The first round of the 2013 MLB Draft is on June 6th and we haven't written much about it lately. A few days ago in the comments, jtsunami (think it was him) mentioned that he might lean more toward Kris Bryant because of his 80 power. For those not familiar with the scouting scale, players are graded on a 20-80 scale at various skills. An 80 skill is not common. At all.
According to Baseball America, there are 3 players in the 2013 draft who have a tool that ranks at 80.
Evaluators rarely break out the top grade on the 20-80 scouting scale, but I believe there are three tools worthy of an 80 among the top prospects in the 2013 draft. Those three are Oklahoma righthander Jonathan Gray’s fastball, San Diego third baseman/outfielder Kris Bryant’s power and Maryland high school outfielder Matt McPhearson’s speed.
Baseball America ranks Bryant as the 3rd best draft prospect. He's got ridiculous power.
Bryant’s (No. 3 on our Draft Top 100) power has been apparent for a while. It made him a borderline first-round pick coming out of a Nevada high school in 2010, though his signability scared teams off. We noted in our Preseason All-America coverage that he had the most usable pop in his draft class, but he has found a new level as a junior.
Bryant hit three homers over the weekend, boosting his total to 28, a school record and nine more than any other player in NCAA Division I. He has outhomered 228 of the 296 teams in Division I. His combination of bat speed, strength, pitch recognition, discipline and barrelability give him elite power.
He's now up to 29 home runs.
As far as the draft goes, there are probably 5 or 6 guys who stand out from the rest. Supposedly it's two this year in Gray and Mark Appel, but there can't be much of a difference between numbers 2 and 6 or 7. As long as you take one of those players, you've done well and there's no reason to complain.
I don't know nearly as much about these guys as the Cubs and others teams do. I'm not really qualified to say who, among that group, should go in which spot. When a team like the Cubs takes a Tyler Colvin or Hayden Simpson, well, that's just wrong. Neither player was ranked anywhere near the position in which they were taken. They couldn't have been an equal talent at the time of the draft.
I'm still hoping the Cubs draft Mark Appel. He may not have an 80 tool, but those are rare and I'm not sure it should stop a team from drafting him. He is probably the most polished player in the draft. Some have said he could pitch in the big leagues this season. If the Cubs were to draft him, there'd be no need for that. He'd spend a little time at Mesa and maybe Kane County this season. Next year he'd probably start at High A with the possiblity of a quick promotion to AA where he'd spend much of the rest of the season.
Early in the draft, I usually favor going after position players because they have more value. The provide value offensively and defensively whereas pitchers only provide value on the mound. The antiquated rules in the National League force the pitcher to provide sub-replacement level value while batting.
The Cubs need for lots and lots of pitching isn't making me lean toward Appel. I like that he could provide value quickly, which would mean that there would be less risk in drafting him. The newest CBA caused fewer good players to reach free agency (think Starlin Castro and Anthony Rizzo extensions). Teams are locking players up early and these good players are reaching free agency at an older age. Because of this, I'm wondering if the risk of the draft prospect hasn't become the most important consideration early in the draft.
I wouldn't want to take Appel over a guy who was clealry a better draft prospect. Estimating risk is difficult enough with amateur players so if your choice is two players of different levels of talent, you should always take the one who is better.
Jonathan Gray's 94-97 mph fastball with heavy sink might have more upside than Appel. Kris Bryant's 80 power might be better than any skill that Appel possesses. Despite this, neither of them are clearly the better prospect. You can make an argument quite easily for any of these players, along with a few others.
This is where I think risk has become more important than ever. Perhaps instead of choosing the guy with the highest upside (probably Bryant), you take a similarly talented player who you think has a better chance of being productive at the MLB level.
Any of these players would instantly make the Cubs farm system better. Gray or Appel would immediately become the organization's top pitching prospect. Bryant would probably fit in nicely right behind Jorge Soler at the top. Any of these would be a good pick and an improvement over what they already have.
So who do you take? You are the Cubs and whatever player you hope they get is still available after the Astros pick. Who is it?
I'm taking Mark Appel. Based on what I've read, I like this chances to be a productive MLB player better than the others.
What about you? Vote below and discuss in the comments. Baseball America, MLB.com and Keith Law rankings in parantheses.
[poll id=”4″]
Comments
I went a little nuts on twitter about this the other day, but for me, my drafting order would be Bryant, Gray, Appel. 80 power is a rare tool, and if he makes it you’ve got, at worst, a valuable bench guy and at best a transcendent player. Especially with the way a lot of the high-potential hitting prospects in the organization seem to be taking a step back this year, we still feel to me fairly light on guys with the potential to rake in the majors.
Maybe I’m an idiot, but I just don’t get the argument for Appel in front of the other two. People seem to like him because he seems to have a lower floor and more polish. Okay, reasonable. But his ceiling is much lower, and ultimately all pitchers have the same floor, and an extremely nonzero probability of reaching it: having an injury and getting zero production out of them. I’d be very reluctant to take a pitcher in the first round for this reason unless there was something that stood out that made me think the pitcher in question had #1 or better potential.
That’s why I have Gray over Appel too. You can go a long way on an 80 fastball (I don’t know what Shark’s fastball graded at, but he basically got the chance to become the pitcher he is today because of his quality fastball), and if his secondary stuff develops you have serious potential for a special player.
Overall, all things being equal I want sky’s-the-limit ceilings over limited-potential-but-known-quantity guys and position players over pitchers. I’d rather roll the dice early on the chance of Bryant being a special player and drafting pitching quantity in the later rounds again this year. But that’s just me.
Couple of other things I thought of just now:
– Because the mocks all have Bryant at 3, if you took him at two there’s a good chance he wouldn’t put up too tough a fight in salary discussions (unlike Appel) and might save you money to improve the overall quality of your draft (this more than anything is why I think it’s realistic that Appel is available at 2 for us; I think the Astros want as much money as they can dispersed evenly throughout the draft, judging by what they did last year)
– This Cubs season more than anything I think proves that you’ve got a decent chance of finding starting pitching value looking for undervalued free agents coming off of underperforming or injury marred years than you do finding hitters. This seems another good argument for Bryant to me. But again, I may be an idiot, hah.
sitrick2Quote Reply
It also seems to me like Gray has a sturdier frame than Appel, which is just more confidence inspiring to me.
sitrick2Quote Reply
You guys see the funky shift on Ankiel?
Rice on iPadQuote Reply
sitrick2 wrote:
I’m not sure that’s entirely fair. I think you may be underestimating Appel’s potential. We’re talking about a big guy who sites in the 92 to 97 mph range and gets it up to 99 late in games. Not only that, but he has very good command at this point. Accoring to Keith Law, he has fantastic control down in the zone. His curve and change already grade a 70. He throws an 82-85 mph change that is effective to both lefties and righties. We’re talking about elite talent here.
What I like most about him is that the few criticisms there were a year ago are fixed. If Appel only had the ceiling of a number 2, he wouldn’t be ranked first by most of the experts. This is the guy who could be the best pitcher in any rotation if a few things break in his favor.
None of this is really an argument why you should change your mind. Your reasoning is more than sound, but I just wanted to show why you may be underestimating Appel. Bryant or any of the others are more than reasonable to pick at number 2.
dmick89Quote Reply
FWIW, Law gives Bryant a 70 power.
dmick89Quote Reply
dmick89 wrote:
That’s interesting. I don’t have Insider, so I only hear what Klaw puts on twitter or what I read elsewhere.
Honestly, I’d yet to hear that glowing a review of Appel. Everything I’ve read makes him sound like the pitching version of Almora, a guy that in all likelihood isn’t a hall of famer or anything but is extremely likely to get to the majors and provide SP value. Which is great, and I wouldn’t be unhappy if we ended up with him. And I think I’d still take Appel over anybody else except Bryant or Gray, I just like what I read (and see on YouTube) from the two of them more than others.
