MiLB.com Farm System Grades. The Twins' is Graded...

[Thrylos]

Article here.

 

 

The Twins system is graded "B" overall.  The writeup starts with the following, smirk-inducing sentence:

 

Twins teams know how to win, that's for sure.

 

White Sox' got an A- and Clevaland's also a B.   Not sure what those grades mean in general, but it is interesting since the Twins' system was regarded in the bottom half last off-season...

[bird]

Why would you smirk about that sentence?

 

* The DSL team has a record of 28-11, the best record among 40 (!) teams in the DSL

 

* Our GCL team is 14-7, the most wins in a 17 team league.

 

* Early on, the ETown team is 17-10, third best among 10 teams.

 

* Cedar Rapids at Low A is 50-46 overall. Only 4 teams in a 16 team league have a better record.

 

* Fort Myers in A+, who you might remember trashing big time early on, is 18-7 here in the second half, by far the best record of the 12 teams in the league, and they are 51-42 overall.

 

* AA Chattanooga is lapping the other 9 teams. They're 20-6 in the second half (.789!) and their overall record is a stunning 62-34.

 

* Rochester is shuttling players back and forth to MLB and has still managed to build a better record than all but 3 teams in a 14 team league in AAA. They're 55-41 (.573!) overall.

 

I wonder if you can find another organization who can say they that all six minor league teams boasts a winning record. I don't think you'll find an organization who has a combined winning percentage that matches ours. At the time of MiLB's article, they had a winning percentage of .592, and it's better now.

 

I think it's interesting that the system is regarded so poorly, and would guess that's probably a result of blowback from the parent team's poor results from last year.

 

Regardless, Twins teams know how to win, that's for sure.

 

 

[Mike Sixel]

 

Why would you smirk about that sentence?

 

* The DSL team has a record of 28-11, the best record among 40 (!) teams in the DSL

 

* Our GCL team is 14-7, the most wins in a 17 team league.

 

* Early on, the ETown team is 17-10, third best among 10 teams.

 

* Cedar Rapids at Low A is 50-46 overall. Only 4 teams in a 16 team league have a better record.

 

* Fort Myers in A+, who you might remember trashing big time early on, is 18-7 here in the second half, by far the best record of the 12 teams in the league, and they are 51-42 overall.

 

* AA Chattanooga is lapping the other 9 teams. They're 20-6 in the second half (.789!) and their overall record is a stunning 62-34.

 

* Rochester is shuttling players back and forth to MLB and has still managed to build a better record than all but 3 teams in a 14 team league in AAA. They're 55-41 (.573!) overall.

 

I wonder if you can find another organization who can say they that all six minor league teams boasts a winning record. I don't think you'll find an organization who has a combined winning percentage that matches ours. At the time of MiLB's article, they had a winning percentage of .592, and it's better now.

 

I think it's interesting that the system is regarded so poorly, and would guess that's probably a result of blowback from the parent team's poor results from last year.

 

Regardless, Twins teams know how to win, that's for sure.

 

the twins minor leagues have winning records a lot. Indeed, it has been pointed out in the past that their use of older players in low rookie ball, and inflated winning percentages don't mean much. And no, I don't have a link to that old article handy. That hasn't translated very well into major league wins lately. I think that was the point.

 

I don't care if the minor league teams win a lot. I care if the MLB teams wins a lot.

[gunnarthor]

 

the twins minor leagues have winning records a lot. Indeed, it has been pointed out in the past that their use of older players in low rookie ball, and inflated winning percentages don't mean much. And no, I don't have a link to that old article handy. That hasn't translated very well into major league wins lately. I think that was the point.

 

I don't care if the minor league teams win a lot. I care if the MLB teams wins a lot.

Well, this thread was about the minor league teams but fortunately for you the Twins ML team is also winning. 

[Mike Sixel]

 

Well, this thread was about the minor league teams but fortunately for you the Twins ML team is also winning. 

 

It was about if the minor leagues are helpful/good or not, right? Unless I misunderstood, my friend the birdwatcher was stating that the minor leagues winning is a good predictor of their ability to help the major league team. If not, then I'm not sure why I care if they win or not, as a Twins' fan.

 

I'm glad for them, their teammates, their families, their fans. But as a Twins' fan, unless there is some causation that I am not aware of, I'm not sure why I care. Is there causation? If so, then I'm thrilled!

[bird]

 

the twins minor leagues have winning records a lot. Indeed, it has been pointed out in the past that their use of older players in low rookie ball, and inflated winning percentages don't mean much. And no, I don't have a link to that old article handy. That hasn't translated very well into major league wins lately. I think that was the point.

 

I don't care if the minor league teams win a lot. I care if the MLB teams wins a lot.

 

 

You're dismissing the reality here by using an old narrative that's been leaky at best for a long time. And no, you won't find a comparable system-wide record from the past, Mike, I'm quite sure of this. You've got your old gripe about ETown on your mind I think. There is no merit to your suggestion that the winning record is a function of using older players. There is no factual basis to this, which may explain why you made the suggestion a vague one.

 

The only translation that ought to be made is that there is a connection between winning and talent in the minors. Winning records mean a lot because they're a reliable indicator of talent. Or at least a breadth of talent.

[Mike Sixel]

 

You're dismissing the reality here by using an old narrative that's been leaky at best for a long time. And no, you won't find a comparable system-wide record from the past, Mike, I'm quite sure of this. You've got your old gripe about ETown on your mind I think. There is no merit to your suggestion that the winning record is a function of using older players. There is no factual basis to this, which may explain why you made the suggestion a vague one.

 

The only translation that ought to be made is that there is a connection between winning and talent in the minors. Winning records mean a lot because they're a reliable indicator of talent.

 

I'm not sure I agree that winning in the minors predicts long term success in the majors, but I hope you are right. Like I said in my follow up, if there is a causation, great! If not, and I have never seen anything that says there is, then also great.

 

As one counter point, look at Kohl Stewart, he helps his team win a lot, but is anyone here predicting he'll do that in MN right now? What about Nick Turly or Justin Haley or Michael Tonkin in AAA, are we predicting they'll help MN? I agree, it might indicate something, but I'm not convinced that's true. I'd want some data. And no, I'm not asking you to do that, that would be unfair of me to ask. I'm merely pointing out my skepticism.

[Thrylos]

 

 

 

Regardless, Twins teams know how to win, that's for sure.

 

Twins' affiliated teams.  The Twins' teams have not won anything that matters since 1991. 

[Mike Sixel]

 

Twins' affiliated teams.  The Twins' teams have not won anything that matters since 1991. 

 

we don't agree that only a WS championship matters, but I get your point.

[bird]

 

I'm not sure I agree that winning in the minors predicts long term success in the majors, but I hope you are right. Like I said in my follow up, if there is a causation, great! If not, and I have never seen anything that says there is, then also great.

 

As one counter point, look at Kohl Stewart, he helps his team win a lot, but is anyone here predicting he'll do that in MN right now? What about Nick Turly or Justin Haley or Michael Tonkin in AAA, are we predicting they'll help MN? I agree, it might indicate something, but I'm not convinced that's true. I'd want some data. And no, I'm not asking you to do that, that would be unfair of me to ask. I'm merely pointing out my skepticism.

 

 

Where did someone say winning in the minors is a predictor of long term success in the majors? I'd never say such a thing. Far too many other factors play into sustained MLB success. This should be very obvious to you and me.

 

The article attempts to describe the talent quality for each organization and put some sort of grade on it. They see winning as a strong indicator of talent, like I do. They also see other things as important, such as star power. That's why the White Sox, with the worst winning percentage in the minors, grade out better than the Twins. I agree with this too.

 

I'm not interested in any sugar-coating, nor am I keen on vapid descriptions about how bad the talent pipeline is, and we see examples of this frequently. And Mike, where are you going by introducing the names of four players here? You're looking for "data" unrelated to the point of the article or to my point. Are those guys data? 

 

 

[bird]

 

Twins' affiliated teams.  The Twins' teams have not won anything that matters since 1991. 

 

 

Right. I guess the authors confused you about this?

[Mike Sixel]

I don't think I've ever said the current pipeline is bad, I've said it was lacking in high upside guys (just like the article) and has lots of depth. I love Gordon, I think one of the AA pitchers will be good, one will be ok, and one will be a RP, I just don't know which ones (and I count Thorpe in that list). I think Turley can be a RP in the majors, maybe a really good one. I don't know if anyone in A ball and below has enough track record or (to me) pedigree other than Lewis for me to know much about confidence wise.

[old nurse]

 

Right. I guess the authors confused you about this?

I don't think the Twin's AAA teams have ever won the AAA title game, therefore they have never done anything.

The Lookouts won a title, but that must be tainted because the Twins had older players  This thread has given me a new way to look at things

[old nurse]

 

 

I don't think I've ever said the current pipeline is bad, I've said it was lacking in high upside guys (just like the article) and has lots of depth. I love Gordon, I think one of the AA pitchers will be good, one will be ok, and one will be a RP, I just don't know which ones (and I count Thorpe in that list). I think Turley can be a RP in the majors, maybe a really good one. I don't know if anyone in A ball and below has enough track record or (to me) pedigree other than Lewis for me to know much about confidence wise.

You would appear to know enough to say  the team is lacking in high upside prospects.  Lesis, Booker, Leach,  Enlow,  from the last draft are all talked of as high upside as well as the recent lists of prospects that talk of upside. I suppose if there are not potential ACES at every level there are no pitchers with upside..

[Mike Sixel]

 

And yet you high jacked another minor league thread to discuss the major league team's inadequacies. 

 

uh, wut? I "hijacked" a thread to discuss if minor league winning was predictive of major league winning, and if we should use that as a tool to discuss how good the minors were.

[Mike Sixel]

 

You would appear to know enough to say  the team is lacking in high upside prospects.  Lesis, Booker, Leach,  Enlow,  from the last draft are all talked of as high upside as well as the recent lists of prospects that talk of upside. I suppose if there are not potential ACES at every level there are no pitchers with upside..

 

and 99% of my posts were before the draft...and I specifically mentioned Lewis in that post. and the article says they don't have as many potential stars as, say, the WS. Is that even up for debate?

[big dog]

I'll take a grade of B.  It would sure be nice if say, 3 of the 4 injured (Kiriloff, Jay, Chargois, Burdi) could make a full recovery, though I suppose that's a lot to ask.  I'm starting to wonder if Burdi ever sees the majors.

[Mike Sixel]

 

I'll take a grade of B.  It would sure be nice if say, 3 of the 4 injured (Kiriloff, Jay, Chargois, Burdi) could make a full recovery, though I suppose that's a lot to ask.  I'm starting to wonder if Burdi ever sees the majors.

 

I'm not worried about Kiriloff at all right now. the others? IMO, anything they get at this point is gravy.

[bird]

This thread sure took a bad turn.

 

Start with the article. It has a simple message. Winning in the minors is an indicator of talent. Nothing less, nothing more. And winning isn't the only indicator of a quality system. Star quality counts, which is why the team with the crappiest record, the White Sox, gets an A- grade and the Twins get a B grade. They have properly articulated a simple reality and graded accordingly. The Twins have breadth, the Sox have shinier and more well-known prospects but poor depth, as indicated by their record.

 

MLB teams get set back by a ton of things. Not retaining talent, bad trades, injuries, a lousy manager, bad clubhouse chemistry, etc. It's not enough to simply win minor league games. And of course not all minor league talent surfaces in the bigs.

 

So let's not get hung up trying to create an opportunity to have the article invite a discussion about the Twins' MLB failings, especially if all you want to do is point out some vague relationships between the talent in the minors and the losing record in the majors, and even then especially if you want to ignore today's record and the former minor league talent that has a little something to do with it.

 

If you want to quibble that the winning has little meaning for some reason, for example because you want to present a false narrative about it being a function of the Twins deploying older players at all these levels at which they're kicking butt, well, that's just silly stuff.

 

They're winning because of talent, and because the players are being properly developed, pitching included. This last point, often the source of debate here, can be evidenced by looking at the team ERA's in the high minors, 1st, 2nd, and 3rd best a AAA, AA, and A last time I glanced at it.

 

So MiLB gives them a good grade, a B. I'd even suggest that's maybe a shade low, whereas the next guy might want to convince you that it's too high because some of the pre-season opinions were less flattering, or because of the lack of Top 100 prospects.  That's fine, but it's laughable when someone complains that the talent pipeline is this awful mess. It's in fine shape and improving.

[Mike Sixel]

 

This thread sure took a bad turn.

 

 

So MiLB gives them a good grade, a B. I'd even suggest that's maybe a shade low, whereas the next guy might want to convince you that it's too high because some of the pre-season opinions were less flattering, or because of the lack of Top 100 prospects.  That's fine, but it's laughable when someone complains that the talent pipeline is this awful mess. It's in fine shape and improving.

 

love the digs, when I'm trying to be super nice and open to everyone's thoughts and even admit they have more high end talent after the last draft......and have a discussion about win loss records in the minors, nothing more or less, than if that is really predictive.

 

I'd say B is about right. The injuries to Jay and Kiriloff stink, especially Jay.

 

I'm out. It's clear that replying to the comment about win/loss records decreased fun for everyone.

[old nurse]

A little old, but why one of the reasons why one shouldn't get too wrapped up in prospect rankings

http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/how-many-good-players-were-good-prospects/

 

A little older, but of entertainment value

https://www.beyondtheboxscore.com/2013/3/25/4112598/which-non-prospects-contributed-in-the-major-leagues

 

When  1/3  of the 3 war players were not ranked as prospects, breadth perhaps is not a bad thing.

[Squirrel]

Stick to the topic without pointing accusing fingers and characterizing other posters. Please. Disagree all you want, but leave others' personalities or character out of it.

[big dog]

I'm not worried about Kiriloff at all right now. the others? IMO, anything they get at this point is gravy.

That's definitely what I'm afraid of...

[laloesch]

 

I'll take a grade of B.  It would sure be nice if say, 3 of the 4 injured (Kiriloff, Jay, Chargois, Burdi) could make a full recovery, though I suppose that's a lot to ask.  I'm starting to wonder if Burdi ever sees the majors.

 

The two that really hurt the grade are Jay and Stewart.  I think that the scouts dramatically inflated Stewart's value far beyond reality, but we'll see how he adjusts when he gets called up to Rochester.  

 

Jay is a different story.  This one was the Twins trying to turn him into something he was not (a starting pitcher).  Although I think they gave up on him much too fast at Chattanooga before he got injured.

 

Off handed question.  Has Jake Reed been completely forgotten about? 

[drjim]

The two that really hurt the grade are Jay and Stewart. I think that the scouts dramatically inflated Stewart's value far beyond reality, but we'll see how he adjusts when he gets called up to Rochester.

 

Jay is a different story. This one was the Twins trying to turn him into something he was not (a starting pitcher). Although I think they gave up on him much too fast at Chattanooga before he got injured.

 

Off handed question. Has Jake Reed been completely forgotten about?

Reed has been disappointing in AAA. Not exactly demanding a promotion.

[Han Joelo]

What would an "F" farm system look like?  This article doesn't do much for me except give me the vaguest of notions about other team's systems.  Also, it only seems to take high profile guys into consideration, be it positive or negative.

 

What criteria would need to be fulfilled for the Twins to move from B- to B?  

 

Moving along.

[old nurse]

 

Reed has been disappointing in AAA. Not exactly demanding a promotion.

9 g, 11.2 IP, k% down to 18.6%  Whip of 1.03. The sample size is small. Would not say disappointment, but definitely slow to adjust to adjust. Not ready to be a prime time player.

[bluechipper]

 

What would an "F" farm system look like?  This article doesn't do much for me except give me the vaguest of notions about other team's systems.  Also, it only seems to take high profile guys into consideration, be it positive or negative.

 

What criteria would need to be fulfilled for the Twins to move from B- to B?  

 

Moving along.

Take a look at the Angels top 30 for a good example of an F system.

[bird]

 

What would an "F" farm system look like?  This article doesn't do much for me except give me the vaguest of notions about other team's systems.  Also, it only seems to take high profile guys into consideration, be it positive or negative.

 

What criteria would need to be fulfilled for the Twins to move from B- to B?  

 

Moving along.

 

 

 

That's a good question, and this particular write-up isn't all that robust, you're right. One of the reasons I tend to like the work of Sickles, for one, is that he tries to count up all the prospects in a system to determine which ones he believes are worthy of at least a C- grade. It makes it a lot easier to compare the quality of one system against another and to get a reasonable idea (snapshot in time mind you) of what evaluators think of individual prospects. For example, when I see that some White Sox prospect gets a B grade from Sickles, I can check to see whether we have any prospects that are similarly regarded.

 

A C- prospect, for Sickles is not a very exciting player, but we have to recognize that a third of any team's core roster is made up of these guys. This depth is very important, and winning records in the minors tell you which clubs have that depth. The very top tier systems have a half dozen or so high-profile prospects, but also decent depth.

[DJSim22]

A winning minor league system seems to be a good thing to me.  There has to be some talent on the field, the coaches are doing a good job, and the plan(s) in place are working well.  Prospects learning to win together and play in playoff games are important.  This also helps the teams brand and the teams relationship with it's affiliates. 

 

How much of all of this translates to the majors?  I'm not sure.  It's beneficial for sure.  How much of this indicates future talent?  Again I don't know.  Much like prospect rankings, metrics, and just about everything else in baseball, nothing is absolute.