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
|
Post by jimed14 on Jan 7, 2016 7:25:50 GMT -5
Potential usually means ceiling everywhere else. I'm not sure why you aren't getting about this. I'm not sure why you aren't getting my point. The same english word means different things on different sites. So when people talk about potential or ratings, you have to figure out exactly what they mean. Do you mean potential as in BP? Or potential as in Fangraphs?
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Jan 7, 2016 7:43:14 GMT -5
I understand that there can be some ambiguity (largely centered around the fact that even a 50% projection is not a thing that has occurred but a thing that may occur if certain things break right), but the word "potential" usually signifies ceiling (or at least more than 50% projection).
ADD: that's also why putting formal grades (especially if they're separated out into floor/median projection/ceiling) is useful-- because it cuts through some of the confusing verbiage.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Jan 7, 2016 7:52:25 GMT -5
That is exactly what is confusing and makes it difficult to talk about. With this one fangraphs article, everyone now needs to clarify what they mean when talking about ratings or potential because people will interchange the meanings Some will say the Red Sox have 4 70 prospects now because they're talking about fangraphs' 90% projection/ceiling and no site other than fangraphs will say that. Other people will say or think that person is on drugs or just an unrealistic fan because there are rarely more than 1 or 2 70s in all of baseball. I wish there was a standard.
I agree that fangraphs now makes more sense, but it makes other sites make less sense.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Jan 7, 2016 7:58:24 GMT -5
That is exactly what is confusing and makes it difficult to talk about. With this one fangraphs article, everyone now needs to clarify what they mean when talking about ratings or potential because people will interchange the meanings Some will say the Red Sox have 4 70 prospects now because they're talking about fangraphs' 90% projection/ceiling and no site other than fangraphs will say that. Other people will say or think that person is on drugs or just an unrealistic fan because there are rarely more than 1 or 2 70s in all of baseball. I wish there was a standard. I agree that fangraphs now makes more sense, but it makes other sites make less sense. ...and those people would be wrong. Yes, I agree that sites should be clear about whether their grades are median projection or ceiling, but I think most of them are clear already. There is a standard in place when folks talk about median projection versus ceiling (folks have been talking about a guy's projection versus his ceiling for literally decades, and this can't possibly be the first time you've heard those terms), and I think it's fairly clear. You've still yet to point to a real case where there is substantial ambiguity about whether they're talking about median projection or ceiling, and even if such ambiguity existed, it existed prior to the Fangraphs articles as well.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Jan 7, 2016 8:13:39 GMT -5
Every site is not clear because they use the phrase "potential plus" or similar when supposedly talking about median projections. Go read through some scouting reports on this site and you'll see projected tools and potential tools mixed together in the same report. Other sites that use numbers do the same thing. They may say potential plus fastball and give it a 60. That's where potential (ceiling) is supposedly interchangeable with projection?
Maybe someone else can explain this better. I could come up with tons of confusing examples if I weren't on my phone.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Jan 7, 2016 8:15:30 GMT -5
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. I agree that he's got Travis a little low, but if it's unlikely that Travis ever hits for more than averagish power (a view that he and many other scouts share), it's tough to see him being a starting-caliber first baseman, especially since he's also a fringe-average defender. If he's a bench player, it seems pretty reasonable to rank him below (or at least in the same tier as) the likes of Dubon and Marrero and Hernandez, since their defensive skillsets give them more versatility. I looked back on my rankings from October, and based on what I've read and thought about this offseason, I'm already ready to make major revisions. Here's my back-of-the-envelope revised top 10: 1. Moncada 2. Espinoza 3. Benintendi 4. Devers 5. Johnson 6. Kopech 7. Chavis 8. Marrero 9. Travis 10. Dubon
|
|
|
Post by James Dunne on Jan 7, 2016 14:11:31 GMT -5
I guess I just like Travis better than you do - 13.7 K rate and .145 Iso between High A and Double A as a 21-year-old is good for me to be the top of the third tier and think he can be a second division starter. He makes a ton of contact and a lot of it is really driving the ball. I think he could maintain something like a .265/.350/.425 line which isn't going to get him to an All-Star game but is good enough to start. And I'm pretty terrified of Chavis's K rate, it's hard for me to project him to be more than Pedro Feliz and that's if a lot of things go well. He's so young though, and all the initial excitement shouldn't cloud the fact that getting Pedro Feliz at #26 overall isn't so bad.
I still have no idea how to rate Espinoza. He's almost as much folk tale as pitcher at this point. If he's as good as his raves then he's in with the Giolito/Urias group for contenders as the top pitching prospects in milb. Also, I'm angry that he's skipping the New York-Penn League because I'd be able to find ways to go see him from my outpost in central NY.
|
|
|
Post by wcsoxfan on Jan 7, 2016 17:54:37 GMT -5
I guess I just like Travis better than you do - 13.7 K rate and .145 Iso between High A and Double A as a 21-year-old is good for me to be the top of the third tier and think he can be a second division starter. He makes a ton of contact and a lot of it is really driving the ball. I think he could maintain something like a .265/.350/.425 line which isn't going to get him to an All-Star game but is good enough to start. And I'm pretty terrified of Chavis's K rate, it's hard for me to project him to be more than Pedro Feliz and that's if a lot of things go well. He's so young though, and all the initial excitement shouldn't cloud the fact that getting Pedro Feliz at #26 overall isn't so bad. I still have no idea how to rate Espinoza. He's almost as much folk tale as pitcher at this point. If he's as good as his raves then he's in with the Giolito/Urias group for contenders as the top pitching prospects in milb. Also, I'm angry that he's skipping the New York-Penn League because I'd be able to find ways to go see him from my outpost in central NY. Just to put in perspective - that batting line would have made him 16th out of 21 qualified 1st basemen if he played this year. If his defense is fringe average with that, I wouldn't be content with him starting on a 1st division playoff contender. Now if he becomes a weak-side platoon with added positional flexibility, he'd still be a valuable player (or trade bait). Maybe we will get to a see a Travis/Travis platoon in 2017 or 2018.
|
|
|
Post by wcsoxfan on Jan 7, 2016 18:04:41 GMT -5
I really like what Farnsworth is doing with his rankings as I think it will push some of the other sites that only show the current and median projection (like Fangraphs does on their player cards actually) into consistently showing the 90th percentile projection. Many sites will talk about this, like Jmei points out, but as Jimed points out it isn't as obvious as it is here.
Another thing Farnsworth has going for him is how the write-up actually 'feels' like a scouting report. With many of these sites (including Kiley) you feel like you're reading a meta-report made as an accumulation from many scouts. In general the additional sources are good, but it leads to the lists all looking very similar, and having a dissenting opinion is refreshing.
I also found it interesting that although Farnsworth seems to really focus on the swing of position players, his rankings seem to reflect more closely to the median/floor projections rather than the 90% projection, which in many cases are due to base running, defense, intangibles. Seemed to me that these other factors lead to Beni being ranked first over the other guys as he seems confident in all of Beni's tools.
