BP's Organizational Rankings, Part 2
by Andy Seiler on Mar 18, 2009 11:26 AM EDT
Email
Print1. Oakland
2. Texas
3. Tampa Bay
4. Atlanta
5. Florida
6. San Francisco
7. Baltimore
8. Boston
9. St. Louis
10. Toronto
11. Colorado
12. Cleveland
13. New York (AL)
14. Philadelphia
15. Milwaukee
I took the liberty of fixing their misspelling of Atlanta (article says "Altanta").
What do you guys think of the rankings?
My feeling is that the top 2 teams should be switched, mainly for the fact that Inoa seems to be rated so highly by Goldstein. He should throw a pitch in a pro game first.
99 comments
|
2 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
It was expected for Oakland to be #1
I have no idea how Ynoa and Carter can be rated 5-star players, makes no sense. Yes, they’re very good prospects but it sounds like Goldstein wants to sleep with them two.
Oakland's 5-stars
Even as an A’s fan who actually really likes Chris Carter, I will agree with you on him. I was not just mildly, but entirely shocked to see Carter have a 5-star rating. True, he has absolutely MONSTER power—not just potential, but currently right now. If he were in the major leagues right now, I think he could probably put up an isoP of around .260 (or in the Mike Jacobs/Evan Longoria range). The problem is his slugging wouldn’t even sniff .500—because he has such a hard time putting the bat on the ball. And he has to do quite a bit of developing to get to that point where he’s passable in that category. I think he has a good opportunity to do so, especially considering how he has done a good job of that in the past (.291 BA in Kannapolis in 2007). But the mere distance he has to cover from where he is now and where he needs to be to reach his ceiling merits a middling 4-star rating (i.e. not at the low end of the 4-star rating, but not at the high end either).
On the flip-side, I can understand why Ynoa is ranked as a 5-star prospect. When pretty much all reports from scouts place the guy’s potential not in the “elite” but in the “historic” category, it is understandable to make him a 5-star prospect. Honestly, I do not understand why he is so different from a prospect coming out of high school. When looking at high schoolers, you mostly want to look at tools and make-up, not statistics because of the drastic difference between draftable talent and average high school talent. So when rating Ynoa, we may not have statistics (in-game performance), but we can see his tools and quite a bit of his make-up. Well, perhaps not “we” in the sense of you and I, but those who have been able to scout him.
Considering he is a year or two younger than many high school seniors entering the draft, he has even more projectability. I would say the 5-star rating for Ynoa is warranted.
by nobodyinparticular on Mar 18, 2009 12:00 PM EDT up reply actions
Were the As really rated #2 last year?
Seriously?
TheSouthWing.com - A Magazine of essays, prose and poems
by OldProspects on Mar 18, 2009 12:10 PM EDT up reply actions
I think that was after the big trades of Swisher and Haren. So the A’s prospect list would have included Anderson, Carlos Gonzalez, Barton, Fautino de los Santos (who was very highly regarded last year before his TJ surgery) and Gio Gonzalez (who KG really liked iirc).
by nobodyinparticular on Mar 18, 2009 12:16 PM EDT up reply actions
Frankly, still
TheSouthWing.com - A Magazine of essays, prose and poems
by OldProspects on Mar 18, 2009 12:38 PM EDT up reply actions
I don't see the problem
They had a couple 5-stars if I recall correctly (Barton and CarGon) and a buttload of 4-star prospects (all of the others mentioned plus Cahill and Henry Rodriguez who was also highly regarded).
How about giving some reasonings why they shouldn’t have been that high.
by nobodyinparticular on Mar 18, 2009 12:46 PM EDT up reply actions
Not exactly
http://baseballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=6997
They had two 5 stars and two four stars, the rest of the top 11 being 3 stars. The teams immediately below them:
OAK: two 5, two 4, seven 3
TEX: one 5, five 4, five 3
BOS: two 5, three 4, four 3, two 2
LAD: three 5, one 4, seven 3
…
ATL: two 5, four 4, five 3
He must have though a lot of Oakland’s depth.
You forgot the White Sox trade
Which included another 5-star prospect in DLS and another 4-star in Gio.
