Turn Off Ads?
Results 1 to 15 of 15

Thread: Top 2000+ Prospects

  1. #1
    Stat Wanker Hodiernus RedsManRick's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Guelph, ON
    Posts
    16,143

    Top 2000+ Prospects

    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/20...-for-2010.html

    Here are just the Reds:

    Code:
    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
    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.

  2. Turn Off Ads?
  3. #2
    Vampire Weekend @Bernie's camisadelgolf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Cincinnati, OH
    Posts
    11,476

    Re: Top 2000+ Prospects

    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.

  4. #3
    Stat Wanker Hodiernus RedsManRick's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Guelph, ON
    Posts
    16,143

    Re: Top 2000+ Prospects

    Quote Originally Posted by camisadelgolf View Post
    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.
    Yeah, it's not the most accurate list..... but hey, it can't hurt.
    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.

  5. #4
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    4,712

    Re: Top 2000+ Prospects

    Well, he's got Harold Johnson at 41 and Jacob Johnson at 56. I believe that's the same guy.

  6. #5
    Vampire Weekend @Bernie's camisadelgolf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Cincinnati, OH
    Posts
    11,476

    Re: Top 2000+ Prospects

    Quote Originally Posted by mace View Post
    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.

  7. #6
    Viva la Rolen kaldaniels's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    8,109

    Re: Top 2000+ Prospects

    Quote Originally Posted by camisadelgolf View Post
    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.

  8. #7
    Member klw's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    New England
    Posts
    6,535

    Re: Top 2000+ Prospects

    I just hope no one does a Sporcle quiz where you need to list all 2000.

  9. #8
    Stat Wanker Hodiernus RedsManRick's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Guelph, ON
    Posts
    16,143

    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.

  10. #9
    Vampire Weekend @Bernie's camisadelgolf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Cincinnati, OH
    Posts
    11,476

    Re: Top 2000+ Prospects

    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?

  11. #10
    Stat Wanker Hodiernus RedsManRick's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Guelph, ON
    Posts
    16,143

    Re: Top 2000+ Prospects

    Quote Originally Posted by camisadelgolf View Post
    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.
    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.

  12. #11
    The Boss dougdirt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    35,760

    Re: Top 2000+ Prospects

    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.

    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.

  13. #12
    Stat Wanker Hodiernus RedsManRick's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Guelph, ON
    Posts
    16,143

    Re: Top 2000+ Prospects

    Quote Originally Posted by dougdirt View Post
    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.

    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.
    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.

  14. #13
    The Boss dougdirt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    35,760

    Re: Top 2000+ Prospects

    Quote Originally Posted by RedsManRick View Post
    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.

  15. #14
    Stat Wanker Hodiernus RedsManRick's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Guelph, ON
    Posts
    16,143

    Re: Top 2000+ Prospects

    Quote Originally Posted by dougdirt View Post
    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.
    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.

  16. #15
    Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2001
    Posts
    9,917

    Re: Top 2000+ Prospects

    Quote Originally Posted by mace View Post
    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.
    Go BLUE!!!


Turn Off Ads?

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Board Moderators may, at their discretion and judgment, delete and/or edit any messages that violate any of the following guidelines: 1. Explicit references to alleged illegal or unlawful acts. 2. Graphic sexual descriptions. 3. Racial or ethnic slurs. 4. Use of edgy language (including masked profanity). 5. Direct personal attacks, flames, fights, trolling, baiting, name-calling, general nuisance, excessive player criticism or anything along those lines. 6. Posting spam. 7. Each person may have only one user account. It is fine to be critical here - that's what this board is for. But let's not beat a subject or a player to death, please.

Thank you, and most importantly, enjoy yourselves!


RedsZone.com is a privately owned website and is not affiliated with the Cincinnati Reds or Major League Baseball


Contact us: Boss | GIK | BCubb2003 | dabvu2498 | Gallen5862 | LexRedsFan | Plus Plus | RedlegJake | redsfan1995 | The Operator | Tommyjohn25