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 philsbosoxfan on Jan 24, 2014 15:57:34 GMT -5
For the last few years, though, we've used a weighted scoring system to determine which system has the most impact or elite talent.
Chris; It appears to me that Mayo is actively using a dumb standard to determine what they are trying to determine then publish the line and has been actively doing so for "a few years". In this case the Astros were the beneficiary and he pretty much clearly said the method showed that the Astros had the most impact talent. I can't see how you interpret that as a throw away line nor can I see how you view eric's post as being "that worked up".
Sorry forgot to quote.
|
|
|
Post by dewey1972 on Jan 24, 2014 22:32:43 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. I would agree with this. I'd prefer Xander over Buxton for the same reasons others have made, but there are lots of good reasons why most prefer Buxton. Regardless, I see the two as in a separate level from everyone else. Everyone else, it seems to me, has some significant flaw (that's not quite the right word), whether it's strikeouts, injury, lack of performance at higher levels, a lower ceiling, or just being a pitcher.
|
|
|
Post by dewey1972 on Jan 24, 2014 22:40:40 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. I just don't get how Sano could be a 55. He's got tremendous power and hits the ball hard, but how can a guy who has struck out over 25% of the time at every single stop (excepting his 20 games during his first stop at rookie ball) be a 55 hitter? Maybe I don't understand what scouts are grading on the hit tool, but if that kind of swing and miss isn't measured on the hit tool, the tools are missing a big part of the game.
|
|
|
Post by chelios on Jan 25, 2014 6:38:17 GMT -5
They have begun rolling them out this week, first with SS which Bogaerts was #1 and today with Left-handed pitchers with Owens at #2 and Trey Ball at #9. This rankings have more credibility at least for me with Jim Callis on board. I also like them because there is some video. mlb.mlb.com/mlb/prospects/watch/y2014/#list=lhp
|
|
|
Post by chelios on Jan 25, 2014 6:40:44 GMT -5
Travis Shaw is ranked 8th on the first basemen list. Pretty surprising considering he's ranked 42nd on this site. Probably speaks to the weakness of that position in the entire Minor Leagues.
|
|
|
Post by chelios on Jan 25, 2014 6:53:12 GMT -5
I didn't see on the top 100 Christian Vazquez who had a solid year last year and without a doubt is the best defensive catcher in the organization. Does anyone know where he was ranked. And I didn't see Anthony Ranaudo neither on this list and I know his numbers were better than Trey Ball, and Ball was ranked 96 of the 100...
|
|
|
Post by dewey1972 on Jan 25, 2014 7:37:39 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 really like your idea here. I think this is the best way to rate systems if you want to do it. And of course, as others have pointed out, the system depth not in the top 100 is important, too. My answers to your questions: I wouldn't say that an elite player is a 10 WAR player. Even with two 10 WAR seasons in two major league seasons, I don't think many saberists think Trout is a true talent 10 WAR player, and beyond him, I don't think there's even a true talent 8 WAR player right now. But if he is, I'd say yes, he's worth two 5 win players. But I don't think any prospect should ever be projected for more than 6 wins, and even that's a bit crazy. I'd say that a pitcher is not worth the same as a position player. On that note, I really like what BA started doing last year (I think last year was the first year) in giving a risk grade, which should have some impact on the WAR grade in your system. But I think that should be more reflected in the rankings. Or really, do what John Sickels has always done, which is to have two separate lists.
|
|
|
Post by chavopepe2 on Jan 25, 2014 9:02:11 GMT -5
We could also use this article to project out the career WAR for each slot. Using this, the expected WAR by team for the top 100 prospects would be: Red Sox 91.1 Astros 89.2 Twins 84.8 Cubs 82.8 Pirates 75.2 Royals 48.6 Mets 43.4 Rockies 39.5 Cards 38.3 Indians 36.9 Dbacks 36.7 Rangers 36.3 Orioles 36.0 Dodgers 35.6 Padres 34.6 Marlins 32.5 Ms 30.1 Reds 28.7 As 27.3 Jays 27.3 Tigers 23.6 Phils 22.2 Giants 16.3 Nats 15.0 Yanks 14.0 Braves 11.6 ChiSox 10.8 Rays 8.8 Brewers 4.8 The biggest thing that stands out to me is that there are five elite teams between 75 and 92 WAR and the next highest team has less than 50.