KG was really high on DLS, tabbing him as a “star-level starter or closer” in a perfect world.
With those 2 high-level prospects, the A’s had the best combination of 5’s and 4’s—a total of 6—more 5’s than anyone other than LAD and as many or more total than all as well.
by nobodyinparticular on Mar 18, 2009 4:16 PM EDT up reply actions
Sure
I didn’t forget it though; I just didn’t realize KG did yet another update to his rankings after than trade.
Rankings
He didn’t end up adjusting his specific rankings for the A’s, but I am almost positive that his team rankings took the White Sox trade into account.
If that is not the case, then I will whole-heartedly agree with anyone who states that the A’s didn’t deserve to be #2 in the rankings.
by nobodyinparticular on Mar 20, 2009 12:58 AM EDT up reply actions
No I think your right
Going back and looking through his archives, he didn’t do a full update but he noted the ChiSox trade in an overall prospect update article and then mentioned it in his writeup for the organizational rankings.
I seriously wonder
how Texas fans can claim Ynoa is super overrated in one breath… and then turn around and bitch about how the A’s stole him from them and broke the rules to sign him in the next…
Many of them (not all – none of this is for all Rangers fans – just some) also vociferously defend Chris Davis and Teagarden’s flaws and complain to high heaven if anyone downgrades them because of it. Then they turn around and knock Chris Carter for the very same weaknesses and want him downgraded.
A’s fans are plenty annoying for the most part, too (It must be a Bay area thing), and Im aware Im a fan of a team pretty much everyone seems to find the fans of annoying… I just find the above contradictions funny…
Oh yeah...
my point was that if Ynoa had signed with the Rangers I would fully expect A’s fans to be killing him and Rangers fans to be crushing on him.
There is virtually no difference between being ranked #1 or #2 and I dont think people should get hung up on it. There are just soooo many good prospects in both these orgs that its pretty much impossible to make a choice. Please hold the righteous indignation!
I've...
never really been involved in the Davis vs. Carter debate, but there’s something to be said for the player with that profile who’s already translated his skills into major league success being preferred to a great degree over the player who hasn’t hit AA yet.
I'd be careful with that statement.
Davis’ weaknesses became even more obvious when he hit the majors. He certainly made an impact quickly, but as I said in that long debate thread a while back, Davis is going to have to make some adjustments or the league will figure him out quickly.
Fans are typically idiots.
by The Typical Idiot Fan on Mar 18, 2009 4:23 PM EDT up reply actions
I'd be careful with that statement.
“….there’s something to be said for the player with that profile who’s already translated his skills into major league success being preferred to a great degree over the player who hasn’t hit AA yet.”
What’s to be careful about?
Is he who we thought he was?
Many years from now, when his name's recalled
Everyone will say, "He should have passed the ball"
-- Al Stewart, "Football Hero"
who did we think he was?
I don’t think Davis is going to be a consistent superstar, but he’s already better than I thought he would be a year ago, and light years ahead of what I thought he’d be two years ago.
G G G E-flat_______ F F F D__________....
That was a joke
alluding to a rather famously incoherent Denny Green press conference rant.
Many years from now, when his name's recalled
Everyone will say, "He should have passed the ball"
-- Al Stewart, "Football Hero"
I already answered that question.
Chris Davis’ skill set is easily exploited by major league pitching. I do not believe he’s going to live up to the expectations that lot of people have heaped upon him. If he makes adjustments and improves on his weaknesses, then perhaps.
To say he’s translated his skills to major league success is premature.
Fans are typically idiots.
by The Typical Idiot Fan on Mar 18, 2009 4:59 PM EDT up reply actions
Ok...
The question as I understand it isn’t “is Chris Davis a future star,” but rather “is Chris Davis a better bet to be a star than Chris Carter?” The two players have essentially the same skill set, but Carter hasn’t hit the advanced levels yet, and Davis has. Choosing between the two, I’d take Davis in a heartbeat.
I dont think that was the question.
I think youd be hard pressed to find anyone who wouldnt take Davis over Carter right now. As you say, Davis has a lot less question marks.
I don't think so...
Your complaint was that people are downgrading Chris Carter while defending Chris Davis, and saying they’re similar players. I responded that Chris Davis has proven a lot more, so he should get a significant bump.
Davis handled the high minors with ease and his major league debut was a success. Carter hasn’t hit Double-A yet. Davis is also a decent defensive 1B, while Carter has to work hard to reach that level. Davis pretty much has 1 question left to answer: can he sustain major league success? Carter has way more opportunities to fall apart against superior competition.
I understand your point now.
My stance on his major league success seems to be the difference point between our views. I would say another difference point would be the skill sets being equal. Carter is already showing a better understanding of the strike zone then Davis did. I’m not saying this will make or break Carter over Davis, but it is something.
Actually, now that I am seriously looking at Carter (I didn’t before this debate), I’d almost think you could throw his 2008 completely out the window. I’m not sure we should rely upon it as an indication of talent going forward.
California League and a 61% flyball rate? It looks like he was playing to the parks, not playing to his talents. I suppose it shows brains, and the walk rate is still legit, but I have a hard time believing we can use this empirically to gauge his power. 2007 looks fine, and whatever 2009 is at AA will be useful. But 2008? Hell. That’s just too wonky. Way too wonky.
Fans are typically idiots.
by The Typical Idiot Fan on Mar 18, 2009 9:42 PM EDT up reply actions
If you look at his spray charts
he launches some reeeeaaalll long balls.
Scouts grade his power a pure 80.
I'm sure he does and I'm not denying a scout rating...
But dropping his line drive rate down to a mere 7, having his batting average plummet to ~.250, while socking 39 bombs on a 60 fly ball rate screams “playing to park”.
I’m just not sure what kind of serious analysis we can do with it. It’s the outlier of outliers.
Fans are typically idiots.
by The Typical Idiot Fan on Mar 18, 2009 9:49 PM EDT up reply actions
Throw the minor league LD% out the window
It is widely recognized that hit-type numbers are entirely unreliable in the minor leagues. I know that the low LD% fits your theory of Carter as a bad prospect, but even you should be able to see how fishy it is that a guy would have such a low LD%.
Minor league FB/GB/LD tendencies are not really admissible as evidence due to their flakiness.
by nobodyinparticular on Mar 19, 2009 12:32 AM EDT up reply actions
I never said he was "bad". Just that 2008 might have to be tempered a bit.
Also, while ball in play data might be sketchy, I find it interesting he went from 17% line drive rate in low A to 7% line drive rate in high A and a major correlating factor is California League stadiums are fly ball havens.
Even if the numbers are flaky, that’s pretty damn weird. I would allow flake factor to have an effect on the numbers to the tune of anything upwards of +/- 5, but not 10.
Fans are typically idiots.
by The Typical Idiot Fan on Mar 19, 2009 2:19 AM EDT up reply actions
No, you don't understand
Those numbers are completely worthless. The league average LD rate in the Cal league is about 8%.
The numbers aren’t “flaky,” they’re consistently insane.
Many years from now, when his name's recalled
Everyone will say, "He should have passed the ball"
-- Al Stewart, "Football Hero"
So has anybody studied this?
And has anybody determined whether it’s just faulty stat keeping or a result of the ballparks?
Fans are typically idiots.
by The Typical Idiot Fan on Mar 19, 2009 4:13 PM EDT up reply actions
Stat keeping
The problem is persistent.
Without BIS or another such service to have strong and consistent definitions of what constitutes a line drive, a fly ball, fliner, etc… its pretty poorly judged and varies greatly by league and park.
The Cal league, as we seem to keep running into, is by far the worst in this regard. Combine that with the fact their ballparks are also screwy… and well, I think you pretty much have to throw it out altogether.
Paul Thomas brought this up before… he’s completely right. Its hard to remember. especially when its such an important stat and sort of prominently displayed on minorleaguesplits.
Hmm..
So what’s the general thought process on the deviation? Is it as harsh as +10% +/- 2% or 3% difference in line drive rate?
Fans are typically idiots.
by The Typical Idiot Fan on Mar 19, 2009 10:41 PM EDT up reply actions
Easily
Many years from now, when his name's recalled
Everyone will say, "He should have passed the ball"
-- Al Stewart, "Football Hero"
Hard to say
but considering Carter had a 7% LD rate and the league average was 8% I dont think we have to concern ourselves either way.
Nothing makes analysis more difficult
then bad data.
Fans are typically idiots.
by The Typical Idiot Fan on Mar 20, 2009 6:54 PM EDT up reply actions
To expound
You know you have a lot of power, you’re playing in ballparks in the California league that are ludicrous for allowing fly balls to leave the yard, what do you do?
You put the ball in the air and let God sort ‘em out. It’s the same thing when talking about Carlos Triunfel. He hit some home runs this year, but they were all fly balls in High Desert.
I’m just trying to bring context to the table here.
Fans are typically idiots.
by The Typical Idiot Fan on Mar 18, 2009 9:51 PM EDT up reply actions
he hit some home runs...
buy the were all fly balls..
this one time i saw a guy hit a home run on the ground, it was pretty cool.
Walk rate...
is a pretty poor proxy for understanding of the strike zone, especially when it’s combined with an astronomical K-rate. Carter looks a lot more like a guy who’s keeping the bat on his shoulder as much as he possibly can and swinging from the heels every time he doesn’t than a guy with a discerning batting eye.
Granted.
Certainly more information is needed before making a concrete judgment on skill set. However, if all things about these two are equal, the one who walks will still be more valuable to his team then the one who doesn’t.
Fans are typically idiots.
by The Typical Idiot Fan on Mar 19, 2009 2:21 AM EDT up reply actions
I wouldn't say there's any reason to pick Davis
based on what he’s done at the majors so far. I say this because his major league numbers, while impressive in the power department, are throwing up a red flag on his contact rates, his strikeout rates, and his walk rates. He’s got weaknesses in his swing that minor league players couldn’t exploit. Major league players will not be so forgiving.
The major difference is that Davis has to improve and improve sooner if he wants to maximize his potential. He’s in the show now, eyes are now fixed on him. Carter still has time to develop in the minors in low risk environments.
I’m not saying that means Carter is the better player going forward. My analysis is purely based on what I perceive to be Davis’ major weaknesses.
Fans are typically idiots.
by The Typical Idiot Fan on Mar 18, 2009 9:32 PM EDT up reply actions
I don't know...
that Davis’s K-rate is a huge red flag. His K-rate is high to be sure, but there are plenty of guys succeeding with rates substantially higher. 18 players who logged as many PAs or more than Chris Davis had a higher K-rate than he did last year, including Jack Cust, Mark Reynolds, Kelly Shoppach, Justin Upton, Ryan Howard, Dan Uggla, Adam Dunn, and Mike Cameron, who all managed to be above average to great hitters. Nick Markakis and Evan Longoria weren’t far behind him, either.
There's more. From 2008's numbers.
Respectively: BB rate, OOZ swing rate, Contact rate, wOBA
Cust: 18% – 15.3% – 65.1% – .371
Reynolds – 10.6% – 24% – 62.3% – .340
Shoppach – 9.3% – 25.6% – 64% – .370
Upton – 13.2% – 23.8% – 68.1% – .340
Howard – 11.7% – 26.7% – 66.5% – .366
Uggla – 12.7% – 21% – 70.7% – .372
Dunn – 19.1% – 17.2% – 71.8% – .383
Cameron – 10.8% – 17.8% – 75% – .353
Davis – 6.3% – 37.3% – 68.1% – .371
Some of these guys have more strikeouts then Davis. All of them have more walks. All of them swing less at balls out of the zone. Contact rates vary.
Point is, they’re not that similar to each other. Davis’ problems are his own, not a reflection of a type of hitter. He doesn’t walk enough, has middling contact rates, and swings at crap out of the zone. Some of this will improve, some wont. Some may get worse. Certainly if he keeps swinging at balls out of the zone, pitchers are going to exploit that.
Davis’ value right now lies entirely in his ability to hit for extra bases. If he turns out to be an average first baseman, then he has some defensive value as well, but for now if he’s not hitting 50% extra base hits, he’s never going to be much more then an above average bat.
Fans are typically idiots.
by The Typical Idiot Fan on Mar 19, 2009 2:36 AM EDT up reply actions
Ok...
From that, I see that Davis swings at far more pitches out of the zine than many others, yet still makes more contact on the pitches he swings at than several other far above average hitters. First, this is fixable. Second, it’s not a damning indication of his ability to succeed. Of the 7 players with lower contact rates than Davis last year, 6 of them were above average hitters.
They shouldn't be damming numbers.
It’s only 300 at bats. The point of bringing up those other numbers wasn’t to show how the other guys do it, but how different they are from Davis. Davis has his own problems and his own weaknesses. Their strikeout rates may be equally bad or worse, but they’re not the same hitters with the same skill sets.
Also, being an average hitter requires context. A short stop hitting at the league average is a valuable player. A first baseman hitting at the league average is replacement level.
Fans are typically idiots.
by The Typical Idiot Fan on Mar 19, 2009 4:20 PM EDT up reply actions
man
Also, being an average hitter requires context. A short stop hitting at the league average is a valuable player. A first baseman hitting at the league average is replacement level.
You really think I’m not aware of positional variance, TIF?
And you’re actually wrong. Assuming average defense, a 1B hitting at the league average is just under a win above replacement level.
My apologies if it looks as though I'm talking down to you.
I’m not familiar with everyone on this board enough to know who knows what.
As for replacement level, you’re probably right. I didn’t specifically figure it out, but I think we can agree that 1 WAR or less is not particularly valuable. Certainly not star status.
Fans are typically idiots.
by The Typical Idiot Fan on Mar 19, 2009 10:39 PM EDT up reply actions
Re read the statement
That’s not what the statement said. The statement said two similar players with question marks and one has produced on the ML level and one has produced in A ball. You then said to be careful with that statement.
You talking about Chris Davis having holes in his swing doesn’t anwwer any question.
Well I don't know what else to tell you then.
Major league success, but major league exposure with weaknesses could mean that Davis never amounts to jack.
Meanwhile, Carter still has time to fix his problems in the minors.
In no way does someone being at the major league level automatically make them a shoe in for a better chance to be a star. If anything, Davis’ weaknesses will hinder that goal.
Slam’s argument is that since he’s at the ML level already, and Carter could flounder before getting there, that Davis wins this comparison point. If anything, the major league player now has a greater challenge of overcoming all his weaknesses if he wants to be a star.
Truth of the matter is, neither of them may be stars. Davis doesn’t look to have the skills necessary to be one, though I’m sure his power numbers will inflate his value. Carter could have the same issues. Neither one impresses me that much.
Fans are typically idiots.
by The Typical Idiot Fan on Mar 19, 2009 4:25 PM EDT up reply actions
The question was the rankings of 2008 Carter vs. 2007 Davis.
He’s answered some questions since then, but at the time he had not proven himself in MLB…
Perspective
Chris Davis was a lower-level four star last year as ranked by Goldstein. Carter is a five star. Look at all the variables and tell me that Carter is that much better (or better at all).
by Andy Seiler on Mar 18, 2009 12:33 PM EDT up reply actions
As a Rangers fan, I'd LOVE to have Ynoa
it still doesn’t mean that I’d think he’s a 5-star player. I’d be very excited to have him but I’d wait until he actually played some professional ball before rating him a 5. The flameout % for a 17 year old is EXTREMELY high, and it’s even higher when the player hasn’t even played in this country yet.
The way I see it, he’s a 3-star.
After his first year, if he plays well, I’d rate him a 4-star.
If he continues to play well at AA, he’d definitely be a 5-star.
People make it seem like you can’t rate a player and then have him improve, it’s like a 3-star can never be a 5-star at a young age so they decide to loosely give him a 5-star rating early on. Make the kid earn it at least.
Im a little uncomfortable with how high KG has him too
decent amount of question marks here and the failure rate of guys that young is a concern.
BUT… he does keep hearing from scouts how this guy is a “historic” talent. If you dont believe it, that’s fine, but if its true then he really should be a top 50 prospects despite our concerns.
I dont think we want to say that no prospect ever could be a five star without having played in the US. Im sure we can imagine some historical talent doing it. I think its easier to imagine a hitter doing it. If a 16 year old kid from the Dominican came out with 80 power and 80 speed we would be drooling… the argument goes that Ynoa is such a pitching talent. Im not completely sold, but that’s a different story.
Bryce Harper?
Jim Callis said he’d put him, a 15 year old, #4 in his top 100. I’m assuming he’s doing this based on his scouting reports, and not his production against American high schoolers who do not, I believe, have any special powers.
In terms of Ynoa, I really have nothing intelligent to say. I understand the argument of putting him #20 over-all like KG did, and I understand the argument of giving him a B- like John did. Of the two, I lean more towards John’s perspective that so many 16 year olds fail that it’s better to take a large grain of salt with them all. That being said, KG and the scouts might very well be right that this one won’t fail. I think we all know the deal with Ynoa, and I’m honestly not sure if ratings at all work very well for such an unusual case as him
TheSouthWing.com - A Magazine of essays, prose and poems
by OldProspects on Mar 18, 2009 3:10 PM EDT up reply actions
I agree with the top 5...
but not the order!
I’d have Rangers first.
Toronto
Much, much too high IMO.
The Dodgers won't win a playoff series until the Cool-a-Coo returns.
Why?
Snider is a top 5 prospect. Arencibia is top 50. Cecil and Cooper are both top 100.
They dont have a ton of depth, but they do have Justin Jackson – who I like a lot, Emaus, Mills, Ahrens… some decent upside there.
Which system near these guys can match or beat that? Cleveland I could make an argument for, I guess… but I think Toronto belongs in that neighborhood, certainly. As Ive said previously I have no respect for Arencibia as a prospect, too… so even despite that…
For 1
I’d definietly place KC above them with Hosmer & Moustakas + all of those arms.
Cleveland, I’d easily place above them (granted 2 spaces isn’t that much, but I like the Indians more). I think I like Milwaukee & Seattle more as well.
The Dodgers won't win a playoff series until the Cool-a-Coo returns.
I think KC has been pretty badly underrated
So Id give you KC – but its pretty close. Two top 100 guys (Hosmer and Moustakas) vs. Four top 100 guys. Does the depth in B pitching prospects make up the difference? Its close.
Cant understand Seattle over them though… but then again, Im not a fan of Triunfel or Halman. Actually, I think Im a fan of Triunfel, just a realistic one.
I think John put a couple of their pitchers in the top 100 too
I’d rather have KC over Seattle, and possibly Milwaukee too. I’m not sure if I’m crazy or not, but it seems like the #10 range teams are weaker this year than in past. That might be a function of the top 2 teams being so over-loaded
TheSouthWing.com - A Magazine of essays, prose and poems
by OldProspects on Mar 18, 2009 3:12 PM EDT up reply actions
M's system is flat out middle of the pack, no more and no less.
So, no, I wouldn’t put ours above Toronto either. I think ours is right where I figured it would be. After this year’s draft, who knows. But for now it’s not exciting.
Fans are typically idiots.
by The Typical Idiot Fan on Mar 18, 2009 4:54 PM EDT up reply actions
a sense of some rangers fans bitterness
offered 5mill inoa…denied
offered 7mill tazawa…denied
even mr dl cordero…denied
thats reality…pitchers dont see texas as a destination because that ballpark…on the flipside, its a hitters paradise
Actually if you look at park factors over the last 3 years
the Coliseum has more effect on pitching by a large margin than TBPIA has on hitting.
The whole “Texas is a hitters paradise” is really not that true. The thing is that Texas has several very good hitting instructors and talent evaluators. That allows for more of these “finds” that people acquaint to the park.
The perception is there because of how poor the Texas rotation has been recently and how poorly other pitchers have faired there. The problem is that the Texas rotation has sucked both home and away and the offense has hit regardless of park.
What PF are you using?
According to statcorner the Ballpark at Arlington has PF of 105, 117, and 110 for 2Bs, 3Bs, and HRs while supressing Ks. I’d say that’s pretty strong (I believe only Coors is worse).
I think that the Texas
Climate in general has more of a draining effect on pitches stamina than anything. I would imagine over the course of a season it would effect the quality of pitches i.e. breaking balls thrown, harder to maintain consistency of delivery, and quicker to fatigue. Thats just my personal opinion without looking at statistics.
by AthleticsReign on Mar 18, 2009 1:37 PM EDT up reply actions
You can tell watching it, too.
Guys on both teams tire more quickly. The breaking balls flatten out.
The only weird thing about the Texas park is the triples
look at how much the Coliseum suppresses the numbers and then look at that in comparison to league wide. Texas is a lot closer to the mean than Oak.
same numbers, 94, 96, 91 with an even larger suppression on K’s. It is easier to see if you get a version of all of them in Excel..
Go to
http://fantasy411.mlblogs.com/archives/2008/10/200608_mlb_park_factors.html
and download their Excel Spread sheet.
Then do average and Std Dev of all the categories.
Look how some of the numbers fall..
Texas falls within 1 Std Dev of runs, Oak does not. The same for hits, TB, XBH, RBI, SO, CS, BA, OBP, SLG, OPS, and AO. The only 2 categories that Texas does not fall within 1 Std Dev of the average is 3B and Sacrifices. The rest of the categories both Teams fall within a Std Dev.
That my friend is a decisive advantage.
It is really surprising that Texas gets such a bad rap when they fall in line with 2/3 of the rest of the league. They might be on the outer fringes on a few spots, but their park has no where as much of a built i competitive advantage as the Coliseum
Interesting.
It’s still pretty favorable, but you’re right. Granted OAK isn’t nearly as bad as PETCO either.
I am working with a Fail/Good of 1 Std Dev
“If” Function to compare the entire AL West.
at 1 std dev or encompassing 68.1% of all the parks
Texas fails at AB, 3B and SAC
LA fails at AB, H, and BB
Sea fails at G, BB, SO, SB,CS, and HBP
Oak fails at AB, R,TB, XBH, RBI, SO, CS, SB%, AVG, OBP, SLG, OPS, GO and AO
at 1 1/2 Std Dev or 86.6% of all the parks
LA still fails AB
Seattle still fails CS and SO
Texas still fails 3B and SAC
Oak still fails SB% and AO
at 2 Std Dev or 95,4%, the only fail is OAK AO.
So in summary, the Oak park has by far the greatest effect on offensive numbers, +/-.
Mostly the Texas being a good place for hitters and poor place for pitchers in more of conformation bias.
and it's easier to see where pitchers go to die/hitter's trive versus the reverse effect.
Especially when you look at the way Beane builds a team.
email me at laxtonto@hotmail.com
and i will send you the excel file with the built in “IF” functions if you don’t want to create it yourself
glad to see you've moved on
to a new repetitive mantra other than “the rangers can’t develop ‘home-grown’ talent” schtick. It is always good to diversify your repertoire, you know, 4 pitches is better than 3, that thing.
This will be the last year we see the Rays in the top 5.
:tear
They’ll likely drop out of the top 10 depending on Beckhem, Davis, Jennings, and the lower-level guys (I doubt McGee will have much of an effect).
Doubt it...
They still have Beckham, Jennings, and Matt Moore, all of whom have serious upside. If they have good seasons next year, Beckham could easily be a top-10 prospect, Jennings a top-25, and Moore top-50. They’ll drop, but they’ll still be good. I also expect them to step up international spending and money given to tough signs now that they’re not drafting as high.
Yankees...
does anyone else see them as crazy overrated here? Jackson and Montero are guys you like to have in your system, but they’re not exactly world-beaters at this point, and there’s very little depth of either hitting or pitching prospects.
Not crazy overrated
but slightly. Would rather have the Royals system. Where do they beat the Royals? Top two prospects? No. Depth? No.
I dont see much difference between the Yanks and Mets… certainly not enough to justify the difference in ranking!
/ducks
don't get this either
KG is a Mets fan who makes little snipes at the Yankees all the time. BA had the Yankees at #15, and so did Keith Law.
by number_twentyone on Mar 18, 2009 5:43 PM EDT up reply actions
very little depth?
That’s a strange comment. I’d argue that the Yankees have tons of depth but are lacking top-tier prospects.
by number_twentyone on Mar 18, 2009 5:41 PM EDT up reply actions
Depth in back end/low ceiling guys (McAllister, Bleich), releivers (Coke, Aceves, Melancon) and project pitchers (Brackman, Betances) doesnt really impress me.
The Yankees depth just doesnt compare with that of the better orgs. You want depth? Look at the Rangers and A’s. Middle class depth? Red Sox, Indians. Im having a hard time thinking of another system we would consider good that has as bad a third best positional prospect.
There really isnt much depth at all here unless you really love low ceilings, 8th inning relievers or long shots.
you're not being consistent
for example, you cite the Red Sox as an example of depth. Bowden, Bard, Tazawa, Hagadone etc… have just as much if more question marks than the group you singled out.
Just admit it, you haven’t spent all that much time looking at the Yankee system. You didn’t mention Christian Garcia or Wilkins De La Rosa at all for instance. Those are my #2 and #3 pitchers in the system after Betances.
by number_twentyone on Mar 18, 2009 8:37 PM EDT up reply actions
Garcia and De la Rosa = Not that good. Interesting prospects, but not near the level of prospect of those other depth guys. Slot Garcia and De la Rosa into the Indians system. Where are they? 15-20 range? 20+?
for example, you cite the Red Sox as an example of depth. Bowden, Bard, Tazawa, Hagadone etc… have just as much if more question marks than the group you singled out.
No, they dont. Theyre all consistently ranked higher than those Yankee prospects for a reason. I think pretty much all non-Yankee fans would take any of those four Sox pitchers before McAllister(for example) in a heartbeat. Other than Brackman and Betances you really cant even make an argument. Those are the only two with decent+ ceilings, and as KG said about Brackman, the guy “has more red flags than a Chinese Red Army parade.”
Not that good? Garcia is a top arm who had TJ. Sounds like Hagadone to me. De La Rosa doesn’t have much of a track record because he’s an OF conversion, but lefties with mid 90s stuff don’t grow on trees. Bard is a reliever and a failed starter.
You don’t know what you’re talking about, and aren’t willing to give the Yankees any credit at all.
by number_twentyone on Mar 18, 2009 9:54 PM EDT up reply actions
Except Garcia has had a lot more success against actual hitters
On the other hand, Garcia has had a lot more than a single TJ surgery
TheSouthWing.com - A Magazine of essays, prose and poems
by OldProspects on Mar 18, 2009 9:56 PM EDT up reply actions
Theyre just not that good as prospects.
Find me someone reputable that would take Garcia over Hagadone. You can’t. Seriously, I dare you. Email KG, Keith Law. No one is going to take Garcia.
Lets ask John- oh wait – lets just look at his top 20’s.
11) Wilkins de la Rosa, LHP, Grade C+: Intriguing power lefty with a fresh arm.
17) Christian Garcia, RHP, Grade C+: Another promising power arm if healthy.
2) Michael Bowden, RHP, Grade B+: Another personal favorite, strong command of solid stuff.
3) Daniel Bard, RHP, Grade B: Can hit 100 MPH, turned things around, command still a question but huge upside.
8) Nick Hagadone, LHP, Grade B-: Can’t rank higher than B- until we see how he comes back from Tommy John. Excellent stuff when healthy.
There is no way in hell “Bowden, Bard, Tazawa, Hagadone etc… have just as much if more question marks than the group [I] singled out.” Youre just overrating these guys.
I applaud your love for your favorite team.
and those same writers
had the Yankees between #13-15. What’s your point. Either they know what they’re talking about or they don’t.
At the time John made his list, I told him that he had Aceves way too high and those two too low. I don’t see him amounting to anything, but at the same time I think the franchise has a lot of promising talent on the lower levels. Not many impact guys right now, but plenty with the potential to be down the line. Watch out for DeLeon this year.
And FYI, my point was not that Garcia & WDLR = Hagadone, Bard, Bowden, and Tazawa. It was a comparison between the entire pitching prospect corps.
by number_twentyone on Mar 18, 2009 11:16 PM EDT up reply actions
+1 to alskor
When I say depth, I’m talking about mid-tier prospects that I can see as regulars or innings-eating starters. Relief pitching prospects don’t excite me, and future backups don’t, either. When Brad Suttle is your 4th-best position prospect, your organization’s not in very good shape.
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.
