I hope a little of that rubs off on the rest of us who frequent this site.

The rank of players in a list isnt really all that important anyway. Players are so diverse in skill set, projection, and approach to the game, that its silly to complain about where people slot certainly players into a list. I mean, its almost pointless to rank pitchers and hitters in the same list (which you go about by having your 50/50 instead of a top 100), because there is almost no overlap in skill set and opinions about flame-out rate and relative value of pitching vs hitting. Even within hitters, its hard to really compare value of a toolsy OF, a polished corner IF, and a slick-fielding-no-bat middle infielder. Or a groundball-inducing righty, versus a power lefty with control problems, with a projectable 18 year old with currently mixed results. Its all so subjective to a particular person's feelings on risk and relative value.

What really matters so much more is the comments and observations about players. This is why I love your book and also why I really liked Law's write-up. Your book offers a great deal of insight that is much more valuable than just looking at your 50/50 list or anything like that. With Law's column, I really liked a lot of the observations that he had mentioned that I hadn't heard a lot of places. He did a good job justifying his feelings on players, and you as well always do a great job explaining your reasons for offering players the grade you do.

Lastly, judging a players future is based on so many factors, its hard to criticize any well-explained rankings/ratings of players. A few years ago so many people thought Hanley was a total bust and would be lucky to ever pan out. People were consistently wondering if Justin Morneau was a bust when he wasnt even 23 yet and then he won an MVP. I could go on and on but I need to get back to work. Basically, its easy to criticize lists, but if someone who has experience and an eye for this sort of thing sees something in a prospect, he should stick to his guns and people should look at the player with an intriguing eye instead of rip apart the writer.

Alright Im off.

Later

Even if we all were to agree on the rankings from 1-100 it would still be wrong.

John,

Have you given thought to creating a "Top XX" list based on your readers, similar to your community projections?  While it may be close to your list (since we all read this blog, after all) it'd be interesting to have a poll or some other method for us to generate a collective ranking.  

I get the impression that many of the people making prospect lists base them entirely on the evaluations and lists of others.  And What good is that?

As far as I'm concerned, unless the evaluator is spending a lot of time watching film, going to games, talking with scouts, etc., he's no better at rating a prospect than I am.  I could build a prospect list just by determining what names keep popping up on other lists.  How pointless.

One of the reasons I read John's blog (and buy his book) is that I know he actually goes to games, and he spends time talking with scouts and others with professional opinions.  I don't think many others do that.  I'm appreciative of John for providing this service.

I would like to take the opportunity to apologize for the way in which I listed my grievance in the thread about Keith Law's top 100. In hindsight I should have either kept it to myself or not been as brash about it. I was merely trying to point out that I question his method of critiquing players more than I question his rankings. That is something I think we all need to be able to do when evaluating anyone's opinion on anything (why does this person have this opinion?).

Thanks, nms, for having an honest discussion with me on the subject in that thread.

I'm not sure exactly what possessed you to spend all your time doing it (I guess we're all bored with ST just around the corner), but thanks for standing up for a nonconformist viewpoint.  I don't always agree with KLaw, but he's got his opinion and even if you think it's wrong, at least it helps you to analyze why you think you're right.  Or, perhaps if you're up for it, a nonconformist viewpoint can help you realize those few times that you might actually be wrong yourself.

men

Well, I certainly was harsh in my commentary of Keith Law's list, and  take this group rebuke to heart.  In all honesty, I don't very much respect Law's process, effort, or self-accountability, but I apologize for cluttering this blog with my venting.

re: "Does Keith overrate Mitch Boggs? Maybe. Do I overrate Jed Lowrie? Maybe. But that's what makes it valuable to have different opinions about things: insight doesn't come from conformity. It's the outlier opinions that are most fascinating to me.
"

I think the reason I piled on the Boggs rating was a sense of proportion here.  I also tried to make a bit of a "funny" about the Lowrie rating, too... but in all honesty, I could tell that the rating was well thought-out and - as someone noted in a diary - this year's prospect list seems to have a lot of "flawed" players among the best.  If Lowrie can handle SS at the MLB level, he looks pretty great in this year's crop!  And, I certainly think that most of us who resisted his "A-" rating would be quick to say that a "B+" was very reasonable, so it's not like we're arguing "bad" vs. "good" here, merely levels of "goodness".

