MLB.com's AFL Top 25

by rhd on Nov 18, 2025 2:09 AM EST

Done by Jonathan Mayo. Short Scouting Reports are included on the website for the #1-#20.

1. Bryce Harper, OF, Nationals

2. Danny Hultzen, LHP, Mariners

3. Mike Trout, OF, Angels

4. Gerrit Cole, RHP, Pirates

5. Christian Bethancourt, C, Braves

6. Mike Olt, 3B, Rangers

7. Wil Myers, OF, Royals

8. Nolan Arenado, 3B, Rockies

9. Michael Choice, OF, A's

10. Jedd Gyorko, 3B, Padres

11. Oscar Taveras, OF, Cardinals

12. Mikie Mahtook, OF, Rays

13. Will Middlebrooks, 3B, Red Sox

14. Nick Franklin, SS, Mariners

15. Anthony Gose, OF, Blue Jays

16. Jed Bradley, LHP, Brewers

17. Gary Brown, OF, Giants

18. Jean Segura, SS, Angels

19. Joe Panik, INF, Giants

20. Sean Gilmartin, LHP, Braves

21. Tim Wheeler, OF, Rockies

22. Robbie Grossman, OF, Pirates

23. Junior Lake, SS, Cubs

24. Scooter Gennett, 2B, Brewers

25. Adam Eaton, OF, Diamondbacks

List is OK I guess, but several curious items:

- Bethancourt ranked VERY high

- Dont think too many lists will have Hultzen above Trout.

- L Martin completely omitted

- Y Grandal completely omitted

- Gennett? He must really like him.

Also, several other guys that arguably could be on, particularly over a guy like Gennett: B Boxberger, Derek Norris, T Thornburg, T McNutt, N Ramirez, S Solis, M Purke, A Hicks, G Green, M Dominguez, J Vitters, T Beckham, C Colon, J Decker. The prospect status for a lot of these guys has slipped, but most of them made a BA League Top 20 and all still are prospects. And a lot of them had very good AFL campaigns, FWIW. Also, some of these guys didnt play much, but he didnt seem to have an AB or IP requirement, because Bradley made the list w only 8.3 IP. The teams played 36-38 games, so figure that a reasonable threshold would be 1 AB or 0.3 IP per game.

Tweet Comment 89 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Read More: Mike Trout (CF - ANA), Christian Bethancourt (C - ATL), Bryce Harper (CF - WAS)

Comments

Trey McNutt maybe should have been on there.

Junior Lake is an interesting player.

I really, really liked what I saw of Jed Bradley in his one inning during the AFL AS game or whatever that was.

by SenorGato on Nov 18, 2025 3:03 AM EST reply actions

McNutt

Why should he be on there? I realize it’s a hitter’s league, but 4K/9, 1.61 WHIP, following his 2nd straight unsuccessful attempt at AA. Doesn’t scream omission to me.

by killa on Nov 18, 2025 11:51 AM EST up reply actions

I thought McNutt was going to be really good.

I was really wrong. Turns out neither him nor Archer have done so hot, but Archer gets the nod. Just goes to show the Rays are smarter than me, not that that isn’t obvious.

by mr. maniac on Nov 18, 2025 6:41 PM EST up reply actions

McNutt also had nagging injuries all year

His stock is definitely down - as those injuries lead to worse stuff and command, but there’s plenty of time for him to recapture his 2010 form.

Bullpen Banter
MLB Bonus Baby
Twitter Account: @Ioffridus

by Jeff Reese on Nov 18, 2025 7:08 PM EST up reply actions

Yes, McNutt was hurt all year. Archer was just pretty bad and regressed in the areas we wanted to see growth.

I’m still taking McNutt by a solid margin.

www.bullpenbanter.com
twitter: @alskor

by alskor on Nov 19, 2025 1:05 PM EST up reply actions

I don't know

I think I’d take Archer, but it’s close. I want to see if McNutt’s stuff and command comes back before endorsing him.

