It's the Halfway Point of the Season: Who's in Your Top 10?

[kaldaniels]

You guys realize this all started cause Doug essentially was called a troll for ranking Tony at #10. I don't blame him for taking offense and fighting back. I know there have been differences but this thread was clean up till then.

[Scrap Irony]

You guys realize this all started cause Doug essentially was called a troll for ranking Tony at #10. I don't blame him for taking offense and fighting back. I know there have been differences but this thread was clean up till then.

Nah.

This discussion has been years in the making. There's a moving definition of what constitutes a good prospect that's worthy of hashing out, IMO. Too, exposing prospect sites as little more than guesswork is helpful to all those that take those sites as gospel.

[mdccclxix]

What the hay:

1) Hamilton
2) Stephanson
3) Cingrani
4) Travieso
5) Corcino
6) Lutz
7) Rahier
8) Rodriguez
9) Joseph
10) Winker

[membengal]

You guys realize this all started cause Doug essentially was called a troll for ranking Tony at #10. I don't blame him for taking offense and fighting back. I know there have been differences but this thread was clean up till then.

I didn't say he was a troll.

I said he was trolling.

There is a difference.

Given who Doug holds himself out to be, and his reach on radio, in print media, and cited by McAlister and others, I will examine his opinions in the same way I would and do a Law, Sickles, or Goldstein. It's not personal, Doug just happens to be on this board while such discussions are happening.

And Scrap is right, this is a discussion that has been years in coming (the nature of the scouting "industry" that sprung up). And scrap's criticisms of that industry are dead on.

[thorn]

Ok, I got a question on what method many of you use to determine who is in your top 10. From reading your post, some put more weight on performance and others put more weight on scouting services, whether it be press or your own. But it seems to me both are inaccurate, numbers do lie and scouts or scouting sites sometime run invalid information because they are lazy or just can't see everyone? And the second second question is, once you have a formula for evaluating a prospect, do you honestly apply that formula equally to all players? Would anyone like to share their formula? Oh, and just as for clarification, just because a player is ranked as a prospect it in no ways guarantee's they will be a successful MLB player? If not, then is the formula you used wrong? Because after all this should in some way at least determine who has a greater chance at some type of MLB career, right?

[mdccclxix]

Ok, I got a question on what method many of you use to determine who is in your top 10. From reading your post, some put more weight on performance and others put more weight on scouting services, whether it be press or your own. But it seems to me both are inaccurate, numbers do lie and scouts or scouting sites sometime run invalid information because they are lazy or just can't see everyone? And the second second question is, once you have a formula for evaluating a prospect, do you honestly apply that formula equally to all players? Would anyone like to share their formula? Oh, and just as for clarification, just because a player is ranked as a prospect it in no ways guarantee's they will be a successful MLB player? If not, then is the formula you used wrong? Because after all this should in some way at least determine who has a greater chance at some type of MLB career, right?

In the past I've tried using a "formula" to weigh stats and scouting and was pretty happy with it, but it takes so darn long, I don't bother with it. With regards to players without much statistical weight like Stephenson, I go with what I've read about his makeup and ability. I like his chances better than any other pitcher we've got.

[thorn]

Thanks md, and you bring up a good point on ranking players without stats.

[camisadelgolf]

I didn't say he was a troll.

I said he was trolling.

There is a difference.

Given who Doug holds himself out to be, and his reach on radio, in print media, and cited by McAlister and others, I will examine his opinions in the same way I would and do a Law, Sickles, or Goldstein. It's not personal, Doug just happens to be on this board while such discussions are happening.

And Scrap is right, this is a discussion that has been years in coming (the nature of the scouting "industry" that sprung up). And scrap's criticisms of that industry are dead on.

I still don't see any of Doug's critics here more qualified to do these lists. How about you put up or shut up? Not to sound harsh, but you could make your top-10 list, and as time goes on, we can compare it to Doug's to see if you and his other critics actually have any ground to stand on?

[Scrap Irony]

Ok, I got a question on what method many of you use to determine who is in your top 10. From reading your post, some put more weight on performance and others put more weight on scouting services, whether it be press or your own. But it seems to me both are inaccurate, numbers do lie and scouts or scouting sites sometime run invalid information because they are lazy or just can't see everyone? And the second second question is, once you have a formula for evaluating a prospect, do you honestly apply that formula equally to all players? Would anyone like to share their formula? Oh, and just as for clarification, just because a player is ranked as a prospect it in no ways guarantee's they will be a successful MLB player? If not, then is the formula you used wrong? Because after all this should in some way at least determine who has a greater chance at some type of MLB career, right?

