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.
2023 National Rankings (in season)
|
|
Post by texs31 on Aug 12, 2023 7:47:27 GMT -5
My yearly gripe about Fangraphs lists. At some point, for a national outlet, doesn't the value of listing (and writing up) 40-60 prospects on some teams get outweighed by the time it takes to get them done for all teams? I think they released the final "pre season" lists for some teams just a few weeks before the draft. The Sox list has Casas on it WELL after he had graduated.
It's great for a team specific site (oh, I don't know, like THIS ONE) to go into that much depth but to try and cover ALL teams with that level of depth? Maybe it loses value BECAUSE we have you guys (and not every team is so fortunate) but it can be frustrating when your team is one of the last releases and requires an update already (if not before the actual release).
Rant over.
|
|
cdj
Veteran
Posts: 15,778 
Member is Online
|
Post by cdj on Aug 12, 2023 7:52:09 GMT -5
My yearly gripe about Fangraphs lists. At some point, for a national outlet, doesn't the value of listing (and writing up) 40-60 prospects on some teams get outweighed by the time it takes to get them done for all teams? I think they released the final "pre season" lists for some teams just a few weeks before the draft. The Sox list has Casas on it WELL after he had graduated. It's great for a team specific site (oh, I don't know, like THIS ONE) to go into that much depth but to try and cover ALL teams with that level of depth? Maybe it loses value BECAUSE we have you guys (and not every team is so fortunate) but it can be frustrating when your team is one of the last releases and requires an update already (if not before the actual release). Rant over. It’s the same argument I make over ppl who put together pre-draft rankings in every sport. Nobody on planet earth has the time to make proper evaluations on that many players. Soxprospects works so well because of its focus on one team. They actually *can* see these guys enough and get enough feedback on them to make a good eval |
|
|
|
Post by crossedsabres8 on Aug 12, 2023 10:15:47 GMT -5
This place is also very transparent when they have scouting reports on players they haven't seen yet.
|
|
|
|
Post by bosox904 on Aug 12, 2023 10:44:57 GMT -5
My yearly gripe about Fangraphs lists. At some point, for a national outlet, doesn't the value of listing (and writing up) 40-60 prospects on some teams get outweighed by the time it takes to get them done for all teams? I think they released the final "pre season" lists for some teams just a few weeks before the draft. The Sox list has Casas on it WELL after he had graduated. It's great for a team specific site (oh, I don't know, like THIS ONE) to go into that much depth but to try and cover ALL teams with that level of depth? Maybe it loses value BECAUSE we have you guys (and not every team is so fortunate) but it can be frustrating when your team is one of the last releases and requires an update already (if not before the actual release). Rant over. It’s the same argument I make over ppl who put together pre-draft rankings in every sport. Nobody on planet earth has the time to make proper evaluations on that many players. Soxprospects works so well because of its focus on one team. They actually *can* see these guys enough and get enough feedback on them to make a good eval That's why they have many people working on the list. And for baseball at least, they're already starting evaluations on next year's class, plus any information they had from previous seasons. No, there's no one or two people on a staff that know about every prospect, but like a MLB team they have many people or who will know about handfuls of players. |
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Aug 12, 2023 11:17:52 GMT -5
It’s the same argument I make over ppl who put together pre-draft rankings in every sport. Nobody on planet earth has the time to make proper evaluations on that many players. Soxprospects works so well because of its focus on one team. They actually *can* see these guys enough and get enough feedback on them to make a good eval That's why they have many people working on the list. And for baseball at least, they're already starting evaluations on next year's class, plus any information they had from previous seasons. No, there's no one or two people on a staff that know about every prospect, but like a MLB team they have many people or who will know about handfuls of players. Who's "they" here? Because Fangraphs is basically just Longenhagen. He has one person helping him right now I think. |
|
|
|
Post by soxfansince67 on Aug 12, 2023 14:17:27 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by bettsonmookie on Aug 12, 2023 15:54:58 GMT -5
Was Noah Song back in the organization in time to be considered for the last site rankings update?
|
|
|
|
Post by Mike Andrews on Aug 12, 2023 16:37:56 GMT -5
Nope, the news of his return literally came across Twitter about 30 seconds after we published the new rankings.
