GatewayRedbirds.com

Miller checks in at #13; Cox is #62.

http://www.baseballamerica.com/today/pr ... 11316.html

_________________

Interesting list. BA does love velocity from high school pitchers. The mortality rate of such pitchers is too high to have guys out of high school that high, but I understand they are more of an "upside" rankings site.

Interesting list.

Question about their rankings system. I know the standard 20-80 scale, but I don't fully understand how they're applying that to an overall grade for these prospects.

They have several guys that rate out as 80's. I know that for an individual tool, an 80 would be nearly perfect -- Pujols' bat, Rolen's D, Coleman's speed, etc. I look at an 80 rating for Bryce Harper and it looks like they're saying his upside would make Willie Mays look like Otis Nixon (ugly!).

Or are they saying that Harper and Trout are the best of this bunch of prospects and comparing everyone to them?

Anyway, I think they're comparing everyone to the best prospect in the minors now, but I don't really like that. I would be much more interested in how Harper and Trout (and Miller) rated out with an average of their potential tools. If that came out to be a 70 or something, then wow! Pujols wouldn't have received an 80 rating based on his actual tools at any point in his career and he might become the best player in history.

_________________

kinda funny that 8-9-10 is Hosmer, Moustakas, Myers... when their organizational rankings have Moustakas ranked 3rd for the Royals and Myers ranked 2nd.

_________________

I think the grade they have listed there is the grade for that player's best tool (Harper has an 80 bat, Trout an 80 speed, etc.) They aren't giving that grade overall.

_________________

I was kind of confused by this too, but like the last post said, the grade is for the tool they listed. From BA:

So they're saying that Bryce Harper has grades out at 80 power in a perfect world.

Can I add, they are doing the scale on a normal distribution, and trying to represent "true talent". I. E. Harper has a 68% of his true talent in power being at least a 70 (within one standard deviation either way). He has a 92% chance his true talent in power is within two standard deviations. 98% it's three or less.

I feel like that is too liberal scale, personally. They don't have to give 80's, but do so more and more as the outlet sensationalizes to draw more readers. It's trying to predict a peak true talent with each tool on a normal distribution setting basically.

Edit: To take it a step forward, they're saying that he has a 68% of being at least a 70 grade power tool. At least a 92% chance of being at least a 60 power tool. A 98% chance of being at least a 50 power tool. Hope that helps...the 20-80 scale is misunderstood in a lot of ways, at least when it comes to prospects..

I think--and I may be wrong on this so phins or someone please correct me if so,--but I think the difference isn't in editorial hypocrisy or anything, but rather that the individual team lists are drawn often by local beat writers--Goold writes the STL one, Phil Rogers (blech) writes the White Sox one--or other individuals, whereas the top 100 comes from the BA editorial staff and is subject to far more than one opinion coming together to create one voice for the annual list.

_________________
www.themiddle54.com

I think it's a combination of that and the fact that different BA writers are solely responsible for certain teams. For example, I know Callis does the Cubs list, and John Manuel might rank their prospects in the Top 100 differently when he submits his list, but it doesn't have any impact on the Cubs list.

You are correct.