Exposed prospects vs. unexposed prospects

[QBsILLEST1]

This thread truly belongs in the "Minors" section. :clap3:

Haha...Good one

[tvz1997]

Although your analogy may go down as one of the most awkward in OH history, I generally see where you are coming from on this.

Here's the thing I wrestle with all the time, do you go with a guy who's possible flaws have not been exposed yet or do you go with a guy who's flaws you know well?

For me, it's much easier to take a look at a mature player playing in AA or AAA and make an assessment on what kind of player/pitcher he can become. So if I make the assessment that he's a 5th starter/set up guy at best, who would I rather have in my system, a 5th starter, or kid who still has the chance to be mid-rotation or top of the rotation guy? For me, I'm going to go with the guy with mid to top of the rotation potential.

The tricky part is trying to figure out which guys in the low levels have that potential? I'm looking for information on velocity, movement, command, poise, stamina, body type, work ethic and the ability to make adjustments.

A lot of those lower level guys I haven't seen, so I go almost purely off my conversations with scouts and professionals who have seen them and the stats they put up. In Coffey's case, I went purely off my conversation with Joe Jordan and the conviction he has for this kid.

The Coffey case is a situation where I just happened to like his upside enough that I let it sway me over the guys behind him on the list, some of which have put up very nice numbers (Steve Johnson comes to mind). My early high rankings may prove to be totally off the mark and prove that I jumped the gun. Stotle has made some very good points about him jumping up in velocity for a short period of time before the injury and the lack of an above average breaking ball even before the injury.

In the end, I'm more concerned that my write ups were on the mark more than where I put them on the list. As we've seen over time, no has ever put the perfect Top prospect list together and although I continue to evolve the techniques and data collection used in my reports, I'm pretty sure I'm going to have some misses.

This post and your Coffey selection make me very interested in seeing where you rank Tony Butler. He hasn't been "exposed" to the upper minors yet and is coming off of arthroscopic surgery, so he has even more question marks. That said, if healthy, he still has great upside. I can't wait to see where you place him or if he is more of an afterthought.

[oriolefan1035]

This thread has me cracking up!! :laughlol:

So tell me Frobby...was that you I saw hanging out by the elementary school the other day? Do you have a child that you were picking up, or were you just "prospecting" in all of the "dazzling" sights?

[wickedwitch]

What is it about Steve Johnson that bumps him out of the top ten? I admittedly know very little about him, but he put up decent numbers at a young age at an advanced level. I think I remember him being somewhat of a "soft-tosser" and that's why people were down on him (maybe like Olson?). Can I be set straight please?

He put up good numbers, but he made a few starts, so the league had no opportunity to adjust to him. Plus, the Eastern league was a pitcher's league this year.

Plus, Joseph is better.

[hoosiers]

Zach Britton was drafted out of HS in the third round after entering the draft as a BA Top 75 or so prospect. If people want to mark him down because he was a HSer or because he has not played against advanced competition at AA or above, that's someone personal grading issue. Go ahead and evaluate/downgrade such prospects below their appropriate value and I'll trade to relieve you of such prospects all day long.

I'm not sure that playing against higher levels of competition bring forth new flaws not previously seen. Those flaws most likely existed the entire time and it's up to the good scouts to identify them and the good coaches to try to correct them.

[QBsILLEST1]

Zach Britton was drafted out of HS in the third round after entering the draft as a BA Top 75 or so prospect. If people want to mark him down because he was a HSer or because he has not played against advanced competition at AA or above, that's someone personal grading issue. Go ahead and evaluate/downgrade such prospects below their appropriate value and I'll trade to relieve you of such prospects all day long.

I'm not sure that playing against higher levels of competition bring forth new flaws not previously seen. Those flaws most likely existed the entire time and it's up to the good scouts to identify them and the good coaches to try to correct them.

Well, thats kinda what it is, The flaws always have existed, they just havent been exposed yet, I dont think anyone is really arguing against that. With Britton, we know what his flaws are, they just havent been exploited yet, therefore we dont know how big the issue is until we see how badly it is exploited.

Its not that folks are holding it against them personally, its that a guy who has been through the exploitations and adjusted to them that we see he IS capable of making those adjustments which is a VERY big obstacle for all prospects, and IMO should be then rated higher if all else is pretty equal. For all we know, Britton wont be able to make the adjustments to AA and flame out never making it past Norfolk. Do I expect that to happen? No, but we can never assume anything.

This goes back to the same reason people were shocked by the Coffey pick as the 9th best prospect. If you dont hold the fact that he is young and inexperienced against him, then arguably shouldnt he be at the very least in the top 5? You have to have some sort of balance, and every publication and evaluator is different as to which aspect they weigh more heaviliy upon, this is why you will always find conflicting choices as to whose a top prospect and who isnt.

To rate Britton knowing only flowers and butterflies, and not do the same with a similarly rated guy like Arrieta IMO is unfair to Jake since he has been through 2 more levels, been exposed, adjusted and still succeeded. But I guess thats a different argument all in its own.....

[Os_Watcher]

...With the 17-year old you can see 90% of what she's going to look like as an adult...

Frobby, I don't know how old you are. I mean you no offense. But truthfully you don't know what youve got in a woman until she is married, had a couple kids and can completely wreck your life...

But on a baseball level I think your point is valid. I don't want to be down on Tony-OH's top ten prospects. However what you said was basically why I questioned some of his rankings. Your right IMO... How do you really know how good a player is until he has moved up into more advanced levels?

[QBsILLEST1]

Frobby, I don't know how old you are. I mean you no offense. But truthfully you don't know what youve got in a woman until she is married, had a couple kids and can completely wreck your life...

But on a baseball level I think your point is valid. I don't want to be down on Tony-OH's top ten prospects. However what you said was basically why I questioned some of his rankings. Your right IMO... How do you really know how good a player is until he has moved up into more advanced levels?

So would you rate Steve Johnson higher than Matt Hobgood? ....Its not that black and white, its a combination of different aspects. When it gets to 2 players being this closely rated, Tony has always said, hed ask himself who hed rather have on his team if he could only pick one....and I guess we can all see who that is. Ive said it many times, everyone has their own criteria for how or where they rank a prospect, so publication to publication will differ. What I like about Tony's is that a lot of his rankings seem to be ahead of other places like BA. He sees O's guys and only O's guys so he has more in depth info and knowledge on our own guys. Considering the amount of prospects there are in pro ball, BA guys can only spend but so much time looking into each of these guys, and the ones that were already highly regarded have the head start and more often than not will get the benefit of the doubt from nation pubs which saves them time and makes them look correct a lot, but Im not sold on the validity all the time, but thats just me and how I see BA rank certain prospects....

Im not taking a shot at BA either, just saying that I like Tony's rankings because he doesnt just throw a guys name in the same or even better place in the top 10 because he had a successful season stat-wise. My personal case in point is where Bumgarner will be ranked this year by BA. I guess we will see.....

[Hank Scorpio]

What I really like about this thread is that Frobby never changed his initial analogy.

Gold.

[Os_Watcher]

So would you rate Steve Johnson higher than Matt Hobgood? ....Its not that black and white, its a combination of different aspects. When it gets to 2 players being this closely rated, Tony has always said, hed ask himself who hed rather have on his team if he could only pick one....and I guess we can all see who that is. Ive said it many times, everyone has their own criteria for how or where they rank a prospect, so publication to publication will differ. What I like about Tony's is that a lot of his rankings seem to be ahead of other places like BA. He sees O's guys and only O's guys so he has more in depth info and knowledge on our own guys. Considering the amount of prospects there are in pro ball, BA guys can only spend but so much time looking into each of these guys, and the ones that were already highly regarded have the head start and more often than not will get the benefit of the doubt from nation pubs which saves them time and makes them look correct a lot, but Im not sold on the validity all the time, but thats just me and how I see BA rank certain prospects....

Im not taking a shot at BA either, just saying that I like Tony's rankings because he doesnt just throw a guys name in the same or even better place in the top 10 because he had a successful season. My personal case in point is where Bumgarner will be ranked this year. I guess we will see.....

First off I really like Tony-OH's top ten also... But it seemed to be weighed heavily upon high ceiling not high floor. Once I got that and I eventually did. I really enjoyed and have read it several times.

Would I rate Steve Johnson ahead of Matt Hobgood? No. But I wouldve rated him higher than Waring or Coffey. It wasn't my top ten list, though and certainly would not have been as good as Tony's. I can say what I would have fone differently is weigh overall ceiling against progress made.

Case in point. Matt Hobgood is so far away at this time that I really don't want to even think about him. It's like being 6 years old and thinking about christmas in october. Why punish yourself? Also I had hoped that there were more guys along the 3E mold whom could break in this comming year that I hadn't really heard much about. I thought Tony might unveil one or two guys in the top ten we really weren't super familiar with.

[QBsILLEST1]

First off I really like Tony-OH's top ten also... But it seemed to be weighed heavily upon high ceiling not high floor. Once I got that and I eventually did. I really enjoyed and have read it several times.

Would I rate Steve Johnson ahead of Matt Hobgood? No. But I wouldve rated him higher than Waring or Coffey. It wasn't my top ten list, though and certainly would not have been as good as Tony's. I can say what I would have fone differently is weigh overall ceiling against progress made.

Case in point. Matt Hobgood is so far away at this time that I really don't want to even think about him. It's like being 6 years old and thinking about christmas in october. Why punish yourself? Also I had hoped that there were more guys along the 3E mold whom could break in this comming year that I hadn't really heard much about. I thought Tony might unveil one or two guys in the top ten we really weren't super familiar with.

Tony does weigh heavily on ceiling, but floor is also something he considers. You cant go off of one or not the other, if he ranked soley on ceiling, then the top 10 would be nothing but the 09 draftees starting with HSers.

As for rating Johnson ahead of Coffey or Waring, what case would you make? Prospect rankings isnt about numbers and numbers shouldnt dictate where you place certain players in the list. If you had to ask yourself who youd rather have in your system, you would choose Johnson over Coffey? I wouldnt, I dont know who would, when you look at Johnson, dont just look at what he did in Bowie, look at his scouting report, what kinda stuff does he have? Does he have any projection left? Is he a GB or FB(fly ball) pitcher? Whats his ceiling.floor/projection? Ask yourself the same questions about Coffey and to me theres no comparison. Johnson has average stuff at best with weak command and hes a flyball pitcher, what kind of ceiling do you really think he has? IMO the only thing that makes Johnson stand out is his K rate, and a good MiL K rate, but how did he get those K's? By pitching up in the zone. IMO he should be a 15-20 type prospect, but thats just me....

Back to rating Hobgood, thats fine that hes so far away that you dont even wanna think about him, but thats not how prospect publications work, they dont say,"Well Porcello is really good, but since he was drafted out of HS and has so far to go that we arent gonna even consider him", IMO this is where it all starts, this is what makes ranking and judging prospects fun. Hobgood is a very good talent, and regardless of whether or not your thinking about him because he is "so far away", he deserves to be ranked. He IS prospect, so he should be ranked. Guys with 2 plus pitches and flashes a 3rd deserve to be ranked towards the top......Being wrong happens a lot and its all part of trying to rank a prospect....

[LookinUp]

Tony does weigh heavily on ceiling, but floor is also something he considers. You cant go off of one or not the other, if he ranked soley on ceiling, then the top 10 would be nothing but the 09 draftees starting with HSers.

As for rating Johnson ahead of Coffey or Waring, what case would you make? Prospect rankings isnt about numbers and numbers shouldnt dictate where you place certain players in the list. If you had to ask yourself who youd rather have in your system, you would choose Johnson over Coffey? I wouldnt, I dont know who would, when you look at Johnson, dont just look at what he did in Bowie, look at his scouting report, what kinda stuff does he have? Does he have any projection left? Is he a GB or FB(fly ball) pitcher? Whats his ceiling.floor/projection? Ask yourself the same questions about Coffey and to me theres no comparison. Johnson has average stuff at best with weak command and hes a flyball pitcher, what kind of ceiling do you really think he has? IMO the only thing that makes Johnson stand out is his K rate, and a good MiL K rate, but how did he get those K's? By pitching up in the zone. IMO he should be a 15-20 type prospect, but thats just me....

Back to rating Hobgood, thats fine that hes so far away that you dont even wanna think about him, but thats not how prospect publications work, they dont say,"Well Porcello is really good, but since he was drafted out of HS and has so far to go that we arent gonna even consider him", IMO this is where it all starts, this is what makes ranking and judging prospects fun. Hobgood is a very good talent, and regardless of whether or not your thinking about him because he is "so far away", he deserves to be ranked. He IS prospect, so he should be ranked. Guys with 2 plus pitches and flashes a 3rd deserve to be ranked towards the top......Being wrong happens a lot and its all part of trying to rank a prospect....

Yeah, the bolded portion about numbers is a mistake that many of us have made over the years. Chris Ray is the best example I've seen. He has a better heater than Johnson, but he's a one pitch pitcher who can't locate. People were annointing him the closer of the future based on his dominance of AA. IMO, it was always premature and heavily influenced by stats (k rate, ERA and velocity). Most people didn't seem to notice his limitations when considering what he'd be in the future. Jim Hoey and Bob McCrory come to mind as well, though Hoey in particular was set back by injury as well (and now McCrory too).

The interesting thing about Johnson is that he's still a starter. I wonder how much his stuff would play up out of the bullpen (I have no idea). He seems like a decent middle reliever prospect actually. I like the pedigree, even if his stuff won't get through the order more than once/twice.

I like the idea of having many of Johnson, Hernandez, Erbe, Berken and Arrieta in our bullpen. Several of those guys could become our #5 or at least provide a decent spot start here or there. That versatility is valuable, particularly relative to the lack of versatility our pen has had over the last several years.

[QBsILLEST1]

Yeah, the bolded portion about numbers is a mistake that many of us have made over the years. Chris Ray is the best example I've seen. He has a better heater than Johnson, but he's a one pitch pitcher who can't locate. People were annointing him the closer of the future based on his dominance of AA. IMO, it was always premature and heavily influenced by stats (k rate, ERA and velocity). Most people didn't seem to notice his limitations when considering what he'd be in the future. Jim Hoey and Bob McCrory come to mind as well, though Hoey in particular was set back by injury as well (and now McCrory too).

The interesting thing about Johnson is that he's still a starter. I wonder how much his stuff would play up out of the bullpen (I have no idea). He seems like a decent middle reliever prospect actually. I like the pedigree, even if his stuff won't get through the order more than once/twice.

I like the idea of having many of Johnson, Hernandez, Erbe, Berken and Arrieta in our bullpen. Several of those guys could become our #5 or at least provide a decent spot start here or there. That versatility is valuable, particularly relative to the lack of versatility our pen has had over the last several years.

I too like him as a reliever. The fly balls still scare me, but I think he could settle in fine there and it wouldnt allow his mediocre stuff to be exploited as badly, if at all....