SoxProspects News
|
|
|
|
Legal
Forum Ground Rules
The views expressed by the members of this Forum do not necessarily reflect the views of SoxProspects, LLC.
© 2003-2024 SoxProspects, LLC
|
|
|
|
|
Forum Home | Search | My Profile | Messages | Members | Help |
Welcome Guest. Please Login or Register.
2018 National Red Sox Season-End Rankings
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Jan 10, 2019 14:07:15 GMT -5
I always love more information, yet hate fangraphs prospect rankings. When looking at the worst system in Baseball, it will produce a FV 50 type prospect. So to look at a whole system and predict it doesn't have even one of those is comical. Guy like Keith Law might go too far in rating upside, but fangraphs does the exact opposite. I'll bet $10,000 that the players in this system produce at minimum one FV 50 player! It's far more likely we at minimum have a few FV 50 guys and at least one FV 55 guy. If you have three 45 FV prospects, chances are one will develop into a role five type, sure. The issue is choosing which one. I wouldn't be surprised if one of Casas, Decker, and Flores is an Alk-Star one day, but I don't think I would bet even odds on any one of the three on their own. They aren't saying that the system will produce zero 50 players, they're saying there is no individual player they'd currently feel comfortable putting a 50 on. Frankly, if they're low on Chavis then I probably agree with that assessment. They use those numbers to then prefict future war, given the number yea they are saying we won't produce a FV 50 guy which is my issue. blogs.fangraphs.com/post-2018-farm-system-rankings/
|
|
|
Post by James Dunne on Jan 10, 2019 14:54:23 GMT -5
So you reject the entirety of the rankings because another writer, who isn't even affiliated with the rankings work, uses them to do a silly "future WAR" exercise?
|
|
|
Post by dirtdog on Jan 10, 2019 16:18:10 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Jan 10, 2019 17:01:17 GMT -5
This site only has one prospect listed as a FV 50, Chavis. The thing is, your bet is pretty meaningless. Of course prospects will sometimes outperform their future values. But that doesn't mean anything when ranking them individually. You can't just say 'odds are, someone will be a 50, so therefore, we have to rank a bunch of them at 50 because you think some of them will improve more than you can predict today.' They use these rankings to then predict our farm system will produce 6.1 fwar worth 55 million. So yea I can say just that because that is a crazy number. You can say what? Rank guys higher than they should be because some of them will improve more than you can predict today? Which ones? All of them? Or just some of them? And what does that do the meaning of individual ratings other than completely destroy them?
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Jan 10, 2019 22:36:15 GMT -5
FWIW, just to explain a few things, their FV rankings are by definition for the first six years of team control. blogs.fangraphs.com/the-new-fangraphs-scouting-primer/And, for what it's worth, they're not using quite the same WAR scale we do on the FV rankings. If you compare the hitter and pitcher WAR charts at the above link with our chart at www.soxprospects.com/about.htm , there's a noticeable difference, particularly at the 40/45 split. I think those two things account for differences you see in FV. I think they're completely reasonable with their FV evaluations on their scale.
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Jan 10, 2019 22:47:04 GMT -5
So you reject the entirety of the rankings because another writer, who isn't even affiliated with the rankings work, uses them to do a silly "future WAR" exercise? FYI, they enlisted Edwards to do this, I think, or at least they all worked on the theory together and Edwards crunched the numbers. It makes sense as a measure of the present value of the system, which is really the combined value of the present parts. I get what you're saying, but for the reason you explained above, it makes some sense. They did a bunch of articles and podcasts about the project at the time I'd suggest checking out. But yeah, it's putting a present money value on predicted future performance, which is a tricky concept if you don't think it through. It's a present number that accounts for future risk, upside, etc., not a present prediction of future value.
|
|
|
Post by James Dunne on Jan 10, 2019 23:02:35 GMT -5
Yeah, I actually like Edwards' work. "Silly" probably conveyed a more negative tone than what I meant. "Whimsical" maybe? I dunno - I don't think it's super useful to try to pinpoint a specific number (a range would be more useful, for instance), but it's all good fun. Whatever anyone thinks of the WAR calculations, it makes no sense to just ignore Longenhagen/McDaniel's work because they disagree with Edwards' analysis of it.
Also, I like the FG's rankings tend to vary a bit from MLB/BA/BP. Reminds me a bit of BP in the old days. Not even necessarily better, just different.
|
|
|
Post by pedrofanforever45 on Jan 11, 2019 4:22:34 GMT -5
At first glance, definitely an interesting list. They have Casas & Hernandez over Chavis (albeit on the same FV 45 tier, so essentially the same). Their top 26 list also includes guys like Brayan Bello (who I like), Roniel Raudes, Yoan Aybar, Eduardo Lopez and Marino Campana but no Ockimey or Scherff. Isn't Raudes headed for Tommy John surgery? That would hurt his prospect status a ton.
|
|
|
Post by soxfansince67 on Jan 11, 2019 13:06:38 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by telson13 on Jan 11, 2019 20:22:04 GMT -5
I always love more information, yet hate fangraphs prospect rankings. When looking at the worst system in Baseball, it will produce a FV 50 type prospect. So to look at a whole system and predict it doesn't have even one of those is comical. Guy like Keith Law might go too far in rating upside, but fangraphs does the exact opposite. I'll bet $10,000 that the players in this system produce at minimum one FV 50 player! It's far more likely we at minimum have a few FV 50 guys and at least one FV 55 guy. I get your point, but they’re rolling risk into their ratings. I think we’ll see several players (Flores, Houck, Hernandez, maybe Casas and Decker, maybe even Durran or Mata) bump up into that 50-55 FV range with solid showings and some normal development, dropping the risk a little due to pro success and maybe upping their ceilings a bit by addressing specific concerns. I don’t have such an issue with it because the converse is true...a number of those 40-45 FV players are going to end up out of baseball or AAAA/org guys. They’re giving FV grades on likeliest outcome, not true ceiling.
|
|
|
Post by klostrophobic on Jan 19, 2019 12:40:28 GMT -5
If you have three 45 FV prospects, chances are one will develop into a role five type, sure. The issue is choosing which one. I wouldn't be surprised if one of Casas, Decker, and Flores is an Alk-Star one day, but I don't think I would bet even odds on any one of the three on their own. They aren't saying that the system will produce zero 50 players, they're saying there is no individual player they'd currently feel comfortable putting a 50 on. Frankly, if they're low on Chavis then I probably agree with that assessment. They use those numbers to then prefict future war, given the number yea they are saying we won't produce a FV 50 guy which is my issue. blogs.fangraphs.com/post-2018-farm-system-rankings/You should take a statistics class. Did they not offer those at UMass?
|
|
|
Post by incandenza on Jan 24, 2019 19:00:03 GMT -5
This is encouraging, and maybe a little more optimistic than I would have expected, from Keith Law:
|
|
|
Post by Oregon Norm on Jan 24, 2019 20:40:14 GMT -5
You should take a statistics class. Did they not offer those at UMass? Following up... if each of the three James mentioned has only a 25% chance of reaching that FV, the odds are still almost 60% that at least one will: 1-(.75) 3 = .578 and who knows, maybe more than one.
|
|
|