I’ll leave this in the Features section, but won’t take extra points for it…but after going through the whole of our systems, I felt like I needed to do something to put it all together. So here we are. To make this overall compilation, I took the early work I did—listing everyone by league rank, and re-aligned the rankings into our future divisions—then put those rankings into tabular format. I then did a simple linear weight to score each system in a golf-like system—where fewer points are better—using the idea of necessary volume as the weighting (I need more SP and Infielders than OF and Catchers).
Simple, right?
There are a gazillion problems with this approach—not the least of which is that it doesn’t account for massive gaps between value of one level over the next. But it’s fun. So what the heck.
For the record, here are the individual position breakdown threads:
Let’s take a look at each division:
Off Topic
HEARTLAND DIVISION
| Team | Div | SP | RP | C | OF | IF | PTS |
|---|
| Yellow Springs | FLH | 3 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 24 |
| Louisville | FLH | 2 | 2 | 4 | 3 | 3 | 39 |
| Des Moines | FLH | 1 | 3 | 5 | 5 | 6 | 57 |
| Twin Cities | FLH | 4 | 5 | 3 | 8 | 4 | 74 |
| Madison | FLH | 6 | 4 | 7 | 4 | 5 | 75 |
| Chicago | FLH | 5 | 6 | 6 | 2 | 7 | 78 |
| Nashville | FLH | 7 | 7 | 1 | 7 | 2 | 79 |
| Omaha | FLH | 8 | 8 | 7 | 6 | 8 | 113 |
If you’ve read along the individual reports, it’s not too surprising the Yellow Springs is at the top. Louisville follows fairly close behind, with Des Moines and that superior SP register coming third. Then we have a clump od teams within four points of each other before we get to Omaha. If the system is “true” then this bodes well for the three teams at the top of the charts. If there’s a breakout team in the lower sections, perhaps it would be Nashville, with its superior system in the catching and infield categories?
Off Topic
PACIFIC DIVISION
| Team | Div | SP | RP | C | OF | IF | PTS |
|---|
| Vancouver | FLP | 2 | 5 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 31 |
| Valencia | FLP | 6 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 3 | 47 |
| California | FLP | 3 | 4 | 7 | 6 | 2 | 57 |
| Hawaii | FLP | 1 | 3 | 7 | 7 | 4 | 57 |
| Seattle | FLP | 5 | 7 | 3 | 3 | 5 | 73 |
| Long Beach | FLP | 6 | 2 | 7 | 4 | 7 | 77 |
| San Fernando | FLP | 4 | 7 | 7 | 5 | 6 | 83 |
| Portland | FLP | 8 | 8 | 8 | 8 | 8 | 120 |
Vancouver is the top of the chart here, and that feels pretty fair. Taylor Bettencourt has been doing some work, and its starting to show here even if it’s not coming in the Mountie win column right yet. One is tempted to counter with the argument that it’s not a great feat to be tops in the Pacific division when it comes to minor league systems, but the fact is that Vancouver tops the charts in every position player category, and are building competitive entries on the mound.
Valencia is upper third everywhere but starting pitching—which I admit feeling strange about because for all my history with the league, the Stars were a pitching heavy team. Now it’s like a whole new thing.
What’s not surprising is Randy Weigand’s SFB group being on the bottom. The Bears build though trades, primarily, so weaker farms are a trademark, not a bug.
Off Topic
FRONTIER DIVISION
| Team | Div | SP | RP | C | OF | IF | PTS |
|---|
| Boise | JLF | 2 | 2 | 5 | 1 | 3 | 34 |
| Calgary | JLF | 1 | 1 | 4 | 3 | 7 | 48 |
| Phoenix | JLF | 7 | 3 | 7 | 2 | 1 | 54 |
| San Antonio | JLF | 3 | 7 | 2 | 7 | 2 | 64 |
| Edmonton | JLF | 4 | 6 | 7 | 5 | 5 | 76 |
| Mexico City | JLF | 5 | 4 | 7 | 6 | 6 | 81 |
| Wichita | JLF | 8 | 8 | 3 | 4 | 4 | 87 |
| Las Vegas | JLF | 6 | 5 | 1 | 8 | 8 | 96 |
Boise at the top of this list should not be a surprise, seeing that they’ve been drafting at the top of the charts for awhile. Calgary, in that light, is a surprise in the same way Yellow Springs is a surprise in the Heartland. What these two teams tell you is that there can be a lot more to building a useful farm system than drafting at the tippy-top. The Spud’s rank is earned by being strong across the board (missing top tiers only in the catching department, whereas the Pioneers are crushing folks on the hill.
To Sean’s comment after the starting pitching article, their system is weighted to the offensive side—where they dominate almost as much as Calgary does on the mound.
And, of some interest is that Wichita (the second expansion team with Boise) is 7th on this list—mostly due to trading a lot of younger kids in the off-season in order to compete this year, which they are doing. In that sense, Stu is kind of Randy in the Frontier. Hmmm….
Off Topic
ATLANTIC DIVISION
| Team | Div | SP | RP | C | OF | IF | PTS |
|---|
| New Orleans | JLA | 1 | 4 | 2 | 3 | 1 | 31 |
| Montreal | JLA | 3 | 5 | 3 | 6 | 2 | 56 |
| Brooklyn | JLA | 4 | 1 | 5 | 2 | 7 | 58 |
| Charm City | JLA | 2 | 6 | 1 | 7 | 3 | 60 |
| Jacksonville | JLA | 6 | 2 | 4 | 4 | 5 | 66 |
| Rockville | JLA | 5 | 3 | 7 | 5 | 4 | 67 |
| Atlantic City | JLA | 7 | 7 | 7 | 1 | 6 | 83 |
| Charlotte | JLA | 8 | 8 | 8 | 8 | 8 | 120 |
The rise of the Crawdads continues to be predicted in this method, but I like seeing Montreal in the second slot followed very closely by Brooklyn and Charm City—all three are busy builders. I think my eyeballs like Charm City’s power distribution better, and maybe even Brooklyn’s, but the Blazers are more consistent, so who can say? At the end of the day, using the eyeball test I’d probably rank them CCJ, MTL, BRK, but you can go about any way you want.
Seeing behemoths Jacksonville and Rockville within a point of each other is interesting. I’m not sure what to make of it on the whole.
As if anything is this system is particularly telling for anything other than fun, right?
Atlantic City has that big outfield, but not much else, it seems. At least there’s always Charlotte.
