Ranking Systems and Drafts by John's Grades

by abbreviatedman on Feb 6, 2007 5:28 PM EST Comment 23 comments

I ranked all 30 systems based on John's letter grades from his book (printed with permission). I also ranked the '06 drafts accordingly. My methodology was as follows: 1 point for every C+, 2 points for every B-, 4 points for every B, 8 points for every B+, 16 points for every A-, and 24 points for every A. As you can see, I weighted top-end talent pretty heavily. But some teams were able to rank very highly without any elite prospects, through a lot of depth. Please feel free to disagree with my methodology, as it does very much favor teams like the Royals, who have more depth than I thought but mostly have the best three prospects on any one team. Anyway, here are the teams with their rankings and scores, separated into easily separated tiers:

Tampa Bay Devil Rays 115 (wow)
Colorado Rockies 87
Arizona Diamondbacks 84
Kansas City Royals 82
Minnesota Twins 76
New York Yankees 73
Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim 67
Los Angeles Dodgers 66
Boston Red Sox 66
Cleveland Indians 64
Milwaukee Brewers 63
Cincinnati Reds 58
Houston Astros 58
Atlanta Braves 57
Detroit Tigers 51
Florida Marlins 51
New York Mets 50
Texas Rangers 48
Chicago Cubs 43
Toronto Blue Jays 42
Baltimore Orioles 42
San Francisco Giants 38
Oakland Athletics 38
Pittsburgh Pirates 36
St. Louis Cardinals 36
Chicago White Sox 35
Washington Nationals 31
San Diego Padres 29
Seattle Mariners 28
Philadelphia Phillies 27

And here are the '06 drafts:

Detroit Tigers 21
Boston Red Sox 20
Los Angeles Dodgers 19
San Francisco Giants 18
Tampa Bay Devil Rays 18
Washington Nationals 18
Arizona Diamondbacks 17
Kansas City Royals 16
Minnesota Twins 15
New York Yankees 15
Baltimore Orioles 14
Saint Louis Cardinals 13
San Diego Padres 12
Seattle Mariners 12
Pittsburgh Pirates 11
Cleveland Indians 9
Oakland Athletics 9
Texas Rangers 9
Toronto Blue Jays 9
Atlanta Braves 7
Houston Astros 7
Milwaukee Brewers 7
Colorado Rockies 6
Philadelphia Phillies 6
Florida Marlins 5
Los Angeles Angels 5
New York Mets 5
Chicago Cubs 4
Cincinnati Reds 4
Chicago White Sox 3

0 recs | Comment 23 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Cincinnati has 3 N's and 1 T

Just felt the need to point that out, as it is very commonly spelled incorrectly.

www.redsminorleagues.com

by dougdirt on Feb 6, 2007 5:39 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

as long as you

don't pronounce it Cin-sa-na-tah, your OK in my book.

I ate a Grand Slam @ Denny's yesterday... pooped out a 2 run double today.

by slurve on Feb 6, 2007 5:57 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Thanks.

I hate spelling errors.

by abbreviatedman on Feb 6, 2007 7:23 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Looks pretty good

I like the Royals at number 4, and if you think about what an A or A- grade from John signifies, I think it's fair to have such a generous point system for A and A- grades.

Gordon, Butler, and Hochevar are all future all-stars. I'd agree with John in saying that those three are the best top three in the MLB. That should count for a lot.

Of course, it means the cupboard will be a lot barer after those three guys graduate (maybe as soon as this season), but for now, I think number 4 is a fair ranking.

by ajohnst1 on Feb 6, 2007 6:00 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

I think

That Chris Young, Justin Upton, and Carlos Gonzalez give them a good run for their money...but I think an argument can be made either way...

by Dfarth on Feb 6, 2007 6:03 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Maybe

It depends on what you're looking for. The D-Backs group is arguably higher ceiling, especially Upton. But we won't know whether or not Upton will live up to that potential for at least a couple of years, so the Royals' three, as a whole, is closer to the majors. I also think the Royals' group is lower risk...again, because Upton is still so far away.

So it depends on how you judge.

Also, if Hochevar becomes a legit number 1 starter, I think that's arguably more valuable than whatever hitter the D-Backs would have at number three. That's debateable, of course.

by ajohnst1 on Feb 6, 2007 6:31 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

wow

for all the crap that the Cincinatti system gets, it actually ranks toward the middle

by yanksfan6129 on Feb 6, 2007 6:17 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

True...

Although most of that is from Bailey, Bruce and Votto.

yanksandmore.blogspot.com check it out

by lemonjello on Feb 6, 2007 6:31 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

This is true....

A lot does depend on Bailey, Bruce and Votto, but with that said, those 3 are not all that they have. Johnny Cueto and Travis Wood are both very good pitching prospects that I would not be surprised to see jump into the top 100 prospects in all of baseball next year, with Cueto, if he does well into the top 50 next season. I also think that John happens to have a lesser opinion of Josh Ravin (didnt rank in his top 20, despite a mid 90s fastball this summer that touched 96, and 2 other at least average pitches at the age of 18) and Milton Loo who Baseball America had going in the second ronud this past season if he wasnt signed by the Reds as a draft and follow from 2005. He is a very toolsy player, but has a ton of line drive ability. The Reds system gets a lot of crap for having Bailey and Bruce then about nothing else, but they have some peices that with a little development can really impact the system. Sure, the depth isnt all the way there yet, but there is some talent lurking around.

www.redsminorleagues.com

by dougdirt on Feb 6, 2007 8:11 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

and the Yankees system

most people definetly didn't rank it top 7

by yanksfan6129 on Feb 6, 2007 8:12 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

That's not true anymore

I think Jim Callis had the Yankee system ranked #6.

yanksandmore.blogspot.com check it out

by lemonjello on Feb 6, 2007 10:28 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Thanks to Homer Bailey

by Conic on Feb 7, 2007 10:06 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

The Reds have 2 Top 10 prospects in baseball

So it has a lot more to do with the other players and not just Homer Bailey. Jay Bruce is nearly a consensus Top 10 Prospect on everyones list as well. I think people still short change the Reds system....

www.redsminorleagues.com

by dougdirt on Feb 7, 2007 10:57 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

cardinals draft

i find it pretty surprising that according to you the cardinals had the 12th best draft when they didn't pick until 30th overall and especially when they were considered to have reached for ottavino, furnish, and daley.

by fewgoodcards on Feb 6, 2007 6:34 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

Artificial constraints

Teams with worse farm systems overall are probably going to tend to have "better" drafts, simply because more players from the draft are going to be listed. If a team has 20 players worth listing or 40 players worth listing, John's still going to only list 33 - 35, and the guys who don't make it are probably more frequently recent draftees (because they haven't proven that they stink yet, or because they have no track record of being good and require John to go out on a bigger limb).

by Brickhaus on Feb 7, 2007 7:40 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I don't think that's accurate.

For that to be true, systems would have to have no C prospects. The vast majority of draftees are C prospects at best, who don't even rank in the numerical system I used. But the C+s and above that the Cards drafted last year would have shown up in any system, even the D-Rays, who still had C prospects in their 35-odd.

by abbreviatedman on Feb 7, 2007 10:31 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

To add to this.

The Cards drafted several prospects who are good-but-not-great and therefore not that well known. They had a couple of Ottavino-level guys, plus a lot of guys with promise. Not the kind of draft you hear about, but a solid one nonetheless. At least, at this point.

Frankly, I wish my Sox had drafted Ottavino instead of Place. Though BP for some reason thinks Place can stay in CF, which would change things if true.

by abbreviatedman on Feb 7, 2007 10:34 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Gotcha

Good point.

by Brickhaus on Feb 7, 2007 10:35 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

+1...

I was going to make the same point this morning and then work happened. Cards had a solid draft and picked polished players: John Jay, Ottavino, Perez, etc. Off the top of my head, I think all the guys got Bs of some sort from John. Anderson has been a big suprise as well.

So, I think the draft grade is warranted.

by Brock20 on Feb 7, 2007 2:06 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs