Prospect Lists? Good or Bad?

[EdgarDiazRocks]

Hey Patrick.

 

I was wondering if you would comment on this article.

 

Quote:

---

What follows is actually what the decision makers should be looking at, or at least a variant of it; it's a performance list. What follows is the list of the top performances by my favorite evaluation measures for college players by last year's sophomore class. The difference in this and a prospect list is that I haven't talked to anyone, much less a scout, I've never seen most of these guys, and the next time I use the word "toolsy" will be the first.

---

 

I feel that this is one of those examples of somebody being very shortsighted. That performance evaluation is the MOST important tool in drafting is certainly limiting your information.

 

I would think that if any MLB team has their player development affected by BA then that would be surprising.

 

I think the lists are for the fans, not a guide for minor league development.

 

Thoughts?

[colbyjack]

I'm sure you know how I feel about this EDR, to base all of your decisions solely on statistical evidence is, like you said, a shortsighted way to evaluate players. I believe Jed Lowrie was the highest rated hitter on the same list a year ago, which is ridiculous if you stack him up against Alex Gordon. That's not to say that Matt LaPorta isn't a fine hitter, because he is, and he may just be the best among those eligible for the '06 draft.

 

I enjoy Boyd Nation's work, because it's obvious he does his homework and comes up with some interesting results. And without a doubt, lists are for fans. While I know almost everyone in the game reads Baseball America, I'm sure they don't make their personnel decision based off of how BA ranks players within each system.

 

And actually I warn the same thing when reading BA's work (or anyone's for that matter). When we formulate our own opinions on which players we like and don't like, we usually do our own homework. We all have our own hunches, and there's key words we may react to. When I see people say "this player is good because BA says so" I'm tempted to warn people to fall into such traps. The information that BA produces should be used as a tool for fans just like statistical evidence should be used as a tool for baseball personnel.

 

But back to Boyd's comments, while I do caution myself when reading top prospect lists, especially knowing that BA and most "old-school" scouts put projection as a premium over performance, I can't help but thinking about some top prospect lists that are proven. I ran across the Twins top 10 list last week, and the names on the list (and the subsequent 5 to follow) really stood out to me. They were in order:

 

Michael Cuddyer, Michael Restovich, Cristian Guzman, Luis Riva, Matthew LeCroy, Ryan Mills, Jacque Jones, Doug Meintkiewicz, Corey Koskie, Mike Lincoln, Matt Kinney, Joe Mays, Brent Stentz, AJ Piezynski & Dan Perkins.

 

Brent Stentz and Dan Perkins are the big duds on the list, while everyone else has seen substantial MLB playing time. I didn't look back, but I'm guessing the Twins finished fairly high in the overall organizational rankings that year, and that is one area that at least BA can go back and point to as a basis for their success. Boyd Nation's lists are nice, but where is his proof that these are the lists people should be looking at? If there is historical proof that the players listed typically are the ones that enjoy the most success, wonderful, but then again, there are quite a few names that would appear atop a top prospect list that BA would compile. Are the lists based on performance more accurate?

 

I guess I see a mighty bold claim that these are the lists that we should be following, not to mention Mr. Nation's tone that seems to be mandatory among those that prefer production over projection. Until he backs his information up with historical results, his information is just as big of a tool to use as BA's top prospect lists. And since I believe amateur statistics shouldn't be taken so seriously, it could also be argued that his lists are to statheads what BA's list are to scout heads. He's not really doing anything different, although he claims to be.

[EdgarDiazRocks]

I enjoy Boyd Nation's work, because it's obvious he does his homework and comes up with some interesting results.

I would say I appreciate his work, not necessarily enjoy it. His research is awesome and yet there's a disconnect there.

 

For example last year his stats led me to note Chase Headley's fantastic year, yet that just made me want to learn MORE about Headley, not to stop and draw my conclusions from the numbers of one college season alone in a vacuum.

 

I'm sure that is not what he's actually advocating, and that teams should simply use these things tp POINT to the prospects and use them in figuring out the route of player development, but again the tone of the message really takes away from the content. And comments like "Baseball America has been the source of one of the great evils of our time -- the prospect list. " detract from any intended persuasion.

 

Hmmm . . .Rwanda Genocide or the BA Top 100?

 

But if indeed if all teams adopted this methodology then how would teams find the Latin talent?

[brettac1]

I like Boyd Nation because I can go find out who leads NCAA in walks http://forum.brewerfan.net/images/smilies/wink.gif - Mike Costanzo of Coastal Carolina last year, now with the Phillies (.274/.356/.473 in the NYPL this year, with 35 BB in 281 AB).

 

Other than that, I don't really care for his writing or anything.

[dadofandrew]

I rarely read his stuff, but I sure would if I were a GM. His guys would seem to be an excellent way to spend some mid-late round picks.

[colbyjack]

I know what you're saying EDR. I know there are several people that constantly accuse others of being "anti-Moneyball," which has popped back up on the MLB forum, and Boyd's snide comments seem to be the typical ones that stem from the other side.

 

But if indeed if all teams adopted this methodology then how would teams find the Latin talent?

 

Or high school talent? Basically, if you can't quantify the performance of a player, you avoid them, right?