John Sickels' O's Top 20

orioole28 · December 30, 2008

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

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

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

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

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

(9)CLE --2 B+, 3 B, 4 B-, 11 C+ --------------- Top 20: 2.60

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(21)CHC --1 B+, 2 B, 1 3 B-. 7 C+, 7 C -------- Top 20: 2.38

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

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

Top 10

(1)TEX Top 10: 3.23

(2)OAK Top 10: 3.07

(3)ATL Top 10: 3.07

(4)TAM Top 10: 3.00

(5)KCR Top 10: 3.00

(6)BAL Top 10: 3.00

(7)BOS Top 10: 2.93

(8)SF Top 10: 2.90

(9)CLE Top 10: 2.87

(10)MIL Top 10: 2.83

(11)ARI Top 10: 2.80

(12)MIN Top 10: 2.77

(13)CIN Top 10: 2.77

(14)NYM Top 10: 2.73

(15)TOR Top 10: 2.73

(16)WAS Top 10: 2.70

(17)PHI Top 10: 2.70

(18)LAD Top 10: 2.70

(19)COL Top 10: 2.70

(20)NYY Top 10: 2.67

(21)CHW Top 10: 2.67

(22)CHC Top 10: 2.66

(23)HOU Top 10: 2.53

These stats courtesy from Frobby

hoosiers · December 30, 2008

HOU -- 1 B, 4 B-, 5 C+, 10 C -------Top 10: 2.53 Top 20: 2.27
Blech, that is putrid!

The Angels are next and they have a chance of knocking the O's down a peg, I suspect.

Unlikely. IMO, only Florida is likely to pass us.

We are stronger than Cleveland and, IMO, deeper in the 15-25 area.

It's a shame Sickels has issues with the C+/C guys and that Cleveland seems to benefit from this. Frankly, I am surprised that Sickels asks people to pass on the C+/C differences. Why go 20 prospects deep and then ask people to pass on the ratings on some of those guys?

Stotle · December 30, 2008

Unlikely. IMO, only Florida is likely to pass us.
We are stronger than Cleveland and, IMO, deeper in the 15-25 area.

It's a shame Sickels has issues with the C+/C guys and that Cleveland seems to benefit from this. Frankly, I am surprised that Sickels asks people to pass on the C+/C differences. Why go 20 prospects deep and then ask people to pass on the ratings on some of those guys?

yes..............I respect Sickels and the reputation he's carved-out for himself, but his online Top 20s leave much to be desired (in my non-expert opinion).

Frobby · December 30, 2008

Unlikely. IMO, only Florida is likely to pass us.

I'll defer to your judgment since you follow other teams' prospects far more closely than I do. If you're right, that would put us tied for 5th in all MLB so far as the top 10, and tied for 8th for far as the top 20. If that's where we end up, I'll be thrilled. Then we can wait for BA to give its rankings in February to see where BA puts us.

I think there is a good chance that after the 2009 season our entire top 20 will be ranked C+ or higher. We have a lot of guys on the fringe, and even though Wieters and others will graduate from the list, I think the back end should fill up nicely, particularly if Jordan has a solid draft.

hoosiers · December 30, 2008

I'll defer to your judgment since you follow other teams' prospects far more closely than I do. If you're right, that would put us tied for 5th in all MLB so far as the top 10, and tied for 8th for far as the top 20. If that's where we end up, I'll be thrilled. Then we can wait for BA to give its rankings in February to see where BA puts us.
I think there is a good chance that after the 2009 season our entire top 20 will be ranked C+ or higher. We have a lot of guys on the fringe, and even though Wieters and others will graduate from the list, I think the back end should fill up nicely, particularly if Jordan has a solid draft.

Our top four is killer and carries us on these lists. Of the remaining teams, no one system stands out as very strong besides Florida. SD has some interesting guys, but we should be better.

The depth is not respected as much as most here would like it, but it needs to be proven on the field. We have some major wildcards in Rowell and Snyder and some injured guys like Spoone and Patton. Our list can really take off if these guys step up. It would be nice if our top 20 depth extended to include only C+ guys.

I would like to just add a small, but important part to your last line - particularly if Jordan has a solid draft and AM nets some quality international talent.

Lucky Jim · December 31, 2008

Unlikely. IMO, only Florida is likely to pass us.
We are stronger than Cleveland and, IMO, deeper in the 15-25 area.

It's a shame Sickels has issues with the C+/C guys and that Cleveland seems to benefit from this. Frankly, I am surprised that Sickels asks people to pass on the C+/C differences. Why go 20 prospects deep and then ask people to pass on the ratings on some of those guys?

In his book, the analysis is more in depth, right?

In a sort-of analogous situation, Robert Parker used to catch a ton of flack for his numerical ratings of wine. And he'd always say "the descriptions are more important the numbers". But it was tough to get past the number for a lot of folks - they wanted it to tell the whole story (or preferred assuming it did to digging deeper).

If the online version is just a preview of the book, and something to bark about, then I don't have any real problem with the blurriness.

If the analysis in the book is watery or short, then you're right, no reason to go that deep.

Stotle · December 31, 2008

In his book, the analysis is more in depth, right?
In a sort-of analogous situation, Robert Parker used to catch a ton of flack for his numerical ratings of wine. And he'd always say "the descriptions are more important the numbers". But it was tough to get past the number for a lot of folks - they wanted it to tell the whole story (or preferred assuming it did to digging deeper).

If the online version is just a preview of the book, and something to bark about, then I don't have any real problem with the blurriness.

If the analysis in the book is watery or short, then you're right, no reason to go that deep.

I agree, the issue I have is more with the weight granted by others to his "online" ratings given the fact he goes out of his way (in word and action) to not take them that seriously outside of the top handful of guys in each system.

Frobby · December 31, 2008

I agree, the issue I have is more with the weight granted by others to his "online" ratings given the fact he goes out of his way (in word and action) to not take them that seriously outside of the top handful of guys in each system.

Last time I checked, all of this was for fun, right? I mean, nobody on the OH is making life decisions based on John Sickels' prospect ratings. At this point, he's whipping through about a team per day, so you know he's not spending a ton of time on this. I'll go further -- how can one individual possibly know the ins and outs of 600 prospects scattered around 150+ minor league teams?

Stotle · December 31, 2008

Last time I checked, all of this was for fun, right? I mean, nobody on the OH is making life decisions based on John Sickels' prospect ratings. At this point, he's whipping through about a team per day, so you know he's not spending a ton of time on this. I'll go further -- how can one individual possibly know the ins and outs of 600 prospects scattered around 150+ minor league teams?

Oh, I didn't mean to imply there were serious decisions being made here by anyone. It was more in reference to the use of his online lists in debates outside of this thread -- like comparing prospects or rating a trade. He does a solid job covering a lot of teams, which is tough. It's always great to see another persons view of the minors. All that said, I think all lists/ratings/etc. should always be kept in context. At some point, someone will question prospect Y compared to prospect X and someone else will flipout because Sickels had Y rated a B and X a B-. I think it's fairly clear that these are preliminary lists that include lots of holes outside of the top handful of guys.

That's all I was getting at.

hoosiers · January 2, 2009

A recent BA chat said the new handbook had the STL Cards at 8. So, they should be near us as well.

Stotle · January 2, 2009

A recent BA chat said the new handbook had the STL Cards at 8. So, they should be near us as well.

Sounds about right to me. A couple high-end guys with solid depth.

Frobby · January 2, 2009

Sickels is really cranking them out these days:

LAA -- 1 B+, 2 B, 2 B-, 15 C+ ----------------Top 10: 2.63 Top 20: 2.48

PIT -- 1 A-, 2 B+, 1 B-, 9 C+, 7 C ------------Top 10: 2.70 Top 20: 2.40

Only 5 teams left - Seattle is next.

orioole28 · January 2, 2009