jpx7
Very Flirtatious, but Doubts What Love Is.
Ballerino. But I prefer danseur.
Fangraphs Top 100 Prospects
- Thread starter CJ9
- Start date
Ballerino. But I prefer danseur.
Explains why so many here bailed on him. FG is where they go to find out what they're supposed to think.
All prospect evaluators must use FG now since they all dropped Allard too.
And they are all making a big mistake. Allard will be considered one of the best pitching prospects in baseball my midseason.
It's possible. But the scouts general consensus is that he has poor stuff but makes it up with great sequencing. So he currently has good results that they don't expect to last as he progresses. Time will tell on that.
Were the reports poor stuff or just decreased velocity? Any reports on the vertical movement of his pitches?
Not sure of any specifics. But something has the scouts spooked.
Please define "one of the best pitching prospects in all of baseball" objectively.
Some would say a FV 50 guy is already "one of the best pitching prospects in all of baseball".
Who needs scouts anyway?
Not sure. Statheads haven't needed them for years.
Besides that. Fangraphs has 50 FV prospects ranging from the high 40's likely until the 120's or so. Very minimal difference between these spots. Going from #50 to #110 isn't much lost in terms of prospect value. Going from #20 to #50 would be a big dropoff.
Kiley said everyone mentioned in the article was a FV 50+, and the count is 137 (I think).
EL then said there may be a few guys who get bunped up to FV 50 when they finish the team by team lists, so that total will likely be 140+.
And you're right, Allard jumping from 101-140 to 75 means very little. That's why I want an objective definition from tehteh so we don't have to hear him brag about being right when Allard cracks the Top 100 in 4 months.
Yeah. For them to 'be wrong' by mid season I would expect a bump to a 55 FV player and be a top 50 prospect in most outlets. It's not like Allard has been bumped to non prospect status so I'm not sure how wrong that would really make them.
They also seem to have done a systematic downgrade of all pitching prospects to better reflect their inherent risk (and lower overall value) compared to hitters.
We definitely saw it with Wright and Soroka, and Allard likely got dinged for it too on top of his lackluster scouting reports.
Further, we see MLBPipeline with FV 55 guys all the way to 100, whereas FG only has 40-something FV 55+ guys. Accounting for this rating scale inflation from FG to MLB is a good thing to keep in mind.
But pitching prospects are valuable...
I do wonder if this was done so they don't have two separate values for hitters and pitchers when their do their surplus update. Instead of ranking 55 FV hitters and pitchers differently they just downgrade the pitchers FV ranking.
Yeah, who ever heard of a prospect regressing and rebounding? I mean, Dave Justice was in AAA for 3 years. If FG had been around then, he'd have been outside their Top 100 too in 1990.
That would almost line up...
For 2017:
FV 60 Pitcher = $34M
FV 55 Hitter = $38M
FV 55 Pitcher = $22M
FV 50 Hitter = $20M
FV 50 Pitcher = $14M
FV 45 Hitter = $11M
Simply docking each pitcher half a FV grade makes them line up almost perfectly. I think you may have figured out what they did this year.
Their logic for doing so is sound.
BeanieAntics
Arbitration Eligible
It does present an interesting argument. Should you rank prospects relative strictly to their value or should you rank them on how good you think they actually could be/likelihood of being that good. The two are definitely not the same thing
FG just posted their "FV 45 guys who are likely to jump to FV 50 and be Top 100 guys soon" article: https://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/heres-some-lower-ranked-prospects-we-love/
Braves mentioned:
Starting Pitchers - None
Catchers - This group is mostly composed of bat-first, fringe catchers who don’t have such dominant profiles that you’re fine with them at first base if they can’t catch. If they can, on the other hand, they’ll be quite valuable.
William Contreras, Atlanta Braves
Brett Cumberland, Atlanta Braves - Cumberland has the best bat of those guys but also the most work to do behind the plate.
Corner Infielders - None
Middle Infielders - None
Solid Performers - None
Outfielders - None
Close BP Arms - None
Josh Graham, RHR, Atlanta Braves
A.J. Minter, LHR, Atlanta Braves - In the “ridiculous stuff” category
Utility - None
A few comments:
Nice to see some hope in the catcher department if those guys can ever figure out how to catch, but that's been the case all along.
The Minter comment is further proof of how bad the TC ranking was.
I'm a little surprised not to see Jean Carlos Encarnacion mentioned considering everyone is pimping him so loudly.
Braves mentioned:
Starting Pitchers - None
Catchers - This group is mostly composed of bat-first, fringe catchers who don’t have such dominant profiles that you’re fine with them at first base if they can’t catch. If they can, on the other hand, they’ll be quite valuable.
William Contreras, Atlanta Braves
Brett Cumberland, Atlanta Braves - Cumberland has the best bat of those guys but also the most work to do behind the plate.
Corner Infielders - None
Middle Infielders - None
Solid Performers - None
Outfielders - None
Close BP Arms - None
Josh Graham, RHR, Atlanta Braves
A.J. Minter, LHR, Atlanta Braves - In the “ridiculous stuff” category
Utility - None
A few comments:
Nice to see some hope in the catcher department if those guys can ever figure out how to catch, but that's been the case all along.
The Minter comment is further proof of how bad the TC ranking was.
I'm a little surprised not to see Jean Carlos Encarnacion mentioned considering everyone is pimping him so loudly.