I can't believe I'm going to say this, but it's been a privledge to live in New Britain the past few years. Mauer is a brilliant talent. It was a joy to see him play even half a season.

I live in Panama and also saw Mauer playing, he did`n do well but he will be a great player and is a nice person, he autographed my card.

Anyone who doesn't put David Bush in the top 100 prospects in baseball doesn't know what he's talking about. Next.

I don't pretend to be an expert on prospects, but if you're claiming that your list is "a little more results-oriented" and doesn't just "list players by their ceilings", isn't it a little odd to put Rios 3rd and Gross 72nd?

#13383 Posted 01/03/2004 05:23 PM by logan:
Anyone who doesn't put David Bush in the top 100 prospects in baseball doesn't know what he's talking about. Next.
----------------------
I'd have to agree that Bush should defenitely be on the list. If the guy uses performance as his primary tool for analysis as he suggests, then Bush should certainly be there. The problem people have with Bush is not his numbers (which are excellent); rather his age.
Also, based on his comments on McGowan, it seems like the guy doesn't and never will truly like him, hence the low ranking. McGowan is defenitively better than many of the players ranked above him, most notably Adam Wainright and Blake Hawksworth (who was St. Louis Top Prospect, but in a VERY weak system) and many other hitters. I personally think McGowan's potential is greater than Quiroz (though that's defenitely debatable) and would put McGowan in the Top 25, maybe Top 20.

I enjoyed very much going through this list, it is very good, it shows a lot of effort and knowledge. Every list will leave out many deserving and as every one compiling them will tell, there are clusters ( 5s,20s,40s, etc ) where to differentiate or place one above the other is very difficult.
The site and the live broadcast feature are great findings, thanks Jonny.

Nice catch, Jonny & Steve.

I have a few comments, but I'll preface them with some quotes.

Jonny: Mike describes his ranking philosophy as "a little more results oriented than some lists and I do give slightly greater weight to the likelihood of players reaching their potential. I don't consider this just a list rating players' ceilings."

Logan: Anyone who doesn't put David Bush in the top 100 prospects in baseball doesn't know what he's talking about. Next.

S.K.: I don't pretend to be an expert on prospects, but if you're claiming that your list is "a little more results-oriented" and doesn't just "list players by their ceilings", isn't it a little odd to put Rios 3rd and Gross 72nd?

Robbie Goldberg: I'd have to agree that Bush should defenitely be on the list. If the guy uses performance as his primary tool for analysis as he suggests, then Bush should certainly be there. The problem people have with Bush is not his numbers (which are excellent); rather his age.

As quoted by Jonny, Mike Gullo said that his list is a little more results-oriented than some other lists. He didn't say that results are all that he takes into account. He didn't say that he completely discounts players ceilings or that he doesn't use age as a factor, both of which would be completely ridiculous things to do ("And our number 1 prospect ... Graham Koonce!")

Here are some excerpts from Gullo's comments on Greg Miller (#2), Alexis Rios (#3), and Zack Greinke (#5):

Miller: Miller is a very mature pitcher? as evidenced by his success in the Florida State League (and even briefly into Double A) at the age of just 18!

Rios: Rios could become a mega-star, yet I still consider him risky.

Greinke: And, he's just turned 20!

Clearly Gullo is taking age and potential into account, as well he should.

I agree with Logan and Robbie that Bush should be on the list (I think age matters less for pitchers than for hitters), and I'd have Gross a little higher than #72, but there's no way he's anywhere close to Rios. Rios is sixteen months younger than Gross, he plays a tougher position, and he has a way higher ceiling. Oh, and he outperformed Gross in each of the last two years; there's that performance thing again. As far as expert opinion goes, BA named Rios the top outfield prospect in the minors; Gross was 11th. Batter's Box named Rios the Jays' top prospect; Gross was fourth, which is entirely consistent with a #3-#72 gap. Considering that most (though not all) of us probably thought a year ago that Rios was an overpriced flop, perhaps we should give the scouting community some credit for knowing their stuff once in a while, just as we do for JP.

Jayson Werth ranked #66 last year. I'd like to see someone explain exactly why Gabe Gross is a significantly better prospect now than Werth was a year ago. Furthermore, I'd wager that if we had Jason Arnold v.2002 in our system right now, we'd think Gullo was crazy for listing him as low as #85, so maybe we should cut him some slack on Bush.

By the way, if you want to start making arguments along the lines of "but Gross has a better K/BB rate, which is evidence of better plate discipline, so he should have less trouble adapting to higher leagues," you've got two problems:

1. K/BB rates and so forth have nothing to do with performance per se. They might have predictive value, but they're not actually measures of performance. So if you want to hold Gullo to a strict performance-based definition of who's a prospect and who's not, you have to throw them out the window.
2. I'd like to see your evidence.

Finally, Mike Gullo must have done a hell of a lot of work to come up with this list, and IMHO it's just plain rude to post comments like "Anyone who doesn't put David Bush in the top 100 prospects in baseball doesn't know what he's talking about. Next."

Here's Gullo on where he gets his information:

Only seeing 40ish games a year means I usually only get to see a third of the players on this list tops. The rest of my evaluation comes via listening to netcast games, reading publications, weighing statistics, browsing the other Minor League baseball websites, exchanging e-mails with the many new friends I've made because of this website and even hunches

Only 40 minor-league games per year. Plus netcast games. Plus, I would wager, a hell of a lot more reading than most of us do.

I know I didn't make it to 40 minor league games this year.

On a side note --- prospect-related --- I'm looking forward to BA's 2003 Team Wrap-ups for the Jays. It should be out any day now. I never thought I'd be waiting until January when they first started posting other teams in September. Damn Jays are last alaphabetically ;)

IMHO it's just plain rude to post comments like "Anyone who doesn't put David Bush in the top 100 prospects in baseball doesn't know what he's talking about. Next."

I couldn't agree more. IMHO, John Neary is the only person to post in this thread thus far who has established that he knows a lot about minor leaguers (With a nod to Jabonoso and his unique perspective on Latin players). I have definitely not established such myself, and I'll tell you straight up that the reason is that I just plain don't have much knowledge about minor leaguers. From reading the work of John and others in the Box I know who to keep an eye on in the Toronto system, but that's about it. The value of a third party opinion like The Minors First is that they have no Toronto bias. As John stated very well, Mike Gullo is definitely a credible source. As Jabonoso stated very well, this kind of list is always going to have 'glaring omissions' in the opinion of almost every team's fans.

If you want to rip somebody's work, do it from a position of authority, not from under a bridge.

I agree with John and Jonny. I know that David Bush and Gabe Gross are fine prospects, but I have no idea how they compare with other teams' second best pitching and outfield prospects.

I am impressed that Mike Gullo is aware of Rios' baserunning problems and his fine winter league performance. Bearing in mind that he does not follow Jay prospects with the intensity that some of us might here, it suggests that he has a broad knowledge about minor league ballplayers throughout the game.

Let me clarify - I was merely saying that I thought Gross and Rios were closer than that (though I'll admit after some thought that I'm probably in the minority there), I wasn't trying to suggest that Gross should be ABOVE Rios.
Also, I wasn't trying to criticize Gullo or imply that he doesn't know what he's talking about, merely trying to see whether others in the Box agreed with him. Perhaps my post was worded badly, especially coming right after logan's post.
Thanks to John for his thoughtful reply.

S.K. -- I'm just arguing the other side, that's all. I understood that you were merely suggesting that Gross should be higher on the list. As I said, I'd probably have him a little higher than #72, but not a great deal, and I also imagine that if I actually sat down and tried to draw up a top 100 list, I'd throw my hands up in despair after 30 or so. Mike Green is quite right that none of us here (myself included) likely has anywhere near the depth of minor league knowledge that Gullo has.

Can anybody point me in the direction of information about Seattle's Felix Hernandez ? His stats look dominating , but where I found them didn't have the level or his age. Thank you.

Hernandez' three teams this year were Everett (short-season), Wisconsin (low-A), and Lara (Venezuelan Winter League). I can't find his birth date anywhere, but BA lists him as the top prospect in the Northwest League and says that he's 17 years old. He's from Venezuela, but I don't know where.

Search his name on the BA site and you'll find several mentions.

Just to clarify, I too also respect the work of Gullo --- and pretty much any individual who takes the time to make an analysis on interesting issues and offer they're work out on the internet for free. While I feel Bush should be on the list, with minor league prospects, there is no such thing as a perfect list because no one will ever agree on a unanimous one --- especially when it's impossible for one individual to properly scout EVERY minor league player. Like the rest of you are saying, he seems to have a lot of insight into Rios which would probably suggest he knows a lot in general.

Geez, it's perfectly possible not to like David Bush. The age factor is a problem, and Bush hasn't been that dominant, and he's only had one year as a starter. He took a small step back when he ran into his own age-level guys at AA.

I think Bush is a very good prospect, but good prospects are everywhere, and once you take three per team you get to 100 really fast.

Baseball HQ has posted their top 15 Jays prospects with their analysis. Derik McKamey, who does their analysis tends to be fairly accurate in the past. I remember he was one of the only pundits who remained high on Gross after 2002. Being a roto sight, I would expect him to weigh performance a little higher than projection as well. He provides analysis for each of these players but I will just give the list (I think I am safe doing that).

1. Rios
2. McGowan
3. Gross
4. Quiroz
5. Hill
6. Adams
7. Bush
8. Arnold
9. League
10. Perkins
11. Rosario
12. Cash
13. Griffin
14. Chi Hong
15. Vermilyea

He gives the Jays prospects hitting an overall grade of B+, Pitching A-, Top-End Talent A- and Overall A-.

The new Baseball America previewing the AL East prospects comes out this Tuesday. Quick poll on who everybody thinks will be on the cover. As I see it there are only three choices: Rios, Upton, or D. Young from Tampa. I'd love for it to be Rios but have a sneaky suspicion that Upton will take the honour.

14. Chi Hong
15. Vermilyea

A decent enough list but an 18 year old who hasn't thrown pitch one in the pros can beat out Vermilyea who performed very well in half a season of pro ball? It might be understandable if Chi-Hung Cheng had tremendous stuff but from what I know he's a control lefty with an advanced breaking pitch. If I youngster would have made the list I would have assumed it was Rodriguez who has tools coming out of his ears.

OK, so I've been called rude and my credibility has been questioned - never mind the credibility problems of some nobody who sees maybe 40 minor league games a year and just puts up a web site - but no one has presented a reasonable argument why Bush could be left off the top HUNDRED prospects in baseball.

Not all prospect analysts are good. Just because some guy figured out enough HTML to post his own list doesn't mean it's worth our time.

Felix Hernandez was born April 8, 1986 (according to my records). He posted an 88.6 Prospect Score (a scale I devised earlier this year) in the Northwest League (A minus level) over 232 Batters Faced. His 54 BF at Wisconsin (Midwest League) do not constitute a sufficient sample size to provide a meaningful Prospect Score. The 88.6 score would slot him in behind McGowan in terms of pitching prospects if he were in the Toronto organisation.

Hernandez has made 6 starts in the Venezuelan League this winter. He's struck out 21 batters, walked 5 in 27.2 innings and posted a 4.23 ERA. The winter leagues are roughly Double A calibre, thus his performance is in line with his numbers from the 2003 regular minor leagues.

Coming soon, performance analysis of all the winter leagues ...

Pitching prospects tend to post similar stats once you get beyond the very best. Statistically, after the top 15 to 20, you can throw the next 70 to 100 into a hat and pull them out in just about any order. I don't think Bush is close to being in the top 15-20 pitching prospects based on performance.

Logan,

The first thing to appreciate is that seeing 40 minor-league games a year is a solid piece of in-person research -- I know I don't see that many games per season. All of us here at the Box attend minor-league games and observe players as much as we can, but it's a challenge to maximize those opportunities. Until you or I see 50 minor-league games a year in person, then we have very little ground upon which to denigrate an effort like that.

Secondly, yes, not every prospect analyst is good: a trip to the bookstore or magazine rack right before fantasy baseball season begins will prove the truth of that. But if you have a solid foundation of personal game observations, a theory and criteria upon which to base your assessments, detailed statistical data, and a resulting list that matches up well with other, more well-known experts, then you're doing something right: that's what Mike Gullo has accomplished here. I may not agree with all his assessments, but I agree with a lot of them, and I like and respect his work a great deal. Politeness alone would dictate that a strong disagreement with one player's assessment does not justify an attack on the entire list and the person who compiled it.

Thirdly, I personally think David Bush can be considered one of the top 100 prospects in baseball; as regular Bauxites know, I'm quite high on Bush, and I think he'll have a good major-league career, health permitting. But at this point, I think you can also construct a reasonable argument that he is not one of the Top 100 prospects in baseball. Here are three separate grounds:

1. He's old for a prospect. He turned 24 in November, and will be closing in on 25 by next September, when he likely will still be in Syracuse or just tasting his first cup of Skydome Starbucks. Contrast that with moundmate Dustin McGowan, who posted similar numbers at Double-A in 2003, yet will only turn 22 next spring.

2. His stuff is not overpowering. I don't think that pure stuff is the only indicator of future success, but the fact is that normally, you need to have some serious foam on your lager in order to get major-league hitters out. Bush's fastball hangs around the low 90s, not very impressive on its own among big-league pitchers. His strong suit is found in his other pitches (very solid slider and change-up) and his terrific control. That's good, but it's also reasonable to like dominant stuff over pitchability.

3. He has very little experience in the high minors. I love Bush's minor-league record and I expect continued success from him; but the fact remains that he's thrown just 81 innings at Double-A and nothing at all at Triple-A, where as Jason Arnold has found, things can get nasty in a hurry. It's reasonable to want to see substantial results at higher levels before giving Bush a Top 100 nod.

As Craig has said, three prospects per organization gets you to 90 right off the bat; even most of us here at the Box consider Bush to be, at best, the organization's 4th-best prospect (behind Rios, McGowan and Quiroz). If you emphasize results, as Gallo has done, then it's okay to rate Gabe Gross, who has posted good if limited numbers at Syracuse, over Bush.

That, in a nutshell, is why David Bush, as promising as he is, can justifiably be left off a list of the Top 100 prospects in baseball. I'd be sincerely interested in any counter-arguments you may have to these three points, or other arguments I've not presented here, establishing that Bush cannot legitimately be left off such a list. That's what the Box is all about: an exchange of reasoned opinions and supportable arguments, conducted respectfully.

Just for the heck of it, here is a list of pitching prospects based on highest 2003 Prospect Score attained at a given level (100+ BF, under age 25.0, pitchers with 20+ innings in MLB eliminated). All these pitchers scored at least 90 on the scale; they are listed from highest to lowest score.

Starters: Greg Miller, Cole Hamels, Neal Cotts, Ryan Madsen, Bobby Jenks, Luis Martinez, Joel Zumaya, Andy Pratt, Jorge De La Rosa, Travis Blackley, Dustin McGowan, Scott Kazmir, Denny Bautista, Ervin Santana, Clint Nageotte, Taylor Buchholz, Joel Hanrahan, Zack Greinke, John Maine, Matt Guerrier, Adam Wainwright, Mike Wood, Cory Stewart, Juan Dominguez, David Bush, Francisco Cruceta, D.J. Houlton, Jason Arnold, Matthew Cain, Mike Nannini, Rett Johnson, Ryan Ketchner, Matt Brubank, Justin Jones, Brian Pilkington, Joe Blanton, James Garcia, Dustin Moseley, Mike Connolly

Relievers: Jesse Crain, Arnaldo Munoz, P.J. Bevis, Fernando Cabrera, Brian Brubey, Frank Brooks, Tyler Johnson, Kazuhito Tadano, Richard Thompson, Buddy Hernandez, Brad Baker, Gary Majewski, Josh Kinney, Jeremy Lambert, Steve Colyer, Ron Flores.

I like the list, I think every "expert" will rank prospects differently based on the criteria they choose to use. Rios moved ahead of Reed based on his winter ball stats yet Bobby Jenks is ranked low on the list despite having a solid winter ball season so every expert looks at things differently. I was surprised that David Bush didnt make the top 100 but neither did Jeremy Guthrie who going into last year was very highly regarded and completely dominated in almost 63 innings in Double A only to get hit pretty hard in triple A.

Thank you, John and Robert. He seems like an interesting guy to follow, considering he is only 17. I'm not real educated on the workings of minor league baseball, but is it common for someone to be playing some level of Pro Ball at 17?

