Exposed prospects vs. unexposed prospects

One of the things I wrestle with a lot when I read the prospect reviews, here or anywhere else, is the difficulty of comparing prospects who have been exposed to top levels of competition vs. those who have not. Just to use the current example, this year we saw some of Jake Arrieta's flaws get exposed as he faced more experienced hitters. The same approach that made him Carolina League pitcher of the year, and was even pretty successful in AA, suddenly didn't work as well at AAA. So, we downgrade him.

Zach Britton, on the other hand, hasn't faced AA and AAA hitters, so we don't know what flaws they may expose. Maybe he sails along, and maybe he doesn't. But until he does, he doesn't get downgraded. So, he gets the nod over Arrieta. (I'm not saying this is Tony's thinking, I'm talking more generally here.)

It's almost like comparing the appearance of a beautiful 10-year old girl to a 17-year old. With the 17-year old you can see 90% of what she's going to look like as an adult. Maybe you can see that she's very nice looking, and keeps herself in shape, but is never going to be Miss America. The 10-year old is dazzling, but who knows what will happen as she grows and matures. So how do you compare them, in terms of what they'll turn out to be. (Note: sorry for the sexist nature of this analogy, but I couldn't think of a better one.)

I think generally, there's a tendency to want to lean towards the prospect whose flaws haven't been exposed yet. But, it's always a tough call as to whether that's the right approach.

Oh well, I guess that's what makes this site and this particular discussion board so interesting.

One of the things I wrestle with a lot when I read the prospect reviews, here or anywhere else, is the difficulty of comparing prospects who have been exposed to top levels of competition vs. those who have not. Just to use the current example, this year we saw some of Jake Arrieta's flaws get exposed as he faced more experienced hitters. The same approach that made him Carolina League pitcher of the year, and was even pretty successful in AA, suddenly didn't work as well at AAA. So, we downgrade him.

Zach Britton, on the other hand, hasn't faced AA and AAA hitters, so we don't know what flaws they may expose. Maybe he sails along, and maybe he doesn't. But until he does, he doesn't get downgraded. So, he gets the nod over Arrieta. (I'm not saying this is Tony's thinking, I'm talking more generally here.)

It's almost like comparing the appearance of a beautiful 10-year old girl to a 17-year old. With the 17-year old you can see 90% of what she's going to look like as an adult. Maybe you can see that she's very nice looking, and keeps herself in shape, but is never going to be Miss America. The 10-year old is dazzling, but who knows what will happen as she grows and matures. So how do you compare them, in terms of what they'll turn out to be. (Note: sorry for the sexist nature of this analogy, but I couldn't think of a better one.)

I think generally, there's a tendency to want to lean towards the prospect whose flaws haven't been exposed yet. But, it's always a tough call as to whether that's the right approach.

Oh well, I guess that's what makes this site and this particular discussion board so interesting.

Ummm, I think we have bigger issues to discuss in this thread.

You're spot on to point out that performance doesn't happen in a vacuum, and if you want to be as accurate as possible in terms of predicting what a prospect will do, you need to analyze not just what their doing but whom they're doing it against.

I agree that the prospect whose flaws haven't yet been exposed probably gets extra attention; but might this not be simply because of the hope that there are no flaws? That as the prospect advances, there will be few, if any, flaws exposed?

It's almost like comparing the appearance of a beautiful 10-year old girl to a 17-year old. With the 17-year old you can see 90% of what she's going to look like as an adult. Maybe you can see that she's very nice looking, and keeps herself in shape, but is never going to be Miss America. The 10-year old is dazzling, but who knows what will happen as she grows and matures. So how do you compare them, in terms of what they'll turn out to be. (Note: sorry for the sexist nature of this analogy, but I couldn't think of a better one.)

