NSBB Prospect Rankings

[jersey cubs fan]

So, Rizzo's middle-of-the-road comp is a middle-of-the-road 1B?

 

Who touched middle of the road for like a 2-year window of his career.

[toonsterwu]

Again ... I said a middle of the road/middle tier comp, and I also said I expected Rizzo to be better than that. I just don't know why this comp seems so odd for people. Would it be disappointing? Sure ... but is it unrealistic?

 

Okay, what the hell is a middle of the road comp then? Sounds to me like "most likely". Nobody is talking about locks. Rizzo could end up worse than LaRoche, that would really suck.

 

LaRoche has not been a very productive 1B and if Rizzo became him it would be very disappointing, so why are people trying to sugarcoat LaRoche's career?

 

You still really don't address, though, why this is a bad comp. What you address is whether or not this would be a disappointment, which I've already acknowledged.

 

Are you

 

a) Suggesting this is a bad comp because you think Rizzo is a superior offensive player? If so, then tell me where I'm wrong in suggesting that his .268/.339/.480 career line is probably a good low end guess for Rizzo.

 

b) Suggesting that he is that much superior to LaRoche defensively? Again, I don't know what to make of the early year LaRoche UZR scores, but he's been considered a consistently above average defensive first baseman.

 

You are right, using middle of the road sounds vague, and I apologize. I was in the midst of preparing my presentation tomorrow and was trying to organize my briefs for New York, and I typed the first thing that came to mind. I think what I wanted to say is that it would (and this may make it ... less clear, for all I know) be a decent median comparison, on the low end (keep in mind, from the first post, I said I expected him to be better than LaRoche).

 

So ... what is it about this comparison that you find so objectionable (and I would add one more - compare LaRoche's early swings to Rizzo's ... it's not exactly the same, but both have some length and loop to them)? Do you think Rizzo is going to hit for a higher average/has a better hit tool? Do you think he's going to strike out less? Do you think he's going to walk more? Do you think he's going to hit for more power? Do you think he is going to be that superb of a defensive player? Again ... what makes saying this as a low end median comparison that horrible?

 

I haven't attempted to sugarcoat LaRoche's career. I simply took LaRoche's major league numbers and asked KyleJRM what it was that made him find the comparison so odd, and I'm asking the same thing here. And yet, outside of WAR, no one has been able to provide a good response as to why the numbers LaRoche has put up in his career is that flawed of a comparison point for what expectations for a low-end median guess on Rizzo should be.

So ... reiterating .... what is it? Is he going to hit for a better average? More power? Have significantly better discipline? Be that significantly better defensively? Is Rizzo going to be significantly better than a 110 wRC+ guy and a .348 wOBA guy?

 

You take away 2011 (he was banged up), and from 2006-2010, LaRoche is a slightly below average first baseman (if that's sugarcoating, then I apologize). So, I basically argued that what, Rizzo might be average (since I said I expect him to be better)? (and LaRoche is well on his way to his 4th average-ish WAR number for his career this year, if we use a mid 2 WAR value as average-ish). Again ... from a WAR perspective, what's so awful about that for a comparison? I think the 2005 fangraphs WAR is something I disagree with because that UZR is so out of whack with his reputation and UZR numbers thereafter, but I'll leave 2005 out of this discussion.

 

Or is this, as I suspect, simply a discussion on whether or not this would be a disappointing outcome, as I already stipulated that it would be.

 

Edit: Okay, re-reading this thread, and I see that you are only talking about how it would be a disappointment, and it was only KyleJRM that found this comparison odd. My apologies.

[Outshined_One]

So, assuming he signs, where's everyone slotting Almora?

 

I'd put him behind Rizzo and somewhere in the mix with Baez and Jackson for the 2-4 slots.

[Guest]

So, assuming he signs, where's everyone slotting Almora?

 

I'd put him behind Rizzo and somewhere in the mix with Baez and Jackson for the 2-4 slots.

Rizzo

Baez

Almora

 

Baez getting really good reviews at SS give him the edge for me.

[Cubswin11]

So, assuming he signs, where's everyone slotting Almora?

 

I'd put him behind Rizzo and somewhere in the mix with Baez and Jackson for the 2-4 slots.

Rizzo

Baez

Almora

 

Baez getting really good reviews at SS give him the edge for me.

Agreed. Baez gets the edge for me since it seems, at least lately, he has a chance to stick at SS and his bat could be extremely valuable if he can stick there. I think Baez and Almora could have higher ceilings in the majors than Rizzo, however. But until Baez/Almora can do what Rizzo has in the minors (Baez appears on track to do what Rizzo is doing/has done) Rizzo is going to remain #1 for me.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

Rizzo

Almora

Baez (just not quite as in love with him as others. Highest upside of any of the four.)

Jackson (still very, very concerned about the K rate)

[Vanilla Ice]

Rizzo

Almora

Baez (just not quite as in love with him as others. Highest upside of any of the four.)

