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.
2015-16 Offseason Prospect Rankings
jimoh
Veteran
Posts: 3,968
|
Post by jimoh on Jan 5, 2016 19:33:38 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Jan 5, 2016 19:41:15 GMT -5
Thanks. The guy hands out 70 grades like candy. I've never seen any other publication do what was done in that article. ...and where would you disagree with his 70 grade ceilings? I mean isn't that the beautiful thing about our top 4 prospects? Their upside is immense. Can't say I really disagree with his 70 grades (as ceilings)....then again, I also can't say that I really care as much about ceiling grades as I do about median projections. Those ceilings rankings make it look like we have Trout, Harper, Pedro and Miguel Cabrera in the system right now. I know prospects bust and all that, but it's extremely ridiculous to have them that high. Maybe his definition of ceiling is different than most other people's and he names a dreaming ceiling rather than realistic ceiling.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Jan 5, 2016 22:21:09 GMT -5
He mentions that "ceiling" for him means 90th percentile projection. I think it's not unreasonable to think that the top four prospects in the system have 90th percentile projections of perennial All-Star-caliber players, though it would also be reasonable to disagree.
|
|
|
Post by jodyreidnichols on Jan 5, 2016 23:03:51 GMT -5
Thanks. The guy hands out 70 grades like candy. I've never seen any other publication do what was done in that article. Wasn't the third # the 90% projectile? If so then the numbers are defensible. Use the middle # and you'll be singing a different tune.
|
|
|
Post by ramireja on Jan 6, 2016 0:03:08 GMT -5
...and where would you disagree with his 70 grade ceilings? I mean isn't that the beautiful thing about our top 4 prospects? Their upside is immense. Can't say I really disagree with his 70 grades (as ceilings)....then again, I also can't say that I really care as much about ceiling grades as I do about median projections. Those ceilings rankings make it look like we have Trout, Harper, Pedro and Miguel Cabrera in the system right now. I know prospects bust and all that, but it's extremely ridiculous to have them that high. Maybe his definition of ceiling is different than most other people's and he names a dreaming ceiling rather than realistic ceiling. I mean this website has similar ceilings identified for those players, as do I in my personal rankings. Also, don't forget 70 isn't technically the top of the food chain. Trout, Harper, Pedro, and Cabrera are 80 players (well at least Trout & Pedro, Harper was this year, and Cabrera is an 80 bat). I wouldn't quibble if someone had 75 ceilings for Moncada and Espinoza.
|
|
|
Post by Oregon Norm on Jan 6, 2016 0:20:01 GMT -5
You can't just use the raw slugging numbers in complete confidence though, because he's not going to hit for as high of an average in the MLB (being realistic). He'll likely need to add a bit more power at least. I don't agree with his placement, but I can understand the skepticism with him because that's how I used to think about Travis in his first year. Haven't we also been taught to be cautious about getting excited about Arizona Fall League hitting, since the best pitching prospects are at home resting their million-dollar arms rather than in the AFL? Deven Marerro .328 .443 .414 .857 in 70 PA. As I mentioned, it's a small sample size. It's also a long way between "excitement" and having him down as the 16th best minor league player in the Sox system. I suppose it's the Cecchini effect, but I think he's a better bet. We'll find out soon enough.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Jan 6, 2016 8:11:33 GMT -5
He mentions that "ceiling" for him means 90th percentile projection. I think it's not unreasonable to think that the top four prospects in the system have 90th percentile projections of perennial All-Star-caliber players, though it would also be reasonable to disagree. Fangraphs defines all-star as a 65. 70 is a top 5 hitter. So we have 3 potential top 5 hitters and 1 pitcher. I don't see the point in even printing that. I don't think any other prospect publication even prints 90% projections, because then you get people like Cecchini with a potential Boggs' hit tool. Hell, give everyone a potential 80 because maybe they have something no one sees that will show up later.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Jan 6, 2016 9:10:50 GMT -5
You could quibble with Devers and Benintendi (and I would; I think their ceilings are more of a 65), but I think Moncada and Espinoza have legitimate 70 ceilings. Ceilings and floors are useful to differentiate high-upside, high-risk prospects from lower-upside, lower-risk prospects. Think Margot versus Guerra-- Margot may be a 45/55/60, while Guerra may be a 40/55/65.
|
|
|
Post by stevedillard on Jan 6, 2016 9:46:56 GMT -5
Forgive me if this was discussed elsewhere, but I looked and didn't see Guerra discussed. I am trying to understand this sentence.
He can't mean Guerra would be 45th on the Boston prospect list, can he?
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Jan 6, 2016 9:57:41 GMT -5
Let me clarify my earlier comment, which seems to be morphing into "Chris said that Espinoza can't spot his fastball."
What I asked is if there was actually anything out there saying that Espinoza could do that, because his BA scouting report didn't say that. It also didn't say that he couldn't. In our conversation with Alex on the podcast, he did suggest that Espinoza had very good control when we discussed why he may not have had as many strikeouts as you'd expect - that at the levels he was pitching at, hitters may be more prone to stick the bat out and pray, so to speak, and against someone who is in the zone, that could lead to a line like his with good-not-great strikeout numbers and insane GB rates.
I have no reason to doubt what the FG report says. I'm also, as James was alluding to, not thing to take it as gospel, or at least give it nearly the weight I'd have given a report from McDaniel.
|
|
|
Post by Oregon Norm on Jan 6, 2016 10:26:11 GMT -5
Forgive me if this was discussed elsewhere, but I looked and didn't see Guerra discussed. I am trying to understand this sentence. He can't mean Guerra would be 45th on the Boston prospect list, can he? I think he means a 45+ in the rating system.
|
|
|
Post by brianthetaoist on Jan 6, 2016 12:13:33 GMT -5
Espinoza can't spot his fastball.
|
|
|
Post by kman22 on Jan 6, 2016 12:15:09 GMT -5
Forgive me if this was discussed elsewhere, but I looked and didn't see Guerra discussed. I am trying to understand this sentence. He can't mean Guerra would be 45th on the Boston prospect list, can he? I think he means a 45+ in the rating system. I made that mistake at first glance as well. He definitely meant with regards to the ratings. His first group is 50+ guys (Moncada, Devers, Benintendi, Espinoza, Johnson).
|
|
|
Post by brianthetaoist on Jan 6, 2016 12:20:44 GMT -5
He mentions that "ceiling" for him means 90th percentile projection. I think it's not unreasonable to think that the top four prospects in the system have 90th percentile projections of perennial All-Star-caliber players, though it would also be reasonable to disagree. Fangraphs defines all-star as a 65. 70 is a top 5 hitter. So we have 3 potential top 5 hitters and 1 pitcher. I don't see the point in even printing that. I don't think any other prospect publication even prints 90% projections, because then you get people like Cecchini with a potential Boggs' hit tool. Hell, give everyone a potential 80 because maybe they have something no one sees that will show up later. I think it's justifiable ... it's just a moment when the team has a large number of very high-ceiling guys. Hell, I maybe would put Moncada and Espinoza's ceiling at 75 since they have a non-trivial chance of being truly elite (while I'd probably put Benintendi at 65, like jmei). I think it's useful to add the true "ceiling" number in there since so many people get caught up in that conversation of what a true ceiling is versus what's a reasonably optimistic high-end projection. It's a valid way of getting at the volatility in prospects ... the top-end ceiling is one factor in evaluating a guy, even if it's very unlikely they reach it. I doubt you'll see 4 guys with 70s in just about any other system, though. It's just the nature of the current top-heavy Sox minor league talent pool.
|
|
|
Post by ramireja on Jan 6, 2016 12:47:14 GMT -5
He mentions that "ceiling" for him means 90th percentile projection. I think it's not unreasonable to think that the top four prospects in the system have 90th percentile projections of perennial All-Star-caliber players, though it would also be reasonable to disagree. Fangraphs defines all-star as a 65. 70 is a top 5 hitter. So we have 3 potential top 5 hitters and 1 pitcher. I don't see the point in even printing that. I don't think any other prospect publication even prints 90% projections, because then you get people like Cecchini with a potential Boggs' hit tool. Hell, give everyone a potential 80 because maybe they have something no one sees that will show up later. Basically, yes. Thats the point thats been made all off-season, our top 4 have as much upside as any other team's top 4 prospects in the game. Does anyone here think that all four will reach their ceilings, and that they will actually become three of the best five hitters, and one of the top 2-3 pitchers in all of baseball? Of course not. Thats why they're ceiling grades. Individually, each has the potential (without squinting too hard) to be a part of that group. I don't disagree. I'd probably put a 75 ceiling on Moncada, a 75/80 ceiling on Espinoza (its neither likely nor outlandish to think he becomes one of the top 2-3 pitchers in baseball), a 70 ceiling on Benintendi (his combo of tools I think can reach 5.0 WAR if each tool reaches its ceiling), and a 65 ceiling on Devers (his bat would really need to rake to get to 5.0 WAR, so I'm more comfortable with 4.0 WAR upside).
