Fun with Top 50 lists...

by BobbyMac on Dec 29, 2006 3:36 PM EST

I combined the top 50 from here, Baseball Digest Daily, and MiLB.com, weighting each the same. The list comes out as:

Alex Gordon
Delmon Young
Philip Hughes
Homer Bailey
Brandon Wood
Cameron Maybin
Justin Upton
Jay Bruce
Chris Young
Troy Tulowitzki
Billy Butler
Matt Garza
Andrew McCutchen
Evan Longoria
Adam Miller
Andy LaRoche
Yovani Gallardo
Mike Pelfrey
Carlos Gonzalez
Reid Brignac
Scott Elbert
Andrew Miller
Ryan Braun
Jose Tabata
Tim Lincecum
Fernando Martinez
Nick Adenhart
James Loney
Luke Hochevar
Adam Jones
Clayton Kershaw
Hunter Pence
Josh Fields
Jarrod Saltalamacchia
Jacoby Ellsbury
Jeff Clement
Elijah Dukes
Felix Pie
Jason Hirsh
Ian Stewart
Colby Rasmus
Daric Barton
Chris Iannetta
Adam Lind
Joey Votto
Jeff Niemann
John Danks
Erick Aybar
Chuck Lofgren
Brandon Erbe

Players in the top 50, which didn't make the combined list:
Community list: 3 (Clement, Aybar, Lofgren)
BDD: 5 (Dukes, Danks, Aybar, Lofgren, Erbe)
MiLB: 7 (Dukes, Rasmus, Iannetta, Lind, Votto, Neimann, Erbe)

Players with highest standard deviation among the lists:
Dukes, Clement, Aybar, Iannetta, Stewart, Fields.
==> I find it interesting that these are also some of the guys closest to being MLB-ready.

Players ranked on all 3 with the biggest high-low difference percentage:
Stewart, Hirsh, Salty, Fields, Barton, Kershaw

Guys the community ranked highly:
Wood, Butler, LaRoche, Lincecum, Hochevar, Dukes

Tweet Comment 12 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

http://www.fantasy-baseball.info/

does the same thing, they just use more sources.

By Feb/March it should be fully updated. They've already put in some sites.

by Galt on Dec 29, 2006 4:09 PM EST reply actions

yeah

I love that site. I just thought that people would be interested in seeing one where the community list had more of a bearing on the overall outcome. That, and it's unclear which top-50 lists they have in their concensus already.

by BobbyMac on Dec 29, 2006 4:17 PM EST up reply actions

Just to pick a little....

... I clicked the first real link on that page
"Top Impact Players for 2007"

Brian Giles is #14 ahead of David Ortiz, Grady Sizemore, Chris Carpenter, Joe Morneau, Jose Reyes, Carl Crawford, Mark Teixeira, etc.

Also Liriano who is out with TJ surgery is #50, just ahead of Derrek Lee, Jermaine Dye, Zito, Verlander, etc.

i guess I dont really know when it was written, but unless it was written in 2001 I dont know why Giles would be so high.

Sorry Im just in a picking mood right now

by grozzy on Dec 29, 2006 5:13 PM EST up reply actions

HAHAHA

I only look at the "concensus" link on that site, and wait until the top-100 lists are all published so that I can trust that it's using the current season instead of something from 2001.

What I'd REALLY like to see is an objective site which ranks Top 100 lists from the past. Every time I've thought about doing that, I am sort of overwhelmed with how hard it would be to devise a good "rating" system.

by BobbyMac on Dec 29, 2006 5:39 PM EST up reply actions

Hmm.

You could always use career VORP or WS or something.

by abbreviatedman on Dec 29, 2006 9:33 PM EST up reply actions

yeah, but...

Some problems with that:

Teams only get "control" of their prospects for a few years for a less-than-market value, value after that is meaningless.
(obviously) this would really limit such a study to older lists.
To do more recent lists, you'd have to come up with a "rising/falling" metric, for players still on the same list.
Some clear "hits" won't rack up a lot of VORP/WARP/WS, due to playing time issues (think: Ryan Howard).
Other clear "hits" will put up paltry VORP/WARP/WS totals because they are promoted too soon.
Injuries, especially pitcher injuries, are very complicated, IMO. Gil Meche was relatively uninjured in his 6 years with Seattle, and compiled 17.3 WARP3. Should someone who had Meche and Mark Prior (22.3) rated about the same be credited with doing a great job in naming Meche as almost as good as Prior? Their DERA's so far have been 3.71 and 4.84, so there's some clear separation in results when they do pitch.

I am sure a lot of that stuff can be considered to "wash out" with larger sample size. It just seems like one of those studies where the assumptions have as much impact on the results as the actual data does.

by BobbyMac on Dec 29, 2006 10:41 PM EST up reply actions

whatever

I'm not talking about the top impact players. I don't need some analytical site from a nameless person to tell me who the impact players are.

I was talking about aggregating prospect lists, which they did.

their '06 list http://www.fantasy-baseball.info/2006P/Consensus.xml was pretty good.

And even if you didn't like them, it also links to all the other prospect lists in one site.

But feel free to complain more, it's GREAT!

by Galt on Dec 29, 2006 6:12 PM EST up reply actions

by KaoticKlown on Dec 30, 2006 10:17 AM EST up reply actions

Another link

http://www.attheplate.com/2007/07_rookied.htm

This site aggregates lists from across the web. If you click on the link for "2006 top 100s", you'll see the various methods used to come up with an aggregate list

by CubsFan on Jan 3, 2007 12:59 AM EST reply actions