2014 Top 100 lists: A Table!

[Snodgrass'Muff]

When the big sites like BA and BP publish their lists we'll have individual threads for them like usual and discussion about those particular lists will happen there.  We might even have threads for Fangraphs and Sickels and a few others.  This year, however, is one which we expect will be a big one for the Red Sox and I thought it would be fun to keep a tally going of how they do in each list and how they are doing versus the rest of MLB*.  So as lists gets published, I'll bump this thread and update the table below.  We can also use this as discussion for lists that aren't big enough to warrant their own threads.
 

 

 

 
The first list I've found published is from The Baseball Haven.  If you see a list out there that isn't in this table, just link it and I'll update the thread when I have a chance.
 
The Babseball Haven has the Sox with 8 top 100 prospects.
 
3. Xander Bogearts
36. Garin Cecchini
41. Jackie Bradley
52. Henry Owens
68. Blake Swihart
79. Matt Barnes
86. Anthony Ranaudo
93. Trey Ball
 
The second list out is from mlb.com  MLB had 9 Red Sox prospects in the top 100.
 
2. Xander Bogaerts
30. Henry Owens
33. Jackie Bradley
46. Allen Webster
57. Garin Cecchini
61. Blake Swihart
62. Mookie Betts
86. Matt Barnes
96. Trey Ball
 
*I'm doing this with the acknowledgement that the total number of top 100 prospects is not the best way to measure farm systems against each other and that while the Red Sox may end up with the most top 100 prospects of any team, they will very likely not be the top farm system in baseball this winter.  I will also keep a total of top 10, top 25, top 50, top 75 and top 100 as the lists come in.  No, not all lists are equal, but this should give us a rough idea of how the teams break down.
 
I'm also doing a very simple scoring system.  5 points for every top 10, 4 for 11-25, 3 for 26-50, 2 for 51-75 and 1 for 76-100.  It's not meant to be anything more than a method of giving us a rough order for where the farm systems fall relative to each other.  If someone wants to suggest a more sophisticated way to track this, I'm all ears.
 
And I've posted two tables to keep the more official lists like BA and BP separated from smaller sites like the BB Haven list above.  It's all just for fun in the end, but having an idea of where the Sox fall based on what the big guys think versus what a much larger pool of sites thinks is at least moderately interesting.  I'll probably do an average of the system rankings when they come out as well.

 

[Brianish]

This is going to be a fun thread. 

 

[BucketOBalls]

So the Sox basically  lose 5pts for next year as Xander is a lock to not be on farm then. My takeaway would be the Sox farm is in good shape, even if the exact ordinal position is debatable.

 

[CaskNFappin]

By this measure....Tampas reign of terror might be grinding to a halt. Of course a Price deal will change that.

 

[Merkle's Boner]

As a side note, it will be interesting to see how many different players get included in at least one list.  Baseball Haven had Barnes and Ranaudo.  I feel confident that Webster and Workman at the very least will appear somewhere.  Just speaks again to the depth.  Might Vazquez sneak on to someone's list?

 

[Hendu Candu]

Don't forget Mookie. Guaranteed he'll be on the Baseball America list.

 

[Carmine]

I would like to see this aggregate include only reputable sources whom haven't stolen information from others. I had no idea what The Baseball Haven was, but I found that it's a middle-aged man that runs a free fan-blog. And that's cool, but I highly doubt he's making any phone calls. I'd vote to stick to the usual suspects that compile their own data — BA, BP, Mayo & Callis, Sickels — otherwise the numbers are skewed.

 

[Snodgrass'Muff]

I can do two aggregate tables.  One will have the usual suspects, the other will include anything we can find.  It doesn't take long to kick these out so it's not really much more work.

 

[Tyrone Biggums]

Did Webster graduate? I would think he's somewhere on the top 100. Correct?

 

[Snodgrass'Muff]

It'll probably depend on the list.  He struggled at the major league level last year and didn't take any real steps forward in Pawtucket.  As for his rookie status, he pitched 30 and 1/3 innings which is well short of the 50 it takes to exhaust rookie eligibility, but I'm not sure how many days he spent on the 25 man roster.  If he reached 45 before September 1st, he'd also lose that eligibility.  A quick look at his game logs and his Wikipedia page leads me to believe he was only up for between 20 and 24 days depending on whether the day he was optioned counts toward the total or not.
 
