Fire alex cora

[moonslav59]

So we go from top 3 to 30 and back to 22 in what time span based on what criteria? I think that these rankings are ludicrous as well as meaningless.

They are not worthless, but they are based on the opinions of people who know the business.

I'd rather have a top 10 ranked farm than a bottom 10 ranked farm. It means the chances you get some help from the farm are greater.

Which crop of prospects do you think is better?

Casas, Mata, Dalbec, Duran, Groome, Jimenez, Houck, Ward, Song, Chatham, Lugo, Decker, Flores

or

Moncada, Devers, Espi, Margot, Beni, Kopech, Guerra, Johnson, Travis, Marrero, Chavis, Basabe, Allen, Dubon, Marco

[notin]

So we go from top 3 to 30 and back to 22 in what time span based on what criteria? I think that these rankings are ludicrous as well as meaningless.

They're not meaningless, but they're not necessarily etched in stone. These jobs involce predicting the future, and any time someone has to predict the future, they will have instances of being wrong.

The bottom line is they are an indication of how many future major leaguers and the quality of said major leaguers versus the far systems of other teams. And they can change as some payers get better, which all of them re trying to do.

Being ranked 30th doesn't mean you have NO future major leaguers, just potentially fewer than anyone else or ones with lesser impacts. Given how well the Sox rookie class did this year - with only one player who really made an impact (Chavis), and did so with a very flawed, strikeout-laden performance, whose farm did worse in 2019? It's not like we called up Vlad Guerero or Chris Paddack here...

[cp176]

They're not meaningless, but they're not necessarily etched in stone. These jobs involce predicting the future, and any time someone has to predict the future, they will have instances of being wrong.

The bottom line is they are an indication of how many future major leaguers and the quality of said major leaguers versus the far systems of other teams. And they can change as some payers get better, which all of them re trying to do.

Being ranked 30th doesn't mean you have NO future major leaguers, just potentially fewer than anyone else or ones with lesser impacts. Given how well the Sox rookie class did this year - with only one player who really made an impact (Chavis), and did so with a very flawed, strikeout-laden performance, whose farm did worse in 2019? It's not like we called up Vlad Guerero or Chris Paddack here...

My choice of words might have been stronger than necessary. I'm glad that some find these types of projections fascinating. I just don't I guess. I am much more interested in discussions about actual performance.

[harmony]

So we go from top 3 to 30 and back to 22 in what time span based on what criteria? I think that these rankings are ludicrous as well as meaningless.

This 2013 study found a meaningful correlation between Baseball America prospect ranking and future value based on MLB production:

https://www.beyondtheboxscore.com/20...timate-the-top

[notin]

My choice of words might have been stronger than necessary. I'm glad that some find these types of projections fascinating. I just don't I guess. I am much more interested in discussions about actual performance.

WEll there is some accuracy to them.

Vlad Guerrero was a consensu #1 overall prospect. He certainly showed it. CHris Paddack was ranked in the top 40 by 2 of the ranking bureaus and #66 by BA, and he absolutely performed well.

Sure, every now and then an unranked prospect is great player. No one ever ranked Paul Goldschmidt anywhere, for example. No one ever ranked Youkilis anywhere, either. And Albert Pujols was ranked one time and ranked #42 by BA. So in an interesting development, BA thought in that one year, 41 minor leaguers were better than Pujols, but in reality, there were not 41 major leaguers in MLB history who were better. (Of course, Pujols was in A-ball at the time and then jumped to the majors.)

But there is a strong tendency towards better players typically being higher ranked prospects...

[cp176]

They are not worthless, but they are based on the opinions of people who know the business.

I'd rather have a top 10 ranked farm than a bottom 10 ranked farm. It means the chances you get some help from the farm are greater.

Which crop of prospects do you think is better?

Casas, Mata, Dalbec, Duran, Groome, Jimenez, Houck, Ward, Song, Chatham, Lugo, Decker, Flores

or

Moncada, Devers, Espi, Margot, Beni, Kopech, Guerra, Johnson, Travis, Marrero, Chavis, Basabe, Allen, Dubon, Marco

If you are interested in my response I would say that after you take Devers, Beni, and Chavis out of the equation, with the exception of Moncada and possibly Kopech, I would go with group number 1. I guess that means that outside of Moncada and possibly Kopech, I feel that we kept the right guys and the next wave very likely will be better than the group we gave up.

[Slasher9]

My choice of words might have been stronger than necessary. I'm glad that some find these types of projections fascinating. I just don't I guess. I am much more interested in discussions about actual performance.

the thing is...the perception of these minor league players is what allows a team to trade their "top prospects" for guys like Chris Sale, Verlander, Greinke. you dont acquire guys like that with prospects from a #30 ranked Farm.

[cp176]

the thing is...the perception of these minor league players is what allows a team to trade their "top prospects" for guys like Chris Sale, Verlander, Greinke. you dont acquire guys like that with prospects from a #30 ranked Farm.

Likely true

[notin]

If you are interested in my response I would say that after you take Devers, Beni, and Chavis out of the equation, with the exception of Moncada and possibly Kopech, I would go with group number 1. I guess that means that outside of Moncada and possibly Kopech, I feel that we kept the right guys and the next wave very likely will be better than the group we gave up.

Except that beyond blind faith, there is no reason to think Casas or Mata or Duran or Groome will necessarily ever see a full season in the majors just yet. Plenty of high ranked players than them have had shorter careers...

[moonslav59]

If you are interested in my response I would say that after you take Devers, Beni, and Chavis out of the equation, with the exception of Moncada and possibly Kopech, I would go with group number 1. I guess that means that outside of Moncada and possibly Kopech, I feel that we kept the right guys and the next wave very likely will be better than the group we gave up.

After you take 3 of the best guys out, you like one better?

That's not an answer.

It's like saying, if we trade Casas, Mata and Groome, I like the other better.

[S5Dewey]

I take these rankings with a smattering of the law of diminishing returns. Keeping in mind that they're all subjective to some degree, starting in the middle at #15....
Is #14 really better than #16???
How about #13 being better than #17?
#12 vs. #18?
Probably by the time you get to #10 & #20 there's a slight significant difference but I wouldn't put too much stock in anything within a 10 point range, especially once you get by the say... top 5. I don't see it as being at all unreasonable that a team can go from #30 to #22 overnight since all of this is subjective anyway.

[moonslav59]

I take these rankings with a smattering of the law of diminishing returns. Keeping in mind that they're all subjective to some degree, starting in the middle at #15....
Is #14 really better than #16???
How about #13 being better than #17?
#12 vs. #18?
Probably by the time you get to #10 & #20 there's a slight significant difference but I wouldn't put too much stock in anything within a 10 point range, especially once you get by the say... top 5. I don't see it as being at all unreasonable that a team can go from #30 to #22 overnight since all of this is subjective anyway.

There might be significant drop offs between a couple slots here and there or a bigger drop off between, say, 12 and 15 than 22 and 25.

I'd say it's safe to say a 10 slot difference is significant, maybe even 7 or 8 in most cases.

[cp176]

After you take 3 of the best guys out, you like one better?

That's not an answer.

It's like saying, if we trade Casas, Mata and Groome, I like the other better.

When you pose a question in that way, I think that I can answer as I wish. The three "best guys" as you call them have moved up. they were not traded and i'm guessing there was a reason for that. I continue to believe that nothing of great value was given up to get what we wanted and needed. The wheat once again was separated form the chaf. i like my answer.

[moonslav59]

When you pose a question in that way, I think that I can answer as I wish. The three "best guys" as you call them have moved up. they were not traded and i'm guessing there was a reason for that. I continue to believe that nothing of great value was given up to get what we wanted and needed. The wheat once again was separated form the chaf. i like my answer.

I posed a simple question: which farm was better.

Yes, we called up Devers, Beni and Chavis from that crop. That was a one snap shot farm. Just those three called up are better than all the prospects acquired after Ben and called up combined, and that was 4 years ago!

Answer how you wish, but that farm was exponentially better than this one.

All Our Top Prospects Acquired after Ben (4 Years):
Casas
Dalbec
Groome
Ward
Duran
Houck
Chatham
Feltman
Shawaryn
A Flores

All the Top Prospects Acquired by Ben (4 years):
ERod (by trade)
Devers
Moncada
Beni
Espinoza
Kopech
L Allen
Chavis
D Hernandez
Buttrey
Johnson
Guerra
Basabe I
Basabe II
Travis
Bautista
Asuaje
P Light
Maddox
Lakins

These guys were worth enough to keep Devers, Beni & Chavis and also get (via trade) Sale, Pom, Thornburg, Eovaldi, Pearce, AReed, Kinsler and others.

We couldn't get a pitcher like Sale by trading our entire, current top 10 prospects.

It's not even close, but I guess that's just my opinion and a bunch or experts, too.

[notin]

We've seen it takes dealing about 7 good prospects to go from ranked 3 to ranked 30th. So the difference isn't so large.

But the thing is, 4 of those 7 have already made the majors. The real question is, how many actual major leagers do the Sox have i their farm right now? And I'm not talkiing about Bobby Poyner types who do pitch in the majors, but are really more AAAA variety shuttle bus candidates. I mean players who will have an actual MLB career.

You can guesstimate a bit by looking at rankings, but bear in mind that on every BA Top 100 list, there are about 30 players who won't play in MLB beyond maybe a September call up.

Even guys like Casas. He's the top ranked guy, but he also plays the toughest position to crack an MLB lineup, since there are plenty of 1B out there who can hit, but couldn't field their minor league position.

I realize it's next to impossible to speculate on A-ball guys. But if you look at Pawtucket and Portland, how many actual future MLB players are on those teams right now?