MLB.com Top 100: Machado #6, Bundy #10

[BobDylanBundy]

Haha, I wouldn't worry about Stotle reading enough Mayo, Stotle is one of those scouts that Mayo would be calling about guys. No, seriously, legit MLB scout, trust me when I tell you he knows who talks directly to people

I'm well aware of Stotle's background, but his current employment as a scout really has nothing to do with which online reporters he reads in his personal time.

Scouting directors and scouts are firsthand contributors - or, I'll even go one step further and say 'participants' - in Mayo's MLB.com content. There's no question that he has more direct access than most other news sources.

His shortcoming is one that most media have, it's almost 100% 2nd or 3rd hand info, he's not out there actually looking at guys and making conclusions, he's just compiling info from a bunch of great sources and making an educated decision from there. Nothing wrong with that, but you just have to know that when you read him so you don't mistake it for his own knowledge.

To be honest, I'd much prefer Mayo sticks to 'compiling great sources' than trying to push his own personal observations of the prospects.

Take someone like John Sickels, for example. Sickels does go out to 'scout' the players himself, and he admittedly writes decent articles which seem to make a fair amount of sense. But why should we credit any value to his reports? As far as I know, Sickels has no official scouting background. He is a reporter, not a scout. Whether he's 'right' or wrong, Sickels is not much more qualified to be offering scouting opinions than an educated fan. It doesn't matter that Sickels is reporting "his own knowledge", I have significantly less faith in his analyses than what you call "2nd hand" data from scouting directors, executives, and scouts used in places like BA and MLB.com (and for that matter, this very site).

This is not to say Sickels's writings offer no value at all. Sickels is knowledgeable about the game, and he's certainly achieved a higher degree of scouting competency than most reporters. But prospect reporting is only as good as the quality of the source material, and input directly from the actual teams trumps one writer's personal observations.

he's just compiling info from a bunch of great sources and making an educated decision from there

'Compiling' data from quality sources is really the only reasonable way to attempt efforts of outrageous scope like these prospect rankings.

With no disrespect intended towards anyone in particular, a single individual is severely limited in the amount of data they can collect by personally "looking at guys and making conclusions." The minor league season is less than 150 games; one person is only going to be able to scout limited sample sizes from a small percentage of prospects. The only way to even attempt to reasonably measure an entire universe of prospects is from talking to other scouts/coaches, watching video, crunching statistics, reading others' analyses, etc. In other words, at a most fundamental level.... compiling.

**Note: I'm talking about minor league prospects here. The various summer showcases do give individuals greater opportunity to scout large pools of top amateur talent.

Only by compiling data from multiple quality sources can you really draw a clear consensus on a prospect. Individual scouts are limited by time and geography (and assignment). Even individual teams are sometimes way off base in their evaluations of specific players, especially their own. You need input from scouting directors and scouts from all over baseball before a 'true' picture really emerges.

Extremely few news sources have the networks (and presumably, compensation flexibility) to be able to actually do this. Most are just regurgitating data they've collected from other sites. Mayo is one of the exceptions.

Cano has made worlds of improvement SINCE he made the ML, but when he was coming up, he's not that much different from Schoop actually. ..... Comps can confuse the issue more than they help, but I can see the train of thought there.

I do believe player comps are valuable tools in prospect evaluation. We've reached the point where individual characteristics in a player can be measured with a fair degree of concurrence across many evaluators. However, attempting to assign value to the complete package (of all of a player's characteristics combined together) requires some imagination. Identifying similar Major Leaguers does help us gauge the potential big league value a prospect could offer down the road.

*But* in order for player comps to work, they need to be rooted in similarities - physical traits, tools, skills, makeup, background/experience. In particular, you want them to match up for any significantly distinctive attributes. Player comps just don't take us anywhere if they don't start out with a basis for the comparison. "Major Leaguer X has a similar statline to what I expect from Prospect Y" contributes very little to our understanding of either player if there's no further reason to relate the players.

[allstar1579]

I'm well aware of Stotle's background, but his current employment as a scout really has nothing to do with which online reporters he reads in his personal time.

Scouting directors and scouts are firsthand contributors - or, I'll even go one step further and say 'participants' - in Mayo's MLB.com content. There's no question that he has more direct access than most other news sources.

He really doesn't have any extra access than other people, just other media members don't focus on the things that Mayo does. I don't want to make direct assessments second hand but I have heard before he's not as well connected as others actually.

To be honest, I'd much prefer Mayo sticks to 'compiling great sources' than trying to push his own personal observations of the prospects.

Take someone like John Sickels, for example. Sickels does go out to 'scout' the players himself, and he admittedly writes decent articles which seem to make a fair amount of sense. But why should we credit any value to his reports? As far as I know, Sickels has no official scouting background. He is a reporter, not a scout. Whether he's 'right' or wrong, Sickels is not much more qualified to be offering scouting opinions than an educated fan. It doesn't matter that Sickels is reporting "his own knowledge", I have significantly less faith in his analyses than what you call "2nd hand" data from scouting directors, executives, and scouts used in places like BA and MLB.com (and for that matter, this very site).

Because the key to what these guys are writing is that they actually understand what they are seeing. When you take a national writer in this area, and he says something about a prospect, it becomes gospel. Sickels does the exact same thing Mayo does, the only national writer I know for sure does any scouting himself is Law (could be wrong on this, but to my knowledge at least). So I don't know how you say that Sickels doesn't carry as much weight as Mayo.

This is not to say Sickels's writings offer no value at all. Sickels is knowledgeable about the game, and he's certainly achieved a higher degree of scouting competency than most reporters. But prospect reporting is only as good as the quality of the source material, and input directly from the actual teams trumps one writer's personal observations.

'Compiling' data from quality sources is really the only reasonable way to attempt efforts of outrageous scope like these prospect rankings.

With no disrespect intended towards anyone in particular, a single individual is severely limited in the amount of data they can collect by personally "looking at guys and making conclusions." The minor league season is less than 150 games; one person is only going to be able to scout limited sample sizes from a small percentage of prospects. The only way to even attempt to reasonably measure an entire universe of prospects is from talking to other scouts/coaches, watching video, crunching statistics, reading others' analyses, etc. In other words, at a most fundamental level.... compiling.

**Note: I'm talking about minor league prospects here. The various summer showcases do give individuals greater opportunity to scout large pools of top amateur talent.

But now you are talking about two different types of scouting, pro and amateur, and Mayo and Sickels both focus on the Amateur (with some pro stuff on lower level prospects done later during slower periods). Yes compiling is important in media assumptions as well as scouting itself. No one is saying one scout is the end all be all, they all have to take their data and pool up the ladders compiling with people further up to get to the point of an overall assessment. It is not however the only way to get a good read on a prospect. More eyes is always a good thing, but a good scout will see what you need to see with enough data.

Extremely few news sources have the networks (and presumably, compensation flexibility) to be able to actually do this. Most are just regurgitating data they've collected from other sites. Mayo is one of the exceptions.

I don't think many people take any of these sources you are talking about with more than a grain of salt besides BA, BP, and MLB.com, they all do the same thing. (Although I think some blogs and sites out there do a great job and are getting better every year like Diamondscape.)

I do believe player comps are valuable tools in prospect evaluation. We've reached the point where individual characteristics in a player can be measured with a fair degree of concurrence across many evaluators. However, attempting to assign value to the complete package (of all of a player's characteristics combined together) requires some imagination. Identifying similar Major Leaguers does help us gauge the potential big league value a prospect could offer down the road.

*But* in order for player comps to work, they need to be rooted in similarities - physical traits, tools, skills, makeup, background/experience. In particular, you want them to match up for any significantly distinctive attributes. Player comps just don't take us anywhere if they don't start out with a basis for the comparison. "Major Leaguer X has a similar statline to what I expect from Prospect Y" contributes very little to our understanding of either player if there's no further reason to relate the players.

Don't agree with you at all here. I don't care if two players are identical twins raised in the same environment, that doesn't mean they will be the same player. There are 100's of variables and no amount of guesswork really helps things. Comps are really just used as shorthand when someone who doesn't understand or want to know all the tiny little details wants to get a vague idea of what a player could turn out to be. I don't care how many similarities you use, there is nothing stopping someone who is built like and behaves like Barry Bonds from hitting like Austin Jackson. Too many individual qualities to be accurate with any certainty.

[Frobby]

Machado belongs higher than 30ish - he's a SS/3B who hit well against older competition in his first full pro season after being the #3 pick. However, I do agree you want a bit more ceiling from a Top 10 prospect. Jhonny Peralta might be his closest Major League comp - definitely a valuable building block, but not the superstar you'd expect a Top 10 prospect to develop into.

Substitute "hope" for "expect" in the last sentence here. Baseball doesn't produce 10 superstars every year, hence you can't "expect" every top 10 prospect to be a superstar. In the 47 years of the draft, only 8 players who were picked at no. 3 overall accumulated 20+ rWAR -- Yount, Molitor, Matt Williams, Lonnie Smith, Glaus, Longoria, Jose Cruz, and Joe Coleman. How many of those were "superstars?" And Peralta, at 21.7 rWAR, is already ahead of Coleman and just 0.3 rWAR behind Cruz. So, if Machado turns into Peralta, he's well ahead of the game.

[LookinUp]

I have a very good feeling that he will, and I think the prognosticators are lagging in that perception. Hopefully I'm right on this one. His best-case comp (if only in trajectory) is Robbie Cano.

I*But* in order for player comps to work, they need to be rooted in similarities - physical traits, tools, skills, makeup, background/experience. In particular, you want them to match up for any significantly distinctive attributes. Player comps just don't take us anywhere if they don't start out with a basis for the comparison. "Major Leaguer X has a similar statline to what I expect from Prospect Y" contributes very little to our understanding of either player if there's no further reason to relate the players.

You simply missed my point.

Robbie Cano was under the radar as a prospect. I think Schoop is under the radar as a prospect. This is why I said "if only in trajectory." I think Schoop has a good chance to outperform current expectations from national guys. This is the only comp I was trying to draw.

[BobDylanBundy]

Sickels does the exact same thing Mayo does, the only national writer I know for sure does any scouting himself is Law (could be wrong on this, but to my knowledge at least). So I don't know how you say that Sickels doesn't carry as much weight as Mayo.

At the risk of being blunt... yes, you are wrong on this. If you've read his articles, you'd see Sickels openly attempts to do scouting himself, which is completely opposite from Mayo. Sickels doesn't carry as much weight as Mayo because he fails to acknowledge his own limitations - IMO, one of the most important features in an analyst/reporter.

Below is an example of a Sickels scouting report from last summer. This was just the first Google result for "john sickels scouting", there's dozens (possibly hundreds) more. You'll notice he's called out by one of his own readers for confusing a slider and a curveball. Further evidence, that it's a good thing that Mayo is not publishing "his own knowledge".

http://www.minorleagueball.com/2011/8/22/2377522/scouting-report-mike-montgomery-lhp-kansas-city-royals

"Mike Montgomery Scouting Report

I went up to Omaha this past weekend and saw the Stormchasers in action against the Nashville Sounds. Mike Montgomery pitched the Saturday game, and here are some observations on the Kansas City Royals prospect.

Montgomery seems to have smoothed out his delivery from the last time I saw him in the Arizona Fall League. He still has some noticeable stiffness with the way his right leg lands, but he was repeating his delivery fine in this game, at least from the second inning on. Montgomery went seven innings, allowing seven hits and four runs, walking one and fanning six. All four runs were given up in the first inning.

