Funny that the only guy on the list I'm totally unfamiliar with is ranked 3rd. Anyone know anything about Nimmo? Also I'm guessing this is an averageish top 10? Seems like a step up from recent years.

Nimmo was their first round pick last draft. People love his tools*, which they have to, since he's never really played anywhere. There's no such thing as baseball in Wyoming, apparently.

*This might not be the right way of putting it. I mean to say they love his swing. I have no idea how he's perceived defensively and whatnot.

I think this is about as good a list as the Mets have had in a while. The only WTF choice, IMHO, is Puello, whom I continue to think BA wildly overrates. Flores is an "eh" choice, but at the bottom of the top 10 is OK -- I'd have put Jordany Valdespin on the list, kicked Puello off, and called it a day.

I suspect Familia will end up as a very good closer, and other than that, it would be an excellent ROI if we end up with one top-end starter and one solid starter out of the rest. Wheeler or Harvey ends up the stud, while the other guy, or Mejia or Fullmer or Somebody Else emerges as the solid starter. I'd take that now without being greedy for more.

Nimmo is a lottery ticket, given he was a high school pick and that he hasn't had any minor league experience yet. He's a pretty important lottery ticket, as these things go, because the Mets spent a very high pick on him, he was Alderson's first first-round choice, and he's easily the highest-ceiling position player in the system.

Anyone know anything about Nimmo?

There have been a few comps with...uh-oh...

Post Six American Legion Coach, Tagg Lain:

“I’ve coached Bryce Harper in the Tournament of Stars… That’s when I told [tournament officials] that I’ve got a guy (Nimmo) who is that close to Bryce. There is not a huge gap between those two guys.”

Does anyone have a sense of how the competition is in Legion ball? Comparable to high school? Junior High School?

I'm disappointed in the lack of development by Flores.

The only WTF choice, IMHO, is Puello, whom I continue to think BA wildly overrates.

I don't understand why anyone thinks he's a prospect. If he's the Met RF in 2015, the team is in serious trouble. Though on the plus side, he'll probably be better than the guy manning LF in 2012...

The bloom came off Vaughn in a big way after he left Savannah.

Anyone know anything about Nimmo?

Dude is hard to find.

The only WTF choice, IMHO, is Puello, whom I continue to think BA wildly overrates.

I don't understand why anyone thinks he's a prospect. If he's the Met RF in 2015, the team is in serious trouble. Though on the plus side, he'll probably be better than the guy manning LF in 2012...

For the stats folks, Puello was basically a league average hitter in A+ at age 20 (3rd youngest player in the league). And he hit 284/.336/.453 in the second half of the season.

For the scouting folks, scouts love his tools and think he's putting it together. He'll be in AA at age 21 and I wouldn't be surprised to see him break out next year.

Flores, I've given up on (more or less). He has good bat control (few strikeouts), but isn't hitting for average or power and doesn't seem to have a defensive position.

For the stats folks, Puello was basically a league average hitter in A+ at age 20 (3rd youngest player in the league). And he hit 284/.336/.453 in the second half of the season.

For the scouting folks, scouts love his tools and think he's putting it together. He'll be in AA at age 21 and I wouldn't be surprised to see him break out next year.

I think that's all good enough to put him on an "others to watch" list. But he's done the "come on in the second half thing" before, which could mean that as a young player for his leagues he's needed time to adjust and catch up, or it could mean he's just a slow starter and that will (until/unless it's corrected) limit his performance. Once the performance starts to match the tools -- not goes all nuclear on us, just starts to match the tools -- I'll be more convinced. But # 5 on this list? Not buying it. I would absolutely take Reese Havens' future -- injury-prone as he is -- over Puello's. I am reasonably solid in my belief Havens will be a contributing major league second baseman. Puello is far more likely to be a bust, and only has a slight chance to be the big-time player he might be.

The bloom came off Vaughn in a big way after he left Savannah.

Not giving up on him yet at all. Yes, he struggled at St. Lucie, but in 210 ABs there he still hit 9 home runs, so he showed the power that may take him a long way. That was 3rd on the team, and only one fewer than Puello hit in half the ABs. That is a very tough league for hitters, and in his first go-round there I'm willing to give Vaughn a pass and see how he does starting off there in '12.

