BaseballHQ Rangers Top 10

by Brandon Wilson on Jan 4, 2008 11:02 AM CST Comment 34 comments

Deric McKamey's top 15 was published in Baseball HQ this morning and is as follows:

Eric Hurley RHP 9C
Elvis Andrus SS 9C
Taylor Teagarden C 8B
Kasey Kiker LHP 9C
Blake Beaven RHP 9D
Michael Main RHP 9D
Matt Harrison LHP 8C
Chris Davis 3B 8C
Johnny Whittleman 3B 8C
German Duran 2B 7B
Neftali Feliz RHP 9E
Julio Borbon OF 8C
John Mayberry, Jr. OF 8D
Omar Poveda RHP 8D
Fabio Castillo RHP 9E

The number letter combination at the end is one of the things I like best about the rankings that McKamey does. The number represents his view of the player's ceiling and the letter represents his view of the present likelihood of that ceiling being reached.

PLAYER POTENTIAL RATING
Scale of (1-10) representing a player's upside potential
10 - Hall of Fame-type player
9 - Elite player
8 - Solid regular
7 - Average regular
6 - Platoon player
5 - Major League reserve player
4 - Top minor league player
3 - Average minor league player
2 - Minor league reserve player
1 - Minor league roster filler
PROBABILITY RATING
Scale of (A-E) representing the player's realistic chances of achieving their potential
A - 90% probability of reaching potential
B - 70% probability of reaching potential
C - 50% probability of reaching potential
D - 30% probability of reaching potential
E - 10% probability of reaching potential

McKamey gives very few 10s (I think just 2 or 3 this year and only Jay Bruce got as high as a C to go along with it meaning a 50-50 shot to be a 10 player). A 9C or 8B or better is pretty much a top 100 prospect in his rankings. There will probably be some 9Ds and 8Cs in the top 100 as well.

He also gives each system a grade for top end talent and overall talent. The Rangers rank in the top 5 minor league systems based on his current grades along with the Rays, Dodgers, Reds and A's.

0 recs | Comment 34 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

I hope all those 9's are right

that gives us a 95% chance of getting at least one Elite player from that crop of Hurley, Elvis, Kiker, Beaven, Main, Feliz and Castillo

by JBImaknee on Jan 4, 2008 11:19 AM CST reply actions 0 recs

and on average

we should get at least 2 elite players and 3 solid regulars from our top 15.

That would be fairly spectacular.

"As of now they're (The Astros) world series favorites. Period." - Sharky

by DJCahill on Jan 4, 2008 11:25 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

2001

Last time I thought the system was pretty good (but not as good as I think it is now) was 2001. That system had Travis Hafner, Mike Young, Hank Blalock, Carlos Pena, Kevin Mench, and Joaquin Benoit ranked in the top 15. Depending on how you count it, that's 1 elite player (Hafner), and at least 2 solid regulars (Young and Blalock) with Pena and Benoit arguably getting in that range.

Maybe 2 elites and 3 solid regulars is not out of the realm of possibility.

by Brandon Wilson on Jan 4, 2008 4:17 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

this really is how prospects should be rated

but i don't agree with his grades. As an example, I think Hurley is an 8C at best, which isn't bad. And all of the 9C's should be 9D's and everybody who hasn't pitched a full professional season should be an E.

by ab03 on Jan 4, 2008 11:32 AM CST reply actions 0 recs

agreed

Its the best system I've seen. I got into a discussion at work the other day about our farm system and the question was posed "Wouldn't you rate the prospects by who the best players at the highest levels AAA and AA?" and how adding the potential variable in there throws a wrench in it. That layout gives you two measures that can change each year and show progress or regression.

I think it would be interesting to take polls on our top15 for the last 3 years (if applicable) to see their jumps and stagnation to make LSB's list more depth. I have a feeling a few of our picks would change when they get illustrated like that....

by corbsclinton on Jan 4, 2008 12:16 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

never seen that system before.

i like it.

by DSheppard on Jan 4, 2008 12:10 PM CST reply actions 0 recs

Agreed

I've always imagined that if I put together a list, it would be in a very similar format. Maybe like a sort of graph, with potential horizontal and chances of achieving it vertical.
Anyway... I'd take the 8s and 9s with considerable salt, 'elite player's seem to be cast on a very broad spectrum.

Your Texas Rangers: Shooting for whichever year best suits our marketing campaign!

by BudLight on Jan 4, 2008 12:45 PM CST reply actions 0 recs

Nice system...

...it says so much with just a number and a letter.

Teagarden is going to be somewhere between a very solid player to a borderline star. I would love to see him on this roster on Opening Day or at least by the AS Break. Yep, waaaay out there on a limb but I subscribe to the Dick Williams philosophy of finding out who can actually play in your organization and then getting them up to the big club asap. Teagarden is at an age where he should be able to handle playing in The Show and it's not like this thing is going to contend in 2008. What better time to learn the ropes when there is no pressure to win.

Andrus is too far away to contemplate with any accuracy.

I'll keep the light on for CDavis but he still has work to do and he's a little young.

Out of the 8 pitchers (of the top 15), I'd settle for one elite pitcher and two solids (hopefully Boy Blunder doesn't trade them) and if I had to guess, I'd say that Main is the elite and Hurley/Kiker are the solids.

Yes, all guesses on my part because forecasting success for minor league players is not my strength but then again, it is the most inexact of all sciences. I do follow as many reports as I can and my observations are a blend of national takes balanced with some of the locals who watch them up close.

Hope everybody had a wonderful Christmas / New Years...cheers!

by Josey Wales on Jan 4, 2008 12:58 PM CST reply actions 0 recs

+1

"I'd settle for one elite pitcher and two solids (hopefully Boy Blunder doesn't trade them) and if I had to guess, I'd say that Main is the elite and Hurley/Kiker are the solids."

I too believe Main can potentially be elite pitcher. The guy in general has that potential wheather it be a pitcher or outfielder. And if Kiker can continue to improve like he's been doing then he will become a solid player. Same guys for Hurley but he needs to have more dominate AAA before then, because honestly his numbers were slightly ugly.

""I love GOOOOOOOLLLLLLLLLLD" blueglovelefty

by NYTXFAN on Jan 4, 2008 1:11 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

boy blunder

no credit for stalking the minor league system i guess.

by ab03 on Jan 4, 2008 1:18 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Stalking?

Is john daniels stalking those teenage latin ballblayers? hiding in the bushes during batting practice

Can you please Look into getting a less funny signature? That's sarcasm, btw. - Sharky

by rentz on Jan 4, 2008 1:20 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

haha funny

stocking. happy bitch!

by ab03 on Jan 4, 2008 1:22 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Yes

now i am

Can you please Look into getting a less funny signature? That's sarcasm, btw. - Sharky

by rentz on Jan 4, 2008 1:52 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

shut up.

by oc on Jan 4, 2008 10:42 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Boy Blunder

Right now the minor league system looks good and there's a lot of hype surrounding them but my evaluation of a good minor league system (yes, this is a groundbreaking concept) is one that actually has players that help the major league team win games.

It's exciting to dream about but until that actually happens and we see results at the major league level, JD gets an incomplete, grade tbd in the next 3-5 years.

As for the rest of what JD has done since he took over the reins from John Hart, he has simply been the worst GM in all of baseball. To be forced to take a team that had as many good young players at the major league level (they won 89 games in '04) into a complete rebuild in less than two years is inconceivable.

So yeah, for the time being JD will occasionally get glossed as "Boy Blunder" by me.

by Josey Wales on Jan 4, 2008 1:46 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

you have

7 players with a fifty fifty shot at becoming at least a solid regular or better. I would hope at the very least we get three out of seven players to become regulars. If I took a guess on who those three would be id say Hurley, Harrison, and Davis. I think Borbon and Andrus have to have a good year in the minors to support a c rating. I think Kiker and Whittleman have a good shot at also being regular players but they need to continue their quest of improving.

Over all if we get any combo of three guys I think we make out alright. Whittleman can play 3rd and Davis could play 1st. Add a pitcher or two from the set of players with a c grading and you've done pretty good. All the sudden our system looks very promising. Johnny Boy and crew have done a great job of building the future.

""I love GOOOOOOOLLLLLLLLLLD" blueglovelefty

by NYTXFAN on Jan 4, 2008 1:05 PM CST reply actions 0 recs

thoughts on hurley and pitching prospects

hurley going 4-7, 4.91, 73 IP, 13 hr allowed, 59:28 k/bb, BB/9 over 3 and k/9 under 8 and a 1.27 whip in 13 games at AAA is simply underwhelming.

now if he comes out and has a k/9 of like 9 (he has topped a k/9 of 9 once in his career - at bakersfield in 06) and a bb/9 of like 2.5 (he has been under 2.5 once in his career - 1.91 in 04 @ spokane) then that is gonna be impressive. (clay buchholz last yr in AAA in 38 IP had a k/9 of 12.8 and a bb/9 of 3.03 - philip hughes had a k/9 of 8.78 and a bb/9 of 2.51 in 28 ip - yovani gallardo had k/9 of 12.75 and a bb/9 of 3.24 over 77 IP - matt garza had a k/9 of 9.29 and a bb9 of 3.03 in 92 ip - jeff neimann had a k/9 of 8.45 and a bb/9 of 3.16 in 131 IP - even edinson volquez even had a k/9 of 11.65 and bb/9 of 3.71 in 51 ip -- all these guys/stats were at AAA).

looking into it, the "magic cutoff" for an "ace" rating seems to be k/9 over or very close to 9.00 and bb/9 less than 3.0 at AAA. some guys (hughes) make up for thier lower k/9 with a lower bb/9. other guys have a high k/9 (buchholtz/gallardo) but their higher k/9 (both had k/9 over 12) makes up for their higher bb/9 (buchholtz - 3.03 and gallardo 3.24)

sidetrail #1:
hurley k/9 the last 2 years: 7.54, this year: 7.71, 7.24
volquez k/9 the last 2 years: this year (9.68, 9.57, 11.65) last year 9.70)
hurley bb/9 the last 2 years: 2.68, this year: 2.74, 3.44
volquez bb/9 the last 2 years: 5.37, this year: 5.09, 2.93, 3.71

sidetrail #2
other rangers pitching prospects and k/9
michael main:
AZL Rangers: 4.26 bb/9 and 11.37 k/9 (12 ip)
spokane: 4.11 bb/9 and 10.57 k/9 (15 ip)

wilmer font:
AZL rangers: 4.73 bb/9 and 12.02 k/9 (45 IP)

nefatali feliz:
danville (7 starts): 3.95 bb/9 and 9.22 k/9
spokane: (1 start/8 appearences: 7.2 bb/9 and 16.20 k/9

kasey kiker:
clinton: 3.83 bb/9 and 10.46 k/9 (def. didnt realize his k/9 was this high)

omar poveda:
clinton: 2.29 bb/9 and 8.59 k/9
bakersfield: 4.18 bb/9 and 10.61 k/9

fabio castillo:
spokane: 3.90 bb/9 and 6.64 k/9 (wow. thats low.)

zach phillips:
clinton: 2.25 bb/9 and 9.32 k/9

carlos pimentel:
AZL rangers: 3.61 bb/9 and 12.54 k/9

gueris grullon:
AZL rangers: 6.86 bb/9 and 10.71 k/9

by knockoutking24 on Jan 4, 2008 1:11 PM CST reply actions 0 recs

% rates

are a better indicater than per 9 rates.

The three true outcomes - Does it make me money, does it get me fed, or does it get me laid?

by JTodd on Jan 4, 2008 2:37 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Why would that be?

Rates are rates.

"As of now they're (The Astros) world series favorites. Period." - Sharky

by DJCahill on Jan 4, 2008 2:45 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

I agree

batting average = OPS.

"God plays by his own rules, folks. And HGH is f***ing legal as hell up in heaven." -Andy Pettitte

by thedirkatron on Jan 4, 2008 2:49 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

ok

please say you were making a joke but that you do actually understand math enough to see what cahill is saying.

as to cahill's question, might it be because percentages take into consideration non-strikeouts/walks

by ab03 on Jan 4, 2008 2:53 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Yes, it was a joke

But, no, I have no idea what you mean by saying k/9 is the same a s k%. They're different stats. Lucas describes it better than I could.

So what were you saying about them being the same?

"God plays by his own rules, folks. And HGH is f***ing legal as hell up in heaven." -Andy Pettitte

by thedirkatron on Jan 6, 2008 11:15 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Answer to why.

Rates are a little more accurate because BB/9, K/9, etc. assume that pitchers face the same number of batters per inning.

Take two pitchers who both strike out one batter per inning, but one allows one baserunner per inning (4 batters faced) and the other allows two (5 faced). They'll both have a 9.0 K/9, but one is striking out 25% of opponents, the other only 20%.

by Lucas on Jan 5, 2008 1:19 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Our farm system

I think the best indication that we have a strong system is Evan Grant's report from the winter meeting that JD was actually fielding multiple calls from other GMs about our young pitching. These ratings are nice for fans to talk about, but if other GMs actually like a good number of our young guys, then I think that says a lot more.

Fire Ron Washington

by pblack on Jan 4, 2008 3:18 PM CST reply actions 0 recs

I think rating this way is a step

in the right direction.

I'd like to know what the difference between solid regular and average regular is.

Saying I apologize is the same as saying I'm sorry, except at a funeral. --- Demetri Martin

by rooster on Jan 4, 2008 3:28 PM CST reply actions 0 recs

stats:

VORP: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Value_over_replacement_player

how much a hitter contributes offensively or how much a pitcher contributes to his team in comparison to a fictitious "replacement player," who is an average fielder at his position and a below average hitter.[1] [2] A replacement player performs at "replacement level," which is the level of performance an average team can expect when trying to replace a player at minimal cost, also known as "freely available talent."

OPS+: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On-base_plus_slugging#Adjusted_OPS_.28OPS.2B.29

OPS+, Adjusted OPS, is a closely related statistic. OPS+ is OPS adjusted for the park and the league in which the player played, but not for fielding position. An OPS+ of 100 is defined to be the league average. An OPS+ of 150 or more is excellent, while an OPS+ of 50 or less is poor.
The basic formula for OPS+ is
OPS+ = 100(frac{OBP} {*lgOBP} + frac{SLG} {*lgSLG} - 1)
where *lgOBP is the park adjusted OBP of the league and *lgSLG is the park adjusted SLG of the league.
A common misconception is that OPS+ closely matches the ratio of a player's OPS to that of the league. In fact, due to the additive nature of the two components in OPS+, a player with an OBP and SLG both 50% better than league average will have an OPS+ of 200 while having an OPS "only" 50% better than the average OPS of the league.

by knockoutking24 on Jan 4, 2008 4:17 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

oo duh.

you mean in regards to this guys ranking lol

my bad

by knockoutking24 on Jan 4, 2008 4:19 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

ranking system

that system is very similar to the one that hockeysfuture.com has been using for NHL prospects for some years now. it's usually a pretty good way to go about ranking prospects and has proved to be pretty accurate over the past several hockey seasons.

i've always wondered why a similar system wasn't adopted for baseball prospects... nice to see someone finally has (though admittedly i have no earthly clue how long that site/magazine has been around).

by disposablehero on Jan 4, 2008 10:57 PM CST reply actions 0 recs

Heh

I was going to say the same thing.

This is almost exactly like the hockeysfuture site.

And I was thinking of doing something last winter like this, but frankly, I don't know enough about the prospects to grade them that way.

But maybe zywica could grade some of the prospects this way.

Dave Cameron at USS Mariner has a similar rating system for the Mariners.

Req

by Requiem on Jan 5, 2008 3:24 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

I agree with you guys

I like the way Cameron ranks players, and it does remind of what hockeysfuture does, though I tend to disagree with someof their rankings (having said that, at least a couple of the guys who have done the Stars for them have very respectable opinions).

by Brett Perryman on Jan 5, 2008 4:10 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Baseball HQ

They've been around since the mid-80s. Their annual fantasy guide is one of the best out there.

If you're familiar with Tout Wars, it was founded by Ron Shandler, the founder of Baseball HQ. If you're not- basically, Tout is a league (actually, three leagues, AL, NL, and mixed) where staff members of all the major fantasy sites, and a few of the minor ones, compete against one another. The Rotojunkie staff has had a team for several years, but the draft is in New York, so one of our East Coast guys usually represents us.

Tout Wars (and Shandler) got a lot of press a year or so back due to Sam Walker's book Fantasyland.

"I dont care to debate with a troll." - Sharky

by RCCook on Jan 5, 2008 9:01 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Rotojunkie

Is Jason Collette just a small version of Jason Cole?

Cranberry Sauce

by t ball on Jan 5, 2008 10:42 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

heh

Rex Hudler is in demand as a motivational speaker.

by Brian Thomas on Jan 5, 2008 5:44 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Collette

He's not a small anything- he's about 6'5".

Jason is also one of the few people I know who will actually admit to being a Devil Rays fan.

On a related note, we should have the 2008 edition of our fantasy guide, the Yearly Fix, done later this month. Jason does a top 10 prospect list for all 30 teams. We'll also have tons of player projections and write-ups, along with a few fantasy articles. I'm not sure yet what we're charging this year- it's usually between $10-15.

"I dont care to debate with a troll." - Sharky

by RCCook on Jan 5, 2008 8:35 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs