Selling Your Prospects to the Media

[SRB]

I was listening to the Baseball Prospectus Daily Podcast the other day, and the guest was Kiley McDaniel who apparently does the prospect write-ups at Fangraphs. Link: http://www.baseballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=25536

 

One of the interesting things he talked about (sorry, I don't have the exact time, it was near the end) is how some team sources will (perhaps deliberately) oversell the tools and pedigree of their own prospects in order for them to be "ranked" higher in the media. For example, if there's a guy they want to pump up because they're trying to trade him.

 

I feel like this has been a pseudo-conspiracy theory for a long time (I don't hear about it much anymore, but remember when it seemed like Yankees prospects always got a substantial bump in how highly they were regarded in the national media?), but I don't remember hearing the guys doing the actual rankings talk about it so openly.

 

It also makes me wonder whether the Brewers happen to have an organizational philosophy where they don't do this as much as some other teams do. Here we are entering 2015 and once again the Brewers look to only have one prospect (Orlando Arcia) in consensus "top 100" rankings. I'm not saying the Brewers have any megaprospects, but if you look at the list there are a lot of weird choices ranked higher and it makes you wonder. I'm not qualified to call out these guys in particular, but just as an example since we were looking at Padres prospects recently (in context of a Sardinas trade): they have two top-70 guys, one of whom (Austin Hedges) is an elite defensive catcher drafted back in 2011 who hit .225/.268/.321 last season, and the other of whom (Matt Wisler) is a seventh-round pick who pitched to a 5.01 ERA, 1.431 WHIP, 7.8 K/9, 2.8 BB/9 last season. I would love to have Wisler, he was a 21-year-old in AAA for the first time, I'm not saying he's crap, but is that an elite prospect who is better than Orlando Arcia? Not clear to me.

 

Meanwhile, we have three key starters (Khris Davis, Scooter Gennett, and Mike Fiers) who nobody had anywhere close to even top-5 in the Brewer system despite great results throughout their professional careers (though I do remember Kevin Goldstein at BP had Scooter relatively high one year). And we have arguably the best catcher in baseball who was also never a "top" prospect (Lucroy), while Gomez was only ever a top prospect when he was with the Mets (granted, his rookie eligibility ran out soon after). Alternatively, you could argue that maybe the Brewers front office pushes guys it knows are overrated and it wants to get rid of (Matt LaPorta, Brett Lawrie, Alcides Escobar - all traded as elite talents which we not know they most certainly are not). And maybe it's just a Melvin thing that he pushes through the entire organization, because I also remember the pre-Melvin days when the Brewers were the consensus top overall farm system.

 

Do you think this is a real phenomenon? After all, due to a simple matter of resources, these lists (Baseball America, Baseball Prospectus, etc.) are to a large extent based on the word of external scouts who almost always have ulterior motives.

 

I would be interested in seeing some type of statistical analysis of Baseball America ranking vs. ultimate success in the major leagues, to see it's random throughout MLB or whether there are specific teams whose rankings clearly outstrip their merit over a period of years or decades. Does such a thing already exist? If not, somebody with more mathematical chops than I should look into it!

[SoupTown]

Interesting thoughts, SRB. Maybe it is more simple. In NYC 'the buzz, the general prospect chat' is 20 times (volume) that of the Brewers. So one can assume just on volume of buzz, the 'ratings' of two equivalent prospects (NYC vs Milwaukee) will be vastly different.

 

That leads one to hope to find some other metric to measure prospects. Currently we have 'volume of buzz'. And we do not have other. It is sad the quality of our media is simply 'that which is buzzed most about, is the most truth'.

 

I am not even interested in the ranking vs success. I would like to have something more simple. That is, in the Southern League, if two center fielders with elite defense, aged 22, produce an OPS of .850, then they are ranked the same. We currently have the two prospects ranked as follows...

 

Southern League, 22 years old, center fielder, elite D, .850 OPS, YANKEE = top 100, probable solid/elite, long term MLB player

Southern League, 22 years old, center fielder, elite D, .850 OPS, BREWER = grade C, possible 4th outfielder in MLB

 

Note the only difference! YANKEE vs BREWER.

 

So, the goal would be to have some unbiased metric. So the human ESPN, EAST/WEST coast nonsense is filtered out.

[Eye Black]

Do you think this is a real phenomenon? After all, due to a simple matter of resources, these lists (Baseball America, Baseball Prospectus, etc.) are to a large extent based on the word of external scouts who almost always have ulterior motives.

 

I would be interested in seeing some type of statistical analysis of Baseball America ranking vs. ultimate success in the major leagues, to see it's random throughout MLB or whether there are specific teams whose rankings clearly outstrip their merit over a period of years or decades. Does such a thing already exist? If not, somebody with more mathematical chops than I should look into it!

It does seem like some organizations discuss their prospects more publicly or give a greater amount of access to their scouting information than others. I think it can probably be both intentional and unintentional at times. Some of the rankings may also be influenced by the relationships and familiarity that the individual prospect rankers have with specific scouts and/or organizations. For example, in the past I enjoyed the Baseball Prospectus rankings and analysis, but I always felt they gave a little additional attention and in some cases overinflated the hype surrounding some of the Rangers prospects. I don't think they were necessarily doing it on purpose on the teams behalf, but it was somewhat natural since Jason Parks and Jason Cole had strong friendships with the Rangers scouts and staff, and had more intimate access to the Rangers prospects while watching their development in settings such as the back fields at Spring Training or instructs.

 

As far as the statistical analysis of BA prospect rankings versus MLB success as well as organizational rankings anaylsis, check out these FiveThirtyEight articles...

 

What to Expect from Baseball America's Top 100 Prospects

 

Baseballs Best Farm Systems How Much Do They Matter

[JohnBriggs12]

It will be interesting to continue to watch the relative rankings of Clint Coulter vis a vis Kyle Schwarber. Coulter's yet to crack a top 100, and Schwarber's a consensus top 100 if not top 50.

 

Is there really that much separating these two? Schwarber's offense has been more impressive but in a much smaller sample and he's played mostly OF.

[Mass Haas]

The list of failed Red Sox prospects is immense, yet they consistently manage to earn pimp points (excuse the term) as much as any organization.

[fondybrewfan]

Its kind of like football recruiting in the SEC. If a player gets offered by Alabama, Auburn, LSU, etc that is an automatic 1-2 star increase in their rankings. Wisconsin continually has very average recruiting classes according to the scouting services and routinely outperforms those ranking rather significantly. If the player in MLB was a Top #10 pick they are generally given the benefit of the doubt by rankers even if the performance hasn't been there. Well the Brewers haven't had too many Top #10 picks in the last 7 years. The Brewers have churned out good players from their system to help the big league team year after year and almost universally those players were not highly regarded. The crew has missed on a fair amount of 1st round picks in recent years; but they also have hit home runs on mid round picks as well; but since they were mid round guys it takes a lot for the ranking services to rank them over the 1st round high ceiling players.

[Noche]

When it came to Bruce Seid's Brewers, your best bet was to throw out all the internet evaluations and simply trust what Seid and Nichols were telling us. Bruce was always drop-dead honest about our guys, good or bad, and he was usually right.

[TooLiveBrew]

There's an acronym I've heard used about baseball, TINSTAAPP (There Is No Such Thing As A Pitching Prospect), & I think it applies with nicely when just one of the two Ps is removed. Imo there just isn't such a thing as a Prospect -- it's a term we've invented over the years. Instead, I think it's much safer to think of these young guys all as just baseball players. I think that removes the seemingly instant response when talking about young players -- 'Yeah, well prospects never pan out.'

 

The reality is that, in terms of making it to & making an impact in MLB happens for the tiniest sliver of aspiring pro ballplayers. Not just 'Top Prospects' flame out, pretty much every player does. Fondybrewfan alludes to the fact that key players seem to come from lower rounds just as often as they do the top round or two. These are all 'just' ballplayers. I enjoy prospect rankings, but I try to simply enjoy watching &/or following these young men as they play baseball.

 

I get that there will always be players who are more skilled, project better, etc. But the Jon Lucroys of the world are informative to keep in mind. Maybe he wasn't a 38th rounder, but he was only ever graded out as a guy who might wind up being average. The reality of prospects developing is, imo, very close conceptually to the statement, "They don't play games on paper," or, "That's why you play the games."

[SoupTown]

So the next question would be: 'how do you identify players who are projectable'

 

Hart was a good example (Gennett, too, I guess) of guys who were projectable because each level they moved up they did not falter, they embraced and learned. How would you know that about a guy BEFORE he does it. Could you possibly identify such guys BEFORE other teams do. Maybe some 'unheralded' guy happened to do well in rookie, then even improved a bit in low A, then seems to be improving in high A. Can you 'get him' (trade for him) before he is suddenly a prospect because he improves at the critical AA level.

 

Do you find high school pitchers who are 5 ft 9 in, who are throwing 88 mph, but mum and dad are both 6 ft 5 in???? (better do the genetic 'who's the dad test, hey')

 

I posted years ago about all late rounds should be what can be guessed as projectable. The 5 ft 9 in high school 88 mph guy. The guy just 'new' to baseball (I liked Lorenzo Cain a lot because he was so new to baseball and survived and improved). Guys from Canada because they only play 2 months a year.

 

I think those sorts of efforts and out of the box thinking are better than paying some 19 year old Cuban 30 mill plus 30 mill penalty.

 

Also, I would love our minors to be LESS heavy on the old 'non prospect' guys. You need a few of them on every team. But in AA last year we were the oldest team by far. That is NO GOOD. You don't know if guys perform unless they are given the chance. Too many times we have guys that have done wonderful at a level, then they are stuck there... no one know why. And they regress. They should have been promoted. If they succeeded they should be promoted. I dont are WHAT prospect ranking they are.

[Eye Black]

Out of curiosity I looked up the prospect pedigree (draft position and Baseball America overall prospect rankings) of the 2014 season's top ten (actually eleven) MLB performers in terms of bWAR. Not trying to make any specific points so feel free to call the data plenty of awful names (i.e. small sample size, cherry-picking, just plain dumb), but I figured since I took a couple of minutes to look it up and I found it mildly interesting, I might as well share it here. I would encourage others to check out the last line of the Michael Brantley story linked below, as John Sickels finished the piece with a Nostradamus-like prediction.

 

MLB's 2014 Wins Above Replacement Leaders (via Baseball-Reference)

[pre]1. Kershaw (LAD) 8.0

2. Trout (LAA) 7.9

3. Donaldson (OAK) 7.4

4. Kluber (CLE) 7.4

5. Beltre (TEX) 7.0

6. Brantley (CLE) 7.0

7. Hamels (PHI) 6.9

8. Hernandez (SEA) 6.7

9. Lucroy (MIL) 6.7

10t. Gordon (KCR) 6.6

10t. Sale (CHW) 6.6[/pre]

Clayton Kershaw

Drafted 1st Round (7th overall) in 2006

#24 BA Prospect Pre-2007

#7 BA Prospect Pre-2008

 

Mike Trout

Drafted 1st Round (24th overall) in 2009

#85 BA Prospect Pre-2010

#2 BA Prospect Pre-2011

#3 BA Prospect Pre-2012

 

Josh Donaldson

Drafted 1st Round (48th overall) in 2007

Never Ranked in BA Top 100

 

Corey Kluber

Drafted 4th Round in 2007

Never Ranked in BA Top 100

 

Adrian Beltre

Signed at 16 yrs old out of Dominican Republic in 1994

#30 BA Prospect Pre-1997

#3 BA Prospect Pre-1998

 

Michael Brantley

Drafted 7th Round in 2005

Never Ranked in BA Top 100

 

Side note: Brantley wasn't even ranked in BA's top 30 prospects in the Brewers organization early in his professional baseball career. I don't remember coming across this article before, but I encourage you to click the link and scroll to the last sentence of this piece from 2009 written by John Sickels, Prospect Review: Michael Brantley.

 

Cole Hamels

Drafted 1st Round (17th overall) in 2002

#17 BA Prospect Pre-2004

#71 BA Prospect Pre-2005

#68 BA Prospect Pre-2006

 

Felix Hernandez

Signed at 16 yrs old out of Venezuela in 2002

Prospect Ratings by Baseball America:

#30 BA Prospect Pre-2004

#2 BA Prospect Pre-2005

 

Jonathan Lucroy

Drafted 3rd Round in 2007

Never Ranked in BA Top 100

 

Alex Gordon

Drafted 1st Round (2nd overall) in 2005

#13 BA Prospect Pre-2006

#2 BA Prospect Pre-2007

 

Chris Sale

Drafted 1st Round (13th overall) in 2010

#20 BA Prospect Pre-2011

[pete]

Miscellaneous, unrelated thoughts:

 

Callis in an interview after Seid's death commented on how Seid would call him and challenge his rankings.

 

Khris Davis once referred to them as "politics." I wonder what he would say if he expanded on that.

 

The season that Davis and Gennett were rookies, Fangraphs had an article measuring contributions by rookies and the Brewers were highest. Its skewed obviously by them playing so many rookies but it could be expanded.

 

Over the offseason I was listening to an interview by Melvin while doing something and he made a comment that made me go "what" but I think it was that the Brewers had the 3rd most productive farm system and then he cited a time period. Of course the interviewer didn't follow up but if I heard right, it tells me that orgs track that along with other things that doesn't make it out to the public.

 

WAR is the obvious measure to use but in my opinion its poisoned by the defensive component. There's not really an alternative in broad evaluations.

 

Even a broad measure of accuracy likely wouldn't discern factors that skew individual systems. For instance the fever around the Cubs is torrid. If someone is doing a list and others have all rated not only the obvious choices, but included the Billy McKinneys and Duane Underwoods, you're going to start with the question of whether they should be left off rather than put on. It takes a little fortitude to rate someone like Schwarber lower because he's likely to be a pretty bad left fielder.

[JohnBriggs12]

I'm sure the "politics" Davis is referring to is that the people doing the rating can be influenced by factors other than just a fair unbiased assessment of players.

 

Sites that have subscriptions want to generate traffic to those sites to generate income. Bigger market interest = greater income for the site.

 

It's pretty simple.

[reillymcshane]

Meanwhile, we have three key starters (Khris Davis, Scooter Gennett, and Mike Fiers) who nobody had anywhere close to even top-5 in the Brewer system despite great results throughout their professional careers (though I do remember Kevin Goldstein at BP had Scooter relatively high one year). And we have arguably the best catcher in baseball who was also never a "top" prospect (Lucroy)

Scooter (#7) and Fiers (#9) were both ranked in Milwaukee's top 10 by John Sickels. Baseball America had Scooter as high as #5. I don't think Davis ever ranked in the top 10 by anyone. Lucroy was Sickel's #4 Brewer prospect in 2010, while BA had him at #5 that year.

 

In some ways all of these guys suffered in their rankings because they never got the chance to be ranked after a full (or even mostly full) season at AAA. Scooter got his best ranking after his AA season - then the next year he went to AAA, and then Milwaukee in the same season, burning his eligibility. Lucroy did the same thing. He barely played at AAA. Fiers got 64 innings at AAA before he got his #9 ranking, while Davis got in just 32 games at AAA the season before he burned his rookie eligibility (he was also hurt that year too).

 

Also, with regard to Fiers and Davis, there's age as a factor. Both are older players. Fiers reached AAA at 26. Davis reached AAA at 24. Evaluators like youth. They look very much at age vs competition level. In MLB.com's Top 100 list this year, only one player is 25, and two are 24. The rest are all younger. Scouts expect older players to do well, so their performances are often discounted to some degree.

 

There are many things that go into ranking a prospect by people and publications. In the case of these four players - circumstance plays a role. These guys didn't get a chance to prove themselves at AAA (at least for very long). We might lament that the evaluators aren't recognizing our guys, but sometimes the way they have been promoted affects how they are perceived prior to reaching the big leagues.

 

Here's some of the rankings:

 

http://www.minorleagueball.com/2010/1/4/1233988/milwaukee-brewers-top-20-prospects

http://www.minorleagueball.com/2011/10/17/2496403/milwaukee-brewers-top-20-prospects-for-2012

http://www.minorleagueball.com/2013/1/6/3842642/milwaukee-brewers-top-20-prospects-for-2013

http://www.baseballamerica.com/today/prospects/rankings/organization-top-10-prospects/2012/2612610.html

http://www.baseballamerica.com/today/prospects/rankings/organization-top-10-prospects/2010/269178.html

[pete]

The thing is there isn't consistency in age versus competition level or whether they reached AA or AAA.

[reillymcshane]

The list of failed Red Sox prospects is immense, yet they consistently manage to earn pimp points (excuse the term) as much as any organization.

Peter Gammons for years has been a big hype monster for Red Sox prospects. But that was his turf, so of course you expect it.