CSS Button No Image Css3Menu.com
New! Search comments:
(NOTE: Relevance, Author, and Article are not applicable for comment searches)
Yes, he is still a toolsy guy.
Sigh. That's on me. As you wish, it remains.
No one is implying that he wasn't a catcher before or that other teams didn't know. It was about understanding (or taking a chance) that he'd be able to convert back after multiple years away from it.
You'll note that after the first inning he faded considerably from 96, which I believe is what Steve is referring to. The ability to hold his velocity.
Thanks for reading!
He's also striking out 13.5 per nine and the grades aren't reflective of that type of stuff. He pitches on the fringes of the zone and well, minor league catchers aren't the best framer, minor league umpires aren't always the most accurate. That's not to say he's got the greatest command, but my viewing largely backs up what Greg saw in Akin which was repeatable mechanics and an ability to pitch in the zone.
I was going to take a shot at Ben about that but he was sick so I let it slide.
It is certainly not because I am big time. I am as present as I can be on the site, but I have more responsibilities than I have had before, and this is not my full-time job, and I am in school. I do the best I can to be available on twitter, create content and edit minor league content. I will try to get a chat scheduled shortly.
As for chats in general, I believe we've had more chats than ever the last season or so. I take issue with your comment in terms of what is provided. This is an example of <a href="http://www.baseballprospectus.com/author/zach_mortimer">Zach Mortimer</a> from a few years ago (http://pfm17.baseballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=21318) and I don't believe it's substantively different from our minor league posts most days. I would also point our that our Notes From the Field are at least once a week, our eyewitness accounts will be coming now that our staff has had the ability to catch players for the requisite number of at-bats and innings to make sure they see enough of the player, and our content includes more video than ever before, as we provide more in-the-field looks than anyone else covering the minor leagues.
Hey guys -- obviously everyone is more than welcome to add lines to our MLU, especially if people are happy to see em.
Just to provide some more info, if you're looking to catch up on who performed well the night before, MLB Farm has a convenient page:
Yes, there was a rainout that changed things.
<span class="playerdef"><a href="http://www.baseballprospectus.com/card/card.php?id=31730">David DeJesus</a></span> was in the majors at 24 and had a higher <span class="statdef"><a href="http://www.baseballprospectus.com/glossary/index.php?search=SLG" onmouseover="doTooltip(event, jpfl_getStat('SLG'))" onmouseout="hideTip()">SLG</span></a> there than <span class="playerdef"><a href="http://www.baseballprospectus.com/card/card.php?id=104718">Greg Allen</a></span>'s career SLG to-date.
We try to mention the age when we think it is relevant in the writeup. Additionally, each player card lists the player's seasonal age (and birthday) if you click on it. Thanks!
They ended up signing for comparable amounts (~$6 million) but if Posey had gone No. 1 overall, he probably would have received a bit more than that. His bonus was likely depressed slightly from his slide to 5th overall.
We're different people, so don't hold my transgressions against Greg! Since he caught this game, I'll defer to him on those observations.
Greg basically put a <span class="statdef"><a href="http://www.baseballprospectus.com/glossary/index.php?search=OFP" onmouseover="doTooltip(event, jpfl_getStat('OFP'))" onmouseout="hideTip()">OFP</span></a> 70/Likely 55 on Pint, so liking him a great deal more than that means you have Pint as close to, if not, the best pitching prospect in baseball. Obviously, everyone can come out with different takeaways, but this was by no means a down report.
None of those players are currently on the Fort Wayne roster. Where they are by draft time wasn't the concern.
Yes, my incessant compliments of Honeywell and Adames surely come from the notion that we think the Rays have no prospects.
As it stands, we will have a prospect team member in Durham throughout the season, so you shouldn't sweat it.
There's no correlation to any of them. They're just what the medication addresses for each of the names I used.
so much psoriasis and athritis
You're right. I will correct that, thanks!
Sure, and those guys were great. Nevin, Gwynn, and <span class="playerdef"><a href="http://www.baseballprospectus.com/player_search.php?search_name=Reggie+Sanders">Reggie Sanders</a></span> reproduced a lot of their production in '99 though (there was definitely a fall of offensively for the team though), and Joyner and Caminiti were on the bad '97 team, so unless they were taking particularly good drugs in 1998, I'm not sure what the connection is in this context.
No problem! Thanks for reading, and it's definitely worth investigating further.
As the conclusion states, the peanut butter year (good name) was better than the bread in seven of the ten examples. I'll have to run a different query to check the larger sample, but as I said at the bottom, it's something I'd like to come back to! Perhaps another article!
sad to see someone I once thought knowledgeable become someone I now know is ignorant because of <span class="playerdef"><a href="http://www.baseballprospectus.com/card/card.php?id=57701">Ross Detwiler</a></span>. SMH.
Well, Wood isn't even in the starting rotation, so that's kind of where depth comes in. After that you having Stripling and <span class="playerdef"><a href="http://www.baseballprospectus.com/card/card.php?id=68692">Brock Stewart</a></span>, plus <span class="playerdef"><a href="http://www.baseballprospectus.com/card/card.php?id=101992">Julio Urias</a></span> when they need him. Injury prone or not, most clubs do not have 9 MLB-quality starters.
Thrilled you liked it. Thanks for the kind words!
if there's Old Bay involved, I'll be there
Looks like one of my fellow editors beat me to your comment and changed it before I could review. Thanks for letting us know.
I don't believe I said five anywhere? If so, could you be more specific and I'll amend it. Cheers!
It's a fair point to be made, but my response is that we're here to provide with as much opinion and insight as possible, based on results and our knowledge and then allow you to make the decision. If one person argues for a player to target and someone else argues to avoid that player, which case do you think holds water? If they both do, which scenario is more likely?
Reality is that there are few cut and dried situations out there, and I think our approach acknowledges the shades of gray while arming you with the information you need to make an informed decision. I get why that's frustrating and incongruous at times, but I think part of the value of BP's stable of authors is that we don't all see things the same way, and ultimately our final outputs benefit from those varied approaches.
I want to be clear that I don't think your comment is out of line in any way whatsoever -- just trying to explain our philosophy behind it.
wither <span class="playerdef"><a href="http://www.baseballprospectus.com/player_search.php?search_name=Nate+Robertson">Nate Robertson</a></span>?
Good suggestion. We can do that in a broad way going forward.
He'll be selected at the top of round 5, when that article runs.
Vogelbach received the most scathing reviews from me.
This is that article if you wanted to check out what Russell did rather than just take my word for it (I realized that wasn't particularly helpful):
This was discussed on Effectively Wild recently and they mentioned our own Russell Carleton looked at this within the last few years and found there was no meaningful change in a pitcher's ability to find the zone post-intentional walk, so I'm afraid that argument doesn't hold much water.
Follow up since I didn't answer your question: I did not look into that data so unfortunately I don't have any.
Gah, I meant to include a caveat on that. Wild pitches during pitch outs *are* another component of the argument against eliminating this rule and my suspicion is they'd be more common than balls in play, but not enough to move the needle appreciably in terms of percentages of intentional walks that got messed up. That said, they do fall into that _weird_ area that people enjoy, too.
Recent reports indicate that MLB has unilateral authority to make decisions on rule changes beginning next year, so I expect we'll see one or the other front and center in a year's time.
You'll note our extremely high bar for first base prospects, in that only two appeared on our 101 this year.
I think we can all agree that there's no harm in not acknowledging that it's called Guaranteed Rate Field though, right? Like if we just collectively ignore it?
I know this commenter from years of back and forth with him on another site as well, and it is a repeated practice of his to misconstrue something and argue from that point. I'm comfortable with my interpretation of the comment, though your advice is appreciated.
:( :( :(
Insinuating that Chapman's placement in the 101 has to do with his team is dismissive of the explanation given and the writeup in general, and seemingly intentionally missing the point. That's just not an accurate assessment.
He gets those comps by having extreme production at a young age in full season ball, in a limited run. He hasn't hit a rough patch yet, and when (or if, if you're optimistic) he does, the statistical comps will change. As of right now, they don't mean a ton.
Anything is possible as he's a talented dude, but I'd be surprised if he does it just because he's still going to be pretty far away. Unless he pushes himself into a dominant performance in short-season ball/Low-A, it'd be hard to bank on. Granted, <span class="playerdef"><a href="http://www.baseballprospectus.com/player_search.php?search_name=Anderson+Tejeda">Anderson Tejeda</a></span> and <span class="playerdef"><a href="http://www.baseballprospectus.com/card/card.php?id=107293">Leody Taveras</a></span> managed to do just that. Still, most short-season resumes don't hack it and he's yet to appear stateside.
Appreciate the thought.
Reality is that no matter where you cut off a list, people are going to ask about the next names just off of it. So there's always going to be some level of demand for the type of thing you describe.
I think at some point, though, you lose value. We already cover 300-450 prospects between the Top 10s and the others of note. We rank them according to OFP/Likely, so if you want to delve into fluid-ish blocks for the next 100 names, you could group players that way and it would likely be fairly representative.
Good question that requires something of a nuanced answer that boils down to... it depends.
That's not really satisfying, I know, but all teenagers with stuff are not built alike, really, and nor are all mid-rotation starter types. I think it's clear given the aggressive rankings on guys like Alvarez and Espinoza that we like the high-upside guys with risk. But then we also have Pint a little lower, and Szapucki lower still, so it's all about how much risk they carry at a given moment, and the various ways that risk can play out, plus how likely we think those various scenarios are.
Then you balance that with the guys closer to the majors who might have less risk, but less reward. And any risk they do have might have a bigger effect on the overall profile, too, since there's less margin for error in total. So there might be an overall trend or philosophy for us as a team/site it's more about breaking down the component pieces and trying to make sure it all makes sense.
I'm told this came off as snippy. It wasn't intended to be but I felt self conscious about using exclamation points, my b.
Assuming you return tomorrow, you'll read about him in the "just missed" section we have coming.
it is relatively heavy to the last couple years -- good point. 2014 also had 15 draftees from the year prior on the list, so we don't have to go *too* far back to find a similar representation.
I don't think you're necessarily missing something so much as we might weight their likelihoods differently. We're pretty confident in Maitan's ability to stick on the left side of the infield (even if it is at third), and less so about Guerrero's. If the latter ends up at first, it's a big dent in the profile.
Different lead ranker, different prospect team, different philosophies at play in terms of ordering. This list was produced from scratch, so best not to view it as a relative ranking to last year's edition so much as an independent list. In this sense Smith didn't "drop off," but is just valued differently.
The Twins list was free for everyone, first of all. If one section of one of 15 writeups is different enough to ruin a whole list for someone, I'd suggest they're perhaps overreacting. The reality is that we are responsive in the comments when people ask for clarification, we are available by email, and available on social media. If this product falls short in any way, it's then there are many avenues for clarification.
All of which is to say, the section of <span class="playerdef"><a href="http://www.baseballprospectus.com/card/card.php?id=108012">Wander Javier</a></span> that everyone is upset about serves a purpose. It might meander its way there, but it's a creative way of saying that the player has a long way to make an impact on the Twins. If you don't like the meandering route, that's certainly your prerogative and you're more than welcome to voice it here. I read all the comments and I reflect on them even if I disagree in the short-term. I would suggest that the segment of the public than can only handle a dry report and would be upset at some creative license taken in making a point is smaller than the audience that either a) appreciates the jokes or b) is understanding that not literally every aspect of every article is going to be for them.
Our Royals site covered the transaction in depth, here:
At this point I'm unclear on how you might know what goes into the process of a comment receiving a plus.
That falls on me as editor for not catching. I admit my Talking Heads knowledge isn't where it needs to be.
Thanks. That was a script error that defaulted to the second player due to the odd positional listing (3B/OF) for Dozier. Should be fixed shortly.
For what it's worth, O'Hearn was discussed as a back-end option for the Top 10. I wouldn't take anything specific out of him not being mentioned.
I get what you mean in regards to the "real life <span class="playerdef"><a href="http://www.baseballprospectus.com/card/card.php?id=57988">Eric Hosmer</a></span>" comment, but there are some crucial difference. For example, O'Hearn slugged close to .470 this year, at Double-A, as a 22-year-old. Not only was Hosmer in the majors at 22, but he was at Double-A at 20, and slugged .617.
As you say though -- that's what Hosmer was, not what he's been. He's been a 10-win player (per <span class="statdef"><a href="http://www.baseballprospectus.com/glossary/index.php?search=WARP" onmouseover="doTooltip(event, jpfl_getStat('WARP'))" onmouseout="hideTip()">WARP</span></a>) over six years so far. That's less than 2 wins a year, as a first baseman. It's just not a particularly valuable profile. If that's what we *expect* O'Hearn to be, we still have to consider the percentiles below what we expect. If that's the case he's basically not a major leaguer.
All of this to say, does he fit in that 45/40 range with Almonte? You bet. The profile is just a tough one. And if you expect better than we do, it'd be reasonable to place him higher on your own mental/personal list.
Those guys would have been part of a controllable core which is what the top of the essay was about.
Ha! Fair enough. Agreed that distortions in OFP mean different things. It's part of why over the 2015 season we developed an internal guide so everybody is on the same page in how we're expressing what we're trying to say. That said, older reports such as this one might differ, and it's of course possible that personal biases change how we use them despite the guide serving as a baseline.
For reference, the original report is held <a href="http://www.baseballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=21255">here</a> and we concur with it. There was simply a grade provided, not an OFP, so it shouldn't be seen as Hawkins ceiling being a role 3 type.
He hit all 27 as catcher, which is my bad for not catching (sorry about the pun). I assume he slipped through a search based on minimum <span class="statdef"><a href="http://www.baseballprospectus.com/glossary/index.php?search=PA" onmouseover="doTooltip(event, jpfl_getStat('PA'))" onmouseout="hideTip()">PA</span></a>. I'll amend in the article.
The strikethroughs were intended to be a slightly humorous way of letting people know this was the same writeup from the Red Sox list, while also not including the outdated Red Sox-centric information. My apologies if it ruined the experience of the list for you.
Sorry about that -- it's been added.
Right you are. That's been fixed. Thank you.
Good question. I can only speak for myself, of course, but I try to go back and review the processes that led me to my belief (or lackthereof) in the prospect in question (this should also occur when we're right to avoid crediting the wrong process, to be sure).
With Appel, it's worth noting that there was a relatively wide range of opinions given how high he was drafted twice. He was oft-derided for lacking fortitude on the mound, which, at the time I considered a bit unfair. I'm not a proponent of assuming I know someone's inner self based on a game or two. I think there were competing points there as well -- it doesn't lack fortitude to turn down $3 million and go back to school, then pitch well enough to go 1-1.
He also flashed superb quality in his arsenal, but we rarely saw them do so in concert. I don't think it's wrong to assume that this is an issue that gets worked out, though it's probably one worth revisiting. Then there was the aspect that he got hit harder than he should for someone with his stuff. This was also a criticism of <span class="playerdef"><a href="http://www.baseballprospectus.com/card/card.php?id=65957">Gerrit Cole</a></span>, and that sure looked like a silly one prior to the 2016 season. It was a question of whether you saw the raw quality of the stuff overriding the complete lack of deception in Appel's delivery.
The questions or competing concerns above seemingly all fell on the negative side for Appel. I think the best thing I can do is keep in mind that this happened and use it as a (but crucially not *the*) data point going forward. I won't presume to think I know exactly why some of these things happened for him. At some point there's just too much noise, along with a number of things we don't know without having access to the player and other information.
I don't know that that's a satisfactory answer to your question, but I'm happy to talk about it more if not.
I'm not really sure what you're challenging, but okay. You're arguing for a guy in our others area over the 10th guy in a system that falls off dramatically after number 8. There's not a significant gap between the two guys and if you want to prefer Diaz to Plutko, you're more than welcome to. I explained Diaz in the prior comment and Plutko is more than covered in his own writeup.
You're more than welcome to think that he'll be full time, but let's also not twist my words. I said there's as good a chance he's a part-time player as he is the all-star caliber guy he was last year. That's not to say there's not a large area in between, and I don't think either of us would be shocked if he landed there. I think there's a chance last year was mostly real, and if it turns out to be the case I'll happily be wrong. It's not an infrequent thing for me.
I might be the high man on McKenzie. I think he has the potential to lead a rotation, and that there's a lot of projection left for a guy who is already succeeding in relatively dramatic fashion (SSS, to be sure). Is there significant risk? You bet, and it'd be a fair criticism to say that my opinion might not weigh that risk enough. I happen to think there's more risk in Ramirez than you (and I'm guessing a majority of people) think.
He's been fine against righties, but doesn't offer much power against them and has generally been old for the level.
Well, okay but he's never produced even the latter slash line you indicated until 2016. So if you don't buy 2016, you're not buying that either, necessarily. Right now he's projected at about half a win by our system for 2017. That's probably overly conservative, but there's as good a chance that he's the part-time player he's been in years past as he is the all-star quality guy he was last year. We happen to like McKenzie a lot, but if you'd rather flip the two, I don't think people would make a stink about it.
I'm not really a fan of demanding the impossible, so I guess we're at a stalemate.
CSAA is Called Strikes Above Average
I believe Eno has talked about the sweet spot being between 8-10 mph, but that's in aggregate. I'm sure there are some guys who benefit from firmer velocities. I *think* the idea Matt was going for was that for a pitch that's already hard to pick up, perhaps the velo separation might give it away a bit sooner. I think the bigger idea Matt was going for was just tweaking it in some way to make it even more potent (perhaps <span class="playerdef"><a href="http://www.baseballprospectus.com/card/card.php?id=50167">Alex Cobb</a></span> can teach him the split-change he taught Odorizzi).
Yes this was something of an homage to the first concert I saw, as a child.
Ausmus also had a longer career than either Justice or Glaus. If you break it down by WARP/season over career, both of them outproduce him. Which doesn't make them better or Ausmus worse, exactly, but just using it to point out there are a lot of angles to come at this from.
Thanks all -- fixed everything but the lack of a Bill & Ted reference
He's a toolsy guy, who has shown the potential for average (or better) tools at times. He had a nice rebound in a good environment for hitting, closing the year out especially strong. More likely to end up in a corner than center (he's already playing there more), he is going to need to get the most out of his hit tool so that his power can play well enough to fit the profile. He's more of a wait and see type of guy at this point, with a bunch of risk to along with his upside.
Not to be snarky, but I think the answer to the last question is obviously yes, in our estimation, which is why we ranked him higher. A half-grade jump in that part of the bell curve isn't insignificant in terms of value change. I'd also argue there's some positive risk in Alvarez's profile and that he could push into a top-of-the-rotation quality arm if everything clicks. De Leon's floor has its value, but he's more of a fourth starter than an impact type guy in my eyes.
He's 28 and hasn't played since...what? 2014? Anything we could tell you has a solid chance of being out of date and inaccurate, and it wasn't that exciting a profile at the time. He can hit and walk, but defense wasn't a strength even then and it's not clear how much power would translate over (which could make pitchers more comfortable attacking him, negatively impacting his ability to hit).
Thank you! That's very helpful!
Again, it's a process-based point about how they've developed differently than anticipated, including at the MLB level. Which can apply to guys that developed elsewhere but flourished with them in the majors. We're taking that and applying it to specific guys within that system. It's not very complicated or twisted.
Development once in the organization is what makes ranking them difficult. Fact is a great many of the guys they've improved have improved at the big-league level, which means that their ranking as a prospect becomes outdated. The written context of the paragraph is to say that ranking Cardinals prospects is difficult because of their unusual ability to get more out of guys than anticipated. That aspect (getting more out of players) can apply to prospects of their own and guys they've acquired alike.
Not to be snarky, but his lack of presence on the list should cover that.
Nothing that wasn't publicly available at the time of his signing in July, sorry.
Hanson probably fits somewhere in the next five prospects in terms of an ordinal ranking, but there isn't a ton interesting to say on him. He's likely a utility man at this point. The power that was once so interesting appears to have dissipated.
Frazier is eligible by about 8 months, but did not make the cut
Dodgers list hasn't been published yet ;)
I think a tick back up in FB% will net him more power, which could help out.
utility player with enough swing and miss issues that he might be more of an up and down guy
I should have anticipated that, I suppose:
< a href ="url">link text and then close it with /a in brackets
use the standard html for inserting links:
<a href="url">link text</a>
Assuming you mean <span class="playerdef"><a href="http://www.baseballprospectus.com/card/card.php?id=107554">Corbin Burnes</a></span>, he was popped by the Brewers, not the A's. I addressed him briefly in the comments under the Brewers list (the most recent, non-Reds list.
He'll be picked sometime in early June
Less that he can't add value on the bases, but baserunning runs are something of the runt of the litter when it comes to adding value. As notes I think it's completely defensible to prefer him over Lorenzen and maybe even Stephenson if you like Peraza to start and Stephenson not to. But ultimately there's just not much power and the empty average scenario you described is more probable.
We covered him in detail in our Orioles Top 10 here: http://www.baseballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=30744
Well...sure. I support the writeup which is part of why it looks how it does. But the irrelevant portion isn't necessarily "really, really, relevant." because the sample size of that stat isn't much to go on.
I mean...it was a 37-inning sample. I wouldn't go crazy over it.
Hey were the Royals in the World Series those two years? I keep trying to find this info, but it's weirdly not available anywhere.
Worth noting that the stabilization Russell has worked on multiple times throughout his career refers to the data being "reliable" as George said, which is a bit different than "predictive."
I've always liked Susac too. I think he's a good enough defender and power hitter to hold down a full-time job, even if he's more of a second division or league average guy in that role. That's not nothing, of course, and there's a bit more ceiling there but he's got to stay healthy and we've yet to see a true full season from him.
Speaking only for myself, not the rest of the team:
Medeiros I've never been on. Relief guy for me, but he could be good in that role. Getting beat up in the pitching-friendly FSL did him no favors, but he's still young enough to rebound there.
Demi I love as a tools gamble. Those tools are still in tact but he's more of a slow burn type anyway, as 2016 showed in terms of production. Would be a highlighted flier in many systems. This one is just insanely deep.
Kirby missed the season and will be 23 years old and has barely thrown in the minors. Just a wait and see guy, though he was really good back when I saw him against <span class="playerdef"><a href="http://www.baseballprospectus.com/card/card.php?id=105425">Jeff Hoffman</a></span> at UVA/ECU.
Gatewood is still young but repeating Low-A and not mashing isn't ever a great look. He's got a ton of swing-and-miss in his game, and while the power is real, it might be more 5 o'clock than game-time.
Burnes is an interesting 2016 draftee and was at least discussed minorly for the others portion of the list, but I want to see if he's more than just a pop-up guy, and how a full season looks for him as a pro.
<span class="playerdef"><a href="http://www.baseballprospectus.com/card/card.php?id=108882">Mario Feliciano</a></span> I assume you mean: interesting guy! Org likes the bat. There's some question whether he'll stick behind the plate (as you'd expect from a teenage catcher). He's got a good arm back there, and some athleticism. Has a semblance of an idea at the plate, but the power might end up more gap to gap. It's obviously really early on for a guy like him though, so the roads to success are many and varied.
