Not saying I think the Twins Player Development is excellent my any means, but ummmmm, kind of hard to separate out the variable of player acquisition from the above stats, no? I mean, during much of that period (until very recently) the Twins had very few high draft picks.

Tampa Bay might fit that assessment, but If you look at the offset win totals for teams (1997 -2012, assuming an average of three years between drafting and getting a prospect to the majors) Atlanta is second in total wins but also second on the list in the ROY metric.  Oakland is 6th in wins over that period and 3rd on the list. Boston is third in total wins and 6th . Minnesota ranked 15th in wins over that period. If draft position was a factor, they should be middle of the road, not last.

I don't disagree that the Twins are currently not doing a good job at all at developing players.  However, there are players they did develop that didn't get to be in consideration for ROY vote due to the way they were brought up or other reasons.  Johan Santanta was a rule 5 pickup that was not very good his first year.  He ended up turning out ok if you consider 2 Cy Young Awards good.  And Joe Mauer exceeding his Rookie status during his 35 games in 2004.  Justin Morneau took a few years of Major League seasoning to develop into an MVP type of player.  So while I agree in general to your assessment the Twins are bad at developing players, I don't think the ROY vote percentage is completely fair.

At least it's data, so it's not all bad. Also, why can't the Twins be more toward the middle in lists like this.

I don't disagree that the Twins are currently not doing a good job at all at developing players.  However, there are players they did develop that didn't get to be in consideration for ROY vote due to the way they were brought up or other reasons.  Johan Santanta was a rule 5 pickup that was not very good his first year.  He ended up turning out ok if you consider 2 Cy Young Awards good.  And Joe Mauer exceeding his Rookie status during his 35 games in 2004.  Justin Morneau took a few years of Major League seasoning to develop into an MVP type of player.  So while I agree in general to your assessment the Twins are bad at developing players, I don't think the ROY vote percentage is completely fair.

Well, like Hosken said above, at least it's data. It doesn't account for the variable of when a player comes up. However, all teams have injuries, are playing the service time game, etc. Assuming that over a large enough sample size, that timing evens out for all teams, then according to this metric, the Twins are indeed bad. The other scenario is that the Twins do things completely different than the other 29 teams when handling pros[ects. 

Tampa Bay might fit that assessment, but If you look at the offset win totals for teams (1997 -2012, assuming an average of three years between drafting and getting a prospect to the majors) Atlanta is second in total wins but also second on the list in the ROY metric.  Oakland is 6th in wins over that period and 3rd on the list. Boston is third in total wins and 6th . Minnesota ranked 15th in wins over that period. If draft position was a factor, they should be middle of the road, not last.

So you agree, draft position probably has something to do with it, even if it can't explain all or even most of it. It also could be that they made bad draft picks even when they had decent draft position. I just don't think you can easily separate out the other variables, at least with the data you've provided.

The list top to bottom does not have a strong correlation to where teams were drafting plus the Twins are considered by their peers to be a solid scouting organization.

While I agree with the thought that it at least is some data, I don't know if this is anything definitive. 

I mean, voters can only vote for three players for Rookie of the Year, so in order to even get votes you have to have had a really solid rookie season. I mean, the last couple of years, Rosario and Santana have had very solid rookie years but - at least Rosario wasn't going to get a lot of votes over Correa, Lindor and Sano. 

I tend to think that the number of players getting votes says as much, if not more, than how many votes they had. If tha'ts the case, my quick count says only 4-5 teams are at 12 or more, so the Twins would rank high.

I also don't think Rookie of the Year voting has much to do with player development evaluation. Now next year, if you did this same thing, and Byung Ho Park wins Rookie of the Year unanimously, the Twins would jump up quite a bit, and if the Twins call up Kepler, Buxton and/or Berrios before mid-June or early July, they could garner some 3rd place votes too. I mean, those top three guys from last year? I don't think any of them were even in the big leagues one year ago today.

I don't know what the right measure is, an this is an interesting look, but I feel like something is missing. To me, I'm more worried about Year 2 for Arcia, Vargas, Santana and Rosario than I am about them getting votes for Rookie of the Year their first year. (which probably makes the case stronger against the Twins)