CSS Button No Image Css3Menu.com
New! Search comments:
(NOTE: Relevance, Author, and Article are not applicable for comment searches)
He's rebounded a bit once they started getting him more rest, and he's stopped chasing a little in the most recent looks. Hasn't really helped his <span class="statdef"><a href="http://www.baseballprospectus.com/glossary/index.php?search=BABIP" onmouseover="doTooltip(event, jpfl_getStat('BABIP'))" onmouseout="hideTip()">BABIP</span></a> much, but we're dealing with tiny samples.
The chart is pretty close to universal so we can all have universal vernacular. It may need to be updated if fastball velocity keeps going up a couple ticks a decade. Smarter folks than I can opine if this is a short-term trend or not.
Most likely, although anytime you get prospect guys together to talk about <span class="playerdef"><a href="http://www.baseballprospectus.com/player_search.php?search_name=Nick+Williams">Nick Williams</a></span> it can be contentious. He was in the back 15 or so on the earlier drafts.
That would be pretty accurate.
No more than a dozen spots. We expect he'll be comfortably on the 101.
We like <span class="playerdef"><a href="http://www.baseballprospectus.com/card/card.php?id=104806">Rhys Hoskins</a></span> a lot, but to get a 24-year-old 1B-only on an upside-oriented top 50 the dude better have extraordinary offensive tools and a really good reason that he isn't in the majors. Hoskins realistically has neither.
Sisco certainly came up but was probably closer to his off-season rank than just off. Error bars for projecting catchers are bigger than other positions, and he's more chugging along than breaking out.
In relation to Alfaro, we still see some reasonable chance Alfaro breaks out into a star, whereas that would be less expected for Sisco.
In addition to what Jeffrey said, getting held back in XST gives guys like Whitley and Anderson a pretty huge head start on Manning for a midseason list.
Hansen's college pedigree did include a disaster of a junior season where he dropped from a 1-1 candidate to the second round, and that was just last year. He's far too good for that league, but I don't think letting him throw 100 innings at the level to fully regain the shine is out of line.
<span class="playerdef"><a href="http://www.baseballprospectus.com/card/card.php?id=58921">Tanner Roark</a></span>'s 2014 <span class="statdef"><a href="http://www.baseballprospectus.com/glossary/index.php?search=DRA" onmouseover="doTooltip(event, jpfl_getStat('DRA'))" onmouseout="hideTip()">DRA</span></a> suggested he's a mid-rotation starter, as has his 2016 DRA, his 2017 DRA-to-date, and, I would suggest, the general consensus answer to the question "what is Tanner Roark?" He was not bounced from the Nationals rotation before the 2015 season due to poor peripherals, he was bounced because ownership signed <span class="playerdef"><a href="http://www.baseballprospectus.com/card/card.php?id=56753">Max Scherzer</a></span> and Roark was the least established of the five incumbents. Four of the five 2015 Nats starters pitched roughly to expectations, and <span class="playerdef"><a href="http://www.baseballprospectus.com/card/card.php?id=52353">Doug Fister</a></span> isn't the guy you would've suggested replacing coming off his 2014 2.41 <span class="statdef"><a href="http://www.baseballprospectus.com/glossary/index.php?search=ERA" onmouseover="doTooltip(event, jpfl_getStat('ERA'))" onmouseout="hideTip()">ERA</span></a> and eighth-place <span class="playerdef"><a href="http://www.baseballprospectus.com/card/card.php?id=31191">Cy Young</a></span> finish. Why the 2015 Nationals missed the playoffs is somewhere between a book and an article and definitely not a comment, but it sure didn't have much to do with starting pitching.
In contrast, <span class="playerdef"><a href="http://www.baseballprospectus.com/card/card.php?id=101060">Antonio Senzatela</a></span> has 62 innings of a good ERA and red flag peripherals; yes, his strikeout rate is low, but he's also giving up over a homer per nine and 80 percent of his runners are being stranded. I liked him some as a prospect, but coming into the season he had made all of seven starts above A-ball, so there's no track record even in the high-minors here to point at for sustainability. He's bordering on a two-pitch pitcher (throwing his change less than five percent), which is another red flag. He just seems like a weird place to start if we're critiquing an advanced pitching stat.
It's a quarter of a season, seven and a half per nine is fine, and honestly I care far more about how he looks than his K-rate.
Remember, there's always an amateur scout somewhere that saw *something* in those $1k college senior dudes like Pillar or Paul Seward that caused them to get signed at all. That's frequently a question I ask myself: what caused a scout to like this guy enough to pound the table for him to get a shot late?
I didn't see Pillar until Double-A and he was already on the map by then, but I would guess he probably got signed based on being an extremely productive <span class="statdef"><a href="http://www.baseballprospectus.com/glossary/index.php?search=D2" onmouseover="doTooltip(event, jpfl_getStat('D2'))" onmouseout="hideTip()">D2</span></a> player who had good instincts in CF. And prospects absolutely do get better or worse both in present grade and projection; this whole thing isn't linear at all.
Heh, I was going to throw a footnote in there but it didn't look right.
In general the Vegas comment is an astute pickup; Syndergaard in particular had all sorts of issues out there that turned out to be purely Vegas and PCL-related. For Gsellman specifically however, he only made nine starts out there and about half of them were effectively rehab from a lingering quad injury that they shut him down for a month to get rid of.
Honestly, there were rumblings out of both Bingo and Vegas before Gsellman's call-up that he was gaining velocity and the slider was tightening. It didn't show up in the performance until he hit the majors, but it's not entirely not without foundation.
I am almost certainly the high guy on Moncada on staff and I can't see any way to get him higher than 4 or 5 here. He's behind guys that have similar star upside but also have considerably higher outcomes in like the 25-40th percentile areas.
It's certainly possible that Moncada really hits and nobody else in the top five does because it's a prospect list, but I like him where he is.
He was ineligible for the prospect lists due to service time. I have no clue if he would've made it or not because we didn't discuss him at any point after figuring out he was ineligible during the Astros list process.
Apropos of nothing, six of my colleagues covering prospects here did get team jobs within the last five or six months, and they all either directly or indirectly contributed to these lists and writeups.
I dunno I thought the strikes were at least a little funny funny and an important way of pointing out that context really does matter for the shape of prospect outcomes without turning it into an essay, but your mileage may vary. In any event it's literally the exact same profile except now he has <span class="playerdef"><a href="http://www.baseballprospectus.com/card/card.php?id=60009">Brett Lawrie</a></span> and <span class="playerdef"><a href="http://www.baseballprospectus.com/player_search.php?search_name=Carlos+Sanchez">Carlos Sanchez</a></span> "blocking" him instead of Dustin freakin' Pedroia. And Lawrie is going to end up at third whenever they find somewhere else to park Frazier anyway.
Kela was in the mix too and perhaps I should've noted that. The 2015 usage combined with the 2016 health problems and performance raised a red flag for me. But I honestly wouldn't make too much of which guy was and wasn't 10 on the U25 list, it was a close call between a pool of reclamation projects and 55 OFP medium or high risk guys in the low-minors.
If <span class="playerdef"><a href="http://www.baseballprospectus.com/card/card.php?id=46716">Mark Trumbo</a></span> could stand as badly at second as he does in corner spots, he would be a really awesome player!
<span class="playerdef"><a href="http://www.baseballprospectus.com/card/card.php?id=102199">Wei-Chung Wang</a></span> was picked by the Brewers and actually stuck with under 50 pro innings, all in the Florida complex league.
<span class="playerdef"><a href="http://www.baseballprospectus.com/card/card.php?id=5034">R.A. Dickey</a></span> was taken in the 2007 Rule 5 with similar experience to Rutledge. Happens every so often when a MLB player signs a MILB contract unusually early in the offseason.
The list includes a guy claimed off waivers a month ago and this year's third-round pick who signed for slot and had a bad pro debut. That's objectively about as bad as it gets.
He's discussed in "others of note." He wasn't in serious contention for the list itself, although he's probably in the 11-15 area. We like him enough (with caveats), but the system is really deep.
I saw Holder quite a bit this year and like him a lot. He'd have made a lot of system top tens. But this isn't a system where a good but not overwhelming reliever-only prospect, even a potential late-innings arm, is really a top ten candidate.
Saw his first start in April. Nobody behind the plate had any idea who he was coming in, and he only pitched three innings, but I definitely noticed him.
Here's the English language version of what's in my notebook: short and small frame but with clean mechanics, easy 92-95 with life and good command given background/level, generic mid-80s slider, curve flashed a few times.
Sure, that's why we threw the "sometimes" in. Giolito's velocity was honestly pretty variable this season depending on where and when you saw him, and down on the whole.
Maddon brought Chapman in for Lindor, a switch-hitter who has been (slightly) better both in 2016 and over his major-league career hitting left-handed than right.
I agree that the game situation in and of itself was at least two batters reaching away from dictating a Chapman appearance, and that Maddon was unlikely to ever actually need Chapman in this game. Any defense of Maddon's usage of Chapman relies on the so-called "soft factors" like his ability to warm, ability to stay loose for several innings after warming, emotional reactions from the team, etc.; things like those noted in the comment of cubsker below. I'm not particularly persuaded by them, but I'd also err on the panic overuse in using my best relievers if the alternative is <span class="playerdef"><a href="http://www.baseballprospectus.com/card/card.php?id=58350">Craig Kimbrel</a></span> or <span class="playerdef"><a href="http://www.baseballprospectus.com/card/card.php?id=50155">Zach Britton</a></span> cursing up a storm in your bullpen as the season ends with your ninth best pitcher on the mound. Obviously you'd prefer a better understanding of overall leverage and strategy from your manager and not have to choose between suboptimal options, but...
If I thought we had a better handle on whether there was a real cost to Chapman's Game 7 effectiveness or length I'd feel much more strongly about this one way or the other, FWIW. But it's outlier usage over the course of a just a week for a pitcher that is, generally, an outlier.
Thanks for the thoughts, been reading your work for what feels like decades.
Interesting idea. I don't know that you'd want to burn Allen or Miller for multiple innings down three runs for similar cascading reasons as to why having Chapman sit down and get back up twice up five isn't great, so you're probably using whichever one for just two outs. Otero's a pretty good fit for Russell there as a righty groundballer; with Schwarber running at third you've got a better-than-usual chance to cut down the lead run and maybe turn two on anything to an infielder. Certainly wouldn't have had an issue had Francona went to his bigger guns, but I think Otero's fine given the overall situation too.
There's a couple lowball offers in here, but I think most of them are fair to strong. Speaking for myself, my Met offer here was modeled on, but substantially stronger than, the actual <span class="playerdef"><a href="http://www.baseballprospectus.com/player_search.php?search_name=Carlos+Gomez">Carlos Gomez</a></span> deal that the Mets and Brewers agreed to last year. It's the same <span class="playerdef"><a href="http://www.baseballprospectus.com/card/card.php?id=66213">Zack Wheeler</a></span>, except at the end of his recovery instead of the beginning, and there's four position player assets that are all vaguely around the value of Flores circa July 2015. Lucroy might be a slightly better asset than Gomez was at this time last year, but given a troubling concussion history and a stark decline in our catching metrics over the past two years, there are some red flags on Lucroy too. I certainly don't think Lucroy circa the deadline is that much better without using perfect hindsight about Gomez failing his physical and subsequently stinking for the last calendar year.
Anyways, I pretty much knew I wasn't going to "win" the game without including <span class="playerdef"><a href="http://www.baseballprospectus.com/card/card.php?id=103203">Amed Rosario</a></span>, but including Rosario didn't make sense to me. I wrote about that thought process in a companion piece to the Trade Game at BP Mets: http://mets.locals.baseballprospectus.com/2016/07/22/amed-rosario-to-trade-or-not-to-trade/
I don't know that I'd have offered Gallo as the Rangers as Matt did, but I do know with their current catching situation and place in the standings, it's a heck of a lot easier for the Rangers to offer an extreme high-end guy plus another top 50 guy than pretty much any other team. Which is why they're considered the favorite for Lucroy in the real world too, no?
Position, or at the least projected pro position, is pretty static for top NFL prospects outside of your occasional edge cases like Devin Hester or <span class="playerdef"><a href="http://www.baseballprospectus.com/player_search.php?search_name=Matt+Jones">Matt Jones</a></span>. On the contrary, there's a lot of fluidity in baseball positions and profiles — many of these dudes just won't end up at the position we expect them to, nor with the same shape of offensive productions, even some of the relatively "safe bets." In a nutshell, that's one of the main reasons you've got Crawford at 1, because he is the absolute surest positional/role bet on the list.
In terms of creating tiered rankings instead of doing ordinal rankings, well, y'all seem to want number rankings. Putting numbers on it does create a little bit of false certainty where there's really some fuzziness. For me personally, the entire top 13 on this list constitutes a top tier and I wouldn't worry too much about where my favorite dude ranked within there. Benintendi, Gallo, and Turner — numbers 11 through 13 — are all guys with real arguments to be in the top five, and all could've been under only slightly different iterations.
If we're just looking at creating an "average" list, well, we have a lot of prospect team members, some of whom are more senior than others and most or all of whom don't see most of the prospects in question and thus have pretty significant blind spots. Just as a personal example, I have no real basis to form an opinion worth your money about, say, <span class="playerdef"><a href="http://www.baseballprospectus.com/card/card.php?id=104176">Eloy Jimenez</a></span> vs. <span class="playerdef"><a href="http://www.baseballprospectus.com/card/card.php?id=104180">Gleyber Torres</a></span>, because I don't see those guys and don't follow the Cubs system especially closely. I could probably get enough info to wing it by reaching out to contacts and looking at industry consensus, but instead we have Craij to deal with those sorts of things. :)
Hope that answered some of that!