Keith Law Top 100

[bmags]

Do you guys really think ranking a bunch of amateur pros across a number of different specialties is such a linear exercise?

[Y2Jimmy0]

I'm not upset, but this list lost all of its credibility after he ranked Moncada 17th after a small MLB sample size. Ridiculous.

 

 

You should probably read the write-up. He has reasons for it.

[Con te Giolito]

his reasons for Moncada seem pretty legitimate. His reasons for not ranking Lopez at all are dumb as hell.

[Y2Jimmy0]

Just like any opinion articles, these rankings are made for debate. Law gets more attention for ranking Moncada #17 as opposed to #1. Just the same as he gets more attention for ranking Kopech #7 rather than mid twenties like most publications will do. In my opinion, these ranking systems are like Mel Kiper or other analysts that do NFL mock drafts. They put them out a few times before the draft starts, but there is never any research afterwards to see if they were accurate or not. If there was an analysis of accuracy, I'm guessing Kiper would have lost his job a long time ago.

 

 

This is nonsense. He does't put Moncada at #17 so people will talk about it. He thinks Moncada is the 17th best prospect in baseball. You people are nuts.

[Y2Jimmy0]

his reasons for Moncada seem pretty legitimate. His reasons for not ranking Lopez at all are dumb as hell.

 

 

They aren't dumb as hell. He doesn't think Lopez has any chance to start, therefore he's not on the list. We really shouldn't be butthurt about what Keith Law thinks anyway though.

[Bob Sacamano]

They aren't dumb as hell. He doesn't think Lopez has any chance to start, therefore he's not on the list. We really shouldn't be butthurt about what Keith Law thinks anyway though.

 

Exactly haha it has no bearing on how the player's career will go.

[steveno89]

They aren't dumb as hell. He doesn't think Lopez has any chance to start, therefore he's not on the list. We really shouldn't be butthurt about what Keith Law thinks anyway though.

 

Hard to not have Moncada well within the top ten prospects based on what he has done in the minors, as well as upside

 

He also has not had injury problems as far as I know

 

 

[Con te Giolito]

They aren't dumb as hell. He doesn't think Lopez has any chance to start, therefore he's not on the list. We really shouldn't be butthurt about what Keith Law thinks anyway though.

Even if he does feel that way its pretty ignorant to think relievers, especially after what we saw last postseason and the deadline, are still this inferior member of the team. To have this blanket rule that "relievers cant be in the top 100" makes him seem out of touch with today's game, or more importantly tomorrow's game.

[Chicago White Sox]

This is nonsense. He does't put Moncada at #17 so people will talk about it. He thinks Moncada is the 17th best prospect in baseball. You people are nuts.

Why is that nonsense? How do you think his job performance is evaluated exactly? Do you think someone at ESPN does a post-audit on his rankings every few years? Of course not, they simply look at how much traffic he drives to ESPN Insider.

 

I'm not suggesting that's his reasoning for the Moncada ranking, but let's not pretend there isn't an obvious incentive here to stir up interest in his articles. ESPN has numerous shows where dumb viewpoints are the underlying hook. Why do you think Skip Bayless lasted as long as he did?

 

Also, it's real annoying when the ranking Nazi's come out and accuse people of being "butt hurt" for questioning a specific player's ranking. First, this is a message board and we're meant to discuss things like rankings here. Second, we don't have to accept whatever a professional writer puts on their website as gospel. The amount of policing on what could be good, quality debate by certain posters is getting out of control here.

[Rowand44]

It's a list that is completely subjective. Just because he has a different view or opinion than most doesn't make him or his list dumb or out of touch.

Edited January 27, 2017 by Rowand44

[Y2Jimmy0]

Even if he does feel that way its pretty ignorant to think relievers, especially after what we saw last postseason and the deadline, are still this inferior member of the team. To have this blanket rule that "relievers cant be in the top 100" makes him seem out of touch with today's game, or more importantly tomorrow's game.