I think that's all good enough to put him on an "others to watch" list. But he's done the "come on in the second half thing" before, which could mean that as a young player for his leagues he's needed time to adjust and catch up, or it could mean he's just a slow starter and that will (until/unless it's corrected) limit his performance. Once the performance starts to match the tools -- not goes all nuclear on us, just starts to match the tools -- I'll be more convinced. But # 5 on this list? Not buying it. I would absolutely take Reese Havens' future -- injury-prone as he is -- over Puello's. I am reasonably solid in my belief Havens will be a contributing major league second baseman. Puello is far more likely to be a bust, and only has a slight chance to be the big-time player he might be.

Not giving up on him yet at all. Yes, he struggled at St. Lucie, but in 210 ABs there he still hit 9 home runs, so he showed the power that may take him a long way. That was 3rd on the team, and only one fewer than Puello hit in half the ABs. That is a very tough league for hitters, and in his first go-round there I'm willing to give Vaughn a pass and see how he does starting off there in '12.

Puello outplayed Vaughn at the same level and is two years younger and much more athletic. Scouts all think Puello's tools are much better. I have trouble seeing Vaughn making it to the majors, much less contributing. Puello at least has a decent chance of being a MLB starter.

I've seen Nimmo compared to Von Hayes. So let's bring him up and then trade him to the Phillies for 5 guys.

Puello outplayed Vaughn at the same level and is two years younger and much more athletic. Scouts all think Puello's tools are much better. I have trouble seeing Vaughn making it to the majors, much less contributing. Puello at least has a decent chance of being a MLB starter.

Well, to begin with, I wouldn't have either of them in the Top 10, so it's not like I'm ranking Vaughn ahead of Puello. And second, I don't think any scouts rank Puello's power ahead of Vaughn's, although some of them insist on projecting the power they think Puello will develop.

As for the youth thing, I grant Puello has lots of time to develop. I'm by no means saying he's a non-prospect; I just don't think he's a top 10 guy, that's all. But I also take into account the time a guy has had in the system in my assessment, and Puello has had considerably more time than Vaughn. Cory Vaughn has played a total of 203 games over two years in the minor leagues, while Puello, though younger, has played 315, over four seasons. That instructional experience with professional coaches is an advantage Puello has not -- as I see it -- really taken advantage of in his development.

Of course Puello is more athletic. That's why he profiles as a different kind of player -- a speed guy with a more versatile game. But Vaughn's upside is as a 30 home run slugger, and he has already shown a more discerning eye at the plate that suggests he might be able to take advantage of his power.

Did Puello really do better at St. Lucie, by the way? They had almost identical OBPs (Puello led, .313-.308) and SLG (Puello, .397-.395), despite the much lower batting average Vaughn accumulated (.255-.211, Puello). Neither was impressive, but I kind of like the guy who at least drew some walks and showed some power, and in his next shot at the league might be able to lift the batting average, over the guy who was all-around mediocre.

Puello wasn't mediocre. He was, as I mentioned above, a league average hitter while being one of the youngest guys in the league. The fact that he can keep up with players who are generally two years older than him is a great sign. And that's why he's in the top 10.

He was, as I mentioned above, a league average hitter while being one of the youngest guys in the league.

This, in a nutshell, is what I don't buy and never have. I think it overrates the "break" that should be given to young prospects and overestimates their odds of developing. Sometimes it is a good sign that a guy who is young for his league is able to "hold his own." But not reliably so. Other times, it is simply a sign that he has basic athletic tools that enable him to keep up -- but those tools very often never get refined into a polished, useful major league player. It's great that Puello has them, but until he starts to actually show above average performance uncorrected for age, I don't believe we should assume he is any more likely than any toolsy lottery ticket to do so. When the performance starts to catch up, great. I'll cheerfully admit I was behind the curve. But more often than not, I believe my (relative) skepticism will be correct with regard to such prospects.

Puello's raw potential means I'd give him tons of patience, work on his skills, etc. But will he ever be an impact hitter? The "maybe" attached to that is a lot more dicey than is reasonable for a # 5 rating in this system. Just my way of looking at things.

@14 Sam M.:

I don't have time to find the study, but ARL is actually the single strongest indicator of future performance among bats.

I don't have time to find the study, but ARL is actually the single strongest indicator of future performance among bats.

Well, you have to through some performance into there. If Puello was the 3rd youngest in the league and was 200 points of OPS below average, then the fact that he's the third youngest just means that he's not ready for that level yet. But with Puello being the 3rd youngest in the league AND being a league average hitter, then that's a great sign. He still has 2-3 years before he's ready for the majors, but he's definitely worth being the 5th best prospect in the Mets system.

