Everybody now has a defined role on this team EXCEPT Carter... (unless you consider his role as the occasional starter at 1B for home games, against lefties, on days where Lowrie needs a break and Marwin is filling in for him)
Just looked at their 2015 preseason ranking and a 55FV would have put them in the top 79. Also in the guys promoted, Correa ranked 1st with a FV of 75, LMJ was 12th with a 60FV, and VV was 21st with a 55FV. Names you might recognize: Kike Hernandez was 27th on the promoted list with a 55FV, Folty 36th with a 50FV and Nottingham was 8th on the "biggest jump" group with a 50FV.
People like lists. Having our prospects higher on those lists, not only makes us feel better about the state of our future, but also affects possible trades and what those higher rated prospects can bring back.
Yes, but he only listed the top 26 prospects. I am pretty sure there was a lot of players with a 55FV missing. For example, last year he did the top 25 players only but there was still 79 guys with a 55FV
Sure you can..... (not that either really deserves it) Sipp has a FIP of 3.3 Qualls still has an era of over 4 One of the starters could go to the pen Tucker is possible but I would think they would want his bat in the line up come playoff time.
Just speculating on how he came up with a 25-30 range. But, IMO, if he(Kiley) is comparing him to Dillon Tate, while being being younger, I'd imagine that he is going to rank him favorably for 2016.
Sure... but people are actually now debating the actual place on the specific list.... 22, 25, 50, 30. Also, some of these players are being ranked after less than a month worth of games. Just seems like most people who are big on analytics, marginalizing sample size issues, and just have an overall awareness that most prospects fail... would see right through these made-up lists as being the end-all/be-all of who's good and who's not (especially since the vast majority of the top ranked prospects do not go on to succeed).
Not that I disagree, but this is the Astros' minor league thread, so some prospects rankings discussions seem warranted. Also, a certain arrogant prick poster brought the Martes future ranking to the forefront, so an article discussing him the very next day would obviously garner some attention.
I don't think that was the case in the past. It used to be that teams relied heavily on what their scouts said and what the general reputation a player had. Now with so much coverage of minor league players and with very advanced statistics, teams are not just going with the eye test or what the general reputation is. The Astros and A's both have shown that they will go for a guy that perhaps isn't widely viewed as a top prospect if they really like him and his advanced stats all pan out. You also see the Cardinals do it in the draft. For example, did anyone think Domingo Santana was a better prospect than AJ Reed? All of the prospect lists had Santana in the top 100. However, people that paid attention noticed that Reed had lost baby fat, that he had an advanced approach at the plate, that he was producing and that he could go the other way when he needed to.
So you agree that these lists are largely arbitrary and have no real bearing on future success.... also, I never thought teams were using them to make decisions anyways. The lists are for the fans.
This is on the back cover of the 2015 Baseball America Prospect Handbook: "Information drives all of our decisions today and the Prospect Handbook has so much to offer. We use this book to complement our scouts' information. In the event we miss a player, we can use it as a resource to supplement information we may be lacking." That was John Mozeliak, GM of the Cardinals. In before the hack jokes.
McDaniels lists the current top 26 prospects, of which FV 55 starts at #21. There were about 25 FV 55+ graduates from the list and only a handful of guys from the draft and risers like Marte to replace them. Thinking about it more, I'm guessing FV 55 will fall in the 21-55 range on the next Top 200. So Martes & Bregman will fall somewhere in there.
Haha... that's a good one. But again, that statement is in part designed to try and legitimize that book to help them sell more to the fans.... also I wonder if they used the book to supplement the online database Luhnow ran (or maybe they had a link to it from the app).
You can't send them down. You can DFA them and lose them. 3.3 FIP isn't bad. You can send down Tucker, and then call him back up after 10 days. He'd still be eligible for the postseason and you wouldn't lose any players.
Good point. If I remember correctly he has mentioned before during his chats that Martes was at least in the top 50, so there is that. And about the Tate thing, yeah he graded Tate a 50FV and ranked him as the 10th best draft/international player (Swanson included) so you can tell he has Martes higher
I actually wasn't joking... Luhnow did have a similar database in STL with Mozeliak there, no? Was just wondering if that is what he meant when he was saying they use the book to supplement their own resources.
Kiley's list, while meant for fans much the same way message boards are meant for fans, is heavily based on information he gets from major league clubs. A top 10 prospect on average will generate about 4 times as much WAR as a guy ranked 100 on a Top 100 list. While the lists don't affect future production, they have a very good correlation to future production. Top 25 hitters bust rate is about 10%. Top 10 pitchers have a bust rate of about 10% (Top 100 lists typically over rate pitchers IMO due to not properly taking into account increased injury risk potential). Baseball America's Top 100 list over the years has captured about 70% of good MLB players. Prospect lists are just a stats. There is a lot of error in them, but they are not arbitrary.
