PDA

View Full Version : Who are the top pitching prospects in the Reds minor leagues?



Vottomatic
08-14-2012, 10:15 AM
I'm trying to see if there's anyone I've not been paying attention to.

Corcino, Cingrani, Stephenson, Travieso, Guillon.

Next tier - Lotzkar, Villarreal, Chad Rogers.

Anyone else I should be keeping an eye on?

BungleBengals
08-14-2012, 11:01 AM
I do not follow the minor league very much, but I am excited to see Cingrani at the major league level.

mace
08-14-2012, 11:06 AM
I suspect that Guillon's performance last night got you thinking about this. At least, it did me. He's giving off great vibes, but I'm not quite ready to place him in that top tier. If he's still doing it in Dayton, OK.

I'm also not sold on Villarreal. It's probably because he was extremely hittable the one time I saw him pitch; his stuff was lackluster. It might be a case of rushing to judgment, but if I could complete a trade by giving up one of Villarreal, Rogers, Redmond or Cisco, I'd part with Villarreal. If the choices were Villarreal, James Allen, Wirfin Obispo, Tim Crabbe, Jacob Johnson, Sal Romano and Amir Garrett, I'd certainly consider Villarreal.

redsfandan
08-14-2012, 11:20 AM
I do not follow the minor league very much, but I am excited to see Cingrani at the major league level.

Is that a typo?

I just want to make sure I didn't miss something.

BungleBengals
08-14-2012, 11:27 AM
Is that a typo?

I just want to make sure I didn't miss something.

No. I am saying I hear a lot about the guy and his number look really good. Not to mention he is a lefty. That is why I am excited to see him at a major league level. I know it will not happen this year, but just saying that I hope he stays in the Reds organization (not traded) for him to be on the future roster.

Benihana
08-14-2012, 11:52 AM
I'm trying to see if there's anyone I've not been paying attention to.

Corcino, Cingrani, Stephenson, Travieso, Guillon.

Next tier - Lotzkar, Villarreal, Chad Rogers.

Anyone else I should be keeping an eye on?

While I like Guillon a lot, I would put him in the "Next Tier" along with Lotzkar, Rogers, and three other additions, all of which are in Rookie Ball: Pedro Diaz, Drew Cisco, and Amir Garrett.

Corcino, Stephenson, Cingrani, and Travieso are definitely the top tier guys to watch.

RED VAN HOT
08-14-2012, 01:44 PM
IIRC, Guillon started his Reds career as a converted position player (SS?). I assume that means the Reds believed he had a strong arm. Can anyone comment on how hard he throws? Could he be considered a power arm?

Also, I saw Crabbe pitch recently in Bakersfield the night he put up 6 no hit innings. The scoreboard does not have a gun, but it seemed to me that he was strictly a FB/slider pitcher. Both were very effective that night as he was getting a lot of swinging strikes on high FB's and low sliders. I came away thinking he has the potential to be a good middle reliever. I invite comment from those that have seen more of him.

medford
08-14-2012, 01:47 PM
I hesitate on guillon for the moment.

prior to last season, Guillon was my pick for "Reds prospect about to "blow up"" believing that he'd skyrocket into the top 50ish (nationally) in the prospect rankings by seasons end following his solid debut the year prior. Well not so much last year, he really struggled in Billings at the start of the year. There were whispers about attitude issues, he had trouble throwing strikes and he wasn't doing anything to convince anyone he was a top 50 Reds prospect, let along a top 50 in all of baseball. Then the last chunk of the season he started putting things together. He's done well this year, so I'm holding out hope, but once burned, you're more cautious to annoint him the 2nd time around.

With that said, if the Reds could get 2 of those guys you list as top flight prospects to turn into middle of the rotation or better starters, plus another into a solid reliver in the next 3-4 seasons it would do wonders for payroll flex in the face of votto's contract and payroll limitations. The more solid players that come thru the system, the more money they have to offer their own veterans or to give out to Free agents or trade acquisitions.

redsof72
08-14-2012, 02:01 PM
Stephenson

Next tier: Corcino, Cingrani, Travieso

Next tier....

dougdirt
08-14-2012, 02:54 PM
IIRC, Guillon started his Reds career as a converted position player (SS?). I assume that means the Reds believed he had a strong arm. Can anyone comment on how hard he throws? Could he be considered a power arm?


Guillon was always a pitcher with the Reds. Some teams believed that he could have been a position player since they thought he was a good hitter, but the Reds signed him and he has pitched for them since day 1.

Wonderful Monds
08-14-2012, 03:20 PM
I suspect that Guillon's performance last night got you thinking about this. At least, it did me. He's giving off great vibes, but I'm not quite ready to place him in that top tier. If he's still doing it in Dayton, OK.

