Post-season Prospect Lists

andyb 2018-01-29 14:56:45 UTC #201

Austinfan:

My point was simply that other than the "sure things" at the top of these lists, the rest of these lists are pretty bad indicators of the quality of a farm system other than gross comparisons (i.e. bad v mediocre v good).

Ryan Hoskins never made BA's top 100, and didn't make the Phillies top ten list (#6) until 2017.
Hernandez made a Phillies top ten list once, in 2014 (#8).

Generally, if you're not a highly touted high draft pick, or big money LA signing, you're not going to crack BA (or anyone else's) top 100 until you're in AA or AAA ball and have a breakout season there and attract national attention - and you'll probably be in the majors the next season. Some someone like Derrick Hall could put up .900+ OPS at Clearwater and be ignored, but if he puts up .950+ at Reading, suddenly he'll become a prospect.

Don't disagree that there are not sure things when you get beyond the top of the various prospect lists. It is everything after that where you lose me. I would submit that an organization that has 6 prospects ranked 21-100 is probably better than an organization that has 1 prospect in the 21-100 range (everything else being equal). The lists ARE predictive. There are just lots of ranges of outcome and unpredictibility - though more ranked players equals more quality prospects and likely more eventual success.

Then you go off the rails with Hoskins and Darick Hall. Hoskins probably should have been ranked a little higher earlier in his minor league career but his statistics did not really stand out for a RH 1B. The bar for prospects and their performance is just really high there. And Hall has really done little to merit top prospect rankings. He is leagues away from the top 100 or even the Phillies top 10. Has he raised his prospect status? Sure. He was never a non-prospect. But he was always a 3-year college player that was given a slow development path through Low A (where the top college prospects skip) and his admittedly good season there comes with a 29/110 BB/K ratio. Not good and he is a 1B.

He'll get some notice if he puts up a 900 OPS in Clearwater, but the real sign of whether he is a decent prospect will be whether he can master two levels in a season. That would put his level even with the better prospects in his class and is something Hoskins did (though he still needed to show offense outside of Reading for the rest of the world to believe in him).

In general the prospect rankings are not biased. Yes the early rankings are based in part on draft status or international bonuses, but those are not biases because top draft picks and large bonuses are based on scouting and the players have a limited performance history. So you are basically ignoring information if you imply the rankings are meaningless. Lots of prospects beyond the top 100 make it, but that does not mean the ranked prospects don't make it at a higher rate than the unranked ones.

andyb 2018-01-29 16:16:02 UTC #202

Keith Law NL East:

-1.J.P. Crawford, SS (ranked No. 10)
-2. Sixto Sanchez, RHP (ranked No. 23)
-3. Scott Kingery, 2B (ranked No. 33)
-4. JoJo Romero, LHP (ranked No. 59)
-5. Jhailyn Ortiz, OF (ranked No. 83)
-6. Jorge Alfaro, C (ranked No. 98)
-7. Adam Haseley, OF
-8. Ranger Suarez, RHP
-9. Adonis Medina, RHP
-10. Mickey Moniak, OF
-11. Roman Quinn
-12. Seranthony Dominguez
-13. Franklyn Kilome
-14. Edgar Garcia
-15. Daniel Brito
-16. Cornelius Randolph
-17. Dylan Cozens
-18. Elneiry Garcia
-19. Francisco Morales
-20. Jonathan Guzman
-21. Simon Muzziotti
-22. Spencer Howard
-23. Thomas Eshelman
-24. Jhordany Mezquita
-25. Kyle Young

Mentions a few more in the notes like Enyel De Los Santos and I have to wonder if his non-ranking is a little laziness in redoing a list that might have been done a month or two ago. Gamboa to me seems someone that really deserves to be somewhere on the list. The one guy who seems to have risen most in Law's eyes is Ranger Suarez (8th overall, tagged as sleeper with top 100 potential). There is some logic to that if he is really pushing his fastball up to 95 since his pitchability was always very good. When Elneiry Garcia picked up velocity he was doing so from a less polished base than Suarez.

xogfog 2018-01-29 16:28:36 UTC #203

Winkelman's 21 - 30:

Austinfan 2018-01-29 17:15:16 UTC #204

Once you get past the top 20, the variability in outcomes is so large that whether you have players in the next 80 or next 180 or so is a bit irrelevant, outside of the ML ready "sure things," the key is how many solid prospects you have, not whether they're #75 or #125. That is, the group of prospects with sufficient upside to make the top 20 in a couple years if they pan out.

And the ones that will never make the top of the list can be thrown into a "depth" bucket and that can go as deep as 500 or so, many of the players who've "graduated" were not considered serious prospects, Neris, Hernandez, Herrera, Eickhoff, Lively, etc. Yet some have put up 3-4 WAR seasons, the best you'd expect from all but elite prospects.

allentown 2018-01-29 17:44:57 UTC #205

There is no such thing as a sure thing. This is obvious with pitchers and the ever-present risk of major injury, but Dom Brown sat atop prospect lists in the top 10. There's a risk of non-success with every player, even with 28-year old, 5-year MLB veterans coming into a new season. I think it fair to say that in general the higher up the prospect list the higher the probability of success and that if you weren't highly touted at signing, you'll have to wait to AA or even AAA to make lists. I don't see that as a particular problem with raters. I think there should be two ratings of a scouting/development organization: how frequently and at how impactful a level do the primo picks hit as MLB contributors and how often do they hit on less than primo picks (less than primo LA bonuses). The first, IMHO, relates to organizational philosophy and the quality of the guys in the upper level of scouting and the latter to the quality of the area scouts.

andyb 2018-01-29 17:54:49 UTC #206

Don't disagree with any of that. Where I disagree with AF is the notion that the rankings are meaningless. I would take 6 prospects ranked 21-100 over 6 prospects in the 101-200 range any day. We are not given a choice of having 6 21-100 prospects versus 12 101-200 prospects. In that choice I would take the depth.

It is just lazy to say the rankings are meaningless. There is very low success in the draft after the first 3 rounds. That does not mean I want to forfeit my choices in rounds 4-40 though. Rankings are meaningful. The number 50 overall prospect has a better chance of success than #150. Philosophies can vary. I lean more towards plus tools since I would rather have a star or a regular rather than a reserve (who can easily be replaced). Those plus tools tend to be more expensive and have some spectacular Dom Brown-like failures. I am OK with that. Give me 3 Dom Brown type prospects over a dozen depth prospects and I have a really good shot at coming out ahead.

andyb 2018-01-29 19:10:41 UTC #207

One small tidbit at the end of Law's report was that he mentioned Grant Dyer would be back this year after TJ surgery. He was our 8th round pick in 2016 and was a smallish college RHP immediately converted to relief. Was really good in Williamsport and Lakewood before he got hurt.

Does not have imposing stuff. 90 mph fastball with a supposedly plus curve. Was supposed to be on a really fast track as a reliever and he is still 22 this year. Not sure he is that much of a prospect but he was at least worthy of mention in a national article, so maybe there is something there.

zambonir 2018-01-29 21:48:17 UTC #208

The lists are a measuring tool, and they don't measure everything. But that doesn't mean they don't measure anything. Information and opinions that skew towards the top guys, the highest draft picks and most-hyped talent is still relevant... and it's unlikely that a more complete inclusion of surprises and outliers would change things very much, since you don't yet know who those people are at the lower levels.

Austinfan 2018-01-29 22:05:27 UTC #209

I didn't say "meaningless," I said a "bit irrelevant," that is, the measurement error is so great that it's not worth any angst over being rated 3rd or 5th or 7th, or whether you have 4 or 6 prospects in the top 100 or a couple are in the top 125 instead.

Given the strength of the Phillies system right now is its depth, not the top players (this could change quickly but odds are if Sanchez or his ilk have a breakout season they could be off the list next year in any case), it's probably undervalued.

To me Law overrates Crawford, who has demonstrated a questionable hit tool, and underrated Kingery, who potentially has a plus hit tool, and Ortiz and Alfaro are examples of how variable it can be, Alfaro will be off the list next year, so if he breaks out it won't even be noticed, Ortiz could bomb or be in the top 10 next year.

Somehow Quinn, who can't stay healthy is 11 and Dominguez who is now a RP is #12, above Kilome. Where then is Arano, who is probably a better RP prospect than Dominquez right now? Cozens at #17? ELneiry Garcia above Morales and Howard despite his velocity decline?

Point is these national guys don't follow teams that closely, and probably base their evaluations on a few names at the top of the list.

andyb 2018-01-29 22:21:52 UTC #210

How do you think Arano is a better prospect than Seranthony Dominguez? Arano seems a nice extra bullpen arm to stash in AAA but his stuff was pretty pedestrian last year. Dominguez might be a guy who can pitch consistently in the 96-100 range and has late inning bullpen potential. I know Arano is already there - but he really does not have much of a ceiling. Dominguez also has more of a starter's arsenal. He just has not been able to stay healthy.

There is a reason guys like Quinn keep get rating high as prospects - and that is they have tools that would play well at the major league level if they stay healthy and things clicked. Cozens at 17 is still reasonable because he has one really good major league tool in power.

I think the national guys DO follow these players closely. It is their job and they also rely on networks of observations. Just knocking them blindly is not that fair. The rankings are meaningful. I actually think they have done the right thing with Alfaro. He has played pretty well but has not solved the holes in his game. His is in everyone's 90-150 range now as he has had some chances and not progressed as everyone hoped. But he also has a base of decent performance that suggests low range starter at worst (better than Rupp for instance). So his ranking has gone down more because he has progressed a bit slower than ideally - but he is still a prospect because he is now in the majors and does some things well.

Austinfan 2018-01-29 22:33:37 UTC #211

Arano actually was throwing in the mid-90s before he was injured last year, and came back well enough to hold his own in a ML cameo.
Dominquez has stuff, well heck, Tirado and Cordero had similar stuff. I'm skeptical of stuff after a few years when it doesn't translate into production.

My point with Alfaro is the way these lists work is they overvalue players who emerge early, have credentials (high draft pick or LA bonus baby) and put up a couple big minor league seasons. Someone like Alfaro could bust or break out, but if he breaks out it won't be credited to the Phillies farm system (he'll be in the majors when it happens).

This is why there is so much measurement error, the lists are weighted toward players who follow a linear development path, even if the organization has a history of prospect flops at the ML level. It's not that the lists are meaningless, just that they're very crude.

What is more interesting to me is the ability of the system to take players who aren't ranked in the top 20 and turn them into 3+ WAR ML players, whether adjusting swings or teaching better mechanics or refining a secondary pitch. If you can't do that, then raw talent is essential, if you can, then a larger quantity of solid talent has more value than a few elite talents. Our WS team was built around two mid-1st rd picks (Hamels, Utley), a 2nd rd pick (Rollins) and a 5th rd pick (Howard) as well as a castoff (Werth) and rule 5 reject (Victorino). Burrell was our one "elite" pick and he never became more than a decent but not special player (only two good years, 2002 w/ 4.5 WAR, 2005 with 3.6 WAR). Yet he was ranked #19 in 1999 and #2 in 2000.

andyb 2018-01-29 22:47:01 UTC #212

But he is not throwing 95 now. More like 92-93 and throwing many more off-speed pitches because he does not throw that hard any more. Prospect lists change as we get more information. That does not mean they are bad lists. Alfaro has a 70+ arm and 70+ raw power. He performed fairly well in the minors even if he ends up at a fraction of his potential. The rankings were higher earlier and the tools justified that. The performance was only OK so the rankings have gone backwards.

A variance in outcomes is not measurement error. Prospect development by nature is risky. You mention Howard and Werth in your random assessment that prospects can come from anywhere. Werth was a number one pick and Howard probably should have been but had a bad final year in college. But each got on top 100 rankings before they got to the majors and those rankings were well deserved in each case. Nobody expects rankings to be perfect. But they do a better job of projecting outcomes than whatever method you endorse (which is really hard to tell).

Austinfan 2018-01-30 01:59:58 UTC #213

I don't have a method, because I don't get excited about rankings.
I'm more interested in observing the progress of the Phillies farm system than worrying about how they rank on some list.
Tirado and Cordero both hit 100 on a regular basis, which is why "progress" is far more than tools.
Using a hammer when you need a screwdriver (or a left handed monkey wrench) won't get you far.

schillingfan 2018-01-30 03:57:08 UTC #214

AF, you sound like Donald Trump. You say you don't care what so-called experts think because you are the smartest guy in the room and consider yourself your best advisor.

julio 2018-01-30 04:04:56 UTC #215

Ahh... I'm not sure we should be comparing anybody here to Donald Trump. I think in a few years, we'll look back and realize that such comparisons are really inappropriate... as in, you know an argument is over, has completely jumped the shark, when somebody makes reference to Trump.

schillingfan 2018-01-30 04:09:55 UTC #216

In general I agree. However, I think I know AF's politics enough that he would see the comment was ironic in nature and not intended as a personal insult. If not, then I apologize for humor gone awry.

phillychuck 2018-01-30 04:40:25 UTC #217

Godwin's rule #2.

Austinfan 2018-01-30 04:49:17 UTC #218

I am the smartest guy in the room (for those of you who remember Enron, though ironically it was a serious training ground for the energy industry, while top management went haywire, they actually had a lot of sophisticated ideas).

My point is that these rankings just aren't worth that much energy, other than general indicators where a farm system may be, the specifics are pretty arbitrary. I'm not really worried about where Moniak is ranked, because his ranking will have nothing to do with his success or failure, other than maybe as a motivational tool. I'm much more concerned whether the new FO has the resources in place to help him succeed. Same with Haseley, I pretty much ignore college players' draft season, it's the next year that matters, after FIL, a winter focused on working out, ST and then off to their minor league team.

And frankly, I'm more interested in Winkleman than Law, because he studies our prospects in depth and provides good insights.

julio 2018-01-30 04:49:58 UTC #219

It was intended as such a reference. More and more, it seems apt.

allentown 2018-01-30 13:34:11 UTC #220

Most rankings come with commentary, which is based upon the evaluators own (and what he's heard from scouts, managers) about the guys strengths and weaknesses, including but beyond just the stats. You refer to Moniak. His ranking is based upon current performance issues. The rankings aren't carved in stone. As he corrects weaknesses in his hitting or fails to correct them over the next year or two, as he does or doesn't add strength, his rankings will go up or down. The rankings begin IMHO, for most players, with what the ranker and his part of the scouting world think of the guy when he is first signed. They then go up or down as his performance deviates from that expectation. That's why a guy, like Hoskins, who isn't generally highly regarded when signed is going to take a while to be rated on a level with his actual performance, even in the upper minors, while a highly regarded signee will sink slowly under the weight of underperformance.t` Moniak still made one of the top 100 in baseball prospects list. On pure performance, he wouldn't be close. IMHO Moniak's downgrade is legit: he hasn't demonstrated the superior hit tool which the scouts saw in H.S. Lack of strength likely hurts him, but he also Ks too much for the type of hitter he is and that can improve with better recognition of breaking pitches and strike zone control, which may or may not ever develop.