Orioles farm system ranked no. 2

[OsFanSinceThe80s]

23 minutes ago, 7Mo said:

Is Greene as sure a thing as Kumar Rocker was a year ago?

Elijah Green is more of a lock to remain a projected top pick because he's a position player and less likely to have health issues like Rocker did this year. Unless another player emerges Green is going to stay the projected top pick in the 2022 draft. 

[Sports Guy]

51 minutes ago, Pickles said:

Always a charmer.  LOL.

Using the adverb "exceedingly" is probably excessive.

I still think it's rare enough, and Frobby's rough estimate suggests it certainly isn't common.

Mind you, I'm not talking about draft picks.  I'm talking about guys established enough- or high enough pedigree- to be listed be seen, for the most part, as legitimate prospects.

Common?  Probably not.  Rare?  No 

[NelsonCruuuuuz]

50 minutes ago, 7Mo said:

Is Greene as sure a thing as Kumar Rocker was a year ago?

Good question and my thought too but he seems like a 1 barring injury or big struggles.

[foxfield]

Cool thought exercise.  I think you would want to measure the 18 prospects.  In this case it looks like the valuations are close...of course these are projections.  And while you do know the injury history of all 20 now.  You have no idea what the future holds.  I remind everyone that it was only in May that Tony was raising serious questions about whether AR would hit at the major league level.  I hope and think he will but...

This is a true mind game on the idea of projected value vs actual value.  In 2010 Baseball America had Mike Trout as the 3rd best prospect....for the Angels and the 85th prospect overall.  After making a brief appearance in the majors in 2011, Trout came up for good in 2012 and won the AL Rookie of the Year award...UNANIMOUSLY.

People say "I like elite talent"...as if they are different than someone else.  Everyone likes elite talent.  What everyone doesn't agree on is what is going to be elite.  Adley and Grayson are two special talents and we have seemingly waited forever to have a pair like em.  I don't know if I could pull the trigger or not but if prospects are like birds, but if one in the hand is worth two in the bush..it would make sense to take 18 for 2. 

 

[Frobby]

1 hour ago, OsFanSinceThe80s said:

Elijah Green is more of a lock to remain a projected top pick because he's a position player and less likely to have health issues like Rocker did this year. Unless another player emerges Green is going to stay the projected top pick in the 2022 draft. 

A million things can happen that change the picture.   It doesn’t have to involve a catastrophe for the prospective no. 1.    I’m not saying Greene won’t be the presumed BPA next year on draft day, but the odds he will be are probably 50-50 at best.  

[Pickles]

37 minutes ago, Sports Guy said:

Common?  Probably not.  Rare?  No 

Well, we're splitting hairs here.  But I overspoke before.

We were initially talking about 2 vs 18, which I think leans more to the 18 more than the 2, even more so than the 9 vs the 1.

There's arguments to be made for both sides if you are arguing generalities.  

[NelsonCruuuuuz]

4 minutes ago, Frobby said:

A million things can happen that change the picture.   It doesn’t have to involve a catastrophe for the prospective no. 1.    I’m not saying Greene won’t be the presumed BPA next year on draft day, but the odds he will be are probably 50-50 at best.  

Scouts like him a lot. I heard Harpers scouting profile mentioned as an equal bar(diff profile of course), high praise bc they had him penciled in as greatest player ever.

[Hallas]

Just now, NelsonCruuuuuz said:

I just pray he takes Greene next year with the number 1 pick. I am scared crapless he will go cheap yet again. 

Being a top rated farm system and winning or completely different things. Plus, sale of the team is a huge factor in the timeline. What if Peter lives another 5 years? Adley might be traded in that scenario b4 he hits free agency.

Good to see the improvement but how can they not improve after watching a painfully unwatchable product after how many years?

 

I really think the hypothetical sale of the team is super out of scope for a discussion on prospect/farm system rankings.  I do think that prospect rankings (especially when we're comparing prospects to other teams) do have a pretty strong correlation with future performance.  These aren't draft picks, and I think teams/evaluators have gotten pretty good at identifying prospects that they think are going to be impact players once they start playing pro ball.  I agree that the minor league performance has to translate to major league performance, and soon, but at least there's hope that we have the talent to do that.  Before we had our hopes and dreams pinned to Brian Matusz?  Oof.

[Pickles]

4 hours ago, Frobby said:

There used to be a website (I’m blanking on the name) that had historical data on how much value was within each team’s farm system at the end of any given year (judged retroactively, by rWAR).    One probably could have looked at that to answer this question.   Unfortunately, that site no longer exists.   

Again, I think it depends what you are measuring.  Excess value during the years of team control?   Total value over a player’s career?   I think the answer using those two measures wouldn’t necessarily be the same.   

We know from my other thread about the value of a draft that the average WAR produced by a draft is about 23.   We also know that about 30 % of WAR comes from foreign players who weren’t drafted, so make it 33 WAR/year entering the farm system.   The average average player who makes the majors probably takes 3-5 years to get there, though the great ones may only take 1-2 years.   So I’m going to say, finger to the wind, that an average farm system probably has about 100 WAR in it at any given year, and probably 80% of that comes from the top 10 players in the system.  So, if you have a 40+ WAR player in your system, he’s probably worth as much as the next 9 guys combined.   I don’t know how many 40+ WAR guys are lurking in the minors at any given time, but if I had to guess, I’d say 10-15 (of whom 3-5 graduate to the majors each year).   So, I’d guess that roughly 30-50% of the time, a team has a player in its system who is worth more than the next 9 guys combined in terms of total WAR.   All of this is a pretty rough estimate, but I think it’s good enough to say it’s probably not “exceedingly rare” to have a guy in the farm system who will produce more WAR than the next 9 guys combined, though it probably is true less than half the time and maybe less than a third of the time.   

At some point I may try to do a bit more research to confirm this.   


 

Don't forget the 40 WAR guy has to be the #1 spot in this scenario.  If the 40 WAR guy is the #5 prospect, the diversifier still wins.  Which is kind of the whole point.  Right?

(Being a little more diplomatic as a lesson for Sports Guy):

I would also very much like to investigate the idea that 80% of the value of a farm comes from the top ten guys.  Is there data for that?

[BohKnowsBmore]

1 hour ago, foxfield said:

Cool thought exercise.  I think you would want to measure the 18 prospects.  In this case it looks like the valuations are close...of course these are projections.  And while you do know the injury history of all 20 now.  You have no idea what the future holds.  I remind everyone that it was only in May that Tony was raising serious questions about whether AR would hit at the major league level.  I hope and think he will but...

This is a true mind game on the idea of projected value vs actual value.  In 2010 Baseball America had Mike Trout as the 3rd best prospect....for the Angels and the 85th prospect overall.  After making a brief appearance in the majors in 2011, Trout came up for good in 2012 and won the AL Rookie of the Year award...UNANIMOUSLY.

People say "I like elite talent"...as if they are different than someone else.  Everyone likes elite talent.  What everyone doesn't agree on is what is going to be elite.  Adley and Grayson are two special talents and we have seemingly waited forever to have a pair like em.  I don't know if I could pull the trigger or not but if prospects are like birds, but if one in the hand is worth two in the bush..it would make sense to take 18 for 2. 

 

For perspective, I would argue we had "a pair like em" as far as prospects are concerned heading into 2012 in Bundy and Machado.

https://www.baseballprospectus.com/prospects/article/16020/future-shock-top-101-prospects/

[foxfield]

7 hours ago, BohKnowsBmore said:

For perspective, I would argue we had "a pair like em" as far as prospects are concerned heading into 2012 in Bundy and Machado.

https://www.baseballprospectus.com/prospects/article/16020/future-shock-top-101-prospects/

That was 30 years ago?  Lol. feels like it.

[Sports Guy]

8 hours ago, Pickles said:

Don't forget the 40 WAR guy has to be the #1 spot in this scenario.  If the 40 WAR guy is the #5 prospect, the diversifier still wins.  Which is kind of the whole point.  Right?

(Being a little more diplomatic as a lesson for Sports Guy):

I would also very much like to investigate the idea that 80% of the value of a farm comes from the top ten guys.  Is there data for that?

But that’s not really the point.  You are assuming that #1 and #2 are who you would always make that trade for.

But the idea is the 2 best prospects you see for the majors.  In this exact scenario, that happens to be #1 and 2.  
 

The other thing that matters is, what is the drop off like after 1 and 2.  For the Os, your third best prospect is Hall according to top 50 lists.  But that’s not who Tony has and many others as well.  For me?  I put Hall more like 5th or 6th.  I think the difference for the Os between 2 And 3 is pretty huge.

Going back to your “exceedingly rare” comment (which thankfully you took back), I think you this conversation only happens in certain cases.  Not everyone has those 2 guys at the top. And someone may say, I wouldn’t trade our #10 guy for our #1 guy.  Maybe the #10 is some elite level newly signing intl prospect, someone who has barely played.  There is a lot of nuance to this conversation but for me, I take the premium/elite talent over the middling solid guys any day of the week.  Once you get to the majors, it’s easy to find those middling guys.  You may spend more money than you want to for them but it’s a lot better than spending 250-400M.

Those guys are few and far between and in sports, you need those elite guys to win.  

[HowAboutThat]

On 8/16/2021 at 7:30 PM, Aristotelian said:

They are still cheap and will have value next year. If we are starting to win games they can be part of the core.

No they can’t. The best guy in that bunch is still terribly flawed. None of them would have had a place on our 2014 team except as an up-down guy. Any team would claim them off waivers or take them in a “cash considerations” or similar deal but they have no meaningful value.

[Pickles]

5 hours ago, Sports Guy said:

But that’s not really the point.  You are assuming that #1 and #2 are who you would always make that trade for.

But the idea is the 2 best prospects you see for the majors.  In this exact scenario, that happens to be #1 and 2.  
 

The other thing that matters is, what is the drop off like after 1 and 2.  For the Os, your third best prospect is Hall according to top 50 lists.  But that’s not who Tony has and many others as well.  For me?  I put Hall more like 5th or 6th.  I think the difference for the Os between 2 And 3 is pretty huge.

Going back to your “exceedingly rare” comment (which thankfully you took back), I think you this conversation only happens in certain cases.  Not everyone has those 2 guys at the top. And someone may say, I wouldn’t trade our #10 guy for our #1 guy.  Maybe the #10 is some elite level newly signing intl prospect, someone who has barely played.  There is a lot of nuance to this conversation but for me, I take the premium/elite talent over the middling solid guys any day of the week.  Once you get to the majors, it’s easy to find those middling guys.  You may spend more money than you want to for them but it’s a lot better than spending 250-400M.

Those guys are few and far between and in sports, you need those elite guys to win.  

Are we having two different conversations here?

I'm talking about prospects not players.

So yeah, looking at a group of 20 prospects with the benefit of hindsight, and taking the two which provided the most value vs. the other 18 is not what I'm talking about.  

I'm saying you get the two best prospects.  You don't get to know in advance if they pan out or not.

So it's not players 1 & 2 vs. players 3-20.

It's prospects 1 & 2 vs. prospects 3-20.

I brought this up with Frobby because his analysis provided a very rough guesstimate to how often one prospect would be worth 9 others.  But it's more than fair to point out that doesn't really answer the question, unless we can likewise determine how often that best player was indeed the best prospect.

I concede that the odds shift drastically in your favor with the benefit of hindsight and picking what becomes the two best players.  But that's not what I'm talking about.

[Sports Guy]

9 minutes ago, Pickles said:

Are we having two different conversations here?

I'm talking about prospects not players.

So yeah, looking at a group of 20 prospects with the benefit of hindsight, and taking the two which provided the most value vs. the other 18 is not what I'm talking about.  

I'm saying you get the two best prospects.  You don't get to know in advance if they pan out or not.

So it's not players 1 & 2 vs. players 3-20.

It's prospects 1 & 2 vs. prospects 3-20.

I brought this up with Frobby because his analysis provided a very rough guesstimate to how often one prospect would be worth 9 others.  But it's more than fair to point out that doesn't really answer the question, unless we can likewise determine how often that best player was indeed the best prospect.

I concede that the odds shift drastically in your favor with the benefit of hindsight and picking what becomes the two best players.  But that's not what I'm talking about.

You mentioned that sometimes the 40 WAR could be the #5 prospect.  My point is, that in a trade scenario like this, it may not always been the guys ranked 1 And 2 that you make the deal for. 
 

In the example I brought up, the Os, you do and you might do that with Seattle because of Kelenic and Rodriguez.  But maybe you like Gilbert more then Kelenic, so you take him instead.

I just think it happens a good amount where 2 prospects from a teams top 20 outperform the rest of the top 20.  So many guys just don’t make it or become anything.