Fangraphs Top 100 Prospects

Super said:
we've touched on this, but one of the years we didn't have a 1st round pick because he decided signing a 65 year old glavine was more valuable. so if anything that's a massive mark against him.
Click to expand...

Sometimes those first round picks are worth giving up when you acquire a first ballot HOF talent
 
smootness said:
Well, I guess we got our answer on Pache. Kiley really does think of him that highly.
Click to expand...

Ivan at TC wrote a pretty excellent article demonstrating why the #37 ranking of Pache is a bit silly:

https://www.talkingchop.com/2018/2/...s-prospects-speed-defense-80-grade-indulgence

The only nit I would pick with this research is that he didn't account for age in any way. What Pache did as an 18-year old is obviously more impressive than a 20 year old doing the same thing, but he seems to have lumped all players of all ages into that 2,751 player sample.

The jist of the article is what we all already know: even if Pache's speed and defense are amazing, he still has to hit enough to warrant a place in a MLB lineup.

Considering that historical players with his current power (ISO < 0.070) coupled with his other current skills (good walk rate, good speed, almost average overall offensive production as a result) only reach the MLB level approximately as frequently as any random A ball player (~25%), it makes almost no sense to conclude that Pache is anymore likely to reach the majors than any of the other countless versions of the "speedy guy who needs to learn how to hit" we see all the time in every organization.

Ivan's money quote:

"once your ISO is that low, perhaps your secondary skills don’t help much. That isn’t to say it’s hopeless… just that there’s no real difference between your generic A-ball player and your Pache-offense-type A-ball player in terms of outcomes."

Pache is a good prospect, but ranking him #37 overall screams Braves homerism. Hitting is the hardest thing to do in any sport, so comments like "he just needs to learn to hit" is a fairly dumb thing to say.
 
Enscheff said:
Ivan at TC wrote a pretty excellent article demonstrating why the #37 ranking of Pache is a bit silly:

https://www.talkingchop.com/2018/2/...s-prospects-speed-defense-80-grade-indulgence

The only nit I would pick with this research is that he didn't account for age in any way. What Pache did as an 18-year old is obviously more impressive than a 20 year old doing the same thing, but he seems to have lumped all players of all ages into that 2,751 player sample.

The jist of the article is what we all already know: even if Pache's speed and defense are amazing, he still has to hit enough to warrant a place in a MLB lineup.

Considering that historical players with his current power (ISO < 0.070) coupled with his other current skills (good walk rate, good speed, almost average overall offensive production as a result) only reach the MLB level approximately as frequently as any random A ball player (~25%), it makes almost no sense to conclude that Pache is anymore likely to reach the majors than any of the other countless versions of the "speedy guy who needs to learn how to hit" we see all the time in every organization.

Ivan's money quote:

"once your ISO is that low, perhaps your secondary skills don’t help much. That isn’t to say it’s hopeless… just that there’s no real difference between your generic A-ball player and your Pache-offense-type A-ball player in terms of outcomes."

Pache is a good prospect, but ranking him #37 overall screams Braves homerism. Hitting is the hardest thing to do in any sport, so comments like "he just needs to learn to hit" is a fairly dumb thing to say.
Click to expand...

I don't think you're going to get much argument from anyone that 37 is probably high and at least somewhat homerish. But Keith Law also put him top 60, right? He's top 100 at least by most, so it's not absolutely insane.

And that's a really good article. But it begins with the premise that offense alone is what gets you to the majors. There's no doubt he will have to hit at a certain level to make the majors, and certainly to start at the MLB level. But you can deal with a lower offensive profile, even in a starting role, when you have the kind of defense and arm that Pache apparently has. Yet that analysis focuses solely on offense.

I don't have the time to look into each of those players that fell inside the study to know how many of them had defense close to Pache's level, but I think it's reasonable to say that if they don't have Pache's defensive profile, he will have an easier time making the majors than they did. So yes, he has to make the majors for his defense and arm to carry, and to do that, he will have to hit at a certain level. But it isn't offense alone that will get him to the majors in the first place. He won't have to hit as much as the next guy to get to the majors because he also brings elite defense/arm.

Kiermaier, who they mention only to say that he fell outside the study, is probably a good comparison. Kiermaier brings elite defense. He also posted worse offensive numbers in A-ball...at age 21. Yes, his offense improved the next year as he progressed through the minors, and it certainly had to, no question. But he had an easier time getting to the majors because of his defense. The same will be true for Pache. That does not mean he definitely will get to the majors, just that you can't view solely offense even when evaluating his chance of making the majors.

And it's obviously all about projection. Pache posted a roughly average batting line in A-ball. That's not great. But he was 18. That's certainly a lot better. And some project him to hit pretty well, based on what he currently offers. That's better still.

That's a good article, but it doesn't really help much.
 
I think instead of nitpicking the rankings to death, the takeaway should be way more general for an 18 yr old.

As in “a lot of people getting paid to do this think Pache can be a very good player”. Then snuggle up with your blankie at night knowing we have a fairly highly thought of prospect
 
smootness said:
I don't think you're going to get much argument from anyone that 37 is probably high and at least somewhat homerish. But Keith Law also put him top 60, right? He's top 100 at least by most, so it's not absolutely insane.

And that's a really good article. But it begins with the premise that offense alone is what gets you to the majors. There's no doubt he will have to hit at a certain level to make the majors, and certainly to start at the MLB level. But you can deal with a lower offensive profile, even in a starting role, when you have the kind of defense and arm that Pache apparently has. Yet that analysis focuses solely on offense.

I don't have the time to look into each of those players that fell inside the study to know how many of them had defense close to Pache's level, but I think it's reasonable to say that if they don't have Pache's defensive profile, he will have an easier time making the majors than they did. So yes, he has to make the majors for his defense and arm to carry, and to do that, he will have to hit at a certain level. But it isn't offense alone that will get him to the majors in the first place. He won't have to hit as much as the next guy to get to the majors because he also brings elite defense/arm.

Kiermaier, who they mention only to say that he fell outside the study, is probably a good comparison. Kiermaier brings elite defense. He also posted worse offensive numbers in A-ball...at age 21. Yes, his offense improved the next year as he progressed through the minors, and it certainly had to, no question. But he had an easier time getting to the majors because of his defense. The same will be true for Pache. That does not mean he definitely will get to the majors, just that you can't view solely offense even when evaluating his chance of making the majors.

And it's obviously all about projection. Pache posted a roughly average batting line in A-ball. That's not great. But he was 18. That's certainly a lot better. And some project him to hit pretty well, based on what he currently offers. That's better still.

That's a good article, but it doesn't really help much.
Click to expand...

I think the projection is aggressive. But Klaw has been consistent in what he likes and what he values.

Saying Pache needs to learn to hit is inaccurate. He can hit. He can especially hit if you account for age. What he has to do is drive the ball and hit for more power.

The pro Pache folks think his frame will allow him to grow into power and stay an elite defender. Clearly we know power is not directly correlated to size. We also do not know if the juiced ball continues.

What Braves fans should want to see is a Pache that starts getting more extra base hits. If he can have an avg iso then he is a top guy.
 
smootness said:
I don't think you're going to get much argument from anyone that 37 is probably high and at least somewhat homerish. But Keith Law also put him top 60, right? He's top 100 at least by most, so it's not absolutely insane.

And that's a really good article. But it begins with the premise that offense alone is what gets you to the majors. There's no doubt he will have to hit at a certain level to make the majors, and certainly to start at the MLB level. But you can deal with a lower offensive profile, even in a starting role, when you have the kind of defense and arm that Pache apparently has. Yet that analysis focuses solely on offense.

I don't have the time to look into each of those players that fell inside the study to know how many of them had defense close to Pache's level, but I think it's reasonable to say that if they don't have Pache's defensive profile, he will have an easier time making the majors than they did. So yes, he has to make the majors for his defense and arm to carry, and to do that, he will have to hit at a certain level. But it isn't offense alone that will get him to the majors in the first place. He won't have to hit as much as the next guy to get to the majors because he also brings elite defense/arm.

Kiermaier, who they mention only to say that he fell outside the study, is probably a good comparison. Kiermaier brings elite defense. He also posted worse offensive numbers in A-ball...at age 21. Yes, his offense improved the next year as he progressed through the minors, and it certainly had to, no question. But he had an easier time getting to the majors because of his defense. The same will be true for Pache. That does not mean he definitely will get to the majors, just that you can't view solely offense even when evaluating his chance of making the majors.

And it's obviously all about projection. Pache posted a roughly average batting line in A-ball. That's not great. But he was 18. That's certainly a lot better. And some project him to hit pretty well, based on what he currently offers. That's better still.

That's a good article, but it doesn't really help much.
Click to expand...

In Part 2, he summarized his methodology as: "we looked at the value of Cristian Pache as a player based on his scouting grades, where we determined that he was probably going to be pretty valuable based on his speed and defense, if he were able to make the majors. We then followed that up with a cursory examination of his likelihood of making the majors by looking into hitters with similar A-ball stats and how their careers progressed."

I agree with you that it wasn't sound logic to directly link Pache's chances of reaching the majors to that group of 2700+ AA players.

What he should have done is say:

1. Pache needs a 80+ wRC+ to be an average or better everyday player based on the first chart he posted.
2. Here is the likelihood of players who hit like Pache producing a wRC+ in the majors.
3. Accounted for age since Pache did this as an 18 year old.

Now, it might be logical to assume from those statements that the group of A ball players who made the majors are also the same group of players who posted an 80+ wRC+...or they wouldn't have reached the majors.

He sort of said that in the sentence transitioning from Part 1 to Part 2: "he needs to manage a very paltry wRC+ to provide decent value. But can he even get there? That’s what really prompted this whole exercise."

So I'm pretty sure he has concluded that anyone who "made the majors" could produce an 80+ wRC+, and I would tend to agree with that assumption.
 
Russ2dollas said:
I think the projection is aggressive. But Klaw has been consistent in what he likes and what he values.

Saying Pache needs to learn to hit is inaccurate. He can hit. He can especially hit if you account for age. What he has to do is drive the ball and hit for more power.

The pro Pache folks think his frame will allow him to grow into power and stay an elite defender. Clearly we know power is not directly correlated to size. We also do not know if the juiced ball continues.

What Braves fans should want to see is a Pache that starts getting more extra base hits. If he can have an avg iso then he is a top guy.
Click to expand...

If there is a pro-Pache set of people does that mean there is an anti-Pache set?

I think we really just have a collective agreement that Pache has to hit better in the future than he did as an 18 year old in A ball.

I think we knew that without exploring data sets of players who were for the most part significantly older than Pache when they compiled their stats. That does matter though perhaps it doesn't matter tremendously. Hard to say.

Perhaps the data sets of 18 years old who spent a full season at A aren't big enough to tell us much. Perhaps they are. I'm guessing it was at least difficult to isolate?
 
Enscheff said:
In Part 2, he summarized his methodology as: "we looked at the value of Cristian Pache as a player based on his scouting grades, where we determined that he was probably going to be pretty valuable based on his speed and defense, if he were able to make the majors. We then followed that up with a cursory examination of his likelihood of making the majors by looking into hitters with similar A-ball stats and how their careers progressed."

I agree with you that it wasn't sound logic to directly link Pache's chances of reaching the majors to that group of 2700+ AA players.

What he should have done is say:

1. Pache needs a 80+ wRC+ to be an average or better everyday player based on the first chart he posted.
2. Here is the likelihood of players who hit like Pache producing a wRC+ in the majors.
3. Accounted for age since Pache did this as an 18 year old.

Now, it might be logical to assume from those statements that the group of A ball players who made the majors are also the same group of players who posted an 80+ wRC+...or they wouldn't have reached the majors.

He sort of said that in the sentence transitioning from Part 1 to Part 2: "he needs to manage a very paltry wRC+ to provide decent value. But can he even get there? That’s what really prompted this whole exercise."

So I'm pretty sure he has concluded that anyone who "made the majors" could produce an 80+ wRC+, and I would tend to agree with that assumption.
Click to expand...

That may be pretty accurate as an assumption, but it still needs to be analyzed better than that.

Anyway, it was a good article, and I agree with those who say that 37 is probably overly aggressive, but the bottom line is that Pache is someone we should be excited about. I think he's a good 2018 away from truly being a top 30-40 prospect.
 
thewupk said:
In the end it doesn't matter and the difference is minimal but I would have Pache as a mid level 50 FV guy.
Click to expand...

His floor is probably Billy Hamilton with less BsR value.

That's a no-hit premium defender who takes up the last spot on the bench as a defensive replacement for a team with Matt Kemp in LF.
 
Southcack77 said:
If there is a pro-Pache set of people does that mean there is an anti-Pache set?

I think we really just have a collective agreement that Pache has to hit better in the future than he did as an 18 year old in A ball.

I think we knew that without exploring data sets of players who were for the most part significantly older than Pache when they compiled their stats. That does matter though perhaps it doesn't matter tremendously. Hard to say.

Perhaps the data sets of 18 years old who spent a full season at A aren't big enough to tell us much. Perhaps they are. I'm guessing it was at least difficult to isolate?
Click to expand...

He doesn't necessarily need to hit better than he did in A-ball. I mean, he does, in the sense that skill that produces his line in A-ball needs to be improved upon. But if he can maintain roughly league-average offense, or even somewhat below, as he progresses, he'll be just fine given his other tools. The fact that he produced that at 18 is a good sign.

No one in their analysis produced their respective offensive line at 18. They were all older, most of them much older. It's clearly not very useful at all as a comparison group.
 
smootness said:
That may be pretty accurate as an assumption, but it still needs to be analyzed better than that.

Anyway, it was a good article, and I agree with those who say that 37 is probably overly aggressive, but the bottom line is that Pache is someone we should be excited about. I think he's a good 2018 away from truly being a top 30-40 prospect.
Click to expand...

This is accurate. I think what we are seeing is prospect writers trying to "scoop" the next fast riser so they can say they were the first to tout the guy.

If he doesn't hit in 2018 they just quietly drop him down the list into the 75-100 range. If he does start hitting they jump him into the Top 20 and make a huge deal about it.
 
smootness said:
He doesn't necessarily need to hit better than he did in A-ball. I mean, he does, in the sense that skill that produces his line in A-ball needs to be improved upon. But if he can maintain roughly league-average offense, or even somewhat below, as he progresses, he'll be just fine given his other tools. The fact that he produced that at 18 is a good sign.

No one in their analysis produced their respective offensive line at 18. They were all older, most of them much older. It's clearly not very useful at all as a comparison group.
Click to expand...

Well, I think we can probably conclude his walk and k rates aren't going to translate well as he advances with his current skill set. His groundball success rate would figure to decline as defenses improve up the ladder and possibly as teams scout his tendencies.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top