What’s the reasoning behind not including the 2009 draftees? This is essentially a review of the 2009 season. I, personally, would like a view of the systems as a whole going into the 2010 season, not limited like this. Thumbs Down.
Comment by The Hit Dog — November 17, 2009 @ 2:58 pm
Yeah – you know it would be really great if Marc posted an article at the start of the series describing the reasoning behind not including the 2009 draftees. ‘Cause that would be really awesome – you know a person could just go back there and look it up and stuff and not have to ask about it in a thread.
Comment by Basil Ganglia — November 17, 2009 @ 3:06 pm
Is Ka’aihue really that good?
His MLE, given his career AAA numbers in Omaha, is a .221/.332/.380 line. This is the PCL, after all.
Word on the street (and the hope for the fans) is that Kila’s better 2008 & 2009 seasons are mostly because he’s finally 100% recovered from a knee surgery a few years back. He’s said in interviews that he finally feels like he has all his strength and can trust his legs. So, the hope is that his swing is still developing and that his high walk rate would make him MLB-worthy.
No, he’s not that good. He walks a lot, hit for pretty good power last year, is limited to DH, and absolutely could not hit lefties at all in a full season of AAA. He’s a better value option than Mike Jacobs, but that’s not saying much.
Problem is, where do you get the 10th guy if ’09 picks cannot be included? He’s in the top ten, just not 6 even in a system as relatively weak as theirs. Lamb should be there instead – there is some buzz about him moving very quickly.
The ’09 draft picks are mentioned in the previous day’s draft recap, so they’re not ignored all together. As well, extra players were also reviewed during the recent Minor Review series, which looked at an extra five players for each club.
The reason for the exclusion of picks is for two reasons A) Not enough data to grade them effectively, and B) It also allows us to look at some other players that don’t show up on all the other Top 10 lists out there. We could just throw up something very similar from Baseball America or Baseball Prospectus, but where is the fun in that?
Frankly, Top 10 lists are very subjective to begin with, aside from the no-brainer picks like Moustakas and Hosmer… and draft picks are even more so (aside from the Strasburgs, etc).
For example, Robert Stock for St. Louis (whom you’ll see tomorrow) had a much better debut than expected, but he was a college guy playing in rookie ball. Was he really as good as his pro numbers suggest, or was it a fluke? I don’t know, frankly. So to give him the third or sixth or 10th best prospect ranking with 40 games of data would be foolish of me.
This decision was also made because of all the top picks and over-draft picks that signed soooo late because of the deadline, and received only a handful of games of experience or none at all.
Sigh, I need to start leaving this on my profile. Yes, I watch the players, yes I talk to people about the players. No, I do not live in my mother’s basement. With that said, I certainly do weigh statistics more heavily against traditional scouting than some of the other analysts like the BA boys and Mr. Goldstein.
Personally, I think it reflects worse on people who spend their time criticizing the author of a top 10 prospect list (OMG IT WILL CURE TEH CANCERZOORZ). I don’t care if Marc is picking these 10 names out of a hat – in the end we can accept his list or not.
Marc, in case you might still read comments on this article: It is rumored that the Royals are about to sign Cuban defector Arguelles. Assuming it gets done, does he crack the top ten and if so, where?
Whoever is reading here, I just want to add here, the concern with that kind of reaction the potential for psychosomatic injury (and loss of confidence or faith. That’s absolutely not what you desire in your dog.