A disgraceful top 100 list
http://www.baseballnotebook.com/essay.asp?esource=e_121405.asp&topt=Top%20100%20Prospects
# 3 is Pence
# 4 is Travis Denker
Mike Carp is listed a few spots above Brandon Wood.
You get the idea. What a bunch of idiots.
============================
0 recs |
24
comments
Comments
top 100 list
by thisisthezodiacspeaking on Dec 18, 2005 12:09 AM EST 0 recs
What the Hell???
by Justin & Joe on Dec 18, 2005 12:13 AM EST 0 recs
Not to rip the guy, but...
He mentions Javier Herrera as falling to #7 in this edition from #3 - he's actually #8, so he didn't double-check his work either. :-)
Overall, a few of his rankings make sense, but many of them don't, and some of the prospects he ranks I've never heard of before, especially the middle to end of the listing.
How does he rank Felix Hernandez, Francisco Liriano, Jeremy Sowers, Fausto Carmona, and Scott Olsen (among others, like Broxton) so low on this list? I think they are all ranked too low - Hernandez #20, Liriano #23, Sowers #72, Carmona #77, Olsen #97 (behind #94 Derek Thompson, a former Indians prospect and #96 Jose Capellan?!)
I didn't read his entire introduction because I don't have much time at the moment, but I can't see how he can justify many of those rankings, no matter what criteria he uses.
Just my 2 cents. :-)
Take care and have a good Sunday!
by indiansfan on Dec 18, 2005 12:17 AM EST 0 recs
take it easy
by z4 landshark on
Dec 18, 2005 12:24 AM EST
up
0 recs
I like his explanation for Felix Herenandez...
by templeUsox on Dec 18, 2005 12:35 AM EST 0 recs
Yeah, so I guess that means
by slurve on
Dec 18, 2005 1:05 PM EST
up
0 recs
MATT GUERRIER?
by nms on Dec 18, 2005 1:39 AM EST 0 recs
I'll actually give some credit
That being said, I appreciate the fact that he's willing to step out from the opinions of others. It can be all too easy to live by the word of BA or even of John, but I think a lot of the fun of prospect analysis is in being honest. If you don't think a guy will make it, then explain why. If you think somebody will be a star, give it a shot and don't care what somebody else thinks. At one point few people thought Roy Oswalt was a serious prospect for pro ball, but he made it big despite the judgements of people who do this sort of thing for a living!
I could write up a list and be like "Delmon, Brandon Wood, Hermida, they rule!" And if I really believe that they're the best, that's one thing. But if I put them as 1-3 because I'm afraid that people won't take my list seriously otherwise, I really don't see the point of making a list at all.
by mrkupe on Dec 18, 2005 3:07 AM EST 0 recs
Good points, mrkupe!
mrkupe - I agree with you that part of the fun of creating a prospect list is being a little imaginative and creative, with good evidence and analysis to back it up.
However, I don't think this guy did it well enough with his list to justify it, in my opinion. Too many inconsistent rankings and not enough solid analysis and opinion to back them up. Just my 2 cents on that. :-)
templeUsox - thanks for bringing that up - I meant to do so earlier. He makes it sound like it's a disappointment if Hernandez ONLY wins 2-3 Cy Youngs. Who projected 7 for Felix? I think Randy Johnson only has 5 or 6. If Felix only gets 2-3, that's not shabby at all. Pedro has what - 3-4? I mean, ranking Felix only #10 because he is only projected to win 2-3 Cy Youngs seems a little ludicrous if you ask me. :-)
z4 landshark - We'll make sure we don't rip him too much! LOL! :-)
Take care and have a good Sunday!
by indiansfan on Dec 18, 2005 3:24 AM EST 0 recs
ditto indiansfan...
It is funny how looking at a couple numbers can really bias a ranking. For example, last year I was convinced that Hernan Iribarren was going to be a monster high-average hitter based on a scant few low level at bats. Same with Jeremy Reed on a more advanced level. I'm aware that part of that is my bias toward that sort of hitter. Then again, I also rated Dustin Pedroia higher than every list I saw also, and that looks prophetic now.
I agree that having "unique" ratings is fun, and respect this company's willingness to post theirs. If they had stones (and the humility to want to improve their future assessments), they would list their prior ratings with comments, like John does here. :>
Finally, WRT the Felix rating... I don't agree with it, either. But it's clear that he rates pitchers a lot lower using his system. In the comments, he points out that he essentially rates Felix in a 3-way tie for best pitching prospect. I don't know if that's because of expected durability issues or not - he's not clear, and I didn't read this list last year. I don't know that I disagree with his last comment about whether Duke or Felix will have the best career when done - I'm assuming his point is rather like asking whether Glavine or Gooden had the better career. With one, you have a guy who's upper 10 percentile every year for a looong time, with the other, you have 2 or 3 CY awards, and not much else.
by BobbyMac on
Dec 18, 2005 4:09 AM EST
up
0 recs
100 list
by AZPhillyHybrid on Dec 18, 2005 4:32 AM EST 0 recs
disgraceful is way too strong
*I don't see what is so disgraceful about it. He put himself out on a limb with some choices that he knew would be unpopular. I think that is pretty cool.
*He doesn't provide analysis on each player. But there is plenty of analysis throughout the season.
*It is not a prospect site. It is a fantasy site. Most of the energy is spent on projecting this season's stats.
*The system that he is using to rank the prospects is brand new this year. I am sure there will be tweaks as he learns from it.
*He highly rated Jason Kubel a year before anybody else mentioned him. Jesse Foppert was lowly ranked when everybody else had him highly ranked. Would everybody be happier if he just averaged the existing rankings to arrive at his list? That would be helpful.
by doubledribble on Dec 18, 2005 8:25 AM EST 0 recs
disgraceful might be the right word
Explanations would be nice. Otherwise, it's hard to take it seriously.
by FI on Dec 18, 2005 10:16 AM EST 0 recs
how bout
by SoCalSoxFan on
Dec 18, 2005 1:55 PM EST
up
0 recs
pence
by whichthat on Dec 18, 2005 11:55 AM EST 0 recs
re
by captoats85 on Dec 18, 2005 12:30 PM EST 0 recs
I don't like his list
He places Scott Baker over Felix, because he may feel Felix will blow out his arm were Baker will be a Brad Radke/Mike Mussina type career - never winning a Cy, but having a solid career.
He goes by gut feel a lot. I wish he would explain his specific feelings more.
by SLK on Dec 18, 2005 1:24 PM EST 0 recs
lists
It's impossible to make an accurate top 100 list because of injuries, opportunity and the mysteries of player development. The lists really are for entertainment purposes only.
I make a list each winter and I certainly wouldn't bet that the player ranked 14th will have a better career than the one ranked 78th. There's little separating them, and it's all so unpredictable.
by bolton on Dec 18, 2005 2:34 PM EST 0 recs
re: lists
by natsfan2005 on
Dec 18, 2005 2:53 PM EST
up
0 recs
didn't know that
by bolton on
Dec 18, 2005 3:24 PM EST
up
0 recs
Lastings Milledge
by AdRoK on Dec 18, 2005 3:29 PM EST 0 recs
actually its free
by BERSMR on Dec 18, 2005 7:26 PM EST 0 recs
disgraceful..
this list is somebody's opinion based on their way of analyzing...obviously, in this case, ability to discern strikes, ie, obp, rather than being a major, is an extreme indicator.
while kendrick is a guy who makes proliferous contact with some power, not being particularly athletic and having obp problem, can see, not necessariy agree, with reason for downgrade.
by dryice on Dec 23, 2005 10:40 AM EST 0 recs
his lists are helpful
by ufo on Jan 7, 2006 5:59 AM EST 0 recs