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Jan 6, 2016 22:03:19 GMT -5
A few leftover thoughts on the Fangraphs rankings: I understand some of the skepticism about Dan Farnsworth. He's certainly no Kiley McDaniel, who was one of the best to do these sorts of public rankings due to his years of scouting/front office experience with MLB teams, his resultant impressive network of contacts, and his particular expertise with international and amateur scouting (the two toughest groups of prospects to rank, in my opinion). However, I'm a pretty big believer in Farnsworth's analytical chops-- he's one of the leading swing mechanic experts in the public sphere, and he has a long track record of being able to accurately project hitter performance on the basis of their mechanics. For instance, his pre-debut scouting reports on Jose Abreu and Rusney Castillo were spot-on, he predicted J.D. Martinez's breakout, his analysis of Jung-Ho Kang's swing was again prescient, he predicted Cano's second-half 2015 resurgence, etc. It's fair to be skeptical whether he has the network of contacts necessary to do this gig justice and whether his analysis holds up as well when he's looking at close to a thousand prospects rather than drilling deep into one or two. But when he talks about a hitter's mechanics, I'd listen. And, as was mentioned, I like reading takes that are slightly different from the consensus because the root cause of those differences is always interesting to analyze. With that in mind, things that stood out to me in his areas of expertise: - Benintendi: dead pull power might limit his potential home run output, but plus-plus hit tool potential.
- Moncada: mentions his "tense upper body and stiff actions" (which dovetails with the workout videos we've seen this offseason), which results in a choppy rather than a smooth swing.
- Devers: so far, whippy bat and level swing plane, which results in a lot of topspin line drives and ground balls (thus the middling power numbers to date), but combination of strength, contact ability and youth gives him considerable power potential.
- Dubon: won't hit for power, but will hit a lot of line drives and gap shots and has plus hitter potential.
- Chavis: plus-plus raw power, and Farnsworth believes in his power developing-- quick hands compensate for longer swing, and strikeout issues were less inherent contact issues and more two-strike approach issues.
- Travis: looks rigid when he tries to hit for power, doesn't have the swing path to hit a lot of fly balls or the strength to muscle balls out of the park.
- Longhi: not enough loft in his swing to project for even average power.
I also thought his comments on Kopech's poor mechanics (not enough lower body, balance/timing issues) were interesting and do a good job of highlighting his development needs. His takes on Stankiewicz, Ball, Ysla, Light, and Escobar also all had interesting tidbits that I enjoyed reading. ADD: there's also some good discussion in the comments about how to rank the top four.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Jan 6, 2016 22:04:57 GMT -5
Fangraphs defines all-star as a 65. 70 is a top 5 hitter. So we have 3 potential top 5 hitters and 1 pitcher. I don't see the point in even printing that. I don't think any other prospect publication even prints 90% projections, because then you get people like Cecchini with a potential Boggs' hit tool. Hell, give everyone a potential 80 because maybe they have something no one sees that will show up later. Basically, yes. Thats the point thats been made all off-season, our top 4 have as much upside as any other team's top 4 prospects in the game. Does anyone here think that all four will reach their ceilings, and that they will actually become three of the best five hitters, and one of the top 2-3 pitchers in all of baseball? Of course not. Thats why they're ceiling grades. Individually, each has the potential (without squinting too hard) to be a part of that group. I don't disagree. I'd probably put a 75 ceiling on Moncada, a 75/80 ceiling on Espinoza (its neither likely nor outlandish to think he becomes one of the top 2-3 pitchers in baseball), a 70 ceiling on Benintendi (his combo of tools I think can reach 5.0 WAR if each tool reaches its ceiling), and a 65 ceiling on Devers (his bat would really need to rake to get to 5.0 WAR, so I'm more comfortable with 4.0 WAR upside). It's just not fair to rank anyone an 80 when it should be reserved for Ruth/Williams types of players. I don't know that I'd ever give an 80 to a prospect. It would even be hard to hand out an 80 for hit or power or command/control. Devers gets a 70/75 on fangraphs for hit/power. This site has that potential at 60/65. I guess I don't know the difference between 90% ceiling and words like "potential". A 90% outcome is still in the realm of what is potential.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Jan 6, 2016 22:20:08 GMT -5
Devers gets a 70/75 on fangraphs for hit/power. This site has that potential at 60/65. I guess I don't know the difference between 90% ceiling and words like "potential". A 90% outcome is still in the realm of what is potential. You're again confusing ceiling and median projection. Devers' scouting report on this site projects his hit tool as plus (i.e., 60), which exactly matches Farnsworth's projected 60 hit tool. Devers' scouting report on this site gives Devers' ceiling (i.e., potential) as 30 home runs (which generally comes out to a 70 grade), which is not that different from Farnsworth's power ceiling of 75.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Jan 6, 2016 22:29:23 GMT -5
Devers gets a 70/75 on fangraphs for hit/power. This site has that potential at 60/65. I guess I don't know the difference between 90% ceiling and words like "potential". A 90% outcome is still in the realm of what is potential. You're again confusing ceiling and median projection. Devers' scouting report on this site projects his hit tool as plus (i.e., 60), which exactly matches Farnsworth's projected 60 hit tool. Devers' scouting report on this site gives Devers' ceiling (i.e., potential) as 30 home runs (which generally comes out to a 70 grade), which is not that different from Farnsworth's power ceiling of 75. The terms are really confusing. What is the difference between saying potential plus hit tool (60) and a 90% ceiling of 60? I assume it's the same because a 90% outcome still potentially might happen. Every prospect can exceed their potential so that doesn't really factor into this either. Does every other prospect site other than this guy equate potential (and ceiling) to a 50% outcome? This site actually says "plus to better power potential" for Devers. It does not say projected. I read that as a 65. So is that a ceiling? Or is it a 50% outcome?
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Jan 6, 2016 22:44:55 GMT -5
It's not that hard:
projected = 50% projection potential = ceiling = 90% projection
Farnsworth lists three numbers for each grade-- a floor (10% projection), a median (50%) projection, and a ceiling (90% projection). His 70 grades are all ceilings that are meant to suggest a possible but unlikely possibility. Nowhere does he equate ceiling to 50% projection.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Jan 6, 2016 23:07:29 GMT -5
It's not that hard: projected = 50% projection potential = ceiling = 90% projection Farnsworth lists three numbers for each grade-- a floor (10% projection), a median (50%) projection, and a ceiling (90% projection). His 70 grades are all ceilings that are meant to suggest a possible but unlikely possibility. Nowhere does he equate ceiling to 50% projection. Maybe it's every other site that is confusing. Devers on this site - future plus hit tool (I take that as projected 60) and plus to better power potential (I take that as potentially a 65). It seems that terms are used interchangeably. What do BP, BA, MLB use for their second #? ceiling or projection?
|
|
|
Post by James Dunne on Jan 6, 2016 23:15:23 GMT -5
A few leftover thoughts on the Fangraphs rankings: .... Excellent, certainly good to get some background info. I'm inclined to agree with him on Dubon, who I was impressed by when I saw him. I still think 7th in the system is crazy, but if he doesn't like Travis then basically everything after the top six is a free-for-all. I think he's being too harsh on Travis, though. Rigid is much too strong a word - I might say "mechanical" to some extent but it's also very compact and he gets his hands through pretty well. He might have something of a hole up and in but he has a broad enough set of skills to mitigate that weakness, I think. He'll lay off pitches too far inside and punish ones that find too much of the plate. So while I'll readily admit that Farnsworth clearly has much more expertise on swing mechanics than I, the reports I've read on Travis by those who have seen him frequently along with my own (limited) observations make me think Farnsworth is being overly bearish here.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Jan 6, 2016 23:23:43 GMT -5
It's not that hard: projected = 50% projection potential = ceiling = 90% projection Farnsworth lists three numbers for each grade-- a floor (10% projection), a median (50%) projection, and a ceiling (90% projection). His 70 grades are all ceilings that are meant to suggest a possible but unlikely possibility. Nowhere does he equate ceiling to 50% projection. Maybe it's every other site that is confusing. Devers on this site - future plus hit tool (I take that as projected 60) and plus to better power potential (I take that as potentially a 65). It seems that terms are used interchangeably. What do BP, BA, MLB use for their second #? ceiling or projection? The number that most sites list is a median projection.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Jan 6, 2016 23:27:15 GMT -5
Maybe it's every other site that is confusing. Devers on this site - future plus hit tool (I take that as projected 60) and plus to better power potential (I take that as potentially a 65). It seems that terms are used interchangeably. What do BP, BA, MLB use for their second #? ceiling or projection? The number that most sites list is a median projection. That's what I figured, but they will say the word potential constantly. So the word potential has different meanings based on who is writing it. It means ceiling for Farnsworth and projection everywhere else. And I don't agree with the definition that potential means projected. I bet if you searched the phrase 'potential plus' on prospect sites, you'd get thousands of hits. And that equals a 60 on all of them.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Jan 7, 2016 7:08:15 GMT -5
Potential usually means ceiling everywhere else. I'm not sure why you aren't getting about this.
|
|
|