Three O's in BA Top 100

[MurphDogg]

Baseball America released their Top 100 list today, three Orioles made the list, all three in the top 50. No Hays or Mountcastle.

5. Rutschman

35. Grayson Rodriguez

47. DL Hall

[Jammer7]

55 minutes ago, MurphDogg said:

Baseball America released their Top 100 list today, three Orioles made the list, all three in the top 50. No Hays or Mountcastle.

5. Rutschman

35. Grayson Rodriguez

47. DL Hall

Just finished reading that article. A bit surprised, at first, that Mountcastle and Hays did not make the list. As I read on, it seems that BA values more contact and plate discipline than these two have. It is hard to understand that 100 prospects are more valuable than a 22 year old kid who dominated AAA last year and was the International League POY. He had a great year offensively and expanded his profile to a corner OF spot, and fell about 20 spots on the list...wow. He supposedly was in the next five after the top 100. 

Hays may end up the Rookie of the Year, but it is fair that he was not in the top 100. Injuries and plate discipline, along with mediocre results last year in the minors, certainly hurt his case. He was in the "next 98," according to BA. Mountcastle, Hays and Yusniel Diaz were all on the "just-missed" list. 

[Frobby]

I’m a little surprised Mountcastle fell off the list after having a very solid year at Norfolk.    I’m not concerned about it, however.   He is what he is and we’ll see him in Baltimore soon enough.    

[Frobby]

1 hour ago, RZNJ said:

You are talking about a player who has not proven himself at a defensive position and at best is either a LF or 1B and one who has a HUGE red flag in his offensive game.   And his numbers last year must be taken in the context of the huge offensive explosion in AAA last year.   We hope for the best but I certainly can see why he's a fringe 100 guy in most rankings.

I realize his numbers were just “pretty good” in the context of the league, but he also was one of the youngest players in the league.   6th youngest among players with at least 98 at bats.   (Don’t ask me why 98 at bats, that’s where BB-ref drew their line.)   https://www.baseball-reference.com/register/leader.cgi?type=bat&id=d8c9afa1

[sportsfan8703]

1 hour ago, Frobby said:

I’m a little surprised Mountcastle fell off the list after having a very solid year at Norfolk.    I’m not concerned about it, however.   He is what he is and we’ll see him in Baltimore soon enough.    

That's a very good way of thinking about it.  Hays and Mountcastle are what they are.  Hays is already in Baltimore and Mountcastle isn't far behind.  We won't need lists to tell us how good these players are.  We'll be able to tell that by watching them everyday.  

I always think lists are kind of funny... Once a player reaches a certain amount of innings/days/PA in the MLB then they lose their prospect status, and then all of a sudden somebody has to become a "top 100 prospect" to replace them.  

[sportsfan8703]

1 hour ago, RZNJ said:

Dominated is a much overused word around these parts.   He obviously had a very good year and won the MVP but he certainly did not dominate.   

He was 11th in OPS.

5th  in RBI

11th in home runs

3rd in doubles

1st in total bases

19th highest in strikeouts

115th in walks

Very, very solid numbers.   Domination?   Nope.

First in total bases while being 115th in walks.  That's pretty funny.  Let's hope the walks were just because he could reach everything in AAA.  

[Frobby]

Just now, sportsfan8703 said:

That's a very good way of thinking about it.  Hays and Mountcastle are what they are.  Hays is already in Baltimore and Mountcastle isn't far behind.  We won't need lists to tell us how good these players are.  We'll be able to tell that by watching them everyday.  

I always think lists are kind of funny... Once a player reaches a certain amount of innings/days/PA in the MLB then they lose their prospect status, and then all of a sudden somebody has to become a "top 100 prospect" to replace them.  

Yeah, that’s how I look at this.   One of the sites (BP?) publishes a list of the team’s top players 25 or under — it doesn’t matter if they’ve reached the majors or are still in the minors.    I’m not going to worry that our farm system has gotten weaker because some prospect has graduated successfully.   I’m far more concerned with how they perform at the major league level.   

[sportsfan8703]

6 minutes ago, Frobby said:

Yeah, that’s how I look at this.   One of the sites (BP?) publishes a list of the team’s top players 25 or under — it doesn’t matter if they’ve reached the majors or are still in the minors.    I’m not going to worry that our farm system has gotten weaker because some prospect has graduated successfully.   I’m far more concerned with how they perform at the major league level.   

True.  15 months from now and everyone in AA/AAA/AR, could be in the MLB and we're back to having one of the worst systems in baseball.  It's all subjective, but that is where participating in the Dominican can really help.  

[Just Regular]

Just holding serve the Big Three's 5/35/47 might grow into something like 3/15/30 (1/10/20 a dream scenario) with 2020's pick 1-2 perhaps 50ish.  Baumann, Kremer and Diaz swing guys for back half of next year's lists if they get the Mountcastle Treatment.  That'll likely be the highwater mark of the Orioles Farm in the rebuild before Rutschman presumably graduates the list sometime in 2021.  The Big Two pitchers too by then, though that could be in a good way or a bad way.

An organic breakout and a good Mancini trade might give a shot at nine Top 100 O's next year.

[MurphDogg]

1 hour ago, OrioleDog said:

Just holding serve the Big Three's 5/35/47 might grow into something like 3/15/30 (1/10/20 a dream scenario) with 2020's pick 1-2 perhaps 50ish.  Baumann, Kremer and Diaz swing guys for back half of next year's lists if they get the Mountcastle Treatment.  That'll likely be the highwater mark of the Orioles Farm in the rebuild before Rutschman presumably graduates the list sometime in 2021.  The Big Two pitchers too by then, though that could be in a good way or a bad way.

An organic breakout and a good Mancini trade might give a shot at nine Top 100 O's next year.

Bobby Witt is #24, Andrew Vaughn is #30 and Adley is #5. If our 2020 pick is 50ish, I would be pretty disappointed.

[Frobby]

53 minutes ago, MurphDogg said:

Bobby Witt is #24, Andrew Vaughn is #20 and Adley is #5. If our 2020 pick is 50ish, I would be pretty disappointed.

For me, the placement within the top 100 of the newly-drafted players is pretty irrelevant and speculative.    I put a lot more stock in the rankings when the player actually has a year of minor league ball under his belt.    I agree the no. 2 pick won’t be ranked as low as 50th barring some major disaster.    But it hardly matters.     I’m more interested in the three incumbents holding or improving their stock, and perhaps somebody already in our system creeping onto the list based on a strong 2020 performance.

[POR]

17 hours ago, sportsfan8703 said:

First in total bases while being 115th in walks.  That's pretty funny.  Let's hope the walks were just because he could reach everything in AAA.  

Since walks don't count when calculating total bases, it makes complete sense that someone who does not walk often would lead the league in total bases.

[Ruzious]

3 in the top 50 is good, but 3 in the top 100 for an organization who's MLB team is being historically bad year after year - indicates they're not where they really need to be - and we'll need to see that number go up next year - not that BA is the ultimate source but it at least gives us an idea of where we are vs the rest of the universe.      

[TheOtherRipken]

1 hour ago, Ruzious said:

3 in the top 50 is good, but 3 in the top 100 for an organization who's MLB team is being historically bad year after year - indicates they're not where they really need to be - and we'll need to see that number go up next year - not that BA is the ultimate source but it at least gives us an idea of where we are vs the rest of the universe.      

Unless they develop players not in the top 100 and they become impact players at the major league level. I really doubt there is a direct correlation between these lists and team success when you are comparing having 3 on the list vs 4. 
 

However, I do agree with your core point, it is disappointing our farm system isn’t better given how bad the major league team is.

[Ruzious]

1 hour ago, TheOtherRipken said:

Unless they develop players not in the top 100 and they become impact players at the major league level. I really doubt there is a direct correlation between these lists and team success when you are comparing having 3 on the list vs 4. 
 

However, I do agree with your core point, it is disappointing our farm system isn’t better given how bad the major league team is.

4?  I'd expect 6 in the top 100.