Future Shock Blog

KG - Your lists and content are the main reason I subscribe, I'm really looking forward to them. Maybe a category such as Tools, where you/scouts rate what they are now (ie. the grade you'd give), and what you/scouts expect them to grade out as in the future.

This is part of your never-ending Giants conspiracy, isn't it? ;)

I've always loved everything about the top 11s, but if you're asking, I think a lot of readers would welcome at least a comment on the fantasy desirability of a given prospect. I know that's not your cup of tea, KG, but Marc Normandin needs something to do this winter, no?

KG, that scouting report you published on Shelby Miller? I know it would probably be too much to ask for one from each of the Top 11, but how about one per team. Doesn't have to be the team's top prospect, or most major-league ready one, just one at random or one you feel best about your scouting on.

This is kind of lame, but maybe add some pictures next to the prospects to put a face with the name? Just tossing something out there.

I echo the comments above that your articles are why I subscribe, headlined by the Top 11's. The enhancements you made last year moved the lists from good to great. The only further suggestion I'd have is that under "Timeline" that you take a best guess at MLB ETA.

I, too, would like to see a tools rating for the prospects, then be able to follow the improvement or decline of those ratings year to year as the prospect rises through the ranks. As others have said, this feature is the major reason why I subscribe.

I love the top 11s!!!!

For each hitter, along with current fielding position, how about including your best guess as to the position they would play if he made the major leagues?

"what would you like to see in this year's Top 11 Prospects?"

Only this: a guarantee that the Orioles' young talent will produce an invincible juggernaut that will win the AL East every year from 2012-2020.

How about a few lines about a "Fallen Prospect?" Every team has a Tim Alderson or Fautino de los Santos, but there's few places where we can find out why they're struggling.

Better players on the White Sox list, but that's not really on you.

Accountability.

This is a problem across all scouting reports like these. The ratings are done, we all kvetch about why our fav player is rated so low, and then it's forgotten. Nobody ever checks to see if the rankings were any good or not.

I'd like to see a review of last year's rankings. What was right, what was wrong, etc. Who graduated and how they did, and who flamed out.

That's my main request.

I too would like to see tool rankings, although I understand that would add a huge workload to the process.

Also, I see no reason to give each team 11 prospects. I know that is "fair", but I would much rather see the top prospects (five, four, and three star) prospects from each team regardless of how many that makes. Of course some teams will get more than 11 prospects and some less, but then it becomes obvious who has the deeper farm systems.

A comparison to last year's Top 11. Who fell off and why?

Similarly, I'd also like to see changes in ranking if a guy gets bumped from 4 to 5 stars or 5 to 3 stars. I'd like to know if they did, and why (without having to dig up last year's list). At least some links to previous years' rankings would be nice.

The changes in player rankings aren't always obvious to us (or maybe just to me).

The one thing I'd most like to see is a "report card" on the previous year's Top 11 list. Who graduated to the Show, and also, who was underrated, who tanked, was there someone who was omitted from the list entirely but made good? Some years back, BP did something like this for the top-100 (or maybe it was top-50 ... inflation ...) prospects lists, giving post-season "grades" for the prospects according to whether they had worked out better or worse than expected. It would be nice to see that again.

Incidentally, I note that these grades were missing for the 2001 rookie class. Apparently, with a grading system running from 1 (complete dud) to 7 (reached the majors and exceeded all expectations), the system couldn't figure out how to give Pujols a 12. :-)

Damn the new order!! Phillies phans had to wait forever last year and now we're last again (hopefully).

Would it be possible to give them like a 1-5 or 1-10 on their ceiling?

I think that would be intriguing and also might give a better idea of possible fantasy impact.

I love the under 25 list at the bottom of each Top 11; please don't let that little pot of sugar go. Maybe it could be expanded?

I honestly can't imagine these lists being much better, they are fantastic and a highlight when my team's list comes out (Royals). You might consider two small additions: 1) I'd love to read a system overview for each organization pertaining to draft and development philosophies and success, international scouting, etc.; and 2) I'd love to know about sleeper types in the lower reaches of a system, especially international kids in the DSL, AZL, etc. Not that there's a lot to say, but I think you have insight that might be really interesting.

Again, I can't tell you how much I enjoy these reports!

How about overall organizational grades? Something based on quality, depth, advancement, as well as a chance of immediate Major League Impact and what the impact might be.

It is great to go to the various sites and see players with nice stat lines, but it would be great if they had a little extra meaning or context. The lists are already great and anything you could add would be appreciated. I need something to look forward to as an M's Fan :(.

Like everybody else, this is why I'm a subscriber. Star rankings for #12-15 on each team would be great. On a handful of teams last year, you couldn't tell where the 3 stars ended.

I'd like to see a Giants' Top 11 with four 5 star players, 3 four stars players and some great sleeper picks. Can you make that happen?

current/peak 20-80 scouting scores for the 5 tools would be amazing ... peak triple-slash estimates (and UZR estimates) would also be amazing ... expected year of MLB debut would be cool ... a decent MLB-comp (in your opinion) would be awesome

wait...you don't have anything ELSE to do, do you?

I would also like to see some comments related to the previous year's list. For guys who made the list last year, but didn't this year, what happened? Did they graduate, get injured, stop producing, etc.? For players who were highly rated last year but this year aren't it would be particularly interesting.

Change it to a Under 27 List, to pull in players hitting their peak years.

Kevin,

Your "under 25" lists really have a unique niche in the industry. There are lots of top 100 lists or top 10 in org lists - but they all exclude players with
MLB experience. I'd like to see these guys get a * rating.

Thanks.

Tom A.

I realize this isn't your department, so I'll address this to the larger BP staff: I'd like to see statistical analyses of prospects and then explicit discussions of some of the discrepancies between the qualitative (this is your department, KG) and quantitative predictions. Nate Silver used to do this every year but stats-based prospect projects, while an integral part of PECOTA, seem to have been forgotten here.

This maybe more appropriate for the Top 100 list, but I used to enjoy the back and forth of the old prospect roundtable discussions. Maybe you could have some of the BP crew discuss your list, bring in the stats angle, make fun of each other, etc.

A link to each prospect's MILB.com page would be awesome if you can pull it off.

Honestly, I'd rather see the players rated on an absolute scale, instead of a relative one. Last year, you mentioned that you had to bump some 4 star players up to 5 stars to get to 50. I'd rather that there were as many players listed at 5 stars as you thought warranted the 5 star rating, whether that's 30, 50, or 70.

I love the top 11s, and there's really nothing I would change about them. One request though, I have to imagine you start with a giant spreadsheet with well over 100 names and start whittling down to get to your top 101, could you please post the names of guys who were on the spreadsheet, but missed the top 101?

I love the Top 11, as well as the Four More that were added last year. How about, "Will never be as good as they hoped" for a player that is favored by the organization or its fans but not really that good?

I love the Top 11 and the Four More that's been added to the list. But what I'd like is a more copy-friendly format.

I take all of the top-11s and paste them into Excel where I can then manage all of the lists, sort by organization, position, # of stars, etc. However, the way that it's formatted makes for a good bit of formatting on this end. Any chance that the information could be presented in a nice looking, copy-friendly table?

I'm another subscriber who considers Kevin's coverage the most useful feature of BP and I don't have many complaints about the way he covers the prospect beat. My league holds its minor league draft in June and often the propsect lists are stale by then. Kevin's daily minor league blog really fills that gap.

I just wouldn't want Kevin stretched to the point where his current level of thoroughness is comprimised in these areas:

a) what a player will possibly do in the long run
b) his odds of achieving that
c) his most likely long term abilities
d) - as important as any of these - what he would likely do in the Majors if given a shot in the up coming season.

Important to all of these are the natural abilities and mental make up components. The latter, though at least as important, I can imagine is less concrete and more contentious. So, it would be nice to those components as much as Kevin is permitted to give.

This is regarding the 101, not the top 11, but some kind of indication of where the drop offs are. E.g. the number 5 ranked player may be just a bit more valuable than the number 4 ranked player, but there might be a big drop off between the ranks 11 and 12 or something like that. It would be good to get a sense of the bunches, I guess you'd call them - an indication that its not a perfectly even distribution.

My suggestion is that there be a follow-up on each list mid-season and at the end of the season. How have those 11 plus 4 done, are they looking like better or worse prospects?

Kevin,

Your writing has singlehandedly switched me from being on the fence about renewing my subscription to a definite renew. Anything you are willing to about is fine, as long as there's as much of it as possible.

I hope "upper management" is reading these comments. This is how to run a business - solicit customer input, respond promptly, implement where feasible.

I still remember the fiasco this Spring with Pecota.

Here's my for sure list right now:

1. Tools -- No way can I give you you 20-80 scores for every tool for 330 players. That said, a best tool/worst tool might be good.
2. Fantasy -- Can I get more input here on what you want? Like for a hitter (let's say Desmond Jennings), you'd get: Avg: High Power: Low Stolen Bases: Excellent. Something like that?
3. ETA -- I've always done the path, but I'll try to get more specific as for as years go. Obviously, if I'm doing someone line Heredia, that's a bit of a dart throw.

Another vote here for comps- not for every player obviously, but for a select few.

Nothing I'd like to see changed really but the main reason I subscribe to BP is the rankings, news and articles regarding the prospects. Fantasy wise, you want to be the first owner to grab the next Pujols or King Felix.

I love the "Under 25" list and the star rankings. Allows me to figure out which prospects are the cream of the crop and when they may be playing in the majors.

And I love the "Future Shock" column every Monday and the daily Minor league updates.

All great sources of information.

Keep up the good work!

Regarding the star rankings, refine them by ranking as 5.0, 4.5, 4.0, 3.5 etc. Seems to me that would give you a bit more flexibility in distinguishing between talent levels.

Kevin - Can you link to the previous year's Top 11 for the team that you are covering? This would be nice for comparing your perspectives of players year over year. Thank you.

What about a past projection statement. It always bothers me that a perfect world projection drastically changes for a guy who had a bad year. I f you look at Eric Hosmer's perfect world projection the past two years are drastically different. considering his talent is still the same his perfect world projection should be too. But it is also very interesting to know whether a guy used to be a top prospect or never was a top prospect.

I'd like to know what people think of this?

I didn't see this above, so here's my $.02: How about giving people the option to view the players from lowest to highest ranking, instead of just highest to lowest? Frequently when I read the prospect lists, I find myself wishing that I could have been held in suspense as to who the #1 prospect in an org was.