The overvaluation of Prospects - and Veterans

[reillymcshane]

Interesting article by Dave Cameron about the perceived over valuation teams put on young prospects. Using Baseball America, he finds that 70% of all the prospects essentially become busts.

 

However, the article then goes into the fact that 'proven' veterans can also go bust (usually because of injuries). Example: Roy Halladay went from 21.4 WAR from 2009-11 to 1.6 WAR for the rest of his career. He took the top 100 players from 2009-11 and found that 25 went flopped.

 

Also, 34 of the top 100 guys became nothing more than league average. That means 60% of the top 100 players either bust or just become average.

 

I don't think it's anything earth shattering, but what it really brings out is the value of depth. Guys will fail - prospects and veterans. And the team needs to be prepared for those inevitable failures. They need quality and quantity to thrive.

 

http://www.foxsports.com/mlb/just-a-bit-outside/story/cole-hamels-philadelphia-phillies-trade-prospects-veterans-risk-value-021815

 

Here's how players were defined as 'busts' or 'average' and so forth: http://www.royalsreview.com/2011/2/14/1992424/success-and-failure-rates-of-top-mlb-prospects

[djoctagone]

makes one question whether or not a 40-man roster is sufficient to maintain proper depth. a 45-man roster would certainly go a long way. yes, it would cost teams a little bit more (especially for players entering their third year on the 40-man), but it would help with ideal depth.

[pete]

Cameron should talk about flaws in the process that lead to poor performance by his and other prospect evaluators. I don't expect it though.

 

The latest Fangraphs list is absolutely loaded with guys who "if" they hit, walk more, develop a third pitch, gain command, et cetera. Ask why player X isn't on the list and its not enough hitting or walking, pitcher Y, he's only got 2 pitches!

 

How many pitchers in the minors are similar to Duane Underwood - 40 or so? Why is he on the top 100 while most or all of the others aren't? Its pretty tough to come up with an answer other than he's in the super system of the year. That's not to say there isn't some canned response about "scouts" thinking something.

 

I think Keith Law is pretty much a poser, but I'll give him this: his list actually takes chances and disagrees with the clique that's referred to as "industry consensus."

[Bombers]

I don't think it's anything earth shattering, but what it really brings out is the value of depth. Guys will fail - prospects and veterans. And the team needs to be prepared for those inevitable failures. They need quality and quantity to thrive.

Depth is important. But I also feel that a teams ability to react is equally important. Many, many times, guys fail and fail and fail and management doesn't have the foresight to make a change. Or guts to make it because sometimes it may be "unpopular" but beneficial for the team. Instead teams say oh "he is a gamer" or "he is a crafty vet" and will "get it figured out," or "he has been there before." And then you let this subpar vet take starts away from a completely better player.

[JohnBriggs12]

Prospect lists usually contain players with the highest ceilings and thus include many hard throwing pitchers with command issues and power hitters with contact issues. They try to project the stars. A high ceiling doesn't equate to a high floor. If they made lists of guys with high degree of probability of having at least a minimal major league career, the lists and the percentages might be quite different.

[pete]

There are some that emphasize ceilings. They all consider floor and proximity. McDanels even has a "risk" rating. Cameron describes the Fangraph list as balanced.

[FVBrewerFan]

He took the top 100 players from 2009-11 and found that 25 went flopped.

 

Also, 34 of the top 100 guys became nothing more than league average. That means 60% of the top 100 players either bust or just become average.

 

I think this got lost in the shuffle, and is far more fascinating than the flame-out rate on prospects. This tells me advanced metrics are a lot farther from perfect than I thought.

 

WAR is great for looking at the past, along with all other advanced metrics, but not necessarily a good indicator of the future by a long shot. I'm sure the flip-side is true also, the other 40% of the top 100 had values far lower than what they produced.

[JohnBriggs12]

There are some that emphasize ceilings. They all consider floor and proximity. McDanels even has a "risk" rating. Cameron describes the Fangraph list as balanced.

 

He might described it as "balanced" but you don't make it near the top of their list without top of the line velocity of you are a pitcher and raw power if you are a hitter, with other skills discounted.

 

Perfect example is a guy like Joey Gallo who's off the charts power wise but strikes out at rates that would make Mark Reynolds blush. Is he a future hall of famer or is he destined to be Mark Reynolds II?

[jerichoholicninja]

Most veterans are traded for with the idea that the acquiring team wants to win now. This season or next. I think it's common and accepted knowledge that very few veterans maintain a high level of play as they age but teams are willing to risk the uncertain future value of a prospect for the current certain value of a veteran. I think based off of that study, that is a good bet to make.

[monty57]

Another factor is that the mistake on a veteran could cost you millions and millions of dollars, potentially sinking the franchise for years, while a mistake on a prospect isn't nearly as pricey.

 

If you said "I'll give you a 50% success rate for $1000, or a 30% success rate for $1," which is the better choice? Personally, I'd buy as many of those $1 tickets as I could.

[Thurston Fluff]

I often wonder if those lists put to much stock in big years. I guess it makes sense because they see a big year and think (hope?) that player had a break out year and will just get better. All the while ignoring those who never had the big year but were always good at every level. That gives guys like Hunter Morris more hype than guys like Kris Davis. Yet what most teams probably want in a major league player is consistency. I would love to see a list made up of players who just do well everywhere they go but are never great anywhere and see how they stack up to top prospect lists. I would guess the best of the best would have consistently put up big seasons but after that the consistent ones do better long term than the ones who alternate between great and mediocre seasons.

[brewcrewdue80]

Meanwhile, the day this topic is posted, Jurickson Profar is having surgery for his shoulder and who knows how long he'll be sidelined for. Former #1 prospect.

 

Mike Trout/Bryce Harper/Stephen Strasburg kinda sprung all the excitement of prospects and took the value of them to a whole new level. Mike Trout especially.

 

I believe a top 100prospect list is often drained via potential vs what one already possesses. The idea that a hit tool will catch up with the amazing defense like Andrelton Simmons. Getting caught up with the power of a Jedd Gyorko or Javier Baez, but not the K issues. Age. I over-valuate prospects I'm sure, but like Monty said- $1 30% of the time is likely better than $1000 50% of the time. Because let's face it, That $1 can turn themselves in to 2-3 more valuable $1 tickets if/when traded. Or, you buy them out long-term adding a Franchise Player for the next decade. I've always wondered why 15-20 prospects make a top 100 list every half year, because their numbers either look terrible to not back that assumption up, or it's based on potential and performance in the Rookie league. Some of them are based on the draft pick selection only sometimes or the selection+the team they were selected by(Toussaint-Arz/Holmes-LAD) Just assuming they'll cleanup their deficiencies. I think putting prospects 3 years away from reaching the Big Leagues, helps lead to the problem. I don't think any individual should be listed in a top 100 their first professional year until it's over. When the prospect has played in a league or two and shown his talents what he has, beaten his opponents with it. Also, the fact that being a season/2 at most away would help the success rate. Because injuries derail prospects. Wait til these prospects are in AA before giving them a top 100 ranking. Just list them as prospects to watch.

[pete]

Yeah, there is definitely a way the lists could evolve to make them better.

 

And to echo the point about cost, Dave Cameron recently talked about what a nifty deal the Rangers worked to get Gallardo. Meanwhile Huston Street of the sub 90 mph fastball is angling for a contract similar to the 4/36 one that Robertson got (I hope I've got that right) a role that Knebel may fill for the Brewers, SSs are still a commodity and Diplan looks much better than most July 2 lottery picks. If one guy works out, Melvin wins big, 2 or 3 its a jamboree.

 

And Jimmy Nelson may not be far off from what Gallardo would produce.

 

Cameron in his last podcast talked about how the Dodgers were the only team he believed to have both improved their future and present in the offseason. I'd say the Brewers might have.

[jerichoholicninja]

How many on the Top 100 lists are 1st or 2nd round draft picks or international free agents that signed big bonuses? I would guess 80%+. That's really how those lists are made, and then sprinkled in with some other guys.

[umphrey]

Prospects are over valued, veterans are over valued, and signing a guy in his prime to a $25M/year contract is overvalued. Everything is overvalued.

[Oxy]

Prospects are over valued, veterans are over valued, and signing a guy in his prime to a $25M/year contract is overvalued. Everything is overvalued.

 

Is the truth overvalued?

[SoupTown]

Because the eventual performance and MLB contributions of prospects is so unpredictable, the goal must be to have as many legit prospects as possible. I think the Brewers too often sign up or hang onto guys even into their 30s that have NO chance to contribute at the MLB level. Surely, in this day and age you can fill up your minor teams with guys that may come through. I understand the odd vet leader. But when the Brewers are having (like in AA last year) the oldest team in the league by far, I think that is not very forward thinking.

[Eye Black]

How many on the Top 100 lists are 1st or 2nd round draft picks or international free agents that signed big bonuses? I would guess 80%+. That's really how those lists are made, and then sprinkled in with some other guys.

Well Baseball America just provided this information with their most recent top 100 list.

 

Top 100: By the Numbers:

 

By Draft Round

48 First

12 Supplemental first

8 Second

2 Third, Sixth

1 Fourth, Fifth, Seventh, 11th, 16th, 48th

 

By Source

47 High school draft pick

30 College draft pick

22 International free agent

1 Junior college draft pick

[jerichoholicninja]

How many on the Top 100 lists are 1st or 2nd round draft picks or international free agents that signed big bonuses? I would guess 80%+. That's really how those lists are made, and then sprinkled in with some other guys.

Well Baseball America just provided this information with their most recent top 100 list.

 

Top 100: By the Numbers:

 

By Draft Round

48 First

12 Supplemental first

8 Second

2 Third, Sixth

1 Fourth, Fifth, Seventh, 11th, 16th, 48th

 

By Source

47 High school draft pick

30 College draft pick

22 International free agent

1 Junior college draft pick

 

That comes close to my guess. 68% are 1st or 2nd round picks and 95% of the drafted players on the list are 1st or 2nd round picks. I know not every international free agent signing is a big deal but most of them are and 22 of those guys are international signing, which would come up to 90%.

[logan82]

There is a reason guys are drafted in the first round though. So the questions is, are they in the top 100 because they were drafted in the first round or were they drafted in the first round because they were talented enough to be ranked in the top 100 prospects?

[jerichoholicninja]

There is a reason guys are drafted in the first round though. So the questions is, are they in the top 100 because they were drafted in the first round or were they drafted in the first round because they were talented enough to be ranked in the top 100 prospects?

 

Both, but mainly because they were drafted high. Going back to the original post 60% of those guys aren't going to amount to much of anything. Top prospects lists are just regurgitation of other lists: draft prospect lists. That's not a dig on either list, it just shows how much unpredictability there is between college/high school/minors and the majors.

[TheCrew07]

I don't think this information was anything new, the NFL goes crazy in-depth on every player, all of their draftees have spent at least 3 years in college, and there are still a ton of busts.

 

Physical talent is one thing, what goes on in a player's head is another, and until someone figures out how to adequately predict the mental side of sports there will continue to be major busts at the top of the draft in every major sport.

 

Specifically Baseball speaking If I had a son who had MLB potential as a pitcher there's very little chance I would encourage him to go to college, and I obviously believe in getting an education. I'd rather he sign out of HS, get money for college, and go right into a professional pitching program. No way would I want my son going to college and getting abused and used up before being sent on. He would likely flame out regardless but at least his arm would be healthy and he'd be able to focus on academics once his professional career was over.

 

If he was a position player I wouldn't have a strong feeling either way, but I'd still insist the contract include money for college if he chose to sign.

 

edit. Forgot to quickly discuss veterans...

 

The problem with veterans is that they are getting paid for what they did in the past, rather than what they are going to do in the future, and no one can really predict when that slow decline is going to turn into a steep slope of sunk cost. Many of us have been posting that veterans carry significant risk, it's not just prospects who have risk associated with them. For the most part this article just recycled what we already knew.

[Fear The Chorizo]

I think the article really doesn't tell us anything. For the 60-70% "flameout" rate of top 100 prospects, I'm sure the flameout rate for prospects #101-300 is quite a bit higher. What the articles states is that it's incredibly difficult to be a great baseball player - incredibly difficult for most young prospects to fulfill their potential and equally as difficult for MLB players to sustain long-term success.