BA Top 30 (Baltimore)

[Tony-OH]

I'd be interested to get the views of Doc Shorebird and Tony on this specific point. I accept the fact that Hudson is faster than Angle. However, from what I have read, Angle isn't just "very good" defensively, he's outstanding.

I'm going to caveat this with the fact that I've seen Hudson one time in Aberdeen so I'm going almost exclusively off what I was told by other scouts. While Hudson is faster than Angle (some beleive he's the fastest in the organization) , he has neither the instincts or the arm that Angle has so it's doubtful he will ever be a better defensive outfielder than Angle.

Offensively, I agree with Frobby, 10 extra base hits in the Sally League as a 22-year old is certainly a giant red flag for me. I understand his lack of experience, and I understand he has some tools, but after I saw him at Aberdeen I immediately thought he was a reach as a fourth round draft pick and he's done nothing since then to change that opinion.

Angle doesn't have a lot of power either, but he consistently squares the ball up, hits to all fields, improved as a bunter, and has outstanding base running and stealing instincts despite being just an above average runner. Like Brian Roberts, he's a guy who steals more on instincts than blinding speed.

While I don't find it inconceivable that someone could like Hudson more as a prospect, I believe those who do are putting more weight into the potential that a player can maximize a tool with experience over a guy who has already shown he can maximize his tools at the professional level.

For my money, I'll take Angle every day of the week and twice on Sunday.

[Tony-OH]

Right, I'm not disputing that Angle is the better player right now. I think the question is how people view each player's current skillset and what type of player that skillset can produce. Sure, Doc's and Tony's opinions matter. But I'd have to know how much of Hudson Tony has himself seen and how successful both he and Doc are at projecting.

And I would request the same thing about any individual scout BA talks to -- I just think some deference should be given to the fact that BA is asking around to multiple scouts and coaches and multiple organizations to try and get concensus views on the players they cover. Again, not saying BA has the order right, but I can't see dismissing it out-of-hand.

I do the same thing and I think my track record for projecting out is easily found by looking back through our lists. Not sure what your point is, but I'm very secure on my lists and projections.

I don't just sit at home looking at few stats and seeing a guy once or twice before making an opinion. I talk with scouts in and out of the organization, but the major difference is I follow ONE team, not 30.

You can believe who you like, but I'll certainly start to take offense when you start to assume BA is the only people out there who get a consensus view. I respect the guys that put to together the BA lists because they have been doing this a long time, but I think you over estimate the amount of people who they talk. It would be impossible for BA to talk to as many people as I talk to about most of Orioles prospects because they have to cover the entire MLB.

Thanks for questioning my ability to project though. :rolleyestf:

[Stotle]

I do the same thing and I think my track record for projecting out is easily found by looking back through our lists. Not sure what your point is, but I'm very secure on my lists and projections.

I don't just sit at home looking at few stats and seeing a guy once or twice before making an opinion. I talk with scouts in and out of the organization, but the major difference is I follow ONE team, not 30.

You can believe who you like, but I'll certainly start to take offense when you start to assume BA is the only people out there who get a consensus view. I respect the guys that put to together the BA lists because they have been doing this a long time, but I think you over estimate the amount of people who they talk. It would be impossible for BA to talk to as many people as I talk to about most of Orioles prospects because they have to cover the entire MLB.

Thanks for questioning my ability to project though. :rolleyestf:

Not at all what I said, and I pointed out that I would ask any singular source the exact same things I would ask you -- how has that person done projecting this type of talent, and how much have they seen that particular player. To the extent anyone wanted my opinion opinion on a player, I would include with it the number of times I saw the player.

Not a slight towards you at all. It's just how I view transparency in assessments.

[Lucky Jim]

Again, not saying BA has the order right, but I can't see dismissing it out-of-hand.

Things like this get emphasized and re-emphasized and still these discussions turn personal. And I have no idea why when the ultimate point of contention is so narrow, is clearly stated as such, and makes no conclusions that one assessment is better than any other.

All that's really been argued is that the decision isn't based solely off of draft status and that it's not unreasonable.

Main Entry: un·rea·son·able

Pronunciation: \-ˈrēz-nə-bəl, -ˈrē-zən-ə-bəl\

Function: adjective

Date: 14th century

1 a : not governed by or acting according to reason <unreasonable people> b : not conformable to reason : absurd <unreasonable beliefs>

2 : exceeding the bounds of reason or moderation <working under unreasonable pressure>

Are those extremist views?

[Frobby]

Things like this get emphasized and re-emphasized and still these discussions turn personal. And I have no idea why when the ultimate point of contention is so narrow, is clearly stated as such, and makes no conclusions that one assessment is better than any other.

All that's really been argued is that the decision isn't based solely off of draft status and that it's not unreasonable.

I suspect this post is not really directed at me, but I acknowledged in my first post that you weren't so much agreeing with BA as merely saying they have a defensible position. Certainly, I'm not taking any of this personally, though I was a bit irritated that it was implied that I hadn't considered the fact that Hudson had devoted a lot of time to football rather than baseball.

For me, it's not personal, I just think Tony's logic is much better than BA's in this case; in fact, I think BA's logic is marginal at best. Then again, I've never been much of a "tools" guy, especially if we are talking about one tool.

I'm finished with the Angle/Hudson discussion, as it really isn't worth this much time and energy.

[wickedwitch]

You can believe who you like, but I'll certainly start to take offense when you start to assume BA is the only people out there who get a consensus view.

It's not a question of believing or not believing. There is no one correct way in ranking prospects. Different lists weigh different skills in different manners. Some put more emphasis on raw tools or on current production or on floor or ceiling or some combination these.

Personally, I prefer Angle.

[rhall]

I do the same thing and I think my track record for projecting out is easily found by looking back through our lists. Not sure what your point is, but I'm very secure on my lists and projections.

I don't just sit at home looking at few stats and seeing a guy once or twice before making an opinion. I talk with scouts in and out of the organization, but the major difference is I follow ONE team, not 30.

You can believe who you like, but I'll certainly start to take offense when you start to assume BA is the only people out there who get a consensus view. I respect the guys that put to together the BA lists because they have been doing this a long time, but I think you over estimate the amount of people who they talk. It would be impossible for BA to talk to as many people as I talk to about most of Orioles prospects because they have to cover the entire MLB.

Thanks for questioning my ability to project though. :rolleyestf:

I'm not trying to argue against your prospect evaluating, or pump up BA as the end-all-be-all, but I want to make sure we don't go overboard with the bolded above.

I don't know how many people you talk to, Tony, but I don't feel comfortable writing off that BA can keep pace as impossible. Saying that they have to cover the entire MLB can be misleading as it's not the same guy contacting all the scouts and organizations. The research for the Prospect Handbook gets split up among the entire staff so that each staff member might have anywhere from just a couple organizations to write about to a larger handfull. IIRC, Jim Callis had the most teams this year with about 7. Taking into consideration that this is what they do full-time, its possible that their contact list pertaining to Orioles prospects would rival yours. Maybe the biggest difference is that their list of contacts have less O's organizational contacts and more scouts who cover the league's our guys play in. That would fit with how they try to show more of an industry consensus than ownership bias.

I'm not saying things stand one way or another, I'm just saying that we don't know and it's possible things are different than we might assume at first blush.

EDIT: FWIW, I agree that Angle is a better prospect than Hudson. I didn't even have Hudson in my personal top 30.

[LookinUp]

Ok, I'm convinced now. Tony underrates Kyle Hudson and Brett Jacobson.

Anything else going on in this thread?

[Tony-OH]

I'm not trying to argue against your prospect evaluating, or pump up BA as the end-all-be-all, but I want to make sure we don't go overboard with the bolded above.

I don't know how many people you talk to, Tony, but I don't feel comfortable writing off that BA can keep pace as impossible. Saying that they have to cover the entire MLB can be misleading as it's not the same guy contacting all the scouts and organizations. The research for the Prospect Handbook gets split up among the entire staff so that each staff member might have anywhere from just a couple organizations to write about to a larger handfull. IIRC, Jim Callis had the most teams this year with about 7. Taking into consideration that this is what they do full-time, its possible that their contact list pertaining to Orioles prospects would rival yours. Maybe the biggest difference is that their list of contacts have less O's organizational contacts and more scouts who cover the league's our guys play in. That would fit with how they try to show more of an industry consensus than ownership bias.

I'm not saying things stand one way or another, I'm just saying that we don't know and it's possible things are different than we might assume at first blush.

EDIT: FWIW, I agree that Angle is a better prospect than Hudson. I didn't even have Hudson in my personal top 30.

I certainly didn't mean to disavow anything BA puts out. I know these guys do their homework and they do a good job, but I cover one organization all season long. I follow these guys in boxscores everyday, I have conversations with multiple scouts in and out of the organization throughout the year, I try to see them as much as possible, and I talk to many of the organizations managers, coaches, and instructors as well.

Perhaps BA does this as well, but considering these guys also cover college and high school kids as well as multiple organizations each, I just find it hard to believe they have as accurate a picture of some of these guys.

Another thing that has me scratching my head a bit is when I see guys like Jacobson, Adams, and Rowell still on a top 30 list. I start thinking, well, maybe they are still thinking their tools will suddenly start to work. But then i see them put Eddie Gamboa on the list. Would anyone really take a 25-year old AA pitcher over a kid like Beal or Wirsch?

Also, I love reading through BA's Prospect Handbook, especially the other organizations because I just don't have time to follow them. However, knowing what I've read about some of the Orioles pitching prospects in the past, they tend to exaggerate velocity, mostly because they have to get most of their velocity readings from the organization. Hell, I know for a fact that scouts and player personnel exaggerate velocity readings at times, because it's easier to say he throws 90-94 when he may touch 94 once a game but sits 90-91.

Either way, everyone has their own thoughts on why they like a guy or don't like a guy. I try to be very upfront and back my scouting and conversations up with stats.

Keith Law is much more technical then I am because he has a formal scouting background, and for that, I respect his opinions greatly. That doesn't mean I'm always going to agree with him and that's ok. Same with BA, I'm not knocking them at all, I only get upset when people start assuming they are the only ones who use a consensus to reach their conclusions.

[Frobby]

Tony, two questions for you:

1. On the scouts' 80-point scale, if Hudson and Avery are 80's as to speed, what is Angle?

2. How would Angle compare defensively with a good major league CF? I know he's currently considered the best defensive CF in our minor league system, but how would he compare if judged against Jones and Pie?

[Tony-OH]

Tony, two questions for you:

1. On the scouts' 80-point scale, if Hudson and Avery are 80's as to speed, what is Angle?

2. How would Angle compare defensively with a good major league CF? I know he's currently considered the best defensive CF in our minor league system, but how would he compare if judged against Jones and Pie?

For me Angle is a 60, but I haven't timed his home to 1st time. I can find out for sure though from a scout who did last year. As for your second question, I'd probably put him closer to Pie in center field. Everyone I talk to raves about Angle's defense in center and in the games I saw he showed me good routes and a solid center fielder's arm.

The only question I have is whether Angle can handle good major league fastballs on a consistent basis. He still can be tied up at times with a good fastball inside but he's made some adjustments that has helped.

I still say he's going to end up a 4th outfielder, but if guys like Pierre have started, I wouldn't say it's outlandish if Angle doesn't find a team that will start him in center one day.

I'm bullish in guys who have baseball instincts, good plate discipline and can squared a ball up when hitting, even if there's not a ton of power (or any power) in there.

[allstar1579]

I certainly didn't mean to disavow anything BA puts out. I know these guys do their homework and they do a good job, but I cover one organization all season long. I follow these guys in boxscores everyday, I have conversations with multiple scouts in and out of the organization throughout the year, I try to see them as much as possible, and I talk to many of the organizations managers, coaches, and instructors as well.

Perhaps BA does this as well, but considering these guys also cover college and high school kids as well as multiple organizations each, I just find it hard to believe they have as accurate a picture of some of these guys.

Another thing that has me scratching my head a bit is when I see guys like Jacobson, Adams, and Rowell still on a top 30 list. I start thinking, well, maybe they are still thinking their tools will suddenly start to work. But then i see them put Eddie Gamboa on the list. Would anyone really take a 25-year old AA pitcher over a kid like Beal or Wirsch?

Also, I love reading through BA's Prospect Handbook, especially the other organizations because I just don't have time to follow them. However, knowing what I've read about some of the Orioles pitching prospects in the past, they tend to exaggerate velocity, mostly because they have to get most of their velocity readings from the organization. Hell, I know for a fact that scouts and player personnel exaggerate velocity readings at times, because it's easier to say he throws 90-94 when he may touch 94 once a game but sits 90-91.

Either way, everyone has their own thoughts on why they like a guy or don't like a guy. I try to be very upfront and back my scouting and conversations up with stats.

Keith Law is much more technical then I am because he has a formal scouting background, and for that, I respect his opinions greatly. That doesn't mean I'm always going to agree with him and that's ok. Same with BA, I'm not knocking them at all, I only get upset when people start assuming they are the only ones who use a consensus to reach their conclusions.

This does help them in some senses too, because those kids they are seeing as amateurs are the same kids they are rating in the minors, so they have seen them longer and have more of a baseline to use. This might be where some of the discrepancies in rankings show up through all the different outlets. Some have seen them a certain way, and seen improvements, some have seen potential they have yet to see reached. There is never going to be perfect consensus but I know some, like Stotle and I believe in the more views and opinions on guys, the better.

[Tony-OH]

This does help them in some senses too, because those kids they are seeing as amateurs are the same kids they are rating in the minors, so they have seen them longer and have more of a baseline to use. This might be where some of the discrepancies in rankings show up through all the different outlets. Some have seen them a certain way, and seen improvements, some have seen potential they have yet to see reached. There is never going to be perfect consensus but I know some, like Stotle and I believe in the more views and opinions on guys, the better.

Guess what, it's not just you and Stotle that believe that. :rolleyestf:

In fact, it's exactly what I just said so I don't understand this "point" at all. As for seeing a guy in college or high school, that doesn't mean anything two or three years into their pro career.

[allstar1579]

Guess what, it's not just you and Stotle that believe that. :rolleyestf:

In fact, it's exactly what I just said so I don't understand this "point" at all. As for seeing a guy in college or high school, that doesn't mean anything two or three years into their pro career.

Did I say that just Stotle and I believe that? I don't know why you feel the need to pick a fight. My point was that you have more data to make an assessment on someone when you have watched them develop for a longer time, you can see changes and adjustments that have been made. A larger sample size is always a good thing.

[Ruzious]

Just fwiw, I think Hudson and Angle are startlingly similar. They both did great in 3 years in the Big 10 with no power at the same ages. They both have shown the ability in the minors to get on base and steal bases. They're both a year or 2 older than you'd like at their level of development - to be a prospect that you'd depend on. They're both CFers. I'd give Hudson a slight edge for the unknown in his future development. We've seen Angle's numbers go down a little bit as he's progressed, and we don't know... if Hudson's will do the same. And he's a bit bigger (that's not saying much), so there's more hope he can get stronger.