NEW Community Prospect List, from #100 to #1
by casejud on Oct 16, 2008 3:32 PM EDT
66 comments
I've been curious about this for quite a while so I'm just going to go ahead and try this myself guys. I am going to start at 100 and work our way up. The way to counteract any prospect being left off is to revauluate the list at any time and re-poll if need be. I'll explain further as we go along.
i actually think it would be pefect to run mine concurerently with John Sickels top 20 lists so we can classify all these prospects as they come along and really sort them out.
@ Just to be clear I'd prefer my list to be based on one simple criterion: Who, has signed a professional propect as of today will have the best big leuge career
I know a 16 year old kid isn't as sure a thing as a 24 year old guy tearing up AAA but it makes for good arguments. For instance, most consider Angel Villalona to be a better prospect than Kila Ka'aihue but there is room for one to think that Villalona doesn't even make the big leagues. if that is what you think you can vote that. I'd ask you just not to vote for Kila because you think he will help the Royals next year and Villalona won't help the Giants. Can't stop you though so whatever.
On that note the way I'm going to handle ballot stuffing, sock-puppeting or anything of that nature is... I don't care! It is just a list. If something looks completely ridiculous I reserve the right to re-evaluate anything.
I'm going to start with all of the Royals prospects who even vaguely could be considered for the 100 spot. I'll say thier names and you vote, manually, if you think they should be higher (in the top 99) lower (101 or lower) or considered for the top 100. Also, feel free to nominate ANYBODY who you think should be considered for #100 and vote, plus or minus on anybodys nomination. I'll let this run for a couple days then I'll have enough players for a poll.
This list will likely take quite a bit longer than the 1 to 100 list but it may be more interesting to some. Feel free to participate in BOTH lists as I will. We aren't competing. It is just a different way of looking at things. i find the sorting out and discussing the lower rated, mid-level prospects more intereresting. By discussing them you may find out why certain guys fall through the cracks. lets get started
0 recs |
66 comments
Email
Print
Comments
Royals players from top 20
2) Eric Hosmer, 3) Kila Ka’aihue 4) Dan Cortes 5) Carlos Rosa 6) Dan Duffy
I left Moustakas off not because i don’t value your opinion on whether he should be considered the 100th best prospect but because I am almost certain there won’t be enough of you. Any way you slice a community list l;ike that he is in the top 100.
These other guys are the most likely to be considered for the 100th spot but I’ll let you decide by voting… HIGHER, LOWER, or JUST RIGHT/ 100
by casejud on Oct 16, 2008 3:37 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
This section is for specific voting on anyone else on the Royals list.
If you think Moustakas should be considered for the 100, chime in. If it is someone from 7-20 that you like. Also chime in.
by casejud on Oct 16, 2008 3:39 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Finally, ANYBODY, from ANY TEAM that you think should be on a poll for the 100th best prospect
Feel free once someone is nominated to vote, higher, lower or just right
by casejud on Oct 16, 2008 3:41 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
CARLOS TRIUNFEL
I’ll start by nominating a fairly contoversial prospect. If he gets an overwhelming amount of “HIGHERS” then he just gets moved up for consideration for the 99th prospect. this is going to be a LOT of work but mostly for ME so don’t worry. It’ll be fun.
For Triunfgel just vote HIGHER, LOWER or 100 POLL
by casejud on Oct 16, 2008 3:43 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I'm going to amend this already!
Thanks for the post but feel free to say how much higher also if you want…90-100, 50-60, whatever you think.
by casejud on Oct 16, 2008 3:51 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Okay Im confused,
about this list. Is it just gonna be Royals?
The bloggerformelyknownasBigBaddBubbaJ
by NYTXFAN on Oct 16, 2008 4:38 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
NO
It’s about classifying players as we go. I just thought it would be interesting if we classifyed all the players on the top 20 lists as they came out so we didn’t miss anybody. 20 players each on 30 teams is 600 players. Pretty good pool to pick 100 don’t you think?
by casejud on Oct 17, 2008 10:56 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
can we not do this?
Accidentally not thedude925 anymore. I do hate this new name.
by wildthang on Oct 16, 2008 4:50 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Why can't YOU just not do it?
I like it and I think the way we have been doing lists on here has had enough problems that trying something different is in order.
by casejud on Oct 17, 2008 10:57 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
it clogs up the site
its confusing and the only way it would really work is if you had a set pool of 100 players and even then it would be best confined to one person doing it alone.