I don't know if it's good or bad that the top prospect the last two years is now #6, but I like the look of the pitching.

I don't know if it's good or bad that the top prospect the last two years is now #6, but I like the look of the pitching.

Considering he had a arm injury and probably isn't going to start pitching again until well into the 2012 season, I think a drop in rank is to be expected.

Does anyone have a sense of how the competition is in Legion ball? Comparable to high school? Junior High School?

I grew up in western North Dakota, not all that far from Wyoming. American Legion is the equivalent of HS ball there. In a lot of places, it's the only option. My school didn't have a HS baseball program, for example. But several nearby towns had legion teams we could play on. Any HS kids that were any good and wanted to keep playing played Legion.

I think that this is a pretty good list, but almost exclusively because for the first time in quite some time, the Mets have a few live arms that are more than just lottery tickets. On the flip side, the Mets really don't have any hitting prospects worth a damn, with the exclusion of Nimmo who is nothing but a lottery ticket at this point. Puello, Havens, Nieuwenhuis and Flores all need some things to go seriously right for them to end up as average regulars.

The one exclusion that I can't quite understand is Juan Lagares. Nobody seems to be all that high on him, but the dude hit .338/.380/.874 in 308 ABs at St. Lucie and .370/.391/.512 in 162 ABs at Binghamtom. He was 22 last year. He has always been described as a player with good tools. His plate discipline is poor, but has improved somewhat. Personally, I'd be more willing to bet on Lagares continuing to hit than than on any of the other hitting "prospects" developing skills that they have yet to demonstrate.

Does anyone have a sense of how the competition is in Legion ball? Comparable to high school? Junior High School?

I grew up in western North Dakota, not all that far from Wyoming. American Legion is the equivalent of HS ball there. In a lot of places, it's the only option. My school didn't have a HS baseball program, for example. But several nearby towns had legion teams we could play on. Any HS kids that were any good and wanted to keep playing played Legion.

In Kansas, again not the most populous state, Legion ball is a clear step above high school, but not nearly at small college/juco level. Of course the difference is there are a few kids playing legion ball that will be Division 1 players and/or drafted by MLB. Generally those few stand out like a sore thumb.

One of the reasons it is a clear step above HS ball is that 19-year olds can play, and kids playing at juco's or small colleges - or just attending college who were good HS player - can get one more year of ball in.

Of course as with anything like this, the person organizing/recruiting the team is a huge factor.

5. Cesar Puello, of

sigh, #5 really, below average (slightly) OF in A+ at 20?
poor man's version of Carlos Gomez

finally showed some pop in 2011, but k/bb went from bad to stunningly abysmal

The one exclusion that I can't quite understand is Juan Lagares.

Here is what Matthew Eddy said in the chat about this list about Lagares, who will apparently be in the Top 20 somewhere when the BA book comes out:

Lagares doesn't have the classic power teams like to see from corner outfielders, though he does square up different kinds of pitching and has a chance to hit for average. He seemed to swing at pitches he could drive more frequently this season, thus his average jumped from .279 to .349.

If Lagares is limited to being a corner outfielder, his ceiling is going to be limited if he doesn't have plus power. It'd be nice if you could just take Vaughn's raw power and add it to the rest of Lagares' mix....

Did they say anything about Gorski?

(I can't believe BA chats are now subscriber only.)

Did they say anything about Gorski?

(I can't believe BA chats are now subscriber only.)

Well, because they're subscriber only, I want to respect their rights. But to summarize, Eddy said that before getting too high on him, they want to see if he can maintain the velocity gains he showed in 2011 (he was consistently up over 90, which he had never been before), which made his change-up much more effective. They also want him to pass the AA test . . . and didn't like the fact that he was 24 and in A ball. All that said, I think Eddy's basic answer was: if he can do that again, Gorski would rise dramatically.

I read the BA chat and the knocks on Lagares about his power. But the dude hit .350 last year and most of that was in a really tough park/league for hitters (and a park/league that especially reduces power). He's not built like a slap hitter and it does not seem like that is his approach. I get that this was a breakout yeah for him, but (a) if he maintains an average over .300, he's reasonably useful even with his current power and (b) if his power takes just a small step forward and he maintains an average above .300, then he's a very good player. Hitting .300 in the majors is obviously a very hard thing to do, but if you're looking for prospects who have a chance to do it, the dude who just hit .350 in a full season across A+/AA in his age 22 season is a pretty good place to start. The scouting knock on him seems to be that he is unlikely to ever develop any more power than he currently possesses, together with a significant discounting of his most recent performance. The scouts may end up being right, but I think he is being downgraded to an extent that overstates the probability that they're right. Among Mets prospects, Lagares was the best hitter in the minors last year at a level appropriate for his age. I think he's our best hitting prospect.

I think he's our best hitting prospect.

Knocking down Havens and Nieuwenhuis for injuries, and Nimmo/Puello for rawness, its hard to disagree with this. Lagares was also leading the AFL in hitting as of last week (link)

@15: ARL?

Puello wasn't mediocre. He was, as I mentioned above, a league average hitter while being one of the youngest guys in the league. The fact that he can keep up with players who are generally two years older than him is a great sign. And that's why he's in the top 10.

These are all the 20 years olds in A+ 2011 (FSL, Calif + Car), with 200+ PAS, ranked by OPS+ (park and league adjusted):
Nl Lake Elsinore Edinson Rincon 141
Al Charlotte Hak-Ju Lee* 132
Nl Lake Elsinore Jonathan Galvez 120
NL Modesto Nolan Arenado 118
AL Fort Myers Oswaldo Arcia* 111
Al Salem Miles Head 110
NL Visalia Matthew Davidson 106
NL Visalia Bobby Borchering# 102
Nl Clearwater Sebastian Valle 99
NL Daytona Jae-Hoon Ha 98
Al High Desert Nick Franklin# 97
AL Lakeland Avisail Garcia 92
NL St Lucie Cesar Puello 91
Nl Lake Elsinore Reymond Fuentes* 90
NL Lancaster Jonathan Villar# 87
Al Myrtle Beach Leury Garcia# 85
Al Myrtle Beach Santiago Chirino 84
NL Lancaster Jonathan Meyer 83
AL Stockton Rashun Dixon 80
NL St Lucie Jefry Marte 79
AL Lakeland Daniel Fields* 78
Al High Desert Gabriel Noriega 72
Al Charlotte Ty Morrison* 70
NL Lancaster Jay Austin* 69
NL Lancaster Jiovanni Mier 59
NL Jupiter Jose Torres 44
Al Salem Michael Almanzar 35


Lest go look at the 19* year olds:
Nl Clearwater Jonathan Singleton* 128
NL San Jose Tommy Joseph 107
Al Frederick Jonathan Schoop 101
Al Frederick Manny Machado 98
NL St Lucie Wilmer Flores 86
NL Visalia Chris Owings 66

*Machado was 18

Ok 2010, 19 year olds in low A (full season):
William_Myers 155
Matthew_Davidson 141
Jae-Hoon_Ha 132
Nick_Franklin 131
Nolan_Arenado 126
Jefry_Marte 119
Sebastian_Valle 118
Bobby_Borchering 115
Cesar_Puello 113
Rashun_Dixon 111
Jonathan_Galvez 110
Zachary_Heathcott 110
John_Murphy 109
Trayce_Thompson 108
Jonathan_Villar 105
Hak-Ju_Lee 103
Ty_Morrison 101
Edinson_Rincon 98
Everett_Williams 97
Reymond_Fuentes 97
Frederick_Parejo 94
Max_Stassi 93
Avisail_Garcia 91
Michael_Almanzar 89
Christian_Vazquez 88
Jiovanni_Mier 87
Jonathan_Meyer 81
Leury_Garcia 80
Ender_Inciarte 72
Cameron_Garfield 71
Jose_Torres 70
Edwin_Garcia 66
Hernan_Perez 64
Juan_Silverio 59
Gabriel_Noriega 55
Matt_Helm 54
Miguel_Gonzalez 53
Ydwin_Villegas 32

18 year olds, low A in 2010:
Mike_Trout 165
Jonathan_Singleton 164
Wilmer_Flores 131
Randal_Grichuk 130
Chris_Owings 116
Thomas_Joseph 94
Christian_Betancou 77
Edward_Salcedo 56

Basically the case for Puello as a prospect comes down to scouts- as far as numbers, nope, they are not there (yet)

@15: ARL?

Age relative to league.

