MLB.com's Top 100

[Greg Pappas]

http://m.mlb.com/prospects/2019?list=prospects

• Grayson Rodriguez jumped 36 spots (the most spots up in the list) to #54.
• Ryan Mountcastle is at #56 (+2)
• DL Hall is at #67 (+1)

[ChuckS]

39 minutes ago, Cy Bundy said:

I was informed that it wasn’t possible to have Mountcastle above Hall or Grayson. 

Of course it's possible since all of these rankings are subjective. 

I believe Mountcastle's awful walk rate and positional inflexibility limit his upside.  I don't see Hall and Grayson having the same glaring limits in their games.  They are clearly ahead of Mountcastle IMO, but I guess you can make the argument for Mountcastle if you want to focus on his power potential and the fact that he's much closer to the big leagues.  

Both Adam Jones and Jonathan Schoop drew significantly more walks than Mountcastle when they were in the minors, for point of reference.  

On a side note,  Adam actually had pretty good walk rates in the minors.  Not sure what happened when he got to the big leagues.  He has full minor league seasons of .297 (AVG) .370 (OBP) and .314 .382.  

[MurphDogg]

Only 5 teams have more top-100 players than the Orioles, although all 4 are in the bottom half. 

[Can_of_corn]

2 minutes ago, MurphDogg said:

Only 5 teams have more top-100 players than the Orioles, although all 4 are in the bottom half. 

And AR will drop right into the top half as soon as he's eligible.

[WalkWithElias]

6 hours ago, Cy Bundy said:

I was informed that it wasn’t possible to have Mountcastle above Hall or Grayson. 

The difference between #56 and #67 is personal preference. Based on age and raw talent, Hall has more upside than Mountcastle, but based on Mountcastle's performance in AAA and successful switched to 1B, he has a much lower floor. I'm fairly confident he'll be a useful major league regular. Hall could be special. He could also ultimately end up a power left handed reliever. Let's hope for the former. 

[sportsfan8703]

7 hours ago, Can_of_corn said:

And AR will drop right into the top half as soon as he's eligible.

AR will be top 10. I don’t see too many of the recent draftees being above Mountcastle, Hall, Rodriguez. 10+ players will likely lose their prospect status until they do a complete overhaul at season’s end. Meaning just by attrition we’ll likely have 4 in the top 50 at some point. Arbitrary, but will likely happen. 

[baltfan]

1 hour ago, sportsfan8703 said:

AR will be top 10. I don’t see too many of the recent draftees being above Mountcastle, Hall, Rodriguez. 10+ players will likely lose their prospect status until they do a complete overhaul at season’s end. Meaning just by attrition we’ll likely have 4 in the top 50 at some point. Arbitrary, but will likely happen. 

They said on their podcast AR is likely top 15

[LookinUp]

19 hours ago, Cy Bundy said:

I was informed that it wasn’t possible to have Mountcastle above Hall or Grayson. 

The only reason Mountcastle is higher is he's 5 minutes away from being a good hitter in the show. The other two are years away from hopefully being better than good in the pro's. It's about probability, not profile. 

Personally, there's no way I'm placing Mountcastle higher than Hall or Grayson at this point. We already have two comparable bats (one better, one a little worse) at his position in the majors.

[LookinUp]

1 hour ago, Cy Bundy said:

How did he get there? 

 

By being a good hitter despite failing at positions with defensive value.

[LookinUp]

Just now, Cy Bundy said:

So the only reason he is there is his performance. Interesting.

I never said anything to the contrary. He has earned his prospect status. I'm not knocking that. I'm particularly impressed he's done this at the age he has and think he still has more upside.

I like Mountcastle. I absolutely think he can be a good player on a good team. I value that for sure.

I do also question whether he's a profile we want to build around, because I think we can find comparable players relatively easily. I feel like his arm strength will make him a liability at any position other than 1B, and his lack of walks puts a ceiling on his overall hitting potential. He's a good asset. I don't think it does us any good to over state that.

[Frobby]

20 hours ago, ChuckS said:

I believe Mountcastle's awful walk rate and positional inflexibility limit his upside.  I don't see Hall and Grayson having the same glaring limits in their games.  

Here’s what I don’t understand: you blast Mountcastle for his “awful walk rate,” but then gloss over the fact that Hall is walking 6.8 batters per 9 IP in high A ball!

Looking at the numbers in a slightly different way, the average walk rate in the Carolina League is 9.6%, while Hall is at 16.8%.    The average walk rate in the International League is 9.1%, while Mountcastle is at 3.4%.    If Mountcastle’s 5.7% variance from average is a problem, why isn’t Hall’s 7.2% variance from average a problem?

To take it a step further, Mountcastle’s .832 OPS is well above the .788 league average despite his propensity not to walk. Meanwhile, Hall’s .4.08 ERA is worse than the league average of 3.79.    So if anything, I’d say the “walk problem” is a bigger issue for Hall at the moment than it is for Mountcastle.   

By the way, I’m not necessarily arguing that Mountcastle is the better prospect.   I just don’t understand how people can downgrade him for his “walk problem” and yet ignore that Hall has big problems in that area.   

[LookinUp]

1 hour ago, Frobby said:

By the way, I’m not necessarily arguing that Mountcastle is the better prospect.   I just don’t understand how people can downgrade him for his “walk problem” and yet ignore that Hall has big problems in that area.   

Speaking for myself, Hall's walk rate does look like a problem, but one I see a lot of pitching prospects go through. However, if it persists over time, he looks more like a Chris Tillman type than a lock down #1/2 starter. So it's definitely a concern to some degree, and that's why it's even plausible that Mountcastle is a better prospect. After all, if Hall's BB rate and ERA were like last year's, we'd be looking at a top 20 guy. That's what we're all hoping for, but it hasn't panned out yet this year.

Those concerns are largely independent of Mountcastle's walk rate  issues. They should no doubt dampen our projections. I don't point it out to be negative. I point it out to try to put the proper expectation on a player as best as I can from an internet message board. 

[Aristotelian]

1 hour ago, Frobby said:

Here’s what I don’t understand: you blast Mountcastle for his “awful walk rate,” but then gloss over the fact that Hall is walking 6.8 batters per 9 IP in high A ball!

Looking at the numbers in a slightly different way, the average walk rate in the Carolina League is 9.6%, while Hall is at 16.8%.    The average walk rate in the International League is 9.1%, while Mountcastle is at 3.4%.    If Mountcastle’s 5.7% variance from average is a problem, why isn’t Hall’s 7.2% variance from average a problem?

To take it a step further, Mountcastle’s .832 OPS is well above the .788 league average despite his propensity not to walk. Meanwhile, Hall’s .4.08 ERA is worse than the league average of 3.79.    So if anything, I’d say the “walk problem” is a bigger issue for Hall at the moment than it is for Mountcastle.   

By the way, I’m not necessarily arguing that Mountcastle is the better prospect.   I just don’t understand how people can downgrade him for his “walk problem” and yet ignore that Hall has big problems in that area.   

If Hall is still walking 6.8/9 in AAA, yes, I would be down on him. It's certainly concerning.

[ChuckS]

1 hour ago, Frobby said:

Here’s what I don’t understand: you blast Mountcastle for his “awful walk rate,” but then gloss over the fact that Hall is walking 6.8 batters per 9 IP in high A ball!

Looking at the numbers in a slightly different way, the average walk rate in the Carolina League is 9.6%, while Hall is at 16.8%.    The average walk rate in the International League is 9.1%, while Mountcastle is at 3.4%.    If Mountcastle’s 5.7% variance from average is a problem, why isn’t Hall’s 7.2% variance from average a problem?

To take it a step further, Mountcastle’s .832 OPS is well above the .788 league average despite his propensity not to walk. Meanwhile, Hall’s .4.08 ERA is worse than the league average of 3.79.    So if anything, I’d say the “walk problem” is a bigger issue for Hall at the moment than it is for Mountcastle.   

By the way, I’m not necessarily arguing that Mountcastle is the better prospect.   I just don’t understand how people can downgrade him for his “walk problem” and yet ignore that Hall has big problems in that area.   

Hall's stuff is elite for a LH starter and I think his command has a better chance to improve to acceptable levels than Mountcastle's walk rate given his age and the natural trajectory of pitchers.   

I'm not sure there is anything elite about what Mountcastle brings to the first base position.  Power hitting first baseman are very common and most of them can get on base at a decent clip.  Mountcastle's walk rate is always going to limit his OPS potential.  

[Frobby]

1 hour ago, ChuckS said:

Hall's stuff is elite for a LH starter and I think his command has a better chance to improve to acceptable levels than Mountcastle's walk rate given his age and the natural trajectory of pitchers.   

I'm not sure there is anything elite about what Mountcastle brings to the first base position.  Power hitting first baseman are very common and most of them can get on base at a decent clip.  Mountcastle's walk rate is always going to limit his OPS potential.  

I think this is a cogent argument for why Hall should be ranked ahead of Mountcastle.   But I always shudder when people discount a pitcher’s command problems.    Walks limit effectiveness, and balls lead to high pitch counts and early exits.    And in case you haven’t noticed, it’s been a huge problem his last two starts.   Hopefully he overcomes that issue, but many pitchers don’t.