John Sickels' O's Top 20

[orioole28]

Updated ranking

Top 20

(1)TEX -- 1 A, 2 A-, 1 B+, 5 B, 2 B-, 9 C+ ----- Top 20: 2.80

(2)OAK -- 2 A-, 6 B, 7 B-, 5 C+ ----------------Top 20: 2.78

(3)ATL -- 1 A-, 3 B+, 3 B, 6 B-, 7 C+ ---------- Top 20: 2.75

(4)FLA -- 2 A-, 3 B+, 3 B, 3 B-, 6 C+, 4 C ------ Top 20: 2.70

(5)BOS -- 1 A-, 1 B+, 3 B, 8 B-, 7 C+ ----------Top 20: 2.68

(6)TAM -- 1 A, 3 B+, 1 B, 4 B-, 11 C+ --------- Top 20: 2.67

(7)KCR -- 1 A-, 1 B+, 6 B, 1 B-, 10 C+, 1 C -----Top 20: 2.65

(8)CLE -- 2 B+, 4 B, 3 B-, 11 C+ ----------------Top 20: 2.62

(9)BAL -- 1 A, 3 B+, 1 B, 4 B-, 7 C+, 4 C -------Top 20: 2.60

(10)SFG -- 1 A, 1 A-,1 B+,1 B, 3 B-, 12 C+, 1 C --Top 20: 2.60

(11)STL -- 2 A-, 1 B+, 1 B, 2 B-, 14 C+-------- Top 20: 2.58

(12)MIN -- 2 B+, 1 B, 5 B-, 12 C+ ------------- Top 20: 2.55

(13)SDP -- 1 B+, 3 B, 4 B-, 12 C+ ------------- Top 20: 2.55

(14)MIL -- 1 B+, 5 B, 2 B-, 9 C+, 3 C ---------- Top 20: 2.53

(15)CIN -- 1 B+, 3 B, 4 B-, 10 C+, 2 C --------- Top 20: 2.52

(16)SEA -- 1 B+, 4 B, 4 B-, 6 C+, 5 C ----------Top 20: 2.50

(17)NYY -- 1 B+, 1 B, 5 B-, 13 C+ ------------- Top 20: 2.50

(18)NYM --2 B+, 3 B, 12 C+, 3 C -------------- Top 20: 2.48

(19)WAS - 2 B+, 1 B, 3 B-, 11 C+, 2 C --------- Top 20: 2.48

(20)LAA -- 1 B+, 2 B, 2 B-, 15 C+ -------------- Top 20: 2.48

(21)PHI -- 3 B, 5 B-, 9 C+, 3 C ---------------- Top 20: 2.47

(22)TOR -- 1 A-, 1 B+, 1 B, 3 B-, 7 C+, 7 C ---- Top 20: 2.42

(23)LAD -- 1 B+, 3 B, 2 B-, 8 C+, 6 C ---------- Top 20: 2.42

(24)ARI -- 1 B+, 1 B, 5 B-, 3 C+, 10 C --------- Top 20: 2.40

(25)PIT -- 1 A-, 2 B+, 1 B-, 9 C+, 7 C --------- Top 20: 2.40

(26)CHC -- 1 B+, 2 B, 3 B-, 8 C+, 6 C --------- Top 20: 2.40

(27)COL -- 1 A-, 1 B+, 1 B, 2 B-, 7 C+, 8 C ---- Top 20: 2.38

(28)CWS -- 2 B+,1 B, 2 B-, 7 C+ and 8 C ------ Top 20: 2.37

(29)DET -- 1 A-, 1 B, 1 B-, 12 C+, 5 C --------- Top 20: 2.37

(30)HOU -- 1 B, 4 B-, 5 C+, 10 C -------------- Top 20: 2.27

Top 10

(1)TEX Top 10: 3.23

(2)FLA Top 10: 3.17

(3)OAK Top 10: 3.07

(4)ATL Top 10: 3.07

(5)TAM Top 10: 3.00

(6)KCR Top 10: 3.00

(7)BAL Top 10: 3.00

(8)BOS Top 10: 2.93

(9)CLE Top 10: 2.90

(10)SF Top 10: 2.90

(11)STL Top 10: 2.83

(12)MIL Top 10: 2.83

(13)SEA Top 10: 2.83

(14)ARI Top 10: 2.80

(15)MIN Top 10: 2.77

(16)SDP Top 10: 2.77

(17)CIN Top 10: 2.77

(18)NYM Top 10: 2.73

(19)TOR Top 10: 2.73

(20)WAS Top 10: 2.70

(21)PHI Top 10: 2.70

(22)LAD Top 10: 2.70

(23)PIT Top 10: 2.70

(24)COL Top 10: 2.70

(25)NYY Top 10: 2.67

(26)CHC Top 10: 2.67

(27)CHW Top 10: 2.67

(28)LAA Top 10: 2.63

(29)DET Top 10: 2.57

(30)HOU Top 10: 2.53

