Jump to content

Providing independent coverage of the Minnesota Twins.
Photo

Duran?

rotowire
  • Please log in to reply
12 replies to this topic

#1 Doctor Gast

Doctor Gast

    Wichita Wind Surge

  • Member
  • 848 posts
  • LocationBelo Horizonte, Brazil

Posted 04 February 2021 - 07:06 AM

I need help from my TD family again. I just got a free 10 days trial to Rotowire. I saw an article on top 400 prospects. The Twins prospects were pretty close to what I thought of course I thought some could have been higher but I was totally surprised by Duran. I'd rate him slightly ahead of Balazovic. But they had him as Twins#9 prospect barely making the top 300. Is Rotowire way off or has there something happened to him?

#2 Ben Noble

Ben Noble

    Junior Member

  • Member
  • 228 posts
  • LocationPowderhorn Park

Posted 04 February 2021 - 10:12 AM

They’re way off. Only thing that’s happened to him is he’s gotten better since the Twins traded for and started developing him.

I’m totally unbiased btw.
  • Brandon, adjacent, Dman and 4 others like this

#3 GP830

GP830

    Wichita Wind Surge

  • Member
  • 533 posts
  • LocationMinneapolis

Posted 08 February 2021 - 11:22 AM

I was surprised that FanGraphs listed both Duran and Balazovic as potential number 4 starters. I would have thought they had higher ceilings as well, based on how they're spoken of. 

  • Doctor Gast likes this

#4 whosafraidofluigirussolo

whosafraidofluigirussolo

    Member

  • Member
  • 271 posts

Posted 08 February 2021 - 11:48 AM

 

I was surprised that FanGraphs listed both Duran and Balazovic as potential number 4 starters. I would have thought they had higher ceilings as well, based on how they're spoken of. 

I had a similar reaction, but having read their Twins prospect lists for a few years and having skimmed some lists for other teams, I can see a way in which it makes sense. Not that I really know anything about how to evaluate prospects, but I think the FG writer's approach is highly focused on the distribution of possible outcomes for players, and tends toward projecting around the middle of those possible outcomes. So he can write plenty of praise for a player's skills and then their projected role in the majors is still pretty conservative.

 

It can be disappointing to read, but I don't get the sense that a conservative projection like this is necessarily a big knock on a player. A pitching prospect whose MIDDLING outcome is higher than a number 3 or 4 starter is probably a REALLY good prospect.

 

But of course that doesn't mean that this approach can't still underrate guys, and if most things break right with a certain player's development and health, they're likely to outdo these projections. Hopefully that's the case with Balazovic and Duran.

  • birdwatcher, Twins33, Dman and 2 others like this

#5 Dman

Dman

    Senior Member

  • Member
  • 2,068 posts

Posted 08 February 2021 - 12:01 PM

 

I had a similar reaction, but having read their Twins prospect lists for a few years and having skimmed some lists for other teams, I can see a way in which it makes sense. Not that I really know anything about how to evaluate prospects, but I think the FG writer's approach is highly focused on the distribution of possible outcomes for players, and tends toward projecting around the middle of those possible outcomes. So he can write plenty of praise for a player's skills and then their projected role in the majors is still pretty conservative.

 

It can be disappointing to read, but I don't get the sense that a conservative projection like this is necessarily a big knock on a player. A pitching prospect whose MIDDLING outcome is higher than a number 3 or 4 starter is probably a REALLY good prospect.

 

But of course that doesn't mean that this approach can't still underrate guys, and if most things break right with a certain player's development and health, they're likely to outdo these projections. Hopefully that's the case with Balazovic and Duran.

 

Yeah I agree with your analysis but you also have to remember that stat watching can give biased results.I remember a lot of us myself included discounting the pundits about Gonsalvesbecause he had a decent ERA and good strike out numbers but after seeing him live he looked much more like the number 5 projection they gave him than the 3 or 4 most of us had him at. 

 

If Durans numbers improve at the higher levels his MLB projection will change along with it.If you look at his WHIP while it isn't horrible he does seem pretty hittable yet.He'll need to be more dominant than he has been to make it IMO.Maybe this is the year he changes people minds about him not having the stuff to be a top of the rotation starter.I hope so as I am banking on him being a difference maker.

  • Doctor Gast likes this

#6 The Wise One

The Wise One

    Senior Member

  • Member
  • 1,934 posts

Posted 08 February 2021 - 06:50 PM

If anybody understood and accurately predicted prospects they would be running baseball clubs, not writing for peanuts. Worrying about relative rankings of prospects when there is so little information is foolhardy.

  • MNT1996 likes this

#7 The Wise One

The Wise One

    Senior Member

  • Member
  • 1,934 posts

Posted 08 February 2021 - 06:53 PM

 

Yeah I agree with your analysis but you also have to remember that stat watching can give biased results.I remember a lot of us myself included discounting the pundits about Gonsalvesbecause he had a decent ERA and good strike out numbers but after seeing him live he looked much more like the number 5 projection they gave him than the 3 or 4 most of us had him at. 

