That's the thing. Yes, lots of out prospects failed but not all prospects are the same. Davies to me was the biggest bust of the last 15 years.Originally Posted by zbhargrove
That's the thing. Yes, lots of out prospects failed but not all prospects are the same. Davies to me was the biggest bust of the last 15 years.
Seems like you're missing the point. Injuries are part of the equation. Of course Bruce Chen had a nice little career. So did Derek Lilliquist, really. Neither were guys you'd build around. Some of the very talented, very highly rated cohort of arms we have now are going to wash out because of injury.
Cappy was #25 BBA. Meyer was as high as #43.
Do tell me, though, why we brag about prospect rankings now but discount them in the case of guys who busted in the past.
Last edited by Julio3000; 05-07-2017 at 07:52 AM.
I wonder if the accuracy of prospect lists have improved over the years. Capellan was a one pitch pitcher. Surprised that he got all the way to 25.
Yeah but most of those guys were not close to the ceiling prospects that we have now. The exception of maybe Chen and Lilliquest.... Nied was close. But we have 7-9 guys now with huge ceilings even tho not near all will work out or have injuries
Sure, I agree. Just not sure if there are going to be enough magic beans to grow a beanstalk.
I don't know. I remember specifically wondering what Capellan and Meyer were ever ranked that high. Meyer basically had a Blair/Wisler ceiling. Capellan was only ranked because of shear velocity. I don't remember anyone on the board having much faith
Fair enough I just truly believe this stockpile of arms of by far the highest volume of shear potential we've ever had and aren't comparable to any other time in history. We just got lucky with Avery, Glavine, and Smoltz.... the other prospects weren't that special except maybe Greene and Schmidt (little later). Can't compare this class to people like Meyer, Capellan, Lewrew, Delgado, James, JoJo.... not the same league of prospects. Especially DeVall or Spruill. It's not close. Davies and Minor weren't even anywhere close. Much better shot here to produce 3-6 quality starters
You've covered about 90% of the range of probabilities there.
You said the braves were known for pitching because they got lucky on three hall of famers. You made the original exaggeration, not I.
Forgot about tommy Greene. Thanks.
See I think we have a better chance to beat the odds, because there are so many high ceiling guys. That's not counting many others that can turn into a Minor type pitcher. We have 8-10 guys as most teams have 1-2. We could still be unlucky and have many busts, but we could just as well get lucky and have 5 TOR pitchers. I think we will end up having the perfect amount we need, plus maybe another.
Are high ceiling pitching prospects at greater or lesser risk of being busts?
Eh...depends. I consider Touki to have a pretty big chance of busting completely. I think many more of our guys make it to the big show and the question is more are they a TOR or end up as back of the rotation or reliever. I always think high ceiling pitchers have a little better chance because they can make more mistakes and get away with it.
You wouldn't know from the study, because it doesn't distinguish between them.
Is it an exaggeration? The Braves were hyped as a pitching factory and we were able to constantly trade young starters or prospects for quality MLB players. They rarely worked out for the team trading for them.
I'm asking the question of the posters who seem to think there is a difference. I was wondering what the basis for their belief might be.
Sometimes raw talent can get people hyped even if they can't really pitch.
Well, we do know that at some level higher-ceiling prospects are less likely to bust, using the logic that the ones who end up in the top 10 have the highest ceilings (combined with less risk). So using that same logic, it's not crazy to assert that the higher-ceiling prospect of two ranked ~50, for example, also has a lower likelihood of busting. We don't know that because the data doesn't parse it out, which is why I've always maintained that using prospect rankings and hit rates is a crude and incomplete measure.
But it does follow logically. And obviously when a higher ceiling prospect does hit, he is more likely to perform better than a lower ceiling prospect that hits. So even if the bust rates were the same, the potential reward of having better pitchers is higher.
I agree with the last two sentences.
But on the question of bust rates for high ceiling pitching prospects, I don't believe I've seen any work on that. I'm not asking you to do it or to point me to a study. Just saying I haven't seen anything on it. It is an interesting question.
My memory of who was considered "high ceiling" 10 or 15 years ago is a little foggy. But would guys like Joba Chamberlain and Phil Hughes fall under the high ceiling category.
Last edited by nsacpi; 05-08-2017 at 08:49 AM.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote