MLB.com White Sox Top 30 Prospects

[LDF]

if a lot of the discussion has a alot of the results based on performance. so how can Mickler A be ranked, as high as he is.

 

let say for this discussion, the performance is not in the equation, still how can he be ranked as high.

 

while the rankings are nice and can create some really great conversation, it is not the final word. i still have to love the quality of this system. i know it is a project that is still growing.

[Eminor3rd]

As much as people think you don't have to watch players to evaluate them, just look at the boxscore, you really need to watch the player. Obviously, the Sox were not so high on Jeff Abbott.

 

Isn't that exactly what NSS/caulfield have been arguing?

[Dick Allen]

Isn't that exactly what NSS/caulfield have been arguing?

Why you try to make me look like a fool at all times, this time I think you need to also include the post I was responding to when I posted those numbers.

 

I'll give you a hint, the posters you mentioned didn't not author the post in which I was responding.

Edited March 13, 2015 by Dick Allen

[NorthSideSox72]

Isn't that exactly what NSS/caulfield have been arguing?

I feel like I'm taking crazy pills.

 

[gatnom]

Courtney Hawkins as a 19 year old struck out 160 times.

Courtney Hawkins as a 20 year old struck out 143 times.

 

Trey Michalczewski as a 19 year old struck out 161 times.

 

Would you like to revise your support for putting him above Hawkins or not?

 

Probably worth noting that Michalczewski had 152 more PA's as a 19 year old, though the majority of them were at a slightly lower level.

 

Edit: reading baseball reference is hard.

Edited March 13, 2015 by gatnom

[Dick Allen]

Probably worth noting that Michalczewski had 152 less PA's as a 19 year old, though the majority of them were at a slightly lower level.

I think you mean 152 more but the fact is rankings are opinions. Sometimes they are correct, sometimes not. Arguing whether a guy should be the 8th or 9th rated White Sox prospect is for the most part a waste of time. If they don't become contributing major leaguers, whether they once ranked #1 or #1000, it doesn't matter.

[caulfield12]

I think you mean 152 more but the fact is rankings are opinions. Sometimes they are correct, sometimes not. Arguing whether a guy should be the 8th or 9th rated White Sox prospect is for the most part a waste of time. If they don't become contributing major leaguers, whether they once ranked #1 or #1000, it doesn't matter.

 

What's the point of arguing anything at a baseball message board..as the supposedly "pure" statistics can be slanted or skewed any which way to make your case.

[LDF]

What's the point of arguing anything at a baseball message board..as the supposedly "pure" statistics can be slanted or skewed any which way to make your case.

 

oh man, why do you need to bring in logic to a msg board???

[NorthSideSox72]

I think you mean 152 more but the fact is rankings are opinions. Sometimes they are correct, sometimes not. Arguing whether a guy should be the 8th or 9th rated White Sox prospect is for the most part a waste of time. If they don't become contributing major leaguers, whether they once ranked #1 or #1000, it doesn't matter.

Then why argue anything on this topic?

 

[Dick Allen]

What's the point of arguing anything at a baseball message board..as the supposedly "pure" statistics can be slanted or skewed any which way to make your case.

Here's Future Sox top 25 prospects from only 2 years ago. Things happen. IMO unless the guy is just a stud, the rankings business is just a game where if you get one out of ten right you ride it for a while. Marcus Semien, a favorite around here was 16. Scott Snodgrass, Simon Castro, Nestor Molina, Charlie Leesman were all above him. I'm not trying to make fun of the Future Sox guys, these rankings for baseball are almost impossible, especially when you are looking at mostly junk. The two best players so far were #16 and #22.

 

http://www.chicagonow.com/future-sox/2013/...e-sox-prospects

Edited March 13, 2015 by Dick Allen

[caulfield12]

Here's Future Sox top 25 prospects from only 2 years ago. Things happen. IMO unless the guy is just a stud, the rankings business is just a game where if you get one out of ten right you ride it for a while. Marcus Semien, a favorite around here was 16. Scott Snodgrass, Simon Castro, Nestor Molina, Charlie Leesman were all above him. I'm not trying to make fun of the Future Sox guys, these rankings for baseball are almost impossible, especially when you are looking at mostly junk. The two best players so far were #16 and #22.

 

http://www.chicagonow.com/future-sox/2013/...e-sox-prospects

 

So you prefer what, no ratings at all, no mock drafts, etc.?

 

What do you prefer instead...to take its place?

[Dick Allen]

So you prefer what, no ratings at all, no mock drafts, etc.?

 

What do you prefer instead...to take its place?

I'm just saying you shouldn't take them so seriously. Frankly, if I like a player, it really doesn't matter to me if someone thinks he's the White Sox best prospect or their 30th best.

[Eminor3rd]

Why you try to make me look like a fool at all times, this time I think you need to also include the post I was responding to when I posted those numbers.

 

I'll give you a hint, the posters you mentioned didn't not author the post in which I was responding.

 

I'm not trying to make you look like a fool, I'm just trying to figure out wtf you're trying to say. It just seems like you were arguing the exact opposite thing a minute ago -- and if two people are "arguing" the same point, I think someone should point it out. It happens all the time around here.

 

 

[NorthSideSox72]

Here's Future Sox top 25 prospects from only 2 years ago. Things happen. IMO unless the guy is just a stud, the rankings business is just a game where if you get one out of ten right you ride it for a while. Marcus Semien, a favorite around here was 16. Scott Snodgrass, Simon Castro, Nestor Molina, Charlie Leesman were all above him. I'm not trying to make fun of the Future Sox guys, these rankings for baseball are almost impossible, especially when you are looking at mostly junk. The two best players so far were #16 and #22.

 

http://www.chicagonow.com/future-sox/2013/...e-sox-prospects

Nothing anyone doesn't know. Pick any T25/T30 list from any org two or three years ago and you'll see some successes and some bombs.

 

But I can't figure out why you'd come into the thread, use stats to argue a point, turn around in a later post and say you have to see the guy, then end up at none of it matters. If it doesn't matter then why are you here?

 

[Dick Allen]

Nothing anyone doesn't know. Pick any T25/T30 list from any org two or three years ago and you'll see some successes and some bombs.

 

But I can't figure out why you'd come into the thread, use stats to argue a point, turn around in a later post and say you have to see the guy, then end up at none of it matters. If it doesn't matter then why are you here?

When did I use stats to argue a point?

I used the Abbott/Magglio stats to show that stats often don't matter. If anyone pre 1997 ranked Maggs higher than Abbott, they would have been considered a fool. After that, they would probably never have let anyone forget.

 

I did say IMO Hawkins strikes out far too much to ever be a good player, and Trey seems to have the same issue.

 

My very first post of this thread was asking Caulfield who apparently loves rankings even though he disagrees with them if he had actually seen the players play. One of them he didn't mention BTW.

 

 

Just take your rankings from 2 years ago, did it ultimately matter the order you rank Scott Snodgrass and Charlie Leesman? It probably doesn't matter with these guys either.

[Balta1701]

But ultimately what gets you there is results.

 

 

When did I use stats to argue a point?

 

[Dick Allen]

Results at the major league level. Your age 19 huge year in A ball doesn't get your organization to want to buy out your arb years.

[Señor Ding-Dong]

I think you mean 152 more but the fact is rankings are opinions. Sometimes they are correct, sometimes not. Arguing whether a guy should be the 8th or 9th rated White Sox prospect is for the most part a waste of time. If they don't become contributing major leaguers, whether they once ranked #1 or #1000, it doesn't matter.

Rankings are opinions? Well, you don't say. That's probably why people are quick to question unusual opinions such as Michalczewski over Hawkins or Anderson over Rodon. A total no sh*t on this one.

 

Who's saying prospect rankings determine how a player will pan out? Who is saying that they're anything or than just a subjective ranking? If a publication put someone like Eddy Alvarez as our number one overall prospect I think it would merit lots of discussion...even though, according to you, it would be a waste of time since it's just an opinion and has no bearing on anything in the long run.

 

Arguing about how it's pointless for people to discuss prospect rankings is an even bigger waste of time. Why discuss anything at all? Why even have this forum if it's a waste of time to discuss anything that hasn't already happened and therefore isn't 100% factual. Everything said about something that has yet to happen is an opinion. Sometimes they are correct, sometimes they are not. That doesn't mean it's pointless to discuss it.

[SoxAce]

Then why argue anything on this topic?

Are you really that surprised?

[Señor Ding-Dong]

I'm just saying you shouldn't take them so seriously. Frankly, if I like a player, it really doesn't matter to me if someone thinks he's the White Sox best prospect or their 30th best.

You say that if you like a White Sox prospect you don't care where he's ranked. Interesting.

 

Well, how did you learn about that prospect? Did you watch at least 75% of his minor league games each season?

 

Or did you read prospect rankings lists, scouting reports, check statisitcs, and watch short clips of the prospect like pretty much everyone else does?

 

For how "pointless" all of this is, I'm willing to bet you would be a lot less informed on the Sox prospects without it.

[Dick Allen]

You say that if you like a White Sox prospect you don't care where he's ranked. Interesting.

 

Well, how did you learn about that prospect? Did you watch at least 75% of his minor league games each season?

 

Or did you read prospect rankings lists, scouting reports, check statisitcs, and watch short clips of the prospect like pretty much everyone else does?

 

For how "pointless" all of this is, I'm willing to bet you would be a lot less informed on the Sox prospects without it.

Ironic that everyone ripping me is actually making my point. If this guy is so dumb to even consider Trey to be a better prospect than Courtney wouldn't you have to question the validity of his entire list?

NSS said lists form 2 years ago are going to look silly. So why be up in arms if a guy is ranked 8 or9?

Edited March 13, 2015 by Dick Allen

[LDF]

Ironic that everyone ripping me is actually making my point. If this guy is so dumb to even consider Trey to be a better prospect than Courtney wouldn't you have to question the validity of his entire list?

NSS said lists form 2 years ago are going to look silly. So why be up in arms if a guy is ranked 8 or9?

 

interesting conversation. i missed it.

 

since this is a subjective opinion which in itself may vary from others opinion, in other words, no one is right. why question the whole list?? is there a final ranking that is right, making all others wrong, pretty much like how someone will take a test with a certified answer list.

 

on this forum what makes mine (i am always right ), more correct than any others?

 

 

[SCCWS]

interesting conversation. i missed it.

 

since this is a subjective opinion which in itself may vary from others opinion, in other words, no one is right. why question the whole list?? is there a final ranking that is right, making all others wrong, pretty much like how someone will take a test with a certified answer list.

 

on this forum what makes mine (i am always right ), more correct than any others?

 

I think the confusion comes on how the writer arrives at his rating. I could be wrong, but I think position has an impact. He uses the standard 5 categories: hit, power, run etc and he averages the five scores. But if you notice Adolfo scores slightly higher than Johnson but is rated below him. Hawkins rates slightly higher than Trey but he also ranks slighly lower. I wonder if he ranks outfielders lower than infielders when the numbers are in the same range???

[Boopa1219]

Alfaro is 16, not 19.

[Boopa1219]

Hawkins AFTER Trey?

 

C'mon, that's ridiculous. And Danish so low? I guess you can argue Adolfo on POTENTIAL, but Micker's MILES away right now.

 

Still a big improvement from last year's list, which was beyond ridiculous from MLB.

 

 

I would switch out Micah and Danish, Adolfo is right where he should be in my opinion.