Baseball America: Top 100 Prospects Position Rankings

[Can_of_corn]

I already posted the RHP list in the KLaw thread but figured it would be better served with a location in the minors section on the forum.

[Can_of_corn]

Catchers

#8 Chance Sisco

http://www.baseballamerica.com/minors/top-100-prospects-position-rankings-catchers/

[Can_of_corn]

Right Handed Pitchers

#31 Bundy

#32 Harvey

#80 Givens

http://www.baseballamerica.com/minors/top-100-prospects-position-rankings-righthanders/

[Can_of_corn]

Left Handed Pitchers

0 Orioles in the top 25.

http://www.baseballamerica.com/minors/top-100-prospects-position-rankings-lefthanders/

[MatthewW]

Left Handed Pitchers

0 Orioles in the top 25.

http://www.baseballamerica.com/minors/top-100-prospects-position-rankings-lefthanders/

As a a side note... #16 Josh Hader

[Frobby]

As a a side note... #16 Josh Hader

I'm just glad he's not any higher (solely from a sour grapes point of view; nothing personal against Hader).

[thezeroes]

I already posted the RHP list in the KLaw thread but figured it would be better served with a location in the minors section on the forum.

Those that just missed: http://www.baseballamerica.com/viewpoint/ask-ba-just-missed-top-100/

[Stotle]

Consequences of Neglecting a Farm System (No Top 100 Prospects)

What this indicates is that teams with little impact prospect talent in their systems had better be poised to win now, because those wins are going to be harder to come by in Years Three, Four and Five, possibly because of a lack of young, impact talent introduced early in the cycle.

http://www.baseballamerica.com/minors/consequences-top-100-prospects/

[Frobby]

While the conclusion makes sense, it is worth pointing out that we are talking about a sample size of seven teams depicted on that chart. Not exactly a mountain of data.

[Stotle]

While the conclusion makes sense, it is worth pointing out that we are talking about a sample size of seven teams depicted on that chart. Not exactly a mountain of data.

Agreed. Also worth noting that's how uncommon it is for a system to log zero Top 100 prospects.

[Frobby]

Agreed. Also worth noting that's how uncommon it is for a system to log zero Top 100 prospects.

I found it interesting that there have only been 8 such teams in the prior 26-year history of BA, and then 4 in 2016.

[Stotle]

I found it interesting that there have only been 8 such teams in the prior 26-year history of BA, and then 4 in 2016.

Weird confluence of events. All four were in the ballpark of having some representation.

[Number5]

Interesting that if the study had concluded after 4 years, the apparent "consequences" would appear to be pretty close to zero. I agree with Frobby, very SSS makes it difficult to have worthwhile statistical analysis. Common sense tells us that if a team has a barren farm system, that team is likely to suffer for it down the road.

[Stotle]

Interesting that if the study had concluded after 4 years, the apparent "consequences" would appear to be pretty close to zero. I agree with Frobby, very SSS makes it difficult to have worthwhile statistical analysis. Common sense tells us that if a team has a barren farm system, that team is likely to suffer for it down the road.

I don't think it is intended to me more than a narrative aside -- here is what happened with respect to the handful of other teams that didn't have Top 100 prospect representation.

[Frobby]

28% of teams without a top 100 player win the World Series within four years. Sign me up!