Flashing Back to 2014

[BoofBonser]

This losing season has made me look at future prospects much more than I wanted.

I was browsing the league's prospects and I clicked on the Top 100 prospect archives from 2014 to remember how the Twins looked.

 

I forgot how loaded the Twins were (thought to be): 
#1 Prospect - Byron Buxton: Hit: 70 | Power: 60 | Run: 80 | Arm: 70 | Field: 75 | Overall: 75

A 75 prospect... The upside of Mike Trout... could be a perennial MVP candidate... ranked higher than present stars Carlos Correa, Kris Bryant, Francisco Lindor, Addison Russell 

 

#7 Prospect - Miguel Sano: Hit: 55 | Power: 75 | Run: 40 | Arm: 70 | Field: 40 | Overall: 65

Another top 10 prospect... 75 power stat with the potential of a perennial 35+ HR guy... ranked higher than present stars Noah Syndergaard, Archie Bradley, Corey Seager, Joc Pederson

 

#21 Prospect - Kohl Stewart: Fastball: 70 | Curveball: 55 | Slider: 65 | Changeup: 55 | Control: 55 | Overall: 60

60 overall prospect... Upside of a 1-2... fastball that touches 96 at age 19... ranked higher than Aaron Nola, Aaron Sanchez, Blake Swihart

 

#27 Prospect - Alex Meyer: Scouting grades: Fastball: 70 | Slider: 65 | Changeup: 50 | Control: 45 | Overall: 60

60 overall prospect... Upside of a 2-3... fastball in the upper 90's with sink and great slider to pair... ranked higher than Jameson Taillon, Josh Bell, Albert Almora Jr.

 

#33 Prospect - Jose Berrios: Fastball: 60 | Curveball: 55 | Changeup: 55 | Control: 50 | Overall: 60

60 overall prospect... Upside of a 2-3... mid-90's fastball with plus secondary pitches... nothing to complain about here

 

#37 Prospect - Nick Gordon: Hit: 55 | Power: 40 | Run: 60 | Arm: 60 | Field: 60 | Overall: 55

55 overall prospect... all-around solid player that projects well... ranked higher than Jesse Winker, Stephen Piscotty, Jose Peraza, Maikel Franco

 

All 6 of these prospects were also rated higher than: 

AJ Cole, Mike Foltynewicz, Kevin Plawecki, Brandon Nimmo, Sean Manaea, Luis Severino, Kyle Freeland, Gary Sanchez, Michael Taylor, Hunter Renfroe, Kyle Schwarber, Lance McCullers, Michael Conforto, Tim Anderson,  Raimel Tapia, Jake Lamb, Trea Turner, Matt Olson, Marco Gonzales, among others.

Most if not all of these players have made a significant impact to their respective MLB clubs for one or more years

From 6 Top 40 overall prospects in 2014, the Twins have gotten one all-star season and then complete drop off from Miguel Sano, one all-star season from Jose Berrios (who looks like the best player in this group), one Platinum Glove season and another complete drop off from Byron Buxton, basically nothing from Alex Meyer, and nothing so far from Nick Gordon and Kohl Stewart. 

 

This group boasted FIVE 60+ overall graded prospects. For comparison, the current Twins system contains one: Royce Lewis. Only 20 prospects in the Top 100 of 2018 are graded 60+. 

 

I know that prospect rankings can occasionally be wrong, unfortunate things can happen, and all of these players are still young. However, to have the best farm system in baseball and promise for these young stars to be producing and leading this team to a playoff race by 2018 has been mostly broken. How six top 40 prospects hasn't produced one absolute star for the Twins is very disappointing.

If Byron could stay healthy and play with confidence, he still has a chance to be a very important piece. Miguel Sano needs to show vast improvement over the next two months to prove he's committed to being great, because he really could be. Berrios looks like an ace, and his continued development is huge for the future of this team. Kohl Stewart could eventually fit in as a 4 or 5, but his strikeout rate hasn't really improved. Nick Gordon has struggled mightily at AAA this year, stalling his debut. He could maybe be a September call-up, but his statistics at Rochester show a guy who just isn't ready for this level of pitching. The Twins need him to have a huge bounce-back year for him to prove he belongs in the majors. 

[wsnydes]

Interesting list. Still too early to write off most of them, but it's definitely discouraging to see the lack of performance from what was considered a top farm system at the time.

