Fangraphs Angels Top 30 Prospects

[Angelsjunky]

A good write-up this year.

 

I found this encouraging: "The system is still in the bottom third of the league, but they’ve likely pulled out of the bottom five once I rank all 30 systems, with things looking to be trending up."

 

[ELEVEN]

Thanks, that was very informative.

If Carlos Perez figures it out at the plate, it would be a godsend.

Lots of upside in the low minors according to this article. A long ways to go, though.

[Tyler]

Finally some Sherm respect.

[NrM]

Nice rundown. Fangraphs is the best.

[Second Base]

I'm actually really surprised.  Typically FG has the worst prospect rankings and info of all the sites.  Like they throw names against the wall and make up any random order and story to fit any player, even if it's completely wrong.  There are a couple of inaccuracies here but all in all, this is a fantastic write-up. 

[Hollyw00d]

I'm actually really surprised.  Typically FG has the worst prospect rankings and info of all the sites.  Like they throw names against the wall and make up any random order and story to fit any player, even if it's completely wrong.  There are a couple of inaccuracies here but all in all, this is a fantastic write-up.

Lol.

There's a disclaimer right on their website that says that prospect rankings and projections of any kind are basically guessing and no one really knows anything.

Just because their story doesn't match yours, doesn't make it "right or wrong"

[Inside Pitch]

Lol.

There's a disclaimer right on their website that says that prospect rankings and projections of any kind are basically guessing and no one really knows anything.

Just because their story doesn't match yours, doesn't make it "right or wrong"

 

Pretty sure he's referring to thing such as stated velocities and pitch types, swing planes and the sort.  They have at times said stuff that nobody else has said or really seen.  FG is a saber driven info-source, they have made some really excellent strides on the scouting side the last year or so but if they have had any real weaknesses in the past it was in that area.  BB Prospectus conversely has always done a pretty good job with their scouting assessments -- still saber driven but less prone to call sliders curves and sinkers splits .. etc etc...

[wopphil]

I don't believe any scout or talent evaluator can make realistic assessments of these prospects unless they spend a significant amount of time watching them play. And with 30 organizations, 5 times to an organization, that is impossible for any of these national scouts.

Even the Angels own head of player development is unlikely to see any one starting pitcher throw more than 5 or 6 times in a season.

[Docwaukee]

All we need to know about prospect ranking and its accuracy can be learned from watching Trout's progression

 

2009 draft preview

#22 MIKE TROUT, OF, MILVILLE (N.J.) HS Trout has turned himself into a favorite of scouts in the Northeast, both for his talent and his makeup. An East Carolina commitment, he has rocketed up draft boards as a senior, thanks to an improved offensive approach. Last year, even in the fall, he had a tendency to bail out in the batter's box, particularly against sliders. This spring he has quieted his approach and improved against breaking balls, and he's shown the ability to hit hard line drives to all fields, though his swing still gets loopy and long at times. Halfway through the spring, Trout even began working on hitting lefthanded, and he showed some aptitude for it. Trout's frame and skill set draws comparisons to Aaron Rowand, but he's a faster runner—he runs the 60-yard dash in 6.5 seconds. He has good range and instincts in center field and plenty of arm for the position. Trout's bat is not a sure thing, but he has a chance to be a solid-average hitter with average or better power. Like Rowand, Trout is a grinder who always plays the game hard.

 

2010 - prospect ranking

 

Fangraphs 

81. Mike Trout, OF, Los Angeles Angels

 

Baseball America

85 MIKE
TROUT OF, ANGELS Best Tool: Speed.
BA Grade: 75. Opening
Day Age: 18 ETA: Mid-2012  

 

Sickels

1) Mike Trout, OF, Grade B+: On overall upside potential, has to rank number one but although I'd love additional performance data about his power development. A bit of a risk, but the upside is outstanding.

 

 

In 2011, Trout was generally regarded as the #2 prospect in baseball behind harper 

 

In 2012, most of the pundits still had him 2nd or 3rd.  

 

 

Don't get me wrong, I am not trying to bring anyone down, but ranking prospects with any semblance of accuracy is impossible.  

 

Mike Trout was drafted 25th in the first round.  Ranked in the mid to late top 100 and then it was like 'holy crap this guy is good', but he wasn't drafted #1 so we better temper it a bit and put him 2nd or 3rd.  

 

He was the best player in baseball by the age of 20 yet prior to that a generational player wasn't recognized as such.  

 

Kershaw is a generational pitcher and was ranked 24th the year after he was drafted and then 7th in 2008.  

 

 

Here is the formula as I see it.  

 

95% of the top 100 were drafted in the first or second round or they were highly touted international guys.  The more money they got, the higher they are ranked. The other 5% are guys that came out of nowhere to have tremendous seasons at a level beyond their age expectation.  Or a guy that moved up super fast and still performed well.  

 

Guys fall off and the most recent draft of 1st and 2nd round guys fill in the spots.  

 

 

Jeff Mathis was a consensus top 100 four years in a row

 

How many players were drafted after the 2nd or 3rd round were immediately ranked in the top 100 and ended up being a star player in the majors?  Isn't it easy to take a player draftedin the first round and rank them high?  

 

Over the past five years, of the major league top ten in WAR, there are no players who were drafted after the second round ranked in the top 100 on a prospect list without having played at least 3 years in the minors first.  About 1/4 of the players weren't drafted in the first round.  

 

two things to take away from this:

1.  First round draft picks are huge huge huge

2.  If a player was drafted after the first or second round, a thorough fan site is likely to know way more about those players and their potential than a national publication.  ie, if a player is drafted after the second round, not being ranked by a national publication means dick for their future as a major leaguer.  

 

as an aside, this workup by fangraphs was a good read and pretty informative.  

[Second Base]

Spot on Doc. Top 100 lists aren't equipped to dig deeper into depth charts and see the Kole Calhoun types. And the funny thing is, the Angels are constantly ranked at the bottom, mostly because their minor leagues are full of these guys. They're the college seniors without amazing tools that just do every little thing right. Lots of 4th OF and spot starters in there.

Calhoun was supposed to be a 4th OF, Shoemaker was supposed to be a spot starter.

[Hollyw00d]

I like both of those guys, but let's be honest, the book is still out. Too early to crown them all stars

[Second Base]

Nice straw-man. No one called them all-stars.

[Hollyw00d]

They performed like all stars last year. I did.

[Inside Pitch]

They performed like all stars last year. I did.

 

You're also the guy claiming it's too early to crown them all stars.  Impressive display of doublespeak..   

[Hollyw00d]

No, that's just making a statement.