Baseball America's 2007 Top 100 Prospects

by zempf on Mar 1, 2007 1:49 PM EST

Baseball America published their 2007 top 100 prospects list, which looks pretty similar to every other top prospect list (though they have Matsuzaka as their #1, since I guess he's technically a prospect).

Indians' representation on the list is:

#23, Adam Miller
#54, Chuck Lofgren
#64, Trevor Crowe
#86, Brian Barton

Tweet Comment 26 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

Re: Baseball America's 2007 Top 100 Prospects

As with the BP list, here's the AL Central cutdown:

ALEX GORDON, 3b, Royals
CAMERON MAYBIN, of, Tigers
ANDREW MILLER, lhp, Tigers
MATT GARZA, rhp, Twins
ADAM MILLER, rhp, Indians
BILLY BUTLER, of, Royals
LUKE HOCHEVAR, rhp, Royals
JOSH FIELDS, 3b, White Sox
CHUCK LOFGREN, lhp, Indians
RYAN SWEENEY, of, White Sox
JOHN DANKS, lhp, White Sox
TREVOR CROWE, of, Indians
GLEN PERKINS, lhp, Twins
KEVIN SLOWEY, rhp, Twins
GIO GONZALEZ, lhp, White Sox
BRIAN BARTON, of, Indians
CHRIS PARMELEE, of/1b, Twins

Brian Barton just missed the Top 100 at BP but shows up at #86 here. Kouzmanoff didn't make BA list but was at #52 at BP. (Chris Young, an elite CF traded away by the White Sox, was #12 here and #8 at BP.)

The other 16 here are the same 16 from the BP list, BA likes Andrew Miller a little better, BP likes Garza a little better. BP has Lofgren about 20 spots higher and Fields about 30 spots lower.

by Jay on Mar 1, 2007 4:14 PM EST reply actions

Re: Baseball America's 2007 Top 100 Prospects

Hi Jay,

I asked a couple of questions about Tribe prospects and got one answered on-line and one off. Tony Sipp was on 2 of the 4 lists as a top 100. He was left off primarily because he is a reliever and not a starter since starters make the best closers, according to Callis.

I also questioned why Miller was compared so unfavorably to Hughes, Bailey et.al. Callis said it is strictly the injury problem, not a matter of ceiling or stuff.

He has some interesting comments on Barton who he thinks has a higher ceiling than Crowe even though Crowe is rated higher. He does not seem to be concerned about Barton's age.

Overall, I thought the Tribe's prospects were treated quite fairly but I cannot say I was enchanted by some of the evaluations of certain prospects who look far more mid-level than top 100 to me. :)

IndianInkSlinger

by sdtribefan on Mar 1, 2007 4:49 PM EST up reply actions

Re: Baseball America's 2007 Top 100 Prospects

This is pretty consistent with the way BA usually does rankings (upside>results). I'm a bit surprised that Barton made the list, but I guess his tools were never an issue.

by Ryan on Mar 1, 2007 9:14 PM EST up reply actions

Re: Baseball America's 2007 Top 100 Prospects

Ryan, I'm a little confused by your comment on Barton. Since he made the BA list, are you saying that's based on his upside (tools) rather than performance?

His career performance has been very good also - .324/.428/.509 with 61 SB in 802 ABS.

by kov on Mar 2, 2007 1:35 PM EST reply actions

Re: Baseball America's 2007 Top 100 Prospects

No, it's not a choice between upside and results, it's that BA tends to weigh upside a little more heavily. Barton's profile (older prospect, playing below where he should be) tends to be a negative in these rankings. But like I said, he also has pretty good tools.

by Ryan on Mar 2, 2007 1:49 PM EST up reply actions

Re: Baseball America's 2007 Top 100 Prospects

To expand on Ryan's answer, minor league performance is only relevant in evaluating a player as a function of his age. We've got level (quality of opponents), league (general scoring conditions league-wide) and park (scoring conditions at the home park), all of which overlap somewhat. And then we have Age, which arguably is a more important adjustment than those three combined.

Players learn new things and adjust to better competition from their teens all the way through their 20's, which is why we see major leaguers peak in their late 20's so often. But that factor pales in comparison with physiological improvement, which slows down considerably after 23 and stops almost completely by 26.

So for all prospects, you can expect skill development and adjustment until they hit their ceilings. But for prospects in their early 20's, you can also expect significant improvement in their raw tools -- raw strength, coordination and even speed (peaks at 24).

