2016 Organizational Rankings

[reillymcshane]

BA listed the Top Shortstops.

 

#3 - Arcia

#21 - Lara

#49 - Diaz

#52 - Y. Rivera

 

http://www.baseballamerica.com/minors/position-rankings-shortstops/

[ClosetBrewerFan]

Gatewood was quite good at Helena other than the ks. I bet most teams would love to have him as their top ss prospect. I think he gets downgraded because he failed at an aggressive assignment. In my mind, he should rank much higher.

[homer]

BA listed the Top Shortstops.

 

#3 - Arcia

#21 - Lara

#49 - Diaz

#52 - Y. Rivera

 

http://www.baseballamerica.com/minors/position-rankings-shortstops/

 

 

Interesting. I wonder where Diaz would be on a Top 2nd Basemen list? Offensively anyway...assuming his defense would be fine.

[CheezWizHed]

Gatewood was quite good at Helena other than the ks. I bet most teams would love to have him as their top ss prospect. I think he gets downgraded because he failed at an aggressive assignment. In my mind, he should rank much higher.

 

No, I think he is there because he was a boom-or-bust player from the beginning. And not a lock to stick at SS. Personally, being below Rivera is too low. But it shows how much risk (and distance to MLB) plays a role in the rankings.

[Crash2303]

very bold ranking for Peralta. others (BA) would argue if he's even the best prospect of the three (Herrera & Missaski). I also thought Rivera was way too highly ranked, especially above Gatewood. I agree w closetbrewerfan that his performance in Appleton hurt his prospect status. if he started and finished in Helena with those numbers I think there wouldn't be as much of a dark cloud over him. those Ks just affirmed people's fears of his long swing etc not being able to handle more accomplished pitching.

 

I feel that Diplan is continually undervalued for everything that he brings.

 

And where was Ramon Flores? Can't believe he wasn't on their top 30 list, especially over Barnes (no disrespect- a great late season and AFL performance).

 

Altogether our top ten is outstanding, though agreed without a lot of elite talent, in fact I think our top 25 is as deep of a talent pool as in all of baseball. it would not surprise me to see 7-8 players on the bottom of the next top 100 list.

 

and most likely with looming trades of Lucroy, Hill, Garza and who knows who else- it could get even deeper! good things for the future.

[MrTPlush]

Top 30 for us is out. #9 from Callis and Mayo

http://m.mlb.com/prospects/2016?list=mil

 

Gatewood seems particularly low in comparison to similar players, namely Harrison and Isan Diaz. Seeing Freddy Peralta on the list is surprising. If Milwaukee's system is vastly better than Seattle's and Peralta didn't make Seattle's most recent top-30, how did he increase in value without playing more games?

 

Isan Diaz is a guy who can easily stick at SS from what I have heard and Monte Harrison is a 20/20 potential type player with above average defense. Jake Gatewood has a high ceiling, but most think he won't stick at SS taking away a lot of his value. He can still be good at 3B, but that just puts more pressure on a bat that has a long way to develop.

 

That being said our #24 prospect being a guy like that is pretty crazy. Also crazy we have the top 16 players graded 50 or higher...going to produce a lot of solid major league players with that much depth.

[Jenkins5]

Peralta has been ranked fairly high on a few Mariner lists. #15 the highest I saw. Him having outstanding year only helps

[sveumrules]

Dan Farnsworth of Fangraphs chimes in with his rankings. Looks like he is they high guy on Reed & the low guy on Lara/Nottingham.

 

http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/evaluating-the-2016-prospects-milwaukee-brewers/

[Boomer5]

Dan Farnsworth of Fangraphs chimes in with his rankings. Looks like he is they high guy on Reed & the low guy on Lara/Nottingham.

 

http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/evaluating-the-2016-prospects-milwaukee-brewers/

 

I really want to like this guys list. I am more bullish on Reed than most here and more bearish on Nottingham due to I think not sticking at C and his power falling off after the trade to Oak. So I read this with some joy.

 

But then I saw Orf is ahead of DemiO, Lara, Houser, and Barrios?

[CheezWizHed]

This also makes me doubt his list:

Admittedly, I haven’t seen him play defense myself, but reports say he struggles with receiving and blocking, but has enough arm strength to be an average asset with the running game.

 

So, how much is based off of first hand scouting and how much on hearing others?

 

I like Reed and think he has a chance to be a MLB starter, but he isn't the 3rd ranked guy in our system...He is more like Liriano honestly.

[MrTPlush]

A 60+ rating for Michael Reed is ridiculous.

[Outlander]

Reed has been undervalued for years, his rating is reasonable.

[sveumrules]

A 60+ rating for Michael Reed is ridiculous.

 

People would have said the same thing about Michael Brantley or Lorenzo Cain had anyone rated them that highly following their age 22 seasons. It may not be likely that Reed ever performs up to that rating, but there is also a non-zero chance that he does.

