|
|
Post by grandsalami on Feb 11, 2016 15:33:35 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by grandsalami on Feb 11, 2016 15:43:10 GMT -5
I dont get how BA can have us 4th and Klaw can have us 10th... Thats a very large discrepancy
|
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Feb 11, 2016 15:53:30 GMT -5
Pretty amazing how Atlanta went from 29th to 3rd in one year.
|
|
|
|
Post by taftreign on Feb 11, 2016 16:06:57 GMT -5
I dont get how BA can have us 4th and Klaw can have us 10th... Thats a very large discrepancy Definitely using a different scoring system. BA has the Cubs 20th while Law has them 4th. |
|
|
|
Post by grandsalami on Feb 11, 2016 17:24:22 GMT -5
I dont get how BA can have us 4th and Klaw can have us 10th... Thats a very large discrepancy Definitely using a different scoring system. BA has the Cubs 20th while Law has them 4th. still shouldn't cause that much a discrepancy |
|
|
|
Post by Oregon Norm on Feb 12, 2016 10:19:23 GMT -5
All we have to do is look at the failure rate for prospects to frame the discrepancy. This is much less science and much more art.
|
|
|
|
Post by burythehammer on Feb 12, 2016 10:44:17 GMT -5
I dont get how BA can have us 4th and Klaw can have us 10th... Thats a very large discrepancy It's really not, though. |
|
|
|
Post by Guidas on Feb 12, 2016 10:46:57 GMT -5
It's all about the evaluations. Law is a scout. Some scouts are higher on one prospect than another. I agree with burythehammer, though - pretty much shades of difference.
|
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Feb 12, 2016 11:00:16 GMT -5
It's all about the evaluations. Law is a scout. Some scouts are higher on one prospect than another. I agree with burythehammer, though - pretty much shades of difference. Having the Cubs 4th and 20th is pretty different though. |
|
|
|
Post by joshv02 on Feb 12, 2016 11:10:48 GMT -5
Right. People disagree. Some companies hire someone, others don't; colleges let some people in but wish they let in someone else; football teams pass on some QBs until the 6th round. I don't understand the criticism - that humans have different opinions from time to time?
|
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Feb 12, 2016 11:25:32 GMT -5
Also remember that tiers are usually more relevant than strict numerical rankings. If there's a 1-3 tier and a 4-10 tier, the difference between 4 and 10 might not be that much at all. It's like the 2013 draft (Trey Ball)-- they picked seventh in a draft with a clear (at the time) top six, and the difference between six and seven was bigger than the difference between three and six.
|
|
|
|
Post by templeusox on Feb 12, 2016 11:40:27 GMT -5
The Top 50 list will be unveiled tonight on MLB Network at 9 PM.
|
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Feb 12, 2016 11:55:09 GMT -5
If there is little difference between 4 and 20, there's not much of a point in ranking them at all or talking about it. I typically hold BA's rankings in higher regard than KLaw's.
And jmei, there should be a much bigger variation on one prospect than an entire group of prospects so I'm not sure how that applies.
The entire concept of ranking prospects and systems seems to be to come up with some kind of overall consensus which probably isn't that useful for anything because teams are always going to use their own rankings and ignore consensus.
|
|
|
|
Post by vermontsox1 on Feb 12, 2016 12:47:54 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by brianthetaoist on Feb 12, 2016 12:50:30 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Feb 12, 2016 13:19:50 GMT -5
They're pretty down on Margot if they don't expect his debut until 2018, considering he was in AA last year.
|
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 8,931
|
Post by ericmvan on Feb 12, 2016 13:37:53 GMT -5
The Top 50 list will be unveiled tonight on MLB Network at 9 PM. Great to see that (if they did it last year, I've forgotten!). Prospect rankings are actually closer in meaning to the NFL draft than the actual draft is. I expect we'll follow it live in this thread. Since we know we have 4 guys, it will be strange to watch and hope each time, as they count down, that it's none of them. I suspect, given the overall ranking of the organization, that they're all quite high.Top 25? |
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Feb 12, 2016 13:49:27 GMT -5
The Top 50 list will be unveiled tonight on MLB Network at 9 PM. Great to see that (if they did it last year, I've forgotten!). Prospect rankings are actually closer in meaning to the NFL draft than the actual draft is. I expect we'll follow it live in this thread. Since we know we have 4 guys, it will be strange to watch and hope each time, as they count down, that it's none of them. I suspect, given the overall ranking of the organization, that they're all quite high.Top 25? They've been doing it for a few years now, actually. It's actually pretty strange, given that MLB.com has its own list (and I believe there is also a show that unveils their own list). It's not like they're necessarily 'competitors' in that it's a zero-sum game in which readers only pick one, but still weird to have them broadcasting the release of the industry standard list when they're apparently trying to build their own site's brand too. |
|
|
|
Post by dirtywater43 on Feb 12, 2016 14:26:44 GMT -5
If there is little difference between 4 and 20, there's not much of a point in ranking them at all or talking about it. I typically hold BA's rankings in higher regard than KLaw's. And jmei, there should be a much bigger variation on one prospect than an entire group of prospects so I'm not sure how that applies. The entire concept of ranking prospects and systems seems to be to come up with some kind of overall consensus which probably isn't that useful for anything because teams are always going to use their own rankings and ignore consensus. Especially when you're trying to figure out which players transition best to the majors. I'll take a system with a top 4-5 prospects that everyone raves about over a system with 1 sure fired prospect and 9 potential prospects. The whole idea of prospects is to trade or have them take over everyday roles in the majors. Not to fill out nice depth on a prospect list. I think Keith Law is severely underating the top 4 of the Sox system, except for Devers. He loves Devers more than anyone I've seen. |
|
|
|
Post by ramireja on Feb 12, 2016 14:47:24 GMT -5
If there is little difference between 4 and 20, there's not much of a point in ranking them at all or talking about it. I typically hold BA's rankings in higher regard than KLaw's. And jmei, there should be a much bigger variation on one prospect than an entire group of prospects so I'm not sure how that applies. The entire concept of ranking prospects and systems seems to be to come up with some kind of overall consensus which probably isn't that useful for anything because teams are always going to use their own rankings and ignore consensus. Especially when you're trying to figure out which players transition best to the majors. I'll take a system with a top 4-5 prospects that everyone raves about over a system with 1 sure fired prospect and 9 potential prospects. The whole idea of prospects is to trade or have them take over everyday roles in the majors. Not to fill out nice depth on a prospect list. I think Keith Law is severely underating the top 4 of the Sox system, except for Devers. He loves Devers more than anyone I've seen. Severely underrating? Moncada and Benintendi are both top 20 and Espinoza is top 40.....you realize there are other stud prospects in MiLB right? Look, we all get that Espinoza probably has much upside as any other prospect in baseball. If prospect rankings were based on upside alone, he'd probably have an argument for #1 overall, and should be a lock for top 5. You absolutely have to take his lack of experience and distance from the majors into account though. There isn't a single player of the same age ranked above Espinoza, so in a sense, he's Law's #1 on that age/level. He's also arguably high on Benintendi compared to the industry consensus, the only guy you can make a case with being too low is probably Moncada and not by a huge stretch. |
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Feb 12, 2016 14:51:17 GMT -5
The only thing I don't get is knocking Espinoza for thinking he's going to be injured all the time because he's short. He's also way bigger than people think he is or what he's listed at if you believe pictures. He has an easy low-stress delivery so I think it's undeserved until he actually does get hurt.
|
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Feb 12, 2016 14:52:53 GMT -5
If there is little difference between 4 and 20, there's not much of a point in ranking them at all or talking about it. I typically hold BA's rankings in higher regard than KLaw's. And jmei, there should be a much bigger variation on one prospect than an entire group of prospects so I'm not sure how that applies. The entire concept of ranking prospects and systems seems to be to come up with some kind of overall consensus which probably isn't that useful for anything because teams are always going to use their own rankings and ignore consensus. 4 and 20 is obviously a bigger gap, but Law is well-known for having somewhat contrarian opinions on prospects, and he's just about universally higher on all of the Cubs' prospects than BA is. For instance, he has Gleyber Torres at 15, and I suspect BA will be on the back half of the top 50. Similarly, Law has Wilson Contreras at 27 (BA has him at 67) and Ian Happ at 47 (BA has him at 87). Law also has McKinney (69), Almora (88) and Cease (91) in his top 100, while it doesn't look like BA will have them in the top 100 at all (they could maybe be in the top 50, but I doubt it). That just about explains the gap and gets to joshv's point-- sometimes people just disagree. The point of ranking prospects is not necessarily to illustrate the scouting consensus (though BA has historically tried to do so), it's to show how the ranker thinks prospects stack up against one another. It's useful for us as fans because we learn more about how individual publications/people think about players, which should affect how we think about players. No, they're not perfect reflections of how every team thinks about prospects, but they're better than the alternative, which is to shrug your shoulders and call every trade a good one because our front office is smart and how could they make a bad trade. |
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Feb 12, 2016 14:58:00 GMT -5
The only thing I don't get is knocking Espinoza for thinking he's going to be injured all the time because he's short. He's also way bigger than people think he is or what he's listed at if you believe pictures. He has an easy low-stress delivery so I think it's undeserved until he actually does get hurt. It's not just that he's short, it's that (a) velocity correlates with injury risk, regardless of quality of mechanics and (b) the farther you are from the majors, the more injury uncertainty there is because you've not yet demonstrated the ability to throw a full season's worth of innings. |
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Feb 12, 2016 15:09:26 GMT -5
The only thing I don't get is knocking Espinoza for thinking he's going to be injured all the time because he's short. He's also way bigger than people think he is or what he's listed at if you believe pictures. He has an easy low-stress delivery so I think it's undeserved until he actually does get hurt. It's not just that he's short, it's that (a) velocity correlates with injury risk, regardless of quality of mechanics and (b) the farther you are from the majors, the more injury uncertainty there is because you've not yet demonstrated the ability to throw a full season's worth of innings. So would he be ranked higher if he threw less hard? I know that sounds like a ridiculous question because it's intentional. |
|
|
|
Post by auger1 on Feb 12, 2016 15:32:19 GMT -5
I've kind of always thought that BA attempts to sort of aggregate MLB scouts and FO's rankings to the best of their ability while Law clearly just goes by his own scouting. It's such an inexact science that that doesn't mean one is more correct than the other but I tend to follow BA more because it flows more with the temperature of the league.
However, I honestly am still struggling with how Law came up with the Sox as the 10th best system when, according to his own ranking and his chat, they have 3 of the top 18 prospects, 4 of the top 38 and a guy that has a high probability of being in the top 50 next year (Kopech). It's even more weird when you read the write-ups provided and Espinoza probably has the best one of anyone outside of the top 8.
|
|
