Royals on Baseball America's Top 100 Prospect Lists from 1990 to 2010

by Jeff Zimmerman on Dec 28, 2010 8:16 AM EST

I have finally complied all of Baseball America's top 100 prospect lists back to 1990. I have gone ahead and pulled out all the Royals and current members of the team. Also, I used Victor Wang's and Erik Manning's prospect valuations to put a value for each year.

Year	Name	Pos	Rank
2010	MIKE MONTGOMERY	LHP	39
2010	AARON CROW	RHP	40
2010	MIKE MOUSTAKAS	3B	80
2010	NOEL ARGUELLES	LHP	100

2009	MIKE MOUSTAKAS	3B	13
2009	ERIC HOSMER	1B	24
2009	DANIEL CORTES	RHP	90

2008	MIKE MOUSTAKAS	SS	18
2008	DANIEL CORTES	RHP	57
2008	LUKE HOCHEVAR	RHP	63

2007	ALEX GORDON	3b	2
2007	BILLY BUTLER	of	25
2007	LUKE HOCHEVAR	rhp	32

2006	ALEX GORDON	3b	13
2006	BILLY BUTLER	of	29
2006	JUSTIN HUBER	1b	84

2005	Billy Butler	3b	75
2005	Mark Teahen	3b	85

2004	Zack Greinke	rhp	14
2004	Chris Lubanski	of	68

2003	Zack Greinke	rhp	54

2002	Angel Berroa	ss	15
2002	Jimmy Gobble	lhp	50

2001	Chris George	lhp	25
2001	Dee Brown	of	48
2001	Mike MacDougal	rhp	79

2000	Dee Brown	of	11
2000	Chris George	lhp	40
2000	Kyle Snyder	rhp	70
2000	Dan Reichert	rhp	75
2000	Orber Moreno	rhp	83

1999	Carlos Beltran	of	14
1999	Carlos Febles	2b	30
1999	Jeff Austin	rhp	55
1999	Orber Moreno	rhp	57
1999	Jeremy Giambi	of	64
1999	Dermal Brown	of	92

1998	Dermal Brown	of	32

1997	Jim Pittsley	rhp	56
1997	Glendon Rusch	lhp	89
1997	Carlos Beltran	of	93

1996	Jim Pittsley	rhp	24
1996	Glendon Rusch	lhp	83

1995	Johnny Damon	of	9
1995	Michael Tucker	of	32
1995	Jim Pittsley	rhp	39
1995	Sergio Nunez	2b	61
1995	Jeff Granger	lhp	74

1994	Jeff Granger	lhp	19
1994	Michael Tucker	2b	25
1994	Johnny Damon	of	31
1994	Jim Pittsley	rhp	82

1993	Johnny Damon	of	22
1993	Jim Pittsley	rhp	32
1993	Michael Tucker	2b-of	40

1992	Joel Johnston	rhp	59
1992	Darren Burton	of	77

1991	Jeff Conine	1b	45
1991	Kerwin Moore	of	67

1990	Bob Hamelin	1b	31
1990	Kevin Appier	rhp	86

Using Manning's and Wang's valuations, here is how each system was valued each year using just the Top 100 lists.

Year	Value (Millions)	GM
1990	$33.2	Schuerholz/Baird
1991	$37.6	Robinson
1992	$24.6	Robinson
1993	$64.4	Robinson
1994	$74.2	Robinson
1995	$102.1	Robinson
1996	$25.7	Robinson
1997	$34.4	Robinson
1998	$23.4	Robinson
1999	$99.4	Robinson
2000	$75.0	Robinson/Baird
2001	$58.3	Baird
2002	$41.0	Baird
2003	$12.1	Baird
2004	$39.3	Baird
2005	$26.7	Baird
2006	$61.0	Baird/Moore
2007	$77.5	Moore
2008	$49.3	Moore
2009	$60.0	Moore
2010	$54.1	Moore

Finally, here are some current Royals and their previous team's rank.

Name	Team	Pos	Year	Rank
ALCIDES ESCOBAR	BREWERS	SS	2010	12
ALCIDES ESCOBAR	BREWERS	SS	2009	19
JEREMY JEFFRESS	BREWERS	RHP	2009	100
Kyle Davies	Braves	rhp	2005	53
Jeff Francoeur	Braves	of	2005	14
Jeff Francoeur	Braves	of	2004	27
Wilson Betemit	Braves	3b	2003	49
Jeff Francoeur	Braves	of	2003	95
Wilson Betemit	Braves	ss	2002	8
Wilson Betemit	Braves	ss	2001	29
Wilson Betemit	Braves	ss	2000	99
Jason Kendall	Pirates	c	1996	26
Gil Meche	Mariners	rhp	1999	78
Gil Meche	Mariners	rhp	1998	82

Tweet Comment 79 comments | 3 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

Brilliant. Great effort.

If anything, this list shows how dicey these rankings are in predicting big league success. The Royals Project 2012 (soon to be 2013 and then 2014) is a joke. Having a handful of top 100 prospects and no major league talent is a recipe for last place.

Do we really have the next Damon, Beltran, Dye, Sweeney, Febles AND Randa all together on the roster or ready for the majors in a couple years? And just how many championships did that group provide? Our current minor league talent isn’t nearly that good and there’s nothing already in KC to compliment them.

GMDM is very good at one thing: Putting off expectations again and again and getting well paid for the hype of an eternal tomorrow.

Baseball's that swingy stick game, right?

by royalsroyalsroyals on Dec 28, 2010 8:49 AM EST reply actions 4 recs

Great, Brilliant effort in your comment

I think that once the new list comes out, you’ll see how different the farm system is now compared to the last few years. The prospects (Greinke) were valued at $12.1 million in 2003. It won’t be surprising if the Royals have 8-9 in the top 100, and the value of the propsects.

by Boots 58 on Dec 28, 2010 9:25 AM EST up reply actions

Notice how all of those guys you named off were all position players. We have balanced talent this time from position players to pitching. And might I add some really good up the middle defense with Escobar, Cain, Colon, and Perez. The Giants showed us that we can win with good young pitching. Stop being a Debbie Downer. I

by I_Bleed_Red. on Dec 29, 2010 4:23 AM EST up reply actions

Not sure if this is what inspired you

http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/index.php/royals-farm-system-best-of-the-decade/

According to Wang’s research, these eleven prospects, combined with Kansas City’s nine next-best prospects (as rated by Sickels), will be worth a projected $227.3 million in surplus value, almost identical to the 228.3 million the system the Diamondbacks had in 2006 was expected to provide.

by Boots 58 on Dec 28, 2010 9:26 AM EST reply actions

I have a to do list that is crazy long and people have been asking for a grade for the system. Do you want to help put together a 2001 disable list database?

Austin_Blue_Eyes has done the work on Trades and FA.

The farm system ranking would also be needed. I need to get Sickels data going back, but can’t afford all the guides at once. I have tried to get them in a bundle, but no luck yet.

- .-. ..- … – / – …. . / .—. .-. - .. . … …

by Jeff Zimmerman on Dec 28, 2010 9:37 AM EST up reply actions

Would you like a copy of my prospect fWAR table?

I’ve mentioned this before, but I’ve been putting together the MLB fWAR generated by everyone on the BA lists. The spreadsheet currently has 6 seasons of fWAR for everyone from 1995 to 2009. If you would like a copy, let me know the best way to get it to you. (It’s an excel spreadsheet, and the CSV version is 62KB).

by kcemigre on Dec 28, 2010 10:17 AM EST up reply actions

I would love it.

Send it to my email in my profile. Thanks.

- .-. ..- … – / – …. . / .—. .-. - .. . … …

by Jeff Zimmerman on Dec 28, 2010 10:33 AM EST up reply actions

You have mail.

by kcemigre on Dec 28, 2010 11:16 AM EST up reply actions

Hey, could I get a copy of that excel spreadsheet?

scottm57 AT hotmail.com

The immoderate moderator

by Scott McKinney on Dec 28, 2010 1:09 PM EST up reply actions

You have mail.

