Quote Originally Posted by nsacpi View Post
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.
I agree, and I haven't seen any work, either. But I've always disliked using aggregate data to say something meaningful about one specific instance. You would expect the aggregate data to eventually show that prospects who are thought of as having more talent and being closer to ready will be successful at higher rates than those thought of as having less talent and/or being further away from ready. I don't find it particularly useful that it shows just that. It's informative, in the sense that there is an indication that the people who do this for a living are able to spot talent and determine potential on some level.

But is it prescriptive in the sense that because all prospects who were ever ranked in the 40-50 range hit at a 40% rate, a prospect ranked 44 has a 40% chance to hit? I don't think so. You wouldn't expect the percentage to vary wildly from the historical data, but in any individual instance it is possible that the people who evaluate prospects are missing something. They will all tell you that there's no real difference between their 44 and 54 prospects. Over time, using enough instances, the guys ranked 44 will probably come out ahead, but once you narrow it down far enough, it doesn't really mean much, if anything.

Is Ronald Acuna really a 50ish prospect with a likelihood that falls in line with past 50ish prospects? I have no idea. There's a chance he's a top 10 prospect who just hasn't had enough time to prove that yet. We all know he has a high ceiling. And he will either hit or not. What the % is on that, I don't know, and I don't think we can know that just based on his current prospect ranking.