Fangraphs Evaluating the 2016 Prospects: Atlanta Braves

dak

dak

Well-known member
These rankings are so bad. I'm completely embarrassed for this Dan Farnsworth guy. I wouldn't be surprised if the article gets pulled in the next hour.

http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/evaluating-the-2016-prospects-atlanta-braves/

UPDATE: Farnsworth edited the rankings this evening and added this overall message (and some more context for some of his controversial picks).

*EDIT: After a strong showing from internet commenters, I added a couple changes to this piece. You’ll see that Austin Riley and Kolby Allard were both added to the list, and I added notes under Ryan Weber’s report.

I’m going to leave the overall grades the same here, though AS WITH EVERYBODY overall grades may change by the time I get to the composite prospect list. I originally wanted to put three overall grades in these reports, then thought about leaving them out entirely because of their likelihood to change, before finally settling on putting a likely future value in for some comparisons. The innernets say no. I’m new here.

I’m reserving the right to change grades as I go along, this being the first time I’ve compiled reports on a volume this scale, though I have decided to put three values in for overall grades in the future lists. This should help clear up some of the questions people have about how I can agree that pitcher Mel Clark has a high ceiling, but only makes it on the list in the 45+ section. Enjoy!
Click to expand...
 
I think Kiley McDaniel called in a favor to Dan Farnsworth and asked him to rank the players we're looking to trade high atop the list. Smart move Kiley!
 
I noticed he's got some guy named Allard as a player of note. Is that someone we should keep an eye on to see if maybe he can crack the top 20 next season?
 
weso1 said:
I noticed he's got some guy named Allard as a player of note. Is that someone we should keep an eye on to see if maybe he can crack the top 20 next season?
Click to expand...

And he mentioned some kid named Austin Riley in his quick hits
 
In no way am I saying I agree with this assessment. But remember that it is interesting to get the view of people from outside the organization on prospects. All goes back to the conversation about how we can overvalue our prospects. Again, in no way saying Newcomb is our number 3 prospect and only projects to be a 2/3
 
nsacpi said:
I'm glad to see someone put out some rankings that are at variance with the consensus.
Click to expand...

Variance I don't mind. But that looks more like he took someone else's list, put the names in a hat, and pulled them out to create his list. It's really bad.
 
bravesfanforlife88 said:
In no way am I saying I agree with this assessment. But remember that it is interesting to get the view of people from outside the organization on prospects. All goes back to the conversation about how we can overvalue our prospects. Again, in no way saying Newcomb is our number 3 prospect and only projects to be a 2/3
Click to expand...

I agree that we often overvalue our own prospects, but these rankings are just odd. Weber has some eye-popping control numbers and a great GB/FB ratio, but he was eligible for the Rule 5 three times and went undrafted. He would have been a six-year minor league FA if he hadn't been elevated to the 40-man late in the 2015 season as a fill-in. That just doesn't spell "#4 prospect" to me. That doesn't mean that he can't be useful to someone somewhere as he continues in his career.
 
This is the worst prospect ranking I've ever seen. So sad that the loss of Kiley McDaniel is doing this to Fangraphs. Officially cannot put any stock in fangraphs prospect rankings
 
I am cool with having different ways of evaluating prospects, but I don't see how you can rank Povse so high and then not even rank Riley or Allard. The rankings seem to struggle to reconcile upside vs. performance.
 
Perhaps this guy really puts a lot of value in being a likely major leaguer... that's all I can see for these to make sense
 
sturg33 said:
Perhaps this guy really puts a lot of value in being a likely major leaguer... that's all I can see for these to make sense
Click to expand...

Yeah, I noticed the same. I suppose it's okay to evaluate things this way, but it's at odds with the Future Value system that he used with these rankings. Without a more detailed explanation from the author, we may never know. As a layperson looking at this, it just feels uninformed.

On Gant, I've read in a couple places where evaluators are moving him up as a result of his increased velocity shown in the second half. Still, it's a bump from the 40 / 45 FV level to the 45 / 50 FV level.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top