Go to end of page
Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.
BA and Sickels disagree about the best Red Sox prospect - is it Barnes (#13/#41) or Bogaerts (#32/#11)?
I always forget - what are the differences between the kind of weightings for level v. ceiling for BA and Sickels? I always got the sense that Sickels gave more weight to higher ceiling guys and would give a higher rating to a high ceiling guy in A than BA would. But of course I could be wrong, and probably am.
But now that the great convergence has occurred, and BA has started paying more attention to skills while stathead writers have learned the importance of underlying tools, it's hard to say which is which.
You can't keep a guy with that divergence ranked that high forever.
I think BA's ranking of Fernandez shows they'll still go all in on a kid in the lower levels.
I think these lists have more value collectively than individually. If three different rankings all say Player X is a top three/five/ten prospect, then that tells the rest of us the kid is a really damn good prospect.
BA and BP both still underestimate the value of simply making the major leagues. Beyond Milone, in particular they both seem to consistently undervalue pitchers who can step in and fill the back end of a rotation tomorrow - those players have a lot of value but are never ranked well on their lists, even though they end up producing more value than a lot of the guys above them.
And it was brilliant of Beane to know that Moss would hit a HR every 8.5 PA but hide him away in AAA for the first 2+ months. :-)
BA and BP both still underestimate the value of simply making the major leagues.
You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.
Login to Join (2 members)
Page rendered in 0.4683 seconds, 73 querie(s) executed