Register    Login    Forum    Search    FAQ

Board index » AZ Diamondbacks » Farm Implements




 Page 14 of 15 [ 289 posts ] Go to page Previous  1 ... 11, 12, 13, 14, 15  Next



Author Message
 Post subject: Re: top prospect lists.
 Post Posted: Sun Jan 15, 2017 5:46 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Jul 31, 2010 4:27 pm
Posts: 12201
20/80 Baseball Organizational Reviews

D Backs on Deck


Top 
 Post subject: Re: top prospect lists.
 Post Posted: Wed Jan 18, 2017 5:34 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 9:19 pm
Posts: 8566
Location: Phoenix, AZ
Keith Law's farm system rankings

worst in baseball

_________________
When giant corndogs and ice cream are more important than winning baseball


Top 
 Post subject: Re: top prospect lists.
 Post Posted: Fri Jan 20, 2017 11:31 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 03, 2014 12:20 pm
Posts: 76
JoeCB91 wrote:
Keith Law's farm system rankings

worst in baseball


**** Law... We don't have the worst farm system in MLB.


Top 
 Post subject: Re: top prospect lists.
 Post Posted: Fri Jan 20, 2017 1:01 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Aug 01, 2010 9:29 pm
Posts: 3599
Location: Katy, TX
We can quibble over precise placement,,, but just the fact they're even in discussion for worst system in baseball is very concerning given this ownership group's tight pockets.

And it's important to remember this is entirely the product of the organization being built in DHall's image.

_________________
Vin Scully.


Top 
 Post subject: Re: top prospect lists.
 Post Posted: Fri Jan 20, 2017 1:36 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 03, 2014 12:20 pm
Posts: 76
It pains me to think what our INF would look like this year, if not for the stupid, stupid trade.

Goldy - 1B
Drury - 2B
Swanson - SS
Lamb -3B

This EASILY would have been one of the best infields in baseball.

****ing Stewart.


Top 
 Post subject: Re: top prospect lists.
 Post Posted: Fri Jan 20, 2017 1:53 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 9:19 pm
Posts: 8566
Location: Phoenix, AZ
dirtygary wrote:
We can quibble over precise placement,,, but just the fact they're even in discussion for worst system in baseball is very concerning given this ownership group's tight pockets.

And it's important to remember this is entirely the product of the organization being built in DHall's image.


Yep

I wasn't expecting 30th, but a lot of us have said while looking at the top prospects lists that it does seem to be pretty barren of talent, a lot of us have pointed out (like Law has) that Stew made a bunch of bad trades that pissed away talent.

He is very critical of the DBacks, but they have done plenty to deserve that criticism.

_________________
When giant corndogs and ice cream are more important than winning baseball


Top 
 Post subject: Re: top prospect lists.
 Post Posted: Fri Jan 20, 2017 1:55 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Jul 31, 2010 4:27 pm
Posts: 12201
Look at the 20/80 list I linked

The big debate among prospect rankers is whether or not Leyba or Banda is our top prospect. 30 th indeed


Top 
 Post subject: Re: top prospect lists.
 Post Posted: Fri Jan 20, 2017 4:53 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Aug 01, 2010 6:27 pm
Posts: 2046
TheKid24 wrote:
It pains me to think what our INF would look like this year, if not for the stupid, stupid trade.

Goldy - 1B
Drury - 2B
Swanson - SS
Lamb -3B

This EASILY would have been one of the best infields in baseball.

****ing Stewart.


With an outfield of Inciarte, Pollock & Eaton without two more stupid trades.


Top 
 Post subject: Re: top prospect lists.
 Post Posted: Fri Jan 20, 2017 8:54 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Jul 31, 2010 4:29 pm
Posts: 7721
Location: Tucson
bobster wrote:
TheKid24 wrote:
It pains me to think what our INF would look like this year, if not for the stupid, stupid trade.

Goldy - 1B
Drury - 2B
Swanson - SS
Lamb -3B

This EASILY would have been one of the best infields in baseball.

****ing Stewart.


With an outfield of Inciarte, Pollock & Eaton without two more stupid trades.


I think we could have contended with that. Then again, a team with crappy pitching goes no where.

_________________
Per Mare, Per Terras
32


Top 
 Post subject: Re: top prospect lists.
 Post Posted: Sat Jan 21, 2017 11:52 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 03, 2014 12:20 pm
Posts: 76
While I agree the farm is bare right now... I honestly believe we have the right guys in the FO to turn our system around.

I really dont see these guys making the insanely stupid trades DS and TLR made.


Top 
 Post subject: Re: top prospect lists.
 Post Posted: Mon Jan 23, 2017 8:03 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Aug 23, 2016 7:58 am
Posts: 107
Justin wrote:
I think we could have contended with that. Then again, a team with crappy pitching goes no where.


We actually have the 13th highest projected starting rotation in MLB next season, per Steamer. I cannot state for ZiPS because not all of the projections are released yet.

Honestly... our pitching has an extremely wide range of outcomes next season. On one hand, our starting pitching can perform like last season (21st in fWAR/FIP-, 27th in bWAR).

On the other hand, our rotation has a very large amount of upside. Greinke is still capable of 4+ WAR seasons. Ray is volatile but he's looking like ace material and considering his 3.4 WAR projections in both Steamer and ZiPS, an upside of 4-5 WAR is probably feasible (read: not necessarily probable but it's a distinct possibility). Walker is a little tougher to figure out his ceiling but considering his raw stuff, I'd say it's around 3-4 WAR. Miller's ceiling is still in the Mid-3s and if Corbin is our 5th, he's probably right around 3 WAR for an absolute ceiling.

At this point, I don't think we can declare our starting rotation as "crappy". Our biggest weakness there is depth, as we only have Bradley and maybe Banda at this point (I'm not sold on Shipley as an MLB starter at the moment) so a "good" season would require some luck on the health front. Also, our rotation is extremely volatile, which can be seen in the severe underperformances by Miller/Greinke last season and the inconsistency of peripherals vs results (see: Ray). But considering our starters ranked 21st in FIP- and 17th in xFIP- last season, I think it shows that our starting pitchers aren't as bad as some people might think.

But we have to at least appreciate the upside in our rotation for the next few years. Greinke/Ray/Walker have the potential to be a formidable top 3 for several years. Bradley showed a significant improvement in his strikeout rate last season and a modest improvement in his walk rate; if he can further those gains, he's going to show upside too, but he's gotta keep developing to get there. There is plenty of risk, but at least we've got quite a bit more upside than many other rotations in the MLB and we have age on our side for everyone but Greinke.

Just know my caveat: I am not stating the probability of hitting our upside. Considering our projections (which tend to be 50th percentile outcomes) have our rotation the top half of the league, I think it might be a bit more possible than many fans realize. I think improving our catching could have a large impact (at least with Mathis) and defensively we should be an improvement over last year (if we have CO or Marte at 2B and Ahmed at SS, we could easily be average or better at every position except for Tomas in RF).

That being said, our bullpen is still somewhat of a mess. I don't like discussing bullpens in the offseason much because relievers tend to be extremely volatile and the overall impact from the bullpens is somewhat small. I really thought our bullpen would be a strength for us, considering the insane amount of power arms and relievers we've drafted the last several years, but we really haven't seen any of them stick in the MLB.


Top 
 Post subject: Re: top prospect lists.
 Post Posted: Mon Jan 23, 2017 5:45 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 9:19 pm
Posts: 8566
Location: Phoenix, AZ
TheKid24 wrote:
While I agree the farm is bare right now... I honestly believe we have the right guys in the FO to turn our system around.


Keith thinks so too

Stew and KT left a big mess, but all around at least there is optimism in the people we have running the FO now.

_________________
When giant corndogs and ice cream are more important than winning baseball


Top 
 Post subject: Re: top prospect lists.
 Post Posted: Tue Jan 24, 2017 10:34 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Jul 31, 2010 4:27 pm
Posts: 12201
Moranall wrote:
Justin wrote:
I think we could have contended with that. Then again, a team with crappy pitching goes no where.


We actually have the 13th highest projected starting rotation in MLB next season, per Steamer. I cannot state for ZiPS because not all of the projections are released yet.

Honestly... our pitching has an extremely wide range of outcomes next season. On one hand, our starting pitching can perform like last season (21st in fWAR/FIP-, 27th in bWAR).

On the other hand, our rotation has a very large amount of upside. Greinke is still capable of 4+ WAR seasons. Ray is volatile but he's looking like ace material and considering his 3.4 WAR projections in both Steamer and ZiPS, an upside of 4-5 WAR is probably feasible (read: not necessarily probable but it's a distinct possibility). Walker is a little tougher to figure out his ceiling but considering his raw stuff, I'd say it's around 3-4 WAR. Miller's ceiling is still in the Mid-3s and if Corbin is our 5th, he's probably right around 3 WAR for an absolute ceiling.

At this point, I don't think we can declare our starting rotation as "crappy". Our biggest weakness there is depth, as we only have Bradley and maybe Banda at this point (I'm not sold on Shipley as an MLB starter at the moment) so a "good" season would require some luck on the health front. Also, our rotation is extremely volatile, which can be seen in the severe underperformances by Miller/Greinke last season and the inconsistency of peripherals vs results (see: Ray). But considering our starters ranked 21st in FIP- and 17th in xFIP- last season, I think it shows that our starting pitchers aren't as bad as some people might think.

But we have to at least appreciate the upside in our rotation for the next few years. Greinke/Ray/Walker have the potential to be a formidable top 3 for several years. Bradley showed a significant improvement in his strikeout rate last season and a modest improvement in his walk rate; if he can further those gains, he's going to show upside too, but he's gotta keep developing to get there. There is plenty of risk, but at least we've got quite a bit more upside than many other rotations in the MLB and we have age on our side for everyone but Greinke.

Just know my caveat: I am not stating the probability of hitting our upside. Considering our projections (which tend to be 50th percentile outcomes) have our rotation the top half of the league, I think it might be a bit more possible than many fans realize. I think improving our catching could have a large impact (at least with Mathis) and defensively we should be an improvement over last year (if we have CO or Marte at 2B and Ahmed at SS, we could easily be average or better at every position except for Tomas in RF).

That being said, our bullpen is still somewhat of a mess. I don't like discussing bullpens in the offseason much because relievers tend to be extremely volatile and the overall impact from the bullpens is somewhat small. I really thought our bullpen would be a strength for us, considering the insane amount of power arms and relievers we've drafted the last several years, but we really haven't seen any of them stick in the MLB.


Do you have a BP subscription ? (I no longer do)

They used to show breakout and collapse rates for players in their projections. looking at combined breakout rates or Something like it that might help define the "caveat".

Anyway, I've been playing around with the pitching projections, similar to what you did before. I averaged the RATE of WAR production between Steamer and ZIPS, and then applied that average rate to various inning totals. Then I also played with the average rates to, bumping them up and down 5% to see the range of possibilities. What I can't do of course is assign a breakout or collapse rate , or percentage to these different probably outcomes.

Keep in mind that NL avg IP per start last year was 5.6, (AZ at 5.5). Obviously if a rotation is pitching really well however they will throw addl. ip, and the opposite is true if they are sucking, so the IP totals move too.

Using Greinke, Ray, Walker, Miller and Bradley as the top 5, and Shipley, Banda, and Koch as backup starters

910 IP, 13.6 WAR (5.6 IP per start)

If upping the rate of production 5% across the board for the top 5, and increasing Greinke and Ray's IP at a higher rate than the others, I came up with

950 IP, 15.2 WAR (5.86 IP per start)

If reducing from the average 5% across the board

870 IP, 12.4 WAR, (5.37 IP per Start)


No obviously neither of the two alternative scenarios are extreme

If I bump the production rate to 10% over the average and IP I get

975 IP, 16.2 WAR, (6 IP per start)

And if I drop it 10% below the average I get:

860 IP, 11.4 WAR, 860 IP


So.............what is my takeaway in all this ?

I think it's that while I don't have a lot of faith we are going to get GREAT seasons out of Greinke and Ray, there is a pretty decent amount of depth here. If Miller can at least get back to somewhere around average and Bradley develops a bit, then we have some pretty decent depth of competency in the rotation.

Now Miller could implode again, or there could be serious injury to any of these guys, in which case you have a ton of innings going to replacement level guys, (banda, shipley, koch)...and that would not be good.

FINAL POINTS AND SUMMARY:

* Last year the pitching (starters and relievers) were projected to produce about 16 WAR, and of course they came up with 2.7 bWAR and 8.5 fWAR.

* The 13 WAR average projection for our starters seems pretty reasonable, and maybe a little surprising for some. (Median last year was about 12fWAR and 10 RA-9 WAR)

**Bottoming out below projections is far more likely than topping out at maximum value, in my opinion. That is due to injury factor

*** Playing with this, if you squint really hard you can see your way to looking at a potential upside of 16 WAR for the rotation, but that is truly and everything goes right, no major injuries, and no major under performance, and serious improvement from all 5 top starters. It's a real long shot...whatever those BP breakout rates might show.


Top 
 Post subject: Re: top prospect lists.
 Post Posted: Tue Jan 24, 2017 2:48 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 03, 2014 12:20 pm
Posts: 76
Do you guys think we go college pitcher with our first pick?

I'm hoping for J.B. Bukaauskas or Alex Faedo if we go college route.


Top 
 Post subject: Re: top prospect lists.
 Post Posted: Sat Feb 11, 2017 8:43 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Jul 31, 2010 4:27 pm
Posts: 12201
Baseball America Ranks Anthony Banda #88 overall, the only D Back in their top 100 list.

#3 is a hot poker in the eye

Link


Top 
 Post subject: Re: top prospect lists.
 Post Posted: Mon Feb 13, 2017 10:53 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Jul 31, 2010 4:27 pm
Posts: 12201
Sickels Ranks Banda at # 125, Leyba at 132, Taylor Clark 193, and Dawel Lugo 199.

So not only does he not have anyone in the top 100, but only 4 guys in the second 100, the last two just barely.

If this isn't an indictment of the farm system, I don't know what is. (Insert dead horse gif here)

Link


Top 
 Post subject: Re: top prospect lists.
 Post Posted: Mon Feb 13, 2017 12:30 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Aug 23, 2016 7:58 am
Posts: 107
You might really like this link, Shoe.

It's a list of farm systems by surplus value as calculated by The Point of Pittsburgh study (which is what I used in my Greinke Trade Value article). Obviously, this is only one system of prospect valuation but it's the most esteemed I've seen so far and should at least be accurate within good reason.

Surprisingly, we're not last.

LINK

But yeah. Our farm system is a mess right now.


Top 
 Post subject: Re: top prospect lists.
 Post Posted: Wed Feb 15, 2017 10:39 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Jul 31, 2010 4:27 pm
Posts: 12201
thanks for the link, just saw this a little while ago.

I e mailed them and asked who are the THREE D Backs in top 100 per his spreadsheet.

The one thing I am wondering is if there anything to be gained by looking at this in somewhat more granular groupings, such as Pick's 1-5, 6-10, 11-15, etc.


Top 
 Post subject: Re: top prospect lists.
 Post Posted: Thu Feb 16, 2017 10:27 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Jul 31, 2010 4:27 pm
Posts: 12201
So Jason was nice enough to respond

Some points to note: I asked him why he didn't include Sickels, and he said he does, but was waiting for Fangraphs and also 20/80 to come out with THEIR lists and then will republish with all included. But he already reworked the values for the 3 d backs including Sickels and shared with me.

Banda 12.06 M
Lugo 12.03 M
Leyba 11.78 M


Top 
 Post subject: Re: top prospect lists.
 Post Posted: Thu Feb 16, 2017 12:05 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Aug 23, 2016 7:58 am
Posts: 107
shoewizard wrote:
The one thing I am wondering is if there anything to be gained by looking at this in somewhat more granular groupings, such as Pick's 1-5, 6-10, 11-15, etc.


My initial hunch is that I think it's to limit the effect of significant outliers. So let's dig in.

The Point of Pittsburgh wrote:
he initial iteration of this article mined the data from the 1994 to 2005 Top 100 prospect lists and put the players into different tiers for analysis, based on being either a hitter or a pitcher and their rankings.


So we have 12 years of data. If we go into 5 player buckets, that's only 60 data points. In a normal distribution, > 30 is usually significant for a sample, but I don't think the distribution is normal because of the very high bust rate and the distorted floor and ceilings relative to mean/median. The calculated "bust" rate of top 10 prospects from 1990-1999 was claimed to be 45% (source). This has a dramatic effect on the median and mean: if the bust rate is truly that high, then that means that the median is going to be close to zero. However, since we have a (almost) defined floor of zero (technically, it can go lower, but the nature of the game is likely to prevent players from accumulating much negative WAR) but an unlimited ceiling, the mean could be very skewed relative to the median. In cases like this, the mean/average tends to not be a good representation of the population as a whole. Ironically, a good (extreme) example of this would be the salaries or house prices for a given population - these values are almost always given exclusively as the median instead of the mean because the astronomically high values of a very small number of this population completely skew the data. This same train of thought could be applied to a very small number of prospects putting up very large WAR totals and skewing the average.

So how does this apply to this study (seriously, I'm doing this without looking in advance)?

Umm, now I'm questioning the data from the prospect valuation. They seem to have exceptionally low bust rates: only 13% of the top 10 hitters failed to post more than 3 WAR (and in the comments of their original article, 24.54% failed to post more than 6 WAR). If this is true, then this will shift the median quite a bit further away from zero, making the gap between mean and median smaller (and therefore making the average more representative of the population than before). The average WAR seems to be higher than I would have intuitively thought - an average of ~15 fWAR is 2.5 fWAR/season for the six years of team control - I think most players in the top 10 hitters aren't hitting that number. I know this is going to be skewed in light of the players that truly exceed, but is it really an ideal method for calculating the value of the buckets that they did?

I'm all sorts of curious now. What if they took smaller buckets like you suggest but use the median values instead of the mean? I wonder if that would be a more accurate representation of prospects, especially towards the top (as you get lower in prospect value, the mean and median will get closer closer).


Top 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
 
 Page 14 of 15 [ 289 posts ] Go to page Previous  1 ... 11, 12, 13, 14, 15  Next




Board index » AZ Diamondbacks » Farm Implements


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

 
 

 
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to: