FanGraphs Baseball

Comments

RSS feed for comments on this post.

  1. Wondering why Shelby Miller is *low* risk while Cole and Taillon are *medium*. Maybe a historical bias against the Pirates player development regime?

    Comment by Matt — March 28, 2013 @ 1:15 pm

  2. I’d have to imagine it has more to do with the fact that Shelby Miller already has faced ML pitching, and is currently slotted to start the year with the big league club where as Cole and Tailon are both starting in the minors. Don’t think there is bias there.

    Comment by Shawn — March 28, 2013 @ 1:22 pm

  3. Well, Taveras and Wong are also Low risk and they haven’t faced ML pitching and are starting the year in the minors. Matt Adams is also Low risk and while he’s faced ML pitching, he wasn’t exactly dominant and he’s a 24 year old 1B prospect.

    So I have to assume it has something to do with the Cardinals having a good track record of developing prospects.

    Comment by maguro — March 28, 2013 @ 1:28 pm

  4. FYI, Darien Martin and Trey Martin are the same person

    Comment by jon — March 28, 2013 @ 1:31 pm

  5. Brock Holt is now with the Red Sox after the Hanrahan trade.

    Comment by Ed Giles — March 28, 2013 @ 1:35 pm

  6. Well… he saw 13 innings, sure. I’m not certain that proves much. I’m not saying Cole & Taillon are low risk. I’m just saying that there’s got to be some reason Miller is and they aren’t. Good points from maguro on Taveras, Wong, and Adams, too.

    Comment by Matt — March 28, 2013 @ 1:40 pm

  7. Doug Gray at redsminorleagues.com put together a good list, and I didn’t see his name on the blog roll. He might be someone to consider if you do this list again next year.

    Comment by George — March 28, 2013 @ 1:42 pm

  8. Brock Holt!!

    Comment by Steve Holt — March 28, 2013 @ 1:58 pm

  9. The Cubs should probably make him go by Darien, thereby making him a better prospect. “Trey” is just holding him back.

    Comment by steex — March 28, 2013 @ 2:01 pm

  10. Pitchers are always inherently riskier than hitters. Miller is lower risk than Cole and Taillon because he’s MLB ready. The hitters are lower risk because they’re hitters. And they’re pretty safe hitters as well. Taveras is probably the best bat in the minors, Adams slugged over .600 in AAA and Wong is considered the stereotypical low ceiling, high floor prospect who is almost certain to be around league average and not much more.

    At any rate none of this is as surprising as the consensus top minor league system in the MLB ranking 4th in its own division in terms of talent.

    Comment by Jay — March 28, 2013 @ 2:40 pm

  11. Miller has 3 pitches and the requisite command/control to pitch in the MLB. There are still some concerns about Cole’s command and Taillon’s change-up/command. I wouldn’t say they’re “big” concerns, but it makes some sense that they’re a little more risky than Miller. But all in all, they’re splitting hairs, and the wording of low vs. medium probably implies more of a difference than if they were to numerically grade their risk.

    Comment by Mark Smith — March 28, 2013 @ 2:45 pm

  12. Doh. Okay, I’ll change it.

    Comment by Mark Smith — March 28, 2013 @ 2:45 pm

  13. There’s always some guy I miss. Will change it. Thanks.

    Comment by Mark Smith — March 28, 2013 @ 2:46 pm

  14. Will do. I only included one blog list per team this year. May include more in the future.

    Comment by Mark Smith — March 28, 2013 @ 2:47 pm

  15. Read the post a couple times trying to figure out if the Astros system was so worthless it just got ignored entirely…and then I remembered.

    Comment by All Balls No Brains — March 28, 2013 @ 9:42 pm

  16. The Pirates do not have a top heavy system. They have numerous breakout candidates in the low minors. Few believed Hanson and Polanco were real prospects this time last year. Now…. The Pirates have a good many players like Hanson and Polanco, some of whom will earn their prospect status on the field.

    Comment by szielinski — March 28, 2013 @ 10:30 pm

  17. I do that all the time. It’ll be next year before I consistently remember they’re in the AL West.

    Comment by Mark Smith — March 28, 2013 @ 10:33 pm

  18. I’d rather be top-heavy than have depth but little impact. It wasn’t really a criticism, though it sounds a little like one in retrospect.

    Comment by Mark Smith — March 28, 2013 @ 10:36 pm

  19. Motor City Bengals for the Tigers has good prospect info.

    Comment by Larry — March 29, 2013 @ 7:18 am

  20. Fair, but the Cards from say 2006 through 2011 had depth, not top heaviness. And they won 2 World Series w/ said “depth” guys like Freese, Craig, Jay, Boggs, Lynn, Garcia, Duncan, etc…
    That said, now the Cards have both Top Level talent, and depth. A lot to like w/ the Cards!

    Comment by Bert — March 29, 2013 @ 10:34 am

  21. I have some serious problems with your methodology here. You have apparently based your “system grade” scores on 30 players per team chosen from the ones on your lists. However, there is no consistency in which 30 players you choose. It certainly isn’t the top 30, which would make sense; indeed, you have guys ranked as high as #4 in their systems (Henderson for Milwaukee) who aren’t scored, and a large number of Cardinals in their top 15 aren’t scored, which must deflate their average system grade by forcing marginal guys like O’Neill, Fornataro, etc., to be used in computing the average. The result is a pretty deceptive view of overall system strength.

    Comment by Bad Bill — March 29, 2013 @ 12:26 pm

  22. The grades are based off of BPro and Baseball America’s grades, not my own. There is an issue with how Henderson and some others get ranked so high (I’m considering giving 31s to people who don’t get included on Top 30s), but that wouldn’t affect the system grade. The system grade is simply the average of all the noted grades in the system. As I’ve been doing this, I think the 50+ grade may be more indicative of system strength as those are the prospects most likely to to make the majors and contribute.

    Comment by Mark Smith — March 29, 2013 @ 12:36 pm

  23. I’m still not buying it. There are simply too many guys in the upper tier of the Cardinals system who are not scored, notably the two Garcias. And what on earth is going on with the Reds scoring? The match between “AVG” and “RANK” looks like it was done with a random-number generator.

    Comment by Bad Bill — March 29, 2013 @ 3:21 pm

  24. Thanks for putting in two columns called risk. It clarifies everything!

    Comment by Toby — March 29, 2013 @ 4:06 pm

  25. Not sure what happened with the RANK and AVG problem, but I went back and fixed it. Sorry about that.

    As for the scoring, the grades are based off of two publications, but the prospect ranking within the team is based off of several more rankings. The Cardinals had 37 total prospects that were named on those lists, which is quite a few, but if they were not in BA’s list, they probably did not receive a score, which is why 7 are missing scores.

    Comment by Mark Smith — March 29, 2013 @ 4:28 pm

  26. One of them is the numerical figure, and the second is simply the descriptive grade given by the publications. The ranges for those qualitative descriptions are given toward the top of the post.

    Comment by Mark Smith — March 29, 2013 @ 4:29 pm

Leave a comment

Line and paragraph breaks automatic, e-mail address never displayed, HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>


Current day month ye@r *

Close this window.

0.130 Powered by WordPress