Accidentally not thedude925 anymore. I do hate this new name.
by wildthang on Oct 17, 2008 6:55 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Melville and Montgomery
Are debatably top 100 guys
by Birdfan01 on Oct 16, 2008 5:10 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Fair enough
You realize that to be a top 100 guy you have to be basically an average teams top 3-4 prospect. Are the Royals an above average farm system or is Melville or Montgomery one of the Royals top 3-4? Has to be one or the other. JS has them 7th and 8th.
by casejud on Oct 17, 2008 11:03 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
i think this will detract from other list
the more lists we have going on is just going to ruin the process. Idk this just doesn’t sound like a good idea to me but whatever. what happens when you realize you have 20 prospects for 15 spots. Then people will just vote to keep their people on and it won’t be a true placement of where they rank in prospect status
by uwbadger on Oct 16, 2008 5:12 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Yeah, this is a poorly thought out idea. You don’t start in middle somewhere, you start at an end point and work your way to the other end.
Neglectful father of David Quinowski
by marcello on Oct 16, 2008 5:37 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Has it worked?
I’m just asking. All I saw was kind of a mess and its done really fast and people get bored after the top 30 or so. personally i was bored with it at the beginning. I’d rather discuss prospects 200-100 a bit more and i feel like there are a few more on here who might as well.
by casejud on Oct 17, 2008 11:05 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yes, it has worked. It failed last year because of the sockpuppet shit. Anyways, like I said, starting in the middle makes no sense. If you want to see #100-200, just continue on yourself once the top 100 is finished. People will participate, there will just be less since most people’s knowledge is going to be stretched thin.
personally i was bored with it at the beginning. I’d rather discuss prospects 200-100
And yet, you’re going through 100-1 (you know, the same group of guys), just in a less sensible order. By all means do it though, I can’t wait to see the level the fail this can reach.
Neglectful father of David Quinowski
by marcello on Oct 17, 2008 7:52 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
No problem
I’ll just mark you down as a non-believer.
I’m not REALLY interested in prospects 200-100 I’m more intersted in prospets 150-75 or so. I think it is interesting to see who gets the 100 spot.
BTW, 200 prospects is basically players from every teams top 7 or so. If we don’t even know our own favorite teams top 7 players, and/ or aren’t intersted, I don’t think that speaks real well of a posters baseball prospect website. I believe plenty on here know and care about it.
by casejud on Oct 18, 2008 4:11 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
If you’re averaging it out, sure, it’s 7 per team. But in reality, Oakland’s #20 prospect is probably better than Houston’s #7.
Anyways, you’re routinely ignoring the main issues with your approach. My only question is: When this fails, are you going to admit you were wrong, or are you just going to let it die out and pretend like it didn’t happen?
Neglectful father of David Quinowski
by marcello on Oct 18, 2008 12:10 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yeah, sure
Kind of irelevent anyways though because NEITHER Houston’s #7 or Oakland’s #20 is going to ba a top 100 prospect.
As far as your question, the answer is NO, I won’t admit I am wrong because I am 100 percent certain I can make it work, with some help from some interested peope. The Royals top 20 evaluations have gotten a good response so I’m not worried.
If it doesn’t work out pretending it didn’t happen is kinda like admitting it didn’t work anyways isn’t it?
by casejud on Oct 18, 2008 8:32 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Bad
A) The very idea of this is confusing to the point where it is basically unworkable.
B) Having this running concurrently with the other community list will only add to the confusion.
by aCone419 on Oct 16, 2008 5:45 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Naw
I don’t believe so. I am still working it out but for one I am only going to post something new once a week not every day like the regular Community list.
There is no confusion. There are many people who participate in many fantasy leagues at one time. I think people can handle 2 lists.
by casejud on Oct 17, 2008 11:07 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Once a week?
So this list will be done in 2 years?
Neglectful father of David Quinowski
by marcello on Oct 17, 2008 7:54 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Whats the rush?
It’ll age like a fine wine. I think a good finishing point is opening day 2009. How bout you?
by casejud on Oct 18, 2008 4:11 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
So then you better be doing one every day or two. Again, have you actually thought this through? I know you say you have, but it’s pretty obvious that you haven’t.
Neglectful father of David Quinowski
by marcello on Oct 18, 2008 12:12 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I haven't
It just sort of popped into my mind and I just figured it’d be okay to jjust start something up and let it eveolve. By posting other people, you know the Community, can make suggestions and help it along.
It’s coming along nicely i think.
by casejud on Oct 18, 2008 8:34 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
It's not very effective...
Stay with the 1 to 100 list. It’s more practical in at least 37 different ways. I can tell you now this list would look absolutely awful.
The 2008 Rogelio Moret League Fantasy Baseball Champions!
by The Congo Hammer on Oct 16, 2008 5:49 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
I think Casejud is disappointed
That Manny Ramirez isn’t #1.
by JayWise on Oct 16, 2008 7:45 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Pleaseeee...
It’s been hard enough for this community to do a #1-#100. Dont add multiple layers of difficulty to it.
by rhd on Oct 16, 2008 9:15 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Dude
There hasn’t even been that many posts lately. I think a little action and activity is a good thing. Loosen up! Besides, what responibility do you have in it if it doesn’t work out? Feel free to ignore it if you don’t like but feel free to participate too. Don’t worry!
by casejud on Oct 17, 2008 11:11 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
please don't do this
it’s totally unworkable. we are going to end up with 15 spots left, 20 or 25 guys not yet slotted that we all know belong in the top 50, and a whole lot of acrimony.
by Dalman on Oct 16, 2008 11:06 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Agree with this completely.
Terrible idea.
by rothe on Oct 17, 2008 9:21 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
That
Is not going to happen. It’s going to be a lot more involved than that and really intersting I think. There isbn’t going to be any FITTING of anybody in. We are going to figure it out as we go along.
Eventually people with actual suggestions will start to come out of the woodwork. I believe!
by casejud on Oct 17, 2008 11:14 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
yea.
This absolutely will not work.
Remember: baseball guys... baseball...
by Metty5 on Oct 17, 2008 9:26 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
It can work
and can be a very interesting process Metty. Don’t you think the regular top 100 has gotten somewhat stale? Not to mention all the ridiculous problems it has had recently. This one will take a little longer and will be a really PURE list. Multiple layers of voting, mostly manual, and with starting at #100 it will assure that people who are really into thier individual team’s propects will be heard more I think. I’ll explain in my next post.
by casejud on Oct 17, 2008 11:19 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
i hate to pile on
but i don’t like the idea.
I heard Tim Lincecum will win 1 Cy Young & 11 Tim Lincecums. Question is, how many Cole Hamels will he win?
by the pinstripes on Oct 17, 2008 9:43 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
I think you will
As it goes along. I need you in this man. The 1-100 list has just gone kinda stale and this will be interesting. You don’t have to do anything on it but vote stripe but I’d appreciate any input.
by casejud on Oct 17, 2008 11:21 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Casejud
I enjoy alot of your posts, but I have to say that I think this is a bad way to go about things. You’ve got like a 4-1 opposition to this happening, which is a SSS, but still reflects some of the feelings of the site. If you’re really more interested in the guys in the 100-200 range, why not wait until the top 100 is done and then run with it from 101-200?
Or put together you own list going to 200? I know you’ve said you think the list has gotten stale, but I don’t see anyone else saying that yet, so maybe you’re in the minority on that one. I’m all for individualism, but I don’t think doing this concurrently with the top 100 community list is right. I’d say either wait until that list is done and then do your 100-1 or do the 101-200, which I think has a lot of value and would provide some very interesting debates, more so than going from 100-1.
Just my thoughts man.
"So's your mom"-David Sloane
by gatling on Oct 17, 2008 12:00 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
That IS a really good idea
But I’m going to continue with my idea. i do like that one though.
My list isn’t really going to be concurrent at all. It’ll likely finish WAY after the regular top 100. There isn’t really enough post traffic on here anyway to worry about is there? We could use the action.
Whata SSS, btw?
I’m not so interested in the prospectd from 200-1000 btw but more like from 150-50. So many players are said to be around the top 100 and it’d be fun to sort them out.
I appreciate your thoughts but I think my idea is a good one even if less people like it.
Its still interesting enough to do it and I’ve been around here long enough to try something, I think.
by casejud on Oct 17, 2008 1:54 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
case, do the 100-200 like gatling suggests. i think that would be very interesting. in fact, maybe even more so than the 1-100.
