League Age vs. Prospect Age

[Shane Wahl]

Those of us who watch the minor leagues thoroughly and who like to jabber about prospects should band together to complete a task. This task relates to a pet peeve of mine. I do not really care about the damn average age of players at each level in the minors. Why? Because well over half of them aren't prospects of any kind.

 

What I am calling for is a way to judge the age-level value of a Twins prospect in reference not to the league average but to the league prospect average. There are always older than average players who aren't cutting it and who tilt the average age thing in a skewed way.

 

There is really no way to accurately compile data on other teams' systems in terms of top 40 or 50 prospects. We can get some kind of "objective" view of the top 20 for each team from mlb.com and other places. Maybe the 600 players spread across roughly six leagues is enough here. Jorge Polanco is really young for AA ball. So is Jose Berrios. But what about as compared to actual legitimate contenders in terms of true MLB prospects? Etc. etc. You get the idea here. I just beg for a more accurate way to judge levels based on age and am generally totally sick of simple league average age stuff. Good god.

[ashbury]

You're right that there are 25 year olds at high-A just to fill out a roster (and maybe get them started toward a coaching career), and AAA is littered with 30-somethings still hanging on. 

 

Silly little rule of thumb I use: to reach the majors at age 25, on a team that runs you up one level a year, you ought to be 24 at AAA, 23 at AA, 22 at A+, 21 at A; I don't pay a lot of attention to age 20 and younger except to see that they are making some kind of progress. If you're older than these numbers, you're old for your league, regardless of the averages.

 

This doesn't give college players a fair view of course - but they enter the farm system a little more polished, so I adjust as I see fit. And guys who are signed really young, I just don't start the clock until they reach Elizabethton or higher.

 

It gives me a feel for whether a guy is on track to make it.  There are exceptions but players who don't reach the majors by 25 are usually marginal.  Feel free to hate this rule, or modify it, or start fresh with something better.

[Mike Sixel]

ELITE players are in the majors by 21 or 22, for a LONG time now. I think Fangraphs had an article on when elite players would be up, vs "average" players.....but I can't recall what they said about the minors.

[Secondary User]

A spread sheet that does this would be very easy to create.  If there's enough interest, just let me know what prospect list you would like used (MLB, BA, etc).  The more players on it the better

[jokin]

Those of us who watch the minor leagues thoroughly and who like to jabber about prospects should band together to complete a task. This task relates to a pet peeve of mine. I do not really care about the damn average age of players at each level in the minors. Why? Because well over half of them aren't prospects of any kind.

 

What I am calling for is a way to judge the age-level value of a Twins prospect in reference not to the league average but to the league prospect average. There are always older than average players who aren't cutting it and who tilt the average age thing in a skewed way.

 

There is really no way to accurately compile data on other teams' systems in terms of top 40 or 50 prospects. We can get some kind of "objective" view of the top 20 for each team from mlb.com and other places. Jorge Polanco is really young for AA ball. So is Jose Berrios. But what about as compared to actual legitimate contenders in terms of true MLB prospects? Etc. etc. You get the idea here. I just beg for a more accurate way to judge levels based on age and am generally totally sick of simple league average age stuff. Good god.

 

* Brian Dozier was just short of 25, and not rated in mlb.com's Twins Top 20 going into 2012.

* Evan Gattis was 26 and not rated in mlb.com's Braves Top 20 going into 2013.

* Josmil Pinto was 24 and not rated in mlb.com's Twins Top 20 going into 2013.

* Yangervis Solarte was 26 and completely unknown going into 2014, he ended up playing 131 games for the Yankees and Pads, and all he has to do is beat out Will Middlebrooks and he'll be the starting 3rd baseman for a legit contender in 2015. 

 

...which is to say, there are plenty of examples of late-bloomer, off-the-radar types that still have a potentially impactful major league career.  Although there is a lot of mid-to-late 20s filler in AA and AAA, it isn't as easy to dismiss older prospects out of hand as you might think.  

 

I'd raise my level of respect for prospect-rankers who identify early (and often) the sleepers, and the "turtles".  Way too many Joe Bensons cluttering these Top 20 prospects lists. 

[bird]

One of the things I notice from Gleeman is occasional observations like "of the pitchers who threw more than 50 innings, none was less than two years older than..." 

 

So maybe simply restricting the universe to, say, the highest OPS'ers or something would capture a statistically meaningful segment and address jokin's guys too and give you a good enough sense about it.

[Seth Stohs]

This is one of the topics that I just hate because there is no way to measure it.

 

Yes, as MWW says "elite prospects" are coming up at 21 or 22. That's true. But as was also mention, a college player coming out will be 22 years old in their first full season. How dare a guy like Brian Dozier go to college for four years and be 22 years old in his first full season.

 

My opinion is we need to stop worrying about it so much. Look at prospect lists, age to level of competition is a factor. But, that's for guys that are Top 30 in the game types. Those are the elite prospects.

 

We're have to look, but I'm thinking that if you looked at the age of call up for all starting major league players 9 positions plus 5 SP and a couple of top relievers, I'm sure it's closer to 24-25 than it is to 21-22. 

 

I get it. We all want elite prospects and many of them, and we want them up when they're 21, but who cares? I want players to be as good as they can be, and if that means repeating AA on the way up to the big leagues, so be it. 

I'm a prospect guy, but we all have to know that they're all individuals and shouldn't all be viewed under the same light. 

 

League average age is not a good number, though it definitely means something relatively. And, those "old for level" players are likely much more polished than the prospects which mean they are still really, really good competition for them.

 

I tend to agree with AshburyJohn... that if a player is up by 25 (AAA at 24, AA at 23, Hi-A at 22, Low-A at 21)... they're worthy of the prospect label... but it can't be a hard standard. It shouldn't be. Way too many variables. 

[jorgenswest]

You're right that there are 25 year olds at high-A just to fill out a roster (and maybe get them started toward a coaching career), and AAA is littered with 30-somethings still hanging on. 

 

Silly little rule of thumb I use: to reach the majors at age 25, on a team that runs you up one level a year, you ought to be 24 at AAA, 23 at AA, 22 at A+, 21 at A; I don't pay a lot of attention to age 20 and younger except to see that they are making some kind of progress. If you're older than these numbers, you're old for your league, regardless of the averages.

 

This doesn't give college players a fair view of course - but they enter the farm system a little more polished, so I adjust as I see fit. And guys who are signed really young, I just don't start the clock until they reach Elizabethton or higher.

 

It gives me a feel for whether a guy is on track to make it.  There are exceptions but players who don't reach the majors by 25 are usually marginal.  Feel free to hate this rule, or modify it, or start fresh with something better.

I have seen a study (and can't find it) of position players who held a regular starting job for 5 (I think) years. The AA age was 22 and the major league age around 23.5. A player in AAA at 25 has a very low likelihood that they will be a major league regular of significant length.

 

It is just data. There are plenty of examples otherwise. As a group the 22 years olds in AA will have a much greater rate of success in the major leaguers than the 24 year olds. The age in fact has a higher correlation with major league success than the performance in AA. In other words it is more likely an average performing 22 year old will be successful long term than a higher performing 24 year old in AA.

[Linus]

Within reason, I don't think age matters as much as most people think.  There are plenty of examples of guys who are late bloomers and don't become good major leaguers until their late 20s.  If memory serves correctly, Larry Hisle made the majors at age 28 and ended up having several really good years in the bigs.

 

What I think is most important is development (or improvement).  If you are still getting better than there is still the chance you can make it.  When you see guys just stalling out, that's the sign that you are done, regardless of age.

[Eris]

Interesting, but I am not sure how much age really matters because there are many other factors that influence MLB success.  For age to be usefully incorporated into minor league stats, it would need to be correlated with MLB results.  Sorry the results are not the most readable.

Here are some examples given by Player:  Age in AA/BA/OPS

Aaron Hicks:  22 / 286 / 844

Ben Revere 22 / 305 / 734

Danny Santana:  22 / 297 / 719

Torri Hunter:  22 / 282 / 768 (note this was his 3rd year in AA)

Carlos Gomez:  21 / 281 / 773

Denard Span:  22 / 285 / 689

Lyman Bostock:  22 / 331 / 851

Andrew McCutchen:  20 / 258 / 710

Adam Jones:  19 / 298 / 825

Jacoby Ellsbury:  22 / 308 / 821

Mike Trout: 19 / 326 / 958

 

The person who is a star based on minor league stats is clear.  The only person where age may have a factor in under performance is Andrew McCutchen.  Several players have elevated themselves above their AA comparisons (Span and Hunter).  Based on these comps. Hicks should be almost a star, certainly with a career prospecting somewhere between Torri Hunter and Adam Jones (but that probably will not happen unless he gets his act together soon).  

 

In case you are wondering how I got these names, these are the list of Twins centerfielders that I can remember, with the exception of Dan Ford.  Kirby Puckett and Jim Eisenreich did not play AA, although Eisenreich played AA later in his career while trying to make a comeback from Tourettes syndrome.  The others are some of the best CF in the game today.

[ashbury]

I tend to agree with AshburyJohn... that if a player is up by 25 (AAA at 24, AA at 23, Hi-A at 22, Low-A at 21)... they're worthy of the prospect label... but it can't be a hard standard. It shouldn't be. Way too many variables. 

"Silly little rule of thumb" == "hard standard"?  

[bird]

And of course, it's not a player's slightly more advanced age that causes him to miss out on having a productive big league career. Rather, it's the player's deficiencies that cause him to be incapable of faster advancement.

 

So, when we look at someone- let's use LHRP Ryan O'Rourke as an example- it's his persistent inability to keep from getting clobbered by righties, and not his age, that lowers his prospect status. 

 

Stating he obvious....

[ashbury]

And of course, it's not a player's slightly more advanced age that causes him to miss out on having a productive big league career. Rather, it's the player's deficiencies that cause him to be incapable of faster advancement.

As I find myself saying whenever this topic comes up, I was once 19 years old, and it never made me a prospect.  We talk about age only when there is something else to talk about too.

[mikelink45]

Once a player is in the bigs we only talk about his comparative age in the rookie year and that is the way it should be.

 

With the Twins I worry about this marinating in the minors strategy which can also remove the best years from their time in the big league club.  

With pitchers I am curious how many pitches are the average thrown before they get their TJ surgery and prefer that they get some of those in the bigs rather than adjusting to both the recovery and the majors.

 

The truly good to great players are ready early - Ken Griffey for example and with that kind of natural ability the minors are just a place to get hurt or get bad habits.  

[Thrylos]

Age matters.  If you look at the current top non-college prospects (alphabetically: Berrios, Buxton, Polanco & Sano) all hit AA at age 20.  And the Twins are slow to promote.

 

College draftees (as Seth said) get to pro ball at age 20-22, so that is slightly a different story.

 

And one should not reach AA before can hit breaking balls or have one at least plus pitch and at least another above average pitch, both with above average command and control, otherwise will be eaten alive.   Transition to wooden bat can be a pain for some prospects, as is developing above average to plus secondary pitches.  That's why they call it "development"...

But if someone is AA-ready at 20, likely is MLB-ready at 21, so he has a good 12-15 productive years ahead of him, which is 5-6 more than someone who is MLB-ready at 25;  That's why the younger players project to be more productive overall

[Mike Sixel]

I mostly agree with Seth's long post.....but for the part about pitchers and arm injuries, and coming up sooner rather than later in the process.

 

I'm sure there is a study someplace about age and success and predictability (not certainty).

[jimmer]

 

With the Twins I worry about this marinating in the minors strategy which can also remove the best years from their time in the big league club.  

  

In regards to the marinating issues, this is a good read.

 

http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/hitters-no-longer-peak-only-decline/

[rukavina]

It is interesting to me to measure the best age for a prospect to be at the major league level (accruing service time but generating value for the team) versus developing (or being injured) in the minors.  

 

From Zimmerman's article, it appears that age 24-30 are peak years for position players.

[diehardtwinsfan]

It matters, but it isn't the be all end all of prospect development. It's one of many things you look at.

 

The younger ages tend to come from HS draftees or int. signees, who tend to have a lot more obvious tools and so they get drafted high enough to stay away from college. Elite players also tend to be more advanced than their peers, and so they have the age to league thing in their favor. They also tend to dominate their leagues. And as they physically mature, they become stars in the big leagues.

 

That said, what I hate about this is that some tend to think that this means you should push a guy, regardless of the player's development needs. That's silly. Like Thrylos said, you have to be able to hit a curve ball or throw one before you hit AA. If you cannot do that, there's no reason to put the guy in AA because he'll fail. Not everyone will be an elite player. Yes, we want them, and we get real excited when a guy like Berrios or Thorpe does quite well in their league relative to their age, but it doesn't mean that you push a guy like ABW simply to get some tougher competition. Perhaps that works and he shines, but baseball is littered with guys who were rushed and never showed anything for it.

[ashbury]

you have to be able to hit a curve ball or throw one before you hit AA. If you cannot do that, there's no reason to put the guy in AA because he'll fail.

This sums up why I like to look at age and league level.  I can't do fundamental scouting, and with this the major league team kindly does it for me, to a great enough extent for making conversation.  Elizabethton is for acclimating to the professional game, Cedar Rapids is for learning what a long long season it is, Ft Myers is where you're facing (almost exclusively) opponents who have demonstrated seriously competitive skills, and on up the chain.

[Seth Stohs]

I think the overriding theme for me is that they are all individuals with individual situations. Here are some of my opinions:

 

• Draft status shouldn't be a topic. Sure, if you draft in the top 3 and get a college player, that player should be up in the first two seasons. With high school players, it's hard to say anything like that. Buxton may have been up in 2 years if healthy, not it'll likely be 3 to 3 1/2 years. And he'll still be up at 22. I mean, if you've got David Price or Justin Verlander selected in the Top 2 picks of a draft, sure. But after the top 3-5, it's more likely to take a little longer, with few exceptions.
• Prospect rankings are meant for discussion and opinion. We don't know. The front offices don't know. The scouts do amazing work and gain a ton of information, but there's no perfect way to know which guys will make it or not. There is no "right" answer for that. 
• Ryan O'Rourke was mentioned above. He was a four-year college guy. He was given a chance to start. He was moved to the bullpen. He started finding success and something that worked later. He could be a productive LOOGY at some point in the next couple of years if given an opportunity. He wasn't ready for that 3 years ago. 
• I always enjoy when people talk about Griffey or Chipper Jones or Bryce Harper or Mike Trout when talking about high school hitters moving up by 19. Like I said earlier, Buxton could have done that last year if not for injury. But... those four are elite, Hall of Fame caliber players and expecting anyone to be a Hall of Famer simply isn't fair. 
• The Twins have promoted hitters very quickly if and when they perform. There are many example. 
• And, some can say Brian Dozier was moved up too slowly, but he was "just" an 8th round pick and was in the big leagues LESS THAN two years after being drafted. 
• Pitchers are trickier. Some talk about getting them up before they have Tommy John surgery. One, that's a horrible plan because they may or may not be ready, and two, pushing them 'May' cause them to do too much. Secondly, I think Kyle Gibson would have been up in late 2011 if not for his injury. That would have been in his first professional season (he didn't play in 2010 after signing). Think about that... he would, like Strasburg, be in his 2nd year of arbitration already with missing almost two years of time due to TJ. Obviously money is not a factor and it wasn't a factor for the Twins. They've shown time and time again they'll call guys up before May, etc. 
• I just think every player needs to be evaluated and promoted as appropriate based on 1.) talent, 2.) performance, 3.) mental fortitude, 4.) attitude and more. 
• Age to Level of Competition affects Prospect Rankings... It doesn't necessarily affect MLB productivity.

[jay]

In regards to the marinating issues, this is a good read.

 

http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/hitters-no-longer-peak-only-decline/

 

I love advanced metrics, data, all that good stuff.  I don't buy the message of this one at all.  Zimmerman acknolwledges some survivor bias (without quanitifying it), but there's significant selection bias as well. 

 

Comparing the results of 21 year olds in MLB to the results of 25 year olds in MLB can't simply be attributed to age.  The selection bias here has far more to do with the population samples than it does to performance differences based on age.

 

The survivor bias effect is an issue throughout, but likely largest at both tails of the curve and particularly the right tail.  A 35 year old who produced at levels higher than his true talent is going to get an opportunity to keep playing and is likely to decline not only due to age but also natural downward regression towards his true talent level.  A 35 year old who produced at levels below his true talent level is likely forced to retire, so there's no equal representation of upward regression.

 

At the simplest level, the "curve" fails any sort of a basic sniff test (which I recognize isn't always accurate either).  These biases make me believe that an age curve actually attributable to age-related performance impact would look different. 

[jay]

The survivor bias is difficult to eliminate, but their might be a better solution for the selection bias.  Their age curve method compares performance for one year's age group matched to their performance the previous year.  The issue here is that the population isn't static.  What we really want to know is "How are the guys who made it to MLB at 21 doing at age 26?" (and every other age) and "How are the guys who made it to MLB at 24 doing at 28?" (and every other age).

 

Using just one static population from age 21 and on is going to give you an unreliable, small sample size, but what about this...

Create an "age curve" for each group of players called up to MLB at each age.

Merge the slope of all these curves by weighting the "all players" slope to the size of each age group population.

[bird]

And it's selection bias that causes the myth about the Twins being slow promoters to perpetuate itself. Cause and effect get all confused up and stuff. It's talent, character, and health that determine the rate of improvement and that are the determining factors in whether a prospect ever becomes MLB ready. 

 

Ryan O'Rourke wasn't at a high level at a young age because his talent is limited. If he were more talented, he might have been drafted and signed out of high school like Thorpe was. Thorpe is at a higher level at a younger age because he's got almost unlimited talent and is developing because of it.

 

I may be wrong about this, but I just haven't been presented with any evidence that contradicts it: like every other organization, the Twins are "slow" in promoting the O'Rourkes and fast in promoting the Thorpes. Talent begets developmental progress, and injuries always are a factor.