Jump to content

Providing independent coverage of the Minnesota Twins.
Subscribe to Twins Daily Email
Photo

MLB.com midseason prospect list

  • Please log in to reply
79 replies to this topic

#41 gunnarthor

gunnarthor

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 8,654 posts

Posted 25 July 2017 - 07:04 PM

Compared to other AL Central teams

Chi - 8 (1-69 range)

Cle - 2 (16-24 range)

Det - 3 (72-99 range)

KC -0

MIN - 4 (31-84 range)

 

Chicago's uber prospect Giolito dropped a lot but our old friend Jose De Leon dropped the most.

 

Pipeline also just added the value of the top 100 guys to give a guesstimate on top systems right now (it doesn't look at depth, it's just a glance) and the Twins rank 12th.White Sox 2, Cleveland 14, Tigers 23 and KC 28.

  • birdwatcher, bluechipper, Deduno Abides and 2 others like this

#42 gunnarthor

gunnarthor

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 8,654 posts

Posted 25 July 2017 - 07:08 PM

The draft has a few tiers of rankings in this list as well.

 

21. Hunter Greene, RHP, Reds (No. 2 overall pick)
23. Brendan McKay, 1B, Rays (No. 4 overall pick)
29. MacKenzie Gore, LHP, Padres (No. 3)
31. Royce Lewis, OF, Twins (No. 1)
35. Kyle Wright, RHP, Braves (No. 5)

 

I think these five were the general consensus top 5 (in some order) and those 5 are separated by 14 spots.

75. Pavin Smith, 1B, D-backs (No. 7)
78. Alex Faedo, RHP, Tigers (No. 18)
86. Jeren Kendall, OF, Dodgers (No. 23)
87. J.B. Bukauskus, RHP, Astros (No. 15)
88. Shane Baz, RHP, Pirates (No. 12)
97. Keston Hiura, 2B/OF, Brewers (No. 9)

 

And then a little bit of weirdness in the back quarter. I don't think Kendall should be a top 100 guy right now at all. No Adell?

  • birdwatcher, bluechipper and caninatl04 like this

#43 Mr. Brooks

Mr. Brooks

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 5,066 posts

Posted 25 July 2017 - 07:29 PM

MLB Pipeline barely had Rooker as a top 100 DRAFT prospect, of course he's not going to be anywhere close to a top 100 overall list.
  • Mike Sixel, nicksaviking, sftwinsfan and 1 other like this

#44 drivlikejehu

drivlikejehu

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 1,806 posts

Posted 25 July 2017 - 07:40 PM

I personally am skeptical that even experienced prospect-watchers should put their ratings over the clubs'. I don't see how you include Jeren Kendall in the top 100 and leave out Austin Beck, who was drafted way higher and signed for like $2.5 million more. Maybe you can have an occasional oddity, but in this case, 22 teams passed on Kendall in the first round - it's unsupportable for him to be in the top 100 unless the ranker is a better scout than half of MLB scouting directors.

 

 

  • Han Joelo, birdwatcher, gunnarthor and 1 other like this

If you ain't got no haters, you ain't poppin'.


#45 Deduno Abides

Deduno Abides

    Rochester Plates

  • Members
  • 1,781 posts

Posted 25 July 2017 - 07:52 PM

That surprises me too.


Rooker ranks lower than some expected because of lot of history of college sluggers not making it, particularly based on K/BB ratio and age against competition. For example, when Benintendi was 20, he had 32 K's and 50 BB's in 276 PA's. Contrast that against Rooker at 21, when he had 48 K's and 16 BB's in 220 PA's. Rooker improved at age 22, with 58 K's and 48 BB's in 296 PA's, but he still didn't match Benintendi at age 20. Now we can project his growth and discount the age data all we want, and Rooker might beat the odds, but the ratings services aren't going to do that with him until his professional track record exceeds the growth curve of the average player with his background. 100 plate appearances in rookie ball aren't enough proof.
  • mikelink45 likes this

#46 Taildragger8791

Taildragger8791

    Junior Member

  • Members
  • 846 posts

Posted 25 July 2017 - 08:29 PM

 

I missed that one too. Do you have a link?

 

There was a mention of it in the second item of this short article.

 

Edit: Forgot the article.
 

http://www.startribu...otes/435496263/

 

Edited by Taildragger8791, 25 July 2017 - 08:29 PM.


#47 bluechipper

bluechipper

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 2,151 posts

Posted 26 July 2017 - 09:50 AM

 

Few interesting things:

 

- Gordon is listed as a SS/2B for the first time in those lists

- For the first time ever a national prospect list has a brand new IFA signee right after he signed (Jelfry Marte)

- Finally, Javier, Diaz, and Graterol get the love they deserve (albeit not as much as they do) outside Twins' Territory, while other IFAs like Palacios, Rainis Silva, and Arraez getting snubbed

- Baddoooooooo, should likely be in this list ahead of some people

- Jorge, Jay, and Stewart at 7-8-9.Really?

- Rortvedt who cannot hit his way out of a paper bag ahead of Garver (and Silva?)

- Other than that, it is what it is. Interesting to see the 1-1 draft pick ranked as the 3rd best prospect of this draft.

Isn't this just because he split time early with Vielma, and it doesn't have anything to do with what position they think he'll play?

  • birdwatcher likes this

#48 spycake

spycake

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 12,590 posts

Posted 26 July 2017 - 10:15 AM

 

I personally am skeptical that even experienced prospect-watchers should put their ratings over the clubs'. I don't see how you include Jeren Kendall in the top 100 and leave out Austin Beck, who was drafted way higher and signed for like $2.5 million more. Maybe you can have an occasional oddity, but in this case, 22 teams passed on Kendall in the first round - it's unsupportable for him to be in the top 100 unless the ranker is a better scout than half of MLB scouting directors.

Kendall is at 86.  For all we know, Beck is at 101.  Is there really a significant difference there?  It's basically equal with a tiebreaker.

 

Before the draft, MLB Pipeline had Kendall at 6 and Beck at 9.  Kendall is a college guy who is almost 3 years older than the high schooler Beck too, so it's hardly an apples-to-apples comparison. Hypothetically, maybe they believe Kendall has enough of an advantage in floor to make up for Beck's advantage in ceiling or something?

 

In any case, I value a different viewpoint on the matter, as opposed to MLB Pipeline quickly throwing their own opinions out to strictly adhere to draft/bonus order.  For what it's worth, early pro results don't look good for Beck either -- obviously too early to make any conclusive judgements from it, but maybe it's enough to lean on their pre-draft rankings as the tiebreaker rather than draft/bonus order.

 

If they are still sticking to Kendall a year from now, when actual performance data suggests their original evaluation was wrong, then I'd take issue.  Right now, I appreciate the different opinion.


#49 drivlikejehu

drivlikejehu

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 1,806 posts

Posted 26 July 2017 - 11:44 AM

 

Kendall is at 86.  For all we know, Beck is at 101.  Is there really a significant difference there?  It's basically equal with a tiebreaker.

 

Before the draft, MLB Pipeline had Kendall at 6 and Beck at 9.  Kendall is a college guy who is almost 3 years older than the high schooler Beck too, so it's hardly an apples-to-apples comparison. Hypothetically, maybe they believe Kendall has enough of an advantage in floor to make up for Beck's advantage in ceiling or something?

 

In any case, I value a different viewpoint on the matter, as opposed to MLB Pipeline quickly throwing their own opinions out to strictly adhere to draft/bonus order.  For what it's worth, early pro results don't look good for Beck either -- obviously too early to make any conclusive judgements from it, but maybe it's enough to lean on their pre-draft rankings as the tiebreaker rather than draft/bonus order.

 

If they are still sticking to Kendall a year from now, when actual performance data suggests their original evaluation was wrong, then I'd take issue.  Right now, I appreciate the different opinion.

 

The problem is that there is no reason to think their "opinion" is better than the actual decisions of MLB teams. Money talks - if MLB teams think so many players in the 2017 draft alone are more valuable than Kendall, it's just not logical to say he's a top 100 prospect. In an open market, there is zero chance he would get one of the top 100 bonuses among prospect-eligible players. We can be sure of that because he signed for near slot, meaning other teams could have clearly afforded to pay him, if they wanted to.

 

He's just one player, but that issue pops up with some frequency. People outside MLB just don't have the information needed to make such a dramatic departure from the MLB consensus . . . I mean, they can if they want, but it really strains credibility.

If you ain't got no haters, you ain't poppin'.


#50 Mike Sixel

Mike Sixel

    Now living in Oregon

  • Members
  • 24,237 posts

Posted 26 July 2017 - 11:46 AM

 

The problem is that there is no reason to think their "opinion" is better than the actual decisions of MLB teams. Money talks - if MLB teams think so many players in the 2017 draft alone are more valuable than Kendall, it's just not logical to say he's a top 100 prospect. In an open market, there is zero chance he would get one of the top 100 bonuses among prospect-eligible players. We can be sure of that because he signed for near slot, meaning other teams could have clearly afforded to pay him, if they wanted to.

 

He's just one player, but that issue pops up with some frequency. People outside MLB just don't have the information needed to make such a dramatic departure from the MLB consensus . . . I mean, they can if they want, but it really strains credibility.

 

so, don't read prospect lists? take them with a grain of salt? admit they aren't perfect? What's your argument?

  • spycake likes this

One of the best opening day rosters in years. Now go get 'em.


#51 mlhouse

mlhouse

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 413 posts

Posted 26 July 2017 - 12:06 PM

Two problems with the list:

 

1. Jose Miranda should be in the top 15.  He is a SS that was drafted Comp B, a 19 year old hitting .336 with 6 HR at Elizabethton, and he isn't even in the top 30?

 

2.  LaMonte Wade is ranked too low. WIth his approach  at the plate he has professional lead off hitter labeled all over him.  The Twins should look at getting him up in September to see if his professional ABs continue at the MLB level, and then pencil him in as a starting OF for 2018 if he demonstrates.


#52 drivlikejehu

drivlikejehu

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 1,806 posts

Posted 26 July 2017 - 12:52 PM

 

so, don't read prospect lists? take them with a grain of salt? admit they aren't perfect? What's your argument?

 

Um we're discussing a list, and that's the reason I don't like it. Are only some people allowed to comment on them? I don't get your complaint. I'm fine with lists that make sense.

Edited by drivlikejehu, 26 July 2017 - 12:53 PM.

If you ain't got no haters, you ain't poppin'.


#53 Mike Sixel

Mike Sixel

    Now living in Oregon

  • Members
  • 24,237 posts

Posted 26 July 2017 - 12:58 PM

 

Um we're discussing a list, and that's the reason I don't like it. Are only some people allowed to comment on them? I don't get your complaint. I'm fine with lists that make sense.

 

I guess I misunderstood, it seemed like your argument was that lists were inherently bad because they were sometimes wrong, not that a ranking or 10 were wrong. Apologies.

One of the best opening day rosters in years. Now go get 'em.


#54 spycake

spycake

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 12,590 posts

Posted 26 July 2017 - 01:16 PM

 

The problem is that there is no reason to think their "opinion" is better than the actual decisions of MLB teams. Money talks - if MLB teams think so many players in the 2017 draft alone are more valuable than Kendall, it's just not logical to say he's a top 100 prospect. In an open market, there is zero chance he would get one of the top 100 bonuses among prospect-eligible players. We can be sure of that because he signed for near slot, meaning other teams could have clearly afforded to pay him, if they wanted to.

First of all, I think you are assigning a precision to this that just isn't warranted.  Kendall could be ranked 120 without any meaningful difference in assigned value from the guy ranked 86.  At that point, we're really talking a lean rather than anything definitive. And with scant pro resumes, I have no problem leaning based on pre-draft evaluation instead of a handful of month-old draft slots.

 

For that matter, while Kendall was selected 23rd overall, it isn't even clear that a majority consensus of MLB teams would peg that as his absolute value among draft prospects.  I am sure MLB draft boards are far from identical, especially after the top 5 or so.  For all we know, a few of the top and bottom teams in the draft may have pegged Kendall around 10-15 just like Pipeline and BA did but didn't have an opportunity to select him.  Heck, a few of the teams picking 6-22 may have had him that high too, but just behind their own special cases.  As a hypothetical example, the Brewers were apparently higher on Hiura to pick him 9, but who's to say they didn't have Kendall close behind him? Big picture, it would even out, of course, but we're not talking 100 slots here. It wouldn't take much to move a guy down ~10 slots or whatever.

 

While it's absolutely worth noting divergent opinions, and I'm glad gunnarthor posted the draft slots next to the rankings here, I see nothing in this particular ranking that should "strain credibility."

  • Mike Sixel likes this

#55 gunnarthor

gunnarthor

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 8,654 posts

Posted 26 July 2017 - 01:19 PM

 

Two problems with the list:

 

1. Jose Miranda should be in the top 15.  He is a SS that was drafted Comp B, a 19 year old hitting .336 with 6 HR at Elizabethton, and he isn't even in the top 30?

 

2.  LaMonte Wade is ranked too low. WIth his approach  at the plate he has professional lead off hitter labeled all over him.  The Twins should look at getting him up in September to see if his professional ABs continue at the MLB level, and then pencil him in as a starting OF for 2018 if he demonstrates.

Miranda and Baddoo are the two most glaring problems on this list.  I think both are top 15 prospects for us. 


#56 birdwatcher

birdwatcher

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 3,425 posts

Posted 26 July 2017 - 01:50 PM

 

so, don't read prospect lists? take them with a grain of salt? admit they aren't perfect? What's your argument?

 

 

I pick take them with a grain of salt and admit they aren't perfect?

  • Mike Sixel likes this

#57 Thrylos

Thrylos

    Twins World Champions in 2018

  • Members
  • 9,158 posts
  • LocationLehigh Valley, PA, USA
  • Twitter: thrylos98

Posted 26 July 2017 - 03:34 PM

 

 

 

 LaMonte Wade is ranked too low. WIth his approach  at the plate he has professional lead off hitter labeled all over him.  The Twins should look at getting him up in September to see if his professional ABs continue at the MLB level, and then pencil him in as a starting OF for 2018 if he demonstrates.

 

Starting OF in 2016?Over whom? Wade has an .808 OPS in AA.Rosario an .815 in the majors, Kepler .740.Do you mean over Buxton?

  • caninatl04 likes this
-----
Blogging Twins since 2007 at The Tenth Inning Stretch
http://tenthinningst...h.blogspot.com/
twitter: @thrylos98

#58 mlhouse

mlhouse

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 413 posts

Posted 26 July 2017 - 03:53 PM

 

Starting OF in 2016?Over whom? Wade has an .808 OPS in AA.Rosario an .815 in the majors, Kepler .740.Do you mean over Buxton?

 

 

That is a ridiculous use of a single, contrived statistic. I would consider Wade over Rosario and Buxton at this time.

 

 Wade has a career minor league OBP over 400 and has maintained this at each step in the minors.  If he can project that to the MLB level, he could be a premier leadoff hitter for the Twins. He has enough pop in his bat that he has hit 6-10 home runs each year (projected to 500 PA) that he isn't a total slap hitter. I bring him up in September to see if he can continue those trends in the majors, and if he does he replaces Rosario as the starting LF.

 


#59 drivlikejehu

drivlikejehu

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 1,806 posts

Posted 26 July 2017 - 04:06 PM

 

First of all, I think you are assigning a precision to this that just isn't warranted.  Kendall could be ranked 120 without any meaningful difference in assigned value from the guy ranked 86.  At that point, we're really talking a lean rather than anything definitive. And with scant pro resumes, I have no problem leaning based on pre-draft evaluation instead of a handful of month-old draft slots.

 

For that matter, while Kendall was selected 23rd overall, it isn't even clear that a majority consensus of MLB teams would peg that as his absolute value among draft prospects.  I am sure MLB draft boards are far from identical, especially after the top 5 or so.  For all we know, a few of the top and bottom teams in the draft may have pegged Kendall around 10-15 just like Pipeline and BA did but didn't have an opportunity to select him.  Heck, a few of the teams picking 6-22 may have had him that high too, but just behind their own special cases.  As a hypothetical example, the Brewers were apparently higher on Hiura to pick him 9, but who's to say they didn't have Kendall close behind him? Big picture, it would even out, of course, but we're not talking 100 slots here. It wouldn't take much to move a guy down ~10 slots or whatever.

 

While it's absolutely worth noting divergent opinions, and I'm glad gunnarthor posted the draft slots next to the rankings here, I see nothing in this particular ranking that should "strain credibility."

 

Though the value between 86 and 120 isn't a huge difference, my point was just that the order makes no sense in light of the actual draft results. Whether or not one or two teams loved Kendall but loved someone else even more doesn't change the fact that a majority of clubs passed on him.

 

Collectively, they liked a lot of prospects more than Kendall. 

 

Prospect rankings are treated as being more subjective conceptually then they really should be. The best way to think about it is this: if all minor league players became free agents, and every team had an equal pool to offer those free agents, who would get the most money? That's the best prospect, period. And the ranking of prospects would follow the amount received.

 

The draft is not like free agency and so the ordering itself is not always useful. That's why I referred to bonus money. Even that is different from free agency of course, but it still tells us enough to know that Kendall is not objectively a top 100 prospect in MLB.

 

Now, for some random person, Kendall might be a top 100 prospect, but why would fans care about one random person's opinion? Collective opinions are stronger. Therefore, a rational prospect ranking should reflect the consensus in MLB, not the personal opinions of random dudes on the internet, even if they are knowledgeable. 

If you ain't got no haters, you ain't poppin'.


#60 drjim

drjim

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 8,783 posts
  • LocationSt. Paul

Posted 26 July 2017 - 04:20 PM

I wonder if these rankings reflect the order mlb.com had for their pre-draft rankings. At least that would be consistent.
Papers...business papers.