Dylan Bundy Thread

[Lucky Jim]

... but I can dream cant I?

I sure hope so, Roy. I mean, we're Orioles fans. What else do we have?

[Frobby]

I don't care much, myself, in the end. But it's understandable that we follow this stuff - if only as a stand-in for actually being able to predict. That said, while happy with Bundy's performance, I am deeply skeptical of box scores as they relate to prospects, and thus BA (as a proxy for scouting buzz) does provide a unique input. Whether it's one-two-three is probably irrelevant, though at some point it does matter, and if he dropped to 9-10, I'd probably be concerned.

I realize that box scores and stats don't give you the full picture when it comes to prospects. I do find the ranking of prospects to be a fairly subjective process with a lot of room for error, though. Just as a random example, going into 2007, Phil Hughes was ranked the #4 overall prospect, Tim Lincecum was ranked #11. In 2010, Brian Matusz was ranked #5, Madison Bumgarner was ranked #14. I'm sure I could give a ton of examples if I actually went and looked at the old BA lists, these are just two pairs who came immediately to my mind.

[Lucky Jim]

I realize that box scores and stats don't give you the full picture when it comes to prospects. I do find the ranking of prospects to be a fairly subjective process with a lot of room for error, though. Just as a random example, going into 2007, Phil Hughes was ranked the #4 overall prospect, Tim Lincecum was ranked #11. In 2010, Brian Matusz was ranked #5, Madison Bumgarner was ranked #14. I'm sure I could give a ton of examples if I actually went and looked at the old BA lists, these are just two pairs who came immediately to my mind.

Translations are difficult, and thus errors in prediction happen. But nothing you've said is an argument against relevance - not having the information that we had at the time would only have clouded our predictions, likely, not helped them. The errors we make, predictively, are probably far more narrowly-banded w/ BA as an input than we would be without.

[EASTERNSHOREFAN]

Does he go to the AFL this year?

[BaltBound]

Hi guys,

I'm a routine reader but do not post very often. However, with that said I made the 2 hour drive to Lynchburg last night to get my initial first hand look at Bundy. Below are my thoughts on him.

Watched him warm up in the bullpen and his delivery looks repeatable and effortless. The ball jumps out of his hand. He struggled with his fastball command early last night as he gave up a double and a walk in the first inning. He also committed a balk in which it looked as if his cleat got stuck in the mound and therefore didn't deliver the ball. I held my breath for a moment hoping there wasn't some kind of injury but he was fine.

In the 2nd inning, Bundy walked the lead off hitter on 4 straight pitches, but then he turned it up a notch. He didn't allow another baserunner until the 7th inning. He seemed to get stronger as the game went on, which is the sign of a true ace, in my opinion. He threw some nice curves and a few change ups throughout the night and I was extremely impressed. As for Lynchburg, they are a very good hitting team and maybe the best hitting team in the league, but Bundy shut them down. He's a very impressive 19 year old. I took some video of him last night and will upload to YouTube if anyone is interested in watching it.

My overall observation is that he is the real deal and should have a high probablity at succeeding. I, for one, would not be suprised to see him pitching in Baltimore in September.

[waroriole]

Does he go to the AFL this year?

No, he'll reach his innings limit for the year at Bowie......or possibly BAL.

[Frobby]

Translations are difficult, and thus errors in prediction happen. But nothing you've said is an argument against relevance - not having the information that we had at the time would only have clouded our predictions, likely, not helped them. The errors we make, predictively, are probably far more narrowly-banded w/ BA as an input than we would be without.

Let's just bring this back to the post to which I responded -- will Bundy beat out Jurackson Profar as the top prospect? It's like asking if someone thinks an apple is a more delicious fruit than an orange.

I recently saw some study on fangraphs about how many BA top prospects either become very good players, or bust. It certainly showed a relationship between ranking and success rate, but a very rough one, so I am just not going to get caught up in whether Bundy is no. 1 or not.

[Lucky Jim]

Let's just bring this back to the post to which I responded -- will Bundy beat out Jurackson Profar as the top prospect? It's like asking if someone thinks an apple is a more delicious fruit than an orange.

I recently saw some study on fangraphs about how many BA top prospects either become very good players, or bust. It certainly showed a relationship between ranking and success rate, but a very rough one, so I am just not going to get caught up in whether Bundy is no. 1 or not.

Was there any scaling done to show the probabilities as a prospect descends the list? I wouldn't be surprised to see a pretty big gulf between, say, 1 and 4, though a small-to-insignificant one between, say, 2 and 3.

[Tony-OH]

Does he go to the AFL this year?

I doubt it. They have a plan for innings and I doubt they are going to want to put more on them through the AFL.

[Can_of_corn]

Was there any scaling done to show the probabilities as a prospect descends the list? I wouldn't be surprised to see a pretty big gulf between, say, 1 and 4, though a small-to-insignificant one between, say, 2 and 3.

I remember one of the lists dropping Trout down to #3 on their list this spring. D'oh!

[Ohfan67]

Was there any scaling done to show the probabilities as a prospect descends the list? I wouldn't be surprised to see a pretty big gulf between, say, 1 and 4, though a small-to-insignificant one between, say, 2 and 3.

I read the study too. There was a surprising LACK of correlation between BA rank and future performance at that scale. You could see a difference between say #5 and #45, but their rankings didn't correlate with success within say the top 20, 30 - 40, etc. And even the drop off from the top 20 or 30 to the next group wasn't as large as I expected. It was a very interesting, thought-provoking read.

p.s. there were not significant differences WITHIN the top group either. A BA ranking of say #1 or #2 didn't tell you anything more than a BA ranking of #10. You had to look 20 or more spots away to find a real difference and once got past say the top 50, 60, or 70 then BA ranking didn't really matter at all. I may have the detailed numbers wrong, but that was the strong gist of the analysis.

[Flash- bd]

Well, let's see:

2012:

1. Bryce Harper

4. Yu Darvish

2011:

1. Bryce Harper

4. Domonic Brown

2010:

1. Jason Heyward

4. Jesus Montero

2009:

1. Matt Wieters

4. Tommy Hanson

2008:

1. Jay Bruce

4. Clay Bucholz

2007:

1. Daisuke Matsuzaka

4. Phil Hughes

2006:

1. Delmon Young

4. Jeremy Hermida

2005:

1. Joe Mauer

4. Ian Stewart

2004:

1. Joe Mauer

4. Edwin Jackson

2003:

1. Mark Teixeira

4. Joe Mauer

2002:

1. Josh Beckett

4. Sean Burroughs

2001:

1. Josh Hamilton

4. Jon Rauch

2000:

1. Rick Ankiel

4. Vernon Wells

1999:

1. J.D. Drew

4. Bruce Chen

1998:

1. Ben Grieve

4. Kerry Wood

1997:

1. Andruw Jones

4. Matt White

1996:

1. Andruw Jones

4. Darin Erstad

1995:

1. Alex Rodriguez

4. Derek Jeter

1994:

1. Cliff Floyd

4. Alex Gonzalez

1993:

1. Chipper Jones

4. Carlos Delgado

1992:

1. Brien Taylor

2. Chipper Jones

1991:

1. Todd Van Poppel

4. Jose Offerman

1990:

1. Steve Avery

4. Juan Gonzalez

The thing I'm always struck by every time I look at this list is how well the top 5 (arguably even the top 10) have done (can't rule out confirmation bias, though, my leanings in this area are pretty clear so it will be interesting to see what you all think), especially in the last 6-7 years (as I've said a few times, I'm a big believer that the decline of the steroid-era makes scouting a lot more clean science); when we last discussed this topic (failure/success rates of prospects) Mr. Snuffleapaugus (sp? ) cited the study done, but one of my big problems with that study was that it lumped the top 20 together. A study that lumps the top 5--or the top 10--to my mind would add a lot to the discussion.

[Frobby]

Here is the referenced study: http://www.royalsreview.com/2011/2/14/1992424/success-and-failure-rates-of-top-mlb-prospects It broke things down by whether a prospect was in the top 10, 11-20, 21-30, etc. For purposes of this discussion, it found that pitchers in the top 10 "bust" 45% of the time, while pitchers in the 11-20 range "bust" 50% of the time. Pitchers in the top 10 were "superior" 35% of the time, compared to 30% of the time 11-20. Not a huge difference. Pitchers in the 21-30, 31-40 and 41-50 range all busted about 70% of the time and only 12-20% were in the "superior" range. The definition of "bust" was a pitcher who averages less than 1.5 WAR/season during his cost-controlled years, while the definition of "superior" was a pitcher who averages more than 2.50 WAR/season during those years.

[Frobby]

Well, let's see:

Interesting that in 22 years, a pitcher was ranked no. 1 only six times: Steve Avery, Todd Van Poppel, Brien Taylor, Rick Ankiel, Josh Beckett, and Daisuke Matsusaka. Not exactly an advertisement for the accuracy of being the overall no. 1 prospect. The fact that they've only picked a pitcher six times suggests that they know pitchers are riskier than hitters, no matter how good they look in the minors.

[Flash- bd]

Here is the referenced study: http://www.royalsreview.com/2011/2/14/1992424/success-and-failure-rates-of-top-mlb-prospects It broke things down by whether a prospect was in the top 10, 11-20, 21-30, etc. For purposes of this discussion, it found that pitchers in the top 10 "bust" 45% of the time, while pitchers in the 11-20 range "bust" 50% of the time. Pitchers in the top 10 were "superior" 35% of the time, compared to 30% of the time 11-20. Not a huge difference. Pitchers in the 21-30, 31-40 and 41-50 range all busted about 70% of the time and only 12-20% were in the "superior" range. The definition of "bust" was a pitcher who averages less than 1.5 WAR/season during his cost-controlled years, while the definition of "superior" was a pitcher who averages more than 2.50 WAR/season during those years.

Looks like I remembered wrong. Interesting that top 20 actually turns out to be the most significant drop-off point: 55.1% success rate in the top 10, 50.0% success rate in top 11-20, 30.0% in top 21-30 (followed by 30.7, 29.2% in the following two groups of ten).

Some limitations of the study: it uses fWAR. Again, I like fWAR for its predictive value, but in terms of judging a player's real worth during a given season I think you have to go with rWAR. Also: is a guy that averages less than 1.50 WAR in his cost controlled years really a bust? What about starters who become relievers and valuable ones at that, yet accumulate very little WAR?

Here's the top 10s since the Mitchell Report was released (Dec. 13, 2007):

2008:

1. Jay Bruce of, Reds

2. Evan Longoria 3b, Rays

3. Joba Chamberlain rhp, Yankees

4. Clay Buchholz rhp, Red Sox

5. Colby Rasmus of, Cardinals

6. Cameron Maybin of, Marlins

7. Clayton Kershaw lhp, Dodgers

8. Franklin Morales lhp, Rockies

9. Homer Bailey rhp, Reds:

10. David Price lhp, Rays

Subjective Impressions: 4 stars (Bruce, Longoria, Kershaw, Price), 2 above average starters (Rasmus, Buchholz), 2 useful starters (Maybin, Bailey), and 2 above average bullpen arms (Chamberlain, Morales--who is actually pitching pretty well as a starter for BOS right now)

2009:

1. Matt Wieters, c, Orioles

2. David Price, lhp, Rays

3. Colby Rasmus, of, Cardinals

4. Tommy Hanson, rhp, Braves

5. Jason Heyward, of, Braves

6. Travis Snider, of, Blue Jays

7. Brett Anderson, lhp, Athletics

8. Cameron Maybin, of, Marlins

9. Madison Bumgarner, lhp, Giants

10. Neftali Feliz, rhp, Rangers

Subjective Impressions: 3 stars (Price, Heyward, Bumgarner), 3 above average starters (Wieters, Rasmus, Hanson), 2 useful starters (Brett Anderson, Cameron Maybin), 1 above average bullpen arm (Feliz), 1 bust (Snider)

2010:

1. Jason Heyward, of, Braves

2. Stephen Strasburg, rhp, Nationals

3. Mike Stanton, of, Marlins

4. Jesus Montero, c, Yankees

5. Brian Matusz, lhp, Orioles

6. Desmond Jennings, of, Rays

7. Buster Posey, c, Giants

8. Pedro Alvarez, 3b, Pirates

9. Neftali Feliz, rhp, Rangers

10. Carlos Santana, c, Indians

Subjective Impressions (Obviously involves a bit more projection, more subjectivity since there's less track record to rely on): 4 stars (Heyward, Strasburg, Stanton, Posey), 2 above average starters (Montero, Santana), 2 useful starters (Jennings, Alvarez), 1 above average bullpen arm (Feliz), 1 bust (Matusz)

2011:

1. Bryce Harper, of, Nationals

2. Mike Trout, of, Angels

3. Jesus Montero, c, Yankees

4. Domonic Brown, of, Phillies

5. Julio Teheran, rhp, Braves

6. Jeremy Hellickson, rhp, Rays

7. Aroldis Chapman, lhp, Reds

8. Eric Hosmer, 1b, Royals

9. Mike Moustakas, 3b, Royals

10. Wil Myers, of/c, Royals

Subjective Impressions: 2 stars (Harper, Trout), 3 above average starters (Montero, Hellickson, Moustakas), 1 useful starter (Hosmer), 1 dominant bullpen arm (Chapman), 3 yet to be decided (Brown, Teheran, Myers: 2 possible busts in that list and one possible star).

I dunno, is it just me or do you not see many cautionary tales in these top tens?

Interesting that in 22 years, a pitcher was ranked no. 1 only six times: Steve Avery, Todd Van Poppel, Brien Taylor, Rick Ankiel, Josh Beckett, and Daisuke Matsusaka. Not exactly an advertisement for the accuracy of being the overall no. 1 prospect. The fact that they've only picked a pitcher six times suggests that they know pitchers are riskier than hitters, no matter how good they look in the minors.

An interesting qualification to this might be (this):

Like who? Take a look at the HS pitchers/pitchers who were drafted/signed before college that have been in the BA top 5 over the last 10-15 years:

Tommy Hanson(#4, 2009), Phil Hughes(#4, 2007), Felix Hernandez (#2, 2005), Edwin Jackson (#4, 2004), Josh Beckett (#1, 2002), Josh Beckett (#3, 2001), Rick Ankiel (#1, 2000), Rick Ankiel (#2, 1999), Bruce Chen (#4, 1999), Brad Penny (#5, 1999), Kerry Wood (#4, 1998).

Not exactly a list littered with failures. And I think most scouts would tell you Dylan Bundy is in the class of prospect with guys like Josh Beckett, Felix Hernandez, Kerry Wood, and Rick Ankiel, which is to say, a class above Bruce Chen, Edwin Jackson, Brad Penny, Tommy Hanson, and Phil Hughes.

-http://forum.orioleshangout.com/forums/showthread.php/123250-Would-you-trade-Bundy-for-King-Felix