 

It's also pretty telling about the current state of the organization. You simply can't hinge your future on prospects like this and have them not develop and expect to succeed. Player development is so key to a franchise that can't go buy what it needs to fill holes.

[yarnivek1972]

Interesting list. Still too early to write off most of them, but it's definitely discouraging to see the lack of performance from what was considered a top farm system at the time.

 

It's also pretty telling about the current state of the organization. You simply can't hinge your future on prospects like this and have them not develop and expect to succeed. Player development is so key to a franchise that can't go buy what it needs to fill holes.

Can I get an amen!?

[USAFChief]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Prospects?? We're talkin' 'bout Prospects??!?

 

 

 

 

 

[gunnarthor]

I'm still very upset with how Meyer was misused in 2016

[Brandon]

in 2014 Kohl Stewart and Gordon were barely getting started and in the lower levels of the minors.  scouts whiff all the time on lower level minors.  but i do suspect we will get more value from Sano, Buxton and Berrios with Gordon and Stewart providing some value too.  I am not worried about one down season as those happen.  But if Buxton is injured all next year too is cause for concern.  Sano I hope got the message and hope he comes to spring training next year at 240 lbs.  Time will tell.  

[Riverbrian]

In my opinion... it’s bad.

 

We have every reason to ask what happened with every avenue of talent acquisition in the past decade.

[mngopherguy]

6 prospects is not a huge sample size, but it definitely seems to be a trend.  It is concerning.  

[Brock Beauchamp]

I'm still very upset with how Meyer was misused in 2016

Yeah, that was bad but ultimately, it looks like it didn’t matter. The guy is one injury after another.

[ashbury]

I'm sure Terry Ryan and his scout/draft team paid no attention to the voices of fans, at sites like Twins Daily or elsewhere, who declared, "we need pitching, so forget all other options and just draft the highest-ceiling high school arm - I know there's risk of a bust but I want upside," and based their draft decisions on the soundest scouting they could.

 

And no, I didn't foresee Kohl Stewart turning out like this, nor am I pointing fingers at anyone else. But when you say you prefer high-risk, high-reward, you'd better not complain too vociferously down the road if and when it doesn't pan out.

 

Trouble is, the "safe" picks don't necessarily turn out better, either. It's an enigma.

[old nurse]

If anything this bit of analysis shows how meaningless prospect ranking numbers are in terms of big league careers. A snapshot in 2014 would be most relevant to where the players for the short term future. Payers develop at their own pace.  Some will take more time, some less. Likewise, a player having a career year can make the prospect rankings look bad.

 

Just a little piece that highlights prospect ranking and outcomes https://www.minorleagueball.com/2008/2/6/154949/5717

Another look back

http://www.sportsonearth.com/article/67202234/

[FargoFanMan]

It’s such a crapshoot and I believe quantity over quality in most regards. Just have to look within the division at the late 2000’s early 2010’s at the royals. Had top 5 picks every year. Numerous prospects every year. One maybe two would stick at the major league level out of 5 every year. That kept going. A good trade or two to supplement in house talent. You get 2-3 good years of having a shot. Then back to the cellar again. This is the model unless you are the top 5-10 markets. I think it’s a good model though. It’s not like the NBA where you get the same 2 teams every year competing for the championship for 10 years.

[mlhouse]

I have proposed this before, but I think that MLB needs to change the process for their drafting.   I proposed that instead of drafting in June from HS and college ranks, that these draft eligible players go directly into the minor league system as unassigned players.  YOu set up leagues for the best 300-1000 players, pay them a stipend, and let them compete against each other over a short season that maximizes the number of games the kids play.  The scouts can then watch the players perform with a level playing field and get to watch them over an extended period of time.

 

After the short season is over, then the teams conduct the draft.

 

The costs are defrayed by reducing the scouting costs teams incur.

 

Some of the top players might find it in their interest to skip the camp, but that is at the risk that some of the stellar players in the short season pass them up.

 

I thought of this idea back in 1999 when I watched B.J. Garbe play for the Elizabethton Twins.  I saw 4 of Garbe's plate appearances and recognized that he wasn't good enough to make it to the major leagues.  Garbe was the Twins first round pick, 6th overall and he got $1.5 million to sign.  

 

At the same time, Justin Mourneau was the Twins 3rd round pick.  If there would have been a short season league before the draft that MOurneau would have participated, he would have been the first round pick and Garbe a later pick.  

[old nurse]

 

I have proposed this before, but I think that MLB needs to change the process for their drafting.   I proposed that instead of drafting in June from HS and college ranks, that these draft eligible players go directly into the minor league system as unassigned players.  YOu set up leagues for the best 300-1000 players, pay them a stipend, and let them compete against each other over a short season that maximizes the number of games the kids play.  The scouts can then watch the players perform with a level playing field and get to watch them over an extended period of time.

 

After the short season is over, then the teams conduct the draft.

 

The costs are defrayed by reducing the scouting costs teams incur.

 

Some of the top players might find it in their interest to skip the camp, but that is at the risk that some of the stellar players in the short season pass them up.

 

I thought of this idea back in 1999 when I watched B.J. Garbe play for the Elizabethton Twins.  I saw 4 of Garbe's plate appearances and recognized that he wasn't good enough to make it to the major leagues.  Garbe was the Twins first round pick, 6th overall and he got $1.5 million to sign.  

 

At the same time, Justin Mourneau was the Twins 3rd round pick.  If there would have been a short season league before the draft that MOurneau would have participated, he would have been the first round pick and Garbe a later pick.  

Morneau had an OPS of .730 and a WRC+of 71 in his first short season of baseball.Garbe has an OPS of .806. 4 plate appearances might have only been 1 game.Your examples do not hold up. Torii Hunter was statistically awful his first short season.  Denny Hocking could hit minor league pitching, he would have been drafted much earlier because of the .850 OPS for a middle infielder and then would have been considered a bust rather than an unheralded draft pick that made it

[gunnarthor]

 

I'm sure Terry Ryan and his scout/draft team paid no attention to the voices of fans, at sites like Twins Daily or elsewhere, who declared, "we need pitching, so forget all other options and just draft the highest-ceiling high school arm - I know there's risk of a bust but I want upside," and based their draft decisions on the soundest scouting they could.

 

Just out of curiosity, here are the picks if we took the highest ceiling high school arm

2012 - Max Fried over Buxton

2013 - still Stewart

2014 - Kodi Medeiros over Gordon

2015 - Kolby Allard over Jay

2016 - Forrest Whitley over Kiriloff

2017 - Hunter Greene over Lewis

2018 - Mason Denaburg over Larnach.

[amjgt]

And yet Twitter is ablaze with Twins fans whining about not getting a top 50 prospect at the trade deadline and “only” getting 11 B-/C+ prospects.

[big dog]

OK, because I know everyone wants to know this- here are some updated statistics on that Top Prospects of 2000 list.

50 names, 3 did not play in the majors: Ryan Anderson, Junior Guerrero, Wes Anderson

 

Average career WAR: 9.8 (not including the 3 that never made it)

 

Average ML career: 8.7 years

 

Top career WAR:

Lance Berkman, 52.1

Rafael Furcal, 39.4

Josh Beckett, 35.7

A.J. Burnett, 29.1

Vernon Wells, 28.5

Josh Hamilton, 28.3

Alfonso Soriano, 28.2

Ramon Hernandez, 21.9

 

8 were between 10 and 20 WAR

12 were between 1 and 10 WAR

7 were between 0 and 1 (not including the three who never made it)

12 players had negative WAR

 

Of the 8 with more than 20 WAR, only Wells was a top-10 ranked prospect in 2000.

Berkman and Beckett were both between 40 and 50

Hamilton and Burnett were both between 30 and 39

 

Twins news:

Cuddyer was the 10th-ranked prospect, finished 12th in WAR at 17.3

LeCroy was the 30th-ranked prospect, finished 30th in WAR at 0.4

Restovich was ranked 42, finished 41 in WAR at -0.5

 

They also had late-career bad performances from a number of other players on this list, including (forgive me for ruining your visit to TD):

Sean Burroughs (5.5 career WAR)

Ramon Ortiz (4.4)

Mike Lamb (4)

 

 

 

 

 

[Mike Sixel]

It's not a crapshoot.....here is one analysis, and the rankings are getting better over time, not worse....

 

6. Conclusion
The results of the analysis in this study show that prospect ranking on the lists from
Baseball America, Baseball Prospectus, and John Sickels is highly correlated with future Major League value. For every ten spots higher a player is ranked on a BA top 100 list, he is expected to produce .7 more WAR in his first five Major League seasons. For BP, a rise of ten spots predicts 1 more WAR; for Sickels it predicts .6. These results support my hypothesis that these publications, which scout and analyze the prospects they rank, are able to identify players who will produce more at the  Major League level. 

 

http://scholarship.claremont.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1449&context=cmc_theses

 

There are other studies too, if you are really interested in data about rankings.....

[big dog]

Thanks, I was sure there were some actual good studies out there, but I noticed that the study of 2000's top 50 only went through 2008 so I thought I would take 20 minutes and do one quick thing. I am 100% convinced it proves absolutely nothing, except that prospect rankings aren't perfect, and I'm pretty sure that we all knew that.  It did strike me as an interesting thing to do, but that's as far I would take it..

 

 

One important problem with looking at the rankings from a particular year, for instance, is that it completely ignores when the player was drafted (both round and year).  I'm sure more thoughtful studies control for those things in various ways.

 

I certainly wouldn't argue that either drafting or ranking prospects is a crapshoot, and I would like to think that at least some people get better at predicting success over time so that while there are still huge surprises (positive and negative), there are fewer of them than there used to be.  That wouldn't shock me one bit.

[mlhouse]

 

Morneau had an OPS of .730 and a WRC+of 71 in his first short season of baseball.Garbe has an OPS of .806. 4 plate appearances might have only been 1 game.Your examples do not hold up. Torii Hunter was statistically awful his first short season.  Denny Hocking could hit minor league pitching, he would have been drafted much earlier because of the .850 OPS for a middle infielder and then would have been considered a bust rather than an unheralded draft pick that made it

 

Garbe's bat speed wasn't good enough.   One of those 4 AB's was a hit.  A blooper.  So, using the statistical OPS value doesn't quite measure much.   

 

I get the specific examples are just that, but then your Denny Hocking example is worthless too because he didn't really hit minor league pitching that well and in the draft camp leagues the competition would be more leveled.  Hocking wouldn't necessarily been hitting against Rookie level pitching.  SInce the purpose of the league would be to match up the players against the proper, leveling competitive level.  Hocking was a 20 year old college player, and like a lot of college players at Elizabethton he benefited from the lower competition level.  Further, his best OPS season was at Visalia, which if you adjust for park impacts really wasn't as good as the numbers and this was well known at the time.

[big dog]

If I really wanted to follow up on this, which I'm pretty sure my employer does not see as today's high priority, it would be interesting to grab a few prospect lists from different sources in the same year and see how they stacked up compared to each other.  I didn't even pay attention to the source of the particular prospect list that was posted, I just wanted to know how that particular story ended.

[old nurse]

 

Garbe's bat speed wasn't good enough.   One of those 4 AB's was a hit.  A blooper.  So, using the statistical OPS value doesn't quite measure much.   

 

I get the specific examples are just that, but then your Denny Hocking example is worthless too because he didn't really hit minor league pitching that well and in the draft camp leagues the competition would be more leveled.  Hocking wouldn't necessarily been hitting against Rookie level pitching.  SInce the purpose of the league would be to match up the players against the proper, leveling competitive level.  Hocking was a 20 year old college player, and like a lot of college players at Elizabethton he benefited from the lower competition level.  Further, his best OPS season was at Visalia, which if you adjust for park impacts really wasn't as good as the numbers and this was well known at the time.

Garbe's bat speed did not magically disappear with him turning pro. It was there to be seen beforehand. The people ar Baseball America had him as an 18 maybe just turned 19  old as the 79th best prospect in the minors. That would still make him a first round draft pick. Either their scouts were worthless or more proof of the worthlessness of rankings but more likely the difficulty in assesing young talent and projections.

Hocking was a JUCO player Eizabethton would be the appropriate level for a JUCO player. and he hit well there. As he just turned 20 he was actually one of the younger players on that team. What he did the rest of the way  in the minors is irrelevant as your scheme involves drafting them after seeing them in a first year level.

[Doomtints]

 

If I really wanted to follow up on this, which I'm pretty sure my employer does not see as today's high priority, it would be interesting to grab a few prospect lists from different sources in the same year and see how they stacked up compared to each other.  I didn't even pay attention to the source of the particular prospect list that was posted, I just wanted to know how that particular story ended.

 

Heck, I just wanna know which scouts gave the players these ratings. Alex Meyer is currently projected as a 40, and that's still probably too high.

When you are reading obtuse stuff like Alex Meyer is the next Randy Johnson and Byron Buxton is the next Mike Trout, you know something is off.

 

When quoting prospect ratings in the future, it might be a good idea to list who the scouts were.

[old nurse]

 

If I really wanted to follow up on this, which I'm pretty sure my employer does not see as today's high priority, it would be interesting to grab a few prospect lists from different sources in the same year and see how they stacked up compared to each other.  I didn't even pay attention to the source of the particular prospect list that was posted, I just wanted to know how that particular story ended.

Article one that I posted was from minor league ball and it covered the year 2000. The other article covered Baseball America's list and also covered the rankings from 2000. Assuming you have not blocked me, here is another article, that also references an earlier article https://www.royalsreview.com/2018/3/22/16749948/updating-the-success-and-failure-rates-of-top-mlb-prospects

 

[diehardtwinsfan]

this is really turning into an awesome thread!

[big dog]

Article one that I posted was from minor league ball and it covered the year 2000. The other article covered Baseball America's list and also covered the rankings from 2000. Assuming you have not blocked me, here is another article, that also references an end arlier article https://www.royalsreview.com/2018/3/22/16749948/updating-the-success-and-failure-rates-of-top-mlb-prospects

Thanks, interesting stuff.

[old nurse]

 

It's not a crapshoot.....here is one analysis, and the rankings are getting better over time, not worse....

 

6. Conclusion
The results of the analysis in this study show that prospect ranking on the lists from
Baseball America, Baseball Prospectus, and John Sickels is highly correlated with future Major League value. For every ten spots higher a player is ranked on a BA top 100 list, he is expected to produce .7 more WAR in his first five Major League seasons. For BP, a rise of ten spots predicts 1 more WAR; for Sickels it predicts .6. These results support my hypothesis that these publications, which scout and analyze the prospects they rank, are able to identify players who will produce more at the  Major League level. 

 

http://scholarship.claremont.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1449&context=cmc_theses

 

There are other studies too, if you are really interested in data about rankings.....

If you look at accumulated war by pick there is a linear regression. You can beat your chest and say you got it right.  When there is somewhere near a 50% bust rate for picks they also are not identifing players all depends on how you success.  Any system that is labeling prospects that are near major league ready and get it wrong half of the time should not be labeled a good system.

[Mike Sixel]

 

If you look at accumulated war by pick there is a linear regression. You can beat your chest and say you got it right.  When there is somewhere near a 50% bust rate for picks they also are not identifing players all depends on how you success.  Any system that is labeling prospects that are near major league ready and get it wrong half of the time should not be labeled a good system.

 

so it is all random, and they are wasting money on scouts? I'm not sure I understand your point....but that's basically what you just typed.

[big dog]

My take- what little I've read over the last 24 hours suggests that there is certainly some correlation between ranking and outcome, but the errors are really high.  In that 2000 sample that I updated, 22 of the top 50 prospects contributed less than 1 WAR over their career.  However, many of the others did much better, I'm sure far better than a random draw from the minor leagues would have done. 

 

So if you can reduce the odds of getting a bust, or finding a Lance Berkman, it's worth a lot of money, even if you go from "not very good at it" to "slightly better at it".  Trying harder won't lead to an ideal outcome, but it could very well lead to a better outcome on average.  You will still have busts- freak injuries, substance or focus problems, being Delmon Young, whatever else might happen.  

 

Just because something has a lot of error doesn't mean it is random, or that predicting is worthless.  It means you have to settle for predictions that are better than nothing, maybe quite a bit better than nothing, but far from perfect.

 

Now I have to go back to my job as a meteorologist.  It will rain today, somewhere, I promise.

[jkcarew]

 

Just because something has a lot of error doesn't mean it is random, or that predicting is worthless.  It means you have to settle for predictions that are better than nothing, maybe quite a bit better than nothing, but far from perfect.

Pretty much this.  With everything...context.

 

It's also a good reminder that 'quantity over quality' approach to prospects (say at a given position, etc.) is not always the stupidest idea in the world.  Simply because we know the gauge used to measure quality can never be perfectly calibrated.