Any hope? Sure. It's encouraging to see him recover, and it's fair to say the thin air in Colorado Springs might have messed with his curveball, but at this point in the game we're going to need to see something at the major league level before he cracks a list as deep and talented as this. I saw him in spring last year and he looked electric, so I'm hoping he can recover that magic.
Well, I'm the editor of the content so it's my job to control what the viewer reads, and it's also based on what we feel best conveys the knowledge of the author and the team, without misleading the reader by providing the tools without context for what we're saying about the tools and the player.
BA doesn't provide tool grades either, except for the top prospect in either system, so you're a bit out of luck there. Again, the tools are addressed within the Good and Bad sections, and we think this is a more truthful conveyance of the prospects involved. You're free to disagree and of course free to pursue your wants and needs elsewhere. My job as I see it is to provide the best information and part of that is providing context. It isn't strictly to serve the wants and needs of the readership.
None of this is about underestimating the audience or presuming anything about the audience. It's about making the information as accurate as possible and given our field that often involves caveats and exposition. I appreciate your feedback and am happy to discuss it further if you'd like.
Now *that* is something I should have investigated for this. Good call!
That is tremendous
Agreed that they have a surplus they can trade from (which is why their refusal to admit they might trade some of these guys is odd). I highly doubt an in-division deal of that magnitude happens, though Grandal/Kemp isn't that far in the rear view mirror.
No one is implying depth is bad. $70M contracts aren't handed out for depth, though, and leaves the only path for justifying it through starting somewhere (or multiple somewheres) other than first. Which is why it doesn't make sense.
And <span class="playerdef"><a href="http://www.baseballprospectus.com/card/card.php?id=102261">Erisbel Arruebarrena</a></span> was supposed to be a MLB quality player at minimum. So it goes.
relitigating a ranking with the benefit of hindsight is a weird tack to take. He wasn't a proven closer at the time of the 25U ranking last year, and including one-inning arms at all reflects the positive light in which we saw him. Also, two closers are getting $15-17M a year, which doesn't confer the same value upon all closers, nor that Osuna is in the same tier as other closers.
As for where he belongs, you can see the 25U list for this org above.
The reports on Ibanez aren't particularly good. He crushed Low-A...as a 23 year old. Is limited to second base, and isn't particularly good there. He can hit a bit, which is nice, but the power is limited. If you're going to have that kind of offensive profile, there needs be more defensive value in the equation.
It's an intriguing move for a guy with his offensive profile, and his ability to play there -- even part time -- would help his prospect value quite a bit, I'd think. Having someone who could play all around the infield but also fill in behind the plate would allow for the team's true second catcher to pinch hit a but more often, which could help in game management.
Probably in the top 20, though there some names that'd slot ahead of him (Speas, for one). He's got some funk to him and a chance for three average pitches, so it's a good profile for the lower minors. Add in the lack of innings and that he was (kinda) repeating Hickory, and there's a lot of reason to wait on blowing up his stock.
Brinson would have been atop the list, and Ortiz probably would slot between Mendez and Jurado, though there'd likely be some discussion there.
Mazara is still a 70 OFP in my eyes. Should be a regular all-star who can hit for power and average from an OF corner.
Odor'd be a 60, but it's a little weird to put OFP on a guy who's been in the majors as much as he has, to me. First-division regular who should make some all-star teams at some point.
Gallo is a little tougher. I'd say probably a 60, though some might argue a 70 on OFP. The issue is the delta between his 90th percentile performance and his 50th (or 70th) is huge. The risk factor is big here.
Profar probably also a 60, with significant risk due to health and developmental time missed.
He was 22 in Low-A and couldn't crack a .700 <span class="statdef"><a href="http://www.baseballprospectus.com/glossary/index.php?search=OPS" onmouseover="doTooltip(event, jpfl_getStat('OPS'))" onmouseout="hideTip()">OPS</span></a>, and then was worse in the Cal League.
Tell them to drop me a line, I'd love to know what the hell they're doing (fixed, thank you)
I cited that, not Ben, and Cotton allowed 20 homers in the minors this year on top of his four in the majors. It's a legitimate source of concern that existed prior to his MLB debut (because of movement and plane, as discussed above), and was reinforced in that small sample. That doesn't make it a lock to continue, but the concern isn't based on the sample alone.
I have read Eno on Cotton, and don't really think valuing guys based on raw spin rate alone is a viable path to success. I'd be wary of doing it on spin rate at all, but if I were I'd want to be looking at effective spin rate. Of course the jury is still out, and I could well end up wrong on that.
Fixed. Sorry about that!
My point wasn't that he struggled relative to those outside the baseball universe, but given his injuries, his promise, his time outside of baseball, etc., it's not an overstatement to say he's had his share of bad things occur, and that this was a proper time to reflect on that and appreciate that someone who has put in the time and effort and work that he has was rewarded, since so many do the same and are not.
No one above dismissed your point. They countered it with evidence as to the strength of the system. You weren't simply saying that there was repetition, you called it "anything but objective." If your complaint was repetition, you didn't make it clear in the initial comment.
Just because we have a subscription based model doesn't require us to accept that our analysis is "anything but objective" when that's not true.
I'm not sure where I was sensitive. I think he is missing the point, personally, but BrewersTT captured much of what I meant. Within the baseball ecosystem (and this is a baseball site) my point stands.
He was drafted out of the university of Pittsburgh (this has been amended above), though he was drafted out of high school in Mason, Iowa, he did not sign. Thanks.
He said either 3/51 or 3/54
Right you both are. That's on me - they are updated with the relevant irrelevants, as they should have been.
Sorry you feel that way.
Really nice year, especially for an 18-year-old in Low-A, but the stuff just doesn't support the numbers. Mostly an upper-80s fastball, advanced curve and control, but he's going to have to prove it further up the chain to gain traction.
He referred to the comp as "2016 Adrian Gonzalez-type season." He's not characterizing Gonzalez's career by that, but naming a specific year as a benchmark.
Apologies for the delayed response. There's a lot to like about Whitley's bat speed, but it's mitigated by the length of his swing. Needs to improve his pitch recognition and barrel control to boot.
Well, it reduces every team's bargaining power, in that respect, which is surely why the players pursued it. I'm a bit skeptical that it will open things up a ton, since only a moderate few were affected in this way, but it will certainly be a boon to those who were.
That's a good point! Thanks for raising it.
I could be, no doubt. MLB teams aggressively paid for guys who cost them their first round picks prior to the pool allotments, because they knew they could make it up with overslot deals later. I would contend that the money associated with slots is more important than the picks themselves, and for teams over the luxury tax, they're costing themselves in the neighborhood of $2M by losing a 2nd and 5th, plus a million in international. For teams under the luxury tax, it's closer to $800k, which will likely cause some more action, certainly.
I think the notion that the money that would be spent on international amateurs and the money that will be spent on MLB free agents comes from the same spot is questionable at best, and that the majority of money not spent on international amateurs will go to the pockets of ownership, which is what ownership wants and why they wanted hard caps.
It was less the draft that broke the system than the last draft before the system changed, so teams went all out while they could, I believe.
I think his speed upside makes him a worthy hold in that format but it just depends how much you value the roster spot given the lead time.
In general it isn't ideal but again...their oldest player is 31. Having a team full of 26-31 year olds isn't the worst thing (in terms of targeting players in their prime, it's pretty good, honestly).
Thanks. I am unsure what occurred that repeated last year's pics for this years. Should be updated.
None of these guys are anyone's property, but Russell is the Cubs shortstop and Torres was in the Cubs organization, where he was also not expected to remain a shortstop.
No, it is not. Fixing shortly. Thanks!
<span class="playerdef"><a href="http://www.baseballprospectus.com/card/card.php?id=46626">Denard Span</a></span> is a career .284 hitter, which profiles as better than "solid-average" and is a big difference between him being a fourth starter and an MLB regular.
If you're looking for a lefty in the Nats system, <span class="playerdef"><a href="http://www.baseballprospectus.com/player_search.php?search_name=Tyler+Watson">Tyler Watson</a></span> would be the name to watch.
1) Comps are exceedingly helpful in communicating what a guy might turn out to be, but they're also often misleading in terms of baselines. That said, we do use them when we feel it applies, and we can keep this in mind going forward. Sometimes there's just not all that great of a comp.
2) It's worth noting that we are going to have to deviate from our anticipated Friday schedule for the Marlins list (it'll be up next week!) but we'll run some reports from the AFL based on live looks to tide everyone over.
Duly noted, and absolutely willing to consider feedback for next year and beyond. Cheers.
I suppose we'll disagree on the irrationality of it. You don't like my rationale, which is fine -- and I understand where you're coming from -- but that doesn't make it irrational.
MLB teams certainly do use the scouting scale. They also don't publish their reports to the public, but rather to crosscheckers, so we have a very different dynamic with our audience.
You can choose to believe either the line of reasoning I've presented, which is based on the discussions that actually took place, or you can believe the one you've invented, as to why the grades (which again, are still addressed), are not separated out from the writeups. That's up to you.
My experience (which is certainly incomplete) is based on dealing with feedback from readers over the course of several years, as well as the experiences of others in this line of work. It is an informed (if not universally so) opinion that has driven this decision. I can accept that you don't like it, but please do not pretend that it is nonsense just because you disagree or don't understand it. If you'd like a further discussion, which I'm more than happy to continue, please feel free to email me at email@example.com. I don't want this to be a negative experience and if communicating not via comments would assist, I'd be more than willing to try it.
As you pointed out in the previous list, the information is no less specific, it is just not extricated from the writeups. The purpose of that is to embed the grades within the writeups so that they are not stripped of context. That's hardly witchcraft. It's fine if you disagree with this choice, I don't deign to be perfect, and I can see why some prefer the grades separated. We decided not to for the reasons stated. Whether you appreciate those reasons is up to you.
It is understood that you prefer the previous iteration, and that's not being ignored. We'll factor in feedback for the next year's lists.
Ha, right you are. Corrected, thanks.
Believe it or not it was quite easy to understand what you said the first time around. We could do what you're saying, we chose not to because it put the emphasis where we didn't want it to be. Perhaps not for you, personally, but the lists are not written for individuals.
I'm afraid you misunderstand the point of putting the emphasis on the text, which is not esoteric, but rather the meat of the evaluation. It's intended to be the opposite of esoteric, and instead provide exposition.
Again, I appreciate your feedback. I do not think the product would benefit in any significant aspect.
Appreciate the feedback. It's reductive because it strips the report of nuance and reduces the player to a set of grades.
If it is extremely easy to do, you should have no problem parsing the writeups for the relevant information.
I saw him in ST and he made three very normal plays. I don't know that it gives hope he can stick -- he'd likely always be bad there -- but he might hit enough that "bad at 2B" is acceptable.
The tools for each prospect are represented within the writeups for The Good and The Bad, so in some sense the separate denotation for "Tools" was redundant. Beyond that, it is extremely easy to view only the tool grades and walk away from the list without viewing the writeup that explains how those tools function and why they might work. We wanted to focus on the more thorough explanation rather than the more reductive grades.
Thanks! And thanks for reading.
Understood, Somerford, and I don't mean to be dismissive of that preference. It was a heavily considered decision, and we're confident the payoff will be worth it.
I think you defeat yourself in your own case here. The entire point of not bringing in Chapman in a five-run game is that 1) if the worst happens you have both a two-run lead *and* Chapman to shut them down, and 2) if you bring Chapman in against Lindor and he gives up a homer (or a few hits) you now have no one to turn to, and you've burned your best arm for the next game too. Especially since you *also* need to win tomorrow, which means you've substantively robbed yourself of a potential 3-inning out tomorrow or weakened his aptitude for the next game (which clearly bore itself out in reality).
Part of the reason MLB is as generous as it is (take that how you like) with the usage of its property is because we embed the highlights if they have them. If we GIF everything, we run the risk of running afoul of their policies regarding their property.
That should be fixed now, thanks!
I agree in functionality but it felt too generic for a joke, y'know? You are right, though.
I...I know the regular season doesn't offer the same opportunities. That's why I said that. And Jansen coming in in the 7th wasn't strictly because of Francona. The Betances point was that Miller's usage wasn't "cutting edge." It's easy to do when you *also* have <span class="playerdef"><a href="http://www.baseballprospectus.com/player_search.php?search_name=Cody+Allen">Cody Allen</a></span>. The notion that this is a new thing we've never seen is overblown.
Ugh autocorrect. Encarnacion.
Attendance hardly drives payroll anymore and the point wasn't whether he'd work at Cleveland's payroll but whether he was brought in to work with a lower payroll than before (and thus no Bautista or incarnation)
This isn't really true. Certainly francona did this with Miller prior to the playoffs, but not to THIS extent, which was the entire point. It's also being discussed because of Jansen going in in the 7th, because of Showalter as someone mentioned. It's also not only francona. This was basically the model for betances in New York when Miller and Chapman were there too.
Hahaha, Baez is readily assuming the mantle of The Human Rain Delay for sure. It is a shame for baseball fans in general that Strasburg isn't available, and Nats fans especially. A healthy Stras and Ramos would potentially flip this in the Nats favor.
Good catch - fixed!
Great point. Fully agree.
The scope and shape of our prospect coverage is addressed here: http://www.baseballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=28597 and is not changing significantly from what that post described. No need to be disappointed.
July 15, 2013
Long-term I expect it to be Chapman because his value is in his glove and arm, and his glove and arm will be best applied at third base.
Thank you! And I think we agree - the conclusion I get to is I'd have Urias in the bullpen and agree that De Leon is probably the fourth-best starter if Urias isn't being considered.
I don't know that I'd agree that there's an overemphasis on speed. It's mentioned here because these are all premium athletes - guys who excelled in two (or more) sports. That said, speed is useful. It's helpful to leg out hits, and helpful when on the basepaths. Plus, you get the benefit in the field. Range is a big deal for most positions, so being able to get to balls that others can't (or get to balls faster) can help in a lot of different ways. It's not the most valuable tool, certainly. I'd rather an 80 hitter than an 80 speed guy, but that doesn't mean it doesn't deserve mention.
Sure, but potentially the money they saved on Liriano could be put towards that too? Not a great move, to be sure
I think you've got a good handle on it. I doubt they could have gotten an impact guy for those two, but am shocked that the price of salary relief included both of them. I don't know that Jaso is a viable option in the outfield, even in Cleveland, and it's not like the Indians gave up much to get a guy like Guyer, anyway. It is odd, if the Pirates were truly selling, that they wouldn't have tried to move Jaso and see what <span class="playerdef"><a href="http://www.baseballprospectus.com/player_search.php?search_name=Josh+Bell">Josh Bell</a></span> has.
That's my fault, was thinking RF and typed the wrong thing. Thanks!
Updated to include. Thanks!
Thanks for the feedback. The reality is you go through the names on a top-100 pretty quickly, and we've hit a significant portion of that list. <span class="playerdef"><a href="http://www.baseballprospectus.com/card/card.php?id=107180">Yadier Alvarez</a></span> just got $16M last year, <span class="playerdef"><a href="http://www.baseballprospectus.com/card/card.php?id=106989">Dillon Tate</a></span> was the 4th overall pick, <span class="playerdef"><a href="http://www.baseballprospectus.com/card/card.php?id=108661">Matt Thaiss</a></span> just went in the first round, and <span class="playerdef"><a href="http://www.baseballprospectus.com/card/card.php?id=101622">Nick Gordon</a></span> was a 5th overall pick in 2014. It's not like these are nobodies, exactly.
Part of the role of the Ten Pack and our coverage is so that readers can learn who these guys are and have some familiarity with them along the way, as well as provide an emphasis on in-person views.
You are, I'm sorry.
No apologies necessary! My long-term outlook on Conforto was not initially very high, as I thought he topped out as more of an average starter and had a realistic probability of a second-division starter type. Whoops! He was of course phenomenal but I think some of those underlying concerns came to the fore this year - though mostly I think he needs the at-bats to address them, and he won't see the same quality stuff from lefties in Triple-A that he would in the majors. So I'm probably a little lower than most are on Conforto, but I was the whole time and I was wrong about it for most of that time. I'm intrigued to see how it plays out and I'm hoping he can get back on track because he was fun as hell to watch when he was right.
<span class="playerdef"><a href="http://www.baseballprospectus.com/card/card.php?id=101614">Michael Conforto</a></span> has surpassed his rookie eligibility, with 390 MLB at-bats. Rookie eligibility expires at 130 at-bats.
He was absolutely in the mix, just didn't get a writeup for this.
Sorry about that, I just wasn't able to swing it but I tried to make up for it here in the comments and on twitter. I'll try and make time for one soon!
Fixed, sorry about that.
I'm not sure where it says that we don't consider production at all. It's certainly a part of a discussion and factors into how I make my decision. As I stated in the intro:
"This bore itself out as our team discussed and debated the prospects below, including those at the very top. Nothing was a given, and the discussion for the top spot spread to the top four players on the list."
I don't personally see a significant gap between the top four spots. I am amenable to an argument for Bregman at the top, however I do value Crawford's glove at short (while recognizing that Bregman can also probably stick there), and do believe there is improvement to come with the bat.
I've never been very in on Smith, as I don't think the power is there to make an impact as a first baseman. There are those on staff who like Smith very much, so I would anticipate a debate on that front, but if I'm creating my own personal list without the input of others, he would not be on it.
Bauers didn't get much attention internally but he was brought up to me by an outside source. I don't have a ton of hope in the way of upside for the profile, but he's absolutely the type of guy who can make upside-seekers like myself look bad down the line.
He'll almost certainly be discussed. It's still a high-risk profile, but the actualization of some of those prodigious tools is pretty tantalizing. His upside is huge.
We have not considered doing our prospect rankings like that. Our fantasy rankings are broken out by position, however.
It's tough. I'm really high on him, as you might expect but I can't give you a solid answer because if we're considering him, we'd also have to slot in <span class="playerdef"><a href="http://www.baseballprospectus.com/card/card.php?id=220">Antonio Alfonseca</a></span>, <span class="playerdef"><a href="http://www.baseballprospectus.com/card/card.php?id=758">Aaron Boone</a></span>, <span class="playerdef"><a href="http://www.baseballprospectus.com/card/card.php?id=167">Miguel Cairo</a></span>, <span class="playerdef"><a href="http://www.baseballprospectus.com/card/card.php?id=1499">David Ortiz</a></span>, etc.
I can't speak to other sites or their methodologies, unfortunately.
<span class="playerdef"><a href="http://www.baseballprospectus.com/card/card.php?id=102704">Tyler O'Neill</a></span> is mentioned in our supplemental article, so I do cover him there. Calhoun doesn't have a defensive position right now but can really hit. Unfortunately defense matters. That applies to Fisher too. Exciting power/speed guy, but is gonna have to hit all the way up because it is a left-field profile. Bader is a fun pop-up guy, but I'm interested in seeing him play more at the upper levels. He had an insane first couple months, but a bad June and thus far a worse July. He's not a center fielder in my book, which (again) puts pressure on the profile to hit for power in a corner and I'm not sure he does that. Let's see if pitchers have adjusted and he's being exposed, or if he's just having a rough go of it.
Who am I to tell you not to dream? I think in the coming years is open-ended enough to say you can dream on it, but I wouldn't put him in that discussion at present.
Verdugo would be ahead of Bellinger in that context, for me.
Touched on this in the intro, but it's a bit different. I think there's a lot of lower minors depth, but that depth carries with it perceived risk. But sure, last year's version had <span class="playerdef"><a href="http://www.baseballprospectus.com/card/card.php?id=70635">Corey Seager</a></span> on it, which helps. Of course the comments of last year's piece also had us saying it felt a bit weaker. There might just be a new normal.
Good chance he would have.
Likely pretty high, since it's clear that we love shortstops. That said, he was up before even the initial draft list came together, and as said above, including him means including the Taillons, Giolitos, Glasnows, Contreras', etc., so the list becomes significantly different.
Verdugo is a good name, and a tricky guy to figure a bit. He's probably not a center fielder and if that's the case, it's a bit of a different profile in right (which he certainly has the arm for). His success at his age in Double-A is a great sign, and if you wanted to plant him in the discussion with the guys on the HM list, I wouldn't fight you. It's just a potential tweener profile where he's going to be extremely reliant on the hit tool. If that takes a hit at any point, it could drop the entire profile somewhat dramatically in terms of value. If he continues to hit like this though, the conservative ranking (or non-ranking) could look foolish.
He vacillated 1-3 throughout our discussion, prior to promotion.
I think it's fair to say there's been a significant amount of luster lost there. He was getting a ton of love in Spring Training, showcasing some of his best stuff. Unfortunately Colorado Springs has messed with his feel for the curve, and while that doesn't explain everything that's gone wrong, getting him in a different environment might help other things click into place. That said, a guy who was being talked up as a mid-rotation arm with the stuff for more a few months ago, has been mentioned as more of a reliever (down the line) these days, and that's not a great thing.
Mau? Is that you? His name didn't get bandied about in discussions a ton, but I personally am quite high on him and don't think he's out of place in terms of the honorable mentions or the very back end of the list. The hit tool is luscious, and there's enough pop to matter. If I knew for sure he was a shortstop, I would be smitten rather than intrigued.
He wasn't talked about a ton but he's someone that I and the team have liked for a while. The bat is fun, but the left field profile makes it a riskier proposition.
I'm a fan of Dozier - having written a glowing comment about him for the 101 a couple annuals ago. That said his tearing up of Double-A, and he's kept it going in Triple-A, but that strikeout rate is creeping back up towards a troublesome spot, and he's got a <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> over .400. I'm just trying to give it more time - still love the tools.
Candelario was not discussed as a candidate for the list and Contreras was up prior to our initial rankings discussion, so we never slotted him in. I'm a big fan of Willson's though and without getting feedback from the rest of the team, I'd say he'd be ahead of Eloy, in terms of Cubs prospects.
Reed was in the mid-20s in the initial draft and likely would have slotted in somewhere ahead of Bell, as the top 1B prospect (if you don't count Gallo). Still, it's hard to put a firm number on it since including him would also include Taillon, Glasnow, Contreras, <span class="playerdef"><a href="http://www.baseballprospectus.com/player_search.php?search_name=Tim+Anderson">Tim Anderson</a></span> and other guys who are up but yet to exceed their prospect eligibility
Depends on the depth of the league of course, but I will also caution that I'll hold most fantasy comments until the Fantasy Top 50 comes out, which will be tomorrow or early next week.
As far as I know Mendez's start in Triple-A was a one-off, and not a scheduled promotion. That can change, of course.
He would have slotted in right behind <span class="playerdef"><a href="http://www.baseballprospectus.com/card/card.php?id=102123">Alex Reyes</a></span>.
It will be out this week.
Apologies guys, that's on me. I must have pulled something from another source when putting this together. Thanks for catching that.
We just haven't backlogged most of Parks' stuff.
Only if you're desperate for <span class="statdef"><a href="http://www.baseballprospectus.com/glossary/index.php?search=SB" onmouseover="doTooltip(event, jpfl_getStat('SB'))" onmouseout="hideTip()">SB</span></a> over all else. Profar is more well-rounded.
We didn't use Ian Anderson
Mostly agree but I think you're underestimating the dadjoke potential with Cantu = can too, and overrating the value of McGee as a last name in general.
Davis Love III though
I admit to sorely underusing regattas/crew in my writeups. Good call.
between the first (3) and second (4) basemen
Indeed. That's fixed, thank you.
Yup. That's on me entirely. Thank you.
Fixed, thank you
CMS has been really weird - I'm fixing!
DHs are grouped with first basemen for these exercises.
fixed, thank you!
didn't notice.* Strong start for me so far.
Right you are. That's my fault. CMS must have ate it and I didn't noticed. Fixed now!
Sorry, that's Glasnow with 440/94.
Actually Taillon has 440 innings and 94 starts to Taillon's 427 innings and 83 starts, so they're about even as far as "seasoning" goes.
Of those three, only Berrios is considered a prospect at this time.
It was indeed May 7th
Easy answer is long relief and multi-inning stints so he's able to accumulate innings while still helping the big-league team. Color me unsure of how that'd really help him in the long-term though.
If you want it boiled down to something, it might be because he was worth negative <span class="statdef"><a href="http://www.baseballprospectus.com/glossary/index.php?search=WARP" onmouseover="doTooltip(event, jpfl_getStat('WARP'))" onmouseout="hideTip()">WARP</span></a> last year and looked bad doing it. He's obviously hitting well to open the year but still a bad defender, which hampers his overall value.
Short story: Nothing he did last year merited an inclusion on the list.
Thanks very much.
Wilson has viewed Mieses a bunch. Including August of last year, which was a reference point for the more recent look which was April 7th and 9th.
Ah, it got eaten by the CMS. Will be up in a moment
Good curveball, but barely hits the low 90s with his fastball from what I hear. He's a bulldog on the mound and grasps how to pitch. Wouldn't call him a prospect all of a sudden but definitely a fun guy to root for.
Check out our org rankings here: http://www.baseballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=28774
Hoo to Watch, imo
Fortunately Bret has you covered above, for just that issue :)
I think the odds of him staying up are pretty low right now, but he can force the issue, of course. If he does, perhaps it means less time for DeShields in CF, with Desmond in CF and Mazara in a corner. Or perhaps Moreland gets dealt and someone shifts to 1B? I doubt the Rangers will cross that bridge unless forced to at bat-point.
Now I'm interested in the existence of a face agent market
Debate is healthy! Appreciate the viewpoints, as well as the kind words. Thanks much.
The list is 25-and-Under, so it is not an oversight.
The "but" for Odor is that this is likely what he is at his best. He should never be as bad as he was to open the season, but likely won't put a full-season effort like he did post-promotion. I've been one of the biggest Odor boosters out there, but I don't really see where the extra gear comes from. Sure, he is young and good right now, which is why he ranks where he does, but he's probably more of a high-end regular than a true star. I think <span class="playerdef"><a href="http://www.baseballprospectus.com/card/card.php?id=70633">Addison Russell</a></span> has the *ability* to be a star or better. Doesn't mean Odor won't be the better player long term, since we're dealing with probabilities and whatnot. The <span class="statdef"><a href="http://www.baseballprospectus.com/glossary/index.php?search=WARP" onmouseover="doTooltip(event, jpfl_getStat('WARP'))" onmouseout="hideTip()">WARP</span></a> matters for Odor because it's part of his track record. You can't just assume he'll forever be the post-callup guy he was last year because we know there's a previous iteration of him that gets factored in. It's not held against so much as it is part of the calculation. Suffice it to say, we all really like Odor.
Odor just checked in at 22nd. That's not a lack of love. He also has 340 more <span class="statdef"><a href="http://www.baseballprospectus.com/glossary/index.php?search=PA" onmouseover="doTooltip(event, jpfl_getStat('PA'))" onmouseout="hideTip()">PA</span></a> than Russell, so that's not roughly the same number at all, and because more than 2015 exists. We're very big fans of Odor and the rankings makes that quite clear.
I asked the authors to focus on the players they wanted to, and he wasn't one of them. It wasn't personal and they weren't asked or expected to touch on everyone. There are a lot of names.
The Mets top two starters are 27, so they don't qualify.
Dilson was 177, I believe.
That said, I think you're winnowing this down to one starting pitcher for no real reason?
Mets have Syndergaard, DeGrom, Matz and maybe Wheeler behind Harvey.
Bumgarner has Cueto behind him, and a pretty solid lineup (assuming healthy)
Kershaw, well...the dodgers are kind of a mess, but incredible deep even if that depth is being tested. I'd argue it's more about lineup with them than pitching.
Arrieta has Lester and Lackey behind him plus an incredibly deep lineup.
Sale has the best argument of the guys you mention because Quintana and Rodon are really solid rotation-mates and that's a much improved lineup overall. Still, there's little depth if something goes wrong in the rotation or the lineup.
The Rays offense has been anemic and it's unclear if the recent additions (Dickerson, Morrison, etc) are enough of an improvement.
Keuchel is great, but the rotation behind him right now isn't especially appetizing with McCullers on the mend. The lineup is good, and they should be competitive, but I think overall you're making a lot of assumed statements based on consensus data that comes down to a lot of individual preferences/cascading effects of how each person thinks the divisions/playoff teams actually shake out.
I had Mets/Rangers in my WS.
Thanks - amended.
Certainly your prerogative to do so. Stroman has definitely looked good (especially yesterday) and we think his ranking speaks to that. Martinez's first full season as a starter was dominant though, and while he's yet to clear 200 <span class="statdef"><a href="http://www.baseballprospectus.com/glossary/index.php?search=IP" onmouseover="doTooltip(event, jpfl_getStat('IP'))" onmouseout="hideTip()">IP</span></a>, his ability to miss bats at a (significantly) higher rate than Stroman is worth noting. Assuming Stroman can put in 180 innings this year, at a similar clip, I would expect them to be close to each other going forward. I think he can do that, but he hasn't yet.
He has 237 <span class="statdef"><a href="http://www.baseballprospectus.com/glossary/index.php?search=PA" onmouseover="doTooltip(event, jpfl_getStat('PA'))" onmouseout="hideTip()">PA</span></a> in the upper minors, and a first-base profile which means that he has to hit a ton to provide significant value. This ranking isn't an implication he can't - he ranked 122nd despite never having a bat in Triple-A with a limited defensive profile - that's pretty good - but just an acknowledgment that it's a high bar to clear, too.
Agreed. I think the lack of overall control (even if there are an assortment of guys who could make this feasible) is a big obstacle
It was very important to me that it go to eight decimal places.
I think it has to factor in, even if it's on a secondary or tertiary level. If a team has success (or failure) developing particular types of talent that plays into the projection of that talent on some level as well as our belief in that prospect reaching their ceiling, even if it is indirect.
Glad you enjoyed it!
It is in the works
Unfortunately I did not
He decidedly not prospect-eligible.
Fixed on the ETA, thanks for pointing that out!
We've not only thought of it, it's in the works. Might be longer than 101 though...
Just confirming what Brendan said. I'll be out there for 4-5 days, and Adam is on the ground already. We're running plenty of in-person draft stuff right now from Wilson, and we'll be kicking up the ST coverage after this week, as we want to close out the Top 10s!
Thanks for sticking with us! Though I must concede that the credit for that content belongs to <a href="http://www.baseballprospectus.com/author/bret_sayre">Bret Sayre</a>, <a href="http://www.baseballprospectus.com/author/mike_gianella">Mike Gianella</a>, and our extremely talented, hardworking fantasy team
Many thanks. I look forward to working with such a talented team to provide it.
Yup. That should read 2017, not 2018. Fixing now. Thanks!
Oh god dammit. I've been owned.
Long term deals take discounts on per annum values into account because of the risk taken on by the team.
There have been numerous looks into the matter from different angles in terms of how to calculate it.
Dave Cameron did it for 2014 here:
<a href="http://www.baseballprospectus.com/author/lewie_pollis">Lewie Pollis</a> did it at Beyond the Boxscore here:
and <a href="http://www.baseballprospectus.com/author/matt_swartz">Matt Swartz</a> did a look that covered the previous two and added some variables to his own here:
He came up with $7.7/WAR and that was for 2014. $8M/win might be conservative given inflation. It might be accurate. I'm not tied to any specific figure, really. If it's $7M rather than $8M so be it. But the broader point still holds.
Okay... as far as I can tell you're merely proving my point. If Kendrick and Fowler are worth $13/4M per year for 4 years, them settling for the deals they settled for (or even the reported Orioles deal for Baltimore) is a significant underpayment from the market. You're blaming this on the player, and to some extent that could be possible, but the point is that even the smaller market teams aren't offering something that can compete with $20M/2 year deal for Kendrick or $17M/2 year deal for Fowler. This is the point at which smaller markets should be jumping on those guys and they didn't. Instead they re-signed with their big market club.
You're saying the pick is the only thing stopping big market teams from gutting the FA market. I think you're not acknowledging the affect it has on smaller budget clubs in this exact situation (Baltimore and Arizona, on record as saying so, as examples).
Small-market teams are the ones who are negatively impacted by this system, because A) they're the teams that would sign guys like Fowler or Kendrick, but now they have to give up a pick (ostensibly their lifeblood) to do so and B) because they're the ones most severely impacted when deciding whether to extend someone a QO, because they could see 20%+ of their budget tied up in one player, which can be harmful almost no matter who the player is. If that holds, the big market teams are the ones able to risk offering the QO to non-elite but still high quality players, and thus benefit more from the draft-pick compensation. Acting like this is doing a favor to smaller markets is to ignore the effects we've seen it have.
I think you've opted to completely misinterpret what I've written above and in the comments in response to you, nor do I think you make any logical points. It's fine to want what you want, but I don't see anything compelling that would make anyone else want this too.
I'm glad you believe a lot of those things, but I don't find them grounded in fact or reason. You can choose to believe things are as black and white as you say they are, or you can accept that the draft picks are being valued at a significantly greater cost than you are otherwise willing to admit, because teams are behaving in exactly that way. In fact, General Managers are *admitting* that they're more valuable that you seem to think they are.
Lots of players get lambasted for their decisions. Remember <span class="playerdef"><a href="http://www.baseballprospectus.com/player_search.php?search_name=Nelson+Cruz">Nelson Cruz</a></span> originally wanting $75M before he settled for $8M? Remember <span class="playerdef"><a href="http://www.baseballprospectus.com/card/card.php?id=31607">Ervin Santana</a></span> wanting $100M? Lots of players miscalculate the market because they want too much.
There were no outlandish deals on record for Kendrick or Fowler. They merely never saw a market materialize, which clubs have admitted is at least partially due to the impact of losing draft picks.
The connection between FA and draft is tenuous at best, so weakening the link so that players are offered contracts based on their value seems like a positive step in that direction. I'm unclear as to why it makes you so upset to move towards that.
Certainly it is Baltimore's choice to do that. But by most metrics that aim to understand what it is players are worth, these players are worth somewhere in the vein of $16M+ per year, using an $8M per win type of valuation.
I'm not proponent using $/Win and calling it a day, but the teams discussed above are all at the point on the win curve where each additional win would be worth more than it would to the market at large. Given these parameters, the expectation would be that players of this ilk would, not necessarily get that type of money per annum, because multi-year deals involve a lot of risk being taken on by teams, but certainly something in the vein of a multiyear deal for slightly less that $/Win valuation. Given that multiple teams should have been interested in these players around those valuations, it's reasonable to assume competition would drive their prices upwards.
Again, none of this is certain to take place, but reasonably expected, given the age and track records of the players mentioned. If their markets are being inappropriately impacted by the value being placed on the draft picks (which quotes support), then it's reasonable to seek a remedy to that imbalanced impact. You can say they would have made close to their valuation by accepting the QO, but the QO is a one-year offer which is a reduction in value in and of itself.
I'd also note that 2011 was wonky in general to look at trends because all the teams knew life as they knew it would be changing, so massive draft spending occurred in advance. And certainly some smaller markets *cough*KC*cough* were at the top of draft spending prior to that. Some of that was picking at the top of the market but some was recognizing a source of cheap future talent if they hit right.
But certainly there *were* smaller markets that were upset with how the big markets played the draft, because even if they themselves pushed their spending up, it was just another area they couldn't compete overall.
I honestly don't understand what you're taking exception to. <span class="playerdef"><a href="http://www.baseballprospectus.com/player_search.php?search_name=Josh+Bell">Josh Bell</a></span> was a unique situation where he asked not to be drafted by every team due to a commitment to school. Not because he was saying "I want 5 million dollars."
I don't think that fiction was present anywhere in this article
Yeah, ultimately someone always gets left out in the cold, but I think in this scenario it seems a class of players is designed to? Maybe that's being too dramatic about it, but it boggles my mind that Kendrick and Fowler signed the deals they did.
I think it is a case of teams overvaluing the late first round picks, but also that it's not merely the picks themselves, but the slots associated with them. If you have a late first round pick and you give it up, you have *very* little money to work with the entire draft, assuming you don't have supplemental or compensation round A picks. This means you can't go over slot on someone later in the draft and so on.
So for teams to give up their first two rounds (AZ, BAL as mentioned), I think they get in the mindset that they're not just giving up picks, but giving up the whole draft, and they want to do *something* in the draft, so they'll make their one big move, and still get to play the game, so to speak. I think that logic extends to late first round pick teams as well.
A thing I wanted to work in but didn't mention is that the QO fails to me on another ground, and I think this goes to your point about more teams being unwilling to offer it going forward. FA Compensation was designed for two things: suppressing player salary and helping teams that generated homegrown stars get something when said stars left for the big markets. If there's more risk that these players are accepting the QO, then the big market teams are the only ones who are going to offer them the QO, because smaller markets could have their entire offseasons derailed by someone accepting it. Basically, it's a bigger risk for smaller markets to offer, so they won't, and those teams will be left in the cold, while bigger markets can absorb that risk/payroll.
I'm fine with that on the one hand, because I don't care for compensation to exist in any capacity, but I think it goes against the spirit of the compensation in the first place.
But players are turning down the QO because they want longer-term security than a one-year deal at the average of the top 125 players. It's always going to penalize a class of players when it doesn't need to do so.
So yes, offering it to fewer players would be better. But I think each of the above options achieves the spirit of the compensation (in terms of rewarding teams that are losing players, not the suppressing salary part) equally or better.
well, adding picks to the team would necessarily increase their pools, since picks come with slots attached.
I certainly agree that the owners see this as working, to an extent. It's absolutely suppressing salaries, as intended. That said, it's not working for the health of MLB. We shouldn't be in a situation where the White Sox, Rangers, Angels, and Cardinals, among other teams hardly even make an attempt for someone like Fowler. He fits most of those teams like a glove, and many of them are only looking at late first round picks.
this is usually from the catcher's perspective, so he's 1-7.
That's from draft day or shortly after. Player weights aren't often updated by teams, unfortunately.
And <span class="playerdef"><a href="http://www.baseballprospectus.com/card/card.php?id=50900">Wilin Rosario</a></span> was playing overseas by age 27. We think that that possibility matters.
I believe we've already had some 1999s this year. It's scary.
Yeah, was fixing that already. Just give it a refresh and you're good to go. Thanks!
Urias reached Triple-A at 19, while Altuve reached Double-A (and then the Majors) at 21. So not exactly the equivalent in that sense. Altuve reached Low-A at 18, whereas Urias was 16. Basically, Altuve was about 2 years ahead of Urias every step of the way (thus far)
Illinois and Michigan's maritime borders meet in Lake (River? kidding) Michigan, so perhaps not the latter.
It comes as little surprise that you're eager to pick a fight.
Apologies - should have said body of water, not river. Nevertheless, it doesn't say a state away via land. It just says a state away, which functions fine, in my opinion.
Wasn't intended to be a stealth edit, you were accurate that across town obviously didn't work. Chicago is across the river from Michigan, so I think it works well enough. You're free to disagree.
Our <a href="http://www.baseballprospectus.com/fantasy/dc/">depth charts</a> have Sano in Left and Rosario in Right. I would imagine the same analysis prevails if you switch them.
tough for a power-only first baseman to make it when he's missing the pop :(
To follow up: the Top 101 has a different weighting in terms of opinions of the team, and thus is subject to a different ordering. There's a note at the top of the 101 that addresses this.
Sure! Let's do it.
I'll do it. You pick the cause and a not unreasonable amount.
I am full of sh**, though, so I think your rule is still in tact.
Dynasty rankings on BP tends to assume at least a 16-team league format.
much like the monks that deliberately make an error in their sand paintings we...
Glad you got it and you like it! I believe that's been noticed and mentioned here:
but if not, please drop it in the comments. We really appreciate the feedback!
unless you switched the definitions of "accidentally" and "intentionally," you'd be wrong
the Fantasy 101 will be out shortly, and Bret will have a better answer for you in that realm.
That is what it's read as since early yesterday afternoon. Is it showing differently for you?
It will be 36 games as games in the AFL count toward the suspension. While it's certainly not ideal, it likely won't be a huge detriment against Reyes in terms of time missed.
Apologies if I'm being dull here, but what is the question?
Perhaps I'm missing something, but the first paragraph ends with the information: Mets first baseman, <span class="playerdef"><a href="http://www.baseballprospectus.com/card/card.php?id=102745">Dominic Smith</a></span>.
You are looking at the right stats - I was not. It was a couple days ago so I can't recall exactly what I *was* looking at. I think it's fair to say that Frazier has a higher offensive ceiling, but statline scouting is a dangerous game anyway the the crux of my point still stands. This evaluation and ranking was made on in-person looks and factors in the entire player. Not merely offense.
Well, Frazier walked less, struck out more, and didn't hit for average to the same level of Zimmer. But in the end, it's less about production than what was seen by the members of our team as it pertains to how good the tools are, as well as the people we talked to in terms of gathering information.
Certainly age versus level matters, but it's not the be all/end all. We think Zimmer is a future CF whereas Frazier is a future corner outfielder, as well. That means the bar for production is lower for Zimmer (assuming we're right), meaning that even if they're doing the same thing, Zimmer's contributions are worth more. There's also how *good* each player is at their defensive position, which changes value too.
That's a lot of words - but to your point: Yes, it matters that Zimmer is older than Frazier, to a degree. We don't think that degree outweighed the other factors mentioned.
Kinda depends on league size and depth. I'd side with Seager but I've never been a Crawford believer and repeatedly been proven wrong, so take that for what it's worth.
The issue with Davidson in reference to The 101 is that potential (likely?) slide down the defensive spectrum. If he has to be a 1B, the threshold for contribution spikes considerably. That being the case, along with his distance from contributing, he didn't come close enough. He definitely has his supporters though, and is an interesting bat.
Thanks Jon. Corrections made.
I've heard they're in the Best Shape of Their Lives, so they probably look okay in thongs too
He's a tough case, and I suggested placing him at 2B to Greg because he is going to get run there this year, per the Cubs. He hasn't played the position since Freshman year though... tough call on placement there.
It was a mistake. Fixed. Thanks to both for alerting us.
He did not qualify as he has exceeded his rookie at-bats. He was never discussed because of that reason, so I don't have a strong sense of where he'd rank, as this list was the result of a group effort, and no one weighed in on him in any capacity.
Randolph will be appearing on content that's coming this week, in the just missed section. Quinn wasn't under significant discussion, but it's fair to say he falls in line with the type of player who could fit on the back end of a list like this. As discussed in my chat, the reality is that when you get towards the lower numbers, the tiers become bigger eventually you run out of slots to put guys in.
Thanks for the kind words!
Well it's more than just innings pitched for one thing. That's a negative on Urias but there's good reason he hasn't pitched as many innings: He's 3 years younger than Glasnow. The other thing is a better third offering and the fact that he doesn't have a walk rate that approaches double-digits.
Mateo is an intriguing prospect with blazing speed, but there are questions as to whether he'll get to league average in terms of both his hit and glove tools. He has the chance to do so, absolutely, but we think this ranking accurately reflects the risk involved in Mateo as a prospect, as well as the potential results if he fails to achieve that type of success.
Sanchez has big power, and a bigger arm, but the defense behind the plate is sub par and there's risk that he might not be a catcher long term. If that's the case, there's a significant hit to his value, though it's worth noting he's improved defensively and made strides towards building a profile that will remain behind the plate. The issue is that if he's not a catcher, he might not be an everyday player, and again, we think our ranking incorporates that risk evaluation.
Espinoza was addressed in my chat, but timetable to the majors isn't the only factor regarding him and Robles. Robles' profile has less risk than you'd think thanks to a polished skillset along with big tools. Espinoza carries considerable risk despite the big stuff because we don't know what it will play like over the course of a full season, and just the risk inherent to pitchers in general.
Margot would rank in this spot regardless of organization.
Mondesi has continued to show progress with developing his tools as he's advanced up the chain, despite constantly facing players many years older than him. He has impact potential on defense, and we believe he'll hit enough to be a first-division shortstop.
We update the rankings at mid-season.
well, <span class="playerdef"><a href="http://www.baseballprospectus.com/card/card.php?id=67119">Andrelton Simmons</a></span> is why fantasy and real-life lists differ substantially, as an example. This is the final draft of the 101, for whatever it's worth - it's finalized in December because it goes into the Annual for publishing.
Thank you for reading and the comment!
Thanks for reading/commenting. I'll be chatting at 11 am, should you need to scratch another itch. Cheers!
Certainly a reasonable case! He was on the just missed (content coming next week in article form). The honest truth is he wasn't pushed very hard when we had our discussions for the list, and while he certainly fits in among the large group of arms towards the back of this list, ultimately, deserving players often get left out.
I personally like Fulmer and think he can start, and it's possible his exclusion looks foolish if he does so. Ultimately this comes down to our comfortability with the risk profile over the long term. Of course the same was said about <span class="playerdef"><a href="http://www.baseballprospectus.com/card/card.php?id=65751">Chris Sale</a></span> on many lists and we know how he turned out :)
Strictly, no, but position certainly is a significant factor when determining future value and a list like this. Reed's combination of patience and power is electric, but his swing can get long, and MLB pitchers are very good and find and exploiting holes in swings. This doesn't mean he can't or won't succeed, of course, but it complicates his risk factor and he's already got a high offensive bar to meet at first base. Additionally, his proximity to the majors is of course a factor, but a 50-game stint at Double-A doesn't necessarily put him on the verge of the bigs, nor does it imply immediate success upon reaching the majors.
All that to explain why he is where he ended up. He was at different spots throughout the ranking process, and ultimately settled at 55. It's perfectly fine if that skillset appeals more to you than it does to me (or us), and thus you value it more.
The on-site release will be tomorrow, and I'll be running a chat to go along with it, at 11 am. Hope that's soon enough :)
He was kind of referenced when we said that <span class="playerdef"><a href="http://www.baseballprospectus.com/card/card.php?id=70810">Max Pentecost</a></span> had no clear path to playing time!
