Baseball America rates Reds top 10 prospects

[Falls City Beer]

Originally Posted by Betterread

Does that mean that you believe Wily Mo Pena, Edwin Encarnacion and Brandon Claussen will turn out to be less successful than Jason LaRue, Aaron Boone and Brett Tomko? (all six players mentioned were prospects that were given significant roles for the ML team)
Or are you talking about the drafts for those years? For the sake of comparison, I think the bad years for Reds drafts were 1999-2002 (only yielding Ben Broussard- with hope for Joey Votto and Chris Denorfia). 2003 has turned out badly, but 2004 and 2005 still hold promise.

Really? 2004 holds promise? Do tell. Err, never mind, I'd rather not endure another Bailey stat-skewering. Which leaves this question: how can one player with an enormous "if" tag hanging around his neck qualify as a "promising" draft?

And please, please count me among the dubious of the 2005 draft. Bruce, Wood, the whole damn lot. Too young; they're like homunculi at this point.

[rdiersin]

Originally Posted by Reds Nd2

The GB/FB doesn't give you a cause for concern then? It seems to me that this would be of paramount importance, especially if a pitcher began to miss bats. I'm asking, because GB/FB is the first thing I look at. It's troublesome to me if a pitcher is getting most of his non strikeout outs, on fly balls.

The thing about Medlock, is if you look at the game log, you see that after his first four starts he only gave up 2 HR. That's right, he gave up 4 of his HRs in his first four appearances of the year. Furthermore, he had a GO/FO ratio closer to 1, in 0.85. (I should say that if you go by the box scores and find the GO and FO and calculate the GO/FO, you don't get the GB/FB that BA has in their stats. At least I didn't, but it was close.)

The one cause for concern that I had was that it seemed that he was shut down early in Sarasota, and I never heard anything about that.

[Aronchis]

The key difference between the mid-90's system vs. now are the arms. These guys are legit power hurlers. They throw heat. Whether they develope anything with that heat is of course questionable, but the raw talent is there compared to the mid-90's system which offered very little in terms of raw talent. I would say this is a big year for Bailey,Gonzo,Pelland,Chick,Vallygirl and Ward of the "power" throwers. Lets see how they develope with some softer tossers like Medlock, Stevens,Lecure and Fisher mixed in.

O'brien is either going to leave the team with a increasing number of power arms beginning to sprinkle into the upper minors, or the status quo which we have had for the last 20 years. It could influence the new GM's timetable and such. Do you rebuild over in a 5-6 year plan? Or go more for a 1-2 year plan based on talent already inside the organization? Pray for the best.

[Reds Nd2]

I haven't checked the game logs, but you bring up some very good points about Medlock. My questions were meant to be in judging pitchers overall, GB/FB is the first thing I look at. Milton has me a little gun shy, I guess.

[Steve4192]

Originally Posted by Reds Nd2

The GB/FB doesn't give you a cause for concern then? It seems to me that this would be of paramount importance, especially if a pitcher began to miss bats. I'm asking, because GB/FB is the first thing I look at. It's troublesome to me if a pitcher is getting most of his non strikeout outs, on fly balls.

Cause for concern?

Sure ... if the player is an extreme flyball pitcher and has shown problems keeping the ball in the park. Otherwise, I don't worry too much about it. Just beacuse a guy is a flyball pitcher does not mean that he is, or will be, gopher prone. Pedro Martinez, Johan Santana, Jason Schmidt, and Mark Prior are all flyball pitchers and they've all been pretty good at keeping the ball in the park.

In general, I feel GB:FB rate doesn't have much predictive value as to whether a guy will develop 'gopheritis' at some point in the future. I feel his actual HR/H rate is a much better indicator of future success/failure.

In Medlock's case, he is nowhere near being an 'extreme' flyball pitcher, and has had his HR rate in control for most of his career. At this point, I am cautiously optimistic, but I will reserve the right to change my mind if the Southern League goes all 'Whack a Mole' on him in 2006.

[Falls City Beer]

Originally Posted by princeton

Farm system 2003-2005 reminds me of 1994-1997 except that they can't blame Marge

Right. Now we have a clear picture of what it looks like to have all of the idiots pulling in one direction.

[Kc61]

This list confirms my view that DanO has succeeded in terms of stocking the Reds system with better minor league prospects. I find the list pretty encouraging.

Bailey, Bruce, Wood are all high level young prospects. The 2005 draft had a number of other good ones, particularly pitchers (Ward, LeClure, etc.) who are not even on this list. Guys like Pelland, Gonzalez and Chick are solid arms (not a junk baller among them). Add in the injury rehabs (Dumatrait, Gardner, Pauly), relievers (Guevera, Shafer) and some others (Germano, Medlock) you are starting to see some real depth.

Many of these guys are in the lower minors, but in two years, if they stay healthy, they will start to emerge. I'm glad the Reds drafted Bailey out of high school rather than a lesser talent at the college level. (Top college guys were gone when Reds drafted in first round, as I recall.)

I'd like to look at the top 30 list BA issues every year. I think, perhaps, for the first time in a while, it will be worth reading beyond prospect number 12 or 13.

[rdiersin]

Originally Posted by Reds Nd2

I haven't checked the game logs, but you bring up some very good points about Medlock. My questions were meant to be in judging pitchers overall, GB/FB is the first thing I look at. Milton has me a little gun shy, I guess.

I understand, and GB/FB is important for major league pitchers since it is very consistent from year to year. Its just not the most important. Defense independent stats such as DIPS and FIP are much more consistent, at least that has been my experience. And Milton pretty much fails there too.

[M2]

Originally Posted by Aronchis

The key difference between the mid-90's system vs. now are the arms. These guys are legit power hurlers. They throw heat.

Ty Howington, Ricardo Aramboles, Rob Bell and Chris Gruler threw plenty of heat. So what.

Back in the '90s, Brett Tomko threw hard. Johnny Ruffin could blow the doors off your car with his heater. Curt Lyons had a power pitcher profile. IIRC, Mo Sanford earned some Bob Gibson comparisons. John Roper had a plenty good arm. Kevin Jarvis and Tim Pugh could dial it in the mid-90s as well.

Yeah, this crew will solve all the club's problems. That line ought to come with a built-in Rocket T. Squirrel shaking his head at it. Now, it's possible this pack of teenagers could develop into something good, but they haven't done anything yet and there's 30 teams out there with kids who can tickle a radar gun. So far this crew hasn't done much to distinguish itself (Travis Wood being the lone exception).

Originally Posted by Betterread

Does that mean that you believe Wily Mo Pena, Edwin Encarnacion and Brandon Claussen will turn out to be less successful than Jason LaRue, Aaron Boone and Brett Tomko?

Hard to call Claussen a Reds product. In fact, and this speaks volumes, the three guys you picked out of a hat to defend the Reds system all came to the organization via trade.

[Superdude]

BA's so into tool it's rediculous! Perez is just a pathetic hitter and Gonzalez got absolutely torched in low A.

Where is Howard, Bergolla, and Dumatrait? At least they have had some success.

[Betterread]

Originally Posted by Falls City Beer

Really? 2004 holds promise? Do tell. Err, never mind, I'd rather not endure another Bailey stat-skewering. Which leaves this question: how can one player with an enormous "if" tag hanging around his neck qualify as a "promising" draft?

Please keep inmind that BA named 3 draftees from 2004 in the Reds' top 10. So at least a few other people share the opinion that there was some potential talent from that draft. I thought that was what this thread was about.
I don't know if you read over what you are writing, but you take a contemptuous tone in some of your posts. If you value how clearly your thoughts are communicated, you ought to try a little harder to be more articulate and less hostile. This is just a suggestion, and you are free to ignore it.

[SteelSD]

Originally Posted by Kc61

This list confirms my view that DanO has succeeded in terms of stocking the Reds system with better minor league prospects. I find the list pretty encouraging.

That list includes players ranked #4, #6, #7, and #10 who've done absolutely nothing in the Reds' system. The #8 guy (Pelland) can't get really get anyone out. That's bad because if you're going to carry your prospect label based on your arm, at some point your arm needs help you actually record a goodly number of Outs. The number 5 guy (Denorfia) began last season as a 24-year old AA player and projects as a backup OF.

You may not realize this, but that list actually stops at #3. If you'd gain any insight by reading past #12/13 it would only be to catch the guys BA wasn't smart enough to include in the top 10. But it's academic really, because BA has done a great job of turning itself into the blindfolded dart board rag of tools evaluation.

There's a very simple difference between a good farm system and a bad farm system. With a good farm system, you'd have a difficult time deciding who to leave off a top 10 prospect list. With the Reds farm system, it's a struggle to figure out who's worth including.

[Aronchis]

Originally Posted by Superdude

BA's so into tool it's rediculous! Perez is just a pathetic hitter and Gonzalez got absolutely torched in low A.

Where is Howard, Bergolla, and Dumatrait? At least they have had some success.

So he got "torched" in limited low A innings as a 19 year old, he did well in Billings, his proper age level. That is why people don't like drafting High School pitching, because it takes years for it to develope "most" of the time.

[lollipopcurve]

The BA list is what it is -- part pact between BA and the organization to make high picks look good, part echoing of earlier BA rankings/assessments, part objective evaluation. So, my assumption is that there are kernels of truth (how good are these guys?) and interest (how do the Reds feel about these guys?). Not easy to know which is which, though...

In this case...

Surprised to see Raffy Gonzalez, and surprised to hear about his conditioning issue (which was forecast when he was drafted, but not reprised this past year, at least to my knowledge). Glad to read about that power arm, though, and some of his numbers at Billings were impressive for a 19-year-old.

Where's Dumatrait? He had a good year at AA, especially for a first season back from TJ. I think he was on the list last year, so it's a mystery that he has dropped off...

BJ -- the most important position prospect in the system, in my opinion. He didn't make my top ten, because I need to see more ABs, and he's pretty old. But if he emerges, a power-hitting switch-hitter somewhere in the middle of the Reds lineup, it will be exciting.

Votto -- I had him at #9 too. Worried about Joey.

No Bergolla or Howard -- Never got love from BA, never will. Both are underrated, I think.

No Rosales -- They're wrong.

No Medlock -- I hope others are right about Cal. But I'd be surprised if the organization keeps him as a starter at AA. Go Cal.