|
|
|
Post by James Dunne on Jan 7, 2016 18:52:21 GMT -5
I guess I just like Travis better than you do - 13.7 K rate and .145 Iso between High A and Double A as a 21-year-old is good for me to be the top of the third tier and think he can be a second division starter. He makes a ton of contact and a lot of it is really driving the ball. I think he could maintain something like a .265/.350/.425 line which isn't going to get him to an All-Star game but is good enough to start. And I'm pretty terrified of Chavis's K rate, it's hard for me to project him to be more than Pedro Feliz and that's if a lot of things go well. He's so young though, and all the initial excitement shouldn't cloud the fact that getting Pedro Feliz at #26 overall isn't so bad. I still have no idea how to rate Espinoza. He's almost as much folk tale as pitcher at this point. If he's as good as his raves then he's in with the Giolito/Urias group for contenders as the top pitching prospects in milb. Also, I'm angry that he's skipping the New York-Penn League because I'd be able to find ways to go see him from my outpost in central NY. Just to put in perspective - that batting line would have made him 16th out of 21 qualified 1st basemen if he played this year. If his defense is fringe average with that, I wouldn't be content with him starting on a 1st division playoff contender. Now if he becomes a weak-side platoon with added positional flexibility, he'd still be a valuable player (or trade bait). Maybe we will get to a see a Travis/Travis platoon in 2017 or 2018. OPS isn't a great measure though, and being the 16th-best 1B is pretty cool anyway if you need a cheap option. Using qualified 1B is a tough comparison because it only considers those good enough (or, at least, established enough) to get 502 PA at first. 14 teams didn't get a .775 OPS out of the position in 2015.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Jan 7, 2016 19:04:44 GMT -5
Another thing Farnsworth has going for him is how the write-up actually 'feels' like a scouting report. With many of these sites (including Kiley) you feel like you're reading a meta-report made as an accumulation from many scouts. In general the additional sources are good, but it leads to the lists all looking very similar, and having a dissenting opinion is refreshing. Yeah, this is my favorite part of these rankings-- there is actual detail on guys' mechanics and style, which is rare in rankings. I really get a good sense of what these guys look like rather than the more generic stuff you usually see (e.g., "will he hit enough to be a starter?", "needs to improve his command," etc).
|
|
alnipper
Veteran
Living the dream
Posts: 619
|
Post by alnipper on Jan 9, 2016 16:54:20 GMT -5
Hopefully we draft a player that fits in between our 1st and second tier.
|
|
|
Post by greatscottcooper on Jan 9, 2016 17:21:48 GMT -5
Hopefully we draft a guy who should have ended up being drafted 1-1 in hindsight. Still we seem to get so infatuated with the first pick (which is understandable in recent years) I'd like to see another draft where we draft multiple future MLBers who can restock the lower levels of the minors.
|
|
|
Post by mgoetze on Jan 9, 2016 22:01:29 GMT -5
But it's also interesting that he says Margot would have been #3, suggesting he's on a par with the top 4. Given that Benintendi is part of the top 4, and this forum had a huge thread discussing whether Margot or Benintendi was the better prospect, that doesn't seem particularly controversial to me.
|
|
|
Post by philsbosoxfan on Jan 13, 2016 6:15:53 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. Since the third ranking is the 90% percentile ranking then it's essentially no different than SoxProspects' range ranking where we have 2 80's and 3 70's. Do we hand out high ceilings like candy ?
|
|
|
Post by philsbosoxfan on Jan 13, 2016 7:45:05 GMT -5
I also found this significant since this news appears to be difficult to come by:
I originally placed Johnson just out of the 50-grade group due to concerns over his arm action that I get into below. The Red Sox sources I spoke with all agreed that Johnson looked great as he started throwing again in October, with his physical checking out amazingly well. For now, he sticks in the top group, with an interest in monitoring how he looks in spring training in 2016.
|
|
|
Post by dirtywater43 on Jan 30, 2016 0:24:02 GMT -5
Mlb.com released their list. Benintendi is right where he should be at number 25 in this list. That sounds a lot better. Moncada in the top 10 as usual. Devers in the top 20. Espinoza in the top 40. m.mlb.com/prospects/2016?list=prospects
|
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 8,924
|
Post by ericmvan on Jan 30, 2016 1:29:59 GMT -5
Top 10 from David Rawnsley of Perfect Game, as appearing in The Sporting News 2016 Baseball Yearbook (Xander on the cover of the New England edition):
1. Moncada 2. Benintendi 3. Espinoza 4. Devers 5. Johnson (also the "Impact Rookie," which of course is too easy) 6. Kopech 7. Chavis 8. Marrero 9. Travis 10. Longhi
The mag picks the Sox to finish first, then to beat the Rangers, Royals, and Giants.
|
|
|
Post by proudtoserve on Jan 30, 2016 5:27:59 GMT -5
Top 10 from David Rawnsley of Perfect Game, as appearing in The Sporting News 2016 Baseball Yearbook (Xander on the cover of the New England edition): 1. Moncada 2. Benintendi 3. Espinoza 4. Devers 5. Johnson (also the "Impact Rookie," which of course is too easy) 6. Kopech 7. Chavis 8. Marrero 9. Travis 10. Longhi The mag picks the Sox to finish first, then to beat the Rangers, Royals, and Giants.
Thanks for that, sir....missed it, so thanks for catching....
I guess my only head scratcher now that Sporting News has weighed in (apologies not reading the full article) is if they assume the Rangers the winning wild card team, then facing Royals division winners? If so who Rangers beat if "Sox finish first".....
No worries, yes, the right thing for me to do would be to read the Sporting News article myself, even though I guess all the heavy lifting and commentary on Red Sox prospects themselves will have been done already prior and ongoing as at 7 Jan 16 at 915pm EST....
Longhi better than Dubon at 10? You are kidding me right, DR?
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Jan 30, 2016 7:56:36 GMT -5
MLBpipeline's top 100 came out last night. m.mlb.com/prospects/2016?list=prospects7. Moncada 17. Devers 25. Benintendi 39. Espinoza (45. Margot) (58. Guerra) And that's it. No Kopech, Johnson, or Travis
|
|
|
Post by brianthetaoist on Jan 30, 2016 9:44:50 GMT -5
MLBpipeline's top 100 came out last night. m.mlb.com/prospects/2016?list=prospects7. Moncada 17. Devers 25. Benintendi 39. Espinoza (45. Margot) (58. Guerra) And that's it. No Kopech, Johnson, or Travis Eh, Johnson and Travis, maybe, but I'm pretty sure people are sleeping on Kopech too much. If he pitched through the season, he'd probably be on all of these lists.
|
|
|
Post by chavopepe2 on Jan 30, 2016 11:43:01 GMT -5
MLBpipeline's top 100 came out last night. m.mlb.com/prospects/2016?list=prospects7. Moncada 17. Devers 25. Benintendi 39. Espinoza (45. Margot) (58. Guerra) And that's it. No Kopech, Johnson, or Travis Eh, Johnson and Travis, maybe, but I'm pretty sure people are sleeping on Kopech too much. If he pitched through the season, he'd probably be on all of these lists. Agreed. I don't think Travis is a top 100 prospect. Johnson might sneak onto the end of a list here and there, but is far from an obvious pick. But Kopech seems like a forgotten man. He should be in the bottom third of most lists.
|
|
jimoh
Veteran
Posts: 3,969
|
Post by jimoh on Jan 30, 2016 12:22:47 GMT -5
|
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 8,924
|
Post by ericmvan on Feb 16, 2016 17:21:30 GMT -5
Keith Law's:
1. Devers 2. Moncada 3. Benintendi 4. Espinoza 5. Kopech 6. Travis 7. Johnson 8. Marrero 9. Basabe 10. Lakins 11. Chavis 12. Ball 13. Longhi 14. Light 15. Hernandez 16. Acosta, C. 17. Dubon 18. Jerez 19. Rei 20. Matheny HM: Glorious
Travis: "can flat-out hit ... has a fairly high floor as a good defensive first baseman who hits .280 or so with 10-15 homers and a slew of doubles." Johnson: "a better choice for the Red Sox's fifth spot than Joe Kelly" Marrero: "would start for a lot of teams as a plus defender at shortstop with good contact skills" Basabe: "shows all five tools and has some patience at the plate" Lakins: "lightning-quick arm ... very good athlete ... his stuff is ahead of his feel and command"
After that it's mostly the expected caveats and negatives. Some of the positive stuff:
Ball: "remains a highly athletic kid with a projectable frame that just hasn't projected ... great work ethic" Longhi: "has great feel for hitting and plays an above-average first base" [power hasn't shown upin games] Light: "splitter that's probably plus now and could end up a 65 or 70" [needs FB command to set it up] Hernandez: "probably a quality utility infielder"
|
|
|
Post by mjammz on Feb 16, 2016 20:11:51 GMT -5
As crazy as it is to have 4 of the top 20 prospects in the BA rankings, what I find even more crazy is out of those top 20 the Red Sox have 3 of the 4 youngest prospects.
Espinoza (youngest) - 17 Devers - 19 Urias - 19 Mocada - 20 Francis Martes - 20
|
|
|