Jackson (still very, very concerned about the K rate)

 

Rizzo

Baez

Almora

Jackson

 

Baez and Almora were probably comparable picks at the respective times, but the early reports on Baez's D are positive enough for me to push him slightly ahead.

[Guest]

For me:

 

Rizzo

Almora

Baez

Jackson

[rawaction]

I got Baez over Almora. Baez looks to be a little bigger, a little stronger, looks to have the build to stay bigger and stronger than Almora to me, and has performed in full season ball.

[Guest]

A big part of it is the information gap between the two, but I'm inclined to put Baez number 1 right now.

 

Baez

Rizzo

Almora

Jackson

[Cubswin11]

Where would you guys rank Johnson and Blackburn? Could either be considered our top pitching prospect ahead of Wells, Maples or McNutt? Anyone view either of them as top 10 guys (maybe somewhere 7-10?) or are the more top 15-20 guys?

 

I know after our top 4, can make an argument for after top 6 with Vitters and Szcur, it gets a little convoluted.

[Guest]

A big part of it is the information gap between the two, but I'm inclined to put Baez number 1 right now.

 

Baez

Rizzo

Almora

Jackson

If Baez were making more consistent contact, I'd put him #1. Best tools in the system, IMO.

[rawaction]

A big part of it is the information gap between the two, but I'm inclined to put Baez number 1 right now.

 

Baez

Rizzo

Almora

Jackson

If Baez were making more consistent contact, I'd put him #1. Best tools in the system, IMO.

 

It's hard to ignore Rizzo's amazing numbers in AAA. But if you consider him to be more toward the LaRoche than Votto in the majors, it's very reasonable to put Baez at #1. Plus, Rizzo isn't really "toolsy" at all, which is typical for 1B. His success will be greatly tied to his ability to hit for power.

[Guest]

A big part of it is the information gap between the two, but I'm inclined to put Baez number 1 right now.

 

Baez

Rizzo

Almora

Jackson

If Baez were making more consistent contact, I'd put him #1. Best tools in the system, IMO.

 

It's hard to ignore Rizzo's amazing numbers in AAA. But if you consider him to be more toward the LaRoche than Votto in the majors, it's very reasonable to put Baez at #1. Plus, Rizzo isn't really "toolsy" at all, which is typical for 1B. His success will be greatly tied to his ability to hit for power.

I honestly believe closer to Votto than LaRoche at this point. I could back that up with performance reasons, but I'll steer the conversation a different way.

 

One thing we're going to have to get used to is the seeming emphasis of this regime on makeup. That's a big part of the reason they love Rizzo so much. After seeing everything on draft day, I'm also convinced it is a big reason why they are so high on Almora.

 

There are a lot of guys who have great ability or tools. Few actually get the most out of them. The reasons wny players don't reach that peak is often mental. Those reasons are varied - it could be an attraction to partying, not putting in the required work to reach the next level, fragile confidence, or numerous other factors.

 

If they feel like they've figured something out in reading which players are going to have the best chance of attaining their ceilings due to their makeup, that would be one hell of an advantage. Not sure I buy that they have figured that out yet, but I sure hope it is the case.

[rawaction]

Where would you guys rank Johnson and Blackburn? Could either be considered our top pitching prospect ahead of Wells, Maples or McNutt? Anyone view either of them as top 10 guys (maybe somewhere 7-10?) or are the more top 15-20 guys?

 

I know after our top 4, can make an argument for after top 6 with Vitters and Szcur, it gets a little convoluted.

 

I think all those guys have to be lumped together at this point, maybe even giving the edge to the 2 guys just drafted. Wells has been on and off the mound all season. Maples still hasn't pitched yet and McNutt has forgotten how to miss bats.

 

I think all 5 are clearly behind the top 6 hitters (Rizzo, Jackson, Baez, Almora, Szczur, Lake) in the system. And if Castillo still counts, behind him too. I'd probably slot a few of them ahead of Vitters, but I think McNutt has really fallen off the last year and a half.

[davell]

I'd put Almora 2nd, behind Rizzo. I'd go ahead and slot Johnson in as our top pitching prospect personally. Because he's considered a mid to late 1st round guy on talent. I probably put Blackburn right behind McNutt too. He may not have the upside of Maples, but it's close and his floor is much higher. I love the fact this regime IS taking upside guys, just not ones with huge bust potential. Yeah, someone like Weickel or Smoral would have been great, but the floor is probably higher with Blackburn, in my mind. And taking a guy that can possibly wind up as a 2 or 3 with both our supp picks is just fine with me.

[Guest]

Where would you guys rank Johnson and Blackburn? Could either be considered our top pitching prospect ahead of Wells, Maples or McNutt? Anyone view either of them as top 10 guys (maybe somewhere 7-10?) or are the more top 15-20 guys?

 

I know after our top 4, can make an argument for after top 6 with Vitters and Szcur, it gets a little convoluted.

 

I think all those guys have to be lumped together at this point, maybe even giving the edge to the 2 guys just drafted. Wells has been on and off the mound all season. Maples still hasn't pitched yet and McNutt has forgotten how to miss bats.

 

I think all 5 are clearly behind the top 6 hitters (Rizzo, Jackson, Baez, Almora, Szczur, Lake) in the system. And if Castillo still counts, behind him too. I'd probably slot a few of them ahead of Vitters, but I think McNutt has really fallen off the last year and a half.

 

 

I really hope they're better prospects than Szczur and Lake. Those two do not belong grouped with those other four.

[Guest]

I honestly believe closer to Votto than LaRoche at this point. I could back that up with performance reasons, but I'll steer the conversation a different way.

 

One thing we're going to have to get used to is the seeming emphasis of this regime on makeup. That's a big part of the reason they love Rizzo so much. After seeing everything on draft day, I'm also convinced it is a big reason why they are so high on Almora.

 

There are a lot of guys who have great ability or tools. Few actually get the most out of them. The reasons wny players don't reach that peak is often mental. Those reasons are varied - it could be an attraction to partying, not putting in the required work to reach the next level, fragile confidence, or numerous other factors.

 

If they feel like they've figured something out in reading which players are going to have the best chance of attaining their ceilings due to their makeup, that would be one hell of an advantage. Not sure I buy that they have figured that out yet, but I sure hope it is the case.

 

Totally different sports, but this just takes me back to Michael Beasley and Derrick Rose's pre-draft interviews.

[rawaction]

Where would you guys rank Johnson and Blackburn? Could either be considered our top pitching prospect ahead of Wells, Maples or McNutt? Anyone view either of them as top 10 guys (maybe somewhere 7-10?) or are the more top 15-20 guys?

 

I know after our top 4, can make an argument for after top 6 with Vitters and Szcur, it gets a little convoluted.

 

I think all those guys have to be lumped together at this point, maybe even giving the edge to the 2 guys just drafted. Wells has been on and off the mound all season. Maples still hasn't pitched yet and McNutt has forgotten how to miss bats.

 

I think all 5 are clearly behind the top 6 hitters (Rizzo, Jackson, Baez, Almora, Szczur, Lake) in the system. And if Castillo still counts, behind him too. I'd probably slot a few of them ahead of Vitters, but I think McNutt has really fallen off the last year and a half.

 

 

I really hope they're better prospects than Szczur and Lake. Those two do not belong grouped with those other four.

 

Those 2 don't belong with those other 4, but they're better than any pitcher the Cubs have. That's not an endorsement for Szczur and Lake's greatness, but an indictment of the pitching in the system.

[El Duderino]

If Maples holds up and pitches well at Boise, he goes ahead of them, I would think.

[Guest]

Where would you guys rank Johnson and Blackburn? Could either be considered our top pitching prospect ahead of Wells, Maples or McNutt? Anyone view either of them as top 10 guys (maybe somewhere 7-10?) or are the more top 15-20 guys?

 

I know after our top 4, can make an argument for after top 6 with Vitters and Szcur, it gets a little convoluted.

 

I think all those guys have to be lumped together at this point, maybe even giving the edge to the 2 guys just drafted. Wells has been on and off the mound all season. Maples still hasn't pitched yet and McNutt has forgotten how to miss bats.

 

I think all 5 are clearly behind the top 6 hitters (Rizzo, Jackson, Baez, Almora, Szczur, Lake) in the system. And if Castillo still counts, behind him too. I'd probably slot a few of them ahead of Vitters, but I think McNutt has really fallen off the last year and a half.

 

 

I really hope they're better prospects than Szczur and Lake. Those two do not belong grouped with those other four.

 

Those 2 don't belong with those other 4, but they're better than any pitcher the Cubs have. That's not an endorsement for Szczur and Lake's greatness, but an indictment of the pitching in the system.

 

I'm hopeful that the two new guys + Maples are better prospects.

[davell]

I still think Szczur can be elite. I'm not putting Lake in the same category as him just yet.

[Guest]

Maples and Johnson have injury concerns, otherwise I'd easily see them much further ahead of Wells, McNutt and Rhee (well, apparently Ben Wells has injury problems too which is a shame because he was starting to separate himself from the rest of the pitching prospects). Blackburn and Underwood are intriguingly high ceiling without the injury concerns of Maples and Johnson so I'd lump them all together for now.

 

Obviously there's a half season to go for Maples to prove he's healthy but for now, I'm wary of him not yet pitching down in extended. He has a higher ceiling than Johnson, Blackburn or Underwood.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

I still think Szczur can be elite. I'm not putting Lake in the same category as him just yet.

 

I think Szczur isn't slugging .400 while getting his second taste of A+ as an old 22-year-old.

 

Maybe I owe Keith Law an apology?

[Guest]

I still think Szczur can be elite. I'm not putting Lake in the same category as him just yet.

 

I think Szczur isn't slugging .400 while getting his second taste of A+ as an old 22-year-old.

 

Maybe I owe Keith Law an apology?

 

To be fair, it's the FSL.