Webster's ceiling is as high as any pitcher in the system, but it's tough to argue that last year was anything better than standing pat.  I'm guessing he'll crack a few lists, and miss a few others.  Of course, BA had him ranked 4th in the system (they still love the upside), so I'm guessing he makes that list.  Last year Fangraphs had Webster at 55 on their top 100 but by mid season had moved both Owens and Ranaudo ahead of him and into their top 50, so I'm guessing if he makes that list, he'll be in the back half of it.

 

[evanmatthewvogel]

I would like to see this aggregate include only reputable sources whom haven't stolen information from others. I had no idea what The Baseball Haven was, but I found that it's a middle-aged man that runs a free fan-blog. And that's cool, but I highly doubt he's making any phone calls. I'd vote to stick to the usual suspects that compile their own data — BA, BP, Mayo & Callis, Sickels — otherwise the numbers are skewed.

With all due respect...I'm only 33 years old and I didn't seek out for my article to be included in any data compilation by this site. I do appreciate the fact that you guys found it and that someone thought highly enough of it, even temporarily, to include it in this research. While I'm not a scout (due to my work as a teacher/father/husband), I read a lot of reports from the pros and watch a lot of games. When a team will sponsor me for scout school, I'll go, but in the meantime, I'll hope that 33 isn't middle aged and that writing for fun continues to be just that. Keep up the good work here, guys. 

 

[Tyrone Biggums]

It'll probably depend on the list.  He struggled at the major league level last year and didn't take any real steps forward in Pawtucket.  As for his rookie status, he pitched 30 and 1/3 innings which is well short of the 50 it takes to exhaust rookie eligibility, but I'm not sure how many days he spent on the 25 man roster.  If he reached 45 before September 1st, he'd also lose that eligibility.  A quick look at his game logs and his Wikipedia page leads me to believe he was only up for between 20 and 24 days depending on whether the day he was optioned counts toward the total or not.
 
Webster's ceiling is as high as any pitcher in the system, but it's tough to argue that last year was anything better than standing pat.  I'm guessing he'll crack a few lists, and miss a few others.  Of course, BA had him ranked 4th in the system (they still love the upside), so I'm guessing he makes that list.  Last year Fangraphs had Webster at 55 on their top 100 but by mid season had moved both Owens and Ranaudo ahead of him and into their top 50, so I'm guessing if he makes that list, he'll be in the back half of it.

 
Two things I feel that we should consider with Webster. First from what I remember didn't Webster start pitching later in his development? I know he's been pitching since he went pro but wasn't he primarily an infielder in HS? If I'm wrong on that statement please strike it. The 2nd thing that I'm not wrong on is that the only thing really holding this guy back is control. He could be another Buchholz if he just can harness his stuff. With the exception of 2010 he has spent multiple years at each level. Maybe the control issues have something to do with being familiar with the league? Probably not but I just found it interesting. What I like about Webster is that his ceiling is of a front end starter which is something this organization hasn't had on the farm in a long time. They just need to find a way to harness his control. I don't see why he wouldn't be around 75-90 on most lists. 

 

[Merkle's Boner]

 
Two things I feel that we should consider with Webster. First from what I remember didn't Webster start pitching later in his development? I know he's been pitching since he went pro but wasn't he primarily an infielder in HS? If I'm wrong on that statement please strike it. The 2nd thing that I'm not wrong on is that the only thing really holding this guy back is control. He could be another Buchholz if he just can harness his stuff. With the exception of 2010 he has spent multiple years at each level. Maybe the control issues have something to do with being familiar with the league? Probably not but I just found it interesting. What I like about Webster is that his ceiling is of a front end starter which is something this organization hasn't had on the farm in a long time. They just need to find a way to harness his control. I don't see why he wouldn't be around 75-90 on most lists. 

If he truly has the potential to be a front-end starter, he should be higher than 75-90.  I'm not saying your wrong, because I agree he has that type of ceiling.  I think the scouts seem to like Owens more, and many like Barnes and Ranaudo more.  While none of them are can't miss David Price, Stephen Strasburg types, they all should have productive ML careers. Of course, TINSTAAPP.

 

[Snodgrass'Muff]

The problem with saying "he just needs to learn control" is that it's so far from a given that a pitcher will develop control.  It's not the same as saying "he just needs to learn command."  Command issues mean he can hit the strike zone but has trouble hitting his spots while throwing strikes (watered down description).  Control problems usually mean he has trouble throwing strikes.  Webster has had trouble throwing strikes and that's not something that tends to develop later in a career.  I think 2014 will be a make or break season for him.  If he doesn't start throwing strikes by September, I'm not sure he's likely to ever start doing so.  He's only 24 this year, but that's not young for a prospect.
 
Of course, the late start may mean usual time tables are a bit off, but it's hard to feel confident that he'll be able to fix that particular flaw in his game if he's not making progress by the end of the year.

 

[Savin Hillbilly]

Webster has had trouble throwing strikes and that's not something that tends to develop later in a career.

 
"Later in a career"?? Dude is 23 and has just over 600 total professional innings under his belt.
 
Anyway, I think your premise is flawed. There are lots of examples of guys starting out their career with high walk rates and bringing them down in their mid-20s or later. Randy Johnson, Schilling, Koufax, Halladay, just to name the first four that came to mind. When Halladay was Webster's age he had over 200 major league innings under his belt and a BB/9 of 4.8. It's not at all an uncommon thing for pitchers with really good stuff to take a long time to develop consistent control.

 

[Snodgrass'Muff]

Sure there are examples of pitchers straightening it out later in their career.  Jon Lester is another much closer to home.  I wasn't arguing that he can't find success as a major league starter.  I was simply taking umbrage with the statement "What I like about Webster is that his ceiling is of a front end starter which is something this organization hasn't had on the farm in a long time. They just need to find a way to harness his control. I don't see why he wouldn't be around 75-90 on most lists."
 
More often than not, pitchers who don't throw strikes in the minors don't learn to throw strikes in the majors.  If he doesn't fix this problem, he's probably going to be a reliever long term.  He could still be a very good reliever as high strike out rate, high walk rate relievers have great seasons all the time, but in the context of discussing him as a possible ace, that's a very big hurdle to clear and there's a good chance he won't clear it.
 
For whatever it's worth, I think he'll land in the 75-100 range on most lists.  I just won't be shocked if he misses one or two all together.

 

[LostinNJ]

With all due respect...I'm only 33 years old and I didn't seek out for my article to be included in any data compilation by this site. I do appreciate the fact that you guys found it and that someone thought highly enough of it, even temporarily, to include it in this research. While I'm not a scout (due to my work as a teacher/father/husband), I read a lot of reports from the pros and watch a lot of games. When a team will sponsor me for scout school, I'll go, but in the meantime, I'll hope that 33 isn't middle aged and that writing for fun continues to be just that. Keep up the good work here, guys. 

Evan, it's great you posted your list and got out there ahead of everyone else. You wouldn't happen to be a Yankees fan, would you? Four in the top 100 seems like a lot from that system. Baseball America doesn't list Austin in the Yankees' top 10, or DePaula.

 

[evanmatthewvogel]

Evan, it's great you posted your list and got out there ahead of everyone else. You wouldn't happen to be a Yankees fan, would you? Four in the top 100 seems like a lot from that system. Baseball America doesn't list Austin in the Yankees' top 10, or DePaula.

Not a Yankees fan, just higher on those guys than others. Austin had injury issues and DePaula isn't a reliever until they pull him from a minor league rotation. Sanchez is a headcase, but he has some gifts. I think Williams had a lot of personal issues (DUI) that led to a decline, but he is a gifted athlete. I understand that I have some guys on here that don't fit the mold of the major sites, but I'm not a scout and I'm not a major site. You'll see a lot of different names from 30-100 on all of the sites once they are released. It is more of a "who do you like most" ranking and, to be honest, the fact that Austin, Williams, and DePaula are ranked 82, 83, and 96, they are just as likely to "hit" as anyone else around them. 
Not a Yankees fan, just love the game, but I grew up in Cincinnati and, if I am a fan of any team, it is the Reds. 

