Understanding How Minor League Systems Are Rated

[RynoRules]

I was reading Sullivan's column today (I know, bad idea to begin with much of the time) and he noted that the Cubs systems has eclipsed the Sox in terms of perceived talent level and depth. I found this interesting b/c it seems the two franchises have flip-flopped several times over the last 7 or 8 yrs. At the begining of the decade the Cubs system was on the rise with Hill, Choi, Harris, Pie, Harvey, and all the pitchers. Seemingly overnight the Sox eclipsed them by some distance with McCarthy, the CFs, etc. Now the worm has apparently turned again.

 

I know that many of you follow the minor leagues and high-ranked talent far more closely than I. Is it typical for this to happen so quickly? If so, why? Or is it a reflection of the lack of efficient approach in our system? The Sox aswell? The only team I can think of off-hand with a consistently highly rated system over the last several years is the Angels. Anyone else?

[Marco4]

I don't know for sure, but I'd have thought the Brewers system must be fairly highly thought of, too.

[Guest]

I know that many of you follow the minor leagues and high-ranked talent far more closely than I. Is it typical for this to happen so quickly? If so, why? Or is it a reflection of the lack of efficient approach in our system? The Sox aswell? The only team I can think of off-hand with a consistently highly rated system over the last several years is the Angels. Anyone else?

 

It can happen quickly (esp. when comparing between two teams). All you need is for one team to have a good haul of minor league talent in a draft, maybe a few international players step up. On the flip side, the other team can graduate talent and have other minor leaguers bust while not replacing them properly.

 

Sullivan's right, the Cubs have a better farm system now, but neither of them are that great.

[UK1679666180]

I know that many of you follow the minor leagues and high-ranked talent far more closely than I. Is it typical for this to happen so quickly? If so, why? Or is it a reflection of the lack of efficient approach in our system? The Sox aswell? The only team I can think of off-hand with a consistently highly rated system over the last several years is the Angels. Anyone else?

 

It's pretty typical since most of the ratings are based on a few highly rated prospects that usually start the season at High-A/AA/. Over the course of a few years many of those arrive at the majors and surpass eligibility time or flame out. As far as an inability to maintain year to year much of that has to do with team philosophy and how teams change once they usally benefit from having a good farm (like the Cubs after '03).

 

I think comparing the Cubs and Sox, it isn't that Cubs got better as much as the Sox having some interesting drafts and no splashes as far as international FAs, which is why they overhauled their amatuer scouting dept.

 

There are some teams besides Anaheim (LAD, ATL, CLE, TB, NYM, etc)that consistently rank higher than the Cubs, the Cubs had their stretch early this decade but once Prior, Cruz, Z, Hill, and Choi weren't prospects anymore, they fell off quickly.

Edited June 23, 2007 by UK

[Guest]

I think comparing the Cubs and Sox, it isn't that Cubs got better as much as the Sox having some interesting drafts and no splashes as far as international FAs, which is why they overhauled their amatuer scouting dept.

 

That's certainly one way to put it! :lol

[RynoRules]

My issue with all of this is I guess is trying to figure why it is that players are so highly though of one day (leading to a high ranking for their teams' systems) and then horse poo the next. It happens rather quickly, I think, and not just when guys graduate to the ML level.

 

Thanks for the feedback.

 

Why is the word "feed-back" edited?

 

OK, thanks for the help.

[CoolHandLuke]

My issue with all of this is I guess is trying to figure why it is that players are so highly though of one day (leading to a high ranking for their teams' systems) and then horse poo the next. It happens rather quickly, I think, and not just when guys graduate to the ML level.

 

Thanks for the ****.

 

Why is the word "feed-back" edited?

 

OK, thanks for the help.

 

Just look at Brian Dopirak's progression. A player can kill at one level but can't handle the move to a more advanced league. Who could have predicted Dopirak's huge downfall after his amazing 2004?

[BigbadB]

My issue with all of this is I guess is trying to figure why it is that players are so highly though of one day (leading to a high ranking for their teams' systems) and then horse poo the next. It happens rather quickly, I think, and not just when guys graduate to the ML level.

 

Thanks for the ****.

 

Why is the word "feed-back" edited?

 

OK, thanks for the help.

 

Too many things factor into the equation. Promotions, trades, loss of prospect status (flame out), injuries and losing players in the Rule 5 draft coupled in with a bad draft and little or no impact signings overseas can change your farm system ranking from good to bad in a very short amount of time.

 

Another thing you have to be careful about viewing rankings of minor league systems is what they are actually ranking. Some rankings are based only on the top end talent and how close they are to being major league ready. Some rankings are based on the win/loss records of the minor league system as a whole.

[Guest]

My issue with all of this is I guess is trying to figure why it is that players are so highly though of one day (leading to a high ranking for their teams' systems) and then horse poo the next. It happens rather quickly, I think, and not just when guys graduate to the ML level.

 

If a high-level prospect is carrying does poorly at the next level or if he's rated highly because of tools and not production and he still doesn't produce, his stock can lower easily. The major reason a farm system drops in ratings is that they aren't producing new talent to replace the other talent (the talent that either graduates from the system or flames out).

 

Some players actually take a while to really drop in rankings in my opinion (i.e. Ryan Harvey and BA).

 

Thanks for the ****.

 

Why is the word "feed-back" edited?

 

No clue.

 

Feed-back <-- Not edited, that's weird.

[Ding Dong Johnson]

feedback

[Laura]

My issue with all of this is I guess is trying to figure why it is that players are so highly though of one day (leading to a high ranking for their teams' systems) and then horse poo the next. It happens rather quickly, I think, and not just when guys graduate to the ML level.

 

If a high-level prospect is carrying does poorly at the next level or if he's rated highly because of tools and not production and he still doesn't produce, his stock can lower easily. The major reason a farm system drops in ratings is that they aren't producing new talent to replace the other talent (the talent that either graduates from the system or flames out).

 

Some players actually take a while to really drop in rankings in my opinion (i.e. Ryan Harvey and BA).

 

Thanks for the ****.

 

Why is the word "feed-back" edited?

 

No clue.

 

Feed-back <-- Not edited, that's weird.

 

It's likely a wildcard glitch affecting words that start with an "f" and end with "ck."

[Ding Dong Johnson]

firetruck

 

EDIT: ^^ = fire-truck

Edited June 23, 2007 by Ding Dong Johnson

[TruffleShuffle]

It's likely a wildcard glitch affecting words that start with an "f" and end with "ck."

 

double f-r-i-c-k!