4 or 5 star Prospect ratings

[chisoxfan09]

I am a little confused about this one and wanted to pose this topic on the FutureSox board as a general topic but with specific reference to our farm system. It has been generally concluded that all three of an Hudson, Tyler Flowers, and Jordan Danks our among our top 5 farm prospects. But my confusion lies as to how an external supposedly objective site like "Baseball America" or "Baseball Prospectus" come up with their farm system ranking and ratings. Is it a combination of the overall system and then each individual rating for each prospect? I mean I visit other forums as do the majority of us to occasionally make fantasy trade proposals but lately other posters or knowledgeable people rebut the Sox farm and say neither Hudson or Flowers are 5 star prospects. Hence my question. I used to think if either cracked the BA top 50 then they were automatically 5 star prospects but I guess not. Can someone help me understand, Kenny Hates Prospects maybe?

[Kenny Hates Prospects]

I am a little confused about this one and wanted to pose this topic on the FutureSox board as a general topic but with specific reference to our farm system. It has been generally concluded that all three of an Hudson, Tyler Flowers, and Jordan Danks our among our top 5 farm prospects. But my confusion lies as to how an external supposedly objective site like "Baseball America" or "Baseball Prospectus" come up with their farm system ranking and ratings. Is it a combination of the overall system and then each individual rating for each prospect? I mean I visit other forums as do the majority of us to occasionally make fantasy trade proposals but lately other posters or knowledgeable people rebut the Sox farm and say neither Hudson or Flowers are 5 star prospects. Hence my question. I used to think if either cracked the BA top 50 then they were automatically 5 star prospects but I guess not. Can someone help me understand, Kenny Hates Prospects maybe?

I'm no expert but I think the main thing seems to be that 5-star prospects are pretty close to being ready and are expected to be impact-type players when they get to the Majors, but it's pretty subjective. For example, Desmond Jennings would be a 5-star type of prospect and he can do just about everything, while Jesus Montero could also be called that even though he may end up as a DH. I guess it's all up to how much you like a player.

 

Also, just because we don't have any consensus 5-star prospects in our system right now doesn't mean it will stay that way. A guy like Mitchell could definitely climb those ranks.

 

As for baseball publications and the way they come up with rankings, grades, etc. they use the same criteria everyone else does: stats, scouting reports, video, conversations with teammates, managers, scouts, and various league officials, as well as their personal feelings about a player they've seen for themselves. These rankings are all subjective too, and some of them are based on very little information which may not even be current or entirely accurate.

 

None of this stuff really matters though concerning trades and so forth, because each organization has different personnel involved in decision making, and it all comes down to what the trusted people in each organization think about a given player. No GM is going to make a trade based upon BA rankings or whatever, and there are always surprising deals where a team seems to give up far too little or far too much based upon the prospects involved and their rankings in publications, but a lot of these deals end up as fair deals or even lopsided in favor of the team that at first glance appeared to be ripped off. Case in point: the Aubrey Huff to Houston trade that at the time looked like a steal for Houston and had people talking about what a mistake TB had made by not lowering their asking price well before when Huff was a more valuable commodity.

 

So in short, I really wouldn't put that much stock into these things. Just because a couple of writers with enormous influence say so-and-so is a better prospect than some other guy doesn't mean someone like Kenny William or Rick Hahn would agree.

[CWSOX45]

I am a little confused about this one and wanted to pose this topic on the FutureSox board as a general topic but with specific reference to our farm system. It has been generally concluded that all three of an Hudson, Tyler Flowers, and Jordan Danks our among our top 5 farm prospects. But my confusion lies as to how an external supposedly objective site like "Baseball America" or "Baseball Prospectus" come up with their farm system ranking and ratings. Is it a combination of the overall system and then each individual rating for each prospect? I mean I visit other forums as do the majority of us to occasionally make fantasy trade proposals but lately other posters or knowledgeable people rebut the Sox farm and say neither Hudson or Flowers are 5 star prospects. Hence my question. I used to think if either cracked the BA top 50 then they were automatically 5 star prospects but I guess not. Can someone help me understand, Kenny Hates Prospects maybe?

