Originally Posted by mace
As an interesting note (to me, at least) that probably means very little, Frazier's apparent election here represents the third straight first-rounder, one for each of the last three drafts. (OK, he was a supplemental first-rounder, behind Mesoraco, but a first-rounder nevertheless.) That pattern suggests . . .
1) the Reds are doing an excellent job with their highest picks;
2) they're not doing so hot overall, with very few players stepping up and distinguishing themselves;
3) the constituency here is heavily swayed by the perceptions that attend first-round draft picks.
Not sure which it is. But I wouldn't count out No. 3.
(My guess for the fourth-rated prospect is Yorman, who was of course not drafted but, by dint of tools and hoopla, clearly falls into the same kind of categorization.)
(For what it's worth, I do like all these players. I'm especially intrigued by Frazier's intangibles.)
I think you omit a variant of #3. There are some players who have performed well and whose underlying skills suggest that the player is likely to continue to do well. Then there are guys who have performed well superficially but whose underlying skills and/or component performances suggest that the player is likely to experience a big hurdle down that road. Often, those #1 picks are the guys who have the underlying skill sets that validate their performances.
What makes a top prospect is a combination of the two -- and it's what separates Todd Frazier from Juan Francisco. For me, a prospect rating is essentially -- I'm simplifying -- (Ceiling) * (Likelihood of Reaching Ceiling). Likelihood is a combination of the underlying skill set as identified by scouts, it's development over time, and its validation through performance to date.
On a scale of 100, Fransisco or Rodriguez might have a 90 ceiling, but a 40 likelihood. Meanwhile, Frazier is sitting there at 80 and 80. Obviously the numbers are made up to illustrate the point, but that's my approach.