Page 8 of 14 FirstFirst ... 678910 ... LastLast
Results 141 to 160 of 263

Thread: Objectively ranking the top farm systems

  1. #141
    It's OVER 5,000!
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Posts
    6,431
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    173
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    1,579
    Thanked in
    1,044 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by nsacpi View Post
    i disagree a bit with your projections for Eaton...I think he will average about 3 wins over the next five seasons...I think you are slightly optimistic about sale too

    and don't forget peraza
    Sale has been a bona fide ace, that is indisputable. If you want to say he will see some decline going forward, that's fine, but he's not even 28 yet.

    And Eaton has put up 15.3 bWAR the last 3 years. In the best 3-year stretch of Heyward's career, he put up 16.4.

  2. #142
    It's OVER 5,000!
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Posts
    6,431
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    173
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    1,579
    Thanked in
    1,044 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by bravesfanMatt View Post
    this is pretty interesting. I need to finish my analysis, but so far, it looks like the Braves traded away more WAR by a good bit.. need to add contract next and see surplus value..

    I am making some small assumptions but I think the WAR is a good projections so far. The Braves might get hurt a little because I project a players WAR to 500 ABs if they didn't get that many.. so guys like Simmons and Heyward are hurt because their WAR is derived by defense too. I might alter my formulas a bit to factor oWAR and dWAR.. and I am using BR not Fwar..
    Trading a little more WAR in a lot more players is not going to get you a better return.

  3. #143
    It's OVER 5,000!
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    26,261
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    34
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    10,000
    Thanked in
    6,108 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Southcack77 View Post
    Good point. The white sox traded away young, cheap, good and controllable assets for prospects that they hope will one day be young, cheap, good and controllable assets.

    I agree that gutting the MLB team for prospects isn't hard for a gm to accomplish but at times the white sox has been praised for doing it faster. Well no ****, he started off with great assets and maybe the better question is why he couldn't figure out a way to field a good team with what he had.

    Coppy has not succeeded in this rebuilding project but I think it's indisputable he has rebuilt the minor league system and I think they've been pretty creative and pursued several strategies for doing that.

    Whether it translates into success for MLB club is unclear. Those are two different standards that are perhaps only loosely correlated.
    The Braves had great assets that they decided not to deal. Rather than trading Freeman and Teheran for returns similar to what the Sox got for Eaton and will get for Q, Coppy decided to hold those assets and waste 3 years of their production on a losing team.

    The Sox identified the need for a rebuild early, and are trading away all their best assets. That is the correct strategy, and is why their rebuild will be much more successful than the Braves.

  4. #144
    Steve Harvey'd
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Posts
    18,946
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    1,856
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    5,329
    Thanked in
    3,353 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by smootness View Post
    Trading a little more WAR in a lot more players is not going to get you a better return.
    I know this. I am doing this in a vacuum. I know this isn't real world analysis.


    Eaton is projected to average 4 WAR for 5 year.. so he hit 20 total.
    I have Simmons hitting 5 WAR for the next 5 years.. so he hit 25 total. (time of trade 5 years left)

    The surplus value for these guys is 122 million for Simmons and 102 million for Eaton. So you can start to question the Simmons trade a bit.

  5. #145
    Steve Harvey'd
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Posts
    18,946
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    1,856
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    5,329
    Thanked in
    3,353 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Enscheff View Post
    The Braves had great assets that they decided not to deal. Rather than trading Freeman and Teheran for returns similar to what the Sox got for Eaton and will get for Q, Coppy decided to hold those assets and waste 3 years of their production on a losing team.

    The Sox identified the need for a rebuild early, and are trading away all their best assets. That is the correct strategy, and is why their rebuild will be much more successful than the Braves.
    Coppy couldn't trade FF and JT last off season. Selling low on stars is a bad idea. I am not sure trading them this offseason was the right move either despite their value being 'normal' again.

  6. #146
    Where's My Cup of Coffee?
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Posts
    1,182
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    297
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    419
    Thanked in
    221 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Enscheff View Post
    The Braves had great assets that they decided not to deal. Rather than trading Freeman and Teheran for returns similar to what the Sox got for Eaton and will get for Q, Coppy decided to hold those assets and waste 3 years of their production on a losing team.

    The Sox identified the need for a rebuild early, and are trading away all their best assets. That is the correct strategy, and is why their rebuild will be much more successful than the Braves.
    I think holding onto Freeman was the right answer, how many times have we discussed how difficult it is to get impact bats on the open market or through trades? Freeman is only 27, even if he starts to slowly decline towards the back-end of his contract - he should still be a solid hitter and an anchor in the lineup for the next 4-6 years..... and its not crazy to think he could be a solid hitter even past that point.

    Considering that, he should still be a + contributor on the team in the middle of contending window. I have no issues keeping him.

    Teheran I would have moved, obviously depends on what was offered and what we could have gotten, but I think we might have missed the boat on that one.

  7. #147
    Expects Yuge Games nsacpi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    47,432
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    2,704
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    11,384
    Thanked in
    7,533 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by smootness View Post
    Sale has been a bona fide ace, that is indisputable. If you want to say he will see some decline going forward, that's fine, but he's not even 28 yet.

    And Eaton has put up 15.3 bWAR the last 3 years. In the best 3-year stretch of Heyward's career, he put up 16.4.
    projections have to take into account age and risk of injury in addition to past performance...for Eaton I'd expect WAR of 4, 3, 3, 3, 2 over the next five years...ymmv

  8. #148
    It's OVER 5,000!
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    26,261
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    34
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    10,000
    Thanked in
    6,108 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by bravesfanMatt View Post
    I know this. I am doing this in a vacuum. I know this isn't real world analysis.


    Eaton is projected to average 4 WAR for 5 year.. so he hit 20 total.
    I have Simmons hitting 5 WAR for the next 5 years.. so he hit 25 total. (time of trade 5 years left)

    The surplus value for these guys is 122 million for Simmons and 102 million for Eaton. So you can start to question the Simmons trade a bit.
    I think what you will start to find is that the Braves shot themselves in the foot from the beginning by watering down the returns they got for these guys. Aybar as part of the package for Simmons, and attaching BJ's hugely negative value to Kimbrel were just the two most glaring examples. Turning young assets like Wood and Peraza into an old asset in HO is another.

  9. #149
    Expects Yuge Games nsacpi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    47,432
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    2,704
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    11,384
    Thanked in
    7,533 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by nsacpi View Post
    projections have to take into account age and risk of injury in addition to past performance...for Eaton I'd expect WAR of 4, 3, 3, 3, 2 over the next five years...ymmv
    Eaton is projected by Steamer to be worth 2.8 wins in 2017. His age 28 season.

  10. #150
    It's OVER 5,000!
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Posts
    6,431
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    173
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    1,579
    Thanked in
    1,044 Posts
    I wanted to respond to the OP and the basic idea behind this thread. First, Enscheff, thank you for putting this together. Seriously, kudos, it's an interesting discussion for sure.

    I do think there are some issues with doing it this way and with your takeaways, which are:

    1) You're attempting to objectively measure something using a very subjective ranking/process. The very guys whose opinions you base your values on are the guys telling you they don't really believe in these rankings. Those same guys have pretty much unanimously agreed that the Braves clearly have the #1 farm in baseball, and more than one has said that remains true even if you remove Swanson from the list. So obviously they're not really taking their top 100 or top 200 as gospel and just comparing rankings. Surplus value can be a useful tool to quickly assign some kind of objective measurement to evaluate trades, but it is extremely limited and not nearly advanced or nuanced enough to be used in the way you're trying to use it. It's interesting for discussion, but it is in no way a real determining factor in whose top 200 prospects are better overall.

    2) You seem to believe that essentially every prospect beyond the top 200 is worth about the same. I just don't see this as being true, and this is where some of the value in the Braves' farm system comes into play. All these prospect guys have lauded the Braves' depth into the top 30-40 guys in the system, and it is a factor in ranking their system #1. These are guys whose job is to look at prospects and determine their worth, value, or potential impact down the road. You seem to suggest that all of them have about an equal chance of becoming something, but all these prospect guys are telling you that absolutely isn't the case. Travis Demeritte, Derian Cruz, Abrahan Gutierrez, AJ Minter, and on and on...these guys have real value and a much better chance of becoming something down the line than a ton of other players outside the top 200. Sure, other systems have guys like this, but they don't have as many as the Braves do. There is real value in that not accounted for in your valuation.

    3) You also seem to believe that basically each player holds similar value to other prospects ranked similarly. While I understand the necessity of this kind of lumping for the purpose of assigning a rough dollar value to ranges using aggregate data, it doesn't really help in evaluating prospects individually or across systems. I've discussed the difference in a 18-year-old at the back end of the top 100 vs. a 24-year-old before, and the point stands. If you have a ranking that has Kevin Maitan and Matt Chapman ranked basically equally (which is certainly possible), it would be insane to suggest they have roughly equal value or that they both enhance their respective farm systems equally. Every team in the league would trade 3 Matt Chapmans for a Maitan.

    4) I really don't understand why you continue to harp on the fact that Swanson will drop off soon and nobody on the White Sox or Yankees list will drop off as quickly. Is that really an important distinction to make? Several on both lists will drop off this year, and I think annual evaluations are more valuable and accurate than some kind of rolling list. Plus, you clearly believe that both systems will easily surpass the Braves system soon and won't look back. IMO, this is a biased view that won't hold up. Here are the number of players in each of those 3 systems at each value level (50 or higher) according to BA, with the ages of the guys in those groups:

    Braves:
    65: 4 (17, 19, 20, 23)
    60: 5 (19, 19, 19, 20, 22)
    55: 10 (18, 18, 19, 19, 19, 19, 20, 23, 23, 23)
    50: 9 (17, 20, 20, 21, 21, 21, 22, 22, 22)

    Yankees:
    60: 4 (19, 20, 22, 22)
    55: 8 (19, 19, 20, 21, 21, 22, 22, 24)
    50: 11 (18, 18, 21, 21, 22, 22, 22, 22, 23, 24, 25)

    White Sox:
    70: 1 (21)
    65: 1 (20)
    60: 2 (22, 22)
    55: 5 (20, 21, 22, 23, 23)
    50: 10 (20, 20, 21, 22, 22, 22, 23, 23, 23, 24)

    So to begin with (and again, this is obviously just according to BA), the Braves have more top-end talent than either of those two right now, not less. 4 at 65+/9 at 60+, compared with 0/4 and 2/4.

    Second, look at those ages. The Braves have 12 teenagers, compared with 5 for the Yankees and 0 for Chicago. The Braves also have just 8 at 22+ (which is usually about prospect peaking time), compared with 12 for the Yankees and 12 for Chicago.

    So depending on how you judge a farm system, I guess you can argue one of those might pass Atlanta once Dansby graduates, though most of the prospect guys don't believe that. But beyond that, looking longer-term, how could you try to argue those systems are destined to surpass Atlanta and stay there? If Chicago trades Quintana, that will have an impact, but you could just as easily say the Braves could trade Teheran or Freeman. Neither is likely to happen, but I'm not sure why that matters much anyway. It doesn't change the current state of the Braves system - which is extremely good, incredibly deep, very young, and still stocked with top-end talent.

  11. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to smootness For This Useful Post:

    bravesfanMatt (02-15-2017), Preacher (02-15-2017)

  12. #151
    Expects Yuge Games nsacpi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    47,432
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    2,704
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    11,384
    Thanked in
    7,533 Posts
    smootness...care to quantify point 2 in your post...give me a rough estimate of how much our prospects outside the top 200 are worth compared to an average farm system

  13. #152
    10 yr, $185 million Extension
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    4,760
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    4
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    981
    Thanked in
    766 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Enscheff View Post
    I think what you will start to find is that the Braves shot themselves in the foot from the beginning by watering down the returns they got for these guys. Aybar as part of the package for Simmons, and attaching BJ's hugely negative value to Kimbrel were just the two most glaring examples. Turning young assets like Wood and Peraza into an old asset in HO is another.
    I think a lot of ppl questioned the Simmons and BJ trades when they happened. Especially Simba.

    I do think we made a mistake adding BJ to CK. That said name me a GM that didn't make a mistake. I'm not sure we asked for Aybar back. The Angles didn't want Aybar and Simba. They were not going to pay both. So I'm not sure that lowered the value on Simba.

    Coppy can make mistakes and still be a very positive person for the franchise.

  14. #153
    Expects Yuge Games nsacpi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    47,432
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    2,704
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    11,384
    Thanked in
    7,533 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Russ2dollas View Post
    I think a lot of ppl questioned the Simmons and BJ trades when they happened. Especially Simba.

    I do think we made a mistake adding BJ to CK. That said name me a GM that didn't make a mistake. I'm not sure we asked for Aybar back. The Angles didn't want Aybar and Simba. They were not going to pay both. So I'm not sure that lowered the value on Simba.

    Coppy can make mistakes and still be a very positive person for the franchise.
    yes...I think we need to look at the overall body of work...not just the Olivera trade or the Swanson trade

  15. #154
    It's OVER 5,000!
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Posts
    6,431
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    173
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    1,579
    Thanked in
    1,044 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by nsacpi View Post
    smootness...care to quantify point 2 in your post...give me a rough estimate of how much our prospects outside the top 200 are worth compared to an average farm system
    There's no good way to do it. I just know that the guys who do this for a living say it definitely matters that a system is so deep in legitimate talent (not fringe, future bench guys), and that has real value. I'm not attempting to quantify that, I'm just saying that it seems to matter to people who look at this stuff constantly. I'm not using that as a way to say that the valuation of the top 200 doesn't matter...but it certainly isn't the whole story.

  16. #155
    Expects Yuge Games nsacpi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    47,432
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    2,704
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    11,384
    Thanked in
    7,533 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by smootness View Post
    There's no good way to do it. I just know that the guys who do this for a living say it definitely matters that a system is so deep in legitimate talent (not fringe, future bench guys), and that has real value. I'm not attempting to quantify that, I'm just saying that it seems to matter to people who look at this stuff constantly. I'm not using that as a way to say that the valuation of the top 200 doesn't matter...but it certainly isn't the whole story.
    It is part of story...but a very small part

  17. #156
    It's OVER 5,000!
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Posts
    6,431
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    173
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    1,579
    Thanked in
    1,044 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by nsacpi View Post
    It is part of story...but a very small part
    Depends on who you talk to. Again, it is mentioned by pretty much everyone who does this for a living in their evaluations of the top systems in baseball. Because some of these guys will eventually become top 200 prospects, and others will never be on a list but will still have major league value. The ability to continually fill in your roster with very cheap, young players who can be solid at the major league level is a very valuable thing.

    Of course, having studs is an even more important thing, but that doesn't mean there isn't value in the former. And if there is value there, then it isn't accounted for in Enscheff's model. That was my point on that.

    But look at top-end guys if you want. Look at age. Look at anything you want, the Braves pretty much come out on top regardless.

  18. #157
    It's OVER 5,000!
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    26,261
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    34
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    10,000
    Thanked in
    6,108 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by smootness View Post
    Depends on who you talk to. Again, it is mentioned by pretty much everyone who does this for a living in their evaluations of the top systems in baseball. Because some of these guys will eventually become top 200 prospects, and others will never be on a list but will still have major league value. The ability to continually fill in your roster with very cheap, young players who can be solid at the major league level is a very valuable thing.

    Of course, having studs is an even more important thing, but that doesn't mean there isn't value in the former. And if there is value there, then it isn't accounted for in Enscheff's model. That was my point on that.

    But look at top-end guys if you want. Look at age. Look at anything you want, the Braves pretty much come out on top regardless.
    Then if you want to assign value to guys ranked outside the Top 200, come up with a way to do it objectively. Saying "Travis Demeritte, Derian Cruz, Abrahan Gutierrez, AJ Minter, and on and on...these guys have real value and a much better chance of becoming something down the line than a ton of other players outside the top 200" means nothing. Where is the data to back up this claim? Where is the data that shows the Braves prosects outside the Top 200 are any more valuable, or have any better chance to become more valuable, than any other team's? If you want to counter a data-driven analysis, you either need to draw from more data, or show how the calculations were wrong. Making an unsubstantiated claim holds zero weight in this realm.

    The only reason you list those guys is because you know them. I promise you any rabid Yankees fan can rattle off a list of 5 guys in their system they think have a chance to shoot up these lists.

    The key word in what I did is "objective". I don't try to guess how much value someone has based on what I think of them. I used the data available, and only the data available, to come to my conclusion. And my conclusion was that the Braves were a clear cut #1, which is contrary to what I had been claiming before I looked into it. I quite literally proved myself wrong.

    Everyone seems to want to fixate on my notes about Swanson dropping off the lists after 3 games, and the ChiSox imminent trade of Q and the addition of $50M-$100M in surplus value. I mentioned them because they were the most impactful, most likely, and soonest to happen major changes that would affect this analysis.
    Last edited by Enscheff; 02-15-2017 at 02:15 PM.

  19. #158
    It's OVER 5,000!
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    26,261
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    34
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    10,000
    Thanked in
    6,108 Posts
    Further, what I would really like to see is a similar analysis done on surplus value based on ranking and age. I think we can all agree that a young phenom like Maitan ranked #91 is more valuable than a some 23 year old guy in AAA ranked #90.

    That's what we think, but is that truly the case? Who knows until someone crunches the numbers.

  20. #159
    It's OVER 5,000!
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Posts
    6,431
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    173
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    1,579
    Thanked in
    1,044 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Enscheff View Post
    Then if you want to assign value to guys ranked outside the Top 200, come up with a way to do it objectively. Saying "Travis Demeritte, Derian Cruz, Abrahan Gutierrez, AJ Minter, and on and on...these guys have real value and a much better chance of becoming something down the line than a ton of other players outside the top 200" means nothing. Where is the data to back up this claim? Where is the data that shows the Braves prosects outside the Top 200 are any more valuable, or have any better chance to become more valuable, than any other team's? If you want to counter a data-driven analysis, you either need to draw from more data, or show how the calculations were wrong. Making an unsubstantiated claim holds zero weight in this realm.

    The only reason you list those guys is because you know them. I promise you any rabid Yankees fan can rattle off a list of 5 guys in their system they think have a chance to shoot up these lists.

    The key word in what I did is "objective". I don't try to guess how much value someone has based on what I think of them. I used the data available, and only the data available, to come to my conclusion. And my conclusion was that the Braves were a clear cut #1, which is contrary to what I had been claiming before I looked into it. I quite literally proved myself wrong.

    Everyone seems to want to fixate on my notes about Swanson dropping off the lists after 3 games, and the ChiSox imminent trade of Q and the addition of $50M-$100M in surplus value. I mentioned them because they were the most impactful, most likely, and soonest to happen major changes that would affect this analysis.
    My entire point was that you're attempting to objectively analyze a very subjective process, which comes with inherent flaws. And surplus value is nowhere near developed to the point to use it in such a clear-cut way.

    Sure, I know the Braves prospects more than I know the Yankees prospects. You know who knows both? The guys who do this for a living. They all, without fail, say the Braves' group is much better than anyone else's and frankly deeper than any group they've seen. I'm going on their word, not my own.

    I don't have to come up with data to prove it just because you decided to use data to argue your point. You can believe what you want and use whatever system you want. I was simply pointing out the flaws in this strategy. I still believe the best way to evaluate farm systems is to listen to the people who know these guys and scout them continuously. You also believe this because you are using their rankings. It's just that their rankings are not hard and fast enough to be used in the way you're trying to use them.

    Again, it's great for discussion and interesting, but I'd rather simply take their subjective opinions, especially when they align so closely, than to try to use a subjective process to produce objective analysis. It would require far more research and analytical data than the very basic idea of surplus value to do so effectively.

    I prefer to use their actual valuations of guys than a ranking, especially since they acknowledge the distance between #30 and #120 in the ranking may be virtually nothing, yet they're separated by 90 spots in that ranking and in your surplus valuation.
    Last edited by smootness; 02-15-2017 at 03:33 PM.

  21. #160
    It's OVER 5,000!
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Posts
    6,431
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    173
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    1,579
    Thanked in
    1,044 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Enscheff View Post
    Further, what I would really like to see is a similar analysis done on surplus value based on ranking and age. I think we can all agree that a young phenom like Maitan ranked #91 is more valuable than a some 23 year old guy in AAA ranked #90.

    That's what we think, but is that truly the case? Who knows until someone crunches the numbers.
    Certainly...but those numbers haven't been crunched, and I'm not about to do it. So until someone does, I don't think it's effective to simply go with data we (and, again, the guys who actually do the rankings) believe is not really accurate.

Similar Threads

  1. Sports Illustrated Article Ranking the Value of all MLB Teams
    By USMA76 in forum 2023: Celebrating Our 10th Year Here
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 04-11-2018, 06:44 PM
  2. Ranking the Braves prospects
    By SJ24 in forum 2023: Celebrating Our 10th Year Here
    Replies: 28
    Last Post: 06-05-2017, 08:57 AM
  3. Baseball America's Top 50 Int' Ranking Spreadsheet
    By blueagleace1 in forum 2023: Celebrating Our 10th Year Here
    Replies: 18
    Last Post: 07-02-2016, 09:22 AM
  4. Ranking Managers
    By Coach_Chris in forum 2023: Celebrating Our 10th Year Here
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 04-26-2016, 11:38 AM
  5. Ranking baseballs managers.
    By jason27nc in forum 2023: Celebrating Our 10th Year Here
    Replies: 35
    Last Post: 06-10-2014, 02:32 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •