The Rankings Debate

In most of the cases the organizations like T1, PG, BA, etc are fairly close in their ranking, but because are oppinions involved the order may be different. In few cases one organization haven't see a player yet, and this situation can determinate that some players are in one ranking and not in other. In general they are very close.

"Peace is, the respect for the other people's rights".
Benito Juarez

M&M,
WWB and PG share the same home. Prospect Plus (BA), I think is in corroboration with PG.
In BA my son is ranked among top 50, in Team One ranked top 100. He has never been in a Team One showcase...go figure.
I have been told it means nothing. But it does get you noticed.

Keep in mind, the rankings are nothing more than the opinions of relatively small groups of people. Some of these players they see, some they hear about. They exist primarily because people read them.

Football is the same way, except players are ranked by stars. Depending on the organization, the player might be a three star or a four star.

It does not mean much in the overall scheme of things. What means more is the opinion of the coach at the school he would like to attend. The coach might or might not (probably not) pay attention to the rankings. The rankings, however, might prompt the coach to take a look where otherwise he might not have bothered. There are other ways, as well, to get the attention of the coach long enough for him to determine if he has an interest.

MrsB ...

I don't want to get too involved in this discussion (that might be a first for me) but I did want to comment on rankings by PUBLICATIONS (not necessarily showcase organizations).

One of the things I have noticed over the years, especially with publications like Baseball America, is what I perceive to be a propensity to rank and re-rank the same players year after year ... sometimes, it seems, without consideration for their most recent performances.

In the current print issue of BA, for example, they publish the "Fab 50" lists. These lists identify BA's perception of the best 50 college players by (projected) graduation year. As I am sitting here looking at the page, I count only 51 (or 34%) of the 150 underclassmen listed who have not been previously drafted by a MLB team. [The breakdown: freshmen had only 9 players not drafted; sophomores had 21 players not drafted; juniors** had 21 players not drafted.] The senior class has a much higher percentage of players who have been previously drafted (64%) but most of those players were last drafted in '03.)

I have also noticed that some players identified in various publications as "prospects" are identified by playing stats that are from their "best" season, not necessarily their most recent season. Again, I feel it is a tendancy to continue to re-rank players who have been considered prospects for years. And altho I have my own opinion on it all, I really think part of it is a matter of "company policy" for some of these publications ... as though the "powers that be" have a perception of what a prospect should look like/throw like/hit like etc. ... that gets applied year after year. The MLB teams have their set of ideas and draft profiles for players (e.g., the A's like college pitchers, the Dodgers don't) so why wouldn't these publications have their own "prospect profile"?

One example from the minor leagues, for instance: We have a close friend who was drafted in the 13th round out of high school in 2000 and whose contract was purchased by the Padres in the off season this fall ... he is now a part of their 40-man roster ... he is not identified by Baseball America as one of the Padres top 10 prospects from their minor league organization. He has not been seen by BA as a prospect and who knows if he will ever make one of their lists. But the key for him ... the Padres see him as a prospect .

By the way ... the ** annotation above is a highlight ... some highly projectible big name prospects who have NEVER been drafted before: Rice pitchers Niemann, Townsend, and Humber; Justin Vanderler; Jered Weaver ... but methinks they are the exception, not the rule.

********************

Go Highlanders ! ! ! !
********************

I have happened to have had an opportunity to coach some kids from throughout the US (in the summer of 2002)...vitually all of them were "ranked" by the major amateur scouting services.

It is one thing to go to a showcase and run a 60 in track shoes; throw from the outfield or short; hit bp (at one of the showcases there was a lefthander who had just been released by a pro organization and he was actually trying to get the hitters "out" in batting practice). It is quite another to play games where you see who can really run and throw and field and hit and see pitchers in "real-life" situations!

I saw the kids in about 25 games. Most were very good and deserved their rating/ranking. Some were not very "competitive".

jemaz is right...It is all in the eyes of the beholder.

Keep in mind that ranking players is pretty easy at the top end...IOW most of the highest echelon kids will be the same lists.
As you move down the "food chain" things get muddier.
Make know mistake about it...with the vast majority of players if you don't attend a PG event you aren't listed with PG or BA Prospects Plus.
Same with Team One.
Spending ones Money has it's advantages.

Rbinaz
That may be the reason then. I don't know why I assume BA is somehow not affiliated with anyone. But this boy we know never attended a PG event, but there is a local Team One Scout out our way so that might be the reason he's top 75 in the country, but BA doesn't have him on their list at all. I couldn't fathom it at all but now it makes sense.

_______________________
"People ask me what I do in winter when there's no baseball. I'll tell you what I do. I stare out the window and wait for spring." Rogers Hornsby, Hall of Famer

quote:

---

Make know mistake about it

---

Yikes! Tell me I didn't actually type this.

quote:

---

Originally posted by rbinaz:

quote:

---

Make know mistake about it

---

Yikes! Tell me I didn't actually type this.

---

We all dew that once and a while.

"Everybody kind of perceives me as being angry. It's not anger, it's motivation." Roger Clemens

BTW, This thread has me thinking back on what transpired this past year. I was not privy to some of the scouting reports on my son but I can tell you that there was a wide range of rankings made. Some were right on and some were well, A little weird. I still have not understood some of what went on.

"Everybody kind of perceives me as being angry. It's not anger, it's motivation." Roger Clemens