In that inning, Montgomery's fastball was 90-92 MPH, thrown high in the zone with little movement. His slider was flat, and he was telegraphing his curveball; you could tell it was going to be the curve before he released it. He was fooling nobody, his location was off, and he gave up the four runs. However, in the second inning, and for the rest of the game, he looked like a different pitcher. His fastball kicked up to 91-93, with life low in the strike zone. His slider got much sharper, he did a better job selling the curveball, and he mixed in some solid changeups."

I don't think many people take any of these sources you are talking about with more than a grain of salt besides BA, BP, and MLB.com, they all do the same thing.

BP is a significantly smaller operation than people realize. I believe they fall into the 'regurgitators' category (and don't attempt to deny it). The thing with large scope prospect reporting is that you need substantial amounts of detailed scouting data from many, many sources - which either costs lots of money, or requires a situation like Mayo has in which the team and/or MLB has a vested interest in the success of his website.

I'm sure there's others, but you left out these sites which are definitely on the map...

Baseball Instinct - posted by respected O's Hangout owner

FanGraphs

ESPN (Keith Law/Jim Bowden)

MiLB + Minor League Ball (John Sickels)

Perfect Game (David Rawnsley)

Baseball-Intellect - might consider this one of your blogs

I don't care if two players are identical twins raised in the same environment, that doesn't mean they will be the same player. There are 100's of variables and no amount of guesswork really helps things. ..... I don't care how many similarities you use, there is nothing stopping someone who is built like and behaves like Barry Bonds from hitting like Austin Jackson.

No you're not going to find an identical match, but you can draw enough to help forecast how a particular profile projects to the majors. Noting the differences is indeed a very important piece of the comparison.

Substitute "hope" for "expect" in the last sentence here. Baseball doesn't produce 10 superstars every year, hence you can't "expect" every top 10 prospect to be a superstar.

Baseball also doesn't graduate all 10 top 10 prospects every year. Machado himself will probably appear on at least 4 years of top prospects lists.

I do agree that Jhonny Peralta is a valuable player, and a positive outcome for Machado to resemble in the big leagues. However, looks like I have higher expectations of top prospects than you.

You simply missed my point. Robbie Cano was under the radar as a prospect. I think Schoop is under the radar as a prospect. This is why I said "if only in trajectory." I think Schoop has a good chance to outperform current expectations from national guys. This is the only comp I was trying to draw.

That logic doesn't really work for me....

"Ryan Howard was under the radar as a prospect. Tyler Townsend is under the radar as a prospect. Ryan Howard must be the best case trajectory for Tyler Townsend."

[Frobby]

Baseball also doesn't graduate all 10 top 10 prospects every year. Machado himself will probably appear on at least 4 years of top prospects lists.

Fair point here, though there's not as much overlap as you think. Over the last 4 years, 34 different players have appeared on BA's top 10 list. Machado wasn't there last year so I doubt he'll appear on it four times. The guys who appeared twice were Montero, Heyward, Feliz, Price, Rasmus and Maybin.

Also, my point about the "superstar rate" with no. 3 overall picks remains true.

I'm hoping Machado will be a true superstar, of course. It's just a bit much to say I expect it. I expect him to be a very good major league player, and I'm hoping for more.

[LookinUp]

That logic doesn't really work for me....

"Ryan Howard was under the radar as a prospect. Tyler Townsend is under the radar as a prospect. Ryan Howard must be the best case trajectory for Tyler Townsend."

You're missing the logic.

I'm not saying: Schoop is a low rated prospect. So was Cano. But Cano turned out great so Schoop must too. By that logic, every low rated 2B would turn out to be a Cano. That's what you're saying with Townsend and Howard.

What I am saying is I think Schoop is better than he's rated, similar to Cano in the minors.

[allstar1579]

At the risk of being blunt... yes, you are wrong on this. If you've read his articles, you'd see Sickels openly attempts to do scouting himself, which is completely opposite from Mayo. Sickels doesn't carry as much weight as Mayo because he fails to acknowledge his own limitations - IMO, one of the most important features in an analyst/reporter.

Below is an example of a Sickels scouting report from last summer. This was just the first Google result for "john sickels scouting", there's dozens (possibly hundreds) more. You'll notice he's called out by one of his own readers for confusing a slider and a curveball. Further evidence, that it's a good thing that Mayo is not publishing "his own knowledge".

http://www.minorleagueball.com/2011/8/22/2377522/scouting-report-mike-montgomery-lhp-kansas-city-royals

"Mike Montgomery Scouting Report

I went up to Omaha this past weekend and saw the Stormchasers in action against the Nashville Sounds. Mike Montgomery pitched the Saturday game, and here are some observations on the Kansas City Royals prospect.

Montgomery seems to have smoothed out his delivery from the last time I saw him in the Arizona Fall League. He still has some noticeable stiffness with the way his right leg lands, but he was repeating his delivery fine in this game, at least from the second inning on. Montgomery went seven innings, allowing seven hits and four runs, walking one and fanning six. All four runs were given up in the first inning.

In that inning, Montgomery's fastball was 90-92 MPH, thrown high in the zone with little movement. His slider was flat, and he was telegraphing his curveball; you could tell it was going to be the curve before he released it. He was fooling nobody, his location was off, and he gave up the four runs. However, in the second inning, and for the rest of the game, he looked like a different pitcher. His fastball kicked up to 91-93, with life low in the strike zone. His slider got much sharper, he did a better job selling the curveball, and he mixed in some solid changeups."

I'm not sure how this is showing he doesn't understand his shortcomings. He went out and just reported what he saw, there is nothing wrong with that. Some of us in the game that know what we are doing would much rather read the facts he saw and use that data then to see a paraphrased report like others do. (Including Mayo) Like you said, he compiles data from all kinds of sources and then paraphrases them into his own report. If the issue we aren't getting here is where the data comes from, it comes from the same place, Sickels might go catch someone here or there (your example was also an example of pro scouting which is much more just writing what you are seeing and less projecting like amateur scouting is) but the majority of his work is just like Mayo, talking to scouting directors and scouts and compiling reports. I don't know if you are trying to say Mayo is a better journalist, therefore his work is better, or that Mayo uses better data or what. You've got me a little confused.

BP is a significantly smaller operation than people realize. I believe they fall into the 'regurgitators' category (and don't attempt to deny it). The thing with large scope prospect reporting is that you need substantial amounts of detailed scouting data from many, many sources - which either costs lots of money, or requires a situation like Mayo has in which the team and/or MLB has a vested interest in the success of his website.

BP falls into the same category as BA (although it is smaller) and Mayo. They all use the pool of scouts/contacts that are employed by teams to get their information and them pool them into assessments. The difference in assessments comes down to what contacts each has. Some may have more in one way and less in another, it's all about their networking, and when it comes to individual manpower I don't know that Mayo has anymore to use than the other two, MLB isn't going to pay for much more of a staff than the other two, and the contacts they have are all employed by the individual teams not MLB. The only extra access I can see Mayo getting is access to the MLB employed writers for each team, but anything they have is just even more 2nd hand and 3rd hand knowledge so I don't see how that would help much in this field.

I'm sure there's others, but you left out these sites which are definitely on the map...

Baseball Instinct - posted by respected O's Hangout owner

FanGraphs

ESPN (Keith Law/Jim Bowden)

MiLB + Minor League Ball (John Sickels)

Perfect Game (David Rawnsley)

Baseball-Intellect - might consider this one of your blogs

Yeah there are a ton of smaller ones out there like I said that are good in their own ways. I would throw Camden Depot in that mix as well. With some of those I don't give much attention or weight and others of them have some good contributions from time to time.

No you're not going to find an identical match, but you can draw enough to help forecast how a particular profile projects to the majors. Noting the differences is indeed a very important piece of the comparison.

You aren't going to find a scout or a major "reporter" like Law, Goldstein, Sickels or Mayo that agree with you on comps.

