2020 Baseball America Top 100 Prospects

[TRex]

I think Graterol's career has been so unique that you would have a hard time finding a congruent one to help define incongruity !

 

My opinion is that anyone who maintains upper 90's heat into the seventh inning has to be included in 'top of the rotation potential' discussions. While the odds of him reaching that potential are not great, 99.5% of pitchers can't even be included in the discussion.

[bird]

 

A pitcher that was good enough to rise through levels of minor league ball after about 12 games a level and makes a major league debut yet does not rise in the rankings would seem rather incongruous  with top of the rotation potential.

 

 

While MLB may be underrating one or more of Balazovic, Duran, and Graterol compared to a couple other publications (FanGraphs has all three at a lofty 50 FV), I think it's also important to realize that there are a ton of really good pitching prospects out there at this time.

 

I'm far from an expert observer, but my sense is that the Twins have a decent but not great comparative advantage when it comes to premium pitching talent, maybe a bit above average. In the AL Central alone, there may be as many as 10 pitching prospects in the other systems who are as good or better than any of these three. CWS and DET probably have superior pipelines nowadays, and KCR isn't that far behind, and all of those clubs will pick before we do in the 2020 draft, which is supposed to be exceptional in terms of both first half of the first round talent and overall depth.

[nicksaviking]

 

Winning these lists is nice but doesn't mean much as Garver and Arraez say Hello.  They were never on these lists and Garver was one of the best catchers in MLB last year and Arreaz was in rookie of the year conversations.  They couldn't have bought there way onto one of these top 10 lists in MILB?  The talent experts only can predict so much.  I think he is dead wrong not to have Larnach on there though.

 

I think this speaks more about how these pundits categorize criteria than the actual lists. Garver wasn't thought of highly because no one liked his defense. In their evaluations for up-the-middle positional players they never take into consideration that below average defensive players can stick if their bat play up. The evaluators make the black and white call that the player is either a good defensive player, or they have to move to 1B or 2B or RF or something.

 

In Arraez's case, he had no power, no speed and questionable defense. He was basically a one tool player, which, I mean when you frame it that way, yeah, it seems understandable to not put too much prospect stock on him.

[Mike Sixel]

 

I think this speaks more about how these pundits categorize criteria than the actual lists. Garver wasn't thought of highly because no one liked his defense. In their evaluations for up-the-middle positional players they never take into consideration that below average defensive players can stick if their bat play up. The evaluators make the black and white call that the player is either a good defensive player, or they have to move to 1B or 2B or RF or something.

 

In Arraez's case, he had no power, no speed and questionable defense. He was basically a one tool player, which, I mean when you frame it that way, yeah, it seems understandable to not put too much prospect stock on him.

 

"never" "black and white"? We must not be reading the same threads and wrietups........like, not even close. Arraez was the 6th rated prospect in MN on Fangraphs last year, for example.....

[nicksaviking]

 

"never" "black and white"? We must not be reading the same threads and wrietups........like, not even close. Arraez was the 6th rated prospect in MN on Fangraphs last year, for example.....

 

In terms of "black and white" I'm just talking about how they evaluate a player's ability at a position and I was referring to Garver, not Arraez. It's almost always either 'He's good enough to play catcher at the MLB level', or 'He will have to move to move to 1B'. For C, SS and CF they rarely leave any room for the possibility that a guy could be below average defensively but still stick.

[old nurse]

 

"never" "black and white"? We must not be reading the same threads and wrietups........like, not even close. Arraez was the 6th rated prospect in MN on Fangraphs last year, for example.....

12th on a fangraph's team list is not making a top 100 list https://blogs.fangraphs.com/top-41-prospects-minnesota-twins/ Duran says hello

[Mike Sixel]

12th on a fangraph's team list is not making a top 100 list https://blogs.fangraphs.com/top-41-prospects-minnesota-twins/ Duran says hello

That's not the late season update. I never said he was top 100, so not sure of your argument.

 

Look, if people think the list are bunk, with no statistics to back up their belief, that's fine with me. Then why bother reading and arguing about them?

[old nurse]

 

That's not the late season update. I never said he was top 100, so not sure of your argument.

Look, if people think the list are bunk, with no statistics to back up their belief, that's fine with me. Then why bother reading and arguing about them?

Are there any statistics out there to back up any  claim that rankings have any validity. Because they publish an opinion doesn't mean there is a proven science behind there guesses. There was a posting a while back about bust rates. for one of the lists. Showed that there was  a high bust rate in the top 20 and worse as the list went down.   It was less than 50% at the top 20. The benchmark was really low. I remember that Nick Blackburn would have been considered a success. You might not remember what you do not want to believe.

[Mike Sixel]

 

Are there any statistics out there to back up any  claim that rankings have any validity. Because they publish an opinion doesn't mean there is a proven science behind there guesses. There was a posting a while back about bust rates. for one of the lists. Showed that there was  a high bust rate in the top 20 and worse as the list went down.   It was less than 50% at the top 20. The benchmark was really low. I remember that Nick Blackburn would have been considered a success. You might not remember what you do not want to believe.

 

There are. They don't show any type of perfection, that would be unrealistic to expect. But yes, there are studies about rankings and eventual value.

 

Again,, if you think they are bunk, why bother? 

[nicksaviking]

 

There are. They don't show any type of perfection, that would be unrealistic to expect. But yes, there are studies about rankings and eventual value.

 

Again,, if you think they are bunk, why bother? 

 

I don't think they are bunk at all. My position is just that I think they tend to overemphasize the importance of defensive excellence. I don't think they should be dinging prospects so significantly because they presume they will have to switch positions somewhere down the line. I want to know about their bat and where the team is playing them now, which is still the best indicator of where they will play in the majors.

[old nurse]

 

There are. They don't show any type of perfection, that would be unrealistic to expect. But yes, there are studies about rankings and eventual value.

 

Again,, if you think they are bunk, why bother? 

No one demanded perfection. There are no studies that show any significance to being ranked outside the top 20. It is a guess. Scott McKinney showed it,. The updated look confirmed  it.