2008 Prospect Rankings

[Roxpert]

To me, Nix is no better than our other "slick glove/questionable bat" internal alternative, Omar Quintanilla. His OPS numbers in the minors....

2003 - At age 21, .903 mostly A- and a little A+.
2004 - At age 22, .863 mostly A+ and a little AA.
2005 - At age 23, .767 mostly AA and a little AAA.
2006 - At age 24, .745 all at AAA.
2007 - At age 25, .834 all at AAA.

Now, Omar's glove is also well-known. His RF at AAA the last two years were 5.41 and 5.48. Not quite as glossy as Nix's RF's, but his bat appears to be more proven, and he has shown patience in the past.

So, I ask you.......WHY is Nix the "chosen one" that writers and team officials are hyping to us, and not Quintanilla? One other thought. Omar is a lefty hitter, and without Matsui, we are too righthanded. Only Helton and Hawpe are our lefty bats in the lineup (plus maybe Sullivan when he starts), making us vulnerable to tough righty pitchers with strong platoon splits. I really think Omar has gotten short-shrift in all this, in comparison to Nix.

[Heltonfan]

I'd take Quintanilla over Nix as well. Of course, I'd still take Marcus Giles over either of them, and I'd still take quite a few easily obtainable guys currently in other organizations over Giles.

Continuing our exploration of statistical prospect rankings... here are the ProspectBot organizational rankings, based on each team's representation in the top 500 prospect list. The organizational scores are on a 1-100 scale, where the top team is set at 100 and everyone else is evaluated relative to that. So this means that the A's system is 96% as good as the Rays' system, etc.

1. TB 100
2. OAK 96
3. BOS 93
4. ATL 92
5. NYY 75
6. MIL 71
7. LAA 70
8. SD 69
9. CLE 69
10. ARI 67
11. TEX 67
12. COL 63
13. CIN 61
14. LAD 58
15. STL 58
16. NYM 58
17. SEA 56
18. FLA 50
19. MIN 50
20. CHC 49
21. WSH 43
22. PIT 36
23. BAL 35
24. PHI 33
25. TOR 29
26. SF 28
27. KC 27
28. HOU 22
29. DET 15
30. CWS 9

That looks eminently reasonable.

[Roxpert]

What does that say about the Rockies organization when we are only 84% as good as the Yankees organization (63/75)? Surely, we've been in better position for high draft picks over the past many years than the Yankees! Could it be that the Yankees not only have a money advantage over us (and everyone else not named "Red Sox"), but also a scouting advantage? Or is it just "luck of the draw" that we aren't as highly ranked as the Yankees, or ten other teams that the ProspectBot ranked? Of course, that list ranks three of our four divisional opponents better as well.

[hiaspire]

Originally Posted by Roxpert

What does that say about the Rockies organization when we are only 84% as good as the Yankees organization (63/75)? Surely, we've been in better position for high draft picks over the past many years than the Yankees! Could it be that the Yankees not only have a money advantage over us (and everyone else not named "Red Sox"), but also a scouting advantage? Or is it just "luck of the draw" that we aren't as highly ranked as the Yankees, or ten other teams that the ProspectBot ranked? Of course, that list ranks three of our four divisional opponents better as well.

First off, let's not pretend that's definitive in terms of rankings as you'll also find very credible lists of differing orders from recognized experts very familiar with these players who have actually seen them. It's a fine attempt and different prospective which is great, but certainly not the only word on organizational rankings either. You'll find different rankings from highly respected lists that have our Rockies near the very top recently. Secondly, to bring money into it as a possible explanation is comical IMO when looking at recent history. For YEARS you'd find NO credible prospect list that ranked the Yankees higher than us. So then it's just money, right?

No luck of the draw. No money disadvantage. Just a lot of young players coming off the top prospect list in recent years very quickly to a big league team that was rebuilding and offering early opportunities to those prospects. The answer isn't to be found in a momentary snap shot, as the bigger picture reveals more of the truth.

Prospect rankings have to be taken with a grain of salt anyway, whether they are from Baseball America or a spreadsheet. If I were the Tigers in my window of opportunity, for example, I'd rather have Miguel Cabrera than be ranked a little higher on some prospect list full of uncertainty.

Even the Rockies now. We've reach the World Series. We've tasted the thrill of competition. I'm much more concerned about our big league progess at the moment than the minor league rankings. While we have Holliday still and some of these youngsters while we can still afford them, I'm all for trading away a prospect or two while we can make another playoff rush possibly, even if it would drop us below the Yankees or other money teams on a prospect list quite unusually from the recent past where we were always ranked higher despite the budgetary differences.

[bedir than average]

yes, recall that in most of these lists a team that promotes 3 U-23 players in one year is seen as failing at developing prospects the next year. SHouldn't that be a success?

[hiaspire]

I would classify that as a success, and certainly more happy about that than disappointed if the prospect ranking dropped the next year because so much talent left the list for the moment to a higher level. To me these lists highlighting the brightest organizational futures should include all players under a certain age more so than MLB experience cutting some youngsters out of that future forecast picture.

Originally Posted by wolf213

I belive we have one of these types of guys playing LF for us right now? Correct me if I am wrong, but Holliday had always had tools, but due to crappy minor league seasons, he was never highly rated.

I would disagree a bit. To me, Holliday was always praised for his talent. He might not have been rated well by statistical-based evaluations as a prospect, but certainly scored higher on talent-based observation rankings. I don't think there were a lot of scouts that seriously questioned his athleticism/upside. He would be a prime example of someone who might rate less in terms of numbers only, but when watching him you'd certainly see more potential there. If there was skeptism from a talent/scouting perspective, I think a large bit of that was related to some injuries he had along the way as a prospect and some concern there more so than raw talent alone that seemed to be there even if not always translating into numbers. There was some disappointment that he hadn't yet lived up to his potential, but the potential remained if focused on that.

[hiaspire]

I know he's not liked by some here, but the HOF writer in a hat who contributes to BA's prospect rankings certainly wasn't down on Holliday as a prospect.

In a 2003 chat on the Rockies prospect rankings he said: Holliday has the type of bat potential to be an ideal left fielder at Coors Field.

Who do you consider the Rockies' top three outfield prospects below AAA?
A: Tracy Ringolsby: Matt Holliday, Brad Hapwe and Jeff Salazar (not in top 10 noted later, as Holliday and Hawpe were)

[BigRapidsJackass]

Y'know, I'd be willing to ascribe the strength of the Yankees organization to financial advantage if, say, they had drafted a bunch of guys demanding huge bonuses that other clubs (Rox) passed on. Or if they had a bunch of rising Latin stars by virtue of a bigger scouting/development network. But neither is really the case. They've just plain scouted and drafted well. The old-fashioned way.

As for Matt and The Hat: Aspire, you're right. I think that's because the Rox player development team never really soured on Holliday, and Ringolsby is basically a mouthpiece for the Rox insiders. In this case, I'm not criticizing Ringolsby for that; that's really what he's supposed to provide in his role as the Rockies' "expert insider" for BA. And I have no problem with what he does for BA. It's his work for the RMN that I have a problem with, since that role should require at least a bit of independence from the company line.

[BigRapidsJackass]

On another point: HF, the D'backs significantly depleted their farm system this winter, didn't they? How would they have ranked prior to this winter's deals?

As for Nix vs. Q: I'd guess Q would be better right away. I have very little confidence in Nix. But Q really has virtually no upside, whereas Nix still is a bit of an enigma. Plus he's out of options, so if we go to Tucson with Nix having the inside track on the job, I'm ok with that.

Actually, the out of options thing almost demands a low-level trade somewhere. Carrying both Nix and Baker (both out of options) probably requires you to carry a backup SS, too, leaving little room for the other things you'd like to have on the roster. Baker is the obvious candidate to be moved.

[bedir than average]

and as long as we are asking questions, how would this change if you included guys in the majors who are under 25 (number picked because they would be club controlled for all pre-peak years as well as some peak)?

[hiaspire]

Originally Posted by BigRapidsJackass

Y'know, I'd be willing to ascribe the strength of the Yankees organization to financial advantage if, say, they had drafted a bunch of guys demanding huge bonuses that other clubs (Rox) passed on... As for Matt and The Hat: Aspire, you're right. I think that's because the Rox player development team never really soured on Holliday, and Ringolsby is basically a mouthpiece for the Rox insiders.

That's the Tigers, who have drafted some highly ranked talents in recent years that other teams wouldn't due to bonus demands. I think they've done a good job of both being aggressive in trying to win now (finally) by dealing some of their prospects for veterans, but also taking risks in the draft to counter that. Detroit certainly isn't some monitary goliath, but just executing a good strategy and optimizing what they do have.

Whether it is Ringolsby himself, or him echoing the sentiments of Rockies scouts and their front office, the point remains that many of a more traditional scouting background still believed in his talent and potential more so than you'd get in a statistical evaluation. In that case, you'd be much better off with their conclusions about his value based upon talent than whatever evaluation of his disappointing numbers alone. There were also other editors at BA involved in the rankings, and weighed heavily the opinions of other scouts in the game regarding those players. Many who observed his talent still believed he had that potential to make an impact beyond just what the numbers said.

For different individuals, though, it might be reversed where the numbers came to a better conclusion than a talent observation. That's why it is foolish IMO to want only one way to provide your answers when a more comprehensive and inclusionary methodology allows one to see both sides of the coin and get a more complete recommendation (even if not entirely numeric) instead of trying to force an answer with incomplete elements.

[Heltonfan]

HF, the D'backs significantly depleted their farm system this winter, didn't they? How would they have ranked prior to this winter's deals?

They only made one farm-depleting deal, but it was a big one (Haren). If you undid that deal, conveniently enough, they'd simply switch places with Oakland in the organizational rankings.

And as long as we are asking questions, how would this change if you included guys in the majors who are under 25?

Good question - that's on my to-do list. My to-do list is rather long, though.

[bedir than average]

you act like you are halfway around the world

[Heltonfan]

Kevin Goldstein's Rockies Top 11:
1. Franklin Morales
2. Chris Nelson
3. Greg Reynolds
4. Casey Weathers
5. Dexter Fowler
6. Ian Stewart
7. Hector Gomez
8. Brandon Hynick
9. Juan Morillo
10. Jayson Nix
11. Brian Rike

I usually like KG's lists. Not this time. Weathers ahead of Fowler and Stewart is absolutely insane. This is the danger of a non-stat-based approach; you can have an absolutely perfect assessment of what a player is likely to become, but if you can't properly value that performance, your rankings are worthless. If Goldstein wants to argue that Weathers will rank in, say, the 85th percentile of relievers, fine. And if he wants to argue that Stewart will rank in the 50th percentile of starting third basemen, fine. Those are scouting-based assessments that my system and I are not qualified to dispute.

But if he does that, Stewart should rank comfortably ahead of Weathers. That's just the reality of the situation; it's really, really hard for a reliever to be as valuable as a good everyday player.

KG's article also includes the following statement:

Nobody, nowhere, with any system, can do a credible job of ranking prospects based solely on the numbers.

Seeing as how the only significant difference between our lists is that he's blind to the reliever issue (same deal as with the BA list), I'm going to have to disagree here.

One thing's for sure: it's going to be a lot of fun to track the success of these lists.

[hiaspire]

Originally Posted by Heltonfan

KG's article also includes the following statement: Nobody, nowhere, with any system, can do a credible job of ranking prospects based solely on the numbers.

Seeing as how the only significant difference between our lists is that he's blind to the reliever issue (same deal as with the BA list), I'm going to have to disagree here.

One thing's for sure: it's going to be a lot of fun to track the success of these lists.

You're making a small sample error there in just looking at this one moment and disagreeing.

You don't have to wait. There is plenty of historical data to analyze with much clearer end results than you'll find in waiting years on prospects of today to write their future stories.

I can find many examples of highly talented players who were pretty raw in the minor leagues but had a ton of natural ability that exploded as they gained experience/technique in the big leagues to become far greater than any analysis of their minor league numbers when they didn't know nearly as much about their craft.

We can also find many examples of those who dominated against prospects but did hardly nothing in their big league careers. Many of those AAAA-types become career AAA minor leaguers with pretty good talent but no shot at making it big in the big leagues. Lots of pitchers also can put up numbers with a big fastball in A-ball against inferior opposition, but if they don't have anything else those numbers aren't going to translate at the big league level where MLB hitters can turn on those high-90s fastballs and he has nothing else to keep them off-balance.

What will the numbers say about that?

What do the numbers say about a young pitcher who has a tremendous ace-material arm but struggles for a minor league season or two while learning a changeup or new pitch that alters his control numbers while learning but scouts know that if he gets those down he'll be unstoppable? What about an understanding of a player's injury status who might be hobbled one season with poor numbers that a calculator can't understand but a human won't hold that as much against them in terms of overall value because they understand circumstance.

Numbers can't provide all the answers. Well, they'll provide some answer because all they can do is get to a numeric conclusion, but in such cases it's usually the WRONG ANSWER that completely lacks any common sense associated to those situations.