 

 

Completely disagree. They aren't as valuable. Just because teams trade a lot for them doesn't prove otherwise. They throw like 70 innings a year. They aren't worthy of being top 100 prospects.

[Y2Jimmy0]

Why is that nonsense? How do you think his job performance is evaluated exactly? Do you think someone at ESPN does a post-audit on his rankings every few years? Of course not, they simply look at how much traffic he drives to ESPN Insider.

 

I'm not suggesting that's his reasoning for the Moncada ranking, but let's not pretend there isn't an obvious incentive here to stir up interest in his articles. ESPN has numerous shows where dumb viewpoints are the underlying hook. Why do you think Skip Bayless lasted as long as he did?

 

Also, it's real annoying when the ranking Nazi's come out and accuse people of being "butt hurt" for questioning a specific player's ranking. First, this is a message board and we're meant to discuss things like rankings here. Second, we don't have to accept whatever a professional writer puts on their website as gospel. The amount of policing on what could be good, quality debate by certain posters is getting out of control here.

 

 

The post that I replied to suggested that Law put Moncada at 17 and Kopech at 7 so that people would talk about it and to stir interest. I will clearly state again that it's nonsense and that it's a stupid opinion that isn't true. You can disagree with his rankings or the process by which he determines them. Coming out and saying that he put those guys there to drum up interest is garbage though.

[Dominikk85]

You should probably read the write-up. He has reasons for it.

 

Of course he has reasons for it but the other writers know those reasons too. I also would rank a benintendi higher but for example why does he rank giolito who has even more red flags above him?

[Con te Giolito]

Completely disagree. They aren't as valuable. Just because teams trade a lot for them doesn't prove otherwise. They throw like 70 innings a year. They aren't worthy of being top 100 prospects.

Alright so I guess that whole thing where Cleveland came within 1 win of a WS win, absolutely bulldozing Boston and Toronto's insane lineups, without their #2 and #3 starter was just a mirage. If you really feel that relief pitchers cannot be as valuable as starters you're out of touch too. With the growing limitations of starters by way of pitch count and the "noise" one can generate in their projections by winning 1 run games (bullpen is what wins you 1 run games) relief pitchers were already gaining larger roles. Now that this idea of having a closer and a high leverage firefighter has become in vogue its making them even more valuable.

 

Look around the league and see what everyone is doing. Cubs traded for Wade Davis, Yankees brought back Chapman, Red Sox traded for Thornburg, Melancon got a ton of money from SF, losing Jansen was never even an option for LA...these are the perennial contenders you want the Sox to be and look at how they value relief pitching now.

Edited January 27, 2017 by Con te Giolito

[bmags]

Why is that nonsense? How do you think his job performance is evaluated exactly? Do you think someone at ESPN does a post-audit on his rankings every few years? Of course not, they simply look at how much traffic he drives to ESPN Insider.

 

I'm not suggesting that's his reasoning for the Moncada ranking, but let's not pretend there isn't an obvious incentive here to stir up interest in his articles. ESPN has numerous shows where dumb viewpoints are the underlying hook. Why do you think Skip Bayless lasted as long as he did?

 

Also, it's real annoying when the ranking Nazi's come out and accuse people of being "butt hurt" for questioning a specific player's ranking. First, this is a message board and we're meant to discuss things like rankings here. Second, we don't have to accept whatever a professional writer puts on their website as gospel. The amount of policing on what could be good, quality debate by certain posters is getting out of control here.

 

Please, people aren't questioning his rankings. They are reflexively dismissing anything that doesn't rank sox prospects high enough as being biased. That isn't interesting debate it's just whining.

 

You could use these to learn more about prospects strengths and weaknesses and decide yourself what you think is more important, or you could just get mad about output. And output (in terms of list rankings) won't matter, ultimately when these guys arrive next year.

 

Would I now rank Moncada lower than Kopech because of this list? Hell no. I know Crawford is good defensively but no way in hell I'd take a 1-for-1 swap for Moncada. But it's good to know that Moncada is not finished developing. He may very well come up and struggle some more, he has a contact issue that will be up to him to correct.

