Its almost similar to someone caring about why people care about something they dont know wht people care about said thing.
Its almost similar to someone caring about why people care about something they dont know wht people care about said thing.
lol wat
The point still stands. It's silly to get worked up about.Originally Posted by GIDP
"No matter how good you are, you're going to lose one-third of your games. No matter how bad you are you're going to win one-third of your games. It's the other third that makes the difference." ~Tommy Lasorda
Its just a discussion. I dont think anyone is really all that worked up about it to be honest.
If Mesoraco, Yorman and Chapman aren't all top 10 prospects in BA, I will kill myself.:
Not a few days go by where there isn't hand-wrining over where someone will be ranked from the Reds organization. Frankly, I was looking for more of a rational explanation as to why it's a concern than a passive aggressive response that it doesn't exist.
So if you aren't going to offer one, I'd prefer you didn't involve yourself in my question.
"No matter how good you are, you're going to lose one-third of your games. No matter how bad you are you're going to win one-third of your games. It's the other third that makes the difference." ~Tommy Lasorda
Nice, just nice.
Why do people get worked up about it?
unfortunately, it likely predicts value...
Offer the Mariners Alonso/Mesoraco vs. Smoak if the previous two Reds prospects are more "highly rated" and we probably land C Lee... Offer them vs. Smoak with Smoak carrying the higher prognosticator pedigree, and we keep our prospects with the Rangers landing Lee...
2010 Mock Draft Selections (picking for Rays)
Bryce Brentz
Brandon Workman
Kris Bryant
Matt Lipka
Rick Hague
The organizations don't care about the rankings. Many of them laugh at the rankings. Their scouts and front offices have their own valuations of prospects.
And the thing is, I get the feeling here often that fans are upset, not at the rankings, but that the rankings don't align with their own valuation of the Reds' prospects.
I think there's some truth to what you're saying as far as a consensus on players. Rankings on the macro can increase leverage in dealing certain players. But they still don't produce results for the players.
"No matter how good you are, you're going to lose one-third of your games. No matter how bad you are you're going to win one-third of your games. It's the other third that makes the difference." ~Tommy Lasorda
Not sure you were around then, but when the Reds traded Calvin Medlock. People threw hissy fits.
Hugs, smiling, and interactive Twitter accounts, don't mean winning baseball. Until this community understands that we are cursed to relive the madness.
Quick, lets promote him the big leagues... he needs to experience crushing failure if he's ever going to successfully turn 19.
"This isn’t stats vs scouts - this is stats and scouts working together, building an organization that blends the best of both worlds. This is the blueprint for how a baseball organization should be run. And, whether the baseball men of the 20th century like it or not, this is where baseball is going."---Dave Cameron, U.S.S. Mariner
Maybe part of it is because the fans just want to believe that their favorite team/favorite players are as good as they think they are (whether they are or aren't) and just want someone else to say it (whether it's true or not). If Baseball America says that your favorite team has a bunch of top prospects it's something to brag about.
Last edited by redsfandan; 09-05-2010 at 10:21 AM.
I agree that other teams have some idea of other teams, but more prospects highly valued likely means more trade value. Another team is much more likely to deal for Top 100 prospects and trumpet that for fans than non-Top 100 prosects.
(Example from this year: Minnesota C Ramos was, by all reports, the big prospect offered for major Twin holes. He's not played well all year. I doubt the Twins could do that if he weren't universally ranked highly.)
Too, what talent evaluators like BA show is also helpful as a way to see what "unbiased" "experts" think of you team's favorite guys. If you've got a lot of guys in the Top 100, it's likely you've got a bright future. If not... maybe you do, maybe you don't.
In other words, there's some value there.
For the same reason we care about college football rankings despite no actual championship being played.... we want our guys to be better than their guys. Nice and simple.
I have said this all year....any rankings that do not contain Dave Sappelt and Billy Hamilton are not worth wiping your butt with. Neither player has that "splash" or "bling" that screams "look at me, I am a MLB player".....but both are studs and both are right on their own paths to the Reds......I am not saying they are better than Yonder, Chapman, Yorman or the other handful of players that I consider studs, but they are for sure worthy of top 100 status in MiLB.....and that is an opinion that is almost fact.
Posting Permissions
|
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. |
Reply With Quote