MLB.com top 100

[Sports Guy]

https://www.mlb.com/prospects/2022/top100
 

Adley #2.

Grayson #1 pitcher.

5 guys overall.

[Chuck A]

That's a great write up SG

[glenn__davis]

Henderson #64.

Cowswer #66.

Hall #90.

[LookinUp]

I wonder what people would say Josh Hader should have been ranked, if they knew then what they know now (e.g., he's a dominant reliever, not a starter).

Feels like he would be much higher than 90, which is where they have Hall.

Feels like Hall, with upside much more substantial than Hader and a realistic (non-injury) floor being close to Hader, should be ranked much higher.

[Sports Guy]

15 minutes ago, LookinUp said:

I wonder what people would say Josh Hader should have been ranked, if they knew then what they know now (e.g., he's a dominant reliever, not a starter).

Feels like he would be much higher than 90, which is where they have Hall.

Feels like Hall, with upside much more substantial than Hader and a realistic (non-injury) floor being close to Hader, should be ranked much higher.

He is by some.  It doesn't really matter.

[LookinUp]

25 minutes ago, Sports Guy said:

He is by some.  It doesn't really matter.

That kind of goes without saying...

But when rankings come out, we tend to discuss their merits.

[Sports Guy]

34 minutes ago, LookinUp said:

That kind of goes without saying...

But when rankings come out, we tend to discuss their merits.

And there is merit to this ranking. The injury plus reliever profile make him shaky enough to justify it.

Its also justifiable that he is top 50.

[LookinUp]

1 hour ago, Sports Guy said:

And there is merit to this ranking. The injury plus reliever profile make him shaky enough to justify it.

Its also justifiable that he is top 50.

So basically, you don't want to talk about it so I shouldn't either. Got it.

Yes, you can justify a pretty wide range of rankings, otherwise there wouldn't be a pretty wide range of rankings.

I think it's a bad methodology, personally. I'd take a near-ready elite arm, even with questions, over a safer profile (at any position) with good, but not great upside. But that's me.

[Sports Guy]

7 minutes ago, LookinUp said:

So basically, you don't want to talk about it so I shouldn't either. Got it.

Yes, you can justify a pretty wide range of rankings, otherwise there wouldn't be a pretty wide range of rankings.

I think it's a bad methodology, personally. I'd take a near-ready elite arm, even with questions, over a safer profile (at any position) with good, but not great upside. But that's me.

Stop being so sensitive.  Talk all you want about it.  I posted it, so obviously I hope people talk about it.

 

[Frobby]

2 hours ago, LookinUp said:

I wonder what people would say Josh Hader should have been ranked, if they knew then what they know now (e.g., he's a dominant reliever, not a starter).

Feels like he would be much higher than 90, which is where they have Hall.

Feels like Hall, with upside much more substantial than Hader and a realistic (non-injury) floor being close to Hader, should be ranked much higher.

I think it mostly boils down to how you weigh the injury risk.   

[LookinUp]

9 minutes ago, Frobby said:

I think it mostly boils down to how you weigh the injury risk.   

Hmm. I honestly just think it's egregious.

As a random check, I decided to look up the pitcher I remember with the scariest injury profile: Chris Sale.

He was only on prospect lists 1 year from what I can tell. He pitched in the majors almost right away. Anyway, he was rated 25 on MLB.com and 20 by BB America. Definitely an elite arm, and I'm sure the people have changed, but I doubt the injury profile is why they have him lower. I think it's the reliever risk.

[Frobby]

5 minutes ago, LookinUp said:

Hmm. I honestly just think it's egregious.

As a random check, I decided to look up the pitcher I remember with the scariest injury profile: Chris Sale.

He was only on prospect lists 1 year from what I can tell. He pitched in the majors almost right away. Anyway, he was rated 25 on MLB.com and 20 by BB America. Definitely an elite arm, and I'm sure the people have changed, but I doubt the injury profile is why they have him lower. I think it's the reliever risk.

 

[Frobby]

5 minutes ago, LookinUp said:

Hmm. I honestly just think it's egregious.

As a random check, I decided to look up the pitcher I remember with the scariest injury profile: Chris Sale.

He was only on prospect lists 1 year from what I can tell. He pitched in the majors almost right away. Anyway, he was rated 25 on MLB.com and 20 by BB America. Definitely an elite arm, and I'm sure the people have changed, but I doubt the injury profile is why they have him lower. I think it's the reliever risk.

Well, I think you are wrong.  MLB.com ranked him 70th last year, and dropped him to 90th this year.   His reliever risk didn’t get worse, in fact, it improved with his strong 2021 performance.   But his injury risk increased with him missing 70% of the season and showing a stress reaction a few months after being shut down.  

[LookinUp]

Earlier I was about to write that I'd choose Hall over a safer guy like Cowser. Then I started thinking about Tony's list (Cowser's higher) and about what I thought at the time. Well, I was correct. I got 1-7 right in the votes, I think, which means I personally had Cowser over Hall as recently as a few months ago.

Maybe I'm caught up in some of the Hall tweets or Orioles video releases, but if I were to re-order them today I'd go with Hall above Cowser and I don't really think it's close. I still get having Mayo above Hall based on the risk profile (though I might not personally), but the upside and near-term arrival for Hall really makes him a top prospect.

Basically, I think the injury risk has subsided in my own mind, so maybe that's why I changed. 

[CharmCityHokie]

5 hours ago, LookinUp said:

Earlier I was about to write that I'd choose Hall over a safer guy like Cowser. Then I started thinking about Tony's list (Cowser's higher) and about what I thought at the time. Well, I was correct. I got 1-7 right in the votes, I think, which means I personally had Cowser over Hall as recently as a few months ago.

Maybe I'm caught up in some of the Hall tweets or Orioles video releases, but if I were to re-order them today I'd go with Hall above Cowser and I don't really think it's close. I still get having Mayo above Hall based on the risk profile (though I might not personally), but the upside and near-term arrival for Hall really makes him a top prospect.

Basically, I think the injury risk has subsided in my own mind, so maybe that's why I changed. 

I think the question is if Hall is a RP (injuries+control issues), and if he does become the next Hader, and Cowser ends up being a Nick Markakis type, would you take Hader over Markakis? I wouldn't personally. Even at his most elite, Hader doesn't throw enough innings to compete with the consistent daily-value of an above-average outfielder. 

Now, if Hall becomes say...Blake Snell, low-inning starter due to control issues and injury problems, but when he's on he's unhittable and among the best in the game? Sure, I could see raking that profile over an above-average, but below-star level corner outfielder. 

I don't know either way, I think as many have said, it all comes down to how you weigh the injury-risk.