Keith Law top 100 Prospects
| RANK | POSITION | PLAYER | TEAM | HEIGHT | WEIGHT | AGE |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | CF | Mike Trout | L.A. Angels | 6-1 | 217 | 20 |
| 2 | RF | Bryce Harper | Washington | 6-2 | 245 | 19 |
| 3 | LHP | Matt Moore | Tampa Bay | 6-2 | 205 | 22 |
| 4 | SS | Manny Machado | Baltimore | 6-3 | 185 | 19 |
| 5 | RHP | Shelby Miller | St. Louis | 6-3 | 195 | 21 |
| 6 | C | Travis d'Arnaud | Toronto | 6-2 | 195 | 22 |
| 7 | SS | Jurickson Profar | Texas | 5-11 | 165 | 18 |
| 8 | C | Devin Mesoraco | Cincinnati | 6-1 | 220 | 23 |
| 9 | DH/C | Jesus Montero | Seattle | 6-3 | 235 | 22 |
| 10 | RHP | Gerrit Cole | Pittsburgh | 6-4 | 220 | 21 |
| 11 | RHP | Dylan Bundy | Baltimore | 6-1 | 200 | 19 |
| 12 | SS | Hak-Ju Lee | Tampa Bay | 6-2 | 170 | 21 |
| 13 | OF | Wil Myers | Kansas City | 6-3 | 205 | 21 |
| 14 | RHP | Arodys Vizcaino | Atlanta | 6-0 | 190 | 21 |
| 15 | OF | Bubba Starling | Kansas City | 6-4 | 180 | 19 |
| 16 | RHP | Jameson Taillon | Pittsburgh | 6-6 | 225 | 20 |
| 17 | 3B | Anthony Rendon | Washington | 6-0 | 190 | 21 |
| 18 | RHP | Julio Teheran | Atlanta | 6-2 | 175 | 21 |
| 19 | RHP | Archie Bradley | Arizona | 6-4 | 225 | 19 |
| 20 | LHP | Martin Perez | Texas | 6-0 | 180 | 20 |
| 21 | RHP | Trevor Bauer | Arizona | 6-1 | 175 | 21 |
| 22 | RHP | Carlos Martinez | St. Louis | 6-0 | 165 | 20 |
| 23 | LHP | Manny Banuelos | N.Y. Yankees | 5-11 | 155 | 20 |
| 24 | RHP | Taijuan Walker | Seattle | 6-4 | 195 | 19 |
| 25 | LHP | Tyler Skaggs | Arizona | 6-4 | 195 | 20 |
| 26 | 3B | Nolan Arenado | Colorado | 6-1 | 205 | 20 |
| 27 | RHP | Zack Wheeler | N.Y. Mets | 6-4 | 185 | 21 |
| 28 | 3B | Miguel Sano | Minnesota | 6-3 | 195 | 18 |
| 29 | RHP | Jacob Turner | Detroit | 6-5 | 210 | 20 |
| 30 | LHP | Danny Hultzen | Seattle | 6-3 | 200 | 22 |
| 31 | RHP | Jarrod Parker | Oakland | 6-1 | 195 | 23 |
| 32 | RHP | Casey Kelly | San Diego | 6-3 | 195 | 22 |
| 33 | RHP | A.J. Cole | Oakland | 6-4 | 180 | 20 |
| 34 | OF | Mason Williams | N.Y. Yankees | 6-0 | 150 | 20 |
| 35 | SS | Francisco Lindor | Cleveland | 5-11 | 175 | 18 |
| 36 | 1B | Anthony Rizzo | Chicago Cubs | 6-3 | 220 | 22 |
| 37 | 3B | Nick Castellanos | Detroit | 6-4 | 195 | 19 |
| 38 | RHP | Matt Harvey | N.Y. Mets | 6-4 | 210 | 22 |
| 39 | RHP | Wily Peralta | Milwaukee | 6-4 | 240 | 22 |
| 40 | OF | Rymer Liriano | San Diego | 6-0 | 211 | 20 |
| 41 | RHP | Zach Lee | L.A. Dodgers | 6-4 | 190 | 20 |
| 42 | RHP | Drew Hutchison | Toronto | 6-2 | 165 | 21 |
| 43 | 3B | Cheslor Cuthbert | Kansas City | 6-1 | 190 | 19 |
| 44 | SS | Jean Segura | L.A. Angels | 5-11 | 160 | 21 |
| 45 | LHP | Drew Pomeranz | Colorado | 6-5 | 230 | 23 |
| 46 | 1B/LF | Jonathan Singleton | Houston | 6-2 | 215 | 20 |
| 47 | OF | Jake Marisnick | Toronto | 6-4 | 200 | 20 |
| 48 | OF | Christian Yelich | Miami | 6-4 | 189 | 20 |
| 49 | RHP | Joe Ross | San Diego | 6-3 | 185 | 18 |
| 50 | OF | Eddie Rosario | Minnesota | 6-0 | 170 | 20 |
| 51 | LHP | James Paxton | Seattle | 6-4 | 220 | 23 |
| 52 | LHP | Mike Montgomery | Kansas City | 6-4 | 185 | 22 |
| 53 | OF | Oscar Taveras | St. Louis | 6-2 | 180 | 19 |
| 54 | RHP | Daniel Corcino | Cincinnati | 5-11 | 165 | 21 |
| 55 | C | Gary Sanchez | N.Y. Yankees | 6-2 | 220 | 19 |
| 56 | 3B | Jonathan Schoop | Baltimore | 6-1 | 187 | 20 |
| 57 | SS | Nick Franklin | Seattle | 6-1 | 175 | 20 |
| 58 | RHP | Taylor Jungmann | Milwaukee | 6-6 | 220 | 22 |
| 59 | OF | Anthony Gose | Toronto | 6-1 | 190 | 21 |
| 60 | OF | George Springer | Houston | 6-3 | 205 | 22 |
| 61 | RHP | Allen Webster | L.A. Dodgers | 6-3 | 185 | 22 |
| 62 | SS | Xander Bogaerts | Boston | 6-3 | 185 | 19 |
| 63 | RHP | Chris Archer | Tampa Bay | 6-3 | 185 | 23 |
| 64 | SS | Billy Hamilton | Cincinnati | 6-1 | 160 | 21 |
| 65 | C | Yasmani Grandal | San Diego | 6-2 | 205 | 23 |
| 66 | 3B | Zack Cox | St. Louis | 6-0 | 215 | 22 |
| 67 | OF | Josh Bell | Pittsburgh | 6-4 | 195 | 19 |
| 68 | CF | Gary Brown | San Francisco | 6-1 | 190 | 23 |
| 69 | 1B | Yonder Alonso | San Diego | 6-2 | 240 | 24 |
| 70 | RHP | Garrett Richards | L.A. Angels | 6-3 | 215 | 23 |
| 71 | RHP | Jake Odorizzi | Kansas City | 6-2 | 175 | 21 |
| 72 | OF | Starling Marte | Pittsburgh | 6-1 | 170 | 23 |
| 73 | RHP | Sonny Gray | Oakland | 5-11 | 200 | 22 |
| 74 | RHP | Tyrell Jenkins | St. Louis | 6-4 | 180 | 19 |
| 75 | 3B | Mike Olt | Texas | 6-2 | 210 | 23 |
| 76 | RHP | Trevor May | Philadelphia | 6-5 | 215 | 22 |
| 77 | OF | Michael Choice | Oakland | 6-0 | 215 | 22 |
| 78 | RHP | Jarred Cosart | Houston | 6-3 | 180 | 21 |
| 79 | RHP | Nate Eovaldi | L.A. Dodgers | 6-3 | 195 | 21 |
| 80 | OF | Aaron Hicks | Minnesota | 6-2 | 185 | 22 |
| 81 | RHP | John Hellweg | L.A. Angels | 6-9 | 210 | 23 |
| 82 | 3B | Matt Davidson | Arizona | 6-3 | 225 | 20 |
| 83 | RHP | Dellin Betances | N.Y. Yankees | 6-8 | 260 | 23 |
| 84 | LHP | Enny Romero | Tampa Bay | 6-3 | 165 | 21 |
| 85 | OF | Oswaldo Arcia | Minnesota | 6-0 | 210 | 20 |
| 86 | OF | Robbie Grossman | Pittsburgh | 6-1 | 190 | 22 |
| 87 | OF | Mikie Mahtook | Tampa Bay | 6-1 | 200 | 22 |
| 88 | RHP | Taylor Guerrieri | Tampa Bay | 6-3 | 195 | 19 |
| 89 | CF | Brett Jackson | Chicago Cubs | 6-2 | 210 | 23 |
| 90 | 3B | Jedd Gyorko | San Diego | 5-10 | 195 | 23 |
| 91 | RHP | Chad Bettis | Colorado | 6-1 | 195 | 22 |
| 92 | RHP | Jordan Swagerty | St. Louis | 6-2 | 175 | 22 |
| 93 | C | Derek Norris | Oakland | 6-0 | 210 | 22 |
| 94 | C | Christian Bethancourt | Atlanta | 6-2 | 190 | 20 |
| 95 | SS | Javier Baez | Chicago Cubs | 6-0 | 180 | 19 |
| 96 | RHP | Aaron Sanchez | Toronto | 6-4 | 190 | 19 |
| 97 | RHP | Addison Reed | Chicago White Sox | 6-4 | 215 | 23 |
| 98 | RHP | Randall Delgado | Atlanta | 6-3 | 200 | 22 |
| 99 | RHP | Neil Ramirez | Texas | 6-3 | 185 | 22 |
| 100 | C | Blake Swihart | Boston | 6-1 | 175 | 19 |
90 comments
|
1 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Matt Davidson
I was a little surprised by him being included in the Top 100. Do other people have him in their Top 100’s?
And the scouting report included said that Davidson’s defense is projected to be average, and possibly even better than average at 3B. Has anyone else heard anything about him defensively that would suggest average or better at 3B?
Mason Williams at 34????
Maybe just a little bit of Yankee bias going on there…
Let's go Giants!!! clap clap clap-clap-clap
Let's go Giants!!! clap clap clap-clap-clap
Let's go Giants!!! clap clap clap-clap-clap
little high for my liking, but its not too far off, pretty proper evaluation of his potential
http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/mlb-big-league-stew/photo-logan-morrison-bryan-petersen-share-tub-drink-043548597.html
by SteveHoffmanSlowey on Feb 9, 2012 10:34 PM EST up reply actions
Braves bias?
He has Teheran at 18 and Delgado barely made the list
Stop me if you've heard this before. An Atlanta team chokes in the postseason...
You missed the point.
Kaw diesn’t have a Yankees bias. He just ranks the players in the order he likes them. 1 player higher than consensus doesn’t change anything.
What I will say
Is that there is no way in the world I would ever take Williams over Lindor. That ranking made no sense to me at all. Neither did calling ECB on your part though.
Wouldn't You Be Happy
if Lindor’s stats this year were the same as Williams’ stats next year? Both play up-the-middle positions and are expected to stay where they are, position-wise. Now what was that you were saying?
ehh lets see if he can hit in single A beloit in Midwest lg. next year, i have a feeling he might hit, he will have some power
but i’m not too confident in his K:BB ratio i think it will be ugly next year
he’ll hit a few homers and flash some tools but i’m not at all sold on his approach yet, ranking him at 50 is a joke, and i’m a twins fan
http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/mlb-big-league-stew/photo-logan-morrison-bryan-petersen-share-tub-drink-043548597.html
by SteveHoffmanSlowey on Feb 9, 2012 10:33 PM EST up reply actions
I'm the opposite
Coming out, a lot of scouts compared his approach to Bobby Abreau. I just don’t think the power numbers he showed last year are reality. But I do think he should be a solid avg/obp guy moving up. Very interesting prospect though.
Klaw
threw a CarGo comp on rosario too, which was pretty shocking
by DeathSpeculum on Feb 10, 2012 10:34 AM EST up reply actions
Joe Ross at #49 is the biggest surprise.
I had him at #278 on my list. Maybe I should go evaluate Ross again to see if I missed something or if Law is wacko.
Visit Blazing Fastball for unusual baseball info, history and prospect rankings.
nah i love this ranking, totally acceptable from KLAW i thought it might be a little higher
http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/mlb-big-league-stew/photo-logan-morrison-bryan-petersen-share-tub-drink-043548597.html
by SteveHoffmanSlowey on Feb 9, 2012 10:35 PM EST up reply actions
i have him right around 100 .....#278? what
http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/mlb-big-league-stew/photo-logan-morrison-bryan-petersen-share-tub-drink-043548597.html
by SteveHoffmanSlowey on Feb 9, 2012 10:35 PM EST up reply actions
He didn't make Baseball Instinct's top 360 at all.
… and they have the best list I have seen yet this year.
Visit Blazing Fastball for unusual baseball info, history and prospect rankings.
by AtomicDumpling on Feb 9, 2012 10:40 PM EST up reply actions
well that is their problem, because thats an obvious miss.
http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/mlb-big-league-stew/photo-logan-morrison-bryan-petersen-share-tub-drink-043548597.html
by SteveHoffmanSlowey on Feb 11, 2012 2:02 AM EST up reply actions
Hak-ju Lee at #12 is an agressive ranking...
I wonder if Law really, really loves Lee’s glove or if he projects Lee’s bat to advance further than others have.
Visit Blazing Fastball for unusual baseball info, history and prospect rankings.
I talked to a scout today on him
Said he might have a very empty batting average and makes careless errors, does not project to be a 1st division SS to him.
AJ Cole seems to be 180 lbs. soaking wet
http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/mlb-big-league-stew/photo-logan-morrison-bryan-petersen-share-tub-drink-043548597.html
by SteveHoffmanSlowey on Feb 9, 2012 11:07 PM EST reply actions
I mean he's skinny
but he’s also 6’4’’. He’s barely 20, he may end up filling out more (rhyme scheme unintentional).
Agreed on this...
Not that I was a pitcher, but I am 6’5" and was about 185 lbs until I hit 21-22 and then I went up to about 230 or so. Some guys fill out later.
beer has a tendency to do that
Fire Everyone
by billybeingbilly on Feb 10, 2012 10:44 AM EST up reply actions
+1
I am 6’4" and was 165 at 18, 175 at 21 and was around 210 at 30.
Cole is rail thin,
and he may just be one of those guys (Homer Bailey, Hamels) who never packs on muscle but still maintains very good stuff. Keep in mind that long muscles don’t bulge but that they’re just as strong or stronger than shorter muscles. Also, he was sick at the beginning of 2011 and (amazingly) lost some more weight. Depending on when the picture/video you’re looking at was shot it may reflect that.
by charles wallace on Feb 10, 2012 12:16 PM EST up reply actions
Re: Casey Kelly top 50
Agree. Seems more like a 4th starter at this point. MAYBE a #3 in Petco…
by Markus Potter on Feb 10, 2012 4:32 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
John Hellweg's placement is agressive
considering he’s only been good for 64 innings as a starter. I guess Klaw knows something we don’t? Maybe he’s adjusting for league as well, since California is kind of a hitter’s haven.
hellweg is a stud
hardest thrower in milb, elite groundball rate, allowed ZERO homers (after the move to starter) in the Cal league, wicked curveball. may have one of the highest ceilings in all of any pitcher in baseball.
by DeathSpeculum on Feb 10, 2012 10:56 AM EST up reply actions
He's got such great stuff
that Law is clearly gambling on the ceiling. Nothing wrong with that. There’s definitely a chance he doesn’t maintain his delivery and the control that came with it, and if you’re pessimistic then he’s probably much riskier for you.
by charles wallace on Feb 10, 2012 12:34 PM EST up reply actions
yeah i think this or Corcino is my biggest placement suprise.
like ‘em both just didn’t consider either one for top 100 more in the 120-160 range for me.
http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/mlb-big-league-stew/photo-logan-morrison-bryan-petersen-share-tub-drink-043548597.html
by SteveHoffmanSlowey on Feb 11, 2012 1:51 AM EST up reply actions
Mahtook two spots ahead of Jackson?
riiiiiight….I like Mahtook, but Jackson is who he wants to be when he grows up
are they even that similar?
i thought mahtook was supposed to have better contact?
by blue bulldog on Feb 10, 2012 11:29 AM EST up reply actions
I think they had similar strikeout numbers in college
but I also doubt Mahtook ever walks as much as Jackson. What I meant was that Mahtook has a similar game, with across the board solid tools…just none of them (speed, power, defense) project to be quite as good as any of Jackson’s.
by PrincetonCubs on Feb 10, 2012 5:21 PM EST up reply actions
As always, Law's list is a great conversation starter
I disagree with parts, but it is what it is. Law seems like someone who doesn’t mind stirring things and he clearly has no problem trusting his gut. Some of these rankings will look prescient a year from now and some will look down right awful.
i think you're upset because in his Chat he called Adrelton Simmons one of the worst/ most overrated prospects in baseball
Law prettty much thinks Simmons might get to AAA, and probably the majors because of his D but he’s a 5th, 6th infielder.
no power, no stolen bases, not much eye. All that athletiscm and great D only takes you so far.
http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/mlb-big-league-stew/photo-logan-morrison-bryan-petersen-share-tub-drink-043548597.html
by SteveHoffmanSlowey on Feb 11, 2012 1:54 AM EST up reply actions
gotta say don't agree, I actually like Andrelton Simmons more than law does, just not as much as nixa ;)
http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/mlb-big-league-stew/photo-logan-morrison-bryan-petersen-share-tub-drink-043548597.html
by SteveHoffmanSlowey on Feb 11, 2012 2:04 AM EST up reply actions
Andrelton Simmons
is a low ceiling high floor guy to me. If you have good defense and can play SS, it’s exceedingly easy to be a 1-2 WAR guy in the majors. Just look at Alcides Escobar.
But it’s not surprising at all to me that KLaw doesn’t like him as a prospect. He cares too much about upside.
by blue bulldog on Feb 11, 2012 2:36 AM EST up reply actions
Low ceiling?
I don’t understand this take on a potential elite defensive SS. Basically if he can post a .340 OBP he’s at least a 3 win player. If he can be average offensively he’s a 4 win player. At the more aggressive end of realistic outcomes (say .300/.365/.420) he’s a 5 to 6 win player.
exactly
at the more aggressive end of realistic outcomes, Simmons is a 5-6 win player. i would say that Simmons has less than a 5% chance at reaching those outcomes, and maybe even a less than 1% chance
ditto with the average offensively he’s a 4 win player. if people thought the probabilities of this were higher, he’d be making Top 50 lists, let alone Top 100 lists.
the point to me, is that the chance of Simmons reaching 5-6 WAR (and even 3-4 WAR) is significantly lower than a lot of other guys in the league, though the chance of Simmons reaching 2 WAR is significantly higher than a lot of other guys in the league
that, to me, is definitionally what a low ceiling high floor guy looks like
by blue bulldog on Feb 11, 2012 1:43 PM EST up reply actions
Low ceiling guys usually don't have any realistic chance of reaching 4 or more wins
At least that’s what I’m thinking of when I think of low ceiling.
And Simmons has ranked much higher on other lists. The MLB.com one had him 65 and BA has already said he’ll be somewhere in their top 100. So some people clearly think the percentages of a higher ceiling aren’t all that low.
i'm not sure what you mean by
“low ceiling guys usually don’t have any realistic chance of reaching 4 or more wins”
it’s all relative. a low ceiling guy has a lower chance at reaching 4 or more wins than a high ceiling guy. so whereas maybe Klaw would say Simmons has a less than 5% chance at reaching 5-6 WAR, he’d probably say some guy like Billy Hamilton has a 5-10% chance at reaching 5-6 WAR (just using Hamilton as a name, because Klaw had him ranked at 64).
i guess i can see that, and based on the importance Klaw ranks on upside, i can completely understand his personal desire to leave Simmons off the Top 100
by blue bulldog on Feb 11, 2012 6:22 PM EST up reply actions
To me a low ceiling guy has essentially no chance of reaching 5-6 WAR
Your definition apparently differs. Agree to disagree
you see things in such a rigid way
Do you think anyone saw Buehrle being what he is? There are always guys that far exceed their ceiling. Ceiling is not absolute or every players ceiling would be Ace/middle lineup hitter and every floor would be “out of baseball”.
my favorite example is Brandon Webb
nobody in baseball would have said Webb’s ceiling was a Cy Young winner before he reached the majors
it’s much more useful in my opinion to speak about floors/ceilings by simply comparing prospects relative to each other on their probabilities of reaching 1-2 WAR (for floor) and 5-6 WAR (for ceiling)
by blue bulldog on Feb 12, 2012 2:37 AM EST up reply actions
I use reasonable floor and ceiling instead
Basically what I can actually see the prospect doing without his skill set being fundamentally changed. Webb is someone whose skill set fundamentally changed IMO.
That's the take I have
I do think you break this rule a bit with Simmons when you talk 5 or 6 war.
No, I just think we see him differently
I don’t think his skills need to fundamentally change for him to hit for a .300 average, post a .065 ISOd, and a .120 ISO. Its obviously not very likely, as it would basically involve maxing out what he has, but I still think its reasonable. Your opinion probably differs.
This
In fact he won the batting title this year in a league where no one hit, so the .300 is fairly realistic, and he could some more weight to be able to drive the ball better without becoming too big for SS, he did show good gap power this year
Mike Scott was what Willis was talking about.
this is more a tangential point
but in what way did Webb’s skill set fundamentally change?
he’d always been an extreme groundballer in the minors (14 HR in 1600 BF lol), and it’s not like his major league strikeout rates/walk rates went drastically different from his minor league ones
also, no offense, but this seems like a rather weird way to think about prospect development. every prospect’s skill-set changes as they go through the minors, and go into the majors. where’s the bright line that says the change is fundamental?
even when players reach the majors, their skill-set still “fundamentally” changes. look at Tim Lincecum. when he broke onto the scene, he used his dominating curveball and high mid-90’s fastball to get hitters out. three years later, he now lives off a two-seamer low in the zone and a devastating changeup.
the point is that your skill-set has to be constantly changing. good players learn how to adjust to the league as well as adjust to the league adjusting to them. i think a major point of prospect projection is to figure out which prospects are going to be good even as they are forced to adapt and change their skill sets.
by blue bulldog on Feb 12, 2012 1:50 PM EST up reply actions
His stuff wasn't seen as elite because until Webb, Lowe, Wang, etc.
sinkerballers were not seen as much more than #3 or back end starters.
there are minor changes like improving a curve, etc.
and then there are fundamental changes. I guess it’s a matter of how we want to look at it and what we determine is “likely”.
For example if a pitcher has a skillset to be a #3 pitcher and then adds 3mph and becomes a #2 or even #1 then I consider that a fundamental change.
Or if a pitcher adds a plus pitch they didn’t have before. If the pitcher had a pitch that flashed plus well that is different.
Personally I prefer to rank on a more realistic ceiling and whenever the pitcher makes fundamental changes: velocity, command, off-speed pitches – then I like to rank them again.
i still see it as a probability issue
and probabilities that change over time given more information/development. i don’t think we’re disagreeing enormously (in terms of final outcomes), but i think the way we think about it is a bit different.
back to AZ prospects (only because I’m more familiar with them). Tyler Skaggs was a back-end Top 100 guy last year, because scouts were projecting him as a No. 3 type starter. after a year of developing, his stuff improved, he showed consistently good results, and now scouts are projecting him as a No. 2 type starter, and he’s popping up on lists as a Top 25 guy.
when he was ranked as a back-end Top 100 guy, it didn’t mean that he had no chance at becoming a No. 2 type starter. it only meant that the chance of him becoming one was a lot lower (in the opinion of most scouts) than many other pitching prospects. but after time passed and developmental factors kicked in, the probability of Skaggs becoming a No. 2 type starter increased a lot (in the opinion of most scouts).
Poker Analogy: You’re holding 7/8 suited against pocket Aces straight up. Pre-flop, you have only like a 15% chance at winning (or something like that). However, depending on what cards show up on the flop, you could drastically improve your odds to around 40-50%. The part that I’m trying to emphasize though, is that the 15% probability of winning pre-flop incorporates the possibility of you dramatically improving your odds to 40-50% after the flop, as well as the possibility that nothing breaks for you on the flop and you’re left with 0-5% probability of winning.
Same with Skaggs’s back-end Top 100 ranking last year. It already incorporated the possibility of him moving up in a year and increasing the probability of his ability to become a No. 2 type starter. It just happened that Skaggs caught the big breaks when the flop showed up.
by blue bulldog on Feb 12, 2012 6:26 PM EST up reply actions
I get where you are coming from
and if someone like Skaggs had a projectable body where scouts felt he might gain a few ticks on his fastball we wouldn’t expect him to add that velocity but it would be in the realm of possibility. Whether it be 10% or whatever.
There are also pitchers that are just learning a change or some other pitch and it might flash plus. That’s also in the realm of possibility.
But when a pitcher doesn’t throw any sliders or throws 90 and doesn’t have projectability – if they add a wipeout slider or gain 3mph we don’t expect that at all. It’s off the charts. We always knew it’s possible a pitcher learns a new pitch or gains or loses velocity. We just don’t account for it. I guess you could say it was sitting on that 1 or 2% that we just ignore?
I do agree that with guys like Skaggs there is already some accounting for it. Take a look at raw pitchers with extreme arm speed – they will usually get a higher bump because that arm speed often is a precursor to excellent breaking stuff. It’s why I’m surprised Syndergaard isn’t ranked higher in many lists, a pitcher that touches 98 and sits mid 90’s with good command of his fastball. With the type of armspeed if he masters the curve, which is decent already, and gets a passable change he will be a #2 pitcher. And yet he is outside the top 100 for many. IMO he is lumped into the throws extremely hard but no control and lack of secondaries group – which does not suit him.
That's why I said "ESSENTIALLY no chance"
Its a reasonable floor and ceiling, not a an actual floor and ceiling. In no way do I “see things in such a rigid way.”
What part of my comment makes you think I'm upset?
I take Law for what he is. He’s a good writer with eclectic tastes and a snarky sense of humor. I simply don’t think he’s especially good (or bad for that matter) at ranking prospects. As he has said himself, he’s not a professional talent evaluator. Its not like I’m not giving him credit or anything…I said myself that some of his rankings will look prescient a year from now when we look back on them. I just think his style leads to quite a few big misses as well.
As for Simmons, I hadn’t even read Law’s chat yet, so no that had nothing to do with it. Obviously I disagree with him, but I understand why he’s down on Simmons. If anything I have more trouble with his comments on Teheran (which simply don’t make sense to me) and his placement of Delgado.
Why did you feel the need to immediately bring this back to Simmons in a post where I wasn’t even the least bit condescending about Law’s rankings?
i am pretty sure
That klaw is a ‘pro talent evaluator’. He has worked in a front office and turned down another opportunity to again recently.
Those aren't really the same things
Do you think Law’s job in Toronto or the GM spot in Houston would have been focused on personally evaluating players? Its more about managing scouts and correctly evaluating the information that they can provide to you. I always go back to John Schuerholz’s comment about his job where he essentially said “my job wasn’t to evaluate baseball players, it was to evaluate scouts.”
Like I said, that is a comment Law himself made previously in a chat.
idk
Like Pedro said, he is paid by ESPN to travel around and watch video of players and write about what he observes…and yea I’m fairly certain he has and would be directly doing that if he took another FO job.
I read almost every klaw chat and don’t recall him saying that, but could have missed it, though it does not sound like something he would say unless he was being snarky.
He doesn't really travel around a lot
Part of the reason he relocated to AZ was so that he’d have a few good chances each year to watch prospects in his backyard. And ESPN is paying him to write about these prospects and get them page views and Insider subscriptions, and his wit, sense of humor, and writing ability matter much more in that capacity than his actual ability to evaluate prospects. No one is really grading him on how accurate he is.
You honestly believe that Law’s job, if he had been hired as the GM of the Astros, would have involved traveling around and watching prospects? If that’s what you think GMs do, I’d suggest that you might not know as much about how MLB front offices work as you think.
Thought I had read that, but I guess it was a more general job
Either way he’s not being hired for his scouting abilities. He’s being hired for his overall skill set and general intelligence. He’s not being hired as a scout.
"he’s not a professional talent evaluator"
Isn’t he paid by ESPN to evaluate talent? Isn’t that the definition of “professional talent evaluator”?
by pedrophile on Feb 11, 2012 1:15 PM EST up reply actions 2 recs
No, he's paid to write about prospects
He’s a professional writer, not a professional talent evaluator. Do you really think ESPN cares if he is accurate at projecting prospects? His job is to drive web traffic and pull in Insider subscriptions.
'(Keith Law) is a good writer with eclectic tastes and a snarky sense of humor'
Perception is interesting. I suppose I could give you the third of these although it comes off as formulaic to me (think fish in a barrel during his chats), but I don’t feel he’s a particularly talented writer & I don’t think reality cooking shows constitute eclectic tastes. It might to some folks though, who knows.
I think Law is more or less accessible to the general hoi polloi & he’s found something of a role on ESPN catering to an extreme niche by means of furthering something of a guise when in an appropriate environment. He doesn’t play this extreme character when he’s on any sort of mainstream AM or studio show though. His list reads fine to me (i’m with him on Matt Davidson, Mike Mahtook & Nathan Eovaldi being Top 100 guys for example)but the whole thing is obviously beyond subjective. It’s just a form of entertainment.
I was thinking of not just cooking, but also board games and books
I find the cooking talk by far the least interesting of those three. I probably respect KLaw’s opinions on board games and books more than I do his opinions on prospects (just so no one is confused this isn’t a shot at his prospect stuff, I just love his takes on board games and books).
didn't like his choice of books
after all he loved the book by Lev Grossman where I found the lead character so self-pitying that I wanted to vomit. That and the book was very slow for large parts of it.
Also sounds like he is a big espresso afficionado but in a chat he admitted he owns a “super automatic”. Nothing wrong with that if you want good coffee and bad espresso. But afficionados, which I am not, loathe super automatics.
Then again he never comes out and says he is an expert in any of these things. He just openly talks about what he likes.
I think he is a better scout than you give him credit for – especially when he criticizes Braves prospects :)
And reading through the chat
You comments make it sound much worse than it is. He mentions him as overrated and says he doesn’t buy the bat yet. I don’t see where he says anything along the lines of “Simmons might get to AAA.”
Klaw points
Keep in mind he stated that this year he is shifting the weighting even more towards upside vs. risk, so if you have a favorite guy whose ceiling is perceived to be a starter but not a great one, will get dinged in this list.
Also, it will be interesting to look at Klaw’s “hit rate” on prospect evals vs. some of the more established sources, including John. Both John & Klaw use what I feel is a similar blend of traditional scouting/observation and saber.
What I give Klaw some points for is I believe he started to drop rankings for hitters whose contact & K rates showed early flaws (and to some degree, Ps who show the opposite, inability to get Ks). John has started looking at this more closely recently as well especially as part of his last-few-years review. Klaw is quick to move such guys off his top rankings, despite an outward appearance of great tools, if they show an inability to fix the flaws. Hicks a good example, Vitters is another where most ranking services stayed higher on them longer.
So Nixa I’d probably disagree – I think he is especially good at this, and while I cross-reference him with other sources a lot, by generally paying attention to his assessments, I’ve done better than I think I would if I had followed other ranking services who held onto the tools guys longer.
You realize Law still had Vitters #30 overall just 2 years ago, right?
For comparisons sake, Baseball America NEVER ranked Vitters that highly and had him 40 spots lower on their 2010 list. So how exactly are you coming to the conclusion that he was quicker to drop Vitters than most other ranking services? I honestly think he was the last one on that boat (I’m pretty sure no one had him higher on their pre-2010 list).
At not point have I said Law should be completely ignored or anything or the sort. While I said he isn’t especially good, I also said he isn’t especially bad. He’ll have some huge whiffs, but he’ll be a year ahead of the curve on some other guys. Law is definitely someone to listen too as long as you understand what he is.
I could be wrong on Vitters, I thought when Klaw dropped him off his list that he was still #1 on BA’s Cubs list or just behind Jackson. Any case, even if he ranked him highly on skills, he was willing to change his mind when the contact issues did not resolve. My point on Vitters was that he went from #30 two years ago to off the list last year, and this time last year I saw other services still ranking him highly.
Who still had him ranked highly last year?
I know he was off BA’s top 100 list
Yeah, the Cubs had a pretty bad system, especially per BA
Only two of those guys cracked the top 100, so I think its a safe assumption that Vitters was pretty far removed from the list. Not someone they seem to have been especially high on.
Scratch that
The 4 guys ahead of him did make the list, they were just listed as Rays instead. Its tough to tell exactly how high they were on Vitters though since their could be a small gap between him and Lee or a large one. I mean none of the guys behind Vitters were highly thought of either. None of Vitters tools graded out the best in the system either.
Klaw and Saber
Klaw has never given me the impression that he cares about sabermetrics, or any type of evaluation of minor league statistics in general.
While I disagree with his approach to ranking prospects, I find the way he looks at prospects to be very useful, because of how heavy it is weighted towards upside. Essentially, looking at where a prospect ranks for him gives me a good idea of the relative probabilities of the prospect’s higher end outcomes. I can then use that to adjust my own thoughts on a prospect (because I tend to overvalue low risk types).
by blue bulldog on Feb 11, 2012 1:49 PM EST up reply actions
way off base
It’s pretty well known that Klaw is a huge fan of advanced metrics. That’s very different from comparing 1 minor leaguer to another on the basis of stats alone, which he doesn’t do because in most cases the comparisons are invalid (hitter/pitcher friendly environments, different ages, years in pro ball, etc). But he very clearly looks at K rates, contact rates, etc when evaluating talent and uses stats to cross-reference what his eyes & other scouting sources tell him. When he got the job in Toronto it was as their lead stats analyst.
http://www.sabernomics.com/sabernomics/index.php/2007/11/espns-keith-law-interview/
from the same article
Jeff Francoeur, what is the deal with this guy? What is he going to become?
I know everyone’s all excited because he upped his walk rate, but seriously, 37 unintentional walks in almost 700 plate appearances is unacceptable for a corner bat. He does have legit 30-homer power, and like a lot of players of this type he’ll have a .300/.335/.550 year somewhere along the line, but the volatility in his average and the ceiling on his OBP will always keep him from becoming a star.
That was in 2007. Pretty good analysis.
my bad
i guess i just assumed he didn’t care about sabermetrics because he seemed to scoff at using any type of minor league numbers in his chats
by blue bulldog on Feb 12, 2012 1:53 PM EST up reply actions

by 












