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.
SoxProspects Rankings Discussion
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Jun 1, 2017 17:19:28 GMT -5
Maybe I'm too low on Chatham, I almost put him 11 and Mata #10. I hated the pick when they made it, so I'm biased against him. I just can't get the draft experts calling him a safe pick, with a ceiling of a utility guy out of my head. One of the best college SS in a horrible year for college SS. Nevermind his so so stats for his age and experience in low A ball last year and his average D. I hope I'm dead wrong, but he's hardly played and hasn't yet produced in a way that changes my overall opinion of him. Kept him at 9 just because of the strong opinions of the staff that have seen him in person. I just need to see more before I move him above guys that have proven a lot more. I'm not sure what you expected for an underslot signing that we needed at #51. The baseball draft is such a crapshoot outside of the top 10-20 depending on the year. From the money we had left in draft pool, that underslot signing allowed you to give your 11th round pick $15,000 extra. The biggest slot savings were 7th round pick and down. If his money was crucial to Groome signing you'd have a point, It just wasn't. The draft is no where near a crapshoot in the 2nd round at pick # 51. There's no sure things, but your odds are still better. Otherwise you just take Scott in 2nd round and have a ton of extra money to spend for rest of draft. I expect a player with an upside that's higher than utility player. I know not everyone thought that, but more than one draft expert did. We'll see I hope I'm dead wrong!
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Jun 1, 2017 17:41:25 GMT -5
I'm not sure what you expected for an underslot signing that we needed at #51. The baseball draft is such a crapshoot outside of the top 10-20 depending on the year. From the money we had left in draft pool, that underslot signing allowed you to give your 11th round pick $15,000 extra. The biggest slot savings were 7th round pick and down. If his money was crucial to Groome signing you'd have a point, It just wasn't. The draft is no where near a crapshoot in the 2nd round at pick # 51. There's no sure things, but your odds are still better. Otherwise you just take Scott in 2nd round and have a ton of extra money to spend for rest of draft. I expect a player with an upside that's higher than utility player. I know not everyone thought that, but more than one draft expert did. We'll see I hope I'm dead wrong! You have no idea exactly how much money is needed for everyone before the draft since you don't know who exactly will sign. Nevermind, I know you'll argue this forever so I'll bow out.
|
|
|
Post by widewordofsport on Jun 1, 2017 18:57:32 GMT -5
Definitely different than what I expected!
For me, I just don't trust Ockimey hitting enough to really be a top 5 prospect at DH, so I really hope his defense is ok. I expected Chavis (brushing off defensive troubles as part of injury) to be 4th, given pedigree and more positional flexibility (albeit shorter track record).
Part of me just says screw it why not put a kid like Mata up in the top 5. He was cheap/lower pedigree, but if he starts to put up numbers at all close to what Espinoza did, he must have a higher value ceiling than anyone but Devers or Groome. Nice to see Beeks/Hernandez move up, and they are probably where they should be. Eastern League Pitcher of the Year doesn't carry with it a whole lot of positive prognostic value for a career.
Also, consider me completely out on Longhi (and have been for a while). I'd just as soon see him out of the top 20. I also expected Dalbec to drop, as the number of prospects who come back to be big power hitters (which is all Dalbec really has to hang his hat on) after hamate removal is a pretty exclusive group.
At some point that 2016 draft class gonna have to start playing baseball...
|
|
|
Post by ramireja on Jun 1, 2017 21:52:39 GMT -5
A couple thoughts: - On #4, we might write about it on the News Page. The three of us had the same guys ranked 4-8, but in different orders. There are positives and significant negatives with each. It's an interesting exercise that Ian and I discussed on this week's podcast before we knew how the rankings would even come out. I'll say what I've said in the past, as it really does still apply - I'd feel a lot better about it if those guys were fighting for, say, the number 6 or 7 spot rather than the number 4 spot.Oh I wanted to comment on this too. I have Lakins at #4 but I agree, no matter who you pick from Lakins/Chavis/Ockimey/Chatham, it feels like a reach at #4. That said, the idea of starting that tier at #6 isn't that farfetched in a couple months. This might be aggressive/overly optimistic, but if Mata is still doing well in Greenville into say July/August, and if Sam Travis doesn't lose prospect eligibility, then in a couple months you could have: 1. Devers 2. Groome 3. Travis 4. 2017 1st round pick 5. Mata 6. Ockimey 7. Chatham 8. Lakins 9. Chavis 10. Dalbec That feels better right? Also, our second round pick (or an overslot guy later in the draft) should be fighting for a spot in the top 10. Heck, if you're willing to buy into the insane reports of Daniel Flores' defense, you could make a case for him near #10.
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Jun 2, 2017 10:01:31 GMT -5
I could also see Daniel Flores cracking the top 10, although that'd be the highest we debuted a J2 guy in a long, long time.
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Jun 2, 2017 10:13:59 GMT -5
From the money we had left in draft pool, that underslot signing allowed you to give your 11th round pick $15,000 extra. The biggest slot savings were 7th round pick and down. If his money was crucial to Groome signing you'd have a point, It just wasn't. The draft is no where near a crapshoot in the 2nd round at pick # 51. There's no sure things, but your odds are still better. Otherwise you just take Scott in 2nd round and have a ton of extra money to spend for rest of draft. I expect a player with an upside that's higher than utility player. I know not everyone thought that, but more than one draft expert did. We'll see I hope I'm dead wrong! You have no idea exactly how much money is needed for everyone before the draft since you don't know who exactly will sign. Nevermind, I know you'll argue this forever so I'll bow out. The last college player picked in top 10 rounds that didn't sign was 2006. So you had a good idea who would sign. Groome was the only high school player in top 10.
|
|
|
Post by ramireja on Jun 2, 2017 11:32:03 GMT -5
I could also see Daniel Flores cracking the top 10, although that'd be the highest we debuted a J2 guy in a long, long time. ...and I think you might be justified in doing so. Guys like Devers and Espinoza seem like relatively decent comparables in terms of pedigree. Devers was considered one of the best bats in his class and even moreso the best left-handed bat in his class (Eloy JImenez and Gleyber Torres were also top J2 prospects that year). Espinoza was in the conversation as the best pitching prospect in his class. The thing that perhaps sets Flores apart and could justify a higher ranking is that his calling card is potential above-average to elite defense at the catcher position. Whereas Devers really needed his hit and power tools to prove themselves and Espinoza needed to prove his stuff....how much would Flores really need to hit to project as a major leaguer if we can put some stock into reports regarding his defense? If he truly becomes above average (or dare I say elite) defensively, then a .220/.270./.350 player can make a life as a backup catcher (FV 40). If he can hit and/or hit for power, well then...the sky is the limit. In short, his skill set likely raises his floor (or 25% projection if you prefer) relative to Devers or Espinoza when they entered the system and that could justify a spot in the Top 10.
|
|
|
Post by widewordofsport on Jun 3, 2017 18:46:44 GMT -5
I mentioned on another post, that from an age, pedigree, scouting report, stats (Im not a scout, and don't watch MiLB much) it's hard for me to see a difference between Lakins and Beeks, certainly not a 6 vs. 15 difference.
There's a lot of candidates, but hopefully somewhere one or two of these guys can become the back of the rotation/swing starter that the Ranaudo group was supposed to give us.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 5, 2017 13:26:59 GMT -5
I apologize in advance for I know this question has been answered in the past.
Explain to me why lower level players like Raudes, Mata, Shawaryn, Lakin (now in AA) and Mata rank higher than players in AA/AAA like Callahan, Buttrey, Ball, Maddox, Sheperd, Martin and Tobias.
Is the logic, as I heard in the podcast, that a player like Lakin who is 88-93 t 94 with an arsenal of good off speed, " MAY" end of in the pen and "MAY" increase his velo and sharpness of his pitches?
If the argument is each of these players could improve to X, isn't it also true each of these players could not improve Y? And considering players who are AA/AAA, they also could go both ways?
Sorry, just curious?
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Jun 5, 2017 13:50:27 GMT -5
For me it's all about upside, age and production so far. Player's like Raudes, Mata, Larkin, Shawaryn and Anderson just have a better combination of upside, age and production so far.
