UNCBlue012
Well-known member
Not really. The team's draft approach has been strategic and will change as their needs change. Had they not lost out on international resources, they'd be fine. That's the killer.
2021 BA Top 100
- Thread starter clvclv
- Start date
Not really. The team's draft approach has been strategic and will change as their needs change. Had they not lost out on international resources, they'd be fine. That's the killer.
Southcack77
Well-known member
Hard to evaluate anyone's system with the minor season wiped out. I don't know that it's bad right now.
You could say the same for most teams that are not top 6-7 farm systems right now. Losing development in 2020 is going to affect that. The Braves still have lots of talent that could/should see improvement this year and take the place of those exhausting their eligibility. I imagine at this time in 2022, we'll have at least new 2-3 more names on top 100 lists. Muller, Langeliers, Shoemake, and Contreras are all somewhat likely candidates to be featured on Top 100 lists by mid-season. And this makes no mention of possibly our highest upside hitters in Harris and Ball who definitely would have moved on to one of these lists had they continued their trends from 2019. Schuster also has a chance to make a top 100 list if his rookie campaign goes well.
NYCBrave
Well-known member
Hard to find any issues with the draft approach. Whether guys pan out is another thing, and will have more to do with development. But with the stiff penalties we faced, the organization made the decision to go with this approach and time will tell if it pans out.
UNCBlue012
Well-known member
Keith Law's Top-100 rankings are out and four Braves made the list: Pache (3); Anderson (15); Shewmake (64); Contreras (70).
As previously noted, he is REALLY low on Drew Waters but not being a top-100 prospect is a bit absurd.
Link: https://theathletic.com/2338178/202...00-prospects-2021/?source=user_shared_article
As previously noted, he is REALLY low on Drew Waters but not being a top-100 prospect is a bit absurd.
Link: https://theathletic.com/2338178/202...00-prospects-2021/?source=user_shared_article
Last edited:
Didn't he say Freeman was another Sean Casey type of hitter and Riley would never amount to anything? I know not everyone is right 100% of the time, but he has made some very boneheaded statements before.
Even if you don't like Water's approach, you can't deny the raw talent and the production at an younger than the league average. Not having him top 100 is extremely laughable. At the very least, he profiles as a good defensive CFer with some speed and pop. Comparable players would be Drew Stubbs or Michael Taylor. Those guys are not terrific and they are not starters on a playoff caliber team, but they're useful players. However, if he reaches his full potential, you could be looking at someone like Starling Marte or Hunter Pence.
i think it was worse than Sean Casey. peak Sean Casey was damn good offensively, and Freddie has put up a bunch of seasons like peak Sean Casey.
being wrong on a prospect happens to everybody though, so holding that stuff against someone doesn't make much sense. the more annoying part with him is he will fight and fight and fight and say he wasn't wrong when he clearly was. i wonder if he acknowledges yet that Freeman is better than Belt.
i agree with you re: his Waters assessment tho. he's pretty clearly a top 100 guy even if you're low on him (like i am).
IslandBrave
Mashin' to Mississippi
Law continuing to not list Drew Waters as a top 100 guy just reeks of his insecurities. He can't admit when he's wrong. I get the concerns about contact, but any kid who hits .320 as a 20 yr Old in AA is 110% a top 100 prospect in baseball. It's comically foolish to suggest otherwise
NYCBrave
Well-known member
Keith Law is known for this approach. He's been doing it for years. He will stick to his initial assessment of a player and refuse to ever admit he's wrong about that. It's as arrogant of an approach as you will find, but it's no surprise he doesn't list Waters.
MadduxFanII
Swallowed by Mark Bowman
Law is way low on Waters, but damn, Pache as the third-best prospect in baseball is really high, no?
Yah I agree on that too. I know pitchers are riskier, but what Anderson showed last season/post-season is way better than what Pache showed, imo. So I would put him over Pache. I also feel pretty safe penciling Anderson in as a 2-3 WAR pitcher going forward, which should automatically put him ahead almost every pitcher on that list.
Always really hard to find any rhyme or reason to his lists - he always seems to be way higher or way lower than most of the other "experts". For example...
Forrest Whitley - BA #80, Law #29
Bobby Witt - BA #16, Law #27
Nolan Jones - BA #45, Law #86
Tristan Casas - BA #47, Law #87
Contreras - BA NR, Law #70
You don't expect everybody's lists to look exactly the same, but if they're using info they've gotten from scouts as a part of their evaluations you'd think that players would at least be in the same ballpark on each list - Law regularly has guys that wind up 30-40 spots higher or lower than they are on other lists.
Russ2dollas
10 yr, $185 million Extension
I like Klaw. He has an approach and he explains it.
One thing I noticed about the list this year, it's OLD. I swear half the list is 23 plus. Lots of 24, 25 on the list.
He's always been super high on Pache. He thinks Pache is an 80 fielder with solid power.
He's always been super high on Shewmake. Seems to think he's a 300 hitter with solid SS defense. Maybe this is true and why there is zero Dansby extension buzz.
He's been high on Wright, but not this year.
He has been super low on Riley and Waters. I think he's been mostly right on Riley.
Predicting the future is hard.
Southcack77
Well-known member
If Law doesn't think the peripherals or tools match then there is no reason he necessarily has to be moved by an obviously not substainable BABIP and put him in Top 100.
bravesfanMatt
Steve Harvey'd
100% agree and if we could headline a joRam trade with him then we need to do it.
50PoundHead
Hessmania Forever
I don't know if Baseball Prospectus still does it this way, but they used to give each prospect two scores. The first score was a ceiling score and the second score was an estimate of the chances the player would reach the ceiling score. It may be that Law believes Waters has a fairly high ceiling, but a fairly low chance of reaching it. Translating, it's all about the player's tools and their ability to apply those tools all the way to the majors. Lots of guys have great tools but can never get it together.
I also am unimpressed by Waters. A dude with an insanely lucky .430 BABIP should be posting an OPS way higher than .850. To me, he’s just another one of those toolsy OF prospects who never puts together much of a career because they simply can’t hit the ball.
Having said that, FG has Waters #69 as a FV 50 guy. They also have a guy nobody has ever heard of named Isaac Peredes at #115 as a FV 50. There isn’t a ton of difference between #69 and #115, so there no real reason to be upset if Waters isn’t inside some arbitrarily sized Top X list.
Waters consistently barrels baseballs. That counts for something. That's a skill he has at a young age. The hope is that with experience, he refines his approach because he's going to get less hittable pitches in the majors. But it's not like it's a slap hitting guy posting high BABIPs.
I mean, that's a phrase scouts consistently use, so I'm sure there's something to it. I recall hearing similar scouting takes about Ozzie coming up.
I think the take from that is that he hits the ball hard with a lot of frequency, something his hard hit% should reflect, and therefore would support a higher BABIP. Do we have those sort of numbers for minor leaguers? I haven't the faintest idea of where to look for those.
I think the take from that is that he hits the ball hard with a lot of frequency, something his hard hit% should reflect, and therefore would support a higher BABIP. Do we have those sort of numbers for minor leaguers? I haven't the faintest idea of where to look for those.