In terms of stats at a given level, Barton is probably the least accomplished 24-year-old player on the Top 100. And the scouts know that he's about to turn 25. So they must think that his raw tools are extremely impressive, because they know his raw tools aren't going to get any better.

by Jay on Mar 2, 2007 2:29 PM EST up reply actions

Re: Baseball America's 2007 Top 100 Prospects

But Barton did the best with what opportunities he was offered.

He wasn't signed until age 23. Not his fault.

They certainly weren't going to put him in AA to start his pro career.

He wasn't moved up quickly because of logjams in the upper minors OFs. Not his fault.

Yes we don't have a good read on him yet, but that is not because he didn't perform.

Could you explain this line?
Barton is probably the least accomplished 24-year-old player on the Top 100.

Josh Fields has only had one good season in the pros so far.

by ronh on Mar 3, 2007 8:04 PM EST up reply actions

Re: Baseball America's 2007 Top 100 Prospects

So we rig the rankings based on perceived slightings? You rank the player based on what he has done and what he is, not based on what might have been.

by Ryan on Mar 3, 2007 10:21 PM EST up reply actions

Re: Baseball America's 2007 Top 100 Prospects

Sort of. Rig is too strong a word. Adjust is better.

You adjust the numbers for the things that numbers don't show.

I believe it was here that I said that Rivas had horrible numbers in AAA last year. Someone else said that he was recovering from injury so you can't use those numbers. Isn't that the same as rigging the ranking? Adjusting for things not in the numbers?

by ronh on Mar 5, 2007 11:34 AM EST up reply actions

Re: Baseball America's 2007 Top 100 Prospects

There's a huge difference between adjusting for an injury and adjusting for a player playing below where somebody thinks he should. With Rivas, there's something tangible that you can point to - a broken finger. And of course, he's been a major-league player for some time, so there's some history.

With Barton, there's very little track record in AA. As much as we want to wishcast him a nice line in AAA, there isn't one to use. And the difference between Kinston and Akron or Buffalo is a rather large one. Ask Brad Snyder.

by Ryan on Mar 5, 2007 12:18 PM EST up reply actions

Re: Baseball America's 2007 Top 100 Prospects

To add to what I said, in no way am I disparaging what Barton did, in fact he probably did the absolute best he could. But that doesn't make him any younger. I think he'll be a major-league outfielder, but I'd be a lot more excited about him if he was either younger or putting up these numbers at higher levels.

Again, some of it has to do with forces outside his control. But by the same token, you simply can't transpose results to higher levels just because he did it a lower level.

by Ryan on Mar 3, 2007 10:42 PM EST up reply actions

Re: Baseball America's 2007 Top 100 Prospects

Fields had an 894 OPS in Triple-A. He's younger than Barton, he played at a higher level, and he's a third baseman.

But Barton did the best with what opportunities he was offered.

Who cares if he did his best? He could have had an OPS of 1000, or 1100. He didn't. He did very well against younger players, but he didn't totally dominate.

He wasn't signed until age 23. Not his fault.

Of course it was his fault. Other players get drafted and sign at 21, 19 or 18. But it isn't about fault; it's about what performance at a certain age tells us about a player's ceiling.

Just because Barton has only been a pro for one year doesn't change the fact that his physical maturation is pretty much finished already.

by Jay on Mar 4, 2007 2:02 AM EST up reply actions

Re: Baseball America's 2007 Top 100 Prospects

Isn't it dangerous to say a player (Fields) is better when he only has one season out of 3 of above average performance?

by ronh on Mar 5, 2007 11:23 AM EST up reply actions

Re: Baseball America's 2007 Top 100 Prospects

You're putting words in my mouth. I said Fields is the more accomplished of the two, by which I mean, he's had the best single-season performance when considering level.

Fields' highest accomplishment: A full season above-average at Triple-A.

Barton's: Seven weeks above-average at Double-A.

We know Fields can match Barton's best performance, because he's already done it. We don't know that Barton will match Fields' performance, and we can assume he couldn't have done it at age 23, based on his Single-A numbers at that age.

Most-accomplished is only one factor in evaluating prospects, however.

by Jay on Mar 5, 2007 11:59 AM EST up reply actions

Re: Baseball America's 2007 Top 100 Prospects

Fields 778 OPS A+ age 21
Barton 839 OPS A+ age 23
Barton 925 OPS A+ age 24

Fields 750 OPS AA age 22
Barton 918 OPS AA age 24

What factor would you use to adjust these two players since they were different ages in the same league?

by ronh on Mar 5, 2007 12:24 PM EST up reply actions

Re: Baseball America's 2007 Top 100 Prospects

What Jay's saying is that people know what Fields can do, and although there's an argument to be made that Barton could be a better player, you have to rely on a lot of projection. All things being equal, you take the player who's closer to the majors.

by Ryan on Mar 5, 2007 12:32 PM EST up reply actions

Re: Baseball America's 2007 Top 100 Prospects

Do people really know what Fields can do? His 2006 was good, but since that doesn't match his numbers of the previous two seasons there isn't any more certainty that Fields is any better than Barton. You have to look at all seasons, not just the last one.

by ronh on Mar 5, 2007 2:17 PM EST up reply actions

Re: Baseball America's 2007 Top 100 Prospects

Forget the ages -- Fields is the more advanced hitter as of the end of last season, period, even before we correct for age and position.

Fields has the best single-season performance of the two -- 770 vs. 723 for the 2006 season -- even though Fields is slightly younger and plays a slightly tougher position.

What's so hard about that to understand?

by Jay on Mar 5, 2007 6:06 PM EST up reply actions

Re: Baseball America's 2007 Top 100 Prospects

Barton put up an OPS that was 30% higher than the league average (704).

Of all the players in the EL, Barton had the highest OPS for players under 25 years of age with more than 100 AB.

Only 4 older players had higher OPS'.

Isn't that dominating?

by ronh on Mar 5, 2007 12:12 PM EST up reply actions

Re: Baseball America's 2007 Top 100 Prospects

It's very good, but I'm pretty sure some other guy had an 1107 OPS. And it's only 150 at bats.

I'm back to my original statement: Barton is probably the least accomplished 24-year-old in the Top 100. It's not a total knock, it's just one fact about him.

by Jay on Mar 5, 2007 6:45 PM EST up reply actions

Only 10/100 were 24 or older!

Hello everyone,

I think it's important to keep in mind that only 10 out of the Top 100 were 24 years or older, so in a way, Barton is in some exclusive company - many 24+ year olds don't make BA's Top 100, so obviously, Barton has some considerable tools and skills BA must like for him to make the Top 100.

The 10 who are 24+: (Rank - Age)

RHP Daisuke Matsuzaka (#1 - 26)
RHP Jeff Niemann (#35 - 24)
RHP Jason Hirsh (#42 - 25)
3B Josh Fields (#45 - 24)
RHP Humberto Sanchez (#57 - 24)
LHP Jonathan Sanchez (#59 - 24)
LHP Glen Perkins (#66 - 24)
RHP Philip Humber (#73 - 24)
OF Brian Barton (#86 - 24)
RHP Micah Owings (#98 - 24)

In fact, looking at it, Barton is the ONLY OF 24+ to make the list, and one of just 2 24+ position-player prospects to make the list (Fields being the other.) I'd say that's pretty impressive. :-)

Just my 2 cents.

Go Tribe! :-)

by indiansfan on Mar 5, 2007 8:13 PM EST up reply actions

Re: Only 10/100 were 24 or older!

"...many 24+ year olds don't make BA's Top 100..."

That's because if many of them have already planted themselves squarly in the majors and thus aren't elligible for the list.

by Brick. on Mar 5, 2007 8:45 PM EST up reply actions

Re: Only 10/100 were 24 or older!

Or haven't achieved enough as 24-year-olds to be considered elite prospects.

by Jay on Mar 5, 2007 8:53 PM EST up reply actions

That was my point!

Hello everyone,

I was emphasizing the point Jay made, though sbricker did make a good point about most quality 24-year old players are usually up in the Majors by now, but there are still some well-known quality prospects on that list like Barton, Fields, the Sanchezs, Perkins, Humber, Hirsh, and Niemann, not to mention Matsuzaka.

Go Tribe! :-)

by indiansfan on Mar 6, 2007 1:50 AM EST up reply actions

Re: Baseball America's 2007 Top 100 Prospects

I understand the Ryan/Jay logic about age, but of course there are exceptions. Maybe Barton could win the Kouzmanoff award in 2007 for the "old guy' who finally makes it. Remember, Kouz was 25 when he started in AA last year.

by kov on Mar 2, 2007 5:07 PM EST reply actions