Comments on: Cardinals on the 40-man Roster

By: Gruntosaurus

Gruntosaurus — Sun, 27 Nov 2011 17:04:35 +0000

YMMV, but I would like to see some consistency across all the sites, writers, awards, etc., that look at rookies and prospects. Without that consistency, it’s easy to get into an apples-and-oranges situation where you’re not sure whether differences between lists are because people see players differently, or there are different views of eligibility. Your point about potential of a guy sitting on the bench has some validity, although I would argue that we’ve seen enough of Lynn and Sanchez in the Show to have a pretty good idea what they’ll be like going forward, better than for the other “prospects” on the list. I’d still rather work to the definition “potential rookie = prospect” for the sake of consistency with BBWAA, since Rookie of the Year voting is going to be used to identify hits and misses in the out years, while the lists at BA, BP, etc., fade into the past.

By: cariocacardinal

cariocacardinal — Sat, 26 Nov 2011 21:13:05 +0000

Not sure why BA, etc. should use the rookie qualification criteria – we are talking prospects, not rookies. Using an IP/AB criteria without a service time consideration makes sense for prospects. The idea is to be able to get some impression what a guys big league potential is – sitting on the bench doesn’t tell you much about that.

By: cariocacardinal

cariocacardinal — Sat, 26 Nov 2011 21:07:39 +0000

I think he didn’t promo it because last year if I recall he leaked out his list first and then the BA list came out and he had to make apologize for the fact he doesn’t make the final determination.

By: Karmaloop

Karmaloop — Wed, 23 Nov 2011 02:45:06 +0000

Without a shadow of a doubt. Range is infinitely more important than second base because you have to guard the line without letting things through between the third baseman and the shortstop. Add on the fact that you have to have a better arm to make the throw across the diamond. Second base is generally the worst defensive non-1B position in the infield.

By: nmstar

nmstar — Wed, 23 Nov 2011 02:43:19 +0000

3rd base is more difficult than 2nd?

By: Zach

Zach — Tue, 22 Nov 2011 23:38:44 +0000

All I know is that’s a really good top ten and there are a few guys I love that didn’t make it – what a change

By: Gruntosaurus

Gruntosaurus — Tue, 22 Nov 2011 21:44:36 +0000

Thanks, this clarifies much. It would probably be best if BA (and Sickels and BP and lots of other analysts) would use the same criteria that are used in actual Rookie of the Year voting. However, we’re not going to get them to change, so we need to be informed as to what criteria apply in whose eyes.

IC’s elaboration on Goold’s article below makes lots of sense. Interesting that he’d have Tilson at #12 on the non-Lynn, non-Sanchez list. Just how good was he this year? His line at JC was very nice, but based on so few at-bats that it really doesn’t mean much in isolation.

By: Indiana Cardinal

Indiana Cardinal — Tue, 22 Nov 2011 18:02:36 +0000

I just noticed that Goold has just posted an article at the PD promoting the list. In his article he says he originally omitted Lynn and Sanchez, but then was reminded that Baseball America considers them still eligible based upon having not yet pitched 50 innings in the majors.

He then said the 4 guys that adding Lynn and Sanchez back into the list pushed back were Rosenthal, Jackson, Carpenter and Tilson, in that order. I take that to mean Rosenthal and Jackson would have been 9 and 10.

His chat at Baseball America is this afternoon at 2pm St. Louis time.

By: Indiana Cardinal

Indiana Cardinal — Tue, 22 Nov 2011 17:42:54 +0000

Goold did write the Cardinal list. However I was suprised that he did not promo it at the Post Dispatch as he normally does. His chat about the Cards prospects is this afternoon.

By: Ryan

Ryan — Tue, 22 Nov 2011 17:10:42 +0000

BA doesn’t use days on the active roster when determining eligibility. Only IP (50) and at-bats (130).