Rangers Farm Rated #1 by BA
by Kinslerhomer on Jan 14, 2009 3:56 PM EST
Email
PrintThe Rangers have been rated #1 by BA, the Marlins #2, and the A's #3:
Chris (Newport beach, CA): Jim, great chat as always! I was wondering when you were doing the minor league top 10’s, which orginization did you have the most trouble with in terms of their top three prospects? Marlins, Braves, other??
SportsNation John Manuel: (2:25 PM ET ) Neat question that I’ll answer even though I’m not Jim. The Braves was very tough — we went back and forth between Jason Heyward and Tommy Hanson; Hanson’s AFL performance and scouting reports were so loud and outsized, and he’s so much closer to the majors than Heyward, that we switched at the last minute. The Rangers top list and the Marlins are also interchangeable, and to me, you could argue Mike Stanton over Cam Maybin easily for the Marlins No. 1, K rate be damned! Those kinds of things tend to happen to strong organizations, and Texas and Florida rank 1-2 in our Org Rankings in the Prospect Handbook, which is at the printers now.
Confirmed by Richard Durrett of the DMN:
I just called Baseball America and officials there confirmed the Rangers have the No. 1 farm system. John Manuel mentioned it on an ESPN.com chat and BA officials said it is indeed true.
Florida, by the way, is No. 2.
I talked to John Manuel, editor-in-chief of Baseball America, and he said that the Rangers beat out Florida and Oakland because of balance within the system.
"They have pitching and hitting prospects with some close to the major-league level and some at the lower levels with high upside," Manuel said. "Other teams had great pitching or great hitting, but the Rangers had the best of both."
194 comments
|
5 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
is that really a huge surprise?
I mean, John basically has them 2nd as well. The depth of that system stands out. I mean, is it mildly surprising? Perhaps, I was thinking they were 4th or 5th initially, but I don’t follow the Marlins all that closely, and after seeing things, yeah, Marlins at 2nd make sense.
Yeah to most of the minor league ball communnity it is..
I’m very surprised but it seems like BA, they go overboard on young, toolsy players all the time so you expect that. John however is generally much more conservative in his grading which is why I was so surprised. I think rating Florida as high as BA is as a system and rating the Florida players as high as John has is definitely a ballsy move. Either they pan out and they look good for being aggressive with ALL of their rankings of those players and the system in general or the tools go to waste and it looks absolutely horrible. We will see what happens.
+1
To the obvious sarcasm. Can we please stop bickering over who has the best farm system now?
by David Tokarz on Jan 14, 2009 9:15 PM EST up reply actions
lol
If all goes well, they’re competitive with the Angels in their division (and the A’s too perhaps if the A’s get exceptionally lucky).
I’m much more impressed with the position players than the pitchers. Their top 3 is Holland/Feliz/Main, a high-upside trio but also one with rather high bust potential even among young pitchers. The biggest question to me is: can the Rangers turn what may be a surplus of interesting young position players into pitching depth through trades?
I think the Rangers have to get a lot luckier than the A's to compete
by thejd44 on Jan 15, 2009 4:44 AM EST up reply actions
especially this year
the A’s have a revamped offense with Holliday and Giambi to anchor the middle of the lineup.
Wait 'til the year after next
Oh, I definitely meant in 2009
I just think more of the A’s prospects are ready now (in addition to what they’ve brought on board) than the Rangers’ prospects.
by thejd44 on Jan 16, 2009 4:32 AM EST up reply actions
Suck it Oakland.
"I have kids, so when I get on the mound I see someone else trying to steal my job and make my life hell. So I try to do the same thing to them." -- Eric Gagne
Stay Classy Texas.
"With 16-year-old Dominican righty Michel Inoa in tow, Gio Gonzalez improving at Triple-A and lefty Brett Anderson carving up Double-Abatters along with Simmons and Trevor Cahill, Oakland’s pitching depthis officially the envy of baseball." - BaseballAmerica.com
Now if only Texas...
can learn to develop pitchers. Pitching in that park will be demoralizing to those young studs. Nobody is disputing their talent, but lets wait on crowning Texas a dynasty in the west. Great system though!
Hey!
As a Ranger fan I don’t think that’s a very fair remark – in the past few years we have developed Chris Young, Armando Galaraga, John Danks, Edinson Volquez, etc.
Now if you had said if only Texas can develop AND NOT MORONICALLY TRADE AWAY some pitchers I would have been on the same page with you no doubt.
;)
by Curveball 2000 on Jan 14, 2009 6:31 PM EST up reply actions
Well..
Once they pitch in Texas their value goes down. Makes sense to trade them while their value is high. Their offense has to be one of the tops in the league just to negate the pitching. As an A’s fan, I’m all for having a tough division. I hope both teams prospects pan out. It’s going to make for some great games in the years to come!
Eh, Volquez isn't that good
That trade will end up being a huge, huge win for Texas.
by thejd44 on Jan 15, 2009 4:44 AM EST up reply actions
-1
Volquez is that good! First year were he pitched almost 200 INN. Walks are high, but huge K-rate and improved GB% makes him a great pickup. Also 3.21 ERA in CIN not too shabby. I think Hamilton is more valuable for sure, but to discount Volquez I think is wrong.
by Chalupa Cabrera on Jan 15, 2009 4:46 PM EST up reply actions
Oh, Dusty certainly sucks
But I still don’t think Volquez is a sub 3.50 ERA talent, especially pitching in that park.
by thejd44 on Jan 16, 2009 9:47 PM EST up reply actions
Danks
The White Sox made Danks the pitcher he is today, the Rangers can’t claim to have developed him.
by The Big Hurt on Jan 22, 2009 7:20 AM EST up reply actions
Found a few intersting things on Danks
Look at Danks MILB numbers. He was a decent prospect that, surprisingly his last season in Texas minors, mirrored Eric Hurley’s numbers. Some how his 2007 CHW numbers mirrored very closely with is peripherals from the minors and his 2008 numbers radically changed. He went from getting pounded by RH hitters to having great success against them. He learns a cutter that he can throw to RH hitters and magically his BA against RH drops from .292 to a .240 (which is his lowest at any time of his career majors or minors) and his OPS against from a .859 to a .670. That is a huge change from year to year and against anything he ever did in the minors.
Danks is a product of Mark Buhrle teaching him the “Cutter”. The “Cutter” learned from Mark Buhrle accounted for 17% of all of his pitches thrown last year vs. 0% the year before and his ERA dropped from 5.50 to 3.44, K per 9 increased and BB per 9 dropped and most impressive dropped his HR/9 from a 1.81 to a very hard to maintain 0.69.
