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 Chris Hatfield on Dec 31, 2013 12:19:54 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: Well this can be lost in the use of anecdotal evidence like the Harris thing, but BP's prospect stuff was an outright joke pre-Goldstein. Know how we regard Mayo's rankings around here these days (ex: throwing a 4/5 on Xander's power tool)? Worse than that. Charlie Zink was famously ranked on their top 101 one year (which is admittedly a bit unfair to bring up, given that it was understood that the 101st spot on the list was supposed to be an oddball pick, but the fact that this was a thing kind of underscores the point just as well).
|
|
|
Post by moonstone2 on Dec 31, 2013 12:25:51 GMT -5
I wouldn't put too much stock into statistics for a 2013 draftee. Some guys are tired mentally and physically after a long college season and draft process and it shows. Some teams also back off of them in their first season for that reason.
I am basing my opinion on what I have read and heard about the players in question more than their stat lines. Ranaudo, Barnes, and Webster all have significant fastball command issues that if they aren't fixed will put them in the pen. Gonzalez already has excellent fastball command.
|
|
|
Post by moonstone2 on Dec 31, 2013 12:39:57 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: Well this can be lost in the use of anecdotal evidence like the Harris thing, but BP's prospect stuff was an outright joke pre-Goldstein. Know how we regard Mayo's rankings around here these days (ex: throwing a 4/5 on Xander's power tool)? Worse than that. Charlie Zink was famously ranked on their top 101 one year (which is admittedly a bit unfair to bring up, given that it was understood that the 101st spot on the list was supposed to be an oddball pick, but the fact that this was a thing kind of underscores the point just as well). Right even in baseball not every opinion is a valid opinion. As for statistics, based analysis of prospects, I am perfectly capable of looking up a player's age and stat line. But that only tells me part of the story. A great performance can be explained by superior talent, or he could be merely feasting on mistakes that he won't see as many of in the majors. A discussion of a guy that hit well in AAA like Harris but whom almost nobody thought had the talent to play every day in the majors has no value to me. I want to read articles by people who have seen the players play, and who have a wide array of smart experienced evaluators who have also seen the players play.
|
|
|
Post by beasleyrockah on Dec 31, 2013 13:02:34 GMT -5
I wonder how far off the list Ball was. It seems like Manaea comfortably made the list (although who knows, maybe there were a cluster of Royals at the end).
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Dec 31, 2013 13:02:40 GMT -5
For what it's worth, Parks has always been more willing to trust more in his individual evaluations of prospects, even if it means bucking the crowd and having more of a "maverick" opinion on certain guys. Sometimes he's right, sometimes he's wrong, but he'll often give you a different perspective than the "scouting consensus" (perhaps best embodied by BA). That has value, especially when so many of the other (especially non-Red Sox) scouting reports we have publicly available are cannibalized and regurgitated second-hand stuff.
|
|
|
Post by joshv02 on Dec 31, 2013 13:09:15 GMT -5
I think you both are winning a relatively easily argument Of course not every opinion is valid; and I agree that the lists prior to Goldstein were't very good. Of course Charlie Zink was never the 101st best prospect in baseball. But, when we compare Odor to Betts, why doesn't BPro at least discuss - then dismiss, if appropriate - the EqAs, a peak translation, something - of each of the two? If only to in-the-end dismiss it for some other reason? What am I getting other than Mellon and Park's scouting reports? That is what I am missing. It isn't part of the conversation anymore, unless EV or someone else does so on one of the boards s/he visits (or doesn't anymore, in the case of SoSH). I refuse to agree that there is nothing that a sabr-view can add to prospect evaluation. I don't think either of you are saying that (I don't think either of you aren't saying that) but I don't see that anymore. Maybe I'm just looking for love in several wrong places? It is fairly disheartening to me.
|
|
|
Post by rjp313jr on Dec 31, 2013 13:18:38 GMT -5
Betts shouldn't be a surprising top 100 omission assuming he does. He's got one great year behind him against low level competition. Yes, there are a lot of things to like that go beyond the box score, but a couple things stand out.
1. He's a second baseman
2. Those "tools" weren't all that impressive headed into last year and are being magnified by his great statistical year in A ball.
This doesn't mean he's not for real, it just means some people are going to need to see a repeat performance at AA before they are convinced. Which makes more sense then buying too much into into his out of no where campaign.
|
|
|
Post by moonstone2 on Dec 31, 2013 14:40:57 GMT -5
For me that's not really worth my time. I am perfectly capable of clicking on each players page and finding out those numbers for myself. What I am not capable of doing is finding out what is driving those numbers and if it's something that's sustainable at the major league level. For that I need someone who has seen the players and has industry contacts who have also seen the players and know what they are seeing.
The one advantage that statistics do have is that it sees the outcome of every single at bat. No scout can possibly do that. Let's say for instance that a prospect caught his girlfriend in bed with a teammate and it effected his play for a period of time. Sabermetrics might notice that the performance and the scouting reports were effected for a short period of time.
|
|
|
Post by moonstone2 on Dec 31, 2013 14:55:51 GMT -5
For what it's worth, Parks has always been more willing to trust more in his individual evaluations of prospects, even if it means bucking the crowd and having more of a "maverick" opinion on certain guys. Sometimes he's right, sometimes he's wrong, but he'll often give you a different perspective than the "scouting consensus" (perhaps best embodied by BA). That has value, especially when so many of the other (especially non-Red Sox) scouting reports we have publicly available are cannibalized and regurgitated second-hand stuff. Yeah you make it sound like he bucks the crowd just to buck the crowd and I don't think that's what they do. Instead they have a philosophy of independent thought and don't shy away from an opinion just because it's not widely held. That started with KG who was the first on Lars Anderson and was also higher on Jose Altuve than most other publications. He in turned trained Jason to do that and Jason encourages the same philosophy from his staff. I think it's a great philosophy and makes the articles more enjoyable. If all you are going to do is rehash Jim Callis' list, then I can just read Jim Callis' list. Mellen's ranking of Gausman above Machado is a perfect example of this. He didn't just do that to buck the trend or be a maverick. I firmly believe that he has a real basis for this. On the last Fringe Average it was revealed that many evaluators didn't think this was as outrageous as it seemed. Jason trusts Chris and his evaluation skills, and encourages him to stand by his own opinion even if it seems outrageous. I would hope that MLB teams encourage their staff to do the same thing. As far as the "scouting consensus", I'd rather a writer use the sources that he trusts the most as opposed to just taking a poll and going with that.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Dec 31, 2013 15:16:36 GMT -5
For what it's worth, Parks has always been more willing to trust more in his individual evaluations of prospects, even if it means bucking the crowd and having more of a "maverick" opinion on certain guys. Sometimes he's right, sometimes he's wrong, but he'll often give you a different perspective than the "scouting consensus" (perhaps best embodied by BA). That has value, especially when so many of the other (especially non-Red Sox) scouting reports we have publicly available are cannibalized and regurgitated second-hand stuff. Yeah you make it sound like he bucks the crowd just to buck the crowd and I don't think that's what they do. Instead they have a philosophy of independent thought and don't shy away from an opinion just because it's not widely held. That started with KG who was the first on Lars Anderson and was also higher on Jose Altuve than most other publications. He in turned trained Jason to do that and Jason encourages the same philosophy from his staff. I think it's a great philosophy and makes the articles more enjoyable. If all you are going to do is rehash Jim Callis' list, then I can just read Jim Callis' list. Mellen's ranking of Gausman above Machado is a perfect example of this. He didn't just do that to buck the trend or be a maverick. I firmly believe that he has a real basis for this. On the last Fringe Average it was revealed that many evaluators didn't think this was as outrageous as it seemed. Jason trusts Chris and his evaluation skills, and encourages him to stand by his own opinion even if it seems outrageous. I would hope that MLB teams encourage their staff to do the same thing. As far as the "scouting consensus", I'd rather a writer use the sources that he trusts the most as opposed to just taking a poll and going with that. Sometimes I wonder if you even read my posts before you reflexively disagree. You just restated exactly what I wrote in my initial post. I have no idea where you got the impression that I was criticizing BP's approach-- I thought I made it clear that it is a useful perspective, even/especially because it differs from BA/Callis/Speier.
|
|
|
Post by moonstone2 on Dec 31, 2013 15:30:51 GMT -5
I read your post and posted my impressions.
If that's not what you meant then the problem lies with the writer and not with the reader.
|
|
|
Post by brianthetaoist on Dec 31, 2013 15:49:36 GMT -5
I was a little surprised by the general consensus about Mookie up to now, honestly. He seems like a classic case of a prospect that will engender a pretty wide range of projections due to his lack of pedigree and relatively recent run of success ... doesn't bother me much that BP doesn't like him nearly as much, or at the least isn't sold on him yet. Maybe even prudent.
I will say one thing about consensus vs individual looks, though: I don't think a single person or even 2 or 3 people can get enough looks at enough players to do the rankings comprehensively. Professional scouting services and teams employ cross-checkers for a reason, and scouts focus on specific areas and/or teams to get a deeper dive on the players. So, over time, I think an approach that focuses on synthesizing different views will probably be more accurate than one focusing on the impressions of a relative few observers. But, as a reader, I think it's good to get other perspectives to look at; it's a little more primary-source material.
|
|
|
Post by soxfan06 on Dec 31, 2013 17:03:15 GMT -5
Parks always seems to be down on the Red Sox prospects. Maybe I'm just jaded, but it teams like he always has something negative to say about our top guys rather than talking about the good stuff.
|
|
|
Post by chavopepe2 on Dec 31, 2013 17:06:52 GMT -5
For me that's not really worth my time. I am perfectly capable of clicking on each players page and finding out those numbers for myself. What I am not capable of doing is finding out what is driving those numbers and if it's something that's sustainable at the major league level. For that I need someone who has seen the players and has industry contacts who have also seen the players and know what they are seeing. The one advantage that statistics do have is that it sees the outcome of every single at bat. No scout can possibly do that. Let's say for instance that a prospect caught his girlfriend in bed with a teammate and it effected his play for a period of time. Sabermetrics might notice that the performance and the scouting reports were effected for a short period of time. While anyone can look up a player's stats, the beauty of good saber metric analysis is that it gives you new ways to look at numbers and more complete insight into what the numbers mean in terms of a player's long term development prospects. Also, just like with scouting multiple people can look at a stat line and come to very different conclusions about what it means. Eric talks about the distribution of performance meaning as much or more as the final line and I agree with this. It takes talent to recognize the trends just like it takes talent to recognize how projectable an 18-year-old's fastball is. I, like joshv, would love to see a site that is devoted towards understanding the statistical side of prospect performance and development. I know Mookie Bett's line from last year looks unique and extremely strong, but how unique is it? What does a performance like that mean historically for a prospect. I tend to be higher on prospects that have a low strikeout rate and a high walk rate, but is that justified? I'm sure a lot of this information is out there, but it doesn't have a strong central advocate like Baseball Prospectus used to be. I appreciate BP as an alternative to BA and like that they bring their own set of opinions to the table. There are some prospects that get caught in this circle of hype and stick around prospect lists for all the wrong reasons. I like it when someone can pick them out and not keep them on lists just because thats what everyone else is doing. Call this the Brandon Wood/Lars Anderson/Trevor Bauer crowd.
|
|
|
Post by grandsalami on Dec 31, 2013 18:39:02 GMT -5
Jason Parks ?@professorparks 7m @spwill @kyle_L8on Webster and Betts were in the discussion. Not as high on Ranaudo. Didn't crack Boston top ten.
wow
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Dec 31, 2013 18:59:05 GMT -5
Jason Parks ?@professorparks 7m @spwill @kyle_L8on Webster and Betts were in the discussion. Not as high on Ranaudo. Didn't crack Boston top ten. wow Why wow? He didn't crack BA's either and was 8-10 on four of the five brass Top 10's here at the site. By the way, when answering a question about Alen Hanson, Parks mentioned today how much he values what position a player is at. That said, it doesn't seem to effect him w/r/t Odor, so that may be something I ask him bout. ----- I read your post and posted my impressions. If that's not what you meant then the problem lies with the writer and not with the reader. FWIW, I thought it was pretty obvious what he meant. But either way, let's can that conversation here.
|
|
|
Post by pedroelgrande on Dec 31, 2013 19:06:15 GMT -5
Do you guys really care about a list or what number they have next to their name?
I'd much rather read and concentrate on what they have to say about the player.
|
|
|
Post by grandsalami on Dec 31, 2013 19:28:46 GMT -5
Jason Parks ?@professorparks 7m @spwill @kyle_L8on Webster and Betts were in the discussion. Not as high on Ranaudo. Didn't crack Boston top ten. wow Why wow? He didn't crack BA's either and was 8-10 on four of the five brass Top 10's here at the site. By the way, when answering a question about Alen Hanson, Parks mentioned today how much he values what position a player is at. That said, it doesn't seem to effect him w/r/t Odor, so that may be something I ask him bout.----- I read your post and posted my impressions. If that's not what you meant then the problem lies with the writer and not with the reader. FWIW, I thought it was pretty obvious what he meant. But either way, let's can that conversation here. my bad… Thoguht for a moment he was in the top 10…. Re: the bolded, would love to hear is reasoning on that
|
|
|
Post by chavopepe2 on Dec 31, 2013 20:06:43 GMT -5
Does Workman qualify? I didn't think he did, but maybe I'm mistaken.
If not, then I think it is reasonable to be surprised Ranaudo it outside of the top 10. It means that Vazquez (and/or maybe Margot?) are above him. That is surprising to me, as they are generally regarded as being in a lower tier. I'd be surprised if many people had Ranaudo out of the top 10 if you exclude Workman.
My hail mary guess is that it is Margot.
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Dec 31, 2013 21:10:54 GMT -5
Does Workman qualify? I didn't think he did, but maybe I'm mistaken. If not, then I think it is reasonable to be surprised Ranaudo it outside of the top 10. It means that Vazquez (and/or maybe Margot?) are above him. That is surprising to me, as they are generally regarded as being in a lower tier. I'd be surprised if many people had Ranaudo out of the top 10 if you exclude Workman. My hail mary guess is that it is Margot. Depends on whether they use service time.
|
|
|
Post by larrycook on Jan 1, 2014 12:57:13 GMT -5
Do you guys really care about a list or what number they have next to their name? I'd much rather read and concentrate on what they have to say about the player. These guys who do ranking, they all expect a prospect to progress to the majors in a straight line. And when you have a player, like Renauldo, who does not follow the straight line path, then they have doubts and reservations about the player an air on the side of caution in their projections. I do not know what we have in Renauldo, I have never seen him pitch live, but I do know that until he becomes consistent year after year, he is never going to get much love from the people who do these ranking lists.
|
|
|
Post by moonstone2 on Jan 1, 2014 19:39:34 GMT -5
Do you guys really care about a list or what number they have next to their name? I'd much rather read and concentrate on what they have to say about the player. These guys who do ranking, they all expect a prospect to progress to the majors in a straight line. And when you have a player, like Renauldo, who does not follow the straight line path, then they have doubts and reservations about the player an air on the side of caution in their projections. I do not know what we have in Renauldo, I have never seen him pitch live, but I do know that until he becomes consistent year after year, he is never going to get much love from the people who do these ranking lists. For me the huge takeaway was looking at the difference in K rate before and after the all-star break. It fell from 9.75 to 5.77. Even accounting for more starts in AAA in the second half that's a pretty dramatic drop.
|
|
|
Post by philsbosoxfan on Jan 1, 2014 22:07:46 GMT -5
These guys who do ranking, they all expect a prospect to progress to the majors in a straight line. And when you have a player, like Renauldo, who does not follow the straight line path, then they have doubts and reservations about the player an air on the side of caution in their projections. I do not know what we have in Renauldo, I have never seen him pitch live, but I do know that until he becomes consistent year after year, he is never going to get much love from the people who do these ranking lists. For me the huge takeaway was looking at the difference in K rate before and after the all-star break. It fell from 9.75 to 5.77. Even accounting for more starts in AAA in the second half that's a pretty dramatic drop. Playing the devils advocate, the flip side to that is that 2012 37.2 IP to 2013 140 IP is a pretty dramatic rise.
|
|
|
Post by grandsalami on Jan 2, 2014 0:57:02 GMT -5
Monday. I have it on good authority. There may be accompanying media here on SoxProspects as well. Wink wink. Just so you all don't think me a liar, this got pushed back to Jan. 2nd. today is the day! WIll be out most of today, so will be checking here on my phone
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Jan 2, 2014 8:50:54 GMT -5
Just so you all don't think me a liar, this got pushed back to Jan. 2nd. today is the day! WIll be out most of today, so will be checking here on my phone Might be tomorrow. FYI. EDIT: Latest update, straight from the Professor, is that it'll be Monday. And so, then, will the podcast.
|
|
|