BA's 2016 Post-Season Top 20 Lists

Austinfan 2016-10-13 18:35:14 UTC #41

It's a little early to project guys like Eflin and Thompson.
Look at Eickhoff, one reason we got him was he was considered a #5 at best, two years later, he's a solid #3 at the ML level.

phillychuck 2016-10-13 18:39:19 UTC #42

Interesting that one incredibly successful pitcher who finished the season 18-5 at two levels, posted a 0.93 WHIP at both levels, and struck out about 8 batters per 9 IP in predominantly DH leagues did not make either the AA or AAA list. Ben Lively should be pretty peeved IMHO.

andyb 2016-10-13 18:55:30 UTC #43

It is never too early to project players. That is kind of the point of a prospect list. Can some players exceed their projection and do some players fall short? Of course. But it is also important to note that for whatever reason Thompson's projection is a little lower this year than last. He certainly pitched well so it is more of a reaction to the quality of his stuff and the lack of ability to miss bats. These things are important to prospect rankings. And it is a bit of a change from last year and it is meaningful. We have more information on him this year compared to last.

zambonir 2016-10-13 19:59:56 UTC #44

So Pitcher of the Year is based on performance and prospect list is based on projection?

andyb 2016-10-13 20:06:12 UTC #45

Pretty much. Staying at the level for most of the year also helps for the pitcher of the year award. By the time prospects hit AAA though there is lots of performance baked into their ranking or projection. Williams is there in part for cumulative past performance as well as projection and was certainly hurt by his off year performance-wise.

Austinfan 2016-10-13 20:51:36 UTC #46

andyb:

Austinfan:

It's a little early to project guys like Eflin and Thompson.
Look at Eickhoff, one reason we got him was he was considered a #5 at best, two years later, he's a solid #3 at the ML level.
It is never too early to project players. That is kind of the point of a prospect list. Can some players exceed their projection and do some players fall short? Of course. But it is also important to note that for whatever reason Thompson's projection is a little lower this year than last. He certainly pitched well so it is more of a reaction to the quality of his stuff and the lack of ability to miss bats. These things are important to prospect rankings. And it is a bit of a change from last year and it is meaningful. We have more information on him this year compared to last.

Pitchers are different from hitters, rarely do you see a hitter come out of nowhere, they may make incremental improvements, get stronger, more disciplined, etc. There are examples of hitters fixing a flaw in their swing, but it's rare to see them totally outperform their past (they may outperform an off season or two).

Pitchers tend to be more erratic because for a young pitcher, there are more "moving parts." Especially for bigger bodies, it takes time to smooth out the mechanics, find a delivery slot that works with your pitches, then learn to repeat that motion 100 times a game without giving away your pitches.

Thompson was solid, Eflin was lights out in AAA. They were both 22, young for the league, they both struggled in the Majors but showed extended flashes of what they could do in a "groove." So do you project off their history or a few games when they got knocked around in the majors? Eickhoff didn't make major changes, he improved his curve, improved his command a little, starting throwing a 2 seamer more and eventually got more movement, his slider is still inconsistent, his changeup a work in progress. That's why it's hard to project pitchers, even little improvements can have a big impact.

Velasquez is a good example, he had a great start, then struggled the rest of the year. No matter how good his raw stuff may be, if he can't develop the command to go more than 5 inninngs, he's never going to be more than a 4th starter - and that's why pitching is just harder to project than hitting. But those kind of improvements are much bigger judgment calls than say his velocity or movement of his pitches.

andyb 2016-10-13 21:30:29 UTC #47

Austinfan:

andyb:

Austinfan:

It's a little early to project guys like Eflin and Thompson.
Look at Eickhoff, one reason we got him was he was considered a #5 at best, two years later, he's a solid #3 at the ML level.
It is never too early to project players. That is kind of the point of a prospect list. Can some players exceed their projection and do some players fall short? Of course. But it is also important to note that for whatever reason Thompson's projection is a little lower this year than last. He certainly pitched well so it is more of a reaction to the quality of his stuff and the lack of ability to miss bats. These things are important to prospect rankings. And it is a bit of a change from last year and it is meaningful. We have more information on him this year compared to last.

Pitchers are different from hitters, rarely do you see a hitter come out of nowhere, they may make incremental improvements, get stronger, more disciplined, etc. There are examples of hitters fixing a flaw in their swing, but it's rare to see them totally outperform their past (they may outperform an off season or two).

Pitchers tend to be more erratic because for a young pitcher, there are more "moving parts." Especially for bigger bodies, it takes time to smooth out the mechanics, find a delivery slot that works with your pitches, then learn to repeat that motion 100 times a game without giving away your pitches.

Thompson was solid, Eflin was lights out in AAA. They were both 22, young for the league, they both struggled in the Majors but showed extended flashes of what they could do in a "groove." So do you project off their history or a few games when they got knocked around in the majors? Eickhoff didn't make major changes, he improved his curve, improved his command a little, starting throwing a 2 seamer more and eventually got more movement, his slider is still inconsistent, his changeup a work in progress. That's why it's hard to project pitchers, even little improvements can have a big impact.

Velasquez is a good example, he had a great start, then struggled the rest of the year. No matter how good his raw stuff may be, if he can't develop the command to go more than 5 inninngs, he's never going to be more than a 4th starter - and that's why pitching is just harder to project than hitting. But those kind of improvements are much bigger judgment calls than say his velocity or movement of his pitches.

You miss the point entirely. The whole point of a prospect list is to project how good they become. And BTW there are plenty of hitters who "outperform" their past. Matt Kemp, Josh Donaldson, Jose Bautista to name 3. None were high on top 100 lists if they were there at all. There are valid reasons why guys like Thompson and Eflin do not make these lists. Their stuff is not as good as the pitchers above them on the list. Top 20 lists in large leagues are also hard to make.

The comment in the chat on Thompson: "Thompson was in the mix at the back and will be a starter in the big leagues, but we don’t see him being overly impactful, pushing him behind some of these other pitchers at the back end of the list." Velasquez also had a very good season (you love FIP and he was 3.96) and still projects to be a #2 if he can build stamina and refine his secondary pitches.

andyb 2016-10-17 15:27:06 UTC #48

Not exactly a prospect list, but BA is coming out with their draft report cards this week:
baseballamerica.com/draft/20 ... k0rsEVP.97

Phillies a somewhat disappointing 4th overall. Moniak gets mentions as the 2nd best pure hitter and the #1 defensive player. 2nd best HS debut also (behind Bo Bichette). Kyle Young gets a mention as the 2nd best late round pick (assume this is after the top 10 rounds).

bigegypt0417 2016-10-17 15:36:45 UTC #49

I think every team ahead of them had extra picks, no?

Squire 2016-10-17 15:49:26 UTC #50

Yes to bigegypt's question, the three above us all had extra picks.
I would have had us no worse than 3rd. Not sure I'd put Milwaukee above us.
What an indictment of San Diego though who had a top 10 first, 2 additional supplemental firsts and an extra Lottery B pick and still couldn't crack the Top 5.

SQUIRE

Philsmania 2016-10-17 17:12:23 UTC #51

This seems to add to the growing meme on the Phillies pharm which says extraordinary depth but few star players.

andyb 2016-10-17 17:27:40 UTC #52

Probably so. We really need Moniak to be a star. I always worried that without power his ceiling is more good than great. He is relatively safe for a HS 1-1 so that is good.

We might also be downgraded a bit because Gowdy did not pitch that much. Remember his bonus was something like the 10th highest in the entire draft. We need him to perform like that though obviously we won't see anything much from him till next season. Hopefully he has a shot at Lakewood though I would be fine if they held him in XST till May because we probably don't want him much over the 100-120 inning level anyway.

allentown 2016-10-17 20:28:31 UTC #53

Even without power, if Moniak is the best defensive prospect coupled with the second best hitting prospect, and has plus speed. That is a high ceiling. He can't be Bobby Abreu, but he can be Whitey Ashburn with more power and less SB or Gary Maddox.

Austinfan 2016-10-17 22:32:52 UTC #54

The ideal for Moniak would be McBride's bat with Maddux's glove.

What will determine Moniak's upside is plate discipline combined with gap power, I'll take:
.300/.380/.450/.830 with a golden glove in CF.

andyb 2016-10-17 23:41:08 UTC #55

It is more frustration with the choices available to us. Moniak is a great prospect. He just has less upside that just about every other offensive 1-1 pick at the time they were drafted. It is nice we got him a little under slot, but that happens with most high picks. It is not a criticism of Moniak per se to say he has less upside than you typically see at 1-1.

zambonir 2016-10-18 04:25:02 UTC #56

Inevitably, some kid that was drafted 13th or in the second round will end up being better than Moniak, and that will stink. But as long as Groome or a few of the other choices don't...

allentown 2016-10-18 12:08:26 UTC #57

Yes, that is close to inevitable. IMHO, prospects should be evaluated not just on ceiling, but also on floor and probability of achieving close to their ceiling. Moniak's excellent D and hitting tool set a high floor for a H.S. position player. Playing H.S. baseball in a baseball hotspot further increases his probability of success. His ceiling is very high, but not super high. Certainly there were at least a handful of guys in the draft with higher ceilings. Moniak is better than the average of that group but inevitably one will emerge who has a better MLB career than Moniak. But, if we had chosen to discount probability and just go high-ceiling, we would have had perhaps one chance in five of picking that guy with the better career and several chances out of five of ending up with a bust. Moniak is a fine pick, even if he ends up having only the 2nd or 3rd best career of 2016 draftees. Hit, D, and pitchers' control/command may not be the super-sexy tools, but they seem to be the ones that yield at least a decent major leaguer out of the first round and avoid the many busts we've had with first rounders. Nola and Crawford both fit this mold and seem to be fine. C Randolph also fits it and hopefully will turn things around in 2017. I like judging position players largely on hit and defense, because it seems difficult to predict if a speedster or a guy with tons of raw power ever learn to hit and develop meaningful game power. I've also followed too many highly touted pitchers who never developed enough control/command to make anything of their fantastic stuff.

Squire 2016-10-18 12:11:02 UTC #58

It will be interesting to see the draft recap. I still pretty much love what they did. Unfortunately they just had a down year for 1.1 choices and though right now I might think that Senzel or maybe even Rutherford was a better choice, I'm pretty happy with Moniak. PUk and Lewis will be the only guys we'll keep our eye on because I do think they were in serious consideration. I do think a lot of it s whether Moniak's frame can hold more muscle. If yes, then his bat to ball skills should translate into more power. But I won't ever fault the Phillies for their 2016 draft management.

bkeich 2016-10-18 20:50:43 UTC #59

That is an All-Star and borderline HOF player. I think we would all take that

Austinfan 2016-10-19 15:24:22 UTC #60

allentown:

zambonir:

Inevitably, some kid that was drafted 13th or in the second round will end up being better than Moniak, and that will stink. But as long as Groome or a few of the other choices don't...
Yes, that is close to inevitable. IMHO, prospects should be evaluated not just on ceiling, but also on floor and probability of achieving close to their ceiling. Moniak's excellent D and hitting tool set a high floor for a H.S. position player. Playing H.S. baseball in a baseball hotspot further increases his probability of success. His ceiling is very high, but not super high. Certainly there were at least a handful of guys in the draft with higher ceilings. Moniak is better than the average of that group but inevitably one will emerge who has a better MLB career than Moniak. But, if we had chosen to discount probability and just go high-ceiling, we would have had perhaps one chance in five of picking that guy with the better career and several chances out of five of ending up with a bust. Moniak is a fine pick, even if he ends up having only the 2nd or 3rd best career of 2016 draftees. Hit, D, and pitchers' control/command may not be the super-sexy tools, but they seem to be the ones that yield at least a decent major leaguer out of the first round and avoid the many busts we've had with first rounders. Nola and Crawford both fit this mold and seem to be fine. C Randolph also fits it and hopefully will turn things around in 2017. I like judging position players largely on hit and defense, because it seems difficult to predict if a speedster or a guy with tons of raw power ever learn to hit and develop meaningful game power. I've also followed too many highly touted pitchers who never developed enough control/command to make anything of their fantastic stuff.

I think once you have certain minimums, some skills play out better over a career than other, so good power with a short stroke is better than great power from a long swing, 400' HRs count the same as 450' HRs. Plate discipline matters, because it makes it harder for a pitcher to adjust since you're going to force him to throw you strikes. Good swing mechanics keeps a player out of long slumps.

Same with pitchers, once you throw 92 on a regular basis, there is diminishing returns to additional velocity. What becomes more important is command, control and the quality of your secondary pitches. Repeatable mechanics throwing from the same slot is related to body control. I've seen too many 97 MPH fastballs that drifted over the middle of the plate reverse direction at 105 MPH to be enamoured with the high velocity kids, look at Garcia, he has great stuff, but at age 30 he still can't hold a bullpen spot on a regular basis. Velocity matters more in the pen, where you're usually setting up one secondary pitche, but even then movement on a fastball is just as important.

The good thing is the Phillies scouts have shifted from great tools to baseball tools, and the focus is more on plate discipline, swing mechanics, bat speed, and secondary pitches and command when they look at prospects.