I am not sold he will repeat last years numbers because the major difference between his team’s average HR/9 and the his 2008 numbers but i would not be suprised to see something close
Not very surprising, considering that the A's have gotten much of their young-player value
out of parts of their farm system which BA’s approach regards as essentially worthless. It’s par for the course, I guess.
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
I'm not following. Can you explain this?
It's not the results, it's how you look going about those results -- Tim McCarver
by WaddellCanseco on Jan 15, 2009 2:45 AM EST up reply actions
It's basically the same thing as grover said below
They routinely rate rookie-ball one-hit-wonders above guys with extremely solid track records of success. The latter category produces more value, though— even if it’s unsexy value. Kurt Suzuki’s value isn’t sexy, but it’s potent. He was better than Ryan Howard last season— a LOT better, actually.
I expect a lot more of the same out of guys like Cunningham, Doolittle, and Simmons, which will be ignored by BA and other parlor-room analysts.
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
Or put another way
They often seem to value 18-year-olds who can run and jump and do a 360 backflip into the splits while juggling 6 bowling pins over guys who have proven they can kindasorta actually play baseball.
I wonder how many guys they’ve overrated because they talked to scouts who liked their baseball face.
by thejd44 on Jan 15, 2009 4:46 AM EST up reply actions
BA had Suzuki #3 in 2007, John #5 (B-) and Goldstein #3 (Good)
I see a lot more agreement by the three than is being described here. Cunningham, Doolittle and Simmons were all in BA’s Top 10.
It's not the results, it's how you look going about those results -- Tim McCarver
by WaddellCanseco on Jan 15, 2009 11:14 AM EST up reply actions
Thats relative to other A's prospects tho, which misses PT's point
Paul’s point is that BA routinely overvalues players who have toolsheds the size of texas but when looking for skills all you hear is crickets and undervalues the opposite players that have a significantly higher probability of being average to above average MLB players and a low probability of being a bust or a superstar.
The A’s seem to focus on the latter so for Suzuki to be compared to other such players does not illustrate the bias.
Some of the most violent things I’ve ever seen were at Raiders games. And I’ve been to jail. - leopold bloom
by designatedforassignment on Jan 15, 2009 1:37 PM EST up reply actions
Suzuki was better than Howard?
I am unsure of how you came to this conclusion. Howard had an OPS+ of 124 last season. Suzuki had an OPS+ of 97. I am not a Ryan Howard fan but he certainly was better then Suzuki last season.
"When a true genius appears in the world, you may know him by this sign, that the dunces are all in confederacy against him."
-Jonathan Swift
by King Billy Royal on Jan 15, 2009 12:10 PM EST up reply actions
Or is this another one of your "Mark Ellis is better than Ichiro" type statements?
"When a true genius appears in the world, you may know him by this sign, that the dunces are all in confederacy against him."
-Jonathan Swift
by King Billy Royal on Jan 15, 2009 12:11 PM EST up reply actions
Not a stretch at all
Last year according to fan graphs Howard was worth 3.4 wins. Suzuki only with his bat (since fangraphs doesn’t evaluate catcher defense) was worth 3.1 wins. To belive Suzuki was better than Howard last year then all you have to believe is that Suzuki was a +5 run defender, which is really not that much of a stretch considering his good defensive reputation.
Some of the most violent things I’ve ever seen were at Raiders games. And I’ve been to jail. - leopold bloom
by designatedforassignment on Jan 15, 2009 1:40 PM EST up reply actions
Wait
so, in your opinion, “the best” player is the one with the highest OPS+, regardless of defense or position…?
I dont think Suzuki was, in fact, better than Howard, but it was probably pretty close. Good defense and league average offense from a catcher is more valuable than a crappy fielding, overrated because of power first baseman.
That isn't my opinion....
However, that is the opinion that PT has used in the past when discussing players. I get annoyed how people selectively use one stat to support the argument that a player is “better” and then use a different stat that supports their argument that a player is “better”. Suzuki was not better then Howard last year. Statistics can be misused to prove anything and I believe that is happening here. The fact that Howard was worth more wins and had a MUCH higher OPS+ leaves me with little doubt that he was “better” then Suzuki this year.
"When a true genius appears in the world, you may know him by this sign, that the dunces are all in confederacy against him."
-Jonathan Swift
by King Billy Royal on Jan 15, 2009 2:16 PM EST up reply actions
Explain how Howard was worth more wins then
Because others have shown that he wasn’t, or at least arguably wasn’t when you take into account Suzuki’s defense.
by thejd44 on Jan 16, 2009 4:35 AM EST up reply actions
I'm going to link to this post every time I need to demonstrate that you have no idea how to analyze baseball players
As a hitter, Howard outhit Suzuki by, depending on your metric, somewhere in the neighborhood of 25 runs.
The difference in value between an average fielding 1B and an average fielding catcher is already about 20 runs, and those players are nowhere near average. Howard is a crappy 1B who cost his team between 5 and 10 additional runs; Suzuki is an excellent catcher who saved his team 5-10 additional runs. Upshot— Suzuki was 5-15 runs better, or .5-1.5 wins better, than Ryan Howard last season.
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
And Howard
is going to get approximately $50 billion in arbitration.
G G G E-flat_______ F F F D__________....
Arbiters really dig OPS+!
It's not the results, it's how you look going about those results -- Tim McCarver
by WaddellCanseco on Jan 16, 2009 3:58 AM EST up reply actions
Actually, they just dig HRs
Hell, even Jack Cust got almost $3 million this year.
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
Over replacement is a poor measure of who is "better"
The average replacement level catcher is a lot worse than the average replacement level 1B. Doesn’t mean that a catcher who’s barely over replacement level is better than a replacement level 1B. He has more worth to the team, but that’s not the same as better.
Vogt early, Vogt often.
VORP is positionally adjusted supposedly
It's not the results, it's how you look going about those results -- Tim McCarver
by WaddellCanseco on Jan 16, 2009 3:59 AM EST up reply actions
Replacement level
The average replacement level catcher is a lot worse than the average replacement level 1B.
Replacement level batting line is much lower for a catcher than a 1b, if that is what you mean. He is a worse hitter, not a worse player.
He has more worth to the team, but that’s not the same as better.
I don’t exactly understand your parsing of “more worth” and “better.”
VORP is a bad metric... I have no idea what it's based on, and it never lines up with anything else
Fangraphs puts Suzuki at 23 runs below Howard. BRAA at BPro, the stat on which Equivalent Average is based, has the difference at 26, I think.
