2038 Minor League System Review:

[RonCo]

Being deeply unsatisfied with the way OOTP rates minor league systems, for the past year I’ve undertaken a different process to score our BBA Farms. The first pass was done in September of last year, then updated right after the draft this year. Now I’ve come full circle, and touched on it again. I find the data here more compelling than OOTPs from a position of raw meaning, and more interesting because—since I’m going deeper than whatever OOTP considers the top 100—I can track progress of teams as they’ve enacted whatever strategies (or not) that they’ve had in managing their teams.

Make the plan, execute the plan, right?

THE PROCESS:
To refresh, I calculate two factors for each club by using a linear weighting of their prospects by the 20/80 score.

The first factor is an overall system ranking that included all prospects rated “40” and above. There are, of course, problems with this. But I chose “40” because you can often find a “40” player will be able to provide value to a big league team when used properly. So they count toward a horde. A “35” and below seem considerably less likely to be valuable—though I know you can still find a platoon guy in that range. So I probably overweight “40s” just a little and under-rate lesser players. They are small contributors on the whole, though…so…shrug.

The second factor weights only the Top prospects—or in this case prospects rated at “60” or better. Given that there are currently 223 “60” and above prospects, I like this method vastly better than OOTPs. Call me silly, I know.

Anyway, here’s the latest update, including a quick rundown of what I think are some major points.

BREADTH Vs. DEPTH
Note that the pairing of overall ranking (wRk) vs. top tanking (wTopRk) allows you to get a feel for how each team’s system really is working. For example, Boise is #12 overall, but only #20 with top prospects. Des Moines is #22 overall, but #12 at the top. Compare these two systems and you see the Kernels have a stronger core of players rated 60 and 65, while Boise’s power score is coming from considerably more 40-55 rated guys. Other systems who are top-heavy: Valencia (a bit), Long Beach, Montreal, and Louisville.

Teams who are bottom heavy like Boise include California, Hawaii, Huntsville, Jacksonville, San Antonio, and Mexico City.


TOP 10 SYSTEMS

Code: Select all

Overall	TopRk
YS9	YS9
CLG <<	CLG <<
NO <<	PHX
BRK <<	NO <<
RCK	RCK
PHX	CCJ <<
HNT <<	BRK <<
VAN <<	VAN <<
CCJ <<	VAL
SA	LOU <<

“<<” – Not in Playoffs

Since it’s been a topic of discussion, I highlighted the teams in this list that are not playoff teams. These are a mix of long-mired clubs, clubs kind of mired in the middle, and clubs that have fallen back in the past and are now working their way back up the chain.

Bottom line, though, YS9 and Calgary continue to have the strongest systems overall, with several other clubs showing on both lists. A majority--60% of entries--are teams that are not going to the playoffs this year, which makes sense.


TOP OVERALL MOVERS & LOSERS:
The last column has been colored green or red based on whether teams moved up or down the overall ranks by at least four spots. Note the key word “overall” here. This is a broad and general view of how a team’s total system is moving over a year’s period relative to the league as a whole.

So the Top Movers are:

• BRK – From 30 > 4 (26 positions) <<
• NSV – From 28 > 14 (14 positions) <<
• RCK – From 15 > 6 (9 positions)
• CCJ – From 13 > 7 (6 positions) <<
• VAN – From 17 > 11 (6 positions) <<
• BOI– From 19 > 15 (4 positions) <<

Five of the top improvements were seen by teams who are not going to the playoffs this season. Brooklyn’s jump came from both a fire sale, and their draft, Nashville’s from trades and their draft. Rockville continues to climb under Aaron’s guidance, and Charm City is nearing the point of their restart.

The Top Losers are:

• Jacksonville – From 6 > 19 (13 positions)
• Seattle – From 13 > 25 (12 positions)
• Louisville – From 11 > 21 (10 positions) <<
• Mexico City – From 8 > 18 (10 positions)
• Las Vegas – From 9 > 15 (6 positions)
• Edmonton – From 19 > 23 (4 positions)

Similarly, of this list, only Louisville—who appears to have har a horrendous draft—is a non-playoff team and among the biggest losers. It is worth noting that the Slugger’s top-end ranking is #10, so they have some talent, but very little depth.

Other teams in the league, as can be expected in a zero-sum game, moved up and down the list in small fashions.

[GoldenOne]

Its hard to try and fly under the radar when you keep doing research and posting stats Ron......

[usnspecialist]

San Fernando: bad under any system.

[RonCo]

Actually, I missed TWC (7 positions) and Valencia (4 positions) from the losers list. I think Valencia fell because they graduated a few guys to the parent club...which is the best way to fall, of course. And they're still #13 overall, so there's a little more where that came from.

[aaronweiner]

I did have a very deep draft this year.

[ae37jr]

Looking ahead, the 2040 Johnson Atlantic teams have 4 of the top 7 farm systems and no team worse then 20th.

It's also going to be fun to watch Brooklyn peacock on this chart over the next few years. My plan involves building a system in which I have about 20 somewhat legit prospects at all 5 levels of the minors. According to this chart we have the most 30+ potential prospects with 39 already and I'm nowhere near ready to sit back and watch. Granted I consider some 20-25 potential players useful depending on their skill layout, It's likely our 30+ Potential players could grow towards 80-90 in a few years. Which according to this chart, is likely going to be double most of the other leaders.

Why do we need 100 prospects to field a 27 man roster you ask? I can't give away all of my secrets.

[Rubaboo]

Looking ahead, the 2040 Johnson Atlantic teams have 4 of the top 7 farm systems and no team worse then 20th.

It's also going to be fun to watch Brooklyn peacock on this chart over the next few years. My plan involves building a system in which I have about 20 somewhat legit prospects at all 5 levels of the minors. According to this chart we have the most 30+ potential prospects with 39 already and I'm nowhere near ready to sit back and watch. Granted I consider some 20-25 potential players useful depending on their skill layout, It's likely our 30+ Potential players could grow towards 80-90 in a few years. Which according to this chart, is likely going to be double most of the other leaders.

Why do we need 100 prospects to field a 27 man roster you ask? I can't give away all of my secrets.

The cyclone is going to be a F5...

[RonCo]

I should have noted that Brooklyn's surge has also come as Alan has undertaken one of the most aggressive efforts to get his minor league players time on the field. I don't think this is focused on enough...players will occasionally develop even if they don't play much (something Jeff has noted), but they develop at a much more predictable rate if you get them on the field. Alan is crushing it here.

[sjshaw]

Yeah, LOU is gonna be a challenge. The dev has been horrendous.

[udlb58]

I'm guessing the graduation of Rocky and Edgardo have caused our massive fall.

[RonCo]

Graduation is a good way to fall.

[ae37jr]

I bought and downloaded the new version of the game today. One of the first things I always do is compare ratings. I know they are the same, it's just the way they get displayed, but it's fun to look at especially when trying to figure out if a player is high 6 or low 6 contact.. ect.

The biggest thing that popped out was the shift in 20/80 ratings. Most of my throw away players added 10-15 points of potential and it seems that the bell curve is going to be fatter in the middle and skinnier on the high and low. In fact I only have 7 hitters with 20 potential now. As opposed to the 40-50 I had before.

Keep in mind this is not the official file, just me importing our old save into the new game to play around. It may change this look at prospects drastically. I haven't decided if I like it or not yet. Or where to draw the line between a "future BBA player" and "minor league filler". It used to be 50+ equals BBA, 40-50= AAAA, -40= filler. But there is no way in hell I have 113 players AAAA or better. Maybe now 55+ is a sure thing, 35-55 is a large group of foggy players and -30 is no chance.

Anyway, here is Brooklyn 2019 is Ron's data, 2020 is the file I just imported.

2019
80-3
75-0
70-1
65-1
60-3
55-9
50-5
45-8
40-9
Total-39

2020
80-4
75-1
70-1
65-0
60-4
55-9
50-18
45-35
40-41
Total-113

[RonCo]

Yeah, I knew they'd adjusted the overall rating thing. I'll be interested in seeing how it looks across the league. I think I like it, but time will tell. I'm not huge on relative ratings--though I don't really care one way or another. Other than these overviews, I try not to fiddle with them too much.

[Bumstead]

Look at Boise run up the charts...