PDA

View Full Version : 2013 Baseball America Reds Top 10



19braves77
01-08-2013, 02:51 AM
If this isn't allowed, then remove it:

mdccclxix
01-08-2013, 10:04 AM
I agree with 1-6, but 7-10 are interesting news to me.

mdccclxix
01-08-2013, 10:07 AM
If I may borrow from texasdave's running Redszone tally:

1) Billy Hamilton
2) Robert Stephenson
3) Tony Cingrani
4) Daniel Corcino
5) Jesse Winker
6) Nick Travieso
7) Henry Rodriguez
8) Ismael Guillon
9) Yorman Rodriguez
10) Tanner Rahier

klw
01-08-2013, 10:33 AM
The most interesting aspects of this to me are that Hoover is still deemed eligible for their list but we were not considering him as prospect eligible anymore and that Reynoso is in at 9 but has not even been a vote option yet on our list. We probably should add Reynoso to the discussion for #11 and beyond due to his inclusion on the BA list.

I guess Reynoso is to the 2013 list that Gregorious was to the 2012 list. If I am remembering correctly Gregorious was a "surprise" addition to the second half of the top ten last year.

Here is our thread on last year's BA list (pretrades) for comparison:
http://www.redszone.com/forums/showthread.php?t=93735&highlight=2012+didi+prospect

klw
01-08-2013, 10:55 AM
this year's list compared to their pretrade BA ranking last year, Stephenson and Corcino would have moved up two by the trades and 6 guys ahead of Cingrani have been traded.
1. Hamilton (#2)
2. Stephenson (#7)
3. Cingrani (#15)
4. Corcino (#6)
5. Travieso (not yet drafted)
6. Winker (Not yet drafted)
7. Hoover (with Braves)
8. Guillon (unranked)
9. Reynoso (unranked)
10 Langfield (not yet drafted)

REDREAD
01-08-2013, 11:39 AM
Comparing Winker to Bruce and calling him a potential #3 hitter on a contender is very exciting indeed. I know there's some good pitchers ahead of him on the list, but it's nice to see a solid position player coming through the ranks.

Benihana
01-08-2013, 12:04 PM
Reynoso and Langfield being that high is what raises my eyebrows a bit.

I know Reynoso was the most interesting non-pitcher in the AZL, but didn't imagine anyone would rank him ahead of either of the Rodriguezes, or this year's draftees (Gelalich and Rahier) given the way BA loves recent draftees.

I guess they are banking on Langfield being this year's Cingrani, which would be great. I wonder if that means Moscot would be #11 on their list?

Regardless, I think it's pretty clear there's the first four, the two kids, and then everyone else. Will be interesting to see what the bottom half of list looks like at midseason.

Superdude
01-08-2013, 12:26 PM
I feel like this isn't ok? Either way, I'm intrigued by Reynoso. I don't pay too much attention AZL, so this is the first I've even heard of him.

dougdirt
01-08-2013, 01:10 PM
Yeah, that isn't allowed. You could probably leave up the list of 10 guys, but the scouting reports is over the top for paid content. I assume you got this out of the magazine.

As for Hoover being on the list, it kind of bums me out. Not that he wouldn't deserve to be, but that he isn't actually a prospect at this point. He spent more than 45 days on the 25 man roster before September rolled around, making him not eligible for the ROY in 2013, meaning he isn't a prospect. So we kind of got jipped on an extra prospect.

To soon for me with Reynoso to be this high.

dougdirt
01-08-2013, 01:14 PM
Also worth noting that here is why we need to take the league rankings with caution. Guillon was ranked 20th in the Pioneer League. That ranked behind two guys he is ahead of here and a third guy, had he thrown another inning, would have been ahead of him as well (Langfield, Moscot and Gelalich).

camisadelgolf
01-08-2013, 01:27 PM
You're allowed to say J.J. Hoover is a prospect. In a similar way, Devin Mesoraco is a prospect, too. It's a subjective term. Not everyone views players the way you do, Doug. But you're right about one thing--they're not rookies.

dougdirt
01-08-2013, 01:33 PM
You're allowed to say J.J. Hoover is a prospect. In a similar way, Devin Mesoraco is a prospect, too. It's a subjective term. Not everyone views players the way you do, Doug. But you're right about one thing--they're not rookies.

BA doesn't consider time spent on the roster as a disqualification. I guess it makes the job easier to not have to go count the days, but really, how often does that come into play? Hoover and Jordan Smith are the only guys I can recall it happening with in the last 8 years. Seems silly to me.

Superdude
01-08-2013, 02:56 PM
You're allowed to say J.J. Hoover is a prospect. In a similar way, Devin Mesoraco is a prospect, too. It's a subjective term. Not everyone views players the way you do, Doug. But you're right about one thing--they're not rookies.

Still kind of lame. Would've been nice to see someone we haven't seen pitch a half a season in the big leagues already.

It's funny how similar Corcino's scouting report is to Cueto. They might as well as have just copy and pasted that from 2007.

klw
01-09-2013, 01:56 PM
List is now online.
http://www.baseballamerica.com/today/prospects/rankings/organization-top-10-prospects/2013/2614529.html

Chat online at 1:30

I enjoyed this:


PROJECTED 2016
LINEUP

Catcher Devin Mesoraco
First Base Joey Votto
Second Base Brandon Phillips
Third Base Todd Frazier
Shortstop Zack Cozart
Left Field Shin-Soo Choo
Center Field Billy Hamilton
Right Field Jay Bruce
No. 1 Starter Johnny Cueto
No. 2 Starter Aroldis Chapman
No. 3 Starter Mat Latos
No. 4 Starter Robert Stephenson
No. 5 Starter Homer Bailey
Closer Daniel Corcino

mdccclxix
01-09-2013, 02:16 PM
Best Strike Zone Discipline Josh Fellhauer

I like this guy

JayBruceFan
01-09-2013, 02:51 PM
Corcino at closer?

