I have a couple of points to make.

1) What qualifies Dayn Perry to rate the 5 top prospects never mind the 100 top prospects. Does he have access to expert opinion? Does he watch a lot of games? Does he have some type of projection model? Personally I think he reads what Sickels, Camereon, and BA says about a prospects, looks at their stat lines and pulls stuff right out of his behind.

2) Some explanation of why for example Eric Duncan is a better prospect that Ian Kinsler (I'll wager he isn't) or how exactly you can find 50+ prospects better than Connor Jackson, or how someone who has pitched 35 innings in 2 seasons can be ranked higher than say John Lester, or even Jason Hammel.

How does this list offer any more insight than a list generated by any internet lurker?

It's just awful, awful stuff. As I said in Sox Therapy, left-handed pitchers are better in Fenway, not worse, so the Lester comment makes no sense.

Somehow, I think we'll be hearing from Levski about Jackson.

I'm sort of "over" prospect lists, especially those compiled on a team-by-team basis. I'd prefer to see a list of each team's best young players (maybe pre-arbitration eligible?). I'm a White Sox fan, and it seems ridiculous to see a White Sox prospect list (like Baseball America's) that...

Includes a guy who saved two games in the World Series, pitching a total of 47 innings in the regular season and playoffs.

Excludes a guy who pitched 67 innings for Chicago in the regular season, and was then left off the playoff roster.

Includes a guy who hit .222/.292/.314 in A ball at age 19.

Excludes a guy who posted a 1.41 ERA (and struck out 83 in 70 innings) at AAA, presumably because he's 27 years old.

I don't really find ordinal lists very useful. The imply an amount of precision and granularity that just isn't there.

The way I like to think about prospects is in groupings.

Impact Prospects -> The guys who have a good or better chance of being a major league impact player for a long time. Delmon Young, and Brandon Wood
Impact Pitchering Prospects-> Justin Verlander and Francisco Liriano
Star Level Prospects -> the guys who have a good or better chance of being an all star type player for a long time -> BJ Upton, Steven Drew, Prince Fielder, Jeremy Heredia, Stewart, Zimmerman, Marte
Star Level Pitchers Prospects-> Lester, Petit, Zumaya, Miller, Reyes, Cain, Sanchez, Papelbon, Hansen, Diamond

ect...

I think its almost impossible to differentiate with any kind of precision between the players in 10 or so groups. BTW: the players listed were off the top of my head and for illustrative purposes only.

Somehow, I think we'll be hearing from Levski about Jackson.

Pass. It'd be a waste of time.

Does every capsule (I didn't read them all) contain the phrase "at the highest level?" Does anyone else find that annoying?

What qualifies Dayn Perry to rate the 5 top prospects never mind the 100 top prospects. Does he have access to expert opinion? Does he watch a lot of games? Does he have some type of projection model?

What qualifies Mister High Standards to respond to prospect lists? Why should your categorical grouping carry any more weight than a 1-100 list? Why should anybody listen to anything said on BTF, which is populated by a bunch of amateurs?

Look, if you're going to get caught up in ethos, you're going to be dismissing a ton of information out of hat, and evaluating information becomes pretty ideological.

I'm not disagreeing with your overall opinion that ranking players like this is pretty silly. But "having a problem with the messenger" and "having a problem with the message" are not synonymous.

Personally I think he reads what Sickels, Camereon, and BA says about a prospects, looks at their stat lines and pulls stuff right out of his behind.

I'm excited to see the evidence you have to back this up. Because it couldn't possibly be a baseless ad hominem attack, right?

Zoidberg - you must not be around much. No one listens to anything anyone says here. Least of all me.

In all seriousness If he is just synthesizing a bunch of information that is out there I find very little value in that, especially when he doesn't publish anything justifying the why's and the hows, at least that would add something to the discourse. To write about prospects you should know about prospects. Not know what other people think of prospects. You see, I'm commenting on Dayn Perry's article. Something I know about because I read it. I'm not commenting on jwb's opinion of Dayn Perry article which someone could get by reading what jwb had to say about it.

For example BTF's own Mike Emeigh imho informs us a lot more in the introduction to a teams top 10 prospects in 2 paragraphs than Perry does in this entire series published thus far. Because he explains why he thinks a certain thing.

