Prospectus Top 101

[Mudville9]

http://www.baseballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=16020

 

Wily Peralta #92

 

Seems a bit low, but I may just be a homer.

[paul253]

Peralta doesn't seem to get much respect. He's still pretty young and gets it up there in the mid 90's on a consistent basis. Are his secondary pitches so average that scouts just aren't that impressed with him?

[CheezWizHed]

I think, until last year, the major problem was his control. Some scouts are probably still holding off to see it was a one year improvement.

[TooLiveBrew]

I think (emphasis on not being certain) I've read questions about Peralta's FB being pretty straight. Maybe someone else can confirm or deny that.

[TheCrew07]

As a group we probably overrate our pitchers.

 

It sounds like Peralta has made steady improvement with his pitches and command as well as his velocity. I'm interested to see him pitch again as it's been awhile.

 

All lists are fairly subjective, it doesn't bother me that Peralta is the only Brewer on the list, nor his placement. We just don't have a Gallardo type can't miss pitching prospect in the system. This will definitely be an interesting year, we could have as many as 4 players on every list next year (Peralta, Thornburg, Jungmann, and Bradley) and it would be nice to have that many impact players in the system again. Of course the reverse is true as well but I'd rather not even consider that possibility at this juncture.

[igor67]

I suspect that for national prospect raters, pitcher evaluations are viewed in large part through the lens of which farm system they are in as much as stuff in some situations. In this case given a large number of pitchers with similar grades (stuff, command, and poise) the organization influences how many view the prospect. Not consciously per se, but still significant. I'd posit that in other organizations we'd have at least 2 of those pitchers in Kevin's top 101. Some of that is fair, since our track record of developing pitchers is mixed.

[bullox]

I suspect that for national prospect raters, pitcher evaluations are viewed in large part through the lens of which farm system they are in as much as stuff in some situations.

 

Definitely. Remember this guy?

 

http://www.baseballnotebook.com/essay.asp?esource=e_010105.asp&topt=Top%20100%20Prospects%20NL%20Pitchers

 

^Not exactly the most well known prospect ranker, but I remember also reading elsewhere that he was the #1 pitching prospect in baseball after the Brewers plucked him from Atlanta.

 

They are really just guessing.

[CheezWizHed]

Good ole' Jose Capellan. Then Zach Duke at #2 and Ben Hendrickson at #5.

[TheCrew07]

Zach at least had 10 good starts in his MLB career... they all just came at the beginning...

 

I'm not sure Duke coming out of a woeful system in Pittsburgh or Hendrickson when we've developed exactly 2 starting pitchers who panned out as top of the rotation starters in forever are exactly the same idea that igor7 was working on.

 

There are certain organizations who don't make many mistakes trading players... Altanta made 1 terrible move, trading for Teixeira and giving up my most coveted prospect of all time in Neftali Feliz. Tampa is another that comes to mind, I know people claim they are lucky with their more high profile moves, but look at how Milwaukee's trading history with them has turned out, who got the better end of those deals?

 

The Brewers farm system isn't highly thought of and rightly so, it's nearly impossible to graduate the amount of talent we have to MLB, trade the talent we moved in the 3 big pitching deals, and still have enough impact talent to be considered one of the better farm systems in baseball. Also, as Milwaukee has turned over a great deal of it's scouting department because of the success of the system, those people are not easily replaced, and Seid has to prove that his staff is as good at picking players as Jack Z's was (pitching aside, I'm talking in general terms here). Why should the Brewer's reputation developed under Z be applied to Seid?

 

The Brewer's system is just very difficult to evaluate right now, you have quite a bit of MLB capable talent, but very few potential stars as it stands today. I don't think it's fair to cast Jungmann or Bradley in that light at this moment, it just may not be in the cards for them to be top of the rotation guys. I hope they are, but they haven't really even pitched yet professionally, and no I don't consider Bradley's AFL performance worth discussing. While I really like the depth of talent from a quantity standpoint, I'm more of a quality guy, I'm looking for impact talent, which is why I would rate us towards the bottom. In that sense I'm in "prove it" mode, I'm not into giving the organization or it's prospects the benefit of the doubt... prove to me that you can draft and develop top of the rotation talent and impact bats. The first wave of players that came through were chosen by a different group, what they've done professionally means nothing in relation to the current scouting staff or minor league system.

 

I do think that reputation matters, Colby has regularly argued that the success the Brewers have had developing bats should be enough to gain the organization the benefit of the doubt, and I think it's much easier for the supposed prospect gurus to latch onto a pitching prospect in TB's organization rather than a guy like Thornburg in Milwaukee's. Peralta had some serious warts, while we always thought and hoped he'd be a starting pitcher there was plenty of reason to be skeptical about his prospects as a starting pitcher... max effort delivery, spotty command, and only 1 secondary pitch were the common reasons cited. Let's be honest, he finally emerged for the first time and pitched like we all hoped he would last season, but I'm not sure 1 really good season, even at AA, is enough to vault a pitcher like him in a system like ours into the upper echelon of baseball prospects. He just doesn't have the established track record that many of the guys he's being measured against do. Once a young man gets that reliever label, it's incredibly tough to shake it. I don't agree with the idea at all, I was pretty vocal about certain talent evaluators pigeon holing Thornburg as such last season... until they fail as a starting pitcher there's always hope.

[CheezWizHed]

I'm not sure Duke coming out of a woeful system in Pittsburgh or Hendrickson when we've developed exactly 2 starting pitchers who panned out as top of the rotation starters in forever are exactly the same idea that igor7 was working on.

 

Sorry, I jumped into the wrong conversation. I was still in the mode of how accurately scouts are able to rank the top X prospects. Then I see (granted, a list of pitchers only) those three and it just struck me as a reason not to buy in too much to the "Top X" lists.

[brwrsfan]

As a group we probably overrate our pitchers.

 

All lists are fairly subjective, it doesn't bother me that Peralta is the only Brewer on the list, nor his placement. We just don't have a Gallardo type can't miss pitching prospect in the system. This will definitely be an interesting year, we could have as many as 4 players on every list next year (Peralta, Thornburg, Jungmann, and Bradley) and it would be nice to have that many impact players in the system again. Of course the reverse is true as well but I'd rather not even consider that possibility at this juncture.

 

 

I hear you on this, it's been awhile. I just wish that all 4 of them weren't pitchers. The lack of impact bats coming along scares me an awful lot.

[umphrey]

Baseball America has Peralta at 56, Jungmann 70, Bradley 71

 

http://www.baseballamerica.com/today/prospects/rankings/top-100-prospects/2012/2612998.html

[umphrey]

As a group we probably overrate our pitchers.

 

All lists are fairly subjective, it doesn't bother me that Peralta is the only Brewer on the list, nor his placement. We just don't have a Gallardo type can't miss pitching prospect in the system. This will definitely be an interesting year, we could have as many as 4 players on every list next year (Peralta, Thornburg, Jungmann, and Bradley) and it would be nice to have that many impact players in the system again. Of course the reverse is true as well but I'd rather not even consider that possibility at this juncture.

 

 

I hear you on this, it's been awhile. I just wish that all 4 of them weren't pitchers. The lack of impact bats coming along scares me an awful lot.

 

I couldn't agree more. We have a number of guys that are perceived as middle of the rotation starters (upside) and some good, cheap bullpen arms. If that's all we get (minus the busts) I'm pretty happy. I don't see an offensive prospect that looks like more than a utility player unless you go to 19 year olds in rookie ball. That is a much worse situation.

 

Edit: you could argue Green and Shafer, but I see Green as about replacement level starter long term, Shafer as 4th OF/platoon. Upside. Not as valuable, or as many prospects, compared to pitching.

[jerichoholicninja]

I suspect that for national prospect raters, pitcher evaluations are viewed in large part through the lens of which farm system they are in as much as stuff in some situations.

 

Definitely. Remember this guy?

 

http://www.baseballnotebook.com/essay.asp?esource=e_010105.asp&topt=Top%20100%20Prospects%20NL%20Pitchers

 

^Not exactly the most well known prospect ranker, but I remember also reading elsewhere that he was the #1 pitching prospect in baseball after the Brewers plucked him from Atlanta.

 

They are really just guessing.

 

Wow. That list. 100 pitchers and only 6 of them have had a career of note (for good reasons).

 

26. Gavin Floyd

47. Dan Haren

49. Jonathan Broxton

65. Matt Cain

75. Chad Billingsley

93. Edwin Jackson

[homer]

It's lists like those that make me think pitching is a complete crap shoot. You draft guys and hope. They either turn out or they don't. That's why I never get upset or excited after a draft. Just wait and see.