How do you define rushing a prospect?

[orioles22]

I'd like to see dominance to move up a level after less than a full season.

If they complete a full season at AAA, even without having an all-star type season, and can win a job in spring training then it feels, to me, like they earned it.

[Sports Guy]

1 minute ago, orioles22 said:

I'd like to see dominance to move up a level after less than a full season.

If they complete a full season at AAA, even without having an all-star type season, and can win a job in spring training then it feels, to me, like they earned it.

Dominance? How do you define dominance?

[forphase1]

Of course you can judge fully based on results.  With all the measuring tools we have at our disposal today, and the additional ones that teams have that I don't even know exist, they should be able to parse out variables such as bad defense or bad luck.  I'm not just talking about pitchers win stats or batting average, but clearly we have enough data now that the result can, and should, be the key to determining when someone is ready to move up.  Otherwise, all we have to go on is subjective, and as you noted it's dangerous due to lying eyes and biases.  Which is why I want the numbers to show they are ready.  

[orioles22]

Someone else used that word, and I thought it summed my feelings up well. This has come up before and my answer was all-star level play in that league, even though I realize there are no all-star games this year

[Sports Guy]

3 minutes ago, orioles22 said:

Someone else used that word, and I thought it summed my feelings up well. This has come up before and my answer was all-star level play in that league, even though I realize there are no all-star games this year

A lot of players would never get called up with this criteria.  Trey Mancini is a good example on the Os.

[Can_of_corn]

1 minute ago, Sports Guy said:

A lot of players would never get called up with this criteria.  Trey Mancini is a good example on the Os.

Or Means, or Mullins.

[forphase1]

I don't think you need to be dominating necessarily, but nor should you be struggling.  It's like teaching our kids...they don't HAVE to have mastered addition before moving to multiplication, but it sure helps.  And if they are struggling with addition, then they clearly need more time before moving to multiplication.  Poor analogy perhaps, but if you are having trouble getting AA batters out, then you probably aren't ready to face AAA batters.  Or if you can't hit AA pitching, you probably aren't ready to face AAA pitching.  Everything else being equal (which it never is, but...) I'd want to see players performing in the top 1/3rd of their league before moving them up.  

[Sports Guy]

6 minutes ago, forphase1 said:

I don't think you need to be dominating necessarily, but nor should you be struggling.  It's like teaching our kids...they don't HAVE to have mastered addition before moving to multiplication, but it sure helps.  And if they are struggling with addition, then they clearly need more time before moving to multiplication.  Poor analogy perhaps, but if you are having trouble getting AA batters out, then you probably aren't ready to face AAA batters.  Or if you can't hit AA pitching, you probably aren't ready to face AAA pitching.  Everything else being equal (which it never is, but...) I'd want to see players performing in the top 1/3rd of their league before moving them up.  

But what do you think happens if you bring them up and they struggle.  What is the result of “rushing them” in your examples?

[orioles22]

32 minutes ago, Sports Guy said:

A lot of players would never get called up with this criteria.  Trey Mancini is a good example on the Os.

Well, I said if they play a full season, then earn a job in spring training, or when they get an opportunity after a season of AAA ball.

[orioles22]

This was the original post - everyone would have an opportunity:

 

I'd like to see dominance to move up a level after less than a full season.

If they complete a full season at AAA, even without having an all-star type season, and can win a job in spring training then it feels, to me, like they earned it.

[Can_of_corn]

Just now, orioles22 said:

This was the original post - everyone would have an opportunity:

 

I'd like to see dominance to move up a level after less than a full season.

If they complete a full season at AAA, even without having an all-star type season, and can win a job in spring training then it feels, to me, like they earned it.

I wonder how many guys play a full season at AAA then go on to have an average or better MLB career?

I don't think that's the normal career arc.

[orioles22]

3 minutes ago, Can_of_corn said:

I wonder how many guys play a full season at AAA then go on to have an average or better MLB career?

I don't think that's the normal career arc.

I haven't seen any research on what is average. I'd guess most of the stars force their way up early with dominant play in the minors.

[SteveA]

I believe that Elias & company have some sort of criteria for promoting guys to various levels, including the major leagues.   These guys are too metrics oriented not to have something like that.   

And we don't know what they are, and they probably aren't solely based on stats that we see.   They probably have goals that they want players to achieve at each level and a sample size large enough to make their assessment of whether those goals have been met to be valid.

And yes, they probably also factor things like service clock in some cases, though I don't think it is with nearly every player as Can would have us believe.

And I think it is clear that whatever their criteria are, it isn't as "fast" as most of us would like.

I also think that for the players they really think are important in the future, their promotion has nothing to do with what is going on at the major league level.   There are an endless number of posts on here about how bad we are at a particular position, and there for we should bring up [someone] to replace the bad player.   We are fans, and that is how we think.   But I don't think that plays into their thinking at all.   They have a timetable and criteria for all the important players in the minors, and bringing them up has NOTHING to do with what is happening at the major league level.   So as a result, when guys  are so bad at the major league level that they have to go, who do we see?  Wynns, McKenna, Jannis, Eshelman, (and apparently they see Lowther in that category based on his treatment).

They will bring up Diaz or Rutschman or [other good prospect] when they meet whatever criteria they are using... not when we have a need up here at OF or C or [other position].   Every time I see a post saying how awful we are at a position and we should bring up a prospect, I laugh, because that is probably NOT the way Elias is viewing things.   He will bring the prospects up on their timetable, which, unfortunately for our tastes, seems to be a pretty slow burn.   Until then, we are either stuck with someone bad in the majors, or an Eshelman/Wynns type replacement.

[7Mo]

3 minutes ago, SteveA said:

I believe that Elias & company have some sort of criteria for promoting guys to various levels, including the major leagues.   These guys are too metrics oriented not to have something like that.   

And we don't know what they are, and they probably aren't solely based on stats that we see.   They probably have goals that they want players to achieve at each level and a sample size large enough to make their assessment of whether those goals have been met to be valid.

And yes, they probably also factor things like service clock in some cases, though I don't think it is with nearly every player as Can would have us believe.

And I think it is clear that whatever their criteria are, it isn't as "fast" as most of us would like.

I also think that for the players they really think are important in the future, their promotion has nothing to do with what is going on at the major league level.   There are an endless number of posts on here about how bad we are at a particular position, and there for we should bring up [someone] to replace the bad player.   We are fans, and that is how we think.   But I don't think that plays into their thinking at all.   They have a timetable and criteria for all the important players in the minors, and bringing them up has NOTHING to do with what is happening at the major league level.   So as a result, when guys  are so bad at the major league level that they have to go, who do we see?  Wynns, McKenna, Jannis, Eshelman, (and apparently they see Lowther in that category based on his treatment).

They will bring up Diaz or Rutschman or [other good prospect] when they meet whatever criteria they are using... not when we have a need up here at OF or C or [other position].   Every time I see a post saying how awful we are at a position and we should bring up a prospect, I laugh, because that is probably NOT the way Elias is viewing things.   He will bring the prospects up on their timetable, which, unfortunately for our tastes, seems to be a pretty slow burn.   Until then, we are either stuck with someone bad in the majors, or an Eshelman/Wynns type replacement.

Very good post. I agree with all of this.

I'm not sure what the measuring criteria is but I would guess they're measuring swing decisions, barrel rates, hard hit percentages, etc more so than anything else for hitters. They are clearly aware when a guy has holes in his swing or is not reading pitches and making good swing decisions. Those are things that can be worked on and improved. 

[Sports Guy]

16 minutes ago, orioles22 said:

This was the original post - everyone would have an opportunity:

 

I'd like to see dominance to move up a level after less than a full season.

If they complete a full season at AAA, even without having an all-star type season, and can win a job in spring training then it feels, to me, like they earned it.

https://www.milb.com/player/john-means-607644