Comments on: Hindsight is 20/20: Prospect Lists https://seamheads.com/baseballgauge/blog/?p=74 Mon, 08 May 2017 01:28:57 +0000 hourly 1 https://wordpress.org/?v=4.2.38 By: Dan Hirsch https://seamheads.com/baseballgauge/blog/?p=74#comment-5 Sat, 12 Mar 2011 22:28:29 +0000 http://thebaseballgauge.com/blog/?p=74#comment-5 That would be another interesting way to view it. That may be an addition for the future. I guess the point of looking at it this way is that you can see that the 62 Reds had the potential of 2,567 WS, but lost out on 305 from Wynn. Wynn isn’t a great example, but what about a team who has a prospect that would only have 10 career WS, but trades him for a future all-star. The prospect lists wouldn’t show that either.

That’s why I included Winning Percentages for the next 5 years to show how that team fared. If a team has the best farm system, but only has a .450 Winning Percentage 5 years later, then they probably didn’t something wrong.

]]> By: Dr. Doom https://seamheads.com/baseballgauge/blog/?p=74#comment-4 Sat, 12 Mar 2011 22:13:07 +0000 http://thebaseballgauge.com/blog/?p=74#comment-4 I wonder what some of the differences would be if we were to only look at WS/WAR/WSAB earned for the team in whose farm system the players were playing. In other words, if, for example, Jimmy Wynn’s stats as an Astro didn’t count towards the 1962 Reds’ farm system. I understand that isn’t what you’re looking for, but if a team never ends up using a guy, how much does it matter that their farm system was stocked with great players?

Great post, though. Especially a really great point about the ’52 Dodgers and Yanks. Great stuff.

]]>