Re: Top 2000+ Prospects
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.
Games are won on run differential -- scoring more than your opponent. Runs are runs, scored or prevented they all count the same. Worry about scoring more and allowing fewer, not which positions contribute to which side of the equation or how "consistent" you are at your current level of performance.