Farm System Rankings

[Stradling]

For every Weaver there are a dozen Kyle Abbots.  

[floplag]

4 minutes ago, Stradling said:

What it comes down to is the success rate of drafting pitchers in the first round.  I’d assume there are many more flops than with position players.  

Does seem that way doesnt it.  

[Ace-Of-Diamonds]

48 minutes ago, Kevinb said:

These rankings are a little disappointing but at the end of the day they don't mean much. Players come out of no where all the time and succeed. Adell wasn't the number 1 pick but he has a really good shot at winning Rookie of the Year this year. Like others have said a lot of our younger guys are up here already to help up the big league club so that could have some affect on the rankings, but definitely would have preferred the Angels to be middle of the road if not top 10.   

Fletcher was never a top prospect, but he has turn out to be very good at multiple positions and although he lacks power manages to get get on base and get the clutch hit when needed.

[UndertheHalo]

obviously this is a pretty disappointing indictment of what the Angels have been doing the last 4 years.  There’s no doubt that many players didn’t have the years we would like last year.  And pitching is very clearly a concern area.  

The Angels have invested a ton of picks in the last 2 years on pitchers.  We took riskier guys with higher picks.  We need some of these guys to have good seasons and build value. 

the player development team is responsible for this.....

Edited March 10, 2020 by UndertheHalo

[Reveille1984]

28 minutes ago, floplag said:

Again though the discussion was about developing it.  To me thats more along the lines of guys that were not expected to be much that ended up being it.  Which is to say a lot fewer guys.   I guess it depends on how you define developing. 

Fair enough.  Sure, if you want an ace (undisputable #1) then you're more likely to find them in the first few rounds and those guys likely need more "fine-tuning" than any kind of complete overhaul, no doubt.

I guess my point is we aren't doing either as of late; whether it's drafting high end pitching in the first few rounds that end up being very good in the bigs or finding the turd covered diamonds and polishing them up to be mid-level rotation fill-ins.

[kevinb]

39 minutes ago, Stradling said:

What it comes down to is the success rate of drafting pitchers in the first round.  I’d assume there are many more flops than with position players.  

I wonder if that has more to do with injuries to pitchers seeing as positional players probably get hurt less frequently. 

[mmc]

And of course, that Dipoto guy everyone still loves to complain about, has the Mariners at #9

[Inside Pitch]

13 minutes ago, Kevinb said:

I wonder if that has more to do with injuries to pitchers seeing as positional players probably get hurt less frequently. 

Yeah, the attrition rate for pitchers is way higher.  Just the nature of the business.  Catchers have the biggest wash out rate for position players.  The really interesting thing is they have one of the highest rates of non-prospects seeing MLB service time.   Those guys that never make any lists but work well with pitchers etc etc seemingly find their way onto MLB rosters.

Anyway, back to your comment.... the line about pitchers being one throw away from being retired exists for a reason.

[tdawg87]

You guys take rankings far too seriously. 

What would you guys say you know about our system outside of Adell and Marsh? Whatever your answer, you probably know just as much as most of these sites do. That is-not much. This is particularly true of the source of this thread.

The system definitely has an issue on the pitching side. No one here will refute that. But just in the last 2 years we've seen these players graduate to the MLB level: Canning, Fletcher, Thaiss, Buttrey, Barria, Suarez, Sandoval, Rengifo, Ward, Walsh, Hermosillo.

That's 11 players. Most of them were in our top 10 before losing prospect status (Sandoval, Walsh and Hermosillo are still "prospects"). In fact, I believe Canning and Suarez were in our top 5.

When ANY system sees that many players graduate in a 2 year span, they're going to look a bit more empty. Once Adell and Marsh come up I'm sure you'll all remember this. 

The fact is, we have more depth than we've had in the last 6-7 years. So when Adell and Marsh come up, we have Adams and Knowles to take their place. We also have a top 10 pick in this year's draft, which brought us Adell just a couple years ago.

Is this a good system? No. Is it bad? Depends on who you ask. I'd say it's average at best. But Dipoto had us as literally the worst system ever when he took his ball and went home, so I would say things are definitely better. The point is the rankings are ultimately irrelevant, especially when you only take them at face value.

 

Edited March 10, 2020 by tdawg87

[kevinb]

9 minutes ago, tdawg87 said:

You guys take rankings far too seriously. 

What would you guys say you know about our system outside of Adell and Marsh? Whatever your answer, you probably know just as much as most of these sites do. That is-not much. This is particularly true of the source of this thread.

The system definitely has an issue on the pitching side. No one here will refute that. But just in the last 2 years we've seen these players graduate to the MLB level: Canning, Fletcher, Thaiss, Buttrey, Barria, Suarez, Sandoval, Rengifo, Ward, Walsh, Hermosillo.

That's 11 players. Most of them were in our top 10 before losing prospect status (Sandoval, Walsh and Hermosillo are still "prospects"). In fact, I believe Canning and Suarez were in our top 5.

When ANY system sees that many players graduate in a 2 year span, they're going to look a bit more empty. Once Adell and Marsh come up I'm sure you'll all remember this. 

The fact is, we have more depth than we've ever had. So when Adell and Marsh come up, we have Adams and Knowles to take their place. We also have a top 10 pick in this year's draft, which brought us Adell just a couple years ago.

Is this a good system? No. Is it bad? Depends on who you ask. I'd say it's average at best. But Dipoto had us as literally the worst system ever when he took his ball and went home, so I would say things are definitely better. The point is the rankings are ultimately irrelevant, especially when you only take them at face value.

 

 

 

Highly disagree. These people study all of the farm systems and all of the players they have people who are paid to do this. For 99% of us here watching the Angels or their prospects is a hobby. If you want to go with the typical everyone else is wrong and we’re right I guess that’s your prerogative. But these people who are making these judgments are looking at mlb as a whole with zero biases or very few biases. While we here have one bias and that’s to see the Angels do well. I get why you would have that mindset but I also don’t. It is what it is take it, it’s information who has no affiliation with any team is saying. 

[Stradling]

6 minutes ago, Kevinb said:

Highly disagree. These people study all of the farm systems and all of the players they have people who are paid to do this. For 99% of us here watching the Angels or their prospects is a hobby. If you want to go with the typical everyone else is wrong and we’re right I guess that’s your prerogative. But these people who are making these judgments are looking at mlb as a whole with zero biases or very few biases. While we here have one bias and that’s to see the Angels do well. I get why you would have that mindset but I also don’t. It is what it is take it, it’s information who has no affiliation with any team is saying. 

They have people, yes a limited number of people.  Those people, while more qualified than me or you, don’t have the time to adequately scout 8000 plus minor leaguers.  

[mmc]

7 minutes ago, Stradling said:

They have people, yes a limited number of people.  Those people, while more qualified than me or you, don’t have the time to adequately scout 8000 plus minor leaguers.  

“It puts Eppler in a bad light, therefore it’s invalid.”

[kevinb]

1 minute ago, Stradling said:

They have people, yes a limited number of people.  Those people, while more qualified than me or you, don’t have the time to adequately scout 8000 plus minor leaguers.  

I don't know what they do or don't scout, but what I do know is they don't have some random bias against the Angels. Even if they can only scout 10 players per team, that's still way more information than the majority of us have on all the teams minor league systems.

Say they are only looking at the top 10 prospects which I bet you they are looking at more than just that. But say it is only the top 10 they are evaluating those top 10 for all the teams and they putting a grade on those players. So at the end of the day we rank where we rank out of the entire league. If people don't like the number, I get it, but it isn't some ploy to make Angels fans mad. They are providing information. While every scout or every coach values different things, they are saying this is how they evaluate each system against every other system, and rank accordingly. It's a bummer that's where they rank the Angels and it seems the Angels have a long way to improve. Rankings fluctuate on who gets promoted so it's a very fluid thing. But I see nothing wrong with looking at information. But I would generally trust national people's opinions with no bias, because they see every minor league system then trust a person who has an obvious fan bias towards a system. But that's just me. 

[tdawg87]

18 minutes ago, Kevinb said:

Highly disagree. These people study all of the farm systems and all of the players they have people who are paid to do this. For 99% of us here watching the Angels or their prospects is a hobby. If you want to go with the typical everyone else is wrong and we’re right I guess that’s your prerogative. But these people who are making these judgments are looking at mlb as a whole with zero biases or very few biases. While we here have one bias and that’s to see the Angels do well. I get why you would have that mindset but I also don’t. It is what it is take it, it’s information who has no affiliation with any team is saying. 

Do you really believe they have people who go around and follow our 15-30 ranked prospects all year long so they can come up with an adequate "ranking" list?

Imagine spending all that time, effort, and money to scout a bunch of random kids so you can give out a free ranking of farm systems.

No, they just take from other lists and add whatever blurb they can to a player. 

As for "biases", everyone is biased. We're biased towards our prospects, sure. But a site like this who hears that we don't have a great system isn't going to bother with the proper legwork it would take to determine a different viewpoint.

[tdawg87]

3 minutes ago, mymerlincat said:

“It puts Eppler in a bad light, therefore it’s invalid.”

It's funny because you're the only one who keeps bringing up Eppler.

[mmc]

Just now, tdawg87 said:

It's funny because you're the only one who keeps bringing up Eppler.

I know exactly how this site rolls.

[tdawg87]

1 minute ago, mymerlincat said:

I know exactly how this site rolls.

As do I.

[Stradling]

5 minutes ago, mymerlincat said:

“It puts Eppler in a bad light, therefore it’s invalid.”

Sometimes you are incredibly dumb, this is one of those times.  No where did I say the ranking was wrong.  Go back posting tweets, it is one thing you do well.  

[kevinb]

3 minutes ago, tdawg87 said:

Do you really believe they have people who go around and follow our 15-30 ranked prospects all year long so they can come up with an adequate "ranking" list?

Imagine spending all that time, effort, and money to scout a bunch of random kids so you can give out a free ranking of farm systems.

No, they just take from other lists and add whatever blurb they can to a player. 

As for "biases", everyone is biased. We're biased towards our prospects, sure. But a site like this who hears that we don't have a great system isn't going to bother with the proper legwork it would take to determine a different viewpoint.

Again completely disagree. You have no idea what they do to gather their information. So now your saying our 15-30 prospects are better than everyone else's 15-30 prospects? I mean what are you trying to get at. I get again trying to defend the Angels because of reasons. But even so they are looking at prospects as a whole. They are looking at it compared to other organizations. Then giving their ranking. But ya you're right I am sure they get no money from a free site and people looking at it. Who are they hearing we don't have a great system from? Like insiders? People in the know? Wouldn't that information be valid then? Interesting. 

[Stradling]

Just now, Kevinb said:

Again completely disagree. You have no idea what they do to gather their information. So now your saying our 15-30 prospects are better than everyone else's 15-30 prospects? I mean what are you trying to get at. I get again trying to defend the Angels because of reasons. But even so they are looking at prospects as a whole. They are looking at it compared to other organizations. Then giving their ranking. But ya you're right I am sure they get no money from a free site and people looking at it. Who are they hearing we don't have a great system from? Like insiders? People in the know? Wouldn't that information be valid then? Interesting. 

Hey @tdawg87 remember that time you said we had the #1 farm in baseball?  

[Stradling]

6 minutes ago, mymerlincat said:

I know exactly how this site rolls.

And it is your job to come in and try to add your little piece of reality?  

[kevinb]

Just now, Stradling said:

Hey @tdawg87 remember that time you said we had the #1 farm in baseball?  

He's clearly saying that they don't follow them and that our 15-30 prospects are better than they are. Which means they are better than other teams 15-30 prospects. But yes what I said was a little hyperbole for fun. 

[kevinb]

Just now, Stradling said:

And it is your job to come in and try to add your little piece of reality?  

And it's your job to correct him? 

[Stradling]

Just now, Kevinb said:

He's clearly saying that they don't follow them and that our 15-30 prospects are better than they are. Which means they are better than other teams 15-30 prospects. But yes what I said was a little hyperbole for fun. 

No, he isn’t saying that.  You need to read a shit ton better for comprehension.  

[mmc]

1 minute ago, Stradling said:

And it is your job to come in and try to add your little piece of reality?  

Nope, just think it’s hilarious to see the same excuses over and over again in every thread critical of the team or management.