Bullpen Banter
MLB Bonus Baby
Twitter Account: @Ioffridus

by Jeff Reese on Nov 19, 2025 5:39 PM EST up reply actions

looks alright, like the Panik inclusion

don’t like Nick Franklin (struggling) that high

Yoenis Cespedes
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aW9ge8l3jY8
^ the bottom video ^
MLB Move Type "B" compensation to the post second round, pre third round area.

by SteveHoffmanSlowey on Nov 18, 2025 3:11 AM EST reply actions

Last 10-14 days for Franklin have been strong,

particularly if you were to include the All-Star Game. My point being that his struggles came early in the AFL season.

by goyo70 on Nov 18, 2025 7:35 AM EST up reply actions

the thing about an AFL list

It’s basically impossible to get wrong or right, given the huge number of quality prospects in the league. I’m sure the BA list will look very different and generate its share of grievances.

by mrkupe on Nov 18, 2025 3:42 AM EST reply actions

Grossman @ 22?

dude destroyed. everything. he should be top-10 of the AFL based on his AFL performance.

by JoelGuzman'sScout on Nov 18, 2025 3:58 AM EST reply actions

By that rationale Myers and Olt should be 1-2.

Not saying you’re wrong, mind you.

www.bullpenbanter.com
twitter: @alskor

by alskor on Nov 18, 2025 11:33 AM EST up reply actions

The entire

list is weird. Playing a bit of the homer card, should a guy like Joe Panik be ahead of Grossman. I don’t see Panik having any better of a ceiling, and he has no substantial pro data, while Grossman is basically the same age coming off a excellent year in A+ ball and putting up great AFL numbers…

Olt ahead of Myers.
Hultzen over Trout
Choice and Mahtook over Gose.

The criteria here can’t be just, who’s the best prospect overall, can it?

Da'Sean Butler - A Mountaineer Legend

by McCutchenIsTheTruth on Nov 18, 2025 2:10 PM EST up reply actions

I agree

I think it is more of a “who impressed me most” kind of list based on what he saw and, who he spoke to. This is why I don’t like numbered lists without reasoning behind the numbering. I’ve kinda gotten over it a bit though.

Some people just don’t take the listing part seriously and, thats ok I guess. I just don’t always know why they don’t list a bunch of players they liked without numbering them sometimes.

Maybe he thinks Bethancourt will be a better major league than Will Myers? Maybe not? Who knows?

" It's never just a game when you're winning" - George Carlin

by casejud on Nov 18, 2025 2:24 PM EST up reply actions

Grossman

has a broken hamate bone. Underwent surgery. That should drop him some, as it may deplete his power.

by Hairylady on Nov 18, 2025 6:19 AM EST reply actions

It should not affect his stock at all

I’m not a Grossman fan. I don’t even think I’d have put him on this list, but the hamate injury will not cause him to miss any time, and the power sapping nature typically only lasts a year after the surgery. It will have no impact on his big league career (which is what we’re trying to project with any ranking).

Bullpen Banter
MLB Bonus Baby
Twitter Account: @Ioffridus

by Jeff Reese on Nov 18, 2025 8:27 AM EST up reply actions

he'll be fine

Nobody will hold it against him (in fact, people seem all too willing to give plenty of credit in lieu of performance for such players), and power was never a big part of Grossman’s game, anyways.

It is a shame, though, as he really got some great buzz during the AFL, where it wouldn’t have been a surprise to have seen him get lost in the background with more obviously gifted players. I think it’s time to start moving him up a bit. I was leaning pretty heavily towards B- on him, but that might end up as a B. Skeptical that he makes it into my top 100 even still, as there are a tremendous number of Grade B prospects this year. But he’s got a shot.

by mrkupe on Nov 18, 2025 8:47 AM EST up reply actions

Wow that's some big-time love for Bethancourt

I really hope he can figure out his approach at the plate, because he could be so much fun to watch if things go right. How many really athletic MLB catchers are there that also manage to have an 80 arm? If he refines his defense and is at least passable as a hitter, he could have a pretty good future in front of him.

by nixa37 on Nov 18, 2025 12:47 PM EST reply actions

Unclear what this list is supposed to be.

It’s not a straightforward future-performance prospect ranking, it’s not a performance ranking. Whatizit?

by Brownson on Nov 18, 2025 12:53 PM EST reply actions

I think it is just ranking

How good the players looked from a scouting perspective in the AFL. Although I can’t imagine Trout looked all that great, but maybe he looked way better than his #s would indicate.

by auclairkeithbc on Nov 18, 2025 12:54 PM EST up reply actions

Oscar

Ok, I promise not to discuss this to much further on this thread but, OTs ranking at 11 puts a least a little ding in the “he doesn’t have good scouting reports” argument perhaps?

Thats at least two, decent sets of eyes (Sickels, Mayo, + scouts that Mayo talked to) who were impressed with him, despite not stellar stats.

That’s a LOT of number one draft picks he was ranked ahead of on that list.

