BA Midseason Top 100

[bird]

 

I think BA was the lowest on the Twins at the start of the season. I imagine a few of the other midseason updates will include Gonsalves and maybe Romero.  

 

I wouldn't worry too much about the rankings right now. As the other poster noted, a lot of it has to do with Stewart and Jay but the young players taken last year and this year won't be on these lists right away but I suspect the 2016 and 2017 drafts will end up with more than just two guys getting ranked.

 

 

Yeah, I think this is a predictable and reasonable list. Again, if talent was distributed equally, we'd have 3.2 prospects on the list.

 

I wouldn't call either Stewart or Jay a bust, let alone a bad pick, but that's of course always in the eyes of the beholder. There are a few here who once proclaimed Perkins to be a bust, and who may still view him as a disappointing pick that is a product of the Twin's lousy evaluating and development people. Forget that there are early picks all over MLB baseball, where the hypercritical fans think of them as busts, many of the rest of the team's fans view them as disappointments, and the fans around the rest of the league think of them as successes, having never gotten their expectations out of whack about the guy. Who knows if Jay or Stewart will ever give us as much production as Duffey or Rogers, let alone Perkins, but if they do, this beholder will view them simply as a predictable outcome of the win some-lose some draft.

 

I can't be upset by having two top 50 guys and no others right now on someone's list, knowing that 1) guys like Gonsalves, Wander, Romero, Kiriloff, and maybe Palacios and a couple others were in the discussion; 2) that we have a winning record at each and every level right now from MLB all the way down to a DSL team that is a ridiculous 23-5; and 3) we just concluded a draft for which the experts are giving superlative grades.

[Dr. Evil]

I don't put much stock in these "national rankings."

[Vanimal46]

Everyone has their go-to for prospect lists.... I know a lot of people on here prefer Sickels. I prefer Fangraphs. There probably isn't a right or wrong answer here. But we all get a pretty good idea how these players are viewed across the board on multiple sources. 

[drjim]

Everyone has their go-to for prospect lists.... I know a lot of people on here prefer Sickels. I prefer Fangraphs. There probably isn't a right or wrong answer here. But we all get a pretty good idea how these players are viewed across the board on multiple sources.

Does depend on what you are looking for in your rankings and how you like to consume information.

[gunnarthor]

 

Does depend on what you are looking for in your rankings and how you like to consume information.

Agreed. I prefer Mayo/Callis at mlbpipeline. I think they are probably closest to the industry. Fangraphs, Klaw, Sickels are all good too. I used to really like BP guys but they just get hired by mlb teams.

[biggentleben]

 

I'm not sure whether either should be top 100 prospects or not, but both Romero and Gonsalves are pitching well in a hitter-friendly AA environment, which is encouraging. 

 

The Southern League is hitter friendly? That'd be a first....

[biggentleben]

 

Agreed. I prefer Mayo/Callis at mlbpipeline. I think they are probably closest to the industry. Fangraphs, Klaw, Sickels are all good too. I used to really like BP guys but they just get hired by mlb teams.

 

Yet, the Braves people laugh about the MLB PIpeline coverage of their system because it's so far off base and out of touch with what's going on in their offices. A guy that was released was still ranked in the top 30 by Pipeline, and this isn't a weak system where a back end top 30 guy is release fodder normally. It's a list that Sickels started with over 60 names that same year before he trimmed down to his top 20.

[biggentleben]

In the offseason, I put out an article about the different ranking sites. I will always advocate for a balance and breadth, reading across a number of them, specifically ones intentionally that target different things.

 

However, one not mentioned here yet that people should really get on board with more is 2080. They have tremendous coverage, and though they're still getting off the ground, the quality of staff they have there is really unmatched anywhere else, and that includes BA.

[Mr. Brooks]

Sure.... this guy is a better prospect that Gonsalves

 

Dylan Cease: http://www.baseballamerica.com/statistics/players/cards/9451/dylan-cease

 

Gonsalves: http://www.baseballamerica.com/statistics/players/cards/5120/stephen-gonsalves

 

Righty that is 1 year younger than Gonsalves (lefty), but is at Low-A, has a slightly K/9, but a way higher BB/9

 

ETA: He's ranked 83

Much more than just statlines when ranking prospects. Especially at the lower levels, tools are much more important.

[Mr. Brooks]

Two top 100 guys is not stellar given how high they have picked. But I am a big Gordon fan.