Perhaps I'm too negative about Boggs, but I'd be surprised if any of the other experts cited here would include him in their top 200.  Perhaps not even 300.  The only rationale I can see to ranking him in a top 100 list is "in case he makes it", the "expert" in question can then claim he was the only one who saw him coming.  Which would be true of Boggs, since in order to prosper, he is going to need to gain better command of his 1st pitch, learn a 2nd pitch, AND convert to relief.  While someone other than Keith Law may think highly of him, I suspect they'd realize that's a lot to ask.  

But, anyway, I don't think that any of the other three authors named are unaccountable... I find much less "in case he makes it" rankings (i.e. my suspicions of such) going on, and further - in John especially - a willingness to review past rankings and discuss assumptions/deductions which didn't pan out so well.  I really appreciate these looks back, as they indicate (to me) a willingness to keep improving on the process.  

Finally, I understand supporting others who are making a living in this industry, as it's a small community.  Yet I do hope that there's some internal accountability within the community.  Supporting a lackluster effort at identifying prospects just because that person is also Sabermetrically oriented seems (to me) to be no more helpful to anyone than having minority managers support a bad minority manager's attempts at managing just because he's also a minority.  Truth be told, I do applaud Keith's efforts at resisting MLB club influence.  I just wish he'd pick up his game.  But hey, it's good news for John if he doesn't. :>

FWIW, I like Law's style.

John is exactly right.  Predicting future behavior of human beings we have no influence over is very difficult.  The permanence a list gives does not make that easier.

These lists are subjective without solid quantitative bases.  By how much to Longoria outscore Bruce under Law's rankings versus the score of Baseball America's ranking of Bruce ahead of Longoria?

Did I think Keith's list was pretty different? Yeah, I do but he was also a paid talent evaluator and a trained scout.  Sure he will be subjected to the same biases and sample size when he sees them as anyone else but he has seen the guys and knows what he's talking about.  

Like John said he'll be wrong about a few of them but don't be surprised if one or two of the players you rail against break out and some of the players you laud and he doesn't become flops it's just the nature of the game.

As someone who enjoys following this I welcome a radical and informed view

John is dropping references from Romanticism

One-- While I understand the dislike of people throwing out personal insults over placement on rankings, I think it's a hell of a far cry to go from "you shouldn't call Law an idiot" to "you shouldn't imply he's got ulterior motives." Things get written all the time, and it's flat out foolish to refuse to consider context or the interests of the authors in evaluating them.

Let me give an example here. I don't trust Jim Callis to evaluate the A's system. Why? Because I think he has a personal bias. The Moneyball draft threatened to make his profession obsolete. It did not ultimately succeed in doing so, but that doesn't mean it wasn't profoundly threatening. The guy has a vested interest in endorsing scouting over stats, and ignoring that is naive at best. People with vested interests have a tendency to do things like "willfully misuse statistics" (as he's done recently with regard to Oakland).

Two-- I find the irony of people defending Keith Law against personal attacks to be rich and deep. I mean, come on. It's Keith Law, for crying out loud. This is a guy who's made an entire career-- I daresay, an entire cottage industry-- out of making asinine, snarky snap judgments about people based on limited, subjective evidence.

Seeing him hoist on his own petard is highly entertaining, to say the least. Karma is a harsh mistress.

John is right. You guys look silly when you bitch about these list. If you don't like the list then don't look at it. If you are so smart make your top 100 list and post. Let everyone check your ass in 5 years and see how well you do.

THe only thing I really ask is that when ranking one guy over another that's a tough call (e.g. Bruce over Longoria, Buchholz over Chamberlain, Rasmus over Maybin, etc.) that they give an explanation.  Those are tough calls, and while I can see an argument for either player I'd like an explanation.

Shouldn't accuracy be the first priority of making a top 100 prospect list and selling a book about your thoughts and opinions on the subject?  

Having said that, I'll quote Rany Jazayerli from 2001: "In short, the task of prognosticating minor leaguers is both a science and an art, and the most important step any evaluator needs to take is to recognize the inherent limitations in predicting the future. God is omnipotent; the rest of us just have to do the best that we can with the information that's available, and recognize that even the surest of prospects--like Nick Johnson--is no sure thing."

Well, Hell, if I'd known THAT I wouldn't have bought the book!