" It's never just a game when you're winning" - George Carlin

by casejud on Nov 18, 2025 1:25 PM EST reply actions

Maybe

I mean he still only came in 11 and didn’t rank ahead of a single guy I think is close to sniffing elite prospect status. Came in well behind Bethancourt who most seem to view as a borderline top 100 guy. I don’t think anyone has said that Taveras isn’t a good, solid, interesting prospect. A lot of people just don’t think he’s anything close to the sort of special prospect you and his MWL numbers make him out to be.

by nixa37 on Nov 18, 2025 1:37 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs

Fair enough

I guess the ranking doesn’t help my argument then. I’ll have stand alone on him then. Not a problem.

" It's never just a game when you're winning" - George Carlin

by casejud on Nov 18, 2025 2:05 PM EST up reply actions

OTs ranking at 11 puts a least a little ding in the "he doesn’t have good scouting reports" argument perhaps?

Quotes that actually say this or it never happened.

(P.S. It never happened. That wasn’t what people were saying to you. You’ve completely misconstrued the argument.).

www.bullpenbanter.com
twitter: @alskor

by alskor on Nov 18, 2025 1:48 PM EST up reply actions

Relatively speaking

They didn’t say that Oscar was terrible but, there are several people who have said his scouting reports aren’t as good as his stats say or, as good as I think he is. You have to agree that is almost the entire argument about Taveras right?

I realize that people aren’t saying he is an awfull player but, I’m saying he is a future star player.

" It's never just a game when you're winning" - George Carlin

by casejud on Nov 18, 2025 2:03 PM EST up reply actions

Right and people can disagree on him being a star while being completely reasonable

We get it, you think he’ll be a star. You don’t need to take anything that could possibly be construed as evidence supporting your side and try to cram it down peoples’ throats. The fact that you have now taken a paper about age being undervalued by MLB teams when it comes to HS prospects and a ranking where Taveras still only came in 11th among AFL prospects and didn’t rank ahead of a single guy that anyone is projecting to be a star as evidence that Taveras will be a star is just weird. You’re better than that.

by nixa37 on Nov 18, 2025 2:23 PM EST up reply actions

I did not do that

Both times I posed it as a question for discussion. I also made more iof a piouint that both Mayo and, Sickels were impressed with him visually than jut the ranking.

That paper was about age and, value, in general to me. It’s much bigger than anything to do with Taveras. I dfo think it totally applies to ALL young players, not just high school ones.

" It's never just a game when you're winning" - George Carlin

by casejud on Nov 18, 2025 2:27 PM EST up reply actions

I do think it totally applies to ALL young players, not just high school ones

The paper does not apply to all young players. We all know you believe it applies to all young players because you never stop talking about how important and undervalued ARL is. That doesn’t change the fact that the paper had absolutely nothing to do with that and you still trying to claim it as evidence for your opinion.

And you did not make a point that Mayo was visually impressed with him. You in fact only quoted Mayo’s ranking and not a single word of what impressed him about Taveras. And you’re trying to act like what Mayo has to say somehow disagrees with people who like Taveras, but simply don’t see him as a star, which it doesn’t at all.

by nixa37 on Nov 18, 2025 2:36 PM EST up reply actions

Freakin relax dude!

Read Mayo’s column. It says it is based on his observation and discussion with scouts, ok? I did mention that Sickels also visually was impressed with him. Its right there in plain English.

I also didn’t say this is definitive proof of anything or, an outstanding scouting report or, that they said he was going to be a star or, any of that stuff. I simply said it was a positive report on the guy.

As far RJs paper. I think that if he shows strong proof that two similaraly thought of HS players, one is 17 and one 19, that the 17 year old one has vastly more big league potential. I don’t think it is that bold of a step to think that two similarikly thought of minor league players, one 19 and the other 21, that the 19 year old has vastly more potential. I don’t that is that bold of a hypothesis. I’d have to go back and look but, I don’t think I stated it as fact or, anything.

Just because the study focused on High Scoolers doesn’t meen the results can’t show something more fundamental to the game. Remember, the entire measurement of the resuklts was based on major league performance and minor leaguers are rtight in the middle of that. Why can’t you open your mind on that a little?

In addition, I already said that you were right anyways. I’m okay with standing alone on Tavares if I have to. I don’t really need to convince anyone. It just seems obvious to me how good he is and, I find it hard to figure out why others don’t see him that way. It doesn’t matter in the long run and, I don’t need to twist any words to prove my point - its right there in the video, the numbers and, his age.

" It's never just a game when you're winning" - George Carlin

by casejud on Nov 18, 2025 2:54 PM EST up reply actions

The thing I liked

about the brief Taveras scouting report was:

“The power will continue to come as he matures.”

