Baseball Analysts and John's 50/50 list

by jrfelix on Jan 11, 2006 2:54 AM EST Comment 14 comments

how similar do you guys think johns 50/50 list will be with Baseballanalysts.com top 75 prospect list? how are they similar as critiquers and how are they different?

FILLERFILLERFILLERFILLERFILLERFILLERFILLERFILLERFILLERFILLERFILLERFILLERFILLERFILLERFILLERFILLERFILL ERFILLERFILLERFILLERFILLERFILLERFILLERFILLERFILLERFILLERFILLERFILLERFILLERFILLERFILLERFILLERFILLERFI LLERFILLERFILLERFILLERFILLERFILLERFILLER

0 recs | Comment 14 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

lol

i didnt need the filler, as i have an additional comment.

i think sickels and bryan smith should get jobs in some major league front office. they are pretty damn good at what they do.

We have, I fear, confused power with greatness.

by jrfelix on Jan 11, 2006 2:56 AM EST reply actions 0 recs

Agreed

Both are very good at what they do...amazing thing is, Bryan doesn't get paid for it!

by SABRJoe on Jan 11, 2006 3:51 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Disagree

Smith's list is questionable. I almost like the minorleaguenews.com list better than his. Hanley Ramirez over Troy Tulowitzki?

I feel his list is weighted too much on age and potential and not enough on reality. I think I'd rate a lot of the guys in the 76-100 category over the guys in todays 26-50.

by cunningt on Jan 11, 2006 7:52 AM EST reply actions 0 recs

Whats the matter with that?

"Hanley Ramirez over Troy Tulowitzki?"

Whats the matter with that?

by nms on Jan 11, 2006 4:22 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

The matter...

It's obvious I think Tulowitzki is the better talent. But read the reviews he writes of Tulowitzki and Ramirez, and then try to justify the rankings they are given. The Ramirez review is just plain negative. As a reader, I don't know why he ranked Ramirez so high, if he has so many problems with him.

I also didn't understand the part of the Tulowitzki report where he cites a .430 OBP and then says he has poor plate discipline.

by cunningt on Jan 11, 2006 4:53 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

subject

Yeah, it was a .430 obp IN COLLEGE. While he was a helluva college player saying he had a .430 obp there doesn't mean he wont have obp problems in the pros. College stats are nice, esp when youre looking at guys from top programs and conferences, but theyre not all that useful by themselves.

Hanley was in AA at the same age that Tulo was in putting up that .430 OBP in college

"The matter...
It's obvious I think Tulowitzki is the better talent."

While it may be obvious to you its hardly a consensus opinion so to give Hanley over Tulo as a reason why a list is flawed doesnt really make sense.

by nms on Jan 12, 2006 12:14 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Sickels > Smith, IMO

I also think Smith's list is questionable. All ranking systems are questionable, of course, but the better ones explicitly justify their reasons for ranking a player a certain way.

In Smith's case, it seems like he doesn't know a lot about some of the prospects he writes about and left out key information in many of explanations (for example, Pedroia's wrist injury, why Patton was drafted in the ninth round, Sanders' shoulder, etc).

by FI on Jan 11, 2006 9:00 AM EST reply actions 0 recs

OK, so

why was Patton taken in the 9th? Smith alluded to it being a result of his stature.

by cooper7d7 on Jan 11, 2006 9:53 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Signability

Most teams didn't think they could sign Patton - he was committed to playing for the University of Texas. He would have been a second- or third-round pick otherwise.

by FI on Jan 11, 2006 4:16 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

That's my problem with it too

There's no clear idea of what this is a ranking of. Is it trying to rank who he thinks will have the better MLB career based on some set of criteria (OPS? VORP?)? Is it a ranking based on what'll happen 3-5 years from now for fantasy team managers? Or is it a short-term ranking, where players being blocked at a position has a large impact (see Garko, Shealy, etc.)?

A lot of the commentary seems small minded to me, like where he gets Dustin Nippert's age wrong and then blames him for being a 25 year old player with a K/9 < 7.5 (his K/9 was 7.46).

At least with John's list and Baseball America's list I can see what they are aiming at and why. Even minorleaguenews.com's list - which was short term focused and had some rather unorthodox picks, had a philosophy. I don't see a consistent philosophy on this list though.

by cunningt on Jan 11, 2006 10:11 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Nippert

A lot of the commentary seems small minded to me, like where he gets Dustin Nippert's age wrong

Actually he didn't get Nippert's age wrong, he states up front that Age is 2006 seasonal age, and since Nippert was born in May 1981 he will be 25 for the 2006 season (at least for most of it).

by BobS on Jan 11, 2006 2:26 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Context

I can understand listing seasonal ages in the header, but that wasn't what I'm talking about. He says "it's hard not to worry about a 25-year-old pitcher with a K/9 below 7.50". The 7.46 K/9 season was his age 24 season.

by cunningt on Jan 11, 2006 5:09 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Easy fellas

Bryan does an excellent job and to compare his work to minorleaguenews.com is laughable. Bryan's list (I've been a fan of it since Wait Til Next Year) is a blend of stats and scouting for those that didn't know. Bryan is also very humble and we could use more of that round some of these sites.

I too would take Ramirez over Tulo in a heartbeat. Tulo might get hyped more with all the hitters parks he'll play in but they have similar bats. But Ramirez is a far superior defender.

"When people talk, listen completely. Most people never listen." (Hemingway)

by jmoultz on Jan 11, 2006 11:53 AM EST reply actions 0 recs