Comparing farm systems via Prospect Points
At the start of the week, I posted something here that went into more detail about the Prospect Points standings that appeared with the story breaking down the new Top 100 list on Prospect Watch. Someone asked me (thank you Jayne from the Astros blog, What the Heck, Bobby? and on Twitter at @whattheheck57, not to mention a contributor to the MLBlog, The Futurists) how these end-of-season standings compared to what they looked like when the 2012 season began.
A fine question indeed. Obviously, Jayne wanted to see how the Astros had fared following all their wheelings and dealings. Fans of other teams might be interested for the same reason, as well as to see how graduations and, of course, performance in 2012, changed their standing. The Prospect Points, remember, don’t measure overall organizational strength, but rather how a team is doing in terms of elite, impact type prospects in their system by using a weighted scoring (100 points for the No. 1 prospect in the Top 100 and on down.)
Here’s the comparison:
| 2012 Preseason | 2012 Re-ranked | |||||||
| Rank | Team | # | Points | Rank | Team | # | Points | |
| 5 | ARI | 3 | 253 | 3 | ARI | 4 | 321 | |
| 4 | ATL | 5 | 267 | 15 | ATL | 3 | 183 | |
| 12 | BAL | 2 | 186 | 8 | BAL | 3 | 234 | |
| 21 | BOS | 4 | 115 | 9 | BOS | 5 | 225 | |
| 15 | CHC | 3 | 171 | 13 | CHC | 5 | 202 | |
| 19 | CIN | 2 | 154 | 16 | CIN | 4 | 182 | |
| 27 | CLE | 1 | 69 | 23 | CLE | 1 | 87 | |
| 8 | COL | 4 | 229 | 22 | COL | 2 | 87 | |
| 30 | CWS | 1 | 1 | 30 | CWS | 0 | 0 | |
| 18 | DET | 3 | 155 | 21 | DET | 1 | 90 | |
| 22 | HOU | 3 | 114 | 12 | HOU | 5 | 216 | |
| 2 | KC | 4 | 290 | 6 | KC | 4 | 277 | |
| 14 | LAA | 3 | 178 | 27 | LAA | 1 | 48 | |
| 23 | LAD | 3 | 109 | 25 | LAD | 1 | 52 | |
| 26 | MIA | 2 | 80 | 10 | MIA | 3 | 222 | |
| 28 | MIL | 2 | 56 | 26 | MIL | 2 | 51 | |
| 24 | MIN | 2 | 107 | 14 | MIN | 4 | 198 | |
| 20 | NYM | 3 | 147 | 17 | NYM | 2 | 170 | |
| 9 | NYY | 4 | 225 | 18 | NYY | 4 | 152 | |
| 13 | OAK | 6 | 179 | 24 | OAK | 4 | 56 | |
| 25 | PHI | 3 | 91 | 29 | PHI | 1 | 18 | |
| 3 | PIT | 4 | 276 | 2 | PIT | 6 | 326 | |
| 6 | SD | 6 | 237 | 11 | SD | 6 | 221 | |
| 1 | SEA | 5 | 329 | 1 | SEA | 5 | 327 | |
| 29 | SF | 2 | 56 | 28 | SF | 2 | 22 | |
| 17 | STL | 2 | 167 | 4 | STL | 5 | 320 | |
| 11 | TB | 6 | 198 | 20 | TB | 3 | 108 | |
| 7 | TEX | 4 | 236 | 7 | TEX | 4 | 240 | |
| 16 | TOR | 4 | 169 | 5 | TOR | 7 | 281 | |
| 10 | WAS | 4 | 206 | 19 | WAS | 3 | 134 | |
And here’s the breakdown of the differential, in alphabetical order:
| Team | Diff. |
| ARI | 68 |
| ATL | -84 |
| BAL | 48 |
| BOS | 110 |
| CHC | 31 |
| CIN | 28 |
| CLE | 18 |
| COL | -142 |
| CWS | -1 |
| DET | -65 |
| HOU | 102 |
| KC | -13 |
| LAA | -130 |
| LAD | -57 |
| MIA | 142 |
| MIL | -5 |
| MIN | 91 |
| NYM | 23 |
| NYY | -73 |
| OAK | -123 |
| PHI | -73 |
| PIT | 50 |
| SD | -16 |
| SEA | -2 |
| SF | -34 |
| STL | 153 |
| TB | -90 |
| TEX | 4 |
| TOR | 112 |
| WAS | -72 |
Jonathan Mayo
This is an interesting analysis. I wonder if this is more useful to the front-office as a collective assessment of player development and/or scouting *staffers*, rather than providing fans with a value of their favorite organization. Or if might be useful for minor league affiliates who want to know what sort of roster they can expect to get. (It’s affiliation renewal time!) At the very least, I would think you need to take several more samples than a pre-season and post-season snapshot.
In order to draw a meaningful conclusion about what these weighted scores and rankings mean, it seems to me you also have to take into account whether an organization relies on in-house developed talent (long-term investment cycle), or trades and free-agent acquisitions (short-term investment cycle) to achieve a winning season.
For example, if the parent club has a tradition of buying finished talent at the big league level, then individual prospect values would seem to be more important because each trade negotiation is based on a specific list of “needs.” If the parent club has the philosophy of developing talent in-house, then tracking the farm system’s collective value could be key to success for the parent club down the road.
At any rate, those were my first thoughts. . .AYT