Yes, I inadvertently swapped the photos when entering the code. Don't hesitate to be that guy, we'd rather it be correct. Thank you.
We're always interested in constructive feedback - please feel free to send suggestions, criticisms, or otherwise to firstname.lastname@example.org, should you want to expand.
Thanks for your time.
Zimmer's overall talent is absolutely huge but also mitigated by huge injury risk, which factors into his placement on a top 101, but doesn't necessarily impact his future role to the same degree, as he'd have to be healthy to hit that role. It's weighing a lot of factors. It's also worth noting that Bret's list is a fantasy list, whereas the Top 10s aren't reflective of fantasy outside of Bret's section. It's possible in this situation that Zimmer's placement is mirrored, but using Bret's rankings to evaluate whether role grades are inflated isn't a good way to go about measuring such things.
Not really clear what you mean by the second question? We had Watson with three average or better pitches with a tick above average command. That's a mid-rotation guy to me.
I use doubleTwist through android on an S6. I've linked the RSS feed via URL to the program so it downloads podcasts through the app. Not sure if you're using that or stitcher or something else.
14-team league straddles the line on his usefulness as a 1B to me, but if you have a CI, that price is just too good to pass up for one more season, I think.
gdi. I've been owned.
He was ranked among catchers, where his bat is more valuable.
I appreciate that, thanks. I agree there are many sites and services that would like to charge their readers and don't. I can't presume to know why they don't - whether it's that they are unable or unwilling. I happen to think that the product the fantasy team puts forth is worth paying for, and I think it's one of the best and most comprehensive fantasy products out there.
This does NOT mean that we can ignore feedback or criticism. We can't, and we won't. But perfectly valid feedback and criticism can come from any source, is all I'm saying.
I was making a larger point with that comment and did not mean for it to apply to the thread yesterday, as I think many of those comments were useful, and that there was a lot of constructive dialogue.
I fear there's been a misunderstanding of what I said. I didn't say paying customers' criticisms aren't valid. I said criticisms aren't granted validity purely because of the source - in this case - a customer. To be very clear: I think there were a lot of valid criticisms made yesterday, and a lot that we and I can learn from. I don't think anyone crossed a line yesterday. I also don't think the comment that our team is garbage is necessarily on par with a criticism of our process.
And, for what it's worth, customer service is a major part of my day job. While you might disagree with my approach, perhaps assuming I have no experience is something that can be avoided going forward.
I think if you look at the comments from yesterday you'll see a lot more listening and understanding from BP than the other side, as it should be. We explained our process, which perhaps could have been clearer from the get-go, and some disagreed, which is fine.
The fevered pitch of the disagreeance was a bit much, at least in my eyes, and being able to laugh about it is part of the healing process, to me. The fact that someone pays for a service doesn't make their insults tolerable nor their criticisms valid. This doesn't mean there aren't valid criticisms, to be clear. I acknowledged criticisms throughout the comments yesterday, but the "paying customer" line is tired. We value constructive criticism no matter where it comes from.
I would hope you don't get heckled. I think this is a valid thought to put forth, and appreciate the input.
Eligibility Police is my new dad rock band
and that's fair! He might be in mine, but wasn't in Bret's.
I adore this
the guy ranked sixth his .297 while smoak obp'd .299. More to a ranking than just homers.
Or unranked. Perhaps the author will weigh in.
I addressed this option above (understood if you didn't see it/didn't want to comb through) and it's a fair one - perhaps the most sensible going forward.
That said, some deserving players get left off of lists due to multi-positional guys, and given that this is dynasty and that people want to know who is next, who on the fringe is relevant, we try to meet those needs. As suggested above, perhaps including a section on where a multi-guy would otherwise slot is a possibility. Although, merely asking in the comments (as someone did for Myers) also works.
he's not outfield eligible, silly goose
not sure how you drew that from what I said. I've explained how we determined eligibility in multiple responses. Please read above or below for why he is where he is.
Obviously this can depend on league settings, and if you have a CI or how many OF spots you use. And yes, positional depth changes year to year as well. It's feasible they're closer this year or even that 1B is shallowed depending on your league. In general though, we have 1B as lower down the positional eligibility scale than OF. Hope you understand.
Find out during OF week!
just when we're getting to the good part? pshaw.
I'm not sure how we'd figure it out, but I'd be interested to see if Yahoo is the most popular for dynasty leagues. I'm in 7 and 6 of them are on CBS because it's much easier to deal with minor leaguers.
I can understand not going through all the comments so I want to reiterate: Gattis, Ortiz, and others are included in the 1B list because the UT/DH list isn't really long enough to get it's own piece.
Moss was the single exception on the list and was a mistake, hence he's been redacted. There are not several standards being used.
Sure, but you also probably *played* him at 3B last year, and many people will use him in the OF this year. I get where you're coming from, and I get disagreeing with our approach, but I also don't think our approach is ludicrous (perhaps an obvious statement). Guys gain and lose eligibility a lot, and dynasty rosters experience a lot of turnover in an effort to maximize those gains/minimize those losses. Pretending that a team is static and required to play Davis at 1B because he's likely to be there long term isn't significantly more reasonable than acknowledging he has that eligibility for rankings that we do every season, at least to my eyes. Again, I think reasonable minds can differ there, though.
Well yes, but that's about where players are ranked, not who is eligible for *that* particular discussion.
agreed on subjective, but also informed by experience. Which isn't to say one automatically overrules the other. This is a useful conversation with readership, I think. But I want to make it clear there was a thought-process behind this.
There is no doubt, many ways to do this. Perhaps there is one better than the plan we've implemented, of course. We've considered double-listing names in the past but I think that can push lower down names off the list that ultimately should be discussed, given that this is a dynasty ranking and that fringe/future players are a major part of the overall evaluation.
Perhaps an accompanying article or section on where multi-positional guys would slot in?
We're aware that it is a dynasty ranking, and perhaps in the case of a guy like Davis, it seems clear. But if you use these types of subjective guidelines across positions, it becomes less so, especially in regards to prospects and how teams are anticipated to use them. I can understand the frustration, but I assure you there'd be frustration under any system used and that injecting such a level of subjectivity only results in even less satisfying answers than the ones you're receiving now. That is why we settled on using current eligibility with a threshold for games started as a year-to-year carryover.
to be clear - in regards to *our* addressing it moving forward (2017 and beyond) - not yours.
Appreciated. I might have been unduly influenced in my leagues there where the standard is 20. Unfortunately I've not found a guideline online for Yahoo's season-to-season eligibility either. Please see above response in regards to addressing this moving forward.
Appreciate that info, and will discuss it going forward. That said, for this year (as with previous seasons) we're using 20. That is what ESPN uses from season to season - though I understand that's not as helpful as using Yahoo's guidelines, as it is more popular.
At this point, the best we can do is make clear the guidelines we're using to construct eligibility. My apologies that it wasn't more clear to begin with. I think, certainly, reasonable minds can differ when it comes to choosing the right number for determining eligibility. Unfortunately someone is always left out, or in some cases, left in, when people think they shouldn't be. Still, we'll do our best to address that going forward.
Moss was an oversight and was redacted as explained above. Belt has 14 starts in the outfield, while our threshold was 20. Davis had 30, and thus is OF Eligible, while Belt and Gattis are not.
I believe that's the in-season setting. From season to season it's 20, last I saw.
Gattis received 11 starts in the OF this season. We use 20 as a threshold, as do many fantasy leagues. Which is why Davis gets OF eligibility and Gattis doesn't on this list. I don't think it's egregious.
for what it's worth - I agree Moss should in with the OF group, and we've redacted him above to reflect that.
We've generally determined eligibility for positions by the position someone is eligible at the year we release the rankings. For instance, <span class="playerdef"><a href="http://www.baseballprospectus.com/card/card.php?id=66110">Eugenio Suarez</a></span> will be in with SS even though he's been announced as a 3B by CIN.
The reasoning being that we can't really foresee how teams are going to employ guys on a year to year basis. We factor the likelihood of someone moving down the defensive spectrum in if we don't think they'll retain eligibility, but it's a fools errand to assume we know how teams will play players. Remember when Xander was assured of being a 3rd baseman? and <span class="playerdef"><a href="http://www.baseballprospectus.com/card/card.php?id=70635">Corey Seager</a></span> the same? Drastic examples, to be sure, but there's reason to believe Davis could be employed in the OF enough to manage in-season eligibility for a few years, plus it address how people will use him in the coming season.
Davis will be in with 1B next year, assuming he doesn't attain OF eligibility. I don't think it's unreasonable to operate under this construct, but it's also fair to prefer a different approach. This is the one we agreed worked best as a team, but we can understand if you disagree. That said, it's not a reflection of our opinion that he *will* retain that eligibility going forward.
We include DH/UT guys in with 1B, and have for several seasons. It's fair not to prefer it, but it's a decision made so we can reasonably include some guys who gain in-season eligibility, usually at 1B.
Yes, the idea being that Padres fans would have some crossover with Chargers fans (or vice versa) and that they could ease their pain by looking to the baseball team and its future.
The latter is more likely. The Padres don't have much incentive to do anything but wait til they get an extra year of control with Renfroe.
I can't invalidate what you saw, and it's possible he was in a swoon - but between August 7-16 in 9 games against Portland and New Hampshire he hit .375/.462/.688 with 6 walks and 7 strikeouts, so a slump doesn't necessarily seem like the right word.
Certainly someone can look bad between getting hits and it's possible he did - I caught him over 6-7 games at the beginning of the season and he looked incredible, waiting on pitches and allowing his bat speed to take control and send fastballs into the gaps. The difference between High-A and Double-A is large though, so again, that doesn't invalidate what you saw.
I think he is close to actualizing his tools and I wouldn't think August of 2016 would be out of the question in terms of seeing him in the majors. I wouldn't necessarily expect his power to manifest at the major-league level immediately, but nothing else would surprise me.
Zimmer was expected to go higher at the time - this happens occasionally. Same happened with <span class="playerdef"><a href="http://www.baseballprospectus.com/card/card.php?id=104805">Grant Holmes</a></span> to an extent, in the same draft. <span class="playerdef"><a href="http://www.baseballprospectus.com/card/card.php?id=104847">Kodi Medeiros</a></span> going at 12 and <span class="playerdef"><a href="http://www.baseballprospectus.com/card/card.php?id=104807">Nick Howard</a></span> going 19th were both small surprises that dropped Zimmer a bit. Looking back there seems to have been a preference for pitching that dropped him as well. Perhaps Chris or someone else can comment further given his/their familiarity with the draft.
It's definitely possible, but Cleveland's rotation has some depth, so a big year could be starting the year in Triple-A and getting fewer than 50 innings in the bigs, I think.
thank you - it has been noted above
Why would anything written above make you think that?
speaking only for myself, I'm pretty concerned about the hip injury in the immediate future, and the talk about moving him to outfield in the long term. There's definitely a scenario where he's back to what we thought he could be, but there are enough landmines that I'd rather someone else take the risk.
In that case, <a href="http://www.baseballprospectus.com/author/bret_sayre">Bret Sayre</a> annually releases his top 101 for fantasy (and recently posted his top 50 international signees), which should serve the same purpose as the one you're describing.
Certainly, I do not think you come off as argumentative. It's a fair question with a possibly unsatisfying answer. To some extent, all of this is arbitrary. Why is someone with 49 innings a rookie but someone with 51 innings not? I don't really have an answer.
Our policy on imports such as Olivera, Matsuzaka, Darvish, Abreu, etc is consistent with the policy used in the past. Certainly this doesn't mean it couldn't change, but I won't deny it was part of the consideration.
I think the difference between Olivera and the Allard/Blair situation is that there isn't really development left in front of Olivera. He is a finished and complete product, in essence, who has displayed his talents in a professional league. Half the value assigned to many prospects is whether they will be major league players. This is almost not a consideration with Olivera, as well as the others mentioned above. One can argue, validly that there are prospects who are drafted with limited or no development (physical or otherwise) left to be had, and that's fair, but they are generally not 30 years old.
I don't disagree that he could be included in prospect lists, so it is my turn to hope not to be argumentative. Baseball America does so (or has done so) and there's little issue with it. I think it ultimately comes down to philosophy on how these guys should be treated, with no one correct answer. As Minor League Editor, it is my opinion that treating someone like Olivera, or those imports mentioned above, as in the same situation as a <span class="playerdef"><a href="http://www.baseballprospectus.com/card/card.php?id=107170">Kolby Allard</a></span> or <span class="playerdef"><a href="http://www.baseballprospectus.com/card/card.php?id=70636">Lucas Sims</a></span> isn't a useful exercise. If our team or management felt strongly otherwise, I wouldn't stand in the way of it being done, though, because I can certainly see the argument for it.
I don't presume to convince you, but hopefully you can see where we're coming from with our choice here.
Olivera has been covered extensively in regards to his skills, including this <a href="http://www.baseballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=27425">Call Up</a> article, among others. If there's a specific question about him and what one of us may think of him, we're happy to answer it, of course. But his status as a rookie isn't really synonymous with the above players' status as prospects, at least in our view.
Naturally, you're correct. We've updated it to reflect that. Thanks for the note.
He could certainly make an appearance given some of the flotsam and jetsam in front of him (I mean <span class="playerdef"><a href="http://www.baseballprospectus.com/card/card.php?id=50098">Bud Norris</a></span> is in their rotation at present). That said, it's not clear he's better than the guys ahead of him either. You can't miss that few bats and put that many guys on via walk and have any extended period of success. He's got good raw stuff, he's not yet 24 years old, and he's at Triple-A, so there's plenty to work with here, but there are some definite areas of improvement for Jenkins to address before he can meaningfully impact the MLB roster.
Historically we've not ranked older foreign imports alongside prospects because they tend to be different beasts, so to speak.
imagine if they were combined. Franco's talents on the mound with Nola's aptitude at the plate. Dominance.
(We fixed it, thanks!)
let me know what the commissioner says
The difference being that rosters are constructed in such a way to skip a day or two for a regular, while the rotation is shifted or a 25-man move must be made most times someone needs a day off (unless there is an off-day in the schedule, which we see somewhat regularly).
I think more teams are doing this. There were several bullpen days (at least for LAD) last year, and I think we've seen this take place in the bullpen in places like Baltimore - note the importance of players with options for exactly this reason. Even so, though, when you skip a starter for a full turn, it has a cascading effect that causes problems either with rest or with roster crunches. That's why you'll see a guy get six or seven days off, but not a full 10. Those days with a short roster mount up.
There's also the incentive for the player to take the ball as often as possible, otherwise they look *unable* to do so if a team so needs (see: <span class="playerdef"><a href="http://www.baseballprospectus.com/card/card.php?id=47415">Johnny Cueto</a></span>'s reputation now about taking the ball on short rest), even if it's wise for the team to rest them periodically.
It's a good idea but it is also a complex issue, I think. It's also one that LA seems to be attempting to resolve with the 8 or so arms that could pitch at the MLB level this season.
The last time was 2008 in Oakland (<span class="playerdef"><a href="http://www.baseballprospectus.com/card/card.php?id=45525">Dana Eveland</a></span>, <span class="playerdef"><a href="http://www.baseballprospectus.com/player_search.php?search_name=Dan+Meyer">Dan Meyer</a></span>, <span class="playerdef"><a href="http://www.baseballprospectus.com/player_search.php?search_name=Greg+Smith">Greg Smith</a></span>, <span class="playerdef"><a href="http://www.baseballprospectus.com/card/card.php?id=45529">Gio Gonzalez</a></span> and <span class="playerdef"><a href="http://www.baseballprospectus.com/card/card.php?id=45758">Dallas Braden</a></span>)
I could be wrong as I've not asked Jeff about it but it read to me like he was asking about insuring against the option itself. As in, if the player does opt in and stays with the team, the team then receives some fiscal relief from the insurance company, and thus lightens the burden of the player opting in.
My guess is the costs of such an insurance would make it so that it's not worth doing, but I think that was the idea Jeff was going for rather than insuring player-health? Let me know if I'm misunderstanding you here.
Our fantasy positional content (including prospect coverage) will begin the second week of January, and start with Catchers!
It's a fair point, especially in regards to the summaries, lol.
He didn't really bring up anything but his stat line? I wasn't sure what there was to address.
Can I ask where you pulled 40% from to be a decent player? By all means, it's fine if you feel that way, but I don't know why it's assumed Chris or the rest of us should agree that that's the case at all.
I'd argue it's clear that we disagree with that assessment based on his not being on the list. As for "scouty nonsense..." this is a scout-driven article/series. I'm not sure what you're looking for if not scouting related perspective.
I'd also note - as I have before - the five interesting names are not necessarily 11-15, but rather five names of interest to Chris/the team.
Based on prior production, it's not unreasonable. In terms of workload, sure. But that's why he costs $15M/year and not $22M+.
And it's more about him slotting into that spot in the rotation than it is about him fulfilling the "No. 2 starter" mantle.
Because I kept spoonerizing his name and laughing. I wasted an entire day that way! Couldn't bear to look at it on the screen any longer.
That is how it worked out in this case, but to be clear, the five interesting ones aren't in a particular order, nor do they *necessarily* constitute the 11-15 prospects for an org. The section is there to highlight interesting talent in the system more than anything.
I never watched Nashville the tv show though and thus couldn't make a reference okay!? lol.
Overton's stuff hasn't come back as strong as hoped following surgery. If it had, he likely would have a spot on the back end of the list. As is he is probably in the 11-15 range somewhere - as the five names are interesting ones, not specifically the "next 5" on the list.
We concur. That's something we're planning on addressing as he head into our 2016 coverage. While there are always moving parts and thus no ideal time, the beginning of the new year represents something at least a little closer to that.
Thank you for suggesting this, as we agree it's something that should be covered.
Mm, yeah Taillon would be considered a Texan draftee by the standards we were using, but I did forget about <span class="playerdef"><a href="http://www.baseballprospectus.com/player_search.php?search_name=Adam+Loewen">Adam Loewen</a></span> when reading that and one should never forget about Adam Loewen. This has been amended, thanks!
This is something we can incorporate moving forward. I agree it's a helpful thing to know.
Sure thing. The two referenced players have been updated. Thanks for pointing this out.
Our hope is that a player's risk will be discernible from the writeup, but this is something we'll discuss with regards to the forthcoming lists. Thanks for letting us know.
Thanks for the feedback. I wanted to reply to clarify a couple things, which hopefully address your points.
1. You're absolutely right that many of the players have a single paragraph that address a mixture of elements regarding that player. This was an intentional decision made in an effort to keep the player writeups brief and concise, and thus (hopefully) more digestible for the reader. It's possible this isn't how it reads to you, and we value that feedback.
2. This has been amended. Thanks.
One thing I can promise you is that this has not be unedited or rushed. It's more than fine to disagree or dislike the changes to the format - and we're happy to hear of those disagreements because it can help us make a better product moving forward, in the larger picture. This is going to be the format for the remainder of this offseason's Top 10s, though.
Yep, probably not. Hence the deeper pulls label. The NL speed pool of guys who could but have never done it isn't deep, so you take the shots you can.
He reference his 191 strikeouts earlier in the writeup. The strikeout and walk totals were just flipped.
You can just call him JPP
fixed. thank you.
Sure. Which is exactly why we do rankings in the off-season for re-draft, 3-year rankings, and dynasty rankings.
It's almost as if we are sentient author's who aren't bound by BP's <span class="statdef"><a href="http://www.baseballprospectus.com/glossary/index.php?search=WARP" onmouseover="doTooltip(event, jpfl_getStat('WARP'))" onmouseout="hideTip()">WARP</span></a> forecasts when discussing a player's value. I talk about Odor a *lot*: https://twitter.com/search?src=typd&q=odor%20from%3Acdgoldstein
and while he's certainly been one of the best second baseman since his recall, I am not rushing to believe he's suddenly a .330 hitter. I don't think your method of comparing age-21 seasons is necessarily a useful one because development isn't linear. Dozier proves that himself, given that he didn't make the majors til 25 and now he's an all-star caliber second baseman.
I love, love, love Odor and frankly I'm fine with it if you want to toss him into the discussion. My personal feeling is that it's a little early to do so for the top spot, but I certainly get it. That said, Ben and I limited the discussion to fewer spots because we didn't feel like writing a 3000 word article on it.
Lastly, most people prize winning in the near-term versus winning in the long-term. If you're rebuilding, you probably want Odor over Kipnis given the age gap. But we evaluate on standard premises that weight immediate production a little more heavily.
This is a discussion for the top spot in Dynasty Leagues right now. Neither Wong nor Odor are really in consideration, despite both being high quality dynasty values. This just wasn't really the venue for a discussion on their individual values. The offseason will undoubtedly be full of rankings and discussion of this exact nature.
Pretty much nope. Hardy is still on board for 2 more seasons and the knee surgeries make it unlikely they'd push him back to a position he hasn't played in what will be five or so seasons by then.
Rendon's 2014 gets him within shouting distance of Arenado, who we both agreed was 4th on our list, and Rendon's repeated health issue disqualify him from the discussion - at least in my purview. It's a talented position though, so Rendon, Sano, etc. are all great options. Just not top options right at the moment.
I would be surprised if Robles or Giron are in many player pools. These are pop-up guys to some degree, which is why they're potentially available.
lol yeah, if we wrote for a league with 1000 minor leaguers owned minimum, we'd have an audience of your league.
He's another I considered too high profile at this point.
Yep. Kilome is easily in this field, if not someone I thought was well too late to mention.
In fairness, there's less to go one early in the season and it's harder to differentiate a hot streak from a valid adjustment. I believe JJ Jansons also had an article on dynasty value risers earlier this year, though it's not precisely the same concept.
How deep is the minor league system that all of these guys are owned? It is tough to gauge who might be unowned, especially in leagues that allow in-season pickups.
I'd take a chance on Shaffer even if I'm not overly optimistic. The other two just aren't very good.
Thanks very much Lloyd, it's greatly appreciated!
I wouldn't say likely. The front office has shown to be very flexible in terms of plans, and Peraza could be dealth or holstered or any number of things could result in a different second baseman. They could re-sign Kendrick for all we know. Seager seems likely to get a crack at shortstop, but Peraza could also open the season there for 2 weeks until LAD gets the extra year of control on Seager. Lots of options.
No need for apologies. Updated.
Why would the Rockies want Upton for 2 months?
It's worth noting that the same person does not play the same GM from iteration to iteration. There was not a Tulo deal, at least in 2015 for this series, and we've not yet done follow ups, but is something that could be looked into. Thanks!
Updated - thanks for catching this!
clocks are from the catcher's perspective
Yes that's the Diamondbacks' <span class="playerdef"><a href="http://www.baseballprospectus.com/player_search.php?search_name=Cody+Reed">Cody Reed</a></span>. Thanks for asking for the clarification!
That's my fault - had <span class="playerdef"><a href="http://www.baseballprospectus.com/card/card.php?id=71129">Alex Blandino</a></span> on the brain for some reason. Thanks for catching it.
