What Constitues A Prospect?

rico43

rico43

<B>Director of Minor League Reports</B>
In the process of naming the Atlanta Braves 50 top prospects all-time (1966-present), I had to make sure I have a consistent definition of what a prospect is for the purposes of this series.

Here's what I came up with:

First of all, we are resticting this to the Draft Era, which began in 1965. That dovetails nicely with the Braves' arrival in Atlanta in 1966, but excludes all-timers like Aaron, Carty, Torre, Menke, Niekro, Cloninger, etc.

Even though amateur free agents are dotted throughout the upcoming list, we are restricting our list to players who are ORIGINAL Braves prospects, either by draft or free agent sigee. This eliminates notable folks like Swanson, Smoltz, Folty, Mallex, Peterson(s), Capra, Jurrjens, Deion, etc.

I am still in the process developing a formula that will be a ciombination of achievement, hype, bonus, etc.

It will start January 1, and will not only be the top 50, but a few "incompletes" as well.
 
rico43 said:
In the process of naming the Atlanta Braves 50 top prospects all-time (1966-present), I had to make sure I have a consistent definition of what a prospect is for the purposes of this series.

Here's what I came up with:

First of all, we are resticting this to the Draft Era, which began in 1965. That dovetails nicely with the Braves' arrival in Atlanta in 1966, but excludes all-timers like Aaron, Carty, Torre, Menke, Niekro, Cloninger, etc.

Even though amateur free agents are dotted throughout the upcoming list, we are restricting our list to players who are ORIGINAL Braves prospects, either by draft or free agent sigee. This eliminates notable folks like Swanson, Smoltz, Folty, Mallex, Peterson(s), Capra, Jurrjens, Deion, etc.

I am still in the process developing a formula that will be a ciombination of achievement, hype, bonus, etc.
Click to expand...

I actually wanted to nitpick with you about 'prospect' Are you going to take a players major league performance/career into account with regards to his prospect status? That's what I read it as. If so, it's really more of a top 50 'original' Braves list than a prospect list. Andy Marte was ranked higher as a prospect than many, many braves who had better careers. Marte flamed out. But at the end of the day Marte was still a better prospect than all those guys who had better careers. Being a prospect ends when you get called up. A so-so prospect that finally puts it together in the majors was still a so-so prospect. A top prospect that flames out in the majors was still a top prospect.

You can't really compare bonuses and hype between decades and different eras due to technology and salary increases.
 
Marte was definitely a prospect. He just busted. Somebody like Mark DeRosa rose through without any hype, then went on to have a decent career.

The term though is overused on this board, possibly even more so than at Scout. Some posters use it as if any player in the minor system is a "prospect." Realistically, a lot of those guys won't make or at most will have a cup of coffee in the majors. After you get past a Top 20, those players tend to be marginal/fringe. Even some of the better rated will encounter obstacles. So, it's obviously just a matter of quantity to find a few potential regulars and one or two stars from that pool.
 
Marte is definitely on my list. A guy like Evan Gaddis isn't, because there was zero buzz about his signing or development.

Big league success can't be ignored, but it is far from the tipping point as to where someone is rated. There are people on this list who never saw a major league inning.

You cannot compare bonuses in different eras, but you certainly can compare them to contemporaries. I have tried to provide context whenever I mention a bonus -- and I have tried to find a number on every single player I am writing about.
 
Knucksie said:
Marte was definitely a prospect. He just busted. Somebody like Mark DeRosa rose through without any hype, then went on to have a decent career.

The term though is overused on this board, possibly even more so than at Scout. Some posters use it as if any player in the minor system is a "prospect." Realistically, a lot of those guys won't make or at most will have a cup of coffee in the majors. After you get past a Top 20, those players tend to be marginal/fringe. Even some of the better rated will encounter obstacles. So, it's obviously just a matter of quantity to find a few potential regulars and one or two stars from that pool.
Click to expand...

Agree that "prospect" is an overused term. In the case of something like my top 30 it is merely a word that conveys someunderstanding that you are talking about someone who is still "not there yet."
 
rico43 said:
Agree that "prospect" is an overused term. In the case of something like my top 30 it is merely a word that conveys someunderstanding that you are talking about someone who is still "not there yet."
Click to expand...

No question. With those rankings, it's really more of a depth chart than a prospect list. Then it's just semantics.

Just thought of another example, besides Marte. George Lombard had a lot of hype surrounding him, but unfortunately busted as well. He most certainly was a prospect and may have even been top ranked in the system at the time. With internet expansion and developments in player evaluation, statistical analysis, it leads me to believe that's why that type of overhyping (Lombard, Chen, Marte) declined from blue chip status, although Chen had a sustainable career. If the prospect lived up to or exceeded expectations, the org could say, "we told you that he was going to be great!" If development stunts, the hype could convince another team that a change of scenary is needed and that he's still young enough to still make the jump from AAA to the majors with proper coaching. That way, they can still retrieve some form of asset in return via trade.
 
How can you factor big league success into a 'prospect' rankings?

It's like if you take the 20 smartest kids from your high school graduating class and place them in order. You can't go back 20 years later and re-rank them differently because #17 became a neurosurgeon while the #5 died from a drug overdose.
 
Knucksie said:
No question. With those rankings, it's really more of a depth chart than a prospect list. Then it's just semantics.

Just thought of another example, besides Marte. George Lombard had a lot of hype surrounding him, but unfortunately busted as well. He most certainly was a prospect and may have even been top ranked in the system at the time. With internet expansion and developments in player evaluation, statistical analysis, it leads me to believe that's why that type of overhyping (Lombard, Chen, Marte) declined from blue chip status, although Chen had a sustainable career. If the prospect lived up to or exceeded expectations, the org could say, "we told you that he was going to be great!" If development stunts, the hype could convince another team that a change of scenary is needed and that he's still young enough to still make the jump from AAA to the majors with proper coaching. That way, they can still retrieve some form of asset in return via trade.
Click to expand...

I don't think someone like George Lombard would be that highly ranked if he were coming up right now. Evaluating prospects has changed and we have gotten better at identifying prospects (but by no means anywhere close to being perfect). Still someone like Lombard I feel would need to be somewhere on the list because at the time he was considered a top prospect by the tools we had at the time.
 
Krgrecw said:
How can you factor big league success into a 'prospect' rankings?

It's like if you take the 20 smartest kids from your high school graduating class and place them in order. You can't go back 20 years later and re-rank them differently because #17 became a neurosurgeon while the #5 died from a drug overdose.
Click to expand...

The Hockey News does draft reorders for 5 and 10 years back, sometimes even further if there had been debate over top 2 overall pics. They also even acknowledge undrafted players who find pro success.
 
thewupk said:
I don't think someone like George Lombard would be that highly ranked if he were coming up right now. Evaluating prospects has changed and we have gotten better at identifying prospects (but by no means anywhere close to being perfect). Still someone like Lombard I feel would need to be somewhere on the list because at the time he was considered a top prospect by the tools we had at the time.
Click to expand...

The tools we have now aren't going to be 100% foolproof either. They're just tools/indicators. Some prospects will meet/exceed expectations. Some will bust, as they always have.

For the heck of it, just searched George Lombard. BA improved his rankings as he moved up. His progress stunted at AAA. So, it's not as if it could have been predicted sooner. Some of that was injury-related.

http://www.baseballamerica.com/majors/top-10-prospect-rankings-archives/#hPTp924EUrXixAVO.97

1996

Andruw Jones, of
Jason Schmidt, rhp
Jermaine Dye, of
Robert Smith, 3b
Terrell Wade, lhp
Damon Hollins, of
George Lombard, of
Ron Wright, 1b
Glenn Williams, ss
Damian Moss, lhp
1997

Andruw Jones, of
Kevin McGlinchy, rhp
Bruce Chen, lhp
Jason Marquis, rhp
George Lombard, of
Damian Moss, lhp
John LeRoy, rhp
Robbie Bell, rhp
Wes Helms, 3b
Jimmy Osting, lhp
1998

Bruce Chen, lhp
Robbie Bell, rhp
Luis Rivera, rhp
Odalis Perez, lhp
George Lombard, of
A.J. Zapp, 1b
Troy Cameron, ss
Jason Marquis, rhp
Wes Helms, 3b
Glenn Williams, 2b
1999

Bruce Chen, lhp
George Lombard, of
Odalis Perez, lhp
Luis Rivera, rhp
Jason Marquis, rhp
Kevin McGlinchy, rhp
Rafael Furcal, ss
Micah Bowie, lhp
Wes Helms, 3b
Marcus Giles, 2b
2000

Rafael Furcal, ss
George Lombard, of
Marcus Giles, 2b
Scott Sobkowiak, rhp
Luis Rivera, rhp
Jason Marquis, rhp
Junior Brignac, of
Jimmy Osting, lhp
Pat Manning, 2b
Brett Evert, rhp
Click to expand...

This is a good write-up:
http://blog.walkoffwalk.net/2015/05/random-ex-brave-george-lombard.html
 
thewupk said:
I don't think someone like George Lombard would be that highly ranked if he were coming up right now. Evaluating prospects has changed and we have gotten better at identifying prospects (but by no means anywhere close to being perfect). Still someone like Lombard I feel would need to be somewhere on the list because at the time he was considered a top prospect by the tools we had at the time.
Click to expand...

Chuck Lamar drafted one helluva football team.

I agree with the basic point here. A lot of guys have tools and tools are still the thing that create the most buzz. But toolsy guys often can't get their innate abilities to translate into baseball skills, which leads to a lot of these guys flaming out. I think Komminsk (like all the tools-intensive guys drafted during the Lamar era) really fits that bill perfectly.
 
50PoundHead said:
Chuck Lamar drafted one helluva football team.

I agree with the basic point here. A lot of guys have tools and tools are still the thing that create the most buzz. But toolsy guys often can't get their innate abilities to translate into baseball skills, which leads to a lot of these guys flaming out. I think Komminsk (like all the tools-intensive guys drafted during the Lamar era) really fits that bill perfectly.
Click to expand...

Kommink was definitely the most notorious bust in Braves history. Still, toolsy guys are going to get attention, but that's the issue about causes of flaming out. If the prospect has the tools, which assumes talent, then there are other factors. We're going back 30 years here. It had to have been something in the development process. Coaching?

Another instance was Smoltz was not highly regarded in the Tigers system, but certainly the Braves saw something in him to offer Doyle Alexander. Obviously, there was a psychological block which was addressed. (Maddux also consulted with a sports psychologist, while with the Cubs.)
 
Don't forget Ryan Weber. I hear those who know more than I do say he projected like Dallas Keuchel and he must have had a ****load of surplus value at that point since fangaphs named him our #1 prospect.
 
cajunrevenge said:
Don't forget Ryan Weber. I hear those who know more than I do say he projected like Dallas Keuchel and he must have had a ****load of surplus value at that point since fangaphs named him our #1 prospect.
Click to expand...

Ryan who?

Seriously, maybe if this were a top 50 list. As someone mentioned above, we're going all the way back to 1966.
 
I don't know much about the Braves prior to 1991. Ryan Webber was named our #1 prospect in 2015 by fangraphs. The advanced stats said he was a stud. Reality not so much. If your making a list of the top 5000 he might make the list.
 
cajunrevenge said:
I don't know much about the Braves prior to 1991. Ryan Webber was named our #1 prospect in 2015 by fangraphs. The advanced stats said he was a stud. Reality not so much. If your making a list of the top 5000 he might make the list.
Click to expand...

Technically, they had him at #4. They weren't that insane.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top