I'm also not sold on Villarreal. It's probably because he was extremely hittable the one time I saw him pitch; his stuff was lackluster. It might be a case of rushing to judgment, but if I could complete a trade by giving up one of Villarreal, Rogers, Redmond or Cisco, I'd part with Villarreal. If the choices were Villarreal, James Allen, Wirfin Obispo, Tim Crabbe, Jacob Johnson, Sal Romano and Amir Garrett, I'd certainly consider Villarreal.

Wirfin Obispo is in the organization again? Wow.

RED VAN HOT
08-14-2012, 05:21 PM
Guillon was always a pitcher with the Reds. Some teams believed that he could have been a position player since they thought he was a good hitter, but the Reds signed him and he has pitched for them since day 1.

You are correct. I knew that he had only pitched for the Reds, but had forgotten that other teams, and not the Reds, had seen him as a first baseman or corner outfielder because they liked his bat but not his pitching delivery, which they viewed as carrying a high injury risk. At that time he was reported as throwing 88-92 as a 16 year old. He signed in the same year as Y Rod when the Reds were spending big on Latin prospects. Given his recent success, is it fair to say that the Reds have revised his mechanics? If so, where does his velocity sit today?

Vottomatic
08-14-2012, 11:17 PM
I suspect that Guillon's performance last night got you thinking about this. At least, it did me. He's giving off great vibes, but I'm not quite ready to place him in that top tier. If he's still doing it in Dayton, OK.

I'm also not sold on Villarreal. It's probably because he was extremely hittable the one time I saw him pitch; his stuff was lackluster. It might be a case of rushing to judgment, but if I could complete a trade by giving up one of Villarreal, Rogers, Redmond or Cisco, I'd part with Villarreal. If the choices were Villarreal, James Allen, Wirfin Obispo, Tim Crabbe, Jacob Johnson, Sal Romano and Amir Garrett, I'd certainly consider Villarreal.

Yeah, I'm not big on Villareal either. Someone on here, not sure who, always seems to be talking him up. But everytime I look in a box score, it seems like he's getting lit up.

I'm not that big on Lotzkar either. Always hear how he has a lightening arm. But seems like the stats NEVER match up to all the hype.

I'm thinking Cingrani and Corcino are the next 2 to get a chance up top in the next year or two.

It will probably be Stephenson a few years after that. Then Travieso.

But maybe someone else will surprise.

camisadelgolf
08-14-2012, 11:38 PM
Yeah, I'm not big on Villareal either. Someone on here, not sure who, always seems to be talking him up. But everytime I look in a box score, it seems like he's getting lit up.

I'm not that big on Lotzkar either. Always hear how he has a lightening arm. But seems like the stats NEVER match up to all the hype.

I'm thinking Cingrani and Corcino are the next 2 to get a chance up top in the next year or two.

It will probably be Stephenson a few years after that. Then Travieso.

But maybe someone else will surprise.
It's not that Villarreal was getting "talked up" so much as he was the Reds' best AAA pitching prospect to start the season.

Scrap Irony
08-15-2012, 02:38 PM
Stephenson

Next tier: Corcino, Cingrani, Travieso

Next tier....

Interesting.

I've not seen Stephenson (or Cingrani) as much as I'd like. I'm assuming you have. Is it the top end velocity, '72? The electricity in his arm?

I think both Cingrani and Corcino, if they hit their ceillings, are legitimate TOR arms. One's not any better than the other, IMO and both have warts. Judging from his statistics (and the limited number of IP I've seen), I'd think Stephenson also has warts-- primarily among them, control.

crazybob60
08-15-2012, 02:45 PM
One guy that hasn't been mentioned at all in this thread and received a lot of talk last year in these forums (but hasn't been mentioned much at all this year to my recollection) is Josh Smith. I take a look at his stats and they aren't tier 1 prospect type of stats but he is still doing really well. I haven't followed him this year as closely as I did last year. Has something hampered him this season? Could he possibly be in that tier 3 SP prospect range....

Steve4192
08-15-2012, 03:16 PM
Stephenson

Next tier: Corcino, Cingrani, Travieso

Next tier....

I'd list em:

1a and 1b - Corcino and Cingrani

Two studs putting up quality numbers in the upper levels of the minors. They've proven that they can translate their talent into results at the pro level. They both still have plenty to work on, but they are both within sniffing distance of the majors.

2 - Stephenson

Fantastic arm, but in the low minors and not much of a track record yet. Could pass up the top two guys eventually, but I'm a big believer in results and until he starts piling up results in the upper minors, I'm going to remain lukewarm on him.

3 - Travieso

See Stephenson, but with even less experience. I'll get excited about him in 2014. Until then .... show me.

texasdave
08-15-2012, 03:26 PM
Drew Cisco.

camisadelgolf
08-15-2012, 03:32 PM
This is just a first draft. Not much thought went into it.
1.) Stephenson
2.) Corcino
3.) Travieso
4.) Cingrani
5.) Lotzkar
6.) Langfield
7.) Guillon
8.) Cisco
9.) Garrett
10.) Romano

medford
08-15-2012, 03:55 PM
One guy that hasn't been mentioned at all in this thread and received a lot of talk last year in these forums (but hasn't been mentioned much at all this year to my recollection) is Josh Smith. I take a look at his stats and they aren't tier 1 prospect type of stats but he is still doing really well. I haven't followed him this year as closely as I did last year. Has something hampered him this season? Could he possibly be in that tier 3 SP prospect range....

I think part of the Josh Smith hype on this board was not only the stellar numbers he put up last season, but the overall hype and the amount of prospects that whole Dayton team had last season. Hamilton, Lutz, Vidal, torreyes, Duran, Yorman, Barnhardt, Corcino, Lotzkar, etc... were all decently hyped in some form or fashion, the team was winning big and Josh Smith was a 21st rounder putting up numbers as good or better than all of those guys.

This season, he's an entire country away, playing late at night w/ fewer people on this board that have seen him pitch live. Bakersfield isn't quite as fun to watch as that dayton was last season, plus Josh Smith's numbers have fallen back in a hitter's friendly league. He's not terrible this season either, it will be interesting to watch how he progresses when he presumably moves to a more pitcher friendly environment in AA. If he comes close to his Dayton numbers, he'll get mentioned a lot more again on this board.

Kc61
08-15-2012, 04:50 PM
This is just a first draft. Not much thought went into it.
1.) Stephenson
2.) Corcino
3.) Travieso
4.) Cingrani
5.) Lotzkar
6.) Langfield
7.) Guillon
8.) Cisco
9.) Garrett
10.) Romano

Got to work Hoover in some place.

camisadelgolf
08-15-2012, 05:31 PM
Got to work Hoover in some place.
His rookie eligibility is over, so I just left him off.

Benihana
08-15-2012, 08:15 PM
This is just a first draft. Not much thought went into it.
1.) Stephenson
2.) Corcino
3.) Travieso
4.) Cingrani
5.) Lotzkar
6.) Langfield
7.) Guillon
8.) Cisco
9.) Garrett
10.) Romano

Seems reasonable if you swap Travieso and Cingrani, and drop Langfield down a bit for now: Although his numbers are decent in Billings, unless he is going to be a starter or a fast-moving reliever, I'm not sure he deserves to be ranked so highly. He's only started once and he doesn't appear to be fast-moving as a college guy in Billings.

camisadelgolf
08-15-2012, 09:28 PM
Seems reasonable if you swap Travieso and Cingrani, and drop Langfield down a bit for now: Although his numbers are decent in Billings, unless he is going to be a starter or a fast-moving reliever, I'm not sure he deserves to be ranked so highly. He's only started once and he doesn't appear to be fast-moving as a college guy in Billings.
The Reds said they'll try him as a starter. If that doesn't work out, they'll move him to the bullpen where he'd be expected to move quickly. I might be the only one, but I see Cisco as a future reliever, too.

redsof72
08-15-2012, 11:35 PM
It is difficult to compare pitchers of different experience levels; tough to compare a guy with a great arm vs. a guy with mediocre stuff but good results in minors. Baseball America once made a point of explaining why they ranked Valiquette higher than Lecure even though they felt Lecure had a better chance of getting to the bigs.

Still, with every minor leaguer you are talking about "potential" and Stephenson has the most potential of any Reds arm in the last 35 years. He has the whole package. Injuries are the only potential road block.

I like Rogers. He is a power arm who is young, has had good results, is improving quickly, and has the makeup to keep getting better. Not sure where he comes in, but surely somewhere in the top 10. Reds really like Romano even though numbers have not shown up yet.

As has been stated by many in the past, hard to judge pitchers. In the minors, Bailey was viewed as a better prospect than Cueto...for good reasons...because he had the better arm and better stuff, but Cueto maximized what he had and Bailey has not. Scouts were not wrong...they were evaluating what they were seeing at the time.

It is a constantly-revised exercise when ranking players because you are doing your rankings based on what you know today and the prospect is only that guy for...today. Tomorrow, he's someone else.

It reminds me of comments Steve Mariucci once made about Kurt Warner, a non-drafted free agent who will someday go to the Hall of Fame. Mariucci, quarterbacks coach with the Packers when Warner was in camp prior to his Arena Footbal days, was asked how everyone could have made such a big mistake on this guy. He said there was no mistake, that Warner should NOT have been drafted, that no reasonable person could have expected him to ever transform from what he was coming out of college to what he eventually became.

lollipopcurve
08-16-2012, 08:26 AM
I like Rogers. He is a power arm who is young, has had good results, is improving quickly, and has the makeup to keep getting better. Not sure where he comes in, but surely somewhere in the top 10.

Agreed. Breakout year for Rogers this year.


Stephenson has the most potential of any Reds arm in the last 35 years

Wow. High praise, and nice to hear. Seems like he's got the head to avoid the pitfalls that could come with hype, too.


Reds really like Romano even though numbers have not shown up yet.

The 9 Ks last night are a nice flash. Kid's pitching in a very hitter friendly league vs older competition. I think he's had a very solid first professional season.


It reminds me of comments Steve Mariucci once made about Kurt Warner, a non-drafted free agent who will someday go to the Hall of Fame. Mariucci, quarterbacks coach with the Packers when Warner was in camp prior to his Arena Footbal days, was asked how everyone could have made such a big mistake on this guy. He said there was no mistake, that Warner should NOT have been drafted, that no reasonable person could have expected him to ever transform from what he was coming out of college to what he eventually became.

It's what makes following the minor leagues fun. Nice post, 72.

mace
08-16-2012, 10:51 AM
72 -- Was wondering if you had any remarks on Jacob Johnson. I know that, in the past, you've praised his makeup and noted that the organization thinks very highly of him. Obviously, he has been battered this season. Do you think it's because he's coming off surgery--maybe tired or not quite up to speed--or is it a case of insufficient stuff? My instinct is to stick with him as a prospect. From what you've seen this year, is that appropriate?

Vottomatic
08-16-2012, 01:45 PM
I like Rogers. He is a power arm who is young, has had good results, is improving quickly, and has the makeup to keep getting better. Not sure where he comes in, but surely somewhere in the top 10.

I follow Rogers. Another guy who just seems to know how to pitch. Good stuff you posted.

MikeS21
08-16-2012, 02:10 PM
Interesting.

I've not seen Stephenson (or Cingrani) as much as I'd like. I'm assuming you have. Is it the top end velocity, '72? The electricity in his arm?

I think both Cingrani and Corcino, if they hit their ceillings, are legitimate TOR arms. One's not any better than the other, IMO and both have warts. Judging from his statistics (and the limited number of IP I've seen), I'd think Stephenson also has warts-- primarily among them, control.
I think the deal with Stephenson is the way he lights up the radar gun right now - and he is a starter. His control issues do raise a red flag, but IMO, that's what the lower minor leagues and coaching are for. If Stephenson is 23-24 years old at AA and still battling control issues, that's a problem.

I suppose the dream of most of us who follow the minor leagues on a regular basis is that the Reds would come up with a young arm late in a draft, bring him in and with a couple coaching sessions, turn an overlooked prospect in to a legitimate TOR prospect. Unfortunately, that doesn't happen too often. Scouts today do a good enough job that if one scout sees an adjustment, so will all the other scouts.

By the way, my attention was diverted during last night's game, but did I hear Welch and Grande talking about Pete Schoureck and that someone suggested a tweak to him that resulted in a jump in velocity from 88 to 95 mph? Did I hear that right?

JaxRed
08-16-2012, 02:44 PM
....someone suggested a tweak to him that resulted in a jump in velocity from 88 to 95 mph? Did I hear that right?

Thanks, Barry... I'll give that stuff a try.

redsof72
08-17-2012, 01:32 PM
Stephenson has the most potential of any Reds arm in the last 35 years.

Of course, I am talking about guys who came up through the system, not guys, who, say, defected from Cuba and started in Triple-A.

mace
08-20-2012, 02:05 PM
I guess I'd see it this way (starting pitchers only) . . .

Top level (guys who clearly rank as major prospects, no particular order):

Corcino
Cingrani
Stephenson

Level two (guys who are pushing toward or have an evident chance to attain the top level, no particular order):

Guillon
Rogers
Travieso
Cisco
Lotzkar

Level three (guys who are looking pretty good, and who knows?, no particular order)

Obispo
Allen
Langfield
Garrett
Romano

Level four (guys who are still in the picture to varying degrees, no particular order)

Villarreal
Redmond
Smith
Gerson
Quezada
Mugarian
Adames
Diaz
Johnson
Crabbe
Moscot
French
Robles
Covington
Clarke

dougdirt
08-20-2012, 02:07 PM
I like the way you broke that down Mace. I would probably bump Garrett up a level, but aside from that I don't know that I would change anything else.

mace
08-20-2012, 02:13 PM
I like the way you broke that down Mace. I would probably bump Garrett up a level, but aside from that I don't know that I would change anything else.

My reservation on Garrett has nothing to do with his potential. (His two starts in Billings were head-turning.) It's just the myriad complications involved with him playing Big East basketball.

RED VAN HOT
08-20-2012, 03:55 PM
Langfield has put up some impressive stats. Under 5 in H/9 and over 13 in K/9. His BB rate is still a little high, slightly over 4 per 9. At draft time BA noted that he had 3 strikeout pitches, a FB that can touch 97, a hard slider, and a curve that breaks down with power. A third round pick coming off a college season in which he pitched at least 79 innings, it looks to me as if the Reds have elected to keep him at Billings to keep his innings down and perhaps work on minor adjustments to improve his command.

REDREAD
08-20-2012, 05:54 PM
By the way, my attention was diverted during last night's game, but did I hear Welch and Grande talking about Pete Schoureck and that someone suggested a tweak to him that resulted in a jump in velocity from 88 to 95 mph? Did I hear that right?

I didn't hear that on TV, but I remember hearing at the time that Gullett or someone else in the Reds org made a change to his delivery that transformed him into an ace pitcher (at least until health issues killed his career).

Schourek might be the best scrap heap/reclamation project of all time :)

Kc61
08-21-2012, 03:18 PM
Watching the Reds-Phils last night, one had to wonder whether the Reds would be more effective v. Phil with some good lefty starting pitching. Phillies' meat of the order is all left handed, Utley, Howard, even the tablesetters hit lefty (Rollins a switch hitter).

Cingrani's left handedness is potentially important. All other things being equal, it would be great to have him in the rotation as an effective lefty against teams like the Phils.

Just one more reason why it would be great if he worked out, and in the rotation.

puca
08-21-2012, 03:53 PM
Watching the Reds-Phils last night, one had to wonder whether the Reds would be more effective v. Phil with some good lefty starting pitching. Phillies' meat of the order is all left handed, Utley, Howard, even the tablesetters hit lefty (Rollins a switch hitter).

Cingrani's left handedness is potentially important. All other things being equal, it would be great to have him in the rotation as an effective lefty against teams like the Phils.

Just one more reason why it would be great if he worked out, and in the rotation.

And one more reason why some of us were unhappy that a certain Cuban defector was not given every chance to start.

The Rage
08-21-2012, 05:08 PM
And one more reason why some of us were unhappy that a certain Cuban defector was not given every chance to start.

Not like it meant anything this year.........

Vottomatic
08-22-2012, 09:58 AM
And one more reason why some of us were unhappy that a certain Cuban defector was not given every chance to start.

I used to want Chapman to start.

I've come around to having a guy who effectively limits the other team to only 8 innings to score. They pretty much don't stand a chance in the 9th inning if the Reds have the lead.

Watching him blow away Utley, who has been a pain in the Reds rear the last 2 nights, with a 102 mph fastball was a thing of beauty.

And when people talk about the money.......plenty of other teams are paying their closers $6M to $10M or $12M. Chapman is a bargain right now as a closer. And he's one of the best.

Vottomatic
08-22-2012, 10:10 AM
Since arriving in Pensacola, Chad Rogers has started 4 games, given up 4 ER, and sports an e.r.a. of 1.71 in 21 IP.

Benihana
08-22-2012, 11:04 AM
John Manuel from BA provides his take:


Ben (Miamisburg, OH): Which Reds top arm (Stephenson, Corcino, Cingrani, Traviesio) has the highest upside?

John Manuel: I'm partial to Travieso but haven't heard anything not to like about Robert Stephenson, he's got to top that list. Corcino gets props for being closest to the majors, and his ceiling is more in the 3/4 range for me. There's not a 7 on the scouting report and for some scouts it's all 50s. I would still take him over Cingrani, though I greatly respect what Tony has done this year and since he got into pro ball. He's a power LHP, those are hard to fine. I'd go Stephenson, Travieso, Corcino then Cingrani, but I could see you shuffling the last 3 in any order and defending it.

Interesting that he likes Travieso more than Corcino or Cingrani, although BA is known to really value draft pedigree/recent draftees.

Vottomatic
08-22-2012, 11:59 AM
John Manuel from BA provides his take:



Interesting that he likes Travieso more than Corcino or Cingrani, although BA is known to really value draft pedigree/recent draftees.

Good stuff.

I'm a results guy. Following Cueto and Bailey through the minors, all you'd hear is how Bailey was da man, had the better stuff and higher ceiling. In the end, Cueto made it to the majors quicker and is in the running for a Cy Young, while we still debate whether or not Bailey is a #4 or #5 starter.

I've seen way too many guys that have all the pitches, power, right stuff, struggle to put it together, and way too many pitchers that were written off surprise people.

lollipopcurve
08-22-2012, 12:06 PM
No one has conclusively passed Cingrani, for me.

Steve4192
08-22-2012, 12:55 PM
John Manuel from BA provides his take:



Interesting that he likes Travieso more than Corcino or Cingrani, although BA is known to really value draft pedigree/recent draftees.

I enjoy reading BA, but they have absolutely no grasp of probability. Their prospect lists are always loaded with 'high ceiling' guys in the low minors (or who haven't even played in the pros yet). Those guys have 'high ceilings' because they haven't had the warts in their game exposed yet. Most of them will never even make it to the majors. BA consistently undervalues guys who have established 'high floors' but have warts that will probably prevent them from being stars.

Todd Frazier is a good example of this. They had him ranked behind Yorman Rodriguez in their preseason rankings. Why? Because Yorman has 'unlimited upside' while Todd was pigeonholed as a utility player. The reality is, Yorman is a physically gifted athlete who is more likely to never make the major leagues than he is to become an impact player. Yet he ranks above Frazier, who pretty clearly had a major league future as a utility man and still had a chance to pan out to be even more. It drives me batty every year seeing half (or more) of those top 10 lists filled with guys who will never make the majors, while guys like Frazier get ignored.

Now, back to the pitchers, I think BA over-rates Travieso & Stephenson because they don't know their weaknesses yet, and they interpret that as him not having any weaknesses rather than a lack of information. On the flip side, they know Corcino and Cingrani's supposed weaknesses, so that makes them lesser prospects than the two recent draftees with unknown weaknesses. They also ignore the biggest weakness of all young pitchers .... staying healthy. Corcino and Cingrani being a couple of years ahead of the kids has value in and of itself, as it reduces the likelihood of them having a career-altering injury before making it to the majors.

dougdirt
08-22-2012, 01:15 PM
Steve, I see where you are going, but there is a reason it works that way. High Floor/not stars are a lot easier to find than stars. Teams value star potential, even if it is just that, a lot more than 'regular starter' potential, even if they are close to being that today.

Steve4192
08-22-2012, 01:22 PM
Steve, I see where you are going, but there is a reason it works that way. High Floor/not stars are a lot easier to find than stars. Teams value star potential, even if it is just that, a lot more than 'regular starter' potential, even if they are close to being that today.

I get that, but most of those 'not stars' were the 'high ceiling' prospects of a few years ago. They didn't become 'not stars' until the warts in their game got exposed. The same will be true of most of today's 'high ceiling' prospects. They are going to wind up as 'not stars' or outright busts. Only a tiny, TINY fraction of them will live up to that star potential.

My point is the only reason they have 'high ceilings' now is that we have imperfect information on them, not because the players themselves change. BA essentially ranks guys in inverse order of how much information they have on them. The less they know, the higher the ranking. The more they know, the lower the ranking.

Vottomatic
08-22-2012, 01:27 PM
I get that, but most of those 'not stars' were the 'high ceiling' prospects of a few years ago. They didn't become 'not stars' until the warts in their game got exposed. The same will be true of most of today's 'high ceiling' prospects. They are going to wind up as 'not stars' or outright busts. Only a tiny, TINY fraction of them will live up to that star potential.

My point is the only reason they have 'high ceilings' now is that we have imperfect information on them, not because the players themselves change. BA essentially ranks guys in inverse order of how much information they have on them. The less they know, the higher the ranking. The more they know, the lower the ranking.

Very well explained. I agree.

dougdirt
08-22-2012, 01:47 PM
I get that, but most of those 'not stars' were the 'high ceiling' prospects of a few years ago. They didn't become 'not stars' until the warts in their game got exposed. The same will be true of most of today's 'high ceiling' prospects. They are going to wind up as 'not stars' or outright busts. Only a tiny, TINY fraction of them will live up to that star potential.

My point is the only reason they have 'high ceilings' now is that we have imperfect information on them, not because the players themselves change. BA essentially ranks guys in inverse order of how much information they have on them. The less they know, the higher the ranking. The more they know, the lower the ranking.

Well, let me explain... a guy like Todd Frazier was never a 'star' guy. He had one above 50 tool, power. And it was a 55-60 (slightly above average to above average power).

Of course only a tiny portion will wind up as stars, because if everyone were a star, then no one would be. But when you start out with a higher overall potential, the step down when you don't reach your potential can still be higher. That is why you see a guy like Yorman Rodriguez ranked higher than a Todd Frazier. And before we go ahead and call that some crazy rational, we should probably wait 7 years to see how Yorman Rodriguez is doing at the same age that Frazier is right now.

It isn't always the more they know, the lower the ranking. Take Stephenson for example.... we did not know nearly what we do about him now when the season began, but you can bet your bottom dollar that he is going to be ranked a lot higher at the end of this year than last. And that is because we do know more about him and he improved his skillset from that point in time. His raw tools even took a small step forward too with increased velocity.

Prospecting isn't an easy game to play. The best in the world at it (the guys who work for MLB teams) get it wrong as often as they get it right and they have more information than all of us do. I prefer the high upside type of rankings though because I would rather know who has the potential to be a superstar player than the every day solid regular. Those guys are generally easier to spot.

Steve4192
08-22-2012, 06:50 PM
I prefer the high upside type of rankings though because I would rather know who has the potential to be a superstar player than the every day solid regular. Those guys are generally easier to spot.

I'm the opposite, because scouting scales are just as flawed at detecting 'star potential' as everything else. MLB history is chock full of guys who were undervalued by the scouts until they arrived in the majors and starting racking up the hardware.

Mike Piazza was a 62nd round draft pick because the scouts didn't see ANY upside in him. The Dodgers were ridiculed for even taking him at all.

Ryne Sandberg was a 20th round draft pick because the scouts didn't see much upside in him.

Albert Pujols was an 13th round pick because the scouts didn't see much upside in him.

Nolan Ryan was a 12th round draft pick because the scouts didn't see much upside in him.

At least upper minor league results can point out which guys are likely to make it to the majors and get the opportunity to shine. Most single-A 'high ceiling' guys will never even get the opportunity.

camisadelgolf
08-22-2012, 06:54 PM
I'm the opposite, because scouting scales are just as flawed at detecting 'star potential' as everything else. MLB history is chock full of guys who were undervalued by the scouts until they arrived in the majors and starting racking up the hardware.

Mike Piazza was a 62nd round draft pick because the scouts didn't see ANY upside in him. The Dodgers were ridiculed for even taking him at all.

Ryne Sandberg was a 20th round draft pick because the scouts didn't see much upside in him.

Albert Pujols was an 13th round pick because the scouts didn't see much upside in him.

Nolan Ryan was a 12th round draft pick because the scouts didn't see much upside in him.

At least upper minor league results can point out which guys are likely to make it to the majors and get the opportunity to shine. Most single-A 'high ceiling' guys will never even get the opportunity.
Most of the elite talents are drafted as late as they are because they went to obscure schools. Pujols, for example, was playing right in the Cardinals' back yard, which is why they knew better than all the other teams what kind of player he could become.

Steve4192
08-22-2012, 06:58 PM
It isn't always the more they know, the lower the ranking. Take Stephenson for example.... we did not know nearly what we do about him now when the season began, but you can bet your bottom dollar that he is going to be ranked a lot higher at the end of this year than last.

We still don't know squat about Stephenson. We have barely even scratched the surface. Once the warts in his game begin to show (and they will, because even 'star' players have warts) you will see his rating drop and the next 'unknown wunderkind' will take his place in the rankings.

dougdirt
08-22-2012, 06:58 PM
I'm the opposite, because scouting scales are just as flawed at detecting 'star potential' as everything else. MLB history is chock full of guys who were undervalued by the scouts until they arrived in the majors and starting racking up the hardware.

Mike Piazza was a 62nd round draft pick because the scouts didn't see ANY upside in him. The Dodgers were ridiculed for even taking him at all.

Ryne Sandberg was a 20th round draft pick because the scouts didn't see much upside in him.

Albert Pujols was an 13th round pick because the scouts didn't see much upside in him.

Nolan Ryan was a 12th round draft pick because the scouts didn't see much upside in him.

At least upper minor league results can point out which guys are likely to make it to the majors and get the opportunity to shine. Most single-A 'high ceiling' guys will never even get the opportunity.
Pulling out a handful of examples doesn't really make your point.

Studies show that the higher up you get picked, the higher value you wind up with. Of course there are always exceptions, but generally speaking, the higher a guy gets picked, the more value he is going to bring. 1st rounders historically outperform 2nd rounders who historically outperform 3rd rounds and so on.

dougdirt
08-22-2012, 07:00 PM
We still don't know squat about Stephenson. We have barely even scratched the surface. Once the warts in his game begin to show (and they will, because even 'star' players have warts) you will see his rating drop and the next 'unknown wunderkind' will take his place in the rankings.

We know now that he throws harder than he did last year. We know that he is showing a solid change up with potential for it to be better and he didn't even have one last year. We know that he can throw his curveball for strikes in the strikezone at a pretty good rate and we didn't know that last year.

Steve4192
08-22-2012, 07:07 PM
Most of the elite talents are drafted as late as they are because they went to obscure schools. Pujols, for example, was playing right in the Cardinals' back yard, which is why they knew better than all the other teams what kind of player he could become.

I don't think that is true.

It's not like Maple Woods CC was completely off the scouting map. Two of Pujols teammates were drafted the year before he was, and another was drafted the year after. Teams clearly had scouts and cross-checkers out there watching them play. I'm sure the Cardinals probably did have a higher opinion of him of than most teams (obviously, since they drafted him), but if they thought he was a 'star' caliber player, they wouldn't have waited 13 rounds to pull the trigger on him.

camisadelgolf
08-22-2012, 07:31 PM
I don't think that is true.

It's not like Maple Woods CC was completely off the scouting map. Two of Pujols teammates were drafted the year before he was, and another was drafted the year after. Teams clearly had scouts and cross-checkers out there watching them play. I'm sure the Cardinals probably did have a higher opinion of him of than most teams (obviously, since they drafted him), but if they thought he was a 'star' caliber player, they wouldn't have waited 13 rounds to pull the trigger on him.
True, there were only a couple other teams considering drafting Pujols (Devil Rays and Red Sox--maybe a couple more). But you have to look at the scouts they send to places like Maple Woods Community College i.e. schools that have had only a few players drafted with none of them playing above A-ball. These area scouts are very low on the totem poll on account of the lack of talent in their areas and need to do a ton of convincing to get their teams to draft a guy even as early as the 13th round. Had more prominent scouts been sent, Pujols would've been drafted earlier.

Steve4192
08-22-2012, 07:48 PM
Studies show that the higher up you get picked, the higher value you wind up with. Of course there are always exceptions, but generally speaking, the higher a guy gets picked, the more value he is going to bring. 1st rounders historically outperform 2nd rounders who historically outperform 3rd rounds and so on.

I should hope so, because otherwise scouting would be completely useless, and that is not what I am saying. I am saying that I trust honest-to-God measurable professional results more than I trust scouts opinions. When no data is available (like in the draft), I'll gladly take the scouts opinion. I was just pointing out that those opinions, while better than nothing, are often wrong.

As far as the values of drafted players go, the numbers for success in every round are comically low. IIRC, even blue-chip first rounders have a failure rate that is around 70%. Granted, that is better than 80% failure rate of second rounders, but either way, the draft is a like a roulette wheel. Good scouting improves your odds, but even good scouts get WAY more wrong than they get right.

dougdirt
08-22-2012, 07:52 PM
I should hope so, because otherwise scouting would be completely useless, and that is not what I am saying. I am saying that I trust honest-to-God measurable professional results more than I trust scouts opinions. When no data is available (like in the draft), I'll gladly take the scouts opinion. I was just pointing out that those opinions, while better than nothing, are often wrong.

As far as the values of drafted players go, the numbers for success in every round are comically low. IIRC, even blue-chip first rounders have a failure rate that is around 70%. Granted, that is better than 80% failure rate of second rounders, but either way, the draft is a like a roulette wheel. Good scouting improves your odds, but even good scouts get WAY more wrong than they get right.

I trust a nice blend of scouting and stats. On their own, both can tell you something but could be concealing something very important.

Good scouts get plenty right. To be honest, most guys drafted beyond the 3rd round aren't even viewed as regulars by most scouts. You aren't likely drafting guys in the 5th round and claiming he is a future regular starting position player (a guy who goes there for a reason, not a guy who fell and signed for $2M).

Steve4192
08-22-2012, 11:14 PM
I trust a nice blend of scouting and stats. On their own

As do I.

That is why I don't have much faith in prospects whose value is almost entirely defined by their scouting reports. Until they have a solid amount of legit professional results under their belts, I don't have much faith in any of them.

I don't really start to take prospects seriously until they hit double-A. That is the level that usually separates the suspects from the prospects, and (back to the original discussion) that is why I am higher on Corcino and Cingrani than I am on Stephenson and Travieso. They've got both the solid scouting reports and the numbers to back them up. Sure, those scouting reports might not be as glowing as Stephenson and Travieso's scouting reports, but their results more than make up for the difference IMO.