#8 Organitzation According to Fangraphs

Over on Fangraphs they've been doing a series on how each organization shapes up over the next 5-10 years to capture a WS title. We came in at #8.

If you're bored I highly suggest checking out the entire series...very informative.

almost 3 years ago Smoltz's Beard 8 comments 0 recs |

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

nice article

tho, I’m surprised we’re so low…I mean, when you combine everything they consider — current talent, future talent, ownership, front office — Im not sure if I can come up with 7 teams that are better

the article also seems to undervalue the braves because a lot of the decisions arent made by stat heads…im not saying that’s right or wrong (or right or wrong to do), but it just felt like the writer didnt like the fact that the braves were successful without operating the way the writer would

On a sidenote, I wonder if this will appear on the front page in 7 months :)

by Doghnut on Mar 25, 2009 11:21 AM EDT reply actions

Yeah, alot of the comments have been knocking the writer’s methods of evaluation…for instance, you’ll notice that the Mets are going to be one of the top 7 organizations. Not sure I agree with that, and it’s not simply because I hate them. It’ll be interesting to see his reasoning.

But yeah, he obviously favors the organizations that are forward thinking in terms of statistical evaluation.

by Smoltz's Beard on Mar 25, 2009 11:47 AM EDT up reply actions

3 potential MVPs in a Wright, Reyes, and Beltran. Cy Young candidate. Crappy farm system. Massive payroll. I guess they are a younger version of the Cubs with better contracts.

"OBP is not a production number, and should not be used as something he achieved."

by VictorW on Mar 25, 2009 1:43 PM EDT up reply actions

True.

Someone in the comments of one of the teams said that you could argue that the Mets have the top player at 4 positions: SS, 3B, CF, SP. They’ve got a pretty legit argument with every one of them too.

Their major league talent is very good…no question. But their minor league talent is awful, aside from like one or two guys and they are certainly not locks. Their front office doesn’t impress me, but as you said they have plenty of payroll to work with.

The point of the series is to figure out which organization has the best chance of winning a WS in the next 5-10 years, and the Mets certainly do have the chance in the next couple years. So yeah, maybe they deserve to be that high. But are they that much better off than the Phillies?

Also, it seems like Dave places the majority of his emphasis on the major league talent portion.

by Smoltz's Beard on Mar 25, 2009 3:09 PM EDT up reply actions

Hm now that you mention it, it seems the Phillies are kinda low. Their pitching is probably about the same as the Mets, and the positional disparity doesn’t seem that big. Dave did mention that he expects regression from Werth and Victorino and Chutley’s hip is quenstionable.

Phillies front office got rated really low so that’s probably the kicker. Questionable farm system and front office is no good. I guess the Mets do a better job there since they do manage to scout some good players, like Reyes as an amateur free agent.

It is kinda ambiguous how he rates things, but the Braves did manage to make the elite 8 with a fairly “weak” B in the major league talent pool. Guess we’ll see where the Mets end up.

"OBP is not a production number, and should not be used as something he achieved."

by VictorW on Mar 25, 2009 3:45 PM EDT up reply actions

B+ front office is nothing to scoff at. Remember that this is the organization that wanted Ibanez before they even talked to Dunn. Braves have amazing scouts despite the lack of advanced analysis. Just think what the organization could do if they incorporated advanced stats into what they already know.

Milwaukee is the one that really surprises me. They seem like a prime B+ team to me, but they’ll be ranked higher than the Braves. Their position players are better, but the pitching is awful even with a potential ace like Gallardo. I don’t think their farm system is nearly as good either.

"OBP is not a production number, and should not be used as something he achieved."

by VictorW on Mar 25, 2009 1:41 PM EDT up reply actions

Its amazing what one year did to the Rays…because I’m sure that if you make a list like this at this time last year, they would be in the 20s.

I also disagree with Cleveland and the NYM being higher than us, but that’s a personal opinion…and I don’t really get too worked up over these lists because that’s exactly what they are; a personal opinion of the list maker.

by soup du jour on Mar 25, 2009 1:13 PM EDT reply actions

Before last season, a lot of people were predicting 2009 as the year for the Rays so, under these same methods, I’m sure they would have ranked in the top half and probably top 10.

"OBP is not a production number, and should not be used as something he achieved."

by VictorW on Mar 25, 2009 1:35 PM EDT up reply actions