[SrMeowMeow]

In my head I have the impression that Machado is a very good prospect whose ceiling is a tick below elite and grounded thoroughly in the hopefully decent chance he sticks at shortstop. I never got the impression his bat was "special." But I have no sources for this. How far off base am I?

[Birdfan21]

In my head I have the impression that Machado is a very good prospect whose ceiling is a tick below elite and grounded thoroughly in the hopefully decent chance he sticks at shortstop. I never got the impression his bat was "special." But I have no sources for this. How far off base am I?

Sounds about right to me. Under the impression that the bat is excellent for SS but not so much for 3B (just above average). Also, if there is doubt about him sticking at SS, you would think he'd have to switch to 3B at some point in his major league career. Are you now just wasting time when you could be developing his 3B defensive skill?

I understand that you play him at SS if you can because of the inherent value a good hitting SS brings. Just wondering if he should be taking some reps at 3B as well. Maybe during infield drills or a game per week.

[BobDylanBundy]

I'm not sure how this is showing he doesn't understand his shortcomings.

This was just a random example. You said Sickels doesn't do his own scouting. I posted "Mike Montgomery Scouting Report by John Sickels" to prove that he does. That's all it was intended to show.

Some of us in the game that know what we are doing would much rather read the facts he saw and use that data then to see a paraphrased report like others do.

There's two problems - or, I'll say 'limitations' - with just looking at one report, instead of compiling data from many (qualified) sources.

For one, one set of eyes isn't going to capture the same observations as another, and personal biases are an inescapable part of being human. If the Orioles are considering drafting Mark Appel, they're not going to send out one scout then make their decision based on a single report. They're going to send an army of scouts to the same starts, then meet and compile everyone's feedback.

I need to apologize in advance for hammering you with a boatload of cliches to communicate my second issue. Baseball is a game of adjustments, environmental factors can heavily influence a single snapshot, and males go through significant physical changes in their teens and early 20's. Most truths about prospects are only going to reveal themselves over time, one snapshot doesn't give you the kind of data you need for the grand scale prospect valuation done in these rankings.

I don't know if you are trying to say Mayo is a better journalist, therefore his work is better, or that Mayo uses better data or what.

I'm saying Mayo sticks to being a journalist, while Sickels tries to be a journalist and a scout. He's got a pretty good background in sports journalism, still not convinced of what qualifies him as a scout.

Out of fairness, I'll say Sickels does incorporate statistical analysis into some of his articles, which is noticeably absent from Mayo's work. Every reporter has their strengths and weaknesses.

Yeah there are a ton of smaller ones out there like I said that are good in their own ways.

Not sure ESPN and MinorLeagueBaseball can be considered "smaller ones" but I get your point.

Fair point here, though there's not as much overlap as you think. Over the last 4 years, 34 different players have appeared on BA's top 10 list.

Thanks for doing that analysis. Interesting results, certainly is a lot more turnover than I expected!

Also, my point about the "superstar rate" with no. 3 overall picks remains true.

Trying to establish any kind of analysis on a specific draft position is a slippery slope (let alone using rWAR to compare across multiple decades).

Among the many problems with an approach like that...

-The #3 pick often is not the third best player at the time of the draft. Draft position is commonly influenced by signability, team priorities/prejudices, and in the past scouting resources. Using the logic you've put forth, there should be greater expectations of a #10 pick (9 with 20+ rWAR) than a #3 pick.

-Talent greatly fluctuates between draft pools. Christian Colon went 4th overall in 2010, where would he have gone in 2011?

-Only 9 #4 picks have gained higher than 20 rWAR. Does that mean Dylan Bundy has exceeded expectations if he performs like Doug Davis?

-How many #3 picks required a $5.25M bonus like Machado or how many #4 picks required a $4M bonus like Bundy? Expectations should be commensurate with the specific prospect, not the draft position. IMO, your point only proves that draft position (alone) is a poor gauge of value.

You're missing the logic. I'm not saying: Schoop is a low rated prospect. So was Cano. But Cano turned out great so Schoop must too. By that logic, every low rated 2B would turn out to be a Cano. That's what you're saying with Townsend and Howard. What I am saying is I think Schoop is better than he's rated, similar to Cano in the minors.

Tyler Townsend was a 3rd round pick who hit .317/.358/.583 at Hi-A. He failed to make BA's Top 10 and was rated 24th by O's Hangout. I think both sources were responsible in where they ranked him due to some of the risks/uncertainty, but there's no denying he's got some monstrous offensive tools. You don't think he's better than rated?

By comparison, Ryan Howard was a 5th round pick who was also in Hi-A at the same age as Townsend. Howard hit .304/.374/.514 that season, and had never made a Top 100 prospects list.

Both Townsend and Howard were underrated (and somewhat underachieving) at this stage in their careers, with the potential for significant breakthrough. That doesn't mean the peak trajectory on Townsend includes 45+ HR power in the majors.

Are you now just wasting time when you could be developing his 3B defensive skill? I understand that you play him at SS if you can because of the inherent value a good hitting SS brings. Just wondering if he should be taking some reps at 3B as well. Maybe during infield drills or a game per week.

You raise a good point, and that's one of the primary reasons I believe the O's aren't giving as much consideration to moving him as others believe. The O's aren't shy about experimenting with Minor Leaguers at different positions, yet Machado has played exclusively SS**. They also just invested a 2nd round pick in a glove-first 3B (a lot easier to keep Machado at SS with a plus defensive 3B instead of Chris Davis and Mark Reynolds).

**But perhaps they just didn't want him to deal with multiple positions in his first full pro season (Schoop played exclusively SS two years ago). This season will tell a lot.

Everyone points to Duquette's FanFest comment, but that was taken entirely out of context when posted on this forum and other sites. The fan didn't ask for an analysis of Machado's chances of remaining at SS, they asked, "Will J.J. Hardy move to 2nd or 3rd when Machado is ready for the majors?" Duquette's response was to defend his 30-HR veteran SS, I think he would have made the same exact comments about any other Hi-A SS regardless of fielding expectations. A better structured question would have received a more telling answer.

[allstar1579]

This was just a random example. You said Sickels doesn't do his own scouting. I posted "Mike Montgomery Scouting Report by John Sickels" to prove that he does. That's all it was intended to show.

There's two problems - or, I'll say 'limitations' - with just looking at one report, instead of compiling data from many (qualified) sources.

For one, one set of eyes isn't going to capture the same observations as another, and personal biases are an inescapable part of being human. If the Orioles are considering drafting Mark Appel, they're not going to send out one scout then make their decision based on a single report. They're going to send an army of scouts to the same starts, then meet and compile everyone's feedback.

Right, and I said that too, I would never try to scout a player using input from just one guy and trusting his opinion, just saying that his "report" (and I wouldn't call that a real scouting report, just a journalist attempt at one) had good facts and numbers to use, much more useful than one of these guys going out and saying, oh this pitch looked good, and that one looked ok, so he's a good pitcher. I like when they think enough to use velocity, the type of break, where things end up versus right and left handers, whether they use it as a swing and miss pitch or pitch to contact...things like that.

I think there is plenty of room to say that we are both right in our own way here.

I need to apologize in advance for hammering you with a boatload of cliches to communicate my second issue. Baseball is a game of adjustments, environmental factors can heavily influence a single snapshot, and males go through significant physical changes in their teens and early 20's. Most truths about prospects are only going to reveal themselves over time, one snapshot doesn't give you the kind of data you need for the grand scale prospect valuation done in these rankings.

Preaching to the preacher on this one, but in the end these rankings should be taken as lightly as possible since like you said, the full picture you need is going to have to come over multiple years, not a snapshot of where they were before the draft and where you THINK they will be 7 months later after maybe or maybe not throwing a professional pitch.

I'm saying Mayo sticks to being a journalist, while Sickels tries to be a journalist and a scout. He's got a pretty good background in sports journalism, still not convinced of what qualifies him as a scout.

Out of fairness, I'll say Sickels does incorporate statistical analysis into some of his articles, which is noticeably absent from Mayo's work. Every reporter has their strengths and weaknesses.

Fair enough. I don't really think of Sickels as anything of a scout either (like I said originally I didn't even know that he was going out and seeing people). I don't think I'm really big time or anything but I'm pretty sure I would do a better job than he would. Like you said, he's a journalist in the end.

Trying to establish any kind of analysis on a specific draft position is a slippery slope (let alone using rWAR to compare across multiple decades).

Among the many problems with an approach like that...

-The #3 pick often is not the third best player at the time of the draft. Draft position is commonly influenced by signability, team priorities/prejudices, and in the past scouting resources. Using the logic you've put forth, there should be greater expectations of a #10 pick (9 with 20+ rWAR) than a #3 pick.

-Talent greatly fluctuates between draft pools. Christian Colon went 4th overall in 2010, where would he have gone in 2011?

-Only 9 #4 picks have gained higher than 20 rWAR. Does that mean Dylan Bundy has exceeded expectations if he performs like Doug Davis?

-How many #3 picks required a $5.25M bonus like Machado or how many #4 picks required a $4M bonus like Bundy? Expectations should be commensurate with the specific prospect, not the draft position. IMO, your point only proves that draft position (alone) is a poor gauge of value.

Agree with all of this.

Tyler Townsend was a 3rd round pick who hit .317/.358/.583 at Hi-A. He failed to make BA's Top 10 and was rated 24th by O's Hangout. I think both sources were responsible in where they ranked him due to some of the risks/uncertainty, but there's no denying he's got some monstrous offensive tools. You don't think he's better than rated?

By comparison, Ryan Howard was a 5th round pick who was also in Hi-A at the same age as Townsend. Howard hit .304/.374/.514 that season, and had never made a Top 100 prospects list.

Both Townsend and Howard were underrated (and somewhat underachieving) at this stage in their careers, with the potential for significant breakthrough. That doesn't mean the peak trajectory on Townsend includes 45+ HR power in the majors.

As someone who saw Howard a lot when he was first breaking out as a prospect in AA, I can tell you he still had some issues, and there was a lot of debate if they were going to trade him or Thome for 1B that year. He was still having a terrible time with outside breaking balls, although he had legit 70+ power, the hit tool was looking shaky. I wouldn't say Townsend has more than maybe 50-55 power, but his hit tool is better than where Ryan was. That being said at 1B if you aren't coming out of the gate with 60-70 power, it's not looking good.

You raise a good point, and that's one of the primary reasons I believe the O's aren't giving as much consideration to moving him as others believe. The O's aren't shy about experimenting with Minor Leaguers at different positions, yet Machado has played exclusively SS**. They also just invested a 2nd round pick in a glove-first 3B (a lot easier to keep Machado at SS with a plus defensive 3B instead of Chris Davis and Mark Reynolds).

**But perhaps they just didn't want him to deal with multiple positions in his first full pro season (Schoop played exclusively SS two years ago). This season will tell a lot.

Everyone points to Duquette's FanFest comment, but that was taken entirely out of context when posted on this forum and other sites. The fan didn't ask for an analysis of Machado's chances of remaining at SS, they asked, "Will J.J. Hardy move to 2nd or 3rd when Machado is ready for the majors?" Duquette's response was to defend his 30-HR veteran SS, I think he would have made the same exact comments about any other Hi-A SS regardless of fielding expectations. A better structured question would have received a more telling answer.

I think a lot of the movement you've seen is misleading. I think they moved Schoop because they thought he'd profile as a 2B and wanted to pair him and Manny in the same INF and let them develop together, and that was part of why they ended the Hoes at 2B experiment. Trickle down effect, but if it were say Colon instead of Machado in the system it'd have been Colon at 2B and Schoop at SS. Sounds like they are committed to Machado-Schoop at SS-2B.