So who is the no. 1 prospect, Bundy or Machado?

[CA-ORIOLE]

So scouting praise w/o professional performance > professional performance below AA?

Not much of a difference. Yep.

[Lucky Jim]

Not much of a difference. Yep.

I will agree that Bundy's hype out of high school seems more grounded than Machado's - Bundy was part of a very strong class, Machado was not. That said, I'm still not sure I understand your reasoning.

[CA-ORIOLE]

I will agree that Bundy's hype out of high school seems more grounded than Machado's - Bundy was part of a very strong class, Machado was not. That said, I'm still not sure I understand your reasoning.

At the respective ages/development, I'd consider the scouting aspect as higher priority. If Bundy is that highly regarded/superior to anywhere near what Roy is saying, that would outweigh Machado's outstanding performance in the Sally League.

[Lucky Jim]

At the respective ages/development, I'd consider the scouting aspect as higher priority. If Bundy is that highly regarded/superior to anywhere near what Roy is saying, that would outweigh Machado's outstanding performance in the Sally League.

But how is one second-hand data-point (based on subjective valuation) more reliable than objective professional performance data (with a prospect who also was credited with hyperbolic subjective valuation; i.e., A-Rod comps)?

In other words, why do we have any reason to believe he is anywhere near that comp?

[Frobby]

But how is one second-hand data-point (based on subjective valuation) more reliable than objective professional performance data (with a prospect who also was credited with hyperbolic subjective valuation; i.e., A-Rod comps)?

In other words, why do we have any reason to believe he is anywhere near that comp?

I think the key point here is that the people Roy has talked to do not represent the consensus of the scouting community. He happens to have talked to some folks who think Bundy is a great prospect, maybe one of the best of the last decade. That's fine, they may have a solid basis for that opinion, but clearly there are other scouts (including some who work for Pittsburgh, Seattle and KC) who feel otherwise.

I am pretty sure that 30 teams out of 30 would have selected Steven Strasburg no. 1 if they had the chance.

[Larry18]

I hope the Bundy v. Strasburg debates continue for as long as the Palmer v. Seaver debates of my adolescence.

[Can_of_corn]

I think the key point here is that the people Roy has talked to do not represent the consensus of the scouting community. He happens to have talked to some folks who think Bundy is a great prospect, maybe one of the best of the last decade. That's fine, they may have a solid basis for that opinion, but clearly there are other scouts (including some who work for Pittsburgh, Seattle and KC) who feel otherwise.

I am pretty sure that 30 teams out of 30 would have selected Steven Strasburg no. 1 if they had the chance.

Teams pass on more talented players every draft because of money. Can you be sure that all 30 teams would have been willing to cut the check needed to sign him?

[mcgraw238]

If Bundy & Machado had been in the 2011 draft, who would have gone higher?

[Can_of_corn]

If Bundy & Machado had been in the 2011 draft, who would have gone higher?

The '11 draft was much deeper then the '10 draft.

Bundy.

[Frobby]

Teams pass on more talented players every draft because of money. Can you be sure that all 30 teams would have been willing to cut the check needed to sign him?

OK, fair point. What I really meant to say was that all 30 teams would have considered Strasburg to be the clear no. 1 talent in the draft. Not the case with Bundy, though I would not be surprised to hear that some teams felt that way.

[Frobby]

The '11 draft was much deeper then the '10 draft.

Bundy.

There is a difference between the draft being deeper, and the top 3-4 players being better. In 2010, many scouts felt that there was a steep drop-off after Machado. In 2011, the "top tier" was more like 6-7 deep, and the next tier was better than the 2010 next tier. But I don't think it is a given that Bundy would have been considered a better prospect than Machado by most scouts. I think there would have been a sharp division of opinion.

FWIW, Jim Callis put together a mid-season Top 50 that had Machado as the 5th best prospect in MLB, with Bundy 10th. http://www.baseballamerica.com/today/prospects/ask-ba/2011/2612064.html

[DrungoHazewood]

Teams pass on more talented players every draft because of money. Can you be sure that all 30 teams would have been willing to cut the check needed to sign him?

No, because there are still teams that aren't particularly bright.

On the original question, I think it has to be Machado. He's further along and has played well as, by far, the youngest player in his league. Bundy hasn't had an inning of pro ball, and he's a pitcher so there's a non-trivial chance that his arm falls off the day after tomorrow. You can make a case that Bundy has a higher ceiling, but it's hard to argue that he has a better chance at a significant major league career.

[CA-ORIOLE]

But how is one second-hand data-point (based on subjective valuation) more reliable than objective professional performance data (with a prospect who also was credited with hyperbolic subjective valuation; i.e., A-Rod comps)?

In other words, why do we have any reason to believe he is anywhere near that comp?

Fair point. Yeah, it's really matter of the scouting reports. Admittedly which, I have little to go off of. In this regard, I was relying somewhat on Roy's connections with respect to Bundy and what he was hearing (assuming they were professionals in the know).

Again, I generally don't regard objective data from the Sally League as all that meaningful (Machado certainly gets some points though). Below AA I'll pretty generally lean towards the scouts.

[Frobby]

Fair point. Yeah, it's really matter of the scouting reports. Admittedly which, I have little to go off of. In this regard, I was relying somewhat on Roy's connections with respect to Bundy and what he was hearing (assuming they were professionals in the know).

Again, I generally don't regard objective data from the Sally League as all that meaningful (Machado certainly gets some point though). Below AA I'll pretty generally lean towards the scouts.

I think that is fair enough. Neither Machado nor Schoop really did anything amazing with the bat at Frederick this year, so it's really their young ages plus what the scouts are saying that drive their high rankings.

I bet if you gave all 30 SD's a choice between Bundy or Machado, they would be closely divided. We're lucky, we don't have to choose which one to take, because we have both. All we're doing is opining in a poll.

[waroriole]

I give the slight edge to Bundy, but it's awesome to have both. We just need to do a better job in the 4-10 spots.