Fangraphs: A Third of Good Players Were Not Good Prospects

[weams]

http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/how-many-good-players-were-good-prospects/

The work here is an extension of Jeff Sullivan's recent attempt to answer a question notable both for its simplicity and importance. The question: how many good players were good prospects?

Sullivan found that about a third of good players weren't good prospects - or, at least, about a third of them never appeared on Baseball America's annual top-100 prospect list. They weren't all non-prospects, of course, but a sufficient enough percentage of top-100 prospects fail such that, for a rookie-eligible player to expressly not appear among that group immediately renders his chances of succeeding in the majors pretty low.

http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/demography-of-the-good-player-part-ii-by-draft-round/

[OFFNY]

http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/how-many-good-players-were-good-prospects/

http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/demography-of-the-good-player-part-ii-by-draft-round/

Good digging, Mike.

Thanks.

[BohKnowsBmore]

Good stuff. The one thing I would caution is that some will take this as "prospect status doesn't matter." It's important to remember that the number of young players/prospect/non-prospects NOT on the top-100 list >>>>>>>> those on said list. Thus, 2/3 of good players having appeared on the top-100 list, speaks to there being a pretty good correlation.

[weams]

Good stuff. The one thing I would caution is that some will take this as "prospect status doesn't matter." It's important to remember that the number of young players/prospect/non-prospects NOT on the top-100 list >>>>>>>> those on said list. Thus, 2/3 of good players having appeared on the top-100 list, speaks to there being a pretty good correlation.

Absolutely. Most good players are good prospects.

[Frobby]

Absolutely. Most good players are good prospects.

Top 100 is a very good prospect. And most of those were top 50 (52% top 50, 15% 51-100, 33% unranked).

[weams]

Top 100 is a very good prospect. And most of those were top 50 (52% top 50, 15% 51-100, 33% unranked).

Well, there you go. Again. Great data.

[BohKnowsBmore]

Top 100 is a very good prospect. And most of those were top 50 (52% top 50, 15% 51-100, 33% unranked).

So, were you to turn the % likelihood of turning into a "good player" into a bar graph, you would have a huge bar for 1 - 50, a low-to-mid bar for 51-100 and a tiny bar for non-ranked.

[weams]

So, were you to turn the % likelihood of turning into a "good player" into a bar graph, you would have a huge bar for 1 - 50, a low-to-mid bar for 51-100 and a tiny bar for non-ranked.

Tiny for 51-100. Then large again for unranked. Of course the percentage is miniscule because unranked is infinite.

[BohKnowsBmore]

Tiny for 51-100. Then large again for unranked. Of course the percentage is miniscule because unranked is infinite.

I was talking on a player-by-player basis.

[weams]

I was talking on a player-by-player basis.

Absolutely then.