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.
The Great Amaro, the man who has sewn a $160 million, sub-.500 quilt comprised of old white guys, overpaid yesterstars and a fat outfielder
Because there's a tremendous amount of guesswork as 1. No one can see all the players with any kind of decent sample size 2. They're playing at different levels, in different environments and different stages of development 3. These lists are so often wrong
I think the problem with the prospect lists is that people forgot or just don't realize how many prospects miss.
Joe Mauer (43.4 WAR)
Delmon Young (2 WAR)
Ian Stewart (3.7 WAR)
Casey Kotchman (7.6 WAR)
Rickie Weeks (12,9 WAR)
Hanley Ramirez (30.6 WAR)
Pat Burrell (18.6 WAR)
Vernon Wells (29.6 WAR)
Nick Johnson (14.6 WAR)
Sean Burroughs (5.5 WAR)
Rafael Furcal (39.3 WAR)
Josh Hamilton (24.7 WAR)
Alfonso Soriano (27.2 WAR)
Just building on my earlier point. Part of what makes prospects valuable is they have value in trade. Yeah, sometimes you make a deal and you get burned but in the end just hoarding prospects is not typically a winning strategy.
Because there's a tremendous amount of guesswork as 1. No voters can see all the players with any kind of decent sample size 2. They're playing at different leagues, in different parks and different stages of development 3. These lists are so often wrong wrong wrong!
Ruben Amaro Thinks Your Lists are ####
2000 isn't too bad, actually. If your team traded it's star for one of those hot prospects, you stood a decent chance of getting back a good player.
What's odd about that list is that Furcal, the guy with the most WAR on it, wouldn't have made the list if his real age had been known when it was made.
Are we trying to prove how bad, or how good prospect rankings are? Because both top ten lists contain a buttload of actualized MLB player talent.
There is a piece in one of the Bill James abstracts about the value of a good farm system. James concludes that a good farm system has little or nothing to do with building a good team, which seems counterintuitive 25-30 years later
Wasn't Furcal a guy who pretended he was older than he really was, in order to sign earlier? Or am I thinking of Wilson Betemit?
If I recall the article you are referencing, James wrote something a little different. Not that there was no value in a good minor league system briming with prospects similar to those discussed here by other posters, but rather that the winning percentage of the minor league system has very little relationship with the win% of the major league club.
If I recall the article you are referencing, James wrote something a little different. Not that there was no value in a good minor league system briming with prospects similar to those discussed here by other posters, but rather that the winning percentage of the minor league system has very little relationship with the win% of the major league club. As most minor leaguers are not future significant contributors in the majors, that makes sense. Especially since the best prospects may often spend well less than a season at any one level, how much impact do they have on a MiLB pennant race?
That's what I recall.
Las Vegas is 52-47, there is 1 contributing "prospect" in the lineup, the bulk of the team's production comes from its collection of AAAAers, Josh Satin, Zach Lutz, Andrew Brown, Eric Campbell, etc. Te rotation has had more than 1 prospect- but not at the same time, Montero was brought to LV after Wheeler went to Flushing, the bulk of the innings are being thrown by nondescript guys in their late 20s
the Binghamton Mets are 62-37, Puello may be having a breakout year, but a lot of the production is coming from non-prospects like Allan Dykstra and Josh Rodriguez...
If you can show that the players ranked 11-20 do just as well as the ones ranked 1-10, then maybe you have a point.
I think you've got a more optimistic view of the lists than I do. Yes the gross numbers look pretty but 2005 has 6 pretty solid busts on it and 2000 has 4. My point is the level of certainty on these guys is nowhere near what I think the general consensus is.
Edit: Which is also an example of the recency bias in these lists. I don't think Quentin, & Navarro were ever especially good, but were coming off or in career years IIRC, so they were momentarily ranked among the best in the game. Obviously this happens with prospects as well.
“There’s just a lot of those lists that come out that make me laugh. I don’t see anyone working for any major-league clubs that do that with those lists.
“There’s just a lot of those lists that come out that make me laugh. I don’t see anyone working for any major-league clubs that do that with those lists. It’s interesting.”
I believe Andruw was signed before 16 as well.
You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.
Login to Join (2 members)
Page rendered in 0.7609 seconds, 58 querie(s) executed