Good read on Braves farm system
- Thread starter Heyward
- Start date
That is a typical fluff piece with zero analysis. Where is the overall expected value calculation to see total value? How do they quantify depth vs star power? What data do they present that shows which is more valuable?
Answer: none.
It is the same thing pozzies do right here on this board...listing out names and nothing more. It makes casual anti-intellectual fans think it's a good article, but it actually presents zero real analysis.
That structure has also led to two non proper rebuilds.
You seem angry.
There's not a perfect way to calculate some of this stuff, you act like you have a fool-proof system.
Any system is better than listing out names and presenting nothing but subjective conclusions. Hell, a simplistic 1-100 ranking with points in the reverse order of ranking would be more interesting than this article. There is literally zero analysis in that article.
I realize you guys love to read anything that confirms your view that the Braves have the best system, but that doesn't mean the analysis is worth a damn.
Managuarantano's Volunteers
<B><I>The Artist Formally Known as <P>Ventura's St
Talking chop comparison was better.
At some point after the trade deadline, Longenhagen will update FG's Top 100. A few days after that, I expect Cameron to post an article like this:
http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/valuing-the-2017-top-100-prospects/
While I don't agree that all prospects with a particular FV grade should have equal value (why bother ranking them in that case?), he proposes a way to analyze the systems, does the work, and then presents the results. Not coincidentally, this piece also shows just how much more valuable position prospects are than pitching prospects...a common theme among all analyses like this.
The article gives values for FV 45 prospects, so there's nothing stopping someone from compiling a list of each organization's set of FV 45 or better guys, and summing up the totals if they want to include "depth".
Something like that, or the work I did, is a lot more compelling then someone saying, "The Braves are #1 because...derp...subjective reasons...derp...list of names...derp...the end".
http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/valuing-the-2017-top-100-prospects/
While I don't agree that all prospects with a particular FV grade should have equal value (why bother ranking them in that case?), he proposes a way to analyze the systems, does the work, and then presents the results. Not coincidentally, this piece also shows just how much more valuable position prospects are than pitching prospects...a common theme among all analyses like this.
The article gives values for FV 45 prospects, so there's nothing stopping someone from compiling a list of each organization's set of FV 45 or better guys, and summing up the totals if they want to include "depth".
Something like that, or the work I did, is a lot more compelling then someone saying, "The Braves are #1 because...derp...subjective reasons...derp...list of names...derp...the end".
Nobody here is rejecting quantitative analysis. It is a very useful tool, and should be a big part of the discussion, but also including some subjective discussion does not immediately invalidate any other analysis. Qualitative analysis is not anti-intellectual. There is a place for subjective information... not in place of, but in addition to quantitative analysis.
I would argue that piece didn't even have qualitative analysis. I didn't see a single mention of tools, physical projection, or any other discussion of qualities of anyone named in the article. The whole crux of the article is "here are the names and some casual stats...drool over them".
How it can be described as anything other than a fluff piece is not even debatable. All it was missing was some info about their favorite music, or what they do in their free time.
A 1-100 prospect ranking is incredibly subjective, again there isn't a perfect, or even really solid way to easily compare two elite farm systems.
JxnMissFan
Gwinnett Bound
Aren't the FV values you love derived from a good bit to subjective analysis?
I think instead of focusing on player rankings only to award the best farm system some consideration should be put into the infrastructure that brought the players into the system. The failure rate of prospects for the sox and braves will be about the same over the next two years. The better farm system will be the one with the best scouting and player development. With the exception of a couple of bad trades (HO for example) the braves seem to be better at scouting. The returns the sox have gotten from trades seems to be a matter of picking MLB pipeline numbers not great scouting. As a fan I've always envied the Dodgers and Cardinals because they seem to find good players everywhere.
How is a rebuild non proper? Are you saying our farm system is not strong enough? Or is the fact that mistakes were made then the total rebuild efforts are invalidated?
However we got to this place how can you be dissatisfied with where we are?
Weve had to suck a lot to get the farm system we've gotten. You make it seem like we've been building this bohemoth while still contending for playoff spots.
Two of our brightest prospects, OZ and Coon were signed by the previous administration. What does it tell you that those two being arguably our two best position prospects were signed by a guy that hasn't been our GM for over 2 years now? Where are the other big time position prospects from the admin that's had a top 5 pick the last few years now? Maitan was also a gift from sucking really bad
I would love to hear how Maitan is a result of not being good.
And guess what, every rebuild ever starts with bad years. That's why it's called a rebuild. Check out how long the Cubs sucked before their rebuild proved successful.
JxnMissFan
Gwinnett Bound
Maybe prospect discussions should be divided into two groups. NonEnschff and enscheff rules. Non Enscheff discussions allow people to make their on observations and assign their values to prospects.
Enscheff rules require post that reference only preapproved FV values.
Only subjective observations converted to an FV value are approved
Enscheff rules require post that reference only preapproved FV values.
Only subjective observations converted to an FV value are approved
I don't know that Rutherford is necessarily star power, at least right now. He's having a pretty pedestrian year and is at least 3 years away from the majors. Decent shot he drops out of the top 100 all together unless he turns it on in the 2nd half