Top 100’s Paying Braves Some Respect
It’s like Christmas for Braves fans as not one, but two top 100 prospect lists were released today. Kevin Goldstein published his annual list over at Baseball Prospectus and Keith Law of ESPN. com also chimed in with his take on the best the minor leagues have to offer. Neither is really the pinnacle of this field (that honor is reserved for Baseball America) and Law is considerably less respected and knowledgeable on the subject than Goldstein, which shows up quite a bit in his list. The big news is that the Braves had a very strong showing in both lists, just months away from analysts saying the Braves had sold the farm for Mark Teixeira.
- CF Jordan Schafer-Goldstein has said before that he is a big fan of the Braves’ future center fielder and that landed the 21-year old at number 17, 10-15 spots higher than most people seem to have him. Law has him at number 27, which is a little more within the realm of what most people expected. When taking into account the type of hitting environment at Myrtle Beach as well as his defense (Which Law really seems uninformed on), I can’t say I disagree with Goldstein too much.
- RF Jason Heyward- Heyward, not surprisingly, was the second Braves prospects on both lists. KG has him at 36 and Law at 33. Despite being the fourth high school hitter selected last year, Heyward was the second of the group on both lists (Although the first is not the same). To me, this tells me how much they like the 18-year old. If he can start this high as a young high school draftee who didn’t play that much pro ball, a good full year next season could really put him into the truly elite prospect territory. I’m still wondering how 13 teams took a pass on this guy.
- SS Brent Lillibridge- Lillibridge shockingly did not make an appearance on Keith Law’s list. He did however earn the 63rd overall spot from Kevin Goldstein. The 24-year old shortstop finally moved up to an age-appropriate league this year and although the switch showed a big negative effect early, Lillibridge really bounced back big. He’s still got some holes in his game but has more long-term potential than current Atlanta shortstop Yunel Escobar. The real question is what his role is going to be in this organization next year.
- RHP Tommy Hanson- Hanson only made Law’s list, coming in at 66. He definitely wasn’t expected and probably doesn’t warrant a top-100 spot after a disappointing ‘08 campaign. He still has very good stuff along with a fluid delivery but his control is going to be the key. Right now, I just don’t think it is far enough along to have him this high, much less on the list. Top 150 would be a different story though.
- LF Brandon Jones- Jones was another shocking one as Law left him off his list. The left-handed batting left fielder came in at a reasonable number 70 from Goldstein. I’m not as high on Jones as some but there is no possible way Jones shouldn’t be in the top 100 prospects. He’s not great in any one area but all of his tools are at least average and that is quite the commodity for someone close to the majors. He’s got a chance to hit for average, power, provide some speed, and play a good left field in the future. This is just a ridiculous snub by Law.
- CF Gorkys Hernandez- Hernandez is the only player besides Heyward and Schafer to grace both lists. One of the two pieces of the Edgar Renteria deal; Hernandez’s speed, pure hitting ability, and plate discipline make him an intriguing prospect. He doesn’t have much in terms of power projection but he should make for an exciting leadoff hitter in the future with very good defense wherever he lands in the outfield. The 20-year old ranked 83rd on Goldstein’s list and 99th on Law’s.
- RHP Jair Jurrjens- Jurrjens is yet another mark against Law as he didn’t show up on the ESPN writer’s list. Even if you go solely by upside, Jurrjens profiles as a number three starter, which should be easily enough to get him onto the top 100. He landed at 86 on the BP list and while his proximity to a major league starting job is a big plus, his injury concerns are what really knock him down. The right-hander felt some soreness last year and that has thrown up red flags around the baseball world. I’m not all too worried and if he can stay healthy in ‘08, the opinion on him should shoot up considerably.
- LHP Cole Rohrbough- Rohrbough was one of the big breakouts for the Braves this past season. The 6′3″ left-hander took the 92nd overall spot on Law’s list but I’m a little surprised not to see him on Goldstein’s list after some of the praise the BP writer gave to the left-hander last year. Rohrbough has impressive stuff and command for a left-hander but the knocks against him are that he’s only pitched about 60 innings in his pro career and that has all been done in the low minors. A strong showing next year in a full season should go a long way towards moving him up on the list.
These two really attest to the depth of Atlanta’s farm system. There are a lot of very high potential young guys just starting to realize that potential, which means in a few years, this system could be rich with elite talent. If you told me last year that the Braves would trade away the amount they did for Mark Teixeira, I would of laughed had you also told me how many Braves prospects would be thought of this highly.
This entry was posted
on Thursday, January 31st, 2008 at 6:19 pm and is filed under Uncategorized.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
THE AUTHOR
RECENT ARTICLES BY DIVISION RIVALS
ARCHIVE
RECENT ARTICLES BY DIVISION RIVALS
SPONSORS
Online Seats
Atlanta Braves Tickets Atlanta Thrashers Tickets
Ticket Specialists
Braves Tickets Atlanta Hawks Tickets
Coast to Coast Tickets
Atlanta Braves Tickets Atlanta Hawks Tickets Atlanta Falcons Tickets Atlanta Event Tickets Theater Tickets Online
Tickets4U
Atlanta Braves Tickets World Series Tickets Atlanta Falcons Tickets
Great Seats
Atlanta Braves Tickets Atlanta Falcons Ticket Atlanta Hawks Tickets Chastain Park Tickets Atlanta Event Tickets
43 Responses to “Top 100’s Paying Braves Some Respect”
January 31st, 2008 at 8:52 pm
Law defnetely got some work to do on his list.
January 31st, 2008 at 9:22 pm
I’m not as down on Law as Will is, but yeah, he certainly makes a couple weird choices with the list, and Jurrjens’ exclusion is inexcusable.
January 31st, 2008 at 9:26 pm
If you spread minor league talent around evenly, then each franchise would have three guys in this list. I honestly believe that the weaker farm systems out there (Astros, Mets, etc.) are balanced out by the stronger ones (Rays, Reds, Rangers, etc.) and this is a strong vote of confidence.
Law merely puts us near the middle of the pack, but that is not insult. Goldstein places us near the top, but I think that’s too kind. We should be happy about our prospects, but four of the mentioned have very little pro experience. The three close to the majors, I believe, have lower ceilings than most expect. We should be pleased, but not out of control happy. A lot is yet to be seen!
January 31st, 2008 at 9:36 pm
I would like to point out how much of the farm disappeared with this trade. Furthermore, F-Martinez didn’t even crack the top 50 on Goldstein’s list. It looks like the Phillies and Mets are built to win now. But what happens when the Mets lose Alou, Delgado, Pedro, El Duque, and Castillo in another couple of years to age. The Phillies are younger, except for Moyer, though they may not be able to afford guys like Howard much longer unless they are willing to drastically raise their payroll. Each team has a solid core of young players, but neither has anything in the farm. It means nothing for this season, but makes the future look interesting. I have to say, the Braves know how to build a team well, for present and future success.
January 31st, 2008 at 9:36 pm
Law is like one of these minor prospect sites where fans just throw out names without really knowing much if anything about the prospects. His list, plainly, is absurd. There are just so many things wrong with this.
Moustakas at 47, 30 places back of Josh Vitters
Triunfel at 18
Austin Jackson at 24
De Los Santos way lower than he should be
Duran at 48
And the most ridiculous…
Mitch Boggs at 73? Wow.
Truly, he should stick to the major leagues because the man hasn’t got a clue about prospects. He just doesn’t have a clue.
January 31st, 2008 at 9:36 pm
Oh, by the way, I was talking about the Mets farm in that comment. Sorry forgot to clarify.
January 31st, 2008 at 9:39 pm
I was also quoting from the superior Goldstein list.
January 31st, 2008 at 10:10 pm
I would argue that Kevin Goldstein is closer to the “pinnacle” than Baseball America — though I would not ascribe primacy to either. You are correct, however, that Law lags behind both.
Goldstein and John Sickels are two of my preferred sources for minor-league information, rankings or otherwise; though, I did have some reservations about Sickels’ 2008 hierarchy of Atlanta prospects.
January 31st, 2008 at 10:40 pm
I respect KG’s opinions and writing but I don’t think there is really any question around the baseball world that BA is the foremost publication on prospects, college baseball, and high school baseball. Whenever you see a broadcaster talking about prospects, they bring up BA rankings and reports. BP is mainly a sabermetric site and that takes away a lot of its credibility among some of the old order of baseball and while KG talks to scouts, BA’s info comes from a number of different contributors, who all talk to scouts and scout the players themselves. Plainly, they are a publication based around minor league baseball, while BP is not.
January 31st, 2008 at 10:42 pm
Can’t wait for baseball to start guys. Hopefully I’m going to get down to Florida for some spring training, watch some of the players, and possibly get some interviews. Also, I may be heading down to DC to catch the Braves opening day game at the new Nats park.
January 31st, 2008 at 10:55 pm
Will, let me know if you’re in town. We should get a coffee. Same goes for any of the other DC readers out there.
January 31st, 2008 at 11:03 pm
Hey well, when you see broadcasters talk about the worth of players they still use AVG, RBI, W/L. etc. even though they are profoundly flawed stats: should we defer to their wisdom there, too? Just because they have the highest profile, that doesn’t mean their the best. Personally, I check out all three of the aforementioned sources and find the truth in the middle somewhere. Like I’ve said before, ranking such as these are subjective and, depending on what you focus on, they will vary greatly. Just because Law doesn’t publish something more like your own list, that doesn’t mean he’s terribly wrong. Again, I don’t think his rankings are the best either, but I wouldn’t call them ridiculous.
January 31st, 2008 at 11:03 pm
That’s supposed to read “Hey Will” not “Hey well”, sorry about that.
January 31st, 2008 at 11:18 pm
Kind of off topic, but I disagree that the stats they use are flawed. They are exactly what the broadcasters need. They aren’t talking to the stathead fan of BP, they are talking to the normal fan, who doesn’t understand and doesn’t care about the sabermetric stats. In fact 99.9% of the fans who use stuff like VORP have no idea what goes into it. The broadcasters use simple stats to show what exactly the player has done. Not what they should have done minus luck or a park effect, but what they have actually done. That is exactly what they need.
Still, I think you would be hard-pressed to find many people that don’t believe BA is the leader. They seem to be the overwhelming leader in that category and again, the reason is that they are completely centered around that with tons of contributors with very solid connections putting in their vested knowledge. BP on the other hand just has a small line of articles for prospects but are overwhelmingly a website for advanced statistics. They have one guy doing their prospect coverage and that is what really sets them apart.
February 1st, 2008 at 12:01 am
Well, certain stats are better than others, even among the relatively simple ones that everyone knows. Pitcher wins and losses are a pretty awful measure of how good a pitcher someone is from season to season, but then again, measured over a career they’re not useless — the top pitchers in career wins are some of the top pitchers ever. Similarly, batting average fluctuates wildly season to season and is a poor indicator of how good a hitter someone is, but career BA isn’t a bad indicator of a good hitter.
ERA is, all things considered, probably the best of the simple stats. OBP/SLG are being used more widely these days, even on TV broadcasts, and they tell you something. DIPS tells us that the three most important things to know about a pitcher are his strikeouts, walks, and HR, and those are shown every time a new pitcher comes into a game.
What really bugs me is that there are broadcasters who really don’t know that much about what a certain number means, or why it’s flawed. There are plenty of ignorant broadcasters who would resolutely insist that someone with 30 homers and 0 doubles was both a better power hitter and a more dangerous hitter than someone with 20 homers and 50 doubles — of course, many of them are former players, who really shouldn’t be trusted to analyze a game in which so many of them have so many personal superstitions.
February 1st, 2008 at 12:02 am
Also, not that it needs to be said, but most jocks are dumb.
February 1st, 2008 at 12:20 am
“Plainly, they are a publication based around minor league baseball, while BP is not.”
Investing the most resources in an area doesn’t necessary imply one’s claim are the most precise or perceptive — especially if the investment is fundamentally guided by a premise or paradigm containing flaws. In the case of Baseball America, they tend to obviate certain crucial dimensions of analysis (even simple but rigorous statistics like walk-rate, isolated-OBP, et cetera) in favor of a significant reliance upon athletic “tools”; I don’t mean to eschew these analytic dimensions, either, but only to explain my preference for more balance than I think BA provides.
As for BP’s reputation “tak[ing] away a lot of its credibility among some of the old order of baseball ” — well, I have believe that is an error in their judgment, because BP is solid source of data. Clearly, it is the responsibility of the reader/user to properly contextualize that raw data; such a concept is implied by very nature of statistical data.
February 1st, 2008 at 12:27 am
I actually moved from ATL to DC last year so I will most definitely be at the opener.
The discussion about the stats the broadcasters use is largely chicken/egg. I mean, people know those stats because that’s what they keep getting told, It’s slowly changing though. OPS and WHIP, for example, are becoming much more mainstream.
February 1st, 2008 at 12:41 am
Think whatever you want about BP or their methods but what I’m saying is that BA is overwhelmingly considered the leader for semi-pro, high school, and college baseball. It is just a fact. They may not use statistical analysis to the extent that BP does but a lot of the time when you’re talking about high potential and raw players, that kind of analysis doesn’t carry much value. BA focuses mainly on tools and ability because you can project that.
February 1st, 2008 at 1:55 am
I would argue that, taken in proper context, one can project player potential quite well employing statistical metrics; of course, placing statistical and perceptual analysis in conversation drastically improves the accuracy of projection.
And, it may be a “fact” that “BA is overwhelmingly considered the leader” in certain areas, but that doesn’t mean it is a “fact” that they are the best, most accurate, or most intelligent. Basic logical causality: as Tocqueville quite successfully argues in “Democracy in America”, preponderance of opinion is not commensurate with absolute or even greatest validity (he calls it the “tyranny of the masses”). An easy example: a majority of people believing in a geocentric model of the universe does not make our sun orbit Earth.
I think you significantly underestimate the extent to which both statistical and perceptual analysis can supplement the other to great success; to wit, Goldstein has been employed by and written for both Baseball America and Baseball Prospectus, and provides some of the more reasoned and reasonable assessments of prospects around these tubes. Much more than one or the other, both projectable variables in harmony carries the most value in my opinion — and I rigorously reject the notion that athletic “tools” (which aren’t all that comprise baseball “tools,” or especially baseball “ability”) are the only valid means of projecting minor-league players.
February 1st, 2008 at 7:40 am
You really can’t though. A lot of the best players are very raw athletes for most of their minor league careers, who put up mediocre numbers. A statistical look would say they suck but if you look at their tools, you say they have potential to do well but are very raw. Again, I’m not saying who is better, I’m just saying that Baseball America is definitely the most respected in this respect around baseball. It just is. I also happen to like them better.
February 1st, 2008 at 9:29 am
Even though everyone is really down on Keith Law, he did mention in his chat that the Braves are flush with arms, and that we have a top ten farm system. He also said that Heyward may go Jay Bruce on the league this year and end up in his top ten next year.
February 1st, 2008 at 9:57 am
Well, there aren’t that many players who suck for their entire minor league career and then blossom solely at the major league level. Those who do — like, say, Melvin Mora — might have other reasons for their blossoming. The rest of the “toolsy” guys you’re talking about usually have other things in their favor, like age relative to league, or an unusually advanced skill (often defense) that allows them to stick at a higher level than their bat might otherwise qualify them. Carlos Gomez would be a good example of this. Hanley Ramirez is one of the more egregious examples of a player flipping a switch once he hit the majors after several lackluster years in the minors — albeit with a very favorable age-relative-to-leage.
February 1st, 2008 at 10:09 am
And, yeah, I kind of like Keith Law. I have a friend who’s a rabid Blue Jays fan who doesn’t like Law because Law used to be in their front office and apparently really doesn’t like their GM, J.P. Ricciardi, so he tends to be more relentlessly down on the Jays than necessary.
I don’t know as much about talent evaluation as he or Will does, so I’m a bit out of my depth. The best way to think of Keith Law is not so much as a scout but as an aggregator. He explains that he prepared his list by reviewing draft video and by reading scouting reports prepared by STATS, Inc., which he heads. So he’s trying to put the information together in an interesting way — presumably, as with the U.S. News college rankings, he also hopes his top 100 doesn’t look like everyone else’s — and to come out with something informational.
The ESPN audience definitely isn’t as hardcore about these things as BPro or BA readers, either.
February 1st, 2008 at 10:19 am
I also like Law, and I think if you look at some of his calls over the past few years he has been surprisingly on point. For instance, he predicted Zito’s numbers for this year almost perfectly. It’s not his job to have the debth of knowledge that the BA guys have, but for a mainstream scout analyst I think he does sufficiently.
February 1st, 2008 at 10:28 am
@ Alex
While I agree with the firejoemorgan.com crowd more than I agree with the “but I played the game so I know more” crowd. I think ex-players can offer a lot more insight than they actually do. They played the game and can offer things about how they used to prepare for a tough pitcher or whatever. Sure they occasionally mention stuff like that but mostly you get Tim McCarver or Joe Morgan talking about how important a bunt is or how great random X pitcher is because he’s got a ton of wins.
I guess I ended up slamming jocks more than I wanted to. As a fan and someone who loves to play casual baseball, I want the insight into the difference between me playing baseball and them playing baseball. Sure show the completely insignificant stat about how a certain hitter destroys a certain pitcher (that only has 6 PA so it obviously statistically matters). Show that stat but then follow it up with how you dealt/prepared for a pitcher you did well against. Don’t just harp on how random guy destroys other random guy in only six plate appearances, you just end up looking like a boob.
February 1st, 2008 at 10:42 am
Tmac, I agree with you totally, but there are so few jocks who actually give insight into the game. It’s almost sad. I mean, I grew up loving Joe Simpson and Don Sutton, and they’re ex-players (one a Hall of Famer and one a journeyman utility infielder) — vastly different experience, but both knew how to call a good game, and I think their experience helps, but it leads them to overvalue things like sacrifice bunts and giving yourself up to get the runner over.
But did you see this interview with Brian Bannister at MLB Trade Rumors? That’s a guy who’s gonna be a manager some day, and while he’s playing he’d be a great color commentator during the playoffs after the Royals finish in the cellar again.
February 1st, 2008 at 11:21 am
I was not a huge fan of Don Sutton, I think he suffered because the other guys were so much better. Joe Simpson is great at offering valuable insight but he also was a journeyman and brings that up a lot. He tries to bring his own experience down but he was still a player at The Show, don’t devalue yourself.
Still as a journeyman I’d much prefer him over the second best second basemen to ever player. I had to watch Sunday Night games on mute because of how bad Joe Morgan was.
February 1st, 2008 at 11:23 am
So many typos…and I write for a living. I guess that is what happens when I’m trying to do three things at once and one of them, comment on a forum is something shouldn’t actually be doing.
February 1st, 2008 at 11:41 am
Don’t worry Tmac, we won’t hold it against you.
February 1st, 2008 at 3:34 pm
Regarding the earlier debate, John Sickels just wrote this on Minorleagueball.com:
February 1st, 2008 at 5:02 pm
ooooooooo, 5:01pm. any word?
February 1st, 2008 at 5:27 pm
I can count a single or double deck at blackjack, to the point where I can tell you what cards are left. I almost always have a very good trip to Vegas. However even card counting isn’t 100%. The odds could tell me to do something, I do it, and still lose.
I always view judging prospects the same as playing cards, very random. You can do things in poker or blackjack to increase your odds of being correct and you still win out in the long run. But you still lose plenty of hands.
February 1st, 2008 at 5:35 pm
just to weigh in on these different views, one way may be better than another when judging prospects, stats or tools, but I think the bigger issue between these publications is that baseball america focuses specifically on prospects and has more resources devoted to their operation and they use first hand accounts from a large variety of sources. That’s why they’re considered the foremost expert on prospects. No one is perfect at evaluating the futures of these guys, but someone that puts in more effort and resources will probably be a more reliable source.
February 1st, 2008 at 5:37 pm
Absolutely true. And there’s value in listening to everybody.
February 2nd, 2008 at 1:29 am
Nice discussion and it is good to see that the Braves have 6 prospects which warrant attention when a list of the top 100 prospects are developed.
However, I hardly think that it says alot about the Braves’ farm system. Three of these six came from recent trades (in other words, the Braves have done comparatively little to develop them) so only three have come up from within the system. Of course, I am aware that without the Tex deal the Braves would have more names on the list.
However, the really unsettling thing is that the Braves drafted only two of these players (Schafer and Heyward) in the early rounds. Hanson, Jones and Rohrbough were all draft and follow players. What this list suggests is that the Braves have had much more success with draft and follow players than with players who are top draft picks.
Unfortunately, draft and follow has been abolished and while the Braves do have a number of impressive prospects, the challenge for the farm system will be to find another good source for getting top players.
I would love to see some of you who write for Chop and Change to do something with the end of Draft and Follow….
February 2nd, 2008 at 12:51 pm
I think the braves have actually had a ton of success in the early rounds. If you just look back at the drafts since about 2000, most of the guys picked in the first 3 rounds have either become productive major leaguers or solid prospects, including guys like Frenchy, Mccann, KJ, Yunel, Adam Wainwright, Salty, Macay Mcbride, and Scott Thorman.
February 2nd, 2008 at 4:36 pm
I agree with you, though I’m not so sure about McBride and Thorman. Still, it’s a pretty good list.
February 2nd, 2008 at 9:29 pm
those guys did make it to the majors, so I wouldn’t exactly call them busts.
February 2nd, 2008 at 9:30 pm
by the way, I’m a detroit lions fan, so I know about draft busts
February 3rd, 2008 at 10:51 am
I didn’t say they were busts. I’m disputing that Macay McBride and Scott Thorman are “productive major leaguers.” Maybe they will be some day, but right now they’re not exactly looking like it.
February 3rd, 2008 at 12:35 pm
I’d argue that McBride has been and will be a productive major leaguer. He got knocked around in Detroit but he was a good lefty specialist for the Braves.That may not b what people had hoped he’d turn out as but he was still a useful major leaguer.
February 4th, 2008 at 5:52 pm
Well, McBride has walked 64 men in 103 1/3 major league innings. If he wants to stick in the Show, he’ll have to improve that. He was useful in 2006, but not great in his rookie year, and not great last year. If I’m the Tigers, I’d have to consider him marginal at best. He got traded from the Braves because he was a situational lefty who kept screwing up the situations in which he was called upon because he kept walking people.
Leave a comment