BA Top 30 (Baltimore)

[ThisIsOurHouse]

Am I seeing things or is Beal not on the list, the man pitched great last year with the exception of two starts. He is a high potential player who actually has a year of baseball under his belt. I am very suprised BA left him off their list.

[Tony-OH]

To me the biggest head scratcher is Kyle Hudson at 20, ahead of Angle. Angle is a similar player but more advanced and with better numbers.

Hudson was drafted higher. For BA, that's good enough apparently.

[Lucky Jim]

Am I seeing things or is Beal not on the list, the man pitched great last year with the exception of two starts. He is a high potential player who actually has a year of baseball under his belt. I am very suprised BA left him off their list.

There's not much difference between being ranked No. 20 and being ranked No. 25. Hudson has plus-plus speed and he hasn't been 100% committed to baseball until recently. The possession of one plus-skill is probably the difference, but it helps that Hudson shows good contact skills and good patience. Further, isn't the fact that the Orioles drafted Hudson higher than Angle some evidence that they value him as a better prospect?

As for the other stuff, well, folks place different emphasis on different things. Even the OH's write-up on Beal shows why someone might not rank him that highly yet:

Currently he sits in the 88-90 range with good sink that enables him to get a good amount of ground balls (60%) while allowing just three home runs. Although his curveball is average right now, he's got a good feel for pitch and again, there's a chance for it to become much better. He's got a very good feel for the changeup and right now it's his second best pitch. Beal's best attribute is his impeccable control.

He's got a below-average/fringe-average fastball, a below average curveball, and good feel for a change. He's pure projection, with fairly refined command. But the fact remains that he can live in the strikezone with below average stuff at the lower levels. But many folks - who don't put as much stock in projection - aren't going to be buyers until they see some of that projection come to fruition.

The same is true of Wirsch, who even this site acknowledges:

Wirsch was available in the 7th round due to a fastball that sits in the 85-87 MPH range, but the Orioles see a nice loose arm and good hand speed and predict his velocity will improve as he physically matures

If they're bear-ish about guys growing into velocity then that's just something to factor into how you value the lists. If anything, the fact that both were omitted is a compliment to the list. Consistency is a key component of any analytical method. It's evidence they have an approach and they're sticking to it.

I'm not sure that any of these examples are much to gripe about. I think the point with both of these guys is that we wouldn't have got them at the cost/slot we did if everyone was as high on them as we are. We're putting out stock in the fact that Jordan can find value in guys that others can't see. Beal has 75 IP at rookie level and Wirsch has 16 IP. That's not much time or performance to turn around that public perception.

[Tony-OH]

There's not much difference between being ranked No. 20 and being ranked No. 25. Hudson has plus-plus speed and he hasn't been 100% committed to baseball until recently. The possession of one plus-skill is probably the difference, but it helps that Hudson shows good contact skills and good patience. Further, isn't the fact that the Orioles drafted Hudson higher than Angle some evidence that they value him as a better prospect?

As for the other stuff, well, folks place different emphasis on different things. Even the OH's write-up on Beal shows why someone might not rank him that highly yet:

He's got a below-average/fringe-average fastball, a below average curveball, and good feel for a change. He's pure projection, with fairly refined command. But the fact remains that he can live in the strikezone with below average stuff at the lower levels. But many folks - who don't put as much stock in projection - aren't going to be buyers until they see some of that projection come to fruition.

The same is true of Wirsch, who even this site acknowledges:

If they're bear-ish about guys growing into velocity then that's just something to factor into how you value the lists. If anything, the fact that both were omitted is a compliment to the list. Consistency is a key component of any analytical method. It's evidence they have an approach and they're sticking to it.

I'm not sure that any of these examples are much to gripe about. I think the point with both of these guys is that we wouldn't have got them at the cost/slot we did if everyone was as high on them as we are. We're putting out stock in the fact that Jordan can find value in guys that others can't see. Beal has 75 IP at rookie level and Wirsch has 16 IP. That's not much time or performance to turn around that public perception.

I guess everyone has different thoughts on what makes a prospect, but I'm guessing there is not an organization in baseball that would take Eddie Gamboa or Billy Rowell over Beal or Wirsch.

[Fan of Newhan]

Is Robbie Widlansky ever expected to reach the big leagues? I realize he was a little old for A ball last year, but he put up great numbers in Frederick. I rarely see his name appear on any "prospect" lists.

[Lucky Jim]

I guess everyone has different thoughts on what makes a prospect, but I'm guessing there is not an organization in baseball that would take Eddie Gamboa or Billy Rowell over Beal or Wirsch.

I doubt everyone has different thoughts.

I offered a reason why I thought Beal and Wirsch - who are similar pitchers - haven't come onto radar yet. That's it. I'm not sure I agree, and I admit that I'm more cautiously optimistic about these guys than some others are.

I guess every prospect involved in a ranking exists at some kind of cross-cut of projected value and current skills/profile. Most teams would prefer a player with projection than a fallen prospect like Rowell, I guess. Heck, most teams would prefer an 8th round pick over Rowell. If they'd rather have a reset, then it's hard to argue that preferring anything over Rowell is a real argument for the other player. It's just an argument against Rowell.

In the end, I guess they probably see Rowell as a guy who appeared at one point to be a true 1st round talent. And who put up a .750+ OPS at 18 at A ball.

In the end, if they demand to see more from a prospect than 88 MPH fastballs in the Rookie League, that's just where they stand. I think it's fair not to agree with it. I was simply pointing out what I thought was their rationale.