But with Puello being the 3rd youngest in the league AND being a league average hitter

You mean with Puello being the 3rd youngest starter on his TEAM and being 5-10% below league average as a hitter :-)

He wasn't the 3rd youngest player in the league by a long shot you seem to be confusing the FSL with the Eastern league or something

He hit .259/.313/.397
league was 262/.331/.386
and St Lucie is a hitter's park see Dan's numbers

Do you know what you call an MLB CF who has an OPS+ of 90-92, you call him names like Aaron Rowand, or Coco Crisp or Rajai Davis
Do you know what I call a 20 year old CF in the FSL with a 91 OPS+
a mediocre A Ball OF- Sam has that exactly right

He's Carlos Gomez part 2- only not as good
or what I said on Metsgeek about Carlos Gomez when he was 20:

But then again, I don’t think he’s a real prospect anyway, he’s a hoax like Sil Campusano… (But hey, Sil outplayed Gomez ages 18-20…)
Stanley Jefferson… had better rate stats, but at an older age, proabably a good match.
Endy Chavez- another good match

Carlos Gomez- top prospect? give me a break

Did they say anything about Gorski?

They gave Gorski best control and best changeup on the system review page

I don't have time to find the study, but ARL is actually the single strongest indicator of future performance among bats.

The "problem" with the study I think you are talking about is the inherent selection bias- teams play guys at young ages in advanced leagues (for their ages) because they are high on them- and they are high on them because they are the ones the teams think are real good prospects- so yes ARL is something to look at- because it is a good shorthand for what their organizations REALLY think of them.

ARL was a worthless way of looking at Mets prospects during Omar's reign of error, because of the half-assed, "let's challenge" these guys philosophy which saw them playing guys 2-3 levels higher than any other org would have- ARL said a whole lot more about the Mets organization than it did about any of the Met farmhands.

That said, look at my list in 29, Puello has been young for his leagues, but he has not been YOUNG, Trout was YOUNG, Singleton YOUNG, Flores YOUNG Puello has merely been a reasonably good age for his leagues.

Regarding Wheeler, his walk rate worries me, but it seemed to improve markedly once he was wearing a Met uniform (only 27 ip)- but if keeps it at 10.3/1.7 like his 27 St Lucie IP, that'd make for an interesting statline next year...

7. Kirk Nieuwenhuis, of

gets hurt just as he finally started looking interesting...

9. Reese Havens, 2b

too brittle, pity, looks like he just may have an MLB bat too (.301/.379/.505 in AA, .247/.340/.471 in 23 AAA games)

Brad Holt- wow has he fallen, his K/9 has gone from 11.9 to 8.8 to 8.2 to 7.1, and he walks waaay too many batters, actually above low A he's been abysmal - his BABIP was really low in 2011, that's the only thing that saved him from looking truly horrific

That said, look at my list in 29, Puello has been young for his leagues, but he has not been YOUNG, Trout was YOUNG, Singleton YOUNG, Flores YOUNG Puello has merely been a reasonably good age for his leagues.

Look at the entire FSL in BBRef, Puello is the 3rd youngest hitter in the league. So, I disagree that he was a reasonably good age for his league. There were only 10 hitters under age 21 and 26 under the age of 22 (for players with over 138 ABs in the league). The average age for a hitter in the FSL was 22.7, so Puello was 2 years younger than average in the FSL. That is very YOUNG for Puello and the fact that he held his own is a good sign.

Puello is the 3rd youngest hitter in the league.

Flores was younger
Marte was younger (that's 2 right there on his own team)
Gilbert Gomez was a full year younger (ok only 85 PAs)
Jon Singleton was younger
Avisail Garcia was younger
Oswaldo Arcia slugged .460, and he's a whole month older than Puello, so Prospect of the year!!!

Hak-Ju Lee hit .318/.389/.443 - but he was 5 months older, does that mean Puello was a better prospect?

I've been ranting against the Stan Jefferson/Carlos Gomez/Cesar Puello Metsian speed merchant tools goofs for as longs as I've been a Mets fan and I'll keep doing it, come back when one you know, actually produces at some level.
(and every now and then one does - but so far the tools goof de jour, Puello has not)

I've been ranting against the Stan Jefferson/Carlos Gomez/Cesar Puello Metsian speed merchant tools goofs for as longs as I've been a Mets fan and I'll keep doing it, come back when one you know, actually produces at some level.
(and every now and then one does - but so far the tools goof de jour, Puello has not)

I guess Hanley Ramirez is the story with the happy ending among this type.

