A 2023 Draft Rankings Update

Cyndi Chambers / USA TODAY NETWORK

There are only a few weeks until the 2023 amateur draft, and I’ve done a top-to-bottom refresh and expansion of my draft prospect rankings, which you can see on The Board. The goal of the draft rankings is to evaluate and rank as many of the players who are talented enough to hop onto the main section of the pro prospect lists as possible, so they can be ported over to the pro side of The Board as soon as they’re drafted. Players for whom that is true tend to start to peter out in rounds four and five of the draft as bonus slot amounts dip below $500,000. Overslot guys are obvious exceptions. By the seventh round, we’re mostly talking about org guys who are drafted to make a team’s bonus pool puzzle fit together, or players who need significant development to truly be considered prospects.

That means ranking about 125 players. I currently have about that many players on the list, hard ranked through 55, while the prospects below that are bucketed by their demographic. The ordinal rankings will trickle down the list over the next few weeks, more names may be added, and I still have some blurbs and tool grades to fill in, but these 125 names are the lion’s share of the list. Next week’s Combine, as well as the private, individual workouts that take place over the next few weeks and the information that emerges from team meetings, will likely have an impact on the final draft day version of the list. The Combine especially will illuminate some players who will help fill out the bottom of the rankings, and of course it’s inevitable that a few players drafted during the first half of Day Two will need to be added as they’re selected.

Scouts and executives tend to think this is a rather strong, if incomplete, draft class. The high schoolers in this year’s crop are especially talented and deep. There will likely be high-upside high schoolers available after the end of the second round, which probably means there will be a handful of them who end up going to school, strengthening the draft class three years from now, too. Major League Baseball doesn’t scale the league-wide bonus pool up and down based on the quality of the class — there’s only so much money to go around — and this year there are probably more good high schoolers than there is money to pay them to skip school. Teams with comp picks after the second round are sitting pretty and will have access to more talent with those picks than usual. The high school position players, especially the infielders, are particularly deep.

For the second consecutive year, there isn’t an especially exciting crop of college pitchers. After the names at the very top of the draft board (LSU’s Paul Skenes, Florida’s Hurston Waldrep, Tennessee’s Chase Dollander), there is a yawning chasm before you get to the next tier of college pitchers. It’s strange that we’ve had a multi-year dip in pitching prospect quality when the technological tools and infrastructure to understand and develop pitching have existed at the college level for a while now. Some schools are even better at developing arms than a handful of big league orgs, and a lot of the big-budget programs have pumped money into the same tech that good pro orgs use to assess their own players, but the results across the sport haven’t been very good lately. For instance, the best pitching prospect coming out of the Pac-12 this year (Washington right-hander Kiefer Lord) had an ERA over 6.00.

Let’s highlight some individual players who I am personally a little higher or lower on than the general industry sentiment. One of the few college arms who has popped up during the spring is Kent State lefty Joe Whitman, a 45 FV prospect on The Board. He threw less than six innings during his first two years at Purdue, then had a great junior year for the Golden Flash. His slider command is among the best in the entire draft, and he’s looked very good on the Cape recently. He has a shot to sneak into the back of the first round.

There are a few other prominent pitchers I’m higher on: I have a top-10 grade on Waldrep, and have fellow Gator Brandon Sproat in the first round. Sproat is nearly 23, but I don’t really care about the age of pitching prospects in the draft. I care about projectability, which often corresponds with age, but not age itself. Sproat is a year older than most of the class, but he isn’t any less projectable than a typical college arm. He has the same 40-man timeline as anyone else and his stuff is way nastier. Are we really going to take Juaron Watts-Brown over that guy? I’m also smitten with New York high school righty Josh Knoth (he’s the best on-mound athlete, and has the best curveball, in the class) and Arizona high school shortstop Roch Cholowsky (plus-plus shortstop defense gives him a high floor).

You Aren't a FanGraphs Member
It looks like you aren't yet a FanGraphs Member (or aren't logged in). We aren't mad, just disappointed.
We get it. You want to read this article. But before we let you get back to it, we'd like to point out a few of the good reasons why you should become a Member.
1. Ad Free viewing! We won't bug you with this ad, or any other.
2. Unlimited articles! Non-Members only get to read 10 free articles a month. Members never get cut off.
3. Dark mode and Classic mode!
4. Custom player page dashboards! Choose the player cards you want, in the order you want them.
5. One-click data exports! Export our projections and leaderboards for your personal projects.
6. Remove the photos on the home page! (Honestly, this doesn't sound so great to us, but some people wanted it, and we like to give our Members what they want.)
7. Even more Steamer projections! We have handedness, percentile, and context neutral projections available for Members only.
8. Get FanGraphs Walk-Off, a customized year end review! Find out exactly how you used FanGraphs this year, and how that compares to other Members. Don't be a victim of FOMO.
9. A weekly mailbag column, exclusively for Members.
10. Help support FanGraphs and our entire staff! Our Members provide us with critical resources to improve the site and deliver new features!
We hope you'll consider a Membership today, for yourself or as a gift! And we realize this has been an awfully long sales pitch, so we've also removed all the other ads in this article. We didn't want to overdo it.

I’m lower on Colorado high school shortstop Walker Martin. He has a beautiful left-handed swing for an infielder, but while the (nearly) 19-and-a-half-year-old beat up on varsity arms in Colorado during the spring, I’ve never seen him actually hit against elite peers. I’m also not on Florida high school righty Charlee Soto, who shares many traits with the hard-throwing, maxed-out prep arms of yesteryear. Physical projection and fastball shape are important components for young pitchers, and Soto is a “round down” prospect in both respects.





Eric Longenhagen is from Catasauqua, PA and currently lives in Tempe, AZ. He spent four years working for the Phillies Triple-A affiliate, two with Baseball Info Solutions and two contributing to prospect coverage at ESPN.com. Previous work can also be found at Sports On Earth, CrashburnAlley and Prospect Insider.

29 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
dukewinslowMember since 2020
3 years ago

I feel like after years of convergence there’s huge heterogeneity in how teams evaluate pitchers, so ranking them becomes tricky. Is the ranking a function of future performance? I’d the ranking merely trying to guess at draft position? It’s tough when different teams have such different models.

mikejason
3 years ago
Reply to  dukewinslow

Great article.

nnddkk
3 years ago
Reply to  dukewinslow

These rankings are fully a function of expected value; it’s not a mock draft so there’s no component of trying to guess where guys will be taken. EL obviously incorporates input from across the spectrum of team eval preferences but as far as I’m aware the rankings here are ultimately his own.

Domingo AyalaMember since 2024
3 years ago

Why does Crews have a 50 hit tool when his pitch selection and bat control are both 55?

casey jMember since 2026
3 years ago
Reply to  Domingo Ayala

Because you watch Crews play a lot, and Eric has to watch all the players? Your ranking on a player you watch more could be better than his. Feel perfectly free to think for yourself.

Last edited 3 years ago by casey j
Domingo AyalaMember since 2024
3 years ago
Reply to  casey j

What? This is a genuine question on how to evaluate a hot tool. Eric has ranked the pitch selection and bat control of Crews to be 55s, yet he gives him a 50 hit tool overall. I’m curious how that sorts out.

sadtromboneMember since 2020
3 years ago
Reply to  Domingo Ayala

I don’t know, but I am thinking this is all a bit light for Crews. He looks like a 60 hit, 60 game, 70 raw kind of guy.

That’s also what I put for Langford too. It seems like he and Langford are more or less the same guy in terms of tool grades, except Crews has better instincts on defense and therefore a lot more likely to stick in center field.

nnddkk
3 years ago
Reply to  sadtrombone

EL’s eye is obviously far better trained than my own, but I think I personally trust Crews’s hit tool to play in pro ball more than i trust Langford’s. That said, I think langford is toolsier as a hitter.

That being said – having watched a ton of Crews, I do think he’ll have a little bit of an adjustment period in pro ball dealing with guys who can consistently get breakers and changeups over for strikes. In any event, the miniscule chase rate should be sufficient to give him a viable bat even if there are more strikeout issues than expected. If you hit the ball hard and don’t swing at pitches outside the zone, you can survive pretty extreme problems (and I don’t expect crews’s problems to be extreme).

Last edited 3 years ago by nnddkk
sadtromboneMember since 2020
3 years ago
Reply to  nnddkk

Stylistically, I think they look different, but metrically the raw stuff looks eerily similar. The main difference in their numbers is that Crews gets way more batting average on contact and Langford is slightly more likely to go over the fence (and I think this is true after accounting for home parks). But they have similar contact rates, they have similar plate discipline, they have similar raw power numbers, they have similar run times. It’s unbelievable how similar they are; they’re just both really good athletes who are really polished.

That said, it’s entirely possible that the difference styles will play differently in pro ball or with wood bats. And obviously, there are a lot of reasons why some guys succeed and others don’t (makeup, luck, etc).

nnddkk
3 years ago
Reply to  Domingo Ayala

I don’t think it’d at all be crazy to hang a higher grade on Crews’s hit tool but I don’t think there’s anything inconsistent with pegging him at 50hit despite 55 bat control and 55 pitch selection. Those aren’t the only components of a hit tool. There’s bat speed (which crews certainly has), pitch recognition (which EL highlights as a potential weakspot in Crews’s profile), swing path, etc.–as well as the ultimate marriage between all those component parts. It’s this last one that’s often the hardest to evaluate. For example, a given swing path might be less optimized than some other swing path in a vacuum while nevertheless being better suited to a particular hitter’s collection of other hit tool components. A certain swing path might serve to cover up one hitter’s vulnerability to a certain type/location of pitch, while exacerbating problems for another hitter. It’s all an imprecise alchemy that represents the reason hit tool evaluation is so difficult–and also the reason that there’s not a one-to-one correlation between levels for all hitters. If it wasn’t such an inexact science, we’d be able to simply look at crews’s crazy batting average/OBP/chase rate/K:BB/exit velos and hang a huge number on the hit tool – but it is inexact.

At the end of the day, crews definitely has some issues (relatively speaking) with breakers/off-speed stuff low in the zone. It’s totally possible for a guy to have plus barrel control, plus bat speed, and plus zone awareness while still having a pitch recognition problem significant enough to make his hit tool non-viable. I don’t think there’s anyone out there who would claim that crews’s issue is nearly significant enough to sink the whole package – but, at least in EL’s opinion, it’s at least significant enough to pull the hit tool down to average.

Last edited 3 years ago by nnddkk
mikejason
3 years ago

Great article

Travis IceMember since 2026
3 years ago

Fantastic. Thanks Eric!

szakylMember since 2024
3 years ago

Would it be possible to widen the column size of the schools column on the Board for mobile? Currently, you can only see the first 3-5 letters of the name. You can guess some colleges, but the high schoolers are impossible.

Great work as always.

Last edited 3 years ago by szakyl
sadtromboneMember since 2020
3 years ago

I think I more or less agree with everything on this update. I am a little surprised to see Waldrep, Troy, and Dollander on the same level as Clark and Jenkins. But in terms of ordinal ranking, I totally buy those three as the next prospects down. I also buy the aggressive ranking on Chase Davis–he’s been outstanding this year.

The two guys I am having a hard time buying at this level are Jacob Wilson and Yohandy Morales. Morales’s numbers are incredible–not as good as Crews, Langford, or Brock Wilken, but the next half-notch down. But he is a bit more strikeout-prone than one would like for a guy you would take in the top-half of the draft, and he doesn’t have the top-of-the-scale, 80 grade raw power to make it hard to pass on him. Wilson just does not have the power to be a difference-maker with the bat. I know that the Erick Aybar Zone dictates that almost anyone who is a lock to stay at shortstop becomes a major leaguer of some kind but that 35 game power seems optimistic, and below that it’s hard to be a difference maker.

That said, I could totally see them going in that range. Miami loves profiles like Morales’s, and the Cubs love profiles like Wilson. If Eric likes them this much, I imagine decisionmakers at least one or two team’s decisionmakers in that range like them too.

Last edited 3 years ago by sadtrombone
nnddkk
3 years ago
Reply to  sadtrombone

Wilson just does not have the power to be a difference-maker with the bat. I know that the Erick Aybar Zone dictates that almost anyone who is a lock to stay at shortstop becomes a major leaguer of some kind but that 35 game power seems optimistic, and below that it’s hard to be a difference maker.

Man… but the bat-to-ball skill is just so obscenely good that if you think he can play average SS defense at the MLB level it’s damn near impossible to drop him below a 45 at absolute worst. Even if it does wind up being 30 power, that’s a guy who’s likely to carve out an every day/semi-every day role and damn near guaranteed to find an MLB career as a useful bench player.

