Skip to main content

83 replies

From Baseball Analysts website

TPMTPMHSBaseballweb Member since 2003
Not a Prospect List
By Boyd Nation
Opening disclaimer: I love Baseball America. I've been a subscriber for years; I read it cover to cover when it comes in (OK, not really cover-to-cover, since the old media guys in the front put me to sleep, but you know what I mean); I've built a small shrine to it in my basement.



Nonetheless, Baseball America has been the source of one of the great evils of our time -- the prospect list. We all know why they do it, of course; people like lists, and they like feeling like insiders, so prospect lists move copies. There's nothing inherently wrong with that, but these lists need to be kept out of the hands of people who make actual decisions, because they're reversing the process. It's the result of what I've heard called The Halo Effect.

Let's look at a couple of players:

Year 1 Year 2 Year 3
League Stats League Stats League Stats

A California .341/.414/.540 Southern .252/.387/.514 PCL .346/.433/.500
B California .302/.379/.527 PCL .283/.329/.422 NL .267/.321/.391

Now, there is an age factor here, as A was a year older than B in the years represented (although they're the same age in real life), but it's interesting how these tracks went, especially since they were both seasoned college players and not teenagers when they turned pro. A is Jon Knott, and Year 1 for him is 2002. Player B is Xavier Nady, and Year 1 for him was 2001. There is no reason in what's shown here that Nady should have been moved faster (or, since this isn't really about Nady, that Knott should have been moved slower). However, Nady was a second round draft choice who had been on every prospect list on the planet, while Knott was an undrafted free agent no one had ever heard of, so not only did Nady move faster up the ladder, he spent another year in San Diego in 2005 while Knott wandered in the wilderness of the PCL again. The Halo Effect does its damage, and prospect lists are one of the root causes of that.

All of this is a long prelude to what could, if you don't look closely, be mistaken for a prospect list. There is a difference, but feel free to laugh at my inconsistency for a moment if you wish. What follows is actually what the decision makers should be looking at, or at least a variant of it; it's a performance list. What follows is the list of the top performances by my favorite evaluation measures for college players by last year's sophomore class. The difference in this and a prospect list is that I haven't talked to anyone, much less a scout, I've never seen most of these guys, and the next time I use the word "toolsy" will be the first.

First, the hitters. These guys are ranked by AOPS (adjusted OPS), a stat of mine which takes traditional OPS and adjusts them for park factor and strength of schedule faced.

Team Name OBP SLG OPS AOPS

Florida Matt Laporta .438 .698 1.136 1.257
Florida State Shane Robinson .532 .605 1.137 1.239
Pepperdine Chad Tracy .428 .609 1.037 1.239
Mississippi Mark Wright .407 .583 0.990 1.223
Lamar Michael Ambort .414 .654 1.068 1.173
Mississippi Chris Coghlan .430 .516 0.946 1.169
Georgia Josh Morris .405 .541 0.946 1.166
Texas Christian Shelby Ford .479 .578 1.057 1.160
Mississippi C. J. Ketchum .481 .457 0.938 1.159
California Brennan Boesch .436 .567 1.003 1.157
Arkansas Danny Hamblin .419 .584 1.003 1.142
Pittsburgh Jim Negrych .471 .694 1.165 1.142
Tulane Mark Hamilton .452 .599 1.051 1.130
Miami, Florida Jon Jay .490 .531 1.021 1.125
Cal State Fullerton Brandon Tripp .436 .556 0.992 1.117
Georgia Tech Wes Hodges .466 .566 1.032 1.115
Oregon State Mitch Canham .423 .531 0.954 1.114
Texas Christian Chad Huffman .437 .573 1.010 1.108
San Diego Shane Buschini .450 .538 0.988 1.096
Rice Josh Rodriguez .411 .555 0.966 1.092
Virginia Commonwealth Scott Sizemore .464 .673 1.137 1.092
Cal Poly J. J. Owen .398 .588 0.986 1.083
Santa Clara Robert Perry .427 .556 0.983 1.079
Georgia Southern Justin Klinger .464 .591 1.055 1.075
College of Charleston Chris Campbell .421 .625 1.046 1.069

Now, you heard what I said earlier about talking to scouts, right? There's a temptation here to push the word count up by trying to offer a pithy comment about each of these guys, but that's not what we're doing here. These are the guys who have performed, and no one should care if they're strapping young hunks of manhood or guys who look up to Quasimodo, or would if they could keep up with him.

So, on to the pitchers. These guys are ranked by another creation of mine that I call RBOA (Runs Below Opponent Average), which is exactly what it sounds like. Because RBOA is a counting stat, it is affected by playing time issues, so sophomores who make their way into the rotation at midseason will suffer in this list. On the other hand, the college season is short enough that a pitcher who's only been in the rotation for half a season hasn't really provided enough of a sample size to be judged, so I think I'm OK with that.

Team Name RBOA

Texas Kyle McCulloch 56.63
Missouri Max Scherzer 53.76
Nebraska Joba Chamberlain 48.61
Oregon State Jonah Nickerson 44.41
Winthrop Heath Rollins 42.10
Florida State Bryan Henry 41.65
Southeastern Louisiana Bernard Robert 41.44
Texas Randy Boone 41.20
Middle Tennessee State Matt Scott 40.13
North Carolina Robert Woodard 39.79
South Alabama P. J. Walters 38.37
Oregon State Dallas Buck 38.33
UC Irvine Justin Cassel 37.80
Washington Tim Lincecum 37.26
Clemson Stephen Faris 36.84
Wichita State Noah Booth 35.15
Miami, Ohio Keith Weiser 33.50
Georgia Tech Blake Wood 32.48
San Diego State Bruce Billings 32.00
Baylor Cory Vanallen 31.70
Central Florida Tim Bascom 31.55
Arizona Mark Melancon 31.54
Army Nick Hill 31.05
North Carolina Andrew Miller 30.69
Baylor Jeff Mandel 29.36

These, therefore, are the guys you want to start your watch list for next year with, although in this case there is a caveat. College pitchers often carry a tremendous workload, especially when measured with pitch counts. If that's something that concerns you, either professionally through your organization's stance or personally through your fantasy philosophy, do your homework on that front as well.

See, two perfectly good lists of players to watch, and I didn't use the word "gamer" once.

Boyd Nation is chief cook and bottlewasher at Boyd's World, a college baseball stats and analysis site, and provides college baseball data consulting to an undisclosed number of major league teams. In real life, he's an information security guy with a beautiful wife and three great kids in Birmingham, Alabama.
Last edited {1}
Original Post

Replies sorted oldest to newest

C CatSureMomHSBBWeb Old Timer
I have been working on an in depth analytical study along these lines-utilizing PG, BA and T1 (among other less known sources)-I'm only 3 years into it (need 5-6) but (so far)...tools first, performance 2nd is not "working out" for MLB. The exception is highdollar drafts that are carefully guided through the best minor systems. At this point, this is only my "educated" opinion. Webster's says a prospect is "an apparent or likely CHANCE for success, something HOPED for". That is how these lists should be viewed. You cannot measure heart, or lack of it, nor can it be figured into any analytical study.
TRhitTRhit10,000+ posts
Cat Sure

5 to 6 years---by then the data will have changed won't it

I still like the gritty coach who calls and says "I have a special kid for you" --no computers no data--just dust, sweat and resin--I cannot wait the 5 ot 6 year needed to COMPUTE

I can tell you this --every year PG tells me --make sure you come with as strong a team as you can--this is where NATURE takes over not computers--- for instance I have been on the phone since 8 this morning trying to confirm things regarding a number of players still open for next week in Jupiter-- there are a lot of diamonds under the rocks--some quailfy others wont
C CatSureMomHSBBWeb Old Timer
TR - yes the data will change, but I am looking at what should be MLB's bottom line...does this "prospect" ranked, rated or what-have-you, actually make an impact on said MLB team. College prospects are for the most part, different, college coaches do rely on performance first, they do not have the time to develop tools. I too like the "special kids", computers do not do any player justice. I do not take exception with PG (or others) they are fine, fine organizations that truly have helped players. It is the ranking of "prospects" that I have found to be flawed, but the flaw is that so much is made of these lists. I am NOT saying PG (or others) are not giving true evaluations, I am saying my research has shown to me that tools 1st and performance 2nd is not working for MLB.
TRhitTRhit10,000+ posts
Not saying this to disparage

If the computers do not do any kid justice, and you state this in your response to me why use computers?

They make a great data base but call me "old fashioned" ,and many do, but the call tonite from a coach about a player will tell me more about the player in question than your computers ever can.

I still listen to CREAM , BEATLES etc--does that make me "old fashioned"--I think not --just shows I appreciate the good stuff in that media.

As for your closing line I wont touch it--I will leave that to bbscout if he so pleases
C CatSureMomHSBBWeb Old Timer
TR - The computer is just one of my data sources, so I do not understand your computer reference. Actual observance is what prompted my study, computers are one small part. As for my closing line, I plainly stated it was at this point, a somewhat educated opinion at most.
From my humble observation, you are a wonderful encourager of baseball players everywhere, you have done great things for many players. This I have gleaned from reading this site on my computer. As I stated before, you cannot measure heart...on a computer or a prospect list.
P PGStaff10,000+ posts
atSureMom,

Could you give some examples of performance being a better judge than tools.

Usually those with the best tools are among the better performers. (Kazmir, Crawford, Upton, Prior, Mauer, Young, etc.) Those with the tools who are among the better performers are the early picks. However, often the better performers without those tools are not the early draft picks.

Truth is that more early draft picks make the Big Leagues than late draft picks. More often than not those early draft picks are ranked highly before the draft.

Regarding colleges... the same highly ranked players in high school are exactly who the big power schools try to recruit if they think they could possibly end up in college.

There are a lot of players with great tools who use them to perform among the best. Guess you could say both are important, but tools are tools and performance (statistics) can change drastically from one level to the next.
TPMTPMHSBaseballweb Member since 2003
Interesting discussion.

I have been following a player that I know who was drafted in the forty something round a few years back and has recently made BA's prospect list.
I was disappointed to hear from an expert that while he was not drafted as a prospect (a roster filler), and is a prospect now, will "peak" shortly and never make it any further.
He just doesn't have the tools needed to be MLB material.
I argued the point stating several examples but I understand that this happens very, very infrequently. noidea
C CatSureMomHSBBWeb Old Timer
PG - Ever the gentleman, throughout the time I have spent reading this site, you always approach the discussion with kindly respect. To answer your response; I need to re-state my stand in more detail. I was not intending to make the broad statement that performance is a better judge than tools. The five tools ( arm strength- hitting for power and average, fielding and speed) do result in better performance, on the average. In my research, I have looked at how MLB spends millions on "prospects". No other "business" would spend so much on "speculation", with spend/productivity ratio as it now stands. The truth is more early draft picks DO make the Big Leagues than late (primarily because they are given "extra" help, chances, etc). The truth is millions are spent on "prospects" because of SIZE and TOOLS, they are taught to perform, but many never make it for a variety of reasons. It is a "trend" in scouting to find the "big" kid with tools, overlooking the atypical built kid with tons of performance. My original post was really just a concur of Boyd's observations.
When I stated "tools first, performance second is not working out for MLB", I meant as a bottom line (financial) view. MLB is indeed "working out" OK, but it is costing millions and it not cost effective. As far as giving individual examples, I have a problem with using real names (even MLB players), just doesn't seem "nice" to me. It is all "there" for anyone to see. Boyd just brought it to a statistical light. As far as your "regarding colleges" comment, that is true more often than not, but referencing your 03 Prospects Plus, has some very "interesting" college results. I am NOT stating "prospects Plus" was incorrect in their assessment of prospects...I can say that performance won out the college player. PG was still adept at finding the performers as well as the prospects. Let me also state, again, that I have the highest respect for PG, BA and T1 and TRHit's (as well as others) efforts to assist young men toward their dream.
Respectfully submitted.
hokieonehokieone5,000+ posts
Related, sort of:

It interests me that while we tell players constantly "Go where you will play", and "You've got to be playing to be seen", and the like, every single prospect is at a D-1 school; no D-2's or D-3's.

Is that because playerts at D-2's and D-3's were considered and simply didn't measure up, or is it because most publications, especially Baseball America (which I too read and enjoy by the way), lavish their attention and their articles where the readership population is biggest-D-1ville? I suspect the smaller school players simply weren't truly considered.
P PGStaff10,000+ posts
quote:
We should continue this discussion when ARod is inducted into the Hall of Fame. You can have the other guy!


Though it might have seemed that way, I was not referring to Yogi Berra as "the other guy"

Simply meant ARod is a tools guy who has also had tremendous production. I remember Barry Bonds having many unproductive playoff games with the Pirates. Does it make him less talented?

Hitting in the clutch is great and Yogi was a clutch hitter. Now compare ARod numbers to Yogi numbers! Nothing against Yogi, but it will say something about ARod. We are witnessing one of the truly great players of all time. I think production will prove that by the time he is done, if not already. And yes, he was a number one draft pick with outstanding tools.

As great as Yogi Berra was, would any club pick him ahead of ARod? Just asking!
TPMTPMHSBaseballweb Member since 2003
Catsuremom,
I understand what you are saying, and trying myself to understand how the MLB system works, I don't necessarily agree with it. Size and tools makes you a prospect.
I have told this before. Last years #1 starter at Clemson did not get drafted. He was mentioned in BA by another coach, stating that this is a kid you want to have on your team. He played with more heart, is a finesse
pitcher with a bulldog approach. A "gamer". Two other pitchers were drafted in the first 10 rounds, not as good as the other, but tools and size were more MLB style, so they became "prospects".
At 21, the better pitcher was less than 6', and this caused lack of interest. He had "peaked", in size and most probably in ability within the next year or two. He realized he would likely only be an organizational guy, so decided not to go free agency route and finish college and play one more year.
I felt that he was a much better pitcher than some others that were drafted but as told he lacked the long lean body, long arms, long legs that help pitchers become prospects, even though he had better stats.
Two sophomore players on CU's team, just unbelievable. The smaller player (under 6') has an awesome bat, a master in the field and has broken records already at school and invited for try outs for USA team last year. He seems to me, to have all the right stuff. Yet I could probably say, next year the player who gets drafted higher will be the long, lean and tall one, with not as good as stats. He just PROJECTS better as a future MLB "prospect". Actually, it's written all over him.
Last edited by TPM
P PGStaff10,000+ posts
Just for the record, there are small college players drafted each year. Not to confuse anyone, here are the 4 year colleges that had players drafted this year in the first 5 rounds. People can draw their own conclusion as to what this means! The colleges are listed in order the players were drafted. This list does not include high school or 2 year JCs.

1st Round

DI - Nebraska
DI - Southern Cal
DI - Virginia
DI - Miami
DI - Cal State Fullerton
DI - Long Beach State
DI - Rice
DI - Wichita State
DI - Arizona
DI - Texas Christian
DI - Miami
DI - Stanford
DI - Texas A&M
DI - Oregon State
DI - Tulane
DI - Fresno State
DI - St. John’s
DI - North Carolina State
DI - McNeese State
DI - Georgia Tech

Supplemental 1st Round

DI - Massachusetts
DI - Long Beach State
DI - Arizona State
DI - Tennessee
DI - Baylor
DI - Stanford
DI - Cal Poly

2nd Round

DI - Louisiana Monroe
DI - Winthrop
DI - UNC Greensboro
DI - Mississippi State
DI - Bowling Green
DI - Mississippi
DI - Texas
DI - Clemson
DI - Coastal Carolina
DI - Tennessee
DI - Winthrop
DI - Arizona
DII - Central Missouri State
DI - Nevada

3rd Round

DI - Georgia Tech
DI - UC Irvine
DI - Tulane
DI - Nebraska
DI - Mississippi
DI - Tulane
DI - Illinois
DI - Missouri
DI - Gardner-Webb
DI - East Carolina
DII - Georgia College Div II
DI - Mississippi
DI - Rice
DI - Texas
DI - Mississippi
DI - Vanderbilt
DI - Vanderbilt
DI - Cal State Fullerton
DI - Central Florida
DI - College of Charleston

4th Round

DI - Stanford
DI - Youngstown State
DI - Maryland
DI - LSU
DII - Georgia College
DI - Texas A&M
DI - Washington
DI - Texas
DI - Arizona
DI - Michigan
DI - Miami
DI - Vanderbilt
DI - Cal Poly
DI - Pitt
DI - East Tennessee State
DI - Rice

5th Round

DI - William&Mary
DII - Franklin Pierce
DI - Loyola Marymount
DI - Houston
DI - Mississippi
DI - Auburn
DI - Central Florida
DI - Arizona State
DI - Vanderbilt
DI - Niagra
NAIA - Biola
DII - Minnesota State
DI - Vanderbilt
DI - College of Charlseton
DI - Texas
DI - Niagra
DI - Southern Cal
DI - South Carolina
DI - Arizona
DI - Georgia
DI - Nebraska
DI – Georgia

Of the first 100 four year college players selected in this year’s draft:
0 were from DIII Schools
1 was from an NAIA School
5 were from DII Schools, 2 from the same school.
94 were from DI Schools
All 100 were Scholarship Schools
ChillChill1,000+ posts
quote:
Of the first 100 four year college players selected in this year’s draft:
0 were from DIII Schools
1 was from an NAIA School
5 were from DII Schools, 2 from the same school.
94 were from DI Schools
All 100 were Scholarship Schools


I am glad someone posted this...I think that sometimes our conversations are misleading about
how frequently non-D1 players make the draft....of course they do, but not many.
B bbscout1,000+ posts
Good post PG and thanks for the hard work and all that typing too. Smile PG's list does not surprise me, as the high school kids are going to showcases all over the country and the College coaches and Pro scouts are seeing them often in the summer after their Junior year. When it comes time to offer the rides to college, the D1's get the first picks in most cases and when the draft comes along after 3 years in college, the high picks are coming out of the D1 schools.

It is great to see a Billy Wagner go in the 1st round out of a small college, but for the most part the better guys are at the better D1 schools and they are the better talents. In my area, it is no brainer that Stanford and Fresno State are going to have more prospects year in and year out than Hayward State or Cal St. Stanislaus. The big D1's get the first picks out of high school.
TPMTPMHSBaseballweb Member since 2003
PG,
Good post, I think we can all draw similar conclusions from your post.

Now tell that guy/gal in the office if he/she has time to let us know out of those drafted the following from your list
1.How many were drafted out of HS but chose to go to college.
2. If they were drafted what was their previous draft round.
3. How many transfered from Jucos
4. How many transfered from another 4 year school.
5. How many attended a div 2 or 3 and transfered to the scchool.
biglaugh

Oh I forgot Roll Eyes height, weight, position, lefty ,righty, etc.
Last edited by TPM
B bbscout1,000+ posts
I am with Jerry on A-Rod. He may be the best player I have ever seen and his stats are through the roof. For those who think he does not handle post season pressure, going into this year his lifetime average in post season was .330.

At age 29 he has made 7 All Star teams, has had 9 100+ Rbi seasons and 10 seasons where he scored a 100 runs. He has 429 HR's and a career batting average of .307. He also has 226 SB's and a couple of gold gloves. All this at an age where he is just coming into his prime.
D deldad500+ posts
I would like to see a comparison of the "prospect" list when the college kids were drafted and what it was when they were in high school. Including the DI,DII and DIII draftees. I would wager that the DI kids were on there somewhere and the DII and DIII kids were nowhere to be found. Thus the improvement over their collegiate stay. I would also like a comparison of where the kids played high school that were drafted out of college versus the ones out of high school and see if the northern states are better represented out of college (where they grew up not were they played college).
I believe there are in excess of 250 DI schools with 25 players per roster. Of that 6000+ players let's say 2000 are draft eligible and the draft has averaged 60% college athletes for approximately 900 college athletes drafted. The numbers start looking pretty daunting for the DII and DIII kids pretty early. I hope they are devoting there time to their studies and using their talent to assure they get a degree instead of chasing the major league pipe dream. It would also be interesting to see the height and weight of those DII and DIII players at draft time versus their senior year in high school. I think the variables we are dealing with here are innumerable. While I think where you play has an effect, I also believe that the student athletes priorities begin to become a large factor when they enter college. As TR stated heart is an intangible that makes a kid want what the lists and scouts have told him he can't have and not all kids have that. Baseball can open many doors and they all don't lead to the Hall of Fame.

While I agree ARod may have the best tools in the game he will be judged on one thing the number of rings he has, which at last count stands at zero versus the contract he has which stands at 25 million per. His HoF plaque will look mighty bare without that October jewelry. Time will tell.
F FormerObserver1,000+ posts
quote:
I think the variables we are dealing with here are innumerable.



Me, too.


And noting that bbscout and Chill were seemed very well aware of the D1 domination of the early rounds, wondered just what their thoughts were off the top of their head, without imposing too much on them or even more on PG.

Unlike some, when E.F. Hutton, bbscout, and Chill speak, I listen and observe.

And that has been much to my benefit, at less than the cost of a cup of coffee.............

Only some of ya'll will understand the E.F. Hutton thing............
TPMTPMHSBaseballweb Member since 2003
quote:
Originally posted by Tiger Paw Mom:
PG,
Good post, I think we can all draw similar conclusions from your post.

Now tell that guy/gal in the office if he/she has time to let us know out of those drafted the following from your list
1.How many were drafted out of HS but chose to go to college.
2. If they were drafted what was their previous draft round.
3. How many transfered from Jucos
4. How many transfered from another 4 year school.
5. How many attended a div 2 or 3 and transfered to the scchool.
biglaugh

Oh I forgot Roll Eyes height, weight, position, lefty ,righty, etc.


Oh and yes, a list of where they went to school also. LOL
PAmomPAmom1,000+ posts
FormerObserver---

If you go to the Division III baseball website, there are links to the D-III players drafted by year. I have been searching for similar D-II information, but have come up empty thus far. One thing is crystal clear, however. Although exceptions exist to every rule, the odds are stacked heavily against collegiate players from divisions other than D-I on the draft issue.
Next

Add Reply

Post
.

Membership Required

We're sorry. You must be signed in to continue. Sign In or Register
×
Are you sure you want to remove from your Block List?
×
Loading...
×
When you block a person, they can no longer invite you to a private message or post to your profile wall. Replies and comments they make will be collapsed/hidden by default. Finally, you'll never receive email notifications about content they create or likes they designate for your content.
Note: if you proceed, you will no longer be following .
×
Advanced Search
Advanced Search
Link copied to your clipboard.
×