There were only 10 hitters under age 21 and 26 under the age of 22 (for players with over 138 ABs in the league)

so, you went to BBREF's leaders list right? Which defaults to listing players by batting average? and then you hit the age header, and got 10 and 26 right? Guess what, that doesn't work

FSL 2011, under 22, more than 138 at bats, by at bat:

Nl Brevard Scooter Gennett* 556
NL St Lucie Wilmer Flores 516
NL Bradenton Robbie Grossman# 490
AL Lakeland Avisail Garcia 488
NL St Lucie Jefry Marte 483
NL Bradenton Elevys Gonzalez# 454
AL Fort Myers Aaron Hicks# 443
NL Daytona Logan Watkins* 441
NL St Lucie Cesar Puello 441
AL Lakeland Daniel Fields* 432
Nl Clearwater Cesar Hernandez# 421
Al Charlotte Hak-Ju Lee* 400
NL Daytona Matthew Cerda* 389
NL Bradenton Benji Gonzalez 388
NL Jupiter Daniel Pertusati 384
AL Dunedin A.J. Jimenez 379
Nl Clearwater Sebastian Valle 348
NL Bradenton Ramon Cabrera# 327
Nl Clearwater Jonathan Singleton* 320
NL St Lucie Francisco Pena 319
NL Bradenton Jarek Cunningham 310
NL Daytona Jae-Hoon Ha 294
NL Bradenton Carlos Paulino 271
Al Charlotte Dustin Biell* 268
Al Charlotte Ty Morrison* 265
NL Jupiter Jose Torres 253
AL Lakeland Julio Rodriguez 226
AL Fort Myers Oswaldo Arcia* 213
NL Palm Beach Greg Garcia* 210
NL Palm Beach Ted Obregon# 208
NL Daytona Junior Lake 203
NL Palm Beach Luis Mateo 184
NL Daytona Matthew Szczur 173
NL Palm Beach Starlin Rodriguez# 165
Al Tampa Kyle Higashioka 164
AL Dunedin Kenny Wilson# 164
NL St Lucie Juan Centeno* 157
NL Palm Beach Robert Stock* 149
AL Lakeland Rob Brantly* 146

that's more than 26

Folks, dumbass discussions like this are what you get when you make A-ball statistics your primary basis for your evaluation of 21 and 22 year olds. They simply don't say enough to base any definitive statement of who is better prospect on. If prospect A has 830 OPS at 21 and 3 months but prospect B has a 890 OPS but in a hitters park at 21 and 10 months then... blah, blah, blah.

You're looking for a degree of precision that simply isn't there, you're looking for some reason that guy A's future simply IS better than guy B's when the stats don't really support such a firm conclusion.

The whole point of looking at stats is to gain some level of information. However, it seems like that the discussion here is focusing more on what the statistics are, rather than what they mean. And they don't mean as much as most of you think they do. Its like trying to gauge the size of an iceberg by how much of it is sticking up out of the water.

I guess Hanley Ramirez is the story with the happy ending among this type.

I'm not sure he was that type, he hit .352/.401/.548 at 18 and .314/.369/.436 at age 20 (mostly in AA)- he had more an odd year even year pattern going.

A better match would be Peter Bourjos- but as you can see form the Wright trade rumor thread I'm not exactly a fan of his- but if he replicates 2011 I'll admit error

Brett Gardner, Jacoby Ellsbury, Michael Bourn, not a class of player I'm enamored of, I mean what's the odds that a guy like that will pull 30 homers out of his butt some random year (and yes Ellsbury just did I know)

It's not that Puello can't go on to have a good major league career, it's that his type seems to be overrated (and b7y putting him #5 BA is most definitely overrating him) and as a Met fan I find the thought of wasting hundreds of PAs on a Brian Hunter/Willy Taveras type suckhole (which is the far more likely outcome of giving hundreds of PAs to this type of player) to be quite distressing.

Its like trying to gauge the size of an iceberg by how much of it is sticking up out of the water.

You know that's a terrible analogy, because the guys who know what they are doing can gauge the size of an iceberg by observing how much is sticking above the water... the shape of that berg, well that's different.

Folks, dumbass discussions like this are what you get when you make A-ball statistics your primary basis for your evaluation of 21 and 22 year olds. They simply don't say enough to base any definitive statement of who is better prospect on.

