Southern League Top 20

[Calderon]

Baseball America's list of the Southern League's Top 20 prospects was released this afternoon.

 

The only inclusion from Birmingham was LHP Gio Gonzalez at #9. Jack Egbert was left off the list entirely, and judging from the following quote, wasn't even in the 'Honorable Mention' category, if such a thing existed.

 

"The pitching was deeper than the hitting, even with talents such as lefthanders Clayton Kershaw (Jacksonville), Jake McGee (Montgomery) and Scott Elbert (Jacksonville) and righties Chris Volstad (Carolina) and Josh Roenicke (Chattanooga) failing to qualify."

 

Montgomery's Chris Mason (TB) the Southern League Pitcher of the Year, was also omitted.

[29andPoplar]

Here is what Baseball America had to say about Gio Gonzalez:

 

More than one scout referred to Gonzalez as the league's pitcher closest to the majors after Parra graduated to Milwaukee. For the third straight summer, he pitched at least 130 innings, and his 185 strikeouts were a career high and tops in the minors.

 

Gonzalez has a polished three-pitch repertoire that's highlighted by one of the minors' best breaking balls. He has great feel for and confidence in his two-plane curveball, which changes hitters' eye level and grades as a plus-plus pitch. He adds and subtracts from his fastball, which ranges from 86-92 mph and has occasional run and sink.

 

He also has feel for a changeup, which provides him with a legitimate third weapon. He has solid-average command, though he has a tendency to fall off the mound to the third-base side, causing him to miss his spots.

 

"I can remember one outing where he had our hitters talking to themselves," Sauveur said. "He's got big league stuff."

[NorthSideSox72]

No Eggy??? His 2007 wasn't a fluke, given that his 2006 season was also very, very good. Some of these picks on these lists are just bizarre. Seems like writers who specialize in evaluating prospects have a habit of relying far too much on their gut feelings on players, instead of seeing who is actually succeeding (and therefore, who is more likely to succeed later).

 

[RockRaines]

Wow. How in the hell could you leave Egbert off that list?

[fathom]

I told people a month ago that the people in charge of scouting for Baseball America hate Egbert, as they think his stuff is nowhere near MLB caliber. I'm not saying they're right or wrong, but I just thought you'd like to know what their reason is.

[NorthSideSox72]

I told people a month ago that the people in charge of scouting for Baseball America hate Egbert, as they think his stuff is nowhere near MLB caliber. I'm not saying they're right or wrong, but I just thought you'd like to know what their reason is.

This is kind of an example of what I was talking about. I understand in college and early minors where "stuff" or "tools" might be more indicative of future success than performance... but to me, that scale tips the other way as players mature and move up through the system. My question to people like these is, when does performance itself start to mean something? I mean, look at Eggy's numbers through the minors... not only has he excelled at every level, but his peripherals have actually gotten better as he faces tougher competition. Everything about his stats thus far says one thing - success.

 

I really think that some of these folks come to a conclusion about a players tools and stuff waaaay early in their development, and then are so staked to their original perceptions, that they just won't be convinced otherwise no matter what. Its this arrogance that says "I refuse to acknowledge that some players may be successful for reasons I cannot easily understand". If they can't figure out WHY the player is good, they decide the player ISN'T good, because there is of course no possible way that maybe their measurements and evaluations may not be perfect.

 

I'll take players that succeed at each level over Mr. Toolsy who disappoints statistically each year, every day and twice on Sunday.

 

[Heads22]

Yeah, I think I remember this.

 

People in the Sox organization, including in Chicago and Birmingham, however, realize he exists.

[Gene Honda Civic]

This is kind of an example of what I was talking about. I understand in college and early minors where "stuff" or "tools" might be more indicative of future success than performance... but to me, that scale tips the other way as players mature and move up through the system. My question to people like these is, when does performance itself start to mean something? I mean, look at Eggy's numbers through the minors... not only has he excelled at every level, but his peripherals have actually gotten better as he faces tougher competition. Everything about his stats thus far says one thing - success.

 

I really think that some of these folks come to a conclusion about a players tools and stuff waaaay early in their development, and then are so staked to their original perceptions, that they just won't be convinced otherwise no matter what. Its this arrogance that says "I refuse to acknowledge that some players may be successful for reasons I cannot easily understand". If they can't figure out WHY the player is good, they decide the player ISN'T good, because there is of course no possible way that maybe their measurements and evaluations may not be perfect.

 

I'll take players that succeed at each level over Mr. Toolsy who disappoints statistically each year, every day and twice on Sunday.

http://thebaseballcube.com/players/S/Andy-Sonnanstine.shtml

[hitlesswonder]

I told people a month ago that the people in charge of scouting for Baseball America hate Egbert, as they think his stuff is nowhere near MLB caliber. I'm not saying they're right or wrong, but I just thought you'd like to know what their reason is.

 

I think this look at Egbert and Horne is informative as well. Egbert is a very fringe prospect. Odds are he would get ripped up good in the bigs. He just happens to be the Sox 3rd best prospect and so looks good in comparison to the rest of the system. That's not to say the Sox shouldn't give him a shot in the bullpen if he pitches well in spring training next season -- there's always a chance he can beat the odds.

[NorthSideSox72]

http://thebaseballcube.com/players/S/Andy-Sonnanstine.shtml

What is your point? That sometimes rookies pitch badly? No surprise there - the guy is 24 and barely touched AAA. Or are you saying this guy is an analog for Egbert?

 

I am not saying that success in the minors translates 100% to success in the majors. I am saying that you look at success AND tools/stuff/skills, but that the balance should tip more towards actual success as they player progresses to higher levels. I can provide all kinds of examples of players who fit this way of looking at things, as could you. It just comes down to this - every scout, and every organization, has a different idea of that scale. I tend to be more in agreement with those more towards the success side of the scale for players at later levels of development. Its not black and white, of course.

 

[NorthSideSox72]

I think this look at Egbert and Horne is informative as well. Egbert is a very fringe prospect. Odds are he would get ripped up good in the bigs. He just happens to be the Sox 3rd best prospect and so looks good in comparison to the rest of the system. That's not to say the Sox shouldn't give him a shot in the bullpen if he pitches well in spring training next season -- there's always a chance he can beat the odds.

That may turn out to be true, but let's be clear - Egbert doesn't just look good compared the system. His results weren't against his teammates - he pitched pretty dominantly the last couple seasons, against OTHER teams. So he looks good in comparison to them, as well.

 

[Calderon]

Sinkerball pitchers will consistently be undervalued as prospects relative to power arms.

 

Sonnanstine isn't a totally apt comparison because Egbert's groundball rate is 10% higher, and he's had to battle through a higher BABIP than Sonnanstine at a similar point.

 

I don't believe Egbert will be an ace, and all 20 players on this list have more "upside", but considering his makeup I'd bet the bank on him contributing soon at the Major League level.

[29andPoplar]

I asked a question about Egbert, let's see if it gets answered. The chat is moving slowly, I guess the guy doing it cut his finger last night and can't type that fast anyways.

 

Just for kicks, here are his comments on two guys the White Sox drafted at one point but did not sign, Van Pope and Donald Veal.

 

Not surprised to see Van Pope omitted from the list, but I was wondering how much of his trouble was caused by pressing due to playing in front of family and friends and how much was just lack of talent. Is there still hope for Van? Thanks for the chat!

 

A: Alan Matthews: He really had a bad year, and while his family was not brought up during conversations with folks in Mississippi, it didn't help matters when he started to struggle. He's got to improve his approach. One scout quipped that Pope has the Andy Roddick approach, because he's so dead-red pull, it's as if he's trying to hit everything on the chalk. He has some raw power and a big arm, but the bat has a ways to go.

 

 

 

Q: Ben from Leland Grove asks:

Is Veal still considered one of Chicago's top arms? What are your opinions on him?

 

A: Alan Matthews: I am in the minority here in the BA offices, but I like Veal, and considered him for the list despite the fact that he continues to have bouts where he has no feel for the strike zone. He doesn't repeat his delivery and he seems to have a hard time with the mental approach to pitching--when things go bad, they can really unravel on him. But he has a huge arm, has been up to 95 mph this season from the left side, and there are some ingredients there to work with. There were times when Dontrelle Willis looked like a trainwreck in the minors, and the Cubs let him go before he established himself in the big leagues. Veal won't likely slide out of their grasp until they're convinced he can't master his mechanics.

 

 

 

 

[RockRaines]

Odds are he would get ripped up good in the bigs.

? Says who? Some guy who started a website? Egbert has been successful, he is a sinkerball pitcher which tend to be undervalued, and hasnt shown signs of being overmatched at all. I wonder why you automatically think he will get "ripped up."

[Calderon]

I'm not even sure if 'big' is a strong enough adjective to describe Pope's arm. That's a big-league cannon right there.

 

He came on strong in the second-half of 2006 with the bat, and I think the questioner was dead-on with the point about playing in front of family and friends. I don't know if the bat will come along as he moves up the ladder, but playing to impress isn't going to help anything.

 

Just look at Dewon Day's performances in Mississippi this year, compared to the rest of his tenure in the Southern League.

[hitlesswonder]

? Says who? Some guy who started a website? Egbert has been successful, he is a sinkerball pitcher which tend to be undervalued, and hasnt shown signs of being overmatched at all. I wonder why you automatically think he will get "ripped up."

odds are he will get ripped up. That's true of all but the highest echelon pitching prospects. It's especially true of a guy with a pedestrian fastball whom BA thinks is really, really not a prospect. They could be wrong, but honestly is it likely Egbert going to better than say, someone like Mike Wood? The answer is no, and it's not like Mike Wood is lighting up the majors.

[RockRaines]

odds are he will get ripped up. That's true of all but the highest echelon pitching prospects. It's especially true of a guy with a pedestrian fastball whom BA thinks is really, really not a prospect. They could be wrong, but honestly is it likely Egbert going to better than say, someone like Mike Wood? The answer is no, and it's not like Mike Wood is lighting up the majors.

Ah, so you are carpet bombing and basically saying because most prospects dont make it, then Jack wont. Really stuck your neck out there. Odds are Gio, Kershaw,etc etc will get ripped up at the major league level as well right? Because its the ODDS.

It actually amazes me that nobody with a pedestrian fastball succeeds in the majors. I mean, if you dont light it up, dont even try right? Forget the fact that he throws a sinker. Because nobody who throws a sinker doesnt throw it HARD. Never mind the 3 HR's he gave up in 160+ innings. Forget about the fact that BP's PECOTA cards lists Webb and Wang as the most comparable pitchers to Jack. All I care about is rankings by BA, and that HARD fastball that he lacks. I will continue to ignore his stellar numbers and his great improvement over this last season. I will only pay attention to BA prospect rankings as the bible as far as baseball players go.

[hitlesswonder]

Ah, so you are carpet bombing and basically saying because most prospects dont make it, then Jack wont. Really stuck your neck out there. Odds are Gio, Kershaw,etc etc will get ripped up at the major league level as well right? Because its the ODDS.

It actually amazes me that nobody with a pedestrian fastball succeeds in the majors. I mean, if you dont light it up, dont even try right? Forget the fact that he throws a sinker. Because nobody who throws a sinker doesnt throw it HARD. Never mind the 3 HR's he gave up in 160+ innings. Forget about the fact that BP's PECOTA cards lists Webb and Wang as the most comparable pitchers to Jack. All I care about is rankings by BA, and that HARD fastball that he lacks. I will continue to ignore his stellar numbers and his great improvement over this last season. I will only pay attention to BA prospect rankings as the bible as far as baseball players go.

 

You asked why I thought Egbert would get hit in bigs and I told you. For the second time -- I never said Jack won't make it, I said it's unlikely he will. Kershaw and Gio are less likely to get ripped up, as they have better stuff. Is that really controversial or difficult to grasp?

 

Egbert had a great year, was in a pitcher's park, a little old for his league, and features stuff that BA thinks is not worth mentioning. BA may print some idiotic things, but I'm guessing they've had people see Egbert pitch more than you or I. So I guess you're right -- it's simply insane to think that Egbert isn't the next Brandon Webb.

 

[bigruss]

Ah, so you are carpet bombing and basically saying because most prospects dont make it, then Jack wont. Really stuck your neck out there. Odds are Gio, Kershaw,etc etc will get ripped up at the major league level as well right? Because its the ODDS.

It actually amazes me that nobody with a pedestrian fastball succeeds in the majors. I mean, if you dont light it up, dont even try right? Forget the fact that he throws a sinker. Because nobody who throws a sinker doesnt throw it HARD. Never mind the 3 HR's he gave up in 160+ innings. Forget about the fact that BP's PECOTA cards lists Webb and Wang as the most comparable pitchers to Jack. All I care about is rankings by BA, and that HARD fastball that he lacks. I will continue to ignore his stellar numbers and his great improvement over this last season. I will only pay attention to BA prospect rankings as the bible as far as baseball players go.

 

This seriously just made my day!

[RockRaines]

Derek Lowe never made it into Baseball America’s Top 50. Fausto Carmona never cracked BA’s Top 75. And Brandon Webb and Chien-Ming Wang were never rated as Top 100 prospects by Baseball America.

 

But I will remember whenever someone asks me about a prospect, i will always say they wont make it, because the ODDS are with me.

[29andPoplar]

Here's what he had to say about Egbert in the chat.

 

"Egbert was in the mix for the list based on his performance, but he has a modest ceiling, as a No. 5 starter or middle reliever, and some kinks in his arm action. Like Chris Mason, he attacks hitters and has no fear, so he made the most out of his stuff this summer and made a very good impression in the league."

[hitlesswonder]

But I will remember whenever someone asks me about a prospect, i will always say they wont make it, because the ODDS are with me.

 

I don't know how many times you can get this wrong but I never said Egbert wouldn't make it. I guess the concept that each player in the minors has some chance of being a big league player, and that some have a better chance than others, is just crazy talk huh? Oooh "odds" -- what useless idea that is in trying to assess the relative worth of prospects.

 

And, really -- congratulations on spotting Webb, Lowe, and Wang in the minors and knowing they would make it when BA didn't. You should put out your own newsletter.

[RockRaines]

And, really -- congratulations on spotting Webb, Lowe, and Wang in the minors and knowing they would make it when BA didn't. You should put out your own newsletter.

I was too busy criticizing their pedestrian fastballs to put them high on my list.

[Gene Honda Civic]

I was too busy criticizing their pedestrian fastballs to put them high on my list.

Webb throws in the mid low-to-mid 90's...

 

As did 2000-2003 Lowe.

 

Wang can touch 95.

 

But you know, don't let facts get in the way of a good argument.

[RockRaines]

Webb throws in the mid low-to-mid 90's...

 

As did 2000-2003 Lowe.

 

Wang can touch 95.

 

But you know, don't let facts get in the way of a good argument.

wow, then why didnt I rank them in my top prospects list.

 

*grabs Doc Brown and heads back to the 90's*