Choo still around in 2016?

Hmmmmmm

dougdirt
01-09-2013, 03:55 PM
Corcino at closer?

Choo still around in 2016?

Hmmmmmm

They don't play GM. That means no free agency or trades. It is based on pure talent. Corcino isn't cracking a rotation with Cueto, Latos, Chapman, Bailey and Stephenson in it. That puts him somewhere else, and in this case, the bullpen at closer. The report has him as a starter though, because that is what he can be. But sometimes what a team needs trumps what a guy could be elsewhere.

From the chat, I found it interesting that JJ Cooper said that he probably doesn't see Travieso or Winker as Top 200 prospects. I guess I can get the rational with Travieso and his limited track record, but Winker not only has reports to work with, but numbers too. Just interesting to see.

Benihana
01-09-2013, 04:38 PM
They don't play GM. That means no free agency or trades. It is based on pure talent. Corcino isn't cracking a rotation with Cueto, Latos, Chapman, Bailey and Stephenson in it. That puts him somewhere else, and in this case, the bullpen at closer. The report has him as a starter though, because that is what he can be. But sometimes what a team needs trumps what a guy could be elsewhere.

From the chat, I found it interesting that JJ Cooper said that he probably doesn't see Travieso or Winker as Top 200 prospects. I guess I can get the rational with Travieso and his limited track record, but Winker not only has reports to work with, but numbers too. Just interesting to see.

It's actually pretty bad when a top 15 pick doesn't/wouldn't make the following year's Top 200 prospect list. I'm not sure how often that happens. Usually there are 7-10 previous draftees that make the Top 100 and you would assume at least another 10-20 (if not more) would make the Top 200. It seems BA doesn't have a lot of love for last year's Reds draft (especially with 4 picks in the top 100). Of course, there is PLENTY of time for this to all pan out differently.

Either way, Winker would be on my Top 200. Any other highlights from the chat?

dougdirt
01-09-2013, 04:49 PM
It's actually pretty bad when a top 15 pick doesn't/wouldn't make the following year's Top 200 prospect list. I'm not sure how often that happens. Usually there are 7-10 previous draftees that make the Top 100 and you would assume at least another 10-20 (if not more) would make the Top 200. It seems BA doesn't have a lot of love for last year's Reds draft (especially with 4 picks in the top 100). Of course, there is PLENTY of time for this to all pan out differently.

Either way, Winker would be on my Top 200. Any other highlights from the chat?

Nothing else really jumped out at me. But, I probably do know more about the guys than most people do. NewFever just posted a few things in a separate thread.

mdccclxix
01-09-2013, 06:19 PM
How about Lohman going as the best defensive infielder? That puts him on the Janish track maybe?

Drugs Delaney
01-10-2013, 12:09 AM
Obviously super early but the initial reports on Travieso don't seem as optimistic as they did on Stephenson.

The Winker write up seems pretty glowing, so surprising he doesn't rank higher.

mdccclxix
01-10-2013, 11:09 AM
Other items of note:

Ryan Lamarre has been the best defensive OF for 3 straight years on BA.

Yorman Rodriguez has been the best OF arm for 3 straight years on BA.

Tucker Barnhardt has been best defensive catcher for 2 straight years.

Ismael Guillon has had the best changeup 2 of the last 3 years. Renken had it last year.

Billy Hamilton has been the best athlete and fastest baserunner the last 3 years.

Juan Francisco held best infield arm for 5 years straight, lol. Also best power for 3 years.

Alonso held best hitter for average and strike zone discipline for 4 years straight.

2006 saw Votto shut out of any of these distinctions, notably in favor of Paul Janish, best strike zone discipline. The year prior he was best power hitter and best strike zone discipline.

mdccclxix
01-10-2013, 11:34 AM
A few more:

Jesse Winker is the heir to Yonder Alonso and Jay Bruce, who held best hitter for average over the last 7 previous lists.

Robert Stephenson is the first pitcher to carry best fastball and best curveball since Homer Bailey, who held these for 3 straight years in 2005-2007.

The other pitchers with two distinctions in a year are:
Johnny Cueto - best slider and best control in 2006 and 2007.
Aroldis Chapman - best fastball and best slider in 2010.
Kyle Lotzkar - best curveball and best control in 2010.

M2
01-10-2013, 11:55 AM
I kind of like that Cooper went off the reservation at bit with his 7-10 picks. The Reds have a system that's in mid-reload. He credited Hoover and then took a few bets on the guys he expects to be hotter properties.

Based on the BA league top 20 lists, you've got to figure Gelalich and Mejias-Brean are lurking in the low teens.

The one ranking here I view as shaky is Travieso. I get the sense that Cooper is putting him at at #5 on the list out of custom more than based on confidence.

klw
01-10-2013, 01:56 PM
Other items of note:

Billy Hamilton has been the best athlete and fastest baserunner the last 3 years.
.

Corky Miller is demanding a recount as the baserunner category.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fy-hMK00bV4

redsof72
01-11-2013, 11:38 AM
As J.J. said, there is very little separation in the guys in the bottom half of the top 10 and the next tier of players.

With all of the prospects that, within the last two years, the Reds have either traded, graduated to the bigs, or topped out, there is a huge drop right now once you get past # 6 in comparison to recent years. The players ranked 7-10 on this list would have come in somewhere in the 12-20 window in recent years.