Oddly enough I agree, what I look for in A ball statistics is
1: Does the guy really standout- look at the lists above - the guys right at the very top of their age lists also tend to show up on scout's lists too- Puello doesn't, what I said was he has no statistical case- Mark S disagrees with that assessment.
2: Age- Puello doesn't stand out, guys like Singleton and Flores and Machado and Trout do or did.

I've been ranting against the Stan Jefferson/Carlos Gomez/Cesar Puello Metsian speed merchant tools goofs for as longs as I've been a Mets fan and I'll keep doing it, come back when one you know, actually produces at some level.

Well there's this guy, Jose Reyes. Also, Angel Pagan.

(I've often wondered how someone so clueless on the bases like Pagan managed to steal 62 bases one year. All speed, I guess.)

Brett Gardner, Jacoby Ellsbury, Michael Bourn, not a class of player I'm enamored of, I mean what's the odds that a guy like that will pull 30 homers out of his butt some random year (and yes Ellsbury just did I know)

First, this just shows your own ignorance more than anything else. You're saying that you're not evaluating a guy on whether he is going to be a good baseball player, but rather if he fits some style you like. Whether you like them or not, guys like Bourn and Gardner are good, valuable baseball players.

Second, how did you ever get to the point where Cesar Puello is a Bourn, Tavares, Gardner type... the names you keep throwing out there. I hesitate to judge too severely when it comes to prospects who I have never seen myself but I have never read a single thing that suggests he is a 70-80 speed, slap-hitting CF type. Every report I've read suggests he is a great athlete with good speed and some power potential. Everything I have read suggests he is more of an athletic LF/RF than a CF. So, you're not even throwing the right archetype at him.

Third, you are raising some good reasons to doubt whether Cesar Puello will be an important Major League baseball player. But you also seem to be under the impression that, because a guy is #5 he must be a great prospect. BA isn't saying his #### smells like roses. They're saying he is the 5th best prospect in the Met's system, which very well might be true even if he is not a great prospect. When your competition is mediocrities like Reese Havens, it ain't so hard to be #5.

1: Does the guy really standout- look at the lists above - the guys right at the very top of their age lists also tend to show up on scout's lists too- Puello doesn't, what I said was he has no statistical case- Mark S disagrees with that assessment.

Puello doesn't stand out on scout's lists eh? Scouts said he was the best athlete and (less importantly) had the best arm in the Mets' system. Kevin Goldstein wrote last year that Puello had "impressive tools."

Oddly enough, I still have high hopes for Reese's Pieces. Not so much for the equally perpetually injured Fernando Martinez.

Fernando's problem is not as much the injuries as the stinkitude.

In a mediocre system, a guy with great tools who has held his own against older competition is a perfectly reasonable #5 prospect.

First, this just shows your own ignorance more than anything else. You're saying that you're not evaluating a guy on whether he is going to be a good baseball player, but rather if he fits some style you like. Whether you like them or not, guys like Bourn and Gardner are good, valuable baseball players.

reading comprehension isn't your strong suit is it? That was a list of guys of that type who worked out.

Puello doesn't stand out on scout's lists eh?

wow reading comprehension really is not your strong suit, either that or you are a really bad troll...

They're saying he is the 5th best prospect in the Met's system, which very well might be true even if he is not a great prospect. When your competition is mediocrities like Reese Havens, it ain't so hard to be #5.

This is the tough thing about BA's ratings, you don't have any absolute grades, just relative.

I much prefer the Sickel's letter grades, or Goldstein's stars.

wow reading comprehension really is not your strong suit, either that or you are a really bad troll...

Maybe writing clearly isn't your strong suit smartass. Maybe, just maybe, using the hyphen like it is a period isn't a great idea.

Here is what you said: "the guys right at the very top of their age lists also tend to show up on scout's lists too- Puello doesn't"

Puello doesn't stand out on scout's list. But... he does. He DOES stand out on scout's lists. They enthusiastically praise his tools. They told Baseball America he was the best athlete in the Mets' system and they told Kevin Goldstein that Puello has "impressive tools."

You also said "That was a list of guys of that type who worked out."

Guys of what type? Slap hitting, speedsters. That isn't the type of player Puello is!

They're saying he is the 5th best prospect in the Met's system, which very well might be true even if he is not a great prospect. When your competition is mediocrities like Reese Havens, it ain't so hard to be #5.

