Who are the top pitching prospects in the Reds minor leagues?

[dougdirt]

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]

Originally Posted by dougdirt

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]

Originally Posted by Steve4192

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]

Originally Posted by Steve4192

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]

Originally Posted by dougdirt

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]

Originally Posted by Steve4192

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]

Originally Posted by dougdirt

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]

Originally Posted by Steve4192

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]

Originally Posted by Steve4192

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]

Originally Posted by camisadelgolf

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]

Originally Posted by Steve4192

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]

Originally Posted by dougdirt

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]

Originally Posted by Steve4192

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]

Originally Posted by dougdirt

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.