Sickels' Orioles list coming

[Frobby]

John Sickels has a preliminary list of 36 Orioles prospects from which he'll draw his top 20. Mickolio was on the original list, and Snyder wasn't on it. Sickels asked who else should be added. Sickels then had this exchange with his readers (excerpted here, with Sickels' comments in bold):


Kam Mickolio can be taken off, he’s gone to Arizona in Reynolds deal

In theory maybe Snyder although I don’t think he will have any impact on an AL team.

Synder has to still be on the list right? He’s certainly failed to develop as hoped, but I’d certainly still put him in the conversation.

Ok, drop Cornholio in favor of Snyder.

HAHA too funny. Did you actually type Cornholio?

Did Snyder not make the original list, or was his exclusion just an oversight?

I thought he sucked too much to include. But people are curious, so OK.

http://www.minorleagueball.com/2010/12/6/1858773/baltimore-orioles-preliminary-prospect-list

[Stotle]

....insert stock comment regarding Sickels's credentials as an evaluator....

[Araqnid]

If making cute nicknames is what makes you a credible evaluator, then fine. I'm not interested in Suckle's list.

See. We can do it too.

[jcarm]

....insert stock comment regarding Sickels's credentials as an evaluator....
I think that you have to wonder-because he omitted Townsend from the list at first.

[Flosman]

I actually think these comment if made by him show a total lack of professionalism and makes him and his organization look like a group of high school know it alls that never got out of the stands. Both of these guys while not top prospects are in the top couple thousand baseball players in the world without question. Neither have ever done anything that makes them fair game to be disrespected like that. Going by a couple of the long time posters on here he is not even respected in the baseball world. So what is he doing?

[Stotle]

I think that you have to wonder-because he omitted Townsend from the list at first.

I was not impressed with his rankings three years ago when I was pointed towards them. He has done nothing to change my initial opinion of his work.

[Tony-OH]

I was not impressed with his rankings three years ago when I was pointed towards them. He has done nothing to change my initial opinion of his work.

You are not kidding. I never could quite understand how Sickels got his reputation. He got into the game early on and some apparently some still follow what he has to say, but I've seen little in his analysis that makes me even care in the least bit where he ranks guys.

[RVAbird]

You are not kidding. I never could quite understand how Sickels got his reputation. He got into the game early on and some apparently some still follow what he has to say, but I've seen little in his analysis that makes me even care in the least bit where he ranks guys.

He started compiling useful prospect lists for all 30 MLB teams at a time when such information was somewhat difficult to come across. His reputation is largely built on this, and the fact that he incorporated some statistical analysis in his observations.

But, you and Stotle are right. He's not a scout, has rarely seen these guys play, isn't connected enough to do consensus rankings as well as BA or BP, and isn't a wizard with the numbers so as to make up for it all.

[allstar1579]

I was not impressed with his rankings three years ago when I was pointed towards them. He has done nothing to change my initial opinion of his work.

Yeah I think it was about the same time when I took issue with him too. It was almost like he was picking names out of a hat and throwing them up on a board in order.

I seem to have some major issue with his opinions at least once a year, and I'd have a lot more respect for him if he was actually out there doing some research like Law.

[Frobby]

I just like seeing his list to see what comments he has on various players and whether he's particularly high or low on someone. He clearly doesn't have the resources of guys like Law or Goldstein or the folks at BA.

[hoosiers]

Not a big fan of Sickels. Seems like most of his work barely surpasses blogger material.

[Stotle]

Not a big fan of Sickels. Seems like most of his work barely surpasses blogger material.

Indeed -- I'd even say comparing Sickels to bloggers is a slap in the face of some pretty good MiL blogging writers.

Of course, he has his readership and they seem to enjoy conversing around his entries, so who am I to flame him?

[hoosiers]

Indeed -- I'd even say comparing Sickels to bloggers is a slap in the face of some pretty good MiL blogging writers.

Of course, he has his readership and they seem to enjoy conversing around his entries, so who am I to flame him?

Sickels does seem to have access to more than a few scouts and FO types, but his success is quite surprising given the lack of depth in his analysis.

[Araqnid]

Indeed -- I'd even say comparing Sickels to bloggers is a slap in the face of some pretty good MiL blogging writers.


I don't know. I think Snyder "sucked to much to include" is some pretty cutting-edge journalism myself. :rolleyes:

[Stotle]

Sickels does seem to have access to more than a few scouts and FO types, but his success is quite surprising given the lack of depth in his analysis.

People like lists -- they don't care so much what goes into making them, I guess.

[skanar]

Sickels uses a unified rating system for all prospects across the various levels and teams, which is pretty nice. If John Smith get a "B" as a 20 year old in the Cardinals' system, and James Johnson gets a "B-" as a 23 year old in the Twins', you know who he likes better.

It's also possible to compare prospects from year to year.

Plus, having just one person rate everyone has the advantage of eliminating biases between different scouts and rankers.