As I have said many times, I would use caution in reading too much into the rankings. There is not as much of a consensus as it often appears. He even says, one scout liked Reynoso better than Winker. You are probably talking about a scout that saw them play five games. Scouts watch five games and move on. I have talked to a thousand scouts and you have to take their comments in generalities. Scout #1, who is a talker, will go on and on about how much he loves a particular player. Scout #2, who speaks in more guarded terms, will hold back and give you the feeling he has some reservations about that same player. Then, you get them to tell you their grade on the player, and Scout #2 actually gave him a higher grade! J.J. does a great job at what he does, but he is going strictly off phone conversations and what people are willing to share. As Doug noted, they had Guillon behind Langfield, Gelalich, and Mejias-Brean in the Pioneer League rankings and now he is ahead of all those guys. There is very little consensus.

Couple thoughts: Lohman-Janish comparison? Worlds apart. Lohman as the #1 defensive infielder is more a statement about all the guys that have left. You have virtually no one remaining that would be viewed as an above average defensive infielder. I would have thought they would have gone with David Vidal in that category.

The "best tools" title is actually a bit misleading. I guess they mean "potential best tools" or something. There is not a single scout who could tell you with a straight face that Yorman Rodriguez has a better arm than Jefry Sierra, but for whatever reason, they give Yorman the nod there, I guess because he is a much better prospect.

His comment that Stephenson has the best arm since Homer Bailey is conservative. Stephenson, at this point, throws considerably harder than Bailey at the same age. You could make a case that Stephenson has the best arm since Don Gullett.

If you were going to try to draw a consensus among scouts, it is this. Hamilton is the Reds best prospect, followed by Stephenson, no argument from anyone. Then there is a drop off. Then you have Cingrani and Corcino. Then another drop. Then most would give Travieso the benefit of the doubt and put him in the next group with Winker and depending on the scout, you could stick one of 10 guys in that same group. Then another drop, and then guys like Guillon, Rogers, Mejias-Brean, Waldrop, Y-Rod, all in that mix. Some guys would have Lutz in that group. Some would have Barnhart in there. Some would have Gelalich and some would even throw Romano in there. Some like Moscot better than Langfield and some vice versa. Reynoso will suddenly start getting talked about, for one simple reason, of course: J.J. put him on the list.

M2
01-11-2013, 12:09 PM
His comment that Stephenson has the best arm since Homer Bailey is conservative. Stephenson, at this point, throws considerably harder than Bailey at the same age. You could make a case that Stephenson has the best arm since Don Gullett.

Did Gullett or Nolan have the better arm?

It should be noted that Ty Howington once fit that description, before Tim Naehring made it his mission to blow up the kid's arm.

lollipopcurve
01-11-2013, 12:14 PM
Gullett had more arm strength than Nolan (talking about before Nolan blew out his arm). But Nolan's FB-curve combo may have been better than Gullett's FB-slider.

Howington was not in the same category as those guys, IMO.

redsof72
01-11-2013, 12:15 PM
Russ Nixon once told me that Gullett threw 100. That was before the days of the radar gun, of course. Nolan threw hard before hurting his arm. In the days when there were frequent twi-night doubleheaders, Sparky used to make sure he used Gullett in the first game when it was hard to pick up the ball as darkness was setting in.

Howington did not throw as hard as Stephenson, nor has anyone else the Reds have had for a long time (other than Chapman, of course). Stephenson can sit at 97 as a starting pitcher. Bailey was 92-95.

redsof72
01-11-2013, 12:39 PM
For those younger than me that might like a little historical perspective of the guys mentioned here: Don Gullett went 16-6 for the Reds at the age of 20, which was his second year in the bigs. Gary Nolan went 14-8 for the Reds at the age of 19. You do not hear much about pitchers from the Big Red Machine era but they were key cogs.

Reds scout Gene Bennett signed Gullett as well as many others (Larkin, O'Neill, Sabo) and loved to tell stories about Gullett as a high school pitcher in Kentucky. He has told me that he saw Gullett throw a perfect game and only one ball was actually put in play. He held his breath that no one else would see this kid, knowing that the Reds had the 14th pick in the first round. They drafted Gullett, and he pitched in a total of 11 minor league games before getting called up at age 19. Gullett's career record in the majors was 109-50 before injuries ended his career at age 27.

Gary Nolan's first year in the minors is a testament to the way things were in those days. At age 18, right out of high school, he made 12 starts with Sioux Falls, and logged 104 innings. That means he AVERAGED eight and two-thirds innings per start, for the year! He averaged more than 13 strikeouts per start over a season. Good Lord.

How good was Gary Nolan before his shoulder injury? At the all-star break in 1972, he was 13-2, 1.81. He then missed the next two years and came back as a control pitcher for two seasons before retiring at age 29.

mdccclxix
01-11-2013, 01:25 PM
Wonderful stuff redsof72

M2
01-11-2013, 01:29 PM
Howington did not throw as hard as Stephenson, nor has anyone else the Reds have had for a long time (other than Chapman, of course). Stephenson can sit at 97 as a starting pitcher. Bailey was 92-95.

Is Stephenson sitting that high? I don't doubt you, I just thought he was a tick or two lower than that (94-96 range). I love the kid, think he's the most exciting Reds pitching draft pick in ages.

Wasn't Howington working 93-94 in 2001? Anyway, I brought him up mainly as a reminder that Howington had one heck of an arm before he got ruined. He might be the most criminally mismanaged pitching prospect of the early 21st century.

Thanks for the stuff on Gullett and Nolan. I knew both had arms on loan from Olympus when they were young, but I didn't start watching until 1972 and really don't recall Gullett or Nolan much prior to 1975 (wee little me was fixated on the position players). For whatever reason, Pedro Borbon was the first Reds pitcher to make any real impression on me (probably because he pitched in every game).

dougdirt
01-11-2013, 02:04 PM
Is Stephenson sitting that high? I don't doubt you, I just thought he was a tick or two lower than that (94-96 range). I love the kid, think he's the most exciting Reds pitching draft pick in ages.