Same on Gordon.

And the lack of top end prospects is why I'd be very reluctant to trade him.

I think Gordon is going to be an All-star caliber player.

[Guest]

Yeah, I think this is a predictable and reasonable list. Again, if talent was distributed equally, we'd have 3.2 prospects on the list.

 

I wouldn't call either Stewart or Jay a bust, let alone a bad pick, but that's of course always in the eyes of the beholder. There are a few here who once proclaimed Perkins to be a bust, and who may still view him as a disappointing pick that is a product of the Twin's lousy evaluating and development people. Forget that there are early picks all over MLB baseball, where the hypercritical fans think of them as busts, many of the rest of the team's fans view them as disappointments, and the fans around the rest of the league think of them as successes, having never gotten their expectations out of whack about the guy. Who knows if Jay or Stewart will ever give us as much production as Duffey or Rogers, let alone Perkins, but if they do, this beholder will view them simply as a predictable outcome of the win some-lose some draft.

 

I can't be upset by having two top 50 guys and no others right now on someone's list, knowing that 1) guys like Gonsalves, Wander, Romero, Kiriloff, and maybe Palacios and a couple others were in the discussion; 2) that we have a winning record at each and every level right now from MLB all the way down to a DSL team that is a ridiculous 23-5; and 3) we just concluded a draft for which the experts are giving superlative grades.

Yes, there are a lot of positives and rankings are meaningless when it comes to W/L. That said, to be positively picky with these rankings, I'd rather have two in the top 50, as you note, than three or four or five in the top 100, if most of them are in the back half. My guess is that #51 is closer to #200, and vice versa, than it is to #1.

[drivlikejehu]

 

The Southern League is hitter friendly? That'd be a first....

 

Chattanooga:

 

http://www.baseballamerica.com/minors/new-way-think-ballpark-factors/#ZkKwp7GC6lBZm1RP.97

[biggentleben]

 

Chattanooga:

 

http://www.baseballamerica.com/minors/new-way-think-ballpark-factors/#ZkKwp7GC6lBZm1RP.97

 

Okay, home park. Big difference. The LEAGUE is incredibly pitcher friendly.

[drivlikejehu]

 

Okay, home park. Big difference. The LEAGUE is incredibly pitcher friendly.

 

Well I never said anything about the league, you did. Prospects are evaluated statistically within their own league . . . Twins' AA pitchers have a tougher task than the pitchers with every other Southern League club.

[King]

 

I wouldn't call either Stewart or Jay a bust, let alone a bad pick, but that's of course always in the eyes of the beholder. 

I don't know what else you would call them. Stewart went 4th overall and Jay 6th overall, and now, just a few years later, look like they have little to 0 chance of positively contributing to the MLB team. If that's not a bust I really don't know what is.

 

 

[Darius]

19 seems high for Gordon.

 

I don't think the Twins system is as

barren as it seems. A number of guys could end up in the top 100 at some point in the next year or two (Gonsalves, Romero, Burdi, Kirillof, Javier, Polacios, Diaz, Enlow, Leach, Marte, Thorpe, Rooker, Rortvedt, Graterol, Bechtold, Barnes, De La Torre....and I'm sure I'm missing a few). A ton of talent there. I really like the collection of young talent they're putting together, and think some of these guys will break out and be very nice prospects.

 

You'll have some down years once your turn over a number of top 100 prospects in a short period of time (Buxton, Sano, Berrios, Arcia, Mejia, etc), and lose other guys who could be there to injury (Jay, Stewart, Burdi, Kiriloff, etc).

[darin617]

So Zach Granite is not good enough to make the top 100?

[Mr. Brooks]

So Zach Granite is not good enough to make the top 100?

Zach Granite would struggle to make a top 250 list. Just doesn't have the tools.

That doesn't mean he can't forge out a five year career as a decent bench option, but for prospect lists they like to see at least some upside.

[drjim]

19 seems high for Gordon.

 

I don't think the Twins system is as

barren as it seems. A number of guys could end up in the top 100 at some point in the next year or two (Gonsalves, Romero, Burdi, Kirillof, Javier, Polacios, Diaz, Enlow, Leach, Marte, Thorpe, Rooker, Rortvedt, Graterol, Bechtold, Barnes, De La Torre....and I'm sure I'm missing a few). A ton of talent there. I really like the collection of young talent they're putting together, and think some of these guys will break out and be very nice prospects.

 

You'll have some down years once your turn over a number of top 100 prospects in a short period of time (Buxton, Sano, Berrios, Arcia, Mejia, etc), and lose other guys who could be there to injury (Jay, Stewart, Burdi, Kiriloff, etc).

Depends if you think Gordon can stick at short. If so, 19 is about right, considering production at AA at his age.

[bird]

 

I don't know what else you would call them. Stewart went 4th overall and Jay 6th overall, and now, just a few years later, look like they have little to 0 chance of positively contributing to the MLB team. If that's not a bust I really don't know what is.

 

 

I call them inconclusive. One has to use one's imagination to an extent, but to conclude, as you have that there is zero chance of either contributing to the MLB team? If that's not ridiculous I really don't know what is.

[drivlikejehu]

 

I call them inconclusive. One has to use one's imagination to an extent, but to conclude, as you have that there is zero chance of either contributing to the MLB team? If that's not ridiculous I really don't know what is.

 

That's moving the goalposts though (granted, in response to how the other poster worded his comment). Stewart and Jay are busts as top-10 draft picks. Whether they wind up making some kind of modest contribution is really besides the point. Even the Twins can scrape up modest contributors if they need to - the top of the draft is about impact players, period.

[diehardtwinsfan]

 

So Zach Granite is not good enough to make the top 100?

Plenty of good players never make those lists.  Given his age and skills, he won't. Doesn't mean he will have a good (or short) ML career.

[Mr. Brooks]

I call them inconclusive. One has to use one's imagination to an extent, but to conclude, as you have that there is zero chance of either contributing to the MLB team? If that's not ridiculous I really don't know what is.

He did say "little to zero", not zero, which sounds about right to me.

[bird]

 

That's moving the goalposts though (granted, in response to how the other poster worded his comment). Stewart and Jay are busts as top-10 draft picks. Whether they wind up making some kind of modest contribution is really besides the point. Even the Twins can scrape up modest contributors if they need to - the top of the draft is about impact players, period.

 

If Stewart and Jay were selling used cars on Lake Street now, I'd agree. And if, over the course of their careers, Stewart and Jay amass less than 12.8 WAR and 9.5 WAR respectively, they will have contributed less than the average draft choice selected in their slot (source is Fangraphs). Let's hold off on these dour statements.

 

I recall, at an even later stage of Perkins' development, seeing many similar proclamations to Kings here on TD about what a bust Perkins was. So far, Perkins has given us 8.9 WAR. The average prospect drafted at #22 has given his team 6.5 WAR.

 

Half the prospects drafted in the second half of each year's draft never produce a single digit of WAR. Those are the busts. Even the guys who allow their teams to scrape up modest contributions should fairly be considered disappointments, not busts. I believe Fangraphs uses a threshold of 1.5 WAR to define a prospect as something better than a bust. That seems reasonable and it aligns more with the reality of the uncertainty involved. For every team. 

[bird]

 

He did say "little to zero", not zero, which sounds about right to me.

 

 

Not to me. Not even close.

[drivlikejehu]

 

If Stewart and Jay were selling used cars on Lake Street now, I'd agree. And if, over the course of their careers, Stewart and Jay amass less than 12.8 WAR and 9.5 WAR respectively, they will have contributed less than the average draft choice selected in their slot (source is Fangraphs). Let's hold off on these dour statements.

 

I recall, at an even later stage of Perkins' development, seeing many similar proclamations to Kings here on TD about what a bust Perkins was. So far, Perkins has given us 8.9 WAR. The average prospect drafted at #22 has given his team 6.5 WAR.

 

Half the prospects drafted in the second half of each year's draft never produce a single digit of WAR. Those are the busts. Even the guys who allow their teams to scrape up modest contributions should fairly be considered disappointments, not busts. I believe Fangraphs uses a threshold of 1.5 WAR to define a prospect as something better than a bust. That seems reasonable and it aligns more with the reality of the uncertainty involved. For every team. 

 

At each draft slot, there are hits and misses. The resulting average is informative but also misleading, because, say, 12.8 WAR includes some big numbers mixed in with a number of zeros or near zeros.

 

The value in high draft picks is almost entirely in the potential to acquire impact players. Getting a 4th outfielder is worthless - even poor teams can just do that in free agency or the waiver wire. For that particular player, sure, he'd rather be a 4th outfielder than out of baseball -- but for the club, it's a total failure.

 

For a player drafted in the 5th round or something, basically any contribution is a surprise. In fact, it's basically impossible for picks after the 2nd round or so to really be a "bust" at all, because statistically their chances were so low to begin with (players who slipped for bonus reasons would be an exception).

 

But not so at the very top of the draft. Those slots result in a lot of impact players. A minor role player from that slot is absolutely a bust, without question, and no one in MLB or among analysts would say otherwise.

[bird]

 

At each draft slot, there are hits and misses. The resulting average is informative but also misleading, because, say, 12.8 WAR includes some big numbers mixed in with a number of zeros or near zeros.

 

The value in high draft picks is almost entirely in the potential to acquire impact players. Getting a 4th outfielder is worthless - even poor teams can just do that in free agency or the waiver wire. For that particular player, sure, he'd rather be a 4th outfielder than out of baseball -- but for the club, it's a total failure.

 

For a player drafted in the 5th round or something, basically any contribution is a surprise. In fact, it's basically impossible for picks after the 2nd round or so to really be a "bust" at all, because statistically their chances were so low to begin with (players who slipped for bonus reasons would be an exception).

 

But not so at the very top of the draft. Those slots result in a lot of impact players. A minor role player from that slot is absolutely a bust, without question, and no one in MLB or among analysts would say otherwise.

 

I understand your point here. To me though, a more misleading part of a discussion of hits and misses is ignoring or excluding the odds you mention. I have no problem if someone wants to define a bust as something different than the average historical WAR for the slot if they present things in context, because otherwise, it tells us absolutely nothing. If someone wants to declare that Kohl Stewart has already busted, then at least apply your personal standard across the board and mention that of the first 39 selections made in the first and supplemental rounds of that 2013 draft, 38 of them are busts, including Kohl Stewart. Because they didn't produce better than average WAR for their slot by their arbitrary deadline.

 

Same thing applies to these Top 100 lists. Context matters, and some times the conclusions people are apt to reach are way off base.

[drivlikejehu]

 

I understand your point here. To me though, a more misleading part of a discussion of hits and misses is ignoring or excluding the odds you mention. I have no problem if someone wants to define a bust as something different than the average historical WAR for the slot if they present things in context, because otherwise, it tells us absolutely nothing. If someone wants to declare that Kohl Stewart has already busted, then at least apply your personal standard across the board and mention that of the first 39 selections made in the first and supplemental rounds of that 2013 draft, 38 of them are busts, including Kohl Stewart. Because they didn't produce better than average WAR for their slot by their arbitrary deadline.

 

Same thing applies to these Top 100 lists. Context matters, and some times the conclusions people are apt to reach are way off base.

 

I don't think anyone is suggesting Stewart is a bust based off his WAR to date. I think it's pretty clear that the issue is his current lack of projection. While in theory he could turn things around, realistically there is not much precedent for that given where he's at right now.

[bird]

 

I don't think anyone is suggesting Stewart is a bust based off his WAR to date. I think it's pretty clear that the issue is his current lack of projection. While in theory he could turn things around, realistically there is not much precedent for that given where he's at right now.

 

I don't take issue with his diminished projection. I take issue with a blunt declaration that he's a bust. I don't have a personal opinion about the odds of a turnaround, and am open to arguments either way about the precedent for that if they're supported intelligently. Calling Stewart's chances almost zero after he's come off injury as an underage AA starter and put three decent starts together, the last one a 6 inning 1BB/6K 3H 1R outing? That lacks credibility, and therefore makes me suspicious that the commenter isn't terribly interested in seeing the other side of the coin.

[jokin]

 

I don't take issue with his diminished projection. I take issue with a blunt declaration that he's a bust. I don't have a personal opinion about the odds of a turnaround, and am open to arguments either way about the precedent for that if they're supported intelligently. Calling Stewart's chances almost zero after he's come off injury as an underage AA starter and put three decent starts together, the last one a 6 inning 1BB/6K 3H 1R outing? That lacks credibility, and therefore makes me suspicious that the commenter isn't terribly interested in seeing the other side of the coin.

 

And coming to your defense a bit... This was a high reach type of pick. For a football-first kid with minimal IPs under his belt, of whom the Twins KNEW going in was destined to take a lot longer to develop.

 

Many of us preferred other choices at the time, but the FO had a defensible case for the pick. The problem, as always, has been in the execution of the developmental phase for the pitchers.