Not saying he's the be-all, end-all or anything like that, but there are some advantages to his system.

[TakebackOPACY]

Sickels' preliminary Top 20 (http://www.minorleagueball.com/2010/12/11/1870538/baltimore-orioles-top-20-prospects-for-2011#storyjump)

1. Machado A-
2. Britton B+
3. Klein B-
4. Givens B-
5. Avery C+
6. Hoes C+
7. Schoop C+
8. Adams C+
9. Berry C+
10. Pelzer C+

[Stotle]

Sickels uses a unified rating system for all prospects across the various levels and teams, which is pretty nice. If John Smith get a "B" as a 20 year old in the Cardinals' system, and James Johnson gets a "B-" as a 23 year old in the Twins', you know who he likes better.

It's also possible to compare prospects from year to year.

Plus, having just one person rate everyone has the advantage of eliminating biases between different scouts and rankers.

Not saying he's the be-all, end-all or anything like that, but there are some advantages to his system.

Every professional evaluator uses a unified rating system in the 20-80 (or 2-8) scale. They also do more than slap one grade on a prospect. There are, I would suppose, about 30-40 "B" prospects in Sickels' system. How does his system tell you which order those prospects fit?

I think he does a nice job giving casual prospect followers a list of "names to know" in a general order of prospect value. But I haven't ever really found his write-ups or rankings to be insightful. He's great for the fan that wants to know about the general universe of prospects out there (which I assume is a large percentage of slightly above-casual baseball fans). But if you really want to dig into evaluating, project and rating players, I haven't seen evidence that he's the guy you should go to. I'd say the same is generally true for the draft content on SBNation, as well.

[Stotle]

7) Jonathan Schoop, SS, Grade C+: Not sure why, but this one stands out to me as a breakout candidate.

Just a pet peeve of mine -- if you are an evaluator, shouldn't you have a reason for most opinions, let alone one as important as identifying a breakout candidate?

[MatthewW]

Sickels' preliminary Top 20 (http://www.minorleagueball.com/2010/12/11/1870538/baltimore-orioles-top-20-prospects-for-2011#storyjump)

1. Machado A-
2. Britton B+
3. Klein B-
4. Givens B-
5. Avery C+
6. Hoes C+
7. Schoop C+
8. Adams C+
9. Berry C+
10. Pelzer C+

I don't know if I have ever seen him have a list for any team with only 4 prospects rated a B- or higher (I am sure someone is going to prove me wrong...)

Some interesting things I found... 34 guys, where is Matt Angle and Brandon Erbe? And Gamboa breaking the top 20...

But I really only see this as one year being down.

Britton, Pelzer and maybe Cooney seem to be the only possible graduates this year while there are so many young pitchers that could break out. Add 1:4, 2:4 and 3:4 all probably being C+ or better prospects in the 2011 draft and this system isn't in as bad shape as it looks right now.

[JTrea81]

Sickels just updated Britton to an A-

http://www.minorleagueball.com/2010/12/11/1870538/baltimore-orioles-top-20-prospects-for-2011#54232223

[Crazysilver03]

I don't know if I have ever seen him have a list for any team with only 4 prospects rated a B- or higher (I am sure someone is going to prove me wrong...)

Some interesting things I found... 34 guys, where is Matt Angle and Brandon Erbe? And Gamboa breaking the top 20...

But I really only see this as one year being down.

Britton, Pelzer and maybe Cooney seem to be the only possible graduates this year while there are so many young pitchers that could break out. Add 1:4, 2:4 and 3:4 all probably being C+ or better prospects in the 2011 draft and this system isn't in as bad shape as it looks right now.

Angle is included in the OTHERS category. No mention of Erbe, probably because of injury.

These lists have no real analysis too them. I used to think these were useful but after doing the research this off-season, I can discount them completely.

[Crazysilver03]

Sickels just updated Britton to an A-

http://www.minorleagueball.com/2010/12/11/1870538/baltimore-orioles-top-20-prospects-for-2011#54232223

I think this helps illustrate why his list isn't all that good.

[cmwebb24]

7) Jonathan Schoop, SS, Grade C+: Not sure why, but this one stands out to me as a breakout candidate.

Just a pet peeve of mine -- if you are an evaluator, shouldn't you have a reason for most opinions, let alone one as important as identifying a breakout candidate?

+1

Plus, how can he go back and decide to boost a grade (Britton), or go back and add a player (Angle)?

I'm not going to harp on it as the national writer angle has been discussed, but I feel it lacks professionalism to submit something with less than full ability applied to it. Which is what it comes off to me with these on a whim changes reacting to reader comments. Be concrete in your analysis or don't provide it.

[MatthewW]

Angle is included in the OTHERS category. No mention of Erbe, probably because of injury.

These lists have no real analysis too them. I used to think these were useful but after doing the research this off-season, I can discount them completely.

When I posted, Angle wasn't on there... he has since changed it. Is there any 'national' lists that are worth while?

[RVAbird]

+1

Plus, how can he go back and decide to boost a grade (Britton), or go back and add a player (Angle)?

I'm not going to harp on it as the national writer angle has been discussed, but I feel it lacks professionalism to submit something with less than full ability applied to it. Which is what it comes off to me with these on a whim changes reacting to reader comments. Be concrete in your analysis or don't provide it.

I'm actually going to disagree with this. I'm of the idea that facilitating discussion and using a feedback/response method is more helpful than asserting the authority of the source through direct transmission.

I don't think the role of the media should be so one-sided and authoritative. I see nothing wrong with posting a preliminary list, participating in the discussion, and then posting a revised or final list. It would be an acknowledgment by the author that he is not the end-all authority on all things prospect over all of MiLB. Information plurality is more effective than dogma.

My problem is that he doesn't seem to have a consistent and coherent methodology or set of criteria.

EDIT: for example (http://www.minorleagueball.com/2010/12/11/1870538/baltimore-orioles-top-20-prospects-for-2011#54232223), "OK, I’ll go along with Britton as an A-. The written comment is nothing but positive accolades, and an A- fits better" doesn't seem very rigorous or professional to me.

If, for example, Sickels hadn't had a chance to see Britton pitch in the second half of the season, and a scout or credible source had indicated to him, after the posting of the preliminary list, that Britton had gradually incorporated the working use of an average to above-average changeup, I would respect Sickels then revising the grade, saying something like "new information that I was not privvy to has come to light, and the effective use of a change is enough to bump Britton up a category."

[Frobby]

To me the telling part about Sickels' list is that by the time you get to our no. 3 prospect, you're already in B- territory, and C+ by no. 5. You might argue that a couple of C+ guys deserve B-, but overall, there aren't a lot of proven high performers.

[tilgaham]

To me the telling part about Sickels' list is that by the time you get to our no. 3 prospect, you're already in B- territory, and C+ by no. 5. You might argue that a couple of C+ guys deserve B-, but overall, there aren't a lot of proven high performers.

A good season by the crop of hitting prospects and Britton would give us 2/3 B(+) players and an A. Throw in some good draft picks and we've reloaded. It'd still be pretty topheavy though.

[RZNJ]

Britton could and should graduate from this years list but most others will still be eligible. Hopefully, guys like Hoes, Givens, Townsend, Mahoney, Schoop, Avery, increase their grades. Next years pick stands a good chance of being high on the list, with a good grade also. Possible bouncebacks by Hobgood, Coffey, Wirsch, Henry, etc. could also inject some life back into the system.

[cmwebb24]

I'm actually going to disagree with this. I'm of the idea that facilitating discussion and using a feedback/response method is more helpful than asserting the authority of the source through direct transmission.

I don't think the role of the media should be so one-sided and authoritative. I see nothing wrong with posting a preliminary list, participating in the discussion, and then posting a revised or final list. It would be an acknowledgment by the author that he is not the end-all authority on all things prospect over all of MiLB. Information plurality is more effective than dogma.

My problem is that he doesn't seem to have a consistent and coherent methodology or set of criteria.

EDIT: for example (http://www.minorleagueball.com/2010/12/11/1870538/baltimore-orioles-top-20-prospects-for-2011#54232223), "OK, I’ll go along with Britton as an A-. The written comment is nothing but positive accolades, and an A- fits better" doesn't seem very rigorous or professional to me.

If, for example, Sickels hadn't had a chance to see Britton pitch in the second half of the season, and a scout or credible source had indicated to him, after the posting of the preliminary list, that Britton had gradually incorporated the working use of an average to above-average changeup, I would respect Sickels then revising the grade, saying something like "new information that I was not privvy to has come to light, and the effective use of a change is enough to bump Britton up a category."

I'm actually not disagreeing with you. You just stated perhaps clearer and more deeper what I was trying to get at.

I don't object or think one should not participate, I was solely referencing the Britton/Angle situations where he changed his evaluating opinion as a result of the comments. Meaning, what was his determination for the B+ prior to the A-? Or why was Angle not a C? Would their grades have changed without the comments if he looked back say next week?


Agree with the example you pose. But that does not seem to be the case and brings to light the consistent and coherent methodology or set of criteria problem you mention.

[RVAbird]

I'm actually not disagreeing with you. You just stated perhaps clearer and more deeper what I was trying to get at.

I don't object or think one should not participate, I was solely referencing the Britton/Angle situations where he changed his evaluating opinion as a result of the comments. Meaning, what was his determination for the B+ prior to the A-? Or why was Angle not a C? Would their grades have changed without the comments if he looked back say next week?


Agree with the example you pose. But that does not seem to be the case and brings to light the consistent and coherent methodology or set of criteria problem you mention.

Well then, it sounds like we are in agreement. :)