 

If Durans numbers improve at the higher levels his MLB projection will change along with it.If you look at his WHIP while it isn't horrible he does seem pretty hittable yet.He'll need to be more dominant than he has been to make it IMO.Maybe this is the year he changes people minds about him not having the stuff to be a top of the rotation starter.I hope so as I am banking on him being a difference maker.

The stat watchers now look for spin rates and trackman data for minor league pitchers

  • Dman and Doctor Gast like this

#8 Dman

Dman

    Senior Member

  • Member
  • 2,068 posts

Posted 08 February 2021 - 07:49 PM

 

If anybody understood and accurately predicted prospects they would be running baseball clubs, not writing for peanuts. Worrying about relative rankings of prospects when there is so little information is foolhardy.

 

Caring about sports in general is a foolhardy exercise.There is no real value in it other than bragging rights and yet it is a billion dollar industry with millions of fans.Great prospects create great teams and while we can't predict with great accuracy who will work out it is fun to watch, measure, guess and predict who might impact the major league club.If it is something you don't enjoy that's fine.You can foolhardily watch the Twins win and lose in 2021. 

 

We enjoy watching the games because we can't predict what will happen.We watch prospects and hope they will make our team better even if we can't predict who will or won't make it accurately.Rankings are superficial, they are in all sports and yet we like to read about them and talk about them.I think the same applies with the foolhardy ranking of prospects.It is just fun to see what everyone thinks and why.

  • ashbury likes this

#9 sdangus

sdangus

    Ft Myers Mighty Mussels

  • Member
  • 133 posts

Posted 09 February 2021 - 06:25 AM

Pretty dark view of sports. If it is all that bad, why do you bother?

For me, the bragging rights, etc. have only minimal meaning. I just enjoy the games and the entertainment. And I love all things baseball. So being able to see all of the analysts views on players is just one more way to enjoy baseball as a whole.

 

We all know that all the analysts have different views of players, different ways of analyzing them, different ways of projecting them. And it always depends on how a player develops over time, not just on where they are in the moment. Nobody ever knows for sure the exact course a player will take. That is why some really good talented players never make the final steps, while others that nobody really saw coming turn out to be stars. If that wasn't the case, there wouldn't be a reason to have 40 rounds in a draft, or 120 minor league teams.

 

We all hope that when our player is highly rated he turns out, and if he isn't as highly rated as we would like, that maybe that analyst is wrong about him. I think it is so much fun to watch a player like Luis Arraez come out of nowhere. We all saw that he was on the perifery, but held out little hope that he would be as good as he is. Very few analysts had hime there, the rest were wrong.

 

  • Doctor Gast likes this

#10 The Wise One

The Wise One

    Senior Member

  • Member
  • 1,934 posts

Posted 11 February 2021 - 09:38 AM

 

Caring about sports in general is a foolhardy exercise.There is no real value in it other than bragging rights and yet it is a billion dollar industry with millions of fans.Great prospects create great teams and while we can't predict with great accuracy who will work out it is fun to watch, measure, guess and predict who might impact the major league club.If it is something you don't enjoy that's fine.You can foolhardily watch the Twins win and lose in 2021. 

 

We enjoy watching the games because we can't predict what will happen.We watch prospects and hope they will make our team better even if we can't predict who will or won't make it accurately.Rankings are superficial, they are in all sports and yet we like to read about them and talk about them.I think the same applies with the foolhardy ranking of prospects.It is just fun to see what everyone thinks and why.

If unpredictability were the key .500 teams would be the most popular teams. That is not true. Winning teams draw both attendance and viewership

 

The information that is given from any of these ranking articles can be very useful in finding out what kind of players the teams have. That a player falls a couple of positions in a relative ranking is not a big deal. Did what the prospect does on the field improve or not. Thatshould be what is important. 


#11 Dman

Dman

    Senior Member

  • Member
  • 2,068 posts

Posted 11 February 2021 - 11:58 AM

 

If unpredictability were the key .500 teams would be the most popular teams. That is not true. Winning teams draw both attendance and viewership

 

The information that is given from any of these ranking articles can be very useful in finding out what kind of players the teams have. That a player falls a couple of positions in a relative ranking is not a big deal. Did what the prospect does on the field improve or not. Thatshould be what is important. 

 

I think you are being obtuse about unpredictability.What makes it fun is that a team with an under 500 record can beat a team way over 500 on any given day.A player can start with 2 strikes and end up drawing a walk or hitting a home run etc.. etc. If based on players you could predict accurately what would happen (i.e. the Twins were going to lose all their games and Yankees will all of theirs or this player will strike out every time)Would it be any fun to watch?If it was predictable there would be no reason to watch because you would already know the result.You watch because you don't know what will happen.

 

Sure I can agree that if a prospect drops a few spots it is no big deal, heck guys that aren't even at the top of prospect lists sometimes turn out better than those that are.But again my point stands there is also no harm in arguing why you think X player player should be ranked here or there.

 

While I generally agree with your assessment of improvement it doesn't really work when it comes to how prospects are graded.Prospect lists are attempting to capture the likely potential of players at all levels of development and put them in a list top to bottom. 

 

Let's say batting average or OPS was your "ultimate measure then players in the GCL with a .998 OPS would be better than a player with an .830 OPS in AAA ball.That wouldn't make sense because the level of competition is so different. 

 

Stats only tell us so much and we can't rely on just those to help us predict the odds a player becomes great or a star.They don't give us the snapshot we are looking for which is with the players I have today at all levels what do I think their outcomes look like based on the skillset they have.

 

Like every site they are looking at a players tools as they are today and where they project them to be when ready for MLB.If I take a power hitter that is slow, has a poor arm, poor eye and is K prone with my first pick the odds I am getting a good future player are low.If I take player with less power, who is above average runner, above average arm and etc.that player has a better chance to be a difference maker.The same goes for ratings even though this guy is 18 he has five tools and the potential to be better than guys who have been in the system longer and doing well,a Guy with only 3 tools lets say.The potential for five tools might be there but will that particular player reach it? We don't know, we never know (uncertainty)but at least he starts with the tools to make it.

 

The further the player goes up in levels their potential becomes lower and their skillset higher.The higher they get the more certain we become of where their skills are going to land.That is why players that are almost ready to jump to MLB might be lower than an 18 year old in A ball on prospect lists because they might have sky high potential while the other player at AAA has lost most of their potential and they are the three tool player that they are.

 

Prospect list are just educated guesses based on previous performances of other players and how tools translate to MLB.There is nothing certain about them but what I mentioned earlier stands it can be fun to discuss and dream they become great players for your team.


#12 The Wise One

The Wise One

    Senior Member

  • Member
  • 1,934 posts

Posted 12 February 2021 - 02:04 PM

 

I think you are being obtuse about unpredictability.What makes it fun is that a team with an under 500 record can beat a team way over 500 on any given day.A player can start with 2 strikes and end up drawing a walk or hitting a home run etc.. etc. If based on players you could predict accurately what would happen (i.e. the Twins were going to lose all their games and Yankees will all of theirs or this player will strike out every time)Would it be any fun to watch?If it was predictable there would be no reason to watch because you would already know the result.You watch because you don't know what will happen.

 

Sure I can agree that if a prospect drops a few spots it is no big deal, heck guys that aren't even at the top of prospect lists sometimes turn out better than those that are.But again my point stands there is also no harm in arguing why you think X player player should be ranked here or there.

 

While I generally agree with your assessment of improvement it doesn't really work when it comes to how prospects are graded.Prospect lists are attempting to capture the likely potential of players at all levels of development and put them in a list top to bottom. 

 

Let's say batting average or OPS was your "ultimate measure then players in the GCL with a .998 OPS would be better than a player with an .830 OPS in AAA ball.That wouldn't make sense because the level of competition is so different. 

 

Stats only tell us so much and we can't rely on just those to help us predict the odds a player becomes great or a star.They don't give us the snapshot we are looking for which is with the players I have today at all levels what do I think their outcomes look like based on the skillset they have.

 

Like every site they are looking at a players tools as they are today and where they project them to be when ready for MLB.If I take a power hitter that is slow, has a poor arm, poor eye and is K prone with my first pick the odds I am getting a good future player are low.If I take player with less power, who is above average runner, above average arm and etc.that player has a better chance to be a difference maker.The same goes for ratings even though this guy is 18 he has five tools and the potential to be better than guys who have been in the system longer and doing well,a Guy with only 3 tools lets say.The potential for five tools might be there but will that particular player reach it? We don't know, we never know (uncertainty)but at least he starts with the tools to make it.

 

The further the player goes up in levels their potential becomes lower and their skillset higher.The higher they get the more certain we become of where their skills are going to land.That is why players that are almost ready to jump to MLB might be lower than an 18 year old in A ball on prospect lists because they might have sky high potential while the other player at AAA has lost most of their potential and they are the three tool player that they are.

 

Prospect list are just educated guesses based on previous performances of other players and how tools translate to MLB.There is nothing certain about them but what I mentioned earlier stands it can be fun to discuss and dream they become great players for your team.

Fan attendance anywhere but the Cubs, Rays and A's say that wins are what is important.There is nothing obtuse about that. 


#13 Dman

Dman

    Senior Member

  • Member
  • 2,068 posts

Posted 12 February 2021 - 02:13 PM

 

Fan attendance anywhere but the Cubs, Rays and A's say that wins are what is important.There is nothing obtuse about that. 

 

And yet there is enough fan support that there are 30 teams in baseball.Sure some people are bandwagon jumpers.Sure wins increase attendance but a decent amount of fans follow their teams through think and thin.If you are a true fan of the game you don't even need to root for just your own team to enjoy the baseball season.There are other great players and great teams to watch as well.