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Jun 5, 2017 14:04:34 GMT -5
Not to give a non-answer, but ranking any player as compared to any other player is an exercise in projection and likelihood of a given range of outcomes. If the question is why five players are ranked ahead of seven others, as you've presented, the answer, which is quite general because it has to be, is that we believe they deserved to rank higher based on our projections for those players and the likelihoods of them reaching certain outcomes within the range of likely projections. It's just hard to say too much more than that here, because if you're looking for some rule, there isn't one. Projection is an exercise in trying to gauge how players will develop, an extremely inexact science. Taking the youngest player you list, Mata, there's a chance he could develop into a mid-rotation starter. There is also the chance he never makes it to Double-A. That's baked into his ranking. That's no different than how we rank anyone from the latter group. Jamie Callahan could be, say, a setup guy in the majors. He also might never even pitch well in Pawtucket. Again: range of outcomes, likelihood of where player will end up in that range. That's why in our grades on the front page, we give a projection followed by a range showing projected floor and projected ceiling. The one thing I'll add, which is an observation comparing your first group versus your second group (again, as opposed to any hard and fast rule we have or anything), is that for the most part, the list you gave is a number of players still starting as compared to a number of players who are already in the bullpen (and Josh Tobias). By definition, a guy who's starting still has a chance to start, right? A starting pitcher is just generally more valuable than a reliever. That's pretty much incontrovertable, I'd say, for the most part, unless you're talking an elite closer versus a back-end starter or something. So if we're looking at a guy who we think has a chance to stick in a major league rotation, chances are we're going to rank him ahead of a reliever. This is pretty standard too - if you look at any outlet's rankings, you're not going to find many projected relievers in their top 100 prospects. If you look at the scale here on the site at www.soxprospects.com/about.htm, which is the industry standard by the way, you can see how relievers compare to starters in how they're graded - a standard-issue middle reliever is thought of as about the same as a fringe back-end starter. And if you look at Fangraphs' WAR leaderboard for last year, the top closer in the game, Kenley Jansen, ranked 28th among pitchers at 3.2 WAR. There are just 17 pitchers who were primarily relievers in the top 100 pitchers. Throwing 70 innings, you've got to be REALLY good to have the same impact as a starter throwing more than twice as many innings. Proximity the majors is a factor, but in the sense that you typically tend to have a much better sense of what a player's going to be in the majors when he's closer because he's already been through more development and more of the funneling/winnowing process of moving up the ladder. Anyway, maybe that answered your question, maybe it didn't. Hopefully closer to the former.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 5, 2017 14:12:07 GMT -5
I think you did a good job of giving me a headache and I'm glad you understand the rationale.
My simple point is - and yes its a simple point - I'd conduct the analysis/rankings using your logic as a baseline, but in a composite scoring system, I'd apply an additional weight to those players contributing at the higher levels.
But thank you for sharing your thoughts/approach. I'm glad I'm not ranking these guys.
|
|
|
Post by iakovos11 on Jun 5, 2017 14:21:31 GMT -5
Most years there is thread where everyone who wants can share their rankings. This site ranking differ from BA and BP and Fangraphs and MiLB, etc etc. It's subjective and people will never agree 100% on how to do it.
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Jun 5, 2017 14:41:21 GMT -5
I think you did a good job of giving me a headache and I'm glad you understand the rationale.
My simple point is - and yes its a simple point - I'd conduct the analysis/rankings using your logic as a baseline, but in a composite scoring system, I'd apply an additional weight to those players contributing at the higher levels.
But thank you for sharing your thoughts/approach. I'm glad I'm not ranking these guys. Well, as I mentioned, proximity is considered in the sense that if you're in, say, Pawtucket, you've made it farther and "survived" longer than a guy in rookie ball or something, so "never makes it to Double-A" isn't in your possible range of outcomes, right? But if you're in Pawtucket and your ceiling is that of a reliever working as a setup guy or something, while that's valuable, it's difficult for me to rank that guy ahead of someone in Greenville who I project to be a better player, even if there's a chance he never will even get as far as that other Pawtucket reliever has. If we're talking Pawtucket Role 5 starter versus Greenville Role 5 starter or something, then yeah, proximity is going to help more with that determination. But then you're also getting into likelihood of reaching a ceiling, track record, each player's specific tools and skills, etc. In ranking, I'd ask why you would want to weigh that, say, a guy has a floor of a 2 against another player's projected floor of a 3 more than the fact that the first player's ceiling is a 6 and we project him as a Role 4.5 player while the second player's ceiling is a 5 and we only project him as a Role 4 player? You have to consider all of that, not just floor. It doesn't make sense, to me, to overrule that analysis simply based on what level a guy is presently at. Otherwise, Brian Johnson basically becomes your top prospect, no? He's the closest to the majors and arguably the most likely major leaguer in the rankings, since he already has a role on the club as a spot starter.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 5, 2017 15:01:21 GMT -5
1) Assumption you made is Pawtucket, you made it farther and "survived" longer than a guy in rookie ball. My view is this player excelled to Pawtucket, rather than survived. 2) I don't put much value in the evaluation by people like us - ceiling, projections, ranking reliever vs. 1-5 starter. 3) I do put a lot of value on track record and do weight that record based on competition. 4) Then I factor the "development process" for example, hitters looking to hit back side vs pulling ever pitch, or not throwing their best pitch to work on those that are not major league ready. These factors effect track record. 5) I also factor in injury history for I believe this is part of off season training and in season personal management. 6) And yes, I'd have Brian Johnson ranked in the top 3 But I would wish he'd work on increasing his fb velo
|
|
|
Post by ajs1994 on Jun 5, 2017 16:06:51 GMT -5
1) Assumption you made is Pawtucket, you made it farther and "survived" longer than a guy in rookie ball. My view is this player excelled to Pawtucket, rather than survived. 2) I don't put much value in the evaluation by people like us - ceiling, projections, ranking reliever vs. 1-5 starter. 3) I do put a lot of value on track record and do weight that record based on competition. 4) Then I factor the "development process" for example, hitters looking to hit back side vs pulling ever pitch, or not throwing their best pitch to work on those that are not major league ready. These factors effect track record. 5) I also factor in injury history for I believe this is part of off season training and in season personal management. 6) And yes, I'd have Brian Johnson ranked in the top 3 But I would wish he'd work on increasing his fb velo [ Can understand most of this except point 2. I think a lot of this is based on the observations Ian and Chaz are making, and it's not like they're random casual fans. Ian's predecessor now works for Baseball Prospectus. I also think heavily weighting whether a guy has made it to AAA unfairly discriminates against guys who just happen to be young but are very talented, I appreciate a site like this recognized the immense potential of a Bogaerts or Espinoza early on before they were in AA or AAA. As for the rest, it's a hard balance to strike between evaluating ceiling and floor. I think production is important, but there are also risks involved just scouting the box score.
|
|
|
Post by soxfansince67 on Jul 1, 2017 10:36:35 GMT -5
Rankings updates for July 1- any surprises for anyone? Houck debuts at 5. Beeks cracks the top 10. Devers, Travis, Chavis at 1-3-4.
|
|
dd
Veteran
Posts: 979
|
Post by dd on Jul 1, 2017 11:59:45 GMT -5
The Class of '17 is here!Details
Summary:Where to start? Devers, Groome, Travis, and Jamie Callahan are all unchanged from last month.
- Michael Chavis is up from 7 to 4.
- First rounder Tanner Houck debuts at # 5.
- Bryan Mata jumped up 7 spots, from 13 to 6.
- Jalen Beeks makes # 10 for the first time, up from 15.
- Travis Lakins down from 6 to 11.
- Cole Brannen (2nd round) and Alex Scherff (5) are ranked at 14 & 15.
- Hector Velazquez moved up from 36 to 26 (in spite of 3 draftees being inserted ahead of him).
- Brett Netzer (3) and Zach Schellenger (6) are at 29 & 30.
- Tzu-Wei Lin moved up from 42 to 31 (with 5 draftees ahead of him). On 5/1 he was unranked.
- Rodani Baldwin rose from 40 to 35.
- Luis Ysla and Jake Cosart both fell 13 spots coming in at 40 and 41.
- Despite the new faces, Trenton Kemp moved up 2 positions and is now at 42.
- Gerson Bautista down from 30 to 43.
- Steve Selsky down from 39 to 44.
- Austin Glorius down from 35 to 46.
- Hildemaro Requena rose from 52 to 47.
- Bryce Brents is up 8 at # 48.
- Chad De La Guerra is ranked for the first time at 49.
- Bobby Poyner is at # 50. He was last ranked at the same spot last June.
- Harrison Cooney is on the list for the first time at # 54.
- Williams Jerez is 56, down 11.
- Yankory Pimentel is 57, down from 34. (He's suspended.)
- Trevor Kelley, Tyler Esplin, and Kervin Suarez, all ranked for the first time, round out the top 60. Esplin was this year's 7th round pick. Kelley was the 36th round pick in 2015.
|
|
|
Post by manfred on Jul 1, 2017 12:11:50 GMT -5
This is exciting!
The top-10 looks so much better than it did at the start of the year. I am high on Houck, and some of the risers like Mata, Chavis, and Beeks have me optimistic.
Thanks,as always,to the SoxProspects team for this update. You all make the season much more fun.
|
|
Smittyw
Veteran
Posts: 1,292
Member is Online
|
Post by Smittyw on Jul 1, 2017 14:25:48 GMT -5
Now we wait for the J2 guys.
|
|
|
Post by larrycook on Jul 1, 2017 15:34:46 GMT -5
The Class of '17 is here!Details
Summary:Where to start? Devers, Groome, Travis, and Jamie Callahan are all unchanged from last month.
- Michael Chavis is up from 7 to 4.
- First rounder Tanner Houck debuts at # 5.
- Bryan Mata jumped up 7 spots, from 13 to 6.
- Jalen Beeks makes # 10 for the first time, up from 15.
- Travis Lakins down from 6 to 11.
- Cole Brannen (2nd round) and Alex Scherff (5) are ranked at 14 & 15.
- Hector Velazquez moved up from 36 to 26 (in spite of 3 draftees being inserted ahead of him).
- Brett Netzer (3) and Zach Schellenger (6) are at 29 & 30.
- Tzu-Wei Lin moved up from 42 to 31 (with 5 draftees ahead of him). On 5/1 he was unranked.
- Rodani Baldwin rose from 40 to 35.
- Luis Ysla and Jake Cosart both fell 13 spots coming in at 40 and 41.
- Despite the new faces, Trenton Kemp moved up 2 positions and is now at 42.
- Gerson Bautista down from 30 to 43.
- Steve Selsky down from 39 to 44.
- Austin Glorius down from 35 to 46.
- Hildemaro Requena rose from 52 to 47.
- Bryce Brents is up 8 at # 48.
- Chad De La Guerra is ranked for the first time at 49.
- Bobby Poyner is at # 50. He was last ranked at the same spot last June.
- Harrison Cooney is on the list for the first time at # 54.
- Williams Jerez is 56, down 11.
- Yankory Pimentel is 57, down from 34. (He's suspended.)
- Trevor Kelley, Tyler Esplin, and Kervin Suarez, all ranked for the first time, round out the top 60. Esplin was this year's 7th round pick. Kelley was the 36th round pick in 2015.
I do not think I have ever seen Baldwin play in person. The video shows a guy who appears to have a plan at the plate and a decent swing. I got to put it on the list for next season. He might be a guy that surprises.
|
|
|
Post by ryan24 on Jul 1, 2017 17:53:49 GMT -5
Think chavis is way overrated. Just like dalbec was this year until now. On both guys because Dave depleted the system so much, we have drank the kool aid too much on a short sample. probably still too high. Based on who we have I think that brannen and scheff are rated too low, but I understand the logic and bow to the experts. In total I like the last 2 drafts. Interested to see how the international signings change things again.
|
|
|
Post by soxfan511 on Jul 1, 2017 18:06:10 GMT -5
Think chavis is way overrated. Just like dalbec was this year until now. On both guys because Dave depleted the system so much, we have drank the kool aid too much on a short sample. probably still too high. Based on who we have I think that brannen and scheff are rated too low, but I understand the logic and bow to the experts. In total I like the last 2 drafts. Interested to see how the international signings change things again. How exactly is chavis overrated? He's going to make the next top 100 prospects in mlb list, and right now is considered one of the best power hitters in all the minor leagues. He's got plus hit tool potential and has shown plus power already. He's also a very hard worker who will only get better because of his work ethic.
|
|
|
Post by ryan24 on Jul 1, 2017 18:13:00 GMT -5
Interesting to see that lin who is on the big club is ranked 31. that shows how much of the farm got traded and the mount of injuries we have had to the middle infield has affected the club. Losing holt hurts a lot. dubon and shaw look pretty good right now, unfortunately they are on the brewers.
|
|
|
Post by ryan24 on Jul 1, 2017 18:15:36 GMT -5
Think chavis is way overrated. Just like dalbec was this year until now. On both guys because Dave depleted the system so much, we have drank the kool aid too much on a short sample. probably still too high. Based on who we have I think that brannen and scheff are rated too low, but I understand the logic and bow to the experts. In total I like the last 2 drafts. Interested to see how the international signings change things again. How exactly is chavis overrated? He's going to make the next top 100 prospects in mlb list, and right now is considered one of the best power hitters in all the minor leagues. He's got plus hit tool potential and has shown plus power already. He's also a very hard worker who will only get better because of his work ethic. Agree with what you are saying, BUT all his great stuff was done at A. If he shows the same stuff at AA in the second half of the season I will gladly rescind all the bad things I have said about him.
|
|
|