 

[pokey_reese]

Evan, it's great you posted your list and got out there ahead of everyone else. You wouldn't happen to be a Yankees fan, would you? Four in the top 100 seems like a lot from that system. Baseball America doesn't list Austin in the Yankees' top 10, or DePaula.

FWIW, BP has Austin at #5 on their Yankees list, one spot AHEAD of Williams in their top-10.  When you are looking at tools guys before AAA and "stuff" pitchers who might end up as relievers, there can be a lot of variability in the rankings.

 

[soxhop411]

Jason Parks ‏@ProfessorParks9h
Looks like the #Twins will place eight prospects on the BP 101; #Cubs, #Royals, #Pirates and #Rangers with seven; #RedSox with six.

 

[ji oh]

http://ht.ly/s9XSh Jim Callis points out that 5 Sox from the 2011 draft will be on his mlbpipeline top 100
"Because very few players from the 2010-13 Drafts have made an impact in the Major Leagues at this point, it was too early for any of them to crack my Top 5. But I won’t be surprised if the Red Sox’ 2011 effort eventually muscles it way onto the list. Their first four picks — RHP Matt Barnes (first round), C Blake Swihart (first), LHP Henry Owens (supplemental first), OF Jackie Bradley (supplemental first) — all will make our soon-to-be-released Top 100 Prospects list, as will 2B Mookie Betts (fifth)."

 

[JakeRae]

 
Jason Parks ‏@ProfessorParks9h
Looks like the #Twins will place eight prospects on the BP 101; #Cubs, #Royals, #Pirates and #Rangers with seven; #RedSox with six.
 

 

http://ht.ly/s9XSh Jim Callis points out that 5 Sox from the 2011 draft will be on his mlbpipeline top 100
"Because very few players from the 2010-13 Drafts have made an impact in the Major Leagues at this point, it was too early for any of them to crack my Top 5. But I won’t be surprised if the Red Sox’ 2011 effort eventually muscles it way onto the list. Their first four picks — RHP Matt Barnes (first round), C Blake Swihart (first), LHP Henry Owens (supplemental first), OF Jackie Bradley (supplemental first) — all will make our soon-to-be-released Top 100 Prospects list, as will 2B Mookie Betts (fifth)."

 
If Betts makes the list but only six Red Sox prospects do, the BA rankings will have an internal consistency problem considering that Betts is ranked 7th in the system.

 

[judyb]

Neither of those is BA, Parks is BP, Callis is on mlb.com now.

 

[soxhop411]

wrong thread

 

[JakeRae]

Neither of those is BA, Parks is BP, Callis is on mlb.com now.

 
I misread the Parks quote. Didn't realize that Callis had moved. My previous comments obviously are worthless given that.

 

[OCD SS]

 
I misread the Parks quote. Didn't realize that Callis had moved. My previous comments obviously are worthless given that.

 
Actually, no. BA's rankings are not internally consistent. Speir has taken over the Sox list from Callis, but he still writes and ranks that list himself. Their top 100 is a combination of 6 different writers input, so it is possible for prospects to be higher on one list than the other.

 

[Snodgrass'Muff]

The tables are updated to include MLB.com and I added a "Big Sites" table which will feature MLB, Fangraphs, BP, BA and Sickels.  If anyone has suggestions for other sites that should be included, I'm all ears.

 

[5050HindSight]

Here is BP from the annual...
 
2. Xander Bogearts
23. Jackie Bradley
51. Garin Cecchini
64. Matt Barnes
69. Henry Owens
73. Blake Swihart

 

[pokey_reese]

Fangraphs just put their list out, 7 Sox made it:
 
2. Bogaerts
35. Bradley
51. Cecchini
59. Betts
66. Swihart
72. Owens
98. Barnes

 

[Snodgrass'Muff]

I should be able to update this over the weekend. Crazy busy at work right now.

 

[Nomo's NoNo]

Baseball America with their list.  http://www.baseballamerica.com/minors/2014-baseball-america-top-100-prospects-free/
 
Bogaerts #2
Owens    #40
Bradley  #50
Swihart  #73
Cecchini #74
Mookie   #75
Webster #88
Trey Ball #89