Fangraphs Top 100 Prospects

clvclv said:
Why?

The only rankings that have never been wrong other than FanGraphs are Law's.

:HeywardWut:

Riley's ranking just broke a lot of hearts in these parts -apparently there's no reason to follow that site anymore.
Click to expand...

LOL who disagrees with Riley being a FV 50 guy?

And who thinks KLaw is a particularly good prospect writer?

Seriously, do you ever have anything non-stupid to contribute?
 
Jaw said:
Agreed. Thoughts on a few of these:

If other teams agree on this value for Anderson and Touki, we should deal them tomorrow.
Click to expand...

Haha, I was thinking the same thing. I am not impressed with this list. It's a joke to see Touki ranked this high now and Allard not even on the list IMO.
 
thewupk said:
Fangraphs had 55 FV guys all the way to #72 a year ago and now they only make it to #42.

Seems like it's an overall weaker prospect group.
Click to expand...

They seem to have systematically downgraded guys. For example, Wright and Greene went from 60 to 55 for no apparent reason.
 
Enscheff said:
They seem to have systematically downgraded guys. For example, Wright and Greene went from 60 to 55 for no apparent reason.
Click to expand...

It's odd. Anderson for example gained 24 spots from their mid season top 100 but dropped to a 50 FV. Should we feel good or bad about this?
 
thewupk said:
It's odd. Anderson for example gained 24 spots from their mid season top 100 but dropped to a 50 FV. Should we feel good or bad about this?
Click to expand...

It smells like they are manipulating something to make the prospect values line up somehow.

That piece is slated to come out on Friday I think, so it will be interesting to see how it shakes out.

I’ll be asking about it in the chat tomorrow, for sure.
 
Enscheff said:
What a completely pointless statement lol.

After being drafted with concerns about his ability to make contact, Lewis went to Low-A and posted a .299/.385/.530 line over 135 PAs while playing CF. His K rate was 16.3%, and his walk rate was 11.9%, so he was answering questions about his contact skills...likely at the expense of some power as evidenced by his low HR total of 3.

Then he blew up his knee in a collision at home plate. This is not an injury even remotely like a player having recurring hamstring issues, or a pitcher blowing out his elbow over the course of normal work. This was a freak injury that was in no way accounted for in the risk profile of a player.

If the Braves had Kyle Lewis, and he finished his Low-A season with a .915 OPS while playing CF, folks here would be drooling over him. The rosterbating about an Acuna/Inciarte/Lewis OF in 2018/2019 would be almost unbearable. He would have been possibly the highest rated prospect in the Braves system, and the only question going forward would be if he could get more HR pop without raising his K rate too much.

To act like the Braves were right not to take Lewis over Anderson because he blew up his knee is clvclv-level stupid.
Click to expand...

I didn't act like the Braves were right to take Lewis over Anderson because he blew up his knee.

1) Why are we even comparing these two players? The Braves passed on Lewis, just like ten other teams passed on Lewis. Given his draft position, it is curious that the Braves are for some reason supposed to account for passing over him because some Braves fans valued him higher than MLB did. This is the opportunity cost that Anderson is supposed to represent? Why not someone else? Because he played college ball in Georgia? I don't get it.

2) If we are going to compare them for whatever reason, any argument based on a good 100 ABs in short season ball when he was two or three years older than the competition is somewhat weak.

That's all.

I think counterfactuals lose some interest over time, particularly when you are looking at alternate history for the counterfactual. What would Lewis have done if he didn't blow out his knee? Who knows?

Anderson has been ok, but nothing amazing so far.
 
Enscheff said:
The Braves were able to foresee him blowing up his knee during a home plate collision playing a game in the town of Everett.

Well done Braves scouting/psychic group!
Click to expand...

He was still easily in the top 50 even after his injury. His drop out of the top 100 is due to his play last year, not his injury.
 
smootness said:
He was still easily in the top 50 even after his injury. His drop out of the top 100 is due to his play last year, not his injury.
Click to expand...

LOL and his play last year was due to his injury. Literally every scouting report states he doesn’t look healthy.

It’s almost to the point where folks are thinking he may never recover.
 
smootness said:
He was still easily in the top 50 even after his injury. His drop out of the top 100 is due to his play last year, not his injury.
Click to expand...

I added the bold to help you out.