Also the more I think about it the more I really like having extra money available in later rounds. Appel seems like he’s gonna want #1 money (or more) no matter where he goes, which concerns me.
sitrick2Quote Reply
@ sitrick2:
I’m out for awhile, but shoot me an email and I’ll pass some info along.
dmick89Quote Reply
What’s Bryant’s skills with managing the strike zone? All I saw in a quick look was that it was “reasonable.” Baez has prodigious power, look where that is getting him. If Bryant is truly able to play 3b, that is a plus to me, since SP and OF are more available…
I didn’t vote. I don’t have an opinion, yet.
SVBQuote Reply
dmick89 wrote:
This is what impresses me. After forgoing signing last year, I would have bet on him dropping in the ranks this year due to getting picked apart by scouts/regressing. By all accounts, he seems to have gotten better.
I also think that “ceilings” tend to be inflated by imaginations. That said, I don’t have a problem with any of the the three.
GWQuote Reply
SVB wrote:
The Chris Crawford Draftbook ebook from a few months ago (Klaw recommended it, picked it up for a buck) has Bryant’s OBA tool as 45 with a projection of 55. He says:
Doesn’t sound appreciably different from the scouting report on Soler coming over, I don’t believe.
sitrick2Quote Reply
This is a fun game today.
I would be fine with any of the top three, but I voted Appel.
Rice on iPadQuote Reply
Is there any significance to it when the WF organist plays the melody of the song Blister in the Sun by the Violent Femmes?
Suburban kidQuote Reply
Feldman taken out, gets the standing O. He really made sure Jed and Dale made the right decision today.
Suburban kidQuote Reply
THis is for berselius and Ryno: live feed of the Eurovision Song Contest. ON NOW
http://www.eurovision.tv/page/webtv?program=83843
Suburban kidQuote Reply
Cubs win?
Suburban kidQuote Reply
@ Suburban kid:
Three outs.
Rice CubeQuote Reply
@ Suburban kid:
…and now, correct.
Rice CubeQuote Reply
@ Rice Cube:
I feel dirty
Suburban kidQuote Reply
I would take Ryno’s #7 Prospect.
Mercurial OutfielderQuote Reply
@ Mercurial Outfielder:
(dying laughing)
dmick89Quote Reply
http://www.anothercubsblog.net/cubs-prospect-7-my-dick/
dmick89Quote Reply
GW wrote:
I’m not sure the ceilings are inflated. I’d bet if we looked back at the elite draft prospects that the analysts have done a fairly good job pinning down their ceiling. It’s an estimate and it’s important to note that “ceiling” means the very best expectation. Therefore there isn’t much chance of that player reaching his ceiling.
Baseball America certainly knows that. They published a couple great pieces this past week that took a look at the 1989-2008 drafts. They took the top 100 draft picks and found only about 11-12% (average among the position players) of the players who even play at the MLB level for more than 100 games accrued more than 10 WAR. You’re talking below 5% of the top 100 who even have a career worth 10 or more WAR. The later drafts they looked at aren’t finished yet, but you still get a good idea that even among the top 100, you have a better chance of never playing in 100 games at the MLB level. You have little chance of being worth 10 WAR and a tiny chance of being an elite player.
I think the problem is that some people read about a player’s potential and they begin to convince themselves that the player will reach it. If he can only improve his strikeouts, walks, extra base hits, fielding and running, he’ll do it. People convince themselves of this.
Take Javier Baez. Load of potential. Nobody can deny that, but to reach that ceiling, he’s got to improve his walk rate, strikeout rate (both by quite a lot), and fielding. Probably more. Still, I’ve read on twitter people talking about how he can fix an issue and be that guy. Sure, it’s possible, but it’s about 10 times more likely he’ll never even play in 100 games at the MLB level. If he does play in 100 games, it’s still much more likely he’ll be relatively unproductive.
/my 2 cents
dmick89Quote Reply
Joey Votto’s having a nice day.
Rizzo the RatQuote Reply
@ dmick89:
(dying laughing)
Wow. Stuart Turkeylink had quite a run.
SVBQuote Reply
Bryan LaHair is .255/.331/.503. Not sure what that would translate to against MLB-quality pitching (his OBP isn’t even good in Japan), but thank god for Anthony Rizzo (.282/.350/.540).
Rizzo the RatQuote Reply
I liked LaHair and was glad when he got a chance to start (which he pretty much deserved), and even when he got a chance to play in the ASG (which he didn’t come close to deserving), but I’m happy as hell that we no longer hear from fans who think he’s a long-term solution to the Cubs’ first base position.
Rizzo the RatQuote Reply
At the moment the Cubs have a better record by % than 7 other MLB teams. I thought they were going to work harder at getting a top 3 draft pick again next year.
SVBQuote Reply
@ dmick89:
I meant to say that of the top draft prospects (say 100-200) they’ve probably done a good job at estimating their ceiling. Beyond that, they’ve probably done quite poorly because those guys usually weren’t all that highly thought of, made some change that significantly improved their game and were ultimately better than anyone expected.
BTW, I get what you’re saying and to some extent, I agree. Mostly because I think fans have little understanding of the concept of “best case scenario”.
dmick89Quote Reply
Mercurial OutfielderQuote Reply
@ Mercurial Outfielder:
Jesus. What the fuck? that had to hurt.
dmick89Quote Reply
Welcome back MO! Summer break?
Rice CubeQuote Reply
@ dmick89:
I have no intention of besmirching baseball america; I think they do a better job than anyone out there. A couple of points on ceilings:
1) A reasonable level of attainment is necessary for them to have any value at all. If ceilings are one in a thousand type cases, then it’s not of use to anybody. 10% would be reasonable. I think there is an inherent bias in the prospecting community at large to inflate ceilings because a) it draws attention/readership and b) they don’t want to miss on a big one.
2) I would feel more comfortable with ceilings if there was more than just intuition involved. I don’t know what Baez’s ceiling is. What I know is that he has elite bat speed, especially for someone of his size. How often do players with that lack of contact/discipline develop those skills? How does that compare to a player with elite plate discipline (Rendon, maybe Robbie Grossman) or a player with elite contact skills (a Prado type) developing great power?
I’m sure these are the types of questions the Superfriends are asking, and it sure seems like they and organizations of their ilk err on the side of guys who are generally thought to have lower ceilings.
GWQuote Reply
Archer passed over in favor of Hodor-Izzy to take Price’s spot in the rotation.
GWQuote Reply
@ GW:
To clarify a bit, I’m saying that whatever level is taken as a ceiling, it needs to be applied across the board. If we arbitrarily choose the 75th percentile and Baez’s is .325/.450 (obp/slg), it shouldn’t matter that his 99th percentile is .350/.575 when comparing him to a a prospect whose 75th percentile is .350/.450 and 99th is .360/.480. Prospect B effectively has the higher ceiling. (all numbers pulled out of my ass). And if what we are being presented with is the 99th percentile, which I think it is for young hitters, why should we pay them any mind?
GWQuote Reply
@ GW:
This makes sense to me. A 1% ceiling is fun to think about, but it is pretty useless to really pay any real decision-making attention to.
For that reason, I’d take Appel over Gray, and probably over Bryant too, and definitely over the others on the list above.
SVBQuote Reply
Rizzo the Rat wrote:
Sucks for the 3% of Yahoo fantasy owners who failed to start him.
Meanwhile, Garza Strip is on a three week winning streak.
Suburban kidQuote Reply
sitrick2 wrote:
I wonder if this is a product of Appel being arguably the top pick last year, so all the talent evaluators have already written loads about him.
BerseliusQuote Reply
@ Berselius:
I sent a scouting report to sitrick that was an impressive report of Appel’s ability. Most of the ones that I’ve read (BA, MLB, Law) all tend to say the same thing. He’s an elite talent with natural ability, size, command, holds his velocity deep into games and has 3 plus pitches already.
dmick89Quote Reply
new shit: http://obstructedview.net/minor-leagues/jot-cubs-minor-league-recap-5-18-13.html
dmick89Quote Reply
We could’ve had appel and gray/bryant if we picked him instead of almora :/
SunnyQuote Reply