Baseball Notebook top 100's reponse to criticism

by phiago on Dec 23, 2005 5:51 PM EST

http://www.baseballnotebook.com/essay.asp?esource=e_122005.asp&topt=Ask%20DL%20-%20Volume%207%20 Number%2021

Saw the question/answer section on Baseball Notebook today. For those who remember, this is the site that released his top 100 prospects a couple weeks ago.

Many on this site disagree with what he projects including:
Hunter Pence ranked #3
Felix Hernandez as the 3rd best pitcher
No Lastings Milledge, Matt Cain, Howie Kendrick
among others.

And I believe he actually quotes one of the diaries from this site in his answer section and takes exception to the users comment (that when he projected Jason Kubel highly before others did he was like a blind squirrel finding a nut)http://www.minorleagueball.com/story/2005/12/18/0255/4428

Says he'll repost his published top 100 prospect lists going back to '95 along with analysis of the picks. I'm pretty interested in seeing what he's projected in the past. Keep a look out.

0 recs | Comment 21 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

list

I think some of the commentators here were probably too harsh in their criticism of Baseball Notebook's lists. Baseball Notebook has a different viewpoint, but different viewpoints are GOOD things.

by John Sickels on Dec 23, 2005 5:58 PM EST 0 recs

I am very interested in seeing the other lists

I was shocked at this list but writer seems to back up a few of the shocking omissions like that of lastings Milledge ect..

Once reason I gotta give John Sickles major credit was when he went over his lists and pointed out the busts.

by novaoakland on Dec 23, 2005 6:36 PM EST 0 recs

Uh, I Don't Think So, John...

Notions like the earth is flat, or the Holocaust didn't happen, also reflect "different viewpoints." No, "different viewpoints," as such, are NOT good things. Of course, in general, they are not bad things either. Each idea, or theory, about whatever the topic, has to be examined on a case-by-case basis. Some are wrong, but not necessarily stupid. Recently, on this board, some people expressed the viewpoint that the Angels have a better farm system than the Dodgers right now. I think that belief is wrong. Certainly not stupid; there's room for debate, but in the end, still wrong. However, if people had said that the Padres or Reds have a better farm system than the Dodgers, I would say that claim is both wrong AND stupid. There is no more point in having a debate with a person who believed that than there would be in talking to somebody who insists that the moon is made out of blue cheese. Now as far as Baseball Notebook's prospects lists are concerned, the rankings are just so astonishingly wacky that I have no problem putting the author of those lists in the company of people whose beliefs are closer to lunacy than simple error of fact or interpretation. It is not like he has bad lists one year in every so many. His lists are consistently goofy, reflecting a methodology that requires prospects to fit an arcane statistical formula that has nothing to do with the real world of baseball prospects or their abilities. When somebody expresses the belief, as the author of Baseball Notebook's prospects lists has in the past, that Brant Colamarino is a better prospect than Scott Kazmir, he is just begging for any condemnation he receives, and he certainly doesn't warrant anybody coming to his defense with a bland "Hey, everybody is entitled to his opinion." Sorry, but some opinions nobody is ENTITLED to, even if I can't stop people from having them anyway.

by CanuckDodger on Dec 23, 2005 6:46 PM EST 0 recs

What CanuckDodger said...

This guy's lists are totally whacked. He had Felix Hernandez ranked just 17th in AL pitching prospects in Dec. 2004. He had Chad Billingsley ranked 75th (!?) on his top 100 NL pitching prospects in Jan. 2005. It's one thing to say that Billz is overrated as THE best pitching prospect, but to put him 75th out of NL pitchers? That's just idiotic no matter how you slice it. There's no logic to his method at all; it's like he just picks random names out of minor league rosters to make his lists...

by AucklandGM on Dec 24, 2005 12:18 AM EST up 0 recs

ha

canuckdodger, that was great. good times.

by TexasHeat on Dec 23, 2005 7:21 PM EST 0 recs

Flare for the dramatic

Don't you know that hard work and above average consistancy will earn you long term respect and admiration from your peers, but hitting the 1 in a million lottery is the hit everyone remembers.

That book is obviously going for the second. Why would you get so upset about Milledge anyway? He is overated. Look at his stealing percentage; and his power took a big hit. I think that people look at age way too much. It is the same 3 years, then 3 arb years, then free agency for every player once you get to the bigs, no matter if 21 or 25.

Try and pull yourself away from the darkside. The east coast bias will suck you in and brainwash you.

by Shamus on Dec 23, 2005 7:53 PM EST 0 recs

milledge

20 year olds don't "lose" their power. His raw power is still there and it will come out as he matures.

A 20 year old center fielder who posts a .837 OPS is a pretty good prospect even without the potential to add more power. But when he still might add 100 points to his SLG, he's a great prospect.

by jeck on Dec 23, 2005 9:27 PM EST up 0 recs

Yeah, and then

you look at his fielding skills, his arm, his 879 OPS at the age of 20 and the fact that he is improving. His tools are translating into skills. Age isn't everything, but an age 20 prospect doing pretty well in AA sure gets me more excited than a 25 year old doing the same thing. He has a long way to go, but he is promising.

"Second guessers are guys that could have never gotten it right the first time." - Tommy Lasorda (for guys that have no other defense for their actions.)

by slurve on Dec 23, 2005 8:09 PM EST 0 recs

29

don't forget about the 29 year old he rated at #57 (Thames).

starring Alfonso Soriano as Vinny C in RFK part deux

by natsfan2005 on Dec 23, 2005 9:37 PM EST up 0 recs

Prospects

I've seen some of his projections from last year, and they were pretty good in comparison to those from other sources. His defense of his prospect lists doesn't make me a buyer. True, he probably sees these guys, whether its on video or live, more than I have a chance to. He probably spends a lot more time analyzing them I do to. But, at the same time.... Organizations such as BA and John do this full time, where Luciano doesn't appear to be as dedicated to prospects full time. He has some different ideas, which is great, but just because they are different and aren't regurgitating the common consensus doesn't make them good necessarily. He's not high on some of the premium prospects in the game. Well, neither am I to varying degrees. Delmon Young for instance, I don't think he'll be the player many are projecting him to be. While I may not put him as my # 1, I'm not going to put him in the bottom part of my top 100. It looks like he has a similar attitude towards Felix Hernandez. Although it is a small sample size, Felix delivered the goods last year, I think he SURPASSED expectations. I saw him live once last year, the second time I've seen him, and saw about 5 games on TV. How he can still not concede that he WAY under-estimated him, I just don't get it. Even batters that had seen him a few times looked lost at the plate. During post game interviews, players were in awe of him. He is showing signs of being a men amongst boys already and he's 19. 19!!!! His skills are absolutely sick. You don't have to have your own website to see how special he is.

The top prospects are the common consensus top prospects for a reason. I don't know how much John interacts with scouts, but I know BA does extensively. When scouts/coaches love a player AND he puts up good numbers ala Howie Kendrick, he does not belong being ranked well below 100. He has his opinions and that's cool. At the same time, straying too far away from the norm needs to be justified, more so when it's an extreme case. I guess I just don't agree with what little justication he gives to support his views that are contradictory to "industry standards." When you go against conventional wisdom, you REALLY need to give me some exceptional reasoning.

"Second guessers are guys that could have never gotten it right the first time." - Tommy Lasorda (for guys that have no other defense for their actions.)

by slurve on Dec 23, 2005 9:56 PM EST 0 recs

he defended his stuff

good for him. But he still doesn't make any sense. These are the types of thigns he said. In response to a question about Milledge's ommision:

"I now see him as a future .290 type with 20 home run ability and 25 stolen base ability." He said previously he viewed him as a 30/30 guy. Now he's a 20/25 290 guy. It's not a star, but it's a damn solid player. Now, even if you think that's his max: How is that worse than, say, LENNY FRIKKIN DINARDO, or some random catcher in the LA organization who had a 662 OPS in low A ball (age unknown) named Juan Apodaca, or Marcus Thames, OR A COUNTLESS NUMBER OF PEOPLE. He just doesn't understand...

by ohad on Dec 24, 2005 9:15 AM EST 0 recs

hmm

glanced at the list, and it almost seems as though he's ranking based on how minor leaguers'll do in 2006--and only in 2006.

Just a thought. Regardless, it's weird. Maybe he'll enter the Stats v. Scout debate as a 3rd voice...ha.

by Azteca on Dec 24, 2005 9:22 AM EST up 0 recs

No...

he says it's looking at how they'll do over the course of their career. Daric Barton is ranked over Delmon for just this reason.

"Second guessers are guys that could have never gotten it right the first time." - Tommy Lasorda (for guys that have no other defense for their actions.)

by slurve on Dec 24, 2005 9:39 AM EST up 0 recs

All I know

is whether his list is good or not, he sure is getting a ton of hits from this site among others which just increases his chance of making money. Nothing quite like free advertising...

by williethekid20 on Dec 24, 2005 11:56 AM EST 0 recs

no doubt

whatever his reasons are, he's getting hits on his site

by SoCalSoxFan on Dec 26, 2005 11:32 PM EST up 0 recs

One value

to a list like the one under discussion is, despite the fact that many of his ratings/comments seem to contradict the conventional wisdom, he may very well identify several players who are under the radar and overlooked by the rest of us. Similarly by downgrading some "can't miss" prospects he at least provides a cautionary note to us not to judge too quickly and perhaps explore the performance stats a little more closely.

by prhood on Dec 24, 2005 12:35 PM EST 0 recs

Past Performance

This is my first year delving so deeply into minor leaguers having just joined a couple of new leagues with large minor league rosters.

What I find interesting is that he has supposedly been doing this for more than 10 years, yet nobody seems to have a list of his from that time. I realize he started pre-website, but it seems like somebody should have a list from the mid or late 90's that we could look at.

I did notice that he had Dopirak in the top 5 a year ago, so it looks like that might be a miss on his part.

by GregJP on Dec 24, 2005 12:57 PM EST 0 recs

Misses

Well, everyone misses. Prospects are far from an exact science, which is partially why it interests me. Supposedly he is putting together a piece on his past lists. Will be interesting to see how his misses line-up against others like BA's misses - Matt White/Jeffery Hammonds/Ruben Rivera, etc. Not so intersted in how bad he missed, but more in how many times in comparison to others. I think Dopirak is a big miss, his K's are a big red flag which is why I'm not as high on Delmon.

"Second guessers are guys that could have never gotten it right the first time." - Tommy Lasorda (for guys that have no other defense for their actions.)

by slurve on Dec 24, 2005 1:15 PM EST 0 recs

Comparing Lists

I tried finding an older top 100 (1996) on the net, and found only two. Baseball America's and Spring Training Magazine's. Their top 10's were quite similar, but I haven't looked at the lists in that much depth.

I know that there was a post on this site that tracked how well BA did with their top 100's. It would be interesting to do some type of statistical analysis of some of the lists from say 6-12 years ago to see who actually has the best track record.

I read an analysis a while back that compared some of the more well known services that forecast major league performances. How well they did was compared to a very crude system based on 3 years of stats. As I recall, the very crude system did just as good a job as the professional prognosticators.

by GregJP on Dec 24, 2005 1:55 PM EST 0 recs