Unfortunately, it probably is. If everyone who was better than Morris or Rice gets in, the Hall membership will explode.

Not sure what you mean. I was just responding to the other post. Was Thomas a better DH than Edgar? No, I don't think so. Might have been a better player, but his best years were at first. Would he theoretically have been a better DH? Maybe (but see TADon'tAsk). Not sure how that's relevant to the issue, though.

Ortiz doesn't factor in. Martinez's best season is better than his. Martinez's second best season is better than Ortiz's second best (or best). And on down the line. Martinez was clearly better than Ortiz. I'd say that Thomas was better, but not during the time that he was primarily a DH.

Wonko, aka John Watson.

It's weird that Trout vs. Cabrera is about "advanced metrics." When I started following baseball, it was the statheads who tended to overlook defense and baserunning and judge guys just based on their bats and the old-school types who arguably tended to overrate those things. Now I guess "sabermetrics" are so old that we have old-school statheads who reject newer analysis that highlights the importance of things besides power and getting on base (not that Trout is any slouch in those areas). I really don't see a case for Cabrera over Trout under any view of the game, except the view of naked partisanship or disproportionate valuing of RBIs or something. I think Cabrera over Trout would be just as bad as if voters had given the 1990 AL MVP to Cecil Fielder over Ricky Henderson or as bad as the actual 1996 voting.

Big fan of Goldstein here, but a bigger Beatles fan. I think that's a welcome change. Also, I know people who are cool with changes aren't likely to say anything about them so I'll mention that dropping the stars is fine with me.

Yeah, I'm a little confused, too. Isn't a movement away from a hitter in the opposite-side box the same as movement toward a guy in the same-side box? At least from the perspective of the pitcher?

It sounds like it is based on numbers (note the emphasis on the triple crown, and also games played), just poor ones to base a case on. I think if the analysis were truly separate from the numbers, there would be less of a conflict.

It shouldn't necessarily be lined up with any particular stat, but shouldn't it be lined up with actual evidence? I see the evidence that Cabrera might be a better hitter, but I don't how he's even close to being as valuable when you consider baserunning and defense. Some of the points made by the people quoted seem ludicrous. Trout loses points because of how the team did? His team was better and won more games against a tougher schedule. What difference does the timing of their value distribution make in the question of who was more valuable overall? Cabrera gets bonus points for being a lousy third baseman because the Tigers' roster management was f-ed up?

I like the Moore and Reed inclusions.

Cool. That's my first thought, too. I like a lot of the content here, but to me it's a bonus. The prospect stuff is the heart of it (because my team has sucked for a while--that could change in the future). I like Jason's work, and it's a great complement to what Goldstein does, but it doesn't seem that he'll be as prolific without a loss in quality. Anyway, good luck on your new endeavor Kevin, if you're reading this. And thanks for the great content over the years.

How excited should I be about Russell? I haven't seen him on any lists so while I've seen positive reviews, I don't have a good sense of where he really stands. Or is the fact that he doesn't make prospect lists mean I should tone it down?

I'm assuming that Mondesi is the son of the other Raul Mondesi. Comparable tools?

Would he be a better prospect as a pitcher?

Maybe under 50% to appear in the majors, too?

I appreciate it, for sure. I'm a big fan of the site and of your work in particular. Might be my own pessimism (A's fan here) in there. It would be fair to say that he has a well under 50% chance to be a regular, right?

McGwire was also a strong-armed third baseman/pitcher when drafted, right? But he was taken 10th in what I think I've read was a strong draft and probably much more highly regarded at the time.

Well, you have him 27th in a weak draft. What is the average expected value out of that? Then, you said that he profiles as a first baseman for a lot of people, and (reading between the lines) he's probably going to be a low-average guy. Seems like the odds are strongly against him being even an average major leaguer with all that and that he has almost no star potential (McGwire is the only star major leaguer I can think of that fits that profile--and I'd assume that that wouldn't be a fair comparison).

Is that possible? I don't really know anything about him besides what you've said, but it doesn't seem like it.

Also, Barry Larkin's identical twin wasn't officially on the Reds' roster, but he'd sub when Larkin was injured.

A hit AND a walk for Bundy and only four Ks in four innings? Should Orioles fans start panicking or was this just a blip?

OK, not specifically about the odds (especially not about them not adding up or anything), but as a general statement, does the 60-1 mean that we should give up on Hicks?

I think you're really overestimating the worst-case scenario. I'd say at worst they never appear in the majors or are significantly below-average MLB starters.

I'm not sure. Think about how many elite (as in, arguably the best in the game) prospects have flopped or at least disappointed, even ones considered very safe who had already done well in the high minors. Patterson, Young, Anderson, Upton, Marte, Gordon, Weiters. Some of those guys have become good players or still might, but you wouldn't be happy paying top dollar for their first few years. What makes those guys exciting is that you have them for a long time and for cheap. But if you didn't or you had to pay a lot to have them long term, I'm not sure they'd be better bets than established stars.

I haven't played in a while, but I wouldn't overthink it. I think he's just saying that Harvey can be one of the top contributors in a lot of categories (Ks, WHIP, IP, and W for starters in most leagues), which seems incongruent with the idea that his ceiling is a No. 3 or maybe a No. 2. As I said, I would certainly trust Goldstein's view of how good Harvey would be over my own, but I don't really get how it works. I thought a No. 3 starter was a league-average type. I get the idea that most teams don't have a "true" No. 1, but do most teams have a "true" No. 2 or No. 3? Are we seeing grade deflation, or am I just wrong (again, that's a real possibility)?

Probably because he's further along. What I don't really get is how Harvey's ceiling is a No. 3 or maybe No. 2, but he'd be expected to be an early fantasy draft pick. I wonder if Goldstein has adjusted the standards for rotation slots so that you now have to be a star-level pitcher to be a No. 2/No. 3 type (Jarrod Parker also got that perfect-world projection). Not a criticism, but I'm just thinking I don't understand the terminology after I previously thought I did.

Also wondering about Nunez. Goldstein was really high on him last year. Is he just too far away to crack a stronger list or did his stock fall a lot? Anyone know?

That was a little dickish. I'm just happy we got two in two days. I love this series, and I was getting annoyed about its unannounced hiatus.

So is the team prospect list series dead?

In a way, your comments probably get more attention than well-thought-out, interesting ones do because people think "I wonder what could have been said that was so bad." So, you know, you can take heart in that.

It's not mean toward Gonzalez. He is what he is. A very good hitter with no defensive value, who wasn't quite good enough for long enough to be a HOFer. But the guy who put that brochure together is basically a well-meaning fan.

To be clear, I'm not saying anything about politics. I'm talking about Daily Show pieces where they get some regular person with a nutty obsession or something and have an elite team of comedy writers make them look stupid for our amusement. Those segments often are amusing, but it's a little uncomfortable watching them, too.

WTH? I liked the piece and complimented it, while also noting that it was a cheap shot at an easy target. Sounds like you're the one straining to find something to be offended about.

Good read, but a little mean. Easy and undeserving target. Sort of reminds me of some Daily Show skits in that sense. Maybe next year's version can mention that he was as feared in his day as Jim Rice (and had a higher career TAv to boot!).

Two of the other three teams in the AL West won more than 90 games, and the other was 72-90 while playing an unbalanced schedule against three of the four best teams in the league in 2002. The average winning percentage in the division was .565, and obviously that breaks down to .500 in intra-division play and better than .565 against the other divisions. Also, when you consider park factors, the offense was about as good as the pitching.

Was Halladay regarded as a potential ace? I remember him as a highly regarded prospect, but not THAT high, but I could be wrong.

I wouldn't be surprised if he has more future MLB value than Betances starting from now. Might even be better than 50/50 on that. Obviously, he doesn't have the same upside..

That's going a little far, but I agree with the sentiment to some degree. As a fan of a crappy team, I find myself becoming increasingly interested in this stuff. To the point where I read about non-major leaguers more than I read about major leaguers.

Flagged this by accident.

Is this still happening?

Where is it, anyway?

It's very frustrating to see a terrible offense year after year, but they gotta go after the player they think will be the most valuable (among those that they have a realistic chance of signing).

I've seen him, I think. Wears a red wristband, plays a barely passable catcher, and hits screaming line drives all over the place.

Maybe he regressed. Or maybe scouts were talking about projection more than current reality. Might be having a bad spring. Lots of possibilities. Team bias is not one of them.

Yeah, I don't see why this is presented as a problem. I mean, it's nice to see good defense, but in the end, I think we all want to best product possible. We also don't see any more low-OBP, slap-hitting speedsters playing LF and leading off, and I don't hear anyone asking who to blame for that (BP, partly, I'd guess).