 

Pay no attention to these "5 Star" rankings that Baseball Prospectus and Baseball America come out with. Most of the time these writers haven't even seen a majority of these players. A lot of the times these writers grill scouts about which guys they've seen and which guys they like, as a result most of these writers just regurgitate scouting reports that they have seen on other websites. Just remember to take everything you see from these so called experts as a grain of salt.

 

One example comes to mind last year, when Jayson Stark came out with an article saying that if Gordon Beckham didn't change his swing, he would never be a good hitter at the Major League level. (This couldn't be further from the truth.)

 

Stark had no idea what he was talking about, he most likely just talked to a lone scout who suggested that Beckham needed to change his swing if he continued to struggle, and as a result Stark spun it so his readers would take a greater interest in his article.

 

 

 

[maggsmaggs]

Just look at Baseball America's top 50 prospect list. Half of those never amount to anything.

Edited January 1, 2010 by maggsmaggs

[Ozzie Ball]

Just looked at Baseball America's top 50 prospect list. Half of those never amount to anything.

Here are some numbers:

Victor Wang has done some tremendous research about prospects and their value. In determining their value he had to find the rate of which players bust in each category he divided them into. This is a healthy dose of realism to keep in mind when we’re looking at the any one club’s farm system.

 

* 10% of top 10 hitting prospects bust.

* 31% of top 10 pitching prospects bust.

* 21% of top 11-25 hitting prospects bust.

* 32% of top 11-25 pitching prospects bust.

* 35% of top 26-50 hitting prospects bust.

* 33% of top 26-50 pitching prospects bust.

* 45% of top 51-75 hitting prospects bust.

* 39% of top 51-75 pitching prospects bust.

* 43% of top 76-100 hitting prospects bust.

* 43% of top 76-100 pitching prospects bust.

* 59% of ‘B grade’ hitting prospects bust.

* 52% of ‘B grade’ pitching prospects bust.

* 83% of ‘C grade’ hitting prospects bust.

* Around 75% of all ‘C grade’ pitching prospects bust.

 

Top 100 prospects are Baseball America’s. B and C grades are as ranked by prospect wonk John Sickels.

[witesoxfan]

Does it say what he defines as bust?

[Ozzie Ball]

Does it say what he defines as bust?

Yes:

Method

I used the same method to come up

with a prospect's value as in my

original article with the exception of

the changes I mentioned above. I

broke prospects in each group into the

same four subgroups as in my previous

article. The subgroups are bust,

contributor, everyday player, and star.

A player was a bust if he averaged 0 or

less Wins Above Bench (WAB, equal

to WSAB/3) per year, a player was a

contributor if he averaged between 0

and 2 WAB/year, a player was an

everyday player if he averaged

between 2 and 4 WAB/year, and a

player was considered a star if he

averaged over 4 WAB/year. For

pitchers, I used these same four

subgroups with one exception: I

lowered the production necessary to

be considered a star for pitchers to 3

WAB/year or more. Therefore, an

everyday pitcher (middle of the

rotation pitcher) was a pitcher who

averaged between 2 and 3

WAB/year. I did this because

pitchers tend to average less

WAB/year over a period of time

when compared to hitters. In fact,

no pitcher in the study averaged over 4 WAB/year. The cost for a WAB in the free agent market for the 2007 off season was estimated to be

$4.88 million/WAB using 10% annual inflation and financial data from the 2006 off season. The financial data was taken from Dave

Studenmund's Win Shares article from the Hardball Times Baseball Annual 2007.

I'm not familiar with WAB but I'm guessing it's at least somewhat similar to WAR. You can read the full study here:

http://philbirnbaum.com/btn2007-11.pdf

[scenario]

Yes:

 

I'm not familiar with WAB but I'm guessing it's at least somewhat similar to WAR. You can read the full study here:

http://philbirnbaum.com/btn2007-11.pdf

 

Good article. Thanks for posting it. I found the conclusion particularly interesting.

 

In conclusion, the ranking of a hitting prospect seems to be a good indicator of future value. A pitching prospect’s ranking has not had quite the same effect. There has been no separation in performance between pitching prospects rated in the top 50. In fact, pitching prospects ranked from 11-50 have performed slightly better than top 10 pitching prospects. However, there does appear to be a clear drop off in performance between top 50 pitchers and pitchers ranked from 51-100. Hitters in each sub group perform better than the pitchers in their sub group. In fact, hitters ranked 51-75 have performed better than any group of pitchers in the top 50. An expanded look at the performance of top 100 prospects has further reinforced my belief that teams should be using more of their pitching prospects to trade for established major league players. There is definite profit available for teams that acquire players in their arbitration years for top pitching prospects.

Edited January 2, 2010 by scenario

[caulfield12]

Good article. Thanks for posting it. I found the conclusion particularly interesting.

 

In conclusion, the ranking of a hitting prospect seems to be a good indicator of future value. A pitching prospect’s ranking has not had quite the same effect. There has been no separation in performance between pitching prospects rated in the top 50. In fact, pitching prospects ranked from 11-50 have performed slightly better than top 10 pitching prospects. However, there does appear to be a clear drop off in performance between top 50 pitchers and pitchers ranked from 51-100. Hitters in each sub group perform better than the pitchers in their sub group. In fact, hitters ranked 51-75 have performed better than any group of pitchers in the top 50. An expanded look at the performance of top 100 prospects has further reinforced my belief that teams should be using more of their pitching prospects to trade for established major league players. There is definite profit available for teams that acquire players in their arbitration years for top pitching prospects.

 

 

Goodbye, Daniel Hudson? KW did a brilliant job getting Danks and Floyd, perhaps he has one more trick up his sleeve...when you consider all the injury possibilities with pitchers PLUS non-performance, it's almost impossible to reliably predict future returns outside the ones that are obvious (and in recent years, look what has happened with the likes of Homer Bailey or Phil Hughes, too).

 

When you look at all the arms that KW has parted with, how many of them are really missed? Gio Gonzalez? Brandon McCarthy? Besides the Ritchie trade, he hasn't given up multiple pitching prospects...and Ritchie was a veteran/journeyman at that time coming off a career year.

 

 

[southsider2k5]

Here are some numbers:

 

Victor Wang has done some tremendous research about prospects and their value. In determining their value he had to find the rate of which players bust in each category he divided them into. This is a healthy dose of realism to keep in mind when we’re looking at the any one club’s farm system.

 

* 10% of top 10 hitting prospects bust.

* 31% of top 10 pitching prospects bust.

* 21% of top 11-25 hitting prospects bust.

* 32% of top 11-25 pitching prospects bust.

* 35% of top 26-50 hitting prospects bust.

* 33% of top 26-50 pitching prospects bust.

* 45% of top 51-75 hitting prospects bust.

* 39% of top 51-75 pitching prospects bust.

* 43% of top 76-100 hitting prospects bust.

* 43% of top 76-100 pitching prospects bust.

* 59% of ‘B grade’ hitting prospects bust.

* 52% of ‘B grade’ pitching prospects bust.

* 83% of ‘C grade’ hitting prospects bust.

* Around 75% of all ‘C grade’ pitching prospects bust.

 

Top 100 prospects are Baseball America’s. B and C grades are as ranked by prospect wonk John Sickels.

 

So essentially one in three top 10 pitching prospects busts. Wow. Maybe Kenny Williams isn't so dumb to be dumping these guys off afterall. The interesting part of that is how small the drop off is in pitching from the top 10 to the B grade. It only goes from 31 to 52%, while hitting goes from 10% to 59%

 

[sircaffey]

It must vary on what level each prospect is when they are part of the top 100 list. For instance, players like Martin Perez who are and have been in the top 100 (top 10 pitching prospects) while in the low levels have a much higher percentage of busting than guys like Hudson who cracked the top 100 when they "breakout" in the high levels. It would be interesting to see the percentage difference in these two types of pitching prospects.

[witesoxfan]

It must vary on what level each prospect is when they are part of the top 100 list. For instance, players like Martin Perez who are and have been in the top 100 (top 10 pitching prospects) while in the low levels have a much higher percentage of busting than guys like Hudson who cracked the top 100 when they "breakout" in the high levels. It would be interesting to see the percentage difference in these two types of pitching prospects.

Agreed. I also think it would be interesting to see what type of learning curve there is in the majors (just meaning how long it takes for a player to become a fully productive player).

 

 

Yes:

 

I'm not familiar with WAB but I'm guessing it's at least somewhat similar to WAR. You can read the full study here:

http://philbirnbaum.com/btn2007-11.pdf

 

Very interesting. Thanks for posting.