BA's 2009 Top 100 Prospects List

[Codasco07]

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

I blame the internet. The internet not only allows everyone to have an opinion, but to think they are qualified to have an opinion in anything they so choose. I'm not sure whether that makes those opinions valid or invalid, but this trend is present in all fields. Look at what happens to Apple's stock when a report of Steve Jobs's death is posted on a rumor site like Gawker or Gizmodo....it tanks. Everything is based in some way on secondary sources, but the internet has made it much more feasible to express those and opinions and back them up. I would not be surprised if some of the prospectors on here spend more time researching players than some of the prospect websites online. Whether or not the prospectors on here know what to look for is up to debate, but when it comes to scouting, if someone knew what to look for, then why would there be a debate at all?

 

[brouthercard]

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

I blame the internet. The internet not only allows everyone to have an opinion, but to think they are qualified to have an opinion in anything they so choose. I'm not sure whether that makes those opinions valid or invalid, but this trend is present in all fields. Look at what happens to Apple's stock when a report of Steve Jobs's death is posted on a rumor site like Gawker or Gizmodo....it tanks. Everything is based in some way on secondary sources, but the internet has made it much more feasible to express those and opinions and back them up. I would not be surprised if some of the prospectors on here spend more time researching players than some of the prospect websites online. Whether or not the prospectors on here know what to look for is up to debate, but when it comes to scouting, if someone knew what to look for, then why would there be a debate at all?

I'm wondering how many players the editors of Baseball America have actually seen play in person as well. Most of the higher ups in the company rely on reports from regional "scouts" and other team scouts that may or may not be biased as well.

So essentially BA's top 100 list is a culmination of those many scouting reports/internet reports/ and other miscellaneous resources that help the editors create their list, based on opinions of others and not necessarily on first hand observation. That's why everyone can be a critic.

 

[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

I blame the internet. The internet not only allows everyone to have an opinion, but to think they are qualified to have an opinion in anything they so choose. I'm not sure whether that makes those opinions valid or invalid, but this trend is present in all fields. Look at what happens to Apple's stock when a report of Steve Jobs's death is posted on a rumor site like Gawker or Gizmodo....it tanks. Everything is based in some way on secondary sources, but the internet has made it much more feasible to express those and opinions and back them up. I would not be surprised if some of the prospectors on here spend more time researching players than some of the prospect websites online. Whether or not the prospectors on here know what to look for is up to debate, but when it comes to scouting, if someone knew what to look for, then why would there be a debate at all?

I'm wondering how many players the editors of Baseball America have actually seen play in person as well. Most of the higher ups in the company rely on reports from regional "scouts" and other team scouts that may or may not be biased as well.

So essentially BA's top 100 list is a culmination of those many scouting reports/internet reports/ and other miscellaneous resources that help the editors create their list, based on opinions of others and not necessarily on first hand observation. That's why everyone can be a critic.

I think there is a lot of overplaying of first hand observation in this discussion. How many of us have been to major league games and can say from watching in person how good players will be in the future? I would say that without statistics and actual scouts it is very difficult even if you go out and watch the games. The more information the better, and I think you can get a lot more information from scouting reports and statistics than you can from watching a few games or videos.

 

[pujolsjunkie]

Boy, Hellickson got farted on.

 

[darocker80]

Boy, Hellickson got farted on.

hahahahahah

also why is ur super bigger then the others in ur sig haha

 

[bballcardkid]

Freeman at 87? Jeesh

I think he was overrated/overhyped last year by the message boards so this doesn't really surprise me, but I do think he should have been somewhere in the 60s probably.

same league, same age, granted #38 has a premium position if he can stay there...but these numbers are fairly similar (#38 is apparently has 80 power). Just figured Freeman would get a bit more love.

#87 prospect
.301 .353 .477 830 189 715 94 215 40 7 24 125 6 7 53 117 0.13 0.21 0.50 0.66 0.03

#38 prospect
.318 .374 .479 853 165 632 99 201 40 1 20 106 2 1 49 101 0.12 0.24 0.60 0.64 0.01

 

[Wes]

Here it is - discuss!

I'll give my thoughts after fully digesting it.

http://www.baseballamerica.com/today/prospects/rankings/top-100-prospects/2009/267698.html

Q: Jean-Paul from Springfield asks:
Max Ramirez was BA's Rangers' #10 overall prospect, yet somehow made this list over #s 7-9 (Beltre, Main and Borbon). I realize Aaron Fitt didn't contribute to this Top 100 list, but what made you give him a slot here?

Hah way to sneak in a third question.

 

[bballcardkid]

How long before the ebay affect, if there even will be one?

 

[Wes]

How long before the ebay affect, if there even will be one?

I'll bet there are already people who have read it and are now buying guys who they hadn't before.

 

[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

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...

I wasn't really questioning his ranking as I think it's reasonable based on what I know. It was more with Manuel's rationale in his response.

Alex

 

[dchurg]

Bumgarner > Hanson > Cahill > Feliz > Porcello > Anderson > Parker > Tillman > Matusz > Alderson

 

[ThoseBackPages]

Boy, Hellickson got farted on.

hahahahahah

also why is ur super bigger then the others in ur sig haha

DUH, cause its a SUPER!

 

[ballerskrip]

Bumgarner > Hanson > Cahill > Feliz > Porcello > Anderson > Parker > Tillman > Matusz > Alderson

my rankings......

Hanson > Feliz > Porcello > Tillman > Anderson > Wade Davis > Bumgarner > Parker > Matusz > Arrieta > Alderson

Skrip

 

[bballcardkid]

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...

+10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000.

 

[dchurg]

Bumgarner > Hanson > Cahill > Feliz > Porcello > Anderson > Parker > Tillman > Matusz > Alderson

my rankings......

Hanson > Feliz > Porcello > Tillman > Anderson > Wade Davis > Bumgarner > Parker > Matusz > Arrieta > Alderson

Skrip

I was considering putting Davis on.

Also all those guys over Cahill?

And lastly you did 11 I did 10, I i did 11 you can add > Davis on the end


Would love to hear why Cahill's not on the list

 

[SHWNRBTSNT]

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:

LOL, who ever said Rasmus was going to make the club 3 years ago?Anyone?Anyone at all?

I love all the Rasmus hatred!

 

[Wes]

Bumgarner > Hanson > Cahill > Feliz > Porcello > Anderson > Parker > Tillman > Matusz > Alderson

my rankings......

Hanson > Feliz > Porcello > Tillman > Anderson > Wade Davis > Bumgarner > Parker > Matusz > Arrieta > Alderson

Skrip

Come on seriously Davis over Bumgarner? Tillman shouldn't be over him either.

 

[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:

LOL, who ever said Rasmus was going to make the club 3 years ago?Anyone?Anyone at all?

I love all the Rasmus hatred!

I'd have to agree nobody ever said he was supposed to debut in 06 that's outrageous.

 

[pujolsjunkie]

Boy, Hellickson got farted on.

hahahahahah

also why is ur super bigger then the others in ur sig haha

DUH, cause its a SUPER!

1000%

 

[aw00d05]

Ahh, Sid. If only you had been real you'd have made Mark Fidrych look like a stuffed collar.

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

I've seen almost all the Rangers top prospects in person because I live like 20 minutes away from their AA stadium and go like 10 times a year, so I've seen Feliz, Holland, Borbon, Andrus, and I've seen Teixeira and Kinsler come through there too.