Great question.

I tend to favor production, as scouting reports are (as doug said) often inaccurate/ contradictory. It's more art than science, IMO, but a general rule of thumb that works for me contains the following tenets:

1) Age v. level
Simply put, a 19-year-old hitting .300/.350/.450 in AA in infinitely more valuable than a 23-year-old hitting .400/.475/600 in the Pioneer League. The younger a prospect is as he advances, the more likely he will be an impact player at the major league level. That said, you can find sleepers and effective players by looking not just at age, but at experience levels as well. Derrick Lutz gets a bit of a free pass as a 23-year-old in High A because he only started playing baseball at age 16. IMO, true prospects should be no more than:
Pioneer League-- 20
Low A-- 20 or 21
high A-- 21
AA-- 22-23
AAA-- 23-24

This is one reason Henry Rodriguez rates higher on my list than on many others-- he's a couple years younger than most of his competition. If he can continue to hit at his career levels in Louisville, he's got a great shot at being very good.

2) Production v. peers (both team and league, age-balanced)
Production can be a double-edged sword. It doesn't necessarily mean you're going to be an All-Star in Cincinnati if you've been an All-Star in Louisville. In fact, it often doesn't mean squat. Eventually, I've whittled my periphials down to K rate and BB rate-- things each player can control, at least a bit. (This works for both pitchers and hitters, BTW.) I also look at a modified Iso slugging and OPS. If they're all acceptable, I roll on from there. Acceptable usually means:
-- a K rate of less than 25% for power hitters, 15% for everyone else
-- a BB rate of at least 7%, preferrably 10% or more
-- an OPS of 800+
-- I add stolen bases (and subtract CS/ POs) to total bases and try to find a modified isolated slugging percentage. If you're not above .125, you're probably not much of a prospect.
-- for pitchers, a K rate over 7.5 is imperative, 8.5 is preferred, and anything over 9.0 is good
-- A good pitching BB rate is less than 3.0. Anything over 3.5 is a major red flag, especially as you go up the ladder.
-- A K:BB ratio of 3:1 is pretty much where I draw the line for prospects. Anything above that is questionable.
-- HR allowed is odd. Almost always, it corresponds to a lack of stuff that will be exposed the higher a pitcher goes. It's another red flag for me.

There are exceptions. (Chapman's AAA experience is exhibit one. He couldn't hit the broad side of a barn, but other teams took to poorest swings on his stuff I have ever seen. They looked like Little Leaguers against him.) But they are few are far between.

Once I've whittled my list of intriguing guys down, I'll usually look at ranking them on a bell curve both on the team and in the league. (Those above age levels are usually left out of prospect status but not in the league rankings.) Cingrani, for example, has been in the upper one percent of his league in almost all categories for every league he's been. That's patently ridiculous production.

Those at the top are usually can't-miss type guys. Those in the next level usually are solid major league regulars, but there are enough surprises that it's obviously not fool-proof. The third deviation-- that big middle group-- usually never pan out as prospects. (Though, again, there are surprises and sleepers.)

I also compare a player to his teammates. If every pitcher in Pensacola is pitching like the late 60s Dodgers, there's likely a better reason than every pitcher on the team is a prospect. I also like to see where hitters hit in the lineup, as it gives a clue as to what the club think about them. A sixth place hitter in High A ball is probably not considered a prospect unless he can pick it. Anyone in the top five spots, however, likely are looked at as at least promising by the big club. (If they're not 30 or something.)

