Phillies Prospect Lists

[bigegypt0417]

But it is that second half performance that really does not mean that much since it was largely against younger or less talented players. It is all about analyzing the performance in context. And was he really THAT good. He was not better than Medina was last year at Lakewood and Medina last year was almost 18 months younger at the time.

I hope they challenge him with AA also. It will tell us about his ability to get experienced hitters out that are closer to his age.

what did you find about his second half that you believe wasn't good?

Also, howard was about a year younger than the average age in the SAL.

I'm not sure he was getting out many younger guys.

[andyb]

what did you find about his second half that you believe wasn't good?

That is not what I said. It was not good enough to justify the ranking. He should dominate younger competition. To justify the higher ranking he should have dominated at Clearwater instead. He had a 2.67 ERA in the second half. But 25 BBs in 64 IP. He was good. He certainly has great velocity. But when you pitch pretty well against lesser competition it does not necessarily justify that high of a ranking. He is top 10. Just not 3rd.

On age the SAL was 21.9 for pitchers on average. And he turned 22 midseason so he was about average for the league. The top prospects are much younger. The league's average age is higher than the prospect age because lots of college non-prospects play in Low A.

[fish]

That is not what I said. It was not good enough to justify the ranking. He should dominate younger competition. To justify the higher ranking he should have dominated at Clearwater instead. He had a 2.67 ERA in the second half. But 25 BBs in 64 IP. He was good. He certainly has great velocity. But when you pitch pretty well against lesser competition it does not necessarily justify that high of a ranking. He is top 10. Just not 3rd.

On age the SAL was 21.9 for pitchers on average. And he turned 22 midseason so he was about average for the league. The top prospects are much younger. The league's average age is higher than the prospect age because lots of college non-prospects play in Low A

He's still inconsistent, but I was really impressed by what was available to see of him on milb.tv. His ceiling is nearly the same as Sixto's, but of course Sixto is closer to his ceiling now.

[bigegypt0417]

what did you find about his second half that you believe wasn't good?

That is not what I said. It was not good enough to justify the ranking. He should dominate younger competition. To justify the higher ranking he should have dominated at Clearwater instead. He had a 2.67 ERA in the second half. But 25 BBs in 64 IP. He was good. He certainly has great velocity. But when you pitch pretty well against lesser competition it does not necessarily justify that high of a ranking. He is top 10. Just not 3rd.

On age the SAL was 21.9 for pitchers on average. And he turned 22 midseason so he was about average for the league. The top prospects are much younger. The league's average age is higher than the prospect age because lots of college non-prospects play in Low A.

He turned 22 with a month left in the season. he was almost a year younger than the league average.

It will tell us about his ability to get experienced hitters out that are closer to his age.

Not sure why you're telling me the average age for a pitcher when you said hitters...it would seem he's done fine against hitters his own age and older.

[andyb]

He turned 22 with a month left in the season. he was almost a year younger than the league average.

It will tell us about his ability to get experienced hitters out that are closer to his age.

Not sure why you're telling me the average age for a pitcher when you said hitters...it would seem he's done fine against hitters his own age and older.

Now you just seem to be responding to be argumentative. In terms of facts, he turned 22 in late July. Season goes till the first week in September so his average age was something like 21.8. He is not a year younger than the league (and certainly much older than the league's prospects). If you want to look at hitters the average age was 21.3 so even younger.

The fact is that Howard was a college pitcher and by definition college pitchers are old for the South Atlantic league. He was less experienced than most college pitchers so it was not wrong to send him to the SAL. But his performance against that league is really nothing special and we are being asked to justify a pretty special ranking.

As to how he ranks against Sixto stuff-wise, he throws almost as hard but probably not as consistently around 98-100. He also throws with much less command and his secondary pitches are not as good. He does have a better pitching body for durability than Sixto, so that is a plus. I think he has a pretty high ceiling. There is just lots of development to go and he could easily be a reliever in the end. One can like him as a prospect and still think a #3 ranking is a little bit high.

[bigegypt0417]

[quote="bigegypt0417, post:64, topic:50900"]
Now you just seem to be responding to be argumentative. In terms of facts, he turned 22 in late July. Season goes till the first week in September so his average age was something like 21.8. He is not a year younger than the league (and certainly much older than the league's prospects). If you want to look at hitters the average age was 21.3 so even younger.

Argumentative? You said you wanted to see him get hitters out that were his age. Your statement is odd since he's right in line with the league average. Baseball reference has him at -.9 years under the league average. He was 22 for about 5 weeks of the season. You seem to feel you can move the goalposts even when you're quoted. He did face and he was able to get batters out that were his age.

His second half...or to be more specific all his appearances after 7/1/18:

5-1 with a 2.36 ERA 53.1 IP with 41 hits

11.98 k's per 9 innings and 3.38 walks per 9

Granted his first half was less than stellar but it seems once he got going he certainly developed the consistency. Which I would imagine we'd like to see. Is 3 too high? Maybe not in a system that didn't exactly have a lot of standouts.

[andyb]

That baseball reference -0.9 is an artifact of a formula that uses the whole number of his age compared to the decimal calculation for the average age of the league. So it really should be more like 0.1 since it uses an arbitrary July 1 date to set that whole number age.

And yes, he was older than the average age (which for hitters was 21.3). The much more important point is that PROSPECTS ARE TYPICALLY YOUNGER THAN THE AVERAGE AGE. So he is really old for a person ranked as a top prospect relative to the league he is in. The performance against high school hitters or lesser college prospects is just not good enough to justify the extremely high ranking. David Parkinson was much better than Howard and nobody is even ranking him in the top 10 (justifiably so). Nobody is moving any goalposts. You are just ignoring that he was relatively old for the league and his performance against that league does not mean too much. You seem to argue it does. The basis for his ranking is 90% stuff and maybe 10% performance since the performance was against a league he should have dominated.

[Austinfan]

AndyB's just being argumentative.

Howard was a project coming out of college, only started one year, his secondary pitches would need development.
The two things that raised his value was an uptick in FB velocity to elite levels AND significant improvement.
We don't know how much of his first half inconsistency was experimenting with secondary pitches.

HS/LA players and college players aren't an apple to apple comparison.
College players are older when they enter your system, usually struggle coming off their college season.
The next two seasons are key, that's when they usually make the big jump at ages 22-23 or so.
But they still make the show a year or two older than HS/LA prospects.

[bigegypt0417]

And yes, he was older than the average age (which for hitters was 21.3). The much more important point is that PROSPECTS ARE TYPICALLY YOUNGER THAN THE AVERAGE AGE. So he is really old for a person ranked as a top prospect relative to the league he is in.

So you are again moving your goalposts to prospects vs. hitters his age with experience and now your argument is based on a difference of 3 to 4o months?

And I'm being argumentative?

[allentown]

Perhaps Howard is a little high at 3. I think he's clearly top 5-6. I'd put Garcia and Haseley ahead of him. That's it for now.

[Squire]

BA Top 10 Phillies Prospects

1. Sixto Sanchez, RHP
2. Alec Bohm, 3B
3. Luis Garcia, SS
4. Adonis Medina, RHP
5. Adam Haseley, OF
6. JoJo Romero, LHP
7. Envel De Los Santos, RHP
8. Spencer Howard, RHP
9. Ranger Suarez, LHP
10. Francisco Morales, RHP

And for those of you who still get the paper copy of Baseball America....you will probably note that they used the headshot photo of the wrong Luis Garcia....the one we traded yesterday.

[Austinfan]

Romero, De Los Santos and Suarez may all be in the Lehigh rotation, and Medina in AA.
Which is why I don't think SP pitching is a big priority, especially with Eickhoff as your 6th starter.

[zambonir]

We'll see on De Los Santos, he might be in the pen, though that's certainly not an area where they lack depth right now. Eickhoff can't be counted on but it would be nice. I'd still expect Eflin or Velasquez to be traded...unless De Los Santos or Suarez are. It just depends what spots the team is trying to fill - SP, OF, 3B, C? - and how. A FA pitcher gives you the luxury of keeping everyone and having another year of shake-out. But it's gonna happen. You don't offer Patrick Corbin a five-year deal and then decide you can get by just addressing the position players and pen.

[Austinfan]

Corbin was LH pitcher who was probably an upgrade over Arrieta.
And he only cost MIddleton's money.
The other alternatives are either less of an upgrade or will cost real assets in trades.

[andyb]

This is a better list for me. Risky guys like Howard and Morales toward the bottom but acknowledging their stuff. I might put Luis Garcia ahead of Bohm but it is splitting hairs.

Both De Los Santos (likely bullpen) and Suarez are there for proximity. No issue with that even if they do not look like more than back end starters (if that). The lack of inclusion of Moniak is pretty telling. I probably would have put him on my list in place of Suarez for instance. If we think Suarez is only a 6th starter/middle relief candidate, Moniak is at least a pretty good 4th OF candidate (decent defense at all 3 spots).

Unfortunately it is a midlevel system at best these days. Number one picks failing to break out and really the lack of any surprise Latin American arm to emerge of late (beyond the expensive Morales) means we have depth but few obvious major leaguers much less stars.

[Austinfan]

Depth is good. A lot of players don't make prospects lists until, well, they do.

Hoskins was drafted in 2014, but didn't make the BA list (#6 PHL) until 2017, after going from Lakewood - Clearwater - Reading over a two year period.

The lists are dominated by top draft picks b/c they have the most recognized talent and get the most attention. But the key for most prospects is steady progress, What kills prospects is the baseball equivalent of the "Peter Principle," they rise to the level where they flatline and stop progressing.

So to me, depth is as important as talent, except for the very rare uber-talent.
Because it's easier to spot raw talent than project mental and physical maturity.

There are players like Altuve:
18 - rookie ball, .753 OPS
19 - rookie ball, .916 OPS, then struggles in a short NYPL cameo, .653
20 - SAL, .809 OPS, CAL (short stint) .790 OPS
At this point, how would you project him? Promising but nothing special, right?
21 - tears up the Cal and Texas leagues, jumps to Houston but puts up a .654 OPS
Ok, serious prospect now, but maybe needs some seasoning in AAA ball?
22 - stays in Houston, .739 OPS, maturing faster than expected
23 - .679 OPS, well, maybe he did need that year in AAA
24 - .830 OPS, but .360 BABIP, he's arrived, but probably not sustainable
25 - .812 OPS, BABIP back to "normal" but ISO jumps from .108 to .156
26 - .930 OPS, ISO jumps to .213

Point is Altuve kept progressing, but didn't come out of "nowhere," rather, instead of flatlining at some point he raised his game year by year, but didn't hit his peak until he was 26. So progress is as important as draft position/bonus, and age is just a marker, not a determining factor.

[andyb]

Nobody really disputes that depth is good. We do have depth though even there it is hard to say how our depth among 2nd and 3rd tier prospects stands out among the dozen organizations that play heavily in Latin America. And losing draft picks last year combined with a smaller international allocation means we added less depth last year.

Every organization has a few players that were not rated as prospects initially that succeeded. Altuve is one of them. So is Hoskins. But they are more the exception to the rule that players that succeed in the majors are much more likely to be top 100 and top 10 prospects than players who are not. I'd rather have a good top 10 than a mediocre one (your post seems to imply having a good top 10 does not matter that much).

The Phillies are a mid-level system because of their depth. If we only looked at their top 10 we probably rank them a bit below average. The whole point of prospect lists is to rank players relative to their own organization and relative to the league. The combinations of graduations (Crawford, Kingery, Alfaro, etc.), lack of success with high number one picks, and losing some depth due to lost picks and international system has pushed us from the top 10 to somewhere in the middle.

[Austinfan]

Actually, I don't think the odds of success are much different outside the BA top 20, last time I tooked, and that is primarily composed of top prospects on the verge of making the majors. Team top ten lists show far more variance when it comes to eventual success.

[andyb]

That statement is likely completely untrue. It is highly likely that the vast majority of good major league players show up on organization top 10 lists. If you are going to say something like that, show an example. Nobody disputes that prospects come out of nowhere. Your post though implies that it is meaningless to have top 10 (and by extension top 100 in baseball) prospects. If that is not your point, then what is your point?

I have said that our top 10 is likely below average. We'll see where organizational rankings come out but I have guessed we are somewhere in the middle (12-18). Instead of saying prospects are meaningless, where do you think the system ranks and why?

[Austinfan]

My point is the probability of success drops very quickly outside of the BA top 20.

As far as top ten lists, go back and look at the Phillies top ten lists for the last decade.
Successful players eventually end up on the top ten list after they emerge, Hoskins is a good example, usually just before they make the majors.
But most players on the top ten lists ended up as flops.