SoxProspects News
|
|
|
|
Legal
Forum Ground Rules
The views expressed by the members of this Forum do not necessarily reflect the views of SoxProspects, LLC.
© 2003-2024 SoxProspects, LLC
|
|
|
|
|
Forum Home | Search | My Profile | Messages | Members | Help |
Welcome Guest. Please Login or Register.
Minor League Ball Top 75 Prospects: End of Season Update
|
Post by alex710707 on Sept 27, 2013 10:54:55 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Sept 27, 2013 13:19:35 GMT -5
He notes that this is a rough draft.
He has long been one of the biggest Cecchini backers, but he seems to give himself room to back off depending on what he hears.
Also said he bought into ST hype by moving JBJ into top 30 midseason.
|
|
|
Post by raftsox on Sept 27, 2013 13:23:50 GMT -5
Seems fair.
Not sure why the big surprise that Ball and Swihart are not honorable mentions. Without them there are 8 probable top 100 players. Swihart had a good but not fantastic season and doesn't have any ++ tools to back a higher ranking. 2013 was a relatively weak draft class and Ball is a raw HS lefty with a lot of question marks.
|
|
|
Post by amfox1 on Sept 27, 2013 17:50:12 GMT -5
You could probably switch Betts and Swihart and no one would blink. No way Ball deserves a top 75 placement at this time.
|
|
|
Post by alex710707 on Sept 27, 2013 17:51:23 GMT -5
Seems fair. Not sure why the big surprise that Ball and Swihart are not honorable mentions. Without them there are 8 probable top 100 players. Swihart had a good but not fantastic season and doesn't have any ++ tools to back a higher ranking. 2013 was a relatively weak draft class and Ball is a raw HS lefty with a lot of question marks. I can understand and not surprised at it, but they are possible top 100 cadiadate And fans always expect their team have as many top 100, right? Ball is No. 7 draft. All top 6 is in top 75. 4 players whose draft order later than Ball in top 75, 3 in Honorable mention. 29. Austin Meadows, OF, Pirates, pick no. 9 52. J.P. Crawford, SS, Phillies, pick no. 16 57. Phillip Ervin, OF, Reds, pick no. 27 61. Reese McGuire, C, Pirates, pick no. 14 HM. Hunter Dozier, INF, Royals, pick no. 8 HM. Hunter Harvey, RHP, Orioles, pick no. 22 HM. D.J. Peterson, 3B, Mariners, pick no. 12 As for Swihart, he is around top 100~ 150 guy before 2013. Both his bat, defense improved a lot this year. I don't understand why I can't just "expect" they are at least in honorable mention list.
|
|
|
Post by amfox1 on Sept 27, 2013 20:33:45 GMT -5
I don't understand why I can't just "expect" they are at least in honorable mention list. Alex, you can "expect" anything you want; we're just trying to give you a dose of semi-objective reality.
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Sept 27, 2013 20:48:44 GMT -5
Also, all of those guys played, which helps.
|
|
|
Post by wcsoxfan on Sept 28, 2013 7:40:43 GMT -5
I can understand and not surprised at it, but they are possible top 100 cadiadate And fans always expect their team have as many top 100, right? Ball is No. 7 draft. All top 6 is in top 75. 4 players whose draft order later than Ball in top 75, 3 in Honorable mention. 29. Austin Meadows, OF, Pirates, pick no. 9 52. J.P. Crawford, SS, Phillies, pick no. 16 57. Phillip Ervin, OF, Reds, pick no. 27 61. Reese McGuire, C, Pirates, pick no. 14 HM. Hunter Dozier, INF, Royals, pick no. 8 HM. Hunter Harvey, RHP, Orioles, pick no. 22 HM. D.J. Peterson, 3B, Mariners, pick no. 12 As for Swihart, he is around top 100~ 150 guy before 2013. Both his bat, defense improved a lot this year. I don't understand why I can't just "expect" they are at least in honorable mention list. It's obviously early to make educated projections from the 2013 draft, but can we take this as 'minorleaguebaseball.com feeling that the Red Sox made a poor choice at #7?'. I know with Ball they are playing the long-game, but it's good to know where they stand.
|
|
|
Post by larrycook on Sept 28, 2013 8:51:58 GMT -5
No doubt the Sox have a strong young base of future talent. I think we only one one veteran player signed through 2015.
I wonder if there is a package of young players attractive enough to allow us to trade for 1B Goldschmit of Arizona?
|
|
|
Post by fdrnewdeal on Sept 28, 2013 9:06:21 GMT -5
WCSoxfan-
No, I don't think that's what Sickels is saying. As Chris stated earlier, the guys listed actually got significant playing time:
Meadows- 211 PAs Crawford- 128 PAs Ervin-200 PAs McGuire-215 PAs
Trey Ball- 7 IP.
There can be no doubt that Ball was a risky pick. Something like 50% of left handed high school pitchers drafted in the first round ever appear in the majors. But how he is ranked today has little to do with his overall value or the quality of the thought process that went into selecting him.
On draft day, I wanted Frazier or Meadows. Unfortunately, the Indians eliminated option 1 and there were legitimate concerns about Meadow's ability to stick in center/hit with enough power to hand a corner outfield spot. So far the results for Meadows have been incredibly encouraging, while Frazier has been whiffing 30% of the time (though still holding his own). I don't think we really have enough information to say which is the better prospect, let alone compare Ball to either.
|
|
jimoh
Veteran
Posts: 3,986
|
Post by jimoh on Sept 28, 2013 9:10:58 GMT -5
I can understand and not surprised at it, but they are possible top 100 cadiadate And fans always expect their team have as many top 100, right? Ball is No. 7 draft. All top 6 is in top 75. 4 players whose draft order later than Ball in top 75, 3 in Honorable mention. 29. Austin Meadows, OF, Pirates, pick no. 9 52. J.P. Crawford, SS, Phillies, pick no. 16 57. Phillip Ervin, OF, Reds, pick no. 27 61. Reese McGuire, C, Pirates, pick no. 14 HM. Hunter Dozier, INF, Royals, pick no. 8 HM. Hunter Harvey, RHP, Orioles, pick no. 22 HM. D.J. Peterson, 3B, Mariners, pick no. 12 As for Swihart, he is around top 100~ 150 guy before 2013. Both his bat, defense improved a lot this year. I don't understand why I can't just "expect" they are at least in honorable mention list. It's obviously early to make educated projections from the 2013 draft, but can we take this as 'minorleaguebaseball.com feeling that the Red Sox made a poor choice at #7?'. I know with Ball they are playing the long-game, but it's good to know where they stand. No, it's a Sickels feeling that the Sox chose a high school pitcher who threw seven professional innings. No one else made the top 75 or HM based on striking out high school kids. (Hunter Harvey pitched 25 innings w/ 33 Ks)
|
|
|
Post by jdb on Sept 28, 2013 9:20:16 GMT -5
Considering none of the 2013 draftees have played in full season A ball I think it would be way to early to be concerned that Ball isn't there with the others. I remember prior to the draft K Law didn't think there was more than 2-3 current top 50 guys in that draft. Now they've (hunter Dozier?) jumped guys like Cechini and Swihart (both improved) is kind of baffling to me but I respect Sickles and his opinion. He does it for a living. I really liked Meadows at the time and thought he could be that all around RF you dream about patrolling RF for us. Power, speed and D but 29? Not sure about that.
Also what does Cechini's write up say about Sickles list in general. He changed his ranking bc of fans outcries. Does he set it up trying to cater to us. Would he hear to much backlash if he rated Cechini and JBJ up in the top 25 and Ball and Swihart in the top 75? Does that hurt his creditability?
|
|
|
Post by brianthetaoist on Sept 28, 2013 10:57:20 GMT -5
Also what does Cechini's write up say about Sickles list in general. He changed his ranking bc of fans outcries. Does he set it up trying to cater to us. Would he hear to much backlash if he rated Cechini and JBJ up in the top 25 and Ball and Swihart in the top 75? Does that hurt his creditability? Not really what he said. He said, "after reading too many scouting reports" ... so it was about listening to scouts and other professional prospect types, not readers.
|
|
|
Post by wcsoxfan on Sept 28, 2013 12:25:26 GMT -5
WCSoxfan- No, I don't think that's what Sickels is saying. As Chris stated earlier, the guys listed actually got significant playing time: Meadows- 211 PAs Crawford- 128 PAs Ervin-200 PAs McGuire-215 PAs Trey Ball- 7 IP. There can be no doubt that Ball was a risky pick. Something like 50% of left handed high school pitchers drafted in the first round ever appear in the majors. But how he is ranked today has little to do with his overall value or the quality of the thought process that went into selecting him. On draft day, I wanted Frazier or Meadows. Unfortunately, the Indians eliminated option 1 and there were legitimate concerns about Meadow's ability to stick in center/hit with enough power to hand a corner outfield spot. So far the results for Meadows have been incredibly encouraging, while Frazier has been whiffing 30% of the time (though still holding his own). I don't think we really have enough information to say which is the better prospect, let alone compare Ball to either. If this list doesn't represent the value, or future projection by Sickels, then what the heck does it represent? I thought that was the entire point of these lists. I don't see any reason to list ball higher or lower based on his 7IP, but if Sickels is ranking seven players before Ball, who were drafted after him, then he must feel that these 7 players have superior value or project to be superior players than Ball. This may be representative of their above-projected performances over ~200AB or his original projections that they were superior prospects to Ball prior to being drafted. Or is Sickels so focused on minor league (rather than highschool) prospects that we won't rank highschool prospects based on pre-professional experience as it is more difficult to project?
|
|
|
Post by fdrnewdeal on Sept 28, 2013 12:52:07 GMT -5
[/quote]If this list doesn't represent the value, or future projection by Sickels, then what the heck does it represent? I thought that was the entire point of these lists.
I don't see any reason to list ball higher or lower based on his 7IP, but if Sickels is ranking seven players before Ball, who were drafted after him, then he must feel that these 7 players have superior value or project to be superior players than Ball. This may be representative of their above-projected performances over ~200AB or his original projections that they were superior prospects to Ball prior to being drafted.
Or is Sickels so focused on minor league (rather than highschool) prospects that we won't rank highschool prospects based on pre-professional experience as it is more difficult to project?
[/quote]
Minor gripe- I don't think that the placement of a player on any list (no matter how good of an evaluator) really tells us much about a player's present or future value in most cases. I mean, yeah, we can be pretty confident that Byron Buxton is a better prospect than Brandon Jacobs, but we're usually swimming in the grey.
These list are to me, an exercise that is tailored almost exclusively to baseball nerds (like everyone on this board). We aren't scouts and we don't have the time or ability to track everyone, so these lists let us know who to be on the look out for. However, how precise they are, I'm unsure.
Ballplayers are a diverse bunch in terms of present ability, point on the age curve, potential ceiling, likelihood of reaching that ceiling and so on. Compare a guy like Joey Gallo to Brandon Workman. Workman is almost certainly going to have a major league career, but is likely going to be a reliever. There is some possibility he stick in the rotation, but there's also some chance he's relegated to mop up duty over his career. Joey Gallo on the other hand has a 70+ power tool, but K's 40% of his at bats.
How does one balance the floor of a guy like Workman and the possibility (which appears small, at this point) that Gallo one day is able to improve is pitch recognition skills and becomes a slugger at the major league level? It seems pretty much impossible to rank one next to the other, as they're such completely different animals (I love following both though).
I feel that this list is more of an observation that you and I as baseball nerds should be following these draftees because they're having some success and were well regarded of going into the draft than you and I should be worried about Trey Ball being a bust.
|
|
|
Post by wcsoxfan on Sept 28, 2013 13:00:08 GMT -5
In case anyone else was wondering. Here is the breakdown by team (I left off Gausman but included Hultzen):
Astros 6 (2) Cubs 6 (2) Pirates 6 (1) Red Sox 5 (3) Twins 5 (1) Royals 4 (1) Dodgers 4 Mets 3 (4) Padres 3 (2) Mariners 3 (1) Reds 3 (1) Indians 3 Cardinals 3 Phillies 3 Rockies 2 (3) Giants 2 (1) Marlins 2 (1) Nationals 2 Blue Jays 2 Rangers 1 (4) Orioles 1 (3) Yankees 1 (3) Diamondbacks 1 (2) Devil Rays 1 (2) Athletics 1 (1) Tigers 1 (1) White Sox 1 (1) Braves 1 Brewers 0 (1) Angels 0
(Honorable mentions in brackets)
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Sept 28, 2013 13:44:35 GMT -5
Uh, why'd you leave off Buxton?
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Sept 28, 2013 13:57:48 GMT -5
From the comments:
|
|
|
Post by wcsoxfan on Sept 28, 2013 21:02:38 GMT -5
Uh, why'd you leave off Buxton? My bad - meant 'Gausman' because Sickels has him as being graduated.
|
|
jimoh
Veteran
Posts: 3,986
|
Post by jimoh on Sept 28, 2013 21:05:54 GMT -5
Trey Ball John, noticed Trey Ball not even in your honorable mentions, but several guys picked behind him even in your top 75. Function of his only getting 7 IP?
by Chatfield21 on Sep 28, 2013 | 11:53 AM reply rec flag
yeah 7 innings with serious control problems Tiny sample of course. He certainly has top 50 raw talent but there are other guys we simply know more about this point and that I’m more confident in.
by John Sickels on Sep 28, 2013 | 1:06 PM up reply rec flag
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Sept 28, 2013 22:25:36 GMT -5
Figured it was something like that, but wanted to get it from the horse's mouth.
|
|
|
Post by bjb406 on Sept 29, 2013 4:56:12 GMT -5
Figured it was something like that, but wanted to get it from the horse's mouth. still, that is a ridiculous reason to have other draftees so far ahead of trey ball. People constantly talk, justifiably, about how unimportant rookie league stats are, and how 200 ab's is too small a sample o draw significant conclusions, and yet the same people who a few months ago were defending Ball over Meadows now have Meadows ranked as a stud and Ball as a fringe prospect. I know it happens every year by every ranker, its still ludicrous.
|
|
|
Post by mainesox on Sept 29, 2013 21:22:58 GMT -5
Figured it was something like that, but wanted to get it from the horse's mouth. still, that is a ridiculous reason to have other draftees so far ahead of trey ball. People constantly talk, justifiably, about how unimportant rookie league stats are, and how 200 ab's is too small a sample o draw significant conclusions, and yet the same people who a few months ago were defending Ball over Meadows now have Meadows ranked as a stud and Ball as a fringe prospect. I know it happens every year by every ranker, its still ludicrous. It's still considerably more than they have to go on with Ball.
|
|
|
Post by bluechip on Sept 29, 2013 23:03:12 GMT -5
Has sickles even seen Ball yet? At this point how much does he really have to go on besides the scouting reports he heard from before the draft.
|
|
|
Post by James Dunne on Sept 30, 2013 10:42:21 GMT -5
Figured it was something like that, but wanted to get it from the horse's mouth. still, that is a ridiculous reason to have other draftees so far ahead of trey ball. People constantly talk, justifiably, about how unimportant rookie league stats are, and how 200 ab's is too small a sample o draw significant conclusions, and yet the same people who a few months ago were defending Ball over Meadows now have Meadows ranked as a stud and Ball as a fringe prospect. I know it happens every year by every ranker, its still ludicrous. He doesn't have Ball rated as a fringe prospect. He doesn't have Ball rated at all. Why do people think "damned if I know" is a worse evaluation for a prospect analyst to give than BS based on groupthink. If he'd just plopped him down at 65 or so despite that lack of information, what would that say about Sickels honsty as a prospect evaluator? He said he has Top 50 talent, so that isn't a sign he views him as fringy.
|
|
|