3) "Stuff"/ Tools
I love scouting reports because they shed light on what experts think. True experts, I mean, not prospect sites. They're also wildly inconsistent, so you look for consensus. (Again, among scouts, not prospect sites. And the scouts are always better when named or at least told with which team they're a part.) Because I only go to around 30 games a year (less than that since spine surgery, marriage, and two kids), I can't just trust my own eyes. I look for scouting reports, paying particular attention to:
-- The hit tool
-- Patience/ Good idea at the plate/ Batting eye
-- Power or speed (preferrably both)
-- Baseball IQ
-- Elite athleticism
-- Willingness to work hard/ Good teammate
-- Good fastball (sitting 91+, with movement and control)
-- At least one good ("plus") offspeed pitch (change, slider preferred, as curves tend to get crushed when off even a little)

I'm focusing on guys with high tools in any spot. Hamilton's speed, for example, is an 80. Since he also has an idea at the plate, a great reputation for working hard, elite athleticism, and a hit tool (career BA around .290 with improvement each year), he's a keeper. Theo Bowe, another big speed guy, OTOH, has a career .270 BA with no mention of work ethic, baseball IQ, or any other tool. Bowe also plays OF (and not well) to Hamilton's SS. So, while I like the tool, he's not really a prospect. (At least not yet.)

4) Career Arc
Players must continue to improve. If their numbers are dominant at one level, then crash down to reality for three years, they're likely not much of a prospect. If they stall in AA for two full years and half a third, they're likely not much of a prospect. The better the arc-- the more obvious the numbers climb or stay at the same dominant level-- the better the prospect.

For example, Daniel Corcino was truly dominant last season. Great stuff reports. Produced Ks at a monster level and cut his BBs by half. Young for his league. All earmarks of a possible TOR arm. Then, this season, he's nto pitching as well. He's young for his league, but his career arc (such as it is) has suffered. Therefore, his prospective prospects have as well. I don't see him as a TOR arm anymore; he's a MOR guy.

[Scrap Irony]

I still don't see any of Doug's critics here more qualified to do these lists. How about you put up or shut up? Not to sound harsh, but you could make your top-10 list, and as time goes on, we can compare it to Doug's to see if you and his other critics actually have any ground to stand on?

At the same time, camisa, we're not any LESS qualified to do the lists either.

And, chest-beating aside, I'll compare my lists to his every day of the week and twice on Sunday.

Of course, he said he didn't want that and has also presaged his comments with the this-is-inexact-at-best wet blanket, so... yeah.

[dougdirt]

At the same time, camisa, we're not any LESS qualified to do the lists either.

And, chest-beating aside, I'll compare my lists to his every day of the week and twice on Sunday.

Of course, he said he didn't want that and has also presaged his comments with the this-is-inexact-at-best wet blanket, so... yeah.

I think some of you probably are less qualified to do the lists and have them be accurate than I am. I spend 50 hours a week doing something related to these players. I watch them all play multiple times a season. I read about them every single day in 5 different newspapers. I talk with scouts. I listen to their games and hear what the announcers have to say on them.

Does that mean I have a better handle on them than you? I don't know. But it means I have a better handle on them than most people on this board.

[camisadelgolf]

At the same time, camisa, we're not any LESS qualified to do the lists either.

And, chest-beating aside, I'll compare my lists to his every day of the week and twice on Sunday.

Of course, he said he didn't want that and has also presaged his comments with the this-is-inexact-at-best wet blanket, so... yeah.

So instead of trying to bring Doug down their level, why don't we start trying to build ourselves up to his level?

[Scrap Irony]

What level, camisa?

He's a fan. Nothing more.

membengal, myself, lollipop-- we're all well-versed enough (and erudite enough) to write the same stuff. All I lack is the web expertise and the time. (I don't know about the others.)

How about we have no sacred cows around here instead?

[dougdirt]

What level, camisa?

He's a fan. Nothing more.

membengal, myself, lollipop-- we're all well-versed enough (and erudite enough) to write the same stuff. All I lack is the web expertise and the time. (I don't know about the others.)

How about we have no sacred cows around here instead?

But you kind of made a point there.... sure, I am a fan, but I am a fan WITH the time. It allows me to see them more, research them more, break them down more. It also allows me to talk to other people about them more.

That, generally, makes me more well versed on them than most others.

[Superdude]

But you kind of made a point there.... sure, I am a fan, but I am a fan WITH the time. It allows me to see them more, research them more, break them down more. It also allows me to talk to other people about them more.

That, generally, makes me more well versed on them than most others.

I think we all appreciate the time and effort you put into this, but a lot of enjoyable discussions turn personal when you play this card, as valid as it may be. It's not completely your fault, but it's becoming a little tiresome seeing every thread deteriorate into a Doug vs. Board cage match.