Yep. I'm perfectly willing to be informed by a scouts opinion. I know where he is coming from. He can see things that I cannot, and I know exactly what new information he's giving me. If he says somebody's bat does not move quickly enough for the major league level, I'll factor that in to my analysis. If Perry said, "I rely on statistics, age and level for the most part. If I am factoring in a scouts opinion, I will note it here, and say why I think it's important" we'll be gaining new information. Even a weighted average of other people's list is better than just some random concoction of prospect lists.

Without an explanation of how he comes to his rankings, it's hard to evaluate them. On it's face, this list appears to be questionable at best. Even on this portion itself. How can he rank Josh Barfield ahead of Conor Jackson, given that they both played in the PCL and Jackson's numbers were significantly better. Is it because he's a second baseman?

Well, in Perry's half-hearted defense, he's got space to fill for FoxSports, and he probably enjoys listing prospects based on what other people have said, emphasizing certain caveats over others, according to personal taste-- Conor Jackson's played in hitter's parks, for instance. Of course, he loses credibility when he makes mistakes (like the flyball lefties in Fenway thing) and, in general, his list has far less authority than some of the others out there, like BA. But it is late-January, and he may be running low on column ideas.

How can he rank Josh Barfield ahead of Conor Jackson,

Maybe because Barfield's dad was a major league player and Jackson's dad was an actor?

"Impact Prospects -> The guys who have a good or better chance of being a major league impact player for a long time. Delmon Young, and Brandon Wood
Impact Pitchering Prospects-> Justin Verlander and Francisco Liriano
Star Level Prospects -> the guys who have a good or better chance of being an all star type player for a long time -> BJ Upton, Steven Drew, Prince Fielder, Jeremy Heredia, Stewart, Zimmerman, Marte
Star Level Pitchers Prospects-> Lester, Petit, Zumaya, Miller, Reyes, Cain, Sanchez, Papelbon, Hansen, Diamond"

Of course now we get to get into how BJ Upton is in the wrong category : )

(assuming you put Impact level>Star level)

I passed on posting Perry's lists when they first came up for exactly the reasons discussed above, but after receiving an E-mail from a Primate requesting that it be posted, and looking at the list, I thought it would be a good idea to have the discussion.

One specific thing:

I'd prefer to see a list of each team's best young players (maybe pre-arbitration eligible?). I'm a White Sox fan, and it seems ridiculous to see a White Sox prospect list (like Baseball America's) that...

Includes a guy who saved two games in the World Series, pitching a total of 47 innings in the regular season and playoffs.

Excludes a guy who pitched 67 innings for Chicago in the regular season, and was then left off the playoff roster.

Includes a guy who hit .222/.292/.314 in A ball at age 19.

Excludes a guy who posted a 1.41 ERA (and struck out 83 in 70 innings) at AAA, presumably because he's 27 years old.

I wouldn't include Jenks or McCarthy on a prospect list myself at this point, and I do think it's unreasonable to include Jenks and not McCarthy. With the advent of relief pitching, I'd change the pitching requirements from innings pitched to games pitched; rather than setting the maximum to 50 IP, set it to 20 games or 10 starts. (This still would have let Todd Worrell through in 1986, though.)

Bajenaru does deserve a better chance than he's gotten, but he's hardly a top-10 prospect, largely because (a) he IS 27 and (b) he does live on the edge a lot, because his stuff really isn't that good, and if he's off just a hair he'll get clobbered. I'd still throw him out there in middle relief, but I think you can find a couple of Bajenarus in just about everyone's organization. I would not have put Hernandez in my top 10, but as a young catcher who is a good catch-and-throw guy he gets a lot from respect from scouts and his markers from Kannapolis are not all negative; his contact rate is OK and he has some extra-base pop. He hit very well at Bristol in '04 and at Great Falls this year, and while I think the Sox should move him slowly I can see the potential.

Prospect evaluation, once you get below the first couple of guys in an organization, is mostly about trying to figure out (a) whether the guy is likely to be successful in the majors and (b) if he is, what kind of shape is his career going to have. The performance numbers tell a lot of the story, but they do not tell all of it.

-- MWE

Prospect lists like this are nothing more than column inch filler. You want to know how I know?

http://www.baseballamerica.com/today/features/at100.html

s/

"I'd prefer to see a list of each team's best young players (maybe pre-arbitration eligible?). I'm a White Sox fan, and it seems ridiculous to see a White Sox prospect list (like Baseball America's) that...

Includes a guy who saved two games in the World Series, pitching a total of 47 innings in the regular season and playoffs.

Excludes a guy who pitched 67 innings for Chicago in the regular season, and was then left off the playoff roster.

I wouldn't include Jenks or McCarthy on a prospect list myself at this point, and I do think it's unreasonable to include Jenks and not McCarthy. With the advent of relief pitching, I'd change the pitching requirements from innings pitched to games pitched; rather than setting the maximum to 50 IP, set it to 20 games or 10 starts. (This still would have let Todd Worrell through in 1986, though.)"

As for BA it isn't like they decided that Jenks was a OK and Bmac not. They simply use ROY eligiblity, except they ignore the service time marker. If youre going to use an arbitrary set of numbers as a cut off might as well use that and, even though Jenks had already proved himself against ML competition, it wouldnt really be right to just throw the guidelines out the window. (now, as for ranking him #1, thats perfectly debatable)

I would assume Perry lists Jenks because he still qualifies as a rookie, and not McCarthy because he does not qualify...

Damn you, Mordecai's #1 Fan...

Additional credibility problems:

74. Ricky Nolasco has been on the Marlins since December (as part of the Juan Pierre trade), and yet he's still listed with the Cubs.

83. Kelly Shoppach is now with the Indians. This segment of the series pre-dates the trade, but they can't update a web page?

92. Frankling Gutierrez is pictured in an LA uniform, even thought he's been with Cleveland for two full seasons. (This one might not be Perry's fault.)

90. Jake Fox, C, Cubs, 23

I've read enough. How is Fox ahead of Hirsh?

Is Perry a Cubs fan? Because there are more "Cubs" "prospects" (see below) among these 40 players than appear in most of the top 100 -- or even top 200 -- lists I've seen recently:

- #71: Rich Hill. He certainly had one of the most remarkable stat lines in the minors last year, but I remain unconvinced. Hitters will learn to lay off the hammer curve in favor of the string-straight fastball or will simply keep their bats on their shoulders until ball four. Perry's right that Hill can be a force if he refines his changeup, but at 26 years old this year, it's getting a little late for that.

- #74: Ricky Nolasco. Perry lists him as a Cub, apparently forgetting that he was made Marlin-bait for Juan Pierre. If only Perry was right -- I think Nolasco was the real loss in that trade. Not an ace, but could be a Matt Clement-type pitcher for a while to come. IIRC, Francouer, Young, and one other Southern League standout (Hermida?) named him the toughest pitcher in the circuit last year.

- #82: Ronny Cedeno. Um, not a rookie. At least I don't think so -- I'm pretty sure he exceeded the service time limit last year. But I'm excited about him nonetheless. Yes, his 2005 line was BA-driven, but it was still .350 over 600 PAs in MLB, AAA, and the VZL as a 22-year-old slick-fielding shortstop. What's not to like? Lots of paths he could tread from here, but I'm more excited about him than any other young Cubs player not named Prior or Zambrano.

- #86: Eric Patterson. For a guy with such nice stats, the scounting reports out of the MWL were decidedly lukewarm, projecting him as more of a utility guy than a major-league regular. Never seen him play, so I can't comment on that, but he was old for the level and it remains to be seen whether the performance will stick. I'd like to see the Cubs start him at AA.

- #90: Jake Fox. Really? A 23-year old A-ball "catcher" with a career .280/.340/.460 line? He's been admirably consistent as he's risen the ranks, but even if he maintains the OPS (big if), he doesn't scout as a MLB-quality receiver. (Again, never seen him play, so can't really comment on that.) I don't recall seeing him on any other prospect surveys, although he might have snuck onto the back end of BA's top 20 FSL players list.

As for BA it isn't like they decided that Jenks was a OK and Bmac not. They simply use ROY eligiblity, except they ignore the service time marker.

Well, that was kind of the point being made. Perry excludes anyone who is not ROY-eligible, as well as major-league ready imports (thus no Jenks OR McCarthy OR Johjima, who isn't showing up in any of the other prospect guides either, FWIW). BA (and Sickels, too) include anyone who is short of the playing-time requirement, regardless of the service time requirement. Since the PT requirements for pitchers are set based on IP, that puts Jenks in and McCarthy out. I disagree with that for the purpose of setting prospect lists, and with many more young pitchers being called upon to provide relief to contending teams (like Jenks and Papelbon), I think that a games pitched requirement needs to be used, either along with (20 games or 50 IP) or in place of (20 games or 10 GS) the IP requirement. But as long as you are being consistent, and the standards for inclusion/exclusion are spelled out, that's reasonable.

-- MWE

82: Ronny Cedeno. Um, not a rookie. At least I don't think so -- I'm pretty sure he exceeded the service time limit last year.

Absolutely correct. Cedeno was called up on 4/21 and stayed through 5/17 (26 days), then was called up again on 6/28 and stayed through 8/9 (42 days), then was called up again on 8/26 and stayed through the end of the month (6 days). So he spent 74 days on the roster during the time of the 25-man limit; the rookie limit is 45 days.

-- MWE

I love this "Major-league ready imports" crap. So if Joujima sucks in April, but kicks ass the rest of the year, does that mean he's a ROY candidate because he wasn't ready?

I imagine the reason Dayn Perry is doing a Top 100 list is because Fox Sports wants a Top 100 list series and Perry knows more about the minors than their other main writers.

I don't recall seeing him on any other prospect surveys, although he might have snuck onto the back end of BA's top 20 FSL players list.

I don't have the BA prospect book yet; he might be near the bottom of the top 30, and I certainly wouldn't put him much higher than that. He was not on the FSL top 20.

-- MWE

How can he rank Josh Barfield ahead of Conor Jackson, given that they both played in the PCL and Jackson's numbers were significantly better. Is it because he's a second baseman?

That's one of his easier rankings to justify
1: Barfield is younger
2: Barfield is a 2B and recent scouting reports suggest he can handle 2b- Conor is reputedly a born DH
3: Conor plays in the best hitters park in the PCL- Park factor (pre this site) of 1.32 (which is heavily batting average oriented- the park home run factor is actually neutral- and most of Conor's value is tie dto that nifty batting average of his).
4: Barfield played in the worst hitter's park in the PCL- Portland with a park factor of .81 (which again is heavily batting average oriented- it's a neutral park home run wise.)

Rough estimate:
Conor .354- neutral park (PCL)= .320
Josh .310- neutral park .338

Park factors aren't the be all and end all of course- Conor has a godlike K/bb ratio and Josh's is actually poor. (I know MWE doesn't care for k/bb for hitters but it does track future batting average pretty well)

I love this "Major-league ready imports" crap. So if Joujima sucks in April, but kicks ass the rest of the year, does that mean he's a ROY candidate because he wasn't ready?

Did anyone say anything about his ROY candidacy?

I think another guy who does not exceed the minimum IP, but will not qualify for 2006 ROTY because he has too much major league service time already, is reliever Fernando Cabrera of Indians?

I know MWE doesn't care for k/bb for hitters but it does track future batting average pretty well

I didn't say that, but I do think it's overvalued by statheads.

For me, as I've said before, contact rate and ISO/BIP are the two most important factors in evaluating a hitter, because they give you an idea of (a) whether he's swinging at pitches he can hit and (b) whether he's able to hit them with any sort of authority. If he's not doing either of those, his ability to draw walks isn't going to matter a whole lot, because major league pitchers will be able to get him out without having to work him. If he's doing both of those extremely well, his ability to walk isn't going to matter a whole lot, because major league pitchers will have a limited range of options for getting him out. Usually, a guy who is doing both of those well will also have a good K/BB - but when you have a guy who has a good K/BB in the minors but isn't doing one, or both, of the other things well, it more often than not means there's a flaw that major league pitchers are likely to be able to exploit consistently where minor league pitchers can't.

-- MWE

Somehow, I think we'll be hearing from Levski about Jackson.

Pass. It'd be a waste of time.

So, you've adopted a new standard?

Jake Fox isn't in BA's Cubs' Top 30 or on the FSL Top 20 list.

For me, as I've said before, contact rate and ISO/BIP are the two most important factors in evaluating a hitter, because they give you an idea of (a) whether he's swinging at pitches he can hit and (b) whether he's able to hit them with any sort of authority.

Intuitively, that sounds really intriguing, Mike. Have you done any systematic analysis? If so, please point me to it.

Mike, out of interest, how do you calculate contact rate? By pitch or by at bat?

So if Joujima sucks in April, but kicks ass the rest of the year, does that mean he's a ROY candidate because he wasn't ready?

If that's the case, then Tim Salmon was never major league ready, because he sucked every April and kicked ass the rest of the year.

If a guy has a bad first month then kicks ass the rest of the year, it doesn't mean he wasn't major league ready. It just means he had a bad month. Guys who aren't major league ready have bad first months, then spend the rest of the year in triple A.

This list is absolutely absurd. It's still a mystery whether Fox will stay at catcher and there's nothing overwhelming in his stat line.

Everts over Lester?
Fox over Hirsh and Bailey?
Zach Jackson?

I could point out a lot more but I think the list speaks for itself.

"Impact Prospects -> The guys who have a good or better chance of being a major league impact player for a long time. Delmon Young, and Brandon Wood
Impact Pitchering Prospects-> Justin Verlander and Francisco Liriano
Star Level Prospects -> the guys who have a good or better chance of being an all star type player for a long time -> BJ Upton, Steven Drew, Prince Fielder, Jeremy Heredia, Stewart, Zimmerman, Marte
Star Level Pitchers Prospects-> Lester, Petit, Zumaya, Miller, Reyes, Cain, Sanchez, Papelbon, Hansen, Diamond"


You don't see Delmon as a star prosoect? Is it his plate discipline? I have to know because I own him in a keeper league. Thanks.

Off topic, but you've got to check out the sponsor's comment on A.J. Burnett's page.

Oops!

I'm still laughing....silly BoSox fans.

Best Regards

John

"Impact Prospects -> The guys who have a good or better chance of being a major league impact player for a long time. Delmon Young, and Brandon Wood


You don't see Delmon as a star prosoect? Is it his plate discipline? I have to know because I own him in a keeper league. Thanks.

He's saying that Young is better than a star prospect. He's an impact player on the level of a Vlad or Manny potentially. However, I'm not so sure I agree with some of the guys he has listed as stars. I think that Drew, the Upton brothers, Fielder, and even Hermida, Stewart, and Marte, all could be impact players. Zimmerman I think will just be a star player; I haven't seen a whole lot that separates him from Jeff Cirillo. I also think that Cain and Miller could be definite impact pitchers, but each has some major flaw; the former is too FB dependant and the latter has arm troubles. But both have the stuff to be frontline guys for a long time.

This new group of players is going to form, in my opinion, the next great wave of MLB talent.

So impact players are better than star players? I think that was a little confusing. I usually consider an impact player to be a guy like, to use my example again, Tim Salmon. Good player for a good number of years. All star caliber a few times, though he never made the team. Contributed positively pretty much every year. In other words, Superstar > Star > Impact player.

But if for purposes of the above list Impact > Star, then the list makes more sense.

In other words, Superstar > Star > Impact player.

??? I always assumed that when people said impact player they meant "Superstar" but thought it was cooler to say "impact player". The phrase "impact player" seems to have replaced "franchise player" at least when
talking about baseball players...

I think the NFL ruined the concept/phrase franchise player when they turned it into a defined term in their CBA...

Somehow, I think we'll be hearing from Levski about Jackson.

Pass. It'd be a waste of time.

Wow. Levski just compared Jackson to Jeff Bagwell.

The best part about MHS's list is that the Star level pitchers is, how do you say... Red Sox centric?

This list is absolutely absurd.

Zach Jackson?

Sickels gave him a B. #60 is probably a stretch, but calling it absurd is just that.

What's absurd is Alcides Escobar being ranked as the Brewers' #6 prospect by BA.

Oops!

I'm still laughing....silly BoSox fans.

Did you catch his name, JB?

Must be the laudanum.

What's absurd is Alcides Escobar being ranked as the Brewers' #6 prospect by BA.
He's toolsy (well he's fast anyway) and he's really young (if his age is real- he's one of only 2 18 year olds to log 200+ at bats in the South Atlantic League this past year)
It's kind of like the ranking of Carlos Gomez in the Mets top 10

His stat line may be ugly, but the weighted average age of players in his league was 22.3 and he was only 18

Impact, Star, Franchise... whatever, it doesn't really matter what you call them. It was an example, or my preferred way to think about prospects.

The reason the star list for pitchers is redsox centric, is because it was off the top of my head and wasn't meant to be any more than illustrative. I probably wouldn’t have Hansen on it, but I think it would be a tough case to keep Papelbon or Lester off.

I'm not so sure I agree with some of the guys he has listed as stars. I think that Drew, the Upton brothers, Fielder, and even Hermida, Stewart, and Marte, all could be impact players. Zimmerman I think will just be a star player;

In my eyes, I believe Young, and Wood are clearly top of the heap for position prospects. While I don't mean to say that I am not high on the potential of Drew, the Uptons, Fielder, Hermedia, Stewart, and Marte, I do mean to differentiate that I believe that group is a step or half behind Wood and Young.

Specifically I don't believe Young or Wood have questions about them. While their games aren't flawless, they don't have question marks the size of the group.

BJ - Defense
Justin - Never played pro ball.
Drew - I'm concerned about his power translating into more than gap power, and lesser so - but some concerns about defense.
Marte - its health, the Braves thing, and leveling off this year.
Prince - its positional value, and while he will hit you have to HIT a TON to be a star 1b.
Hermedia - plate coverage and aggressiveness
Stewart - Bat just is clearly at least a step maybe 2 behind Young and Wood.

I might have Zimmerman higher than some, but I’ve seen him play a lot and I think his glove is the best of all the top prospects. Not Rolen level, but top notch. I also think he is more advanced than any of the prospects I’ve listed, and will be the first to make an impact.

Again I'm not saying these guys are great prospects, but they aren't imho at that TOP level. Which if you want your levels to be triangle shaped, which the scarcity of talent theory indicated it should be you by definition need more players at the lower level than a higher level.

Did anyone say anything about his ROY candidacy?


No, I spaced out, sorry.

You left off Pedrioa MHS....

It's not just that I don't think he's that good; it's how he was rated relative to the deep Brewers farm system.

Speaking of the Brewers and BA being on crack, check out their list of prospects who just missed the cut in the new handbook.

Example: Callix Crabbe? He hit .243/.354/.310 as a 22-year-old in AA last year. Come on. He shouldn't have been anywhere near the damn book.

He doesn't qualify in either group listed. He would be in the third level "regular". In other words I would project him to be a regulr player, with a random ASG or 2.

You left off Pedrioa MHS....

Pedroia's so good he cannot even be mentioned in the same breath as those lesser prospects like Wood and Young. Never has a talent so great come along; he could be both the next Crawford and the next Feller at the same time.

Seriously though (and I know you were joking), I don't think any reasonable person would put Pedroia near Hermida or Upton or Fielder, and I'm not even sure he's ahead of a guy like Kinsler.

MHS: I agree with you on most of the flaws you pointed out with those guys, but I definitely think there's a chance the 2 big ones will have just as glaring of flaws. After all, Wood is still very young and hasn't reached the high minors yet, maybe he has some flaw that isn't exposed by A-ballers? Young, on the other hand, seems to sparkle, except maybe his cocky personality will piss someone off in a major way.

"Example: Callix Crabbe? He hit .243/.354/.310 as a 22-year-old in AA last year. Come on. He shouldn't have been anywhere near the damn book. "

Who would your 31st best Brewer prospect be? I mean when youre going down that far into a system youre going to get some weak players and Crabbe as played decently before, is still young and is fast and athletic

Now that I actually read your link Bkow that list was published last March, so it was made BEFORE Crabbe hit .250 in AA.
Instead he placed on the 31st team after hitting .291/.367/.419 with 34 SBs and only 11 CS as a 21 year old second baseman in high A.

Intuitively, that sounds really intriguing, Mike. Have you done any systematic analysis?

No. It's my next project, once I finish the one that I'm working on, and find the rest of my Baseball Guides. One of the things that I noticed early on, which other analysts (notably Davenport and Sickels) have since picked up upon more forefully is that strikeouts *do* matter in the minors, as far as being an indicator of future development. And analysts going back to Bill James in the 80s Abstracts have noted that doubles power in the minors often translates into HR power in the majors. I don't know whether Davenport ever published the research that he was doing on walk rates, but he once indicated to me that walk rates weren't all that powerful a predictor.

Mike, out of interest, how do you calculate contact rate? By pitch or by at bat?

Per at-bat, typically, because I don't have pitch data for the minors. (AB+SF-K)/(AB+SF), actually. I also use K/BIP ratio a lot, which is virtually the same thing with HRs removed.

-- MWE

The Brewers have several players that sound like Harry Potter characters. Callix Crabbe, Kennard Bibbs, Agustin Septimo, Ty Taubenheim, Nestor Corredor, Carlos Corporan, Leonard LeClerq.

How can he rank Josh Barfield ahead of Conor Jackson, given that they both played in the PCL and Jackson's numbers were significantly better. Is it because he's a second baseman?

That's one of his easier rankings to justify

Not dismissing Barfield as a decent prospect, but cannot see him as better than Jackson. With Jackson's phenomenal k/bb that you mention, and his power numbers (which Perry downplays) - he had 48 xbhs in only 333 abs (don't know what his isolated power is) - he has great numbers in the two best indicators for future success. Without doing any looking, I'd be surprised if those are not some of the best in all of the minors.

Plus, I had always heard that Barfield was not much of a second baseman. Maybe he's improved defensively, although I think it likely that he will end up in the outfield at some point.

Now that I actually read your link Bkow that list was published last March, so it was made BEFORE Crabbe hit .250 in AA.
Instead he placed on the 31st team after hitting .291/.367/.419 with 34 SBs and only 11 CS as a 21 year old second baseman in high A.

Yeah, you're right. I just assumed that it was current since the new book came out. Crabbe was certainly a better prospect after '04, but note that those numbers were still racked up in High Desert, a hitting haven.

Who would your 31st best Brewer prospect be? I mean when youre going down that far into a system youre going to get some weak players and Crabbe as played decently before, is still young and is fast and athletic

Like I said, after '04, sure, Crabbe could have been the 31st or 33rd best prospect they had. I guess the giveaway should have been that Andy Pratt was on the list.

I'm standing by the Escobar comment, though.

Plus, I had always heard that Barfield was not much of a second baseman. Maybe he's improved defensively, although I think it likely that he will end up in the outfield at some point.

I originally heard that he was likely to move to the OF, but starting about a year ago I began reading that his play at 2B was vastly improved and taht he now projected as an MLB 2b. Obviously if he can't play 2B that would take a big bite out of his potential value.

Anyway my point was that ranking Barfield over Jackson was defensible, not that I necessarily agreed with it.

The Brewers have several players that sound like Harry Potter characters. Callix Crabbe, Kennard Bibbs, Agustin Septimo, Ty Taubenheim, Nestor Corredor, Carlos Corporan, Leonard LeClerq.

Well, the Blue Jays have Taubenheim now. Personally, I like how insidious "Lorenzo Cain" sounds. But the best minor league name, non-Chip Cannon category, has to belong to Radhames Liz.

As the one who asked Mike to post it, maybe I should clarify my intent:

- I don't know much at all about the prospects of other teams, and I value the opinions of other primates.

- The fact that Perry has some more SABR cred than, say, a BA, allows an examination not only of the individual prospects, but also in the method of the evaluation. For eg, BPro ranked Jeff Fiorentino (in the Orioles system) very highly coming in 2005. This was primarily based on his iso in SS A ball. As Dayn points out, his power numbers in 2005 were pretty strong, but his K rate was not so much. On various Oriole lists, Fiorentino is listed between 8 and 12, while another Oriole, Hayden Penn (ranked #93 according to Perry), is usually ranked in the top 3 on those lists. So, while Perry ranks Fiorentino 54, I'd guess that other evaluators wouldn't even have him breaking the top 200. That's a pretty wide gap, and while these rankings don't have a lot of LT value, I find them entertaining and perhaps indicative of overall organizational strength. The Orioles have had a notoriously bad farm system since, oh, the halcyon days of Vanilla Ice, so it's not all that surprising that the team has totally sucked since then. And given that these lists can be a comparative tool, I find them interesting.

Having said all that, I do find the posts to be a good read. So thanks for posting this Mike.