Is our Top 5 definitely...

[Frobby]

Again, I would not overlook that Erbe has injury concerns, platoon concerns, etc. Hobgood probably has more potential at this point. Erbe is more projectable.

Don't take offense, but to me that is scout-speak. Very simply, at the same age or stage of career, Erbe had shown far more potential than Hobgood IMO. After three more seasons, better competition has revealed what some of Erbe's flaws are. And in three years, we'll know a lot more about Hobgood's. But I can't rate him the better prospect until he shows me on the field that he is.

[crawdad]

Don't take offense, but to me that is scout-speak. Very simply, at the same age or stage of career, Erbe had shown far more potential than Hobgood IMO. After three more seasons, better competition has revealed what some of Erbe's flaws are. And in three years, we'll know a lot more about Hobgood's. But I can't rate him the better prospect until he shows me on the field that he is.

I'm not sure how this is scout speak. Erbe had a high level of potential back when he was lighting it up early in his career. As the years have gone by, we have been able to see the chinks in his armor and where he may have difficulty. If we knew he would have command issues, not develop a useful secondary pitch against lefties, have shoulder problems, etc . . . we would not be so high of him. It is a projection system and we change outcomes as the input changes. In the extreme, we could say Bruce Chen is a better prospect even though he came and went. It is a major failing to ignore how current data inflow contradicts with past information.

So, yes, I would agree Erbe at 18 is more valuable than Hobgood at 18. Erbe at 21 is not so easy of a slam dunk against Hobgood at 18.

[QBsILLEST1]

I'm not sure how this is scout speak. Erbe had a high level of potential back when he was lighting it up early in his career. As the years have gone by, we have been able to see the chinks in his armor and where he may have difficulty. If we knew he would have command issues, not develop a useful secondary pitch against lefties, have shoulder problems, etc . . . we would not be so high of him. It is a projection system and we change outcomes as the input changes. In the extreme, we could say Bruce Chen is a better prospect even though he came and went. It is a major failing to ignore how current data inflow contradicts with past information.

So, yes, I would agree Erbe at 18 is more valuable than Hobgood at 18. Erbe at 21 is not so easy of a slam dunk against Hobgood at 18.

Its very much a toss up. Erbe is closer to fully baked so we have an idea what he is gonna be. Hes still very good, but his loss in velo has slightly hurt his ceiling IMO. The word on Erbe is that all his stuff is above average, but nothing really plus. Hobgood supposedly has a plus fastball and a plus curve(best in draft). So based off of pure stuff, Hobgood apparently has better stuff which was IMO why Erbe had such a high ceiling(Excellent stuff at a young age). If Hobgood has his 2 best pitches better than Erbe's best 2 pitches, imagine how good Hobgoods 2 better pitches will be by the time hes 21 like Erbe. WhenErbe was 17 and being dmoinant in Bluefield, his ceiling was a TOR starter. Now hes looking more like a middle rotation guy IMO and Hobgood's ceiling is more of a TOR at this point and if his stuff gets better rather than stay the same or regress, then his ceiling should stay intact(Tillman) as a TOR starter.

[hoosiers]

How anyone can rate Hobgood above a successful, young AA pitcher is amazing to me. Erbe is light years ahead of Hobgood until he proves something. Hobgood might make my top 10.

Probably not as amazing as someone just shutting out the possibility that a top HS pick could be better than someone in AA.

[Frobby]

I'm not sure how this is scout speak. Erbe had a high level of potential back when he was lighting it up early in his career. As the years have gone by, we have been able to see the chinks in his armor and where he may have difficulty. If we knew he would have command issues, not develop a useful secondary pitch against lefties, have shoulder problems, etc . . . we would not be so high of him. It is a projection system and we change outcomes as the input changes. In the extreme, we could say Bruce Chen is a better prospect even though he came and went. It is a major failing to ignore how current data inflow contradicts with past information.

So, yes, I would agree Erbe at 18 is more valuable than Hobgood at 18. Erbe at 21 is not so easy of a slam dunk against Hobgood at 18.

I guess what this comes down to for me is, I assume every player has flaws that are going to become more and more apparent as they move up the system. The fact that Erbe has shown some doesn't bother me. The fact that he's been as good as he's been while being under-age at every level is a huge plus in my book.

[crawdad]

I guess what this comes down to for me is, I assume every player has flaws that are going to become more and more apparent as they move up the system. The fact that Erbe has shown some doesn't bother me. The fact that he's been as good as he's been while being under-age at every level is a huge plus in my book.