I heard Tim Lincecum will win 1 Cy Young & 11 Tim Lincecums. Question is, how many Cole Hamels will he win?
by the pinstripes on Oct 17, 2008 12:58 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Why steal the thunder of the other community list project?
King Billy Royal was just organizing another community list, getting people involved, and asking people for ideas of how to do it best. Why just start your own will nilly, and with the bizarre idea of doing it by team? Just let the one with other people involved and with better planning go on undisturbed.
by aap212 on Oct 17, 2008 1:31 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
I am not disturbing it
They are free! Just like I am. Two lists at the same time is not a big deal and I will only post like once a week, not once a day.
I admit that Billy mentioning made me come up with my idea but it juyst triggered something when some things were spoke about all that noonsense that has been going on with that list lately and i though a little more drawn out, calmer, esoteric approach might appeal to some.
The players and teams you know best I would hope you’d make a comment or two on. I know I will still make my ONE VOTE in the regular list polls.
It really isn’t a competition. It just a separate, baseball propect discussion.
by casejud on Oct 17, 2008 1:59 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
The problem with throwing out names for who is #100
Is that you have to have figured out the 99 guys ahead of him, at least internally.
Just for the sake of giving you something, I’ll throw out a few names of Rays who could be seen near the back end of a top 100:
- Nick Barnese (dominant performance in SS, but low-level and only one plus pitch)
- Desmond Jennings (top 30 talent, but injuries)
- Jake McGee (top 15 talent, but just had TJS)
- Matt Moore (dominant stuff – 95 mph fastball as a lefty and a plus curve – and dominant numbers, but was a late round draft pick and was in rookie ball)
- John Jaso (Improved as a catcher, but repeated the level and didn’t really break out; still, twice as many walks as Ks)
- Alex Cobb (good numbers in low-A, but not a ton of strikeouts, and good stuff, but not great. Good sinker though)
Vogt early, Vogt often.
by Brickhaus on Oct 17, 2008 3:42 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Another couple names to throw out there
Fautino De Los Santos
Andrew Brackman
Vogt early, Vogt often.
by Brickhaus on Oct 17, 2008 3:44 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Again....
completely agree.
Starting from the back end, you are going to have 30 guys left for 20 spots. You are going to have people not voting for a prospect because they think he should be higher on the list, and then all of a sudden, it’s going to be TOO high for that guy, so he won’t get voted on at all.
Bottom line…I think this is impossible. If you figure out some way to do it so that it isn’t, I will be glad to vote. But I very much believe that this will die at about #89.
by rothe on Oct 17, 2008 9:27 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I hear what you are saying, I really do...
… but all that has to be done to avoid that problem (30 left for 20 spots) is to COUNT the players remaining! By bthe time I get to the poll for the 76th best prospect guess how many prospects will be left to rank after it is done rothe?? 75! Not meening to be rude but I am not gooing to let something like that happen.
The rick tothis list is cutting it down to 100. Thats the part Im still trying to figure out exactly. After we get to 80 or so it is clear sailing.
by casejud on Oct 18, 2008 4:17 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
You are pretty much alone on this!!
This is a crazy idea that no one but you seems to be interested in, so why do you continue to insist on doing it?
You have an overwhelming consensus that this is an unworkable and bad idea——-do you really think you are smarter than everyone else??? You cant even get 3 or 4 supporters out of the entire group.
If you try the 100-200 list I think you’ll get lots of support, enthusiasm and participation for that project..
by dancer on Oct 18, 2008 9:16 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Nope
I’ve gotten lots of interest in the evaluation of the Royals prospects. I don’t want to do a 100-200 list. I don’t need to be smarter to want to do my own thing.
I may not have support but I DO have many poeple who admit that the regular list loses steam after 30. 40, 60 spots or whatever. Mine will get BETTER as it goes along.
by casejud on Oct 18, 2008 9:29 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Where?
You’ve said this multiple times, but I’m curious where is all of this support for the list losing steam after 30 or 40 spots? I haven’t seen anyone else say that but you. I know you’re going to do this no matter what, but I don’t think it’s going to work as smoothly as you think. Beyond that, why not take your polling into the actual top 20 lists John posts, instead of doing a seperate thread about it? There isn’t a real reason to have two different threads on John’s top 20 for each team is there? You’re likely to get more discussion if you don’t do a separate thread, plus it won’t clog up the fanpost section either.
"So's your mom"-David Sloane
by gatling on Oct 18, 2008 11:27 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2009 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
