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.
jimoh
Veteran
Posts: 3,981
|
Post by jimoh on Jan 23, 2014 22:24:17 GMT -5
Looks like the Sox will end up with 8 including Owens, JBJ & Xander unless they have Ranaudo or Webster way ahead of what is generall thought. Inteesting sidenote. The top three 2B prospects Wong (58), Odor (59) & Betts are very close. Webster 46
|
|
|
Post by pedey on Jan 23, 2014 22:27:15 GMT -5
Is Ranaudo not listed yet? Did he miss the top-100 entirely or do you think he will in the top-20? (Ball, Barnes, Betts, Swihart, Cecchini, Webster, Bradley, and Owens are listed so far)
|
|
|
Post by philsbosoxfan on Jan 23, 2014 22:30:38 GMT -5
FWIW the analysis is standard MLB Network. I'll leave that to your interpretations... Using the word 'analysis' might be a wee bit of a stretch. 'PR' substitutes well.
|
|
|
Post by bigpupp on Jan 23, 2014 22:32:57 GMT -5
Am I right that they ranked Owens ahead of Heaney on their LHP list last week but vice-versa on the top 100 list?
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Jan 23, 2014 22:34:20 GMT -5
Is Ranaudo not listed yet? Did he miss the top-100 entirely or do you think he will in the top-20? (Ball, Barnes, Betts, Swihart, Cecchini, Webster, Bradley, and Owens are listed so far) I got this on Twitter too. Ranaudo is NOT a top 100 prospect.
|
|
|
Post by pedey on Jan 23, 2014 22:36:10 GMT -5
Is Ranaudo not listed yet? Did he miss the top-100 entirely or do you think he will in the top-20? (Ball, Barnes, Betts, Swihart, Cecchini, Webster, Bradley, and Owens are listed so far) I got this on Twitter too. Ranaudo is NOT a top 100 prospect. I'm surprised. He had a very solid year and has a fairly high ceiling.
|
|
|
Post by grandsalami on Jan 23, 2014 22:36:29 GMT -5
Jim Callis ?@jimcallismlb 14s Plenty of love for Owens. Right with @heandog8 as top LHP prospect. @notloc0018: any love for Henry Owens? #MLBPipeline
|
|
|
Post by philsbosoxfan on Jan 23, 2014 22:46:56 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Jan 23, 2014 22:53:19 GMT -5
Bogaerts at #2. Parks is going to have him there too.
|
|
|
Post by philsbosoxfan on Jan 23, 2014 22:53:20 GMT -5
Things that are known from previous Callis statements...
Callis had Mookie ranked higher than Mayo. Mayo had Ball ranked higher than Callis.
|
|
|
Post by grandsalami on Jan 23, 2014 22:57:02 GMT -5
Jim Callis ?@jimcallismlb 26s 1. redsox w/9. 2-3. @astros & Cubs w/7. @letsgocubs13: what teams have most top100 players #mlbpipeline
|
|
|
Post by pedroelgrande on Jan 23, 2014 23:01:27 GMT -5
I'm gonna make a prediction and say Owens will be # 2 on the Red Sox prospects. At least I got that right.
|
|
|
Post by rjp313jr on Jan 23, 2014 23:03:36 GMT -5
I can't believe a kid in A ball is a consensus number 1 over Xander. Doesn't seem Kosher.
|
|
|
Post by philsbosoxfan on Jan 23, 2014 23:14:17 GMT -5
Summary post: 2 - Xander Bogaerts, SS 30 - Henry Owens, LHP 33 - Jackie Bradley Jr., CF 46 - Alan Webster, RHP 57 - Garin Cecchini, 3B 61 - Blake Swihart, C 62 - Mookie Betts, 2B 86 - Matt Barnes, RHP 96 - Trey Ball, LHP MLB Top 100
|
|
|
Post by jchang on Jan 23, 2014 23:16:19 GMT -5
I am disappointed Ranaudo was not on the list. I suppose Workman is because he is 25? I had Owens over Bradley, but I will concede it is very close and not worth quibbling over.
|
|
|
Post by philsbosoxfan on Jan 23, 2014 23:20:11 GMT -5
Workman is not rookie eligible, he exceeded the major league service time by 8 days.
|
|
|
Post by philsbosoxfan on Jan 24, 2014 0:03:24 GMT -5
From MLB.Com:
Buxton and the others are eligible for the Top 100 because they still have rookie eligibility. To qualify for rookie status, a player must not have exceeded 130 at-bats or 50 innings pitched in the Major Leagues or have accumulated more than 45 days on the active roster of a Major League club(s) during the 25-player-limit period, excluding time on the disabled list or in military service.
Such international signees as new Yankees pitcher Masahiro Tanaka, in case you were wondering, were not considered. The rankings follow the guidelines laid out by the new Collective Bargaining Agreement in terms of who falls under the international pool money rules: Players who are at least 23 years old and played in leagues deemed to be professional (Japan, Korea, Taiwan, Cuba) are not eligible.
|
|
|
Post by jchang on Jan 24, 2014 0:04:35 GMT -5
I am not a big fan of ranking. I much prefer the grade. So I don't care when about the rank when both are grade 7. That said, Byron Buxton at 75 is a full grade over the 2-17 prospects (15 is listed as 5/6). Buxton Hit: 70 | Power: 60 | Run: 80 | Arm: 70 | Field: 75 | Overall: 75 Bogaerts Hit: 60 | Power: 70 | Run: 50 | Arm: 60 | Field: 55 | Overall: 65 I can see how both are about equal in batting, with Buxton being an elite defender and Xander being above average, and finally Byron projecting to be an elite base runner. Given that we have Xander at 8, can a player be elite based on offense + above average at a premium position? Miguel got the MVP even though Trout lead in WAR, so I suppose yes, but Xander may not have the same bat as Miguel.
|
|
|
Post by bjb406 on Jan 24, 2014 0:05:35 GMT -5
mason williams somehow made it so the yankees had 2. Personally i would rather have Bryce Brentz than that guy, but oh well.
|
|
|
Post by philsbosoxfan on Jan 24, 2014 0:18:27 GMT -5
Also from the same link above:
While having a lot of prospects on the list is certainly not a bad thing, it also doesn't instantly mean that an organization has the best farm system, because it doesn't necessarily reflect depth in a system or where talent is along the organizational pipeline. For the last few years, though, we've used a weighted scoring system to determine which system has the most impact or elite talent. After awarding 100 points to the team with the No. 1 prospect, 99 to No. 2 and so on, it turns out the team with the most prospects on the list does not rank atop the "prospect points" standings.
That honor belongs to the Houston Astros, whose seven prospects netted 439 points. The Red Sox are close behind with 436, while the Cubs (393), Pirates (364) and Twins (342) round out the top five. The Rangers, while having five prospects like the Twins, finished 14th with 167 points due to their Minor Leaguers landing a bit further down the list.
|
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 8,933
|
Post by ericmvan on Jan 24, 2014 0:35:49 GMT -5
Also from the same link above: While having a lot of prospects on the list is certainly not a bad thing, it also doesn't instantly mean that an organization has the best farm system, because it doesn't necessarily reflect depth in a system or where talent is along the organizational pipeline. For the last few years, though, we've used a weighted scoring system to determine which system has the most impact or elite talent. After awarding 100 points to the team with the No. 1 prospect, 99 to No. 2 and so on, it turns out the team with the most prospects on the list does not rank atop the "prospect points" standings.
That honor belongs to the Houston Astros, whose seven prospects netted 439 points. The Red Sox are close behind with 436, while the Cubs (393), Pirates (364) and Twins (342) round out the top five. The Rangers, while having five prospects like the Twins, finished 14th with 167 points due to their Minor Leaguers landing a bit further down the list.Of course, according to their methodology, the #1 prospect is worth 100 times the #100 prospect, which is nonsense. And the #96 prospect is worth 5 times the #100 prospect, which is even worse nonsense. It always amazes me when people construct algorithms like this and don't think through the implications. You could conservatively give 110 points going down to 11 points, which is equivalent to giving 10 points per prospect on the list, plus 1-100 points for each based on their ranking. Now the #1 prospect is worth 10 times the #100, which seems fair, and the #96 prospect is worth 1.36 times the #100, which is still way too high, but a big improvement. There's no way the Astros have a more impressive showing on the list than we do, based on any algorithm that makes sense. We come out ahead even if you give just 2 points per prospect, or go from 102 down to 3.
|
|
|
Post by philsbosoxfan on Jan 24, 2014 0:41:47 GMT -5
I also doesn't address the fact that you can't judge a system on just the top 100 prospects. They're the most important yes, but there's a significant depth issue that gets ignored.
|
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 8,933
|
Post by ericmvan on Jan 24, 2014 0:51:12 GMT -5
Summary post: 2 - Xander Bogaerts, SS 30 - Henry Owens, LHP 33 - Jackie Bradley Jr., CF 46 - Alan Webster, RHP 57 - Garin Cecchini, 3B 61 - Blake Swihart, C 62 - Mookie Betts, 2B 86 - Matt Barnes, RHP 96 - Trey Ball, LHP MLB Top 100The exact same ranking as BA's, if you swap Swihart and Cecchini and insert Workman (eligible by BA's standards which ignore service time) between Betts and Barnes. That confirms the suspicion that the Sox have a legit shot at being the first club to ever have 10 guys in BA's top 100.
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Jan 24, 2014 0:51:57 GMT -5
Also from the same link above: While having a lot of prospects on the list is certainly not a bad thing, it also doesn't instantly mean that an organization has the best farm system, because it doesn't necessarily reflect depth in a system or where talent is along the organizational pipeline. For the last few years, though, we've used a weighted scoring system to determine which system has the most impact or elite talent. After awarding 100 points to the team with the No. 1 prospect, 99 to No. 2 and so on, it turns out the team with the most prospects on the list does not rank atop the "prospect points" standings.
That honor belongs to the Houston Astros, whose seven prospects netted 439 points. The Red Sox are close behind with 436, while the Cubs (393), Pirates (364) and Twins (342) round out the top five. The Rangers, while having five prospects like the Twins, finished 14th with 167 points due to their Minor Leaguers landing a bit further down the list.Of course, according to their methodology, the #1 prospect is worth 100 times the #100 prospect, which is nonsense. And the #96 prospect is worth 5 times the #100 prospect, which is even worse nonsense. It always amazes me when people construct algorithms like this and don't think through the implications. You could conservatively give 110 points going down to 11 points, which is equivalent to giving 10 points per prospect on the list, plus 1-100 points for each based on their ranking. Now the #1 prospect is worth 10 times the #100, which seems fair, and the #96 prospect is worth 1.36 times the #100, which is still way too high, but a big improvement. There's no way the Astros have a more impressive showing on the list than we do, based on any algorithm that makes sense. We come out ahead even if you give just 2 points per prospect, or go from 102 down to 3. Eric, bud, this is one of those times when you probably should have just nodded and played along. Nobody was saying this was a scientifically rigorous system. It's like a major league player showing up at a little league game and explaining to the parents why all the kids would be terrible professional baseball players. And by the way, you could say that Houston has more high-impact talent. 3 of the top 21 (Correa, Appel, Springer) is damn impressive. (and not that it makes sense to do this, but you could say 4 of 22 with Rodon...)
|
|
|
Post by philsbosoxfan on Jan 24, 2014 7:03:47 GMT -5
|
|
|