Ha. Good call. I remember that too.

I agree that there's no sense in getting worked up about any of this. You do a ton of work and provide us with great information. Very useful piece, but obviously, you're not an oracle, and, as someone else mentioned, a guy's ranking does affect his performance. But it seems to me that a guy who is an above-average hitter for an MLB regular at his position who is also an outstanding defender is extremely valuable. I wonder if a bad defensive 1B projected to have the same WARP wouldn't be rated much higher. But maybe there's a good reason for that (bad defensive first baseman with great bats might flame out less often than two-way catchers, for example--I don't know, but I'd believe it if you said that was the case).

I'd like to see something on Marc Newfield. I remember James saying in 1994 that he would be an MVP candidate by the year 2000, "the lord willing and the creek don't rise." I guess He wasn't and it did.

Health could be a concern, though it probably shouldn't be. I've asked about this before, but it seems to me that a first baseman or DH projected to have the same value with the same risk as a two-way catcher will be ranked much higher. Ultimately, it doesn't matter, though. If Sanchez turns out to be a very valuable player, people will look back on the lists and re-evaluate how they make future ones. This is all a lot of educated guesswork and the process is always being refined.

Sure, but isn't "should" a little bolder than the usual language on that kind of thing?

I'm wondering the same thing I did last year: If Sanchez's best tool is his glove and "he should supply 10-15 home runs annually with good on-base skills," why isn't he more highly regarded? That would make him one of the best catchers in the game. A starting pitcher or a first baseman projected to have the same value and the same risk would be a top-20 prospect. Despite the tone, I'd appreciate it if Kevin or any readers took this more as a question than as criticism. It's less "I'm right and you guys are wrong" than "what am I missing?"

Isn't it funny to think that Barry Bonds four times topped Belt's OBP and SLG in full seasons in the Major F-ing Leagues. I know it's not news to anyone that he was a good hitter, but little things like this occasionally remind me of just how good he was.

Don't watch Cops, huh?

Nice resolution to the walks/context issue in the Ka'aihue section.

It makes more sense to do PAs, but I like ABs because I have more of an automatic sense of the context for ABs than for PAs.

Classic.

I wonder if bat-only types are systemically overrated and guys with more defensive/positional value are underrated. It seems to be that Kevin gets flak for not rating bat-only types high enough, but even he might be rating them too high. As for the Pirates, I don't know what their motivation was, but I remember an interview with a front-office guy from the Cardinals. It was shortly after the draft and he was asked about taking a low-upside guy like Kozma with their first pick. His response was basically that they read BA and were aware of the scouting consensus, but that they didn't agree with it and thought Kozma had high upside. It sounds kind of obvious, but it was an eye-opener for me (even though it looks like the consensus was right in that case). Scouting is such an inexact science and these guys are very good at it so I don't think we should necessarily write their opinions off.

A GG-caliber catcher who hits .260-.270 hitter with 12-18 home runs sounds like an impact player to me, assuming he draws at least a fair number of walks. Am I crazy or can that be more valuable than a RF with a .350 OBP and a .550 SLG?

Dumb question and not really related to the article, but if anyone will indulge me, I'll be very grateful. PECOTA has Carter with a better OBP and SLG than Kouz, but a lower EQA. How does that work? I understand that EQA takes many more things into account so I don't doubt there's a good reason, but I'm curious about what it is.

The difference is that the 90s saw a huge spike in offense. Now, you and I might know that steroids had nothing to do with it, but the change in offensive levels necessitated a name for the era, and the steroids hysteria provided one.

Now that my team sucks, I've been reading and looking forward to Goldstein more, but to me Joe *is* BP. Him and Christina. It would be a huge loss if he were to leave, not just of good content but of the character and identity of the site. I would probably still renew, but I'd grumble about it.

Is it just me or do the three-star guys have unusually high upsides? Stassi, Weeks, Cardenas, and Brown would all be stars if they reached their "Perfect World Projections."

Is Chris Carter not listed for the A's because you're still skeptical about him, because you already regarded him highly or a mixture of both?

So how good is Carter? Are scouts still concerned about holes in his swing preventing him from doing anything interesting? Has he fixed the problems or just overcome them? I don't expect an answer here. Just suggesting something for the future.

Before the season, you listed Weeks as the college draftee not in the top 100 most likely to move into the list next year. Is that happening? Does he look like a top-50 prospect and a future star?