Stephenson was a little bit all over the place at times with his "sitting" velocity. There were times where he sat 92-94 and other games where he sat 95-98.

redsof72
01-11-2013, 03:47 PM
Stephenson...typically threw harder in the first inning than any subsequent inning and there were concerns that he was coming out of the bullpen too pumped up...his first inning with the Dayton team he threw a pitch that clocked in at 101 on the scoreboard gun. That stadium's gun would run a bit hot and recorded at 99 on scout's guns that I spoke with. I saw eight of his starts. He typically stayed in the 95-97 window, although he would usually pop one at 98. He could sit at 97 at times, though not consistently at that later point in the season (I had heard that he did sit at 97 earlier in the year in extended spring training). Again, Bailey, as a minor leaguer, was 92-95 primarily and would go a bit above or below. Others that I have seen who could get into the mid-90's would include Drew Hayes, Zach Stewart, the immortal Junior Martinez, Phil Valiquette, Donnie Joseph...there were others one step behind that group like Corcino, Ravin, Partch, Rogers, maybe Crabbe at times. I am leaving guys out and I can't speak to guys that threw harder at later times like Terrell Young and Ravin maybe. I never really saw Lotzkar when he was throwing his hardest but he would be in that class when healthy. But there has never been anyone like Stephenson, certainly not as a starter.

mdccclxix
01-11-2013, 10:59 PM
Stephenson...typically threw harder in the first inning than any subsequent inning and there were concerns that he was coming out of the bullpen too pumped up...his first inning with the Dayton team he threw a pitch that clocked in at 101 on the scoreboard gun. That stadium's gun would run a bit hot and recorded at 99 on scout's guns that I spoke with. I saw eight of his starts. He typically stayed in the 95-97 window, although he would usually pop one at 98. He could sit at 97 at times, though not consistently at that later point in the season (I had heard that he did sit at 97 earlier in the year in extended spring training). Again, Bailey, as a minor leaguer, was 92-95 primarily and would go a bit above or below. Others that I have seen who could get into the mid-90's would include Drew Hayes, Zach Stewart, the immortal Junior Martinez, Phil Valiquette, Donnie Joseph...there were others one step behind that group like Corcino, Ravin, Partch, Rogers, maybe Crabbe at times. I am leaving guys out and I can't speak to guys that threw harder at later times like Terrell Young and Ravin maybe. I never really saw Lotzkar when he was throwing his hardest but he would be in that class when healthy. But there has never been anyone like Stephenson, certainly not as a starter.

Yet, everyone generally agrees he's #2 behind Billy Hamilton, do you think this is correct? I had a hard time with that pick.

Superdude
01-12-2013, 12:10 AM
Yet, everyone generally agrees he's #2 behind Billy Hamilton, do you think this is correct? I had a hard time with that pick.

I think Stephenson has a better shot at being a truly elite player, but there's definitely some risk that goes along with being a 19 year old pitcher throwing 100MPH. Hamilton's basically a guaranteed useful player with considerable upside in his own right.

gilpdawg
01-12-2013, 05:29 PM
Without injury Gary Nolan might be in the Hall of Fame. Before he got hurt he had Ryanesque stuff.

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 2

redsof72
01-15-2013, 12:02 PM
Yet, everyone generally agrees he's #2 behind Billy Hamilton, do you think this is correct? I had a hard time with that pick.

I think Hamilton is a clear #1 and Stephenson is a clear #2. Although, for me, Stephenson actually has the higher floor. Stephenson, barring injury, is going to pitch in the bigs. Don't know what he will develop into, but his arm is too good to be a guy who can't cut it. Other things beyond having a blazing fastball will determine his eventual level of usefulness, but at 95-97, he will have some kind of a role.

Hamilton is the ultimate wildcard. He has a chance to be a special player. His impact could be such that he lifts a good team to greatness. If you saw the Future's Game and you saw the play where, with Billy on third, the opposing pitcher got all out of sync on a routine grounder to the mound and ended up throwing it down the right field line...that is Billy Hamilton. He will do things that no one else in the major leagues does. I am a tough sell and I saw it for a season. At the end of the year, in a conversation with DeShields, I said "despite what the stats may say, Hamilton was the MVP of the league this year if you are truly measuring the value he brought to his team." Delino agreed there was no doubt about it. This is a guy who hit .278 with three homers.

At the same time, the reality is that you can't steal first base. You have to hit enough to justify your spot in the lineup. There is a chance that he will never do that. If he gets there and can never break .220, you can't use him. I think he will be a special player, but the reality is, his bat is not so impressive that you can say for sure that he will hit until he actually does it.

Our number one prospect from one year ago hit .212 in the bigs in 2012 and ended up back in the minors. If he does that again in 2013, he is going to be looked at as an entirely different kind of prospect. My point is, with hitters, you don't know until it plays out.

I remember, in 2000, a manager telling me that 20 year old Double-A outfielder Corey Patterson would be a total superstar and win multiple MVPs. Corey Patterson. The same year in the same league, Sean Burroughs, age 20, was thought by everyone to be a total lock to be a future all-star. He was hitting .290 in Double-A at age 20. Got to the bigs and couldn't hit.

Boss-Hog
01-15-2013, 11:25 PM
This just came to my attention - as the stickied post in this forum indicates, do not post paid content.

M2
01-16-2013, 01:21 PM
My point is, with hitters, you don't know until it plays out.

With the caveat that all prospects can go wrong, hitters are a lot easier to project than pitchers. The roadside is littered with can't-miss pitching prospects who eventually missed.

Superdude
01-16-2013, 01:41 PM
With the caveat that all prospects can go wrong, hitters are a lot easier to project than pitchers. The roadside is littered with can't-miss pitching prospects who eventually missed.

I would say the complete opposite. Pitching, unlike hitting, is a skill that can pretty much be evaluated against any competition. If a guy's pounding the zone at 95 and snapping off a plus breaking ball against rookie ball hitters, you know that's gonna play anywhere he goes. Hitting is tough to translate to different levels just because it's so interrelated to the pitching.

M2
01-16-2013, 02:29 PM
I would say the complete opposite. Pitching, unlike hitting, is a skill that can pretty much be evaluated against any competition. If a guy's pounding the zone at 95 and snapping off a plus breaking ball against rookie ball hitters, you know that's gonna play anywhere he goes. Hitting is tough to translate to different levels just because it's so interrelated to the pitching.

This really isn't an opinion on my part. The folks at BA will tell you flat out that hitters are less volatile. The number crunchers have done reviews of top prospect lists and the hitters generally turn out to be the safer bets.

Here's a list of Reds top 100 hitting and pitching prospect during the past 20 years (according to BA):

Pitchers

Aroldis Chapman
Homer Bailey
Ryan Wagner
Richie Gardner
Bobby Basham
Chris Gruler
Ty Howington
Rob Bell
Scott Williamson
Brett Tomko
Johnny Ruffin
John Roper
Mo Sanford

Hitters

Billy Hamilton
Devin Mesoraco
Yonder Alonso
Todd Frazier
Jay Bruce
Joey Votto
Drew Stubbs
Edwin Encarnacion
Austin Kearns
Wily Mo Pena
Drew Henson
Adam Dunn
Gookie Dawkins
Dane Sardinha
David Espinosa
Damian Jackson
Pokey Reese
Aaron Boone
Chad Mottola
Pat Watkins
Willie Greene
Reggie Sanders
Steve Gibralter
Dan Wilson

Plenty of punchlines in those lists, but most of the hitters panned out to be every day starters in majors, most of the pitchers missed. A lot of that has to do with injuries, but that's why there's a TINSTAAPP acronym and not a TINSTAAHP acronym.

Jonah Keri did a good article (http://www.grantland.com/story/_/id/7525727/edwin-jackson-just-latest-example-future-ace-never-materialized) on the whole TINSTAAPP phenomenon last winter.

Superdude
01-16-2013, 03:12 PM
This really isn't an opinion on my part. The folks at BA will tell you flat out that hitters are less volatile. The number crunchers have done reviews of top prospect lists and the hitters generally turn out to be the safer bets.

Pitchers are no doubt more volatile, but I think you're taking it one step too far in assuming that means hitters can be projected easier. Hitters are naturally less volatile because they generally can't see their skills evaporate overnight like a pitcher can.

M2
01-16-2013, 03:31 PM
Pitchers are no doubt more volatile, but I think you're taking it one step too far in assuming that means hitters can be projected easier. Hitters are naturally less volatile because they generally can't see their skills evaporate overnight like a pitcher can.

If pitchers are more volatile, then by definition they are harder to project.

Superdude
01-16-2013, 03:46 PM
If pitchers are more volatile, then by definition they are harder to project.


I guess projecting is the wrong word. Translating maybe? Pitching, as a fixed skill, is easier to gauge than hitting skill is IMO. Obviously pitchers are unique in that they can completely lose that skill, making them less projectable, but I still think the skill itself is easier to judge. For instance, all injury risk aside, I think Stephenson has a better chance of being an impact player than Hamilton does. We still have no idea how Hamilton's bat is going to adapt to big league pitchers who know every hole in his swing. Stephenson's stuff, if developed properly, is going to be extremely hard to hit no matter who's in the batters box.

M2
01-16-2013, 04:04 PM
I guess projecting is the wrong word. Translating maybe? Pitching, as a fixed skill, is easier to gauge than hitting skill is IMO. Obviously pitchers are unique in that they can completely lose that skill, making them less projectable, but I still think the skill itself is easier to judge. For instance, all injury risk aside, I think Stephenson has a better chance of being an impact player than Hamilton does. We still have no idea how Hamilton's bat is going to adapt to big league pitchers who know every hole in his swing. Stephenson's stuff, if developed properly, is going to be extremely hard to hit no matter who's in the batters box.

Well, if you take injury and the maddening frequency with which pitchers lose their stuff out of the equation, I'd argue you don't have much of an equation, but I suppose you could then make a case either way.

You really don't how well a guy's stuff will play up a few levels. For instance, not all 100 MPH heaters are created equal. Sometimes hitters at higher levels feast on breaking stuff that allowed a pitcher to plow through A ball. Sometimes at higher levels a slight lack of command becomes a tragic flaw.

I'd say hitters and pitchers generally face similar adjustment challenges as they move up the ladder. The next level always comes with the possibility of exposing your flaws. Pitchers, however, are vastly more likely to suffer a critical injury or to lose their stuff, which makes them a harder projection.

redsof72
01-16-2013, 04:26 PM
When you start crunching the numbers, all of that may be true. But we are talking about two players with rather unique skill sets. When you talk about pitchers being hard to project, you are including in your illustration all of the 87 mile per hour thumbers who dominated in A-ball and couldn't hack it in the majors. We are not talking about those kind of guys here. We are talking about a guy that is consistently 95-97 with no major control issues. Give me just a list of those kind of guys, no one else, and, assuming they stayed healthy, tell me how many of those guys fizzled out.

On that list of Reds prospects that you listed, the only guy who throws as hard as Stephenson is Chapman. The rest really are not applicable to the discussion.

As far as the injury argument, yes, Stephenson's ability to stay healthy is the first given. That's why the Reds limited him the way they did last year. My point is, if he stays healthy, he is going to have a big league career with an arm like that. He is not going to be a "4A" player with that kind of arm.