I’m actually in full agreement that this type of elite contact profile tends to be overrated, as it usually comes without many walks, but it’s at least the kind of profile that gives a guy a high likelihood of staying afloat at each successive rung on the ladder. Even if theres nothing more, Wilson is a good bet to (eventually) be capable of consistently putting the ball in play at the MLB level. Attach that to average defense at SS and you’ve got a perfectly useful player. If he winds up adding a little strength to the frame (which has plenty of room for strength to be added) or a little loft to the swing, we very quickly start crossing into “more than just useful” territory. Given that he’s coming from Grand Canyon, I’ve gotta assume that he’s probably not maxed out in terms of development in those areas.

The two easiest draft comps to me are colton cowser and matt mclain. For all the rave reviews of cowser’s hit tool, wilson strikes out significantly less than cowser did in college. You could certainly make the case that cowser projected a bit more power than wilson – but cowser’s best college season in terms of power was 16HR/28XBH, which wilson (12HR/31XBH) wasn’t far off of. Neither Cowser nor McLain were expected to hit for much power, but both guys dramatically shifted their approach in pro ball. I definitely wouldn’t go so far as to say I expect that type of power output from Wilson, but in terms of a right-tail outcome I don’t think it’s the slightest bit outrageous.

So bottom line is that (assuming the SS defense) you’ve got both (a) a very high-probability “floor” of a useful role player and (b) reasonable high-end outcomes that are legitimately exciting. Boils down to right around a 45+ like EL’s got, if I had to say.

sadtromboneMember since 2020
3 years ago

I am fascinated to see Nimmala this low. By all accounts, he is the toolsiest prep shortstop in the class. He actually reminds me a bit of Jordan Lawlar, who I wasn’t a huge fan of but was probably an FV45+ type of prospect at the minimum. I think Eric’s belief that Nimmala won’t stay at shortstop is what pushes him down on Eric’s board, but a 70 raw power projection would probably be worth pushing him to third base. I don’t think I disagree with the grade so much as saying that outside of the top 4 position players, I don’t think any other position player has that ceiling in this draft except Nimmala.

I think it’s interesting to compare him to Bryce Eldridge–another guy with huge potential, a chance to be a masher in right field, but who is a bit risky (if you’re looking for Yankees-type picks, Eldridge, Chase Davis, and Brock Wilken are good examples of them). The tool grades are similar across the board. But the question with Eldridge is whether he can play the corner outfield if he’s not pitching rather than first base, while the question with Nimmala is whether he can stick at shortstop or he will have to move to third. That’s a big difference!

sadtromboneMember since 2020
3 years ago

Typically the toughest guys to sign are guys who aren’t getting first round money but are committed to Stanford and Vanderbilt, right? Aside from them is there anyone else considered a tough sign?

HowBoutDemOsMember since 2019
3 years ago
Reply to  sadtrombone

I wonder if NIL affects this at all. Not that college baseball has nearly as much money flowing in as football or basketball, but can some of the powerhouse SEC schools pay players to not sign? I doubt there’s enough to compete with first round money, but after that, maybe?

sadtromboneMember since 2020
3 years ago
Reply to  HowBoutDemOs

When it first happened, this was something that Eric and Kevin talked about and eventually decided that this was not something that was going to affect baseball players like it affects basketball and football players. The guy they thought it was most likely to affect was Bubba Chandler, who would have played quarterback for some team (Clemson, I think?), and maybe it affected Will Taylor (who also went to Clemson to play two sports, football and baseball).

The only guy who I know is a two-sport athlete in this draft is Roch Cholowsky, but I think he’s a much better prospect as a baseball player.

HowBoutDemOsMember since 2019
3 years ago
Reply to  sadtrombone

Yeah I remember that, but if memory serves (and it’s been a while), I think they were taking NIL a little more literally at the time, as most people were for the first year. As in, players could only make as much as the market would actually pay for their name, image, and likeness. In that context, yeah, there’s not enough of a market for college baseball to compete with even, like 7th, round money.

But it’s now become a much more free-for-all where schools (ok, private businesses who happened to be owned by big fans of the schools, and “collectives”) can just pay players what they want. From what I understand, LSU has bee paying baseball players decent money to transfer. I don’t know if that has/will translate to high schoolers. But if so I could imagine, LSU, Bama, Texas, and Tennessee convincing a couple guys a year to give up 2nd-3rd round money and come to school.

sadtromboneMember since 2020
3 years ago
Reply to  HowBoutDemOs

Is that why they are all transferring to LSU? That’s hilarious.

If this is the case, then I think you could see Blake Mitchell (LSU commit, #1 prospect at Baseball Factory, probably #20-#30 in draft) as a prototypical tough sign. Teams are nervous about drafting high school catching, and he would be the crown jewel of their recruiting class.

The other two that stand out are Travis Sykora, who would be draft eligible after two years at Texas, and if Aidan Miller falls (Arkansas recruit, 19.1 years old on draft day) he could be in a similar boat. I think Mitchell would also be draft eligible after two years.

So, basically, it seems like the absolute top recruits happen to be old for the class, which would then make college programs have greater incentives to get them and for them to have greater incentives to attend. Walker Martin is a lesser prospect but he would also be eligible after two years at Arkansas.

(I’m sure there are better ones out there than baseball factory, but I think that’s right that he’s one of the top recruits out there)

theflushingmets
3 years ago

Why doesn’t Roc Riggio get any love? I know his showing on the Cape last year wasn’t great but he has done nothing but light up college pitching, and has a history of high leverage competition going back to his team USA days as a high schooler.

CC AFCMember since 2016
3 years ago

Good to see the Sproat movement. I only follow the draft up to the first 10 or so players and I haven’t really watched college baseball at all. But I watched him pitch the first game the other day and I was like “who is this guy? Why haven’t I heard of him?” Glad to see I wasn’t crazy

srpst23Member since 2025
3 years ago

Has anyone heard what the Pirates plan to do? Will they do the obvious and draft Crews, or are they going to try and get cute with an underslot guy again. Going underslot doesn’t make as much sense this year I feel since there is a pretty clear consensus #1 (unlike 2021).

2wins87
3 years ago

How does Tommy Troy bust out an 80 grade run score when everyone else basically has him as a 55 runner?

I’m not disbelieving his clocked time at the Pac-12 tournament, more genuinely curious how that happens when no one has seemed to view him as more than a bit above average runner? Was everyone just relying on old grades? Has he literally never been close to that fast before?

Players can have good and bad days for any physical tools, but I always think of speed as one of the most consistent.

Very intriguing tidbit, also a much more intriguing prospect as one of the fastest in the class.

sadtromboneMember since 2020
3 years ago
Reply to  2wins87

The top of this class is pretty ridiculous. He’s probably a 60 bat (some chance he’s less, some shot he’s more), maybe 50 raw power, and 80 speed? There’s no perfect comp for that, but this sounds a lot like Trea Turner. And at best, he’s the #6 or #7 prospect in the class.

Last edited 3 years ago by sadtrombone
LeschiLarryMember since 2025
3 years ago

Eric,

It would appear that the Mariners are in a really unique position for this draft. They have their “normal” pick at 22… and the first day ends at 28. THEN to start the second day the Mariners have pick #29 (Prospect Promotion Incentive..thank you JRod) and then pick #30 (Competitive Balance). Much less important than having three picks in the first 30 is the fact that after the first 28 rounds the Mariners can caucus and decide what they want to do with 29 and 30 (and have time to communicate with players and “make deals”) and then right out of the box the next day they can just take what they have worked out. Amazing. Like playing fantasy and having an extra 2 picks at the turn in a draft. Have you ever seen such a great setup??

sandwiches4everMember since 2019
3 years ago
Reply to  LeschiLarry

Mike Trout was notably the second of two consecutive picks the Angels had in the first round his year. Having 3 picks in a compressed window in the draft is interesting.

sadtromboneMember since 2020
3 years ago
Reply to  LeschiLarry

The D-Backs had virtually that exact same setup in 2019. They got Corbin Carroll, Brennen Malone, and Drey Jameson. Malone busted (although after he was traded) and Jameson needs some more work, but the potential is still there to have 2 out of 3 hit big.

The more fantastical scenarios involve giving a big bonus to a high schooler who otherwise would go to college. It’s not at all clear to me who that could be in this draft. I sincerely doubt Walker Jenkins or Max Clark will fall that far. Maybe Arjun Nimmala, Aidan Miller, or Blake Mitchell. But I am not convinced that Miller or Mitchell that much better than other guys who would be available for closer to slot in that range (Eldridge, Schanuel, Chase Davis).