Top 2000+ Prospects

[RedsManRick]

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:

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]

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.

[RedsManRick]

Originally Posted by camisadelgolf

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.

[mace]

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

[camisadelgolf]

Originally Posted by mace

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]

Originally Posted by camisadelgolf

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]

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

[RedsManRick]

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]

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]

Originally Posted by camisadelgolf

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]

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.

[RedsManRick]

Originally Posted by dougdirt

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.

[dougdirt]

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.

[RedsManRick]

Originally Posted by dougdirt

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]

Originally Posted by mace

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.