This is very difficult to follow. Since I can't find anything different, I think they run this analysis for every player in the minor league organization and weight each player's contribution by IP or PA. So, our top 30 prospects are given no more weight than the organizational filler. That seems wrong. It also seems that he evaluates the player development performance by how much the player changed from what would be expected from his prior seasons and a standardized aging formula. This leads to some (for me) obvious flaws:
a guy with the talent to be good, but who has received inferior development in his career within an organization, such that his expected performance is low, would be a shining star of development if he received normal developmental support in year being studied.
a team that signs skinny guys requiring physical maturation will rank higher on development based simply on normal muscle gain, compared to a team who signs less physically undeveloped prospects.
there is no measure of how much MLB talent a minor league organization actually produces, although poor performance here might be laid at the feet of the scouts. Given how little MLB talent the Phillies have produced in the past several seasons, combined with the weak ranking (and team performance) of our prospect list, it is hard to see how Phillies could rank in top half.
Also looking at what comes out the product end of the sausage-making machine, it's hard to see how the Braves could be ranked #30 (albeit just for 2021) in position player development.
The Phillies rank significantly lower for 2021 than for 2018 to 2021
On the signing of Corredor: seems a good depth signing, mainly to have an injury-replacement guy at Allentown. Knowing how bare the cupboard is for DH/LF/1B it's conceivable he actually makes the 25-man if he has a guaranteed release if not promoted by 1 June (those deals could be most interesting in a season which may not start with for-real games before mid-May)