 

The good news is he already walks and could very well have some big power seasons where he identifies what pitches to drive. And that is more than most others in top 20 can do.

[YouCanPutItOnTheBoardYES!]

You should probably read the write-up. He has reasons for it.

I don't give a damn what his reasons are. Yoan Moncada is a consensus top 10 prospect at the very worst, even with that short MLB sample size. Period.

[Con te Giolito]

I don't give a damn what his reasons are. Yoan Moncada is a consensus top 10 prospect at the very worst, even with that short MLB sample size. Period.

Consensus can often be very wrong. If he doesn't like Moncada's strikeout tendencies I get it. I mean to be honest his strikeouts really worry me a lot and make me question whether that was a good trade. Time will tell I guess.

[YouCanPutItOnTheBoardYES!]

Keith Law has him at #17.

 

Top 10 doesn't really seem like a consensus.

You know what I mean. I haven't seen any other list/source that had Moncada out of the top 10. 17th is absurd for a prospect of his caliber.

 

Has his stock dropped a bit? Probably. But not that much.

[Con te Giolito]

What does he say about Kopech? Because I doubt anyone else will have him ahead of Reyes or as high as #7.

[Chicago White Sox]

Please, people aren't questioning his rankings. They are reflexively dismissing anything that doesn't rank sox prospects high enough as being biased. That isn't interesting debate it's just whining.

 

You could use these to learn more about prospects strengths and weaknesses and decide yourself what you think is more important, or you could just get mad about output. And output (in terms of list rankings) won't matter, ultimately when these guys arrive next year.

 

Would I now rank Moncada lower than Kopech because of this list? Hell no. I know Crawford is good defensively but no way in hell I'd take a 1-for-1 swap for Moncada. But it's good to know that Moncada is not finished developing. He may very well come up and struggle some more, he has a contact issue that will be up to him to correct.

 

The good news is he already walks and could very well have some big power seasons where he identifies what pitches to drive. And that is more than most others in top 20 can do.

I've never once accused Law of being biased against the White Sox. I do think ranking Moncada 17th is absolutely ridiculous and the direct result of overreacting to a measly 20 major league at-bats (whether he admits it or not). That doesn't make me mad, it just makes me question his abilities as a prospect expert. I'll be interested to see where other publications rank Moncada, because I'm fairly certain Law will be the clear outlier here.

[flavum]

Too many Keith Law threads. That's for sure.

 

[Chicago White Sox]

When it comes down to it, Law is a great evaluator. At the same time, he's very bent on himself. Looking back at these rankings in 2020, when these players start showing their true value, I think the actual rank is less important to some writers than where they were against the consensus of writers. This type of thinking, in theory, would make Law dive in on guys and write guys off but it's also a natural hedge. If Moncada becomes a very good player Law can still say, "I had him as the #17 best prospect, that's a very good player, That's a 3 WAR player, etc." If Moncada is a total bust than Law can say, "I didn't see him as highly as everyone else." or "I was the low guy on Moncada." I could be and probably am wrong, but given the insight Law has given us into his person, I wouldn't be surprised if he viewed these rankings as more of a pissing contest than a meritocratic process.

 

That being said, to have an arm with one appearance above A ball like Mitch Keller in front of Yoan Moncada...I just can't get behind that.

Great post raBBit.

[fathom]

God knows I love Josh Bell, but no way should he be higher than Moncada. He's going to have to hit a ton to have a big WAR

[Y2Jimmy0]

I don't give a damn what his reasons are. Yoan Moncada is a consensus top 10 prospect at the very worst, even with that short MLB sample size. Period.

 

 

But it's not a consensus because Keith Law has him at #17.....

[Chicago White Sox]

What does he say about Kopech? Because I doubt anyone else will have him ahead of Reyes or as high as #7.

IMO, it says Law overreacts to small AFL samples. He's not the only one guilty of that, but I see several prospects that are probably ranked a bit too high because of a handful of AFL games.