This is the tough thing about BA's ratings, you don't have any absolute grades, just relative.

I much prefer the Sickel's letter grades, or Goldstein's stars.

Sickels had Puello as a C+ last season (12th overall I believe). After his 2011, Puello would probably stay a C+ possibly go up to B-. Either way, no one is saying that Puello is a top 10 (hell, he's not a top 100) prospect. But in a mediocre farm system like the Mets, a 20 year old who's playing in A+ (where the average hitter age is 22) justifies a number 5 ranking. Flores and Marte also played in A+, but didn't hit as well and both have position issues (which is why they are ranked lower).

This is the tough thing about BA's ratings, you don't have any absolute grades, just relative.

I much prefer the Sickel's letter grades, or Goldstein's stars.

That is what the scouting reports are for. The problem is that people obsess over where guys are ranked (So-n-So can't be #4! It's obvious he should be #7!!!) rather than trying to get a feel for what kind of player the project to be. If you're a fan of a team it isn't really important if Guy A is 6 and Guy B is 9. What is important is that guy A has a chance to be a mid-rotation starter and Guy B.. ect.

Now, Baseball America is as guilty as anyone in creating or feeding those who obsess over lists, and rankings can put the scouting reports in context, but it blows my mind that people think they can look at a list and reasonably expect to learn a whole lot.

Guys of what type? Slap hitting, speedsters. That isn't the type of player Puello is!

I agree with this, but I'm not sure he's more than that. Puello has demonstrated more power than the Gomez/Bourn/Tavares lot, but only a bit. He has more power projection than those guys, but one has to take projection with a grain of salt. On the flip side, Puello has demonstrated a lot less usable speed than those guys, accompanied by the likelihood that he's not a CF. And like the typical tools goofs, Puello has terrible plate discipline. While I think Puello has the potential to payoff more significantly than the slap hitting speedster types because of his power potential, his lack of top end speed means he has a lower baseline. I haven't written Puello off by any means, but he's in the group of prospects who have to start doing things that they have yet to demonstrate they can do before I start to believe there is a reasonable likelihood they can be valuable major league players. I think it's very difficult to rank those players amongst themselves because you're trying to predict the probability of low probability outcomes.

So is Puello the #5 prospect in the Mets system? I doubt it. But I'm not sure he is any worse than Reese Havens or Wilmer Flores or Kirk Nieuwenhuis or Jordanny Valdespin or Cory Vaughn or Jefry Marte or . . . ( I think you get my point).

Guys, a year ago Puello was a top 100 prospect according to Baseball America. They had him at #77. They didn't decide to rank him there by ignoring scouts lists.

Also, there were only 10 younger position players to APPEAR in the league (FSL), and 6 of those had less than 100 AB. The other 4 were Wilmer Flores, Jonathan Singleton, Avisail Garcia, and Jeffrey Marte.

Here are those 5 (counting Puello) players by OPS:

OPS
.800 Singleton
.710 Puello
.689 Flores
.686 Garcia
.659 Marte


The first point is that a .710 OPS is pretty elite for this league given Puello's age and tools. Sure, Singleton's .800 OPS is more impressive, but is an .800 OPS at 1B really much better than a .710 OPS from a guy who can play CF? I'll note also that the Phillies #3 prospect this year, Sebastian Valle, was 8 months older than Puello and had a .706 OPS. The main point is that nobody at that age is putting up the numbers in A+ that they are expected to put up in MLB. In 2009, Starlin Castro had a .731 OPS in this league, which was enough for him to be an elite prospect. He was in MLB the next year.

For completeness, the guys listed as "20" per B-Ref who were older than Puello, with over 100 AB:

OPS
.832 Hak-Ju Lee
.760 Oswaldo Arcia
.733 Jae-Hoon Ha
.706 Sebastian Valle
.635 Dan Fields
.615 Ty Morrison
.518 Jesus Torres

Another point is that for guys at this age, less important than the overall line is whether the guy is improving and progressing. Puello had an .800 OPS after the all-star break, after a .642 OPS for the first half. I don't think there's any doubt he's ready for AA next year at age 21.

All in all, you can't complain at all about having guys like Puello and Mejia as the 5th and 6th prospects in your system. And the 7-10 guys here are pretty solid too. Pretty much every one of these guys has a decent shot to be a big league regular. Guys like Valdespin and Lagares probably didn't miss by too much, but look more like good bench bats at this stage.