Laika

you're probably just happy to be in it right

I don't think it was an issue of notice. There are several notable scouting types on the twitter that are very bitter Fangraphs didn't go without someone from in the old boys club. It was a purposeful choice by Fangraphs to pick someone who was completely different.

I've been desperately trying to in the LoD but you won't let me

No, because I don't think he is even really scouting most of these guys. I think he's reading other material + talking to people + looking at stats + watching youtube videos and s*** and then throwing wildly disparate present - future grades on the players and their tools as a method of hedging his bets. I think Dan Farnsworth has some merit, skill, and ability and I think he could be a good part of a team that does this sort of thing. But as the sole source of 30 team rankings that go as deep as these do, he is simply out of his depth and over his head and it shows. I think he needs help.

It's not future. The three numbers he lists are: present grade / likely future grade (50th percentile) / ceiling future grade (95th percentile) The concept is decent for SOME tools. I actually like the incorporation of a percentile way of thinking about tool progression. I mean we see MLB players all the time that outperform or underperform what scouts tabbed their future tools as --> ex., guys who were called future 50 hitters reaching their 90th percentile outlook and hitting .300 consistently. It's clear that there is variance on future physical tools or game tools that needs to be appreciated. But Joey Gallo has 80 power, objectively, right now.

I had an open mind with Farnsworth at first but it's clear at this point that he is simply out of his league / depth. Kind of over it.

Let me know next time you're experiencing periodic mental incapacity and we can talk trade. You have 3-5 players that I wouldn't mind owning. Maybe I can draw up a quick will giving George Springer to me when you die? I wonder if anyone's ever done that. Personal Property - To my children in equal shares Real Estate - To my beloved son absolutely Fantasy Assets - To NJH, who may take at his discretion.

few weeks ago I think

oh hello

He limped off the field after a home plate collision

but why hasn't he suffered enough?

98. Only marginally faster than the fastball that he's always had. I've owned him probably 20 times in various leagues. Except for, you know, when he finally turned into something good.

Yeah it looks like he's gained 30 pounds. Thunder thighs.

He's 6'4" and no longer twiggy. It's the power pitcher frame that scouts drool over.

I wouldn't put a 60 on the CH after that. It got some whiffs, sure, but it was pretty firm at 89/90 and I would have concerns about how consistently it can be that effective. 70+ present FB 50 present CB; 60 potential 45 present CH; 55 potential (flashed plus!) 40 present command 70 body 40 mechanics 30 face

basically just 2015 rookies + 2016 top prospects (ignoring some lower minors guys)

It wasn't meant to be exhaustive at all. I have a lot of other guys I think are top 60 in this criteria. Ex., Mike Clevinger is IMO more valuable than a lot of these dudes.

He basically came into this appearance with three new weapons. A four seamer that he's willing to throw up in the zone and for whiffs, an actual changeup, and a better breaking ball.

Where did you have him ranked before the start? Who are the guys past 25 that you would still take over him? I think this is such an interesting case of parsing small sample size / scouting information.

To be the only one to answer my actual question... Before: #45 above Folty Now: #37 above Greene Hard for me to move him any higher than that. I guess #36 would be easy.

Inverted alphabet; slider of doom; Ace of Aces upside; appropriately placed given past issues; f*** Eickhoff and all of his fanboys; appropriately placed because handsome and the hype is real; age is just a number. rebutted

I actually think it's the best possible ranking of these 60 names that anyone on this board could do, in any amount of time. So I feel great.

Before the start I probably had him in the 45-50 range of this list. Considered him very similarly to Folty. I probably had Sanchez over Cody Anderson, but might have taken Graveman over Sanchez.

I disagree largely with the Hader opinions. Agree on McCullers. Edited list.

One start is just that - one start. Must of us are well versed in the concept of a meaningful sample size. Yet it's still hard to shake the notion that we saw Aaron Sanchez emerge from a cocoon of frustrating inhibitions and sprout his wings as a beautiful SP butterfly this week. How much has your opinion of him changed after that one start? Below, I've ranked 60 2016 prospects and 2015 rookies. These are my arbitrary rankings that I threw together in five minutes. I made no effort to include every notable player. I tried to only include players with SP potential. Where would you have placed Sanchez in this list one week (or one month) ago, and where do you rank him now? 1 .-. Syndergaard 2 .-. Giolito 3 .-. Urias 4 .-. Glasnow 5 .-. Rodon 6 .-. Reyes 7 .-. Matz 8 .-. McCullers 9 .-. Iglesias 10 .-. Severino 11 .-. Snell 12 .-. De Leon 13 .-. Berrios 14 .-. Anderson Espinoza 15 .-. Hader 16 .-. Ed. Rodriguez 17 .-. DeSclafani 18 .-. Joe Ross 19 .-. Gray 20 .-. Hoffman 21 .-. Manaea 22 .-. Newcomb 23 .-. Nola 24 .-. V. Velasquez 25 .-. Norris 26 .-. Carson Fulmer 27 .-. Honeywell 28 .-. Reynaldo Lopez 29 .-. Karns 30 .-. Heston 31 .-. Heaney 32 .-. Lamb 33 .-. Taillon 34 .-. Kopech 35 .-. Holmes 36 .-. Finnegan 37 .-. Greene 38 .-. H. Harvey 39 .-. Stephenson 40 .-. Bradley 41 .-. A. Conley 42 .-. J. Thompson 43 .-. Beede 44 .-. T. Duffey 45 .-. Foltynewicz 46 .-. Bassitt 47 .-. Tropeano 48 .-. H. Owens 49 .-. K. Graveman 50 .-. C. Anderson 51 .-. J. Eickhoff 52 .-. Boyd 53 .-. Lorenzen 54 .-. Chi Chi Gonzalez 55 .-. Wisler 56 .-. Eddie Butler 57 .-. M. Montgomery 58 .-. Mark Appel 59 .-. Nicolino 60 .-. Buck Farmer