BA's Braves Top 10 Prospects (You Were Wrong Again!)

Over 80% of the posters in my poll thread yesterday said Heyward would be their # 1.

http://freedomcardboard.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=18815


TOP TEN
PROSPECTS
1. Tommy Hanson, rhp
2. Jason Heyward, of
3. Jordan Schafer, of
4. Gorkys Hernandez, of
5. Freddie Freeman, 1b
6. Cole Rohrbough, lhp
7. Jeff Locke, lhp
8. Julio Teheran, rhp
9. Kris Medlen, rhp
10. Craig Kimbrel, rhp

BEST
TOOLS
Best Hitter for Average Jason Heyward
Best Power Hitter Cody Johnson
Best Strike-Zone Discipline Jason Heyward
Fastest Baserunner Gorkys Hernandez
Best Athlete Jordan Schafer
Best Fastball Craig Kimbrel
Best Curveball Cole Rorhbough
Best Slider Tommy Hanson
Best Changeup Edgar Osuna
Best Control Todd Redmond
Best Defensive Catcher Clint Sammons
Best Defensive Infielder Van Pope
Best Infield Arm Brandon Hicks
Best Defensive Outfielder Jordan Schafer
Best Outfield Arm Jordan Schafer

PROJECTED 2012
LINEUP
Catcher Brian McCann
First Base Freddie Freeman
Second Base Kelly Johnson
Third Base Brandon Hicks
Shortstop Yunel Escobar
Left Field Gorkys Hernandez
Center Field Jordan Schafer
Right Field Jason Heyward
No. 1 Starter Tommy Hanson
No. 2 Starter Jair Jurrjens
No. 3 Starter Tim Hudson
No. 4 Starter Cole Rohrbough
No. 5 Starter Charlie Morton
Closer Craig Kimbrel

Jeff Locke not in the future 5? Will he be traded then?

Astonished that BA ranked Hanson higher than Heyward if it is about potential/projection. Heyward's ceiling...

darocker80 said:

Jeff Locke not in the future 5? Will he be traded then?

Astonished that BA ranked Hanson higher than Heyward if it is about potential/projection. Heyward's ceiling...

Click to expand...

The way hanson dominated the hitter friendly AFL help put him over the top.

darocker80 said:

Jeff Locke not in the future 5? Will he be traded then?

Astonished that BA ranked Hanson higher than Heyward if it is about potential/projection. Heyward's ceiling...

Click to expand...

They see Hanson as a future #1 starter. Future aces always outrank future All-Star hitters in their eyes.

This is exactly what I posted yesterday, BA has been ranking performance above ceiling as of late; they've done so with the A's- B.Anderson over Cahill, Royals- M.Moustakas over E.Hosmer, & several other's that aren't coming to mind at the moment.... Now they put T.Hanson over J.Heyward. BA has been on a performance binge, but I don't think this will affect J.Heyward on the secondary market as everyone knows he will have his time at #1 very soon (in my opinion, if you're looking at ceiling J.Heyward takes the cake "hand's down"...not to discredit Hanson at all as Heyward would be #1 in almost every other farm system)!

I'll take Hicks as the future 3rd baseman

abravesfan said:

I'll take Hicks as the future 3rd baseman

Click to expand...

Nice! How much did you pay for it?

So now this means that Hanson is ranked higher on the top 100 than Heyward too?

If so, I don't understand BA at all.

If not, I don't understand BA at all.

Messier2 said:

abravesfan said:

I'll take Hicks as the future 3rd baseman

Nice! How much did you pay for it?

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

:lol: too much prolly, think it was $130. I went big into hicks elite when they first came out and were dirt cheap (had 15 blues, at least that many TOTC). They are back to being pretty much dirt cheap now, I sold a bunch off in between when he was racking up the HRs and once the BC checklist for this year was announced.

I have 6 blue autos /100, 5 red autos /50, a BC Gold Ref Auto, a TOTC auto, the black, and a blue, red, and gold base elite parallel left. After everything I sold at a profit, I still need about $210 to break even, so if he does ok at all I'll come out alright. It was more a team thing than prospecting.

ALL_THE_HYPE said:

So now this means that Hanson is ranked higher on the top 100 than Heyward too?

If so, I don't understand BA at all.

If not, I don't understand BA at all.

Click to expand...

:lol:

that makes two of us.

ALL_THE_HYPE said:

So now this means that Hanson is ranked higher on the top 100 than Heyward too?

If so, I don't understand BA at all.

If not, I don't understand BA at all.

Click to expand...

not necessarily, team lists are 1 guys ratings while top 100 are compilations, Frency ranked ahead of Marte a couple years back in the team list but was behind him in the top 100 (in retrospect, still an argument for the wrong reasons)

So I guess Giants top list will look like this:
1. Madison Bumgarner
2. Buster Posey
3. Tim Alderson
4. Angel Villalona
5. Nate Schierholtz
6. Connor Gillaspie
7. Kevin Pucetas
8. Nick Noonan
9. Rafael Rodriguez
10. Brandon Crawford

?

abravesfan said:

ALL_THE_HYPE said:

So now this means that Hanson is ranked higher on the top 100 than Heyward too?

If so, I don't understand BA at all.

If not, I don't understand BA at all.

Click to expand...

not necessarily, team lists are 1 guys ratings while top 100 are compilations, Frency ranked ahead of Marte a couple years back in the team list but was behind him in the top 100 (in retrospect, still an argument for the wrong reasons)

Click to expand...

I just don't understand how they can rank player A higher than player B on the team list, but how player B can then all of a sudden be better than player A for the top 100 list. That doesn't make sense.

Does BA have an overall list? Where was Pujols ranked in 2000-2001?

darocker80 said:

So I guess Giants top list will look like this:
1. Adam Cowart
2. Madison Bumgarner
3. Buster Posey
4. Tim Alderson
5. Angel Villalona
6. Nate Schierholtz
7. Connor Gillaspie
8. Kevin Pucetas
9. Nick Noonan
10. Rafael Rodriguez

?

Click to expand...

Fixed it for you. :lol:



Hey i can dream.

ALL_THE_HYPE said:

abravesfan said:

[quote="ALL_THE_HYPE":3bdrqbz7]So now this means that Hanson is ranked higher on the top 100 than Heyward too?

If so, I don't understand BA at all.

If not, I don't understand BA at all.

Click to expand...

not necessarily, team lists are 1 guys ratings while top 100 are compilations, Frency ranked ahead of Marte a couple years back in the team list but was behind him in the top 100 (in retrospect, still an argument for the wrong reasons)

Click to expand...

I just don't understand how they can rank player A higher than player B on the team list, but how player B can then all of a sudden be better than player A for the top 100 list. That doesn't make sense.[/quote:3bdrqbz7]
Wait wasn't that milb.com not BA? or was BA released? If so, then they can put posey over bumgarner

ALL_THE_HYPE said:

abravesfan said:

[quote="ALL_THE_HYPE":m2cus79s]So now this means that Hanson is ranked higher on the top 100 than Heyward too?

If so, I don't understand BA at all.

If not, I don't understand BA at all.

Click to expand...

not necessarily, team lists are 1 guys ratings while top 100 are compilations, Frency ranked ahead of Marte a couple years back in the team list but was behind him in the top 100 (in retrospect, still an argument for the wrong reasons)

Click to expand...

I just don't understand how they can rank player A higher than player B on the team list, but how player B can then all of a sudden be better than player A for the top 100 list. That doesn't make sense.[/quote:m2cus79s]

It's like College Football. One person thinks that Texas is #1, the other thinks they are #3, you put them together and Texas=#2. (This is a completely fictional, non-realistic exampe since there aren't two people who decide that in college football, but I'm trying to simplify things.) So this way, one person has Texas #1, and with the other person's vote, it lowers their ranking because the other person thinks they should be lower.

darocker80 said:

ALL_THE_HYPE said:

abravesfan said:

[quote="ALL_THE_HYPE":2cphaiia]So now this means that Hanson is ranked higher on the top 100 than Heyward too?

If so, I don't understand BA at all.

If not, I don't understand BA at all.

Click to expand...

not necessarily, team lists are 1 guys ratings while top 100 are compilations, Frency ranked ahead of Marte a couple years back in the team list but was behind him in the top 100 (in retrospect, still an argument for the wrong reasons)

Click to expand...

I just don't understand how they can rank player A higher than player B on the team list, but how player B can then all of a sudden be better than player A for the top 100 list. That doesn't make sense.

Click to expand...

Wait wasn't that milb.com not BA? or was BA released? If so, then they can put posey over bumgarner [/quote:2cphaiia]

I'm just anticipating the top 100 BA list... if Hanson is #1 on the top 10 Braves, he must be higher than Heyward on the top 100 then right? And if Heyward is a top 5 or top 10 guy in the top 100, what does that make Hanson?

No, that isn't true.

Sometimes guys closer to MLB impact get the nod on the team sheets, where as the top 100 gives overall ceiling more consideration.

ALL_THE_HYPE said:

darocker80 said:

[quote="ALL_THE_HYPE":28pvi7t1]

abravesfan said:

[quote="ALL_THE_HYPE":28pvi7t1]So now this means that Hanson is ranked higher on the top 100 than Heyward too?

If so, I don't understand BA at all.

If not, I don't understand BA at all.

Click to expand...

not necessarily, team lists are 1 guys ratings while top 100 are compilations, Frency ranked ahead of Marte a couple years back in the team list but was behind him in the top 100 (in retrospect, still an argument for the wrong reasons)

Click to expand...

I just don't understand how they can rank player A higher than player B on the team list, but how player B can then all of a sudden be better than player A for the top 100 list. That doesn't make sense.

Click to expand...

Wait wasn't that milb.com not BA? or was BA released? If so, then they can put posey over bumgarner [/quote:28pvi7t1]

I'm just anticipating the top 100 BA list... if Hanson is #1 on the top 10 Braves, he must be higher than Heyward on the top 100 then right? And if Heyward is a top 5 or top 10 guy in the top 100, what does that make Hanson?[/quote:28pvi7t1]

No

1 guy is responsible for the team. Many people are responsible for top 100. Therefore there does not have to be correlation