While it may seem like a slap in the face to your organization to only have one prospect in the Top 100, it is comforting to note that all five teams with only one Top 100 prospect finished over .500 last season.
I wonder if there isn't some inherent, underlying bias towards ranking prospects higher who have a better chance of playing in the near future among those who publish these lists. It would accrue to the publishers credibility to the reader if the top end (Top 10) of the Top 100's were to burst upon the scene relatively quickly. Prospects in winning organizations can be blocked easier, so I wonder if some prospect gurus take that into account in some manner.
Just saying....it's an appeal to human nature and makes good, practical business sense to highlight those most likely to succeed short-term rather than long-term.
With 30 teams in MLB you would expect your favorite franchise to place 3.33% or three prospects on any such list if all organizations functioned equally as far as developing players. For the Giants immediate future, I still have confidence that they are doing a better job developing players to play on the field than they are developing players to make prospect lists.
from Baseball America:
Baseball America’s top 100 prospects: a team-by-team breakdown | Big League Stew - Yahoo! Sports:
On the opposite end of the spectrum, the Oakland Athletics, San Francisco Giants, Los Angeles Angels, Milwaukee Brewers and Chicago White Sox each had only one player make the top 100.
'via Blog this'
No comments:
Post a Comment