Five Twins make Baseball America's Top 100

[jkcarew]

***Mike T (Hudson): Nick Gordon dropped big from 2017 to 2018, but he improved on every category except Strike Outs. Whats the reason for the drop?***

 

This is pretty misleading.  Gordon's BA and OBP were down and his strike-out rate was up, and up fairly significantly.  His HR's went from 3 to 9 which raised his SLG enough that his OPS was up microscopically.  You could argue his fielding and base-running numbers improved slightly, but they were not good by any stretch.  But most importantly, it's pretty unrealistic to expect all evaluators to ignore just how bad those last three months were.

 

He's a 5th over-all pick out of HS, he's going into his age 22 season.  This is the year.  Last year's 2nd-half might be a blip, maybe he had an injury we don't know about, maybe he isn't that good, maybe he was preoccupied with the pending release of his album.  I think all takes are reasonable, and that's probably why we're seeing such divergent opinions on Gordon.

[Hosken Bombo Disco]

I believe Sickels and Mayo both thought he could stick with work. Klaw liked his bat enough even if he switched.

cool, thanks

[tarheeltwinsfan]

Just one prospect out of the top ninety is nothing to get real excited about guys.

[markos]

 

***Mike T (Hudson): Nick Gordon dropped big from 2017 to 2018, but he improved on every category except Strike Outs. Whats the reason for the drop?***

 

This is pretty misleading.  Gordon's BA and OBP were down and his strike-out rate was up, and up fairly significantly.  His HR's went from 3 to 9 which raised his SLG enough that his OPS was up microscopically.  You could argue his fielding and base-running numbers improved slightly, but they were not good by any stretch.  But most importantly, it's pretty unrealistic to expect all evaluators to ignore just how bad those last three months were.

 

He's a 5th over-all pick out of HS, he's going into his age 22 season.  This is the year.  Last year's 2nd-half might be a blip, maybe he had an injury we don't know about, maybe he isn't that good, maybe he was preoccupied with the pending release of his album.  I think all takes are reasonable, and that's probably why we're seeing such divergent opinions on Gordon.

I'm not certain that you are looking at the correct data. 

 

Gordon's OPS:

2016: .721

2017: .749

OBP:

2016: .335

2017: .341

 

I would not characterize a 28-point difference in OPS as microscopic. Over a full season, that is roughly 10 runs (approximately 1 WAR).

 

I do think that it is fair to say that across the board (other than K%, which directly affects BA), Gordon was better in 2017. BB%, BB/K, ISO, OBP, SLG, GB% (way lower), LD%, FB% (both way up), SB%.

 

All that said, I agree that the end of last season was disappointing, and I also agree that he still needs to show a lot next year. But I think that it is very encouraging that for the first time he actually showed some power. Admittedly, it is a small sample, but for years now scouts that liked him have been betting that he would start tapping more power than he had shown in HS and the lower minors. Well, it finally flashed for a while. It might not stick (it didn't really in the second half), but it is undoubtedly better to show a skill, even over a small sample, than to have never shown the skill at all. I still have him as my #2 in the Twins system.

[markos]

 

Anyone think it possible that Rooker's bat ends up being bigger and better than Sano's?? Did I just commit blasphemy?

While I certainly don't think it is likely, it is certainly possible for two reasons. First, this is baseball, and just about anyone can seemingly wake up as one of the best hitters in baseball. Second, beyond the randomness, Rooker does have a solid track record and an existing toolkit to thrive in the current juiced-ball, no ground balls environment. It certainly isn't crazy to see him tighten up his strike zone judgement in a way that Sano has failed to do so far. 

[gunnarthor]

 

Anyone think it possible that Rooker's bat ends up being bigger and better than Sano's?? Did I just commit blasphemy?

No. At 22, Sano finished third in ROY voting and put up a 149 OPS+. At 22, Rooker spent time between rookie ball and high A ball. Rooker could put up a few Cuddyer with the bat type years while Sano will win HR titles.

[Otto von Ballpark]

I'm not certain that you are looking at the correct data.

 

Gordon's OPS:

2016: .721

2017: .749

OBP:

2016: .335

2017: .341

 

I would not characterize a 28-point difference in OPS as microscopic. Over a full season, that is roughly 10 runs (approximately 1 WAR).

 

Well, the league OPS was 11 points higher. Ballpark might have added some too? 28 points of OPS is well within the range of those factors, or just normal variation.

 

I guess I wouldn't call it microscopic, but I wouldn't point to it as evidence of definitive improvement either.

[TNTwinsFan]

No. At 22, Sano finished third in ROY voting and put up a 149 OPS+. At 22, Rooker spent time between rookie ball and high A ball. Rooker could put up a few Cuddyer with the bat type years while Sano will win HR titles.

To be fair though, Rooker spent those two stops in the same year he was drafted after spending 4 years in college. I couldn't find the OPS+ stats, but will use wRC+ instead (and it may be a better measuring stick anyway?) Granted, at different ages in the same league, Sano had his best year in the minors by far with a wRC+ of 203 to Rooker's 166. Since that year, however, Sano hasn't topped a 156 wRC+ and it has fallen off quite a bit. Last year he did sport a wRC+ of 124 after reaching a low of 107 in 2016. Look, the sample size is small for Rooker as we've only seen 1/2 a season out of him thus far. Clearly he has some work to do in the areas of plate discipline and pitch selection; they both do. Call it a gut feeling, but I think Rooker may be a slightly lesser version of a Kris Bryant and if Sano continues on his current trend, I don't think its impossible for Rooker to be the more productive player.

 

So that's my hot take for 2018 I guess: Rooker>Sano....uh...waiter...yes...I'm still waiting for my guest to arrive but I'll go ahead and place an order of crow just in case...I can always just send it back right?

[h2oface]

Some posters think a lot more highly of our farm system than all the other prognosticators. Rose colored glasses, perhaps. Time will tell.

[Tomj14]

This list kind of makes all of our trade offers for Archer and others funny and sad.

It seems we as Twins fans' think our prospects are way better than other do. Based on this list we aren't getting a top end starter without Lewis in the trade.

Imagine how upset we would be if we traded Berrios in a couple of years for a couple of prospects rated in the 90's and a couple outside the top 100's.

 

 

[markos]

 

Well, the league OPS was 11 points higher. Ballpark might have added some too? 28 points of OPS is well within the range of those factors, or just normal variation.

I guess I wouldn't call it microscopic, but I wouldn't point to it as evidence of definitive improvement either.

His wRC+ (which purportedly adjusts for league and ballpark factors) increased from 112 to 117. As to whether or not that 5-point increase in wRC+ is meaningful, well, that is certainly debatable. 

[zenser]

Law has Lewis at 25 behind Gore (14) and Greene (22) but ahead of Wright and McKay.  Gordon at 37 and Romero at 47.

[Hosken Bombo Disco]

This list kind of makes all of our trade offers for Archer and others funny and sad.

Another list might make our trade offers for Archer look reasonable, however.

[Tomj14]

 

Another list might make our trade offers for Archer look reasonable, however.

Yes, Law has Gordon 37 and Romero at 47, so those two and 3 others isn't horrible.

 

If the twins front office is think Gordon is closer to 30 than 100, then maybe trading Polanco and Romero (and others) for Archer is the right thing to do. Sign Frazier and let Esocbar and Adrianza handle SS until Gordon is ready later this year or next.

[Otto von Ballpark]

His wRC+ (which purportedly adjusts for league and ballpark factors) increased from 112 to 117. As to whether or not that 5-point increase in wRC+ is meaningful, well, that is certainly debatable.

I think minor league wRC+ only considers league, not park, which would muddy the waters further.

[howieramone2]

 

Just one prospect out of the top ninety is nothing to get real excited about guys.

The future star power is basically teenagers. The system is deep, and in the next year or so, we will see plenty of helium. One of the top 10 teams in baseball, with one of the top 10 farm systems in the not too distance future. The franchise, could not possibly be more healthy. 

[howieramone2]

 

This list kind of makes all of our trade offers for Archer and others funny and sad.

It seems we as Twins fans' think our prospects are way better than other do. Based on this list we aren't getting a top end starter without Lewis in the trade.

Imagine how upset we would be if we traded Berrios in a couple of years for a couple of prospects rated in the 90's and a couple outside the top 100's.

There are probably 10-15 starters out there that would be acceptable to me. I don't lust after the mythical ace, and Lewis is untouchable.

[Vanimal46]

Gordon dropped 30 spots.

2016, #53

2017 #60

2018 #93.

Some player's value peaks way before he sees Major league pitching. I fear that's going to be the case with Gordon.

 

As time goes on his flaws will be pointed out more (not able to hit LH pitching even a little bit, not able to stick at SS)

[Vanimal46]

Law has Lewis at 25 behind Gore (14) and Greene (22) but ahead of Wright and McKay. Gordon at 37 and Romero at 47.

Sigh... Every time I read about Gore I think what could have been. I like Lewis, but Gore was my draft crush...

[gunnarthor]

 

Sigh... Every time I read about Gore I think what could have been. I like Lewis, but Gore was my draft crush...

Jo Adell was mine ...

[bird]

 

Some posters think a lot more highly of our farm system than all the other prognosticators. Rose colored glasses, perhaps. Time will tell

 

I respectfully submit that this is a mischaracterization. I can't think of a single poster, in this thread or others, who expressed a viewpoint radically different than the prognosticators. You pointed out the purported delusions of others. Let's hear YOUR thoughts, because maybe it's YOUR lens that needs a little buffing?    Is it possible you think less of our farm system than (almost) all of the other prognosticators? Where do you think the system ranks?

 

Let's look at some numbers. Some facts. Personally, the opinions of the prognosticators and the numbers are all I have to go by. Where do you think the system stands relative to the 29 other teams? 

 

I think the system compares favorably (either a little better or a little worse) to a whole slew of organizations at right around #9. Atlanta, San Diego, NYY, CWS are systems that are standing out to the prognosticators and therefore to me. As the rankings come out, I believe you'll see those teams viewed in a tier (maybe I missed one or two), and then a whole group, including the Twins, in a second tier that probably includes TBR, MILW, PHIL, ASTROS, REDS, and maybe one or two others. 

 

What's YOUR opinion?

 

This list of 100 prospects shows a glaring reality about the difference between the haves and the have nots. If there was even distribution of top-end talent, every one of the teams would be represented by roughly four prospects among the top 120.  Instead, ten teams claim 54 of the 100 spots on this list. I believe the Twins are one of nine teams with five or more selections. We are also being told by several prospect gurus that if the list was expanded to 120, we'd likely see a few more names from our system on the list, guys like Graterol, Kirillof, Jay, Romero, Badoo.

 

Time will tell, you're right about that, but I think you might be surprised by how many of the prognosticators believe this system ranks at the back end of the top ten systems. And I don't know of a single poster that's claiming the Twins' system is something other than what it is. 

 

 

 

 

[bird]

 

This list kind of makes all of our trade offers for Archer and others funny and sad.

It seems we as Twins fans' think our prospects are way better than other do. Based on this list we aren't getting a top end starter without Lewis in the trade.

Imagine how upset we would be if we traded Berrios in a couple of years for a couple of prospects rated in the 90's and a couple outside the top 100's.

 

 

If those four prospects were Graterol, Javier, Romero, and Badoo? I don't think I'd be upset at all, assuming Berrios was traded from surplus.

[Tomj14]

 

If those four prospects were Graterol, Javier, Romero, and Badoo? I don't think I'd be upset at all, assuming Berrios was traded from surplus.

The teams looking to trade a top end sort of pitcher aren't trading because of surplus.

 

Are you willing to trade those for Archer or maybe a Mets starter? and do you think either team would take those 4 for their starter? I would trade them but I don't think it would be enough for the other team to make the trade, IMO.

[nicksaviking]

 

Anyone think it possible that Rooker's bat ends up being bigger and better than Sano's?? Did I just commit blasphemy?

 

Hard to be bigger but could be better. The guy sounded like a work-a-holic in his pre-draft interviews. Seemed like a guy who was always looking to perfect his approach at the plate.

[jkcarew]

 

I'm not certain that you are looking at the correct data. 

 

Gordon's OPS:

2016: .721

2017: .749

OBP:

2016: .335

2017: .341

Thanks for the correction.  I was including his 91 plate appearances in the 2016 Arizona fall league which enhanced the 2016 numbers.

 

It really comes down to what was going on in those last three months.  The regression was across the board.  We'll find out this year, I think.  I'm worried, but on the other hand, there have been many 3-month blips in otherwise good and even great careers.

[bird]

 

The teams looking to trade a top end sort of pitcher aren't trading because of surplus.

 

Are you willing to trade those for Archer or maybe a Mets starter? and do you think either team would take those 4 for their starter? I would trade them but I don't think it would be enough for the other team to make the trade, IMO.

 

Personally, I wouldn't trade those four prospects for a #2/3 starter like Archer. I'm aware that all four of them might fizzle, but history tells me that this is a remote possibility, and that it's much much more likely that injury to Archer turns it into a lopsided trade that sets the organization back. Javier might fizzle in AA, but he also might be a perrennial All-Star (Sickles). Graterol is one of the most exciting low-level pitching prospects in all of baseball, according to many, and projects as a potential ace. Romero projects as one rotation slot from Archer in terms of ceiling, and as a possible back end reliever otherwise, and is a year away at most. Badoo is starting to draw some pretty impressive comparables himself.

[markos]

 

Thanks for the correction.  I was including his 91 plate appearances in the 2016 Arizona fall league which enhanced the 2016 numbers.

 

It really comes down to what was going on in those last three months.  The regression was across the board.  We'll find out this year, I think.  I'm worried, but on the other hand, there have been many 3-month blips in otherwise good and even great careers.

That makes so much more sense. Thanks for clarifying. 

[h2oface]

 

I respectfully submit that this is a mischaracterization. I can't think of a single poster, in this thread or others, who expressed a viewpoint radically different than the prognosticators. You pointed out the purported delusions of others. Let's hear YOUR thoughts, because maybe it's YOUR lens that needs a little buffing?    Is it possible you think less of our farm system than (almost) all of the other prognosticators? Where do you think the system ranks?

 

Let's look at some numbers. Some facts. Personally, the opinions of the prognosticators and the numbers are all I have to go by. Where do you think the system stands relative to the 29 other teams? 

 

I think the system compares favorably (either a little better or a little worse) to a whole slew of organizations at right around #9. Atlanta, San Diego, NYY, CWS are systems that are standing out to the prognosticators and therefore to me. As the rankings come out, I believe you'll see those teams viewed in a tier (maybe I missed one or two), and then a whole group, including the Twins, in a second tier that probably includes TBR, MILW, PHIL, ASTROS, REDS, and maybe one or two others. 

 

What's YOUR opinion?

 

This list of 100 prospects shows a glaring reality about the difference between the haves and the have nots. If there was even distribution of top-end talent, every one of the teams would be represented by roughly four prospects among the top 120.  Instead, ten teams claim 54 of the 100 spots on this list. I believe the Twins are one of nine teams with five or more selections. We are also being told by several prospect gurus that if the list was expanded to 120, we'd likely see a few more names from our system on the list, guys like Graterol, Kirillof, Jay, Romero, Badoo.

 

Time will tell, you're right about that, but I think you might be surprised by how many of the prognosticators believe this system ranks at the back end of the top ten systems. And I don't know of a single poster that's claiming the Twins' system is something other than what it is. 

 

Sorry. I don't have an opinion on prospect ratings. I find them frivolous. I let others play this game. Have at it. Have your fun. Perhaps means perhaps. It is not declaring purported delusions. Might be a bit of projection, there. I made an observation. I enjoyed your take.

 

So I stick with my parting statement as captain obvious as I might be. Time will tell.

[gunnarthor]

 

Sorry. I don't have an opinion on prospect ratings. I find them frivolous. I let others play this game. Have at it. Have your fun. Perhaps means perhaps. It is not declaring purported delusions. Might be a bit of projection, there. I made an observation. I enjoyed your take.

 

So I stick with my parting statement as captain obvious as I might be. Time will tell.

Wait, you don't have an opinion on prospect ratings but accused other posters of having rose colored glasses? That's .... something.

[h2oface]

 

Wait, you don't have an opinion on prospect ratings but accused other posters of having rose colored glasses? That's .... something.

 

Nothing wrong with rose colored glasses. I wear them sometimes, proudly. Had 'em on Sunday. That's...... another something.