Jump to content

Fangraphs: A Third of Good Players Were Not Good Prospects


weams

Recommended Posts

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/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...