Five-Star Prospects

1. Matt LaPorta, lf
   
2. Manny Parra, lhp
   

4. Cole Gillespie, of
   
5. Angel Salome, c
   
6. Alcides Escobar, ss
   
7. Mat Gamel, 3b
   
8. Caleb Gindl, of
   
9. Luis Pena, rhp
   
10. Robert Bryson, rhp
    
11. Brent Brewer, ss

1. Matt LaPorta, OF
DOB: 1/8/85
Height/Weight: 6-2/212
Bats/Throws: R/R
Drafted: 1st round, 2007, University of Florida
2007 Stats: .259/.289/.519 at Short-season (7 G); .318/.392/.750 at Low-A (23 G)

Year In Review: 2005 NCAA home run leader recovered from miserable junior year to reestablish himself as the best pure college hitter in the draft, going No. 7 overall to the Brewers and not missing a beat in his pro debut.
The Good: LaPorta has true impact potential offensively, with some scouts believing that he had the best power and the best pitch recognition in last June's draft. He has the patience to wait for a pitch to hit, the bat speed to let balls carry deep into the zone, the strength to power them out to all fields, and the hand/eye coordination to hit for average as well. After signing, he was Moved to the outfield for the first time in his career; the Brewers praised both his work ethic in learning the new position, and his ability to leave his defensive issues behind him when he stepped to the plate.
The Bad: Not even a good first baseman in college, LaPorta is still an adventure in left field. He's a below-average runner who needs to vastly improve his reads and routes. The Brewers themselves hold no high hopes for him there, hoping that he can develop into a merely adequate defender, knowing that his bat will more than make up for it. His powerful swing will always come with a high strikeout rate, but he could use a better two-strike approach, and focus merely on hard contact at times. Because he played four years of college, he's 23 years old with just 30 games of pro experience.
Fun Fact: A 14th round pick as a catcher by the Cubs in 2003, LaPorta earned Defensive Most Valuable Player honors at Charlotte High School in Florida, but quickly played his way to first base once he got to college.
Perfect World Projection: LaPorta's entire value comes from his bat, but he has the potential to be a classic No. 3 or No. 4 hitter for a first-division team.
Timetable: LaPorta's bat is nearly ready, and he'll be moved aggressively through the system, making his full-season debut at Double-A.

http://www.baseballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=7105

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=3229965

The deal is worth $30.25 million, sources told ESPN The Magazine's Buster Olney.

The contract covers Granderson's arbitration-eligible seasons and buys out one season of free agency.

that seems like an extremely good deal for the tigers. the FA year alone should be worth at least $15M or so. getting the four arb years for that little is a steal, especially if you believe (as i do) that g-money is one of the game's best defensive outfielders. and a club option is always a good thing (for the club). i wonder how much it's for.

this thread is for discussion of bryan anderson, C, st louis cardinals. here are some links to anderson's stats:

http://minors.baseball-reference.com/players.cgi?pid=456
http://web.minorleaguebaseball.com/milb/stats/stats.jsp?n=Bryan%20Anderson&pos=C&sid=milb&am p;t=p_pbp&pid=457762
http://firstinning.com/players/Bryan-Anderson-a/

i'll leave this thread open for at least 48 hours. you can vote at any time, but since you can't change your vote, if you are uncertain in any way, it's probably best to refrain from voting until after you get a chance to read the discussion.

the numerical ratings should follow this scale:

10 bona fide blue-chip grade A stud
9
8 great prospect, somebody you'd be okay with as the jewel of your favorite team's system
7
6 good prospect, but not among the best in the game
5
4 marginal prospect, but somebody with a pulse
3
2 organizational filler--just a warm body to fill out a minor league roster
1

the rating should be a combination of the player's possible outcomes and his likelihood of reaching those outcomes. in other words, consider both "upside" and "safety" when making your decision--though how you weight them is entirely up to you.

for example, you could give somebody an 8 because you feel he is sure to be a pretty good player, but you could also give somebody else an 8 because even though he has a higher chance to flame out, he also has a chance to be really special. a 5 might be a guy with a decent chance to be a regular, or it might be somebody with a pretty big upside who you are just not very confident will actually ever make it.

this thread is for discussion of jesus montero, C, new york yankees. here are some links to montero's stats (warning, there's not much here):

http://minors.baseball-reference.com/players.cgi?pid=33900
http://web.minorleaguebaseball.com/milb/stats/stats.jsp?n=Jesus%20Montero&pos=C&sid=milb& ;t=p_pbp&pid=524968
http://firstinning.com/players/Jesus-Montero-a/

i'll leave this thread open for at least 48 hours. you can vote at any time, but since you can't change your vote, if you are uncertain in any way, it's probably best to refrain from voting until after you get a chance to read the discussion.

the numerical ratings should follow this scale:

10 bona fide blue-chip grade A stud
9
8 great prospect, somebody you'd be okay with as the jewel of your favorite team's system
7
6 good prospect, but not among the best in the game
5
4 marginal prospect, but somebody with a pulse
3
2 organizational filler--just a warm body to fill out a minor league roster
1

the rating should be a combination of the player's possible outcomes and his likelihood of reaching those outcomes. in other words, consider both "upside" and "safety" when making your decision--though how you weight them is entirely up to you.

for example, you could give somebody an 8 because you feel he is sure to be a pretty good player, but you could also give somebody else an 8 because even though he has a higher chance to flame out, he also has a chance to be really special. a 5 might be a guy with a decent chance to be a regular, or it might be somebody with a pretty big upside who you are just not very confident will actually ever make it.

this thread is for discussion of j.r. towles, C, houston astros. here are some links to towles's stats:

http://minors.baseball-reference.com/players.cgi?pid=14692
http://web.minorleaguebaseball.com/milb/stats/stats.jsp?n=J.R.%20Towles&pos=61&sid=milb& t=p_pbp&pid=453525
http://firstinning.com/players/Justin-Towles-a/

i'll leave this thread open for at least 48 hours. you can vote at any time, but since you can't change your vote, if you are uncertain in any way, it's probably best to refrain from voting until after you get a chance to read the discussion.

the numerical ratings should follow this scale:

10 bona fide blue-chip grade A stud
9
8 great prospect, somebody you'd be okay with as the jewel of your favorite team's system
7
6 good prospect, but not among the best in the game
5
4 marginal prospect, but somebody with a pulse
3
2 organizational filler--just a warm body to fill out a minor league roster
1

the rating should be a combination of the player's possible outcomes and his likelihood of reaching those outcomes. in other words, consider both "upside" and "safety" when making your decision--though how you weight them is entirely up to you.

for example, you could give somebody an 8 because you feel he is sure to be a pretty good player, but you could also give somebody else an 8 because even though he has a higher chance to flame out, he also has a chance to be really special. a 5 might be a guy with a decent chance to be a regular, or it might be somebody with a pretty big upside who you are just not very confident will actually ever make it.

this thread is for discussion of taylor teagarden, C, texas rangers. here are some links to teagarden's stats:

http://minors.baseball-reference.com/players.cgi?pid=14331
http://web.minorleaguebaseball.com/milb/stats/stats.jsp?n=Taylor%20Teagarden&pos=C&sid=milb& amp;t=p_pbp&pid=460003
http://firstinning.com/players/Taylor-Teagarden-a/

i'll leave this thread open for at least 48 hours. you can vote at any time, but since you can't change your vote, if you are uncertain in any way, it's probably best to refrain from voting until after you get a chance to read the discussion.

the numerical ratings should follow this scale:

10 bona fide blue-chip grade A stud
9
8 great prospect, somebody you'd be okay with as the jewel of your favorite team's system
7
6 good prospect, but not among the best in the game
5
4 marginal prospect, but somebody with a pulse
3
2 organizational filler--just a warm body to fill out a minor league roster
1

the rating should be a combination of the player's possible outcomes and his likelihood of reaching those outcomes. in other words, consider both "upside" and "safety" when making your decision--though how you weight them is entirely up to you.

for example, you could give somebody an 8 because you feel he is sure to be a pretty good player, but you could also give somebody else an 8 because even though he has a higher chance to flame out, he also has a chance to be really special. a 5 might be a guy with a decent chance to be a regular, or it might be somebody with a pretty big upside who you are just not very confident will actually ever make it.

previous batch:

cole rohrbough: mean 6.93, SD 1.22
brett cecil: mean 6.09, SD 1.14
nick hagadone: mean 5.96, SD 1.27
james simmons: mean 6.34, SD 1.28
aaron poreda: mean 5.76, SD 1.33

full results here. some interesting developments: we get 3 out of our 4 worst-ever ratings, including poreda, who beats out humber for the bottom spot (so far). also, very low response rate, causing me to add the spreadsheet column for uncertainty of the rating.

onward and upward. this one's about catchers.

this thread is for discussion of hank conger, C, los angeles angels. here are some links to conger's stats:

http://minors.baseball-reference.com/players.cgi?pid=32240
http://web.minorleaguebaseball.com/milb/stats/stats.jsp?n=Hank%20Conger&pos=C&sid=milb&t =p_pbp&pid=474233
http://firstinning.com/players/Hank-Conger-a/

i'll leave this thread open for at least 48 hours. you can vote at any time, but since you can't change your vote, if you are uncertain in any way, it's probably best to refrain from voting until after you get a chance to read the discussion.

the numerical ratings should follow this scale:

10 bona fide blue-chip grade A stud
9
8 great prospect, somebody you'd be okay with as the jewel of your favorite team's system
7
6 good prospect, but not among the best in the game
5
4 marginal prospect, but somebody with a pulse
3
2 organizational filler--just a warm body to fill out a minor league roster
1

the rating should be a combination of the player's possible outcomes and his likelihood of reaching those outcomes. in other words, consider both "upside" and "safety" when making your decision--though how you weight them is entirely up to you.

for example, you could give somebody an 8 because you feel he is sure to be a pretty good player, but you could also give somebody else an 8 because even though he has a higher chance to flame out, he also has a chance to be really special. a 5 might be a guy with a decent chance to be a regular, or it might be somebody with a pretty big upside who you are just not very confident will actually ever make it.

this thread is for discussion of cole rohrbough, LHP, atlanta braves. here are some links to rohrbough's stats:

http://minors.baseball-reference.com/players.cgi?pid=34641
http://web.minorleaguebaseball.com/milb/stats/stats.jsp?n=Cole%20Rohrbough&pos=P&sid=milb&am p;t=p_pbp&pid=502478
http://firstinning.com/players/Cole-Rohrbough-a/

i'll leave this thread open for at least 48 hours. you can vote at any time, but since you can't change your vote, if you are uncertain in any way, it's probably best to refrain from voting until after you get a chance to read the discussion.

the numerical ratings should follow this scale:

10 bona fide blue-chip grade A stud
9
8 great prospect, somebody you'd be okay with as the jewel of your favorite team's system
7
6 good prospect, but not among the best in the game
5
4 marginal prospect, but somebody with a pulse
3
2 organizational filler--just a warm body to fill out a minor league roster
1

the rating should be a combination of the player's possible outcomes and his likelihood of reaching those outcomes. in other words, consider both "upside" and "safety" when making your decision--though how you weight them is entirely up to you.

for example, you could give somebody an 8 because you feel he is sure to be a pretty good player, but you could also give somebody else an 8 because even though he has a higher chance to flame out, he also has a chance to be really special. a 5 might be a guy with a decent chance to be a regular, or it might be somebody with a pretty big upside who you are just not very confident will actually ever make it.

Update [2008-1-14 0:28:22 by jpahk]:
freeze:
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
2 0 0 1 5 18 35 15 7 1

this thread is for discussion of brett cecil, LHP, toronto blue jays. here are some links to cecil's stats:

http://minors.baseball-reference.com/players.cgi?pid=33961
http://web.minorleaguebaseball.com/milb/stats/stats.jsp?n=Brett%20Cecil&pos=P&sid=milb&t =p_pbp&pid=446399
http://firstinning.com/players/Brett-Cecil-a/

and since he's got so few pro innings, here's a link with his college stats:

http://www.thebaseballcube.com/players/C/Brett-Cecil.shtml

i'll leave this thread open for at least 48 hours. you can vote at any time, but since you can't change your vote, if you are uncertain in any way, it's probably best to refrain from voting until after you get a chance to read the discussion.

the numerical ratings should follow this scale:

10 bona fide blue-chip grade A stud
9
8 great prospect, somebody you'd be okay with as the jewel of your favorite team's system
7
6 good prospect, but not among the best in the game
5
4 marginal prospect, but somebody with a pulse
3
2 organizational filler--just a warm body to fill out a minor league roster
1

the rating should be a combination of the player's possible outcomes and his likelihood of reaching those outcomes. in other words, consider both "upside" and "safety" when making your decision--though how you weight them is entirely up to you.

for example, you could give somebody an 8 because you feel he is sure to be a pretty good player, but you could also give somebody else an 8 because even though he has a higher chance to flame out, he also has a chance to be really special. a 5 might be a guy with a decent chance to be a regular, or it might be somebody with a pretty big upside who you are just not very confident will actually ever make it.

Update [2008-1-14 0:27:52 by jpahk]:
freeze:
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
1 0 1 3 12 28 19 3 0 1

this thread is for discussion of nick hagadone, LHP, boston red sox. here are some links to hagadone's stats:

http://minors.baseball-reference.com/players.cgi?pid=33926
http://web.minorleaguebaseball.com/milb/stats/stats.jsp?n=Nick%20Hagadone&pos=P&sid=milb& ;t=p_pbp&pid=444935
http://firstinning.com/players/Nick-Hagadone-a/

and since he's got so few pro innings, here's a link with his college stats:

http://www.thebaseballcube.com/players/H/Nick-Hagadone.shtml

i'll leave this thread open for at least 48 hours. you can vote at any time, but since you can't change your vote, if you are uncertain in any way, it's probably best to refrain from voting until after you get a chance to read the discussion.

the numerical ratings should follow this scale:

10 bona fide blue-chip grade A stud
9
8 great prospect, somebody you'd be okay with as the jewel of your favorite team's system
7
6 good prospect, but not among the best in the game
5
4 marginal prospect, but somebody with a pulse
3
2 organizational filler--just a warm body to fill out a minor league roster
1

the rating should be a combination of the player's possible outcomes and his likelihood of reaching those outcomes. in other words, consider both "upside" and "safety" when making your decision--though how you weight them is entirely up to you.

for example, you could give somebody an 8 because you feel he is sure to be a pretty good player, but you could also give somebody else an 8 because even though he has a higher chance to flame out, he also has a chance to be really special. a 5 might be a guy with a decent chance to be a regular, or it might be somebody with a pretty big upside who you are just not very confident will actually ever make it.

Update [2008-1-14 0:27:20 by jpahk]:
freeze:
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
1 0 2 3 15 22 10 6 2 0

this thread is for discussion of james simmons, RHP, oakland athletics. here are some links to simmons's stats:

http://minors.baseball-reference.com/players.cgi?pid=35230
http://web.minorleaguebaseball.com/milb/stats/stats.jsp?n=James%20Simmons&pos=P&sid=milb& ;t=p_pbp&pid=519285
http://firstinning.com/players/James-Simmons-b/

and since he's got so few pro innings, here's a link with his college stats:

http://www.thebaseballcube.com/players/S/James-Simmons-1.shtml

i'll leave this thread open for at least 48 hours. you can vote at any time, but since you can't change your vote, if you are uncertain in any way, it's probably best to refrain from voting until after you get a chance to read the discussion.

the numerical ratings should follow this scale:

10 bona fide blue-chip grade A stud
9
8 great prospect, somebody you'd be okay with as the jewel of your favorite team's system
7
6 good prospect, but not among the best in the game
5
4 marginal prospect, but somebody with a pulse
3
2 organizational filler--just a warm body to fill out a minor league roster
1

the rating should be a combination of the player's possible outcomes and his likelihood of reaching those outcomes. in other words, consider both "upside" and "safety" when making your decision--though how you weight them is entirely up to you.

for example, you could give somebody an 8 because you feel he is sure to be a pretty good player, but you could also give somebody else an 8 because even though he has a higher chance to flame out, he also has a chance to be really special. a 5 might be a guy with a decent chance to be a regular, or it might be somebody with a pretty big upside who you are just not very confident will actually ever make it.

Update [2008-1-14 0:26:51 by jpahk]:
freeze:
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
1 1 1 6 12 30 23 9 4 3

previous batch:

jair jurrjens: mean 6.63, SD 1.06
deolis guerra: mean 6.41, SD 1.64 (!!!)
fautino de los santos: mean 7.26, SD 1.47 (!!)
manny parra: mean 6.54, SD 1.43 (!)
justin masterson: mean 6.23, SD 1.19

as predicted, guerra shattered the previous record for high SD, with 1.64. unforeseen by me, parra and de los santos also broke the old record (previously held by triunfel). i personally think something wonky happened with the last batch (how did FdlS end up with 100 more total votes than anybody else?), but i'm too lazy to figure out exactly what happened, or to redo the polls. so we move on.

as always, full results here.

this thread is for discussion of aaron poreda, LHP, chicago white sox. here are some links to poreda's stats:

http://minors.baseball-reference.com/players.cgi?pid=35190
http://web.minorleaguebaseball.com/milb/stats/stats.jsp?n=Aaron%20Poreda&pos=P&sid=milb& t=p_pbp&pid=519145
http://firstinning.com/players/Aaron-Poreda-a/

and since he's got so few pro innings, here's a link with his college stats:

http://www.thebaseballcube.com/players/P/Aaron-Poreda.shtml

i'll leave this thread open for at least 48 hours. you can vote at any time, but since you can't change your vote, if you are uncertain in any way, it's probably best to refrain from voting until after you get a chance to read the discussion.

the numerical ratings should follow this scale:

10 bona fide blue-chip grade A stud
9
8 great prospect, somebody you'd be okay with as the jewel of your favorite team's system
7
6 good prospect, but not among the best in the game
5
4 marginal prospect, but somebody with a pulse
3
2 organizational filler--just a warm body to fill out a minor league roster
1

the rating should be a combination of the player's possible outcomes and his likelihood of reaching those outcomes. in other words, consider both "upside" and "safety" when making your decision--though how you weight them is entirely up to you.

for example, you could give somebody an 8 because you feel he is sure to be a pretty good player, but you could also give somebody else an 8 because even though he has a higher chance to flame out, he also has a chance to be really special. a 5 might be a guy with a decent chance to be a regular, or it might be somebody with a pretty big upside who you are just not very confident will actually ever make it.

Update [2008-1-14 0:26:7 by jpahk]:
freeze:
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
1 0 3 4 15 21 6 4 1 2

this thread is for discussion of jair jurrjens, RHP, atlanta braves. here are some links to jurrjens's stats:

http://minors.baseball-reference.com/players.cgi?pid=22657
http://web.minorleaguebaseball.com/milb/stats/stats.jsp?n=Jair%20Jurrjens&pos=P&sid=milb& ;t=p_pbp&pid=457453
http://firstinning.com/players/Jair-Jurrjens-a/

i'll leave this thread open for at least 48 hours. you can vote at any time, but since you can't change your vote, if you are uncertain in any way, it's probably best to refrain from voting until after you get a chance to read the discussion.

the numerical ratings should follow this scale:

10 bona fide blue-chip grade A stud
9
8 great prospect, somebody you'd be okay with as the jewel of your favorite team's system
7
6 good prospect, but not among the best in the game
5
4 marginal prospect, but somebody with a pulse
3
2 organizational filler--just a warm body to fill out a minor league roster
1

the rating should be a combination of the player's possible outcomes and his likelihood of reaching those outcomes. in other words, consider both "upside" and "safety" when making your decision--though how you weight them is entirely up to you.

for example, you could give somebody an 8 because you feel he is sure to be a pretty good player, but you could also give somebody else an 8 because even though he has a higher chance to flame out, he also has a chance to be really special. a 5 might be a guy with a decent chance to be a regular, or it might be somebody with a pretty big upside who you are just not very confident will actually ever make it.

Update [2008-1-10 23:6:30 by jpahk]: freeze:
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
4 3 1 6 24 64 59 16 5 3

this thread is for discussion of deolis guerra, RHP, new york mets. here are some links to guerra's stats:

http://minors.baseball-reference.com/players.cgi?pid=30927
http://web.minorleaguebaseball.com/milb/stats/stats.jsp?n=Deolis%20Guerra&pos=P&sid=milb& ;t=p_pbp&pid=500610
http://firstinning.com/players/Deolis-Guerra-a/

i'll leave this thread open for at least 48 hours. you can vote at any time, but since you can't change your vote, if you are uncertain in any way, it's probably best to refrain from voting until after you get a chance to read the discussion.

the numerical ratings should follow this scale:

10 bona fide blue-chip grade A stud
9
8 great prospect, somebody you'd be okay with as the jewel of your favorite team's system
7
6 good prospect, but not among the best in the game
5
4 marginal prospect, but somebody with a pulse
3
2 organizational filler--just a warm body to fill out a minor league roster
1

the rating should be a combination of the player's possible outcomes and his likelihood of reaching those outcomes. in other words, consider both "upside" and "safety" when making your decision--though how you weight them is entirely up to you.

for example, you could give somebody an 8 because you feel he is sure to be a pretty good player, but you could also give somebody else an 8 because even though he has a higher chance to flame out, he also has a chance to be really special. a 5 might be a guy with a decent chance to be a regular, or it might be somebody with a pretty big upside who you are just not very confident will actually ever make it.

Update [2008-1-10 23:7:30 by jpahk]: freeze:
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
13 11 6 5 15 42 47 26 18 9

this thread is for discussion of fautino de los santos, RHP, oakland A's. here are some links to de los santos's stats:

http://minors.baseball-reference.com/players.cgi?pid=34571
http://web.minorleaguebaseball.com/milb/stats/stats.jsp?n=Fautino%20De%20Los%20Santos&pos=P& sid=milb&t=p_pbp&pid=501745
http://firstinning.com/players/Faustino-De%20Los%20Santos-a/

i'll leave this thread open for at least 48 hours. you can vote at any time, but since you can't change your vote, if you are uncertain in any way, it's probably best to refrain from voting until after you get a chance to read the discussion.

the numerical ratings should follow this scale:

10 bona fide blue-chip grade A stud
9
8 great prospect, somebody you'd be okay with as the jewel of your favorite team's system
7
6 good prospect, but not among the best in the game
5
4 marginal prospect, but somebody with a pulse
3
2 organizational filler--just a warm body to fill out a minor league roster
1

the rating should be a combination of the player's possible outcomes and his likelihood of reaching those outcomes. in other words, consider both "upside" and "safety" when making your decision--though how you weight them is entirely up to you.

for example, you could give somebody an 8 because you feel he is sure to be a pretty good player, but you could also give somebody else an 8 because even though he has a higher chance to flame out, he also has a chance to be really special. a 5 might be a guy with a decent chance to be a regular, or it might be somebody with a pretty big upside who you are just not very confident will actually ever make it.

Update [2008-1-10 23:8:2 by jpahk]: freeze:
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
11 12 10 2 9 35 57 93 32 22

this thread is for discussion of manny parra, LHP, milwaukee brewers. here are some links to parra's stats:

http://minors.baseball-reference.com/players.cgi?pid=25882
http://web.minorleaguebaseball.com/milb/stats/stats.jsp?n=Manny%20Parra&pos=P&sid=milb&t =p_pbp&pid=448159
http://firstinning.com/players/Manny-Parra-a/

i'll leave this thread open for at least 48 hours. you can vote at any time, but since you can't change your vote, if you are uncertain in any way, it's probably best to refrain from voting until after you get a chance to read the discussion.

the numerical ratings should follow this scale:

10 bona fide blue-chip grade A stud
9
8 great prospect, somebody you'd be okay with as the jewel of your favorite team's system
7
6 good prospect, but not among the best in the game
5
4 marginal prospect, but somebody with a pulse
3
2 organizational filler--just a warm body to fill out a minor league roster
1

the rating should be a combination of the player's possible outcomes and his likelihood of reaching those outcomes. in other words, consider both "upside" and "safety" when making your decision--though how you weight them is entirely up to you.

for example, you could give somebody an 8 because you feel he is sure to be a pretty good player, but you could also give somebody else an 8 because even though he has a higher chance to flame out, he also has a chance to be really special. a 5 might be a guy with a decent chance to be a regular, or it might be somebody with a pretty big upside who you are just not very confident will actually ever make it.

Update [2008-1-10 23:8:31 by jpahk]: freeze:
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
3 8 8 1 6 23 45 24 6 1

last batch:

carlos triunfel: mean 7.42, SD 1.43
jordan schafer: mean 7.44, SD 1.18
carlos gonzalez: mean 7.60, SD 1.24
matt antonelli: mean 7.36, SD 1.23
chin-lung hu: mean 6.81, SD 1.09

full results here, as always. of note is that triunfel has (by far) the highest SD of any player polled so far, indicating widespread disagreement about his valuation. that makes a lot of sense, given what we've been seeing in the discussions of triunfel.

anyway, the next batch is long overdue, so here goes.

this thread is for discussion of justin masterson, RHP, boston red sox. here are some links to masterson's stats:

http://minors.baseball-reference.com/players.cgi?pid=31214
http://web.minorleaguebaseball.com/milb/stats/stats.jsp?n=Justin%20Masterson&pos=P&sid=milb& amp;t=p_pbp&pid=475416
http://firstinning.com/players/Justin-Masterson-a/

i'll leave this thread open for at least 48 hours. you can vote at any time, but since you can't change your vote, if you are uncertain in any way, it's probably best to refrain from voting until after you get a chance to read the discussion.

the numerical ratings should follow this scale:

10 bona fide blue-chip grade A stud
9
8 great prospect, somebody you'd be okay with as the jewel of your favorite team's system
7
6 good prospect, but not among the best in the game
5
4 marginal prospect, but somebody with a pulse
3
2 organizational filler--just a warm body to fill out a minor league roster
1

the rating should be a combination of the player's possible outcomes and his likelihood of reaching those outcomes. in other words, consider both "upside" and "safety" when making your decision--though how you weight them is entirely up to you.

for example, you could give somebody an 8 because you feel he is sure to be a pretty good player, but you could also give somebody else an 8 because even though he has a higher chance to flame out, he also has a chance to be really special. a 5 might be a guy with a decent chance to be a regular, or it might be somebody with a pretty big upside who you are just not very confident will actually ever make it.

Update [2008-1-10 23:8:56 by jpahk]: freeze:
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
2 7 5 2 10 52 34 14 2 2

this thread is for discussion of carlos triunfel, SS, seattle mariners. here are some links to triunfel's stats:

http://minors.baseball-reference.com/players.cgi?pid=33121
http://web.minorleaguebaseball.com/milb/stats/stats.jsp?n=Carlos%20Triunfel&pos=SS&sid=milb& amp;t=p_pbp&pid=508892
http://firstinning.com/players/Carlos-Triunfel-a/

i'll leave this thread open for at least 48 hours. you can vote at any time, but since you can't change your vote, if you are uncertain in any way, it's probably best to refrain from voting until after you get a chance to read the discussion.

the numerical ratings should follow this scale:

10 bona fide blue-chip grade A stud
9
8 great prospect, somebody you'd be okay with as the jewel of your favorite team's system
7
6 good prospect, but not among the best in the game
5
4 marginal prospect, but somebody with a pulse
3
2 organizational filler--just a warm body to fill out a minor league roster
1

the rating should be a combination of the player's possible outcomes and his likelihood of reaching those outcomes. in other words, consider both "upside" and "safety" when making your decision--though how you weight them is entirely up to you.

for example, you could give somebody an 8 because you feel he is sure to be a pretty good player, but you could also give somebody else an 8 because even though he has a higher chance to flame out, he also has a chance to be really special. a 5 might be a guy with a decent chance to be a regular, or it might be somebody with a pretty big upside who you are just not very confident will actually ever make it.

Update [2008-1-8 10:25:5 by jpahk]: freeze:
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
5 0 0 1 8 38 34 36 22 22

this thread is for discussion of jordan schafer, OF, atlanta braves. here are some links to schafer's stats:

http://minors.baseball-reference.com/players.cgi?pid=13157
http://web.minorleaguebaseball.com/milb/stats/stats.jsp?n=Jordan%20Schafer&pos=OF&sid=milb&a mp;t=p_pbp&pid=457788
http://firstinning.com/players/Jordan-Schafer-a/

i'll leave this thread open for at least 48 hours. you can vote at any time, but since you can't change your vote, if you are uncertain in any way, it's probably best to refrain from voting until after you get a chance to read the discussion.

the numerical ratings should follow this scale:

10 bona fide blue-chip grade A stud
9
8 great prospect, somebody you'd be okay with as the jewel of your favorite team's system
7
6 good prospect, but not among the best in the game
5
4 marginal prospect, but somebody with a pulse
3
2 organizational filler--just a warm body to fill out a minor league roster
1

the rating should be a combination of the player's possible outcomes and his likelihood of reaching those outcomes. in other words, consider both "upside" and "safety" when making your decision--though how you weight them is entirely up to you.

for example, you could give somebody an 8 because you feel he is sure to be a pretty good player, but you could also give somebody else an 8 because even though he has a higher chance to flame out, he also has a chance to be really special. a 5 might be a guy with a decent chance to be a regular, or it might be somebody with a pretty big upside who you are just not very confident will actually ever make it.

Update [2008-1-8 10:28:4 by jpahk]: freeze:
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
1 2 0 1 3 16 37 45 11 6

this thread is for discussion of carlos gonzalez, OF, oakland A's. here are some links to gonzalez's stats:

http://minors.baseball-reference.com/players.cgi?pid=5563
http://web.minorleaguebaseball.com/milb/stats/stats.jsp?n=Carlos%20Gonzalez&pos=OF&sid=milb& amp;t=p_pbp&pid=471865
http://firstinning.com/players/Carlos-Gonzalez-a/

i'll leave this thread open for at least 48 hours. you can vote at any time, but since you can't change your vote, if you are uncertain in any way, it's probably best to refrain from voting until after you get a chance to read the discussion.

the numerical ratings should follow this scale:

10 bona fide blue-chip grade A stud
9
8 great prospect, somebody you'd be okay with as the jewel of your favorite team's system
7
6 good prospect, but not among the best in the game
5
4 marginal prospect, but somebody with a pulse
3
2 organizational filler--just a warm body to fill out a minor league roster
1

the rating should be a combination of the player's possible outcomes and his likelihood of reaching those outcomes. in other words, consider both "upside" and "safety" when making your decision--though how you weight them is entirely up to you.

for example, you could give somebody an 8 because you feel he is sure to be a pretty good player, but you could also give somebody else an 8 because even though he has a higher chance to flame out, he also has a chance to be really special. a 5 might be a guy with a decent chance to be a regular, or it might be somebody with a pretty big upside who you are just not very confident will actually ever make it.

Update [2008-1-8 10:29:31 by jpahk]: freeze:
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
4 1 0 1 2 14 37 44 27 3

this thread is for discussion of matt antonelli, 2B, san diego padres. here are some links to antonelli's stats:

http://minors.baseball-reference.com/players.cgi?pid=30961
http://web.minorleaguebaseball.com/milb/stats/stats.jsp?n=Matt%20Antonelli&pos=2B&sid=milb&a mp;t=p_pbp&pid=453327
http://firstinning.com/players/Matt-Antonelli-a/

i'll leave this thread open for at least 48 hours. you can vote at any time, but since you can't change your vote, if you are uncertain in any way, it's probably best to refrain from voting until after you get a chance to read the discussion.

the numerical ratings should follow this scale:

10 bona fide blue-chip grade A stud
9
8 great prospect, somebody you'd be okay with as the jewel of your favorite team's system
7
6 good prospect, but not among the best in the game
5
4 marginal prospect, but somebody with a pulse
3
2 organizational filler--just a warm body to fill out a minor league roster
1

the rating should be a combination of the player's possible outcomes and his likelihood of reaching those outcomes. in other words, consider both "upside" and "safety" when making your decision--though how you weight them is entirely up to you.

for example, you could give somebody an 8 because you feel he is sure to be a pretty good player, but you could also give somebody else an 8 because even though he has a higher chance to flame out, he also has a chance to be really special. a 5 might be a guy with a decent chance to be a regular, or it might be somebody with a pretty big upside who you are just not very confident will actually ever make it.

Update [2008-1-8 10:31:26 by jpahk]: freeze:
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
2 0 0 0 4 19 36 34 9 8

results of the last batch:

phil humber: mean 5.79, SD 1.07
jeff niemann: mean 6.41, SD 1.16
nick adenhart: mean 7.70, SD 1.39
wade davis: mean 8.00, SD 1.27
johnny cueto: mean 8.01, SD 1.21

participation was way down again on this set, i think because the diaries got buried pretty quickly after they were posted. (there's also this holiday thing going on.) so be it.

as usual, full results are here. some interesting things to note:

1. humber is now (by a lot) the lowest-rated guy we've done thus far.
   
2. cueto edged homer bailey, 8.01 to 7.95, for top reds pitcher.
   
3. adenhart and davis both ranked pretty highly, but the ratings are somewhat more uncertain than usual both because of the small sample size and the large SD.

this thread is for discussion of chin-lung hu, SS, los angeles dodgers. here are some links to hu's stats:

http://minors.baseball-reference.com/players.cgi?pid=6864
http://web.minorleaguebaseball.com/milb/stats/stats.jsp?n=Chin-Lung%20Hu&pos=&sid=t400&t =p_pbp&pid=464341
http://firstinning.com/players/Chin%20Lung-Hu-a/

i'll leave this thread open for at least 48 hours. you can vote at any time, but since you can't change your vote, if you are uncertain in any way, it's probably best to refrain from voting until after you get a chance to read the discussion.

the numerical ratings should follow this scale:

10 bona fide blue-chip grade A stud
9
8 great prospect, somebody you'd be okay with as the jewel of your favorite team's system
7
6 good prospect, but not among the best in the game
5
4 marginal prospect, but somebody with a pulse
3
2 organizational filler--just a warm body to fill out a minor league roster
1

the rating should be a combination of the player's possible outcomes and his likelihood of reaching those outcomes. in other words, consider both "upside" and "safety" when making your decision--though how you weight them is entirely up to you.

for example, you could give somebody an 8 because you feel he is sure to be a pretty good player, but you could also give somebody else an 8 because even though he has a higher chance to flame out, he also has a chance to be really special. a 5 might be a guy with a decent chance to be a regular, or it might be somebody with a pretty big upside who you are just not very confident will actually ever make it.

Update [2008-1-8 10:32:7 by jpahk]: freeze:
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
4 0 0 1 3 33 44 23 2 1

this thread is for discussion of phil humber, RHP, new york mets. here are some links to humber's stats:

http://minors.baseball-reference.com/players.cgi?pid=22205
http://web.minorleaguebaseball.com/milb/stats/stats.jsp?n=Philip%20Humber&pos=P&sid=milb& ;t=p_pbp&pid=458950
http://firstinning.com/players/Philip-Humber-a/

i'll leave this thread open for at least 48 hours. you can vote at any time, but since you can't change your vote, if you are uncertain in any way, it's probably best to refrain from voting until after you get a chance to read the discussion.

the numerical ratings should follow this scale:

10 bona fide blue-chip grade A stud
9
8 great prospect, somebody you'd be okay with as the jewel of your favorite team's system
7
6 good prospect, but not among the best in the game
5
4 marginal prospect, but somebody with a pulse
3
2 organizational filler--just a warm body to fill out a minor league roster
1

the rating should be a combination of the player's possible outcomes and his likelihood of reaching those outcomes. in other words, consider both "upside" and "safety" when making your decision--though how you weight them is entirely up to you.

for example, you could give somebody an 8 because you feel he is sure to be a pretty good player, but you could also give somebody else an 8 because even though he has a higher chance to flame out, he also has a chance to be really special. a 5 might be a guy with a decent chance to be a regular, or it might be somebody with a pretty big upside who you are just not very confident will actually ever make it.

this thread is for discussion of jeff niemann, RHP, tampa bay rays. here are some links to niemann's stats:

http://minors.baseball-reference.com/players.cgi?pid=25401
http://web.minorleaguebaseball.com/milb/stats/stats.jsp?n=Jeff%20Niemann&pos=P&sid=milb& t=p_pbp&pid=435298
http://firstinning.com/players/Jeff-Niemann-a/

i'll leave this thread open for at least 48 hours. you can vote at any time, but since you can't change your vote, if you are uncertain in any way, it's probably best to refrain from voting until after you get a chance to read the discussion.

the numerical ratings should follow this scale:

10 bona fide blue-chip grade A stud
9
8 great prospect, somebody you'd be okay with as the jewel of your favorite team's system
7
6 good prospect, but not among the best in the game
5
4 marginal prospect, but somebody with a pulse
3
2 organizational filler--just a warm body to fill out a minor league roster
1

the rating should be a combination of the player's possible outcomes and his likelihood of reaching those outcomes. in other words, consider both "upside" and "safety" when making your decision--though how you weight them is entirely up to you.

for example, you could give somebody an 8 because you feel he is sure to be a pretty good player, but you could also give somebody else an 8 because even though he has a higher chance to flame out, he also has a chance to be really special. a 5 might be a guy with a decent chance to be a regular, or it might be somebody with a pretty big upside who you are just not very confident will actually ever make it.

this thread is for discussion of nick adenhart, RHP, LA angels. here are some links to adenhart's stats:

http://minors.baseball-reference.com/players.cgi?pid=16199
http://web.minorleaguebaseball.com/milb/stats/stats.jsp?n=Nick%20Adenhart&pos=P&sid=milb& ;t=p_pbp&pid=444440
http://firstinning.com/players/Nick-Adenhart-a/

i'll leave this thread open for at least 48 hours. you can vote at any time, but since you can't change your vote, if you are uncertain in any way, it's probably best to refrain from voting until after you get a chance to read the discussion.

the numerical ratings should follow this scale:

10 bona fide blue-chip grade A stud
9
8 great prospect, somebody you'd be okay with as the jewel of your favorite team's system
7
6 good prospect, but not among the best in the game
5
4 marginal prospect, but somebody with a pulse
3
2 organizational filler--just a warm body to fill out a minor league roster
1

the rating should be a combination of the player's possible outcomes and his likelihood of reaching those outcomes. in other words, consider both "upside" and "safety" when making your decision--though how you weight them is entirely up to you.

for example, you could give somebody an 8 because you feel he is sure to be a pretty good player, but you could also give somebody else an 8 because even though he has a higher chance to flame out, he also has a chance to be really special. a 5 might be a guy with a decent chance to be a regular, or it might be somebody with a pretty big upside who you are just not very confident will actually ever make it.

this thread is for discussion of wade davis, RHP, tampa bay rays. here are some links to davis's stats:

http://minors.baseball-reference.com/players.cgi?pid=19125
http://web.minorleaguebaseball.com/milb/stats/stats.jsp?n=Wade%20Davis&pos=P&sid=milb&t= p_pbp&pid=451584
http://firstinning.com/players/Wade-Davis-a/

i'll leave this thread open for at least 48 hours. you can vote at any time, but since you can't change your vote, if you are uncertain in any way, it's probably best to refrain from voting until after you get a chance to read the discussion.

the numerical ratings should follow this scale:

10 bona fide blue-chip grade A stud
9
8 great prospect, somebody you'd be okay with as the jewel of your favorite team's system
7
6 good prospect, but not among the best in the game
5
4 marginal prospect, but somebody with a pulse
3
2 organizational filler--just a warm body to fill out a minor league roster
1

the rating should be a combination of the player's possible outcomes and his likelihood of reaching those outcomes. in other words, consider both "upside" and "safety" when making your decision--though how you weight them is entirely up to you.

for example, you could give somebody an 8 because you feel he is sure to be a pretty good player, but you could also give somebody else an 8 because even though he has a higher chance to flame out, he also has a chance to be really special. a 5 might be a guy with a decent chance to be a regular, or it might be somebody with a pretty big upside who you are just not very confident will actually ever make it.

this thread is for discussion of johnny cueto, RHP, cincinnati reds. here are some links to cueto's stats:

http://minors.baseball-reference.com/players.cgi?pid=18931
http://web.minorleaguebaseball.com/milb/stats/stats.jsp?n=Johnny%20Cueto&pos=P&sid=milb& t=p_pbp&pid=456501
http://firstinning.com/players/Johnny-Cueto-a/

i'll leave this thread open for at least 48 hours. you can vote at any time, but since you can't change your vote, if you are uncertain in any way, it's probably best to refrain from voting until after you get a chance to read the discussion.

the numerical ratings should follow this scale:

10 bona fide blue-chip grade A stud
9
8 great prospect, somebody you'd be okay with as the jewel of your favorite team's system
7
6 good prospect, but not among the best in the game
5
4 marginal prospect, but somebody with a pulse
3
2 organizational filler--just a warm body to fill out a minor league roster
1

the rating should be a combination of the player's possible outcomes and his likelihood of reaching those outcomes. in other words, consider both "upside" and "safety" when making your decision--though how you weight them is entirely up to you.

for example, you could give somebody an 8 because you feel he is sure to be a pretty good player, but you could also give somebody else an 8 because even though he has a higher chance to flame out, he also has a chance to be really special. a 5 might be a guy with a decent chance to be a regular, or it might be somebody with a pretty big upside who you are just not very confident will actually ever make it.

should i post a new batch of 5 guys for the community prospect ratings? or should i wait until after christmas? i've actually got a bit of time (and connectivity), but i noticed that participation was waaay down when we did a batch over thanksgiving weekend, even though they were pretty interesting and well-known prospects (snider, marrero, laporta, ... i think).

either way, the last batch is done and i've posted the results to the usual place. some quick results:

jeff clement: mean 7.55, SD 1.08
steven pearce: mean 6.85, SD 1.11
daric barton: mean 7.74, SD 1.28
joey votto: mean 7.35, SD 1.01
chase headley: mean 7.03, SD 1.11

this thread is for discussion of jeff clement, C, seattle mariners. here are some links to clement's stats:

http://minors.baseball-reference.com/players.cgi?pid=2821
http://web.minorleaguebaseball.com/milb/stats/stats.jsp?n=Jeff%20Clement&pos=C&sid=milb& t=p_pbp&pid=459943
http://firstinning.com/players/Jeff-Clement-a/

i'll leave this thread open for at least 48 hours. you can vote at any time, but since you can't change your vote, if you are uncertain in any way, it's probably best to refrain from voting until after you get a chance to read the discussion.

the numerical ratings should follow this scale:

10 bona fide blue-chip grade A stud
9
8 great prospect, somebody you'd be okay with as the jewel of your favorite team's system
7
6 good prospect, but not among the best in the game
5
4 marginal prospect, but somebody with a pulse
3
2 organizational filler--just a warm body to fill out a minor league roster
1

the rating should be a combination of the player's possible outcomes and his likelihood of reaching those outcomes. in other words, consider both "upside" and "safety" when making your decision--though how you weight them is entirely up to you.

for example, you could give somebody an 8 because you feel he is sure to be a pretty good player, but you could also give somebody else an 8 because even though he has a higher chance to flame out, he also has a chance to be really special. a 5 might be a guy with a decent chance to be a regular, or it might be somebody with a pretty big upside who you are just not very confident will actually ever make it.