At what age do you start to discount prospects?

[AZTwin]

Of course production means something, but most combine it with age at level. For me personally, if a prospect is still in the minors at age 24 is on pace to be in the minors at age 24 (i.e. 22 in low A ball as an example) I start to discount the performance dramatically and consider them a fringe prospect. 26 or older is non prospect for me. I know Aaron Judge is a big elephant in the room with that analysis but it has served me well in the past. Any general rules you try to follow in your analysis of minor leaguers?

[DaveW]

Hicks is 28 and one of the best hitters in all of baseball so far.

 

If a guy always had upside, you can't write them off until 29-30 IMO.

 

If they never had upside? 27 seems fair

[King]

 

Of course production means something, but most combine it with age at level. For me personally, if a prospect is still in the minors at age 24 is on pace to be in the minors at age 24 (i.e. 22 in low A ball as an example) I start to discount the performance dramatically and consider them a fringe prospect. 26 or older is non prospect for me. I know Aaron Judge is a big elephant in the room with that analysis but it has served me well in the past. Any general rules you try to follow in your analysis of minor leaguers?

 

In terms of prospect status, I consider 23 right at age/level for AA and anything younger is a bonus (21 or 22 in AA is usually a good sign).

 

But, I try to consider everyone, because we see older players that are written off due to lack of prospect status become legit MLB talents all the time. Look no further than Mitch Haniger, or Ryan Schimpf for recent position players. Relievers are also different since most minor league relievers aren't considered prospects. You see MiLB relievers between 27-30 come up and have success regularly.

 

Also, I don't write off players who have proven themselves to be elite hitters in the upper levels of the minors (but may have struggled in MLB, or not been given a shot). Those guys are always a click or two away from figuring it out.

 

For players who are too older for the lower/middle level minor leagues, it is purely wait and see if they can perform at the upper levels of the minors to decide if they have a chance in the majors or not. If you are 23 or 24 in short season ball, the chances of this player making the majors are less than 1%.

[old nurse]

http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/ryan-schimpf-and-the-great-old-rookie/

[ashbury]

Any general rules you try to follow in your analysis of minor leaguers?

I stop looking for improvement at the plate at age 25. I'm not so sure about pitchers.

[Brock Beauchamp]

Too many variables to put a number on an individual.

 

Were they drafted as prep or college? Were they injured in the minors? Did they make a late adjustment and show sustained success?

 

Brian Dozier figured it out at age 26. Kepler suddenly shot forward around age 21. Corey Kluber didn't click until he was 26 years old.

[gunnarthor]

Sickels, Klaw and Callis have all said that they (and fans) get caught up too much on age and you have to accept that some players will come along later. Kevin Youklis and Corey Koskie jump to mind.  

[Winston Smith]

How old is DanSan? That age!

[goulik]

I would say somewhere in the 26-28 age range I start to question their prospect status but I don't necessarily have a firm cutoff in that range in my mind because sometimes you do get that late bloomer that really just surprises everyone. You also have those that have had rashes of injuries delaying them. Age does affect my internal mental ranking of prospects for sure. 

[Mike Sixel]

Discounting is =/= to giving up, imo.

 

I think any player that isn't "on the verge" at least, by 26 could be questioned in terms of how LIKELY they are to be a good MLB player. The league is getting younger (for whatever reason), and if you aren't in the majors by 26, most teams aren't betting you are a MLB player. Otherwise we'd see more of those guys in AAA, and more of those guys get claimed and promoted.

[Doomtints]

Why discount prospects at all? They are already cheap.

 

A smart person could plot service time v. "success" (assuming such a thing can be defined) and find the sweet spots, but even then there would be enough outliers to where you would need to plot regression.  And, as you know, once regression gets involved it becomes a blur.

 

In the end it's about people and not numbers. Baseball is full of late bloomers and it would not surprise me that if researched we would find that the majority of players have longer dev tracks than we imagine.

[Craig Arko]

Birth.

[mikelink45]

A prospect needs to be in the majors between 25 - 26.  If we use the accepted idea that 27 - 31 are peak years we can have an older player jump to the majors and have 2 - 3 good years, but I do not see that as a prospect.  For me a prospect is someone who potentially has 6 - 10 years to contribute and that means getting in the majors in those critical mid twenties.  

 

We can celebrate the exceptions, but those are just fun stories.   For me the pitchers are even more crucial as we see that their arms and shoulders break down with wear and tear and therefore the sooner we get them to the majors the better return on investment for the team.    Of course for knuckleball pitchers we can add ten years!

[Oldgoat_MN]

 

Birth.

Well, in my case that would have been the right time to write me off as an MLB prospect.

[ashbury]

Well, in my case that would have been the right time to write me off as an MLB prospect.

With DNA testing, move that date back by several months. And if a couple seem devoted to fidelity, probably all future offspring can be written off at the point they decide to go steady.

[Oldgoat_MN]

 

With DNA testing, move that date back by several months. And if a couple seem devoted to fidelity, probably all future offspring can be written off at the point they decide to go steady.

Um, thanks ash.

[ashbury]

Um, thanks ash.

Same goes for most of us, it goes without saying.

[biggentleben]

The studies recently have been that the peak years of a player are his first 3-5 years in the league, regardless of age. That has shifted from the conventional wisdom that peak was 27-31 previously.

 

Different players have different paths, so it all depends on the player. A player like Sano, who had been receiving professional instruction since 16 would be quite old as a prospect by 26, but someone who came into baseball late in high school, went to a small college, spent all four years there, and then went into pro ball could have only been receiving professional instruction for 3-4 years at the same age and be much more raw.

[ashbury]

Different players have different paths, so it all depends on the player. A player like Sano, who had been receiving professional instruction since 16 would be quite old as a prospect by 26, but someone who came into baseball late in high school, went to a small college, spent all four years there, and then went into pro ball could have only been receiving professional instruction for 3-4 years at the same age and be much more raw.

I mostly would have said it the same, but I'm undecided whether the more important factor is the professional instruction or the level of competition - also for guys like Chris Colabello who languish for years in the independent leagues.

[jimmer]

25

[Thrylos]

 

The studies recently have been that the peak years of a player are his first 3-5 years in the league, regardless of age. That has shifted from the conventional wisdom that peak was 27-31 previously.

 

Tell that to David Ortiz, Jose Bautista, JD Martinez, Kevin Millar, Jamie Moyer, Scott Brosius, Al Leiter, Nelson Cruz, Joe Nathan, LaTroy Hawkins, Dennis Eckersley, Dave Stewart, Cliff Lee, Jayson Werth, Randy Johnson, and probably a few more dozen players, I can come up with, if I sit down and think.  Shane Mack too.

 

I think that we cannot have blanket statements and that the individual variation is so high that each player has to be looked in a case-by-case

[biggentleben]

 

Tell that to David Ortiz, Jose Bautista, JD Martinez, Kevin Millar, Jamie Moyer, Scott Brosius, Al Leiter, Nelson Cruz, Joe Nathan, LaTroy Hawkins, Dennis Eckersley, Dave Stewart, Cliff Lee, Jayson Werth, Randy Johnson, and probably a few more dozen players, I can come up with, if I sit down and think.  Shane Mack too.

 

I think that we cannot have blanket statements and that the individual variation is so high that each player has to be looked in a case-by-case

 

And every name you gave was not included in the "recent" studies I mentioned. I could search for the Fangraphs articles on the issue, but the studies have shown that a player's peak production for his career is immediately in his career as a regular for those debuting most recently. They are not seeing a peak in their late 20s anymore specifically, but more a peak in relation to when the player debuts, not age-specific.

 

I'd also include on the guys who are most recent in that list you offered:

Ortiz didn't have a 500 PA season until he was 27 - his 3 best bWAR seasons were in his first 5 full seasons.

Baustista had his first 500 PA season at 26 - his 2 best bWAR seasons were in his first 5 full seasons as a regular.

Martinez didn't have his first 500 PA season until 27

Millar had his first 500 PA season at 31 and never once had even a 3.0 bWAR season, so not a great example

Cruz had his first full season at 28. He's the rare guy who has done better outside of that initial window, but it's also beyond age 31, as his best WAR seasons have been the last three seasons.

Lee had his first 30-start season at 25, and even with his early struggles, his 2nd best WAR season came within that 5 year window

Werth had his first 500 PA season at 30 and put up his 2nd best WAR number his first two full seasons

 

Reliever converts are a whole other thing, but even then, their best years were typically in their first 3-5 years as regulars in the role.

[Thrylos]

 

And every name you gave was not included in the "recent" studies I mentioned. I could search for the Fangraphs articles on the issue, but the studies have shown that a player's peak production for his career is immediately in his career as a regular for those debuting most recently. They are not seeing a peak in their late 20s anymore specifically, but more a peak in relation to when the player debuts, not age-specific.

 

I'd also include on the guys who are most recent in that list you offered:

Ortiz didn't have a 500 PA season until he was 27 - his 3 best bWAR seasons were in his first 5 full seasons.

Baustista had his first 500 PA season at 26 - his 2 best bWAR seasons were in his first 5 full seasons as a regular.

Martinez didn't have his first 500 PA season until 27

Millar had his first 500 PA season at 31 and never once had even a 3.0 bWAR season, so not a great example

Cruz had his first full season at 28. He's the rare guy who has done better outside of that initial window, but it's also beyond age 31, as his best WAR seasons have been the last three seasons.

Lee had his first 30-start season at 25, and even with his early struggles, his 2nd best WAR season came within that 5 year window

Werth had his first 500 PA season at 30 and put up his 2nd best WAR number his first two full seasons

 

Reliever converts are a whole other thing, but even then, their best years were typically in their first 3-5 years as regulars in the role.

 

Of course, if someone sucks early in their careers they are not going to have 500 PA seasons because nobody is crazy to give them so many PAs.

It is like saying DanSan has not had a 500 PA season last season...

 

Uffda.

 

[dbminn]

If by "prospect", one means a player who could become above average over several years, I'd say 25 is the last year of prospect status if they have at least 500 PA in MLB. I'd say 26 for the rest. I wouldn't necessarily give up on other players who have physical talent and are committed to improvement until 28.

 

I'd be very careful using Zimmerman's aging curves for prospects. His method addresses a very limited question and suffers from the different number of observations in each age cohort. There are far fewer 19-21 year olds playing ball than those in their mid-late 20s. There are a lot of players who make the show in their mid-20s who stay in the league a very short time. They are quite likely to show an immediate decline in performance.

 

Anyone interested in aging curves should look at a series of articles by Brian Henry. In the last of his five-part series, he shows that above-average players - defined as those who make it 10 years in MLB - show a very shallow aging curve until about 32 years old for hitting. By that measure, a talented prospect can still give you six good years from the age of 26.  

 

 

[DaveW]

Tell that to David Ortiz, Jose Bautista, JD Martinez, Kevin Millar, Jamie Moyer, Scott Brosius, Al Leiter, Nelson Cruz, Joe Nathan, LaTroy Hawkins, Dennis Eckersley, Dave Stewart, Cliff Lee, Jayson Werth, Randy Johnson, and probably a few more dozen players, I can come up with, if I sit down and think. Shane Mack too.

 

I think that we cannot have blanket statements and that the individual variation is so high that each player has to be looked in a case-by-case

You forgot to add Aaron hicks who has a 1.100 ops and a .350 batting average.

 

Well on his way to a 5-6 war season

[rukavina]

Mark Marquess - longtime coach at Stanford - told his guys that if they hadn't established themselves in the majors by age 24, they should think about what they will do after baseball.  Clearly a rule of thumb, and maybe shaded by what a Stanford degree is worth in the world.

[Jham]

I think the type of prospect matter quite a bit.  Speedy athlete types need to make an impact earlier or change their game as they lose speed and add muscle.  By the time Buton figures out hitting, he may no longer be elite fielder.  Or he may never figure it out.  Joe Benson's most productive years were probably spent trying to develop his hit tool.  He never could. 

 

Speed declines rather early.  Power is developed rather late.  Dozier was a solid average hitter coming up.  Same with Puckett.  They developed their power later.  Both probably lost a little speed and defensive range with that switch though.

Pitchers are really at the mercy of UCL surgery.  Power pitchers with wicked torque on fastballs and sliders should probably be utilized early before their arms give out.  Cardinals have used that approach recently.  A's also to some extent.  Then trade or deal with the injury.  Lower effort pitchers or pitchers that have already had the surgery will need more patience and can afford to debut later as they work on control and out-thinking hitters (experience).

[biggentleben]

 

Of course, if someone sucks early in their careers they are not going to have 500 PA seasons because nobody is crazy to give them so many PAs.

It is like saying DanSan has not had a 500 PA season last season...

 

Uffda.

 

So, why again are you arguing with my comment? I said from the get go that the studies have shown that once a player comes up, they have their best years in the first 3-5 years they're up. If that was taken as the first time the player gets called up for a September call up or has a cup of coffee trial but is sent back down, then I guess it was simply a misunderstanding, but after explaining it and still digging in heels...

[Seth Stohs]

this is an interesting topic, and there are so many possible answers and no givens... It depends on things Brock mentioned, like whether they went to college or signed as a 17 or 18 year old. Injuries clearly can effect that. And for me, what I expect their role to be in the big leagues. I  think if a guy has the potential to be a role player on an MLB team, I'm not giving up on him. 

 

For me, I try to look at it fairly though, when doing prospect rankings and stuff...

 

Guy drafted out of high school...

Draft year: GCL (18)

First Full year - Elizabethton (19)

Then Cedar Rapids (20)

Then Ft. Myers (21)

Then Chattanooga (22) - this is when they're eligible for the Rule 5.

Then Rochester and on the verge. (23)

 

Guy drafted out of college... (junior year... a senior is going to be immediately one year older, yet still on this schedule, and that's OK)

Draft year: E-Town (21)

First full year: Cedar Rapids (22)

Second full year: Ft. Myers (23)

Third year: Chattanooga (24) - this is when they're rule 5 eligible. 

Fourth year: Rochester and on the verge (25)

 

Both of these scenarios are pretty quick plans... but a first-round pick could be thought to move a little more quickly, but not necessarily... After the first round or two, the above schedule is very quick. 

 

And, even if they're a year or two beyond those ages, doesn't mean they can't be big leaguers... just more likely that if they are, it's in a smaller role, but again, not always.

 

Consider Nick Gordon:

Draft year: 18 - Etown

First full year: 19 - CR

Second full year: 20 - Ft. Myers

Third full year: 21 - Chattanooga... and another solid half season, he's on the verge already. 

 

Brian Dozier went to college for four years, and he debuted less than two years after being drafted, at 24. He stuck at 25... some say he was always too old for the level, but he was pushed really quickly through.

 

fun topic... no wrong answers!

[HitInAPinch]

 

this is an interesting topic, and there are so many possible answers and no givens... It depends on things Brock mentioned, like whether they went to college or signed as a 17 or 18 year old. Injuries clearly can effect that. And for me, what I expect their role to be in the big leagues. I  think if a guy has the potential to be a role player on an MLB team, I'm not giving up on him. 

 

For me, I try to look at it fairly though, when doing prospect rankings and stuff...

 

Guy drafted out of high school...

Draft year: GCL (18)

First Full year - Elizabethton (19)

Then Cedar Rapids (20)

Then Ft. Myers (21)

Then Chattanooga (22) - this is when they're eligible for the Rule 5.

Then Rochester and on the verge. (23)

 

Guy drafted out of college... (junior year... a senior is going to be immediately one year older, yet still on this schedule, and that's OK)

Draft year: E-Town (21)

First full year: Cedar Rapids (22)

Second full year: Ft. Myers (23)

Third year: Chattanooga (24) - this is when they're rule 5 eligible. 

Fourth year: Rochester and on the verge (25)

 

Both of these scenarios are pretty quick plans... but a first-round pick could be thought to move a little more quickly, but not necessarily... After the first round or two, the above schedule is very quick. 

 

And, even if they're a year or two beyond those ages, doesn't mean they can't be big leaguers... just more likely that if they are, it's in a smaller role, but again, not always.

 

Consider Nick Gordon:

Draft year: 18 - Etown

First full year: 19 - CR

Second full year: 20 - Ft. Myers

Third full year: 21 - Chattanooga... and another solid half season, he's on the verge already. 

 

Brian Dozier went to college for four years, and he debuted less than two years after being drafted, at 24. He stuck at 25... some say he was always too old for the level, but he was pushed really quickly through.

 

fun topic... no wrong answers!

I'll add:  

 

Always keep eyes and mind open, because there's always another Kirby Puckett lurking out there......