Skip to content

Keith Law’s Top 100 prospects list is out

Feb 5, 2013, 11:32 AM EDT

profar getty Getty Images

As yesterday’s top farm systems list, Keith Law’s annual Top 100 Prospects list also on ESPN’s Insider so, sorry, you gotta pay to see it all. But it’s also one of the annual must-reads in all of baseball, so not linking it would be bloggy malpractice.

The top: The Rangers’ Jurickson Profar. Number 100: The Orioles’ Eduardo Rodriguez. In between: 98 other dudes, all with Law’s assessment of them.

Nowhere on the list is Andy Marte. Which, frankly, is kind of a bummer. I think he’s about ready.

  1. soxdrawer - Feb 5, 2013 at 11:41 AM

    Well… you don’t HAVE to pay …

    [Craig here: I have deleted the link to to the list of Law's top 100 prospects that this commenter had put here. I do not feel that I could ethically write my own blog post that copies something in its entirety from behind a paywall and offers it up as a means of circumventing said paywall, and I think allowing this comment is, by extension, doing the same thing. It'd be different if the linked post was its own thing, with editorial content, but it's a 100% cut and paste and that's just not cool in my view].

    • number42is1 - Feb 5, 2013 at 11:43 AM

      WIN!

    • purnellmeagrejr - Feb 5, 2013 at 11:53 AM

      thank you.

    • Ben - Feb 5, 2013 at 12:07 PM

      Goddamn it, if Craig can edit our comments, why can’t we edit our own?!

      • Francisco (FC) - Feb 5, 2013 at 12:17 PM

        The World Will Never Know.

      • 18thstreet - Feb 5, 2013 at 12:47 PM

        You can edit your comments right up until the moment you hit “post.” I’m not saying that I never make typos, but when I do, it’s my fault.

      • cur68 - Feb 5, 2013 at 2:05 PM

        Now, now boys. Lets be fair. Craig’s got an extra “to” in his first sentence. So he’s as capable of making a comment error as anyone. Lets see if he stands in solidarity with his commentary brethren and leaves it in or if he pulls a fast one and edits it. Depending on what he does, we can judge him:

        Is he Blogging’s Greatest Monster (The ARod of Blogging)
        or
        Is he Just Another Victim of The Man

  2. Dan - Feb 5, 2013 at 11:41 AM

    Yep… Because I am absolutely going to PAY for his or anyone else’s opinions. Ridiculous. It is all speculation and guess work.

    • salvomania - Feb 5, 2013 at 11:55 AM

      It’s like any other product: if you find it’s worth paying for it, you pay for it. Or steal it.

      If it’s not worth it—which it clearly isn’t to you—then you can ignore it.

      I subscribe to Baseball Prospectus because I enjoy reading their opinions, speculation and guesswork. But I don’t subscribe to ESPN Insider because it’s not worth it to me.

      • Ben - Feb 5, 2013 at 4:41 PM

        Derp–*or* be sanctimonious about it. Not and.

    • nategearhart - Feb 5, 2013 at 12:40 PM

      Do you steal cable? Or books?

      • Ben - Feb 5, 2013 at 12:48 PM

        Yes, but mostly because of format. I’d love to pay a huge monthly fee to have every bit of television and the movies I want to watch available online with no ads, but they often aren’t, so I pirate them. I don’t own a TV, I don’t want to own a TV, and I want to stream everything. Unfortunately, there are such huge walled gardens that piracy is the best option. Even for someone who wants to pay.

      • Ben - Feb 5, 2013 at 1:03 PM

        I should amend my statement, because it’s important–I want it in one spot. I don’t want to have to scrounge across Hulu+, Netflix, Amazon, iTunes, Google Play, every channel’s site, etc. One site. Everything. Huge fee. No ads. Sign me up now. In the meantime, torrents.

      • nategearhart - Feb 5, 2013 at 3:32 PM

        So it’s ok for YOU to steal stuff, as long as you want it bad enough. Got it.

      • Ben - Feb 5, 2013 at 4:21 PM

        Nope. When there’s no reasonable way to obtain it legally I have no problem doing it illegally. And the fact is, HBO makes more money allowing a certain rate of piracy and charging exorbitant cable fees than they would charging more reasonable a la carte pricing to a larger customer base. Which is fine, that’s how their business model works. So I’ll just play my part in it.

      • nategearhart - Feb 5, 2013 at 4:29 PM

        “When there’s no reasonable way to obtain it legally I have no problem doing it illegally.”
        Talk about entitlement. We’re not talking about food and shelter here. I can’t afford a Cadillac; I don’t get to acquire one illegally.

      • Ben - Feb 5, 2013 at 4:40 PM

        The fact is that digital and analog goods are not alike. I agree that it’s theft, but we’ve also moved into an era in which digital artifacts are not treated the same as analog artifacts, and never will be. So we can either accept that reality, and we can be sanctimonious about. I’d love to pay for it, but companies actually make it difficult to purchase their products. Netflix is fantastic, but why is their no TV/movie equivalent of Spotify? My 10 bucks on a month for Spotify premium is probably the best money I spend, and has radically decreased the amount of music I download.

      • Ben - Feb 5, 2013 at 4:44 PM

        Err, *or* we can be sanctimonious about it. Not and!

      • Ben - Feb 5, 2013 at 4:49 PM

        (And for that matter, what with a new generation of 500 dollar 3D printers, soon physical objects will be able to be pirated. This is one of those “get with reality” things. You can bleat about intellectual property all you want, but it’s rapidly becoming moot conceptually and practically. So offer compelling reasons to pay for them. I’ve offered some ideas above.)

      • nategearhart - Feb 5, 2013 at 5:13 PM

        “Stealing stuff is a shitty thing to do” should be all the “compelling” reason you need, but it sounds like you’ve convinced yourself that access to television, movies, and other forms of digital content is some sort of inalienable right. Just because a thing exists doesn’t mean you’re entitled to have it.

      • Ben - Feb 5, 2013 at 5:21 PM

        Keep raging against the dying of the light, my friend. I respect you for it.

  3. mj1818 - Feb 5, 2013 at 11:45 AM

    Thank you for plugging ESPN they don’t make enough money as it is so why wouldn’t I give them more of my money?

    • ame123 - Feb 5, 2013 at 11:48 AM

      Its called buttering up a potential future employer.

      • Kleinz 57 - Feb 5, 2013 at 12:04 PM

        It’s called “highlighting a consistently well-written piece from one of the brightest and most entertaining minds in baseball.” Try again.

      • ame123 - Feb 5, 2013 at 12:16 PM

        Kleinz 57 is easily impressed.

  4. manifunk - Feb 5, 2013 at 11:48 AM

    Yeah, a dude works like crazy all year, watching who-knows-how-many minor league games, works all winter in putting together a list, and I have to *pay* $5 to access it and all other content he produces in a calendar year? Yeah, forget THAT.

    Yeesh. Get over your privilege already.

    • hisgirlgotburrelled - Feb 5, 2013 at 11:58 AM

      MLB.com does it free.

      http://mlb.mlb.com/mlb/prospects/watch/y2013/

      • manifunk - Feb 5, 2013 at 12:00 PM

        MLB.com’s list is also hilarious and easily the worst of the bunch when compared to KLaw, Baseball Prospectus and Baseball America.

      • geoknows - Feb 5, 2013 at 12:26 PM

        Jonathan Mayo’s list is only fit for comedy purposes.

      • paperlions - Feb 5, 2013 at 12:39 PM

        Agreed. The MLB list is always hype driven, not scouting driven. If a guy has been in the news, traded, or hyped in anyway….the MLB list always has such players higher than any other list. It is always a weird list that inspires head scratching and a lot of WTF moments.

        If you want free prospect information, try John Sickels excellent work at minorleaguebaseball.com (though I don’t think he does top 100 lists, just rankings within organizations).

      • ame123 - Feb 5, 2013 at 12:46 PM

        Love minorleagueball and Sickels rankings.

      • paperlions - Feb 5, 2013 at 1:02 PM

        My bad, you are right, it is “minorleagueball.com” (no base in there).

    • ame123 - Feb 5, 2013 at 11:59 AM

      ESPN already makes more than enough by taking a big chunk of your cable bill.

      • jarathen - Feb 5, 2013 at 4:27 PM

        Yeah, well I don’t have cable, so there, ESPN.

    • hisgirlgotburrelled - Feb 5, 2013 at 12:06 PM

      Thanks. I now have 3 free sites to check instead of paying.

      • jwbiii - Feb 5, 2013 at 1:11 PM

        Have you read Fan Graphs? They’re not so easy to find unless there’s one on the front page. If not, open any post and then click on Marc Hulet in the Authors box. The Rangers are up today.

        Hmm. You still have to click on Hulet to get the rest. Last year every prospect column linked to the series.

        I’m happy with the comments from Sickels and Hulet and just the free lists from BA and BPro. Hulet lists 15 prospects per organization and Sickels usually lists more, so you will almost always have some comments on the players on the BA and BPro lists.

      • churchoftheperpetuallyoutraged - Feb 5, 2013 at 1:50 PM

        fangraphs new webdesign is godawful. It’s like they took queues from deadspin and said, “we can make a worse webpage!”

      • phillyphreak - Feb 5, 2013 at 1:56 PM

        Am I the only one who doesn’t always get the Fangraphs prospect rankings? Or am I just living in a world of confirmation bias? I appreciate the work the prospect guys do there, it’s just not on the same level as the others from what I’ve read.

      • churchoftheperpetuallyoutraged - Feb 5, 2013 at 2:15 PM

        Speaking more in general terms, pay attention to how each group does it’s rankings. For instance, this is one of Klaw’s guidelines:
        When ranking players, I consider scouting reports on players — usually my own, supplementing with conversations with other scouts and front-office executives as needed — as well as performance, adjusted for age and context. I’ve made one adjustment in my ranking philosophy in recent years, favoring higher-upside prospects over lower-ceiling prospects who are closer to the majors. This better reflects how these players are valued now by front offices and scouting departments, and gives me a chance to deliver more information on prospects whose names or scouting reports might be new to you.

        That bolded section could make some player’s rankings vary wildly over the different publications. Also, it’s one thing if you are reading BPro’s Jason Parks (nee KG) or ESPN’s Klaw where it’s one person doing the entire set of rankings, or BA/Fangraph who use a group of people to do them.

  5. Lindsay Cash - Feb 5, 2013 at 12:39 PM

    Reblogged this on Lindsay Cash and commented:
    TIME FOR BASEBALL! Keith Law’s Top 100 prospects — wanted to reblog, here:

  6. churchoftheperpetuallyoutraged - Feb 5, 2013 at 12:51 PM

    Dear lord baby jesus, I thought 23 comments would be filled with claims of bias and other nonsense, not whether paying for content is justifiable or not.

    • paperlions - Feb 5, 2013 at 1:32 PM

      Everybody knows Law hates the Cardinals because of his CY vote that one year in which he ranked the best pitcher #1 and the best pitcher won….or something.

      • Kevin S. - Feb 5, 2013 at 1:37 PM

        And Law voting the way people wanted him to wouldn’t have changed the outcome.

      • paperlions - Feb 5, 2013 at 1:44 PM

        Exactly.

  7. thebadguyswon - Feb 5, 2013 at 5:15 PM

    I’ve got plenty of toilet paper. I don’t need Keith Law telling me Noah Syndergaard ranks #93 overall, when two other prospect mavens have him in their top 40. Something tells me if Aaron Sanchez was the pitcher traded in the Dickey deal, Syndergaard would be in the top 30 and and Sanchez would be #93. Keith Law is a biased idiot.

    • paperlions - Feb 5, 2013 at 6:27 PM

      Actually, Law gives his reason for his ranking. Syndergaard has never been able to develop even an average breaking ball, and the stuff he has (FB/CH) right now isn’t good enough to be elite against MLB hitters if he doesn’t even have a show me breaking ball. Typically, breaking balls are either in the wrist or they are not, if Syndergaard can’t throw one….he probably doesn’t belong in the top 40 considering his current distance from the majors and ceiling.

      ….but then, that is always a person’s choice, isn’t it? You can objectively evaluate all presented information/opinion in order to decide what you think, or you can reject information that isn’t consistent with what you want to be true and fish around for opinions that are more similar to your hopes and dreams, truth be damned.

      • thebadguyswon - Feb 5, 2013 at 7:11 PM

        Keith Law’s opinion of Syndergaard is not congruent with the consensus opinion. Someone’s wrong. My guess is Law.

      • paperlions - Feb 5, 2013 at 7:55 PM

        What consensus? The guy that does rankings for MLB doesn’t do a particularly good job, his rankings are always based on hype. Who really thinks Syndgaard is an elite talent who opinion is based on more information that Law’s? I am not saying he is right, but every write up of Syndgaard says the secondary stuff is NOT there. Being in the top 100 means that, on average, a guy is a top 3 organizational prospect….that is no insult for a guy that has yet to reach A+ ball and that has no secondary pitch that rates as even a show me pitch, much less an average one.

      • brainofj01 - Feb 6, 2013 at 10:14 AM

        There are plenty of people that aren’t very high on Syndergaard, if you’d actually look for prospect analysis, instead of going by what YOU think, or claiming a particular author has bias, based on one not very well done piece.

        Via Mark Hulet, of fangraphs here:

        http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/index.php/syndergaard-brings-big-heat-to-new-york-mets/

        “his secondary pitches are still raw and currently project as average offerings, which tempers projections for his overall ceiling. I spoke with a talent evaluator for my recent Jays Top 15 prospect list and he said this of Syndergaard’s stuff: “The curveball has come a long, long way… it is, at times, average,””

    • brainofj01 - Feb 6, 2013 at 10:17 AM

      Oh, and just so you know, Mark Hulet of fangraphs.com rated Syndergaard behind Sanchez BEFORE he was traded. Why do you hate Law so much? Do your research before you bash someone please.

Leave Comment

You must be logged in to leave a comment. Not a member? Register now!

Featured video

This was 'the perfect baseball game'
Top 10 MLB Player Searches
  1. S. Kazmir (5469)
  2. G. Springer (3812)
  3. M. Machado (3122)
  4. K. Uehara (2764)
  5. C. Kimbrel (2735)
  1. B. Harper (2712)
  2. I. Davis (2537)
  3. D. Pedroia (2530)
  4. J. Reyes (2497)
  5. J. Chavez (2483)