LookinUp

Fringe prospects are by definition low probability. They are not zero probability. One simple theory is that if you gather a lot of fringe prospects, you have a chance that a couple really hit. Think John Means. It happens. So would you rather have pretty good veteran players now and win 70-75 games or a better chance to have a couple of better players in a couple of years when our higher rated talent arrives? Would you rather have the money trading veterans would free up to eventually also invest in players during that competitive window? I think I know your answer, but you should at least acknowledge the calculus behind the strategy.

I'm not sure you read the piece correctly. It says he's at first because there could be three other first rounders in that same infield. Also says he played SS and 3B in high school. I have no knowledge of his actual abilities at all, but I think the scout is saying that his drafting team shouldn't just assume that he's a defensive liability. I know the draft happens in-season, but do these guys actually work out for teams pre-draft? Seems like a good reason to entertain a later draft with a combine so skills like these can be assessed.

Depending on your definition of efficiency, analytics is about efficiency, period. Why do we analyze? To gain a better understanding of whatever we're studying and ultimately put that better information to use to make things better. The idea that analytics are a problem is silly. They make relatively dumb people smarter. That puts managers and players in better positions to succeed. That's good. The ironic part about any mention of Belicheck and analytics is the fact that he has been the smartest coach I've ever seen. He knows what players need to do to execute, and he coaches those players to do it. He schemes better than anyone. He does operate in an environment where the use of analytics is generally less applicable than in baseball, but that's the point. He analyzes and is smarter.

This week is the wrong week for me to post (barely online), and this part of my life just won't let me make major commitments (my future is already in flux), but if there's any way I can help, I'd like to figure it out.

From Joe Trezza's article: https://www.mlb.com/orioles/news/orioles-rebuilding-under-mike-elias

Probably for a different thread. I agree we really need Austin Martin. I'd argue that we really need another starter with TOR upside, like Hancock.

Another way to look at it would be to group them by FV and see where the guys fit. If I have a guy at 15 and they list him at 12, but both have a 45, am I really wrong? Maybe, but not by much. Zimmerman and Wells might be good examples of guys like that who are at very different places in the rankings but who might be very close on an estimation of future value...noting I haven't seen their assessment of Zimmerman yet, so it's just an example/guess.

Just a nudge that this page could use an update too. I keep forgetting where folks were listed so this is where I visit.

Baseball has a rebuilding problem, but it also has a pathway for teams to plan to compete with the Yankees on a much smaller budget. If you don't want more revenue sharing, this might be a fairly good option.

Other general comments: I still don't hate Hall at 12 for me, considering age/level. I do respect that Tony/Luke went at that one with a scout's take more than a stats take. I also don't hate Wells at 18. If this was a AAA prospects list, he'd be much much higher. Hope I'm wrong. Hanifee got me a bit too, but everyone sort of acknowledges he might be a feast or famine type of guy. I honestly didn't know much at all about Stowers before reading the write-up. It was a guess. Like the potential if he can hone in his swing. We could be looking at a future plus power bat.

Rank Mine OH Difference 1 Rutschman Rutschman 0 2 Hall Rodriguez 1 3 Rodriguez Hall 1 4 Mountcastle Mountcastle 0 5 Baumann Hays 2 6 Hays Diaz 1 7 Diaz Baumann 1 8 Harvey Lowther 2 9 Lowther Henderson 1 10 Henderson Harvey 1 11 Kremer Kremer 0 12 Hall Akin 5 13 Akin Wells 1 14 Hernaiz Rom 2 15 Rom Hanifee 1 16 Zimmerman Hernaiz -- 17 Sedlock Hall -- 18 Wells Stowers 5 19 Hanifee 4 20 Cumberland -- 21 Pop -- 22 Stowers 4 Don't know how to paste with formatting, so here's what I got. Note also that I stopped well before 30. I acknowledged I'm out of my depth getting to this part of the list.

Just looked at mine. No huge misses like yours and Hanifee yet, but I have Cumberland at 20, so we'll see. Biggest misses for me so far are Hall (had him at 12), Wells (18 on my list) and Hanifee (19 on mine). I also had Stowers at 22, which is 4 off. My list has Zimmerman, Sedlock at 16/17. Could get ugly here if they don't pop up soon.

Your list is remarkably accurate with the names you included. Only Hanifee was way off.

No freaking clue at this point. Lol.

Fair assessment. A very interesting guy to follow next year.

A little less optimistic than I had hoped. Hopefully age/experience are on his side and he still has opportunity for significant improvement with the bat.

We'll see. As Glenn Davis said above, I think he also doesn't project for a ton of power, so his offensive upside is somewhat limited and he's more of a known entity so there's fewer googly eyes when people speak, lol.

For what it's worth, I'm not discounting the negative. I think I'm slower to believe it though. Prospects go through ebbs and flows. I'm an optimist, so am hopeful that he bounces back in a big way next year. If not, I'll concede.

Honestly, the only name I don't like here is Tate, and even he has a case to be a middle relief arm this year. Bannon and McKenna don't really excite me either, but one could be a utility guy or even a starter for us this year (Bannon) and McKenna has enough D value to carry the bat a bit. He'll need to hit better to convince me though.

I'm kind of surprised Stauffer and Fenter are getting no love, tbh. Fenter's old for his level, but both had really nice years. I guess it's just too early since they're probably not going to end up ML starters.

The top player left on that list, for me, is Hall. Stowers has tools to work with. So they're my pick. We're pretty far down this list and still not picking from scrubs.

No poll for 17/18?

Why is he ranked high? 1. Can he stick at short? Looks like it. 2. Does he have another tool? Yes, speed. 3. How is his plate approach? By first impression, very good. Walked a lot and carried a high OBP. 4. How is the hit tool? This is the question. First impressions were good, but what does a month in the GCL really mean? Tony and Luke were clear that they need to see him to really get a sense, but I understand inflating a guy who looks like he has a fair chance to profile as a future ML starting SS.

Not really going on probability (which may be low), but I still see upside from Hanifee that might not be there for a lot of our other guys. His prospect status could be a yo-yo that goes up or down depending on whether he gets a feel for a 3rd pitch and whether they move him to the pen. I think having him here is defensible in that regard, as is dropping him as many seem to have done. I just personally hate to move a guy down too much when we know he still has physical upside either after an injury or a not very impressive year, particularly when the player development people completely changed, so likely did his preparation. If he jumps way up next year, I wouldn't be shocked. If he drops, same.

Approximately.