Project Prospect - Farm System Rankings

I was going to apologize to the Project Prospect guy after he admitted he messed up on Lawrie's projection last year

However, after seeing this little gem, I think I’ll hold off on that apology.

Hic sunt fortuna dracones
There is only 1 "n" in Hutchison

by JaysfanDL on Jan 30, 2012 10:55 AM EST reply actions 1 recs

Thanks for the link

I’ll check back with some methodology information soon.

AdamWFoster on Twitter
Projectprospect.com Founder

by Adam Foster on Jan 30, 2012 12:48 PM EST up reply actions

Shout-out

Shout-out to you guys at the bottom: http://projectprospect.com/article/2012/01/29/farm-system-rankings

AdamWFoster on Twitter
Projectprospect.com Founder

by Adam Foster on Jan 31, 2012 2:58 PM EST up reply actions

Well

That was surprising. Wow…

"We are all agreed that your theory is crazy. The question that divides us is whether it is crazy enough to have a chance of being correct."
- Niels Bohr

Sorry, unauthorized hotlinking of copyrighted material not permitted.

by Frag on Jan 30, 2012 10:55 AM EST reply actions

Well, Sickels has us rated at number one

Baseball America said that the Jays are close to top 5, likely around 6 and I believe (don’t quote me on this one) that Law thinks we’re top 5 as well. Kevin Goldstein says this about the Jays’ farm system:

Some elite position players and a cadre of young high-ceiling pitchers make Toronto the envy of every team in baseball.

One of these prospect rankings is not like the others.

Hic sunt fortuna dracones
There is only 1 "n" in Hutchison

by JaysfanDL on Jan 30, 2012 10:59 AM EST up reply actions

The Bullpen Banter guys

Have us at #2, behind Texas. If you excluded Yu Darvish, both would have us in first.

This is far outside the mainstream, whether it is right or wrong.

by MjwW on Jan 30, 2012 11:06 AM EST up reply actions

A slight correction to my above post

BA said around 6 for this past year’s draft, I have no idea where they rank the Jays’ farm system, although I believe it’s high.

Maybe Project Prospect likes to go outside the mainstream to differentiate themselves. If they hit on their “outside” projections, they look like geniuses and are ahead of the curve. However, the flipside to that is making too many wrong guesses (e.g. Lawrie last year) and just looking foolish.

Hic sunt fortuna dracones
There is only 1 "n" in Hutchison

by JaysfanDL on Jan 30, 2012 11:15 AM EST up reply actions

If you are going to go off the beaten path

You should expose the methodology that lead to you going off said path. Right now, it looks like they are just taking the highest ranked prospect for each team and then ranking the organization accordingly.

by siggian on Jan 30, 2012 11:23 AM EST up reply actions

If they went off one star prospect, then Washington, the Angel and TB should all rate higher

Hic sunt fortuna dracones
There is only 1 "n" in Hutchison

by JaysfanDL on Jan 30, 2012 11:37 AM EST up reply actions

*Angels

Hic sunt fortuna dracones
There is only 1 "n" in Hutchison

by JaysfanDL on Jan 30, 2012 11:38 AM EST up reply actions

Methodology

We listed methodology, criteria and principles along with our top 100: http://projectprospect.com/article/2012/01/27/our-prospect-rankings-objective-principles-and-criteria

And I just went in and added some notes to my farm system rankings. You guys are right that they aren’t easy to understand without added information about methodology. http://projectprospect.com/article/2012/01/29/farm-system-rankings

AdamWFoster on Twitter
Projectprospect.com Founder

by Adam Foster on Jan 30, 2012 1:10 PM EST up reply actions

That's not the plan

We are more quantitatively based than most publications. While we have missed some guys, I think our position in the prospect rankings industry, in terms of years of existence and decision to remain an independent publication, puts us in a spot where people are quick to question our work, especially when we’re using methods that are different than the mainstream publications.

On top of being in communication with front-office workers and scouts who see value in our approach, I’ve also gone back and started quantifying prospect ranking success (still VERY young data): http://projectprospect.com/article/2011/10/31/battle-of-the-2010-top-100s

AdamWFoster on Twitter
Projectprospect.com Founder

by Adam Foster on Jan 30, 2012 1:07 PM EST up reply actions

I think I get where you guys are coming from

You’re more stats-heavy than other scouting publications.