Thanks for the feedback, we can definitely work on something.
I don't know who that is
Thanks Clete - a note has been made to reflect this. We appreciate it!
It's already getting better with Lindor and Urshela in the lineup. See <a href="http://www.baseballprospectus.com/author/rj_anderson">R.J. Anderson</a>'s excellent article: http://www.baseballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=26896
Not nitpicking! Accuracy is important. Thanks for catching it.
This is one day
Yeah it's a damn shame we don't have Parks around anymore. He was <a href="http://www.baseballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=15655">all business</a>, <a href="http://www.baseballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=19918">all the time</a>.
I'm definitely glad he never did a <a href="http://www.baseballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=16148">whole series</a> that some might consider fun or weird.
it was answered on both. You're not crazy. For this reason.
It was only one look for me, but based on other reports I've gotten the ceiling is certainly there for a first division regular. I think his patience/power combo makes him a Role 45 guy even if he's only at his 30th percentile, with a good likelihood of being better than that.
actually it's reek havoc. havoc is particularly malodorous
everything the team saw or knows is included, unfortunately. I haven't heard anything on him.
any injury serious enough to earn a visit to Birmingham to see Dr. Andrews is cause for concern.
Nope, no update there. He was named to the Future's Game roster, which teams can deny if they choose, so he should be fine.
not in the AL West.
I really like <span class="playerdef"><a href="http://www.baseballprospectus.com/player_search.php?search_name=Edwin+Diaz">Edwin Diaz</a></span> if that helps.
all joking aside, his competence in the other sport isn't really relevant. The point was that time was taken away from baseball, and he was raw as a result. <span class="playerdef"><a href="http://www.baseballprospectus.com/card/card.php?id=70754">Bubba Starling</a></span> was committed to Nebraska as a QB, <span class="playerdef"><a href="http://www.baseballprospectus.com/card/card.php?id=68440">Zach Lee</a></span> was committed to LSU as a QB. Whether McMahon was a good quarterback in his other sport doesn't have much bearing on anything, and focusing on it (not you, but the original commenter) is missing the point entirely.
Two sport athlete?
So what you're saying is that he was a two sport guy.
Haha, I didn't know about that either! Sorry for the snippy response. Certainly can't complain about what Brantley has done thus far!
Additionally, everything you're replying to holds true. The improvement in <span class="statdef"><a href="http://www.baseballprospectus.com/glossary/index.php?search=BB" onmouseover="doTooltip(event, jpfl_getStat('BB'))" onmouseout="hideTip()">BB</span></a>% came this year (as in "had not happened when this was written" this year) and there wasn't necessarily a reason to believe the strikeout rate improvement wouldn't move back to career norms. On top of that, his HR/FB *has* regressed towards the career norm, as has 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> - which was the gist of the comment you're replying to.
Good job commenting on this 2.5 months into the season after this was written in February.
He hit six homers in a partial season last year. Hence low double digit homers.
<span class="playerdef"><a href="http://www.baseballprospectus.com/card/card.php?id=60931">Chris Owings</a></span> is better than he's been this year, and even if he wasn't, he runs and hits for more power. <span class="playerdef"><a href="http://www.baseballprospectus.com/card/card.php?id=100736">Matt Duffy</a></span> is perfectly fine if you want batting average and nothing else, but his value (and more aptly, his upside) is effectively nil, especially since he's more of a utility guy who won't have much playing time. Owings *could* be a starter (not saying he will) and if he does get to start he could steal double-digit bases and his double-digit homers while hitting around .260. That's more valuable than Duffy.
They were compiled last night. It's obviously not ideal, and might have pushed him ahead of Bradley for me, but otherwise didn't affect much.
I don't think this power is for real, but I do think he could be a back end of the top 10 type in most seasons.
Tate as a surname dates back to the 1200s
frankly I'm upset at Crawford for not including Saturnino in this. Bubba Derby is easily a first-round name too.
He's eligible for 2017
according to my creative writing classes, this *is* grown up.
Well, I'm not sure where he was written down as a No. 3 starter in this profile, much less topping out at that level first and foremost. But to address the concerns on Chi-Chi, at least for me, it's how many bats is he going to miss at the highest level. Granted it was early, and I believe he'd adjust, but 13 percent in Triple-A is a concern. Also, the grade of "plus" on his changeup was a future grade, and that's projection that he has the potential of falling short on. No one is guaranteed to hit their OFP.
As for whatever the other baseball magazine said - there are very few No. 1 pitchers that lack a plus-plus pitch. Most of them have two, and a third pitch that's average. The reality is there isn't a number of plus or plus-plus pitches that equate to a No. 1 starter or Ace. Those guys are made and prove themselves. It's unlikely - to me - that Chi-Chi can hit those peaks given what he currently is and what he currently throws. That said, guys take developmental steps forward by learning new pitches, adjusting mechanics to refine command more than previously anticipated, etc., so it's foolish to rule anything completely out. All we can do right now, though, is anticipate what he could be based on what we can see at present.
Pretty much everybody's floor is never becoming a major leaguer, so that's not really a useful thing to say. It was shorthand, but I apologize if it was misleading.
I legitimately didn't understand what he was confused about, so I stated as such. No snideness.
I do care about fixing inaccuracies, and if you'll look back at previous articles I often thank people for catching them and say we'll get it fixed.
In this case, I think the definition provided within the articles addressed the issue with the mislabeling at the top and thus wasn't a major issue. The vast majority understood the communicated concept - which is really all that mattered.
As little sense as we make, everyone save for one person with a legitimate question and a pedant could understand what we were discussing. Funny, that.
Actually, given that we define the age parameters and don't define the division parameters the assumption would be to use MLB definitions *unless otherwise defined*.
also, we define the parameters of the age restriction in every article. The label is insignificant. We also define the parameters of the division every article, so, in fact, it would be less accurate.
I bet you make a lot of friends
He's in the AL West, so unfortunately not.
and yet the point can be inferred and thus understood. No confusion necessary.
I'm not sure why you're confused by that.
I think that's a dramatic statement given where I ranked him. I still believe that Castellanos can be a good, useful asset but I'm not going to pretend the last year-plus hasn't happened either. I'm less confident in his power ceiling and that he reaches said ceiling. I am confident it'll be a few years before he does put it all together, if he puts it all together - and I think my ranking reflects that. I don't assume a "monster lineup" for more than the present timeframe.
it was an admittedly oblique reference: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Highly_Questionable
absolutely! Cardinals guys are good example, <span class="playerdef"><a href="http://www.baseballprospectus.com/player_search.php?search_name=Matt+Carpenter">Matt Carpenter</a></span>. Some guys absolutely just hit, and we definitely miss on some of them here at BP. How much Alfaro's arm affects a game is... well, it depends. We've seen <span class="playerdef"><a href="http://www.baseballprospectus.com/card/card.php?id=31391">Yadier Molina</a></span>'s effect on the running game and that can have real value, but it might *need* to be on Yadi's level to have a tangible effect and that's the open question. Alfaro's footwork can also make his arm play down, so it all just depends. The reason Alfaro remains so high on lists despite obvious risk is because *if* it happens to click, it's a middle of the order bat at one of the most valuable positions. The upside is massive, value wise. That said, I think there are reasons to distance yourself from that profile and invest in guys who just hit. But the question remains, how valuable are those profiles with limited defensive value (this applies to Travis and his range - good hands though) and what happens if that hit tool isn't what we thought? Basically, if <span class="playerdef"><a href="http://www.baseballprospectus.com/player_search.php?search_name=Chris+Johnson">Chris Johnson</a></span> hits like he's capable - he's a super useful guy to have on the team. If he has a down year like 2014, he might be a negative impact. Judging those guys versus toolsier players who have to have more go wrong, is a tough thing to do, and no doubt could possibly be done better. On some level though, you're just never going to be right on everyone.
also fwiw, I'm sure I'm coming across harsher than I intend. I think this is a fun discussion. I love to argue.
apologies for the misuse, but I wouldn't call it anything close to the best explanation. You're asking fantasy writers who weren't involved to explain why other people didn't put him on a prospect list. I can't help you there, beyond the explanation that is "they thought the other talent was more deserving." That would be a great question for you to go ask the people who created the list.
in my opinion you're saying "devon travis proves stats should be factored in more, and pressed for why you seem to be saying 'devon travis.'" Perhaps not a tautology but circular logic to say the least. You've answered very few of my questions on specifics or why things should be weighted differently. If we weight stats more, we're just undervaluing other players while perhaps catching a few more <span class="playerdef"><a href="http://www.baseballprospectus.com/card/card.php?id=100193">Devon Travis</a></span>' (which assumes that scouts were wrong on him, which isn't *necessarily* the case). Why is that better?
sorry - tautology - not begging the question. Fingers moved faster than the brain there.
And I've not quoted scouts as a be all nor end all! I've said multiple times you need to consider both, so I'd appreciate you not pretending otherwise.
No one is dismissing a factor. You're say "they should be weighted differently" but providing no reason as to why, except to point at a small sample size example, which is begging the question. You can't just say <span class="playerdef"><a href="http://www.baseballprospectus.com/card/card.php?id=100193">Devon Travis</a></span> is the reason. Is there something that differentiated him from the other guys who tear up minor leagues but fail?
and his prospect status rose over the course of that time! We're already doing what you're talking about. You seem to be saying we didn't do it enough based on a three week major league performance, and that's not something that's particularly reasonable.
I'm not proving your point. I'm pointing to the history of guys who have failed with good stats and saying it's inadequate as a point to say "should have been given more weight' because it's scattershot. We already incorporate performance to a degree, and it's an imperfect one to be sure. But arbitrarily saying "more weight should be given" is meaningless. How much? and why? and to which stats should the most weight be given? Why should we pay more attention to a guy with a one-month hot streak than the guys who have come before him and failed.
"stats" can't be a reason. It's too broad with little application.
But you're not providing any reason for it. Saying we're undervaluing it because of Travis ignores all the guys who hit the snot out of the ball at lower levels but *did* fail in the majors, and it's doing so based on Travis' month of play. Obviously the potential remains that certain players are undervalued, but unless you have some insight as to why that may be happening beyond "he hit in the minors" it's not really a viable argument.
If you read the content from the prospect team here, you'll know numbers and production are mentioned all the time. No one is throwing out statistics and it's disingenuous to suggest that we are. The reason statistics are devalued at the minor league level is that the end-goal of the minor leagues is development and not production. You see pitchers have their best weapons limited in-game, which can not only negatively impact their numbers but enhance others. You see guys being taught new positions which can tax their focus at the plate, as well as time devoted to hitting. You see horrid defense resulting in hits that shouldn't be, moreso than in the majors.
You can't just waltz in here holding up a printout of <span class="playerdef"><a href="http://www.baseballprospectus.com/card/card.php?id=100193">Devon Travis</a></span>' minor league numbers and say "you should have known!" I linked to <a href="http://www.baseballprospectus.com/author/mark_anderson">Mark Anderson</a>'s scouting report on him and it didn't trash him. He's an interesting player who can continue to grow and develop. You might take the over on the projection and that's fine. I think he'll absolutely hit over those figures in some years, but we're talking a baseline. It's great that you'll take the over on those figures, but you're not really supporting that notion for any other reason than "stats."
I by no means intend to say that scouting is the be all and end all. Statistics should absolutely be married with what we see, but at the minor league level, because of the reasons listed above, stats shouldn't be taken at face value.
really, in the scheme of things, our entire lives our small sample sized. what are we doing here? why do we bother?
this begs the question a bit. That's assuming we agree that <span class="statdef"><a href="http://www.baseballprospectus.com/glossary/index.php?search=PECOTA" onmouseover="doTooltip(event, jpfl_getStat('PECOTA'))" onmouseout="hideTip()">PECOTA</span></a>'s 50th percentile projection is reasonable. I won't speak for Ben, but I don't think it is.
No, you shouldn't scout the box score. If you want to use the box score as a legend and investigate further, then that's fine. But the performance discussed (.260/10+sb/10-12 <span class="statdef"><a href="http://www.baseballprospectus.com/glossary/index.php?search=HR" onmouseover="doTooltip(event, jpfl_getStat('HR'))" onmouseout="hideTip()">HR</span></a>) is not far from what scouting reports indicated on the way up. What changed for me was the timetable of that contribution, hence his inclusion. Look at how or why a result is being achieved, not just what occurred.
not a sandwich
That's a reference to Russell being called up. One is fellow and one is former.
Stop pretending ticket prices and player salaries are correlated. They're not. http://www.baseballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=1844
What's appalling is you're complete lack of understanding in how baseball economics work and why this is a labor issue in the first place. You probably love the free market, except when it means a team can't control a player an extra year. It doesn't matter that the minimum salary in baseball is six figures if Bryant's real value is in the tens of millions and he's being artificially restrained from reaching it.
We discussed this in TINO which is either out or should be shortly!
As specified, I was basing the statement on the listed PCL roster, which Okert isn't yet on. Not sure if he's been officially assigned there just yet.
Wow. Not sure what happened there. Two names to watch are Susac if he doesn't stick with the big league team - patience and power behind the plate, plus a nice arm. Strickland is the other guy. Everyone knows him for the playoff homers he gave up but 100 MPH is nothing to sneeze at. He just needs to command it better, and if he can add some wiggle, that'd be even more ideal. Beyond those two it's pretty barren though (at least based on their listed roster).
They're not sleepers. They're picks to lead the league in a category. You're not going to get someone from outside the top 200 to do that. The purpose is not to identify late round sleepers.
I've had enough of your creative writing school comments. More analysis and fewer jokes.
would you prefer that I left it blank? He had 90 games in Double-A. There's not a real reason to push him other than they can (and probably will). I wouldn't be surprised if he does go to Toledo, but it's not unreasonable to return a guy with less than a full season and a track record of sucking to Double-A.
they're all linked to at the top.
DHing Dyson wouldn't make any sense as his primary value is on defense. Rotating people through the DH spot is an option, but he really makes most sense as a PR/Defensive replacement in terms of maximizing his contributions.
This is an apt description. Well said.
This kind of implies that if something isn't a priority, it's necessarily backsliding, which isn't at all the case. Just because the guy is throwing more changeups or making sure he's duplicating his armspeed on the pitch doesn't mean that his upper 90s fastball will become a mid 90s fastball.
Moreover, there's no uniform answer here. It's likely that some pitchers require more upkeep on certain pitches, while others can shelve something for months at a time and pull it out immediately. <span class="playerdef"><a href="http://www.baseballprospectus.com/card/card.php?id=60787">Hyun-Jin Ryu</a></span> asked <span class="playerdef"><a href="http://www.baseballprospectus.com/card/card.php?id=489">Josh Beckett</a></span> how he threw his curve, and broke it out in his next game, effectively. Most can't do that but it's a spectrum and pitchers are all over it.
There was zero snark.
Respectfully, it's an article about predicting pitcher wins so outside of obvious names it's all guesswork, so complaining that we didn't name <span class="playerdef"><a href="http://www.baseballprospectus.com/card/card.php?id=50101">Chris Archer</a></span> or <span class="playerdef"><a href="http://www.baseballprospectus.com/card/card.php?id=50704">Michael Pineda</a></span> or someone who wasn't obvious doesn't really accomplish much either. At that point anyone could be named from <span class="playerdef"><a href="http://www.baseballprospectus.com/card/card.php?id=70778">Daniel Norris</a></span> to <span class="playerdef"><a href="http://www.baseballprospectus.com/player_search.php?search_name=Carlos+Carrasco">Carlos Carrasco</a></span> because the talent levels don't differ enough to make a meaningful distinction.
Introductions are fun and useful to read!
If you remember this exercise from last year, there are a few more changes, which I’ll pull directly from <a href="http://www.baseballprospectus.com/author/bret_sayre">Bret Sayre</a>’s email to the fantasy team outlining this series:
“First of all, we're only going to be picking one player per category. Second of all, we're going to allow everyone to choose the player they want, regardless of how many other people are choosing them. That means, if four writers think that <span class="playerdef"><a href="http://www.baseballprospectus.com/card/card.php?id=59265">Khris Davis</a></span> will lead the league in homers, then by god there will be four Khris Davis blurbs detailing why.”
Perhaps we disagree on what constitutes a good offense. Of course much can depend on the health of Span and Werth, but even with those guys missing, you're talking about:
Taylor, Rendon, Harper, Zimmerman, Desmond, Ramos, Escobar, LF fill-in til Werth or Span get back.
That's a pretty solid lineup to me.
We were in AZ for a week. We'll be back this week.
Greg Polanco is a good example of "high backside"
(Image from the post-gazette)
I am a professional* and I think I would know whether it is should have (no) or should of (absolutely yes).
Actually, "should of" is correct in this situation
should of is correct
all the pluses.
Should of been Humberto
Actually this is helpful. Thanks!
you hadn't even commented yet! Shenanigans!
fair enough. It was just confusing because no one was really doing that.
you must be new here.
Thank you (and all) for the kind words. Not a promotion exactly, as a lot of our staff enjoys writing about fantasy (as I do) and are quite content with it. My goal has always been to write about baseball though, be in prospect or just general analysis so this is a step towards that goal. I'm grateful that Bret and the higher ups at BP are so willing to accommodate such a move, and hopefully I'll be able to meet the standard already set by our team.
Last year we did this: http://www.baseballprospectus.com/a/22965
I will be doing it this year and it'll run tomorrow. My main advice is not to invest in relief prospects though. It's a horrible idea.
btw watching the pitches by no means makes me more correct, insofar as the quality goes, but just informs my viewpoint.
I'm asking this as earnestly as I can because I am well aware of the stereotype and don't at ALL want to fall into the category of accusing you of not - so I'm making it very clear this isn't an implication so much as an honest question:
Have you watched Zimm/Eovaldi games/throw their sliders? I ask because I obviously can't argue with those stats, but I also wouldn't base my thought on which one's slider is better based on stats in that particular manner. I've watched them throw their sliders and I would take Zimm's everyday of the week.
It's possible we just disagree on the quality, and I'll totally accept that if that's the case - but I don't see them as comparable pitches, especially in regards to Eovaldi's ability to command his breaking ball.
Also - Eovaldi gave up more hits than any other pitcher last year - whether that's because of his slider or his fastball or bad luck or some combination thereof, I don't know, but I'd say that he's significantly more hittable than Zimm in general. I think comping them because of stats is a dangerous game to play personally, though again - a useable splitter would go a long way towards helping Eovaldi.
addressing the splitter more thoroughly though: Yes, if he develops a usable splitter, it obviously changes things as it did for Jake Odorizzi and his split-change. Until we can actually see that in progress though, I'll judge based on what we've seen.
The sad truth is that pitchers tinker with pitches in the offseason a lot and they don't always produce results. Hopefully it does wonders for him though.
Zimmerman's slider is significantly better than Eovaldi's breaking ball. I should have said more usable pitches.
To be clear, what you said was not that you spent a good amount of time combing through the data. What you said was a question that I responded to directly in terms of how they're different.
I also appreciate the insinuation (again) that I don't look at data. I do. I don't think a one-year sample is enough to build a strong case off of. Sure, Eovaldi changed his release point. Was it substantially better? I say no. He doesn't command the pitch within the zone from my viewings, and I think it gets him in trouble in a smaller park.
As to your point that his control was only surpassed by Phil Hughes: That has literally nothing to do with the point I was making which is: 1) He's never shown that level of ability before 2) he wasn't very good even WITH that ability 3) he'll need to hold that ability just to remain relevant and 4) that ability could go backwards given the difference in parks (it's a lot easier to throw the ball over the plate in ballpark like Miami has).
For the record, I'm not a fan of Cosart, but I appreciate the insinuation that we operate out of a hivemind without our own distinctive personalities or methods of analysis. You'll understand us one day, Ender, but by then you'll have already destroyed us.
Eovaldi can't just "use his curveball more" because it's not very good, and sure, if half the pitchers in baseball learn a useable splitter they'd be better at their jobs! That's not really a useable line of reasoning here.
And I'm going to say yes - it was substantially different because a) he doesn't have the same number of pitches Zimmermann had b) his career high strikeout rate doesn't overlap with Zimmermann's career low and c) Zimmermann had been walking that few batters for multiple years, not a one-year potential aberration.
Again - I wrote about Eovaldi in the midst of his good run last year and isolated what was different at the time. What he was doing then wasn't ever going to be sustainable - nor is he as bad as he was the rest of the way.
I do so wish you'd put those powers of observation to use on the intro to the first piece:
"and while we're not going to cover the same player twice in one target or one avoid piece, we will let BP staffers debate the same name should such a situation arise."
Yeyson Yrizarri. I'd also add Nerfy Nunez and Yorfrank Lopez.
You've been complaining about the creative writing component for two going on three years now (I checked). Perhaps it's time to realize this is a site for baseball statistics *and* creative writing. Why be one thing, when you can be two?
A dynasty league isn't a variation on roto or head-to-head or scoresheet. It's a specification as to how many of the players you keep year to year. The hardline definition would be that dynasty leagues give you the option to keep all the players on your roster year-to-year, but effectively it's when you have the option of carrying over the vast majority of your roster from season to season - as opposed to keeping more of a limited number. In these leagues, drafting minor leaguers/fringe guys and trading are how you turn over your roster, as opposed to doing so through a draft.
Nick Faleris answered this in the comments of the 101, saying he'd be between 8-20 and probably closer to 8.
Atahaulpa isn't much of a fantasy relevant player otherwise
in-season there is a process for receiving players that the prospect was traded for (based on in-season value of the players moved, and also the standings of the league itself). Off season you just lose the player.
I feel confident saying that Bret is the only person who feels that way about Chi-Chi.
Hultzen is probably worth mentioning in some respects but I'd rather wait to see what he's doing more consistently stuff-wise, following the surgery.
Yes, I believe we learned of how many players you had in the comments of the 101. I'm not saying that Sanchez isn't an interesting guy but the value of using that roster spot on someone who is 4-5 years away is drastically diminished, especially with someone who has as good a chance of ending up in the bullpen as Sanchez does.
I'm glad you feel good about bragging about the depth of your league. I'm in AL/NL Only leagues that go 300 deep on both sides, and Sanchez hardly a mid-tier guy in those.
I'd argue there's a good chance those roster spots could be put to better use.
Keller is an interesting arm but we've barely seen anything from him thus far in his career and he just isn't going to matter soon enough. He certainly could have gone in "others" but it's splitting hairs at that point.
Sanchez is 5-foot-11 and yet to pitch outside of complex ball so if you're rostering him in a fantasy league, that's excessive. Tseng is an intriguing arm but his realistic probability is that of a back end starter who doesn't miss enough bats to play up in a fantasy context.
I still like Guerrieri. Two potential 7s in his pocket but there are makeup and health concerns in abundance. We're getting to let those tannins mellow this year before making longer-term prognostications.
Yeah. Diaz and Tirado are easy examples of possible 3s but having failed at Low-A (in Tirado's case anyway) weren't worth going deep on. Mendez is a guy I love but has yet to reach full season ball, and that goes for recent draftees like Kopech, Sheffield, and Foster too.
Guerrieri is a guy with a huge ceiling still, but we wanted to wait til he was back on the mound consistently before addressing him.
What's the question?
I've been having an episode where I switch hands on multiple guys. I have no idea why. Chase Anderson, Aaron Nola, Thompson. Oof. Thanks.
He is the type of pitcher who is not* likely...
Taijuan Walker doesn't qualify as a prospect.
He'll be on tomorrow's for 2016 and Beyond
Right, well, I didn't say it would result in a less qualified commissioner, I said it would remove some highly qualified people from the pool of available talent since they may prefer to make significant money. I'll disagree on Bush being a great option for the position, but that's a matter of opinion, I suppose.
I don't think many project Mazara to be a .300 hitter, so I think that's a bit aggressive, as is anticipating 30 home runs (though either could come with a season of high end variance). I'd agree that the magnitude to which someone wins a category matters - which is why it's worth reading the comments before looking at the winner of the category - usually there's a breakdown in there. By the same token though, Tapia should outproduce Mazara substantially in runs and stolen bases, and potentially in average. That might not be what you're looking for, or more abundant, but it matters just the same.
putting an 8 on a hit tool equates to a .330 or so average to me.
Of course, he's always had a great swing and never struck out all that often. He also had never hit 20 homers nor stolen 20 bases before, and nothing beyond his HR/FB and BABIP changed drastically. I appreciate that he has the ability to do what you anticipate, but expecting him to replicate last year going forward seems a bit much.
"This time around, we've broken the BP Fantasy Staff up into two teams who will alternate writing "target" and "avoid" pieces on a weekly basis. The blurbs you see on the players we cover will be more in-depth, and while we're not going to cover the same player twice in one target or one avoid piece, we will let BP staffers debate the same name should such a situation arise."
I'd rather have Aybar
if I thought he'd accrue his value as an outfielder he'd likely be ranked. He's being ranked as an outfielder (as our Get To Know series indicated), but for these three year rankings, we reflect our thoughts on where the value will be overall, and the likelihood seems to be that Bell's comes at first base which is a slide down the defensive spectrum and this raises the bar for his offensive output in terms of contributing over others. Hence his lack of ranking here.
I don't see room for him in the outfield, so I don't expect him to accrue value there.
There's no order to these at all.
Sure. Happy to flesh them out. We have Souza at 56, which might be too conservative, but I'm content with where he's ranked given he's yet to prove anything at the big league level (same can be said for Mookie, but the ceiling is higher, even within the three-year span).
He's also been facing significantly younger competition relative to Mookie who has hit .313 for his entire MiLB career and posted a .291 clip in the majors, albeit in a small sample. I understand they you are uncomfortable with the risk involved - I'm not the biggest Mookie fan myself, but when you ask whether their tools are that different... the answer is yes.
Souza isn't a 25 stolen base guy in the majors, and while he could get to 20 home runs, 15-18 is probably more of a realistic expectation.
Well he stole 40 bases across three levels last year which is a big deal when it comes to value, and yes, more than the 15 or so Souza might nab. Lineup and ballpark are also significantly in Mookie's favor, while playing time tilts toward Souza, but not enough to balance it out. Mookie is also a much better bet to hit for average.
suffice it to say we're not as optimistic as PECOTA.
There will be a fantasy list available in the coming weeks
I almost gave him a blurb!
This is a great question for using the PFM (found here: http://pfm15.baseballprospectus.com/pfm/).
Obviously you're not beholden to that projection, nor mine above (15/15 type), but it can get you close enough to make your own call.
The prospectus is already out and contains this list along with writeups from the prospect team!
Yes, there will be a fantasy 101.
It all comes down to playing time. There was a rumor Colorado was open to dealing Blackmon, which could help open up some time for Parker, or a midseason trade of Morneau would help too. Even when he plays, it's going to be numbers on the lower end of the starting spectrum, so it all depends on what's available.
As someone who has been touting Nomar since before last season, that seems a little much. While others on this list have spent some time in Double-A, Mazara has barely played at the level and was skipped entirely over High-A. I would expect him to spend much of the season in Double-A, with a late season promotion to Triple-A.
Zimmer was also shut down with a recurrence of shoulder soreness in the AFL, while Taillon's rehab has yet to experience a bump in that vein.
I use earbuds that have a mic in them even though I have a yeti, although sometimes I use the yeti. Generally record from home, though occasionally it's on skype from my phone.
I'm inclined to agree but would love to see the research re: RBI and their correlations with WAA and the like. Maybe runs too??? Hopefully Sahadev can come through for us on his next article!
Fortunately that's not a prerequisite for this list!
another performance in Low-A like last year and he might be
[puts on sunglasses]
As stated in the introductory article: This time around, we've broken the BP Fantasy Staff up into two teams who will alternate writing "target" and "avoid" pieces on a weekly basis. The blurbs you see on the players we cover will be more in-depth, and while we're not going to cover the same player twice in one target or one avoid piece, we will let BP staffers debate the same name should such a situation arise.
While it's always nice to have a united front, that's not always the case and detailing both sides of a particular player allows the reader to make a more informed decision in our eyes. We hope, anyway!
Height and listed weight are generally not updated by orgs so they're often out of date. That's likely his listed weight upon being drafted.
This is the post for rounds 3 & 4. 1 & 2 are available up where it says "Previous Column" as usual, or if you want to past this link into your browser:
Well it was based on his history. Just because a manager wants a guy to run more doesn't mean he'll do so successfully. Anyway, yes, 12-15 is completely reasonable. I was speaking to the 20 stolen base range.
Lindor was actually my second round pick
I think his reputation out of the draft has still stuck with him, when he was more of a "safe" option, but he's shown more in pro ball than he did in college, and we hope we reflect that difference in quality of stuff. It's also entirely possible to just have divergent opinions on the grades of the pitches. If you see him as more of a 6/5/5 guy, it changes the OFP/Realistic Role somewhat significantly.
I'm more optimistic on Guzman than Beras, though that might not be deserved. Obviously there's the off-field stuff that went on, but there wasn't much encouraging on the field this year either. He actually looked pretty good when I saw him in Spring Training, but was eaten up by Low-A pitching while repeating the league. Not a great sign.
He'll only be 20 heading into next season, which will be a big one for him. He's not to be buried here, but as what Jordan Gorosh would call "a very large human" he's going to need to stay as short to the ball as he can. If he can do that the power should be able to function because he's a strong kid. Hopefully it's just a season he can learn from. Next year will tell us more.
Not particularly close. He's part of a very large third tier of prospects that was discussed but no one who saw him was particularly enthused. The tools are still intact, including big raw power, but he's too long to get to it in game situations.
He is a very long player in general, and he's faster than you'd think when you look at him, but his lengthy levers make it difficult for him to extend and still make contact. There's no reason to "give up" on Beras because he's still young and toolsy, but he's not someone who is going to move quickly.
Sure, and personal preference is obviously involved here. I think Plouffe maxes out around 15 homers and has the downside to fall short of that, with additional downside if he hits towards the bottom of the Twins lineup that is solid in the middle but lacking at the top and bottom.
Well he went from 6 stolen bases to 20 out of nowhere, which is the big difference maker here. Without the stolen bases he's a fairly generic, if stable, option.
I would guess with the hype he's received he'd go in the first round, potentially before Rusney Castillo.
he also said Syndergaard had Cy Young stuff according to this piece:
As for preferring a guy he hasn't managed... I'm not sure what to make of that. Might say more about Backman than either prospect.
This is a narrow interpretation of the guidelines. We refer to prospects in this case as those under contract with major league teams at the start of the draft. Kang signed mid-draft and was not eligible.
Josh Donaldson is an excellent value pick, fwiw
What did I do now?
as the leader of the forrest wall hype train... not even close.
I'll stick up for the Syndergaard selection and admit he's the top pitcher on my personal list. He's much closer to contributing and doesn't have TJ on his resume like Giolito does. I think it's fair to think that Giolito has a higher ceiling, but not so much so that the difference in their immediacy doesn't close that gap to where it's close, if not in Syndergaard's favor.
Just depends where you are I think. A few people (I think east coasters) have already received theirs.
Thank you for you earnest interpretation of my poorly executed humor.
Our 101 is already out if you've received the BP Annual and should be published shortly on the site. The fantasy 101 will be available in the futures guide and also up on the site in the next few weeks.
Just because positions are weak hitting doesn't mean that having the best options within those positions isn't a huge advantage. It's not like you can just not have a catcher or shortstop.
And in that same vein, pitching is generally significantly deeper than hitting (and pitcher's break more often) which means that replacement level is usually better and there's a higher risk of injury, hence people waiting.
Yep, you're exactly right. I'll get it fixed. Thanks!
Because that's the most valuable position he qualifies at, and we try not to predict positional futures. We've done it another way before, but we end up being wrong as often if not more than being right, so we'd rather rank for a CURRENT situation and acknowledge a likely transition, then adjust when that transition is made.
We're all well aware that it's a dynasty list, but pretending that Zobrist can't rack up the necessary appearances to stick at short, or the same happening for Baez. What if Baez gets traded and played at SS? Then what good is he in the 2B rankings?
There are always going to be issues with multipositional guys, but we believe our readership is competent enough to translate positional rankings. Look at the guys who Baez or Zobrist rank with. Look at their stat lines. Find the comparable players in the other position and slot them in with those guys. It's not an exact science. That's also why we write blurbs, to flesh out the context of the ranking. Ultimately, we try not to assume we know the future, which is why the rankings are done the way they are.
It's based on Mike Gianella's 2015 bid limits. He'll write about them at some point in the future, when his work is complete, but the infographic is based on the figures we have currently.
That's a really good question. I don't think that he necessarily becomes that this year, because I'm not sure they have a better option at shortstop, but I can't rule it out all together. I do think he's a second division starter down the line, earning regular PT rather than ending up as the short side of the platoon. That said, it can't be ruled out, especially on a team that uses platoons as heavily as Oakland does.
Not particularly. He's blocked by Gennett and Segura at present. Those are smaller obstacles than in Texas, but without a clear shot at playing time he's not going to be elevated from "other" status.
I'll assume this is a rough draft of a comment given that Zobrist is shortstop eligible. You're right, this is fun!
well, he most recently played catcher at short-season upon demotion, so.
Most people wouldn't called half a season "sustained eliteness," which is kind of the point. You're creating a tautology in that the numbers improved hugely, so Machado must have too, and you're only support for that statement is the numbers, themselves.
We're providing you with people who witnessed the player and the process and are acknowledging improvement, but not close to the degree to which the numbers suggest.
At this point, though, it doesn't seem like you want to be convinced, in which case it's not worth trying to convince you. We'll find out going forward, I suppose.
Variance, is a good way to figure how someone goes from a failure at the plate to good numbers for two months. The reality is that two months is both an extremely long time and not at all a long time, at once. Nate McLouth was bad for three straight year, above-average for the orioles for 8 months and then bad again. Weird stuff happens. That doesn't mean progress isn't being made - it seems like there is. But don't put more emphasis on a 2 month stretch than the 1200 at-bats that preceded it (as Jordan said). Timing is important, but it's also tricky. Trust the scouting reports.
We're going to continue to schedule the Royals Top 10 and then run different teams as part of a high-level experiment to see when Royals fans just absolutely lose it. Bear with us.
I'd take Belt and Cishek. For the future, this is a great type of question for the Bat Signal :)
For the same reason Alex Bregman isn't. He might be a shortstop and he's not affiliated with a team.
Not if speed is your main goal. I wouldn't be comfortable tethering my future to either guy, to be honest.
We're not moving guys off the position before they move. Difo still had more games at SS this year and that's his most valuable position.
He's eligible at 3B, and will be ranked there.
Yes, well he's not been the healthiest lad, has he? Not to mention that 2014 was a huge power spike for him relative to his previous production. He's not really a 30 homer type. Making those rate assumptions on one player while not giving others the same benefit is a dangerous game to play, as well.
I actually like what I've seen of Gonzalez. You nailed it in that he's stronger with his glove, but he's made a lot of strides at the plate, eliminating a big leg kick he used to employ that messed with his timing. He still swings down on the ball and lacks loft, but he makes hard contact. He's a guy I'm keeping track of to see if he can implement further instruction and start getting a little more lift on the ball. If he can, he raises his ceiling considerably.
They've already talked about playing him less often, so I don't think you can use those results projecting forward. Again, I didn't make the tiers, but I was abiding by them for this exercise. That said I have zero issue with leaving him off.
I had originally come up with a witty comment making fun of Howard, but I thought the best shot would be not to mention him at all.
Taking the under is one thing, but do they decline enough to fall behind the people behind them? I'm not arguing that the aging curve will be defied, just that it won't be steep enough in the next three seasons to drop them significantly further than this. I understand your point, and I don't entirely disagree (three years isn't an eternity to me) but at the same time, we also weight 2015 most heavily, as described in the intro. If I think those players can be more valuable by a wide amount in 2015, even if they're even in 2016 and behind in 2017, I'm going to rank them in this order at this point because in a vacuum, 2015 is the most important season.
I've broken free from the hivemind and have the ability to say whatever I want! Or I did... until you said something. Now they'll surely know. WE COULD HAVE CHANGED THE WORLD
Thank you for the compliment and the corrections. Both are greatly appreciated.
Chris Davis is not in any of our first base articles this week because he is third base eligible.
He's optimistically being considered as an outfielder, at present.
He's also not prospect eligible, so wouldn't appear here.
yes but last time I did not receive a piece of cake
He'll pick it up in season and I was told I could pick him for the purposes of this article since we don't do one on UTIL guys
It's just Leon, not Deleon. I think there's a good chance Leon makes the catcher list next year, but my understanding is Mejia has a better chance to stick, and a better chance of reaching his considerable upside. If he can make people more comfortable that he'll stay behind the plate, his risk is mitigated and he becomes a more viable option for fantasy lists like that. Their upsides might be closer than they appear, but the reason for the separation is the combination of upside, risk, and probability.
In the field? Dramatically.
This is why the intro is helpful! Wieters graph is small because PECOTA doesn't like his playing time at present (this will likely change as updates roll in throughout the winter/spring), but the ranking/tiers are based on Mike Gianella's tiered article, not based on the graphs themselves.
I actually like him a decent amount, but believe it or not I get shouted down sometimes. Hard to fathom, I know...
He was moved to outfield, but moved back behind the plate in short-season ball. Coulter can hit, but his value at first is more generic than interesting.
We don't mind the compliments! Thanks!
Either you're thinking of Robin Thicke or I don't know Bruno's most famous moment.
Thanks Johnny! This change should be made.
That's not really how I'd put it at all. It depends on league size but I'd probably have him in my 8-15 range, suitable for the back half of the first round. He's a five category contributor, and while he's not necessarily elite in any of them, he's highly valuable in that he can contribute across the board. I think he can be what Carlos Gonzalez was, minus ~5 steals. Lots of guys have wide variations on SB though (look at Alex Rios), so I'm not ruling anything out.
He's valued highly because the baseline for production is so high, and there's room for growth. You asked me if that growth would happen and sustain itself for a three year window. I'm not convinced it will, but the upside of even bagging that one year is worth it for a lot of people.
Puig doesn't really have a ton of loft in his swing, so he hits the ball really hard, but that results more in ground balls (50%+) and line drives that home run distance flyballs.
I'd say the stolen bases are more likely, because he's shown the capacity to learn and can refine his running game. 20-25 home runs doesn't seem out of reach one of these years, but 30 seems a bit much.
I don't think Puig is likely at all to have a three year window like the one proposed above. 25+ homers is just a lot to ask for.
I'd argue there's a lot more on pitchers than catchers when it comes to caught stealing %, but again, being better than Ellis defensively isn't a high bar to clear. Whether they're *good* at catcher is fairly arguable. That they're better seems pretty clear to me.
Regarding the platoons, Donnie did well with platoons, getting Van Slyke in most games last year. I don't think it's a major obstacle here.
AJ Ellis is a poor framer and receiver. Extremely valuable in the clubhouse though.
Thanks for the edit, and the compliment!
In fact there was a 60 run gap between the two offenses, which is pretty substantial.
I'm of the mind that if teams don't want to give up fair value for your asset then you should keep your asset. The market changes tangibly by mid-season (the guy who is trading for "weak" returns like Wendle/Semien also ponied up Addison Russell mid-season).
Teams are definitely becoming more conservative in holding their prospects, but leaning into that and trading guys for weaker returns doesn't... solve that to me. Sure, if you HAVE to trade a player, then that's what the market is, but I'm not convinced that Moss and Samardzija *needed* to be dealt. I think you can find a Joe Wendle pretty much anytime you want for a guy like Moss, so waiting out the market would make more sense to me.
The thing is that we don't disagree. You are just reading things really weirdly. No one is disagreeing that he developed significantly in that timeframe. Not one person said it until you did. You then implied I said it and disagreed. This is a strawman.
Arguing that it's not grounded in logic is ridiculous. There's been plenty of logic stated. You infer something different than others have - which is totally fine! But acting like they're crazy is the weird part.
No, but your belief over whether he would have been as successful if he came over at 23 years old is inarguable because it didn't happen, and so if I believe otherwise, we're stuck it conjecture on both sides. It's a useless avenue but what you claimed "the point" was.
I don't believe Tomas is the next Abreu, but that's also not what Bret was saying at pretty much any point.
It sure is tough to argue with what you believe about a fictional history for Abreu. Credit Bret for trying, at least.
As others have stated, he means in first-year player drafts.
I suppose we can agree to disagree on that. I don't think Travis is ultimately much different from a Perez or a Suarez in total, and I especially don't understand the hate for Avila's bat. He's been right around league average offensively, which is definitely above average for a catcher.
I also don't understand that the flip side of the argument that this means they can't rush Moya/Collins -- as though that's a bad thing. I don't know Collins, but Moya isn't ready and isn't going to hit at all to start if he does get pushed to the majors. Gose likely isn't an everyday player, so I'm not sure it's affecting their OF plans as much as you think. At worst he'll platoon with Davis, and if he can actually hit by some grace of god, then it's not the disaster we think it could be right now. Solid either way, in my opinion.
I don't think Gose for Travis is a poor talent exchange, but I suppose that's fairly subjective.
I don't disagree with much of your read on this, but I guess I'd ask what hole this opens up for the next deal? Travis was fourth on the Tigers 2B depth chart, so while it might not be inspired from a value perspective (though I still like Gose), this isn't the Jackson/Adames for Price deal either in terms of creating a hole in the roster.
Sure. As stated above, Ben and I are going to have a few more of these.
how about this? Here are the total ballots per award spot for each category:
I'm going to look into this. I'm not sure if we track Unlisted votes. My specific comment was made just by seeing the total number of ballots for the top vote-getter and then subtracting the total from the guy I was looking at.
More amazing to me is that Bruce Bochy was left off so many ballots. No issue with Hurdle winning, I just can't imagine Bochy not being top 3.
I'm not trying to brag, but I'm good at what I do.
I'd argue that the technical aspects of which you speak are primarily handled by the hitting and pitching coaches, with the bench, and base-coaches handling fielding, baserunning, etc. Obviously it helps if the manager has the type of ability to help in this aspects, but expertise seems like overkill. I think as a requirement it's significantly behind the other three listed by Russell.
I also wouldn't be so quick to put the PR aspect behind the other two. Dealing with the media is a big deal. Managers with good relationships don't get browbeat or second-guessed as much as those who are inept with the press. There's also the matter of keeping things from the clubhouse relatively quiet. Some managers are better than others at this, and being able to keep small issues from blowing up into larger ones is key. Part of that is relationships with the players, of course, but another part is dealing with the media. Managers who can keep the focus on them, and off their guys are probably greatly appreciated within the clubhouse, and doing so in a tactful way with the press isn't the easiest thing to do.
As with last year we're going to be doing positional overviews, which is a good spot to touch upon relief pitchers and the like, in this light.
Assuming this stands for Sam Miller Hates.
Good thought, and something we can work on. Might be something that's more likely to be useful closer to spring training when we actually know the contestants in such a battle. I'd justify it here that Odor/Profar are both x-factors anyway, but in the mold of a Taylor/Miller situation, you're absolutely right. Thanks!
I don't think his strikeout rate in double-a is going to be the dominant factor in terms of whether he gets to the majors. He'll have to earn promotions to both Triple-A and the Majors, and given the adjustment period he underwent upon his promotion to Double-A last year, I don't think that's particularly a given. He's a prodigious talent (as are others that went unmentioned in this system) but he's by no means a finished product. There could be a September callup in his future, but I'm not counting on it.
Smolinski would go under duds, but I'd be hardpressed to imagine him getting the playing time that would warrant fantasy acknowledgment. Rua is a bit of a different case, as I do believe he could hit, but I don't think the ceiling is worth fantasy investment, and I question whether his defense in left field will cause him to be a bench guy and not someone who starts even semi-regularly. Like I said in the intro, we'll be updating these, and if it looks like either guy is going to get legitimate playing time, they'll be addressed.
Thanks for the suggestions.
Ah thanks. I'll let editing know, as I don't write those.
Not sure where you're referencing, to be honest. I don't think anywhere was mislabeled.
I do not.
Not close. 1700 points or so.
Should be 111
Excuse you but I put my heart and soul into this trolling
It's possible. Or at least I hope it's possible. I also think there's a certain amount of buy-in that comes from having played. There are certainly things you can't know, without having played, or can't know as well. Those differences can be overcome, to be sure, but I also think the managers greatest influence comes in the clubhouse, rather than in on-field strategy.
Perhaps it's fair to say that's less the case in the playoffs than it is the regular season, but it's also possible to get guys who *have* played to not be push-button managers. Clint Hurdle has made a big shift, and a lot has to do with how the ideas were communicated to him and his staff.
Thanks Bobby! Sentimentality has it's place, I understand.
You're mixing pitcher wins and Wins Above Replacement, and that's a dangerous cocktail. They're decidedly different things and can't be treated as comparable. Kershaw was not 20 wins above replacement, despite his record.
" but I still don't get how sites like BP can push framing and still have Stanton get more votes than Lucroy"
This is voting from everyone on the internet -- not merely BP authors. Other people bring their biases to the booth. So it goes.
This isn't my personal theory. This is how show and development guys operate, which is what matters
but a lobster roll is a sandwich
How incompetent are you at holding things that you can't eat a hot dog that loses it's connective breading between the two sides?
I posed this at one point, but I do not believe pizza is a sandwich. I think that preparation is crucial, and that sandwiches are *assembled* while pizzas are baked, with the dough and the ingredients being cooked together. That's not the case with a sandwich.
Can you not separate a hot dog bun in the same manner?
What about hoagies
Your whole argument is definition by cultural convention, not by actual definition. Just because a hot dog has an individual title doesn't make it not a sandwich. No one says "I'll have the Reuben Sandwich" either and yet no one doubts the sandwich-ness of the Reuben.
Your argument about bun vs bread is unconvincing at best. Buns are made of bread, end of story. A bun is a type of bread just as a hot dog is a type of sandwich.
We all agree that all squares are rectangles but not all rectangles are squares? So it is with hot dogs and sandwiches.
Your solution is seemingly to define things as culture defines them, which is to say, provide no definition whatsoever.
Well, if you look at someone like Gray, who is faltering after hitting 200 IP for the first time, you'll understand why the concerns are there. Ventura is under six feet tall and that, combined with his weight, gives scouts pause. The group you used isn't exactly apt, as most of those guys are significantly different builds than Ventura, and so don't carry the same risk-factors. It is all about how well scouts think the body will hold up under heavy workloads, and if it doesn't, it means the pitcher is going to the bullpen, so it's a fairly large risk to undertake.
6'4" is an ideal height for a pitcher, but they generally don't receive concerns about height unless they're under 6'1"
Yep, Sub Sandwiches pose an issue to this theory. The idea that sandwiches are limited to a vertical nature i/r/t is wrong to me.
The club sandwich has no intent to close, yet is clearly a sandwich. This theory is deeply flawed.
Sure. I considered him but figured most weren't really on board with him at this point. His defense is irrelevant in fantasy for the most part and a .304 OBP is pretty bad, so it seemed a little too obvious.
140 -- good catch. Yes, expansion definitely diluted pitching talent and made hitting numbers go up. I'm not as willing to give so much credit to pitch counts and innings limits, but I wouldn't dismiss them either. Good stuff.
I do think there's a good chance MLB does something to adjust for the decline in offense, but in the near-term, yes it makes sense to value *good* hitting over pitching even more than we already were. From a replacement level standpoint, there's a massive amount of pitching, so grabbing the elite hitters is even more vital.
I think the increased usage of shifts as well as defensive players being recognized as valuable, there's more rope for guys who don't hit but add value with the glove. More weak bats playing would bring down the offensive stats...
In all honesty, I wasn't concerned with the whys so much as focusing on adjusting expectations based on the new offensive environment. I don't think PEDs are as big a reason as most, but I can't exclude them as a factor either. The honest answer is I just don't know.
Thanks! I was considering doing a third iteration looking at AVG/OBP and maybe a third category so I'll hold off on that answer for now (but OBP is down from a league perspective, just not by as much). As for average fly ball distance, I'm not sure where I'd find that league wide, much less top 10s for each year. If someone knows where to go, I'd look into it.
alternatively, just pretend he said "as I was Hosmer over the years" and move on with your day.
I don't even have editing powers!
What's great about this is I didn't say "with au jus." I appreciate your dedication to the craft though (in all seriousness).
Decline, and Mark Teixeira. A club sandwich is more about pomp and circumstance than it is about true quality. This isn't to say it's bad, but it's more about the three slices of bread, frilly toothpicks, and chips/fries in the middle than it is the sandwich itself. Teixeira's value is more about his ballpark, the Yankee pinstripes, and looking more and more "dad" than he is a fantasy asset.
"your comment will be taken under advisement." - Craig Goldstein
It is wrong in a few spots, thanks for saying something. I am implying the inverse when what I meant to do was highlight he 85% as an anamoly due to SSS, but compare his current rate to the last time he had a decent sample (2011). That year he was at 70% strand rate, to which 76% would be a clear improvement.
Sorry about that very misleading mistake.
He's a solid defender in a corner. There's no need to DH him.
I honestly think you could make a case for him there depending on your roster composition, but I would put him outside of that range in the abstract
no? That depends a lot on context and what the team needs. They're fairly deep in pitching, so perhaps they would. This is a fantasy prospect ranking, so whether an MLB team would trade one for the other isn't particularly relevant.
Sure, but that's just conjecture and not based on any precedent the Dodgers have showed. They were slow to promote him to Double-A, even, so I'm not sure why they'd have the quick trigger now. Were he at Triple-A, or reportedly on the verge of a callup, I might well have him ahead of Walker. As it stands, one spot is hardly anything.
One has pitched, and is on the verge of pitching in the majors, while the other has 19 games in the upper minors. I felt my ranking of Seager was aggressive but justifiable. I'm not sure how I could have slotted him ahead of Walker, especially with a potential move to 3rd base in his future.
Ha, thanks. He's a personal favorite of mine and I was dying to put him on. Stewart might deserve the nod more, but already at Double-A... Finnegan was either getting 50 or getting written about below.
I briefly considered Harvey but I'd ask you instead to make the case for him as a Low-A arm that is shut down for the season? What's his reasonable timetable to the majors? Add in the injury, and I'm not sure what his case for inclusion is. I like Harvey a lot, and I see the possibility for two 65 grade pitches, and *maybe* an average changeup. if that changeup isn't consistently fringe-average or better though, he's well below his ceiling. There's too much risk and he's too far away for me to make the case for him on the top 50.
Re: Taveras/Bryant -- Taveras' bump up for me is because Allen Craig was traded, opening up playing time for him, and because I still believe in the ceiling. He's producing now and has extreme value in the long term. Bryant is my power fetish showing through. Buxton's promotion to Double-A is nice but Bryant might be a better pure hitter than we imagine and that's only going to enhance his already prodigious power. Buxton still has the same ceiling, but he's got to stay healthy to do it, and he's still a ways away having just reached Double-A.
Re: Syndergaard -- I think that's a pure disagreement between Bret and I (I won't speak for Ben). I declared Syndergaard my top pitching prospect prior to the season, and while he's struggled some with health, he's healthy now and I have no problem with him assuming that top spot. I think he can contribute as soon as the Mets let him and it's my opinion that that contribution will exceed whatever Walker gives the Ms, and Bradley the DBacks. Both of those guys have suffered some injuries this season, and neither is pitching at the major league level, which set me back to my ranking coming into the season, with Syndergaard on top.
The biggest thing here is that it's a fantasy ranking. Tapia's greatest advantage might be that he could stick in CF, but that's mostly irrelevant to us in the fantasy realm. If we're comparing this to a mid-season top 50, it should be Bret Sayre's rankings.
For me, health was a big factor. He should be back around the start of next year, but some rehabs take longer than others, and he'll likely be on some sort of reduced innings workload. When I look at a guy like Alex Meyer, who also has #2 starter upside, I just couldn't bring myself to put Taillon above him. Same goes for Wisler in that respect. There's probably a little less ultimate ceiling, but as far as fantasy goes, PETCO evens them out and ability to contribute for a full season gives him an edge in my book. If Wisler is still down in July of 2015? Then I might prefer Taillon. There's so much we don't know, so this is just playing the odds for me.
I think that's a great point and would certainly skew any numbers given that small sample. Thanks for the added info!
I hope it doesn't seem I said otherwise. Not finding something is as useful as finding something at times, but I do think in this case the sample is small enough that it doesn't necessarily eliminate things. I think he'll trend backwards towards his career averages, but it's possible that what he is doing holds, and at that point we can re-assess and see if something truly has changed.
Sure, it's a possibility.
I think Caratini is going to end up as a four corners guy more than someone who catches regularly, but it's not out of the question. He can hit solidly but there's not much power there, so the bat is going to profile better behind the plate. A bit of a tweener in that sense, and going to an organization as loaded as the Cubs are at every position isn't really a good thing for his value, in terms of future playing time.
O'Brien just isn't very good despite his prodigious power. It's possible he makes it to the majors on that tool alone, but his defense isn't worth living with the contact issues, and the power is dependent on the contact as well. I think the upper minors/majors will chew him up a bit.
He's back at Triple-A, awaiting his next opportunity. The Jacob Turner domino has fallen, and I'd imagine a nice string of starts from Heaney could displace Brad Hand or Tom Koehler, eventually.
Thanks Chris! Much appreciated!
I don't think it's so simple to say that Tampa now has ~$20M to play with now that Price is gone. Smyly is arb eligible and while that might not be massive he could be in line for something around $2M. That gets subtracted from the potential extra money to play with, but the biggest issue is they likely never had $20M to pay Price with in the first place -- which is why they had to trade him. If they only had $14M (this year's salary) to give to him, then you're talking about $12M in available funds. Not nothing certainly but Longoria's salary jumps $3.5M, Zobrist gets a $.5M bump, Balfour gets $3M more, Joyce will get an arb raise, Hellickson might, Loney costs $6M more, etc etc.
While they're going to drop some payroll too (Heath Bell, notably), there are a lot of salary increases and it's likely that they never had the $20M to give Price to begin with.
Also, just in terms of Smyly -- I like him as much as almost anyone but guy has a FIP just over for. I'm not sure he's already a #3 starter just yet.
No, I'm not saying his downside is .290 with 35 sb. I'm saying I think that's his likely role. His downside is worse than that, I just don't think that's particularly likely (nor do I think a season like 2014 is particularly likely. I acknowledged his immense value, multiple times, which is why I think you could get a king's ransom for him at the deadline. So much of that value is tied to one category (two this year), that I might look to diversify the risk over multiple players, potentially multiple impact players that someone might be willing to offer to lock down stolen bases for the remainder of this year.
Again, this isn't a knock on Altuve, so much as it is taking one player and turning him into surplus value that is comprised of more than two categories. It won't make sense for every team in every situation, and it's not implying that Altuve doesn't have plenty of value going forward.
His career BABIP is .329, which I referenced by saying .367 was 38 points higher than. It was .321 in 2012 when he hit .290, so I don't think it's unreasonable for me to rely on that 2012 production, especially when he's shown to be worse than that in his half-season in 2011 and his full season in 2013.
And yes, his K rate is down significantly, but one would wonder how sustainable that is. It's possible that it *is* sustainable and that quality at-bats are leading to harder hit balls which leads to a higher BABIP, but his LD% is the same as last year, and his GB% is down, which you'd think would result in a lower BABIP, so I think there's some regression there.
Again, this is saying he's playing above his head, if only slightly, and that with most of his value banked for the season, it's possible to generate huge value in trade for owners who are desperate for speed. I don't think it's crazy for him to be a .300 hitter, but I'm not counting on it either.
Where I looked his avg FB distance was down about 3 feet, but that's also not substantial. His average home run difference was down 10 feet, which *is* substantial. Hard to reconcile the two, so after only three months I'd chalk it up to a bit of variance.
Yes, it is definitely a different situation in points leagues thanks to the strikeouts. The line I laid out at the end of the article wouldn't be worthwhile if he's striking out the way he is.
In reference to the timing of this article, I want to stress a few things: If you need something from us earlier, tell us! I'm always searching for something to address in a freestyle, so get at me via email or twitter and I'm happy to address it. There's also the Bat Signal, Twitter, or email if you want something specific to your team addressed, so I'd encourage you to use any/all avenues there.
As for Davis/Verlander, I'll only address Davis, since I think Verlander is a separate issue. I don't think I attributed Davis' season purely to bad luck/BABIP. I do think there are some process issues (timing, long swing) but I also think those issues can be ironed out, especially since he's shown the ability to make swing adjustments before. I don't think it's a guarantee, but I do think there's a good chance, and that his potential rest of season production outweighs that of anyone you could move him for right now. 3 months of poor play shouldn't necessarily override the last two years of someone's career, especially if the issue is fixable. Again, that's not a guarantee, but it's the best we can hope for.
I would, yes.
I agree the shift is a factor but unfortunately didn't have the time to go too deeply into that. Perhaps a follow up could look at the shift, though I suspect teams aren't shifting on him dramatically more than they were last year. He's missing more on pitches to the outer half in general would could explain up the middle/opposite field issues and more balls into the shift.
I love Devers as much as anyone this side of his mother and Bret Sayre, but I think top 50 is a big stretch for him next year. He's SO far away. He's only in the GCL right now, and the plan likely includes more GCL time and short-season ball at most next year. If he jumps into full-season ball and holds his own? you bet I'd be interested but until he touches full-season ball I don't think he's even under consideration.
Ryan McMahon is near and dear to my heart but I think he's spending a full season in Low-A and while his upside might warrant placement towards the back end of this list at season's end, I was looking for someone a little closer to contributing.
Story is a great name, though I wouldn't say his ETA is back on track, since he started the year repeating High-A and now won't have a full season at Double-A until the middle of next year. It will be interesting to see what Story does at Double-A, and where they might move him, because as of now he's not playing SS in Colorado. If he moves to 2B, the bat should play fine, but 3B might make him a risky fantasy investment.
Tapia was on the top 50 and I wasn't smart enough to pick him and Soler
Thanks for the update. I wrote my portion on Monday when he was decidedly not at Low A. Appreciate it!
So before anyone comments, yes, Soler is already on the Top 50 list which is why I feel so good about my overall assessment here. He's almost guaranteed to be there come the end of the season. Good job, Craig. Well done.
Presumably any time dedicated to an off-season job is time that could be spent playing winter or fall ball, and if you're not doing that, do you *really* want it? (I don't buy this line of reasoning of course, but it's certainly out there).
Additionally, the financial viability of minor league baseball teams shouldn't have a bearing on this as the MLB team is the one that cuts the checks for the players. Any increase in their pay wouldn't be coming from the minor league owner/operator, as is my understanding.
I can only speak for myself, but an 11.5% walk rate at High-A is a bit of a concern. Add in that he's only in High-A, and a fair bit away from the majors and there's just no rush putting him in the top 50. He is missing a ton of bats, but he's missing the zone too, and I don't expect him to be a strikeout per inning guy at the MLB level, which limits his overall profile. I still love Manaea, but it just wasn't top 50 material this far away from the majors, for me.
Mike is correct. Profar wasn't eligible.
Gausman for rest of the season and career. I think it's a toss up with Cain, but I might go for the upside with Gausman.
5%? I think he's pretty clearly a starting pitcher at this point. If he is in the bullpen, he'll be a very good relief option, but he's a starter for the time being.
Ah, thanks Clark. I'll talk to editing to shore that up!
Where does it say otherwise (honest question, I didn't see cubs or Chicago in the article)?
Tentative date of Monday 7/14
I appreciate the in-person perspective, thanks for chiming in!
I can also appreciate that hard swingers (especially those with speed) are going to miss a decent amount, but hit the ball hard when they connect, a la George Springer. Still, .447 is absolutely completely overblown. I should have looked up his career rate before throwing the .330 on him. It's .375, which I think is fair given his penchant for swinging hard and his good speed. That said, .447 is 75 points or so above that, which is a fairly drastic figure.
While it's fair to criticize minor league umpiring, perhaps Taylor is too passive at the plate, and lacks a two strike approach that would limit his strikeouts. That's going to be a problem at the major league level as well, as pitchers will be better at exploiting the holes in his swing, even in a zone that is called more consistently.
All that said, it's possible that I'm down on him more than I should be. It's not that I think this is a total fluke, but I do think it becomes hard to evaluate the hit tool when so many hits are dropping in. That's when I rely on our scouts, and the linked report gave him a 40 on his hit tool.
Thanks again for the additional perspective.
Thanks so much! I think in terms of pitchers I'd be looking at guys like Alex Wood, Pat Corbin, Derek Holland, maybe Carlos Martinez. I like taking overperforming players and turning them into lottery tickets if I can, so a guy like CMart would be appealing to me in hopes he could stick in the rotation. Position players are a different animal, but I'm not sure if that's what you're asking about. If so just let me know.
If I can remember for next week, you got it. Feel free to remind me on Twitter or something.
This was essentially my thought. I don't think there's a reason the shift would harm him more this year than in previous years.
I mean anyone can be a starting pitcher if they try hard enough.
Thanks for catching, we'll fix.
Thanks very much.
Of those names I would go with conger, though pinto would be an option if he was in the majors as well.
It's way more money than I'd want to spend on Rutledge at any given point, but... Broxton isn't worth much so it's worth a shot.
I think this is a fairly obvious move. Rutledge is not-so-secretly bad and riding a nice streak and it clears room for you.
SLG by month for his career:
Slugging under .400 is a dramatic dropoff, even if he is a slow starter. I think there's less of a skill dropoff than there is just a random fluctuation, but for a player who is valued for his consistency, it's going to affect his long-term value, especially at 34 years old.
Odorizzi used a *lot* of pitches his first time through the order. I believe he's averaging about 40 and given that he doesn't have a straight put away pitch, he has to do a lot of sequencing. My guess is at some point he has shown all his pitches and players can foul a bunch of balls off, and that happens more the second and third time through the order. Just off the top of my head, though I know he's missing plenty of bats, I think this is at least part of the issue.
If I have to pick one I'm picking Goodwin, but I'm not particularly optimistic on either's fantasy future.
Well, we were only picking two per section so that we could return to this feature throughout the year but off the cuff...
he'd be a neutral for me. He's striking out in 31.6% of plate appearances (career high) and while he's walking in a career high 11.6%, a nine percentage point jump in strikeout rate is concerning.
His slash line is beautiful but deceiving. He's never cracked .270 in terms of batting average and his .447 BABIP is doing most of the work there. The power is encouraging (he's already at a career high there), but I don't know that it lasts. He's 23 at Double-A which isn't old for the level, but isn't young either.
I'm still reserving judgement to see what happens when half the balls he puts in play aren't falling for hits, and how he'll react to that adversity. It's a nice skillset, no doubt, but the question was on the functionality of the hit tool and I tend to think there's too much BABIP noise to judge with any accuracy whether that's changed at all.
I don't think putting Santana vs. Gausman means much of anything.
I don't love the way the O's have handled Gausman with the back and forths between Triple-A and I still much prefer him to Butler long term. For the rest of this season I'd say it's probably a toss-up, though if I was choosing one, I'd choose Gausman.
I think I'd keep McCarthy over Butler but the other two are coinflips. If you want the new thing, I'd drop either for him.
To be fair I opened with a catcher
We really appreciate it. Thanks so much.
Ah good, more assuming that I'm an idiot. Always the best place to start a conversation.
First and foremost "getting worse" isn't a risk factor. It's a thing that's happened but risk factors tend to be things that affect process. When you detail his K%-BB%, that is an example of a risk factor that I can respond to. When you just assume I ignore an unnamed risk factor, it makes it difficult to address your question.
Second, I'm aware he's been struggling since the second half of last year. It jives with what I said before which was that he hit a wall. You might find that a convenient explanation or dismissal and I'm understanding to that but it's the information that I've been told, and so I'm going with it. I apologize if that's not enough for you.
I, in fact, never mentioned BABIP. I was looking at hits per nine, not the most advanced stat, to be sure but it was in line with last year.
I'm not denying his struggles since July (well, September if you want to be honest since July/August were above average by your standard). I'm saying he hit a wall and has had a bad start, certainly. I am also saying that development isn't linear. Sometimes guys struggle once the book is out on them and need to fail before they adjust. I believe Miller makes that adjustment because he's shown adaptability before.
In terms of work ethic, I figured you knew about his horrible struggles at Triple-A in 2012 during the first half. The second half he rebounded thanks to some adjustments he made and earned a call up. My apologies for assuming you knew that.
As I said before, you might not believe that he does and that's fine. I didn't intend for my reply snarky but leaving an opinion (that was more of a criticism) with no explanation of what you're talking about isn't especially helpful. You could have said "I think you're undervaluing Miller's struggles dating back to last season.
At least on my end - I think Russell can be a plus hit, plus power bat, whereas Lindor is probably something close to a solid average power type.
It's hard to defend when you don't point out any of the risk factors but just say that they're there. You left me nothing to defend except to say "we did factor in risk factors" which isn't very helpful.
Miller hit a wall and had a sore shoulder so they didn't pitch him in the playoffs. I don't think that's something to get particularly worked up over, nor do I think it's worthy as a primary reason to dismiss a player of Miller's talent.
I'm not sure we can say this start to the season is "significant regression" more than we can say it's a "small sample size." His strikeouts are down and walks are up, but his hits allowed are about the same and he's been through a bout of bad starts before - where he *looked* awful as well - only to come back as the dominating force he was in the first half of last year.
Both Ben and I believe he can apply the same work ethic he did in adjusting previous to his current situation, and come out of it. It's certainly possible that he won't, but even if he doesn't he can be a useful fantasy asset, hence his ranking.
If you think otherwise, so be it - there's certainly a case to be made for that - but you also haven't yet mentioned one risk factor except to say that "they exist." What are their risks of being a bust? What qualifies as bust to you? Perhaps you're more risk averse than we are (though Appel is rather safe in most eyes), which is fine.
My comment wasn't particularly helpful, to be sure, but the point was that yours brought nothing to the table except you assuming we screwed up by ignoring something. If there's an issue that you're particularly concerned about, either Ben or I would be happy to address our thoughts on that issue and how we weighed it in the overall valuation.
This is a helpful comment.
I am as big a supporter of Gose as there is, but he has to actually show he can hit or get on base enough to use his speed. That bar is extremely low, but he's yet to clear it. He was also not in the majors when this list was formulated.
We appreciate the compliments, and take them to heart.
We also appreciate the criticism. We want to provide the best content, but also show that we can for you guys. I went back and listened and counted four f-words, two in the context of what Guerrero must have said to Olivo, which I think was ok. There was also a g-d in there, and if that's over the line, so be it.
We're definitely open to reigning in the language and I think it's something we'll keep in mind going forward in terms of moderating usage. I will say that I don't think this latest episode was overly gratuitous (though I listen on my commute and might have missed some here and there), though you could well have been noting a trend.
Either way, know that we don't make a point to curse, it just happens naturally. That what's natural to us might be too much for our listeners is valuable intel, and we appreciate it.
Thanks again, for the compliments and the criticism. Please keep both (or either) coming.
I'm not exactly sure how to answer that. You basically spelled out the differences between them (ceiling), though no, I don't think his ranking here has anything to do with real life value (Rendon is phenomenal at 3rd as well). If you're asking me who I'd take over the next 3 years, it's probably Rendon by a hair. I do think Machado has more than 15 home run power though and I think it could be substantially more, hence his higher ranking.
Well, Sale strikes out more batters and walks fewer than Bumgarner. Allows fewer hits on a per nine inning basis throughout his career too. Oh, also a lower career ERA. He's done all of the same compared to Cole and has proven he can carry an ace's workload, something we expect of Cole, but that hasn't been proven yet. Yes, the differences in those stats are minor, but you're splitting hairs, so I will too.
As for Harper vs Stanton, I don't think that's a mistake at all. I'll agree with Ben that he might drop in the future, but I still firmly stand behind the ranking now. He's three years younger than Stanton, and while Harper is hurt now and Stanton isn't, Stanton missed 39 and 46 games each of the last two years and has more concerns about his build than does Harper. I'd still argue that Harper's injuries are mostly freakish - especially the thumb injury, though if you want to argue about style of player, I'll listen.
Yes it was but it doesn't really drop him that much. Maybe behind Fernandez? That's a maybe. He's still 21, and he'll likely still play this season. The lost value for those 2-3 months sucks, but if we're looking at his long term value it just doesn't change much.
Part of the reason for Baez over Buxton is that Buxton derives a fair bit of his value as a prospect for his defensive prowess, which is appreciated but not nearly as valuable in a fantasy format. There's also the fact that Buxton is in High-A versus Baez in Triple-A, and Buxton has missed most of the season with a wrist injury, and I don't think it's all that aggressive to have Baez in front right now. As for Baez's rough start, I think he's in the process of correcting that. We believe in the talent and the ability to make adjustments.
As for the more established options, my reasoning would be that the ceiling outweighs theirs. There's an argument to be made that he won't reach that ceiling, and I'm open to that. If you wanted to take Freeman over Baez, I get it. But we're talking a potential 35+ HR bat at shortstop, with a batting average that won't hurt you. That's a rare thing, and as good as Freeman is, 1B is a little deeper when it comes to impact bats.
Again, that's our (or at least my) reasoning. I don't think it's crazy to prefer a Freeman/Myers/etc, though.
Well, the walk rate is kind of a big deal in that situation. If we don't think he's going to throw strikes (and a full walk per nine or more is a significant difference there) then I think we're justified in our ranking.
Add in that the last thing to come back to pitchers from TJ is control/command, and we're looking at the debuts of those "unproven" guys probably before Moore comes back and well before he's back to 100%.
Also, picking out a guy like Verlander to comp him to is a bit of a stretch in my book. How many guys in that time came up with bad walk numbers, struggled and never established themselves as elite? I'm betting more than turned themselves into Verlander or something close. Verlander also did not have Tommy John surgery mid-development.
I understand being patient with young pitchers, honestly, but you can't actually have watched Matt Moore these last few years and tell me that he's been good.
Stephenson et al might benefit from the fact that they haven't hit the developmental obstacles that Moore has - even those they've yet to clear those obstacles. But we've seen Moore struggle in a way we haven't seen them struggle. I don't think factoring that in is overlooking it so much as giving a snapshot of how we feel these guys stack up against one another. If you feel differently, that's fine, and 8 spots in a ranking of this nature probably isn't enough to make a big stink over, in my opinion.
I don't think we have, personally. Moore has the elbow surgery at present, but was previously healthy. Salazar has had health issues previously, and workload is a concern given his build. I don't think his raw stuff is any better than Moore's either. I'll second Ben's statement that the number of spots between them isn't necessarily representative of their talent gap.
Yes, the ranking was made pre-TJ, which would likely address most of your concerns. I never held the view that Corbin was going to repeat his #2 starter performance and if they're both healthy, would likely see them around the same ranking, with a slight edge to Corbin for his strikeout edge.
As for Cecchini, I think Ben and I both think he's got double-digit power coming at some point, even if it's never more than 15 home runs. It's a weird profile, but that doesn't mean it's a bad one and it's one that should arrive relatively quickly.
I'll second Ben here. As much as I have hope for Moore, and the strikeouts are nice, he doesn't work deep into games and he puts too many men on base. Add in that a 3.5 ERA just isn't what it used to be, and waiting a year plus on TJ and it's just not a special package right now.
Ok... I'm not really sure the point here. That would likely depend on sequencing, but it's also clearly not the case here as Eovaldi is missing more bats with his FB and less with his SL.
I prefer Eovaldi, if only slightly.
The first three seem reasonable, though I'm not as high on Kluber as others around here. Lynn has the same right-handed dominance thing going which concerns me. I might even aim higher just to see if I can get more.
Agreed. That type of production would qualify as a nice step forward for Eovaldi.
I wasn't really trying to comp the two of them, so much as show that average pitchers go on great runs. I think if Eovaldi was 2013 Nolasco, there is a portion of fans who would be disappointed. 2013 Nolasco's strikeout rate was also four percentage points lower than the current incarnation of Eovaldi, which is just about what I mean when I say some regression is likely even with steps taken forward.
If Folty winds up in the pen he's likely a very valuable closer, which is part of his valuation as well. I actually like him more as a closer than I do as a starter.
As for Peralta, his GB% is far more "real" to me than Eovaldi's which is 11% higher than his previous career high. Understanding that some stats stabilize quickly, unless there is something that has changed in his repertoire or otherwise, I'm not assuming that Eovaldi is just magically striking out two more batters per nine innings.
Peralta's breakout I can justify because he started using the slider more often last year, and increased his strikeout rate in the second half of last season, and has thus far kept it up.
There's also the chance that difference between those two rankings is overstated based on the numbers. 111 and 141 just aren't that far apart.
Ben got most of it. I actually argued for Anderson lower than this, and while I like Tapia I'm not sure he moves quickly, which might matter to me more than it does Bret. I don't know that I'm lower on Gallo than others so much as I am more concerned about the level of risk involved. That said, after viewing him recently, the strides he's made are very real. I'm still not sold that there's not an abnormal amount of risk involved, but it's lower than I thought heading into the season.
Also, the difference between Anderson and Tapia at this stage - just numbers wise - is very small. You're talking about a difference of 11 spots, and that far down, 11 spots is just a marginal preference.
Yes placing a prospect who profiles extremely similarly to a player right behind him (when said prospect is at Triple-A) is certainly problematic.
The question remains as to whether Eovaldi's command, nee, success (at this level) is sustainable. If Eovaldi develops his changeup is an open question and one that we have no real inroads to. So too, if he develops a changeup would Folty's ceiling improve.
You say "a tad more" when it comes to the changeup, a pitch he's using 3% of the time. He's going to need it to be better, and to actually use it to be a 2/3 for any extended period. I'm hopeful that he continues his run of success, but this ranking wasn't based on 8 starts in 2014. It includes his prior history.
It depends on the motivations, I suppose. If the motivation that prompted the decision was addressing the bullpen on a middling team, that's poor decision making. If the motivation was preserving Mejia's arm, then that's a different story and one not presented thus far.
We will likely handle this type of thing closer to mid-season, as that allows for a little more time before making judgments. Most movement at this point is likely based on opportunity (i.e. Wilmer Flores receiving playing time).
Yes, that's a large percentage of it. Ceiling is important but so is probability and long term value. We have a better sense of what Schoop's is now that he's in the majors and playing a position of relative scarcity, in second base.
Harvey has two phenomenal pitches and is developing a third. How far that changeup comes will play a large role in him reaching his real life and fantasy ceiling, but he already suffers in terms of value in fantasy in that he's a pitcher, which in general are more replaceable.
So yes, timevalue matters right now. Harvey could have any number of things happen in his development but we're likely looking at 3 years away at least. While his ceiling rightfully makes him part of the discussion, 3 years of non-production is a lot, and Schoop should provide above-average power at a position without much.
I would add to this: replacement level. This comes into play with pitchers a lot, because there are (or were) so many of them. If we're talking about a Rafael Montero - a guy I like to be somewhat valuable in fantasy formats - the issue with assessing his value comes down to "how many other guys also have this value?" I think this plays into the Eovaldi/Porcello mix too. It's not that their production isn't worthwhile, but it's also generally out there and attainable.
Porcello is striking out 5.8 batters per nine innings and is back to throwing his slider which has hurt him routinely over the years. If he had stuck with his changeup as he started to do last year, I might be willing to buy, but that doesn't seem to be the case.
As for Eovaldi - I've been high on him ever since he was an 11th round pick for the Dodgers, but he is currently fastball/slider and the slider is above-average but not quite plus. His strikeouts per nine are up about two over last season, and I don't think that's sustainable without the presence of a third pitch or the sharpening of command on his slider. If he does do either of those things though, the improvement should be for real. Added consideration: he was an 11th round pick because he underwent Tommy John in high school. TJ generally has a 5-year honeymoon period, but after that the risk returns. That being the case, if Eovaldi has to undergo another surgery, it would be his second and thus more risky. It's not high level concern, but it's not getting ignored either.
Yes, he's convinced me, a man who needed little convincing. I don't think his success in a small sample size is the argument so much as I've always believed in his true talent. He's not going to hit this well against same-side pitching all year, but I don't think he needs to to be a productive catcher.
Additionally, I don't think grouping him with Mesoraco or Ozuna is overly high praise.
I would opt for Villar over Odor even just for the next few weeks. Would guess he's got more power and speed.
Sardinas was up earlier in the year, and I'll admit their inclusion of him is a bit confusing, but I think Sardinas will serve as more of a utility guy/backup with Odor getting the bulk of the at-bats.
I'm not sure either of us are trying to see something you're not. He's a low average potentially high source for power. There are streaks where he'll be awful and streaks where he'll be amazing (similar to Alvarez). He doesn't quite have Alvarez's power but I don't think Ben meant it as a pure comp, as opposed to that type of profile.
My comment regarding Cecchini possibly being traded was just that, a possibility. I still contend that it is one, though I would absolutely acknowledge WMB going somewhere as a possibility as well. I don't think either of us were trying to predict the future Red Sox 3B, so much as provide possibilities. That's why they both get analyzed as 3B.
Scouting stats to make comps to HoFers just seems dangerous to me. Obviously you're more comfortable with it, which is fine but I'm not willing to take the same risk.
Betts/WMB/Pitcher is not going to be enough for Stanton. Any potential package for Stanton to Boston would have to include Bogaerts. They're not going to take some quantity approach. They're going to want impact talent, potential superstar talent.
I don't think it's as big as it seems. Swihart tops my Red Sox prospects but they're all bunched fairly close together. Would guess Ben just has em in a different order and would think they're fairly close as well.
He's never thrown 150 IP in a season, his previous K% was 19% (solid but not special) and he's already blown out once. Maybe he should be in the back 5 but he looks more like a #4 starter than anything, and comes with durability concerns on top of it. Just doesn't do it for me.
Comparing prospects to Hall of Famers is a good way to be wrong, often.
I do not. Two years away from the position plus a knee injury make it seem unlikely to me. It was not part of my valuation.
Here's my side: Schoop is in the majors right now, and I think he'll be a 20 HR threat from 2B. The averages won't be great but shouldn't hurt you either. Mookie is on a f***ing tear right now (expletives are necessary), but he's still only had a month in Double-A under his belt. I like Mookie a ton and if they were both MLB ready, I might prefer Mookie's skill set, but that's not the case right now.
I'll agree with the slight caveat that if Seager somehow stays at short, that changes things. If they're both 3B, Cecchini gets a slight edge for me.
Thanks for the kind words. Speaking for myself, obviously, I like Williams hittability and think it will help his power play up. Add in plus speed, and while he's not a defensive asset, he should be a fantasy force. High average, solid (maybe above?) average power, plus speed... that all adds up for me.
I'm the low-man on Gallo out of TINO and I still like him. But there's tremendous risk in the skillset for me, due to the swing and miss. He's made huge strides in cutting down the strikeouts in High-A and he's still just under 28% right now. That concerns me going forward even if the power is a raw 80. Gallo is athletic, but speed isn't a part of his game so we're talking a 2 category contributor for the most part, though potential impact in both categories, versus someone who should be a 5 category contributor in Williams. Pick your poison on that, but I prefer diverse skillsets if I can get them.
Well we could talk about it but it's not open for discussion.
Jones inclusion in this deal wouldn't change his prospect status.
I feel like you're conveniently ignoring that Ike has been bad for a bit now, when he's on the field. Ike isn't worth Kingham and he's not worth Rodriguez. He sure as hell isn't making the orioles a 7 run per game team.
To be honest, I've avoided H2H, as I don't think the risk tends to equal the reward. I really like the latter two, and in general employ a stars and scrubs approach in those. In the bigger tournaments, I think you basically have to do this and really nail the scrubs, because anyone can go off on any given day - but the stars have a better chance of doing so.
In general though, it really depends on the matchups of the day. If the pitchers are worth taking and only leave enough money for a stars/scrubs approach, that's what I do, and that's usually the case. Sometimes the pitching sucks though, and I'll take three lower end pitchers and go with a stars heavy batting group. It just depends.
Jones wasn't a consideration for me given his positive performance in 2013.
Gallo certainly struggled in some respects last year and is showing positive steps this year, but I couldn't exactly call his 2013 season a bad year.
Brinson would certainly qualify thus far, but there are only so many players I can include in an article, and lord knows I talk about Brinson too much as it is. Glad you brought them up though so others can take note.
I actually think something like a useful BJ Upton is a decent comp for this year. Weak avg, but power and speed.
And of course he left yesterday's game with an ankle injury, so all monitoring will be put on hold :(
Coinflip for me as I very nearly left Vogelbach off. It's just an impact profile as a hitter though. Plus hit, plus power. Piscotty doesn't have the same type of ceiling i/r/t power, which gave Vogelbach the edge for me.
It's going to be difficult for him to be more than a 4th starter (especially in fantasy) with such a limited strikeout rate. Haren hasn't been below seven per nine since 2005 and was above eight consistently at his peak (he reach nine, actually).
Of course they're open for question. Cooney has been great thus far, but realistically, where and when is he going to see time in the big leagues? His upside is that of a 4th starter at best, with a realistic probability of a 5th start if we look at the BP Top 10. Combine the limited ceiling with opportunity - not to mention strikeout stuff - and I just didn't see the upside there to list him. I can't speak for Ben, but that's why he doesn't show up for me.
I hear you and it obviously depends on the categories in a specific league. I think the dearth of talent at SS helps in this case, and as I said, I believe in Segura bouncing back to a certain extent.
I understand what you're saying i/r/t your dynasty leagues, but that's precisely why this is my list. I'm not writing this to be accurate to public opinion, it's my personal evaluation. Depending on the situation - because, as I said, they're quite close in value - I indeed would trade Taveras for Segura straight up.
Perhaps people should be more skeptical of Taveras? Perhaps not. That's up to them, I can only tell you how I view the situation. .350 might be unsustainable as a BABIP but Segura's were uniformly high throughout his minor league career. BABIP can't just be look at in a vacuum. He's fast, which helps, and has shown the ability to support elevated ones prior to his breakout (again, not AS high, but still).
I've said several times, it's a close call for me but I'll take the major leaguer at this point. I still believe in Taveras but I have some minor concerns that put Segura on top for me at the moment.
Sure, but most fantasy leagues don't play by wRC+, so that's less of a concern in this instance. I hear what you're saying, but I guess I think he'll be better than he was in the second half, but Taveras' ankle still isn't back to what it was and that caused some concern for me too. Add in the loaded STL outfield and I'm not sure we'll be seeing him immediately. Add in potential growing pains and I think the year+ that Segura could have on Taveras adds value. It's definitely a close call and one I flipped back and forth on.
That probably came off more aggressive than I intended, but the point is - prospects aren't sure things. I don't think Segura is as good as his first two months nor as as bad as his following ones. If he finds the middle, that's an extremely valuable player at SS.
He hit .277 in June and .281 in July. Not for power, but that's not why you're acquiring him. He also stole 29 bases from June through the end of the season and that *is* why you're acquiring him. Remind me what Taveras has hit in the majors again?
Yes, he is definitely an option - as if he continued to perform like he did last season he could have been in some trouble. His nice start has certainly waylaid those concerns.
This is the type of number I would ignore, at this point in the season, actually. It's certainly *looks* like he's improving his plate discipline, but 7 games doesn't tell us all that much, and more to the point, his extra walks don't really change anything. He is locked in at the top of that lineup and was a fantasy producer anyway.
Clearly, we think he will see a major league park again. He's only 24 years old, and I still think he can hit. It might never be in Seattle, but I think he can still become a productive major league. I don't know that he *will*, hence the placement towards the bottom of the list but I don't think he's talentless either.
Since Ben can't read, I'll attempt to answer the question. Either Ron Guzman or Lewis Brinson could easily be one it, and I'll throw in Lance McCullers, Jr. or Vincent Velasquez. Taylor Lindsey could also squeeze on the back end thanks to proximity to the big leagues.
I'd drop Altuve significantly. I'm not sure how much lower he goes on this list because it's mostly prospects behind him, but he and Springer would drop (Springer due to steals and Ks). In a list with more talent at the MLB level though, he'd probably be close to the bottom.
Good catch. Not a lack of faith, but the lists we were using as a template omitted him because he was not on the angels when their list came out and traded by the time the DBacks list was published. I'd probably slot Skaggs right around James Paxton.
I actually like Peralta and while Corbin is a step above, I'm not sure the missed year is worth it.
We'll get it fixed, but I'll note I added ZERO team names to my entries, so I blame Ben #blameben
But the point was that Ian Kennedy wasn't realistically going to lead the league in WHIP, and I'm not going to lie through my teeth to try and make that point. As Paul suggested, you're looking for a different assignment - which is fine - but that wasn't what we were trying to do here.
I played by the rules given to me
It's a damned if you do, damned if you don't situation. There are probably not 8-9 credible true darkhorses for each of the fantasy staff to pick one. We laid out the parameters of the whole thing saying it's someone from outside the top ten and someone from outside the top 25 as determined by PECOTA. I feel like if the 26th ranked pitcher finished first in a category, that'd be a pretty big surprise, but it might speak to the overall depth in quality of pitching.
Sure, we could take Ian Kennedy to lead the league in strikeouts, if you wanted... but that's not going to be very credible either. I certainly get where you're coming from but we also don't want to be making arguments just to be different. I think we all tried to pick people who had legitimate shots at leading the league in the specific category.
Limited to store credit at this point.
Harvey experienced an uptick in velocity that no one really saw coming. He went from touching 96 in the minors to sitting 96 in the majors and touching 100. He went from 81-84 on his slider to averaging 90.5. The simple fact of the matter is that there isn't another Harvey every year. I would agree Wood is getting underrated by some due to fear of injury - which is a long term concern more than a this year concern. That said, I just don't see *that* type of season in the cards for Wood. But it's fun to dream!
It's not out of the question that he could win fifteen but I wouldn't think that's a median projection. I think you're undervaluing how crappy Chris Johnson is on defense, and just how random variation can be. The Braves have a strong lineup either way, but seeing Gattis over a full season will be interesting. I also think you might be undervaluing the three lineups that you mentioned, especially the Phillies when they're healthy which will be infrequent but still.
Shields was #11 for PECOTA, .01 behind #10. I considered him but thought taking a guy that close was a little too easy - plus I picked Shields for one of the other categories. Either way - PECOTA is very high on Shields for wins.
He might be a platoon guy, but I think he eventually gets the chance to succeed against righties. Mitch Moreleand's non-but-maybe-kind-of-oblique injury might help him get that chance.
As far as I know he's scheduled to miss one start. 200 IP should still be attainable, especially if they reshuffle him around the all-star break. He's gone 209 and 210 the last two seasons, so there's still 200 IP potential.
I guess we'll agree to disagree on this. I wouldn't say his levers are long at all. He does have good hands but it's an aggressive swing and I've not been impressed with his bat control.
How can I trust your ability to comment if you don't bother to read the other comments? This was made on November 5th and you seem to have ignored it.
"It *is* a bit early for this type of thing, but we're going to be participating on transaction reports going forward, so you should have our thoughts on any additions the teams make even if we post this report prior to said additions."
All joking aside though, there's no way we can backfill all this stuff throughout the off season and I'd content that the original content still has merit. Add to that, that we'd be recycling content from the transaction reports and it doesn't seem to be worth the time. If you have questions on anyone in particular (Jesus Guzman perhaps?) Then just asked and we'd be happy to answer.
We tried to make it clear at the outset of the series that updating these wasn't going yo be a feasible thing for our small workforce. That clearly didn't come through and we'll endeavor to make it more clear when that is the case going forward.
They get broken into High A and Low A, generally.
It's also worth pointing out that 50.2 IP just isn't a large sample and his BABIP likely wasn't normalized while in Baltimore. A few weird hits here or there would wreak havoc on the overall numbers
It *is* a bit shocking, though it's worth noting that all three pitchers had seen lower BABIPs in their previous seasons with the Tigers, so luck is a part.
It's a good idea and I'll see if we can carve out the time to look at it. I'm not sure off the top of my head what the approach would be to tackling this in terms of metrics but it's worth discussing. Thanks!
I agree. I'm not a fan of any option here, but I thought the topic was worth looking at and they were the top 5. Fwiw, Wainwright was #7
I would be surprised if Papelbon doesn't last the season but I do like Ken Giles as a long term replacement
I would like this and find it helpful.
From the primer:
"With this infographic specifically, you’ll notice that there are some odd pairings within the tiers. There is no specific rank within the tiers themselves, and this was made to mirror Mike Gianella’s list of catchers"
Replace "catchers" with "relievers" and "Mike Gianella" with "Paul Sporer", and you should have your answer. The stars relate to the order set by Paul while the tiers relate to the bins Mau detailed below.
I think Burns is something less than the poor man's Billy Hamilton though I can't speak to his distance from the back of the list. To say that Amador can rake is questionable. Not because he can't but because we have absolutely no idea. He can hit in the Mexican League. He might be a quad-A type hitter, he might be a Triple-A type hitter, he might be a second division first baseman. I'd bet on Quad-A if I had to, but we really have no idea.
He will be addressed by me in my contribution to the Future's Guide as a likely candidate to jump onto this list next season. I listed 24 such candidates.
Generally a dynasty league will keep a vast majority, if not all, of the active roster.
My guess is that this might have happened but for Heath Bell and his closing experience in Tampa (at least for 2014), along with Balfour's fairly hefty (for Tampa) 2 year pact.
As the resident Dodgers fan, Kenley's hold on the job is fine, but my guess is Wilson will pick up some saves as the backup closer and Bret might be betting on him to snag a closers gig going forward. He did recently say he wanted to pitch til he was 50.
The issue with this is what Bret described above. We're not analyzing skills, but manager preference first and foremost, and that can change in a heartbeat. Remember that Tazawa was going to be the closer in Boston? Except that it ended up being Uehara and he ran with it. Managers ride hot hands in the bullpen more than anything, and beyond that the small sample of innings provides the most variability in projecting out.
Sure we can speculate on a guy like Cody Allen because his skills are tantalizing, but the point is that if it takes him 3 years to take hold of the job a la Kenley Jansen, the odds are you've wasted the roster spot holding onto him when you could have just cycled through any number of relievers.
The difference that non-saves relievers make in fantasy leagues just isn't worth the time it takes to decipher them because by the time you've finished, the situations have changed, at least in my opinion.
I understand that relievers who accrue holds also add value, but a) there are a massive player pool who can contribute meaningfully to holds while the saves player pool is about 40, b) the year to year correlation on holds is very low and c) the correlation is low because it's very dependent on manager tendency, which is subject to change at a moment's notice because it's very in tune with things we're not privy to necessarily such as his confidence in a player, the player's confidence, etc.
Please don't hesitate in the future. It wasn't forward at all - it is important for us to know what our readership is looking for, and that's what the comments section helps us find out.
Thanks for the kind words, we really do appreciate them and we'll do our best to keep earning them.
It's something that I'll certain talk to Bret about since you guys seem to want it, but I continue to reiterate that the save speculating that occurs is most often fruitless. The investment and roster space occupied by these "could be" players can often be a waste of space.
In regards to holds leagues, holds have extremely little year to year correlation. I agree with Jimcal in that you find a team who is strict with their roles and see if you can grab a setup man (i.e. LAD and Wilson, or even whoever ends up their 7th inning guy). But beyond that it can be funky. I like looking at LOOGYs for holds because they can pitch more often and still attain the stat. There are a million ways to target holds and it's generally worth it to just target good relievers because of what they'll bring in ERA/WHIP/K rather than chase the H st