MLB.com 2010 Top 50 Prospects
by MaddogFell on Jan 27, 2010 8:31 PM MST
Email
PrintTitle says it all pretty much.
But The Rockies have two of the top 50 prospects while initially i kinda felt this was low I'm glad to see that the two prospects are pitchers which is quite exciting as i feel our biggest need is more reliable starting pitchers so we can venture away from the one year veteran help that we seem to love.
Now our two prospects as you can probably guess are
#23. Christian Friedrich LHP
#44. Jhoulys Chacin RHP
now to get your thought on the list as is available via link below:
MLB.com 2010 Top 50 Prospect list
My one concern is the giants top pitching prospect as my friend that is a die hard giants fan and member of the McCovey Chronicles believes will be in the pros most of the year and lighting it up so do we really have to face Lincecum, Cain, and Bumgarner in one series aye carumba.
Bumgarner is #10 according to MLB.com so watch out i guess. But feel free to leave your thoughts i would love your insight.
Eat. Drink. Be Merry. But the above FanPost does not necessarily reflect the attitudes, opinions, or views of Purple Row's staff (unless, of course, it's written by the staff [and even then, it still might not]).
42 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Matzek was #51 when they detailed those who just missed
Yay for pitching prospect talent.
Impossible not to have positive thoughts.
I want Sam Deduno to pitch already.
I think the only reason Christian was lower
is because he is still a little ways out from making the big league team
Lincecum/Cain/Bumgarner won't be any more terrifying than
Lincecum/Cain/Zito was last year
"I have no special talents. I am only passionately curious." - Albert Einstein
by Andrew T. Fisher on Jan 28, 2010 8:34 AM MST up reply actions
you are joking right?
The Giants have four possible Cy Young candidates in their rotation right now. All of four them could finish in the top 5 of voting this year. Now thats a scary thought about a scary rotation.
I’m going to arbitrarily throw out a number of the chances of that happening….1 in a thousand but that’s better chance than a lot of teams out there. The last time anything like that happen was in 98 (1906 doesn’t count because there wasn’t any Cy Young voting back then).
Matt Cain and Tim Lincecum is quite a serious 1-2 punch toss in a Zito that’s coming around and toss in phenom Bumgarner. That’s an extra terrifying rotation.
P.S.
Straburg is overrated
P.S.S.
I think even if the Giants have the once in generation rotation that I still like our team because it very well rounded and well built.
Making facetious trade rumors since 2012AD
No I'm not joking
No matter what happens, Lincecum/Cain/Zito dominated us both times all three threw in a series against us. But surely you must be joking to think that Zito or Bumgarner have a prayer at top 5 Cy Young performances.
"I have no special talents. I am only passionately curious." - Albert Einstein
by Andrew T. Fisher on Jan 30, 2010 10:20 AM MST up reply actions
And Cain
Just isn’t Cy Young caliber. Very good, yes. But not an ace.
by controlled_slide on Jan 30, 2010 11:08 AM MST up reply actions
and this is...
why we play 162 games year after year.
I’m not joking…frankly I am quite miffed that McCain didn’t get a Cy Young vote this year. In theory the Giants have the most dominate pitching staff in baseball till at least 2012.
The Rockies still have the better team though hands down.
Making facetious trade rumors since 2012AD
Oh look at my signing...
Making facetious trade rumors since 2012AD
I should probably make that include predictions too.
Making facetious trade rumors since 2012AD
Do you know how they calculate the data?
I think Cain was hurt by giving up up walks more often than hammel.
Making facetious trade rumors since 2012AD
I don't know how they calculate it
But I’d be willing to guess that Rockies pitchers get a huge boost from pitching at Coors. I’m not saying that WAR numbers from Fangraphs are gospel or that Hammel is a better pitcher than Cain, just that Cain isn’t as good as many of his numbers suggest.
by controlled_slide on Jan 30, 2010 4:13 PM MST up reply actions
Yes I do
It is based on FIP, which grades pitchers solely on baseball events on which they are predominantly responsible (HR, BB, HBP, IBB, K’s and IP), which means a pitcher doesn’t get penalized for having a terrible defense behind him or overly credited by having wizards behind him.
Six year park factors are then applied, so Rockies pitchers get the benefit for pitching at Coors that hitters have long been vilified for. There are some other calculations too, but they essentially convert FIP to WAR, a conversion that is basically the same for every pitcher.
Cain struck out a little more than Hammel, but Hammel walked FAR less and gave up fewer home runs. Cain’s ERA looks nicer because of two unsustainable things: a very low (and career low) stranded runner rate and a career low (and 36 point drop from 08) in batting average on balls in play. Meanwhile, Hammel gave up hits on a batted balls at a career high rate.
It’s possible that Hammel pitched well most of the time and just served up meatballs, but this system essentially says he got unlucky more than any time in his career while Cain was “luckier” than ever.
"I have no special talents. I am only passionately curious." - Albert Einstein
by Andrew T. Fisher on Jan 30, 2010 7:25 PM MST up reply actions
Cain's WHIP though...
is in his career range. Maybe he is the pressure pitcher ala Cook at the All-Star game.
Evil question….what plausible rotation do you think the Rockies would need to have their pitchers finish in the top 5 of the Cy Young voting.
I say Ubaldo, maybe Cook, Streets, Freidirich, Matzek?(and i say Strasburg is overrated), and Jeff Francis.
Making facetious trade rumors since 2012AD
10-15 WHIP points can mean a lot over the course of the season
It doesn’t seem like much, but ERA varies far more than WHIP. His FIP last season was exactly his career FIP. As for your question, I have no idea what you’re talking about. No team will ever have all five spots in the CY ballots
"I have no special talents. I am only passionately curious." - Albert Einstein
by Andrew T. Fisher on Jan 30, 2010 10:16 PM MST up reply actions
.10-.15 WHIP
is 20-30 baserunners for Matt Cain. Hardly something to sneeze at.
Purple Row: Take this personally
http://www.youtube.com/user/rockiesmagicnumber
Learn about Batting Metrics
Learn about Pitching Metrics
by Andrew Martin on Feb 2, 2010 1:31 PM MST up reply actions
Question about RAR and WAR as they relate to park effects
So if you had a hitter in an offensively positive ballpark, do you adjust his RAR due to park effects (because it’s easier to score runs at his park) or do you not, because a double is worth 1.28 runs no matter where you play? That is to say, where are the park effects placed? You would think that a double is just as likely to result in a run at Coors field as it is at Petco, or even that it’s more likely to result in a run at Coors because hits are more easy to come by, so it’s more likely that a runner is on base when you hit your double or that you’ll be driven in after you hit your double. In that case, a double would be worth more runs at Coors than at Petco because it’s more likely to result in a run.
The way that would make sense to me would be for hitters at offensively biased parks to have higher RAR than those at pitching biased parks, but, because it takes more runs to win a game at an offensive park, it would take more RAR to make a WAR if you play at an offensive ballpark.
I used hitters as an example, but the same would hold true for pitchers, except in reverse.
Does any of that make sense?
by controlled_slide on Jan 31, 2010 9:57 AM MST up reply actions
Yeah I think that makes sense
It does take more runs to get a win in an offensive park, but instead of assigning each park a runs/win, the inputs are adjusted for parks. Fangraphs uses five year regressed park factors, but I don’t believe they have published the details of that. For the NL West in Review series I wrote, I used component park factors from statcorner.com. That method is generally not used in calculating total player value, but with Fangraphs’ park factors unpublished, that’s what I had to worth with.
"I have no special talents. I am only passionately curious." - Albert Einstein
by Andrew T. Fisher on Jan 31, 2010 4:37 PM MST up reply actions
I'm sure that they only apply a park factor once
Because it’s less complex, but in my head it makes more sense to apply it to wOBA (and thus to wRC and wRAA) and then also to converting it to WAR. But what do I know.
by controlled_slide on Jan 31, 2010 7:43 PM MST up reply actions
I think they only convert it once
they have been doing it in between wRAA and the batting component of WAR. What I can’t figure out is why two players on the same team seem to have a different effects from park effects, so it doesn’t seem to be linear. David Appelman promised a piece a couple months ago describing their methods, but if he wrote it, I missed it.
"I have no special talents. I am only passionately curious." - Albert Einstein
by Andrew T. Fisher on Jan 31, 2010 8:25 PM MST up reply actions
I know this is old but whatev
1. Lincecum obviously top 3 pitcher in baseball at the moment
2. Cain is good but only dinosauric WINS would give him a CY. He’s just not that good. He’s good, but not THAT good.
3. Sanchez is JLDR but a year younger. No way he even comes CLOSE to a Cy Young.
4. Barry Zito didn’t deserve the CY he won, and he’s hardly better than a #4 anymore.
5. if Bumgarner recovers those 4-5 mph on his fastball, he might be ok, but it’s A BIT early to be forecasting postseason hardware for him. He’s not really a phenom. Good, but not a phenom whatsoever. Looks very Francis-esque IMO (and that’s a very loose comparison).
I’ll be interested to see how right or wrong you are about Strasburg. He’s quite the aberration.
Purple Row: Take this personally
http://www.youtube.com/user/rockiesmagicnumber
Learn about Batting Metrics
Learn about Pitching Metrics
by Andrew Martin on Feb 2, 2010 1:45 PM MST up reply actions
Recommending Bookreading
Super Crunchers by Ian Ayers…pretty good book on how stats are applied in various industries but also it compares and contrast intuition versus probability.
FYI, we probably have discussed about half of this book ad naseum already.
My hunch on Strasburg is intuition.
Making facetious trade rumors since 2012AD
Interesting list
My one concern is the giants top pitching prospect, as my friend that is a die hard Giants fan and member of McCovey Chronicles believes he will be in the pros most of the year lighting it up. Do we really have to face Lincecum, Cain, and Bumgarner in one series. Aye carumba.
Your friend sounds extremely intelligent
Matzek will be making a big jump on this list over the next year. Soon there will be ridiculous rotations in the NL West. I’ve been wondering how far away is Chacin?
Embrace your Romosexuality. No not you Tony, you suck
by BringBackBenitoSantiago on Jan 27, 2010 11:44 PM MST reply actions
He's got a good sinker
but he still lacks control. If he comes to the majors as a starter, he’d have to work on that. He likely would come in for another cup of joe as a reliever if we see him in 2010.
So dawn goes down to day.
Nothing gold can stay.
by bleedspurple on Jan 28, 2010 8:38 AM MST up reply actions
The oddity is that Chacin is actually quite a good control pitcher
He struggled in AAA and with the Rockies, but at lower levels, he was never higher than 3 BB/9. That just needs to translate, which I think it will when he understands he has the stuff to get MLB hitters out
"I have no special talents. I am only passionately curious." - Albert Einstein
by Andrew T. Fisher on Jan 28, 2010 8:47 AM MST up reply actions
He's moved through the system pretty quickly.
As you say, a lot of that control will come with confidence. I don’t think he was fully comfortable in his shoes last year but it will come.
I suppose I should have qualified
Indeed he does have control…but loses it in trip and the majors. I think you’re right, though…it will translate with time. He’s a youngster still.
So dawn goes down to day.
Nothing gold can stay.
by bleedspurple on Jan 28, 2010 9:22 AM MST up reply actions
Yes Chacin is known for his control
but also his ability to induce the groundball. I read somewhere that he has a higher groundball/flyball ratio than Brandon Webb who leads the Majors in that stat. Chacin, in my mind, will start in AAA this year and if that goes well will be the first to come up should something happen to someone else in our rotation. He is our club’s next Aaron Cook or better. Not only is he a great pitcher, he’s a great fit in Coor’s field. Great scouting by the Rockies organization!!
by BringItHome on Jan 28, 2010 10:31 AM MST up reply actions
Chacin has a higher ceiling than Cook had
Chacin has a better tendency to combine strikeouts and groundballs, whilst Cook barely strikes out anyone.
Impossible not to have positive thoughts.
I want Sam Deduno to pitch already.
by bballrox4717 on Jan 28, 2010 1:24 PM MST up reply actions
Agreed
Chacin has a higher K/9 rate than Cook did in the minors, about 1.7 higher to be exact, but that also might mean that Chacin’s pitch count might be quite a bit higher. That won’t be a too much of a problem though as long as he maintains good command.
Probably the worst list from an "authority" I've seen.
Looking past the point that debating top prospects lists is silly anyways, Mayo’s slight of Matzek for a number of players is quite baffling. A look at some of the players making the top fifty ahead of Matzek:
32. Mike Moustakas- Three seasons in, and this offensive first prospect simply has not hit at the pro level. Going to AA carrying a .250/.297/.421 line from 2009. Does he even have a defensive position yet?
33. Wil Myers- Same draft year as Matzek, not rated nearly as high, yet gets here based on 18 monster games in Rookie Ball. Are we ignoring months upon years of scouting evaluation because of 18 games?
45. Jose Iglesias- Many scout evaluations seriously wonder if Iglesias will hit at the big league level. Though just twenty, his AFL numbers are fairly pedestrian. Goldstein quotes a scout that wonders if this is just the second coming of Rey Ordonez…
46. Michael Brantley- Probably here based on an empty .313 AVG in 112 ML ABs, not his .267/.350/.361 in 457 AAA ABs. Profile screams fourth outfielder or poor man’s Coco Crisp. What does he do that Charlie Blackmon can’t do (I like Blackmon, but you won’t find him sniffing this list)?
I could have picked on many more, but these four were the most glaring slights of Matzek.
Like Hybrid said
its done by polling major league scouts. I’m not sure Mayo has any say in them.
FWIW, the non-MLB guys are pretty effusive in their praise of Iglesias, including the glove of Ozzie Smith. Brantley isn’t a prototypical corner OF, but his OBP is great, he’s LH and plays good defense. Does that sound like Coco Crisp?
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2012 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