However, doesn’t that pose some problems? Not all minor league stats are created equal. For example differences in league hitting environments would make two prospects in different leagues at the same level appear different, even though they may be close in skill level. Also, the minor leagues are for developing players, so looking at the stats, it may appear that a guy is struggling, when in fact he is working on a new pitch or an adjustment in his hitting approach.

Hic sunt fortuna dracones
There is only 1 "n" in Hutchison

by JaysfanDL on Jan 30, 2012 1:31 PM EST up reply actions

Leagues

Our stats approach is pretty advanced. I’ve interacted with statistical analysts from a majority of the teams in baseball over the last five years. I’ve run my methodology by them for review and comments.

League adjustments were made for the data used in the study that led to these farm system rankings.

The stats that I utilize are ones that have been studied as solid prediction metrics for future success.

Yeah, the data will never be able to account for every angle, but what we have in place is pretty solid. It’s not like we’re plugging in roto stats and pretending that they are what make a player. It’s more sophisticated than that. And I actually worked in close communication with a few front office people to devise the approach I’m currently going with.

AdamWFoster on Twitter
Projectprospect.com Founder

by Adam Foster on Jan 30, 2012 1:42 PM EST up reply actions

Some Twitter comments

AdamWFoster Adam Foster
@Wtmk81 Other orgs ahead of TOR either have more star-upside, MLB ready talent or more depth.

If you’re going on MLB ready talent, okay, fair enough, the Jays probably are middle of the pack. But in terms of depth, there’s a case for #1, easily top 5. His rankings intro says:

This list factors in elite, well-known prospects down to guys who are producing in the minors and not getting talked about much.

By that measure, I can’t see the Jays 16th.

AdamWFoster Adam Foster
@Nerobe Yes, the Jays could easily jump forward in my 2012 organizational rankings. (Response to: Once Nicolino and Norris have good years and Marisnick takes another step forward Jays system is top 10)

by MjwW on Jan 30, 2012 11:18 AM EST reply actions

Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't Nicolino already have a very good year?

Unless he meant he wanted to see another one.

Hic sunt fortuna dracones
There is only 1 "n" in Hutchison

by JaysfanDL on Jan 30, 2012 11:27 AM EST up reply actions

I think the response was more general

IFor maybe, the implication is in full season ball…though Marisnick also put up a big season last year, and that was in full season ball.

by MjwW on Jan 30, 2012 11:30 AM EST up reply actions

I smell inconsistencies

Their testimony would never stand up in court.

Hic sunt fortuna dracones
There is only 1 "n" in Hutchison

by JaysfanDL on Jan 30, 2012 11:34 AM EST up reply actions

He did

Nicolino had an awesome year.

With the exception of guys who we have seen a lot of — like some top draft picks — we tend to be pretty conservative with pitchers who have yet to pitch in full-season ball.

AdamWFoster on Twitter
Projectprospect.com Founder

by Adam Foster on Jan 30, 2012 1:17 PM EST up reply actions

There are a lot of inconsistencies really

I was reading through the chat, and his knock on Teheran is that he lacks control, but states that he is not concerned about Banuelos’ 5BB/9IP because of his upside. There are many other cases like this. Teheran is ranked 20th while Banuelos is ranked 8th, which just seems absolutely crazy to me.

I don’t really want to rag on this list too much as I’m sure a lot of work went into it, and we do have a lot of bias towards the prospects for the Jays. With that said, this site is just a hobby project so I would be wary about putting too much stock into it.

by Playoffs!!!!1 on Jan 30, 2012 11:20 AM EST reply actions

well, I would be wary about any prospect list really

but this one just isn’t passing the sniff test on a number of accounts.

by Playoffs!!!!1 on Jan 30, 2012 11:22 AM EST up reply actions

Yep, I basically agree

I’ve listened to their podcasts, and they actually go and watch the guys, which is more than can be said for some prospect sites (I’d say it’s more than a hobby, and that’s why the prospect watching community pays some attention to them). And they’re not just throwing crap out there to get page hits, but as you say, there are a number of of inconsistencies, and those include plenty of non-Jays prospects

by MjwW on Jan 30, 2012 11:29 AM EST up reply actions

My favourite is the Orioles at 12th

They have like three prospects in Machado, Bundy, and to a lesser extent, Schoop. Yet, they rank ahead of the Jays and the Yankees. The Yankees are also curiously ahead of the Jays when nobody also rates them as such and after they traded away their top prospect in Montero.

Hic sunt fortuna dracones
There is only 1 "n" in Hutchison

by JaysfanDL on Jan 30, 2012 11:33 AM EST up reply actions

Yeah

Colorado’s another one that doesn’t belong ahead, on balance. Oakland is much improved, but I can’t see putting it ahead. Chicago shouldn’t be ahead – we have much better depth and similar close to MLB talent – but that’s one spot so not that big a deal.

There’s a number of deep farm systems. Depending on what’s emphasized, I can understand (though not necessarily agree with) arguments for San Diego, Seattle, Texas, St. Louis, Pittsburgh, Tampa Bay and Altanta to be ahead of Toronto, and to a lesser extent Kansas City (good system, but we have more depth and mostly similar pieces to theirs), Arizona (prior to the trade of Parker, they lost some of their MLB ready talent and it’s a top heavy system), and Washington (again, much stronger case before the Gonzalez trade, but if you really believe in harper and Rendon, that alone is incredibly valuable).

by MjwW on Jan 30, 2012 11:54 AM EST up reply actions

Orioles

Say Machado and Bundy become stars…

How many organizations have two stars come up within a few years of each other? What happens when an organization does pull that off?

AdamWFoster on Twitter
Projectprospect.com Founder

by Adam Foster on Jan 30, 2012 1:36 PM EST up reply actions

but they're prospects; their bust chance is still huge by default

of course I’m getting into a subjective point, but I’d take the depth system – lots of pretty good players – over a couple star-quality prospects

I tweet.

by benk on Jan 30, 2012 1:38 PM EST up reply actions

Well...

I think I’m finding that my approach doesn’t favor the Blue Jays as well as the approaches of others, and I’d expect people around here would be more into my rankings if the Blue Jays came through more favorably. I can tell you that I applied the same methodology to every team.

I’ve been wrapping my head around ways to evaluate farm system rankings. With players changing teams, it gets a little complicated.

Hopefully I’ve outlined my methodology to the point where you can at least glean some value from the hundreds of hours of research I’ve done and the data it has yielded. Like I Tweeted, the Jays are in a good position to take a big jump forward for me next year.

AdamWFoster on Twitter
Projectprospect.com Founder

by Adam Foster on Jan 30, 2012 1:46 PM EST up reply actions

oh certainly

but if you had had them as #1 by a ridiculous margin, I’d be a little wary too.

I just think, based on the Jays, anyway, you’re underrating quantity and overrating quality a little. but of course, it’s rich that I’m complaining about some obviously well-researched and free information, so thanks!

I tweet.

by benk on Jan 30, 2012 1:56 PM EST up reply actions

I hear where you're coming from

And there will be star-level talents who prove themselves across the minors who weren’t identified as such entering the year throughout baseball. From what I’ve seen, who I’ve seen, and the data I’ve studied, the rankings provided are what I felt most confident with publishing. They were generated by a consistent set of criteria that was applied the same way to every team in baseball.

As the thinkers here have done a good job inquiring about, there are prospect segments that my approach doesn’t weight as heavily as perhaps they should be. We’re always looking to improve and I’ll see what adjustments I can make next year to strengthen my system.

It’s a MLB-ready-focused list that also puts a lot of value into star-level talents that I’ve seen and studied in detail.

AdamWFoster on Twitter
Projectprospect.com Founder

by Adam Foster on Jan 30, 2012 2:07 PM EST up reply actions

cool

thanks for expounding upon your approach for me.

I tweet.

by benk on Jan 30, 2012 2:14 PM EST up reply actions

While I had some disagreements with your top 100 list

I thought many of the placements were justifiable (including the d’Arnaud ranking). However, I can’t understand some teams’ placements on this ranking. I’m going to go outside the Jays ranking, since that will be discussed in this thread, and move to other teams:

10. Washington Nationals – Before the Gio trade, I would agree with this placement (probably even higher). Now, with many of their top prospects lost in that trade, I think this is a high placement even with Harper and Rendon in their system. Decent depth, but I don’t think it’s enough to secure a top 10 ranking IMO. This ranking may be reasonable if you put a lot of emphasis on Harper and Rendon, but I think this is a 15-20 system.

11. St. Louis Cardinals – This is an underrated farm system that has a good balance of talent ranging from pitching to hitting. With the amount of depth they have, this is a top 5 farm system IMO.

12. Baltimore Orioles – Outside of Machado, Bundy, and, maybe, Schoop, this system is pretty bare. While I would like my team to have any of those players in its system, I’m not sure I’d want the mediocre depth. I would rank them within the 15-20 region.

19. Boston Red Sox – I can’t believe I’m doing this, but I think they have a better system than 19th. While lacking the prospects that are close to the big leagues, which was likely a contributing factor to their low placement, a lot of their prospects in the lower levels look to be really good (eg. Xander Bogaerts). I would place them within the 8-13 region.

28. Chicago White Sox – I have a hard time believing that this isn’t the worst farm system in baseball. Once you get past Nestor Molina and Addison Reed, both of which are seen as future relievers with Molina having mid-rotation starting potential, it’s really bare. They have little to no hitting prospects that jump out to me as potential risers, and very little pitching prospects after Reed and Molina.

I also think the Padres have the best farm system in baseball, unless you count Yu Darvish as a prospect. I like their depth, especially with all the hitting prospects (which are less volatile than pitching prospects) they have.

"We are all agreed that your theory is crazy. The question that divides us is whether it is crazy enough to have a chance of being correct."
- Niels Bohr

Sorry, unauthorized hotlinking of copyrighted material not permitted.

by Frag on Jan 30, 2012 2:18 PM EST up reply actions

Re:

Nationals: Similar to the Orioles, I like two of their prospects a lot as potential stars, in Bryce Harper and Anthony Rendon. I’ve seen both play multiple times and believe I have a pretty good feel for each of their strengths and weaknesses. If both become stars, I think No. 10 is more than justified. They don’t have much depth left, though. I won’t disagree with that. This ranking is Harper and Rendon.

Cardinals: Who do you like in their system, aside from Shelby Miller? I’m lower on Carlos Martinez than most and I don’t believe in Zack Cox.

Orioles: Two potential stars.

Red Sox: I love Bogaerts. The have some depth, too. They just lack MLB-ready talents.

White Sox: Who or what do you like about the Brewers more than the White Sox’s system?

Padres: They don’t have much in the way of star-upside talent.

AdamWFoster on Twitter
Projectprospect.com Founder

by Adam Foster on Jan 30, 2012 2:33 PM EST up reply actions

Cardinals: Who do you like in their system, aside from Shelby Miller? I’m lower on Carlos Martinez than most and I don’t believe in Zack Cox.

I guess this is just disagreement on prospects we like.

White Sox: Who or what do you like about the Brewers more than the White Sox’s system?

I like Jed Bradley, who has #3 starting potential, as well as Jungmann and Peralta. That’s already one more good prospect than what the White Sox have, and there’s more of them that have starting upside.

Padres: They don’t have much in the way of star-upside talent.

But they have tons of depth. Let me pose a question for you:

If you had a choice between James Paxton (higher quality) or Noah Syndergaard + Drew Hutchison (higher quantity with good quality), which would you choose?

"We are all agreed that your theory is crazy. The question that divides us is whether it is crazy enough to have a chance of being correct."
- Niels Bohr

Sorry, unauthorized hotlinking of copyrighted material not permitted.

by Frag on Jan 30, 2012 2:42 PM EST up reply actions

I’m not big on Jungmann. Other people like Peralta more than me.

AdamWFoster on Twitter
Projectprospect.com Founder

by Adam Foster on Jan 30, 2012 2:45 PM EST up reply actions

What about Thornburg?

by MjwW on Jan 30, 2012 2:47 PM EST up reply actions

Low ground-ball rates from 22-year-olds in the low minors who also have issued a lot of walks scare me. I haven’t scouted him, though.

AdamWFoster on Twitter
Projectprospect.com Founder

by Adam Foster on Jan 30, 2012 3:55 PM EST up reply actions

No issue with the TB Rays being 13th? I’d have them higher personally… impressive depth topped off with argueably the best prospect in baseball in Moore.

by Parallex on Jan 30, 2012 2:35 PM EST up reply actions

Rays

I’m not that high on Hak-Ju Lee. Guerreri is still a ways away. Mikie Mahtook is relatively raw for a college guy. I’m not as big on Archer, Torres and Colome as some people.

Are there any other guys in their system who you think should boost their ranking?

AdamWFoster on Twitter
Projectprospect.com Founder

by Adam Foster on Jan 30, 2012 2:43 PM EST up reply actions

Ok, I'll buy that

Having two stars come up is huge and by all accounts, Machado and Bundy project to be that. I can’t think of two comparables in the Jays’ system. Syndergaard and Marisnick maybe, but under your methodology, Syndergaard doesn’t have enough data. I think I get it now.

Hic sunt fortuna dracones
There is only 1 "n" in Hutchison

by JaysfanDL on Jan 30, 2012 2:11 PM EST up reply actions

Stars

We like Syndergaard a lot. I love the movement on his fastball.

I’m not high on Deck McGuire. Is there any good video of Justin Nicolino online?

I’m not in love with Marisnick’s upper-body heavy swing. I want to see how that works for him in the upper minors before I get too excited about him.

AdamWFoster on Twitter
Projectprospect.com Founder

by Adam Foster on Jan 30, 2012 2:17 PM EST up reply actions

I've never seen any good video of Nicolino

The only video I’ve seen is this, which is a profile by a local TV station just after he was drafted, so not in pro ball and almost 2 years old

by MjwW on Jan 30, 2012 2:25 PM EST up reply actions

Hehe

Yeah, my wife wouldn’t say baseball is a hobby for me. It’s a part-time venture that I’ve been working within since college.

Publishing content that I believe in is FAR more important to me than getting page views.

We look at players on a case-by-case basis. Just because our work isn’t always easy to understand doesn’t mean it’s internally inconsistent. The nature of what we’re doing puts a target on us to begin with. Our thinking is not in line with the other major prospect outlets. If we mimicked BA with a smaller staff, we would be a crappier version of BA. I know BA. I know BP. I know Law. I know Sickels’ work. I know how all of them function. I know that what we’re doing has merit and I know that time will tell.

And I know that conversations like this, which I’m always appreciative of, make our publication better. We’re predicated on adapting and evolving because if we aren’t doing things as intelligently and efficiently as possible, with our small staff and limited time, our work would have already become obsolete.

AdamWFoster on Twitter
Projectprospect.com Founder

by Adam Foster on Jan 30, 2012 1:34 PM EST up reply actions

A couple thoughts

First, I’d like to say that I appreciate you coming in here and engaging in a substantive manner, despite some unfair comments (especially in the top-100 thread, and including a couple of my own which were, in hindsight, intemperate).

Like I said, I’ve paid followed your work before this, and I enjoy it. And I certainly think there is value in different approaches, so long as they measure up (that’s part of the problem in evaluating prospect rankers, you probably need 10 years of data to really do a decent and fair job of it). I would also agree that within a list, the exact placement gets far too much emphasis.

That said, I really find the Jays ranking pretty low, to the point of being inconceivable. Now I say that as a Jays fan, so it merits a large grain of salt, for sure. But I don’t think the sheer depth of this sytem is being given fair weight. As one example, the Yankees have 3 on your top 100 list, one of whom is very far away. The Jays put 6 on the list, and have much better depth at lower levels. I really can’t understand the Yankees ahead.

Anyway, like I said, I appreciate you coming by here to discuss.

by MjwW on Jan 30, 2012 1:51 PM EST up reply actions 6 recs

I agree with MjwW

While I may disagree with the results, I really appreciate you stopping by and discussing those results. I also like the fact that you act on criticism and try to address comments.

by siggian on Jan 30, 2012 2:01 PM EST up reply actions

Yeah, I'm in agreement with MjwW as well.

I think I was your harshest critic in this thread, but I appreciate you coming on here and explaining your methods instead of just saying Jays’ fans are a bunch of crazy jerks. I take back my criticisms of your methods and apologize if I came as an ass.

Still think the Jays are rated too low though, haha.

Hic sunt fortuna dracones
There is only 1 "n" in Hutchison

by JaysfanDL on Jan 30, 2012 2:07 PM EST up reply actions

Ha!

I’ve found Jays fans to be among the most intelligent and reasonable in baseball.

AdamWFoster on Twitter
Projectprospect.com Founder

by Adam Foster on Jan 30, 2012 2:09 PM EST up reply actions

well

for better or for worse, we’re lacking in the bandwagon fans department right now

I tweet.

by benk on Jan 30, 2012 2:15 PM EST up reply actions

The cycle continues!

1. Adam posts a list that doesn’t view the Jays and their prospects favorably

2. Jays fans begin to riot

3. Adam comes onto the Jays forums and explains his methodology in the classiest and most respectful manner

4. Jays fans begin to respect him again and stop rioting

Seriously Adam, with the amount of criticism you get from the Jays fanbase, how do you do it?

"We are all agreed that your theory is crazy. The question that divides us is whether it is crazy enough to have a chance of being correct."
- Niels Bohr

Sorry, unauthorized hotlinking of copyrighted material not permitted.

by Frag on Jan 30, 2012 2:24 PM EST up reply actions

I disagree

We only riot when hockey’s involved

by MjwW on Jan 30, 2012 2:26 PM EST up reply actions

You should know by now

That that only occurs in Vancouver and Montreal

"We are all agreed that your theory is crazy. The question that divides us is whether it is crazy enough to have a chance of being correct."
- Niels Bohr

Sorry, unauthorized hotlinking of copyrighted material not permitted.

by Frag on Jan 30, 2012 2:27 PM EST up reply actions

Lol

Only because the team in Toronto hasn’t been worth rioting about in 45 years or so.

by MjwW on Jan 30, 2012 2:37 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs

I'm sure if Toronto went with Montreal's way of rioting

We would have heard something in 2004. =P

"We are all agreed that your theory is crazy. The question that divides us is whether it is crazy enough to have a chance of being correct."
- Niels Bohr

Sorry, unauthorized hotlinking of copyrighted material not permitted.

by Frag on Jan 30, 2012 2:48 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs

Haha

Jays fans may have Lawrie on me forever. He’s one of the only guys I’ve seen multiple times and ended up being way off on.

I’m always happy to discuss Project Prospect’s work and field questions. This community and the MLB.com one have come hard with a lot of well-thought-out opinions and questions. I appreciate that.

AdamWFoster on Twitter
Projectprospect.com Founder

by Adam Foster on Jan 30, 2012 2:37 PM EST up reply actions

What was the Cardinals fans’ reaction when you didn’t include Shelby Miller in one of your lists?

"We are all agreed that your theory is crazy. The question that divides us is whether it is crazy enough to have a chance of being correct."
- Niels Bohr

Sorry, unauthorized hotlinking of copyrighted material not permitted.

by Frag on Jan 30, 2012 2:44 PM EST up reply actions

Miller

He was just out of high school. We hadn’t seen enough of him, as video was harder to come by then. Lincoln saw him and didn’t push hard enough for him in the top 100.

I know the Cardinals have a strong fanbase, but I haven’t heard from many of their online communities over the years.

AdamWFoster on Twitter
Projectprospect.com Founder

by Adam Foster on Jan 30, 2012 3:57 PM EST up reply actions

Teheran vs. Banuelos

We had both ranked very highly. I like Teheran and Banuelos a lot.

I think Teheran’s fastball does plays down a little, despite its above-average velocity, because he doesn’t command it well, it doesn’t have much movement and he doesn’t consistently locate down in the zone.

Banuelos’ problem is control. He overthrows and looses focus, but I like his fastball overall more than Teheran’s because he can be around the zone and hitters have more difficulty elevating it.

Having spent half a decade studying prospect rankings and assembling them, I can tell you that 8th and 20th are pretty similar in the grand scheme of things. In large, for top 100 purposes, the best lists generally are the best because which players are on them, not what order the players are in.

It is a hobby, but I also work for MLB and I have had multiple opportunities to work in baseball full-time. I believe that our approach to evaluating prospects offers a unique perspective, especially when it comes to understanding numbers and taking responsibility for first-hand opinions. Despite our limited staff, we’re always evolving and I think our approach lends itself to a good learning curve.

AdamWFoster on Twitter
Projectprospect.com Founder

by Adam Foster on Jan 30, 2012 1:26 PM EST up reply actions

I apologize for my comments about the credibility of the site

I based that on a comment in your chat and should have looked into it more. If I could edit my comment, I would, because it really was wrong of me.

I stand by my comments of the ranking, but do understand that there is an extremely high probability that I am wrong and you are right as I am not at all a prospect evaluator, and your comment about the differences in concerns about the command/control issues of Teheran and Banuelos does make sense.

With that said, your system ranked my Jays low so for that I am unable to like you :). Thanks for coming on here and explaining your positions, it really is most appreciated

by Playoffs!!!!1 on Jan 30, 2012 3:16 PM EST up reply actions

Thanks for the comments ;).

AdamWFoster on Twitter
Projectprospect.com Founder

by Adam Foster on Jan 30, 2012 3:58 PM EST up reply actions

lmao

but really, lmao

His 2011 wRC+ is 26

by Pikachu on Jan 30, 2012 12:35 PM EST reply actions

my thoughts exactly

by FenixL on Jan 30, 2012 3:51 PM EST up reply actions

why does anybody take that site seriously?

by Sniderlover on Jan 30, 2012 4:55 PM EST reply actions

lot of rankings I can kind of sort of rationalise on that list..

but how do we finish behind the Cubs? Sorry that one is just too much.Pretty sure the Rockies, Orioles, Yankees, and Cubs would be doing the 649 happy dance if the Jays called up and offered to swap systems.

by ABsteve on Jan 30, 2012 4:57 PM EST reply actions

Here's a tip for the maker of the list.

Try and stay more mainstream, it might take your further.

Too many questions to answer about this list just makes it look silly. You can make bold predictions up to a certain point.

Just my opinion. I agree with a few things on their top 100, but that’s just me (I’m sure he knows a little bit more than I do ;)

Overall, a decent site though.

by Mike Andrew on Jan 30, 2012 5:06 PM EST reply actions

“Here’s a tip for the maker of the list. Try and stay more mainstream, it might take your further.”

That’s advice that I’ll shun for my entirety on this earth.

AdamWFoster on Twitter
Projectprospect.com Founder

by Adam Foster on Jan 30, 2012 5:28 PM EST up reply actions

Fair enough

I like the moneyball idea your list seems to be using (unconventional) but until people pan out you are going to look a little bit crazy.

by Mike Andrew on Jan 30, 2012 10:57 PM EST up reply actions

Question for Adam

If you were running a franchise? would you actually take those 15 other teams’ farm systems over the jays? i.e. take dundy and machado and ignore the dearth of prospects at other positions?

by 7-9nomore on Jan 30, 2012 5:49 PM EST reply actions

Farm Systems

If I was running a franchise, I’d spend a lot more time out in the field evaluating talent and have lots of people I trust out doing the same. That or I’d watch a ton of video.

Based off the information that I have and the studies I’ve done, for the near future, there are a number of farm systems that I prefer over the Jays’.

AdamWFoster on Twitter
Projectprospect.com Founder

by Adam Foster on Jan 30, 2012 6:07 PM EST up reply actions

Right, of course you'd have a lot more info

Can you clarify what you mean when you say “for the near future, there are a number of farm systems that I prefer over the Jays’”. Specifically, what do you mean by the near future? Are you talking about in terms of getting MLB contributions over a specific period? If that’s the case, I can understand the lower ranking for the Jays – they aren’t going to get a lot in the next year, or probably even 2. But if we look back in 20 years at the contribution received from players in the farm systems, I’d think the Jays will end up far higher than 16th.

When you make your rankings, do you think about whether the team above another team would be willing to trade farm systems (if the goal was to maximize total value, obviously there could be idiosynratic reasons where a team has a window to win right now so they’d prefer major league talent over more talent that is far away)? This, for me, is the ultimate litmus test of a farm system ranking – who has more talent, as best the talent can be evaluated. And as I’ve read your many responses here, I think this explains some of the differences in why we (certainly myself) see the rnaking as lower than what we think is merited.

by MjwW on Jan 30, 2012 6:37 PM EST up reply actions

I’m looking at 2012 and 2013 ETA guys along with players who I believe have star upside.

I don’t see a lot of value in hypothetically doing trade talks with myself. I think about players case-by-case and value them accordingly. So I do go through a similar thought process, but I prefer to think about it in different parameters.

AdamWFoster on Twitter
Projectprospect.com Founder

by Adam Foster on Jan 30, 2012 6:55 PM EST up reply actions

Thanks

I’m looking at 2012 and 2013 ETA guys along with players who I believe have star upside.

This explains a lot. I don’t necessarily agree with as a way to rank farm systems, but I can understand the rankings a lot more in light of this. One suggestion I would make is to make this more clear on the actual page, because I think this is different from how most rankings are done, and a lot of people (myself included) didn’t grasp this, and I don’t think it was very clear.

Anyway, again, thanks for engaging on this. I may not agree, but I respect someone who will substantively explain and defend their views in the face of criticism, particularly in such an even manner

by MjwW on Jan 30, 2012 7:24 PM EST up reply actions