MLB.com Top 20 List

[VirtualBob]

Here is the latest on Top 20 prospects from MLB.com

I think they were a bit generous with the label in some cases, and a bit biased toward offense, but it is a decent list.  With one exception.

What in the heck is pitchability?  It was used of at least half the pitchers on the list.

How to construct pitchability:
1.  Start with a perfectly good verb ... "pitch"

2.  Turn it into a serviceable adjective by adding "-able" to get "pitchable" -- Note that this is not analogous to "hitable" ... a ball is "hitable" if it is grooved over the plate by the pitcher.  And perhaps the batter is "hitable" if he digs in and leans over the plate.  And of course pitchers can be said to be "hitable" when that is the common result of their mound labors.  But whatever else "hitable" means, it has nothing to do with doing the hitting, but rather with being hit. -- but I digress.

3.  Turn it into a rather awkward noun by adding "-ity" and morphing "-able" appropriately to get "pitchability" -- this is a stretch, but language is designed (more or less) to stretch this way.  And going back to "hitable", it is not too much of a stretch to come up with a good use for "hitability" ... a term that might describe the degree to which a pitcher is "hitable" for instance.

But what in the heck does "pitchability" describe then?  The degree to which the batter is "pitchable"?  (That would be a stretch.)  Or the degree to which the ball is pitchable?  Compared, I suppose, to a bowling ball? But again ... we are not really through with this rant yet.

4.  Take the awkward noun above and use it as an adjective, as in "a pitchability guy".  I give up! ... Who's on first?

[Ron Brand]

I like the stat lines for each prospect. It's really handy to have OBP and SLG next to OPS.

[chuck]

It's really handy to have OBP and SLG next to OPS.

Why?

[MusicMan]

Why?

So that you don't spill your unsweet tea putting your hat on.

[JaneDoe]

So that you don't spill your unsweet tea putting your hat on.

While your waitress takes your order from the seat next to you.

[Ron Brand]

Why?

How else will I make critical decisions for my fantacrap team?

[Ebby Calvin]

I like the stat lines for each prospect. It's really handy to have OBP and SLG next to OPS.

RB, you deserve to have this song run through your head for the rest of the day.

[VirtualBob]

RB, you deserve to have this song run through your head for the rest of the day.

I hate you.

[Ron Brand]

RB, you deserve to have this song run through your head for the rest of the day.

Hey, I'm no stranger to that one. Try this one, or best of all, this one.

[S.P. Rodriguez]

What in the heck is pitchability?  It was used of at least half the pitchers on the list.

Brace yourself for a serious response.  I lost it on the same question when this was used to describe Bogusevic's focus before switching to an OF.  What I found was that "pitchability" means learning to use inferior "stuff" to produce strikes.  To me, this meant "nibble" on the strike zone.  But further research led to my understanding that it involved improved control and location of pitches, and not just a lack of "stuff".  Now, whether that is useful or not, I cannot say.  But it does seem to becoming "en vogue" to say a pitcher is working on "pitchability".  After all that, I concluded it is the weeding out process between guys who can pitch (starters), throw for strikes (relievers), and those guys just up there throwing as hard or nasty as they can with no clue where it's going or what it will do.

[Ron Brand]

So it doesn't have anything to do with the 'drinkability' of Budweiser? Man, that's the last time I trust an ad campaign...

[VirtualBob]

Brace yourself for a serious response.  I lost it on the same question when this was used to describe Bogusevic's focus before switching to an OF.  What I found was that "pitchability" means learning to use inferior "stuff" to produce strikes.  To me, this meant "nibble" on the strike zone.  But further research led to my understanding that it involved improved control and location of pitches, and not just a lack of "stuff".  Now, whether that is useful or not, I cannot say.  But it does seem to becoming "en vogue" to say a pitcher is working on "pitchability".  After all that, I concluded it is the weeding out process between guys who can pitch (starters), throw for strikes (relievers), and those guys just up there throwing as hard or nasty as they can with no clue where it's going or what it will do.

Having suitably braced myself, I will respond in kind.  I speak several foreign languages, three of them quite well.  And I am certainly able to learn the definition of a new word I encounter in context, so I agree completely with your proposed dictionary entry.

[linguistics]
I am also trained in linguistics ... the study of how languages actually work.  And there are these things going on as a language evolves that provide for people putting together new verbs from existing nouns, new adjectives from existing verbs, etc. ... all of which share some "root meaning" which we can see from the word stem (if we bother to look).  Most of the nouns in English thatend in "-and" or "-end", for instance, actually come from the present active participle form of a latin verb of some kind.  (We don't use that construction much anymore.)  On the other hand, "-ify" is a pretty active way of turning your favorite noun into a verb in a way people will understand, even if you make it up on the spot.  And that, in turn can be combined with "-cate" (which turns a verb into a more abstract variation on the same theme) and "-tion" which turns it back into a noun, to get something like "Obamafication" (which I just made up as an example, but which might actually sneak into my vocabulary now.)

My point in all this rambling is this - the basic stem that caries some sort of meaning has an implicit directionality of action (or transfer or perhaps "verbification").  A word like "pitch" is active in voice, meaning that it "acts" on its grammatical object (e.g. the ball).  But the adjectival suffix "-able" reverses the directionality, making it an essentially passive modifier ... able to be acted upon.  Try it with a range of familiar examples and you will see what I mean.  Using the example from the earlier discussion, "hitable" always means something along the lines of "able to be hit" ... a "hitable batter" is either nonsensical, or it describes someone like Biggio who leads the world in HBP.  It most definitely does NOT describe Ted Williams.  Or even Nellie Fox, to choose someone who got by on bat control rather than power.
[/linguistics]

P.S. - Grammar is not boring ... just most grammarians.

[VirtualBob]

So it doesn't have anything to do with the 'drinkability' of Budweiser? Man, that's the last time I trust an ad campaign...

Much as I hate that ad, it at least makes some grammatical sense ... it is the beer about which claims are being made, not the brewers.

[Reuben]

VB, thanks for posting this. I didn't realize until I clicked through that it was the Astros' Top 20, not just overall MLB Top 20. Pretty cool to see that much info on all those guys, and to see photos of the newer guys, most of whom I had no idea what they looked like.

Notable (to me) omissions: Jio Mier, Houser (the 2nd-round pick in a super-deep 2011 draft doesn't make the list?), Jack Armstrong (same applies), Keuchel. I was surprised to see Folty so high.

As for "pitchability," it's been growing in popularity the last few years- I've seen many GMs use it. As near I can tell, it means "he knows how to pitch" or "he's a pitcher, not a thrower". I agree that it's stupid.

[Hornstros]

not sure how Jordan Scott made the list at #11....and Austin Wates was behind him

Also, thought Ross Seaton would have made the Top 20

[OregonStrosFan]

not sure how Jordan Scott made the list at #11....and Austin Wates was behind him

Also, thought Ross Seaton would have made the Top 20

At least they still had Jio in the top... What? Huh? Uh, nevermind...

[jbm]

I agree about Seaton, but it's not like I have someone else that should obviously be removed.  

Overall, this list is so much more promising then it was years ago.  That should be the immediate takeaway from this list IMO, but it doesn't fit into the 'Ed Wade is completely incompetent' narrative.  

[chuck]

Overall, this list is so much more promising then it was years ago.  That should be the immediate takeaway from this list IMO, but it doesn't fit into the 'Ed Wade is completely incompetent' narrative.  

The team has been maniacally trading all of its major league talent for prospects. Of course the list of prospects is going to look better today than in previous years.

[jbm]

That's true, but Bourn and Pence are the only players who would still be on the club today anyway.  They also have many players at the majors who would be in the minors on most clubs:  JD, Altuve, Lyles, and Paredes. 

Time will tell if Wade did a good job, but I'd be real suprised if the current list doesn't fare much much better than the list below.  You include the players above, and it is virtually guaranteed to be better.

Troy Patton
J.R. Towles
Felipe Paulino
Bud Norris
Mike Costanzo
Michael Bourn (Wade acquisition)
Mitch Einertson
Juan Gutierrez
Brad James
Sam Gervacio
Chad Reinkie
Jordan Parraz
Josh Flores
Eli Iorg
Collin DeLome
Paul Estrada
Polin Trinidad
Max Sapp
Sergio Severino
Koby Clemens

[austro]

Eli Iorg
...
Max Sapp

Thanks a fucking lot. I had managed to forget about these.

[astrosfan76]

Thanks a fucking lot. I had managed to forget about these.

I get angrier thinking about DeLome and that atrocity of a draft. 

[VirtualBob]

I get angrier thinking about DeLome and that atrocity of a draft.  

Bored and angry is a bad combination.  I looked some stuff up.

2004
Rounds 1-5: <none>, Pence, Parraz, Santangelo, Einertson
Best 5: Pence(2), Zobrist(6), Patton(9), Sutton(15), Towles(20)
2005
Rounds 1-5: Bogusevic, Iorg*, Henriquez, Manzella, Flores, Hart
Best 5:  Bogusevic(1), Manzella(3), Barnes(6), Clemens(8 ), Ori(14)
2006
Rounds 1-5: Sapp, SPerez, Moresi, CJohnson, Hudspeth
Best 5:  Norris(6), CJohnson(4), SPerez(2), Van Ostrand(8 ), Hudspeth(5)
2007
Rounds 1-5: <none>, <none>, <unsigned>, <unsigned>, DeLome
Best 5:  DeLome(5), Greenwalt(20), Cusick(10), Bono(11), Cartwright(36)
2008
Rounds 1-5:  Castro, Lyles*, Austin, <unsigned>, Seaton*, Steele, Duncan
Best 5 (so far):  Lyles(1*), Shuck(6), Castro(1), Gaston(7), Seaton(3*)

"Best 5" is obviously subjective, and weighted heavily toward playing time & level ... a proxy for trusting the professionals.  No matter how you evaluate, though, the fact that some of these guys are even mentioned as possibilities for top 5 consideration illustrates the problem.

By contrast, still active prospects from 2009 include Mier(1), Bushue(2), Nash(3), Meyer(3*), Wikoff(5), EHernandez(6), Keuchel(7), Orloff(9), Goebbert(13), JMartinez(20), & Donovan(23) ... plenty of candidates that could make a "top 5" two years from now look reasonable.

ETA to remove obnoxious smileys inserted by the editing application.

[astrosfan76]

Came across another list worth looking at.  Perfect Game put theirs up a month ago, but I had never found it.  What I like about their list is that they have a lot of information on the players as amateurs, given they run some large HS showcases.  Here's their list:

1. Jonathan Singleton
2. Jonathan Villar
3. Georger Springer
4. Jarred Cosart
5. Domingo Santana
6. Brett Oberholtzer
7. Paul Clemens
8. Delino Deshields, Jr.
9. Mike Foltynewicz
10. Ross Seaton

HM-Tanner Bushue, Adrian Houser, Telvin Nash, Ariel Ovando, Austin Wates

One recurring theme they mention is players being rushed.  Of the players in the Top 10 that have been in the system over a year, 3 of the 4 are labeled as playing a level ahead of where they should be.  Whether that hurts them in the long run, we'll see.  But, it at least puts weaker numbers in context. 

A few quotes that I likes:

(On DDS)-

DeShields’ father also got off to a relatively slow professional start and didn’t see full season A ball until he was 19 years old, but quickly made adjustments and was second in the NL ROY race as a 21 year old.

(On Springer)-

The only issue that scouts had with Springer were questions about his swing mechanics and approach at the plate, although Springer is far beyond being a right handed hitting version of Drew Stubbs (not a bad overall comparison acknowledging a much more advanced hitting tool than Stubbs had at the same age).

  I'll take that.

(On Seation)-

He pitched the entire 2011 season at age 21 in AA. If he had honored his commitment to Tulane out of high school instead of signing for $700K in the third round, he would have been a junior in the 2011 draft classes. College RHPs with his raw stuff get picked in the first round.

http://www.perfectgame.org/Articles/View.aspx?article=6434

[Ebby Calvin]

Very nice link, AF76.  Thanks for that.

[Mr. Happy]

Brace yourself for a serious response.  I lost it on the same question when this was used to describe Bogusevic's focus before switching to an OF.  What I found was that "pitchability" means learning to use inferior "stuff" to produce strikes.  To me, this meant "nibble" on the strike zone.  But further research led to my understanding that it involved improved control and location of pitches, and not just a lack of "stuff".  Now, whether that is useful or not, I cannot say.  But it does seem to becoming "en vogue" to say a pitcher is working on "pitchability".  After all that, I concluded it is the weeding out process between guys who can pitch (starters), throw for strikes (relievers), and those guys just up there throwing as hard or nasty as they can with no clue where it's going or what it will do.

Pitchability is a nice way of saying that the particular pitcher must have good command in order to be effective.

[MusicMan]

Astros put 3 in BP's top 101 prospects:

48 - Cosart
49 - Springer
73 - Singleton

[toddthebod]

Where's Fernando Martinez on the BA list?

[astrosfan76]

Astros put 3 in BP's top 101 prospects:

48 - Cosart
49 - Springer
73 - Singleton

My first thought was "Singleton that low and behind Cosart and Springer?" But, The first 1B on the list was #69, so they must factor position pretty heavily in their rankings.

[moriartp]

BA's top 100 is out. Singleton 34, Cosart 50, Springer 59. Callis said on Twitter that Villar would've been 103.

[BUWebguy]

From Steve Campbell at the Chron:

Jonathan Singleton, by the way, is only second Astro in past 10 years to crack BB America top 40 prospect list (Hunter Pence, 38, 2007). ... Last Astro in BB America top 25 was Carlos Hernandez (No. 24) in 2002. Roy Oswalt was No. 13 in '01, Lance Berkman No. 13 on '99.

Not that BA's rankings are the be-all, end-all of prospect evaluation, but that pretty much sums up the Astros' player development in recent years. Wow.

[astrosfan76]

From Steve Campbell at the Chron:
Not that BA's rankings are the be-all, end-all of prospect evaluation, but that pretty much sums up the Astros' player development in recent years. Wow.

Lyles was #43 last year, so he may have made it this year if he hadn't been rushed. But, that is pretty telling of the state of our organization; the only top 40 guy in the past 5 years came in a trade.