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.
Baseball Prospectus Org Top 10s
|
Post by philsbosoxfan on Dec 30, 2013 21:50:30 GMT -5
I said it previously, had Chris filed that scouting report, I would be significantly more concerned about Owens future.
As a counter point, Badler from BA just said in tweet that Owens is definitely in their top 50.
|
|
|
Post by mainesox on Dec 30, 2013 22:14:07 GMT -5
Will Woodward actually guessed them on Twitter; I tried to embed the tweets but couldn't figure out how that works here, so the 6 Sox are Bogaerts, Owens, JBJ, Swihart, Cecchini, and Barnes, not in that order according to Jason.
|
|
|
Post by wskeleton76 on Dec 30, 2013 22:32:44 GMT -5
It is easy to ignore undersized 2B prospect. Especially tool suckers wouldn't like him. But the more I see Mookie's play and read scouting report I got to believe in his bat and makeup. We will know whether Mookie is real or not in time.
|
|
|
Post by philsbosoxfan on Dec 30, 2013 23:06:50 GMT -5
It is easy to ignore undersized 2B prospect. Especially tool suckers wouldn't like him. But the more I see Mookie's play and read scouting report I got to believe in his bat and makeup. We will know whether Mookie is real or not in time. Why wouldn't tool suckers like him ? According to Callis in the BA podcast, he has the best tools of any minor league second baseman. Note, he said tools not skills.
|
|
|
Post by wskeleton76 on Dec 30, 2013 23:17:41 GMT -5
It is easy to ignore undersized 2B prospect. Especially tool suckers wouldn't like him. But the more I see Mookie's play and read scouting report I got to believe in his bat and makeup. We will know whether Mookie is real or not in time. Why wouldn't tool suckers like him ? According to Callis in the BA podcast, he has the best tools of any minor league second baseman. Note, he said tools not skills. Because they love athletic big guys with strong arm such as WMB and Salty.
|
|
|
Post by philsbosoxfan on Dec 30, 2013 23:22:51 GMT -5
Like my opening statement said, you can pretty much make a defensible argument for a whole range here, my thought anywhere from 5 to 11 or 12 depending on Workman's eligibility. There are no right or wrong opinions they are all just that, opinions. We as readers can agree or disagree and we can all have our own opinion and that includes an opinion of the rating service.
Personally, I've always thought of BP as a sabermetric service not a scouting service. I was totally surprised when they hired Chris because that isn't their usual orientation. Until quite recently, the greatest majority of their articles made sabermetic points, not scouting points.
Being honest, even before the Owens review, I've never thought much of Park's opinions. I rate him about on par with Kruk. LOL, that's an opinion, your mileage may vary.
|
|
|
Post by philsbosoxfan on Dec 30, 2013 23:24:51 GMT -5
Why wouldn't tool suckers like him ? According to Callis in the BA podcast, he has the best tools of any minor league second baseman. Note, he said tools not skills. Because they love athletic big guys with strong arm such as WMB and Salty. Athleticism isn't a tool. I don't like to nit pic posts in general but until now, I wasn't sure of your point. ADD: From a tools stand point, he has a strong arm. On the other hand, he likely can't bench press his wife/girl friend.
|
|
|
Post by wskeleton76 on Dec 30, 2013 23:37:17 GMT -5
What would scouts see first at the park? First impression comes from players's hardware and athletism. Then they will check raw power, speed, and arm strength. Many think great physical guys have highest upside. And I meant tool suckers as those who prefer that kind of propsects over skilled baseball players.
|
|
|
Post by philsbosoxfan on Dec 31, 2013 0:01:13 GMT -5
Understand how you meant that now.
LOL, at 64, I can bench my wife. I also think I can clean and jerk her but she won't let me try again after the 'mishap'.
|
|
|
Post by mainesox on Dec 31, 2013 1:01:56 GMT -5
What would scouts see first at the park? First impression comes from players's hardware and athletism. Then they will check raw power, speed, and arm strength. Many think great physical guys have highest upside. And I meant tool suckers as those who prefer that kind of propsects over skilled baseball players. Is this why Parks sees Cecchini as a second division player, and still prefers Middlebrooks?
|
|
|
Post by moonstone2 on Dec 31, 2013 7:08:08 GMT -5
What would scouts see first at the park? First impression comes from players's hardware and athletism. Then they will check raw power, speed, and arm strength. Many think great physical guys have highest upside. And I meant tool suckers as those who prefer that kind of propsects over skilled baseball players. Is this why Parks sees Cecchini as a second division player, and still prefers Middlebrooks? This isn't quite what he said. He said that Cecchini was probably an average player especially if he couldn't handle 3B. He doesn't hit for a lot of power, and doesn't have a lot of bat speed. Middlebrooks does have significant power that he's shown at the major league level. Cecchini after all has only a half a season of AA. I find that people tend to pick on BP if they don't like the Sox prospects as much as others. Suddenly they are nothing more than an amateur scouting site. They do send their people to a lot of games and have a ton of industry contacts. There is a reason why some of them have been hired by major league teams. As I recall they have made several prescient calls on prospects. Goldstein for example was among the first to report that Lars Anderson wasn't the prospect everyone thought. Many scouts prefer
|
|
|
Post by joshv02 on Dec 31, 2013 7:58:29 GMT -5
I find that people tend to pick on BP if they don't like the Sox prospects as much as others. Suddenly they are nothing more than an amateur scouting site. They do send their people to a lot of games and have a ton of industry contacts. There is a reason why some of them have been hired by major league teams. I think you are incorrectly conflating a bunch of posts to make a point. I am the one who called them an amatuer scouting site - and I didn't mean that as a dig. SP.com is an amatuer scouting site, and they do a great job. BA is an amatuer scouting site - and they do a great job. BP is now, too. As they are younger and have been doing this for a shorter period, of course I would expect that they have fewer contacts in the MLB world than BA does - which is all the word "light" meant, there [also, remember that Goldstein came from BA, while Parks and Mellon have more of an outsider viewpoint - I assume they developed their contacts rather than inherited them). They also have a very different view, as, for example, Speier or Callis are writers who can spot a good curve ball, while someone like Mellon is I think of as an (amature) scout who can write well. The focus is different. When BPro gives me their view they are giving me the view of an amature scout who talks to people in the industry; while Speier gives me his view, it is a person who talks to people in the industry, tinged with their own view. But, my question was not if BPro is good at what they do -- I tried to avoid that by pointing out that I really like reading Mellon. My question was what made the BPro prospect valuation something of a Prospectus product. My question was - where is the sabr view in all of this? Uniquely, even while Goldstein was there (more so before hand, and more so at the beginning of his time there), BPro looked at prospects from a sabr point of view. Afterall, BPro writers (mainly Sheehan) popularized the term There is No Such Thing as a Pitching Prospect -- is that something that Chris Mellon would utter? For prospects, BPro came up as an alternative to Baseball America, looking at completely different views. They aren't that anymore. The question I raised had nothing to do with if BP is right or wrong. You are combing my points with people who are criticizing them. I have no idea who is right - and tend to side with Hatfield in that there are six-ish guys who are baseline top 100 prospects, and another 5 or so who you can make reasonable arguments about either way. But, in all respets, don't overstate your argument. Goldstein was hired by a major league team. Otherwise, the hiring has come from the sabr (non-prospect) side. And Goldstein was hired to do what I would expect a good meld of scouting and sabr views to do - coordinate viewpoints, not scout. That isn't what Mellon or Parks primarily do. What Mellon or Parks primarily do has little to do with what BPro historically did - which is all my point was, and doesn't really have much to do with your point. That's a long post. The short version is - that isn't what I wrote.
|
|
|
Post by ramireja on Dec 31, 2013 9:19:14 GMT -5
Jason Parks ?@professorparks 9h Looks like the #Twins will place eight prospects on the BP 101; #Cubs, #Royals, #Pirates and #Rangers with seven; #RedSox with six. When do the BA and BP lists usually come out? (top 100?) Aside from the Red Sox only having 6, which I can live with, is anyone else surprised by the Royals or Rangers having 7? I know Mellen and some of the other BP guys are high on the toolsy Ranger bats (Alfaro, Nick Williams, Brinson, Gallo) but some of their k/bb rates are too outrageous to ignore. #toolsemphasis. 7 Royals is somewhat shocking. I count only two locks in Zimmer and Ventura in my opinion. You can make a strong case for Mondesi, thats 3. Who am I forgetting? They must be high on Dozier and Manaea. Can we move past Bubba Starling already? #moretools
|
|
|
Post by chavopepe2 on Dec 31, 2013 10:04:39 GMT -5
Jason Parks ?@professorparks 9h Looks like the #Twins will place eight prospects on the BP 101; #Cubs, #Royals, #Pirates and #Rangers with seven; #RedSox with six. When do the BA and BP lists usually come out? (top 100?) Aside from the Red Sox only having 6, which I can live with, is anyone else surprised by the Royals or Rangers having 7? I know Mellen and some of the other BP guys are high on the toolsy Ranger bats (Alfaro, Nick Williams, Brinson, Gallo) but some of their k/bb rates are too outrageous to ignore. #toolsemphasis. 7 Royals is somewhat shocking. I count only two locks in Zimmer and Ventura in my opinion. You can make a strong case for Mondesi, thats 3. Who am I forgetting? They must be high on Dozier and Manaea. Can we move past Bubba Starling already? #moretools If it matches up with their Royals top 10 it would be: RHP Yordano Ventura: 22 years old; split the season between AA/AAA; 134.2 IP - 155K/53BB SS Raul Mondesi: 18 years old; played in A ball; 482 AB 261/311/361 w/ 118K/34BB RHP Kyle Zimmer: 22 years; mostly A+, but finished in AA; 108.1 IP 140K/36BB RHP Miguel Almonte: 20 years old; A-ball; 130.2 IP 132K/36BB LHP Sean Manaea: Sandwich pick - did not play SS Hunter Dozier: 22 years old; played mostly in A-, finishing in A-ball; .303/.403/.509 RF Jorge Bonifacio: 20 years old; mostly A+, ending in AA; .298/.372/.429
|
|
|
Post by dewey1972 on Dec 31, 2013 10:04:54 GMT -5
I'm with ramireja on the Royals and Rangers. Surprised to see that they'd have seven. Obviously, I don't pay as much attention to other systems as I do to the Sox, but I didn't feel like either system had a ton of break-throughs this year.
|
|
jimoh
Veteran
Posts: 3,989
|
Post by jimoh on Dec 31, 2013 10:20:30 GMT -5
Callis says his list will have 5 Sox *from the 2011 draft* ht.ly/s9XShBecause very few players from the 2010-13 Drafts have made an impact in the Major Leagues at this point, it was too early for any of them to crack my Top 5. But I won’t be surprised if the Red Sox’ 2011 effort eventually muscles it way onto the list. Their first four picks — RHP Matt Barnes (first round), C Blake Swihart (first), LHP Henry Owens (supplemental first), OF Jackie Bradley (supplemental first) — all will make our soon-to-be-released Top 100 Prospects list, as will 2B Mookie Betts (fifth).
|
|
|
Post by chavopepe2 on Dec 31, 2013 10:22:38 GMT -5
I'm actually more critical of the Rangers than the Royals.
2B Rougned Odor C Jorge Alfaro RHP Alex Gonzalez SS Luis Sardinas LF Nick Williams 3B Joey Gallo RHP Luke Jackson
Are Alex Gonzalez and Luke Jackson really better prospects than Barnes, Ranaudo, Webster, or even Ball? I think Odor and Sardinas are fairly comparable to Betts (Betts has the better stats, the other two are more age advanced). I just don't see it.
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Dec 31, 2013 11:06:52 GMT -5
"Mellon" is the new "Bucholtz."
In all seriousness, not surprised at all by how it turned out by team. The Royals and Rangers guys listed have, in some cases, a higher ceiling than the Sox guys who would replace them.
It's also important to remember that it's not like these guys sit down and think "should I rank seven Red Sox or seven Rangers?" They're ranking the players relative to each other, ignoring what team they're on. Also, folks seem to be assuming that BA will have more Red Sox on its Top 100 than BP does. We don't know that. We have only heard that 11 guys will be "in consideration," which comment was made in a vacuum
For all we know, BP would have had four Sox clustered between 101-125, and BA will too once they sit down and make their list.
As for Betts, I vaguely remember Parks not thinking the power was for real yet. At any rate, in theory, we'll have answers to these questions very soon.
|
|
|
Post by moonstone2 on Dec 31, 2013 11:50:18 GMT -5
Baseball Prospectus started as a very sabermetric heavy organization but they have evolved. I believe that it's a better website because they have especially on the prospect side.
BP used to rank their prospects purely on statistical analysis with guys like Joe Sheehan leading the way. The problem was they were WAY off on some of their evaluations. For instance they ranked Brendan Harris, a future utility player, very highly. I specifically remember Jim Callis calling them out on that and other evaluations that seemed very sabr based.
Several years ago, BP decided that it needed to evolve especially on the prospect side and hired Goldstein. This led to the departure of Sheehan among others. Nate Silver tried to frame the scouts vs. SABR conflict in his "Beer and Tacos" article.
I agree with Silver's conclusion that I love both Beer and Tacos and I think that BP has done an excellent job of marrying the two. I love the statistical analysis that the site still has, and I also love the scouting analysis that the BP team brings. Mellon in particular does an excellent job of explaining the strengths and weaknesses of prospects.
I think in my post I wasn't just responding to you, but also to posts that seem to indicate that major league scouts just looked at a guy in a uniform and ignored if he had any idea how to play baseball. That may have been true many years ago, but I do think that many evaluators DO examine a player's approach to the game as well as his physical gifts. There are actual good reasons to rank Middlebrooks ahead of Cecchini right now.
I'm not over stating my argument. Zach Mortimer and Jason Cole were both hired this year by major league teams so it isn't just Kevin Goldstein. Parks has implied that he has had offers and I believe that many on the staff will eventually have the opportunity to work for a major league team should they choose to do so.
Not that you are doing this, but it seems that every time a legitimate evaluator questions a Red Sox prospect a group of people start to question the talents of the evaluator. They do this regardless of if they have actually seen the prospect in question play.
|
|
|
Post by moonstone2 on Dec 31, 2013 11:53:37 GMT -5
I think he sees Betts as more of a utility player, though a very good one, which would explain why he's not in the Top 100.
Besides his lack of a track record prior to 2013, Betts' main weakness is that he hasn't shown the ability to play SS professionally. That puts more pressure on his bat going forward.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Dec 31, 2013 12:01:27 GMT -5
I think he sees Betts as more of a utility player, though a very good one, which would explain why he's not in the Top 100. Besides his lack of a track record prior to 2013, Betts' main weakness is that he hasn't shown the ability to play SS professionally. That puts more pressure on his bat going forward. This goes back to the 'no such thing as a 2B prospect' belief. Everyone plays SS until they can't. If Mookie were in CF, he'd probably be just fine (for Parks).
|
|
|
Post by joshv02 on Dec 31, 2013 12:02:45 GMT -5
I mainly agree; thanks for the response. (I also didn't know anything about the two folks you mentioned; so, thanks, again.) However, I do miss having the strong sabr view. So while BPro may be stronger for the scouting view, I think we are all worse off for not having a strong analytical view of prospects. I'd rather BPro be off about Brandon Harris, then have no discussion about it. :2cents:
|
|
|
Post by moonstone2 on Dec 31, 2013 12:03:09 GMT -5
I'm actually more critical of the Rangers than the Royals. 2B Rougned Odor C Jorge Alfaro RHP Alex Gonzalez SS Luis Sardinas LF Nick Williams 3B Joey Gallo RHP Luke Jackson Are Alex Gonzalez and Luke Jackson really better prospects than Barnes, Ranaudo, Webster, or even Ball? I think Odor and Sardinas are fairly comparable to Betts (Betts has the better stats, the other two are more age advanced). I just don't see it. Betts may have better stats but Odor has performed at AA whereas Betts hasn't shown he can do that yet. I would seriously doubt that any of the lists are going to show the two being close. Sardinas can be a regular SS in the majors and has also played in the high minors. Gonzalez was someone who the Red Sox liked a lot and nearly took. He doesn't have the ceiling that Ball has, but he's very advanced and likely to sail through the minors and be ready to help in 2014. Sure Webster, Ranaudo, Barnes and Ball might end up better, but they are less likely to be starters in the majors than Gonzalez is.
|
|
|
Post by chavopepe2 on Dec 31, 2013 12:18:55 GMT -5
I'm actually more critical of the Rangers than the Royals. 2B Rougned Odor C Jorge Alfaro RHP Alex Gonzalez SS Luis Sardinas LF Nick Williams 3B Joey Gallo RHP Luke Jackson Are Alex Gonzalez and Luke Jackson really better prospects than Barnes, Ranaudo, Webster, or even Ball? I think Odor and Sardinas are fairly comparable to Betts (Betts has the better stats, the other two are more age advanced). I just don't see it. Betts may have better stats but Odor has performed at AA whereas Betts hasn't shown he can do that yet. I would seriously doubt that any of the lists are going to show the two being close. Sardinas can be a regular SS in the majors and has also played in the high minors. Gonzalez was someone who the Red Sox liked a lot and nearly took. He doesn't have the ceiling that Ball has, but he's very advanced and likely to sail through the minors and be ready to help in 2014. Sure Webster, Ranaudo, Barnes and Ball might end up better, but they are less likely to be starters in the majors than Gonzalez is. I'm fine with Odor ahead of Betts, but I think it is close. Sardinas and Odor had about 135 ABs in AA and are a little younger, so it is a difficult statistical comparison to make for sure. I just think they are in the same tier. I disagree with your last statement though. I don't think Gonzalez is more likely to be a starter in the majors than Webster, Ranaudo, or Barnes. Webster for one has already made starts in the majors. Gonzalez has 42.2 innings of mediocre performance in A-ball and below.
|
|
|
Post by moonstone2 on Dec 31, 2013 12:19:13 GMT -5
He'd be better for sure but he hasn't shown that he can play CF either. It's not so much that there is no such thing as a 2B prospect as there are several players who currently play 2B who didn't play SS in the minors. It's more that it's a harder position to break into as more offense is expected.
|
|
|