Baseball America's top 100 prospects list
Includes 5 Tribe players:
#10 Santana
#31 Chisenhall
#44 Hagadone
#64 Knapp
#65 White
Their lack of faith in Rondon is disturbing. He'd be in the top 50 if it were up to me.
about 2 years ago
JP_Frost
56 comments
0 recs |
Email
PrintComments
hope this isn’t serious
If you don't respect Aaron Laffey, I will fight you.
by Cap'n Snegiryov on Feb 23, 2010 1:10 PM EST up reply actions
why wouldn’t it be?
fka "DaytonDogg". Now a contributor to SBN's Dawgs By Nature. www.dawgsbynature.com
I don’t know, just because it isn’t all that much?
An average team’s top five prospects would be at 15, 45, 75, 105, 135.
To compare, the Indians’ top five prospects are at 10, 31, 44, 64, 65.
The differences by slot are +5, +14, +31, + 41, and +70.
This is a bit deceiving, though, because the differences between those respective slots are not actually all that huge.
because it seems kind of silly to say that (# of prospects on list) / (# of teams in the MLB) = the expected number of top 100 prospects for each MLB team. there are lot more meaningful factors that one would consider when evaluating one organization’s farm system’s performance relative to others—for example, average yearly draft position (teams picking in the top five or so on a regular basis should do considerably better), as well as financial considerations.
the indians are actually well-represented here, but i don’t think that, say, the royals should be priding themselves on having 4 guys on the list when they’re only “expected” to have 3.3 or whatever.
If you don't respect Aaron Laffey, I will fight you.
by Cap'n Snegiryov on Feb 23, 2010 11:52 PM EST up reply actions
is this a chuck reference? if not, i am confused
If you don't respect Aaron Laffey, I will fight you.
by Cap'n Snegiryov on Feb 24, 2010 12:35 AM EST up reply actions
This assumes that we’re evaluating “farm system performance.”
I think 99% of the time, when we’re looking at prospect talent density, we’re concerned with how much quality talent is in the system, irrespective of how it got there. Draft position is irrelevant to that.
well, andrew’s OP mentioned an “expected” # of top prospects, and that to me implied an element of performance and normative evaluation. if that were the case, the “expected” number of top prospects should still depend heavily on where you draft and how much money you have to spend on the draft; that’s because the draft is one of the primary ways to acquire talent, and that you would expect teams that have access to top flight amateur talent year in and year out to have more prospects on the list than teams that draft later.
i know i’m the guy who’s always harping on the indians’ drafts, but i really wasn’t trying to do that here. anyways, andrew just said below that he wasn’t serious. . . so it’s all kind of moot
If you don't respect Aaron Laffey, I will fight you.
by Cap'n Snegiryov on Feb 24, 2010 10:20 AM EST up reply actions
Sometimes the word “expected” is used to express strictly a statistical expectation, not a highly contextualized performance expectation.
Right but expected value is 100/30 if the distribution is uniform. So the statistical expectation is certainly not 100/30.
Ha – I think once you drop “highly contextualized performance expectation,” most girls start dancin’ up on you, laughing at all your jokes and asking what you’re doing later.
No, I just think that the “statistical expection” is exactly what Capn was referring to in the first place – that good prospects should be front-loaded on teams with bad records or big bank accounts.
this!
If you don't respect Aaron Laffey, I will fight you.
by Cap'n Snegiryov on Feb 24, 2010 3:17 PM EST up reply actions
I am no longer bothering to parse anything on this subject. I just don’t care, and it’s this very aloofness that will draw people to me at the bar.
Well, here’s the semi-serious breakdown.
The average team has 2.5 spots in the top 75. We have 5.0 spots.
I’ve said it before, but if you offered to trade me Rondon for Knapp, today, I’d do it in a heartbeat and then send you a fruit basket. It’s not even close.
Law, for example, has Rondon #51, and no Knapp.
by dgcambridge on Feb 23, 2010 12:32 PM EST up reply actions
It seems like some people forget just how young and polished he is. Sure, his secondary pitches need work, but he has a plus fastball with very good command and has been able to dominate both AA and to a lesser extent AAA. If his change and slider develop, he has front of the rotation type of potential.
yes. an extension of the notion that anybody could all of a sudden develop command, but realistically nobody makes a big jump in stuff… so they just focus on stuff when determining upside and therefore rank.
Yes. It does seem like maybe the disconnect here is in rating the likelihood of Rondon’s stuff getting even better. Rondon turns 22 in three days, for what it’s worth.
We may have a vague expectation that, based on his age, he still has some projection left in his raw stuff, which is why he’ll be as good at 23 in the majors as he was in Double-A at age 21. The scouterazzi, however, may know something — or believe something — that says that his stuff is pretty much set at this point.
Don’t read too much into it – BA is heavily influenced by the amount of previous attention a prospect has gotten. So, high draft picks and high profile international signings will rank significantly higher than saber-equivalents who have simply not had the spotlight on them for one reason or another.
Rondon has pretty much been under the radar so far, so the BA ranking is not particularly surprising, even if many Tribe-focused lists have him as our top pitching prospect.
Do we really need BA to validate what we know about our own prospects? How much more awesome will it be when Rondon comes out “of nowhere” and we can say how far off BA was in their evaluation?
"Nobody ever thinks, 'Hey, maybe I’m actually an idiot.'" - Jay
by woodsmeister on Feb 23, 2010 1:55 PM EST up reply actions
You’re absolutely right, of course. I’d just say that the point of these lists is to discuss, just for kicks. So I went ahead and asked them.
Props to John Manuel for quick replies on the whine board. Here’s what he said to mine:
RE: Rendon: [sic] Usually I like pitchers like him that command the fastball so well, but he also fits another category—RHPs with a breaking ball that’s short—that makes me cautious. The fastball has to be very, very good for that profile to work. Guys I can think of who have pulled it off are guys like Curt Schilling, or late-career Roger Clemens. Rendon [seriously?] doesn’t have that kind of fastball, even though it’s his best pitch. I could see him more as a reliever in the future.
I see Salcedo finally signed with a team (the Braves). Last year, when rumors were so rife that the Tribe was close to signing him, he was supposedly going to be a premier prospect. Obviously the Braves decided to take a chance on him despite the fact that his age is probably “indeterminate”. If he’s as good as everyone said last year, then he’ll impact this list.
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recent FanPosts
Featured Stories
In Association With
Big League Stew - MLB - Yahoo! Sports
- Giancarlo Stanton busts Marlins Park scoreboard with tape-measure grand slam (VIDEO)
- Baltimore’s tradition of fans shouting ‘O!’ during national anthem sparks interleague feud
- Chris Perez follows rant against Cleveland fans with even better rant against Cleveland fans
- Pitcher Clayton Richard gets key pinch single in 13th after coming in 0 for 16
- Livan Hernandez welcomes ball boy to the bigs with shower of sunflower seeds (VIDEO)
