2017 Phillies Top Prospect Lists

Austinfan 2016-12-15 16:40:29 UTC #41

Be careful with small inning velocity numbers, a lot of guys throw 92-94 for a couple innings, it's whether you can maintain that velocity over 7-8 innings in your 20th start that determines if you're a starting pitcher.

Example:

"Gowdy’s summer kicked off with an impressive performance at the Perfect Game National Showcase in June. In his first inning, his fastball sat at 91-93 mph, once reaching 94, and he mixed in a late-breaking slider with darting action away from righthanded hitters. In his second inning of work, his heater worked at 90-92."

Even in college you have to be wary, if a guy is pitching once a week he'll show better velocity than he will in the pros when he pitches every 5 days.

andyb 2016-12-15 17:51:40 UTC #42

Or perhaps you are cherry-picking one outing when virtually every scouting report on Gowdy has him sitting in the low 90s and touching 94 with the potential for a little more projection.

You are the one not really being careful when you compare him stuff-wise to Lively. Not that there is more than 1-2 mph in difference in raw velocity, but Lively is more of a guy that sits 90 and touches 92-93. With virtually no projection left.

From every scouting report Gowdy has starter's stuff (i.e. multiple pitches, superior command and control) with some projection. You seem to reduce every discussion to a cherry-picked item that ignores the big picture. Read the entire BA pre-draft write-up:

Or Sickels:

All of that is more important than what he showed for an inning or two at some prospect showcase.

There can be disagreements on where to rank Gowdy because of the limited data that we have. But if we give points to Moniak for being a good tools/high draft pick we need to give some of the same points to Gowdy in rankings. He belongs in the same conversation with Kilome and Sanchez even if the lack of track record might rank him a little bit behind them at the moment.

Austinfan 2016-12-15 18:19:00 UTC #43

But that's my point, right now Gowdy is all projection, with pitchers, that is more uncertain that with hitters. Pitchers seem to have a higher failure rate, look at Biddle, Savery, Gueller, etc., but also more come out of nowhere (master an offspeed pitch, fill out your frame and add 2-3 MPH, tweak your mechanics and develop command).

Kilome is a good example, two years ago hardly on the radar, last year I had him a 7th, this year at 4th.
First he added velocity, then he pitched a full season and showed dramatic improvement.
The odds of him eventually succeeding went way up in two seasons.

I have Gowdy at 27, and Irvin at 33, although Irvin pitched enough to have more confidence in him, Gowdy has more potential. If Gowdy starts 15 games or so and pitches a 100 innings this summer, depending on what he shows, he's a good bet to be in my top 20, if he then goes to Lakewood and starts 20+ gamed and shows increased velociity, top 10, if he dominates, top 5. But right now I'm just not sure about him, a lot of guys in the later part of the 1st rd aren't much different than 1S and early 2nd round guys, more projection than what you see in pitchers in the top 10. And I'm wary of projection - sometimes guys grow into their bodies, sometimes they're just bigger guys who throw the same stuff.

It's not just pitchers, I didn't rate Ortiz highly last year, they paid a lot of money but could he run (play OF), could he hit, would he be another Pujols, power with mediocre hit skills. His GCL debut at 17 answered a lot of questions, doesn't guarantee success, but he didn't look overmatched like a long-term development project with the odds against him (which is what Pujols has proven to be).

It's just my philosophy, I value both potential and the probability of success, there's real value in a high probability (50%) utility IF who might give you 1 WAR off the bench for 3-4 years, compared to say a 5 WAR ceiling player with only a 10% chance of success. So guys in the high minors who produce have value due to their probability of succeeding, guys in the low minors with high potential (good scouting reports) due to their upside. The highest value prospects are those with high ceilings who show a high probability of reaching that ceiling through their minor league performance (dominating and rising quickly).

andyb 2016-12-15 18:29:38 UTC #44

But Gowdy is NOT all about projection. He is among the more polished HS pitchers in recent years. The projection is a bonus. There is much more projection involved with Moniak for instance where physically we have no idea if he'll ever have any power.

Squire 2016-12-16 13:31:28 UTC #45

Where does everyone think the system ranks in MLB? I thought I heard the night guy at 97.5 say that Baseball America had them at 10th but that feels pretty low to me. I think I have them around 4th-6th. My top 10 are

New York Yankees
Milwaukee Brewers
Atlanta Braves
Philadelphia Phillies
Chicago White Sox
Colorado Rockies
San Diego Padres
Pittsburgh Pirates
Houston Astros
Los Angeles Dodgers

bigegypt0417 2016-12-16 14:03:38 UTC #46

4-6 are really close IMO

Could move them around and not get much of an argument.

Philsmania 2016-12-16 19:32:51 UTC #47

Strange to not see Boston on that list. Is it because they traded away a lot of guys or has their acquisition quality dipped somewhat? And, weren't the Cubs #1 just a year or two ago?

allentown 2016-12-16 19:41:39 UTC #48

I think we are 4 or 5
.

Squire 2016-12-16 20:03:37 UTC #49

Cubs graduated Russell, Baez, Soler, Almora, and traded Torres, McKinney and had no first or second round pick last year. Boston traded Moncada, Kopech, 2 other guys for Sale and Margot, etc. for Kimbrel and Espinoza for Pomeranz. Also Boston's previous high guys like Swihart, Owens and Cecchini have regressed.

allentown 2016-12-16 21:35:00 UTC #50

One of the bruited deals for Hamels was built around Swihart, Owens, Cecchini and a 4th player, with a lot of discussion about whether the 4th guy could be a quality player like Margot or Devers and most of the speculation saying nope. Anyway, a good thing we didn't take that trade.

Philsmania 2016-12-16 22:27:12 UTC #51

Boston could have had Hamels for those guys. And, Rymer Liriano was supposedly to have been a big part of a potential deal with the Padres. Also, it was considered a coup that the Phillies held on to Brown in both the Lee (from Cleveland) and Halladay trades. Funny how things work out, sometimes. As I say, in the end, they're still only prospects.

zambonir 2016-12-17 00:58:50 UTC #52

I also remember some posters ripping the Red Sox for putting their faith in Porcello and giving him that extension, instead of trading for Hamels.

bigegypt0417 2016-12-22 19:44:00 UTC #53

Nice write-up by Matt Winkleman about our systems Shortstops...

andyb 2016-12-27 20:56:11 UTC #54

John Sickels' turn:

allentown 2016-12-27 21:17:03 UTC #55

He basically gave us his top 52.

phillychuck 2016-12-28 14:08:36 UTC #56

I like Sickels' list, although he's more pessimistic on a couple of the pitchers in the low 20s (his C+ guys) than I am. Love his details on the pitchers' velocities and secondary pitches. Sickels always seems down on the very top prospects if they're much younger than league and their performance is only average, thus Crawford is only a B+ for him. I'm surprised he's so high on Moniak and Sixto given how much he discounts rookie ball players.

andyb 2016-12-28 14:36:58 UTC #57

We do have to keep remembering that Moniak was the number one pick in the draft and while he may have only been one of the top 5 players in the draft for strategic bonus reasons, he was legitimately drafted there and the top 5 players in any draft are generally top 100 players immediately if not top 50 players (where Moniak is generally ranked in the 30-50 range).

Moniak's performance did nothing to dissuade these initial rankings though of course it is rookie ball. He basically got a ranking pass this year. Next year he will hopefully have 500 AB and a much better sense of where he is as a prospect. For me he is number two until he shows otherwise. Alfaro has a higher ceiling and is much closer, but really has as many question marks as positives at this point.

A little surprised too that he is a believer in Sixto. The yellow warning light in my head does still say that it is rookie ball and relatively polished pitchers (which he is) tend to do well there. He also has legit stuff, however. Hence the rankings. The worry on the stuff is the lack of height and additional projection. If he settles into a guy that sits 92 as he ages he may not have the ceiling he appears to have now.

kmc1019 2016-12-28 15:41:29 UTC #58

I like the grading system Sickles uses which tends to tamp down expectations and hype, given how rare it is for even good prospects to become bona fide major league stars - which makes me feel a bit nostalgic for the near-miraculous home-grown success of Utley-Howard-Ruiz-Hamels all around the same time period.

In reading Sickles' write-ups on other teams, he seems to characterize the Phillies system the same way I would: one of the deepest in the game but lacking in can't miss future stars. Strong years from Moniak or Alfaro or Kilome or Sanchez could change that, as well as if Crawford and Nick Williams can hit better the first few months.

julio 2016-12-28 15:58:48 UTC #59

John Sickels.

Kudoes to andyb for getting it right.

phillychuck 2016-12-28 16:07:45 UTC #60

We need auto-correct!