Someone thinks we have a top five system

[Mephistopheles]

http://www.hardballtimes.com/main/article/ranking-organizations/

 

dont know how much stock to put into it, if any but interesting nonetheless.

[tkenm356]

Isn't Hardball Times fairly reputable?

[craig]

I know these are just ranking things, and don't mean all that much. But I found that oddly encouraging.

 

Actually, I've found all the gloom about the system to be a bit extreme lately. Things change fast. BA can have the system below-average, and posters can view it as horrible or whatever. But one or two guys who work out, or develop this year, and the perception could be very different a year from now.

 

Each of these ratings depends in part on their qualifiers. Most listings (BA, etc.) use rookie-eligibility as a qualifier. By so doing they exclude Guzman and Marmol. Hardball is including them. Hill is obviuosly absent from any BA-style lists. But he racked up quite a few Iowa innings last year, with great effect. I imagine those count favorably in Hardball's scoring.

 

Hardball is also including Ryu, who's gone.

 

And hardball is not including any scouting stuff. A guy like Ryu had good stats-per-age, even if his stuff doesn't scout that well. Hardball doesn't care, BA does.

Edited February 16, 2007 by craig

[Transmogrified Tiger]

Wow, Tampa all the way down at 14.

[CubsInNC]

Not buying the theory, or the method, yet. But it shows promise and potential. Like the concept, will be interesting to watch it unfold.

[nilodnayr]

Wow, Tampa all the way down at 14.

 

And the angels down to 21...

 

Very different than BPs. I'd agree more with a list that averages them both.