JP
12:24 Kyle Lewis didn't even get a mention. Is this all injury-related? How much hope does he still have?
Eric A Longenhagen
12:26 Certainly it's injury-related. Dr. Martin didn't exactly instill confidence when she wouldn't commit to all three of Lewis, Carlson and White being ready for ST in a press conference last week. How many times did Lewis start up and shut down last year, four? Five?
 
thewupk said:
It's odd. Anderson for example gained 24 spots from their mid season top 100 but dropped to a 50 FV. Should we feel good or bad about this?
Click to expand...

They didn't answer my question explicitly, but it looks like re-calibration is the simple answer.

Kiley McDaniel
12:33 And there's also been some questions about why was a guy ranked here in a list a year ago and is here now. We're always gathering new info and calibrating the FV system for how many guys should be 50 or 55 and now there's a new person with new information to mix in. So it isn't some vendetta against your team or some guy got worse in the 2 months when he wasn't playing. This won't be quite as jarring going forward.
 
Enscheff said:
They didn't answer my question explicitly, but it looks like re-calibration is the simple answer.

Kiley McDaniel
12:33 And there's also been some questions about why was a guy ranked here in a list a year ago and is here now. We're always gathering new info and calibrating the FV system for how many guys should be 50 or 55 and now there's a new person with new information to mix in. So it isn't some vendetta against your team or some guy got worse in the 2 months when he wasn't playing. This won't be quite as jarring going forward.
Click to expand...

I guess they felt they were too much like mlp pipeline with all the 55 FV players they had.
 
Interesting to see them finally trying to account for risk of pitchers making them less valuable overall

Doug

12:54 You guys seem pretty down on the current crop of pitchers. Seemed like everyone outside of Whitley/Ohtani are projected as mid-rotation pieces.

Kiley McDaniel

12:55 This isn't necessarily being down on all pitchers, since you can see the pitch grades. My issue, at least, is that these lists have been proven to always have too many pitchers at the top of the lists and too many at the very top. There's inherently more risk and so we're trying to reflect that reality, since clubs do this too. Also, there were lots of hitters we liked.
 
They have Riley listed at 3B. That is more meaningful than just listing his current MiLB position.

Billy Beane
12:56 What is your rationale behind putting players at a projected position even if they've never played it?
Eric A Longenhagen
12:57 'member when Miguel Cabrera spent his first two pro seasons at shortstop? It's just subjective projection on guys like Vlad and Chavis, you can either buy that we have good feel for that kind of thing or not, totally fine.
Kiley McDaniel
12:57 Going back to an earlier comment: we are projecting. We know Chavis and Vlad Jr. haven't played 1B before. If we think they're both below average 3B that move and could only fit in a regular role at 1B...do you want us to list them at 3B when we think they won't play there? You can look up the hard data about where they played, we're trying to tell you what's going to happen.
 
Enscheff said:
They have Riley listed at 3B. That is meaningful.

Billy Beane

12:56 What is your rationale behind putting players at a projected position even if they've never played it?

Eric A Longenhagen

12:57 'member when Miguel Cabrera spent his first two pro seasons at shortstop? It's just subjective projection on guys like Vlad and Chavis, you can either buy that we have good feel for that kind of thing or not, totally fine.

Kiley McDaniel

12:57 Going back to an earlier comment: we are projecting. We know Chavis and Vlad Jr. haven't played 1B before. If we think they're both below average 3B that move and could only fit in a regular role at 1B...do you want us to list them at 3B when we think they won't play there? You can look up the hard data about where they played, we're trying to tell you what's going to happen.
Click to expand...

What service put the report out that Riley was terrible or whatever at 3b? Pretty sure there was one bc no one seemed to think he could stick at 3b until lately
 
msstate7 said:
What service put the report out that Riley was terrible or whatever at 3b? Pretty sure there was one bc no one seemed to think he could stick at 3b until lately
Click to expand...

It was everyone.

Then he puts in a lot of work to get into shape, flitters around AFL like a male ballerina, and suddenly everyone thinks he is a solid defender at 3B. Hell, BA called him the best defensive IFer in the organization.

Couple that with all the "slow bat" comments, and Riley might be a guy all the prospect gurus missed on if he becomes a 2-3 win guy at 3B.
 
Enscheff said:
It was everyone.

Then he puts in a lot of work to get into shape, flitters around AFL like a male ballerina, and suddenly everyone thinks he is a solid defender at 3B. Hell, BA called him the best defensive IFer in the organization.

Couple that with all the "slow bat" comments, and Riley might be a guy all the prospect gurus missed on if he becomes a 2-3 win guy at 3B.
Click to expand...

Lets hope so
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top