2016 Organizational Rankings

[splitterpfj]

It will be interesting to see if the Brewers can hold this ranking next year too. Yes, I think some of the kids in the lower levels have plenty of potential to raise their stock, and boost the rankings, but some of the kids at the top level will graduate this year too, which will knock things backwards.

 

Regardless, Brewers fans should be very excited - the new GM is showing a niche for grabbing high upside kids in deals, and the team will have the #5 pick in June.

 

The sign of true success .... send real talent to Milwaukee, without falling off a cliff in Biloxi.

[Mass Haas]

That was a nice bit of research -- I'm sending John Manuel, J.J. Cooper, and Matt Eddy a direct link via email should they wish to share among their Baseball America brethren.

 

That was quick --

 

Neat way to slice & dice the information, we love seeing the BA Grades used like that.

-- John Manuel, Editor in chief, BASEBALL AMERICA

 

***

 

Jim,

 

Here are the “official” counts I produced from our internal data. This considers only book players, so 900 total.

 

I think we’re all fans of the Brewers farm system as presently constructed.

By BA Grade

Grade Count Pct

40 72 8%

45 283 31%

50 328 36%

55 135 15%

60 58 6%

65 16 2%

70 8 1%

 

So just 9% of the book received an unadjusted grade higher than 55.

By Risk

Risk Count Pct

Safe 4 0%

Low 46 5%

Medium 182 20%

High 429 48%

Extreme 239 27%

 

For various reasons, about 75% of players in the book are considered High or Extreme risk propositions.

 

Matt Eddy, Associate Editor

Baseball America

[And That]

It would be interesting to weight the grades by the risk in some fashion, in order to provide an adjusted total for each team. Offhand I don't know exactly how the weighting should work, though something along with the lines of a multiplier of 1 for Safe, .9 for Low, .8 for Medium, .7 for High and .6 for Extreme might make sense. It would be helpful to know at what rate players with Extreme risk ultimately ended up meeting their grades, as opposed to the rate for players with Low risk, for example.

 

I guess what I'm trying to get at is, is it better to have more 55 grade/Extreme risk players, or more 45/Medium players?

[Mass Haas]

One more:

 

That’s exactly what we like seeing the BA Grades used for. It’s a lot of meat for people to dive in and use to compare farm systems. The Brewers are one of the systems with the highest upsides in baseball, although it also comes with a good bit of risk. The depth of the system is quite impressive and if you are going to have a lot of risk (I count 11 extreme lists on the MIL list) than it is useful to spread that risk around a large number of high upside players.

 

JJ Cooper, Managing Editor

Baseball America

[CheezWizHed]

I guess what I'm trying to get at is, is it better to have more 55 grade/Extreme risk players, or more 45/Medium players?

 

If "55" means a MLB quality starter and a "45" represents a 0 WAR type player, then certainly the 55 type players. The 45 grade players should be pretty plentiful.

[And That]

I don't think 45 equates to 0 WAR, but I don't have the book in front of me so I might be wrong. 45 players could also turn out to be 50 or 55 players... there's room for up as well as room for down.

 

But that's kind of semantics anyway - I'm not arguing for 55/Extremes or 45/Mediums. Instead, what is the best mix of players in terms of having one group of players whose eventual contributions range all over the map (Extremes) and having other groups whose eventual contributions are better known, but likely without the high end range? If you have all Extreme risk guys, there's going to be a pretty high headache factor as you see multiple players at multiple positions flame out. Even if some do make it, it's really hard to plan that way. On the other hand, if you are pretty sure what you have but none of the players are likely to make a huge impact, that's a problem too.

 

And that's what I'm trying to get at regarding weighting the player grades by the risks. What teams have the best mix going by grade and risk put together?

 

I do doubt that even BA has done the number crunching to measure the outcomes for different prospect grades and risk factors, so anything any of us would come up with would have a huge amount of guesswork involved.

[Outlander]

It will be interesting to see if the Brewers can hold this ranking next year too. Yes, I think some of the kids in the lower levels have plenty of potential to raise their stock, and boost the rankings, but some of the kids at the top level will graduate this year too, which will knock things backwards.

That is the thing, I don't think that happens. Stuff happens that could change things but I'm guessing only 1 of the Brewers top guys graduates, maybe zero.

[Mass Haas]

MILB.com analyzes NL Central minor leaguers in terms of their potential 2016 big league impact

[Eye Black]

Wow, thanks Jim! Did not expect the BA staff to ever lay eyes on that post, but really appreciate their feedback! I am a huge advocate of the BA Prospect Handbook, and for those considering purchasing one I would highly recommend it.

 

For those asking about the BA Grade Scale and Risk Factors, below is the explanation they provide in the Handbook.

 

BA Grade Scale

 

[pre]Grade Hitter Role Pitcher Role Examples

75-80 Franchise Player No.1 Starter Clayton Kershaw, Buster Posey, Mike Trout

 

65-70 Perennial All-Star No.2 Starter Adrian Gonzalez, Jason Heyward, Jon Lester

 

60 Occasional All-Star No.2/3 Starter Adam Jones, Jordan Zimmermann, Wade Davis

Game's Best Closer

 

55 First-Division Regular No.3/4 Starter Gio Gonzalez, Todd Frazier, Craig Kimbrel

Elite Closer

 

50 Solid Average Regular No.4 Starter Mike Leake, Koji Uehara, Lucas Duda

Elite Set-up Reliever

 

45 Second-Division Reg. No.5 Starter Luis Valbuena, Luke Hochevar

Platoon Set-up Reliever

 

40 Reserve Swingman Paulo Orlando, Mike Dunn

Relief Specialist[/pre]

Risk Factors

 

Safe: Has shown realistic ceiling in the big leagues; ready to contribute in 2016.

 

Low: Likely to reach realistic ceiling, certain big league career barring injury.

 

Medium: Still some work to do to turn tools into major league-caliber skills, but fairly polished player.

 

High: Most draft picks in their first seasons, players with plenty of projection left or players whose injury history is worrisome.

 

Extreme: Teenagers in Rookie ball, players with significant injury histories or players whose struggle with a key skill (especially control for pitchers or strikeout rate for hitters) is a significant barrier to them ever reaching their potential.

[SoCalBrewfan]

If "55" means a MLB quality starter and a "45" represents a 0 WAR type player, then certainly the 55 type players. The 45 grade players should be pretty plentiful.

 

Yeah, I think choosing a risky 55 over a more certain 45 is a no-brainer for the Brewers in their current state, though I also think 45 is more like a 0.5 WAR player. Now admittedly, you need those guys to fill out your roster, and there are Brewers teams that have foundered due to an inability to find cheap players of that quality. Having mediocre replacements on hand helps prevent the likes of Yuni at first. Still, generally bullpen arms and backup position players are available for next to nothing. (This is a place where Melvin was once a whiz but where he seemingly lost his mojo...)

 

On the other hand, the economy of baseball means that a 55+ player is going to be hard for the Brewers to afford at full market price. (I think the answer might be different for, say, the Dodgers or the Cubs right now.) The cost in free agency or in trade is going to be such that we can't do too many of those deals. Thus we need to get them while they are cheap, which means taking on risk. With the valuation of high-level prospects now seemingly at a high point, it seems very astute to do as Stearns has and look for really young players with high ceilings.

[CheezWizHed]

though I also think 45 is more like a 0.5 WAR player.

 

I wasn't trying to get too fine with the "0 WAR" comment, just trying to describe the type of player. 0.5 WAR is essentially the same to my point.

 

If you want to win the WS, you need a roster full of 2-8 WAR type players. Of course you aren't going to have everyone doing that. And you might live with someone at the 0-2 WAR level for a short period of time. But you should always be trying to replace those type of players (note that bench/BP players' WAR numbers will have a different expectation, but similarly adjusted for PT).

 

Sure, a player that is a 45 can become a 55 and vice versa. That isn't really the point either. Statistically, I would expect you will have a better shot having a 55 in the minors become a 55 in the majors than a 45 becoming a 55.

 

Given the explanation of the risk factors, there are only two factors that concern me for risk:

- Injury

- Someone close to the bigs without realizing the potential in production.

 

Seems that most guys will be ranked risky due to distance from the MLB level. And while, I understand the need to show that "risk", its really only useful if you are rating one MiLB farm against another. It doesn't represent a true risk since all players need to start at the bottom (just about all of them).

[And That]

Statistically, I would expect you will have a better shot having a 55 in the minors become a 55 in the majors than a 45 becoming a 55.

Except that given 55 players are generally riskier in terms of final outcome, 55s have a better shot at being 0's than 45s. And really until I see some data that states the % of players rated 55 by BA in the handbook that actually became 55 players in MLB, or average WAR produced per year by all 55 players vs players of other ratings, I can't see much support for what the best mix of potential to risk in the minor leagues is. Clearly you need a bunch of talented players, but if they all have a bunch of risk attached, that intuitively says to me that isn't the best way to build a stream of talent to the big leagues.

[CheezWizHed]

I am assuming (never ASSume!) that the people doing the scouting at least have some credibility in ranking players. They won't be right on all "55" players, nor all "45" players (nor A, B, Cs for Sickel's ratings or 20/80 for stuff either). But I would imagine that any rating system that is worth using at all has some credibility of its predictions.

 

Just being a 55 alone doesn't increase your risk. A 55 with Extreme rating is going to be the same riskiness of a 45 with Extreme rating. Except that a 55 might "fall" to a 45 and is still useful. If a 45 falls, its to an organizational soldier level and not useful at the MLB level.

 

Or were you going back to the "55+Extreme" vs "45+Medium" question?

-> I would still go back to the origin of the "Extreme" rating. Extreme due to distance from the MLB level wouldn't concern me. Nor does it seem to concern DS, as he has been busy acquiring higher talent levels that are at A-ball or under. If its Extreme due to health, then its something to be more concerned about. No way do you want a roster full of medical cases. A few to take a chance on are fine, but not most of them.

[And That]

I don't want to get hung up on 55 vs. 45 - my question is the same for 55 vs. 60, 45 vs. 40, 55 vs. 50, etc. Between the scouting grades and the scouting risk, I'd like to see the actual results and comparisons between the players in the various grade/risk categories.

 

I trust that BA has done its scouting diligence on these grades/risks, but ultimately it comes down to what the actual quantitative outcome of the grades are. For example, what, in the end, has a 55/Extreme grade actually meant in terms of future MLB production? Versus what, in the end, has a 50/High grade actually meant in terms of future MLB production? And by "meant" I mean average, distribution of results, deviations, etc.

 

I'd also like to see what the progression of players up and down the scouting grade and risk scale is. If a player is 55/Extreme one year, what are they usually the next year? In two years?

 

It's great to see the Brewers with so many highly rated players, but in the end, what does that mean?

 

Maybe a summer database project...

[CheezWizHed]

Grading the Graders! Anyone can predict the weather, but how often do they go back to see how accurate they are.

 

With advanced metrics being in vogue, one would think that someone is looking at this. Teams shouldn't be spending millions of dollars on the advice of their scouts without having an objective way of grading their performance.

[And That]

Finally received the BA Prospect Handbook, and my first takeaway is I guess I didn't know Demi Orimoloye's full name:

 

Oluwademilade Oluwadamilola Orimoloye.

[CheezWizHed]

But can you say it?

[SRB]

Finally received the BA Prospect Handbook, and my first takeaway is I guess I didn't know Demi Orimoloye's full name:

 

Oluwademilade Oluwadamilola Orimoloye.

 

According to the Elias Sports Bureau, Orimoloye's 6 HR last year were the most in a debut season by a player named Oluwademilade Oluwadamilola in baseball history!

[And That]

I'm surprised he didn't go with Wade instead.

[reillymcshane]

Finally received the BA Prospect Handbook, and my first takeaway is I guess I didn't know Demi Orimoloye's full name:

 

Oluwademilade Oluwadamilola Orimoloye.

Can we put that on a uniform?

[trwi7]

I'm surprised he didn't go with Wade instead.

 

Or Lola.

[adambr2]

Keith Law has the Brewers in his top 5 farm systems.

[Jenkins5]

I'm surprised he didn't go with Wade instead.

 

Think the way syllabols are broken down is the biggest reason. There would be a break between the wa/demi. So you actually say Demi in name but wade you don't. U'd say Wa/de (with short vowel)

 

Plus Demi sounds much cooler & makes him even more like a "Demi-God"

[jerichoholicninja]

I'm surprised he didn't go with Wade instead.

 

Think the way syllabols are broken down is the biggest reason. There would be a break between the wa/demi. So you actually say Demi in name but wade you don't. U'd say Wa/de (with short vowel)

 

Plus Demi sounds much cooler & makes him even more like a "Demi-God"

 

Or Demi Moore. Which is the first thing that pops into my mind whenever I see his name.

[And That]

Think the way syllabols are broken down...

Yah, it was a joke.