BA's 2009 Top 100 Prospects List

[ru4scuba]

But that's my question, what is your basis of knowledge to get into such a heated disagreement?

This is pretty much why I stay out of most of these threads. A lot of people here get too emotional about their "picks."

 

[soccerman034]

I have a question for the folks on this thread. I see a lot of "x should be way higher or lower," or "no way is y better than z." How many of you actually see any of these players? As prospectors (doing statistical research and knowing when to buy low and sell high) most of you seem to do at least fairly well, but prospecting is different than scouting, and I'm just curious how much "scouting" you guys do.

(NOTE: Not an attack on prospectors, so DO NOT take it that way. I'm honestly curious.)

Craig

For the record, the six BA staffers who compiled this list aren't scouts either. Much of their expertise comes from word of mouth from true scouts, as well as organizational figures.

+1- Look at Deolis Guerra. Who knew switching organizations hurt a prospects status so much....

As for whether I have watched any of my prospects, I have. Their are numerous videos out there for people to watch, and if you know what you are looking for, they can prove to be extremely helpful. A number of people, including myself, picked through the draft videos last year and found a few prospects who looked great and whose prices were cheap....Jordan Zimmerman and Austin Gallagher, just to name a few. I do not claim to be a baseball expert or a scout, but from my experience you don't need to be at a ballpark to evaluate talent...videos, statistics, and scouting reports often are just as good. I thought Cesar Carrillo was going to be the next big thing in the majors when I saw him in person....the eyes can often deceive.

 

[EricInCT]

The only 2 prospects I collected in the off season finished #4 (Tommy Hanson) & #5 (Travis Snider).

I bought roughly $5000 worth (including grading) of their stuff in the off season.

Play ball !

 

[All The Hype]

[quote="ALL_THE_HYPE":18d3e4ie]No one on here is claiming that they are a scout, we are simply having a conversation/debate about who we would have liked to see higher or lower on the list.

But that's my question, what is your basis of knowledge to get into such a heated disagreement?

I just don't see how you can get such an intractible disagreement about who is going to make the better major leaguer between Porcello and Baumgartner (for example) based purely on stats. Can you make money with cards with that info? Sure, but that isn't the point of the BA list.

Craig[/quote:18d3e4ie]

It's not just about the numbers, there are also scouting reports/player reviews and video clips about a lot of guys online. The combination of these seem to give you a pretty good idea of the tools a player is working with, and therefore give you something to talk (or argue if you want) about the player.

 

[muchuckwagon]

Tulo and Zimmerman need to put their injuries behind them still and show that they are corner stones of their franchises.

Phhh.....whatever. We just need a few board members to tell us Tulo and Zimmy are great....and they will become great overnight.

It is that simple....you have been around long enough, you should know better!

 

[brouthercard]

This list is as accurate as the BCS rankings for college football. Several factors are weighed too heavily, including position played, hype and organization.

 

[Seiya]

Only 1 Padre. At least it was the right one, but if Inoa was on the list i wonder why the 2nd top international arm didnt make it.

 

[cgilmo]

This list is as accurate as the BCS rankings for college football. Several factors are weighed too heavily, including position played, hype and organization.

The BCS is pretty accurate. Yes, I am serious.

 

[nyc3]

Phhh.....whatever. We just need a few board members to tell us Tulo and Zimmy are great....and they will become great overnight.

It is that simple....you have been around long enough, you should know better!

You forgot to add a few members with a tulo and zimmy stashes :lol:

 

[brouthercard]

This list is as accurate as the BCS rankings for college football. Several factors are weighed too heavily, including position played, hype and organization.

The BCS is pretty accurate. Yes, I am serious.

I agree with you on this statement, as I think this list is pretty accurate.

But as a critic of the BCS, there are certain factors that are weighed too heavily in my opinion, and you'll find a lot of UT fans, Utes, and Trojans that would agree with me as well.

 

[Jaypers]

I just checked my own Top 100 prediction list, and discovered I ranked 8 players correctly. While this doesn't sound like a large number, this is the best I've done thus far. There were a few others I missed by only one spot.

I got the following names correct:

1. Wieters
2. Price
15. Fowler
17. L. Anderson
34. Gamel
37. Andrus
46. Chacin
54. Inoa

 

[Wes]

Re: BA's Top 100 today right?

This list is making me laugh more and more every year..... Rick Porcello at #21 is complete BS.

And Rasmus still around in top 5 is embarassing..... The kid was supposed to debut like what 3 yrs ago and continues to put up lowsy numbers for a top 5 prospect.

Feliz/Anderson- Pitcher/Bumgarner above Porcello is a joke really.....

Bumgarner dominated Low A last year.... woooo hooooo!!! he used basically 1 pitch and blew away class A hitters with the heater, from what I gather he does not have one good secondary pitch.... and if they believe a fast ball i gonna cut it with major league players they are very very wrong.

Shep :ugeek:

Bumgarner has made some big progress with his secondary stuff from what I hear. And any LEFT HANDED pitcher who can throw upper-90s has huge potential in the big leagues. Not to mention he could not have had a better season in 2008. He's the only one of the guys that I can see being ahead of Porcello. Not based on ceiling, but based on actual numbers.

Sheph...porcello only had one season in A+ ball and had good ERA numbers...but was dominated...bumgarner won the triple crown and dominated and used more than one pitcher...don't comment and talk down on a prospect you don't know much about.

Darock :ugeek:

Easy now.... lol .

Yeah but Porcello came straight from High School did others you mentioned? And also Porcello was told not to use his curveball in his first season (Which is arguably his best pitch)

So yeah you can't compare Bum's and Porcello's numbers this year.... based on the things I just mentioned.

Shep :ugeek:

See again you don't much bumgarner i guess, since he too came from HS. that's why he's still in his teens.

ryanhoward ya i wouldn't disagree with your statement. now that i look back i would probably put holland and maybe feliz, but not a big fan of feliz and i don't think he'll be as good as holland or alderson.

same feeling with that phillies #1 pitching prospect. I haven't see him dominate to be the franchises best pitching prospect

Where does it say that you have to dominate to be a franchise's best pitching prospect?

 

[Wes]

Looks like Callis decided to basically throw out the 2008 season when ranking Rasmus. He's saying they ranked him so high because of what they think he can do at higher levels, not what he has done.

Q: JAYPERS from IL asks:
Very good list overall, kudos. However, I'm scratching my head as I see Rasmus at #3 overall. Let's recap - he struggled to bat over .200 for the first couple of months of the 2008 season, did finally improve, but after succombing to injury he put together what I wouldn't exactly call a mindblowing season, yet his ranking improved substantially since last year's Top 100. He's clearly the Cardinals' best prospect, and will have an excellent shot at making the team this season, but how do you justify his lofty ranking? Thanks.
A:

Jim Callis: He got off to a slow start as a 21-year-old in Triple-A, and I don't hold that against him. He was starting to hit as expected when he got hurt, and I still see him as a solid center fielder who's going to hit for power and average and draw a good amount of walks. His ranking also didn't improve substantially--he was No. 5 on last year's list and the four guys ahead of him all graduated from prospect status. I'll take him over any center field prospect in the game.

Hmm he'd pitch him over Heyward (unless he's a corner outfielder)

I do believe rasmus should still be int he top 10

Heyward is a corner outfielder.

 

[Wes]

I have a question for the folks on this thread. I see a lot of "x should be way higher or lower," or "no way is y better than z." How many of you actually see any of these players? As prospectors (doing statistical research and knowing when to buy low and sell high) most of you seem to do at least fairly well, but prospecting is different than scouting, and I'm just curious how much "scouting" you guys do.

(NOTE: Not an attack on prospectors, so DO NOT take it that way. I'm honestly curious.)

Craig

For the record, the six BA staffers who compiled this list aren't scouts either. Much of their expertise comes from word of mouth from true scouts, as well as organizational figures.

+1- Look at Deolis Guerra. Who knew switching organizations hurt a prospects status so much....

As for whether I have watched any of my prospects, I have. Their are numerous videos out there for people to watch, and if you know what you are looking for, they can prove to be extremely helpful. A number of people, including myself, picked through the draft videos last year and found a few prospects who looked great and whose prices were cheap....Jordan Zimmerman and Austin Gallagher, just to name a few. I do not claim to be a baseball expert or a scout, but from my experience you don't need to be at a ballpark to evaluate talent...videos, statistics, and scouting reports often are just as good. I thought Cesar Carrillo was going to be the next big thing in the majors when I saw him in person....the eyes can often deceive.

It was a lot more than the change in that example - his velocity was way down and his ERA was way up.

 

[UMich92]

Here's my question to them about Porcello's ranking:

Q: Ryan from Indianapolis asks:
I was expecting to see Rick Porcello in the top 5. Any insight as to why he didn't even break the top 20?
A:

John Manuel: My reasoning is the low strikeout rate and the fact he emphasizes the slider in his repertoire, over the curve. The slider is more of a groundball pitch than a strikeout pitch, and essentially it sounds like Porcello could evolve into a real good sinker-slider pitcher, not a power pitching strikeout guy. Best-case scenario there, I suppose, would be a Roy Halladay kind of guy, and if he's Halladay, then we're too low on him obviously. I got a Jon Garland comp on Porcello this year; if he's Jon Garland, then we might be high on him at 21. I bet he's better than Garland but not a multi-Cy Young type like Halladay. He's not looking like Josh Beckett, though, he doesn't have Beckett's strikeout breaking ball, and that's the comp that got him a Beckett contract. He's very good, but that's why maybe we've tempered our enthusiasm on him as compared to last year.

Manuel's response has me scratching my head. They ranked him lower because he emphasized his slider over his curve? Those were his instructions, to improve his slider. He already has an excellent curve. Or didn't Manuel get a copy of the BA Organizational Top Ten for the Tigers: Best Curveball - Rick Porcello. Hmm.

Alex

 

[cgilmo]

Looks like Callis decided to basically throw out the 2008 season when ranking Rasmus. He's saying they ranked him so high because of what they think he can do at higher levels, not what he has done.

Q: JAYPERS from IL asks:
Very good list overall, kudos. However, I'm scratching my head as I see Rasmus at #3 overall. Let's recap - he struggled to bat over .200 for the first couple of months of the 2008 season, did finally improve, but after succombing to injury he put together what I wouldn't exactly call a mindblowing season, yet his ranking improved substantially since last year's Top 100. He's clearly the Cardinals' best prospect, and will have an excellent shot at making the team this season, but how do you justify his lofty ranking? Thanks.
A:

Jim Callis: He got off to a slow start as a 21-year-old in Triple-A, and I don't hold that against him. He was starting to hit as expected when he got hurt, and I still see him as a solid center fielder who's going to hit for power and average and draw a good amount of walks. His ranking also didn't improve substantially--he was No. 5 on last year's list and the four guys ahead of him all graduated from prospect status. I'll take him over any center field prospect in the game.

Hmm he'd pitch him over Heyward (unless he's a corner outfielder)

I do believe rasmus should still be int he top 10

Heyward is a corner outfielder.

He is your prototypical left fielder in the Dave Parker mold.

 

[phillyfan0417]

Here's my question to them about Porcello's ranking:

Q: Ryan from Indianapolis asks:
I was expecting to see Rick Porcello in the top 5. Any insight as to why he didn't even break the top 20?
A:

John Manuel: My reasoning is the low strikeout rate and the fact he emphasizes the slider in his repertoire, over the curve. The slider is more of a groundball pitch than a strikeout pitch, and essentially it sounds like Porcello could evolve into a real good sinker-slider pitcher, not a power pitching strikeout guy. Best-case scenario there, I suppose, would be a Roy Halladay kind of guy, and if he's Halladay, then we're too low on him obviously. I got a Jon Garland comp on Porcello this year; if he's Jon Garland, then we might be high on him at 21. I bet he's better than Garland but not a multi-Cy Young type like Halladay. He's not looking like Josh Beckett, though, he doesn't have Beckett's strikeout breaking ball, and that's the comp that got him a Beckett contract. He's very good, but that's why maybe we've tempered our enthusiasm on him as compared to last year.

Manuel's response has me scratching my head. They ranked him lower because he emphasized his slider over his curve? Those were his instructions, to improve his slider. He already has an excellent curve. Or didn't Manuel get a copy of the BA Organizational Top Ten for the Tigers: Best Curveball - Rick Porcello. Hmm.

Alex

I dont think BA really looks into why a player uses a pitch over another pitch. That being said, you should take these lists for what they are worth and do your own research.

Also, not to start anything big but watching a player is such a small part of what goes into determining how good a prospect is. Statistical analysis and reading the scouting report offer a much better picture. When you're looking at player in High School and College its one thing but when you get to the professional ranks, alot of other factors are more important...

 

[ryanhoward06]

Re: BA's Top 100 today right?

[quote="shephech":2y77tora]This list is making me laugh more and more every year..... Rick Porcello at #21 is complete BS.

And Rasmus still around in top 5 is embarassing..... The kid was supposed to debut like what 3 yrs ago and continues to put up lowsy numbers for a top 5 prospect.

Feliz/Anderson- Pitcher/Bumgarner above Porcello is a joke really.....

Bumgarner dominated Low A last year.... woooo hooooo!!! he used basically 1 pitch and blew away class A hitters with the heater, from what I gather he does not have one good secondary pitch.... and if they believe a fast ball i gonna cut it with major league players they are very very wrong.

Shep :ugeek:

Bumgarner has made some big progress with his secondary stuff from what I hear. And any LEFT HANDED pitcher who can throw upper-90s has huge potential in the big leagues. Not to mention he could not have had a better season in 2008. He's the only one of the guys that I can see being ahead of Porcello. Not based on ceiling, but based on actual numbers.

Sheph...porcello only had one season in A+ ball and had good ERA numbers...but was dominated...bumgarner won the triple crown and dominated and used more than one pitcher...don't comment and talk down on a prospect you don't know much about.

Darock :ugeek:

Easy now.... lol .

Yeah but Porcello came straight from High School did others you mentioned? And also Porcello was told not to use his curveball in his first season (Which is arguably his best pitch)

So yeah you can't compare Bum's and Porcello's numbers this year.... based on the things I just mentioned.

Shep :ugeek:

See again you don't much bumgarner i guess, since he too came from HS. that's why he's still in his teens.

ryanhoward ya i wouldn't disagree with your statement. now that i look back i would probably put holland and maybe feliz, but not a big fan of feliz and i don't think he'll be as good as holland or alderson.

same feeling with that phillies #1 pitching prospect. I haven't see him dominate to be the franchises best pitching prospect

Where does it say that you have to dominate to be a franchise's best pitching prospect?[/quote:2y77tora]

Too add to this- I'm not a huge Carrasco fan, however there are reasons for his struggles at AA. There was a report after the season that at AA they made the pitchers throw pretty much all fastballs. Once he moved up to AAA he used his full arsenal and that contributed to his success. He's also fairly young.

 

[cgilmo]

I will never trust International League pitching stats. Ever.

 

[darocker80]

Darock- No reason to spray anger at me.... I do know enough about him, I was just saying I believe Porcello is a better prospect then him is all.

I just said don't take Porcello's numbers this year to seriously as he was told not to throw a curveball all year.

I like Bumgarner as I have a Aflac auto incoming today I am just saying I believe Porcello was ranked to low.

Shep :ugeek:

I'm not angry, just pointing out that you said porcello was a Hs and that's why he should be higher ranked, but bumgarner also was a HS and had a better first full season.