Mar
27
2009
Cardinals’ farm system ranks 12th in surplus values
Posted by erik in Organizational RankingsWrapping up my series on farm system surplus values at Beyond the Boxscore, the Cardinals come out 12th overall in the majors.
Brewers came in 10th, Reds came in 19th, Pirates 20th and the Cubs and Astros are near the bottom, at 28th and 29th respectively to be exact.
Entries (RSS)
How amazing would it be if those 12 teams were competing for World Titles over the next 20 years? How great would it be for baseball for those markets to be extremely relevant?
Also, a heads up, Royce Ring has accepted his assignment to Memphis.
That’s nice work, Erik.
IMHO Wang’s and similar approaches overrate the C+ prospects. I don’t know how to work out the mechanics of the issue, but I think the value of a prospect should be tied to the value of a roster spot. That is, nobody plans on handing a full-time roster spot to a player that will be worth 0.5 WAR per season. As an extreme example, a team with a 6.0 win (per year) prospect and seven 0.0 win AAA journeymen is more likely to improve than a team with four 1.0 win and four 0.5 win prospects. Maybe the way to establish how much they can improve is to look at the back third of major league rosters, but I’m not sure that captures the value better than the generic replacement level already in use.
Thanks. I agree, it’s not a perfect system and yes, I wouldn’t trade a 6 WAR player for a bulk of .5 WAR players, no team would. Maybe next time I should just account for Top 100 players and B prospects, I’m thinking?
Also, I’m thinking I should take a consensus of all top 100′s and average them out to get a better view of the prospects true ranking.
I don’t think this would make a huge difference, but I wonder if positional adjustments should come into play a little bit. Wang uses WSAB, I wonder how WAR would stack up against in coming up with the vales.