|
|
|
|
Post by vermontsox1 on Aug 15, 2023 20:56:47 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by thegoodthebadthesox on Aug 15, 2023 20:59:11 GMT -5
I wonder if you took the MLB/FG/Law lists, if the Sox are the farthest from a consensus
|
|
|
|
Post by incandenza on Aug 16, 2023 0:17:31 GMT -5
I wonder if you took the MLB/FG/Law lists, if the Sox are the farthest from a consensus The main source of disagreement seems to be the fact that they're so hitter-heavy. MLB doesn't spell it out, but you can infer from the write-up that they're dinging the Red Sox for having few top pitching prospects (which Law also did), whereas the FG list actually rewards them for that by valuing hitters more than pitchers. |
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Aug 16, 2023 6:54:46 GMT -5
I wonder if you took the MLB/FG/Law lists, if the Sox are the farthest from a consensus The main source of disagreement seems to be the fact that they're so hitter-heavy. MLB doesn't spell it out, but you can infer from the write-up that they're dinging the Red Sox for having few top pitching prospects (which Law also did), whereas the FG list actually rewards them for that by valuing hitters more than pitchers. So I think this is the difference in approach I've mentioned and why I really don't think the FG ranking can be viewed the same way as other sites' rankings. Fangraphs looks only at the FV number, hitter vs. pitcher, and nothing else. Not the player's level of risk (beyond inherent pitching risk). Not the player's level. Not the player's position. Not the system's depth at different positions and levels. Now, some of this should be accounted for in a FV number but I just see major issues with a system that assigns every 45 the same value (a AAA 45 with injury history is not worth the same value as a complex-level 45 who's raw as hell) as limited in some sense. It also doesn't take a team's success in development into account, although you could argue whether it should if your goal is to assess present-day value. It's just very different. It's an interesting discussion point to include in the conversation, 100%. But there's so much it doesn't take into consideration. Let me add positives. It does account for the much greater value of better prospects well (a 60 is worth 2 50s? A 50 worth 4 45+s? Sounds right.). It attempts to remove subjectivity, which is admirable (but it can't do that entirely when the basis for the computation is a subjective FV score). |
|
|
|
Post by philsbosoxfan on Aug 16, 2023 7:21:50 GMT -5
I have 2 hands. One hand says I can't disagree with MLB or Law that our prospects are pitching poor and that in a black box would reduce our systems comparative ranking. The other hand says that out of the black box, we have Whitlock, Bello, Pivetta, Houck, Crawford, Winckowski, Schreiber, Walter, Murphy, Rodriguez and now Bernardino under control. If a prospect system's main priority is feeding the major league team, we not only have done well but less pitching depth is not a major concern in the near horizon.
|
|
|
|
Post by scottysmalls on Aug 16, 2023 8:32:11 GMT -5
I lean more towards being hitter heavy at the top of your farm is a feature not a bug. Pitchers are so much more fickle both performance and injury wise. Bello is the Red Sox best pitching prospect in however long and he might have mattered on these rankings for half a season?
|
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Aug 16, 2023 8:45:01 GMT -5
The main source of disagreement seems to be the fact that they're so hitter-heavy. MLB doesn't spell it out, but you can infer from the write-up that they're dinging the Red Sox for having few top pitching prospects (which Law also did), whereas the FG list actually rewards them for that by valuing hitters more than pitchers. So I think this is the difference in approach I've mentioned and why I really don't think the FG ranking can be viewed the same way as other sites' rankings. Fangraphs looks only at the FV number, hitter vs. pitcher, and nothing else. Not the player's level of risk (beyond inherent pitching risk). Not the player's level. Not the player's position. Not the system's depth at different positions and levels. Now, some of this should be accounted for in a FV number but I just see major issues with a system that assigns every 45 the same value (a AAA 45 with injury history is not worth the same value as a complex-level 45 who's raw as hell) as limited in some sense. It also doesn't take a team's success in development into account, although you could argue whether it should if your goal is to assess present-day value. It's just very different. It's an interesting discussion point to include in the conversation, 100%. But there's so much it doesn't take into consideration. Let me add positives. It does account for the much greater value of better prospects well (a 60 is worth 2 50s? A 50 worth 4 45+s? Sounds right.). It attempts to remove subjectivity, which is admirable (but it can't do that entirely when the basis for the computation is a subjective FV score). I disagree with your conclusion here. Things like the player's level of risk, level and position ought to be baked into the FV ranking. Ditto for how good an organization is in terms of player development (that ought to show up in the number of good prospects they churn out). I'm not sure why the system's depth at different positions and levels matters when you are ranking a farm system (why would you increase or decrease the value of a prospect if the organization has too many or too few other prospects at that position/level?). If your point is that assigning all 45 FV prospects with the same dollar value isn't the best way to do it, I agree, but that's a precision issue (maybe we should have 42.5s and 47.5s (I will note that we already have that to some extent with 45+s), or maybe the dollar values should have a slight adjustment based on how close they are to the majors) rather than an issue with the methodology writ large. More importantly, it is a much more systematic process for ranking than having one guy squint and make judgment calls, which is largely how the other MLB farm system rankings are done. It's far from perfect, but there's at least a methodology that tries to remove as much subjectivity/bias from the exercise as possible. |
|
|
|
Post by pappyman99 on Aug 16, 2023 9:07:23 GMT -5
I lean more towards being hitter heavy at the top of your farm is a feature not a bug. Pitchers are so much more fickle both performance and injury wise. Bello is the Red Sox best pitching prospect in however long and he might have mattered on these rankings for half a season? It’s both to me. I feel it’s way more beneficial to be pitching rich in your minors than hitters for the same reason I rather sign hitters in FA than pitchers For instance I’d much rather be the mariners right now than us (if all else were equal) |
|
badfishnbc
Veteran
Doing you all a favor and leaving through the gate in right field since 2012.
Posts: 492
|
Post by badfishnbc on Aug 16, 2023 9:36:41 GMT -5
The main source of disagreement seems to be the fact that they're so hitter-heavy. MLB doesn't spell it out, but you can infer from the write-up that they're dinging the Red Sox for having few top pitching prospects (which Law also did), whereas the FG list actually rewards them for that by valuing hitters more than pitchers. I think unfair, though, given the state of the league right now. For example, look at MLB's top 100, where only a quarter ( 26!) of these players are pitchers. In fact, it's Skenes at #3, then all hitters until Harrison at #20, and then more hitters until you get to 29 and 30. When a quarter of the top prospects are on the mound, of course you'd be hitter-heavy. Most teams are. |
|
|
|
Post by pappyman99 on Aug 16, 2023 9:40:49 GMT -5
The main source of disagreement seems to be the fact that they're so hitter-heavy. MLB doesn't spell it out, but you can infer from the write-up that they're dinging the Red Sox for having few top pitching prospects (which Law also did), whereas the FG list actually rewards them for that by valuing hitters more than pitchers. I think unfair, though, given the state of the league right now. For example, look at MLB's top 100, where only a quarter ( 26!) of these players are pitchers. In fact, it's Skenes at #3, then all hitters until Harrison at #20, and then more hitters until you get to 29 and 30. When a quarter of the top prospects are on the mound, of course you'd be hitter-heavy. Most teams are. That’s why pitchers are more valuable. And we really do have a dearth of pitching prospects Gonzalez is the only one I’m excited about that has done it at higher levels now and also has a chance of sticking as a starter, and even he has questions in that department |
|
|
|
Post by ematz1423 on Aug 16, 2023 9:47:29 GMT -5
I think unfair, though, given the state of the league right now. For example, look at MLB's top 100, where only a quarter ( 26!) of these players are pitchers. In fact, it's Skenes at #3, then all hitters until Harrison at #20, and then more hitters until you get to 29 and 30. When a quarter of the top prospects are on the mound, of course you'd be hitter-heavy. Most teams are. And we really do have a dearth of pitching prospects Gonzalez is the only one I’m excited about that has done it at higher levels now and also has a chance of sticking as a starter, and even he has questions in that department I very much disagree with the thought that pitchers are more valuable. If you told me the Sox can have either Skenes or Jackson Holliday for free right now I'm picking Jackson Holliday every time. I'd say the same thing when it comes to Crews than Skenes as well. Ideally a farm would have a good mix of pitching and hitting but I'd certainly lean going with hitting prospects in the draft which is what the Sox have done in recent history and I'm 100 percent fine with it. |
|
|
|
Post by Guidas on Aug 16, 2023 9:48:51 GMT -5
Nope, the news of his return literally came across Twitter about 30 seconds after we published the new rankings. He'll be #1 in the next ranking though, right? I mean, his thread traffic is a 70 at least. |
|
|
|
Post by remmartin34 on Aug 16, 2023 9:48:56 GMT -5
I have to say, following the Sox farm system for many years now (but not understanding anywhere close to the intricacies of prospect FV and system rankings that all of the posters here do), this does feel like the biggest slap in the face ranking I can recall in as long as I can remember. I knew that the FanGraphs ranking seemed quite generous at the time when that was being discussed on a daily basis after the trade deadline. But 16th? With the combination of 5 top-100 (according to MLB Pipeline doesn't include Bleis, but come on..) prospects, and a plethora of guys in the Sox system between 6th-25th who are making major leaps with very high upside..
I guess I've almost always felt that the Red Sox farm system as a whole tends to be disrespected. But maybe that's just the home team bias, and not knowing a ton about other organization's farm systems...
|
|
|
|
Post by Guidas on Aug 16, 2023 9:50:42 GMT -5
Uh oh. This is closer to Law's #20. No wonder Kennedy was all about the Fangraphs rankings. |
|
|
|
Post by thegoodthebadthesox on Aug 16, 2023 9:52:22 GMT -5
I think unfair, though, given the state of the league right now. For example, look at MLB's top 100, where only a quarter ( 26!) of these players are pitchers. In fact, it's Skenes at #3, then all hitters until Harrison at #20, and then more hitters until you get to 29 and 30. When a quarter of the top prospects are on the mound, of course you'd be hitter-heavy. Most teams are. That’s why pitchers are more valuable. And we really do have a dearth of pitching prospects Gonzalez is the only one I’m excited about that has done it at higher levels now and also has a chance of sticking as a starter, and even he has questions in that department Pitchers are more valuable if you have a good and healthy one, but that is often only the case in theory. I would love to have an elite pitching prospect in the system but I also understand the risk proposition that has led to the Sox being more hitter-centric in recent years. |
|
|
|
Post by Guidas on Aug 16, 2023 9:53:35 GMT -5
I have to say, following the Sox farm system for many years now (but not understanding anywhere close to the intricacies of prospect FV and system rankings that all of the posters here do), this does feel like the biggest slap in the face ranking I can recall in as long as I can remember. I knew that the FanGraphs ranking seemed quite generous at the time when that was being discussed on a daily basis after the trade deadline. But 16th? With the combination of 5 top-100 (according to MLB Pipeline doesn't include Bleis, but come on..) prospects, and a plethora of guys in the Sox system between 6th-25th who are making major leaps with very high upside.. I guess I've almost always felt that the Red Sox farm system as a whole tends to be disrespected. But maybe that's just the home team bias, and not knowing a ton about other organization's farm systems... Get ready to turn the other cheek for the The Athletic/Keith Law ranking. |
|
|
|
Post by pappyman99 on Aug 16, 2023 9:58:28 GMT -5
That’s why pitchers are more valuable. And we really do have a dearth of pitching prospects Gonzalez is the only one I’m excited about that has done it at higher levels now and also has a chance of sticking as a starter, and even he has questions in that department I very much disagree with the thought that pitchers are more valuable. If you told me the Sox can have either Skenes or Jackson Holliday for free right now I'm picking Jackson Holliday every time. I'd say the same thing when it comes to Crews than Skenes as well. Ideally a farm would have a good mix of pitching and hitting but I'd certainly lean going with hitting prospects in the draft which is what the Sox have done in recent history and I'm 100 percent fine with it. I disagree. Young pitching is just way more valuable. It’s almost like having a a really good QB on their rookie contract. Everyone wants young pitching and no one really wants to pay pitchers in FA they are way more risky. If you have a farm that can continually supplement your rotation with good pitching, that is the competitive advantage these days. Obviously you want both in your system but more pitchers the better. Having basically no legit pitching prospects should punish us |
|
|