I’ve been watching this morning’s discussion over at BtB and wondering if I shouldn’t just post it there and see what interesting things those folks do…

Anyway, have fun with it. Just eyeballing that data gives me some insight into what should be expected of ranked prospects (and also how volatile they are). I’ve made bunches of scatterplots and linegraphs and whatnot, but I’ve yet to come up with any useful way to distill the info into something that would be of general use or interest. So, if you come up with anything, please share the results.

by kcemigre on Dec 28, 2010 3:23 PM EST up reply actions

Thanks a ton

I’ve been very slowly compiling data using Rally’s WAR to see how the top 100 from 1990-2002 performed in the majors. This gives me a huge fast forward. Now I’ll just need to fill in using fWAR for the 1990-1994 top 100 list. I don’t know how useful my work will be, but I’ll churn it out nonetheless. At least it will be interesting to me, lol. I’ll end posting whatever I come up with here at RR.

The immoderate moderator

by Scott McKinney on Dec 28, 2010 7:34 PM EST up reply actions

Do you mean the top 100 BA lists or the Royals to 10 BA lists?

If that is for the BA top 100, it would be a great community resource. Something that should be included in baseball-reference or fangraphs.

Godspeed Mike Olt.

by rooster on Dec 28, 2010 11:12 PM EST up reply actions

Not sure what you mean by disable list database

But Im willing to help. Im a little busy til after the new year. I assume you can see my email attached to my username.

by Boots 58 on Dec 29, 2010 11:10 AM EST up reply actions

The Top 100 line might be convenient for the study, but I think we all know it’s the organizations depth that really matters. The presence of guys outside the top 100 with a lot of potential is what is more telling, IMO.

Guys like Yordano Ventura, Brett Eibner, etc don’t show up on this list but they are very valuable. Even a guy like Aaron Crow, who should see a jump when he moves to the bullpen aren’t represented on this list.

by WURoyal on Dec 28, 2010 10:30 AM EST via mobile reply actions

In sum

Due to the incredibly high failure rate of prospects I take more solace in the fact we have 28 guys at a C+ or higher according to Sickels. I don’t know for sure where Jeffress and Odorizzi would rank there, but I believe they are both B type guys. That is a ton of talent, overall.

The diversity of the system is also a plus with some talent pretty much everywhere or the field and tons of pitching.

We also have some guys without much service time who could still be around for awhile such as Kila, Aviles, Mazzaro, SOS, Hochevar, Holland, Hughes, Texeira, Blake Wood, Escobar, Cain, Getz, Blanco, and several guys who become arb-eligible after 2013.

And one guy locked up through 2014 by contract, Soria.

The flexibility here is really important, IMO. The areas that we desperately need help in at the ML level are pitching and catching. We have talented defensive catchers and tons of pitching prospects. We obviously need them to produce at the ML level, though.

by WURoyal on Dec 28, 2010 11:35 AM EST up reply actions 1 recs

solid points

by Freneau on Dec 28, 2010 5:05 PM EST up reply actions

Sickels has mentioned that Odorizzi would be a B+

R.I.P. cwhitman412, Frederick0220, & Mets2k9
http://twitter.com/doublestix

by doublestix on Dec 28, 2010 5:50 PM EST up reply actions

And he calls Jeffress a B, and lists Cain as a C+/B-.

by kcemigre on Dec 28, 2010 6:13 PM EST up reply actions

Yes Surprises From

Down the depth chart usually are a part of the equation.

I used to be an A's fan until they left town and got good.

by philofthenorth on Dec 28, 2010 10:22 PM EST up reply actions

Like Frenchy starting in right field for example.

Go Royals!

by BabyBlues on Dec 29, 2010 12:02 AM EST up reply actions

Uh, No

I used to be an A's fan until they left town and got good.

by philofthenorth on Dec 29, 2010 5:29 AM EST up reply actions

And don't forget...

we have zero dollars committed to players in 2012. We can afford to bring in one big star free agent when were ready to compete. {{{Greinke, cough, cough, Greinke}}}

by I_Bleed_Red. on Dec 29, 2010 4:37 AM EST up reply actions

Pretty sure that bridge is still on fire.

Glad I came, just wish I hadn't stayed so long.

People ask me what I do in winter when there’s no baseball...Rock Chalk Talk

by Warden11 on Dec 29, 2010 7:15 AM EST up reply actions 1 recs

Its got two years to settle down.

by I_Bleed_Red. on Dec 29, 2010 8:28 AM EST up reply actions

It does serve to temper expectations and with reason. I forget sometimes that Alex Gordon was once the #2 prospect in all of baseball and seen as the surest of sure things.

I do agree that the 2011 list will be way above anything else on that list and that the depth in the system is also likely a reason why the 2011 list is that much more impressive. Still MOST prospects fail and Moore will have to sign and make good trades for ML talent. He’s not shown he can do that.

Jeff, I wonder if you could objectively give us some kind of number on what percentage of prospects on the top 100 list succeed as ML players. I guess there would be several ways to measure success, maybe just positive WAR for their career?

by sfeldkamp on Dec 28, 2010 11:40 AM EST reply actions

Positive career WAR is setting the bar too low.

Very few actually finish with negative WAR. In the year that BA ranks you as a prospect, you have a 50/50 shot at seeing the show (keep in mind that BA ranks some guys in the low minors every year). A couple of years out, however, that number rises to about 80% of top 100 prospects playing in the bigs. I would be surprised if more than 1-2% actually end their career with negative WAR. So, making positive WAR the criteria would produce a bust-rate of somewhere close to 20%.

The average per season fWAR of everyone on the list three years away from being a “ranked prospect” is generally in the 1.25 to 1.5 range. Given that, I’d suggest that a 2 WAR season anywhere in your first three years should mean you are not a “bust.”

Here are the Royals’ recent “busts” by this measure:

Hochevar
Huber
Lubanski
Gobble
George
D. Brown
Snyder
Reichert
Moreno

For comparison, here are the non-busts:
Gordon
Butler
Teahen
Greinke
Berroa

Berroa’s presence on this list makes me think the bar is still too low. If I changed it to “two 2+ WAR seasons sometime in your first four years,” that would knock out Berroa and leave everyone else the same. Maybe that’s a good measure… unless people really want to insist that Gordon and/or Teahen must be classified as “busts.”

by kcemigre on Dec 28, 2010 12:40 PM EST up reply actions

Bust definition

I’ve been doing some research on this and my functional definition was an average WAR over the six cost-controlled seasons of at least 1.5 WAR. And I’ve got an alternate definition of at least three 2.0+ WAR seasons or at least two 3.0 WAR seasons. As I’ve looked over WAR totals for various players, this definitional issue is pretty difficult.

The immoderate moderator

by Scott McKinney on Dec 28, 2010 1:14 PM EST up reply actions

For a bust/non-bust I would suggest a measure of total accumulated WAR over a period of years. This would be a ton of work, but you could set the benchmark like this:

Did the prospect generate surplus value to the organization that met or exceeded the valuation placed on them due to the ranking prior to beginning a major league career? Let’s run though an example with a ton of simplying assumptions (like no inflation/constant WAR).

Take Hochevar. His 2008 BP ranking was 63, which according to Wang’s numbers means he should be worth $12.1 million to the organization above his compensation. He has generated 1.9, 1.6, and 1.7 WAR for a total of 5.3 WAR. He has been paid $4.1 million in compensation for 2008-2010 (his full time years on the 25 man roster when he generated these WAR). Using a value of $4.5 million per win, that’s $25.0 million in total value, less $4.1 million in pay for a surplus value of $21.9 million, $9.8 more than his 2008 prospect value. So, no bust—he’s already produced more than Wang’s values would have predicted.

