How Much is a Prospect Worth? A study
by Galt on Feb 6, 2008 11:50 AM EST
Email
PrintReally cool (though analytical) paper about the success, and therefore "worth" of prospects by Victor Wang.
It's from August, but I hadn't seen or heard about it before. While this is part of a subscription-only newsletter, I'm not concerned about this being copywrited, because in this Hardball Times Article (which is cool in and of itself): http://www.hardballtimes.com/main/article/the-bright-side-of-losing-santana/ the author links the original paper, here: http://www.philbirnbaum.com/btn2007-08.pdf
Basically, Wang looked at the prospects in the top 100 of BAs lists through every year in the 90s. And then looked at their performance in the first six years of their careers.
Looking only at top 10 prospects: For hitters, the likelihood of them becoming stars (based on WARP) was 17%, bust 21%. For pitchers it was 4% stars and over 50% busts. For prospects 11-25, the bust rate increased for both subgroups.
19 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
cool
of course, the fact that the study is based on the 1990s top prospect list goes a long way towards explaining the huge gap between hitter and pitcher prospect values. that's the decade that spawned the infamous TINSTAPP slogan due to the incredible rate of pitcher flameouts. i suspect that a more inclusive study would show a considerably smaller (though still significant) disparity.
no more TINSTAPP?
- TINSTAPP never really existed; the 1990s had an anomalous amount of pitcher flameouts that didn't reflect inherent risk in pitchers
- after the 1990s, we became aware of TINSTAPP, and our prospect lists have now properly adjusted pitchers downward
- we have better methods now than we did a decade ago for determining which pitching prospect will succeed and which will fail
- something else?
by bleedjaxblue on Feb 6, 2008 12:40 PM EST up reply actions
okay
anyway, i don't know which is the anomaly--i obviously haven't done a historical study--but anecdotally, it seems to me that the "famous" pitching prospects of the 90's were by and large flameouts. brien taylor, ben mcdonald, steve avery, generation K, todd van poppel, etc... of course there are success stories too but they are somehow less memorable. meanwhile, in recent years we have seen an absolutely incredible collection of pitching talent hit the ground running in the show, the most spectacular example being the AL rookie class of '06 (liriano, verlander, weaver, papelbon). like i said, i don't know if this signals a sea change or if it's just a blip. obviously it's anomalous in that we aren't going to see another class like that for a while. but i think overall, things have gotten better since the 90's.
thanks
another possibility
by the way
the subjective results:
- HS hitters
- HS pitchers
3. college hitters
(large gap)
4. college pitchers
of note
question
yes
the #1 college hitter drafted is almost always the best or one of the best in the class (teixeira, gordon, etc. - i don't have the stuff in front of me, gordon isn't the perfect example since right now braun and maybe tulo look better. but he's definitly more or less as advertised.)
every once in a while there's that high school superstar (a-rod, griffey, the uptons), but generally HS hitters tend to produce studs at sort of a flat rate up and down the first round. the first half of the first round probably does a bit better than the second half of the first round, but then you have guys coming out of the sandwich (example - salty), second round (ex. - mccann) or even later (ex. - kemp) who are just as good as the guys at the top of the first.
also of note - the moneyball movement seemed to want to debunk the notion that high school players have higher ceilings than college players, but to my eye it's actually quite true that they do.
sweet
as for the Moneyball-debunking, i'm in agreement as well. even if it weren't my intuition, i've never understood, logically, how it could be true. you'd figure the draft takes out, what, 75% of the "best" players graduating high school (totally making number up -- i'd actually be interested in knowing what it actually is, if anyone knows off-hand)? obviously, that leaves some players to reach a high ceiling. plus someone can always develop out of nowhere. but it always seemed to me there really SHOULD be more high-ceiling guys from high school, since those kids generally try to cash in soon, assuming anyway sees their ceiling as a possibility at all.
good one
i guess it's hard to figure out what percentage of "failed" pitchers did so because of injury, since injuries aren't always that discrete, but i'd be curious to know how much the TINSTAAPP effect went away if you just looked at pitchers who "stayed healthy."
of course, part of TINSTAAPP for me, too, has been that there are more star pitchers that "come out of nowhere" than there are star hitters. i guess none of these explanations really offer anything toward why that might be true -- if it is true. (no real idea if it is -- i've tried looking at it a few times, and never really got a clear enough answer, since it's hard figuring out how to rank people NOT on a prospect list at all, or comparing how many years they were on the prospect list versus, for example, perennially being LOW on a prospect list.)
Study I'd like to see...
I'd like to see a cross-chart of John's rankings and level of minor-league ball reached (say 50 IP/150 AB to avoid the 1-game guys), with the results being displayed as %'s as this author did... it would look like:
Rating MLB AAA AA A+ A A- Rk
A 50/45/5 40/35/15 30/35/25
A- 45/40/15 35/25/25 etc.
B+
B
B-
C+
C
IMO, the trickiest part of doing this would be treatment of players who are rated for multiple years, but I think that however they are handled, such a "report" would be very interesting.
The problem with a study like this
Different prospecting sites prefer or avoid different profiles of prospects, and Baseball America specifically loves to take risks on toolsy player which a lot to prove versus guys who are more of a sure thing. This naturally leads to a very different risk profile in their prospect lists than in John's list or BP's list. The classic example would be Dustin Pedroia, who was ranked pretty low by BA but much higher by BP (and I believe john). Someone who was looking for a sure thing would take rank Pedroia higher. Someone looking to say "see, we ranked that superstar higher than everyone else" would naturally push Pedroia down in favor of Triunfel or Beltre or similar styled prospects.
Thus, it's not really fair to use this study as "How much is a prospect worth", but more of "How often has Baseball America been right and what kind of risk profile does their list have?" Calling this study a prospect valuation study begins with the assumption that BA's prospect rankings accurately capture the values placed on prospects by the entire baseball community, which to me is demonstrably false.
just to be clear
John ranked Pedroia as a 'B'. I wouldn't say he nailed it, but closer than BA and BP/Goldstein -- but it's BP/Pecota that can take a bow on that one.
How much...
by HumboltThunderbolt on Feb 6, 2008 12:57 PM EST reply actions
in the NFL
by WakeboardJock @ Minor League Ball on Feb 7, 2008 10:48 AM EST up reply actions
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2012 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