|
|
|
Post by JackieWilsonsaid on Jan 25, 2014 9:24:17 GMT -5
We could also use this article to project out the career WAR for each slot. Using this, the expected WAR by team for the top 100 prospects would be: Red Sox 91.1 Astros 89.2 Twins 84.8 Cubs 82.8 Pirates 75.2 Royals 48.6 Mets 43.4 Rockies 39.5 Cards 38.3 Indians 36.9 Dbacks 36.7 Rangers 36.3 Orioles 36.0 Dodgers 35.6 Padres 34.6 Marlins 32.5 Ms 30.1 Reds 28.7 As 27.3 Jays 27.3 Tigers 23.6 Phils 22.2 Giants 16.3 Nats 15.0 Yanks 14.0 Braves 11.6 ChiSox 10.8 Rays 8.8 Brewers 4.8 The biggest thing that stands out to me is that there are five elite teams between 75 and 92 WAR and the next highest team has less than 50. That's a great point and amazing gap. I'm not sure of the other teams but the sox are in excellent position to maintain the war.
|
|
|
Post by philsbosoxfan on Jan 25, 2014 12:11:14 GMT -5
chavopepe
I don't want to re-quote but add Angels 0 to your list.
The only teams that really surprised me were that the Pirates still have that much left in their farm and that the Rangers that little. The gap you pointed out is pretty wide, a lot more than would be expected from "the norm".
Interesting breakdown and at the very least is a far better model than the one MLB is using. It is what it is though, a comparison of only the most elite prospects and not an evaluation of farms as a whole. Something I think the Sox would also score high on.
|
|
|
Post by burythehammer on Jan 25, 2014 12:57:54 GMT -5
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. And that was due at least in part to his serving a 50 game suspension. Of course the majority of these guys graduated, but it's interesting nonetheless. I think the Buxton thing is a couple of things. One, he's awesome. And two, I think prospect rankers feel like they whiffed slightly on Trout because they dinged him too much for being an A ball guy, and they don't want to make the same mistake with Buxton.
|
|
|
Post by chavopepe2 on Jan 25, 2014 12:59:16 GMT -5
chavopepe I don't want to re-quote but add Angels 0 to your list. The only teams that really surprised me were that the Pirates still have that much left in their farm and that the Rangers that little. The gap you pointed out is pretty wide, a lot more than would be expected from "the norm". Interesting breakdown and at the very least is a far better model than the one MLB is using. It is what it is though, a comparison of only the most elite prospects and not an evaluation of farms as a whole. Something I think the Sox would also score high on. Good point on the Angels - I knew there was a team missing, but didn't really feel like figuring out who it was. I agree on your overall point that this is only a snap shot of the top 100 prospects and doesn't tell the full story on the depth within organizations, but I'm not sure that would make much difference. Guys like Ranaudo and Workman (and maybe Vazquez), would add a few WAR each, but I don't think there is anyone else in the Sox system that will differentiate them from other teams. The expected total WAR for players at the end of the top 100 is only a little over 3.
|
|
|
Post by jchang on Jan 25, 2014 14:15:11 GMT -5
without dwelling on this sub-topic excessively. I would like to suggest that the true value of a prospect is as a source of low price WAR (with respect to the salary cap). By the time a player reaches his final arbitration year, he is close in cost to value (say 15M vs. 20M free-agent, but still a good deal). Lets assume that it takes 50 WAR (combined bat + pitching) to go deep into the playoffs. At 5M per WAR, the price of this team in free-agent (or equiv. cost) players is 250M /yr. + injured + overpays. Many players reach free agency at around age 30. It seems that the WAR 5 (all-star level) players get a 6yr+ deal while the WAR 3 (above-average) player might get a 2-4 year deal, meaning less risk of overpay in the final years? If a team's budget is $110M/year, it could purchase 18 WAR at free agent pricing with $90M, and try to fill the remaining 32 WAR with internally developed prospects. Suppose this were in the form of 8 above average players (WAR 3) and 4 average players (WAR 2), i.e., 12 players internally developed in their first 5 years of service. Then it is necessary to produce 2.4 players per year from the farm. If the average prospect takes 4 years to develop, then there must be 10 prospects in the grade 50-60 range or equivalent with zero fallout. If we factor in the fallout rate for prospects successfully achieving projection, then ..., well this probably does not work for the $110M budget. This could work for a team with 180M budget, WAR 40 at free agent pricing, then produce WAR 10 from internally developed prospects in their cheap years. In this case, it is only necessary to graduate 1 prospect per year, with 6 legit prospects in the farm system to allow for fallout.
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Jan 25, 2014 21:36:46 GMT -5
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. And that was due at least in part to his serving a 50 game suspension. Of course the majority of these guys graduated, but it's interesting nonetheless. I think the Buxton thing is a couple of things. One, he's awesome. And two, I think prospect rankers feel like they whiffed slightly on Trout because they dinged him too much for being an A ball guy, and they don't want to make the same mistake with Buxton. Eh, Trout was at the same level as Harper when he ranked behind him in 2011 (and I can't blame anyone for putting Harper ahead at that time). Somehow Moore slipped ahead of him in 2012, which I think IS where you can blame BA. But yeah, Trout not ever being ranked #1 had nothing to do with being young or anything. It was Harper's fault mainly.
|
|
|
Post by Oregon Norm on Jan 26, 2014 3:33:12 GMT -5
I liked chavo's data enough that it got me thinking about a quadrant analysis. The idea is to use that data on one axis as a measure of the minor league system, and a metric for a team's current success on the other axis. A good number to use for that is the simple rating system shown on the Baseball-Reference front page, and explained here. To get at a team's simple rating, a set of linear equations representing the success of each team against every other team is cast in matrix form, and then solved over and over again till the numbers stop changing for all practical purposes. That's necessary because the act of solving it the first time changes all the values. So it needs to be solved again, which changes all the values, ... and so on. That such systems even have a solution, or "fixed point", that they will zero in on, was proven in a very general way by the Dutch mathematician Brouwer in 1910. To have such a mathematical result proven 80-90 years before it can be practically used is pretty typical. Anyway, this set of 30 equations in 30 unknowns requires lots of computing power, since solving anything more than a 3 x 3 matrix system by hand is a bizarre form of self-abuse. But computing power we got, these days. The quadrant analysis is a great way to visualize the resulting data (click to enlarge): As you move to the right, teams have better ratings based on their strength of schedule and the ability to outscore the teams they played. Move up or down, and you've got chavo's score for how good the minor league systems are. Our favorite team has a special place on this one, sitting in the upper right hand corner. For now they're in a very sweet spot.
|
|
|
Post by philsbosoxfan on Jan 26, 2014 8:55:18 GMT -5
I'm assuming that you didn't use post season data and that we all could have guessed where on that chart the Sox would have ended up. From the Sox perspective, there's not really anything gained here. On the other hand, the data points for the other 29 less fortunate teams are quite interesting in comparison mode. Nice graphic. It's basically a picture of the present and future current state of affairs the day the season ended. (No off season acquisition adjustments).
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Jan 26, 2014 10:19:58 GMT -5
What I'd love to see, but we can't for obvious reasons, is that graph, but with rankings for teams' under-25 players. Look at the Cards, for example, whose "prospect" list is down, but only because they just graduated an entire bullpen's worth of guys.
Sox would probably still be at or near the top, and I think in terms of a "present and future" analysis, it'd be more accurate. Would love to see that list be a thing someday.
|
|
|
Post by Oregon Norm on Jan 26, 2014 14:32:06 GMT -5
I'm assuming that you didn't use post season data and that we all could have guessed where on that chart the Sox would have ended up. From the Sox perspective, there's not really anything gained here. On the other hand, the data points for the other 29 less fortunate teams are quite interesting in comparison mode. Nice graphic. It's basically a picture of the present and future current state of affairs the day the season ended. (No off season acquisition adjustments). That's true. The algorithm works off of the most current game data, and there isn't any (though a lot of folks wish that wasn't true this time of the year!). I don't know if it includes the playoff data, but it very well may. It's not dependent on each team having played an equal number of games, only who played who and what the score was. As to Chris's point, I agree that this probably undervalues teams such as the Cardinals to some extent. They had guys like Carlos Martinez up and down during the season. Nonetheless, the strength of schedule and scoring results from the iterative solution converges on a number that does represent how they did with the talent they had in place. I think that's a fairly decent estimator. There is a gap because chavo's numbers are for what the system has right now and guys like Martinez probably aren't in there since they've moved up. This might be a good chart to rework each year. Then we could animate those charts, over time, and watch the points wiggle around. Probably wouldn't take more than 25-30 years of data to make it interesting! As an aside, for all the talk about the Yankees, I don't know that any team did better for themselves by addressing their weakness (a lack of righthanded punch) than St. Louis this off-season. They won't have the NL's best defensive SS by a long shot, but they may have one of its better bats at the position. I also think that Bourjos will be a huge upgrade over John Jay, both offensively given that he's a decent righthanded bat, and most importantly on defense, where they've gone from the basement to the penthouse by my estimate.
|
|
|
Post by brianthetaoist on Jan 26, 2014 15:26:35 GMT -5
That combo of chavo's WAR-related ranking system and Norm's chart was good stuff, guys, thanks! One of the more interesting things I've seen this offseason ... I was going to make a comment about how much an outlier the Sox were from the other Big Five in chavo's analysis, but Norm's chart brings it home. Would be interesting to see if historically teams at the top of the scale tend to move to the right of the scale, as you'd expect. Of course, if the Sox move much further to the right, they're going to fall off the map.
|
|
|
Post by thelavarnwayguy on Jan 26, 2014 16:23:25 GMT -5
It would seem that norm's data analysis confirms that the Redsox are as well positioned as any team in baseball going forward. If we add the comparative revenue streams available to each team you could get a fairly accurate projection of future team success over the next 6-8 year time frame I would think. As good as any I've seen.
|
|
|
Post by philsbosoxfan on Jan 27, 2014 10:50:16 GMT -5
LOL, with BP out and soon BA to follow, we're going to have to get chav and norm back together.
I hate to interrupt a good topic but saw this and was kind of blown away that Mookie is accelerating like a stolen base attempt on a pop up. I know it's only a one play sample size and all that but I can't think of too many (if any) second basemen I've ever seen that make this catch. I was also thinking that if Mookie was here in the mid sixties (65 ?), Billy Rohr would have had a perfecto against the Yankees in Yankee Stadium in his first major league game.
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Jan 27, 2014 22:00:28 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by rjp313jr on Jan 27, 2014 23:32:56 GMT -5
Has anyone seen a study on what percentage of MLB players ever appeared on a top 100 list? It'd probably be done using the BA list. I wonder how many current major leaguers were ever listed in the top 100. I'm pretty sure the failure rate of the top 100 is about 75%.
|
|
|
Post by alex710707 on Jan 27, 2014 23:59:55 GMT -5
Has anyone seen a study on what percentage of MLB players ever appeared on a top 100 list? It'd probably be done using the BA list. I wonder how many current major leaguers were ever listed in the top 100. I'm pretty sure the failure rate of the top 100 is about 75%. ppt.cc/Dt8JAccording to this aticle, it's 70%
|
|
|
Post by bjb406 on Jan 28, 2014 0:27:39 GMT -5
Has anyone seen a study on what percentage of MLB players ever appeared on a top 100 list? It'd probably be done using the BA list. I wonder how many current major leaguers were ever listed in the top 100. I'm pretty sure the failure rate of the top 100 is about 75%. It depends on the definition of success. If you define success as making the major leagues then almost all of them do.
|
|
|