Not to push off topic but.........10 year olds? I mean, I'm not a prude, or anything, but.......:eektf:

One of the things I wrestle with a lot when I read the prospect reviews, here or anywhere else, is the difficulty of comparing prospects who have been exposed to top levels of competition vs. those who have not. Just to use the current example, this year we saw some of Jake Arrieta's flaws get exposed as he faced more experienced hitters. The same approach that made him Carolina League pitcher of the year, and was even pretty successful in AA, suddenly didn't work as well at AAA. So, we downgrade him.

Zach Britton, on the other hand, hasn't faced AA and AAA hitters, so we don't know what flaws they may expose. Maybe he sails along, and maybe he doesn't. But until he does, he doesn't get downgraded. So, he gets the nod over Arrieta. (I'm not saying this is Tony's thinking, I'm talking more generally here.)

It's almost like comparing the appearance of a beautiful 10-year old girl to a 17-year old. With the 17-year old you can see 90% of what she's going to look like as an adult. Maybe you can see that she's very nice looking, and keeps herself in shape, but is never going to be Miss America. The 10-year old is dazzling, but who knows what will happen as she grows and matures. So how do you compare them, in terms of what they'll turn out to be. (Note: sorry for the sexist nature of this analogy, but I couldn't think of a better one.)

I think generally, there's a tendency to want to lean towards the prospect whose flaws haven't been exposed yet. But, it's always a tough call as to whether that's the right approach.

Oh well, I guess that's what makes this site and this particular discussion board so interesting.

The first post on OH and prospects inspired by the movie Beautiful Girls?

It's a legitimate, and interesting, question.

Edit to say: Hah. Prudes, indeed. Noting that a ten year old is beautiful isn't a big deal! Sexy, maybe. But beautiful? Eh.

Hey, give Frobby a break here. He's not Humbert Humbert or something, and the analogy (sort of) works.

Hmmm, that is an uncomfortable analogy to wrestle with. :laughlol:

The first post on OH and prospects inspired by the movie Beautiful Girls?

It's a legitimate, and interesting, question.

Edit to say: Hah. Prudes, indeed. Noting that a ten year old is beautiful isn't a big deal! Sexy, maybe. But beautiful? Eh.

Noting beauty, no. Looking at the 10-year old and trying to determine what she'll look like when blossomed, well.......I stand by my :eektf:

I knew I'd get in trouble with that analogy. But all I'm talking about is trying to choose which one will be better looking as an adult.

I guess I'd better make sure that my wife and my 20-year old daughter don't read this.

I knew I'd get in trouble with that analogy. But all I'm talking about is trying to choose which one will be better looking as an adult.

I guess I'd better make sure that my wife and my 20-year old daughter don't read this.

I'm betting the odds are pretty good on that.

Reminds me of the Mr. Show skit where two recruiters are trying to gain favor with a 3 year old to choose their college basketball program. Though that skit was :laughlol: this one is more .

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fy878f83Xa4&hl=en&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fy878f83Xa4&hl=en&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

This is precisely the reason why I've been down on putting guys like Coffey and Hobgood highly ranked on the prospect list. They have massive upside sure, but there is a great deal that needs to go right to have the upside realized. Players like Britton and Arrieta are much closer to being finished products, and we can better predict where they are going to end up at the end of their MiLB careers.

This is precisely the reason why I've been down on putting guys like Coffey and Hobgood highly ranked on the prospect list. They have massive upside sure, but there is a great deal that needs to go right to have the upside realized. Players like Britton and Arrieta are much closer to being finished products, and we can better predict where they are going to end up at the end of their MiLB careers.

Coffey and Hobgood are NOT going to like being compared to a 10-year old girl. You better watch your back, Terror...

I knew I'd get in trouble with that analogy. But all I'm talking about is trying to choose which one will be better looking as an adult.

I guess I'd better make sure that my wife and my 20-year old daughter don't read this.

Seriously, I'm cracking up. I had to shut my office door. Let's just leave this alone and all slowly back away....

I mean, I'm not talking about DOING anything, just, you know, looking...:slytf: