Batter's Box Interactive Magazine - Sickel's Prospect Ratings

John Sickels is one of the best sources of evaluations of minor league players. His evaluations tend to be a little more statistically oriented compared to Baseball America, but they certainly aren't the only basis for his evaluations.

Sickels has recently completed the 2004 Baseball Prospect Book and is taking orders for the book, to be delivered in February (for those that might use this as a Roto tool).

I purchased the 2003 edition last year and I would highly recommend it to anyone that is interested in minor league players. It's a great reference source for an independent view of the Jays' prospects and all other minor league players. I know I used it frequently throughout the year, and especially when minor leaguers were included in trades.

There's approximately 800 evaluations, each with a letter grade, with minor league statistics for all players evaulated.

One of the features of the book that Sickels does is a 50/50 prospect list - ranking the top 50 pitchers and top 50 position players. The lists are available now to anyone that has ordered the book.

Here is how the Jays prospects stacked up:

Pitchers
7. Dustin McGowan A-
24. David Bush B+
40. Josh Banks B+

Hitters
14. Alexis Rios B+
23. Guillermo Quiroz B+
25. Gabe Gross B+
30. Aaron Hill B+
40. Russ Adams B

My observations from the list:

* I would have expected Rios and Quiroz to be ranked a little bit higher than they were.

* The Jays' first 2 picks in the 2003 draft are both thought highly of.

* Sickels still believes that Adams will be a good player, but Arnold has fallen off the top 50 list.

Posted by Pistol on Wednesday, December 24 2003 @ 02:34 AM EST.

Sickel's Prospect Ratings | 28 comments | Create New Account

The following comments are owned by whomever posted them. This site is not responsible for what they say.

_Mick - Wednesday, December 24 2003 @ 03:06 PM EST (#82137) #

Eight of the 100 listed are Jays? Wow.

Which team had the most? Did any team get shut out? In an average-driven world, you'd expect each team to have between three and four.

_Jonny German - Wednesday, December 24 2003 @ 03:40 PM EST (#82138) #

Here's how Sickel's choices line up with the End of Year Prospect Poll here at the Box, with the rather large assumption that his two lists can be fused into one without adjustments.


     Sickels   Box
1    McGowan   Rios
2    Rios      Quiroz
3    Bush      McGowan
4    Quiroz    Gross
5    Gross     Bush
6    Hill      Arnold
T-7  Adams     Hill
T-7  Banks     Adams

Very little difference, really, with only Arnold / Banks being out by more than 2 places.

_Rob - Wednesday, December 24 2003 @ 04:15 PM EST (#82139) #

From what I've heard, I would have expected Rios to rate 6th or 7th.

I don't get the book, so can someone tell me who the Top 3 hitters and Top 3 pitchers were?

Mike Green - Wednesday, December 24 2003 @ 04:48 PM EST (#82140) #

Hey Joe, Mr. Apostrophe Man, check out the title of this thread. Some of the new guys put 'em in where they're not needed and some get overeager and put 'em in too fast. Rookies !! In Dunedin, the Box will be checking out all the young talent all day and running a grammar clinic at night. It should be barrels of fun.

BA had Rios in the top five or so prospects, and as their no. 1 OF. That was before his performance in Puerto Rico. I doubt that there are 13 better position prospects now.

_Jabonoso - Wednesday, December 24 2003 @ 07:38 PM EST (#82141) #

Many of us did not ranked first year ( short season ) prospects, that accounts for mostmofmthe difference. Our prospects, after the fist five, were not expected to be in top 100 list.
It is nice to see Bush and Banks that high by Sick..,

Pistol - Wednesday, December 24 2003 @ 08:11 PM EST (#82142) #

Which team had the most?

Toronto 8
Anaheim 7
Arizona 5
Atlanta 5
Colorado 5
Los Angeles 5
Milwaukee 5
Minnesota 5
Seattle 5

Did any team get shut out?

Nope, every team had at least one. Both the Red Sox and Yankees had just 1.

Mike Green - Wednesday, December 24 2003 @ 09:38 PM EST (#82143) #

Thanks Pistol for the info. My guess is that BA would have almost all of these 9 teams among their top 10 farm systems. The Jays would certainly rank in the top 5.

_R Billie - Wednesday, December 24 2003 @ 10:37 PM EST (#82144) #

Joe Mauer, Bobby Crosby, Rickie Weeks, BJ Upton, Casey Kotchman, and Justin Morneau were all rated as A players.

Andy Marte, Jeff Mathis, David Wright, Jeremy Reed, Grady Sizemore, and Prince Fielder were A- players.

Scott Hairston was a B+ player rated ahead of Rios.

Rios probably has a higher ceiling than a few of those players but in general they've proven more relative to age or play a more difficult position. I wouldn't rank Reed ahead of both Sizemore and Rios but I think it's fairly close between the latter two.

robertdudek - Wednesday, December 24 2003 @ 10:50 PM EST (#82145) #

From that list, I think Kotchman and Morneau are overrated.

_R Billie - Wednesday, December 24 2003 @ 10:52 PM EST (#82146) #

I would agree because of their position and in Kotchman's case health.

Mike Green - Wednesday, December 24 2003 @ 11:09 PM EST (#82147) #

Thanks, R. Billie. I wouldn't have Kotchman, Morneau, Reed, Sizemore, Wright or Hairston ahead of Rios at this point. The only ones who I'd place clearly ahead of Rios are Crosby, Weeks, Upton and Marte. Mauer and Mathis are highly regarded by many, but I actually prefer Quiroz and Navarro, due to the physical demands of catching and their preferable body type IMO.

_benum - Thursday, December 25 2003 @ 02:12 AM EST (#82148) #

Merry Christmas!

First post on Christmas Day?

_pete_the_donkey - Thursday, December 25 2003 @ 12:01 PM EST (#82149) #

Merry Christmas, Bauxites.

I didn't find Rich Aurilia in my stocking.
Too bad.

_Kristian - Saturday, December 27 2003 @ 09:59 PM EST (#82150) #

Rios should be an A-. Its hard to argue against Reed and his numbers but I would have Rios ahead of Sizemore. Morneau slumped after his callup but I dont think he is overrated at all. Kotchman is way too high until he can stay healthy for a full year above single A. Upton would be my #1 followed by Mauer then Weeks.

_tangotiger - Wednesday, December 31 2003 @ 10:26 AM EST (#82151) #

http://mb2.theinsiders.com/fbaseballfrm8.showMessage?topicID=527.topic
I asked MGL to run his MLEs against your list of players above. Go to this link, and then go to the end of the page for MGL's post.

Craig B - Wednesday, December 31 2003 @ 10:42 AM EST (#82152) #

Wow, thanks Tango. Solid evidence once agan that the Jays have two (if not three) of the best prospects in baseball.

I am gobsmacked by the Quiroz numbers, compiled while catching fulltime with a collapsed lung.

Pistol - Wednesday, December 31 2003 @ 11:24 AM EST (#82153) #

I am gobsmacked by the Quiroz numbers, compiled while catching fulltime with a collapsed lung

Well, the collapsed lung was only for a few games.

Pepper Moffatt - Wednesday, December 31 2003 @ 12:04 PM EST (#82154) #

http://economics.about.com
Well, the collapsed lung was only for a few games.

It takes a good five or six weeks to feel 100% after a collapsed lung. I had one a couple years ago. Not fun.

Cheers,

Mike

_S.K. - Wednesday, December 31 2003 @ 12:42 PM EST (#82155) #

Interesting that MGL rates McGowan as 3rd behind Bush and Arnold, and Gross ahead of Rios... not the Box consensus, I don't think.

_Jabonoso - Wednesday, December 31 2003 @ 01:27 PM EST (#82156) #

Well, we are talking about two different things: Prospects and major league predictability based in AA and AAA experience. In the first, tools and dreams have a lot to do with your projections in the second is just a matter of sample size and meaningfull data...
They may be too young and have little experience above A ball, but it is hard to argue that ceiling wise Rios, Quiroz and MacGowan are one, two and three

Mike Green - Wednesday, December 31 2003 @ 03:59 PM EST (#82157) #

Those are interesting numbers from MGL. I don't think he was aware of the left-right differentials from Yale Field in New Haven, discussed in another thread. Quiroz' and Rios' stats have to be adjusted upwards and Gross' downwards to reflect the differentials, and John Neary calculated the appropriate multiplier.

Jabonoso, it's not simply a matter of tools and dreams that make a young player who has succeeded at high A or double A so valuable. Statistically, the 19 year old who does very well at high A (Andy Marte, Dioner Navarro) is likely to have a much better major league career than a 23 year old who has had somewhat better years at high A and double A. I have no attachment to Marte or Navarro (because he's a Yankee prospect, Navarro is more likely to be the stuff of nightmares), but I know statistically that they're likely to have better major league careers than Gabe Gross say.

Insistence on a large sample size will mask growth in a very young player. For instance, we can see from Rios' performance in New Haven and in the Winter League that he is simply a lot stronger than he was in 2002 in Dunedin. He has filled out some, and gained power.

Anyways, thanks Tango, for passing our list on.

_R Billie - Thursday, January 01 2004 @ 12:11 PM EST (#82158) #

I'm very wary of any rating which tries to draw major league equivalencies for pitchers. There are just too many variables in a pitcher's mechanics, health, and even pitch selection from year to year. Roy Halladay's numbers through the minors point to no future stardom and it wasn't until his change in mechanics and psychology that he took a quantam leap forward.

It's not even that age isn't tremendously important for a pitcher but also that performance isn't tremendously important especially in the low minors. What is important is what can be readily observed. Stuff, tools, health, command, and makeup.

_Jabonoso - Thursday, January 01 2004 @ 12:43 PM EST (#82159) #

Mike G:
I did not use right adjetive in "dreams", but MGL rates opts to use harder data (AA,AAA) than single A performance. Andy Marte is the "one " this year, and last year was Betemit and somebody else before, but few of the projected 19 years old boys actually live up to their projections.
And do agree fully with R Billie, pitching is another matter, with different parameters.

Mike Green - Thursday, January 01 2004 @ 03:11 PM EST (#82160) #

I agree with R. Billie as well. In evaluating pitchers, MLEs are not really a reliable indicator of future performance. I do find K/IP and K/W ratios in the minor leagues to be useful objective measures of effectiveness, but they're just one thing you take into account, along with the others that R. Billie mentions.

Jabonoso, Wilson Betemit was a long way from Andy Marte. In 2001, at age 21, Betemit hit .277 with 7 homers in 318 ABs, 23 walks and 71 Ks at high A. He then had 183 ABs at double A where he went ape woolies hitting .355 with 5 homers, 12 walks and 36 stikeouts. All in all, Betemit's 2001 season should have inspired hope that he might stabilize at a .300 hitter at age 22 at double A with some strike zone judgment and some power, but any dreams of immediate major league success were ridiculous.

Marte, on the other hand at age 19 at high A in the same park as Betemit, hit .285 with 16 homers, 67 walks and 109 Ks in 403ABs. Marte is likely to be a competent major league third baseman by age 21, or age 22 at the latest, and has as good a chance as anybody to be an MVP candidate in 2010. He is much closer to Miguel Cabrera than to Wilson Betemit.

_Jabonoso - Thursday, January 01 2004 @ 06:31 PM EST (#82161) #

Mike G:
By mentioning Betemit, just another Braves hyped prospect ( see BA back 2 or 3 years ) was not intended as a direct comparision to Marte.
But you can make a case for him Bet batted well at 19, 20 and 21,( ops 900+in low A,800+in high A and 1000+ in AA) was promoted to ML at 21 and the charm dissapeared. Even expert watchers like BA staff can fool themselves with the likes of FLop, Phillips, ( the guy in Baltimore system that became a joke ) etc
All I�m tryng to say is that restrain is a must and we may try to be patient with young athletes to establish themselves ( It could be an interesting statitic to know that for every Pujols how many would-be- stars project to that realm )
regards
PS. Alexis' Caguas team classified as number one for the semifinals do or die matchups to represent PR in the Caribean series. He did not won the champion bat due to an anomaly: After 58 years and for the third time in over 70 years Luis Figueroa batted over .400.
Rios team mate Diaz ( cuban ) leaded in homers.

_Jabonoso - Thursday, January 01 2004 @ 06:43 PM EST (#82162) #

Mike G:
By mentioning Betemit, just another Braves hyped prospect ( see BA back 2 or 3 years ) was not intended as a direct comparision to Marte.
But you can make a case for him Bet batted well at 19, 20 and 21,( ops 900+in low A,800+in high A and 1000+ in AA) was promoted to ML at 21 and the charm dissapeared. Even expert watchers like BA staff can fool themselves with the likes of FLop, Phillips, ( one guy in Baltimore system whose name escapes me, that became a joke of " the next ARdo" ) etc
All I�m tryng to say is that restrain is a must and we may try to be patient with young athletes to establish themselves ( It could be an interesting statitic to know that for every Pujols how many would-be- stars project to that realm )Something i admire big time is about the ones that pull young guys (Pujols, Cabrera ) with little experience to have monster careers
regards
PS. Alexis' Caguas team classified as number one for the semifinals do or die matchups to represent PR in the Caribean series. He did not won the champion bat due to an anomaly: After 58 years and for the third time in over 70 years Luis Figueroa batted over .400.
Rios team mate Diaz ( cuban ) leaded in homers.

Coach - Thursday, January 01 2004 @ 06:46 PM EST (#82163) #

After a busy holiday season, I finally read MGL's post. It's great that he rates the Jays' hitting prospects so highly, but he isn't impressed by the pitchers:

If I had to rank them, I would make it Bush, Arnold, and McGowan. None of them however, appear to be any great shakes according to their brief AAA and AA MLE's.

While I echo the sentiment that projecting pitchers is impossible, I think this is further evidence that Bush, McGowan and Arnold all have plenty of work left to do at AAA. Anyone who expects all three to be productive big leaguers in 2005 has rosier glasses than me; one would be great and two an unexpected bonus.

Eight of the 100 listed are Jays? Wow.

Hear, hear. Four times as many top prospects as the Yankees and Red Sox combined. Sickels recognizes the depth we're all so excited about, and though he may be underestimating Rios and Quiroz, this is yet another confirmation for me that some people have been way too quick to dismiss Russ Adams, a heckuva player.

_tangotiger - Saturday, January 03 2004 @ 05:06 PM EST (#82164) #

Note that when you have a high regression rate, as MGL does for pitchers, he's basically saying that "I have no idea where to find their talent levels, so I'll cut my losses, and makes sure to move everyone close to the league average". The more you regress, the more you are saying that you don't trust the numbers enough to tell you about their talent level (be it because of sample size, or because the numbers are not representative of a particular skill). Therefore, scouting information would be great information to have.

Sickel's Prospect Ratings | 28 comments | Create New Account

The following comments are owned by whomever posted them. This site is not responsible for what they say.