It’s a tossaway line (and it may be Mayo’s commonsense opinion, rather than actual scout’s insights), but it should at least obliquely negate some skepticism about O.T.’s future power grade. ;)

by Mekonsrock on Nov 18, 2025 2:33 PM EST up reply actions

The thing I liked was how he ranked 11th in the AFL, while you rank him 2nd in the minors

Not sure who that should begate skepticism about Oscar’s future power grade either. No one said he didn’t project to have any power or continue to add power over time. I seem to remember people being skeptical of you throwing a 65 (IIRC) future grade on his power. There is nothing that Mayo says about him even having plus power, simply that he will continue to add some as he ages.

by nixa37 on Nov 18, 2025 2:38 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs

begate should be negate

by nixa37 on Nov 18, 2025 2:50 PM EST up reply actions

Aren't we running out of things to not like about the guy?

If you are saying that everybody thinks his power will develop, and we know he puts bat on ball solidly and has an oustanding hit tool, and Sicklels and other say he looks like he runs and throws well and is toolsy, what is left?

What is the dissconnect left that doesn;t make him an elite prospect in your eyes? The only things left are that he was “lucky”, that he had a couple of hamstring pulls and, that he didn’t run out a couple groundballs.

I just don’t see a convincing argument against the kid.

" It's never just a game when you're winning" - George Carlin

by casejud on Nov 18, 2025 3:05 PM EST up reply actions

When have I ever said I didn't like something about Taveras?

There’s a huge distant between not liking something about a guy and not thinking he’s an elite prospect. I certainly think Taveras is a very interesting prospect. I haven’t put too much thought into rankings or anything, but I’d assume he’d at least crack my top 50 hitters with an outside shot of being top 50 overall depending on off-season reports and (hopefully) more looks at video.

I think the disconnect is in assuming so much about his hitting tools at this point. You see a star, while I see plus contact, above-average power, and average disciple in a OF corner as an exceedingly reasonable upside, with a decent risk that he never hits enough to hold down a corner OF job because he’s so far away.

by nixa37 on Nov 18, 2025 3:24 PM EST up reply actions

"There’s a huge distant between not liking something about a guy and not thinking he’s an elite prospect."

Exactly. Tons of players — guys like Mike Cameron, J.D. Drew, Corey Hart, Hunter Pence — have very good careers without being elite. I don’t think it’s a stretch to say that Taveras could end up having an impact similar to those guys without being elite, a term which has been reserved for players like Bonds, A-Rod, Piazza, just to name a few in the last couple of decades. Pence is especially pertinent with an unorthodox and max effort swing that many scouts doubted could survive, much less flourish, in the majors.

by blackoutyears on Nov 18, 2025 4:33 PM EST up reply actions

Good point

The piece missing here is that an elite prospect is different than an elite player. Cameron, Drew, Hart, and Pence are all guys who would have, or actually were among the top 30 prospects in thier given seasons.

I was never trying to assert that OT is good to be an absolutely elite major league player, just that among this group, this year, he is among the best prospects.

" It's never just a game when you're winning" - George Carlin

by casejud on Nov 18, 2025 4:44 PM EST up reply actions

That doesn't make any sense

A prospect’s relevance is tied to his future major league value. If a seemingly elite prospect turns out to be a less than elite major leaguer, then he was either not an elite prospect or something occurred which derailed him. Asserting anything else is missing the point of player evaluation.

by blackoutyears on Nov 18, 2025 5:28 PM EST up reply actions

It isn't

It’s simply being more realistic. Its just projecting only 7, 9 or 13 guys to be elite major leaguers ,instead of 25 or. 30 or, 35.

When a guy is accuartely ranked say, 55th. There just arten’t going to be 55 star players coming into the big leagues in one group of minor leaguers.

It doesn’t always meen something went wrong, though of course we all know players we though were sure things but, something did go wronmg. that isn’t always the case. It is usually thatwe were just too optomistic,.

All I’m saying, simpler, is that most people think that a guy who is say, ranked 7th is an elite prospect. I’m saying that sometimes, some years, even the 3rd ranked prospect isn’t going to be an elite major leaguer or, even the 1st ranked one.

" It's never just a game when you're winning" - George Carlin

by casejud on Nov 18, 2025 5:34 PM EST up reply actions

This dog still doesn't hunt,

because this idea of “one group of minor leaguers” is essentially meaningless. The minor leagues are a continuum, with players in various states of development. There is no group, or class, of prospects.

No one is saying that every player ranked in the top ten is elite. They’re saying they have the potential to be elite players if they maximize their potential.

by blackoutyears on Nov 18, 2025 5:41 PM EST up reply actions

Just vecause it moves

. . . doesn’t meen there aren’t a certtain amount let into the nmajors every season. That doesn’t it make it meaningless to count them.

They can’t all have potential to be elite unless it just happens to be a very, bvery exceptional year.

Isn’[t the more reasonable answer that people just aren’t choosy enough in puicking who is going to be an elite major leaguer?

I have become very choosy about who I project that way, instead of saying that there were 40 guys who had the potential but, things happen. What usually happens is that the player in question easn’t good enough.

" It's never just a game when you're winning" - George Carlin

by casejud on Nov 18, 2025 5:45 PM EST up reply actions

Just vecause it moves . . . doesn’t meen there aren’t a certtain amount let into the nmajors every season. That doesn’t it make it meaningless to count them.

Actually it is kind of meaningless to count them. If there was an infinite number of roster spots or there weren’t financial considerations on the part of the team, then sure it would make sense to count the number of players who made the majors in a given year and call them a class. That’s not the case though, it’s out of the player’s hands in most cases as to when they get called up. They can’t force a team to call them up or to trade them to a team that would use them.

http://bullpenbanter.com

RIP Randy "Macho Man" Savage

by gatling on Nov 18, 2025 5:50 PM EST up reply actions

I’m just talking about looking back 5, 10, 15 years later later and not projecting 30 pitchers to be aces, or 11 guys to be future MVPs or, 80 guys to be major league regulars.

I’m not talking about a “quaota” or, anthing like that. Im just talking about being realistic, from year to year, about the general amount of players that become major leaguers from a given snapshot/list of players at a given time. It is fairly consistent.

As an example, If I rank Oscar Taveras as my 13th best prospect that doesn’t meen I think he is going tio be an elite major league player. I could think he will be as good as Hunter Pence and that would be a reasonable ranking.

" It's never just a game when you're winning" - George Carlin

by casejud on Nov 18, 2025 6:04 PM EST up reply actions

"I’m just talking about looking back 5, 10, 15 years later later and not projecting 30 pitchers to be aces, or 11 guys to be future MVPs or, 80 guys to be major league regulars."

No one is doing that that I see.

I have no idea why you think Pence should have been rated the 13th best prospect in baseball in any given year. More nonsense.

by blackoutyears on Nov 18, 2025 6:10 PM EST up reply actions

Because

There aren’t more than 13 better players frtom that year

And his development is not unusual.

its the players who were ranked huigher than him that were errors.

I can fish out the list for you if you want.

" It's never just a game when you're winning" - George Carlin

by casejud on Nov 18, 2025 6:14 PM EST up reply actions

"Because There aren’t more than 13 better players frtom that year"

Meaningless. “That year” includes players who won’t start their major league careers for several years but who may be as good or better players, players who weren’t even (gasp) ranked at all.

by blackoutyears on Nov 18, 2025 6:27 PM EST up reply actions

Of course

One cant completely judge until ALL the players on a lit have a had a chance to reach the majors.

We can get a general idea of who is good fro the 2007 list though dude.

" It's never just a game when you're winning" - George Carlin

by casejud on Nov 18, 2025 6:38 PM EST up reply actions

"We can get a general idea of who is good fro the 2007 list though dude."

Really? Because my universe of prospects in 2007 wasn’t limited to the top 100 or 150 or 200 players on a list. Which list is ‘the" list btw? I’d love to subscribe to “the” list.

by blackoutyears on Nov 18, 2025 6:42 PM EST up reply actions

"The" list

. . .; is any list made that year, by anyone. They are .100 lists, .212 lists, and .333 lists.

" It's never just a game when you're winning" - George Carlin

by casejud on Nov 18, 2025 6:45 PM EST up reply actions

""The" list . . .; is any list made that year, by anyone."

It would have been common courtesy to tell me you were stoned. lol

by blackoutyears on Nov 18, 2025 6:47 PM EST up reply actions

"Isn’[t the more reasonable answer that people just aren’t choosy enough in puicking who is going to be an elite major leaguer?"

I have no idea who these people are. Everyone I know is trying to project future major league value. Period. If they rank players it’s based on what they expect that value to be. I don’t know anyone who says that there is fixed number of elite baseball prospects.

You’re completely missing the point on your ridiculous “prospect class” designation. The average prospect spends years in the minors.

by blackoutyears on Nov 18, 2025 5:52 PM EST up reply actions

His class is simply, his last year in the minors before he gets called up. The last year he can e classified as a minor leaguer.

It isn’t about having an exact count.; That isn’t the pouibnt. The point ios looking back 10 years later and not projecting 75 guys to be major league reguklars and, 40 to be stars. It isn’t realistic.

There are differneces in a given year but, it is consistent from year to year.

" It's never just a game when you're winning" - George Carlin

by casejud on Nov 18, 2025 5:58 PM EST up reply actions

"His class is simply, his last year in the minors before he gets called up."

A purely meaningless distinction. There’s no way to know when ranking players whether that’s their “last year” before losing prospect status. And since I’ve never seen a list where players weren’t ranked who were years away from their major league careers, it’s completely nonsensical. Drivel.

by blackoutyears on Nov 18, 2025 6:06 PM EST up reply actions

Its not drivel

We are talking about looking back years later and, learning friom mistakes.

Of course guys are ranked sometimes several times but, the last ranking before they go to the najors is the one we look at years later.

If you think it is drivel then, nevermind.

" It's never just a game when you're winning" - George Carlin

by casejud on Nov 18, 2025 6:09 PM EST up reply actions

What mistakes?

Whether Hunter Pence is ranked 38th or 87th or 13th, each of those rankings is an acknowledgment that he is a highest percentile prospect. The mistake is in your thinking that those numbers are in any way far apart in the scheme of prospectdom.

by blackoutyears on Nov 18, 2025 6:13 PM EST up reply actions

LOL

Well, then, why the fuck number them at all?

He may be 87th that year but that just meens that 65 guys were ranked ahead who weren’t better.

Anybody can take the top 87 prospects and say that they are the best in the minor leaguyes. We are projecting major league resultsd! I thought you jut said that.

" It's never just a game when you're winning" - George Carlin

by casejud on Nov 18, 2025 6:17 PM EST up reply actions

Dense

Looking for precision in player rankings is absurd. Of course, rankings are basically absurd, but as long as you realize they’re not strictly predictive of future production (they couldn’t possibly be) then they’re harmless fun.

But this has been explained to you already many times over.

by blackoutyears on Nov 18, 2025 6:22 PM EST up reply actions

precision

Thats like sayying that because a batter can’t bat 1.000, that there is no reason to attempt to get as many hits as possible.

Because it is impresise, therin lies the quest to get asd close as possiible to precision. That fact that it is unatainable makes it even more interesting to me.

Lists are as predictive of future performance to varrying degrees, depending on the skill of the person doing the list over time.

" It's never just a game when you're winning" - George Carlin

by casejud on Nov 18, 2025 6:31 PM EST up reply actions

"Because it is impresise, therin lies the quest to get asd close as possiible to precision.:"

Quest being the operative word. More Don Quixote than Sir Galahad in your case…

by blackoutyears on Nov 18, 2025 6:36 PM EST up reply actions

Pence

Like your Pence example. In an average season, Pence would be say, the 13th best prospect that year, hypothetically.

You don;’t have to project to be an elite major leaguer, as you are defining one, to project as a top prospect in a given year.

They may be two, or three, or zero future elite major leaguers in dwelling in the minor leagues in a given season.

" It's never just a game when you're winning" - George Carlin

by casejud on Nov 18, 2025 5:40 PM EST up reply actions

It's a pointless exercise

You’re not talking about prospects.

by blackoutyears on Nov 18, 2025 5:43 PM EST up reply actions

Pence was a propect once

His development is njot particularily mysterious. He was avery good minior leaguer and developed fairly normally.

I don’t know exactly where he was ranked - generally - 38th by BA. He coukld have been ranked much higher - wasn’t and isn’t an elite major leaguer - and the ranling is still justified.;

I don’t know whty exactly that this is a complicated point.

" It's never just a game when you're winning" - George Carlin

by casejud on Nov 18, 2025 5:49 PM EST up reply actions

I have no idea

what the alleged “point” is. There is none. Pence was not an elite prospect and has turned out to be a non-elite player. He was a good and somewhat underrated prospect and has turned out to be a good player. If anything you’re needlessly complicating something that is actually very simple.

by blackoutyears on Nov 18, 2025 5:55 PM EST up reply actions

There is a point

That all the guys you mebntioned above would have been perfectly appropriate as top 20 prospects.

Pence could and should have been quite a bit higher than 38th.

" It's never just a game when you're winning" - George Carlin

by casejud on Nov 18, 2025 6:10 PM EST up reply actions

You're getting

completely sidetracked by a ranking position, which is why lists are for suckers. I think you need to start moving on to a more serious sphere of player evaluation.

by blackoutyears on Nov 18, 2025 6:15 PM EST up reply actions

Lol

Its just the final step in a long process for those who take it somewhat seriously.

The lists are as serios as the person doing them.

I look at and evaluate and read about players constantly. How the hell could I hope to list them accurately if I didn’t?

" It's never just a game when you're winning" - George Carlin

by casejud on Nov 18, 2025 6:20 PM EST up reply actions

"The lists are as serios as the person doing them."

Or, serious people don’t spend time ranking players at all…

by blackoutyears on Nov 18, 2025 6:24 PM EST up reply actions

Hey Man

. . . belieeeve me, I’m delighted that you aren’t participating :) It’s been nice so far.

" It's never just a game when you're winning" - George Carlin

by casejud on Nov 18, 2025 6:33 PM EST up reply actions

Um...yeah

by blackoutyears on Nov 18, 2025 6:37 PM EST up reply actions

Nobody doesn't "like the guy."

Its a question of degree. I like him plenty… just not as much as you do.

www.bullpenbanter.com
twitter: @alskor

by alskor on Nov 19, 2025 1:07 PM EST up reply actions

I think this list was written BEFORE the AFL started.

by Ryno1984 on Nov 18, 2025 4:35 PM EST reply actions

Ha! nice...

by blackoutyears on Nov 18, 2025 4:37 PM EST up reply actions

I loved the Choice comment

“Choice hit 30 homers during the regular season, but it was in Class A and in the California League. The power is legit — he hit six homers in just 66 at-bats here”

Yes, because the AFL is not known as an extremely hitter-friendly environment.

by blackoutyears on Nov 18, 2025 4:39 PM EST reply actions

very odd indeed

he made some really odd comments during draft time too. like he fundamentally misunderstands things.

by auclairkeithbc on Nov 18, 2025 4:42 PM EST up reply actions

not subjective things

stuff like - the batter strikes out a lot, so you know he’ll be able to maintain a high batting average. something on that level.

by auclairkeithbc on Nov 18, 2025 4:43 PM EST up reply actions

I always

blamed his draft oddities on the format. He and Callis get tapped for comment once and hour and have fifteen seconds to talk. But yeah, considering some of the things I read like this, there are some head-scratching moments.

by blackoutyears on Nov 18, 2025 5:25 PM EST up reply actions

Just saying

He may be speaking to the experience level of the pitching in relation to the Cal League. Oviosly both of the run environments are tremendous.

" It's never just a game when you're winning" - George Carlin

by casejud on Nov 18, 2025 5:36 PM EST up reply actions

No

No one who writes about baseball prospects says that AFL home runs are legit. And there’s no case to be made for the pitching in the AFL to be challenging, especially this year.

by blackoutyears on Nov 18, 2025 5:46 PM EST up reply actions

The pitching isn't great

. . .or, even good but, I think there was more talented and experienced opitchers there than in the Cal League. I think the qulality of the pitchers may have been better. We are talking A+ guys vs AA, AAA and guy with some major league experience + some high draft picks making thier debut tossed in. That may be what he was referring to.

I agree completely that 6 homers there doesn’t affirm anything but, that may be what he was trying to say.

You know what, I’ve spent a whole spring going to games down there and I don’t even think one can tell if the pitching was good or bad. The run environment is so bad. The ball carries to an absurd degree.

" It's never just a game when you're winning" - George Carlin

by casejud on Nov 18, 2025 5:55 PM EST up reply actions

"The ball carries to an absurd degree."

If you know this, then why the fuck are you wasting my time parsing Mayo’s comment?

by blackoutyears on Nov 18, 2025 5:57 PM EST up reply actions

I just told you why!

More tghan once! Bercause he isnt referring to the run environment. he is referring to the pitching in said environment.

Go look at the individual pitchers. Theuy are better than the average pitcher in the Cal League. I’m not being deceptive. I was very clear twice.

" It's never just a game when you're winning" - George Carlin

by casejud on Nov 18, 2025 6:13 PM EST up reply actions

"Bercause he isnt referring to the run environment. he is referring to the pitching in said environment."

So we’ve moved from speculation to this now being the fact of mayo’s comment? This is pretty much how I imagine you form most of your opinions…

by blackoutyears on Nov 18, 2025 6:18 PM EST up reply actions

You know

. . .that I said that he “may have” meant that - a couple times. You also know that it is a plausible and/or reasonable explanation for what he was trying to say. If you don’t wan’t to be reasonable, fuck it, what do I care? As you were or, proceed with insult.

" It's never just a game when you're winning" - George Carlin

by casejud on Nov 18, 2025 6:25 PM EST up reply actions

"he isnt referring to the run environment. he is referring to the pitching in said environment."

I’m trying to find the “may” part there. This is what I mean by poor thinking and communication skills. There’s what you think you’re saying and there’s what it actually means when you type it. You need to stop blaming everyone else for your inability to express yourself clearly. It’s not my responsibility to read your mind.

Seriously, this is a major problem for you, and I think there’s a severe disconnect between what you’re thinking and how you express it, like someone who envisions beautiful vistas that he can’t begin to paint.

by blackoutyears on Nov 18, 2025 6:32 PM EST up reply actions 3 recs

First post, this thread

Nothing definitive, just presenting a plausable explantaion.

“He may be speaking to the experience level of the pitching in relation to the Cal League. Obviosly both of the run environments are tremendous.”

" It's never just a game when you're winning" - George Carlin

by casejud on Nov 18, 2025 6:36 PM EST up reply actions

And

then the breakdown by the third post where you stop saying “may” and write “he isnt” [sic] and “he is”. Like I said, it makes a lot of sense that this is how you form opinions. You start off with conjecture which rapidly hardens into “fact”.

by blackoutyears on Nov 18, 2025 6:40 PM EST up reply actions

This. A thousand times this.

I wish I could turn your post green by myself, I agree so wholeheartedly.

http://bullpenbanter.com

RIP Randy "Macho Man" Savage

by gatling on Nov 18, 2025 6:54 PM EST up reply actions

Didn't everyone else play in the same environment?

Only Mike Olt had more HR/AB there. And, Mayo mentions in the very first sentence of the article how hitter friendly the AFL is, you can hardly expect him to mention it in every single comment.

So he gave the relevant facts, gave the relevant information about both environments, and gave the right conclusion: Choice’s power is legit. Does anyone seriously dispute that last point?

Even coming out of college there were some who worried that Choice didn’t play in the toughest environment or against the best competition. But when you correctly adjusted for both park and strength of competition, he still had the best numbers of any college bat in the 2010 class (aside from Harper in the JC ranks). And the scouting backed it up; bat speed, strong hands, plus raw power.

All Choice has done now is perform about as well as anyone could hope anywhere he’s been. He was the 2nd best bat on Team USA in the summer before the draft (after Colon), then arguably the best bat in the college season in 2010. After the draft, he was the 2nd best bat in the Northwest league (and the #2 ranked prospect), then this year in the top 20 bats in the California League (7th ranked prospect), and now ranks 5th in OPS in the AFL.

So are you really questioning that conclusion, or just the wording? If it’s the latter, I’d cut Mayo a bit of a break. I think he’s just trying to squeeze as much relevant info as he can into a very brief blurb. If you want a more complete scouting report, you can always read his report from before the draft. (link)

by acerimusdux on Nov 19, 2025 11:14 AM EST up reply actions

It's the wording

It is a misleading comment. It’s like saying so-and-so hit 40 HR, and his home park was Coors field, which shows just how truly great a HR hitter so-and-so is. Or Barry Bonds hit 73 HR, but his home park was Pac Bell, so look at that HR total with some skepticism.

by auclairkeithbc on Nov 19, 2025 11:31 AM EST up reply actions

It's a bit awkward

but I don’t think it was intended to be read that way,

It’s more like if Bonds had hit 73 in Coors Field. It would still be an impressive number, but you would want to mention that Coors Field played some role.

But, if you are reading it as thought the smaller sample in the AFL proves more than the larger sample in the CALL, yeah that would be incorrect. But I think that’s sort of a product of this format. This is just two statements lumped together, I don’t think it was meant to be a logical progression, like if you had a full paragraph making an argument or supporting an opinion.

Still, he would have been better off saying:

“The power is legit — Choice hit six homers in just 66 at-bats here. He also hit 30 homers during the regular season, although that was in Class A and in the California League.”

I don’t think he’s misleading about the prospect though, I think the wording was maybe misleading about the thought process.

by acerimusdux on Nov 19, 2025 12:17 PM EST up reply actions

I think

that any comment referring to the AFL and “legit” home runs is problematic. And it’s not that Choice’s power isn’t legit, or even much in question, it’s the idea that his AFL performance renders it so. No matter how you slice it there’s an implied causality, and it’s poor even by the diminished standards of grammar and language in journalism today.

by blackoutyears on Nov 21, 2025 2:05 PM EST up reply actions