Indians Prospect Insider - Covering the Cleveland Indians from the Minors to the Big Leagues

BA positional rankings

Talk shop about the various prospects and teams that make up the Cleveland Indians organization.

BA positional rankings

Postby indianinkslinger » Wed Feb 25, 2009 6:22 pm

BA has issued its list of positional rankings. Two thoughts come to mind. First, this validates the generally held belief that our system is deep. Second, this sure leaves us wondering about the Indians top 30 rankings. Here goes the list:

Catcher- Carlos Santana (3)
RH Starter- None
Center Field- None
LH Starter- David Huff (17)
1B- Beau Mills (11)
3B- Lonnie Chisenhall (10) Wes Hodges (14)
Corner OF- Matt LaPorta (4) Nick Weglarz (9)
SS- Carlos Rivero (12)
RP- Adam Miller (2)
2B- Luis Valbuena (5)

Good stuff but the list has some glaring omissions. How does Huff get ranked ahead of De La? De La is actually ranked higher on the BA top 30. Don't they have a checker who looks at this stuff for inconsistencies? How is Michael Brantley overlooked? He ranked 9th on the top 30 but did not warrant a mention anywhere in the OF. Several players lower were ranked and given the comments regarding the OF, this seems to be big even if you are not a Brantley booster. It also is very surprising to me that Rondon didn't get a mention although BA listed him 13th. I hate to be picky but you have to wonder why Sipp and Meloan were not included in the RPs. Granted, they were 17/18 on the Indians list but this was not a strong group of RPs. These are just my thoughts on the list. I don't take BA that seriously and this is one of the many reasons why. :s_yahoo
indianinkslinger
Triple-A Stud
 
Posts: 2493
Joined: Fri Sep 19, 2008 12:11 pm

Re: BA positional rankings

Postby MadThinker88 » Wed Feb 25, 2009 7:42 pm

Got my BA 2009 Prospect Handbook today.
What about Hector Rondon for the listing above??
MadThinker88
Double-A Hot Shot
 
Posts: 1738
Joined: Wed Sep 17, 2008 10:48 am
Location: Eau Claire, Wisconsin

Re: BA positional rankings

Postby indianinkslinger » Wed Feb 25, 2009 10:44 pm

MadThinker88 wrote:Got my BA 2009 Prospect Handbook today.
What about Hector Rondon for the listing above??

As I said, Rondon is a surprising omission. If you go by where the top 12 Indian prospects placed, it would seem like he would place somewhere between 150-175 and would warrant a mention. Seriously, how can BA put Betances and Brackman on the list and leave out De La and Rondon? Maybe when their writers get off their asses and actually watch these guys play their evaluations will actually be meaningful.
indianinkslinger
Triple-A Stud
 
Posts: 2493
Joined: Fri Sep 19, 2008 12:11 pm

Re: BA positional rankings

Postby MadThinker88 » Wed Feb 25, 2009 10:56 pm

Missed that in the paragraph you wrote. :s_sorry
MadThinker88
Double-A Hot Shot
 
Posts: 1738
Joined: Wed Sep 17, 2008 10:48 am
Location: Eau Claire, Wisconsin

Re: BA positional rankings

Postby jellis » Thu Feb 26, 2009 12:21 am

really busy or I would post from the chat a lot of lonnie talk in the chat and de la cruz comes up as a sleeper for next year, but for a smaller chat I think lonnies name came up 5 or 6 times including a sleeper top 100 for next year guy
jellis
Triple-A Stud
 
Posts: 3016
Joined: Wed Sep 17, 2008 5:34 pm

Re: BA positional rankings

Postby Hermie13 » Thu Feb 26, 2009 9:48 am

Sipp's injury plus the fact that he'll be 26 this year and never pitched above AA is probably why he's not included on the ranking list.

Meloan was a starter for almost all of last year with the Dodgers where he struggled......that could have something to do with why he wasn't listed as a RP by BA (though just speculating there, could be they just didn't like him).


It is pretty interesting that Hodges is listed but no Rondon. Shows that RH starting prospects must be much more plentiful than 3Bs......or the people that did these rankings have a much different opinion about the Tribe's rankings as an organization....


As far as Brantley......I know BA likes listing him as a cOFer and 1B.....wonder if that is what hurt him. If he was listed as a CFer then he probably would have been on the list (again though, speculation on my part).
Hermie13
MLB All Star
 
Posts: 7092
Joined: Wed Oct 22, 2008 11:34 am
Location: Cleveland, OH

Re: BA positional rankings

Postby indianinkslinger » Thu Feb 26, 2009 5:01 pm

Hermie13 wrote:Sipp's injury plus the fact that he'll be 26 this year and never pitched above AA is probably why he's not included on the ranking list.

Meloan was a starter for almost all of last year with the Dodgers where he struggled......that could have something to do with why he wasn't listed as a RP by BA (though just speculating there, could be they just didn't like him).


It is pretty interesting that Hodges is listed but no Rondon. Shows that RH starting prospects must be much more plentiful than 3Bs......or the people that did these rankings have a much different opinion about the Tribe's rankings as an organization....


As far as Brantley......I know BA likes listing him as a cOFer and 1B.....wonder if that is what hurt him. If he was listed as a CFer then he probably would have been on the list (again though, speculation on my part).

There is a case for what you say about Sipp and Meloan but if you read the BA writeups on their competitors you might change your mind. Just a thought, not trying to pick a fight.

RH starting prospects are a bigger pool with many from outside the top 100 but 3B is sizeable enough to include two tribe prospects not in the top 100. It can be rationalized but doesn't make much sense IMO.

The Book calls Brantley a CF. Not sure i agree with your speculation considering that. The technical term around our house is screwup but it pales in comprison to leaving De La off the LHs. The more I think about it, this was a pretty sloppy job and the chat did little to allay that concern. As jellis said, it had some nice stuff. He is too busy and I am too lazy to post all of the Indians stuff.
indianinkslinger
Triple-A Stud
 
Posts: 2493
Joined: Fri Sep 19, 2008 12:11 pm

Re: BA positional rankings

Postby Hermie13 » Thu Feb 26, 2009 5:12 pm

indianinkslinger wrote:There is a case for what you say about Sipp and Meloan but if you read the BA writeups on their competitors you might change your mind. Just a thought, not trying to pick a fight.

RH starting prospects are a bigger pool with many from outside the top 100 but 3B is sizeable enough to include two tribe prospects not in the top 100. It can be rationalized but doesn't make much sense IMO.

The Book calls Brantley a CF. Not sure i agree with your speculation considering that. The technical term around our house is screwup but it pales in comprison to leaving De La off the LHs. The more I think about it, this was a pretty sloppy job and the chat did little to allay that concern. As jellis said, it had some nice stuff. He is too busy and I am too lazy to post all of the Indians stuff.


Yeah I haven't been able to read it yet as work has Baseball America blocked.


hmm, interesting they listed him as a CFer and still didn't list him.....find it odd as well then.

Didn't BA list Rondon over De La Cruz for our rankings? If they didn't include Rondon, makes sense they wouldn't include De La Cruz (not saying I agree on either though). But guess I'll have to read it for myself to see exactly how they rationalized it....
Hermie13
MLB All Star
 
Posts: 7092
Joined: Wed Oct 22, 2008 11:34 am
Location: Cleveland, OH

Re: BA positional rankings

Postby indianinkslinger » Thu Feb 26, 2009 8:41 pm

Hermie13 wrote:
indianinkslinger wrote:There is a case for what you say about Sipp and Meloan but if you read the BA writeups on their competitors you might change your mind. Just a thought, not trying to pick a fight.

RH starting prospects are a bigger pool with many from outside the top 100 but 3B is sizeable enough to include two tribe prospects not in the top 100. It can be rationalized but doesn't make much sense IMO.

The Book calls Brantley a CF. Not sure i agree with your speculation considering that. The technical term around our house is screwup but it pales in comprison to leaving De La off the LHs. The more I think about it, this was a pretty sloppy job and the chat did little to allay that concern. As jellis said, it had some nice stuff. He is too busy and I am too lazy to post all of the Indians stuff.


Yeah I haven't been able to read it yet as work has Baseball America blocked.


hmm, interesting they listed him as a CFer and still didn't list him.....find it odd as well then.

Didn't BA list Rondon over De La Cruz for our rankings? If they didn't include Rondon, makes sense they wouldn't include De La Cruz (not saying I agree on either though). But guess I'll have to read it for myself to see exactly how they rationalized it....

BA has De La at 7, Huff at 8, Brantley at 9 and Rondon at 13. Yet huff is at 17 on the LHs list and De La omitted entirely. BA ranks Brantley as a CF and leaves him out of the rankings but puts the next three (Valbuena, Rivero and Hodges) in their positional rankings. It is difficult to make a case for BA IMO.
indianinkslinger
Triple-A Stud
 
Posts: 2493
Joined: Fri Sep 19, 2008 12:11 pm

Re: BA positional rankings

Postby jellis » Thu Feb 26, 2009 10:28 pm

indianinkslinger wrote:
Hermie13 wrote:
indianinkslinger wrote:There is a case for what you say about Sipp and Meloan but if you read the BA writeups on their competitors you might change your mind. Just a thought, not trying to pick a fight.

RH starting prospects are a bigger pool with many from outside the top 100 but 3B is sizeable enough to include two tribe prospects not in the top 100. It can be rationalized but doesn't make much sense IMO.

The Book calls Brantley a CF. Not sure i agree with your speculation considering that. The technical term around our house is screwup but it pales in comprison to leaving De La off the LHs. The more I think about it, this was a pretty sloppy job and the chat did little to allay that concern. As jellis said, it had some nice stuff. He is too busy and I am too lazy to post all of the Indians stuff.


Yeah I haven't been able to read it yet as work has Baseball America blocked.


hmm, interesting they listed him as a CFer and still didn't list him.....find it odd as well then.

Didn't BA list Rondon over De La Cruz for our rankings? If they didn't include Rondon, makes sense they wouldn't include De La Cruz (not saying I agree on either though). But guess I'll have to read it for myself to see exactly how they rationalized it....

BA has De La at 7, Huff at 8, Brantley at 9 and Rondon at 13. Yet huff is at 17 on the LHs list and De La omitted entirely. BA ranks Brantley as a CF and leaves him out of the rankings but puts the next three (Valbuena, Rivero and Hodges) in their positional rankings. It is difficult to make a case for BA IMO.



I dont think that's fair just because branlty is ranked better than valbuena means he should be any higher ranked on the positional chart. Positional chart has little to do with a teams top ten, its all about who are the best at there position. Plus the top 10 is done by 1 person and the positional and top 100 are done by a group of 6 its the more true ranking. RHP is the deepest in the league little surprise rondon didnt make the cut while some of our players at the least depth filled did.
jellis
Triple-A Stud
 
Posts: 3016
Joined: Wed Sep 17, 2008 5:34 pm

Re: BA positional rankings

Postby indianinkslinger » Fri Feb 27, 2009 9:40 am

Jellis, in all due respect, I think that is absolute BS. Why are six better than one if one knows the system better than the other five? You are saying cumulative wisdom is automatically superior to the single expert and I just don't buy it. Sorry, I cannot agree with your conclusion in the least because I think your premise is all wrong.
indianinkslinger
Triple-A Stud
 
Posts: 2493
Joined: Fri Sep 19, 2008 12:11 pm

Re: BA positional rankings

Postby Hermie13 » Fri Feb 27, 2009 9:42 am

indianinkslinger wrote:BA has De La at 7, Huff at 8, Brantley at 9 and Rondon at 13. Yet huff is at 17 on the LHs list and De La omitted entirely. BA ranks Brantley as a CF and leaves him out of the rankings but puts the next three (Valbuena, Rivero and Hodges) in their positional rankings. It is difficult to make a case for BA IMO.


ah, thanks for the correction (didn't someone pick Rondon over De La Cruz? maybe not).


