Here's the problem...Originally Posted by cincyinco
If you read that chat transcript closely, you'll see blatant methodology contradictions.
Perez makes the list because of his defense even though he's got a limited upside. Bergolla misses the list while skilled defensively because Cooper claims he has a limited upside.
Szymanski (college player) hasn't done much in the system and can't stay healthy, yet makes the top 10 list (at #4 no less) based on upside, yet Adam Rosales (college player) needs to "prove it" to Cooper over a "full season". That's funny to me because Rosales (297 PA) has an almost identical minor league experience level at this point versus Szymanski (302 PA) AT THE SAME LEVELS.
And a huge head-scratcher regarding Rosales is Cooper's demand that he prove he can stay at Short when Rosales would be a top 10 guy in anyone's system at ANY position should he continue to put up the same offensive numbers as he climbs through the system. That was just a mind-blowingly dumb thing for Cooper to say and a great example of how completely arbitrary the thinking is. College middle infielder joins the system, puts up the same number of minor league PA as College outfielder, dusts College outfielder offensively, and leads his first minor league in Fielding Percentage and Double Plays, but needs to "prove it" while College outfielder ends up at #4 on the top prospect list.
Here's another pretty good example of Cooper's fractured thought process:
Cooper: "Admittedly, performance does matter, but when you are talking about guys still in A ball, projection still matters as much, if not more."
Yeah...see...the thing is that "performance" and "projection" are NOT mutually exclusive concepts. If BA would figure that out, they'd do a much better job.
And I wouldn't mind Baseball America so much if they'd actually find a consistent methodology and stick to it. It's quite obvious that they're a "tools-first" publication. Ok. Fine. Then put together a list of best tools in an organization and leave it at that. But don't insult folks who actually do care about whether or not a player can do it on the field by acting as if you're somehow "incorporating" performance data into an evaluation that is, in the end, a subjective determination based on an entirely different methodology.