Cubs' Prospects FUTUREBONER thread

[CBStew]

Man...looking at the 1989 awards is kind of depressing.

But, Lonnie Smith was a 9 win player in 1989.  Who knew?

Brett Saberhagen was a 10 win player.

Gregg Jefferies finished 3rd in the ROY voting in '89.

Jefferies was the 1988/89 version of Kris Bryant. Not saying they'll have the same outcome, but Jefferies was every bit as much of a can't miss.

Todd Ziele

yeah we can just stop this game now. It sucks.

Stop being such a Steve Bilko.

Surely you meant Sergeant Bilko.

Or Steve Biko.

Don't call me Shirley.

[Quality Start Machine]

Man...looking at the 1989 awards is kind of depressing.

But, Lonnie Smith was a 9 win player in 1989.  Who knew?

Brett Saberhagen was a 10 win player.

Gregg Jefferies finished 3rd in the ROY voting in '89.

Jefferies was the 1988/89 version of Kris Bryant. Not saying they'll have the same outcome, but Jefferies was every bit as much of a can't miss.

Todd Ziele

yeah we can just stop this game now. It sucks.

Stop being such a Steve Bilko.

Surely you meant Sergeant Bilko.

One was named after the other.

[SKO]

I look forward to Eli telling me I'm full of shit.

You're not. I think I posted something a while back (can't find it now) that took prospect rankings and career WAR and it showed an increasing correlation between the two. They're definitely way better than they used to be.

Edit: Found it. Sorry it's so huge*.



* TWSS.

Yeah, there was a lot more emphasis back then on drafting high school kids in particular, it seems like, and a lot of focus on toolsy players like Tyler Colvin. Seems like teams have spent less time focusing on physical traits and more on makeup, plate discipline, etc.

[Oleg]

I look forward to Eli telling me I'm full of shit.

You're not. I think I posted something a while back (can't find it now) that took prospect rankings and career WAR and it showed an increasing correlation between the two. They're definitely way better than they used to be.

Edit: Found it. Sorry it's so huge*.



* TWSS.

Yeah, there was a lot more emphasis back then on drafting high school kids in particular, it seems like, and a lot of focus on toolsy players like Tyler Colvin. Seems like teams have spent less time focusing on physical traits and more on makeup, plate discipline, etc.

Not to belabor the point but I don't think it's how the teams draft that makes the comparisons accurate but how the players are evaluated by third parties.

In other words, the same players are getting drafted (30 teams x 50 rounds is a lot of players).  It's not like Gregg Jefferies wouldn't get picked; it's that he just wouldn't be as highly thought of as a prospect.  I dunno...whatever it is, comparing the top 10 prospects today to the top 10 prospects of 1989 is silly.

[Saul Goodman]

Sorry it's so huge*.

* TWSS.

Doesn't ... quite ... work ...  did you mean TWHS?

No idea! Please explain comedy to me.

It's hard. Ask Trevor Noah.

[Eli]

In other words, the same players are getting drafted (30 teams x 50 rounds is a lot of players).  It's not like Gregg Jefferies wouldn't get picked; it's that he just wouldn't be as highly thought of as a prospect.  I dunno...whatever it is, comparing the top 10 prospects today to the top 10 prospects of 1989 is silly.

I would like to see an analysis of how well players do corresponding to their actual rank. This primarily shows that publications are no longer completely whiffing on most future stars. It'd be interesting to see if their top 10-20s have gotten more accurate over time.

[ChuckD]

I look forward to Eli telling me I'm full of shit.

You're not. I think I posted something a while back (can't find it now) that took prospect rankings and career WAR and it showed an increasing correlation between the two. They're definitely way better than they used to be.

Edit: Found it. Sorry it's so huge*.



* TWSS.

That's an interesting chart to be sure, but it probably bears mentioning that it only goes back to 1990 for a reason --that's when BA started releasing their Top 100 list. So the first years of that chart are effectively meaningless if you're looking to see a long term trend.

From 1990-2000 you'd have:
1) an increasing percentage of those initial post-1990 classes matriculating in to the majors and becoming top players
2) an increasing number of top MLB players who were prospects pre-1990 dropping out/retiring/etc

After 1995 or so, the first effect is no longer an issue.

Even in the late 90s, you still had a lot of top players (Bonds, Sosa, McGwire, Clemens, Johnson, Maddux, Glavine, Smoltz, Schilling, Griffey, Belle, Brown, Finley, Leiter, etc) who never would have been able to be rated on a BA list occupying a good chunk of the "Top 100 MLB Players" list.

You'd probably need to either ignore the data up to 2000-ish when looking at the overall trend, or (even better) ignore players players who debuted prior to mid-1989 when calculating the percentage (i.e. your formula for the y-axis would be:

Code Select Expand

# of players among Top 100 MLB who debuted after June 1989 and were on BA's Top 100
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
# of players among Top 100 MLB who debuted after June 1989

[Quality Start Machine]

In other words, the same players are getting drafted (30 teams x 50 rounds is a lot of players).  It's not like Gregg Jefferies wouldn't get picked; it's that he just wouldn't be as highly thought of as a prospect.  I dunno...whatever it is, comparing the top 10 prospects today to the top 10 prospects of 1989 is silly.

I would like to see an analysis of how well players do corresponding to their actual rank. This primarily shows that publications are no longer completely whiffing on most future stars. It'd be interesting to see if their top 10-20s have gotten more accurate over time.

I'd guess yes, since there is a lot more data being collected and analyzed. While a guy like Kris Bryant would be a top prospect in any era, there is probably a lot more accuracy among the guys who aren't necessarily no-brainers.

[SKO]

In other words, the same players are getting drafted (30 teams x 50 rounds is a lot of players).  It's not like Gregg Jefferies wouldn't get picked; it's that he just wouldn't be as highly thought of as a prospect.  I dunno...whatever it is, comparing the top 10 prospects today to the top 10 prospects of 1989 is silly.

I would like to see an analysis of how well players do corresponding to their actual rank. This primarily shows that publications are no longer completely whiffing on most future stars. It'd be interesting to see if their top 10-20s have gotten more accurate over time.

I'd guess yes, since there is a lot more data being collected and analyzed. While a guy like Kris Bryant would be a top prospect in any era, there is probably a lot more accuracy among the guys who aren't necessarily no-brainers.

Well for instance I think a guy like Corey Patterson would have had way more red flags coming into the majors today (he also presumably wouldn't have gotten promoted despite posting an OPS under .700 in AAA in 2001). Analysis has evolved to the point where you don't just wave away a guys issues because of his tools.

As excited as people were for Javy to make his debut nearly everyone involved knew there was a huge chance this guy was going to flat out bust because he swings at everything, and we were pretty prepared for it. Corey would have been sniffed out as a guy who wasn't going to make contact or take a walk in the majors before he had a chance to get our hopes built up too high.

[SKO]

In other words, the same players are getting drafted (30 teams x 50 rounds is a lot of players).  It's not like Gregg Jefferies wouldn't get picked; it's that he just wouldn't be as highly thought of as a prospect.  I dunno...whatever it is, comparing the top 10 prospects today to the top 10 prospects of 1989 is silly.

I would like to see an analysis of how well players do corresponding to their actual rank. This primarily shows that publications are no longer completely whiffing on most future stars. It'd be interesting to see if their top 10-20s have gotten more accurate over time.

I'd guess yes, since there is a lot more data being collected and analyzed. While a guy like Kris Bryant would be a top prospect in any era, there is probably a lot more accuracy among the guys who aren't necessarily no-brainers.

Well for instance I think a guy like Corey Patterson would have had way more red flags coming into the majors today (he also presumably wouldn't have gotten promoted despite posting an OPS under .700 in AAA in 2001). Analysis has evolved to the point where you don't just wave away a guys issues because of his tools.

As excited as people were for Javy to make his debut nearly everyone involved knew there was a huge chance this guy was going to flat out bust because he swings at everything, and we were pretty prepared for it. Corey would have been sniffed out as a guy who wasn't going to make contact or take a walk in the majors before he had a chance to get our hopes built up too high.

DPD, but I guess using Javy is kind of a bad example as he was a top 5 prospect going into last year, but I guess it's probably less that the ranking are more accurate (since they tend to focus on potential, which a guy like Javy certainly has), but more that they've gotten better at identifying reasons why highly touted guys might fail. It's not so much that a guy like Jefferies or whatever wouldn't be considered a prospect today, they probably would have just pointed out why he wasn't "can't miss" type.

[Quality Start Machine]

In other words, the same players are getting drafted (30 teams x 50 rounds is a lot of players).  It's not like Gregg Jefferies wouldn't get picked; it's that he just wouldn't be as highly thought of as a prospect.  I dunno...whatever it is, comparing the top 10 prospects today to the top 10 prospects of 1989 is silly.

I would like to see an analysis of how well players do corresponding to their actual rank. This primarily shows that publications are no longer completely whiffing on most future stars. It'd be interesting to see if their top 10-20s have gotten more accurate over time.

I'd guess yes, since there is a lot more data being collected and analyzed. While a guy like Kris Bryant would be a top prospect in any era, there is probably a lot more accuracy among the guys who aren't necessarily no-brainers.

Well for instance I think a guy like Corey Patterson would have had way more red flags coming into the majors today (he also presumably wouldn't have gotten promoted despite posting an OPS under .700 in AAA in 2001). Analysis has evolved to the point where you don't just wave away a guys issues because of his tools.

As excited as people were for Javy to make his debut nearly everyone involved knew there was a huge chance this guy was going to flat out bust because he swings at everything, and we were pretty prepared for it. Corey would have been sniffed out as a guy who wasn't going to make contact or take a walk in the majors before he had a chance to get our hopes built up too high.

DPD, but I guess using Javy is kind of a bad example as he was a top 5 prospect going into last year, but I guess it's probably less that the ranking are more accurate (since they tend to focus on potential, which a guy like Javy certainly has), but more that they've gotten better at identifying reasons why highly touted guys might fail. It's not so much that a guy like Jefferies or whatever wouldn't be considered a prospect today, they probably would have just pointed out why he wasn't "can't miss" type.

Also going into last year, Javy was regarded as a guy who takes a while to figure it out at each level. Since the biggest jump in pitching quality is the one from AAA to MLB, it would stand to reason the "figure it out" period would take longer. But I don't think anyone has disregarded his K rate. He just has a huge upside if he can start gaining command of the hitting zone.

[Powdered Toast Man]

The minor league affiliates get started on 2015 today.

Kris Bryant, Addison Russell and Javy Baez are in the lineup for Iowa. Schwarber and Almora are at Tennessee. C. J. Edwards was moved to the bullpen for Tennessee to start the season.

There are some interesting names at Myrtle Beach--Underwood (starting today), McKinney, Zagunis, Caratini and Blackburn...

Jake Stinnett starts for South Bend and Gleybor Torres is on that roster as well.

All four teams are playing today.

[Quality Start Machine]

The minor league affiliates get started on 2015 today.

Kris Bryant, Addison Russell and Javy Baez are in the lineup for Iowa. Schwarber and Almora are at Tennessee. C. J. Edwards was moved to the bullpen for Tennessee to start the season.

There are some interesting names at Myrtle Beach--Underwood (starting today), McKinney, Zagunis, Caratini and Blackburn...

Jake Stinnett starts for South Bend and Gleybor Torres is on that roster as well.

All four teams are playing today.

While I'm a little surprised McKinney isn't starting the season higher, that MB pitching staff (the same guys who dominated the Midwest League last year) will make things fun in golf country.

[Chuck to Chuck]

Corey would have been sniffed out as a guy who wasn't going to make contact or take a walk in the majors before he had a chance to get our hopes built up too high.

Ahem!

[SKO]

Corey would have been sniffed out as a guy who wasn't going to make contact or take a walk in the majors before he had a chance to get our hopes built up too high.

Ahem!

I wasn't around these parts during the Corey days, but knowing you, I'd guess the problem wasn't that people thought you were wrong about Corey, so much that you probably appeared to be reveling in sadistic glee over his failures rather than hoping like everyone else he'd actually become a good player for the ballclub you feign to root for. Kinda like you're doing with Baez.