Web Search powered by YAHOO! SEARCH
12.02.2008 11:08 am

Cardinals Community Top 30: The bigger picture & vote for No. 16

St. Louis Post-Dispatch
  • Email this
  • Print this

SOUTH GRAND — One of the real problems with any club’s Top 30 is perspective. Whenever you rank players within one organization, you are, by definition, limiting the scope of how you judge — or perceive — their status as prospects.

The argument raging in the comments about David Freese and Allen Craig is a good example. Both have been voted as top-15 prospects here in the Community Top 30, and there have been several comments arguing that their places in the ranking — No. 5 for Freese and No. 14 for Craig — should be swapped. Either way, they have both been described as a Top-10 prospect.

But that needs a caveat: A Top-10 prospect … in the Cardinals’ organization.

When ranking players within one team’s system, they are only compared against each other. There are going to be 10 top-10 prospects because the exercise demands it. But throw two other organizations into the mix, throw the systems from the whole National League Central in the conversation — now how many top-10 prospects do the St. Louis Cardinals have? One? Two? Maybe three?

The far better way for us to have a real grasp of the quality and quantity of prospects in the Cardinals’ system is to check the rankings within leagues and the overall rankings. The first of those overall rankings has started its roll-out at MiLB.com. Jonathan Mayo is revealing his annual “Top 50 Prospects” by 10s, with Nos. 31-40 debuting Tuesday. The list so far is available here at MiLB.com, and you’ll notice a Cardinal prospect has already been mentioned:

42. Brett Wallace (check out his video and scouting report here)

It’s s safe bet that Colby Rasmus will show up later in the list — he was No. 7 in Mayo’s 2007 postseason Top 50 Prospects — and, according to the rookie-eligible rules that govern the list, that could be it for the Cardinals. That’s just one ranking, and others are sure to follow — Baseball Prospectus and eventually Baseball America. The latter has already given us a road map by which to judge the Cardinals prospects: The rankings by league.

When it comes to providing context for a club’s stockpile of prospects, there are few rankings better than the league-by-league rankings BA does each year. Wallace, for example, was the fifth-best prospect in the Midwest League; Pete Kozma was no. 15. The Cardinals had the No. 1 overall prospect in the Pacific Coast League (Rasmus) and five of the top 20. That’s a hearty showing, especially considering the age of Rasmus, Bryan Anderson (No. 14) and Jaime Garcia (No. 16). Turn a few pages and there, ranking No. 3 in the New York-Penn League is Adam Reifer.

And so on.

Consider that as you vote. Sure, the nature of the beast here is that the Cardinals’ prospects are being measured against Cardinals’ prospects. But be mindful of where these prospects would rank in the bigger picture, on the league or even the division scale.

A close vote for No. 14 allows us put Craig there and cut to the chase with Jon Jay, who had five fewer votes at last check. Jay will be No. 15. We now move into the second half of the Comm Top 30, welcoming Reifer back to the poll and adding the Cardinals big-bonus signing from the international pool, third baseman Roberto de la Cruz. Regarded as one of the best bats in his class of international free agent, one pundit encouraged me to “rank him aggressively.” The Cardinals seem poised to promote him aggressively, as he could play for Rookie-level Johnson City in 2009.

It will be interesting a year from now to see if he charts in that league’s prospect rankings.

***

The Cardinals’ No. 16 Prospect (incumbent: P.J. Walters)

View Results

Loading ... Loading …

***

Another element of the big-picture rankings is the opportunity to line up a prospect against his neighbors. A lot can be learned about the perception of Wallace in baseball by who is ranked around him — ahead of him, behind him, etc. In Mayo’s rankings, from above, some interesting nearby names:

  • No. 50 RHP Jeff Samardzija, CHI — Already a major-leaguer and big part of Cubs’ bullpen.
  • No. 49 3B Matt Dominguez, FLA — Taken 12th overall, one of the high-profile third baseman taken early in the 2007 draft.
  • No. 41 RHP Adam Miller, CLE — Taken 31st overall in 2003, but his 98-mph fastball carries him into the rankings. Will be big-league reliever in 2009.
  • No. 35 RHP Nick Adenhart, LAA — The highly regarded and coveted pitching prospect in the Angels system, taken in 2004’s fourth round.
  • No. 34 1B Yonder Alonso, CIN — Like Wallace, just drafted in 2008, seventh overall.

***

The keen observer will notice, as mentioned above, that we skipped ahead to No. 16 with this vote. Jay had received enough votes for days now to merit him just moving into the top 15 and us moving on. But, for the sake of staying organized, here is your list so far:

  1. Colby Rasmus, OF
  2. Brett Wallace, 3B
  3. Chris Perez, RHP
  4. Bryan Anderson, C
  5. David Freese, 3B
  6. Jason Motte, RHP
  7. Daryl Jones, OF
  8. Jess Todd, RHP
  9. Mitchell Boggs, RHP
  10. Jaime Garcia, LHP
  11. Niko Vasquez, SS
  12. Clayton Mortensen, RHP
  13. Pete Kozma, SS
  14. Allen Craig, INF
  15. Jon Jay, OF

-30-

16 comments

Comments are closed.

I think that this is a pretty good top-15. My only quibbles:

Freese, Vasquez - too high

Boggs, Craig - too low

I could also see including Reifer and dropping Garcia because of the TJ surgery.

— stldrakelaw
11:45 am December 2nd, 2008

My vote went to Adam Reifer. Apparently he throws a nasty slider, and a FB that ranges from 95-99 MPH.

I have a few issues with the Top-15 prospects:

The biggest one being the ranking of Garcia, I just can’t see Boggs in front of Garcia. But, I think what hurt Garcia was that he underwent TJ surgery in Sept. I couldn’t factor that into voting, do you factor in injuries?

Daryl Jones is probably too low, as well.

— emc2013
12:14 pm December 2nd, 2008

I voted for Walters, but Riefer isn’t a bad pick.

What’s this stuff about Freese and Craig? How do you value Craig higher than Freese? Freese is an all around good player. He’s solid with the glove and stick and will be a very good Major League player soon. Craig can only hit and plays some raunchy defense. To value him higher than Freese is madness.

I too would not have Garcia in my top 10. I have though of him as a top 15, but not as a top 10. I would have bumped Mort to 10, Jay to 12, Garcia to 15 (as I ave voted).

Just my thoughts.

— jkoch25
1:09 pm December 2nd, 2008

jkoch25 - I value Craig higher than Freese because he is a better hitter in my estimation:

Freese is overrated partly because of his age but more importantly because of his poor plate discipline. Let’s go to the numbers…

David Freese - 2008 - AAA

.306/.361/.550 avg/obp/slg

The problem is that Freese only drew 39 walks against 111 strikeouts. That means that he strikes out 21.8% of the time and only walks about 7.6%. Furthermore, Freese’s Batting Average on Balls in Play (BABIP) was an unsustainable .355. The average range for BABIP is between .290-.310.

For comparison here are Allen Craig’s numbers…

Allen Craig - 2008 - AA

.304/.374/.494

While Craig failed to slug like Freese and was therefore less productive, his OBP is much less batting average driven, showing greater plate discipline. Plate discipline is a skill that translates well from level to level and into the major leagues (i.e. a strike is a strike and a ball is a ball no matter where it is thrown). Craig struck out about 15% of the time and walked about 8.5%. Furthermore, his BABIP of .332 is much closer to a sustainable figure than Freese’s number.

I think that Freese and Craig are very comparable players. I like Craig’s plate discipline more than Freese’s and therefore I think that he is the slightly superior hitter GOING FORWARD. Freese had the superior year last year but Craig has actually been more consistent over his time in the minors. I guess my point is that if this community is going to rate Freese as the #5 prospect (too high IMO) then Craig is right there as well. I think the voting has been skewed by the fact that Freese is from STL and because he was traded for Jim Edmonds. Also, I think people are putting way too much emphasis on the fact that he was in AAA as opposed to AA. In reality most teams have their best prospects at the AA level.

Freese: http://firstinning.com/players/David-Freese-a

Craig: http://firstinning.com/players/Allen-Craig-a

Also, Craig is the more versatile player. He played SS, 2B, and 3B in college and has taken some turns in the outfield already as well. To say his defense is “raunchy” is completely untrue.

Are you friends with Freese or something?

— stldrakelaw
1:35 pm December 2nd, 2008

My main concern about Craig is home substantial home/road splits in AA.

home - Hammons Field is a very, very favorable offensive park
.356/.412/.577/.989

road -
.253/.337/.411/.748

— UofIx3
2:40 pm December 2nd, 2008

Stldrakelaw -

Very good points, and I see where you’re coming from; however, I still stand by what I said. Walks and strikeouts are a blind man’s stat. Sometimes, they don’t tell the whole story. Ludwick doesn’t walk a lot, but he strikouts out a lot. Does that make him better than Troy Glaus, who walks a lot and stirkes out a lot? No. Walks do mean beter plate discipline, but having close to 100 Ks means he’s at least doing something right. Only true 1-2 guys don’t strikeout a lot (and Pujols). You’ll get them no matter what.

You also have to look at defense. I don’t value Freese because of how he came to the system, or that he made a huge jump, or that he’s from the St. Louis area. He plays very good defense and hits extremely well (as we both agree). Sure, his walks are low and his Ks are high, but I value on more than that. His defense, his high amount of offense, and his ability to be a V player (3B, 1B, RF, LF, C, but minus the C in his case) makes him more valuable to me. Craig will be a V player as wlel, but only to mask his bad defense. Freese will be moved due to Wallace breathing down his neck and for us to find a place for him to be a major contributor.

Also, I don’t use the more advance statistics, but wouldn’t having a high BABIP be a good thing? Wouldn’t that mean that when he puts the ball in play, he’s getting on base more often that Craig instead of making outs?

And speaking of percentages, even with Craig’s slightly higher OBP, Freese still out OPSs him by a fair amount (.047). That’s almost a 5% difference, which to me means that he’s the better offensive force (hence why I think he’s the better overall player).

Again, these are just my thoughts.

— jkoch25
3:00 pm December 2nd, 2008

Let’s not forget Lance Lynn. Looked very good before being shut down.

— dcgreg
3:16 pm December 2nd, 2008

DG, I believe this was brought up rather recently, but I’d like to see “Prospect SATs” done for both Freese and Craig. I think using the “Prospect SAT” is a good way to look at a prospect and his “ceiling” as a major leaguer, and it certainly would be interesting to see a “Prospect SAT” done for the likes of Freese and Allen Craig. Thoughts?

— emc2013
3:55 pm December 2nd, 2008

I welcome suggestions for the Prospect SAT. I’ll try to take a look at them. At first look, Craig is tough because he really lacks an obvious position. That makes any SAT comp difficult.

— Derrick Goold
4:16 pm December 2nd, 2008

This was the toughest vote for me, to date. I voted for de la Cruz, but I know very little about him; it was a “blind faith” vote. I probably should have voted for Vasquez, who is a good prospect. Greene and Ottavino could both be good, or both could bottom out. Reiger and Samuel both have good arms, but they have limited value unless they can close games. I’m not sold on Walters, but I hope he can become a No. 5 starter. Herron has been inconsistent, but he has some tools.

The first 15 are all solid prospects; now we are entering the territory of fringe prospects and guys who are on the horizon but who lack the track record for confident ranking. I think there are another twenty to thirty such players in the Cardinal system and some of them will turn out to be good. I just don’t have the confidence I have for the first 15.

— Jack Hickok
8:33 pm December 2nd, 2008

Pages: [1] 2 » Show All