- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Do the Braves have the best farm in the league?
Posted on 8/15/22 at 10:06 am to TrussvilleTide
Posted on 8/15/22 at 10:06 am to TrussvilleTide
quote:
You're missing the mark here. The vast majority of prospects don't enter the top 100 as soon as they are drafted. Almost all of the top 100 are guys that played their way into the top 100 once they were in the minors.
I'm not talking about top 100 prospects. That's lazy and subjective. You were arguing against our development process by saying we get guys who are "highly thought of". So You listed guys who I demonstrated were clearly not that highly thought of, otherwise they would have been sought for higher prices and at higher positions in the draft. If a guy isn't rated highly, but then IS rated highly, how do you then say that he was highly thought of because he became highly rated? That's incoherent. It's utter nonsense.
quote:
There are hundreds if not thousands of draft eligible players in a given year, so you might be only one of 2 or 3 teams that even gets eyeballs on a guy (like we were for Acuna and Ozzie). So you might only be actually competing with 3 or so teams for a guy, and if they had a bad day when the other teams came to see him you might not have any competition at all to sign him.
These players have eyes on them from everywhere, and word gets out when a player is showing out. The vast majority of those players aren't good enough to warrant much of a look. The better organizations can find guys that aren't as obvious.
quote:
What IS a sign of teams seeing something others aren't is consistently bringing guys up that are outside the purview of the prospect-heads, and still getting production out of them regardless. Its not that what the Braves are doing isn't impressive, or that its bad. Its just that if you have an organization consistently doing this (the Cards are the best example IMO) it shows that they do have some kind of development, scouting, or analytical advantage at the farm level. Its not about what the Braves AREN'T doing, its what St Louis IS doing. When a player is already in the minors is really when you start getting reports on who they really are, at least by the consensus definition of what projects to be a good player.
What is the evidence that they do this better than us? You just keep stating it as fact, but I see no supporting evidence. All we have is your personal perception of who's a nobody or a somebody, and you really haven't made that case.
1
Posted on 8/15/22 at 10:07 am to Clicker
They did haha
Posted on 8/15/22 at 10:11 am to TrussvilleTide
quote:
What exactly does the draft have to do with how players are perceived by the time they are called up?
Why are you asking me? This is your logic. You're telling me that a guy like Vaughn Grissom, who wasn't very hyped at all coming in, but now is our top prospect, is a somebody because he became a somebody. So how to you differentiate that from Cardinals players who were nobodies and became somebodies? What is the difference? That it took the Cardinals longer to develop their nobodies? Because our nobodies became somebodies sooner, they don't count as nobodies who became somebodies?
Are you seeing the absurdity yet? Should I go on further?
This post was edited on 8/15/22 at 10:12 am
Posted on 8/15/22 at 10:14 am to Metaloctopus
quote:
What is the evidence that they do this better than us? You just keep stating it as fact, but I see no supporting evidence. All we have is your personal perception of who's a nobody or a somebody, and you really haven't made that case.
What is evidence the Braves do it better? Are opinions not allowed?
quote:
'm not talking about top 100 prospects. That's lazy and subjective.
Oh so you don't want to use a universal system that most people agree works fairly well in a sport where scouting is extremely difficult because it doesn't fit your narrative. Typical you.
quote:
So You listed guys who I demonstrated were clearly not that highly thought of, otherwise they would have been sought for higher prices and at higher positions in the draft.
So you keep wanting to use the draft as your example in a conversation about player development when their eventual prospect ranking is a much more relevant factor. You just don't even know what you're arguing about
I just shouldn't have engaged with you, you just spout nonsense 90% of the time to the point where a lot of other posters won't even engage with you anymore. I'll learn eventually.
Posted on 8/15/22 at 10:18 am to Metaloctopus
quote:
You're telling me that a guy like Vaughn Grissom, who wasn't very hyped at all coming in, but now is our top prospect, is a somebody because he became a somebody.
I'm saying we don't know if the Braves made him into what he is or if he was always going to be that. What we DO know is that he started producing enough in the minors to get noticed by evaluators.
What are the Cardinals doing, seemingly fairly consistently IMO, to get good production from guys who never ascend to a guy like Grissom's prospect level based on the consesus?
Its a GOOD thing that the Braves keep churning out guys that end up highly rated. What the Cardinals are doing is also good, but I forgot that we aren't allowed to acknowledge other teams doing something well with you around. The Braves haven't done what the Cardinals are doing consistently yet because they haven't had to, or at least haven't been given the opportunity to.
Posted on 8/15/22 at 10:31 am to TrussvilleTide
quote:
What is evidence the Braves do it better? Are opinions not allowed?
You can have an opinion, but you're arguing with my opinion, which I've made the actual attempt to back up with something other than just repeating that something I believe is true.
quote:
Oh so you don't want to use a universal system that most people agree works fairly well in a sport where scouting is extremely difficult because it doesn't fit your narrative. Typical you.
... You're embarrassing yourself. The top 100 is a very loose and subjective ranking done by sports media, and does not encompass anywhere near the entirety of major league talent. Once again, YOU argued that our guys were already highly rated. As you stated, guys don't immediately enter the top 100. Why? Because there is already an existing list when new prospects enter the minors, and you don't just automatically throw them into the top 100 before they've played a game.
So, rather than concerning yourself with where someone ranked on a prospect list, the question is just HOW highly were they thought of when they were drafted/signed? And I ask this question, because this was YOUR argument; that the Braves produced players who were "already highly thought of". Well Spencer Strider never even made that list until Baseball America put him in THIS YEAR after entering the rotation, and they only put him at #99. Does that not make him a nobody, by your standards, before making is debut last year? You can't say that because someone who wasn't highly thought of, but now is highly thought of, was therefore not a credit to the organization. If you drat a guy in the first round, it's a lottery ticket, even then, but you can certainly say that he was highly thought of, no matter if he ever enters the top 100.
Can you understand that now? Or do I have to spell it out again?
Posted on 8/15/22 at 10:37 am to TrussvilleTide
quote:
So you keep wanting to use the draft as your example in a conversation about player development when their eventual prospect ranking is a much more relevant factor. You just don't even know what you're arguing about
I'm talking about the drat and international market. And it is 100% relevant. It's where you find talent. Rankings are all based on the talent you bring in, no? You have no logic.
quote:
I just shouldn't have engaged with you, you just spout nonsense 90% of the time to the point where a lot of other posters won't even engage with you anymore. I'll learn eventually.
Who are those people who won't engage with me? Everything I've said, I've backed up. You're the little angry toddler who gets his feelings hurt because he can't think of a logical comeback, so you just say "you're just dumb... meanie!".
Don't project your lack of critical thought onto me with some made up narrative about people not engaging me.
Posted on 8/15/22 at 10:38 am to Metaloctopus
quote:
hich I've made the actual attempt to back up with something other than just repeating that something I believe is true.
Agree to disagree, we are having completely different discussions and definitions of what this means. I gave an example of a specific player which you completely ignored (like you do anything else if it makes your argument look bad or even provides just a very mild counterpoint).
Why engage with someone who cherrypicks specific things to nitpick and change the entire discussion? You gave two examples of players who were barely outside the top 100 doing well. I'm not talking about a guy being 101 being a nothing burger, and its been obvious I'm not talking about that since my first or second comment on it.
I just don't like you very much, and I take it you feel the same toward me, so have a good one and GFY
Posted on 8/15/22 at 10:40 am to Metaloctopus
I guess you forgot about those MLB and pre-Mets series threads where half a dozen people at least were piling on about how much of a moron you are 
Posted on 8/15/22 at 10:49 am to TrussvilleTide
quote:
I'm saying we don't know if the Braves made him into what he is or if he was always going to be that. What we DO know is that he started producing enough in the minors to get noticed by evaluators.
You know who noticed him before the "evaluators"? The Braves.
quote:
What are the Cardinals doing, seemingly fairly consistently IMO, to get good production from guys who never ascend to a guy like Grissom's prospect level based on the consesus?
What are they doing? I don't know, why don't you tell me? You haven't established any coherent point to back that up.
if Cardinals players were not thought of highly, but now are thought of as good, and Braves players were not thought highly of, but now are, what difference does it make when that change in perception occurred? There IS no difference. You're arguing semantics for the sake of being a contrarian. What else is new?
The only logical way to defend your point is if the Braves weren't producing from their lower draft picks, and cheaper (meaning less thought of) international signings. That's what I think of when someone says to me "yeah, but they only bring the highly thought of guys to the majors". If you're going to sit there and tell me that Vaughn Grissom, who was not hyped, but became hyped, cannot be said to be a credit to the Braves evaluation and development, because "we don't know that he wasn't always going to be that", then you have lost all credibility. Because, by that same logic, I can argue that the Cardinals' supposed "nobodies" might have always been destined for the majors, regardless of organization.
quote:
Its a GOOD thing that the Braves keep churning out guys that end up highly rated. What the Cardinals are doing is also good, but I forgot that we aren't allowed to acknowledge other teams doing something well with you around. The Braves haven't done what the Cardinals are doing consistently yet because they haven't had to, or at least haven't been given the opportunity to.
I didn't say the Cardinals don't do a good job. I agree with you that they do. I just find your semantics about when a nobody becomes a somebody, to be lacking in substance.
This post was edited on 8/15/22 at 10:51 am
Posted on 8/15/22 at 11:02 am to Metaloctopus
quote:
What are they doing? I don't know, why don't you tell me? You haven't established any coherent point to back that up.
Which is why I asked “what are they doing?” To begin with. We don’t know. We don’t know what the Braves are doing.
I think unheralded guys coming up and producing is a good gauge because you can isolate variables:
Draft wise: like I said earlier, how many teams were actually in on a player taken outside the first round or two? Can’t be sure of that. It a crap shoot regardless. Even if we knew.
Development wise: Was a guy always that good (or going to be that good), or did the team develop him? Just getting them reps in the minors and improving that way isn’t “developing” them, because any team could give a guy reps.
We can’t know those things.
So my point, since I have to lay it out in a simplistic summary format is, the fact that the Cardinals continuously bringing up guys not ranked very high nationally that end up producing anyway points to them either seeing something the national evaluators don’t or being able to get more out of those guys than the national evaluators expect, or more likely some combination of both. It’s the best gauge we have because we can isolate a few of the previously mentioned variables, but not a perfect one. It doesn’t matter where he was drafted, or what the cardinals did, because it wasn’t recognized nationally anyway yet he still produced. Why? I don’t have a specific answer, but In general it’s because they are doing SOMETHING good.
Maybe the Braves just evaluate guys that fit into the traditional model of what makes a good prospect better than the cardinals do, and they end up in the top 100 or close to it.
You want me to provide evidence when I’ll happily tell you most of the points I’m making are about things that are unknowable. Just trying to do the best we can with knowledge we have available and make a judgement call.
This post was edited on 8/15/22 at 11:03 am
Posted on 8/15/22 at 11:44 am to TrussvilleTide
quote:
Agree to disagree, we are having completely different discussions and definitions of what this means. I gave an example of a specific player which you completely ignored (like you do anything else if it makes your argument look bad or even provides just a very mild counterpoint).
Why engage with someone who cherrypicks specific things to nitpick and change the entire discussion? You gave two examples of players who were barely outside the top 100 doing well. I'm not talking about a guy being 101 being a nothing burger, and its been obvious I'm not talking about that since my first or second comment on it.
I just don't like you very much, and I take it you feel the same toward me, so have a good one and GFY
The guys I mentioned were nowhere near your precious top 100 last year. Don't give me that "101" garbage.
You gave me one player. I didn't ignore. But I also didn't comment on it because you are asking me to accept that this happens on a consistent systemic basis, and that it doesn't happen with the Braves (at least not yet, you say). I've responded to virtually every player that you claimed was highly thought of already, that the Braves brought up.
The difference between your opinion, and mine, all boils down to one simple thing: I think a player has to enter an organization with high expectations on him in order to make the argument you're trying to make, and you believe that if, at any point, a player becomes highly rated while still in the minors, his development is no longer a credit to the organization. I think that's absurd.
You want more examples from me? Dylan Lee, Jackson Stephens, Bryce Elder, Huascar Ynoa (before he broke his hand and forgot how to pitch), Johan Camargo for a couple of years (yes, he has mostly flamed out, but so do a lot of Cardinals players), or we can go back further to guys like Gattis, Venters, Moylan, Medlen, Beachy.
These are just the guys who never really became hot prospects while in the minors. But a great many more were not hot commodities coming into the system.
I don't cherry pick anything. That's just not remotely a fair accusation, and is strictly the result of your bias against anything I say. Nothing I say to you has anything to do with not liking you. You like to complain that I don't allow you to have your opinion, but what you don't seem to realize is that I have in no way shut down your ability to speak your mind. I haven't "RA'd" you to request that your posting privileges be revoked. I engage in the same thing that you do. You disagreed with me, and I disagreed with you. Maybe you thought that because you decided to address me indirectly through another poster that you were going to avoid a response from me. But I'm under no obligation to let my opinions be challenged without making a fair counterpoint. If you find these engagements to be too much for you, then you should probably find a different place. We like to have discussions here, and some of us can even disagree, without calling each other names and treating each other like garbage.
This post was edited on 8/15/22 at 12:07 pm
Posted on 8/15/22 at 11:54 am to TrussvilleTide
quote:
Which is why I asked “what are they doing?” To begin with. We don’t know. We don’t know what the Braves are doing.
I think unheralded guys coming up and producing is a good gauge because you can isolate variables:
Man, there are always variables. How do we isolate variables because some prospects bloom later than others? My point is that talent is evaluated from the start of a career, not just after years in the minors. And the difference between a player being developed better by a certain organization, or just being better from the start than evaluators realized, is a rabbit hole that is pointless to go down. So if we're going to argue about player expectations, it makes just as much sense to judge how well a player produces after his initial evaluation, as it does later on in his minor league career. If you have a guy who evaluators just see as a decent prospect, who then blows up, (and it happens often with the Braves, and yes, with the Cardinals as well), then that's a pretty good indication of a well run organization. The timing of how that plays out is irrelevant to me.
This post was edited on 8/15/22 at 11:56 am
Posted on 8/15/22 at 1:37 pm to SeeeeK
quote:
Braves
quote:
tanking
The Braves never tanked.
Posted on 8/15/22 at 3:54 pm to SteelerBravesDawg
quote:
The Braves never tanked.
^ fricking idiot
Posted on 8/15/22 at 3:55 pm to Metaloctopus
quote:
The Braves traded guys who were aging, over priced, who didn't fit into long term plans, and acquired prospects to kick start a rebuild. From there, they scouted and drafted better than any other organization over the course of that rebuild.
LOL
Posted on 8/15/22 at 5:22 pm to SeeeeK
Are we actually on page 3 of this thread and nobody has mentioned the machine that is the Rays farm system?
Posted on 8/15/22 at 5:41 pm to BennyAndTheInkJets
It’s incredible. And they always seem to win trades too.
Posted on 8/15/22 at 5:45 pm to SteelerBravesDawg
quote:have you been a fan of the braves for longer than 5 years?
The Braves never tanked.
This post was edited on 8/15/22 at 5:46 pm
Posted on 8/15/22 at 5:48 pm to WestCoastAg
Who the frick are you to question the best Braves fan in the world on matters of the Braves
Page 3 of 6
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News