On the other hand there is Gordon. As a number 2 hitting prospect and a position player his surplus value should be $36.5 million. He has generated a total of 4.4 WAR thus far and has been paid $2.4 million. His total value is $19.8 and subtracting his pay his surplus value thus far has been $17.4 million. He needs to generate $16.7 in surplus value—about 3.5 WAR ABOVE the WAR he will be paid for in arbitration—over the remainder of his cost-controlled years to not be considered a bust under my approach. That sounds about right to me.

(As an aside, the Royals brutally mishandled the money side of Hochevar’s development by letting him be a Super 2 in addition to the major league contract he was given.)

by BlueEyes_Austin on Dec 28, 2010 1:29 PM EST up reply actions

Actually, I made a calculation mistake. He needs to generate $19.1 million in surplus value—about 4.0 WAR.

by BlueEyes_Austin on Dec 28, 2010 1:30 PM EST up reply actions

And just a quick follow up. Let’s say that Gordon gets a total of $9 million over the next three arb cycles—being paid for 2 WAR. If he spins off three successive 2 WAR seasons I think he’s seen as a reasonably successful guy for the Royals…any less than that and I think he is seen as a bust. So my little notion of how to measure this comports pretty closely to my gut level reading.

by BlueEyes_Austin on Dec 28, 2010 1:45 PM EST up reply actions

I think you would want to take into account not only the BA ranking but also where the player was drafted. Hochevar, for example, shouldn’t get credit for being a non-bust just because he had the “benefit” of being slotted only at 63 on the BA list.

Obviously “bust” is relative to expectations, and initial expectations are set by draft position or (in the case of international players) early hype. It doesn’t make much sense to me to label Hochevar a non-bust and Gordon a bust solely based on BA position.

Overgay is Destiny

by DCRoyals on Dec 28, 2010 2:15 PM EST up reply actions

I don't think "bust" should be about expectations at all

For instance, if we’re going to test/measure how often prospects of various ranking spots “succeed” in the majors (something I’m working on), I think there needs to be one benchmark of success. Not a different benchmark for every different ranking or draft position, or how much money they’re paid.

The immoderate moderator

by Scott McKinney on Dec 28, 2010 2:21 PM EST up reply actions

Interesting

to me, it’s a relative term. If the player comes out of nowhere from the 50th round and was never on the BA list, but doesn’t quite meet an absolute benchmark, it would be hard for me to consider that player a bust.

Similarly, with a player drafted first overall and consistently ranked highly on the BA list who barely meets an absolute benchmark, I would have trouble not labeling that player a bust.

Overgay is Destiny

by DCRoyals on Dec 28, 2010 2:25 PM EST up reply actions

that tells you more about any one individual prospect though vs their expectations, but not much about a group of prospects or prospects in general.

by sfeldkamp on Dec 28, 2010 6:20 PM EST up reply actions

The problem I have with using draft position is that it is conflating two separate portions of the enterprise: drafting and development with major league performance.

Let’s go back to Hochevar. The number one pick in the draft has a value; I don’t what it is, precisely, but theoretically it can be determined. Take that surplus value, and subtract the cost to sign the pick. That’s the surplus value of the individual picked. Let’s say, for the sake of argument, that number one picks have historically generated WAR worth $30 million in surplus value.

When he debuted, his projected surplus value was $12.1 million. But his surplus value WHEN DRAFTED was $26.5 million ($30 million – signing bonus). That means his surplus value declined from $26.5 million to $12.1 million during his development process with the Royals, indicating either a failure of development or a mistaken selection in the draft.

by BlueEyes_Austin on Dec 28, 2010 2:33 PM EST up reply actions

I'm not saying you have to conflate the two

just that you have to take into account draft position as well — perhaps separately — when determining whether a player is a bust.

When we draft a player first overall, and he winds up reaching only 63 on the BA list, and then has a back of the rotation ceiling, it’s hard for me to consider him anything other than a bust. Unfairly or not, by being drafted that high, expectations are set quite high as well.

Overgay is Destiny

by DCRoyals on Dec 28, 2010 2:57 PM EST up reply actions

If you start basing your judgment on draft status, you have signability picks to consider… in both directions.

Do we raise the expectations on a guy because Baird drafted him higher than anyone else would have? Do we lower the expectations on a guy who slid because of signability issues?

I am more interested in a general definition that applies to everyone. Once you have that, you can start adjusting it for individual reasons.

by kcemigre on Dec 28, 2010 6:38 PM EST up reply actions

I don’t think “bust” should me measured in terms of how well a player performed based on the expected value of his BA ranking or how much he was paid. I think “bust” should be about a certain level of performance, a set benchmark for all players. A prospects busts or succeeds by meeting that benchmark or not.

The immoderate moderator

by Scott McKinney on Dec 28, 2010 2:18 PM EST up reply actions

You're suggesting

an absolute definition, not relative to any perceived expectations? Maybe I’m misunderstanding, but it makes more sense to me to make it a relative term.

Overgay is Destiny

by DCRoyals on Dec 28, 2010 2:21 PM EST up reply actions

I see a prospect as a success or best based on how well he performs, period

Not based on how well he performs as compared to expectations. If Gordon has a few MLB average seasons in his cost controlled years, I see that as a success (but just barely). While I would be disappointed that this very hyped uber-prospect didn’t become a star, I think he’d be a success nonetheless. Definitely not a bust.

The immoderate moderator

by Scott McKinney on Dec 28, 2010 2:25 PM EST up reply actions

I understand

it’s semantics, but i just see that as success vs. failure, rather than success vs. bust. The latter implies (to me) expectations that either were or were not met.

The problem is that this is pretty nebulous, and difficult to establish a solid test/formula.

Overgay is Destiny

by DCRoyals on Dec 28, 2010 2:27 PM EST up reply actions

Understood

Yes, it is just semantics. And I guess I am talking about success vs. failure. And I’ve been looking at this through the lens of this research project I’m doing on prospect success/failure rates. And for that I’m looking for a set benchmark of success.

The immoderate moderator

by Scott McKinney on Dec 28, 2010 2:29 PM EST up reply actions

I Agree, a set benchmark is how we should determine a "bust"

but i think it is also fair to say a guy didn’t meet expectations. For instance Hoch may be an average ML pitcher and give us good value based on his WAR, However being the #1 pick should have netted us more in return. Still “bust” should be reserved for guys like Colt Griffin.

Proud Founding Memeber of the UPAMTN Fan Club.

by la flama blanca on Dec 28, 2010 11:39 PM EST up reply actions

plus, Gordon was/is a position player

which is supposed to be a more sure thing

by Freneau on Dec 28, 2010 5:06 PM EST up reply actions

Well think of it this way. If we already have a bust in Gordon the law of averages would say the next guy is less likely to be a bust. Right? I mean right? {{{nervously biting fingernails}}}

by I_Bleed_Red. on Dec 29, 2010 4:40 AM EST up reply actions

That Sounds Like

My cousin, who really believes if a roulette wheel comes up red 3 times in a row you should bet all you have on black. He’s a computer programmer, but he doesn’t understand statistics.

I used to be an A's fan until they left town and got good.

by philofthenorth on Dec 29, 2010 5:32 AM EST up reply actions

Seeing Berroa at 15 is scary.

I wonder if the widespread information on these guys has helped to make the prospect lists more accurate at predicting success over the last 20 years. You’d think that having all of this information fairly easy to access would help but the flipside of that could also lead to a lot of lead and follow.

Glad I came, just wish I hadn't stayed so long.

People ask me what I do in winter when there’s no baseball...Rock Chalk Talk

by Warden11 on Dec 28, 2010 11:49 AM EST reply actions

I believe

“To be Led and to Follow” is the creed inscribed on the Baseball Scout’s Temple, to which they must all bow 5 times a day (once for each Sacred Tool, according to All Wisdom).

Baseball's that swingy stick game, right?

by royalsroyalsroyals on Dec 28, 2010 12:23 PM EST up reply actions

correction

where they anonymously bow 5 times a day

"Things could always be worse." - Buddy Bell

by buddyball on Dec 28, 2010 4:38 PM EST up reply actions

I don't think the increase in info has improved the hit-rate.

It’s just hard to predict future performance of baseball prospects.

In any case, if you could show that the success rate of BA ranked prospects is getting better in recent years (and I don’t think the data will support that conclusion), you still have to realize what you are measuring: it wouldn’t be the ability of scouts and FOs to predict talent. You’d just be looking at improved performance on the part of BA in compiling its ranking.

by kcemigre on Dec 28, 2010 12:50 PM EST up reply actions

What was weird

IIRC, was that Berroa was a constant underachiever, except for one year in the minors, which got everyone hyped up about him.

I still remember watching him at a game at the K when he got a cup of coffee and being pretty amazed at his speed, glove and pop. I can see what the scouts could see. The guy just couldn’t put it all together.

Also see Brown, Dermal.

Relive Royals History at royalsretro.blogspot.com

by RoyalsRetro on Dec 28, 2010 2:10 PM EST up reply actions

I'm happy to see he's only on there one year.

But he’s a great example to use when cautioning “THIS GUY WAS #12, OBVIOUSLY HE’S GOOD” stuff.

Glad I came, just wish I hadn't stayed so long.

People ask me what I do in winter when there’s no baseball...Rock Chalk Talk

by Warden11 on Dec 28, 2010 5:17 PM EST up reply actions

Except at the time Berroa was three years older than he was representing. There is a huge huge difference between hitting .296/.373/.467 in AA in your 20/21 year old season as opposed to your 23/24 season.

It’s like the difference between Moustakas and Clint Robinson.

Berroa doesn’t sniff the top 200 if he accurately represents his age, IMO.

by WURoyal on Dec 28, 2010 5:16 PM EST up reply actions

good point

forgot about that whole thing

R.I.P. cwhitman412, Frederick0220, & Mets2k9
http://twitter.com/doublestix

by doublestix on Dec 29, 2010 3:19 AM EST up reply actions

wasn't the Berroa rank before they checked his info and found that he was

born in 1978 and not 1980?

the ball dropped on guys like Neifi, Runelvys, and others between the end of 2001 and 2002 due to more stringent checking of info post 9/11

Follow me on Twitter: http://www.twitter.com/bhindepmo
Sponsor, 2011 Royals Alumni Fantasy Camp/Royals 5th Starter Star Search

by BHWick on Dec 28, 2010 2:17 PM EST reply actions

who was the bigger disappointment?

Dee Brown or Dermal Brown?

"Things could always be worse." - Buddy Bell

by buddyball on Dec 28, 2010 4:39 PM EST reply actions

dermal

by Freneau on Dec 28, 2010 5:07 PM EST up reply actions

Nermal

Overgay is Destiny

by DCRoyals on Dec 28, 2010 5:26 PM EST up reply actions

Rob Neyer gives a little love

http://espn.go.com/blog/sweetspot/post/_/id/6702/just-another-tinstaapp-lesson

“some enterprising young fellow”

The sad part is that I may actually be older than Rob.

- .-. ..- … – / – …. . / .—. .-. - .. . … …

by Jeff Zimmerman on Dec 28, 2010 6:01 PM EST reply actions

at least he didn't refer to you as

“some enterprising young fellow in his basement in Toledo”

"Things could always be worse." - Buddy Bell

by buddyball on Dec 28, 2010 9:15 PM EST up reply actions

I think that it goes without saying that he, you, I, and all of us are in our mother’s basements in our underwear.

The immoderate moderator

by Scott McKinney on Dec 28, 2010 10:11 PM EST up reply actions

You Guys Wear

Underwear?

I used to be an A's fan until they left town and got good.

by philofthenorth on Dec 28, 2010 10:36 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs

Long underwear.

Mom is cheap and keeps the basement freaking cold.

- .-. ..- … – / – …. . / .—. .-. - .. . … …

by Jeff Zimmerman on Dec 28, 2010 10:54 PM EST up reply actions

My Loft Collects

Heat well. Much better than a basement.

I used to be an A's fan until they left town and got good.

by philofthenorth on Dec 29, 2010 5:34 AM EST up reply actions

2nd post - love this sight

I have to say I didn’t like the DDJ trade and at first hated the grienke trade but if a player doesn’t want to be here AND endure the bad times before the good- they are not right for the team. I just hope this " wave if talent" comes soon. Chiefs season is winding down and after Jan I’ll become my sinical self again…

Smear on the War Paint, Sharpen the Tomahawks, its CHIEFS Football Reborn!! CHIEEEEEFS!!!!!!

by Mas Cervezas on Dec 28, 2010 10:12 PM EST via mobile reply actions

But February Brings

ST again, and the wild speculation that always brings.

I used to be an A's fan until they left town and got good.

by philofthenorth on Dec 28, 2010 10:37 PM EST up reply actions

Ahh yes ST!

Fun in the Arizona sun! When that comes it will be time to dust off the baby blue Tshirts and walk around STL Cardinals country and take the abuse, and contend they were out at 1st!

Smear on the War Paint, Sharpen the Tomahawks, its CHIEFS Football Reborn!! CHIEEEEEFS!!!!!!

by Mas Cervezas on Dec 28, 2010 10:56 PM EST via mobile up reply actions

He's in the best shape of his life.

Glad I came, just wish I hadn't stayed so long.

People ask me what I do in winter when there’s no baseball...Rock Chalk Talk

by Warden11 on Dec 29, 2010 7:16 AM EST up reply actions

So in the previous years, he was playing Xbox all winter and eating Ho-Ho's?

- .-. ..- … – / – …. . / .—. .-. - .. . … …

by Jeff Zimmerman on Dec 29, 2010 7:18 AM EST up reply actions

stupid question

but how does wang come up with his values? i don’t necessarily need to know the nuts and bolts, but is it an average of what players in that ranking spot have done over history or something else? if an average, how does he account for the same guy being ranked in different places in different years?

BOOM YOSTED!

by Home Run Tony Cogan on Dec 28, 2010 11:25 PM EST reply actions

I am not sure how he handled the same rankings. I might need to re-read the article.

To bad we can’t ask him anymore because he works for the Indians.

- .-. ..- … – / – …. . / .—. .-. - .. . … …

by Jeff Zimmerman on Dec 28, 2010 11:56 PM EST up reply actions

I think his methodology was that each player only got counted once. I believed he used the player’s highest ranking (lowest number).

The immoderate moderator

by Scott McKinney on Dec 29, 2010 12:04 AM EST up reply actions

When do the 2011 BA rankings come out???

"As a Karate expert, I will not talk about any of you." Jimmy McMillan

by PREGNANT ROLLERSKATE on Dec 29, 2010 2:54 AM EST reply actions

february

R.I.P. cwhitman412, Frederick0220, & Mets2k9
http://twitter.com/doublestix

by doublestix on Dec 29, 2010 3:17 AM EST up reply actions

Moustakas at 80? Hosmer not on the list? Am I missing something?

by SeanKC on Dec 29, 2010 12:37 PM EST reply actions

yes in going into 2010

- .-. ..- … – / – …. . / .—. .-. - .. . … …

by Jeff Zimmerman on Dec 29, 2010 12:58 PM EST up reply actions

I don't have time to read the comments but did anybody notice something about the lists?

You have to go all the way back to 2001 before you start getting significant amounts of busts listed. Everyone but Huber and Lubanski have put up some kind of contribution at the MLB level. It is my contention that the scouting for these lists have improved with more access to players via the internet. I wonder if this is true for other teams as well. Or maybe it’s that the Royals had no talent outside the top draft picks and those were easy to pick?

If this has already been discussed I’m sorry.

by AxDxMx on Dec 29, 2010 4:57 PM EST reply actions