Sign in to follow this  
eaterfan

Fangraphs top "100" prospects for 2019

23 posts in this topic

https://blogs.fangraphs.com/2019-top-100-prospects/

Fangraphs does things a bit differently. They include anyone who has a 50+ future value. This means they made a top 130 list.

Aside from that, this is the most unique ranking of Angels players I've seen. 

11 Jo Adell LAA 19.8 AA RF 2021 60
79 Jose Suarez LAA 21.1 AAA LHP 2019 50
91 Brandon Marsh LAA 21.2 A+ CF 2020 50
101 Griffin Canning LAA 22.8 AAA RHP 2019 50
128 Jahmai Jones LAA 21.5 AA 2B 2021 50

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
51 minutes ago, Vlad27Trout27 said:

Yeah their really low on Canning, believe him to be a 4. I'll call Bs on this a 60 Fb with 60 curve with 2-above average to maybe one extra 60 pitch is not 4. 

 image.png.2bc1de941a252c4719e8b116640801db.png

I think Fangraphs is way off here on their Canning take. But I think they focus more on advanced stats than actual scouting. 

From a more respected website on amateurs & prospects on Canning:

"The Angels slow played Canning in 2017, keeping him in Arizona to work on strength and conditioning after he threw 119 innings as UCLA junior. He took the mound as a pro in 2018 and skyrocketed, rising three levels from high Class A to Triple-A. Limber and athletic, wiry and strong, Canning generates tremendous arm speed and torque out of his thin frame. His four-pitch mix includes a four-seam fastball that now averages 94-95 mph and touches 98, up from 90-94 in college. He has two above-average secondary pitches, an 85-87 mph slider that runs down and away from righthanded batters and an 80-82 curveball with 11-to-5 shape. His changeup is rarely used but flashes average and is improving. Canning has a mental edge to rival his stuff. He is fearless on the mound and seems to dial up his velocity and command in big spots. Canning shook off reports of “potential issues” in a pre-draft MRI by showing durability under a 113-inning workload. His size and stuff draw frequent comparisons with fellow UCLA product and Indians righthander Trevor Bauer. He is on track to reach the big leagues in 2019 and settle in as a mid-rotation starter."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Canning and Suarez will be interesting to watch this year. Either could seriously transcend into legit #2-#3 potential and establish themselves as top prospects and long-term pieces, but there's still sufficient reason to believe they could 'flop' and remain #4-#5 guys for their career. 

Big year for Marsh and Jones too. They could become bigtime Top 50 guys with a strong year, or they could grade out as decent major leaguers. 

Couple those with all the wild cards we have across the lower levels who could explode onto the scene and it'll be a real fun year on the farm.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the common theme is that we have about 5 prospects in the top 150.  Slice and dice your rankings any way you'd like but that's pretty good.  

I do think they missed the mark on Canning though.  His stuff plays to a #2 starter.  It will be his command/control that determines whether he ends up there.  

Fangraphs tends to emphasize players at higher levels with a track record which I am generally ok with.  Although they sure went all in on Wander Franco.  

Reading between the lines though, they are also very high on Adell considering he's the 3rd youngest in the top 40.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah that looks... odd.  Adell not in top 10 and the 2 pitchers swapped.  

A few other observations...
Hou with 2 in the top 10 and 6 in top 100, ouch.  5 pitchers and an outfielder all AA or higher.  one more at 125.  They clearly love them some Astros. 
TB 8 in top 100, 2 more in top 125, most at lower levels. 
CHW 5 in top 100, mixed levels.
MIN only 4 all lower levels.
SDP 8 in top 100, 5 more between 100-125, mixed levels.  The darling of the class :)  

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Chuckster70 said:

I think Fangraphs is way off here on their Canning take. But I think they focus more on advanced stats than actual scouting. 

I also agree that Canning will be better than Fangraphs says, but this isn't quite right. If you read their descriptions they are very much focused on actual scouting. In fact, lots of observations that I haven't read here or elsewhere (e.g. Jahmai's bat tweaks last year).

They also said in the chat that they just love Suarez, although also project him to be a #4. I think they're just being conservative on both, that Canning will be a #2 and Suarez and #3.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, Angelsjunky said:

I also agree that Canning will be better than Fangraphs says, but this isn't quite right. If you read their descriptions they are very much focused on actual scouting. In fact, lots of observations that I haven't read here or elsewhere (e.g. Jahmai's bat tweaks last year).

They also said in the chat that they just love Suarez, although also project him to be a #4. I think they're just being conservative on both, that Canning will be a #2 and Suarez and #3.

Also, it's important to understand their system. It's not a straight number of spots and will a pitcher be one of the top x number of guys, ie. if he's a top 30 pitcher in the league then he's a #1 starter or 31-60 then he's a number 2. They have said a #1 for them is an ace and there are maybe 6-8 pitchers who fit that description each year.

Finally, over the last 2 years they have been a lot more conservative on pitchers because of the high bust rate and the high injury rate. I think they both see the ceiling of Canning and Suarez to be a #2 starter, heck, maybe higher in some years, but very few pitchers reach their "scouting" ceiling compared to position players with the same relative "ceiling".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
56 minutes ago, Angelsjunky said:

I also agree that Canning will be better than Fangraphs says, but this isn't quite right. If you read their descriptions they are very much focused on actual scouting. In fact, lots of observations that I haven't read here or elsewhere (e.g. Jahmai's bat tweaks last year).

They also said in the chat that they just love Suarez, although also project him to be a #4. I think they're just being conservative on both, that Canning will be a #2 and Suarez and #3.

@Angelsjunky, what I meant by that is actual scouting, not just watching videos. I know FG's has come a long way over the past two years, but they don't have the type of contacts and scouts they're in communication with on prospects like Baseball America does. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In addition to the Canning/Suarez ranking, I'm also surprised they ranked Vidal Brujan as high as they did but omitted Luis Rengifo. Both are very similar players, second baseman. 

Rengifo jumped three levels, including reaching AAA and performing well there before the season ended. Both guys are 21 years old. 

Screen Shot 2019-02-13 at 11.57.46 AM.png

Screen Shot 2019-02-13 at 11.58.23 AM.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, HaloNArizona said:

Reading stuff like this....you have to look at 2020 and smile...from a pitching prospective:

Ohtani, Heaney, Skaggs, Canning Suarez, Barria

This is a pretty nice six man rotation.

 

Yep. With the exception of Heaney all homegrown talent. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, eaterfan said:

Also, it's important to understand their system. It's not a straight number of spots and will a pitcher be one of the top x number of guys, ie. if he's a top 30 pitcher in the league then he's a #1 starter or 31-60 then he's a number 2. They have said a #1 for them is an ace and there are maybe 6-8 pitchers who fit that description each year.

Finally, over the last 2 years they have been a lot more conservative on pitchers because of the high bust rate and the high injury rate. I think they both see the ceiling of Canning and Suarez to be a #2 starter, heck, maybe higher in some years, but very few pitchers reach their "scouting" ceiling compared to position players with the same relative "ceiling".

Yes, agreed - well put. I also agree with the idea that there are only about half a dozen true #1s; there are #2s that have occasional ace-level seasons, but in terms of pitchers that, year in and year out, are Cy Young candidates, there aren't many.

Greinke would be a classic "tweener": a pitcher who has the occasional #1 season, but whose base level is as a #2. Corbin might fit that mold.

EDIT: A bit more...

The only pitchers that I would call "true #1s" right now are deGrom, Scherzer, Sale, Kluber, and Verlander. 

Pitchers on the cusp: Severino (needs another year like 2017-18), Carrasco (ditto), Cole (repeat 2018), Bauer (ditto), Nola, Corbin. Strasburg and Syndergaard need to re-establish health and higher previous levels.

Kershaw has fallen to #2 territory. I'd also count pitchers like Paxton, Greinke, Snell as #2s. A bunch of others, too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wouldn't worry much over rankings; the tools for Canning are consistent across all the respected publications so it really comes down to people weighing judgments over ceilings vs floors or talent vs durability. The Fangraphs guys are good and they say Canning's FV tools are all 50 and up; that's not out of synch with anyone else.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, eaterfan said:

Also, it's important to understand their system. It's not a straight number of spots and will a pitcher be one of the top x number of guys, ie. if he's a top 30 pitcher in the league then he's a #1 starter or 31-60 then he's a number 2. They have said a #1 for them is an ace and there are maybe 6-8 pitchers who fit that description each year.

Finally, over the last 2 years they have been a lot more conservative on pitchers because of the high bust rate and the high injury rate. I think they both see the ceiling of Canning and Suarez to be a #2 starter, heck, maybe higher in some years, but very few pitchers reach their "scouting" ceiling compared to position players with the same relative "ceiling".

This is where I am too..   

Basically the way they do it, a 50 grade is essentially a 50 grade, so a guy ranked 70 and a guy ranked 90 both at 50 isn't as big as the disparity in the rankings would make you believe.   As far as why Suarez over Canning -- to me that's more about old school scouting than anything else.  Hard throwing lefties are rarer birds -- if you have two guys with similar top ends, but one of them is a lefty then he's likely going to get more pub and viewed more positively, even if performance wise he might be a bit behind.

FG's system like everyone else has it's built in biases, and like every other system -- a team just wants to get as many guys in there as possible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Chuckster70 said:

In addition to the Canning/Suarez ranking, I'm also surprised they ranked Vidal Brujan as high as they did but omitted Luis Rengifo. Both are very similar players, second baseman. 

Rengifo jumped three levels, including reaching AAA and performing well there before the season ended. Both guys are 21 years old. 

Screen Shot 2019-02-13 at 11.57.46 AM.png

Screen Shot 2019-02-13 at 11.58.23 AM.png

I think this is just a case of one guy having a longer, more established track record...   Them not jumping on the Rengifo train may just be as simple as them being aware that career seasons can happen in the minors too.     You look at those two sets of numbers and the other dude is statistically the better bet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, jessecrall said:

I wouldn't worry much over rankings; the tools for Canning are consistent across all the respected publications so it really comes down to people weighing judgments over ceilings vs floors or talent vs durability. The Fangraphs guys are good and they say Canning's FV tools are all 50 and up; that's not out of synch with anyone else.

The thing I like most about Canning that IMO they aren't really giving enough credit to him for is Canning legit having four pitches all of which play up.    There will be days when one of his offerings isn't playing well and when that happens he's got more to go to than the average pitcher.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, Inside Pitch said:

The thing I like most about Canning that IMO they aren't really giving enough credit to him for is Canning legit having four pitches all of which play up.    There will be days when one of his offerings isn't playing well and when that happens he's got more to go to than the average pitcher.

I think there's an easy explanation for Canning. Folks either see his quick dominance in '18 and his multi-pitch arsenal and they fall into two different camps; one pegs him as having far more upside than was anticipated, and see him as having that #2 potential, like a Trevor Bauer, and another could see him as simply being really advanced for his age but already near his ceiling without much more to learn in the minors - that of a good #3-#4 starter. Think Mike Leake. At that point it's just a matter of how that outlet values either outcome. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, Chuckster70 said:

Yep. With the exception of Heaney all homegrown talent. 

I know the point youre making Chuck but not sure we can really count Ohtani as homegrown talent 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, Inside Pitch said:

The thing I like most about Canning that IMO they aren't really giving enough credit to him for is Canning legit having four pitches all of which play up.    There will be days when one of his offerings isn't playing well and when that happens he's got more to go to than the average pitcher.

 

5 hours ago, totdprods said:

I think there's an easy explanation for Canning. Folks either see his quick dominance in '18 and his multi-pitch arsenal and they fall into two different camps; one pegs him as having far more upside than was anticipated, and see him as having that #2 potential, like a Trevor Bauer, and another could see him as simply being really advanced for his age but already near his ceiling without much more to learn in the minors - that of a good #3-#4 starter. Think Mike Leake. At that point it's just a matter of how that outlet values either outcome. 

@Inside Pitch's remark is why I think he'll be more on the Bauer side: he's going to be more than the sum of his parts.

I don't have the book with me, but in the 2000 edition of Bill James' Historical Abstract, when Pedro Martinez was at his best and arguably the best pitcher in the history of the game, James remarked that none of Pedro's pitches were the best in the league, but he had side a wide and diverse arsenal of very good or better pitches that the sum was more than that of the parts.

I think Canning might be similar, but on a much lesser scale. He might have the stuff of a #3-4, but I think it will add up to being more like a #2.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • AngelsWin.com Ad-free Membership Options