They usually play rookie ball or rookie plus at 17. Hernandez is more advanced.

http://www.gordie.ca
Hey guys, sorry to interrupt the conversation. I'm one of the folks who runs www.gordie.ca (officially re-launching January 19th!) We are looking for someone to write a wekly baseball article for our site. (Focusing on Blue Jays or Expos or Canuck ball/players in general.) Sadly the position is unpaid. However, if you are -- or know -- an aspiring journalist/sports writer who wants something else to add to his/her portfolio, please feel free to drop me a line at pete@gordie.ca

Thanks, and now I'll let you get back to your discussion on minor league players.

Pete
Go Rios!

Jordan, I agree with you on both counts (David Bush should probably be in the top 40 or so pitchers, but it is not unreasonable to exclude him). I'll make some of the other side of the argument however.

Bush's age and history work to his advantage, in my opinion. He did not put many innings on his arm while used as a reliever in college, and made a successful transition to the starting role. His risk of encountering arm problems is lower than many young pitching prospects because of this.

Many of Mike Gullo's pitching choices are somewhat idiosyncratic (Mike Hinckley-#52, Matt Riley-#64, Sean Burnett-#68, Merkin Valdez-#78, Manny Parra-#80, Dan Meyer-#89, Dustin Moseley-#99). Their raw numbers, and Robert's analysis, suggest that their performance has not been the equal of Bush's and reports generally have suggested that they do not have overpowering stuff. That said, Mike Gullo may very well have seen these pitchers pitch, and like them more than Bush. I have not seen them, so the only fair comment I can make is that some of his choices are personal.

I would agree that Bush has less injury risk given his age and gradually increasing workload over the years.

Starting from 1999 his innings pitched in college and the minors totalled 40, 61, 74, 95.2, and 158 innings between A+ and AA in 2003. 2004 will be a big test for him as he once again enters a full season as a starter...but he has a solid build and is an efficient pitcher so I think he'll be fine.

Compare this to a guy like Luke Prokopec who went from 42 innings as a 19 year old in 1997 all the way up to 136, 157.2, 149.2 innings in the next three years by age 22. His 1999 innings total is a bit deceptive as he allowed a lot of baserunners that year so the workload was actually more than the innings total suggests. Then in 2001 as he joined LA the injuries started beginning with a blister that prevented him from throwing breaking balls to a complete breakdown in 2002 with the Jays.

The first thing to appreciate is that seeing 40 minor-league games a year is a solid piece of in-person research

Personally, I don't take personal observations too seriously. While 40 games is a lot, he's not going to see more than 90% of the players on that list more than a couple times, and likely not see any pitcher more than once.

In a couple games any bad player can look great and any great player can look bad.

While 40 games is a lot, he's not going to see more than 90% of the
players on that list more than a couple times, and likely not see any
pitcher more than once.

Wow, talk about hyperbolizing!
Actually, assuming a five man rotation, he would see the five starters an average of eight times each and would see their top relievers 12-18 times during that span. Attending 40 games, more than half of a minor league team's home schedule, he would see more than a hundred at bats of all regulars on the team.

Forty games is significantly more than "just a couple" and if an educated baseball fan cannot gage the talent on a team by attending this many of their games, the rest of us haven't got a chance.

Speaking of prospects.... There was a thread here with a link to a sight which examined the performance of players in the year 2002 from various top 40 prospect lists from the start of the same year. He was looking to see what these players had done to their position on the lists; did the player improve, move down the list or remain in the same place. I've looked through the arcives and haven't found it. Anyone know where it might be and if the sight has done a similar study for the 2003 season.

Okay heres a challenge: Who among the Jays prospects will take a giant leap forward, and who is due for a fall? Who will be this years Alex Rios and Jason Arnold? I'll take a shot on the Negron kid moving up the ladder and look for Simon Pond to fall from grace.

Heres a question for the more knowledgable out there; can anyone recall a player like Rios who one year looks like a wasted first round pick and the next year is among the best prospects in baseball? How did those players turn out?
jason.

Ben NS,

But he isn't looking at the prospects of one team only. I understand that he sees about 40 games a year total - which means that he sees 80 starting pitching performances a year. Since there are about 40 pitchers on his list, there's no way he could see more than a handful more than once or twice.