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.
|
Post by burythehammer on Jan 24, 2014 7:25:01 GMT -5
Bogaerts way too low.
|
|
|
Post by philsbosoxfan on Jan 24, 2014 7:31:33 GMT -5
Nothing in the top 100 was a major surprise to me although I thought local boy Springer would be top 10-12 at the least.
|
|
|
Post by joshv02 on Jan 24, 2014 8:50:58 GMT -5
but Xander may not have the same bat as Miguel.
|
|
|
Post by chavopepe2 on Jan 24, 2014 9:12:19 GMT -5
I'm not surprised by Buxton being ranked ahead of Bogaerts, but I am surprised Buxton got an overall 75 grade while Bogaerts was a 65. The rest of the top 17 after Buxton were all 65s.
|
|
|
Post by brianthetaoist on Jan 24, 2014 9:30:01 GMT -5
Admittedly, I'm completely biased, but I'd take Xander over Buxton if forced to choose one. Bogaerts is just a little more proven ... he's got a higher floor, and the ceiling of both is basically too high to even quantify. Not that the difference between 1 & 2 matters at all, but still ... Overall, tho, nine in the top 100 really is pretty nuts. Let's get a few on there next year (Margo? Devers? someone else?) to replace JBJ, Xander, and another graduate or two among the pitchers.
|
|
|
Post by rjp313jr on Jan 24, 2014 10:04:58 GMT -5
The point of my Bogaerts statement is that it's a consensus number 1 across the board with every rank I've seen. It just reiterates the obvious that these lists have almost no individuality to them. That there isn't one "expert" who values Xander's major league readiness and small successes to Buxton never seeing a pitch above A ball is crazy to me. This is by no way a knock on Buxton, or a prediction Xander will be better then him. It's more an indication on the system. Just seems Buxton's hype is a bit out of control. He's not the next Trout. Trout was already in MLB, tearing it up, at Buxton's age.
|
|
|
Post by ramireja on Jan 24, 2014 10:32:16 GMT -5
For those wondering how close we were to placing a top 10 RHP, the answer is not too close. I count Webster as the 20th ranked RHP on their top 100 list. Not too shabby though.
|
|
|
Post by pokeefe363 on Jan 24, 2014 10:50:04 GMT -5
I still think the Yankees prospects are overrated. I just think that system is completely devoid of talent and Sanchez and Williams are being boosted because of that. I don't think either one would be in the Sox top 11.
|
|
|
Post by chavopepe2 on Jan 24, 2014 10:52:09 GMT -5
I still think the Yankees prospects are overrated. I just think that system is completely devoid of talent and Sanchez and Williams are being boosted because of that. I don't think either one would be in the Sox top 11. I agree that there system is pretty terrible, but Sanchez is legit. I think Williams will have a bounce back year this year as well, but 75 is definitely at the higher end of a reasonable projection for him.
|
|
|
Post by azblue on Jan 24, 2014 10:59:52 GMT -5
Eric, great points. Thanks for directing attention to the serious flaws in the 100-1 point system used above. Thanks also for focusing on Sox Prospects instead of SOSH, which has become stagnant. You are a great assist to the board. Thank you for never playing along and striving for greater accuracy.
|
|
|
Post by pokeefe363 on Jan 24, 2014 11:06:57 GMT -5
Sanchez is a 21 year old whose calling card is his bat. He's regarded as slow and will likely have to move over to 1B. For a guy who profiles as being bat only, I can't say I'm that impressed with him. I can't say I'd have him in the same league as Swihart who threw out 40+% of his runners, runs pretty well, and projects as a solid hitter. Even if Swihart doesn't stick at catcher, he's still athletic enough to move around, which gives him value. Sanchez just seems like another Jesus Montero except Sanchez hasn't even hit as well as Montero.
|
|
|
Post by jchang on Jan 24, 2014 12:31:54 GMT -5
If we wanted to establish the strength of the prospects or farm system (which are different when the prospects are on the MLB 25 roster). I would put the greater emphasis on each prospect's grade. Buxton is all alone at 75, #2-17 are 65, #18-49 are 60, and the rest are 55. There might be more prospects at 55 that did not make the top 100, and 50 prospects also have value. I would suggest using WAR, a grade 70 (All-Star) should be WAR 5, a grade 50 (MLB aver) should be WAR 2. So we could make up some mapping for 55, 60, and 65. A question to ask: is an elite player (WAR 10) worth 2 All Star level (2 x WAR 5). Also is an elite position player the same value as an elite pitcher. To account for the ranking, we might say that of the grade 60 prospects, the highest ranked is 62.5 trending down to the lowest at 57.5.
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Jan 24, 2014 12:45:13 GMT -5
The point of my Bogaerts statement is that it's a consensus number 1 across the board with every rank I've seen. It just reiterates the obvious that these lists have almost no individuality to them. That there isn't one "expert" who values Xander's major league readiness and small successes to Buxton never seeing a pitch above A ball is crazy to me. This is by no way a knock on Buxton, or a prediction Xander will be better then him. It's more an indication on the system. Just seems Buxton's hype is a bit out of control. He's not the next Trout. Trout was already in MLB, tearing it up, at Buxton's age. I think more that it speaks to how highly Buxton is thought of. What Buxton brings to the field is the potential ability to impact a game in three facets - hitting, fielding, baserunning - the way Xander is really only going to be able to at the plate. That is a valid reason to value him more highly despite Bogaerts being MLB-ready and having shown his ability at higher levels. I don't think your theory is necessarily wrong, and in fact think that there could be something to it if you were to build a more robust case, but I don't think Buxton being the consensus top prospect is sufficient evidence, nor even good evidence, to be honest. And again, holding ANY prospect to the Trout standard is unfair. This is the inherent problem with rankings. Just because Trout was once the number one prospect does not therefore mean that all future top prospects are prospects of the same caliber.
|
|
|
Post by GyIantosca on Jan 24, 2014 13:03:21 GMT -5
My theory is Buxton could very well be the man but what Xander did to top it off last year should of got him number one. The other guy didn't even do it at AA yet. Bottom line we know what Xander can do and he can hang at the major leagues with the best by the way. He helped beat the Tigers who had more talent. He helped us beat the Cards who every expert was pitching pants tents over there overall young talent. That to me speaks volumes over what Buxton did or didn't do. My opinion of course.
|
|
|
Post by burythehammer on Jan 24, 2014 13:05:35 GMT -5
I'm surprised Xander is at a 60 Hit when they have Sano at 55. I'm not sure which one is wrong but I think they're either overrating or underrating one of them.
|
|
|
Post by burythehammer on Jan 24, 2014 13:09:39 GMT -5
Also the defensive ratings are very misleading. Xander gets a 50 or whatever, but he's a SS. A 50 SS is more valuable than an 80 1B or a 70 corner outfielder. Yet I'm pretty sure for the purposes of their "Overall" number they just average it all together. Obviously he's #2 overall so I'm not complaining about him specifically, but once MLB.com seems to overlook obvious discrepancies like this, even with Callis on board now.
|
|
|
Post by jrffam05 on Jan 24, 2014 13:23:16 GMT -5
The point of my Bogaerts statement is that it's a consensus number 1 across the board with every rank I've seen. It just reiterates the obvious that these lists have almost no individuality to them. That there isn't one "expert" who values Xander's major league readiness and small successes to Buxton never seeing a pitch above A ball is crazy to me. This is by no way a knock on Buxton, or a prediction Xander will be better then him. It's more an indication on the system. Just seems Buxton's hype is a bit out of control. He's not the next Trout. Trout was already in MLB, tearing it up, at Buxton's age. I agree, but I think a better example would be last year with Profar. I thought Tavaras or Bundy at the time had strong cases to make #1 on lists, but Profar was unanimous.
|
|
dd
Veteran
Posts: 979
|
Post by dd on Jan 24, 2014 13:29:53 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. Good point, Eric. There's probably no perfect way to do this or even a good reason to try, but, nevertheless, here's a spreadsheet. If it works as designed (never really know with Google Docs but they seem to have made some upgrades) one should be able to enter the number of points the # 1 prospect should get and it will recalculate the rankings.
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Jan 24, 2014 14:04:32 GMT -5
The point of my Bogaerts statement is that it's a consensus number 1 across the board with every rank I've seen. It just reiterates the obvious that these lists have almost no individuality to them. That there isn't one "expert" who values Xander's major league readiness and small successes to Buxton never seeing a pitch above A ball is crazy to me. This is by no way a knock on Buxton, or a prediction Xander will be better then him. It's more an indication on the system. Just seems Buxton's hype is a bit out of control. He's not the next Trout. Trout was already in MLB, tearing it up, at Buxton's age. I agree, but I think a better example would be last year with Profar. I thought Tavaras or Bundy at the time had strong cases to make #1 on lists, but Profar was unanimous. Yeah, I can get on board with this somewhat. At least I buy it more than the Buxton argument. That said, we're also talking about the odds of a small number of people agreeing on something with only so many outcomes (assuming we're limiting this to the top prospect in the game).
|
|
|
Post by philsbosoxfan on Jan 24, 2014 14:58:30 GMT -5
Eric, great points. Thanks for directing attention to the serious flaws in the 100-1 point system used above. Thanks also for focusing on Sox Prospects instead of SOSH, which has become stagnant. You are a great assist to the board. Thank you for never playing along and striving for greater accuracy. Seconded and, don't let your antagonists (plural) petty insecurities bother you, keep on truckin'.
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Jan 24, 2014 15:30:09 GMT -5
OK, just reading through some of the subtext here, I'd like to clarify that my post to Eric was 95 percent in jest, 5 percent making a relatively minor point to someone who I figure will understand where I'm coming from, which could be summed up by saying that I don't think Mayo was trying to make an intellectually rigorous argument. I agree with what Eric said. It was just funny to me that he got that worked up in response to such a throwaway line in the piece.
Some posts above seem weirdly defensive (although not from Eric himself, so maybe he got/will get the point as it was intended), so I wanted to make sure the connotation was clear. Eric is a big boy and has shown that he's able to carry his end of a debate just fine here, and I'm sure he'll continue to do so.
|
|
|
Post by rjp313jr on Jan 24, 2014 15:45:38 GMT -5
2014 | Buxton | A | 2013 | Profar | MLB | 2012 | Harper | AA | 2011 | Harper | A | 2010 | Heyward | AAA | 2009 | Wieters | AA | 2008 | Bruce | AAA | 2007 | DiceK | Japan | 2006 | Young | AAA | 2005 | Mauer | AA | 2004 | Mauer | AA | 2003 | Teixiera | AA | 2002 | Beckett | MLB | 2001 | Hamilton | AA | 2000 | Ankiel | MLB | 1999 | Drew | MLB |
Not that this stuff means much, but some tid bits. I went back through 1998 and only once has a number 1 prospect gone from number to a lower number the next year. Delmon young was number 1 in 2006 and dropped to 3 in 2007. The chart above shows all the number 1 prospects back to 1999 and the highest level the played at the year prior to being number 1. Only guys below AA are Harper and now Buxton. Trout was never number 1, always ranked below Harper, even in 2012 when Trout had played in MLB and Harper only in AA. Not much to be taken from it, but I went through the charting and figured I'd share in the even anyone else was curious. It is rare for a prospected to be ranked number 1 without playing above A ball. Or maybe it's the start of a new fad considering 2 of the last 3 number 1 prospects were ranked there starting in A ball.
|
|
|
Post by rjp313jr on Jan 24, 2014 15:47:12 GMT -5
Eric is also one of the snarkiest posters here and does appreciate it when it's given back to him. I do not mean that as an insult to Eric either.
|
|
|
Post by godot on Jan 24, 2014 15:49:56 GMT -5
Chris, you have a habit of starting off your "critiques", no matter how serious, with some phrase like hey dude or the like, which is a debate strategy to belittle someone even before you try and make your point. Pehaps it is made in jest, perhaps not, but regardless, it takes away from your "arguments" and makes you come across like a "wise a$$$" of sorts.
|
|
|
Post by thelavarnwayguy on Jan 24, 2014 15:54:31 GMT -5
If we wanted to establish the strength of the prospects or farm system (which are different when the prospects are on the MLB 25 roster). I would put the greater emphasis on each prospect's grade. Buxton is all alone at 75, #2-17 are 65, #18-49 are 60, and the rest are 55. There might be more prospects at 55 that did not make the top 100, and 50 prospects also have value. I would suggest using WAR, a grade 70 (All-Star) should be WAR 5, a grade 50 (MLB aver) should be WAR 2. So we could make up some mapping for 55, 60, and 65. A question to ask: is an elite player (WAR 10) worth 2 All Star level (2 x WAR 5). Also is an elite position player the same value as an elite pitcher. To account for the ranking, we might say that of the grade 60 prospects, the highest ranked is 62.5 trending down to the lowest at 57.5. I'm not part of management here but I believe they do something similar to your concept with the "scale" notations on the right side of the prospect ratings page. I do like the idea of projections based specifically on projected future earnings though in such a way that a projected $100 mil player over 6 years of control is worth twice as much as a projected $50 mil player of WAR value over our normal 6 years of control. That gets pretty specific about their value. Maybe we can have a derivatives market next! I'm just kidding but I see value in this form of rating players. They are effectively commodities already. We just don't always like to think of them that way.
|
|
|