M2
01-16-2013, 04:55 PM
We are talking about a guy that is consistently 95-97 with no major control issues. Give me just a list of those kind of guys, no one else, and, assuming they stayed healthy, tell me how many of those guys fizzled out.

I agree Stephenson technically has all the stuff to succeed. Yet young flamethrowers sometimes do lose velocity (Colt Griffin, Mark Pawelek). And you simply can't take injury out of the equation (otherwise we'd all be singing the praises of Adam Miller).

I love Stephenson's stuff and I'm thrilled the Reds picked him and I think he's been handled just about as well as possible to date. He's exactly the kind of high ceiling talent the Reds should have been after with a lower 1st round pick. But he's got a lot of innings and a few years between here and the majors. We don't know how his arm is going to respond to that. I hoping he hits the majors with every ounce of that heater intact and finely polished secondary offerings, so I don't want to dwell on whether something could wrong outside of saying pitchers can make you bang your head against the wall.

Anyway, my point wasn't about Stephenson. It was about projecting hitters vs. pitchers in generic terms. The tilt is pretty strong towards hitters.

lollipopcurve
01-16-2013, 05:41 PM
The reason it's safer to bank on hitters than pitchers is health. There are various components of that (age, pitch selection, mechanics, to name 3 biggies) which remain imperfectly understood, so it'll be a while before teams can keep the guys who throw as reliably healthy as the guys who hit.

Salukifan2
01-16-2013, 05:56 PM
All of the advanced scouting and statistical analysis implemented today really cuts down on the number of bust prospects. If a player is highly touted today i think it translates to success more than it used to.

Superdude
01-16-2013, 06:02 PM
You really don't how well a guy's stuff will play up a few levels. For instance, not all 100 MPH heaters are created equal. Sometimes hitters at higher levels feast on breaking stuff that allowed a pitcher to plow through A ball. Sometimes at higher levels a slight lack of command becomes a tragic flaw.

I'd say hitters and pitchers generally face similar adjustment challenges as they move up the ladder. The next level always comes with the possibility of exposing your flaws. Pitchers, however, are vastly more likely to suffer a critical injury or to lose their stuff, which makes them a harder projection.

You're sort of expanding my point into performance when I'm talking about "skills" only. All of those flaws are easily spotted by any scout. It's the reason Chris Manno is an irrelevant prospect right now.

I don't think you could even draw data on this, but how many pitchers were projected to be great and failed inexplicably without any injury, loss of command, etc.? I'm going through baseball america's top 100's and it seems like the vast majority of pitchers turned out to be who we thought they would be, unless of course they got hurt or lost velocity or something like that. The hitters on the other hand are littered with guys who, without any explanation or reason, just couldn't hit upon reaching the big leagues. The scouts just flat missed and missed badly on a whole bunch of hitters.

M2
01-16-2013, 06:58 PM
You're sort of expanding my point into performance when I'm talking about "skills" only. All of those flaws are easily spotted by any scout. It's the reason Chris Manno is an irrelevant prospect right now.

I don't think you could even draw data on this, but how many pitchers were projected to be great and failed inexplicably without any injury, loss of command, etc.? I'm going through baseball america's top 100's and it seems like the vast majority of pitchers turned out to be who we thought they would be, unless of course they got hurt or lost velocity or something like that. The hitters on the other hand are littered with guys who, without any explanation or reason, just couldn't hit upon reaching the big leagues. The scouts just flat missed and missed badly on a whole bunch of hitters.

If you lost velocity or command then you didn't turn out to be who they thought you were. Pretty much the same thing as position players who never got their bats working.

And how do you sort out a Jerome Williams who flopped and then got injured? Would he have put things together without the injury or was his initial flop a sure sign of future misery?

Superdude
01-16-2013, 07:10 PM
If you lost velocity or command then you didn't turn out to be who they thought you were. Pretty much the same thing as position players who never got their bats working.

You can't see the difference at all? If a pitcher loses velocity, that's a tangible change in skillset. Justin Smoak or Dustin Ackley or anyone of that ilk has the exact same skills that every scout saw in the minor leagues, but they haven't translated effectively at all. Two completely different scenarios.

dougdirt
01-16-2013, 07:44 PM
Pitchers today are staying healthier than ever before. When they do get hurt, they are able to come back healthier than ever before.

They are still riskier because of the injury risk, but like I have been saying for 5 years or so, in 10 years when we can look back at 2000-2010, when compared to the pitching prospects of the decade before them, the success rate is going to be MUCH higher. Young arms used to be flat out abused in the minor leagues, particularly high school arms. That isn't the case anymore. We are seeing the benefits from it in the Majors today.

M2
01-17-2013, 01:18 PM
You can't see the difference at all? If a pitcher loses velocity, that's a tangible change in skillset. Justin Smoak or Dustin Ackley or anyone of that ilk has the exact same skills that every scout saw in the minor leagues, but they haven't translated effectively at all. Two completely different scenarios.

No, it's just that we measure pitch velocity and not bat speed. A drop in velo also sometimes reflects a pitcher struggling with command. It's a lot easier to stroke your fastball if you don't have to worry about where it's going. As you move up the ladder placement becomes every bit as important as speed and movement. So a kid might drop from 94-96 to 92-94 when he faces the requirement of spotting that fastball.

Superdude
01-17-2013, 03:25 PM
No, it's just that we measure pitch velocity and not bat speed. A drop in velo also sometimes reflects a pitcher struggling with command. It's a lot easier to stroke your fastball if you don't have to worry about where it's going. As you move up the ladder placement becomes every bit as important as speed and movement. So a kid might drop from 94-96 to 92-94 when he faces the requirement of spotting that fastball.

Alright, agree to disagaree. :thumbup:

kpresidente
01-19-2013, 12:00 PM
Wasn't Homer Bailey some kind of 98-MPH flamethrower at the outset as well? He didn't become a multi-year top-5 prospect for nothing.

Superdude
01-19-2013, 05:14 PM
Wasn't Homer Bailey some kind of 98-MPH flamethrower at the outset as well? He didn't become a multi-year top-5 prospect for nothing.

He probably threw harder than he does now according to reports, but I don't think he ever "pitched" much above 93-95. He scraped 97-98 on occasion, but I don't think that was a regular occurrence by any means.

Tony Cloninger
01-26-2013, 08:46 PM
Is Stephenson sitting that high? I don't doubt you, I just thought he was a tick or two lower than that (94-96 range). I love the kid, think he's the most exciting Reds pitching draft pick in ages.

Wasn't Howington working 93-94 in 2001? Anyway, I brought him up mainly as a reminder that Howington had one heck of an arm before he got ruined. He might be the most criminally mismanaged pitching prospect of the early 21st century.

Thanks for the stuff on Gullett and Nolan. I knew both had arms on loan from Olympus when they were young, but I didn't start watching until 1972 and really don't recall Gullett or Nolan much prior to 1975 (wee little me was fixated on the position players). For whatever reason, Pedro Borbon was the first Reds pitcher to make any real impression on me (probably because he pitched in every game).



What did they do to Howington? I just recall that he was getting hurt but no specific as to why, other than....he was just not lucky in regards to injuries.

Drugs Delaney
01-29-2013, 01:48 PM
All of the advanced scouting and statistical analysis implemented today really cuts down on the number of bust prospects. If a player is highly touted today i think it translates to success more than it used to.

This is a great point. The fact of the matter is that there is way more information out there about prospects than there ever was before. And there are much more advances ways of measuring and interpreting that info.

Prospect rankings are always going to be somewhat of a crapshoot just by their nature, but I think it is fair to say that they are less of a crapshoot now than they were 5 or 10 years ago.

Ohayou
01-30-2013, 04:15 PM
...and here is the dreaded FanGraphs Top 15:

http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/index.php/cincinnati-reds-top-15-prospects-2012-13/

Scrap Irony
01-30-2013, 06:32 PM
Can this excerpt put to rest the "Hamilton has a weak arm" and is destined to be Juan Pierre meme?


He has all the skills necessary to develop into a plus fielder — above-average range, good arm and developing reads. The contact I spoke with said the defensive move had nothing to do with the organization’s feeling that Hamilton could not handle shortstop. “It’s more about what he can do, rather than what he can’t, with this move… He’s going to be one of the best [in center field].”

(I know it won't, but at least it's another bullet in the chamber.)

AtomicDumpling
01-30-2013, 06:40 PM
Can this excerpt put to rest the "Hamilton has a weak arm" and is destined to be Juan Pierre meme?



(I know it won't, but at least it's another bullet in the chamber.

Hamilton is rumored to have been able to throw 90+ mph from the mound in high school. Not sure I believe it, but I heard it.

I don't think they shifted him to the outfield because they didn't think he could play shortstop, nor do I think Cozart is good enough to block Hamilton from playing shortstop for the Reds. I think they moved him to centerfield purely to get him to the majors quicker. Frustration with Drew Stubbs may also have influenced their decision.

To stay at shortstop he would need a lot of practice and improvement on his footwork to get his feet and body in the proper position to make a good, strong throw to first base. He often made throws from awkward angles, which caused them to be weak and off-target. Too many sidearm and submarine style throws because his body was not in the proper position.

I can see him possibly being moved back to shortstop if they re-sign Choo and/or Cozart fails as a starter. Putting Hamilton back at short would require a lengthy stint in the minors though, so it is not likely to happen.

mth123
01-30-2013, 08:33 PM
I think its more a matter of the Reds thinking that Hamilton can be a superb defender in CF. They may still think he can be OK at SS, but I'm guessing that they think he can be top of the line in CF.

dougdirt
01-30-2013, 09:28 PM
I think its more a matter of the Reds thinking that Hamilton can be a superb defender in CF. They may still think he can be OK at SS, but I'm guessing that they think he can be top of the line in CF.

I think it is a mix of both. Hamilton has the right tools to be a shortstop, but it would take a while to get to that point.

mace
01-30-2013, 10:46 PM
The most encouraging thing I saw in the fangraphs story . . . concerning Yorman:

Added to the 40-man roster, the talent evaluator I spoke with said he’s excited to see how Rodriguez performs in big league camp this spring, because he feels the veterans will take the young outfielder under their wings and teach him a lot. “He’s a very good person, very smart. Everyone pulls for him.”

We've heard a lot of negative stuff about his attitude and work ethic. This was a different and welcome take.

mth123
01-30-2013, 11:09 PM
The most encouraging thing I saw in the fangraphs story . . . concerning Yorman:

Added to the 40-man roster, the talent evaluator I spoke with said hes excited to see how Rodriguez performs in big league camp this spring, because he feels the veterans will take the young outfielder under their wings and teach him a lot. Hes a very good person, very smart. Everyone pulls for him.

We've heard a lot of negative stuff about his attitude and work ethic. This was a different and welcome take.

I noticed that too. I was also encouraged by some other tidbits:

1. they believe H-Rod could handle SS occassionally as a bench player. That makes him a lot more attractavie as a role player IMO.

2. Cingrani's secondary pitches were "coming on quite quickly at the end of te year"

3. Gelalich "can be a complete player with very solid tools"

A couple of red flags:

1. Corcino "throws across his body and has some effort to his delivery"

2. Langfield "has to learn how to pitch differently"

lollipopcurve
01-31-2013, 12:03 PM
We've heard a lot of negative stuff about his attitude and work ethic. This was a different and welcome take.

Agreed that this was the most positive take on Yorman's "intangibles" yet. I thought he proved a lot last year once he got back to Dayton. Hopefully it's the foundation he can build on.

Also pleased to read the write up on Lutz, which included speculation he could hit the majors by the end of 2013.

mdccclxix
01-31-2013, 12:20 PM
That Gelalich nod for #10 in fangraphs is another source saying wait and see. I didn't know he had injury issues. Perhaps he'll have a great year next year and shoot up our list.

Also, on H Rodriguez, if Hannahan can fill in at SS that will help his case in 2013 and 2014 to take the Donald/Isturis role. Otherwise, he's a late 2014 callup once Frazier either fails at 3b or starts prepping for LF after Ludwick leaves. Either way, it seems Henry is either trade bait (blocked by Phillips) or on the Frazier/Alonso/Francisco plan of several years in AAA barring injuries to the MLB roster.

On Lutz: Lutz is an excellent base runner and has deceptive speed for a 6’3” 235 lb player. “He runs very well despite being a big dude,” a contact said. “When he gets on base, he’s a threat… He’ll go first to third and score on a hit into the gap.”

That gives me hope he can refine his LF game eventually. Sounds like the fact he's actually a good athlete and not just a chubby 1b is why he's got some helium in the organization.

klw
01-31-2013, 05:00 PM
Can this excerpt put to rest the "Hamilton has a weak arm" and is destined to be Juan Pierre meme?

(I know it won't, but at least it's another bullet in the chamber.)

As noted by Baseball America when Hamilton was drafted, Hamilton could throw 94 mph. There is some arm strength there that he should be able to draw upon and hone with the different outfield throwing techniques.

I can't find the direct link, see post 4
http://www.redszone.com/forums/showt...ilton+scouting

camisadelgolf
01-31-2013, 06:31 PM
As noted by Baseball America when Hamilton was drafted, Hamilton could throw 94 mph. There is some arm strength there that he should be able to draw upon and hone with the different outfield throwing techniques.

I can't find the direct link, see post 4
http://www.redszone.com/forums/showt...ilton+scouting
For those who don't now, the claim is that Hamilton could throw 94 mph from the mound. He has an adequate-to-plus arm for any position.

M2
02-01-2013, 02:15 PM
A couple of red flags:

1. Corcino "throws across his body and has some effort to his delivery"

And the comparison to Ramon Ortiz. I shall never forget what that man did in a Reds uniform, nor forgive it.

Drugs Delaney
02-01-2013, 06:50 PM
A lot of interesting tidbits in the fan graphs article. I was unaware of the possibility of Lutz maybe being able to handle LF.

It seemed that some of the write ups didn't match up the order they ranked guys in, if that makes sense. A couple guys ranked higher than expected for example had relatively pessimistic write ups and vice versa on a couple of the guys in the teens.

Great read overall.

Cooper
02-02-2013, 10:40 AM
Another thought about the Hamillton move - lots of young middle infielders get hurt because of the double play and someone else getting them in harms way. I think Larkin said one of the things he was most proud of is not getting a 2nd baseman killed trying to turn the double play. It's a major concern and injury effects the development of many young middle infielders - you put him in CF and he stays out of harms way.

Looking at Corcino's delivery -leads me to believe he would be better placed as a bullpenner than a starter - throwing across the body usually leads to a pretty quick injury.

dougdirt
02-02-2013, 05:48 PM
Looking at Corcino's delivery -leads me to believe he would be better placed as a bullpenner than a starter - throwing across the body usually leads to a pretty quick injury.

It hasn't done much to Cueto.

nate1213
02-02-2013, 08:28 PM
Can this excerpt put to rest the "Hamilton has a weak arm" and is destined to be Juan Pierre meme?



(I know it won't, but at least it's another bullet in the chamber.)

I heard the same from someone who played with him his first year in pro ball.

Cooper
02-02-2013, 10:03 PM
Cueto has an awful violent finish - i'm not sure another pitcher should emulate that -in fact, Corcino's may be more violent. Of course they all fall apart eventually- and they'd all last longer in the bullpen -i just don't think he can make it to the bigs as a starter without a major injury.

BuckeyeRedleg
02-05-2013, 03:47 PM
For those younger than me that might like a little historical perspective of the guys mentioned here: Don Gullett went 16-6 for the Reds at the age of 20, which was his second year in the bigs. Gary Nolan went 14-8 for the Reds at the age of 19. You do not hear much about pitchers from the Big Red Machine era but they were key cogs.

Reds scout Gene Bennett signed Gullett as well as many others (Larkin, O'Neill, Sabo) and loved to tell stories about Gullett as a high school pitcher in Kentucky. He has told me that he saw Gullett throw a perfect game and only one ball was actually put in play. He held his breath that no one else would see this kid, knowing that the Reds had the 14th pick in the first round. They drafted Gullett, and he pitched in a total of 11 minor league games before getting called up at age 19. Gullett's career record in the majors was 109-50 before injuries ended his career at age 27.

Gary Nolan's first year in the minors is a testament to the way things were in those days. At age 18, right out of high school, he made 12 starts with Sioux Falls, and logged 104 innings. That means he AVERAGED eight and two-thirds innings per start, for the year! He averaged more than 13 strikeouts per start over a season. Good Lord.

How good was Gary Nolan before his shoulder injury? At the all-star break in 1972, he was 13-2, 1.81. He then missed the next two years and came back as a control pitcher for two seasons before retiring at age 29.

Great stuff as always, redsof72.

Very interesting on Nolan. I wanted to learn more about him and found this great story done by the SABR folks. Good read.

http://sabr.org/bioproj/person/dd89241b

Ohayou
02-05-2013, 10:06 PM
When is the actual Top 100 being released?

dougdirt
02-05-2013, 10:26 PM
When is the actual Top 100 being released?

February 19th.