 

Reed (Age 22)

AA: 278/379/422 122 wRC+

AAA: 246/351/381 100 wRC+

 

Brantley (Age 22)

AAA: 267/350/361 100 wRC+

 

Cain (Age 22)

A+: 287/358/448 128 wRC+

AA: 277/363/486 125 w RC+

[CheezWizHed]

There is also a non-zero chance that he can't even make it as a 4th/5th OFer at the MLB level. If you take all the guys that have Reed's profile, the majority make it as a low-end starter or 4th OFer. Maybe his power suddenly shows up, but that isn't normal to come after reaching 22 (not significant levels anyway).

 

Reed MiLB: .265 .375 .381 .756

 

Brantley MiLB: .303 .388 .377 .765

Brantley MLB: .292 .349 .423 .772

 

Cain MiLB: .294 .366 .430 .795

Cain MLB: .288 .337 .418 .754

 

Brantley did pick up some SLG in his MLB career, but otherwise both players put in a downward trend at the MLB level. Even if Reed holds his MiLB numbers, he is an average corner OFer. A Geraldo Parra type player. That doesn't deserve a #3 ranking in our system.

[MrTPlush]

A 60+ rating for Michael Reed is ridiculous.

 

People would have said the same thing about Michael Brantley or Lorenzo Cain had anyone rated them that highly following their age 22 seasons. It may not be likely that Reed ever performs up to that rating, but there is also a non-zero chance that he does.

 

Reed (Age 22)

AA: 278/379/422 122 wRC+

AAA: 246/351/381 100 wRC+

 

Brantley (Age 22)

AAA: 267/350/361 100 wRC+

 

Cain (Age 22)

A+: 287/358/448 128 wRC+

AA: 277/363/486 125 w RC+

 

Yah it would have been ridiculous. Should we go back to all the players that had poor years in A+ and use that to explain why everyone in our system is great? You can't just pull up minor league stats and start comparing players.

 

Michael Reed is not even close to being a 60+. Would you seriously put Reed anywhere near Clark/Phillips? Sure he could magically obtain some power, but I could say that about 2/3 of prospects. Every player has that "If he just adds some power" label. Michael Reed has not done anything that would make one seem he can be more than an average OFer at best. 60+ is All Star level according to this writer.

 

It is too early to be ranking Reed that high...maybe a year from now he could be there, but right now it is a serious stretch. Should be interesting to look back on his rankings a year from now. Very bold.

[MkeSouthSide]

He's not predicting a 60+ outcome for Reed. If you read the introduction, he states that the third number listed is a 90% outcome, not something he's predicting. The middle number, 55, is where he thinks Reed will be.

[MrTPlush]

He's not predicting a 60+ outcome for Reed. If you read the introduction, he states that the third number listed is a 90% outcome, not something he's predicting. The middle number, 55, is where he thinks Reed will be.

 

His rankings are confusing and he made them too complicated. The "ceiling" rating was unnecessary. It just doesn't really make sense. How does he know a players ceiling? You could argue any young guy could be a 65+. Medeiros could be an ace some day.

 

I think I would have left it as current and what he thinks.

[And That]

His rankings are confusing and he made them too complicated.

Current/likely/best-case is confusing and complicated?

[MrTPlush]

His rankings are confusing and he made them too complicated.

Current/likely/best-case is confusing and complicated?

 

Yes the best case doesn't seem to have an obvious reasoning behind it. I think the worst part was labeling some as 65+ instead of giving them a 65 grade. The plus inclusion just seems weird to me. Why? Why even use that? Honestly anyone could have an unlimited ceiling, especially guys in the low minors.

[Jenkins5]

He's not predicting a 60+ outcome for Reed. If you read the introduction, he states that the third number listed is a 90% outcome, not something he's predicting. The middle number, 55, is where he thinks Reed will be.

 

His rankings are confusing and he made them too complicated. The "ceiling" rating was unnecessary. It just doesn't really make sense. How does he know a players ceiling? You could argue any young guy could be a 65+. Medeiros could be an ace some day.

 

I think I would have left it as current and what he thinks.

 

I don't think it matters much. All types of ratings are completely based off opinion not facts. They are projections.... He is telling you what he thinks the players are now, what he thinks they will likely be, and what he feels is there realistic ceiling is. He could just everyone 80s because you never how good someone could be.... I think a lot of people like having the 3 to look at but understand there are merely projections. It is one scout saying, hey I think this guy is here today, will likely be this in future (as of where he is today), but who knows, If it goes all according to plan, he could hit this ceiling. He is hardly the first scout to project what he feels is a players ceiling....

 

Interesting list but a good read. Always nice to read how different people analyze our system & players. There is no exact science to scouting & all is subjective to what each is looking for.

 

"My overall opinion on Medeiros hasn’t changed much since his draft year. He could be fantastic on the mound as a starter with at times unhittable stuff, or he could be a back-end starter or late-inning relief pitcher with dirty stuff and just OK command. He’s young yet, so we can punt this at least until seeing how his second full-season year goes."

