Listening to MLB Pipeline's Jonathan Mayo answer some questions during the Bowie vs Altoona broadcast on 6/6/22 made me ponder the question: How do the baseball rankings actually rank? What underlying bases do we use, who makes the decisions, how do we end up with Corbin Carroll, at #1, #10 or #15?
During the play-by-play broadcast, Jonathan mentioned that folks often ask him why a certain prospect isn't ranked higher in the MLB top 100 when they're having a banner year in MiLB, and his answer was (more or less) that MLB's ranks aren't based on contemporaneous success at a particular minor league level, but rather a consensus belief/feel/rating among scouts as to the future prospects of a player (i.e. "the prospect" not the production)
Jonathan relayed that he and other staff members (I think it was 2) at MLB Pipeline divide up (divide and conquer?) the MLB organizations to complete each club's Top 30. And, in compiling those team ranks, MLB Pipeline staff (like Jonathan) reach out to scouting related contacts they have in the organization and try and build a consensus rank, while not necessarily viewing video or scouting players individually.
While there's no doubt that each organization (especially at each level of the organization) have particularized knowledge of a player, you still have to wonder....
Does each MLB team's Top 30 start with last year's Top 30 (subtract out MLB graduations) and then what? Tinker based on most recent stat production? Tinker based on scouting reports? Whispers within the organization? How much can a scout's fandon/like of or disdain for a particular player (and how the player "goes about his business") effect a rank? And, what if the staff member at MLB Pipeline doesn't agree on the organization's scouting reports? What if the staff member doesn't want to ruin the good relationship he has with the organization by not ranking a particular player as high (or in the top 30 at all)?
And what do we do with the reality that projection does not always equate to production? At what point do we dial back the scouting report, the five tool player report and focus on the actual numbers in actual games? Does it take three years of average performance? Two years of underwhelming performance?
Of course, on the other hand, baseball is streaky and if our ranks are based solely on minor league numbers, we could have top 100s with about 50% changeover from month to month.
So how do we meld this together? How do we have some consistency in the ranks (do we need consistency), stay true to scouting reports yet also stay relevant (with production)?
Well, folks, that has to be the "science" behind the rank. The ultimate intangible -- which is not of the player, but of the "rankers", the good ole intellectual property that we add to the mix.
Is it a feel? Did we see the player? Meet the player? Watch a great game of the player (that imprinted in our minds and erases the 1/20, 8 K week that followed)? Is a Hit grade more important than a power grade? Is 40/60 better than 50/50 or 60/40 or 45/45/70?
Maybe its all that. Maybe its all really subjective.
While we use fantasy WAR at DynastyFocus.com (which includes as many sabermetrics as we can find), we also have to keep in mind the level of production and that production can wane...e.g., look at the Dodgers' Jacob Amaya who was a top 10 minor league producing player for a month plus and now has fallen back to top 140 ish. What do we do with a player like Jacob? Put him at #10 one month and then out the next? (Yes, we were actually struggling with this in our latest ranks:
Jonathan Mayo perhaps called it right during the Altoona Curve broadcast, when he said "what we're trying to predict is better than average MLB players", not simply average ones. The Top 100 (our Top 105) should try and predict future MLB stars (even if that's 4/5/6/7 years from now).
But, because it's really an inexact science with so many factors, variables, intangibles, objective and subjective evidence, anecdotes and luck, it's just as easy to get it wrong.
To that end let's look one of MLB's past prospect rankings, from 2011...
But, MLB got Mike Trout 2011 right, notwithstanding that he was drafted 25th in the 1st round (2009) meaning 21 teams (WAS, AZ and LAA all had two picks in the top 25) and their scouting departments and front offices got it wrong (though even the Angels got it wrong by not trading up to ensure that someone else didn't get it right!)
Of the remaining 2011 Top 5, Mike Trout and Bryce Harper were obviously spot on. Jeremy Hellickson was a solid MLB pitcher, even AL Rookie of the Year but is he deserving of a top 50 rank? 232 games, 76-75 career mark with a 4.13 ERA and 11.1 WAR over seasons (which is 1.1 per year when the average MLB starter's WAR is 2.0/yr)? Except for the ROY and maybe another year, Hellickson was simply an average MLB starter (not above average).
Domonic Brown was definitely a miss (though he had one good MLB year), as was Dustin Ackely (SEA's 2009 pick at 1.2), both of whom wouldn't make our "Look Back Top 50 of 2011". [Hopefully someone out there can create that list for us, using MLB's list as well as the rookies who debuted in 2011, 2012, 2013 who were in the minors in 2011 but didn't make the MLB top 50)
Anyway, back to our (well, MLB's) list....
With Aroldis at 6 (who should stay #6 in the Look Back after Trout, Harper and Freeman, Sale, Machado), you have MLB/MLB Pipeline hitting 50% of their original top 6, but they also hit with Moose and Hosmer in the top 8, while missing on Jesus Montero at #9 (that's 5 for 9 or batting .555). That's not too bad...but, it becomes even more difficult as you move down the ranks... And the reason? Well, it's a lot easier to hit on the "consensus" top picks than the "other guys' where there is a greater degree of debate. Everyone can agree on their organization's clear cut #1, can't they?
At 10, Julio was a hit, and a case could be made for Desmond Jennings (Career WAR 13.4 over 6 full years = slight above an average WAR of 2.0 for a POS player) in the top 50 of the Look Back Top 50 of 2011.
Kyle Drabek (5.26 career ERA, 8-15 record, Career WAR -.1) didn't pan out and won't make our look back list.
Michael Pineda (Career WAR: 13.4, 9 years) and Mike Montgomery (Career WAR 5.9/ 6 years) are/were average major league starters (though Pineda "seems" to have been better than average over his career).
Jacob Turner was a miss, as was Wil Myers (surprisingly) compiling just a 12.6 WAR over 10 seasons.
Freddie Freeman was obviously a huge hit (though Freeman would be #3, #4 or #5 on our Look Back Top 50).
Jameson Taillon's 2.0+ Avg Season WAR makes him an average MLB starter (but not above average), but arguably deserving of a Top 50 lookback rank. Zack Britton has a been solid reliever for his career, with a solid 14 WAR over 11 seasons (WAR isn't that friendly to relievers).
Shelby Miller started out hot but compiled just a 7.6 WAR over 7 relatively full years.
Mike Minor's 19.2 WAR over 10 relatively full seasons puts him at replacement level (but up for the Ironman award for longevity, along with Jordan Lyles at #31). Casey Kelly (#22) never panned out, and Martin Perez has been below average (until this year, when he's been lights out), but still below average, career wise.
Manny Machado and Chris Sale are both top 5 (but came in at #24, #25). The hard thing to figure out for these guys (in the Look back Top 50) is where in the top 5 to place them.
Brandon Belt was an above average player across his career, as was Brett Lawrie (both above +2.0 WAR), OAK SP Jarrod Parker was as well (+3.0 avg WAR, 2 seasons but saw his career cut short).
Then come 20 straight misses for MLB (yeah, it gets harder to predict as we go further down the ranks), even though Jake Odorizzi, Chris Archer, Dee Strange-Gordon, Jose Iglesias and Yonder Alonso have all been decent major league players (all are still under a career average 2.0 WAR).
In all, there were 16 hits by MLB (on above average MLB players) or right on 32% of the ranks. If MLB was a batter, .320 would be pretty good, but if you're a team, fan, or fantasy player relying on the ranks, maybe you're not happy getting 68% wrong. Still each of these guys did play MLB, so that was 100% (50 out of 50). Hmm, though I wonder if maybe some of these guys got the call in part by making the top 50? (the age old horse/cart conundrum)
Or maybe its that going back to 2011 is a little unfair, when there weren't as many rankings and as much information available (was the internet even invented?)
Nowadays, with widely available video on players (where you can see an error called a triple, or a SB taken on a catcher gaffe, or an SP hurling 0 ERs but with a dozen balls being caught at the warning track on a day the wind was blowing in)....maybe its easier for all of us to rely on what we see, more than relying on what we're told, that other people saw.
Either way, any way we do it, compiling ranks takes: time (many many baseball hours--like a lifetime), patience, devotion, a love of the game, a little "science", some study, videoing, crunching numbers, a feel, some fandom and maybe just a little bit of luck.
So thanks to Jonathan Mayo and to MLB Pipeline.....to MLB Pipeline for your 2022 Top 100 Fantasy ranks and our making a date for a look back 10 years from now!
Comentários