really argue that but I will say that is a philosophical difference they are very upfront with. They like high floor guys and will value them over guys who may have higher ceilings but much lower floors. Lincoln said all along that he felt Phegley’s bat is one of the top 2 or 3 in the draft class and that if he sticks at C (I’ve heard Law and a few other analysts say they think he will stick at C), that is very valuable.
I don’t know much about the Davidson/Wraight comp but I don’t see them throw comps around a whole lot. That said, Davidson was one of the top HS bats entering the year so I don’t think you can fault them to much for being high on him.
I’m not trying to sound like a homer, I’m pretty critical of their work more often then not. I’m just surprised there are at least a half dozen posts in this thread suggesting either this list is trash, the site is trash, and/or nobody should read their work.
by jfish26101 on Jul 2, 2009 9:44 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I think people are being too mean
I’m glad when people try to produce original content. I think, though, that they want to be considered like BA and BP, and they have a ways to go before they reach that.
TheSouthWing.com - A Magazine of essays, prose and poems
by OldProspects on Jul 2, 2009 9:58 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Right. They posture themselves as an authority, but are hardly so—which, accounts for the irritation some of us can have with them.
They seem to be just a couple of amateur scouts with a basic understanding of saber analysis, and do not seem to dialogue with many professional scouts, or the scouting media—or even some of the more interesting lay voices out there. Thus the wild, and contradictory ‘takes’ they will sometimes present.
Someone who is interesting enough in prospecting to visit their site, might as well come here and interact with many of the people who have commented on this very thread: you would certainly get a better read on the prospects in doing so, at least because of the variety of interesting amateur voices—who often have a far more perspicuous rationale.
That is where the authoritative airs gets irksome. They aren’t, so either they need to improve their work, or tone themselves down a bit.
Prospective parent of new pick, Zack Wheeler. Projectable Righty stolen from the braves. Of course, I stalk my son's myspace: http://www.myspace.com/zackwheelerbaseball
"Obviously I’m not doing things like going toe-to-toe with a ninja. Find me a ninja, for one."--Brian Wilson
by haverecords on Jul 3, 2009 2:52 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
That isn’t entirely accurate. Foster interned at BA and was asked to stay on their staff if I remembe correctly.
Lincoln and Foster both talk to scouts on a semi-regular basis based on comments.
I can’t really comment on their understanding of sabermetrics but that isn’t the only thing they are taking into account. They want to be an authority in this field yes and are confident in their abilities bunt arn’t so arrogant to believe they have no progress to make. They have been doing this 3 years, BA has been doing it 27(?). Everyone starts somewhere.
by jfish26101 on Jul 3, 2009 8:19 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Also at least one of BA’s current interns was a writer on their site briefly. Lobo is interneing for MLB (or at least is writing on the minor league part of MLB’s website network). I just don’t see how you can argue they have no contact with the normal authorities in the field.
by jfish26101 on Jul 3, 2009 8:21 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
If you look again at my comment, a word occurs twice in the second paragraph (the one you misread as an argument proposition). This word is ‘seem’. You might want to pay attention to it.
The issue isn’t whether they do have such contacts (they likely have some, as some of us here do). Rather, it is what they do with them, and how they incorporate them into their work and overall presentation.
Prospective parent of new pick, Zack Wheeler. Projectable Righty stolen from the braves. Of course, I stalk my son's myspace: http://www.myspace.com/zackwheelerbaseball
"Obviously I’m not doing things like going toe-to-toe with a ninja. Find me a ninja, for one."--Brian Wilson
by haverecords on Jul 3, 2009 3:26 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
The statement “they seem to have none” is debunked when you show they do regardless of how you feel they use those contacts. I just assumed you aren’t very familiar with the site since it “seems” your opinion of them and their work is low yet they work pretty hard and have had opportunities to work with some of the best prospect analysts out there in BA.
/me shrugs
by jfish26101 on Jul 3, 2009 3:53 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Shrug some more.
I think you must have done some shrugging when you thought of ‘seem’ or ‘impression’ as well, if you have even thought about such things at all. Ever read much phenomenology?(this also seems highly doubtful)
I’m being snarky with you because you still miss the point of my comment. I’m certainly not the only one who has had a similar impression regarding their work (and you might note, I haven’t said anything near the effect of saying their work is bad, or that they are irrelevant. If you read carefully—something you are clearly not doing here, though hopefully you have the capability, you might notice that what I wrote could easily be considered constructive criticism.
I’m glad to find out more about their background, but that doesn’t change much here: nearly every time i’ve gone to their site (and that is quite a few times) the same impression appears. In case you haven’t noticed, a C+, or B- paper is still a mediocre paper, whether or not the writer is potentially capable of more.
The point of my ‘seems’ paragraph, is clearer when you consider the paragraph that followed it. Their collective voice (though, as noted, there is a consistency problem) seems on a level similar to one of the better 20ish commentators here (and that is those of us here posting, not John, obviously): a useful voice, but no more authoritative than that, contrary to their self image. I hope they make more of the connections they may have (interning at ba may not entail as much as we’d all like to think, btw), such that they exhibit far more measured judgment, and moderate both their tone.
Prospective parent of new pick, Zack Wheeler. Projectable Righty stolen from the braves. Of course, I stalk my son's myspace: http://www.myspace.com/zackwheelerbaseball
"Obviously I’m not doing things like going toe-to-toe with a ninja. Find me a ninja, for one."--Brian Wilson
by haverecords on Jul 4, 2009 1:56 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I have a pretty good feeling any attempt at discussion with you on this particular subject is a waste of time since you continue to be “snarky” when it is unwarranted. Bottom line is you came to some incorrect assumptions about the PP writers and I tried to give you some information you clearly weren’t aware of or bothered searching for. I wasn’t being critical of your statement, I wasn’t calling you names, being disrespectful, or “snarky” just trying to inform you a little better. The fault is your own for jumping to conclusions without actually trying to understand what was going on with the list or their relevant background. For someone who is trying to act as intelligent as you are, I would think you would actually appreciate understanding their background and approach more if not try to find those answers about their baseball/writing background and rationale behind their methods on your own…since that is what an intuitive mind would do. They seek out answers when they aren’t sure about something instead of jumping to their own conclusions. It can be your opinion that they are nothing more than amateur’s (rightly so since I feel even they would partially agree) but your perception that they have no contact with baseball professionals was incorrect hence why I replied to you in the first place.
As far as the original post and the relevant points you have made since, my perception is that you are saying their list isn’t similar enough to that of Sickels, Law, Callis, KG, etc for you to respect as legitimate (albeit in a gentle way and feel free to correct me if I am wrong). Sure it could be considered constructive criticism that a stat based site doesn’t respect or weigh the opinions of scouts enough (and something I’ve said before) but that would go against their approach and beliefs. Prospecting isn’t a science (at least not at this stage) but PP tries to take a scientific approach in that they study the minor league careers of successful MLB players looking for trends in their stats. They have taken what trends they think they have found, created a formula to weight them based on how important they feel those tools are, and then adjusted the players based on what they have seen in person (or from video) and heard from scouts that they respect. They have been doing this for 5 years or less, have a different approach (which I respect whether I agree with it or not), and continue to improve. Whether you think their list appears to be the same quality of those top 50’s posted sine this thread was made is irrelevant because even John’s top 50 has relatively the same chance of being accurate as anyone else’s including the random posters like Bravesin07, auclairkeithbc, or anyone else from this community. It is their opinion versus John’s and nobody is going to know whose opinion was more accurate for at least 10-20 years at which point we can see what the players have become. Perhaps it is you being the arrogant one if you don’t think it is possible that their list is comparable to one John would put out? Hell even John made a post last year that essentially said he valued all lists and work done by his peers and anyone willing to put the time into making the list. :)
I don’t think I have a whole lot more to say to you unless this discussion were to go in a different direction. To recap, you made a statement about your perception of their work and I tried to give you some information that might change your perception. Pretty much the rest of this exchange is irrelevant to the thread. Continue being “snarky” all you want but I think more constructive criticism would be more productive and appreciated by PP and their writers. Good day to you sir.
by jfish26101 on Jul 4, 2009 10:31 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I think Adam is good
Another issue is that there is a serious disparity in talent in terms of their writers. But none of this is mean to be strict criticism – I started a magazine, too, which has wide gulfs in talent, as do all new ventures.
I wonder, though, if perhaps until they get ready to seriously compete with BA and John and so forth, they might find a way to do innovative work on a certain aspect, rather than engage them on all fronts. For example; if they would focus entirely on the draft and 7/2, they might have a better chance to compete with if not beat all of the other groups. Alternatively, if they tried to cover seriously Asian or Cuban baseball, that might give them a competitive edge as well.
TheSouthWing.com - A Magazine of essays, prose and poems
by OldProspects on Jul 3, 2009 9:58 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Well PP is a pretty small operation, what was BA like 25 years ago?
I think some of your points are certainly valid, and doubt Foster would disagree. Adding Lincoln was a big help and I think Sully has done a good job (even though he still has problems with taking criticism) but they are constantly losing contributors to other sites that pay…which you certainly can’t blame them for taking a paying gig over a free gig. I’ve long wished Doug and Bigmike did some pitch FX/draft stuff for them but you can’t force people to help out and I know they already write for a couple of places.
I think the thing that needs to be remembered is PP is a young startup website and continues to improves with each year. This isn’t Foster’s career, just something he does on the side till he has the resources to decide whether he wants this to be his career. As money comes in, they have tried to improve their site, their tools (purchased a radar gun and digital camera + recorder), have went to the AFL/Futures game in the past if money permitted, and have begun to contemplate paying for articles I believe now that the site gets enough hits to generate some revenue which could help stabilize things a bit.
I also want to add that the site does tend to come off as arrogant at times and people have called them out on it on their forums before (myself included) but I don’t think it’s necessarily a bad thing to be confident in your methods/opinions. Keith Law comes off as a pretty big prick to me mostly because he has the attitude he doesn’t care what anyone else thinks/says. It isn’t necessarily a negative thing to have that attitude but it is how he goes about it. I hardly think PP is on that level yet but of course they don’t have Law’s credentials either. I guess what I’m trying to say is I can understand why some people may be rubbed the wrong way about their approach or their confidence in their approach but I don’t think that takes away any validity from their work.
by jfish26101 on Jul 3, 2009 10:16 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Dont be a homer
Ive visited and been fans of both sites for years now. There’s no real differential in skill set. You got good smart guys here and good smart guys there.
by dplunjer on Jul 3, 2009 8:31 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
What's irksome...
is that you think you’re any kind of authority about whose lists are accurate or not. None of us really know at this point. Be happy there are other sources of information out there. Why should the opinion of some guy on a message board mean more to me than the opinions of guys who have spent years at serious prospecting?
There’s a little too much self-importance in the room.
by PissedMick on Jul 3, 2009 9:46 AM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
+1
People should be listened to based on whether what they say makes sense, not based solely on their “credentials.”
Linda's in the cold ground, won't see her anymore
Somewhere out on the highway tonight, the drunken engines roar
It's just one of those things, one of those things
-- Al Stewart, "Accident on 3rd St."
In memory of Nick Adenhart and all victims of drunk driving
by PaulThomas on Jul 3, 2009 2:13 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I agree with....
PissedMick. If you don’t like their lists…dont freaking read them. Jeez, dont hate on some young guys putting out FREE content. They havn’t stolen your hard earned money so take a chill pill.
by Ion293 on Jul 3, 2009 6:22 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Strange
There aren’t many players who I say, “wow get this MOFO off the list” Niese and McAllister come to mind. However, to not have Latos in the top 25, in probably slightly below insane. Mazzaro too. Weglarz is also high.
As outshined mentioned, not vitters is a bad oversight.
Otherwise it isn’t THAT bad. Just strange. No worse than the crap we put out annually.
Remember: baseball guys... baseball...
by Metty5 on Jul 2, 2009 4:18 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
no michael taylor
also…or am i the only one that thinks he is a better prospect then niese??…and i am a mets fan!!!
by miraclemets on Jul 2, 2009 4:42 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
didn't notice
but yes he is a much better prospect.
Remember: baseball guys... baseball...
by Metty5 on Jul 2, 2009 4:46 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Niese has outpitched Michael Bowden this year, and has like a sub 1.50 ERA in his last 6 AAA starts.
"I dunno. I never smoked any Astroturf"
-Tug McGraw
by squid92 on Jul 7, 2009 12:02 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Bumgarner
1.96 ERA
21.5% K-Rate 6.8% BB-Rate
1.02 WHIP
This all while being a 19 YEAR OLD in AA.
I’m not sure how this can be possible without at least having a decent offspeed pitch
waiting for 2011....
by Osama91w9 on Jul 2, 2009 4:25 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
He obviously
needs to be promoted to the major leagues and put up an ERA over 6 to be ranked high.
by nyy601 on Jul 2, 2009 4:28 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
The funny thing is...
if I remember correctly, Project Prospect was higher than most on Bumgarner coming out of high school. They were on that bandwagon before anybody else.
by PissedMick on Jul 2, 2009 4:32 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I think Foster has said on the forums he still has the utmost confidence in Bumgarner and that he probably is to critical of him because he liked him so much from the start. I also do believe Foster was one of the first to go out on a limb with Bumgarner back when he was drafted (which was well before other sites had him as a top prospect) because he had spoken with Bumgarner and his famil on multiple occasions and was able to see him pitch several times. Perhaps he shouldn’t have dropped that much (or perhaps he shouldn’t have been that high to begin with?) but top 20 is still pretty high praise.
by jfish26101 on Jul 2, 2009 5:18 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
But... but... they saw him in person!
Are you going to seriously suggest that a prospect’s entire professional career somehow outweighs a handful of innings casually viewed through a nacho cheese prism?
Selective memory combined with shiny new toy syndrome makes for a lovely combination.
by Joy in Melville on Jul 2, 2009 4:40 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
ERA is down to 1.7 after his start today
7 IP, 4 h, 3 BB, 5 SO, no runs
Psycho killer, qu'est-ce que c'est?
by shikantaza on Jul 2, 2009 6:47 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
This list blows.
Chris Carter > Freddie Freeman?
Really?
Q: If on-base pct is so important then why don't they put it on the scoreboard? -Failcoeur
A: Because the Braves don't want to show their fans how bad you suck.
by timmy3 on Jul 2, 2009 4:40 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
I think many would agree with that
I’m not saying all, but many
Remember: baseball guys... baseball...
by Metty5 on Jul 2, 2009 4:46 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Obviously didn't explain myself well
I like Carter.
Remember: baseball guys... baseball...
by Metty5 on Jul 2, 2009 5:11 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
now that is an interesting question
freeman’s gonna hit for a higher average and strike out a lot less, but carter is really ramping up his ability to draw walks and get on base, plus he’s got more power potential than just about anybody in the minor leagues.
i’d take carter right now, just because he’s already doing his thing in AA, and he has the higher upside, but freeman’s got a nice package, as well.
human beings, who are almost unique in their ability to learn from the experiences of others, are also remarkable for their apparent disinclination to do so.
by variablesdont on Jul 2, 2009 4:49 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
He’s also four years older than Freeman and one level ahead of him. Freeman’s hit .335 since April and is the youngest hitter in his league. He gets over-looked because of Heyward, I think.
Q: If on-base pct is so important then why don't they put it on the scoreboard? -Failcoeur
A: Because the Braves don't want to show their fans how bad you suck.
by timmy3 on Jul 2, 2009 4:51 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I meant three years not four… But obviously that’s a big age gap. Freeman has a lot of power to add, even though he hasn’t totally shown that this year.
Q: If on-base pct is so important then why don't they put it on the scoreboard? -Failcoeur
A: Because the Braves don't want to show their fans how bad you suck.
by timmy3 on Jul 2, 2009 4:53 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
so, you think freeman is pujols then?
honestly, age isn’t the more pressing concern when evaluating two prospects like this. maybe freeman will eventually be better, but carter’s pretty damn good right now (though so is freeman), and unless you’re projecting freeman to step up and become albert pujols, he’s kinda already peaked physically. i mean, if he wasn’t already filled out and physically peaked he’d be playing RF, or maybe even 3B, like carter did his first two years in the minors. guys only get moved to 1B if there’s a hole or if they’re already too big to play anywhere else.
also, just generally, projecting a young player to get better just because he’s young is an easy way to weed out a guy who’s overrated. there’s absolutely nothing standing in the way of a guy like carter improving as much as, or even more than freeman. age only matters in that there’s more time for him to get better, it’s no guarantee that he will.
human beings, who are almost unique in their ability to learn from the experiences of others, are also remarkable for their apparent disinclination to do so.
by variablesdont on Jul 2, 2009 5:04 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
give it a rest
Freeman is already better than Carter. He never compared him to Pujol’s wiseass. Carter is a AAAA player while Freeman is the real deal!
by Patriotreign3 on Jul 5, 2009 2:05 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
This list is lulzworthy
Chris Dominguez: Bringing dingerz back to The Bay (In a while)
by CB30 on Jul 2, 2009 4:50 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
What the fuck is this shit!!!!!!!!!!!!111111!!!!!eleven!!!!!!!
As a big fan of Project Prospect who has been posting daily for about the last year, I have become extremely dissapointed with their absurd emphasis on recent SSS numbers.
This particular list was downright preposterous.
Nick Weglarz over Parker and Bumgarner? Nick Weglarz. Marvelous, a LF/1B whose going to his .250 in the majors with average power. Splendid.
Drabek, Latos, Feliz, Wallace, and Knapp not in the top 50?
Mejia and Holt below Zach McAllister and Jon Niese?
If Ian Kennedy were still eligible, I think he might have come in at #1 right behind Weiters.
This list rivals that of the almighty baseballhq.com.
by Frederick0220 on Jul 2, 2009 5:11 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Isn’t this basically the exact same post you made over there? :D
I don’t think having Drabek and Knapp in the top 50 is really a knock when they are HMs meaning they are in the next 10 most likely. I’d be cautious with them both as well because I’m fairly confident at least one ends up in the pen (if not both). I agree that Latos, Feliz, and Wallace look like they should be ahead of some of those guys but it is their personal list.
I think I remember you saying you felt Mejia was a top 10-20 prospect a month back so not all that surprised you are unhappy with his placement.
I to think guys like Niese/Medlen are to high but I don’t think it rivals anything baseballhq.com has ever put out. :p
I don’t think I disagree with the thought behind your post much but I’m a bit surprised they are taking this much of a shellacking over here…of course perhaps I shouldn’t be since they have been critical of other’s work repeatedly but I still don’t think the list is trash or that the site sucks. They put more free content out then most sites, they are very community oriented, they are more forthright with their methods/opinions then most sites, they spend a good deal of time/effort on everything they publish, and they have some features that other sites don’t have. At times I wonder if being somewhat fantasy focused to appeal to that segment hurts them but I respect that they defend their methods and don’t regurgitate what everyone else is doing.
by jfish26101 on Jul 2, 2009 5:28 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
why does everyone assume Weglarz will hit .250 in the majors?
i’ll take the over on that.
his batting eye is great, and he’s only 21.
by daveh33 on Jul 2, 2009 10:32 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
He strikes out a lot
He’s a career .262 hitter in the minors and he has a) some pretty big holes in his swing (consequence of being a power hitter); and b) a hitch in his swing (supposedly theyve done a lot to fix this).
Id take the over on .250 as well… but Id take the under on “league average” batting AVG.
by alskor on Jul 2, 2009 10:48 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
because
even low AVG guys like Dunn/Howard hit for a high average in the minors. Cust too.
baseball rules.
by doublestix on Jul 2, 2009 11:28 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
so every player's batting avg. will dip when they hit the majors?
david wright was a .288 hitter in the minors.
.312 so far in mlb.
miggy cabrera went from .286 to .311
Votto from .289 to .314
I’ve noticed guys with good to great ARL tend to have lower BAs in the minors… they are still developing as hitters. it makes a lot of sense. especially for guys like Votto and Weglarz, who are Canadian.
by daveh33 on Jul 3, 2009 4:45 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
most players, yes
there are exceptions.
baseball rules.
by doublestix on Jul 3, 2009 6:24 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
sucks.
rankings are tough but this list is really terrible, Latos, feliz and taylor arent even on it is this a joke, were they half asleep while putting this together?
by jarjets89 on Jul 2, 2009 5:53 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
RTFA
If you haven’t seen our rankings before, you’ll notice that we’re huge on trying to pick out guys with high floors. Sorry if that approach contrasts with your fantasy league setup
Seriously, not every list looks the same. I remember there was some other guy who used to do these lists years ago and basically quit in part because this website kept ganging up on him. Turns out that his rankings, for the most part, weren’t significantly worse than BA. He had more completely wild misses, but he also ranked a bunch of guys who weren’t even on BA’s radar who have turned out to be good major leaguers (Cody Ross was someone I remember immediately, but there were others).
Bad Left Hook - The SB Nation boxing blog
"Baseball is played on the field, not on a calculator."
by Brickhaus on Jul 2, 2009 7:46 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Right
Its a different kind of list… people should realize that going in.
There are things I like about it and things I dont like… but its nice to see a different thing. I think of it more like Keith Law’s lists. They have a lot of personal favorites and dislikes.
by alskor on Jul 2, 2009 8:44 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
guys..
you cant use “not every list is the same” as an excuse for putting down whatever crap you want lol..i am not saying they have to put every guy i like on there…like i dont care about carter over freeman, or having mccallister on there and not drabek, that can be just their opinion… but not having a guy like feliz on there just makes them look stupid.
by jsmall404 on Jul 3, 2009 12:32 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Why not?
In a few years, if they keep posting, we’ll have a track record of their system. In the meantime, who cares?
by James F on Jul 3, 2009 2:22 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Good point
Exactly, there is little evidence to suggest the site is as bad as people are letting on in this thread. There simply hasn’t been enough time passed to know how many players they missed or how many players they saw/caught before others did.
by jfish26101 on Jul 3, 2009 8:23 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
They gave a rationale as to why their list is different
And in the context of what they said, it makes sense.
Bad Left Hook - The SB Nation boxing blog
"Baseball is played on the field, not on a calculator."
by Brickhaus on Jul 3, 2009 4:30 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
hmm, high floors?
Of course, that is an interesting concept. For Feliz, isn’t his floor a kinda semi-wild reliever with a 100 mph fastball, a la Zumaya? For Medlen, could his floor be a supposed control guy like, uh, Ian Kennedy? At this stage, that may be sort of a toss up, but you get the picture, in which case I move on to the upside. I suppose then you could say medlen’s upside is Greg maddux and Feliz is, I dunno, Nolan Ryan. I am picking these out of my ass, but fact is I think it is interesting way to go about it to say the least. 50 good AAA innings for a good control guy without much fastball versus the young guy with the golden arm.
But i do appreciate the added voice, and provokes thought.
by wobatus on Jul 6, 2009 1:15 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Drabek?
Better than Latos easily IMO.
Hey guys, I run a music blog. alternative, powerpop, punk, electronica, screamo, etc etc, check it out. http://muzikdizcovery.blogspot.com/ artist interviews and many other stuff. free cookies! (not really, but still) :D
by cwhitman412 on Jul 2, 2009 5:58 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
i dont want to argue about that, they both should be in the top 50
lets gang up on projectprospect
by jarjets89 on Jul 2, 2009 6:11 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
This list is only a Joke...
If the players that were neglected or undervalued on the list make them look silly for posting them that low. Why do all lists have to be the same? Show me a highly rated publication that has actually projected a top 50 prospect list correctly.
When I look at prospect rankings its not solely how they are performing statistically. More important is how they will impact at the major league level. You can knock the list all you want but picking prospects are almost akin to picking a stock. You can have all the numbers in front of you and all the info in the world, but sometimes they just don’t work out like they should. I think their list is okay but not spectacular. If you think their list is so off kilter then make what you think is a better one if you can.
by AthleticsReign on Jul 2, 2009 7:37 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
I agree...
Prospect analysis is not a science, and anything can happen with these players, but the real shortcoming with this list is that numerical data was implemented way too heavily.
It’s almost as if scouting reports, tools, and just common sense did not play much of a role.
Weglarz gets rewarded for a quality two months, but Drabek, Latos, Mejia, Taylor, and Knapp don’t.
An iota of logic would be expected when a credible web site makes a top 50, but apparently that might be too much to ask for.
by Frederick0220 on Jul 2, 2009 7:55 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Mejia is most definitely being rewarded on that list, doesn’t matter that you think he is a top 10 prospect. He has 170 IP in his whole pro career and came out of nowhere, I’m still not sold he has a whole lot more then his overpowering FB.
by jfish26101 on Jul 2, 2009 8:02 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
He gets a pretty good grade on his changeup
And he seems to have some pretty unique movement. He gets some natural cut on his fastball and change, to the point where scouts have difficulty identifying the changeup vs. a breaking ball. From what I understand, the changeup is his out pitch, while the actual breaking ball is a work in progress. It’ll be interesting to see how hitters continue to adjust to him and if he’ll need to work on his game in term of throwing-arm side movement.
In the comments section, one of the justifications for his ranking is that his strikeout rate has actually ticked up a bit so far, which is either just statistical noise or an indication of a legitimate adjustment. He could afford plenty of contact in the FSL, and he didn’t give up any homers. In the EL, he gave up two quickly, and you saw his game to game strikeout totals spike almost immediately after he gave up his first one. If that is an adjustment on his part, its crazy impressive.
Also, I don’t think they’re rewarding him more than anyone else would. Remember, a few weeks ago John already said he moved up to B+ after getting a C+ in the book. That’s the same level of “reward,” and I think its the appropriate one.
"All energy flows according to the whims of the great magnet
What a fool I was to defy him"
-HST
by Meddler on Jul 3, 2009 7:10 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
well...
maybe they think the underlying stats (or scouting) behind weglarz’s quality two months are more meaningful than the underlying stats (or scouting) behind the others. although drabek and latos are just outside the top 50 and mejia is at 41. you can’t just say if one (of that group) is in the top 25, then all of them have to be, or if several of them are between 40 and 60, then all them have to be.
by auclairkeithbc on Jul 2, 2009 8:04 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
that was for jfish, not frederick
sorry.
by auclairkeithbc on Jul 2, 2009 8:05 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Why is that for me? I’m not the one making the case all of them should be ahead of Weglarz.
by jfish26101 on Jul 2, 2009 8:07 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
oops. wow i really suck.
it was for frederick. i had it right the first time. i guess you slipped your post in while i was typing mine, so i got thrown off. man, i need to shape up.
by auclairkeithbc on Jul 2, 2009 8:15 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I actually liked the list a lot.
Aside from some minor quibbles (Bumgarner, Holland), I liked some of the risks they took (especially the Weglarz and Rondon rankings).
by RedSoxFaithful on Jul 2, 2009 8:57 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
+1 on Rondon
TheSouthWing.com - A Magazine of essays, prose and poems
by OldProspects on Jul 2, 2009 9:59 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Another thing that I don’t understand is all the skepticism about Mejia.
People are reserved to heil him as a top 25 prospect, but these same people were not shy about proclaiming Feliz and Holland (two guys who came out of nowhere) to be top 25 guys. Wevz. It is what it is.
The bottomline is that if you’re 19 and can K more than 9/9 IP, you’re first rate.
For the record, I have Mejia at #14 (#6 for pitchers).
by Frederick0220 on Jul 2, 2009 9:08 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Well, as someone who is a little hesitant with Mejia still, I don’t think I was nearly as high on Feliz/Holland as most and that is coming from a Braves fan. When we did the Tex deal, Feliz was the piece I was the most upset about. That said, I pretty much always felt he was being over hyped once he came to Texas. As far as Holland goes, to be perfectly honest, I missed the boat completely on him. A friend of mine has compared Mejia’s rise to Hollands so perhaps I’m missing the boat again but I just want to see more innings, better control, and reports from sources I value saying he has the 3 plus pitches random posters on the internet keep saying. I don’t dislike Mejia, I’m just not sold yet and for me to rank someone in the top 20 with that little pro exprience, I’d need to be pretty sold.
By the way, why don’t you just post your list? You keep referencing it on both this board and PP’s.
by jfish26101 on Jul 2, 2009 9:39 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I was also a bit iffy on Mejia
Right through the time of his promotion. There are two reasons my expectations for him have taken off:
1. His Double-A positives all could indicate solid adjustments, the only negative is the HR spike, which from a total of “0” in the FSL was completely expected.
2. This is the one that’s been a little bit mum in terms of interwebz buzz that I happen to think is a HUGE deal, but he seems to have legitimately cleaned up his mechanics. He was known as a high effort guy with lots of peculiar timing mechanisms in Brooklyn. He seems to have drastically reduced the effort level of his delivery, and his arm action is nice and loose now. I haven’t seen a ton of him this year, but I did see him a few times last year, and everything I’ve seen this year seems to be a legit improvement. He still seems to have some of the peculiar timing mechanisms though, and his mechanics are hardly “orthodox,” so that’s something to keep an eye on.
"All energy flows according to the whims of the great magnet
What a fool I was to defy him"
-HST
by Meddler on Jul 3, 2009 7:23 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
It's because he's a Mets prospect.
No one seems to think that the Mets are allowed to have any good players in their farm, apparently.
"I dunno. I never smoked any Astroturf"
-Tug McGraw
by squid92 on Jul 7, 2009 12:05 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I like Kris Medlen but he hasnt faired well in the MLB so I dont think he should be on there
by Heyward is the next crime dog on Jul 2, 2009 10:38 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
LOL
You Project Prospect fanboys are pathetic. That site lost all credibility with me when they dropped Justin Upton down to like 40 a couple years back. That site was a piece of shit back then and it’s an even bigger piece of shit now with Josh Vitters not even getting an honorable mention. They obviously have no idea what they’re talking about and I won’t waste another nanosecond worrying about what those brain stems have to say about anything.
I reject your reality and substitute my own.
by WayneCampbell08 on Jul 2, 2009 11:22 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
:D
Can’t say I remember a PP list with Upton in the 40s. It’s possible that I simply I don’t remember but I do remember KG having Upton around 30 in 2007. Even if PP had him in the 40’s, the difference between the 30th ranked prospect and the 40th ranked prospect is insignificant so you must think KG and BP are a “piece of shit” that “lost all credibility with” you?
by jfish26101 on Jul 2, 2009 11:37 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
"the difference between the 30th ranked prospect and the 40th ranked prospect is insignificant"
You must not remember the offseason prospect ranking polls.
by demondeaconsbaseball on Jul 3, 2009 12:57 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
:D
I actually quit paying attention to those polls pretty early unfortunately because it was a feature I enjoyed but I just couldn’t stand how the process was taking place.
by jfish26101 on Jul 3, 2009 8:22 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I doubt Josh Vitters makes my top 50
Howie Kendrick 2.0 isn’t exactly knocking my socks off.
Linda's in the cold ground, won't see her anymore
Somewhere out on the highway tonight, the drunken engines roar
It's just one of those things, one of those things
-- Al Stewart, "Accident on 3rd St."
In memory of Nick Adenhart and all victims of drunk driving
by PaulThomas on Jul 3, 2009 1:59 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Howie Kendrick 2.0
Obviously you know fuckle about Vitters.
by slurve on Jul 3, 2009 4:44 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Sickels Disagrees
I think Vitters will turn out to be a very good hitter, however John Sickels himself has made the Kendrick comp for Vitters so it isn’t like PT is making this up.
"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 Jul 3, 2009 10:45 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I was also alluding to Vitters's checkered past health status
Although, to be fair, he’s basically been healthy this year.
Linda's in the cold ground, won't see her anymore
Somewhere out on the highway tonight, the drunken engines roar
It's just one of those things, one of those things
-- Al Stewart, "Accident on 3rd St."
In memory of Nick Adenhart and all victims of drunk driving
by PaulThomas on Jul 3, 2009 2:19 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
PP
I enjoy some of there stuff, actually a good amount of it. I used to talk to Foster a little bit when he posted over here. We’d e-mail about some prospects and what not. I think he is a pretty smart guy, and I enjoy their takes on prospects.
My one issue is the criteria that someone posted before about them liking high floor players. Is someone honestly going to tell me that Fernando Martinez (10), Mike Stanton (12), Dom Brown (17), Desmond Jennings (25), Chris Carter (37), Lars Anderson (38) , Jenrry Mejia (41), Martin Perez (44), have high floors? Honest that’s a bunch of crap. These guys are great prospects, but a good deal of it has to do with projection of tools, not high floors.
High floor guys to me are Alderson, Reese Havens, Freedie Freeman, Logan Morrison, and Neftali Feliz.
My next biggest issue is to drop out Neftali Feliz, and leave Holland at two. If Holland has such a high floor, then Feliz does too. Even if Feliz’s secondary stuff never comes together (and I have been as critical of him as anyone) he is already a MLB reliever, and a good one. That is the definition of a high floor. While you can say the same about Holland and even Bumgarder, I don’t see how one could rank them so far apart.
I think the list is decent, but if this is a list of prospects with high floors then don’t call it a top 50 prospect list. Call it you top 50 sure things list. One could argue that part of projecting a prospect is whether or not they will actually put it together and make it to the show. However, it is as equally important to project which players have the tools of a major leaguer. They really missed the boat on that last part. A mid – season list, not containing Michael Taylor after all he has done, is practically a failure. Especially when it is apparent you have overreacted to the performances of other prospects in a negitive way (see Moustakas 11 to Dropped Out) Would a reasonable prospect watcher really believe they would rather have Vin Mazzaro, Kyle Blanks, or Zach McAllister than Moustakas, Feliz, Taylor, Wallace, Kelly, Latos, Freeman, or Vitters. Every single team in baseball would trade one of those three for one of the latter mentioned.
I understand not ranking, Villalona, Flores, Yona, and young kids who are really far away. But don’t tell me
BB% and K% are career rates; Ages are as of July 1, 2009; Lvl is the highest level the player has reached; Our rankings factor in floor and ceiling
And then hit me with
If you haven’t seen our rankings before, you’ll notice that we’re huge on trying to pick out guys with high floors. Sorry if that approach contrasts with your fantasy league setup.
If you are going to mention the fantasy league crap, then say how you heavily account for defensive value, don’t say that you are looking for high floors, that’s a load of sh!t. That’s not a complete evaluation, that’s not a list of the top 50 prospects.
Remember: baseball guys... baseball...
by Metty5 on Jul 3, 2009 10:04 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
I think you are taking that comment to far. They aren’t specifically looking for high floor guys who are good bets to be league average, they just value those types of players more than other sites. Your first quote is essentially their method (+ ISOP and a few other things) but then they make adjustments on personal preference/opinion as they gather enough information about the players to form opinons. I to have trouble understanding how they come to their final version of their rankings but it really comes down to a difference in philosophy that I have to account for when reading their lists/work.
by jfish26101 on Jul 3, 2009 10:26 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
This turned out to be a really childish post.
by dplunjer on Jul 3, 2009 6:54 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Sadowski should have been #1!
Kinda like Mazzaro
Psycho killer, qu'est-ce que c'est?
by shikantaza on Jul 4, 2009 12:41 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
sarchasm!
Prospective parent of new pick, Zack Wheeler. Projectable Righty stolen from the braves. Of course, I stalk my son's myspace: http://www.myspace.com/zackwheelerbaseball
"Obviously I’m not doing things like going toe-to-toe with a ninja. Find me a ninja, for one."--Brian Wilson
by haverecords on Jul 4, 2009 1:22 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Thanks for all the comments
It’s an honor to have our work dissected by such a well-informed community. Reading through the comments in this thread, there’s no doubt in my mind that I’m in the company of some of the best minor league thinkers around.
My writers and I have noted your criticism. Many of your points are valid. If we truly had our act together, Project Prospect would have a larger following and would get more respect in the industry. We still have a lot of ground to cover. And I’m aware that I could have set a better tone as the voice of Project Prospect by carrying myself with more maturity during our first year and a half or so of existence.
We’ve poured a lot of energy into crunching numbers over the years. Recently, I’ve dedicated myself to learning more about scouting – I spent a week at Minor League Spring Training in Arizona last March. My fellow writers and I have also made an effort to become better connected in the industry. Lincoln Hamilton has established a lot of baseball contacts – both of us aided a pro team in some basic 2009 draft research. We also plan to spend an extended period of time at the Arizona Fall League later this year.
I realize that we owe the people who acknowledge our work a better explanation of our thought process. We haven’t earned the right to just pump out lists and be taken seriously. A lot of the rankings that I’ve headed are from a relatively shot-in-the-dark approach. Efforts to fine-tune our methods will be taken. I’ve actually spent a good part of this weekend conducting quantitative hitter studies that will help solidify our in-season ranking approach.
Thank you very much for your feedback. It is greatly appreciated.
I’m happy to address specific concerns with our mid-season Top 50 as well.
Sincerely,
Adam Foster
by Adam Foster on Jul 5, 2009 3:44 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Way to take the high road Adam
I did not like the list much myself, but that in no way means you suck or don’t know what you are doing. I think some people here lose that point. Like any message board, people tend to get sucked into group-think and fail to have truly independent ideas. Then when someone breaks away from that group-think, they get heavily criticized.
This is no different than how Luciano used to get treated here, or how Law still gets treated here. Guess that puts you in elite company!
by guru4u on Jul 7, 2009 10:58 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2009 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.
