“It seems like Elbert has been around forever, thanks to a long list of injuries and control issues.”
There was one singular injury at the start of the 07 season. But for some reason, he gets this rep of being a huge injury risk.
I’m not normally someone who says bad things about articles, but this seems poorly researched if you have Elbert as having a long injury history and our top pitching prospect as our 6th best prospect with LINDBLOM in front of him. Lindblom is good, but his ceiling is MUCH lower and he may end up in the bullpen anyway.
Way too low for Withrow especially since the argument used above against him is that his “stuff” isn’t electric. Most of the above analysis is based on stats and Withrow had better stats than Martin, especially considering Withrow did it in High A and AA compared to Martin who did it in low A.
Withrow’s fastball is not 88-92 MPH, as Hulet says. In BA’s 2007 draft preview, that was reported to be the velocity at which Withrow’s FB velocity sat as a high school senior. But according to BA now, Withrow sits at 92-96 MPH and was clocked as high as 99 this year. And Goldstein at BP says Withrow sits at 93-95 and consistently reaches the high 90’s. A pretty poor job by Hulet, relying on reported info that is 2.5 years out-of-date when readily-available sources give up-to-date information.
Comment by CanuckDodger — February 11, 2010 @ 3:23 pm
John Ely screams solid but unspectacular, but because he was 14-2 with under a 3 ERA apparently that makes him a top prospect for the Dodgers. I believe Baseball America (just for reference, not as though they are the end all) had him outside the top 15, maybe even out of the top 20 Dodgers prospects. Even in college his numbers were just solid.
Here is a link to a top Dodger prospects combined list:
“3 respected publications have finished their list of top Dodger prospects and True Blue LA had a vote for their Top 15 prospects too. How does this all shake out?
True Blue LA voters flipped flop the order of Number 1 and 2 prospects in their list, but Baseball America, Baseball Prospectus and John Sickels all had Gordon and Withrow occupying 1 & 2 in that order. Here’s the entire consensus list:
1. Dee Gordon
2. Chris Withrow
3. Ethan Martin
4. Aaron Miller
5. Scott Elbert
6. Josh Lindblom
7. Ivan DeJesus, Jr.
8. Andrew Lambo
9. Trayvon Robinson
10. Garrett Gould
11. Allen Webster
12. Kyle Russell
13. Nate Eovaldi
Only 13 players appeared on all 4 lists (True Blue LA and the three publications), Kenley Jansen, Pedro Baez, Xavier Paul, Jonathan Garcia and Brett Wallach were the other players in the top 15 lists. Baseball America produced a top 30 and Sickels has a top 20 but since the other 2 lists only with to 15, that is what I am sticking to here.” – bhsportsguy
I just saw someone else say this but it’s because they might just look at purely statistical things for these players (mostly that’s a good idea, but that leaves off potential in some cases), so Aaron Miller and Garret Gould get no consideration, while someone like John Ely is halfway up the list. Mwhite06 actually said it somewhere else.
I have Withrow #1 in the system. Easily. This was his real first full year back from injury, and he made it to AA while performing extremely well. He had extremely high BABIPs which bring his FIP down to the 3 range. His stuff is easily electric. Sitting 93-96, touching 99, with a plus curve and developing change. He’s top 35 for me, grouped with Simon Castro, Casey Crosby, Matt Moore, and Jordan Lyles.
Most rankings have Gordon 1 and Withrow 2, with Gordon in the 30s and 40s range and Withrow in the 70s, but if it were me I’d have Withrow 1 and Gordon 2 with Withrow in the 40s or 50s and Gordon in the 60s or 70s.
Like the rest, I am puzzled about the Withrow comments. Everything I have read indicates he definitely has “electric” stuff and that his FB peaked in the mid 90s. I also recall an interview with Charlie Hough who described Withrow as the best Dodgers arm he’s seen in their organization in 10 years.
Comment by saltybiscuits — February 11, 2010 @ 3:52 pm
Yeah, I think Withrow is a little low on the list. Otherwise, great job.
I am such a huge fan of fangraphs, and it is an absolute mandatory addition on my daily rotation of baseball sites I frequent.
But wow, I’ve never seen such a poorly written baseball prospect write-up on this site.
There’s so much wrong with this article I don’t know where to begin. Among other things:
– Andrew Lambo is 3rd? I agree I think he’s an intriguing prospect, and I do feel that people have been writing him off too soon due to his rather pedestrian showing. But 3rd?
– Josh Lindblom deserves another shot at the rotation while Elbert is at best a set-up man. LOL! The first half of that sentence may deserve merit, but in comparison to the analysis that was written for Elbert, it is laughable (not that he’s strictly comparing the two, but cmon…)
– Chris Withrow. “His stuff isn’t electric and he projects as more of a No. 3 starter.” I am baffled.
I am not even a Dodger fan and I can tell there are so many inaccuracies with this write-up.
I apologize for the long article and I understand that prospect lists are really supposed to be largely subjective. But I just want to respectfully voice my displeasure at a stinker of an article. I just expected more from one of my favorite baseball sites.
Someone do a re-write or something. I honestly feel a lil bad for the Dodger fans cuz really, this one looks like someone just data-mined info and stats from far outdated sources and hastily put it together.
ok, sorry, rant over.
Comment by RedsJBruceWayne — February 12, 2010 @ 12:12 am
Who gave you your info on Withrow? That’s the first scouting report I’ve seen on him that didn’t have his fastball in the mid 90s. You also don’t give his curveball a plus grade, which begs the question: how did a 20 year old with such average stuff rack up >10 K’s per 9 between the Cal league and the Southern league?
Comment by 6661dodgerblue — February 12, 2010 @ 2:25 am
This looks a lot like the BP prospect lists pre Goldstein.
Comment by regfairfield — February 12, 2010 @ 3:32 pm
If Fan Graph’s is ever going to become a mainstream publication for baseball analysis they can’t afford bush league analysis like this. You can’t properly grade prospects without speaking to scouts or having a contact who knows some scouts.
This is a great site and it has grown alot in the past 12-24 months. Thsre are a nunber of fine contribors here and imo this site could become another BP with a little less laziness.