Tracking Miami Prospects

[Nick]

I like Miller, but let's not pretend that his numbers are even comparable to what Yelich did at Jupiter at 20 years old.

[Lee Stone]

I like Miller, but let's not pretend that his numbers are even comparable to what Yelich did at Jupiter at 20 years old.

remniscent of the BA and running ability (and even the marginal arm!). Yelich certainly showed considerably more power. Miller has none.

[fish16]

remniscent of the BA and running ability (and even the marginal arm!). Yelich certainly showed considerably more power.

Yelich was much younger, which again, matters considerably, and yelich showed much more power

[sports24/7]

No mention of Zac Gallen?

[dim]

No mention of Zac Gallen?

Future solid major leaguer.

[Lee Stone]

No mention of Zac Gallen?

He was advanced from AA to AAA last season by StL without a lot of success at the lower level. Through 10 starts at NO, he's allowed a .284 BAA with a 1.39 WHIP. Those numbers need to come down before he'll be ready for the major league. He doesn't turn 23 until August. Alcantara, same age, is pitching a little more effectively thus far.

[Lee Stone]

Lee is terrible at understanding prospects but otherwise I enjoy him on the board

I could very well be terrible at it, but look at it this way: What are the odds that Braxton Garrett or Trevor Rogers ever pitch as well at the AA level as say Niedert and Lopez are pitching right now? I'd surmise the chances are maybe 30%. Given that, how could I possibly rate them higher as prospects? They've done nothing to earn it other than strike out high school hitters. Niedert and Lopez are actually demonstrating their ability.

The true test of how these prospects are regarded would be their trade value, yes? Is some team going to offer more for Rogers than Lopez?

[Nick]

That's part of evaluating prospects, balancing upside with tangible results.

[Lee Stone]

That's part of evaluating prospects, balancing upside with tangible results.

Exactly. For me, knowing that most first round pitching prospects fail to succeed is significant. I want to see them put up zeros before buying in.

[emkayseven]

I’ll be honest, I’m all aboard the Joe Dunand train. He probably makes my top 10.

[Nick]

Exactly. For me, knowing that most first round pitching prospects fail to succeed is significant. I want to see them put up zeros before buying in.

ok, but who are your best pitchers in the league? Scherzer, Kershaw, Strasburg, Sale, Bumgarner I could go on, all 1st round picks. You can't say that scouting and measurables don't mean anything. These guys were evaluated as potentially great pitchers before they were putting up any zeros as a professional ball player.

[fish16]

There’s a reason why prospect lists aren’t just whoever put up the best numbers at the highest levels. That is a horrific way to judge talent as there is so much more that goes into it. Context is everything in terms of prospect performance. Lee’s way of going about is a great way to put emphasis on shitty prospects taking advantage of younger competition

[Lee Stone]

ok, but who are your best pitchers in the league? Scherzer, Kershaw, Strasburg, Sale, Bumgarner I could go on, all 1st round picks. You can't say that scouting and measurables don't mean anything. These guys were evaluated as potentially great pitchers before they were putting up any zeros as a professional ball player.

There are probably one in ten first rounders that make it big. All I'm saying is that if you wait for two or three years after the draft, you start getting a true feel for who the real prospects are. Putting a Braxton Garrett ahead of a Trevor Richards seems irrational to me. Pitchability matters most IMO, and you don't really get a sense of that early.

[tjfla]

There are probably one in ten first rounders that make it big. All I'm saying is that if you wait for two or three years after the draft, you start getting a true feel for who the real prospects are. Putting a Braxton Garrett ahead of a Trevor Richards seems irrational to me. Pitchability matters most IMO, and you don't really get a sense of that early.

Rankings are also based on projections. Braxton Garrett is a #1/#2 while Richards is a #4/#5 which means HIGHER projection. Guzman is the same,right now he is #5 for me as a SP however if he keeps up like this the rest of the year he moves out of my Top 10 because I would see him as a Closer/RP

Can't just base rankings on stats.

Brian Miller-I have him at #11 because NO power
Joe Dunand-Not in Top 10 because I don't think he can stick at SS and even at 3B below avg in field

[Lee Stone]

Rankings are also based on projections. Braxton Garrett is a #1/#2 while Richards is a #4/#5 which means HIGHER projection. Guzman is the same,right now he is #5 for me as a SP however if he keeps up like this the rest of the year he moves out of my Top 10 because I would see him as a Closer/RP

Can't just base rankings on stats.

Brian Miller-I have him at #11 because NO power
Joe Dunand-Not in Top 10 because I don't think he can stick at SS and even at 3B below avg in field

Baseball is built on stats. They define the players and the teams. Here's a thought that will bring down the house: I see a lot of Greg Maddux in Trevor Richards ... very similar stuff. In a very limited sample size, he's dominating the PCL. 33 K and 3 W.