Baseball Instinct's Brewers Top 21 Prospect List

[Mass Haas]

Equally as inexcusable is the ranking of Komatsu. This blurb from the write up sticks out - "which means that our best position-player prospect projects to be a 4th outfielder".

 

What that actually means is that you're not ranking your prospects right.

 

I'm guessing there's some tongue-and-cheek there, otherwise that's a pretty significant dig at the prior regime and your current forum landlord...

 

EDIT: OK, just saw your own edit in the prior post.

[ramssuperbowl1999]

Equally as inexcusable is the ranking of Komatsu. This blurb from the write up sticks out - "which means that our best position-player prospect projects to be a 4th outfielder".

 

What that actually means is that you're not ranking your prospects right.

 

I'm guessing there's some tongue-and-cheek there, otherwise that's a pretty significant dig at the prior regime and your current forum landlord...

 

EDIT: OK, just saw your own edit in the prior post.

No dig at the people doing the ranking, the work they put in, or the current forum landlord.

 

This was intended more as a comment regarding the philosophy behind the rankings, not the people doing them.

[gregmag]

I think rams' point about Strasburg is perfectly reasonable given why he's making the comparison. I wish people wouldn't call statements "silly" when they're just expressing disagreement. Rams didn't say Roache is Strasburg. He said that a categorical rule against ranking people, or ranking them highly, or whatever, is unwise. I agree with him. We're talking about evidence of MLB potential. I'm a huge fan of projections from performance, but the main premise of such projections is that baseball is baseball. As rams points out, Roache has played enough baseball to support an assessment of his potential. A high ranking isn't some kind of honor that a player needs to earn; it's a predictive judgment.

 

Now, after, and in response to, rams' "silly" Strasburg point, some people made what seem to me like some reasonable points about why we should hedge our bets on Roache, in particular, until he has a pro record. The main one is his injury. I don't know enough about sports medicine to know whether we can account accurately for Roache's injury in making a projection or assigning a ranking. I would think we could factor in past experiences of other, similarly injured players, but maybe wrist injuries are too hard to account for.

 

Anyway, I see both sides of the Roache-Morris debate. I think Morris has clearly established a better chance of making an MLB roster and making some kind of contribution. I think Roache has probably established a better chance of being a star, bearing in mind that we're talking about long odds at this point.

[homer]

I used "silly" in response to Ram's use of the same word. I probably should not have done that so apologies.

 

In regards to the Strasburg comment:

 

To make it obvious - would you have had Stephen Strasburg below a different Nats prospect after they signed him simply because he hadn't thrown a pro pitch? Of course not. Because it was painfully obvious that Strasburg was better.

 

While not as blatant, the same thing applies here. Roache's tools and upside outweigh the fact that Morris is closer to the majors.

 

I understand he's not comparing Strasburg to Morris. But there are a select few prospects where you don't need to see them in the minors in order to produce a ranking. Strasburg was one, probably Price and even Mark Prior. I don't know if there's been a hitting prospect in the last 20 years that you could say the same except probably Bryce Harper, Joe Mauer, Josh Hamilton, and A-Rod. So basically you're taking a sample of roughly 10 guys over the last 20 years and applying it to all prospects. Small sample alert! Obviously, this is just my opinion and people can rank guys where they want to (it's all subjective anyway). I just think Strasburg and Co. are in a different stratosphere from the rest of them.

[igor67]

Rams does a fantastic job and is very upfront about what he values in a prospect. His level of detail is such that meaningful disagreement is possible. And my experience arguing with him has always been positive. Over the years Brewerfan has grown tremendously and still managed to remain a place to have a pretty good discussion and not get weighed down with most of the usual internet pettiness. Nothing in this thread would change that.

[splitterpfj]

If rams calling my logic, "silly" is the worst that ever happens to me...I win at life.

[ramssuperbowl1999]

Based on some of the controversy that I've (accidentally) generated, I won't comment on everyone's comment. I just hope that I can kind of accommodate everybody with a more sweeping post (this feels like a rankings post).

 

I don't dislike ANY Brewers prospect. I love them all and want all of them to succeed. To prove it - I'm a huge Martin Maldonado fan. Will you find him in my rankings? Absolutely not. I didn't think he could hit, and I still have my reservations. But I definitely learned from him. I'm starting to learn the value of a backup catcher, especially to a team like Milwaukee.

 

My job is to get the guys I best think can help the MLB club.

 

Why am I passionate about the guys that I rank and the way that I've ranked them? Because I thought about it. When I rank Orlando Arcia over Hunter Morris (and this one is going to get me some fire I bet), it's because I've thought about it and put some time into it.

 

If you asked me, "Why did you have Player X over Player Y?" and I don't have a good answer, I did a crappy job.

 

Now that doesn't mean I know everything, that just means that when I publish a list I better be ready for the heat. And I like posting to this site because I'll get heat on my guy ranked 42nd. That makes my lists better.

 

Anywho, I just wanted to post some of my passion for Milwaukee. Ultimately, it's important to know that we can be at each other's throats all day, but when the Brewers play the Cardinals/Cubs, we are all cheering for the same guys.

[monty57]

When I rank Orlando Arcia over Hunter Morris (and this one is going to get me some fire I bet),

 

Well, the Brewers are starting a backup SS at 1B and signed Yuni B rather than add 24-year-old Morris to the 40 man to be the everyday 1B until Hart is back, so that made me think maybe the Brewers aren't that high on Morris. I hope he pounds AAA pitching and forces the Brewers to take notice, but if he were truly a highly regarded prospect, he'd be in Milwaukee right now, regardless of what he did in 20 PAs in late February/early March.

[Outlander]

Rams, I just have to say I appreciate your recent analyis of the Brewers prospects and your rankings. The Power 50 is what initially got me interested in this site and helped me get through some of those lean Brewer years. I have missed it greatly the last couple of years and hope you continue to update your rankings through the year.

[JohnBriggs12]

I think the discussion here is apples and oranges. If you want to make a prospect list basically a scouting ranking, fine, but call it that. If you want to make it a measure of likely impact in the major leagues, it's something else. Some guys make it to the major leagues without ever appearing on a prospect list through doggedly working their way up the ladder. Maybe he was ranked in the high 40's once, but I don't recall Carlos Corporan cracking the Brewer top 50. Now he's had a fairly extended period in the big leagues, albeit as a backup catcher on a bad team. Still that's a lot better than Lou Palmisano who was in the top 20 for quite a period as I recall.

[ramssuperbowl1999]

I think the discussion here is apples and oranges. If you want to make a prospect list basically a scouting ranking, fine, but call it that. If you want to make it a measure of likely impact in the major leagues, it's something else.

These are the same thing. I rank based on potential MLB impact.

 

Some guys make it to the major leagues without ever appearing on a prospect list through doggedly working their way up the ladder. Maybe he was ranked in the high 40's once, but I don't recall Carlos Corporan cracking the Brewer top 50. Now he's had a fairly extended period in the big leagues, albeit as a backup catcher on a bad team.

He's the Astros backup catcher, got 280 PAs over 80 games between 2011 and 2012, produced a triple slash line of .216/.271/.318, and accumulated a total of -0.4 WAR.

 

In short, he's made 0 impact to a major league team. The scouts obviously got this one right - they didn't rank him among the top 50 guys most likely to make a big league impact and he didn't make any.

 

Still that's a lot better than Lou Palmisano who was in the top 20 for quite a period as I recall.

Not really. Each turned out to be replacement level players who produced zero impact.

 

Palmisano had raw ability, but didn't convert it into production. Hence the original high ranking.

 

Corporan didn't have the tools, and never made any big league impact. Hence the low ranking.

[Jenkins5]

We have discussed this for years and everyone ranks different. The three main types in my eyes in the way people rank are:

 

1) Based heavy on ceiling/impact/potential/projectability

---this is for those who put guys like Lopez in top 10 after being drafted and still have him high. To me this rater weighs heavy on the tools and projectability.

 

2) Base heavy on production

---A Hunter Morris, Caleb Gindl, Scooter Gennett type player will usually rank higher than a Roache, Arcia, Taylor. These guys may have lower ceilings but have proved to us they can produce consistantly as where others have not yet

 

3) The hybrid of both

You grade out in order who you believe has the most tools and most future impact. You grade out who has produced the most. Finally, you combine the to list and see what you have. This is what we all strive for but we usually skew more 1 or 2. If you skew more 1....Roache is a sure fire top 5. You skew 2) He probably rated more 15-20 range. Hybrid would rated him more 10-15

 

Hope that makes sense and isn't confusing. Everyone will differ and grade differently. Rankings are more fun than exact science. A #2 will use sabremetrics to prove why and a #1 will use more scouting reports

[TooLiveBrew]

I think you describe it pretty well, J5. I think I tend to lean #1, even though I try to do my best to stay true to #3.