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.
2022-2023 National Rankings (offseason)
|
Post by thegoodthebadthesox on Feb 18, 2023 12:06:24 GMT -5
I just listened to the Athletic's podcast with Stephen Nesbitt and Keith Law that recap's Law's system rankings. So for all you who hate or discount Law, avert thine eyes. For the rest, two things that stuck out: - Why the Dodgers are so successful even though they draft so far down in the first round, or even are excluded from the first round and get the draft money cap hit nearly every year. He said that Friedman has done two big things that are relatively low cost: 1) At every level, he's hired more scouts (including more MLB scouts) and player development people. 2) He's integrated every area thoroughly. So, for example: if they see fringe MLB player - pitcher or position player - who analytics says he just needs to do X more and Y less, they send the player development people to go see the player with the scouts (and watch video) and then ask: "Do you think you can fix this guy? If so how, and how quickly?" They also used the same integrated approach when scouting draftable players and international amateurs. He said this is not hard and other teams may catch on soon, but when so many teams went to more video scouting and video analysis, the Dodgers have done that and increased in-person scouting and player development. They pay these people well (relative to the other teams) and so they get high retention. - Why did he rank the Red Sox so low? You can listen for yourself (at about the 30:00 min mark). He said the four Sox guys in his Top 100 are good, but only 1-2 profile as potential All Stars. After that there's Yorke who may or may not bounce back but has bad defense so has to get on base a ton. Beyond that he said he's not seeing anything outstanding, though some guys may rise and surprise. His big hit was he sees the Sox as still very poor in pitching. Said don't draft pitchers well and they don't develop them well (like, say, Cleveland), and this has been going on for years. He sees most of their best pitching prospects as ultimately relievers or as 5/6s at best. The only guy he says who looks like an actual potential mid-rotation starter or better is Parales who he says is "four to five years from that. But he could also be four to five years from being out of baseball and working a day job because, with pitchers that young and that far out you never know." FWIW His logic yet again makes no sense [ br] How does that not make sense to you? You may disagree with it, but I think his stance is relatively reasonable. He doesn’t really take into the account that the Sox just haven’t really invested many high leverage picks into pitchers lately but I’m sure his counter to that would be the depth of high-impact hitting prospects don’t reflect that. Which, again, disagree if you want, but I don’t think he’s abjectly wrong with anything he said.
|
|
|
Post by fisk75 on Feb 18, 2023 12:23:24 GMT -5
Not that Law had much credibility before, but I stopped paying attention to him because of his evaluation of Nick Yorke. As we know he was at the front of the line killing the Red Sox for the pick, I know others did as well, but to me Law was the most vocal. Coming off his 2021 season and going into last year Law backtracked somewhat and spoke well of Yorke. But he cited not seeing him play in high as a reason why he was potentially wrong.
