Phuture Phillies 2017 Reader Top 30 Poll for #29

Jordan Kurokawa was your selection as the #28 prospect in the Phillies’ organization. Kurokawa received 122 of 384 votes (32%) for a plurality victory.  Thomas Eshelman (93 votes, 24%) finished second.  Jesse Valentin (53 votes, 14%) finished third

Jordan Kurokawa was drafted by the Phillies in the 28th of the 2016 MLB June Amateur draft out of the University of Hawaii-Hilo.  He signed on June 15, 2016 and was assigned to the GCL Phillies.

Kurokawa was reported to throw his fastball 93-95 mph on August 25th by Chris King.  He also has a low 80s change up and a mid 70s curve ball.

The 23-year old Kurokawa pitched in a league where the position players averaged 19.5 and fellow pitchers averaged 20.5 years of age.  In 19.1 relief innings, he posted a 1-3 record, 4.19 ERA, .291 batting average against, 2.3 BB/9, 8.8 K/9, and a 1.45 WHIP.

Next up is your selection for the #29 prospect in the organization.


Poll to date –

  1. J.P. Crawford
  2. Jorge Alfaro
  3. Mickey Moniak
  4. Roman Quinn
  5. Nick Williams
  6. Franklyn Kilome
  7. Sixto Sanchez
  8. Rhys Hoskins
  9. Dylan Cozens
  10. “C” Randolph
  11. Scott Kingery
  12. Kevin Gowdy
  13. Harold Arauz
  14. Andrew Knapp
  15. Jhailyn Ortiz
  16. Adonis Medina
  17. Mark Appel
  18. Nick Pivetta
  19. Ben Lively
  20. Alberto Tirado
  21. Elniery Garcia
  22. Nick Fanti
  23. Cole Stobbe
  24. Drew Anderson
  25. Andrew Pullin
  26. Carlos Tocci
  27. Ricardo Pinto
  28. Jordan Kurokawa

56 thoughts on “Phuture Phillies 2017 Reader Top 30 Poll for #29

  1. Apparently we experienced some ballot stuffing from Hawaii. I almost disregarded the outcome and declared Eshelman the victor. Kurokawa may throw 93-95, but IMO a college pitcher should have fared better in the GCL. And IMO a GCL relief pitcher should probably not be ranked ahead of some of the position players, starting pitchers, and even some of the the relief pitchers still on the board.

    1. I ask not to criticize the comment about ballot stuffing but just wondering because I remember some extra work you had done just to prevent the polling from being “fraudulent”- by “ballot stuffing” do you mean a bunch of people voted who hadn’t voted before, or you think people voted multiple times, or something else?

      1. One may mot vite more than once. Many people in the state are supporting their native son…nothing wrong with that…readers poll…its not bs by any means. The college he played at was a losing, off the radar team….he fought to be noticed….and continues to do so…phuture philly

        1. This is NOT a popularity contest. Readers are expected to vote for the players they think are the BEST prospects in the Phillies’ organization. If what you suggest is true then the state got it wrong.

  2. I think you should correct it if it’s an obvious bs vote . . . I’d think this could count as “obvious bs”

    1. I agree with eric here, this is not a healthy outcome for what should be serious voting. This voting poll could eventually become irrelevant if this continued and what if someone finished in the Top 10 because of ballot stuffing.

      This vote is beyond comprehension and denies a worthy candidate a place in the top 30.

  3. The strange thing to me is that I, for example, have been quietly voting for Valentin for over a week since he became my top remaining prospect. One might think that other prospects would be ascending as they gained support from voters as their more-preferred selections make the list, yet looking back a couple of polls Kurokawa had maybe 2 votes prior to amassing over 120 here ( difference more than every single vote the last selectee received). This is not to imply I necessarily think the results should be changed though.

      1. El,

        I understand you want to bring attention to your guy. Well, you’ve done it. Mission accomplished. I’ve certainly got my awareness raised and will be watching him this spring.

      2. El, since you want to bring up previous voting, yes Kurokawa was 4th in the 27th poll … with 19 votes. In the 8 polls he received votes starting with the 19th poll, he has received 2, 2, 2, 3, 3, 26, 3, 2, 19, 122. The day he received 26 votes he finished 6th. So, I hope you can see why a jump to 122 looks suspicious to me and my readers.

  4. This is all supposed to be an exercise in having fun and not taken too seriously BUT it’s a shame with all the time and work Jim P is investing to create a forum for our enjoyment. I guess one consolation is that this didn’t happen in the top ten.

    Jim, is there a way to monitor the votes after certain milestones (100 votes…200….300…) and qualify only those prospects with a minimum % of the votes….??

    1. Yes, fun. But still done seriously by the participants, so subverting the results with ballot stuffing is wrong.

      I hold with those who say that clear cases of ballot stuffing should be marked with an asterisk, and additional ballots should be held to get a true Top 30. In this case that means going to 33.

      I also agree with the suggestion that 31 through 33 don’t need a write up.

      Finally, if folks from Hawaii want to support one of their own, show some love of Chace Numata. That could be justified as an honest vote.

    2. No. I would have to remain logged on all day. When I last checked, Eshelman had a substantial lead over Valentin who had a substantial lead over Kurokawa. It looked like TE would prevail although JK’s total was a little disconcerting.

      I spent the rest of the day removing graduated or departed prospects from the player profile pages and even added one new profile page. When I returned to complete the poll write up, I found out that the one I had started would have to be re-written.

  5. Kurokawa is not in my top 50. I saw his name a few times and was trying to remember what trade he came in. Jim points out that he’s a 23 y/o college draftee. Even in our lean years he wouldn’t be an honorable mention. I’m afraid poll stuffing is destroying the fun of our top 30. Larry Greene might start getting votes or possibly Encarnacion.

    1. He’s not in my top 50 either. Guys let’s just ignore the three guys who don’t belong in our list

      1. There in lies the problem. Who’s to say who belongs and who doesn’t. (Just playing devil’e advocate here.)

        Arauz may not belong as high as #13, but his home splits and other peripherals may place him realistically in the back end, say 26-30.

        Fanti was the second best pitcher in the GCL. He has been over shadowed by Sanchez, but he tied for the league lead in wins, led the league in strike outs, and had the second lowest ERA and WHIP (behind Sanchez). Maybe he’s a guy everyone is missing on.

        And while I was completing today’s write up after I had decided to declare Eshelman the victor, I saw that his peripherals were not clearly better than Kurokawa’s. So maybe I’m wrong and maybe he does belong in the back end of our top 30. So, I deferred to the actual vote and kept Kurokawa at #28.

  6. Eshelman is #20 on my top 30. Valentin is only 2 spots below him in my poll. Viza’s in my top 30 too. Someone mentioned yesterday that they’ve been voting for Eshelman for a week. I’ve been voting for him for 2 weeks. None of my votes counted in 2 weeks. Yikes!!

  7. Arano is next for me, but Jordan Kurokawa was like 20 some points behind Eshelman in the late afternoon yesterday.

  8. As a long time follower of the site (I seldom if ever comment but have been following for many years) I would suggest the obvious ballot stuffing isn’t fair for all those who put time and effort into this. Could there be some kind of criteria where if a player comes out of nowhere, with below a certain percentage of votes in the prior rounds, then it can be reconsidered asterix etc.?

    1. Agree. The only silver-lining is, he was voted 28th…and not in the Top 10.

      Does sort of cheapen the exercise though. But who knows? Maybe he’ll become the next Porfi Altamirano, Tom Newell or Amalio Carreño.

  9. JimP….perhaps next year, to prevent the ‘ballot stuffing’…have each poster. who wishes to participate, privately email you their top 30 over a week stretch with a deadline, after the New Year….you take your time and tabulate the results….then start to post them like a few sites do in descending order from 30 countdown to number one….and for those days posters can have discussions on them. Just a suggestion.

    1. I like that idea. But, I have asked for participants to e-mail me their top 30 early in the polling process each year that I’ve run the poll. The number who have responded has dropped each year. This year I received so few that it is impossible to publish the results without some anomalies being included among the top prospects. For instance Kevin Gowdy was not included on one top 30 I received. Such an omission in a SSS really skews the results.

      I could maybe limit the voters to the people who establish accounts, but that would preclude some readers from participating. And might deter new readers from joining. IDK. But, I’ve got a year to think about it.

  10. I was annoyed with the Arauz selectiion and now this. I used to vote for every spot every year, sorry Im done until this is fixed. With those 2 guys included it appears that us the fans are morons.

    1. Eagle….looks like 3 (Arauz, maybe Fanti and now Kurokawa) of our top 30 (10%) have been compromised/corrupt but a popularity vote.
      It makes our poll, for lack of a better word, faulty.
      I think JimP will eventually be able to sort this out by next year.

  11. So…Arauz, Fanti, and now Kurokawa. Call me a conspiracy theorist, but I have to think that there is someone / a group of people messing with us using proxy IP’s and trying to mask that by indicating traffic from the player’s home (ex., Hawaii for Kurokama, Panama for Arauz). There are two reasons I’m thinking this:

    1) This has happened 3 times now. I can buy picking up a strong contingent from a hometown/state/country once. Maybe the Panamanians really love Arauz. I can’t buy that we’re suddenly getting swaths of fans from Hawaii and the Fanti family randomly. Once is a fluke, twice is suspicious, three times is a trend
    2) It comes out of nowhere. If these guys really had this level of support, why were they voted #13, 22, and 28? If they really had these followings wouldn’t they get voted in the day they appeared on the poll? Kurokawa at least has been on here for over a week. Also, these were guys finishing near the bottom of the poll and all of a sudden they won, so it wasn’t like they had a strong following and the poll spread by word of mouth

    So yeah, I think this is coming from the same source. I’m going blame Mets fans 🙂

    1. Well the one guy that has been doing a little damage in the past was our old buddy FreeAEC (Alan)…..
      Not saying he is the culprit but he did get around.
      But normally he was more anti-Middleton/Monty and the Phillies org and not so much into things like we have here. Though he use to post on here about 4/5 years ago.

    2. It does seem a little funny to had have happen 3 times now.
      And I recall someone saying that it might happen with Kurakawa, and Hawaii

  12. I guess it means that the site is getting more popular, to have this happen three times in one top 30. I don’t remember it happening three times total before this year.

    Jim, when you do the final top 30 write up with the end results, I’d be happy if you just excluded the names that obviously don’t belong. No need for asterisks.

  13. Maybe you should close the poll to only you who are “owners” of this poll. If people get behind the player they know, or from their home and then have all you with your sour grapes….make it a private poll for just the ones you choose to allow to vote.

    1. Feel free to post your own top 30 here, and why you value Kurokawa over Eshelman and Valentin and the rest.

      What do you think his tools could play at in the Major League level?

      Is he a first division or second division regular?

      How does his arm strength and hit tool compare to others in the organization?

      How do you feel about his age-to-level?

  14. I hesitate to respond because in many ways IMO clogging the discussions makes it worth. However, i wanted to offer what may be two silver linings. First IMO it would be a lot more difficult for this to occur earlier in the polls due to the higher number of vote. Now, when I write this I did not actually check to see the number of votes in the first 10 polls but writing without cluttering my comment with (gasp) actual facts, at poll positions 20+ the criteria become more subjective on which of the prospect’s flaws are least problematic, or which of their more limited skill set is most likely to make an impact…. thus the string of plurality wins. Second potential silver lining is that if the individual is on the list of prospects to choose from, they can’t be THAT bad. For example, Brandon Leibrandt isn’t THAT bad a choice IMO but he didn’t make the cut of prospects to choose from. My overlong 2nd point being that Jim has raised the bar of the possible choices just by who he made available.

    Lastly Jim, who spends considerable time on this site when all is right with the world, from what he writes has added significant additional effort to block multiple votes in various ways. If someone really wants to vote multiple times I expect they can find a way. Maybe not 200 times, but I’d think at least 4 or 5 with it not being discernable from a legitimate vote. Perhaps, for example, two people share the same email address or three people share the same computer. These could be legitimate votes. I encourage rejoicing in the success of the poll and the accompanying discussions

  15. I think it is okay. Jim’s opinion is worth a lot more than mine, and our votes count the same. If some people get excited about their friend or family member, it is okay. They might start following the website a little bit.

    1. Yeah, I hoped the Arauz vote would increase readership. But after he was selected, visitors from Panama dropped from a high of 149 on January 2nd to 0 the past 3 days. So, I don’t hold out any hope that yesterday’s outcome will add readers to the site.

  16. I voted Seranthony again but I also want Eshelman, Pujols and Valentin to make the list..i also like Ranger Suarez, such a cool name.

    Jordan was always getting at least one vote for awhile now. I guess maybe a friend or relative in Hawaii then he finally made a push and got all his friends and relatives to probably vote. Hope he does well, he’s definitely a long-shot underdog, would be a good story if he makes it.

  17. Hi Jim, I’m sure someone brought this up, but can we take this out to 32 now? I’d like to know what the real (regular) reader top 30 is, not just the top 28. If we go out to 32 (unless someone else gets a fan club that finds out abut the site in the next couple days ;-), at least we can know who #’s 29 and 30 really would have been.

    I keep my own running board and compare it with this years and last years, just to see how the readers here change. So it would be nice to get 2 more votes in there.

  18. block voting not only exist, it can also work — but this is the inherent risk of a free voting as we see in the arauz, fanti and kurokawa instances.

    i like the ideas of submitting individual (posters) rankings to Jim although some of us may not follow the farm too deeply and due to the depth of the farm – the back end of the Top 30 might result to name recognition.

    why not instead of submitting the rankings, each of us just send their Top 50 (maybe in order but not necessary) to Jim at some point and Jim will summarize all our prospect submissions and narrow down the list to 40 or 50 prospect names (or the finalists) who will be subjected to the fan vote like we have right now.

    This is like having a primaries (in the election) and qualifying (for olympics and world competitions). At least in this way, Jim (and us) can help narrow down the list of the prospects who are deserving to be in the Top 30 or so.

    1. Jim already did a poll to select the possible prospect pool. The names on it where limited by previous vote.

      In an open vote with nearly infinite allowable voters their can be unexpected results. I applaud all the work Jim has done to avoid bias, allow a large prospect pool, and still manage this enormous task.

      I think the poll is fun, I will continue to vote, and I can judge who I think was overrated in this exercise. I hope this poll is meaningless to the actual prospects themselves and any decisions made on their future. I wish the best for all these guys to live their dream. I will leave it up to the admin to decide how to proceed.

      My opinion is the 3 votes mentioned are inconsistent and certainly could be eliminated. That decision could anger the ‘readership’ and that has to be considered.

      I still appreciate the poll, read multiple times a day, and thank (all) most of the commenters who contribute to my knowledge of the system.

  19. KuKo…I like that idea for next year….but has to be done early, since it will require some work for Jim and take some time for Jim to work up the final product.
    We can be talking 150 to 200 separate submissions.

    1. or maybe we can piggy back on what did Jim did this year and ask the readers to select the prospects (each can choose up 50 names if it’s possible) that needs to included in the pool — and Jim will be the final arbitrator who will cut the pool to 40 names or so.

      with the block voting situation that we experienced this year, maybe most readers will take that exercise more seriously and plan their rankings since the names of the finalists are already known from the beginning.

        1. Yup, Jim knows the system well enough to limit the list of available prospects, which he has done. I don’t have an issue with him editing the poll results if something funny happens. If lots of people comment about a player it’s a sign that their selection is legitimate. These guys with poll support but no supporters in the comments section are bogus and should be removed.

  20. I say we keep voting till we get to our worst prospect! Sorry Jim! No rest for you! We can keep it to the players in America if that helps!

    1. “keep it to the players in America” — are you talking about the prospects’ nationality or the league where the prospects are playing? I don’t think this will address the issue that the prospect voting currently has.

      As far as to the worst prospect — we might reach the start of the MLB season and out poll probably not done if that’s the case.

  21. Okay. Enough. Now for something really important. Ahem. Quiet in the back. Buehler!

    “MLB Now” asked me to come on their show as a guest to talk about Phillies prospects last week. True story.

    1. You write this as if you declined the offer. Please say that isn’t so.

      I think the problem was adding Kurokawa to the voting list at all. There are at least a couple dozen more deserving guys who weren’t on the list.

      When you say El voted from two addresses, perhaps he voted from a ton of proxy addresses using different names.

      Given age vs level, Kurokawa’s stats not at all impressive. If one was considering reliever here, how does he possibly beat out Arano or a handful of other guys who are either much higher up the system or more age appropriate or both.

      1. 1.) Long answer, see below.

        2.) Kurokawa was on the list because of the poll I ran to see who readers thought should be the list. That’s something I’ll have to reconsider next year.

        3.) I didn’t mean to imply that El voted from two addresses. El posted comments as a username that was used by two addresses.

        4.) My thoughts exactly.

        1.) I did not decline. They e-mailed the request to “prospectpoll”.which I don’t check everyday. I contacted them a few days after they wanted me and said the Phillies segment they wanted me for had passed. I gave them my personal e-mail address and they said they may contact me when they run their next segment on Phillies prospects. I expect that might come during spring training.

        I don’t know how they became aware of me. Perhaps the tweet I sent to Brian Kenny regarding a mistake on the show the previous day triggered their research.

        The mistake. After having Todd Zolecki on, John Smolz remarked that a team cannot win the world series without a good rotation like the Phillies had when they won – Halladay, Lee, Hamels, Oswalt. Well, we all know how wrong that statement is. So I tweeted Kenny “Jan 19: @MrBrianKenny Smoltz incorrect. 2008 Phillies’ rotation – Hamels, Moyer, Myers, Kendrick, Eaton, Blanton, Happ NOT Halladay, Lee, Oswalt.”.

Comments are closed.