These stats courtesy from Frobby

01-06-2009 10:19 PM

Sorry I was late on the changes.

[Enjoy Terror]

Based on their history of drafting and turning prospects into major league players, I'm shocked that the Angels have such a poor system.

[hoosiers]

Does Sickels rate the systems or just the prospects?

I am concerned that there are conclusions being drawn about the minor league talents in one organization versus the next based on a very generic counting system. Even if the counting system puts some systems in the right spot, I fear that the repeated posting of the results in this thread has given some credibility to the system and the results/conclusions. I just want to remind people these rankings in the attached are based on a crude and uncalibrated counting system.

As an example, the system gives equal weight to Wieters and the sum of Bergesen and Beato - not an exchange I would remotely consider. There is a reason we see analysts repeatedly comment on how strong the Os top four is - because star prospects are worth their weight in gold which is not appropriately reflected in the rankings above.

I am a big fan of Frobby's and I do not mean to imply by any means that we are being misled, but I do not agree with the method used here.

[Enjoy Terror]

Top three prospects per organization, per Sickels:

(1)TEX Top 10: 3.23 (P Neftali Perez, 1B Justin Smoak, SS Elvus Andrus)

(2)FLA Top 10: 3.17 (OF Cameron Maybin, 1B Logan Morrison, 3B Matt Dominguez)

(3)OAK Top 10: 3.07 (P Trevor Cahill, P Brett Anderson, OF Aaron Cunningham)

(4)ATL Top 10: 3.07 (OF Jason Heyward, 1B Frederick Freeman, P Thomas Hanson)

(5)TAM Top 10: 3.00 (P David Price, P Wade Davis, P Jeremy Hellickson)

(6)KCR Top 10: 3.00 (3B Mike Moustakas, 1B Eric Hosmer, 1B Kila Ka'aihue)

(7)BAL Top 10: 3.00 (C Matt Wieters, P Chris Tillman, P Brian Matusz)

(8)BOS Top 10: 2.93 (1B Lars Anderson, P Michael Bowden, P Daniel Bard)

(9)CLE Top 10: 2.90 (C Carlos Santana, 1B Matt LaPorta, P Adam Miller)

(10)SF Top 10: 2.90 (P Madison Bumgarner, C Buster Posey, P Tim Alderson)

(11)STL Top 10: 2.83 (OF Colby Rasmus, 3B Brett Wallace, P Chris Perez)

(12)MIL Top 10: 2.83 (3B Mat Gamel, SS Alcides Escobar, C Brett Lawrie)

(13)SEA Top 10: 2.83 (INF Carlos Triunfel, OF Greg Halman, P Phillipe Aumont)

(14)ARI Top 10: 2.80 (P Jarrod Parker, P Daniel Schlereth, OF Gerardo Parra)

(15)MIN Top 10: 2.77 (OF Ben Revere, OF Aaron Hicks, C Wilson Ramos)

(16)SDP Top 10: 2.77 (1B Kyle Blanks, OF Jaff Decker, P Mat Latos)

(17)CIN Top 10: 2.77 (1B Yonder Alonso, INF Todd Frazier, SS Chris Valaika)

(18)NYM Top 10: 2.73 (SS Wilmer Flores, OF Fernando Martinez, P Jon Niese)

(19)TOR Top 10: 2.73 (OF Travis Snider, P Brett Cecil, 1B David Cooper)

(20)WAS Top 10: 2.70 (P Jordan Zimmerman, OF Michael Burgess, 1B Chris Marrero)

(21)PHI Top 10: 2.70 (P Carlos Carrasco, OF Michael Taylor, C Travis D'Arnaud)

(22)LAD Top 10: 2.70 (P James McDonald, P Ethan Martin, SS Ivan DeJesus)

(23)PIT Top 10: 2.70 (3B Pedro Alvarez, OF Andrew McCutchen, OF Jose Tabata)

(24)COL Top 10: 2.70 (OF Dexter Fowler, P Jhoulys Chacin, P Christian Friedrich)

(25)NYY Top 10: 2.67 (C Jesus Montero, OF Austin Jackson, P Dellin Betances)

(26)CHC Top 10: 2.67 (3B Josh Vitters, P Jeff Samardzija, SS Ryan Flaherty)

(27)CHW Top 10: 2.67 (SS Gordon Beckham, P Aaron Poreda, C Tyler Flowers)

(28)LAA Top 10: 2.63 (P Jordan Walden, P Trevor Reckling, C Hank Conger)

(29)DET Top 10: 2.57 (P Rick Porcello, P Ryan Perry, P Brett Jacobson)

(30)HOU Top 10: 2.53 (C Jason Castro, OF Brian Bogusevic, P Bud Norris)

[hoosiers]

Based on their history of drafting and turning prospects into major league players, I'm shocked that the Angels have such a poor system.

There was a recent BA article on this and the main reasons were the later position due to the success of the team and the forfeiting of first round picks to sign free agents.

[PaulBako]

Does anyone know the rankings from last season?

[byrdz]

There was a recent BA article on this and the main reasons were the later position due to the success of the team and the forfeiting of first round picks to sign free agents.

That and a lot of their prospects have graduated to the big leagues. I also don't see that they make a lot of trades of older players for younger talent. Quite the opposite really, they traded a younger player in Kotchman for Tex, a mistake even in hindsight.

[Frobby]

Does Sickels rate the systems or just the prospects?

I am concerned that there are conclusions being drawn about the minor league talents in one organization versus the next based on a very generic counting system. Even if the counting system puts some systems in the right spot, I fear that the repeated posting of the results in this thread has given some credibility to the system and the results/conclusions. I just want to remind people these rankings in the attached are based on a crude and uncalibrated counting system.

As an example, the system gives equal weight to Wieters and the sum of Bergesen and Beato - not an exchange I would remotely consider. There is a reason we see analysts repeatedly comment on how strong the Os top four is - because star prospects are worth their weight in gold which is not appropriately reflected in the rankings above.

I am a big fan of Frobby's and I do not mean to imply by any means that we are being misled, but I do not agree with the method used here.

Like I said before, all the grades are posted in this thread, so if someone else wants to count an A as 10 points, a B as 4 points, a C as 1 point (or whatever variation) and do the math, it's very easy for them to do. One of the reasons I posted (in my last post) the overall distribution of how many A's, A-'s, B+'s etc. was so that people could understand just how big a jump it was from each plateau to the next, and weight them however they'd like.

But personally, I think you are exaggerating the degree to which the straight "GPA" system misleads anyone. Nobody is using it to say a 4.0 player is worth two 2.0 players. If I had used a system of C=1, C+=2, B-=3, B=4, etc. (i.e., each level up is one more point), the order in which the teams were ranked would have been identical to how they are ranked in the system I used, even though Matt Wieters would be "worth" 7 Beatos under that system.

The only purpose of my system is to provide a reasonably accurate ordinal ranking of the teams' Top 10's and Top 20's. It isn't perfect, and it also competely ignores whether an organization has good prospects that go more than 20 players deep while another team is tapped out. Nobody should put too much stock in it as some scientific measure of the quality of a team's minor league organization.

[byrdz]

It gives the general idea of where teams are with their MiL system and it's about as accurate as I can imagine any other minor league ranking system would be. Not many out there to begin with. Depth is as important as having top players in my opinion because not all "can't miss" prospects are guarantees.

Not to mention that you can only be so precise when Sickel's prefaces every ranking (the basis for these MiL rankings) with this:

All grades are EXTREMELY PRELIMINARY and subject to change. Don’t get too worried about exact rankings at this point, especially once you get out of the top 10. Grade C+/C guys are pretty interchangeable depending on what you are looking for.

[orioole28]

Does Sickels rate the systems or just the prospects?

I am concerned that there are conclusions being drawn about the minor league talents in one organization versus the next based on a very generic counting system. Even if the counting system puts some systems in the right spot, I fear that the repeated posting of the results in this thread has given some credibility to the system and the results/conclusions. I just want to remind people these rankings in the attached are based on a crude and uncalibrated counting system.

As an example, the system gives equal weight to Wieters and the sum of Bergesen and Beato - not an exchange I would remotely consider. There is a reason we see analysts repeatedly comment on how strong the Os top four is - because star prospects are worth their weight in gold which is not appropriately reflected in the rankings above.

I am a big fan of Frobby's and I do not mean to imply by any means that we are being misled, but I do not agree with the method used here.

I was just on minorleagueball.com and one of there posters came up with a scale and ranked the teams by Sickel's grades. BTW, Frobby we're famous also!!:laughlol:

[hoosiers]

The only purpose of my system is to provide a reasonably accurate ordinal ranking of the teams' Top 10's and Top 20's.

Frobby, you are putting your thumb in the air and making up a system - how can you possibly say the system provides a "reasonably accurate ... ranking"?

Even if the conclusions prove accurate, you are using an academic counting system to grade minor league prospects. ???? mind boggling.

Why doesn't someone just send Sickels an email and ask him the relative values of his grading system?

[orioole28]

Frobby, you are putting your thumb in the air and making up a system - how can you possibly say the system provides a "reasonably accurate ... ranking"?

Even if the conclusions prove accurate, you are using an academic counting system to grade minor league prospects. ???? mind boggling.

Why doesn't someone just send Sickels an email and ask him the relative values of his grading system?

Why don't you come up with your scale and do it yourself?? All we did was give a picture on how this system compares to other. Do it your way and let see how it come out. i"m sure you won't hurt Frobby's feelings. What ever scale you use I believe the Orioles will be in the Top 10!!

[hoosiers]

Why don't you come up with your scale and do it yourself?? All we did was give a picture on how this system compares to other. Do it your way and let see how it come out. i"m sure you won't hurt Frobby's feelings.

I am just saying that Frobby made something up and now people are relying on it.

If you want to rely on it, great, but it is made up.

Why don't you just add up all the prospects above B- and list the organizations that way? Or pick the organizations that have the most players with multiple vowels in their names? Or list the organizations alphabetically (for some here I assume that would result in the same list every year)?

[orioole28]

I am just saying that Frobby made something up and now people are relying on it.

If you want to rely on it, great, but it is made up.

Why don't you just add up all the prospects above B- and list the organizations that way? Or pick the organizations that have the most players with multiple vowels in their names? Or list the organizations alphabetically (for some here I assume that would result in the same list every year)?

Nobody said it was perfect so get over yourself!! It's just one way of grading a system, I'm sure there's a better way of doing it. Like I said why don't you come up with one and and we can compare. You don't need to get on Frobby's case just because he came up a with a scale you don't agree with. How about the scale that was use on minorleagueball.com? Does that work for you??

[byrdz]

I was just on minorleagueball.com and one of there posters came up with a scale and ranked the teams by Sickel's grades. BTW, Frobby we're famous also!!:laughlol:

It's generally the same with some minor swapping going on. For instance, the top ten is the same top ten teams you guys got except each team may be off a rank so I guess it wasn't so "thumb in the air" afterall. They even gave substantially more weight to the A prospects.