 

I think this is pretty spot on. Until we see the leap he takes this year, hard to really assess yet what we have. He needs to begin to start pitching over throwing. He has the stuff to be frontline but if he can't harness stuff, back end rotation or bullpen will be his future

[1992casey]

I don't think it matters much. All types of ratings are completely based off opinion not facts. They are projections.... He is telling you what he thinks the players are now, what he thinks…

 

I won't comment specifically on these projections because I haven't looked into them to see how they were arrived it. But I'll comment generally by saying that computerized systems would be objective and based on fact. Of course, that doesn't mean that the facts can't produce head-scratching and eyebrow-raising results.

 

The point is that we probably shouldn't be lumping every rating and projection into a category that covers "all." Some are completely objective, some are completely subjective, and others are a hybrid.

[TheCrew07]

I don't think it matters much. All types of ratings are completely based off opinion not facts. They are projections.... He is telling you what he thinks the players are now, what he thinks…

 

I won't comment specifically on these projections because I haven't looked into them to see how they were arrived it. But I'll comment generally by saying that computerized systems would be objective and based on fact. Of course, that doesn't mean that the facts can't produce head-scratching and eyebrow-raising results.

 

The point is that we probably shouldn't be lumping every rating and projection into a category that covers "all." Some are completely objective, some are completely subjective, and others are a hybrid.

 

Computer projections aren't unbiased, their algorithms on based on the programmer's bias, his or her base assumptions, just like all of the metrics currently around baseball. Computer based projections aren't any more factual than anyone else's opinion, they just have the appearance of being so. FIP isn't fact, it truth it's largely garbage because it ignores the situation and treats all type of hits, walks, and strike outs like they occur in a vacuum regressed to a league average. However baseball, sports, even life in general, is entirely about context, and that's why FIP is not gospel and pitchers like Zach Greinke will a;ways outperform their ERA and get labeled as "unlucky" or playing behind a poor defensive team.... because the have high SO and low hit totals, and the system has no method to account for giving up hits in bunches.

 

Put another way... It is a fact to say that Clint Coulter hit .246 with a .725 OPS last year, but any projection based on those numbers is simply an opinion, not only because minor league statistics can be extremely volatile, but because every athlete is going to have a somewhat unique career path. I wanted to believe last year that he figured it out based on his late season surge the year before and hot start to 2015, but he clearly fell back into in his career performance pattern and didn't make the progress we had hoped. A hot start followed by an unwillingness or inability to adjust which leads to incredibly prolonged periods of "blah". That doesn't mean he's never going to figure it out, but the problem ignored by any system is that performance is not just based on physical gifts and what he's done in past weighed against statistical averages, it's also a result of what's going on in an athlete's head and that's nearly impossible to measure. That's why development and drafting in all sports is such an inexact science, because mental talent is at least as meaningful as the physical talent that everyone gets wrapped in discussing.

 

Generally speaking the lower in the system a player is assigned, the fewer definitive statements I'm willing to make about a guy and even in the case of someone like Jorge Lopez who appears to have broken out I'm going to be conservative. I'm on the fence in regards to if he has truly broken out unless he proves it again next year, and I'm even less convinced that he's in fact a #2. He may very well be that good and may have ascended that fast but I remember the kid who threw his CB 2 different ways and was kind of all over the place mechanically, not to mention inconsistent results wise when I saw him in person. His jump in ERA is unprecedented in our modern system for a pitcher of his of physical talent so I'm going to be conservative with him.

[SRB]

However baseball, sports, even life in general, is entirely about context, and that's why FIP is not gospel and pitchers like Zach Greinke will a;ways outperform their ERA and get labeled as "unlucky" or playing behind a poor defensive team.... because the have high SO and low hit totals, and the system has no method to account for giving up hits in bunches.

 

Greinke had a 3.93 ERA his first season with the Brewers (2.98 FIP). Greinke had a 1.66 ERA last year (2.76 FIP) and has outperformed his FIP the last three seasons. He's actually a textbook example of why FIP is a good stat, because it filters for "lucky" and "unlucky" seasons and over time a pitcher's ERA will approach his FIP. Thus across 2100 IP Greinke has a career 3.35 ERA vs. 3.31 FIP.

[1992casey]

Computer projections aren't unbiased, their algorithms on based on the programmer's bias, his or her base assumptions, just like all of the metrics currently around baseball. Computer based projections aren't any more factual than anyone else's opinion…

 

There are definitely biases. And there are other flaws, some of which are directly acknowledged by the creator. But they'd be objective in the sense that players are treated equally once the switch is flipped.

 

At the risk of being nit-picky, I'd say that the results are facts but that by definition, there's no requirement that facts be accurate. It's probably better to use terms like "results" or "data."

[AKCheesehead]

Did anyone else's computer have serious issues from viewing that fangraphs site with Farnsworth's assessments?