MLB.com Top 100

[drjim]

Twins get 6 on the list: 

 

http://m.mlb.com/prospects/2016?list=prospects

 

2. Buxton

19. Berrios

44. Kepler

60. Jay

91. Gordon

97. Polanco

 

In my opinion this is the best prospect list out there.

[spinowner]

Just to give my brain something to do I assigned 100 points to the #1 prospect, 99 to #2 and so on with #100 getting 1 point. The Twins finished sixth with 293 points behind Texas (353), Colorado (325), Dodgers (319), Boston (316) and Atlanta (302). Angels and Miami each had 0.

[The Wise One]

When Thorpe is the ace of the staff with Burdi and Reed as the  closer  committee with Melotakis (sic?) and Chargois, does that the list invalid

[wagwan]

Just to give my brain something to do I assigned 100 points to the #1 prospect, 99 to #2 and so on with #100 getting 1 point. The Twins finished sixth with 293 points behind Texas (353), Colorado (325), Dodgers (319), Boston (316) and Atlanta (302). Angels and Miami each had 0.

Maybe this should be tweaked a little .... it makes guys in the lower half almost invisible. If you have 5 prospects at say 85, 87,90, 92 and 98 your total is 52. So a team with 1 guy ranked 48th has a better list?

[AlwaysinModeration]

When Thorpe is the ace of the staff with Burdi and Reed as the closer committee with Melotakis (sic?) and Chargois, does that the list invalid

No, I think it just means that the folks who put together the list think that at this point in time it is more likely that these 100 players will become good major leaguers than Thorpe, Burdi, Reed, Melotakis, and Chargois.

 

Last year, the same folks thought Stewart and Meyer were among the most likely to succeed, but a year later, with more data, they don't.

 

Hopefully Thorpe has an amazing year and tops the list next year.

[Seth Stohs]

I think this is a good list. Still having 6 Top 100 prospects the year after Miguel Sano, Tyler Duffey, Eddie Rosario and Trevor May come off the list is exciting. 

 

And yeah, there are several relievers who can and maybe will have a big impact in the big leagues.

[drjim]

Just to give my brain something to do I assigned 100 points to the #1 prospect, 99 to #2 and so on with #100 getting 1 point. The Twins finished sixth with 293 points behind Texas (353), Colorado (325), Dodgers (319), Boston (316) and Atlanta (302). Angels and Miami each had 0.

This is a fine quick and dirty way to look at it, but in my mind you would want to think of a better way to capture the elite guys. There probably is a much smaller distance between #30 and #100 than say #1 and #25. Each year will differ of course.

 

The elite are extremely valuable, the balance of the top 100 are nice to have.

[diehardtwinsfan]

Considering there are 30 teams, an average distribution leaves us with 3.33 prospects per team.  4 and BPro and 6 on MLB still give us an above average farm after the graduations. Not bad, especially with a wild card like Thorpe not listed.

 

I do think that anywhere between 2 and 4 of those guys graduate this season.  It will be interesting to see how that plays out.

[drjim]

If you wonder why Buxton is still #1 or #2 in these lists, here is the mlb.com breakdown of tools:

 

http://m.mlb.com/news/article/163089654/best-tools-of-mlbs-top-100-prospects-list?topicid=151437456

 

Of all prospects, Buxton is #1 defender, #2 hitter, #3 runner, really strong arm and even a little pop.

 

His struggles last season aside, that is a mind boggling collection of tools in one player.

 

For pitchers, Jay has #2 slider and Berrios has best control.

[diehardtwinsfan]

he's got the tools, just needs to refine (particularly hitting  curve ball).  It's clear the experts think it can happen, which is encouraging. Hopefully, we see him take a step forward in AAA and force his way onto the major league roster at some point this season.  He doesn't need to be a world burner just yet, but it would be nice to see him come up and look competent at the plate.  I'd take that for an encore season from Buxton in 2016.

[bluechipper]

That's quite the fall for Nick Gordon, #33 to #91 this year, and I'm not sure it's justified with the way he finished the season.

[Thrylos]

 

I think this is a good list. Still having 6 Top 100 prospects the year after Miguel Sano, Tyler Duffey, Eddie Rosario and Trevor May come off the list is exciting.

 

Well...   Duffey and Rosario were never in that list (never were top 100 prospects in the MLB.com list) and May came off in 2013 (was #54 in 2012...)  This is the year after only Sano came off the list   (Meyer and Stewart too, but they are eligible...)

[The Wise One]

 

No, I think it just means that the folks who put together the list think that at this point in time it is more likely that these 100 players will become good major leaguers than Thorpe, Burdi, Reed, Melotakis, and Chargois.

Last year, the same folks thought Stewart and Meyer were among the most likely to succeed, but a year later, with more data, they don't.

Hopefully Thorpe has an amazing year and tops the list next year.

You missed the point, I guess I was too subtle.

[The Wise One]

 

Well...   Duffey and Rosario were never in that list (never were top 100 prospects in the MLB.com list) and May came off in 2013 (was #54 in 2012...)  This is the year after only Sano came off the list   (Meyer and Stewart too, but they are eligible...)

That is why these lists are strictly for entertainment value. Guess who was the number 56 ranked baseball prospect in 2007 and the number 1 ranked Twins prospect at one time. With your knowledge of minor leagues I would bet you could find 112 players with a better career fWAR than 4.0

[biggentleben]

 

Twins get 6 on the list: 

 

http://m.mlb.com/prospects/2016?list=prospects

 

2. Buxton

19. Berrios

44. Kepler

60. Jay

91. Gordon

97. Polanco

 

In my opinion this is the best prospect list out there.

 

Based on my views and his scouting reports on Braves guys, Callis is typically the least "in the know" of any of the major prospect guys, which is why I usually give the MLB.com list the least credence. I respect that he's been around the game for a long time, but he has some pretty heavy biases, and that includes some very strong biases toward certain scouting departments/GMs/personnel groups in the game, so he'll uptick their players significantly. The Athletics have been a big one that he's bumped up over the years.

[USAFChief]

Prospect lists are fun, but I think many fans assume having players on such lists automatically means "big league wins" in the near future.

 

Many of these prospects will have little or no impact in the big leagues.

 

But maybe more importantly, and what fans sometimes forget when salivating over these lists, is that they are not lists of the best young players in the game, since these lists do not include the players already in the big leagues. They are lists of young players not yet good enough to play in the show. Seager isn't the best young SS in the game, that's Carlos Correa, who is actually younger than Seager. Lindor is a better "prospect," probably Russell as well. And I might take Machado over any of them.

[bluechipper]

 

Prospect lists are fun, but I think many fans assume having players on such lists automatically means "big league wins" in the near future.

Many of these prospects will have little or no impact in the big leagues.

But maybe more importantly, and what fans sometimes forget when salivating over these lists, is that they are not lists of the best young players in the game, since these lists do not include the players already in the big leagues. They are lists of young players not yet good enough to play in the show. Seager isn't the best young SS in the game, that's Carlos Correa, who is actually younger than Seager. Lindor is a better "prospect," probably Russell as well. And I might take Machado over any of them.

Last year's rookie class seems to have weakened the list quite a bit. I think JP Crawford being #5 is one that I don't quite get. He's got limited power and speed and hit about .290 last year, but apparently has very good defense. That sounds like what could be expected of Nick Gordon a year or two down the road, but not what I think of in a top 5 prospect.

[Seth Stohs]

 

Well...   Duffey and Rosario were never in that list (never were top 100 prospects in the MLB.com list) and May came off in 2013 (was #54 in 2012...)  This is the year after only Sano came off the list   (Meyer and Stewart too, but they are eligible...)

 

I'm aware they weren't on the list, but they also are still young players that the Twins helped develop who were strong contributors in 2015 and hopefully will continue to be in 2016. Speaks well for the system.

[Oxtung]

I agree with Chief, these lists get taken out of context. I'd love to see more focus on young talent in the entire system, including the majors. This would give a better idea of the Twins future in relation to other teams. I know one of the sites does an "under 25" list.

[Seth Stohs]

 

Prospect lists are fun, but I think many fans assume having players on such lists automatically means "big league wins" in the near future.

Many of these prospects will have little or no impact in the big leagues.

 

I love doing the lists, and I completely agree with you. They're fun. They help us know who to talk about, but - as Kyle Gibson once told me - being a "prospect" means that you haven't done anything yet. 

 

Had a good chat about prospect rankings with Glen Perkins this weekend. We laughed at some of my old rankings. But they aren't an exact science. They're people. They can work hard and just not make it. They can be non-prospects and become All Stars. 

 

That's why my point was always - recently - that I thought having 30 guys that you could could make it to the big leagues is great because probably one will become a perennial All Star. One, maybe two, more will be regulars. Six to eight will get to the big leagues and stick around in a reserve, part-time role. And probably half of them will get a cup of coffee, or less.

[amjgt]

Kepler is a little higher on this list than the BP list, but I'm still surprised he isn't higher. When you start comparing age, stats, and projection from guys 20 spots higher, the look pretty similar.

 

Bradley Zimmer? What does he have on Kepler? Zimmer is one year older and struggled at the level that Kepler dominated.

[Otto von Ballpark]

 

Kepler is a little higher on this list than the BP list, but I'm still surprised he isn't higher. When you start comparing age, stats, and projection from guys 20 spots higher, the look pretty similar.

 

Bradley Zimmer? What does he have on Kepler? Zimmer is one year older and struggled at the level that Kepler dominated.

Kepler's been in pro ball a lot longer than he has been having good success, though.  I know we like to attribute that to his unusual background and hope that 2015 was the start of a new trend for him, but when ranking a lot of similar players, that can be a distinguishing factor.  As can 9 HR as a corner player, some injuries in his history, etc.

 

I'm not any particular fan of Zimmer, but 2015 was his first full season of pro ball.  Scuffling at AA hurts (although he at least managed a 102 wRC+, comparable to Kepler's 2013-2014 seasons), but he also dominated at high-A (164 wRC+).  44 steals and a lot of reps in CF last year also suggest a broader range of valuable outcomes for him, perhaps?

[cmoss84]

Jay wasn't a bad pick. Lefty that throws gas and good makeup-I hope things work out for him and he can become a solid starter. That being said, I was not impressed when we passed up on Andrew Benintendi. Too many OFs or not, this guys is a stud...20/20, .300 potential. What can you do? 

[spinowner]

 

Just to give my brain something to do I assigned 100 points to the #1 prospect, 99 to #2 and so on with #100 getting 1 point. The Twins finished sixth with 293 points behind Texas (353), Colorado (325), Dodgers (319), Boston (316) and Atlanta (302). Angels and Miami each had 0.

 

 

Maybe this should be tweaked a little .... it makes guys in the lower half almost invisible. If you have 5 prospects at say 85, 87,90, 92 and 98 your total is 52. So a team with 1 guy ranked 48th has a better list?

This was just something to do for the sake of seeing how the numbers turned out. In no way is it an accurate representation of the strength of a team's farm system.

[blairpaul715]

 

Kepler is a little higher on this list than the BP list, but I'm still surprised he isn't higher. When you start comparing age, stats, and projection from guys 20 spots higher, the look pretty similar.

 

Bradley Zimmer? What does he have on Kepler? Zimmer is one year older and struggled at the level that Kepler dominated.

Remember , it is all in the eye of the beholder, really not much separates 26 from 44..........but I would guess Zimmer having a stronger arm would make some difference, and other than last yr, Kepler had had is troubles , mostly caused by injury........But they are only 2 month plus apart in age.

[Paul Pleiss]

 

Maybe this should be tweaked a little .... it makes guys in the lower half almost invisible. If you have 5 prospects at say 85, 87,90, 92 and 98 your total is 52. So a team with 1 guy ranked 48th has a better list?

 

I don't think this needs a lot of tweaking. 5 prospects in the 85-100 range is not anythign to write home about. a player in the top 50, and surely in the top 10 likely turns out more value than the other 5 combined. It's a prospect list, so it doesn't mean a heck of a lot already. Trying to make a system to gleam more value out of arbitrary rankings likely not worth the effort. points likely a good quick way to value a system.

 

Depth matters, but only if that depth is talented. Be more fun to do a list of top 100 age 26 and under that includes MLB guys.

[Otto von Ballpark]

 

I don't think this needs a lot of tweaking. 5 prospects in the 85-100 range is not anythign to write home about. a player in the top 50, and surely in the top 10 likely turns out more value than the other 5 combined.

Top 10, perhaps, as those are often the only guys with projectable superstar upside.

 

But by #50, the marginal difference between each successive prospect is much, much smaller, and thus quantity can easily overtake "quality" (as measured by rank, anyway).  Take a look at these BA lists, just eyeballing it, but the upside / success rate between 40-60 and 80-100 isn't all that different most years:

 

https://www.baseballamerica.com/today/prospects/rankings/top-100-prospects/all-time

 

Without knowing specifics, you would certainly be better off with 5 prospects ranked between 85-100 than with one prospect ranked #48 as the original poster said.

[bird]

Having two prospects among the top 10 or so is a good indication of what makes a system great. Having a relative abundance of prospects further down the lists simply indicates greater depth. The Twins system was great last year, and would be better described this year as deep. About 20% of the teams have a pitching prospect more highly-regarded than Berrios. I'd probably trade our three lowest-ranked prospects on this list for any one of these guys ranked ahead of Berrios.

 

And yet, Berrios is the most highly-regarded prospect in the American League Central. Detroit's system is lousy and thin.

[diehardtwinsfan]

Have we forgotten that top 100 is essentially the 3 or 4 best prospects in each system?  Anyone in the top 100 could be a very good player. Superstars have been born who were never on lists. Yeah, there's a lot less of them, but top 100 also says a lot about what the chances of them making and sticking in the bigs, but it's hardly a be all, end all evaluation of prospects.  Delmon Young was  #1 over all prospect.  So were Joe Mauer and Ken Griffey Jr.  It's still quite subjective, even though there's good objective criteria to evaluate, there's a lot of gut feel in there too.

 

The bottom line is that I wouldn't sneeze at any prospect in the top 100.  It's still simply a probability game at the end.

[Dantes929]

I get the caution of saying prospects are just prospects and no prospect is a sure thing but lets not overdo it because while not all prospects become stars or regulars or even utility players, EVERY utility player, regular player and all star was a prospect at one point.      In plainer terms Hrbek, Gaietti, Viola, Puckett, Knoblach, Brunansky, Erickson, Gagne and Tapani were just prospects at one point so while not all prospects make it I am just fine with relying on the farm system to field our team of the future..