Comments on: Kansas City Royals: Top 10 Prospects

By: beagle training rabbit

beagle training rabbit — Fri, 25 Mar 2011 12:29:09 +0000

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.

By: jmjore

jmjore — Mon, 07 Dec 2009 18:14:28 +0000

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?

By: geo

geo — Mon, 23 Nov 2009 16:20:43 +0000

Jordan Parraz, that’s who.

By: egk

egk — Sat, 21 Nov 2009 19:21:35 +0000

not that this is a big deal, but doesn’t ka’aihue have two options remaining? They didn’t add him to the roster until ’08 and wouldn’t have burned an option that year.

By: TomG

TomG — Wed, 18 Nov 2009 15:50:03 +0000

Marc, that’s a rather aggressive ranking of Sample compared to other sources; does that speak more of how you feel about the Royals’ system or are you that high on his potential?

By: David

David — Wed, 18 Nov 2009 04:50:28 +0000

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.

By: Marc

Marc — Wed, 18 Nov 2009 03:14:15 +0000

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.

By: LJ

LJ — Tue, 17 Nov 2009 22:46:10 +0000

Mark – how many of these players did you see play? If you didn’t how many scouts did you talk to?

By: Marc

Marc — Tue, 17 Nov 2009 22:27:18 +0000

As for Ka’aihue, I’d say he’s a solid prospect for KC because A) He’s a cheap (key for this organization) source of power, B) The Royals NEED power, and C) The Royals NEED guys to get on base.

By: Marc

Marc — Tue, 17 Nov 2009 22:21:58 +0000

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.