I usd to really like seeing how BA and others rated pitchers v. batters, but now that I’ve been paying attention to this stuff for a while, I’ve come to appreciate how much of an apples/oranges comparison it can be. I’d much prefer to line them up myself using the grading scale and if I really want to know who you think is more valuable - I’ll ask.

Personally I prefer a top 100 list. This allows me to view who you believe is the better prospect between hitters and pitchers. When drafting guys in my keeper league this information can be a very valuable resource. To be honest, I would guess at least 75% of your readers are involved in fantasy baseball and I just think a top 100 list would be more effective. Regardless, I will continue purchasing your book with whichever format you choose to implement.

a 60/60?

or a 55/55?

Or just a little honorable mention section at the bottom?

Top 100’s are too gimmicky and generally create more fuss. I agree with slurve at the top. They just seem to create arbitrary arguments over why pretty good pitching prospect #45 is ranked so much higher than pretty good hitting prospect #55. It’s more straightforward throughout and doesn’t distort the talent at the bottom.

You could always do a 100 list with a second # in parenthesis. Ex:

10. Colby Rasmus, OF (5)
11. Madison Bumgarner, LHSP (6)
12. Rick Porcello, RHSP (7)
13. Jason Heyward, OF (6)

Something like that… or just make a page for different lists that could be made directly from the Top 100, without commentary or anything.

Personally I prefer 50/50.

I voted for that because it’s a way in which you’re different. It seems like everyone does a top 100, but only you do a 50/50.

However, a Top 100 is not going to be evenly split between hitters and pitchers. You may have 60 hitters and 40 pitchers for one list, 45 hitters and 55 pitchers for another. Whether or not that matters might not be that important except for where they’re slotted in comparison to each other, but some people would show up on a 50/50 list that wouldn’t on the 100 overall and vice versa.

My main reason for this, is because I like to look at multiple sources and compare their rankings and scouting reports, and it makes it difficult to figure out after the top few where John’s players belong.

I have no issues with the 50/50 list, and I understand the merits, but there is something to be said for a “industry standard”

Also honestly, couldnt one just count the pitchers in order to rank them seperately, i dont think we would need a 2nd number in order to do that.

I think an overall top 100 list is more realistic. It is more difficult to do, but in reality MLB teams have to choose from both pitchers and hitters. The draft isnt split between pitchers and hitters.. What a top 100 list essentially is what players, in order, you would choose for a team if you had to among all players deemed to be eligible.

but I would have to say if the number one pitcher is better than your number 50 batter for example, then I’d want to know. Prospect for prospect who is better. Not the top 50/50. I like to see the mix of guys. I would think though that Holland(P), Feliz(P), and Andrus(SS) would be top 30 right?

I would probably change it if the sales were down in 2008 compared to 2007. If they were down, then I would likely try a top 100 list and see if that increases sales. In the end it is all about the lettuce!!!!