Originally Posted by RedsManRick
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.