The rankings below use an average of the four sources rank to determine a mean rank. Any players not found in a particular source's top 15 were considered 'unranked' and assigned a rank value of 20. The column to the left has many scouting reports for the players listed below. Simply click on the name to the left.
2012 Orioles Composite Prospect RankingsA couple quick notes:
1. Dylan Bundy
Mean - 1; Low - 1; High - 1
2. Manny Machado
Mean - 2; Low - 2; High - 2
3. Jonathan Schoop
Mean - 3; Low - 3; High - 3
4. Nicky Delmonico
Mean - 5; Low - 4; High - 6
5. Parker Bridwell
Mean - 6; Low - 4; High - 7
6. L.J. Hoes
Mean - 6.25; Low - 5; High - 10
7. Jason Esposito
Mean - 6.75; Low - 5; High - 8
8. Dan Klein
Mean - 8.75; Low - 8; High - 10
9. Bobby Bundy
Mean - 10.25; Low - 4; High - unranked
10. Clayton Schrader
Mean - 13; Low - 9; High - unranked
11. Xavier Avery
Mean - 13.25; Low - 8; High - unranked
12. Michael Wright
Mean - 14.25; Low - 10; High - unranked
13. Eduardo Rodriguez
Mean - 14.5; Low - 11; High - unranked
14. Ryan Adams
Mean - 15.25; Low - 9; High - unranked
15. Glynn Davis
Mean - 15.5; Low - 9; High - unranked
- There is apparently industry agreement on the first three talents: Dylan Bundy, Manny Machado, and Jonathan Schoop
- The most volatile ranking is Bobby Bundy who was ranked as high as fourth (by Nick Faleris) and unranked by Baseball America.
5 comments:
Hmm, why didn't you use John Sickels as one of your sources? Sickels rated Machado #1 and Bundy #2. It won't change the overall data much, but it seems odd that you didn't use one of the main prospect evaluators.
I find Sickels' work leaves me wanting. I used to use his stuff, but stopped that a couple years ago or so.
Feel free to add those rankings in your head if you wish.
Just out of curiosity, what about his work leaves you wanting?
I like Sickels. His work is what got me into a lot of the prospect analysis. I think he was the trendsetter for a good five years or so.
I just think there are better sources out there. I often find Sickels' writeups to be peculiarly vague summaries that are held together with abstract scout lingo and statistics.
I prefer using Goldstein, Law, and BA as my national accumulators and, at times, evaluators. Faleris, based on his work, is going in the direction of local to national in focus. He, like those above, thoroughly explain their thoughts. In some ways, I think Faleris is the gold standard in how to write a report well. I am not saying that he is the greatest scout. He certainly is learning a great deal each year, but the way he writes his reports is solid. Pente is a good source of local information, but you should ignore any usage of statistics from him.
Okay, good to know. Thanks for the thorough response.
Post a Comment