almagest Posted October 3 Author Share Posted October 3 15 minutes ago, southsider2k5 said: I am sure the weighting of the systems changes because of where guys rank too. If you just rawdog adding up how many people are in top 100, that equates 100 with 1 as equal. With a team like the Tigers skewing towards the front with less players, but 2 top 10s, and 4 top 40s, that could outweigh the Sox five who starts at 35 and are mostly in the backhalf. Yeah, probably. I have no idea how any of these sites factor that in though. There's eight teams with four T100 prospects, so the Sox likely fall somewhere between 5th and 13th. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WestEddy Posted October 3 Share Posted October 3 26 minutes ago, almagest said: Yeah, probably. I have no idea how any of these sites factor that in though. There's eight teams with four T100 prospects, so the Sox likely fall somewhere between 5th and 13th. My thinking is that you have about a half dozen systems that are elite. Not that they had just had 3 top 5 draft picks, but who fire on all acquisition methods and develop them. Then you have 10 or so that do most things well, 10 that just do okay, then 4-5 that really suck at all aspects. I think the Sox were in that last group a few years ago and might be in one of the middle 2nd groups now. They end up getting ranked based on having the next sure-fire starting shortstop, or Paul Skenes. A system shouldn't drop from 8 to 19 because they just graduated 3 top 100 guys and promoted another before he hit the lists. The Sox have another 3 guys who are probably top 150, and any of their top 5 could launch themselves into the top 15 with a gonzo first month. That would change the complexion of their top 30 and their rankings. To my knowledge, nobody ranks the other way. It's all about the "it" dudes. That's why I just call them listicles. They're interesting snapshots, but don't really tell a story about what organizations are doing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted October 3 Share Posted October 3 27 minutes ago, WestEddy said: My thinking is that you have about a half dozen systems that are elite. Not that they had just had 3 top 5 draft picks, but who fire on all acquisition methods and develop them. Then you have 10 or so that do most things well, 10 that just do okay, then 4-5 that really suck at all aspects. I think the Sox were in that last group a few years ago and might be in one of the middle 2nd groups now. They end up getting ranked based on having the next sure-fire starting shortstop, or Paul Skenes. A system shouldn't drop from 8 to 19 because they just graduated 3 top 100 guys and promoted another before he hit the lists. The Sox have another 3 guys who are probably top 150, and any of their top 5 could launch themselves into the top 15 with a gonzo first month. That would change the complexion of their top 30 and their rankings. To my knowledge, nobody ranks the other way. It's all about the "it" dudes. That's why I just call them listicles. They're interesting snapshots, but don't really tell a story about what organizations are doing. Depending on who they are, and where they ranked, it absolutely could. Also that isn't the only reason the Sox list dropped. Smith and Schultz had pretty awful years too. A year ago Colson was #9. Any system is going to give much heavier weight at the top, vs at the bottom. It's common sense. You don't just count up top 100 guys and equate them equally. The Tigers having #2 and #8 is worth more than the Sox top two guys of #35 and #40, even though they are both in the top 100. Just since the midseason when we were number 17, our top two guys fell in the rankings. despite all of the season's graduations in front of them. The weight is going to be heavier up front. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FloydBannister1983 Posted October 3 Share Posted October 3 3 hours ago, almagest said: The MLB update just went out yesterday. I'm sure they'll update their rankings and the Sox will be higher than 17th. If we're just going by number of prospects in the top 100 while accounting for placement, the Sox would be fifth, behind the Mariners (8), Dodgers (7), Reds (6) and Pirates (5, including the #1 overall). The ESPN ranking was from late August and didn't include Colson due to timing issues. Looks like they're expecting upward mobility from Carlson and Fauske as well. Their list also did not include Braden Montgomery for some reason. https://www.espn.com/mlb/story/_/id/43639138/2025-top-10-prospect-rankings-all-30-mlb-teams-kiley-mcdaniel#chw I think it's encouraging to see the Sox still have an above average number of T100 prospects after graduating three, but we'll see what the updated lists from ESPN, Baseball America, etc. look like in the offseason and into next season. If they can continue to replenish their top prospects after we see flame outs and graduations then we'll know we have something. If we’re just going by number in the top 100 you’re treating all as equal. You’re not accounting for the fact that 37 other players are ranked higher than anyone in the Sox farm system. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
almagest Posted October 3 Author Share Posted October 3 31 minutes ago, FloydBannister1983 said: If we’re just going by number in the top 100 you’re treating all as equal. You’re not accounting for the fact that 37 other players are ranked higher than anyone in the Sox farm system. Yep, and I adjusted for this in a subsequent post. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
caulfield12 Posted October 4 Share Posted October 4 5 hours ago, southsider2k5 said: I am sure the weighting of the systems changes because of where guys rank too. If you just rawdog adding up how many people are in top 100, that equates 100 with 1 as equal. With a team like the Tigers skewing towards the front with less players, but 2 top 10s, and 4 top 40s, that could outweigh the Sox five who starts at 35 and are mostly in the backhalf. That's why a look of cumulatove rankings will award #1 Griffin 100 points and #100 just one...so on and so forth. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
caulfield12 Posted October 4 Share Posted October 4 (edited) 4 hours ago, WestEddy said: My thinking is that you have about a half dozen systems that are elite. Not that they had just had 3 top 5 draft picks, but who fire on all acquisition methods and develop them. Then you have 10 or so that do most things well, 10 that just do okay, then 4-5 that really suck at all aspects. I think the Sox were in that last group a few years ago and might be in one of the middle 2nd groups now. They end up getting ranked based on having the next sure-fire starting shortstop, or Paul Skenes. A system shouldn't drop from 8 to 19 because they just graduated 3 top 100 guys and promoted another before he hit the lists. The Sox have another 3 guys who are probably top 150, and any of their top 5 could launch themselves into the top 15 with a gonzo first month. That would change the complexion of their top 30 and their rankings. To my knowledge, nobody ranks the other way. It's all about the "it" dudes. That's why I just call them listicles. They're interesting snapshots, but don't really tell a story about what organizations are doing. There's also always an implicit media bias against teams that don't really matter in terms of national fandoms and total clicks. Cubs Yankees Dodgers Mets Red Sox prospects will always get an outsize share of attention. Edited October 4 by caulfield12 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.