PDA

View Full Version : Top 2000+ Prospects



RedsManRick
02-27-2010, 09:25 PM
I'm sure this list isn't quite as well thought through as small lists, and I see from the comments on the post that there are some issues, but interesting to see nonetheless.

http://milbprospects.blogspot.com/2010/02/top-2000-prospects-for-2010.html

Here are just the Reds:



Reds Player Pos Overall
1 Yonder Alonso 1B 37
2 Mike Leake P 59
3 Aroldis Chapman P 63
4 Todd Frazier SS 73
5 Chris Heisey OF 123
6 Travis Wood P 142
7 Yorman Rodriguez OF 148
8 Zach Cozart SS 168
9 Matt Maloney P 172
10 Kyle Lotzkar P 296
11 Brad Boxberger P 306
12 Juan Francisco 3B 320
13 Neftali Soto SS 399
14 Dallas Buck P 425
15 Matt Fairel P 451
16 Billy Hamilton SS 576
17 Juan Duran OF 584
18 Chris Valaika SS 612
19 Daryl Thompson P 698
20 Byron Wiley OF 717
21 Humberto Valor SS 760
22 Devin Mesoraco C 816
23 Juan Sulbaran P 817
24 Danny Dorn OF 970
25 Sam Lecure P 971
26 Jordan Smith P 997
27 Mariekson Gregorius SS 1008
28 Reinaldo Albino P 1082
29 Daniel Tuttle P 1164
30 Donnie Joseph P 1165
31 Tyler Cline P 1166
32 Pedro Viola P 1174
33 Cody Puckett SS 1179
34 Miguel Rojas SS 1276
35 Sean Henry OF 1385
36 Brian Pearl P 1419
37 Enerio Del Rosario P 1467
38 Shawn Cumberland OF 1493
39 Yen-Wen Kuo P 1529
40 Phillippe Valiquette P 1531
41 Harold Johnson P 1544
42 Tucker Barnhart C 1570
43 Logan Ondrusek P 1571
44 Mark Serrano P 1574
45 Alexander Smit P 1586
46 Dayne Read OF 1626
47 David Sappelt OF 1648
48 Wilkin Castillo OF 1652
49 Henry Rodriguez SS 1660
50 Alex Buchholz 2B 1680
51 Matt Klinker P 1699
52 Scott Carroll P 1700
53 Juan Silva OF 1800
54 Mark Fleury C 1844
55 Andrew Means OF 1845
56 Jacob Johnson P 1852
57 Pedro Villarreal P 1889
58 Josh Fellhauer OF 1898
59 Junior Arias SS 1956
60 Carter Morrison OF 2009
61 Sean Conner OF 2017
62 Clayton Shunick P 2020

camisadelgolf
02-27-2010, 09:34 PM
Shaun Cumberland is still in the organizaton? Reinaldo Albino at #28 in the organization? Josh Fellhauer at #1,898 in all of the minor leagues? I think I'm done looking at this. :D

RedsManRick
02-27-2010, 10:01 PM
Shaun Cumberland is still in the organizaton? Reinaldo Albino at #28 in the organization? Josh Fellhauer at #1,898 in all of the minor leagues? I think I'm done looking at this. :D

Yeah, it's not the most accurate list..... but hey, it can't hurt.

mace
02-27-2010, 11:35 PM
Well, he's got Harold Johnson at 41 and Jacob Johnson at 56. I believe that's the same guy.

camisadelgolf
02-28-2010, 02:37 AM
Well, he's got Harold Johnson at 41 and Jacob Johnson at 56. I believe that's the same guy.
It is. After the top-10, I think they just drew names out of a hat.

kaldaniels
03-01-2010, 01:40 AM
It is. After the top-10, I think they just drew names out of a hat.

Yup...its like 7 round NFL mock drafts...you have to take them with a grain of salt.

klw
03-01-2010, 10:11 AM
I just hope no one does a Sporcle quiz where you need to list all 2000.

RedsManRick
03-01-2010, 11:40 AM
That all said, it is interesting how much weight we put on the supposed accuracy of prospect lists. Do we really know whose lists have worked out the best historically? Looking back at past top prospect lists, there all sorts of hits and misses.

That's not to say that this list is more accurate, not at all. Just that I think we sometimes talk ourselves in a set of projections being "accurate" based solely on how well they conform to other projections rather than by the validity of the process by which they were constructed.

camisadelgolf
03-01-2010, 11:44 AM
For me, the skepticism comes from the fact that there are over 2,000 names listed. I really doubt the proper research was put into this to make it a valid list. Not only that, but they mentioned a guy who doesn't even have a team, and they listed the same player twice. Who knows what other errors they had in other organizations?

RedsManRick
03-01-2010, 12:55 PM
For me, the skepticism comes from the fact that there are over 2,000 names listed. I really doubt the proper research was put into this to make it a valid list. Not only that, but they mentioned a guy who doesn't even have a team, and they listed the same player twice. Who knows what other errors they had in other organizations?

I think it's quite clear that this list particular was not created in a rigorous way. But the point holds to any kind of prediction.

dougdirt
03-01-2010, 01:51 PM
Rick,
I guess the problem with the historical value of the lists problems begin with different writers. Baseball America and John Sickels are the only places that have been forming a list for 8+ years with at least the main person making the call on the list. Even BA rotates some writers in and out as far as their Top 100 meetings go, and the team rankings have probably 10-15 different people making the lists, though I believe Callis does have final say there. With that said, Victor Wang has done some research on the value of those two lists rankings. You can see that at The Hardball Times (http://www.hardballtimes.com/main/article/the-bright-side-of-losing-santana/).

The problem with that is that the data is based on lists from 1990-1999 and surely things have changed somewhat since then in how evaluators are ranking prospects.

RedsManRick
03-01-2010, 04:31 PM
Rick,
I guess the problem with the historical value of the lists problems begin with different writers. Baseball America and John Sickels are the only places that have been forming a list for 8+ years with at least the main person making the call on the list. Even BA rotates some writers in and out as far as their Top 100 meetings go, and the team rankings have probably 10-15 different people making the lists, though I believe Callis does have final say there. With that said, Victor Wang has done some research on the value of those two lists rankings. You can see that at The Hardball Times (http://www.hardballtimes.com/main/article/the-bright-side-of-losing-santana/).

The problem with that is that the data is based on lists from 1990-1999 and surely things have changed somewhat since then in how evaluators are ranking prospects.

I would actually disagree with your premise, Doug. The problem at its core is the simple fact that there is no agreement about what is being assessed. We've seen in our own discussions definitions ranging from ceiling to floor to likely path to trade value...

Unless and until there is some agreement about what exactly is being projected, there is no way to compare the "accuracy" of the projections themselves, regardless of by whom or through what process they were created. In the article you reference, Victor is clearly basing his analysis on a likely production basis. Though he is doing it a bit backwards, using ranking to project WAR rather than the other way around.

When I look at prospect lists across the net, few of them seem to be clearly organized on such a clearly articulated principal, let alone using an actual quantitative assessment such projected WAR (or WAR-like) over say, the 6 pre-FA years for which the player will be under team control.

dougdirt
03-01-2010, 04:43 PM
I would actually disagree with your premise, Doug. The problem at its core is the simple fact that there is no agreement about what is being assessed. We've seen in our own discussions definitions ranging from ceiling to floor to likely path to trade value...

Unless and until there is some agreement about what exactly is being projected, there is no way to compare the "accuracy" of the projections themselves, regardless of by whom or through what process they were created. In the article you reference, Victor is clearly basing his analysis on a likely production basis. Though he is doing it a bit backwards, using ranking to project WAR rather than the other way around.

When I look at prospect lists across the net, few of them seem to be clearly organized on such a clearly articulated principal, let alone using an actual quantitative assessment such projected WAR (or WAR-like) over say, the 6 pre-FA years for which the player will be under team control.

BA, BP and Sickels all tend to work around the same premise. When it gets to our rankings here, its why they are so random because we have maybe 15 people voting who have enough knowledge to vote past 5 or 10 guys. Then you get to the different definitions of how to value a prospect. Sickels, BA and BP seem to rank upon the perceived value of the players career in the majors. People here vote on 25 different things among the 125 people who vote.

RedsManRick
03-01-2010, 07:21 PM
BA, BP and Sickels all tend to work around the same premise. When it gets to our rankings here, its why they are so random because we have maybe 15 people voting who have enough knowledge to vote past 5 or 10 guys. Then you get to the different definitions of how to value a prospect. Sickels, BA and BP seem to rank upon the perceived value of the players career in the majors. People here vote on 25 different things among the 125 people who vote.

But I would push further to suggest that "value of the player's career in the majors" is still itself a source of significant difference. BA and BP could project the exact same career for all of the players on their list and still order them differently because of the way it chooses to value those careers. This is clearly yet another source of variance.

Benihana
03-02-2010, 12:07 AM
Well, he's got Harold Johnson at 41 and Jacob Johnson at 56. I believe that's the same guy.

:ughmamoru

Shows you how ridiculous this list is. He is a much better prospect when he operates under the name Harold.