Originally Posted by
praeceps93
After looking a bit more in-depth at the list, it really doesn't make much sense to me. Just from looking at the rankings, it seems very upside-oriented and kind of downplays risk. That’s completely fine as a basis for a list. But there’s so many inconsistencies and the little blurbs just aren’t enough for me to trust the method. Newcomb should be higher on an upside list, potentially higher than Swanson. Hunter Harvey above Dillon Tate? What? Manuel Margot at 14 because of defensive upside, but Albert Almora all the way down at 83 when they have similar offensive profiles, but Almora is better both offensively and defensively. That makes no sense. Grant Holmes at 40 with very little projection left in him? I just really don’t understand the methodology of ranking here; it doesn’t flow consistently. So while it’s nice and allows for conversation, I put very little stock in it.