|
|
|
Post by thegoodthebadthesox on Feb 18, 2023 12:50:11 GMT -5
[ br] How does that not make sense to you? You may disagree with it, but I think his stance is relatively reasonable. He doesn’t really take into the account that the Sox just haven’t really invested many high leverage picks into pitchers lately but I’m sure his counter to that would be the depth of high-impact hitting prospects don’t reflect that. Which, again, disagree if you want, but I don’t think he’s abjectly wrong with anything he said. It's a false premise. The quality of the system is not predicated on the balance of pitching and hitting. If you, for example, have 7 top 100 players then it doesn't matter if they're all hitters or pitchers. Is it ideal for mlb team building? Of course not, but that doesn't have anything to do with evaluating the talent level in the minor leagues. Since the Sox are fairly good at developing hitters, bad at developing pitching, and the general TNSTAAPP, I prefer that the system is lopsided. Develop hitters and spend money on pitchers. 1. Again, the premise is not WRONG, you just don’t agree with it. If Law values a balanced system, that’s his prerogative and that’s fine! You can feel however you want about it but just because your evaluation or anyone else’s valuation is different doesn’t make any opposing view instantly wrong. Now if it were the extreme outlier example you propose where there were 15 hitters from one org in the top 100 and he was still touting lack of balance then sure, it’s fair to question it. But we are far from that situation. 2. Like I just said, you can make an argument that for an organization that has theoretically thrown all of its eggs into the developing hitters basket, they aren’t exactly overflowing with high level hitting prospects. Now I happen to like the quality of our top level position players so I’m certainly more optimistic than Law, but it’s an argument that could be made. Law is not better or worse than any other major prospect evaluator (actually there was just a tweet by someone that had all of the major outlets’ rankings from like 2018 juxtaposed and they all more or less were similar), he just approaches things differently and it happens to be lower than consensus on the Sox. That, again, is FINE. I’ve already talked about the weird groupthink and tribalism that goes on here with the team’s prospects, but y’all fabricate these ridiculous reaches to discredit Law’s work just because he doesn’t love the farm as much as Red Sox fans do and THAT is the logic that makes no sense. I mean I get that this is a fan board and all, but still. You can disagree while also acknowledging that it id A) an opinion and B) coming from someone who spends a lot more time and has a lot more experience doing this with any of us. And I don’t even particularly like Law! So I don’t take any pride defending him. But the over the top responses to his opinions are generally ridiculous.
|
|
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Feb 18, 2023 13:13:45 GMT -5
It's amazing how upset people get at Law for his opinions. If he thought higher of the Red Sox farm system perhaps there wouldn't be so much outrage?
We're all here paying close attention to the Red Sox farm system, but I doubt most of us are well versed in the other 29 franchises. Law has no agenda, positive or negative with the Sox in particular - they're just 1 of 30 teams to him.
I didn't hear him say anything that wasn't reasonable.
I think it's better to have a balanced system. Can't always throw your money at 30 year free agent pitchers. You have to develop them at some point. I remember in a galaxy far away once upon a time the Sox developed legit starting pitchers as I remember over a stretch of time guys like Clemens, Hurst, Tudor, Ojeda, and Boyd coming up through the system and developing. That can be preferable at times to throwing huge money at FA pitchers. Likewise its good to have guys coming through that can help out when injuries inevitably happen as I recall quality contributions made by lesser guys like Tom Bolton and Dana Kiecker in 1990 and Felix Doubront in 2013 and Brian Johnson in 2018.
So being able to draft and develop guys who can be an average and above starter or even a contributing back end guy, as opposed to an up and down JAG, is important.
For all we know, Law winds up being right on Yorke. If he can't play a decent 2b, will his bat play well enough to profile in LF? It's fair question. I'm still hopeful with Yorke, willing to chalk up last year to injuries, but I can be a homer at times with our prospects.
In my mind's eye I see Romero and Mayer up the middle, Casas as a star at 1b, Bleis in RF being a superstar player,which is how I see Mayer at SS, and a gold glover in CF in Rafaela with a better hit tool than JBJ. And I have Yorke in LF, too, hitting toward the top of the order and Bello being a #2 type starter. I even think Lugo and Edinson will play regularly for some other team and I still have hope for Brannon or Hickey to be the catcher of the future.
But these can be hopeful homeristic takes. Law isn't there for that. Doesn't mean he'll always be right as Pedroia can attest to, but if his takes are reasonable I can't get too worked up because he sees 20 some odd teams as having better systems. It's his opinions based on weighing teams against each other. I don't necessarily think the Sox are 22nd or whatever, but then again what do I really know about other systems? I don't scrutinize or dream about them the way I do about the Sox.
|
|
|
Post by incandenza on Feb 18, 2023 13:55:31 GMT -5
It's a false premise. The quality of the system is not predicated on the balance of pitching and hitting. If you, for example, have 7 top 100 players then it doesn't matter if they're all hitters or pitchers. Is it ideal for mlb team building? Of course not, but that doesn't have anything to do with evaluating the talent level in the minor leagues. Since the Sox are fairly good at developing hitters, bad at developing pitching, and the general TNSTAAPP, I prefer that the system is lopsided. Develop hitters and spend money on pitchers. 1. Again, the premise is not WRONG, you just don’t agree with it. If Law values a balanced system, that’s his prerogative and that’s fine! You can feel however you want about it but just because your evaluation or anyone else’s valuation is different doesn’t make any opposing view instantly wrong. Now if it were the extreme outlier example you propose where there were 15 hitters from one org in the top 100 and he was still touting lack of balance then sure, it’s fair to question it. But we are far from that situation. 2. Like I just said, you can make an argument that for an organization that has theoretically thrown all of its eggs into the developing hitters basket, they aren’t exactly overflowing with high level hitting prospects. Now I happen to like the quality of our top level position players so I’m certainly more optimistic than Law, but it’s an argument that could be made. Law is not better or worse than any other major prospect evaluator (actually there was just a tweet by someone that had all of the major outlets’ rankings from like 2018 juxtaposed and they all more or less were similar), he just approaches things differently and it happens to be lower than consensus on the Sox. That, again, is FINE. I’ve already talked about the weird groupthink and tribalism that goes on here with the team’s prospects, but y’all fabricate these ridiculous reaches to discredit Law’s work just because he doesn’t love the farm as much as Red Sox fans do and THAT is the logic that makes no sense. I mean I get that this is a fan board and all, but still. You can disagree while also acknowledging that it id A) an opinion and B) coming from someone who spends a lot more time and has a lot more experience doing this with any of us. And I don’t even particularly like Law! So I don’t take any pride defending him. But the over the top responses to his opinions are generally ridiculous. I do not have any grudge against Law, and don't really understand the people who do. I think he's fine. But the issue is that his own explanation of the Red Sox system is internally inconsistent. He gave them 4 spots in the top 100, which is obviously above average - yet ranked the system 23rd. He ranked the Blue Jays 17th despite their having only one top 100 guy. His argument for the Blue Jays ranking was that they had some strong middle infield depth and "a couple of outfielders" who were promising - but the Red Sox had middle infielders and outfielders in the top 100! Or like his explanation that the Red Sox only have 1-2 likely all-stars in the system right now. Well, the average MLB team only has a couple all-stars... how many are you supposed to have in the system at one time? How many do the Blue Jays have?
I mean, obviously none of this matters. It's just a little odd. Even if he wants to really ding them for their lack of pitching development he might acknowledge that in Houck and, especially, Bello, they have had a couple of successes (or imminent successes) in recent years.
|
|
|
Post by thegoodthebadthesox on Feb 18, 2023 14:04:01 GMT -5
1. Again, the premise is not WRONG, you just don’t agree with it. If Law values a balanced system, that’s his prerogative and that’s fine! You can feel however you want about it but just because your evaluation or anyone else’s valuation is different doesn’t make any opposing view instantly wrong. Now if it were the extreme outlier example you propose where there were 15 hitters from one org in the top 100 and he was still touting lack of balance then sure, it’s fair to question it. But we are far from that situation. 2. Like I just said, you can make an argument that for an organization that has theoretically thrown all of its eggs into the developing hitters basket, they aren’t exactly overflowing with high level hitting prospects. Now I happen to like the quality of our top level position players so I’m certainly more optimistic than Law, but it’s an argument that could be made. Law is not better or worse than any other major prospect evaluator (actually there was just a tweet by someone that had all of the major outlets’ rankings from like 2018 juxtaposed and they all more or less were similar), he just approaches things differently and it happens to be lower than consensus on the Sox. That, again, is FINE. I’ve already talked about the weird groupthink and tribalism that goes on here with the team’s prospects, but y’all fabricate these ridiculous reaches to discredit Law’s work just because he doesn’t love the farm as much as Red Sox fans do and THAT is the logic that makes no sense. I mean I get that this is a fan board and all, but still. You can disagree while also acknowledging that it id A) an opinion and B) coming from someone who spends a lot more time and has a lot more experience doing this with any of us. And I don’t even particularly like Law! So I don’t take any pride defending him. But the over the top responses to his opinions are generally ridiculous. I do not have any grudge against Law, and don't really understand the people who do. I think he's fine. But the issue is that his own explanation of the Red Sox system is internally inconsistent. He gave them 4 spots in the top 100, which is obviously above average - yet ranked the system 23rd. He ranked the Blue Jays 17th despite their having only one top 100 guy. His argument for the Blue Jays ranking was that they had some strong middle infield depth and "a couple of outfielders" who were promising - but the Red Sox had middle infielders and outfielders in the top 100! Or like his explanation that the Red Sox only have 1-2 likely all-stars in the system right now. Well, the average MLB team only has a couple all-stars... how many are you supposed to have in the system at one time? How many do the Blue Jays have?
I mean, obviously none of this matters. It's just a little odd. Even if he wants to really ding them for their lack of pitching development he might acknowledge that in Houck and, especially, Bello, they have had a couple of successes (or imminent successes) in recent years.
I don’t think the ranking part is inconsistent, I think he just doesn’t like the depth. He called Emmanuel Valdez an org guy in the comments of one of his lists, and if he doesn’t think any of the Mata/Walter/Wikelman/etc group has a ceiling above a 5th starter then yeah, I’d say poor depth is probably a consistent explanation for why he has the system ranked low.
|
|
|
Post by Guidas on Feb 18, 2023 14:12:13 GMT -5
I'm much more interested in what he says about LAD than the Sox. With all these teams cutting back on in-person scouting in favor of video scouting, great scouts are probably available. Also, some teams say they integrate departments (i.e. player development "talks" to scouting and vice-versa), but a lot of companies say they do the same thing, but in fact remain siloed. It's a cultural shift and the Dodgers seem to be making it work at the draft, in the minors and at the MLB level. I mean, look at their current aces in waiting, Bobby Miller - 28 teams picked over him - and Gavin Stone (picked 157th). Dalton Rushing, a catcher who can hit (LAD has two of these in their top 10) was picked 40th. Some of their other top guys are international signings. And then we have the MLB players. They seem to find and "fix" one every year.
|
|
|
Post by thegoodthebadthesox on Feb 18, 2023 14:31:31 GMT -5
I'm much more interested in what he says about LAD than the Sox. With all these teams cutting back on in-person scouting in favor of video scouting, great scouts are probably available. Also, some teams say they integrate departments (i.e. player development "talks" to scouting and vice-versa), but a lot of companies say they do the same thing, but in fact remain siloed. It's a cultural shift and the Dodgers seem to be making it work at the draft, in the minors and at the MLB level. I mean, look at their current aces in waiting, Bobby Miller - 28 teams picked over him - and Gavin Stone (picked 157th). Dalton Rushing, a catcher who can hit (LAD has two of these in their top 10) was picked 40th. Some of their other top guys are international signings. And then we have the MLB players. They seem to find and "fix" one every year. I’m not convinced Rushing is a catcher (though Robo Umps could very well allow him to be passable there) and that’s kinda why he got to 40, but you’re right in general.
|
|
|
Post by Underwater Johnson on Feb 18, 2023 15:30:54 GMT -5
1. Again, the premise is not WRONG, you just don’t agree with it. If Law values a balanced system, that’s his prerogative and that’s fine! You can feel however you want about it but just because your evaluation or anyone else’s valuation is different doesn’t make any opposing view instantly wrong. Now if it were the extreme outlier example you propose where there were 15 hitters from one org in the top 100 and he was still touting lack of balance then sure, it’s fair to question it. But we are far from that situation. 2. Like I just said, you can make an argument that for an organization that has theoretically thrown all of its eggs into the developing hitters basket, they aren’t exactly overflowing with high level hitting prospects. Now I happen to like the quality of our top level position players so I’m certainly more optimistic than Law, but it’s an argument that could be made. Law is not better or worse than any other major prospect evaluator (actually there was just a tweet by someone that had all of the major outlets’ rankings from like 2018 juxtaposed and they all more or less were similar), he just approaches things differently and it happens to be lower than consensus on the Sox. That, again, is FINE. I’ve already talked about the weird groupthink and tribalism that goes on here with the team’s prospects, but y’all fabricate these ridiculous reaches to discredit Law’s work just because he doesn’t love the farm as much as Red Sox fans do and THAT is the logic that makes no sense. I mean I get that this is a fan board and all, but still. You can disagree while also acknowledging that it id A) an opinion and B) coming from someone who spends a lot more time and has a lot more experience doing this with any of us. And I don’t even particularly like Law! So I don’t take any pride defending him. But the over the top responses to his opinions are generally ridiculous. I do not have any grudge against Law, and don't really understand the people who do. I think he's fine. But the issue is that his own explanation of the Red Sox system is internally inconsistent. He gave them 4 spots in the top 100, which is obviously above average - yet ranked the system 23rd. He ranked the Blue Jays 17th despite their having only one top 100 guy. His argument for the Blue Jays ranking was that they had some strong middle infield depth and "a couple of outfielders" who were promising - but the Red Sox had middle infielders and outfielders in the top 100! Or like his explanation that the Red Sox only have 1-2 likely all-stars in the system right now. Well, the average MLB team only has a couple all-stars... how many are you supposed to have in the system at one time? How many do the Blue Jays have?
I mean, obviously none of this matters. It's just a little odd. Even if he wants to really ding them for their lack of pitching development he might acknowledge that in Houck and, especially, Bello, they have had a couple of successes (or imminent successes) in recent years.
This is what caught my eye.
If the 23rd ranked system has only 1-2 All-stars in their system, do mid-level systems have 3-4 All-stars and top-ranked systems have 5-6?? I get that scouts use a 60 grade as a future all-star but are they going to boost the All-star rosters to 50-60 players per team (maybe 70, to account for guys who are repeat all-stars)? I'm pretty happy to know that he thinks we have 1-2 all-stars because that's 1-2 guys who are going to anchor the team for several years.
Even when the Sox had one of the best farms in baseball they only had, what, 4 future all-stars at one time? Betts, Bogaerts, JBJ, Devers. Actually Devers and Bogaerts didn't overlap in the minors. Am I missing someone? Benintendi only overlapped with Devers out of that group. Moncada has not been an all-star (although he and Kopech brought one back, if that counts). E-Rod has not been an all-star. Maybe you could have called a couple of those guys "potential all-stars" at the time but the Sox still never had more than 3 or 4 at once in a system that gave us the 2018 juggernaut.
I'm fine with Law ranking us 23rd if he can guarantee us 1-2 all-stars from this group.
|
|
cdj
Veteran
Posts: 15,659
Member is Online
|
Post by cdj on Feb 18, 2023 16:35:59 GMT -5
sewered the Yorke pick and then said he never saw him play, ppl don’t forget!
|
|
|
Post by thegoodthebadthesox on Feb 18, 2023 16:41:52 GMT -5
1. Again, the premise is not WRONG, you just don’t agree with it. If Law values a balanced system, that’s his prerogative and that’s fine! You can feel however you want about it but just because your evaluation or anyone else’s valuation is different doesn’t make any opposing view instantly wrong. Now if it were the extreme outlier example you propose where there were 15 hitters from one org in the top 100 and he was still touting lack of balance then sure, it’s fair to question it. But we are far from that situation. 2. Like I just said, you can make an argument that for an organization that has theoretically thrown all of its eggs into the developing hitters basket, they aren’t exactly overflowing with high level hitting prospects. Now I happen to like the quality of our top level position players so I’m certainly more optimistic than Law, but it’s an argument that could be made. Law is not better or worse than any other major prospect evaluator (actually there was just a tweet by someone that had all of the major outlets’ rankings from like 2018 juxtaposed and they all more or less were similar), he just approaches things differently and it happens to be lower than consensus on the Sox. That, again, is FINE. I’ve already talked about the weird groupthink and tribalism that goes on here with the team’s prospects, but y’all fabricate these ridiculous reaches to discredit Law’s work just because he doesn’t love the farm as much as Red Sox fans do and THAT is the logic that makes no sense. I mean I get that this is a fan board and all, but still. You can disagree while also acknowledging that it id A) an opinion and B) coming from someone who spends a lot more time and has a lot more experience doing this with any of us. And I don’t even particularly like Law! So I don’t take any pride defending him. But the over the top responses to his opinions are generally ridiculous. The premise is wrong. The premise is that balance makes a system good/better. As an example, the Angels top 10 consists of 5 hitters and 5 position players. Therefore, the Angels' system is good by this premise. The premise is false because the Angels system is not good. Alternatively, the Dodgers have 7 hitters and 3 pitchers in their top 10 (same as the Sox) therefore their farm system is bad because it is unbalanced. Again, false. That is, by definition, a false premise. You can prefer balance and all things being equal I'd agree that's what you would hypothetically want, but balance in and of itself is not indicative of value in any way. If talking strictly about the aggregate talent level of the minor league players, stating that balance is required is to state that there is some interdependency between players. It's to state that Mayer's talent as a baseball player is somehow dependent on whether the 8th ranked player in the system is a pitcher or a hitter. It's ridiculous. Just to add because someone else mentioned it, there's no heat behind my statements. It's a casual observation. I'm not mad at Law, if you asked me next week I probably wouldn't remember which analyst we were talking about. Law happened to be the one who was mentioned, I don't care for the seeming contradiction between his individual analysis and his aggregate analysis, and the discrepancy seems to come from a preference that has nothing to with talent evaluation. I don’t think you have a great grasp on the concept of “wrong”, but you do you.
|
|
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Feb 18, 2023 18:21:20 GMT -5
The premise is wrong. The premise is that balance makes a system good/better. As an example, the Angels top 10 consists of 5 hitters and 5 position players. Therefore, the Angels' system is good by this premise. The premise is false because the Angels system is not good. Alternatively, the Dodgers have 7 hitters and 3 pitchers in their top 10 (same as the Sox) therefore their farm system is bad because it is unbalanced. Again, false. That is, by definition, a false premise. You can prefer balance and all things being equal I'd agree that's what you would hypothetically want, but balance in and of itself is not indicative of value in any way. If talking strictly about the aggregate talent level of the minor league players, stating that balance is required is to state that there is some interdependency between players. It's to state that Mayer's talent as a baseball player is somehow dependent on whether the 8th ranked player in the system is a pitcher or a hitter. It's ridiculous. Just to add because someone else mentioned it, there's no heat behind my statements. It's a casual observation. I'm not mad at Law, if you asked me next week I probably wouldn't remember which analyst we were talking about. Law happened to be the one who was mentioned, I don't care for the seeming contradiction between his individual analysis and his aggregate analysis, and the discrepancy seems to come from a preference that has nothing to with talent evaluation. I don’t think you have a great grasp on the concept of “wrong”, but you do you. I would say that his premise that the premise is wrong is wrong
|
|
|
Post by notstarboard on Feb 18, 2023 19:39:09 GMT -5
The premise is wrong. The premise is that balance makes a system good/better. As an example, the Angels top 10 consists of 5 hitters and 5 position players. Therefore, the Angels' system is good by this premise. The premise is false because the Angels system is not good. Alternatively, the Dodgers have 7 hitters and 3 pitchers in their top 10 (same as the Sox) therefore their farm system is bad because it is unbalanced. Again, false. That is, by definition, a false premise. You can prefer balance and all things being equal I'd agree that's what you would hypothetically want, but balance in and of itself is not indicative of value in any way. If talking strictly about the aggregate talent level of the minor league players, stating that balance is required is to state that there is some interdependency between players. It's to state that Mayer's talent as a baseball player is somehow dependent on whether the 8th ranked player in the system is a pitcher or a hitter. It's ridiculous. Just to add because someone else mentioned it, there's no heat behind my statements. It's a casual observation. I'm not mad at Law, if you asked me next week I probably wouldn't remember which analyst we were talking about. Law happened to be the one who was mentioned, I don't care for the seeming contradiction between his individual analysis and his aggregate analysis, and the discrepancy seems to come from a preference that has nothing to with talent evaluation. I don’t think you have a great grasp on the concept of “wrong”, but you do you. Your argument seems to be that Law is not "wrong" because the rankings are subjective and so are right and wrong. This is technically correct, but it's a hollow argument and not really the point of the comment.
I'm more interested in whether you think his stance is reasonable, or whether it is senseless to the point where it should probably be discounted.
|
|
|
Post by thegoodthebadthesox on Feb 18, 2023 19:52:30 GMT -5
I don’t think you have a great grasp on the concept of “wrong”, but you do you. Your argument seems to be that Law is not "wrong" because the rankings are subjective and so are right and wrong. This is technically correct, but it's a hollow argument and not really the point of the comment.
I'm more interested in whether you think his stance is reasonable, or whether it is senseless to the point where it should probably be discounted.
I don’t agree with it but I think it’s a reasonable enough opinion to where if it weren’t Law, people wouldn’t push back on it as much as they have. Edit: worth noting I already said it was reasonable if you read the whole thread..
|
|
|
Post by vermontsox1 on Feb 20, 2023 9:44:53 GMT -5
BA pre-season top 30 ( link): 1. Mayer 2. Casas 3. Rafaela 4. Yoshida 5. Bleis 6. Romero 7. Yorke 8. Mata 9. Anthony 10. Walter 11. Paulino 12. Gonzalez 13. Murphy 14. Jordan 15. Hickey 16. Bonaci 17. Perales 18. Lugo 19. Valdez 20. Wong 21. Coffey 22. Abreu 23. Kavadas 24. Cespedes 25. Brannon 26. Rodriguez-Cruz 27. Meidroth 28. Kelly 29. Rogers 30. Ravelo
|
|
|
Post by seamus on Feb 20, 2023 10:01:54 GMT -5
I think I'd have swapped Rafaela and Yoshida if I was going to rank the latter, but seems like a pretty reasonable list. It's interesting how highly publications seem to think of Romero at this point - seems quite likely to be a Top 100 guy next year if 2023 goes well. If both he and Yorke have strong campaigns, I could see making one of them the centerpiece of a meaningful trade.
|
|
|
Post by thegoodthebadthesox on Feb 20, 2023 10:06:07 GMT -5
BA pre-season top 30 ( link): 1. Mayer 2. Casas 3. Rafaela 4. Yoshida 5. Bleis 6. Romero 7. Yorke 8. Mata 9. Anthony 10. Walter 11. Paulino 12. Gonzalez 13. Murphy 14. Jordan 15. Hickey 16. Bonaci 17. Perales 18. Lugo 19. Valdez 20. Wong 21. Coffey 22. Abreu 23. Kavadas 24. Cespedes 25. Brannon 26. Rodriguez-Cruz 27. Meidroth 28. Kelly 29. Rogers 30. Ravelo This list is pretty darn similar to SP's, more or less. Notably lower on Perales, which ever non-SP list has been and I get that, notably higher on Cespedes, Rogers, and Ravelo.
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Feb 20, 2023 11:00:48 GMT -5
Don't forget the effect of having a shorter list. If you rank 30 guys versus 60,and you want to have a guy on there because you're doing one list instead of monthly updates, it might make it more likely you make sure to get a Cespedes on there, etc.
Happens to me when I make my list for our process. "Wait, I gotta make sure I rank this guy" might get a little more thought than "is this guy 29 or 31?" (not to say that a given ranking doesn't get sufficient thought or attention.)
|
|
|
Post by vermontsox1 on Feb 22, 2023 9:13:19 GMT -5
|
|
nomar
Veteran
Posts: 11,501
|
Post by nomar on Feb 22, 2023 9:15:49 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Manuel De Moya on Feb 22, 2023 9:16:46 GMT -5
I was going to complain about Mayer being low, but then I saw Bleis at 20. So I'm not going to complain anymore.
|
|
|
Post by jphelan on Feb 22, 2023 9:40:54 GMT -5
Fangraphs on Mayer: "His front side is fairly stiff through contact, which may impact his ability to scoop lower pitches in the future, an issue Jarred Kelenic and Spencer Torkelson only had exposed once they reached the big leagues. As far as defensive projection is concerned, a boxy frame, medium straight line speed, and an awkward running gait push and pull against Mayer’s defensive instincts, first-step quickness, and strong arm."
I'd never heard about the batting approach concerns outlined here. Fangraphs also seems a little down on his defensive rating.
|
|
|
Post by levi on Feb 22, 2023 9:51:58 GMT -5
Fangraphs on Mayer: "His front side is fairly stiff through contact, which may impact his ability to scoop lower pitches in the future, an issue Jarred Kelenic and Spencer Torkelson only had exposed once they reached the big leagues. As far as defensive projection is concerned, a boxy frame, medium straight line speed, and an awkward running gait push and pull against Mayer’s defensive instincts, first-step quickness, and strong arm." I'd never heard about the batting approach concerns outlined here. Fangraphs also seems a little down on his defensive rating. His fielding projection (50FV) stayed the same in this year’s rankings but FG dropped his hit tool projection from a 60 to a 45. That’s pretty surprising given he had strikingly similar offensive production last year in A+ to the year prior in the FCL — except in A+ he was facing guys 3-4 years older than him. Even still, his overall ranking in the top 100 moved up 1 spot from 19 to 18.
|
|
|
Post by fenwaydouble on Feb 22, 2023 9:57:35 GMT -5
Worth noting they ranked Senga, which I guess means they just don't think Yoshida is even a 50 FV (or they forgot about him). Strange how the scouting and the projections are so far apart on this guy.
|
|
|
Post by seamus on Feb 22, 2023 10:15:03 GMT -5
Fangraphs on Mayer: "His front side is fairly stiff through contact, which may impact his ability to scoop lower pitches in the future, an issue Jarred Kelenic and Spencer Torkelson only had exposed once they reached the big leagues. As far as defensive projection is concerned, a boxy frame, medium straight line speed, and an awkward running gait push and pull against Mayer’s defensive instincts, first-step quickness, and strong arm." I'd never heard about the batting approach concerns outlined here. Fangraphs also seems a little down on his defensive rating. His fielding projection (50FV) stayed the same in this year’s rankings but FG dropped his hit tool projection from a 60 to a 45. That’s pretty surprising given he had strikingly similar offensive production last year in A+ to the year prior in the FCL — except in A+ he was facing guys 3-4 years older than him. Even still, his overall ranking in the top 100 moved up 1 spot from 19 to 18. I could maybe understand dropping it to 55 or 50, based on his K rate, but to go from a 60 to 45 seems like huge drop considering his production was still really good. I guess you have to trust in your scouting processes... The top 20 ranking of Bleis may be premature, but I kinda like that one of the outlets was willing to take the gamble that they'd look like geniuses by this time next year. The reasoning that he'd be a top 5 pick in the 2023 draft is a pretty solid one considering where those guys typically slot in.
|
|
|