Well only thing I can think then is the guy that did the Indians rankings must have been in the minority as far as how to rank the Indians players......but who knows really...
Hermie13
MLB All Star
 
Posts: 7092
Joined: Wed Oct 22, 2008 11:34 am
Location: Cleveland, OH

Re: BA positional rankings

Postby Hermie13 » Fri Feb 27, 2009 9:47 am

indianinkslinger wrote:Jellis, in all due respect, I think that is absolute BS. Why are six better than one if one knows the system better than the other five? You are saying cumulative wisdom is automatically superior to the single expert and I just don't buy it. Sorry, I cannot agree with your conclusion in the least because I think your premise is all wrong.


I think what he was getting at is that 'one' does not in fact know the team better. I do also agree that there seem to be more pitchers highly rated than SS and 3Bs. It's just one team....but the D-Rays are incredibly stacked at pitching prospects and really lack any hitters. Hodges would likely be ranked around 15th there.....but he could be the best 3B on that team and thus still rank higher on the overall league wide 3B rankings than a RHP would. Doesn't mean that he's a better prospect though......just points toward the lack of top 3B prospects in the game.
Hermie13
MLB All Star
 
Posts: 7092
Joined: Wed Oct 22, 2008 11:34 am
Location: Cleveland, OH

Re: BA positional rankings

Postby indianinkslinger » Fri Feb 27, 2009 11:18 am

Hermie13 wrote:
indianinkslinger wrote:Jellis, in all due respect, I think that is absolute BS. Why are six better than one if one knows the system better than the other five? You are saying cumulative wisdom is automatically superior to the single expert and I just don't buy it. Sorry, I cannot agree with your conclusion in the least because I think your premise is all wrong.


I think what he was getting at is that 'one' does not in fact know the team better. I do also agree that there seem to be more pitchers highly rated than SS and 3Bs. It's just one team....but the D-Rays are incredibly stacked at pitching prospects and really lack any hitters. Hodges would likely be ranked around 15th there.....but he could be the best 3B on that team and thus still rank higher on the overall league wide 3B rankings than a RHP would. Doesn't mean that he's a better prospect though......just points toward the lack of top 3B prospects in the game.

Don't want to be contrary but the introduction to the BA book says that all ratings are collaborative, just like the positional rankings. As a matter of fact, the editor in chief, Will Lingo goes to extraordinary lengths to point this out. That is one of the big flaws with BA IMO. It is why I prefer Sickels. One expert vs. collective mediocrity. That, and his fact checker seems to be far more competent.
indianinkslinger
Triple-A Stud
 
Posts: 2493
Joined: Fri Sep 19, 2008 12:11 pm

Re: BA positional rankings

Postby indianinkslinger » Fri Feb 27, 2009 11:28 am

Hermie13 wrote:
indianinkslinger wrote:BA has De La at 7, Huff at 8, Brantley at 9 and Rondon at 13. Yet huff is at 17 on the LHs list and De La omitted entirely. BA ranks Brantley as a CF and leaves him out of the rankings but puts the next three (Valbuena, Rivero and Hodges) in their positional rankings. It is difficult to make a case for BA IMO.


ah, thanks for the correction (didn't someone pick Rondon over De La Cruz? maybe not).


Well only thing I can think then is the guy that did the Indians rankings must have been in the minority as far as how to rank the Indians players......but who knows really...

Sickels listed Rondon at 5 and De La at 12 in his preliminary. Tony listed them next to each other with De La at 6 and Rondon at 7.
indianinkslinger
Triple-A Stud
 
Posts: 2493
Joined: Fri Sep 19, 2008 12:11 pm

Re: BA positional rankings

Postby Hermie13 » Fri Feb 27, 2009 11:31 am

hmm, thought the team rankings were one guy and the top 100 were a group....but obviously could be wrong and if they say they aren't, then guess so.

Still doesn't change the fact that pitchers seem to be rated higher than hitters in most organizations and that the depth of pitchers seems greater.


eh, everyone has their own preferences. I personally am not a big fan of Sickels, but he does have some good info from time to time....
Hermie13
MLB All Star
 
Posts: 7092
Joined: Wed Oct 22, 2008 11:34 am
Location: Cleveland, OH


Return to Indians Prospect Talk

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Rocky55 and 1 guest