Who was the most suprising pick?

[Ruzious]

Baeed off of pedigree alone he belongs there, not to mention what he brings to the table definitely warrants consideration for being atleast a top 10 talent. I couldnt imagine guys like Waring, and Mickolio being rated ahead of Hobgood, hes a 1st round talent, niether Waring or Mickolio are or were 1st round talents. He also has a better skill set than either Waring or Mickolio while they are both 23 or so and Hobgood is fresh out of HS. I understand people feel funny about him being a top 10 prospect, but all in all, hes a straight up better prospect than some of these guys. You dont need to see something from someone to be a top prospect, this is why Strasburg is going to be the #1 overall prospect coming up. He hasnt even thrown an official professional pitch yet (Instructionals and AFL do not count). What about Porcello when he was first drafted in 07, you wouldnt have him as a top 10 prospect in the system(If the O's had drafted him). I personally dont like this line of thinking. The idea that,"we havent seen enough from him yet" works when you get to guys who also have high ceilings. It doesnt work when you are comparing him to guys with lower ceilings and lower projections. WOuld you rather have a #2/3 starter or a power reliever?

But you shouldn't base rankings just on ceilings. You should factor in the likelihood of them reaching those ceilings - which is very difficult - and adds a lot more subjectivity.

[QBsILLEST1]

But you shouldn't base rankings just on ceilings. You should factor in the likelihood of them reaching those ceilings - which is very difficult - and adds a lot more subjectivity.

I know that, but I way more heavily on ceiling, as most do, or else top prospects would be a bunch of #3/4 type SP's. I personally weigh a combo of ceiling, projection, floor, scouting reports and pedigree. The subjectivity that comes from ranking a prospect IMO isnt just beased off of a floor, IMO a floor is easy to conclude, the subjectivity comes from how heavily you weigh certain aspects.

[QBsILLEST1]

Well yeah, if he was better, he'd be ranked higher...

I'm just not real impressed when the improvement includes striking out only 2.5 or so times per walk rather than 4 times per walk - and doing it mostly against guys who are younger than him.

Progress is progress though. If he is showing the ability to improve and make progress, theres good reason to think he will continue to progress. And, the fact that he improved his overall game while jumping up a level where the breaking pitches are that much better, IMO it says something. In the long run, do you want the guy who has K'd 2 times per every walk and has done so at every step of the way, rookie ball through AAA, or do you want the guy who at rookie ball K'd 4 times per every BB and then the next season progressed to 3 times per BB then the next season improved that to 2.5 K's per BB and still has another 2 levels to go? Personally Ill take the guy who is showing improvement, even if he has K'd .5 more times per walk this year and Id take him because he is showing the ability to improve which can never be discounted (Bergesen).

[8istheman]

Baeed off of pedigree alone he belongs there, not to mention what he brings to the table definitely warrants consideration for being atleast a top 10 talent. I couldnt imagine guys like Waring, and Mickolio being rated ahead of Hobgood, hes a 1st round talent, niether Waring or Mickolio are or were 1st round talents. He also has a better skill set than either Waring or Mickolio while they are both 23 or so and Hobgood is fresh out of HS. I understand people feel funny about him being a top 10 prospect, but all in all, hes a straight up better prospect than some of these guys. You dont need to see something from someone to be a top prospect, this is why Strasburg is going to be the #1 overall prospect coming up. He hasnt even thrown an official professional pitch yet (Instructionals and AFL do not count). What about Porcello when he was first drafted in 07, you wouldnt have him as a top 10 prospect in the system(If the O's had drafted him). I personally dont like this line of thinking. The idea that,"we havent seen enough from him yet" works when you get to guys who also have high ceilings. It doesnt work when you are comparing him to guys with lower ceilings and lower projections. WOuld you rather have a #2/3 starter or a power reliever?

By your theory the picthers below should have been in the top ten too.

Chris Smith was the 7th pick in the 2001 draft.

Mike Paradis was the 13th pick in the 1999 draft.

Richard Stahl 18th pick 1999 draft.

Alvie Shepherd 21st pick 1995 draft.

Jay Powell 19th pick 1993 draft.

Just because a team picks a player doesn't = sucess or an instant top ten list. If so, our farm teams are not were we think they are headed.

[mikezpen]

God, what a depressing waste of picks.

[Crazysilver03]

Hobgood at 6 IMO.

We haven't seen enough out of him to put in the top ten.

If that is your argument, how can your selection not be Coffee, who hasnt pitched a lick of professional ball.

[8istheman]

If that is your argument, how can your selection not be Coffee, who hasnt pitched a lick of professional ball.

I put both Coffee and Hobgood in the same spot. Draft picks usually take 3-5 years before you know what you have, or have not.

Why rank them before at least 1-2 full seasons?