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.
Ranking Changes - 5/10/13
dd
Veteran
Posts: 979 
|
Post by dd on May 11, 2013 18:55:12 GMT -5
Highlights: - Michael Almanzar is up another 2 positions to # 22. He's up 24 since 4/12.
- Brandon Jacobs fell 3 spots to 24.
- Jose Vinicio also fell 3 to 29.
- Jose De La Torre rose 8 positions and is now at # 32.
- Justin Henry and Brandon Snyder both moved up 6 landing at 41 and 42.
- Chris Martin returned to the list at 43rd. He was last ranked 51st exactly 52 weeks ago.
- Mike McCarthy is ranked for the first time at 56th.
- Chris Carpenter (our compensation for Theo) dropped off the list from # 50 last week.
- William Cuevas also dropped out of the top 60. He was ranked 56th last week.
|
|
|
|
Post by rjp313jr on May 13, 2013 9:26:06 GMT -5
Might be time on 5/17 for Ranaudo to jump Swithart and Iglesias...
|
|
|
|
Post by jchang on May 13, 2013 13:39:46 GMT -5
lets wait a few more weeks, by then there should confidence that Ranaudo's grade should be 5, and his floor should be 3.
|
|
|
|
Post by elguapo on May 13, 2013 15:37:01 GMT -5
What does Mookie Betts have to do to get back in the top 60(!!)  |
|
|
|
Post by rjp313jr on May 14, 2013 13:26:42 GMT -5
What does Mookie Betts have to do to get back in the top 60(!!) maybe not bat .229 in low A? I realize batting average is over-rated in certain aspects, but if you hit .229 in low A it's not a good thing. |
|
|
|
Post by elguapo on May 14, 2013 22:58:45 GMT -5
What does Mookie Betts have to do to get back in the top 60(!!) maybe not bat .229 in low A? I realize batting average is over-rated in certain aspects, but if you hit .229 in low A it's not a good thing. Is "/facepalm" allowed? Hard to keep track... Seriously, SP is really missing the boat when you know national publications are considering Betts for top 20 in the system and you drop him out of the top 60. They signed the kid out of high school for three quarters of a million dollars and he had a reasonable first full season at 19 in the NYPL. Then he breaks out of a slump, goes on a tear, and you look like chumps. Meanwhile roster-filler at AA & AAA grace the 'prospects' list. |
|
|
|
Post by soxin8 on May 19, 2013 0:31:35 GMT -5
Betts making a case to be ranked ahead of Vinicio, especially with some power from a middle infielder. If Cecchini hits anything like this at Portland, maybe he should be considered for the number 2 spot.
|
|
|
|
Post by wskeleton76 on May 19, 2013 9:20:33 GMT -5
maybe not bat .229 in low A? I realize batting average is over-rated in certain aspects, but if you hit .229 in low A it's not a good thing. Is "/facepalm" allowed? Hard to keep track... Seriously, SP is really missing the boat when you know national publications are considering Betts for top 20 in the system and you drop him out of the top 60. They signed the kid out of high school for three quarters of a million dollars and he had a reasonable first full season at 19 in the NYPL. Then he breaks out of a slump, goes on a tear, and you look like chumps. Meanwhile roster-filler at AA & AAA grace the 'prospects' list. +1 |
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on May 22, 2013 11:56:56 GMT -5
To put Betts in context, he's listed at 5'9" and might be a bit shorter than that, and draws a lot of walks in Low A. Yes, he's been hot for a few weeks, but that doesn't mean he should shoot up the rankings either.
As far as "national publications," I guarantee you we had more eyes on Betts last year in Lowell than they all did combined.
|
|
|
|
Post by elguapo on May 25, 2013 18:36:02 GMT -5
To put Betts in context, he's listed at 5'9" and might be a bit shorter than that, and draws a lot of walks in Low A. Yes, he's been hot for a few weeks, but that doesn't mean he should shoot up the rankings either. As far as "national publications," I guarantee you we had more eyes on Betts last year in Lowell than they all did combined. Your initial point has apparently been overruled. And your second point .... I like and appreciate the in-person reports, but the SP appraisal in this case appears to have been very wrong, and the national publications very right, so I'm not sure what you're crowing about? |
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on May 26, 2013 10:54:40 GMT -5
el guapo, I'm not crowing about anything. I'm just saying - there's a reason we don't freak out over two good weeks.
Please note that I was also the one beating the drum before he started hitting that his babip was crazy low and he was about to start hitting. I'll be the first to admit we had him low. It's just a bit irksome when everyone starts freaking out about where one guy is ranked when they've never seen most of these guys play and we have people getting out into the field to see them.
|
|
|
|
Post by chavopepe2 on May 26, 2013 12:18:16 GMT -5
On top of what Chris is saying, lets not forget that this site publishes and updates the rankings weekly and every change is on record. Its very easy for posters to jump on small samples and say a player is too high or too low. Many times the posters will end up being correct, but there is no accountability to just throwing things off the wall and seeing what sticks. That doesn't mean the site was wrong to wait to make a drastic move until the sample was larger. I remember when Jason Place had a monster month in June of 09 (?). Many posters were clamoring for him to rocket up the rankings claiming he had finally figured it out. Of course he ended up falling right back. It certainly wouldn't have looked very good had the site moved him up 20 places only to drop him right back down a month later.
Mike has shown time-and-again that he's not afraid to move a player when the ranking is off the mark. He did it with Almanzar earlier this year and with Betts here, but waiting for the sample size to grow and the first-hand reports to come in is certainly a reasonable approach to take.
|
|
|
|
Post by elguapo on May 27, 2013 9:36:16 GMT -5
That doesn't mean the site was wrong to wait to make a drastic move until the sample was larger. The error was not in waiting for sustained success to change the ranking, but in: A) Ranking Betts so low to begin the season - in effect declaring a bonus baby something of a bust after one decent season at Lowell(!) - while knowing that other talent evaluators took the opposite view. B) But particularly dropping Betts out of the top 60 based on a very small BABIP-influenced sample to begin the season, which is where I jumped in to object. Overreact to one season at Lowell, overreact to a few weeks with a low batting average, and then be forced to completely reverse course after a few weeks of great hitting -- and then preach about how it's not responsible to overreact to small samples? C'mon. I'm just one guapo, and this is the forum for discussing rankings. I would prefer the site took a more steady approach to big money HS & international signings - establish a band or range of where their ranking is thought to be and keep them within that range despite periods of struggle or success, which are to be expected with very young players. And maybe that's usually the case - but not, it seems, with Betts. |
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on May 27, 2013 15:33:35 GMT -5
Wait, just as a side point of information (I'm not going to argue on the Betts thing anymore - we're clearly not going to convince each other), you realize that $750k, especially when they could spread it out over five years based on a rules technicality, isn't really that much, right? I mean, it's more than a guy like Moore got, but it's not an enormous amount for a high school signee.
David Mailman got a bigger bonus. Madison Younginer got more. Mookie is an interesting player, but he's no "bonus baby." This isn't like Buttrey or Coyle or Cecchini who got $1.3M each, nearly twice Betts' bonus and not spread out. Heck, Kendrick Perkins got $600k. Betts basically got the amount of money it takes to buy an interesting HS player out of a college commitment, and is probably more indicative of the fact that they could spread it out more than anything else. I bet he'd have gotten something like $500k if he weren't a two-sport athlete, in line with what the likes of Williams Jerez and Jordan Weems got that year.
And as another side point on the "bands" thing - you really don't think 300 plate appearances in Lowell was enough to start to differentiate him from other players in the system, or even just those who received similar bonuses in his draft class? You realize that similar players in his draft class in his theoretical "band" are the likes of Weems/Jerez who are also unranked? Or should we combine all of the HS guys from that draft class so that it also includes Cody Kukuk, and even Blake Swihart and Henry Owens down to Nick Moore and Matt Spalding? Do you see the problem there? Also, comparing bonuses between drafted and internationally signed players is apples and oranges. Those bonuses vary wildly based on how well known they are, whether there was a buscone, etc.
|
|
|
|
Post by Mike Andrews on May 27, 2013 15:54:59 GMT -5
The difference between being ranked 51 and 61 is very very small in my eyes, and can easily be made up in a 1-2 week stretch, especially when we have eyes on the player. I have no shame in saying that. Same thing can happen with the 51st and 61st player taken in any draft in any sport in any year.
Guapo, you seem to be going in with the assumption that Betts was a highly regarded player coming out of high school, and I disagree with that premise. He wasn't in BA's top 200, he wasn't in PG's top 500. He was a raw 5th round pick who was given a mid-sized bonus to buy him out of a two sport commitment. He was a C- level prospect coming out of high school. We ranked him that way to start. Then we probably saw him two dozen times between two springs and Lowell, and continued to rank him as a C- level prospect up until this week. Sure, he dropped from 52 to just out of the top 60 after hitting .150 in April, but he was still a C- prospect in my eyes.
Now after a good 4 week run, he's showing that he might be a C+ level prospect. That's all there is to it in my eyes.
Sent from my DROID BIONIC using proboards
|
|
|
|
Post by fdrnewdeal on May 27, 2013 16:17:51 GMT -5
That doesn't mean the site was wrong to wait to make a drastic move until the sample was larger. The error was not in waiting for sustained success to change the ranking, but in: A) Ranking Betts so low to begin the season - in effect declaring a bonus baby something of a bust after one decent season at Lowell(!) - while knowing that other talent evaluators took the opposite view. B) But particularly dropping Betts out of the top 60 based on a very small BABIP-influenced sample to begin the season, which is where I jumped in to object. Overreact to one season at Lowell, overreact to a few weeks with a low batting average, and then be forced to completely reverse course after a few weeks of great hitting -- and then preach about how it's not responsible to overreact to small samples? C'mon. I'm just one guapo, and this is the forum for discussing rankings. I would prefer the site took a more steady approach to big money HS & international signings - establish a band or range of where their ranking is thought to be and keep them within that range despite periods of struggle or success, which are to be expected with very young players. And maybe that's usually the case - but not, it seems, with Betts. I’m a big Betts fan, I don’t recall where I had him down as far as the system but I certainly considered him to be a very interesting prospect. However, he had (has) some serious issues that left some (understandably, even if I disagreed with them at time) wondering if he had much of a future. Last season, his slugging was just a shade over .300. He was awful in the field and forced to move to second. He was (and still is) tiny. It would not have been unreasonable for someone to basically view him as organizational filler going into the year- again, that wasn’t my position but was absolutely a defensible position to take. For perspective, I bet a lot of people here (myself included) think that Yankees prospect, Mason Williams is a little bit overrated. At 6 feet, 150, I think it’s fair to question whether or not he will physically be able to perform as he moves up the ladder. He’s an excellent prospect, but size does sort of matter… and he’s bigger than Betts. Like Williams, Betts is an exceptional athlete with a very good approach (and if we’re to believe this season, surprising power). But he’s already relegated off a premium defensive position. There’s less room for error for a guy like that to succeed, given his size and lack of premium defensive value. (not that it matters, but for the record, I’d probably have Betts somewhere around 25 right now. I also was super down on drafting Jackie Bradley… so yeah) |
|
|
|
Post by elguapo on May 27, 2013 20:15:15 GMT -5
And as another side point on the "bands" thing - you really don't think 300 plate appearances in Lowell was enough to start to differentiate him from other players in the system, Apparently not successfully. I appreciate the comparison, which is on target to my point - those are two players I would keep in the top 60 rather than some of the nonentities on the list, particularly Jerez, who has not been on the field much but presumably still has potential. (Of course with injured players you have a separate rankings challenge - until they come back healthy there's a big unknown component.) Weems I have not paid any attention to. As far as I'm aware, neither got the kind of end-of-season buzz that Betts did. Buttrey & Callahan are two more who I would keep within a reasonable band until they log some good time at Greenville. |
|
|
|
Post by widewordofsport on May 27, 2013 20:46:34 GMT -5
Remember this is college basketball, not college football. The rankings (even being ranked +/- 20 spots from where you should be) doesn't really matter. If Betts takes care of business in A/A+, he'll be a top 15 prospect to start 2015. If Ranaudo keeps going, he'll be a top 5 guy again. I feel it's arguing semantics a lot, especially when you consider a boom/bust guy vs. a low ceiling guy.
I'd personally do rankings as a trade value exercise... as in what will get you the best yield. But really, as long as they have a page with scouting reports/stats, I'm not gonna really get worked up over the rankings of a bunch of players I've never seen (and in most cases, won't).
|
|
|