Then you must have thought of Erbe much much higher than most folks I know back when he was breaking into pro ball.

[allstar1579]

The difficulty in making lists like this, as Crawdad pointed out, is that you have to weigh results versus potential. It is much harder to equate 21 to 18, even if you can compare apples to apples them both at 18, then you have to take into account what experience Erbe has gained in those 3 years versus what development Hobgood could make. It's never going to be perfect, but I think you have to compare based on potential still left untapped, Erbe after the chinks in his armor versus Hobgood and his. Even though Erbe has looked good and put up results, there was a reason Hobby was the 5th overall pick.

That being said, I've had one at 5 and one at 6, I think these 2 are about where potential meets results, so it's close for me. There will be much more discussion about this top 5 or 30 for that matter very soon, so I'll leave you wanting more

[Frobby]

Then you must have thought of Erbe much much higher than most folks I know back when he was breaking into pro ball.

No, I don't follow amateur baseball at all and I am completely unqualified to say how good some high school player is compared to his peers. All I really know is (1) what his stats were once he got into our system, and (2) where he was ranked by Tony and others following his debut at Bluefield and Aberdeen.

I just want to make clear that I in no way pretend to be knowledgeable about scouting or projecting talent. You could line up Tyler Matzek, Dan Wheeler and Matt Hobgood and have them throw 50 pitches right in front of me and I still wouldn't have a clue.

That being said, I have a bias in favor of players who have yielded good results at a young age and who have made steady progress as they have moved up the chain. I read what you write about Erbe's need to develop secondary stuff to get left-hand batters out, and I think: (1) didn't this guy have a 2.34 ERA and a .170 BAA this year (.208 BAA vs. LHB), and (2) wasn't I hearing, at this time last year, how Brad Bergesen needed to figure out a way to get LHB's out?

Long and short, I think there's a lot of room for error when judging kids right out of high school, and so I tend to rank them lower compared to guys with a track record. I think "high ceiling" is often shorthand for "we haven't seen enough to know what his weaknesses are yet." Hobgood might be a great pitcher, but nothing he did at Bluefield suggests that's a certainty, so my personal bias is to rank him a little lower.

[QBsILLEST1]

No, I don't follow amateur baseball at all and I am completely unqualified to say how good some high school player is compared to his peers. All I really know is (1) what his stats were once he got into our system, and (2) where he was ranked by Tony and others following his debut at Bluefield and Aberdeen.

I just want to make clear that I in no way pretend to be knowledgeable about scouting or projecting talent. You could line up Tyler Matzek, Dan Wheeler and Matt Hobgood and have them throw 50 pitches right in front of me and I still wouldn't have a clue.

That being said, I have a bias in favor of players who have yielded good results at a young age and who have made steady progress as they have moved up the chain. I read what you write about Erbe's need to develop secondary stuff to get left-hand batters out, and I think: (1) didn't this guy have a 2.34 ERA and a .170 BAA this year (.208 BAA vs. LHB), and (2) wasn't I hearing, at this time last year, how Brad Bergesen needed to figure out a way to get LHB's out?

Long and short, I think there's a lot of room for error when judging kids right out of high school, and so I tend to rank them lower compared to guys with a track record. I think "high ceiling" is often shorthand for "we haven't seen enough to know what his weaknesses are yet." Hobgood might be a great pitcher, but nothing he did at Bluefield suggests that's a certainty, so my personal bias is to rank him a little lower.

I think you mean Zack Wheeler. Dan Wheeler would be the answer to the question, "Of the following which of these options dont belong?" I believe hes the pitcher for Tampa Bay. But I dont have a huge background in scouting, I just do what I do for fun. And the same way you judge a pitcher in the majors, you can use the same ideas on the amateurs. The biggest difference is projecting what they have to what they can/should/will be. You gotta look at body type and try to judge the future and even then its like the draft, an inexact science. You think a guy like Gibson is gonna gain velo as he fills out, but so far not so good, then you have a guy like Brett Anderson who is probably overweight and completely done filling out and he suddenly gains 4 MPH on his fastball.....Its tough, but with the amateurs you must look at the whole picture.

[Frobby]

I think you mean Zack Wheeler. Dan Wheeler would be the answer to the question, "Of the following which of these options dont belong?" I believe hes the pitcher for Tampa Bay. But I dont have a huge background in scouting, I just do what I do for fun. And the same way you judge a pitcher in the majors, you can use the same ideas on the amateurs. The biggest difference is projecting what they have to what they can/should/will be. You gotta look at body type and try to judge the future and even then its like the draft, an inexact science. You think a guy like Gibson is gonna gain velo as he fills out, but so far not so good, then you have a guy like Brett Anderson who is probably overweight and completely done filling out and he suddenly gains 4 MPH on his fastball.....Its tough, but with the amateurs you must look at the whole picture.

Perfect example of how I don't follow amateur baseball very closely.

To be honest, I'm not really even capable of watching a major league rookie throw 5 or 6 games, with the benefit of the CF camera, slow motion, and everything else, and making reliable guesses as to who will be a good pitcher in the long term. So, how am I going to do it by watching some blurry internet video of a 17-year old, probably taken behind the screen in back of home plate? I will have to leave that to the people who are paid to do it for a living, and who at least get a chance to see these guys in person.

Hobgood is who he is. Obviously, the O's would not have taken him with the 5th overall pick if they did not believe he had a very high ceiling. If he had struck out a dozen hitters per nine innings and thrown to an ERA in the 2's this summer, I'd be more comfortable ranking him ahead of Erbe, even though 30 innings in the summer after being drafted probably doesn't mean a whole lot. (See: Britton, Z.) As it is, I'd rather just let him prove himself over the next year or two before considering hiim to be in the top 5 prospects in our organization.

[Travs23]

(in no particular order)

Arrieta

Bell

Britton

Snyder

Erbe

Is there any argument that those guys aren't our Top 5 minor league players going into 2010?

This is my top 5

Britton

Bell

Arrietta

Snyder

Spoone if he stays healthy...if not Waring

My guess would be Arrietta will be moved before ST for a bat

[Tony-OH]

No, I don't follow amateur baseball at all and I am completely unqualified to say how good some high school player is compared to his peers. All I really know is (1) what his stats were once he got into our system, and (2) where he was ranked by Tony and others following his debut at Bluefield and Aberdeen.

I just want to make clear that I in no way pretend to be knowledgeable about scouting or projecting talent. You could line up Tyler Matzek, Dan Wheeler and Matt Hobgood and have them throw 50 pitches right in front of me and I still wouldn't have a clue.

That being said, I have a bias in favor of players who have yielded good results at a young age and who have made steady progress as they have moved up the chain. I read what you write about Erbe's need to develop secondary stuff to get left-hand batters out, and I think: (1) didn't this guy have a 2.34 ERA and a .170 BAA this year (.208 BAA vs. LHB), and (2) wasn't I hearing, at this time last year, how Brad Bergesen needed to figure out a way to get LHB's out?

Long and short, I think there's a lot of room for error when judging kids right out of high school, and so I tend to rank them lower compared to guys with a track record. I think "high ceiling" is often shorthand for "we haven't seen enough to know what his weaknesses are yet." Hobgood might be a great pitcher, but nothing he did at Bluefield suggests that's a certainty, so my personal bias is to rank him a little lower.

I think what this comes down to is that you place more emphasis on a player producing at a higher level then the potential of a player who has not proven anything yet. There's nothing wrong with that.

When I make my list, I ask myself this simple question, "If I could only have one of the two players, which one would I want in my system." The guy I would take gets the higher ranking.

Ranking prospects is an in exact science and it's one of the things that a lot of people put time and effort into doing. There's really no right or wrong way to to it, and in the end, I'm more concerned with whether I got the players' ability right or wrong. If I rank a guy 12th and he ends up a 5th starter like I said he would become, then I was right, despite the fact that I may have ranked him higher or lower than players who either surpassed or under performed their projections.

[allstar1579]

I think what this comes down to is that you place more emphasis on a player producing at a higher level then the potential of a player who has not proven anything yet. There's nothing wrong with that.

When I make my list, I ask myself this simple question, "If I could only have one of the two players, which one would I want in my system." The guy I would take gets the higher ranking.

Ranking prospects is an in exact science and it's one of the things that a lot of people put time and effort into doing. There's really no right or wrong way to to it, and in the end, I'm more concerned with whether I got the players' ability right or wrong. If I rank a guy 12th and he ends up a 5th starter like I said he would become, then I was right, despite the fact that I may have ranked him higher or lower than players who either surpassed or under performed their projections.

Very eloquent fearless leader. Nice explanation.

[hoosiers]

As it is, I'd rather just let him prove himself over the next year or two before considering him to be in the top 5 prospects in our organization.

Where did you rank Matusz last year?

[Frobby]

Where did you rank Matusz last year?

I usually don't do my own prospect rankings, at least not ones that involve players who haven't played yet. But, I think it is a lot easier to have some rough idea of how a college prospect should be ranked, because they have played a fair number of games vs. good competition.