Essentially, what I did was, for each division, for each franchise, to count all the players for each POT rating, that are:
1. Not on the major league team (and generally qualify for rookie status, so Borges for LBC was NOT counted, even though he is technically on the AAA club currently)
2. Less than 26 years old
Note that this DOES include players that are on injured reserve or in the International complex. I have also broken it out by 1) all non-Relief pitchers, and 2) all relief pitchers. This is because good relief pitchers are inherently less valuable.
In the tables below, the heading indicates the POT rating --- I have grouped 75 and 80 potentials together, as well as all potentials less than 40. You will notice these are in two "sets" ( a left-hand set and a right-hand set): the first set corresponds to all non-relief pitchers, and the second for all relief pitchers. Underneath each of the POT categories, I have estimated how many "points" a player of this potential is worth (you may disagree with my point assignments --- well, you can copy the data into your own spreadsheet and modify the points as you see fit!) Then I have the teams in the division, one team per line, ranked by total points. These are calculated by simply summing up the total number of players for each POT rating multiplied by the weighting for each one.
Here is the table for the Heartland Division:
| 75+ | 70 | 65 | 60 | 55 | 50 | 45 | 40 | <40 | 75+ | 70 | 65 | 60 | 55 | 50 | 45 | 40 | '<40 | Tot | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 15 | 10 | 6.5 | 4 | 2 | 1 | 0.5 | 0.25 | 0.1 | 7.5 | 5 | 3.3 | 2 | 1 | 0.5 | 0.3 | 0.2 | 0.07 | Pts | |
| DM | 2 | 3 | 1 | 4 | 20 | 20 | 100 | 1 | 2 | 33 | 86.4 | ||||||||
| YS9 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 7 | 18 | 29 | 93 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 3 | 9 | 11 | 31 | 77.5 | ||||
| NSH | 1 | 2 | 1 | 0 | 3 | 14 | 37 | 94 | 1 | 8 | 5 | 17 | 66.2 | ||||||
| OMA | 1 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 5 | 6 | 21 | 74 | 1 | 17 | 53.5 | ||||||||
| CHI | 1 | 1 | 7 | 17 | 18 | 74 | 1 | 2 | 5 | 7 | 6 | 14 | 51.4 | ||||||
| LOU | 2 | 5 | 4 | 19 | 24 | 68 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 4 | 7 | 12 | 51.2 | ||||||
| MAD | 4 | 4 | 8 | 14 | 100 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 34 | 33.8 | ||||||||
| TWC | 1 | 3 | 5 | 43 | 86 | 1 | 1 | 6 | 34 | 31.1 | |||||||||
| Total | 4 | 1 | 8 | 7 | 14 | 37 | 107 | 206 | 689 | 1 | 0 | 2 | 3 | 7 | 11 | 30 | 39 | 192 | 451.2 |
| 75+ | 70 | 65 | 60 | 55 | 50 | 45 | 40 | <40 | 75+ | 70 | 65 | 60 | 55 | 50 | 45 | 40 | <40 | Tot | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 15 | 10 | 6.5 | 4 | 2 | 1 | 0.5 | 0.25 | 0.1 | 7.5 | 5 | 3.3 | 2 | 1 | 0.5 | 0.3 | 0.2 | 0.07 | Pts | |
| POR | 2 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 7 | 14 | 101 | 1 | 4 | 1 | 9 | 14 | 91.4 | ||||
| SAC | 1 | 1 | 1 | 3 | 4 | 14 | 31 | 63 | 2 | 1 | 5 | 5 | 7 | 7 | 15 | 72.2 | |||
| VAN | 1 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 4 | 18 | 17 | 107 | 4 | 10 | 64.8 | ||||||||
| VAL | 1 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 6 | 9 | 22 | 90 | 1 | 3 | 41 | 57.6 | |||||||
| SEA | 1 | 2 | 5 | 12 | 16 | 98 | 1 | 21 | 36.9 | ||||||||||
| LBC | 1 | 4 | 9 | 20 | 97 | 4 | 2 | 6 | 31 | 35.6 | |||||||||
| SFB | 1 | 2 | 4 | 9 | 15 | 105 | 2 | 4 | 22 | 33.6 | |||||||||
| HAW | 1 | 2 | 3 | 13 | 20 | 69 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 21 | 32.0 | ||||||||
| Total | 2 | 4 | 8 | 9 | 15 | 31 | 91 | 155 | 730 | 0 | 0 | 3 | 1 | 5 | 15 | 20 | 29 | 175 | 424.2 |
Rather than just considering ranks, the results show some "bunching together" at different levels, which I will call "tiers".
Tier 1: This includes two teams: Portland (the overall "best" system by these rankings, with 91.4 points) and Des Moines (with 86.4 points). Unsurprisingly, these teams have been low performers for the past several years and generally get the top draft picks --- Portland's best record in its six-year history is 68-94 while Des Moines hasn't been to the playoffs in 36 years. Based on these results, however, with good management, that could change in the future. They both have very solid cores of talent rising through the ranks, and both teams have plenty of room under the salary cap to fill out their rosters with top FA talent.
Tier 2: Yellow Springs Nine (77.5) and Sacramento Mad Popes (72.2). Well, these aren't bottom dwellers. Sacramento has had a couple of seasons out of the playoffs, after twelve straight playoff appearances. It looks like their "rebuild" is going quite nicely. We could expect them to rebound in the next several years. As to Yellow Springs, I guess this is why RonCo does so well year after year. Despite a low draft position every year in the last seventeen (except one) they somehow manage to still have one of the top minor league systems in the game. I fully intend to be a "fly on the wall" to see how he does it.
Tier 3: Nashville (66.2) and Vancouver (64.8). Two teams that generally have a record close to .500 without dominating in either direction. Notably, Nashville has not had a losing record since 2040 (and even then they were 79-83). Yet they only made the playoffs once in the last twenty years. Vancouver also tends to hover near the .500 mark (except for a particularly bad year in 2044 and a good one in 2041) but has only made the playoffs once in the last fifteen years. They have the potential to possibly put things together to exceed traditional mediocrity.
Tier 4: This "middle" tier contains four teams: Valencia(57.6), Omaha(53.5), Chicago (51.4) and Louisville (51.2). With the exception of Valencia, these are teams that have generally been playoff teams the last several years. Being middle-of-the-pack here, for a traditional playoff team, is an indication of good management as they haven't had to completely tear up their minor league systems to make the playoffs. We will see if Chicago, under new management, can maintain this position.
Tier 5: The remaining six teams are in the bottom tier: Seattle (36.9), Long Beach (35.6), Madison (33.8), San Francisco Bears (33.6), Hawaii (32), and Twin Cities (31.1). One thing to note here is how bunched all these teams are and how much of a drop-off there is from tier 4 (the lowest team in tier 4 has almost 15 more points than the highest team in this tier). One thing I notice about this tier is the remarkable inconsistency these teams experience from year to year: For instance, Long Beach went from one of the worst records in 2043 (67-95) to one of the best in 2044 (100-62). This suggests to me that these are teams that function in a cyclical basis (similar to many real ballclubs in the major leagues): These are the wheeler-dealers: Sell off prospect talent to have good seasons, and then go through a period of rebuilding until the next surge.
Some other notable tidbits:
1. The Johnson division came out somewhat worse in this measure than the Heartland (424 points compared to 451), even though the Heartland has generally had more playoff teams in recent years, resulting in lower draft picks. This might indicate some GMs in the Heartland that have and are willing to put in more time to fine-tune their minor league organization.
2. Most teams in Frick generally shun minor league relief pitching prospects, with very little effort towards quality in this area. There are three notable exceptions, with the following point totals for relief pitching: Yellow Springs (22.0), Sacramento (20.6) and, to a slightly lesser extent: Chicago (12.0). These three teams constitute a full 50% of all the relief pitching "points" for all sixteen teams.
3. The overwhelming majority of minor league players probably have limited potential to ever play in the majors: 67% of the relief pitchers and 64.2% of everybody else across the sixteen teams have a POT less than 40. I mean, there is the "once in a blue moon" effect, but this is interesting. The overall percentages here are about the same as (if not worse than) the UMEBA. Keep in mind that this does include the International Complex, however, and that might make up a substantial amount of these.
