Go to end of page
Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.
But he's 19, and has played 11 games in high-A ball.
Sano and Buxton make me happy. Now if the Twins only had some pitching (I don't trust any pitching prospects and their ML staff is bad).
"Anthony Ranaudo rhp Red Sox
If not for his track record of injuries/ineffectiveness, he’d rate even higher."
So if he didn't suck and wasn't hurt...Is there a Red Sox bias at work here?
Without checking past lists, does the front half of the list list seem light on pitching -- 2 of the top 10, 8 of the top 25 are pitchers -- or has TINSTAAPP become a bigger filter over the years? Adding in the bottom half of the list, you get a more balanced list (I count 24 pitchers vs 26 position players total). This is probably a good and proper thing - but my (probably malted) memory of BA lists from years gone makes me think that they've sort of adjusted for the inherent instability of pitching prospects.
It may just be a function of MLB teams calling up their top pitchers more than the hitting prospects.
But the question then is why is that happening? Or maybe it's something that happens every year. Maybe it's as simple as the fact that pitchers are more likely to get hurt and more spaces open up at the major league level.
When Ranaudo was drafted I recall hearing him described as a top 10 talent but with injury issues
That's a possibility. The other thing is that the pitchers on the list, and again this is just based on a quick eyeball test, seemed to be at higher levels than the hitters. The hitters in the top 15 were heavily populated by Single A types while the pitchers seemed to be further along. I wonder if BA is doing a little bias that they won't put pitchers too high on the list until they are a little closer to MLB while hitters are a bit more projectible? I'm just guessing here.
The Astros have five prospects in the Top 50, most of any organization. This is a far cry from the terrible farm system of 4 years ago, and certainly indicates that the rebuilding process is in high gear.
Kansas City has shown it's nice to have a lot of highly regarded prospects, but it doesn't mean much if your system doesn't turn them into good Major League ballplayers.
Speaking as a Twins fan I'd love to see them pursue Josh Johnson and Matt Garza this offseason.
Not a single Brave in the top 50. Unfortunate, though I guess all our young talent is in the majors at this point.
I wish they had included the ranking from the pre-seaason top 100 so we could get a sense of the movement that occurred. I know I can access it seperately but ...
baseball America has what I would term an absurd bias toward tools. it really undermines my reading pleasure knowing that guys who look good in the uniform get undue consideration
It is obviously a subjective thing, but I think that a prospect that has excelled in the high minors is generally a much more attractive prospect than one who has only excelled at the lower minors, even if it may mean you are giving up a little ceiling in the process.
Man, the Phillies are going to suck for a long time... ugh.
Why does anyone care where prospects are ranked by a third party? It's whether your team wins or not that matters. I guess indirectly it matters where other GMs rank your prospects, but it certainly doesn't matter where BA ranks them. For example BA ranked Trevor Bauer way above Didi Gregorius. The Diamondbacks didn't care. They probably still don't and now their fans probably don't either.
If you don't care about 3rd party prospect rankings, I don't see why you visited this thread. Its interesting to read rankings, and commenting on the creation of these rankings is part of the conversation.
You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.
Login to Join (0 members)
Page rendered in 0.6169 seconds, 58 querie(s) executed