UZR seems to like Howard’s defense but a lot of other metrics loathe it. The Fan’s Scouting Report grades him at something like an 18 out of 100. CHONE’s fielding projections have him at -9 runs.
Suzuki ranked near the top of BtBS’s grading of catcher defense this season. He ranks very high on blocking pitches, scores well on the Fan Report, and throws out a high percentage of runners. CHONE projects him at +7 runs.
I’m comfortable with the ranges I’ve given as to their respective defense.
Incidentally, I actually understated my case. Tango’s positional weights suggest that the difference between an average 1B and an average C is 25 runs, not 20. Given that, Suzuki is 1-2 full wins better.
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
VORP is base on MLV
And it doesn’t line with other metrics because they (BRAA for instance) are based on the average player, not the replacement player.
The difference is only relevant for players who played partial seasons
For everyone else, you can just add 20-odd runs to their BRAA and get BRAR. It doesn’t change the difference between the two players much— Howard gets a bit of extra credit for playing more games, but Suzuki had a huge number of PAs for a catcher last year and wasn’t that far behind Howard.
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
paul your mathematics are off
you cannot say susuki is 20 runs better then howard, because he didnt play 150 games (700 PA).
Anyway, as i referenced earlier, fangraphs did the heavy lifting. Kurt Suzuki was worth 2.8 wins above replacement ( a fine number indeed). Howard was at 3.1.
So while the value of their defensive position makes this a lot closer then most would think. There are a lot of other issues with your statement.
one) This was Howards worst year OBP wise, mostly because of a an abysmal 1st month (he had a couple of other blah months, but not nearly as bad as a his sub .700 ops april) His splits were very much products of BABIP.
Anyways, I am more inclined to think of Howard as somewhere around his 4.2 WAR 2007 or his 6.9 WAR 2006 version (which is basically waht he was in the 2nd half last year) .
I am also not sure why you picked Ryan Howard. Howard was never really a top top prospect. He was ranekd 27th in the 2005 top 100 list on BA, and he was already 25 years old at that point, and had like 3 years of minor league experience. How many toolsy guys that people drool over make their Debut at 24, and play as a rookie at 25?
Anyways… if yoru going to be critical of BA, then produce some lists etc. that don’t do what you claim they do, and have a better track record.
Check out my baseball analysis blog FANalytics
Fangraphs's number assumes all catchers are average defensively, which Suzuki isn't,
and uses only one fielding metric (UZR) instead of a mix of metrics. Howard happens to score well in UZR; he’s bad in pretty much every other metric. RZR+OOZ puts him in the bottom four in the NL. (I didn’t calculate it by hand. For whatever reason THT does not allow you to sort by a combination of the two metrics.)
Like I said, I’m comfortable with where I’ve put them defensively.
I picked Ryan Howard because he’s an example of the kind of player who is routinely overrated by casual baseball fans. You’re right that his own story is not particularly an indictment of BA (it wasn’t intended to be).
For lists that “don’t do what you claim they do,” at least not as much, I submit one John Sickels…
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
Well i dont think ryan howard is "overrated"
Maybe last year, but the guy has been a 4-6 win player, thats pretty elite.
Check out my baseball analysis blog FANalytics
What can't be cacualted
The offensive value a hitter like Ryan Howard (Manny Ramirez being the best example) adds to a player hitting directly in front of him. Shouldn’t that be considered into his overall value? Is it real? Did Manny Ramirez make David Ortiz?
"My mother always taught me that if the only thing you have to say is,
‘(Expletive) Dave Samson,’ then don’t say anything at all.
So I’m not going to say anything at all.
Is my mother the greatest or what?"
- Mariners GM Bill Bavasi, after signing Ichiro to a $90 million contract
Is this a stupid question?
"My mother always taught me that if the only thing you have to say is,
‘(Expletive) Dave Samson,’ then don’t say anything at all.
So I’m not going to say anything at all.
Is my mother the greatest or what?"
- Mariners GM Bill Bavasi, after signing Ichiro to a $90 million contract
What do you feel?
I know Andre Ethier would disagree.
"My mother always taught me that if the only thing you have to say is,
‘(Expletive) Dave Samson,’ then don’t say anything at all.
So I’m not going to say anything at all.
Is my mother the greatest or what?"
- Mariners GM Bill Bavasi, after signing Ichiro to a $90 million contract
That's exactly it, though
that could be coincidence, a hot streak. Way too little data to draw a conclusion from.
G G G E-flat_______ F F F D__________....
The Dodgers as a team hit worse after Manny arrived
if you don’t include Manny himself (which makes sense if you’re talking about "protection").
Many years from now, when his name's recalled
Everyone will say, "He should have passed the ball"
-- Al Stewart, "Football Hero"
I'm talking about the guy hitting directly in front of Manny/great hitter
Which was Jeff Kent until he was hurt, then Ethier. Both of whom hit substantially better after Manny.
"My mother always taught me that if the only thing you have to say is,
‘(Expletive) Dave Samson,’ then don’t say anything at all.
So I’m not going to say anything at all.
Is my mother the greatest or what?"
- Mariners GM Bill Bavasi, after signing Ichiro to a $90 million contract
I know, I know
I’m surprised there hasn’t been a study on “protection” already done.
"My mother always taught me that if the only thing you have to say is,
‘(Expletive) Dave Samson,’ then don’t say anything at all.
So I’m not going to say anything at all.
Is my mother the greatest or what?"
- Mariners GM Bill Bavasi, after signing Ichiro to a $90 million contract
There have been plenty
It doesnt exist or is so small a factor it isnt worth worrying about. Guys dont hit for different AVGs, they dont walk any more, they dont hit more XBHs… Players dont even see a different percentage of balls or strikes based on who is batting in front or behind them. There is no correlation to anything… EVER. Protection just doesnt exist – or if it does, its nothing like what people imagine, because every way we’ve tried to find it shows it has no effect whatsoever on anything. Baseball players simply do not perform any differently based on who is batting around them – nor do pitchers pitch differently based on who is batting around a guy… which is very strange, because both pitchers and batters seem to think they do – but they do NOT.
Go check out the chapter in this book
if youre looking for a good study on it:
http://www.amazon.com/Baseball-Between-Numbers-Everything-About/dp/0465005969
"The Book"
Has also proven this to be a myth..
however, i still think that in extreme cases.. such as all time great hitters, this study may not be accurate.
But most studies have shown that having a better hitter behind you actually hurts your numbers.
Check out my baseball analysis blog FANalytics
I think I shall purchase a copy of
The Book.
And I agree with the all time great hitters, and would even limit that to all time great home run hitters, because of they’re ability to instantly change the game.
"My mother always taught me that if the only thing you have to say is,
‘(Expletive) Dave Samson,’ then don’t say anything at all.
So I’m not going to say anything at all.
Is my mother the greatest or what?"
- Mariners GM Bill Bavasi, after signing Ichiro to a $90 million contract
Rationalization
None of the top prospects in the Marlins’ system are in rookie ball, save Skipworth. Your explanation does not fit the details.
And BA hardly considered Kurt Suzuki worthless. He was a top 100 prospect.
If anything, overrating 8 year olds only helps the A’s, since BA put Inoa at #3 on their OAK list, and since he will probably be in the middle of the top 100.
To be fair
The “be average at everything with no studs” approach is a hard way to build a baseball team. Case in point: The Toronto Blue Jays of the past few years. You do need the high impact players (like the toolshed kids have a higher chance of developing into) to build a championship caliber roster.
And if you do manage a great year like the Jays had last year, Pythag wise, then you're
left with a suddenly declining core. A couple of injuries and you’re toast.
It's not the results, it's how you look going about those results -- Tim McCarver
by WaddellCanseco on Jan 16, 2009 4:01 AM EST up reply actions 1 recs
Agreed
I think it’s much easier to get by with a Stars & Scrubs approach and find value off the scrap heap (or some guy that has a season way over his head because of something like BABIP) to fill in the holes. Conversely, with an “everybody average” approach, you need everything to go right to hit the same level.
Granted, the average approach is probably more predictable, but the goal isn’t to win 80-84 games so much as it is to win championships. I’ll take the extra volatility of the first team if it gets me a couple of pennants.
You may take that, but I think the reason people like the predictable approach is
that their revenues then become more predictable….at least in the short term. It’s easier to sell season tickets and negotiate broadcast deals if the team is somewhat competitive than if it’s boom or bust (see Marlins).
According to Forbes the value of the Marlins was $256M, even lower than the Pirates ($292M), despite the Marlins being in a larger, more prosperous market with a greater interest in college baseball.
The marketplace rewards predictable crappiness over unpredictability in the short term. We’ll see what happens when the Marlins build their new stadium.
It's not the results, it's how you look going about those results -- Tim McCarver
by WaddellCanseco on Jan 17, 2009 1:22 AM EST up reply actions
Well, the other problem with the boom or bust approach
Is that everyone is then going after the same players, making it harder and more expensive to get the guys that you want. I think you have a much better chance of being competitive by building around a core of average to slightly above average players, plugging in a free agent here and there, and just trying to get into the playoffs. Once you’re there, it’s really just a roll of the dice anyway, no matter how good or bad you are.
Im sorry PT.
I like you as a poster, and generally agree with what you say, but saying that Kurt Suzuki was a lot better than Ryan Howard last season is incredibly fucking stupid.
Never, Never, NEVER give up
Agreed
I am not saying that Suzuki is not a good player; he is. However, Howard had the higher win share (3.4 to 3.1), dwarfed Kurt in OPS+, and also had the higher VORP. Any baseball expert would concur that Howard is the ‘better’ player then Suzuki. I like Kurt but lets not be stupid PT.
"When a true genius appears in the world, you may know him by this sign, that the dunces are all in confederacy against him."
-Jonathan Swift
by King Billy Royal on Jan 16, 2009 12:46 AM EST up reply actions
The 3.4 vs 3.1 doesn't include catcher defense.
BP had Suzuki rated +6 in 2008. CHONE has him +7.
BP fielding metrics are not play-by-play derived, but then which catcher fielding metrics are?
Suzuki only has to be +4 defensively to be better than Howard.
It's not the results, it's how you look going about those results -- Tim McCarver
by WaddellCanseco on Jan 16, 2009 4:04 AM EST up reply actions
Check again. Fangraphs Catcher Fielding Metrics do not include defense.
If you can come up with better catcher fielding metrics than BP’s feel free to use them and convert them to runs above average.
It's not the results, it's how you look going about those results -- Tim McCarver
by WaddellCanseco on Jan 16, 2009 11:34 AM EST up reply actions
Fangraphs
That’s great for fangraphs, but what does that have to do with WinShares? I don’t think Fangraphs even calculates those.
You're not really going to defend Win Shares fielding evaluations, are you?
It's not the results, it's how you look going about those results -- Tim McCarver
by WaddellCanseco on Jan 17, 2009 1:24 AM EST up reply actions
That's some incredibly fantastic evidence you've brought up to prove your point
Suzuki is, at worst, one of the 7 best catchers in baseball. Depending on where his defense actually falls on the catcher defense spectrum, he could be top 5.
That’s really, really valuable.
by thejd44 on Jan 16, 2009 4:37 AM EST up reply actions
Top 7
7 better catchers:
Joe Mauer
Brian McCann
Russell Martin
Geovanny Soto
Ryan Doumit
Chris Iannetta
Kelly Shoppach
Mike Napoli
Oops, that’s 8.
Suzuki is a below average hitter whose whole value comes from being a full time catcher. Now that has value, definitely, but he’s not a top 5 anything.
Suzuki is not a below average hitting catcher.
And I’ll take Suzuki over at least 3 of those guys you mentioned.
by thejd44 on Jan 16, 2009 9:52 PM EST up reply actions
I'd take him over Doumit, too.
Doumit has had a nice season and a half, but his defense makes him about a 2 WAR player.
by thejd44 on Jan 18, 2009 1:31 AM EST up reply actions
kurt suzuki was better then ryan howard?I
I’ll agree that Howards counting stats overrated his season last year, but his WAR is greater then Suzukis (who is underrated most likely), but that doesnt make this any where near a correct statement.
Check out my baseball analysis blog FANalytics
Well he was slightly better by WAR in 2008, but Howard had better years in the past.
It's not the results, it's how you look going about those results -- Tim McCarver
by WaddellCanseco on Jan 17, 2009 1:25 AM EST up reply actions
Poor A's fans
I guess they can stop all the analysis on how they’re better than Texas and deserve to be #1.
Heck, professionals out there have them ranked #3.
Texas has higher celing guys..
Oakland as more good bets. In 3 years the A’s will have the better “Team”. And thats what matters.
"With 16-year-old Dominican righty Michel Inoa in tow, Gio Gonzalez improving at Triple-A and lefty Brett Anderson carving up Double-Abatters along with Simmons and Trevor Cahill, Oakland’s pitching depthis officially the envy of baseball." - BaseballAmerica.com
lol.
"No... JD has been exposed as a kid who trades his remote-controlled helicopters for paper airplanes, then fails to consider the feelings of the paper airplane when he refolded it into a hat." -Telegraph.
by Kinslerhomer on Jan 14, 2009 9:08 PM EST up reply actions
You are not allowed to LoL.
Your team has 8 losing seasons in 9 years.
"With 16-year-old Dominican righty Michel Inoa in tow, Gio Gonzalez improving at Triple-A and lefty Brett Anderson carving up Double-Abatters along with Simmons and Trevor Cahill, Oakland’s pitching depthis officially the envy of baseball." - BaseballAmerica.com
So let me get this straight
You refer that the A’s will have a better “team” in the future because of the “good bets” but you defend your statement by saying the Rangers had 8 losing seasons in 9 years.
Yep, that makes sense.
What doesnt make sense?
"With 16-year-old Dominican righty Michel Inoa in tow, Gio Gonzalez improving at Triple-A and lefty Brett Anderson carving up Double-Abatters along with Simmons and Trevor Cahill, Oakland’s pitching depthis officially the envy of baseball." - BaseballAmerica.com
I don't think that was the justification for the statement
It seemed that Kinsler responded with incredulity, and the only logical response was “Screw you, your team sucks.” If KinslerHR had responded with something more logical then I could definitely see Syphon being wrong here.
Incredulity? No,
it sure could happen but for him to say that they will hands down have the better “Team” in three years is stupid (unless he can show me his crystal ball) and then to try and back that up by saying that because we’ve sucked eight of the last nine years (which we have), so there is abviously no way we can get better is pretty dumb.
"No... JD has been exposed as a kid who trades his remote-controlled helicopters for paper airplanes, then fails to consider the feelings of the paper airplane when he refolded it into a hat." -Telegraph.
by Kinslerhomer on Jan 15, 2009 11:09 AM EST up reply actions
But didn't you?
Suck 8 of the last 9 years, i mean. Past performance as indicative of future results. (just giving you a hard time, here).
yeah, lol.
"No... JD has been exposed as a kid who trades his remote-controlled helicopters for paper airplanes, then fails to consider the feelings of the paper airplane when he refolded it into a hat." -Telegraph.
by Kinslerhomer on Jan 15, 2009 11:14 AM EST up reply actions
Huh?
What does that have to do with the strength of their farm system. I’d put the A’s third behind the Rangers and Marlins and that is despite the fact that I like the A’s more than I like both those teams. Their are alot of A’s fans on here who take it personally when someone says they have the 2nd or 3rd best farm system. I dont get it.
How long after that...
Do the A’s trade away these good bets from this better “team” because they dont want to pay them?
by snatch attack on Jan 15, 2009 12:10 AM EST up reply actions
New Stadium.. New Owners..
Time are a changing.
"With 16-year-old Dominican righty Michel Inoa in tow, Gio Gonzalez improving at Triple-A and lefty Brett Anderson carving up Double-Abatters along with Simmons and Trevor Cahill, Oakland’s pitching depthis officially the envy of baseball." - BaseballAmerica.com
Just because they're getting a new stadium
and new owners doesn’t mean they can all the sudden afford to keep the good players they produce. Unless the new owner is Mark Cuban or something, I don’t think a horrific economic downturn, perrenial piss poor attendance even when they’re good, and the debt they’d aquire to pay off the new stadium if they get one exactly spells “higher payroll.”
If the past is any indicator...
they don’t need the stadium or an increased payroll to smoke Texas. Historically there is no comparing the 2 franchises!
a little beside the point
I was saying the A’s trade all of their expensive players, which is true. I didn’t say anything about them being worse than Texas.
At least Oak produces players worth
signing… I mean you guy lets Teix go. Hows that any different?
"With 16-year-old Dominican righty Michel Inoa in tow, Gio Gonzalez improving at Triple-A and lefty Brett Anderson carving up Double-Abatters along with Simmons and Trevor Cahill, Oakland’s pitching depthis officially the envy of baseball." - BaseballAmerica.com
The difference being...
The Rangers actually tried to re-sign Tex. They only traded him after he turned down a contract extension.
by snatch attack on Jan 15, 2009 10:09 AM EST up reply actions
Giambi, Chavez
The A’s tried very hard to re-sign Giambi and succeeded in re-signing Chavez (oops).
by ToddyBaseball on Jan 15, 2009 10:14 AM EST up reply actions
They tried to extend his contract
and he didn’t want to, so they were faced with the option of letting him go and picking up draft picks or trading him for even more value. They really couldn’t afford to keep him; the guy landed 180 million dollars over 8 years. That kind of money would put many team’s payrolls in a headlock. That’s not quite the same as trading Mark Mulder, Tim Hudson, Dan Haren, etc. because you’d rather not have to shell out some money to keep them and you’d rather try and build a new team to save money.
The pitcher trades you reference were not salary dumps. They were
meant to restock the farm system for a period of years. It didn’t really work with Hudson though.
It's not the results, it's how you look going about those results -- Tim McCarver
by WaddellCanseco on Jan 16, 2009 4:05 AM EST up reply actions
You have no idea what you're talking about
Dan Haren had 3 years with a ridiculously club-friendly contract when the A’s traded him. Mulder had 2 fairly team-friendly years left. Hudson could easily have been re-signed within the team budget after 2005 had he been amenable to it, which he wasn’t. He preferred to return closer to home.
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
Well FWIW
According to Forbes… Oakland had over 150 mil in revenues in 2007
http://www.forbes.com/lists/2008/33/biz_baseball08_Oakland-Athletics_330413.html
Check out my baseball analysis blog FANalytics
I'm surprised Florida is #2, but I probably shouldn't be
BA has always favored teams with uber-ceiling talents that are 3 years away over teams with solid to good prospects that are much closer to the Show. Oh well. If I hadn’t thought that BA was excessive in their fawning of 17 year olds in Rookie ball I never would have bought Sickels’ book!
The monster at the end of this blog.
Doesn't everyone favor teams with uber-ceiling talents over teams with solid to good prospects?
I’ve seen some pretty high ceiling, middling performance guys on John’s list and Goldstein’s. I didn’t see anyone rate the A’s system over either the Marlins or the Ranger systems so far.
It's not the results, it's how you look going about those results -- Tim McCarver
by WaddellCanseco on Jan 15, 2009 2:52 AM EST up reply actions
You're leaving out the bit about the timelines
BA has always had a bias towards prospects with the potential for the greatest impact, even if the prospect in question is half a decade away from playing in the Show. A lot of guys with outstanding tools turn into busts but that never seems to slow down BA’s love for them. Sickels plays it more cautious (see the Giants’ Angel Villalona) and I appreciate that. I’m even more cautious than Sickels, probably to my detriment.
The monster at the end of this blog.
I think I have that bias also. Basically I think you need 14 WAA to win 95 games and I want the top
prospects to be ones who are most likely to get those. A guy who’s close to the majors but isn’t likely to give a lot of WAA isn’t attractive to me.
I understand there have been cases where a team with stars failed to win as much as they should have for want of average players — 1980’s Expos, 1990’s Mariners — but for the most part the teams that don’t win big, don’t win because they don’t have stars.
I wouldn’t trade Michel Inoa for someone like Aaron Cunningham because players that can be the best player on a championship team are so rare that if you’re lucky enough to find one, you grab on with both hands and don’t let go. If Aaron Cunningham’s your best player you’re not going to win much. The fact that he’s 2 months from the majors is less important to me than the fact that Inoa has the potential to be the best player on a future A’s champion.
It's not the results, it's how you look going about those results -- Tim McCarver
by WaddellCanseco on Jan 15, 2009 11:21 AM EST up reply actions
It's not being "close to the majors" that's valuable
Kenshin Kawakami, Yadel Marti, and Joel Galarraga are all prospects who are close to the majors.
The problem with that statement is that none of them has played a game of affiliated ball. They are still very high risk (granted, not as high risk as Inoa, who hasn’t passed through the injury nexus and whose top prospect status still relies to an extent on physical projection) because they don’t have an established track record.
What makes Cunningham valuable is that he has a ton of at-bats in affiliated, regulated leagues where teams have a very good idea what the players are capable of. He’s not likely to suddenly forget how to hit.
I mean, really— would you sell off Aaron Cunningham for $4.25 million? That’s what Inoa got…
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
I wouldn't sell him for that, because I could get a lot more if I sold him. But I wouldn't
routinely trade all high ceiling prospects for major league ready average players either.
To clarify, I’m not that high on guys with 5 tools and no plate discipline. I believe that having bad plate discipline limits your upside. I am high on guys with 5 tools a good eye and far away from the majors….or pitchers who have the potential to be Felix Hernandez.
It's not the results, it's how you look going about those results -- Tim McCarver
by WaddellCanseco on Jan 16, 2009 4:09 AM EST up reply actions
Of course you don't "routinely" do that, but if you're a contender with a hole on your roster,
doing so makes a ton of sense.
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
To the A's Haters: Is it Billy Beane?
The anti-A’s stuff is amusing. Lots of energy expended on hating a team’s farm system, and the self-awareness of the posts might be pushing a 5th grade level.
Is it really Billy Beane that causes all the knicker twisting? Can’t be the fans. They’re no more or less obnoxious than any of the A’s-haters.
A’s fans act no differently than other fans here or anywhere else. In fact, they may be a bit tame compared to Red Sox and Yankee fans. Yet a quick head count of the panties-in-a-bunch-over-the-A’s crowd reveals a lot of, well, it sure seems like Oakland Athletics envy.
I disagree
Check out the “suck it Oakland” comment above.
by thejd44 on Jan 15, 2009 4:47 AM EST up reply actions
I don't think that poster
has his panties bunched, it’s an internet raspberry, not serious.
G G G E-flat_______ F F F D__________....
What did Billy Beane do?
Anyway, I’d agree with BA. Texas is #1. I’d definitely put us over the Marlins at #2 though. I dont think it’s all that close either.
Never, Never, NEVER give up
A's are #3
I think #3 is about right. There’s a gap in impact hitters and both Texas and Florida have more balance throughout their systems.
Still, the vitriol in these A’s attacks makes me chuckle. I wasn’t kidding when I asked the question about Beane. Two posters with counting deficiencies aside, there is actual reveling going on here because the A’s have the (gasp!) #3 farm system in baseball and not #1 or #2.
I really want to know what’s behind the heavy anti-A’s sentiment on this board and, more specifically, on this thread.
by ToddyBaseball on Jan 15, 2009 1:37 AM EST up reply actions
Anyone overrated and over-promoted is going to draw a backlash. See Derek Jeter.
It's not the results, it's how you look going about those results -- Tim McCarver
by WaddellCanseco on Jan 15, 2009 2:54 AM EST up reply actions
Have you not been on minorleagueball for long??
Seems like the most over-the-top fan bases here are Texas, Oakland and SF. Lots of bay area love here for some reason. I’m pretty sure that is the reason for the hatred, and nothing to do with Beane.
Day One
And reading John since his Stats, Inc. days. The Texas/SF/Oakland stuff is pretty recent and likely connected to the development of the Texas and SF systems.
by ToddyBaseball on Jan 15, 2009 9:55 AM EST up reply actions
It's Billy Beane
Go to any baseball board and you’ll find some hardcore A’s haters. Way more than for other comparable teams. People don’t hate the Twins and they’re essentially the A’s. They don’t hate the Royals and they’re the A’s without the success. What’s the difference? Duh. Whatever people say, there’s still a lot of underlying resentment toward Beane because “he” said a lot of people were stupid. People haven’t forgotten that and they won’t for a while.
It's also perpetuated by people like Ken Harrelson
Who publicly rip Billy Beane any chance they get. This skews the view of the average baseball fan who is told that this evil GM is trying to steal the game they love.
by thejd44 on Jan 16, 2009 4:40 AM EST up reply actions
You mean the average White Sox fan...
It's not the results, it's how you look going about those results -- Tim McCarver
by WaddellCanseco on Jan 16, 2009 5:01 AM EST up reply actions
But Harrelson is just one example
There’s plenty of guys just like him who fans of other teams see, listen to, and respect who say similar things about Beane.
by thejd44 on Jan 16, 2009 9:53 PM EST up reply actions
I just don't see it as vitriol
in either direction. Picture a bunch of guys sitting around with beers trash talking about their favorite teams, that’s all this is. You’re overreacting.
G G G E-flat_______ F F F D__________....
Apples to Oranges
I disagree with your characterization of the discussion. Friends sitting around can get away with that. They’re friends. There is no indication of underlying respect in the comments to which I refer.
by ToddyBaseball on Jan 15, 2009 10:02 AM EST up reply actions
I still say it's your problem
if you take these comments with any degree of seriousness. Relax and get over it.
G G G E-flat_______ F F F D__________....
I'm not relaxed?
I stated from the get-go that this makes me chuckle. Having a conversation does not automatically equate to being uptight. Why must you assign blame?
by ToddyBaseball on Jan 15, 2009 11:32 AM EST up reply actions
Ok, restate
why do you assume that the others you’re criticizing are not relaxed and chuckling as well? I’m not assigning blame for anything.
G G G E-flat_______ F F F D__________....
Florida more balance?
Where is their pitching?
by AthleticsReign on Jan 15, 2009 4:48 PM EST up reply actions
Why is Florida's system better than ours?
I’ll admit I’m not completely familiar with their system, but after their “big 4” (Morrison, Maybin, Dominguez, Stanton), they dont even come close to comparing to our system IMO.
Why so much anti-A’s stuff? The same reason for the anti-Rangers sentiment. Ballot-stuffing in the prospect list, and because they have a lot of good prospects that people like to talk about.
Never, Never, NEVER give up
A post that basically says "I don't know much about them, but they don't come close to us"
is not going to win friends among those who don’t like fanboyism from opposing fans.
It's not the results, it's how you look going about those results -- Tim McCarver
by WaddellCanseco on Jan 15, 2009 2:56 AM EST up reply actions
+1
do some research before you make a claim like that, it just proves your biased
...Except it doesnt.
I read John’s list on them. Saw their grades on their comments. I’m familiar with the top-tier guys. That’s what I meant by I’m not "completely familiar with them. That doesnt mean I know nothing about them.
I guess it would’ve been better had I said “As far as I know, they dont come close to us”.
Doesnt really matter to me though. It’s all semantics.
Never, Never, NEVER give up
Ugh
I’ll admit I’m not completely familiar with their system… they dont even come close to comparing to our system IMO.
http://www.minorleagueball.com/2009/1/9/715104/florida-marlins-top-20-pro
You are on site right now that can help you.
Pitching is king
Oakland has pitching and as obvious in the case of Tampa Bay and the Red Sox and the Angels, it’s pitching that bring championships. The Phillies needed Hamels to win this year.
Texas has BETTER pitching
Feliz, Holland, Perez, Main, Beavan, etc. Oakland has two great pitching prospects followed by a bunch of overhyped long relievers.
"When a true genius appears in the world, you may know him by this sign, that the dunces are all in confederacy against him."
-Jonathan Swift
by King Billy Royal on Jan 15, 2009 12:13 PM EST up reply actions
Id rather have...
Cahill, Anderson, Simmons, Gonzalez, Gallagher, Mazzaro, Rodriguez, Inoa, De Los Santos, Brett Hunter.
"With 16-year-old Dominican righty Michel Inoa in tow, Gio Gonzalez improving at Triple-A and lefty Brett Anderson carving up Double-Abatters along with Simmons and Trevor Cahill, Oakland’s pitching depthis officially the envy of baseball." - BaseballAmerica.com
+1
Pretty close, but I would definitely take Oakland’s group.
I actually like Cahill and Anderson better than Feliz and Holland – and theyre certainly less risky. I could understand people who like the Texas top two more, though. Yet, even if youre a Feliz/Holland guy there is considerably less risk in the Oakland group and just about the same upside.
Dont get me wrong, any team would be blessed to have EITHER group, so we’re splitting hairs… but I would take the Oakland group.
From todays KLaw chat
Michael (CT): Best pitching prospect not named David Price? Feliz? Hanson? Bumgarner?
SportsNation Keith Law: (2:49 PM ET ) Feliz
It's not that I agree or disagree so much with Law. It's that I don't respect his opinion.
The guy has no scouting background and gives opinions based on his observations. I don’t see how his opinion is any better than any other fan who watches a lot of games.
It's not the results, it's how you look going about those results -- Tim McCarver
by WaddellCanseco on Jan 16, 2009 4:12 AM EST up reply actions
The guy has no scouting background
This is inaccurate. Part of his responsibilities for the Jays included scouting. He was never a “scout” per se, but he’s got much more background than you or I. From the horse’s mouth:
I started out with one responsibility: handling our statistical analysis work and using it to advise the GM on player personnel moves in all areas, from the draft to trades to free agent signings. Over time, I became more involved with the scouting department and was fortunate enough to fall in with some experienced scouts who were willing to help me learn that side of the business.
Oh good. He has more scouting background than me. What next? He's a better
saxophone player? Speaks better Arabic?
Being a better scout than me doesn’t make you a scout.
It's not the results, it's how you look going about those results -- Tim McCarver
by WaddellCanseco on Jan 16, 2009 11:35 AM EST up reply actions
You said "no scouting background"
wrong.
"He will not coddle them. Nolan Ryan doesn’t coddle." - Jeff Passan
by Dirk Diggler on Jan 16, 2009 12:01 PM EST up reply actions
If mere exposure to a scouting department counts as a scouting
background then a lot of people have a background in a lot of things that they are not considered experts in, and don’t spout off about pretending to have a clue.
I stand by my statement. He has “no scouting background” any more than Barry Bonds has a journalism background, by virtue of having been interviewed by journalists, or Trixie has a racing background by virtue of having taken the wheel when Speed was jumping into the next car while driving at top speed.
It's not the results, it's how you look going about those results -- Tim McCarver
by WaddellCanseco on Jan 16, 2009 12:25 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
Working with scouts
in a professional baseball team setting is certainly a “scouting background.” To think otherwise is just showing your bias against him.
But, it’s not worth arguing about any further. Carry on.
"He will not coddle them. Nolan Ryan doesn’t coddle." - Jeff Passan
by Dirk Diggler on Jan 16, 2009 2:02 PM EST up reply actions
Seems clear that he has a scouting background
“…was fortunate enough to fall in with some experienced scouts who were willing to help me learn that side of the business.”
Seems clear that he has a scouting background, assuming the statement is accurate, the statement above means that he learned how to scout from a bunch of experienced scouts.
Adoptive parental unit of Kevin " 2007's Most Spectacular Pitcher" Pucetas.
"I'm a Giant now... I like watching the ball get up there" - Wendell Fairley
"I'm really proud to be on this team." - Nate Schierholtz
"Woo hoo" - Tim "The Kid" Lincecum
by obsessivegiantscompulsive on Jan 16, 2009 6:45 PM EST up reply actions
My problem is that he calls a guy a "4th outfielder" even if he's a top 15 centerfielder in baseball
because he apparently sets his own replacement level independent of what actually happens on the field.
Oh, and he’ll see a guy in A ball have two at bats and make up his mind for the next 6 years based on that.
by thejd44 on Jan 16, 2009 9:54 PM EST up reply actions
Well
you’re saying the Rangers pitchers are at a disadvantage. I’m saying the other team is in the same park and it affects the other pitchers, too. The Rangers need more pitching talent no matter what park they’re in. Luckily, it’s on the way.
G G G E-flat_______ F F F D__________....
Their opponents don't pitch half their games there.
You give me one group of pitching prospects that has to pitch in Arlington, and one group that gets to pitch in Oakland, and I’m taking the group that’s in the extremely pitcher friendly park.
You don't get what he's saying
Yes, Texas pitching prospect have to pitch half there games in Texas. So fantasy wise, they won’t have as solid #’s compared to pitching prospects in pitching parks.
What he is saying is………..
If they’re solid pitchers, they will outperform against there pitching opponent and pick up the win. Whoever the pitching prospects face, both will be pitching in the same park.
Right,
which is not to say I’m caring about win totals to measure pitchers, but their job is to beat the other team, not rack up impressive peripherals compare to someone in PetCo.
G G G E-flat_______ F F F D__________....
Anyway, to reiterate
I think the issue of talent is of much greater concern than the park.
G G G E-flat_______ F F F D__________....
Disagree
I’d much rather have 5 great hitting prospects and some decent pitching ones than vice versa. The hitters are much more likely to pan out.
Isn't this already considered in the prospect rankings?
It's not the results, it's how you look going about those results -- Tim McCarver
by WaddellCanseco on Jan 16, 2009 4:13 AM EST up reply actions
Not really
There is a reason John does two separate top 50 lists. The A through C scale explicitly does not mean the same thing for pitchers and hitters.
I would like to see this verified by Sickels
Then why bother having the same scale for each type of player? That would just cause confusion if this was true.
Adoptive parental unit of Kevin " 2007's Most Spectacular Pitcher" Pucetas.
"I'm a Giant now... I like watching the ball get up there" - Wendell Fairley
"I'm really proud to be on this team." - Nate Schierholtz
"Woo hoo" - Tim "The Kid" Lincecum
by obsessivegiantscompulsive on Jan 16, 2009 6:47 PM EST up reply actions
direct quote from last year's book
“A major point to remember is that grades for pitchers do NOT correspond directly to grades for hitters.” (his emphasis)
I would like him to explain exactly what that means though.
If they don’t line up exactly, why not? What’s the difference?
by thejd44 on Jan 16, 2009 9:55 PM EST up reply actions
I disagree with the disagree
If you had the choice of 5 great hitting prospects and decent pitching or 5 great pitchers and decent hitting, it would be better to have the latter.
THT showed in a study that having good pitching lowers the runs scored you need to do in order to attain the same winning percentage using Pythagorean. So for example, if you have an average league 4.5 runs environment. Let’s say great translate to 0.5 runs +/-. Team 1 has great hitting but average pitching, meaning 5.0 RS, 4.5 RA, that’s .552 Pct, or 89.5 wins. Team 2 has great pitching and average hitting, meaning 4.5 RS, 4.0 RA, that’s .559 Pct, or 90.5 wins. It is better to have great pitching.
In addition, a team with the 5 great pitchers could use them all in the rotation. A team with 5 great hitters most probably will find that they have two 1B or LF or RF, and be forced to trade to get someone else, which could result in lost value.
The reason there is a risk for a loss in value is because the market is limited to the 30 teams in the majors. Most teams could or would take an improvement in pitching in trade, and your team could try to work out a deal with a deal with enough talent to match the player you want to trade; but if you have a hitter, you are limited to the teams who are looking for a player for that position or who would like an upgrade in that position. But every team has a varying amount of talent in the minors, and thus the team could end up with less value in trade because of this.
In addition, two different studies – one by THT (on-line), the other by BP (in their book) – have found that success in the playoffs is significantly linked to having better pitching and defense, whereas there was no such link with offense. Thus the team with the great pitching will have the ingredients that link most with success in the playoffs, while the team with the great offense don’t.
Adoptive parental unit of Kevin " 2007's Most Spectacular Pitcher" Pucetas.
"I'm a Giant now... I like watching the ball get up there" - Wendell Fairley
"I'm really proud to be on this team." - Nate Schierholtz
"Woo hoo" - Tim "The Kid" Lincecum
by obsessivegiantscompulsive on Jan 16, 2009 7:04 PM EST up reply actions
To sum up in an old overuse cliche' (as is the style in Baseball)
Good Pitching beats Good Hitting. Good Hitting beats Mediocre Pitching.
facepalm.jpg
I don't think John rates the Marlins better than the A's.
He had to list 25 A’s prospects who were C+ or better. The Marlins have 16. Each team has two A- players. The Marlins have 3 B+ and 3 B. the A’s have no B+ and 6 B. The A’s also have 7 B- to the Marlins’ 3. I don’t know about anybody else, but I think 10 more C+ prospects and the B- difference is at least equal to the difference between B and B+ on 3 guys.
Based on the grades, I’d say Sickels has the A’s #2.
by thejd44 on Jan 15, 2009 4:51 AM EST reply actions
I would tend to agree based on Sickels rankings
Texas #1
Oakland #2
but either way, it really doesn’t matter. If you are in the top 5, you’re doing good. It’s about translated those players to the Bigs and in turn translating into Big League Wins for your ball clubs.
Wait 'til the year after next
Look here
http://www.minorleagueball.com/2009/1/9/715688/team-rankings
There was a whole long fanpost about this.
That doesnt answer the question, though. I dont think we can just assume the best methodology for determining best farm system is to average the top 20. Why not the top 5? Why not the top 10? Why not the top 50? Is there a compelling reason to value one sample over another? Im not sure there is.
Didn't say it answered anything
Just pointing out that there was a fanpost devoted to the relative grade weighting and calculation that thejd44 was talking about.
You could attach future expected WAR for each grade level -- e.g. 25 for A, 20 for A-
or something. Anything below C+ is likely to be negligible.
It's not the results, it's how you look going about those results -- Tim McCarver
by WaddellCanseco on Jan 16, 2009 4:14 AM EST up reply actions
so to be clear
PT is still a huge tool…hmm what a suprise.
Scout: He was a first-round pick right? Got a huge bonus?
KG: Oh yeah.
Scout: Well, he spent a lot of it on milkshakes.
another opinion on prospects
Matt, Norwalk CT: Best starter in 2011: Cahill, B Anderson, Matusz or Holland?
John Manuel: If he uses his fastball more often, I’ll say Matusz. His secondary stuff is so good, he missed a ton of bats in college by pitching off his curve, slider and changeup. My next pick would be Anderson, then Cahill and then Holland, who has the shortest track record of success among these guys. Four good guys to pick from.
Keith Law has his lists out
Lists the Rangers as the top system, followed by the Rays, A’s and Braves.
Looking at his list, he is very high on Elvis Andrus, and lower on Cahill and Anderson than most (in his 20’s, compared to the teens by many others).
Doctor Baron Van Evil Satan
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2012 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.