As for Gamboa, well, he had a great year. I think, right now, BA would say that the odds of Gamboa providing MLB value at some point in his career is greater than either Beal or Wirsch doing it. And that's why he's on the list.

[LookinUp]

Is Robbie Widlansky ever expected to reach the big leagues? I realize he was a little old for A ball last year, but he put up great numbers in Frederick. I rarely see his name appear on any "prospect" lists.

He'll force his way onto lists if he rakes at AA like he did in Frederick last year.

[cnmilton]

I had the opportunity to talk to one of the Os minor league coaches (Werner). He seems to really love Jesse Beals ability. In his opinion he said that Jesse is going to be a really good pitcher sometime soon.

[Lucky Jim]

I would agree on this one. I would also rank Angle higher than Hudson. Seems like the only thing Hudson does better than Angle is run faster. However, on the baseball field Angle looks like the better CF and basestealer.

I don't disagree with this, and I'm not really defending the choice. As I said, they're very similar players who have been ranked very similarly. We're really complaining about five spots in the twenties.

Hudson is an exceptional athlete who is still raw but shows good contact skills and good patience. It's a reasonable ground for distinguishing the two, even if you don't agree with it.

[hoosiers]

Hudson was an earlier draft pick and IMO would be considered the better talent. It can time for tools to translate to results.

Time with the college football team almost certainly took away time from the baseball team. And Hudson was injured shortly after being drafted and did not play the whole short season.

The stats-based analysis leans to Angle, but the professional opinions seem to lean to Hudson. We'll see.

[PBR Street Gang]

How much of those rankings "validate" BA's pre-draft ratings and therefore make people more inclined to believe what BA's selling on yearly player hype?

You see it all the time in college football recruiting. If there's a lot of teams after a prospect then he must be "great". If a prospect is being recruited by a top tier school with a multitude of rabid fans the 3rd, 4th, or 5th star is added and those fans believe they are getting their next great player.

Sells a lot of subscriptions and affirms their ratings.

Everyone loves lists.

[Lucky Jim]

Why is Hudson considered an exceptional athlete and Angle isn't? Hudson is considered a great athlete because he played football and he's supposedly an 80 runner on the 20-80 scale.

After reading your post again, are you saying that BA is using Hudson's contact skills and patience as reasonable grounds for distinguishing the two? If so, I would disagree with that as well.

Well, you answered your first question. He's not "supposedly" an 80 runner on a 20-80 scale. The scale exists, and that's where Hudson resides on it.

The second point isn't what I'm saying at all. The point was clearly that Hudson is considered an exceptional athlete while Angle is not.

[Fan of Newhan]

Does Greg Miclat still hold any "prospect" status? I remember thinking he could be our "shortstop of the future" at one point not too long ago, but it looks like Florimon has passed him in that regard.

[Frobby]

Hudson (age 22, Delmarva): .284/.365/.314, 8 2B, 2 3B, 0 HR, 21 RBI, 31 SB 16 CS

Angle (age 22, Delmarva): .287/.385/.379, 22 2B, 5 3B, 4 HR, 35 RBI, 37 SB 11 CS

I look at Hudson's ISO of .030 -- 10 extra base hits all year -- and I find it extremely difficult to consider him any kind of a prospect. Hudson's 19-year old teammates Hoes and Avery managed 21 and 25 extra base hits, respectively.

I know Lucky Jim is trying to provide a rationale for BA, even though he isn't endorsing that opinion, but I just can't buy it. Angle's a much better prospect than Hudson.

[Lucky Jim]

Hudson (age 22, Delmarva): .284/.365/.314, 8 2B, 2 3B, 0 HR, 21 RBI, 31 SB 16 CS

Angle (age 22, Delmarva): .287/.385/.379, 22 2B, 5 3B, 4 HR, 35 RBI, 37 SB 11 CS

I look at Hudson's ISO of .030 -- 10 extra base hits all year -- and I find it extremely difficult to consider him any kind of a prospect. Hudson's 19-year old teammates Hoes and Avery managed 21 and 25 extra base hits, respectively.

I know Lucky Jim is trying to provide a rationale for BA, even though he isn't endorsing that opinion, but I just can't buy it. Angle's a much better prospect than Hudson.

It's five freaking slots in the 20s on the list. They're all marginal prospects. I'll go out on a limb and say it makes sense that you'd rank a guy with a plus skill five slots over similar fringe-y prospects without any plus skill. Because, all else aside, that's something. I like Angle, but this nitpicking over a reasonable decision just makes no sense to me.

Hudson was better known for his exploits as a wide receiver in his first two years at Illinois, leading the football team in receptions as a freshman and again as a sophomore. Relegated to a supporting role on the gridiron last fall, he has taken out his frustrations on opposing pitchers this spring. He ended the regular season among the NCAA Division I leaders in batting (.411), on-base percentage (.511), runs (60) and steals (39). He also set Big 10 Conference records for runs (40) and steals (25) in league games, and tied a school mark when he swiped his 40th base in the opening round of the league tournament. Hudson is a 5-foot-11, 165-pound burner whose games revolves around his top-of-the-line speed. He has run the 40-yard dash in 4.4 seconds and uses his quickness well on the bases and in center field. He's an outstanding athlete who once won the Illinois state high school high jump title with a mark of 6-foot-10 and earned 15 letters in four sports. Hudson offers little power, but he understands his limitations and concentrates on getting on base. He uses a slap approach at the plate and is a good bunter. His arm is well-below-average, though he compensates by getting to balls quickly. A team that loves speed and values athletes at a premium position could take Hudson as early as the third round.

http://forum.orioleshangout.com/forums/showthread.php?t=64702