Comments on: Success And Failure

By: Gruntosaurus

Gruntosaurus — Fri, 18 Feb 2011 20:35:43 +0000

Remember that we’re not talking about a team’s top 100 (or 20 or even 10) prospects here; we’re talking about the top 100 prospects per year in ALL of baseball. I would agree with you that if you’re Kyle McClellan, were a 25th-round draft choice, and never appeared on anyone’s top-100 list except your mom’s, a setup/middle-relief career averaging 0.8 WAR doesn’t make you a “bust;” rather, it makes you a success beyond your, the team’s, and even your mom’s wildest dreams. But there is a big difference between K-Mac on the one hand, and Jair Jurrjens, Chris Tillman, Gio Gonzalez, etc., on the other. You EXPECT those guys to go on to big things; that’s why they were top-100 prospects (in 2008). A top-100 prospect who tops out at setup may have had a major-league career that you and I could only dream about, but he is intrinsically still a bust compared to what a top-100 guy *should* achieve.

By: tom s.

tom s. — Fri, 18 Feb 2011 19:42:53 +0000

I will try to read the article, but one thought just on this descriptor is that a 1.5 WAR threshold would mean every relief prospect who’s not jon papelbon is a bust. A guy who comes up as a reliever and is a successful setup man in the majors will probably not break 1.5 WAR season after season. Is there any accounting for that?

By: cariocacardinal

cariocacardinal — Fri, 18 Feb 2011 13:36:45 +0000

Thanks for that amplification. To be honest, Iever knew Polanco’s defense was so good.

By: Lou Schuler

Lou Schuler — Fri, 18 Feb 2011 12:11:54 +0000

True. But thanks to his defense, he surpassed McKinney’s 1.5-WAR threshold every full season in the majors, starting in 2000, his age-24 season. (I used B-R’s numbers, which may be higher than others, but I think McKinney used them as well.)

He had negative WAR in two partial seasons before that, so his 1.9-WAR 2000 put him at just about replacement level for his young career.

Then in 2001 he had 3.9 WAR, and has been around MLB average or above every year since. For his career he’s now at 33 WAR, with defense accounting for about a third of that.

By: Forsch31

Forsch31 — Thu, 17 Feb 2011 21:24:30 +0000

Second basemen probably have the least success because that position tends to be a destination for failed shortstops. There’s more competition for the position, and prospects drafted for the position tend to be less valuable and unable to change positions. It’s like the value of a reliever prospects–it’s not a high demand position for young talent because there’s so many cheap ways to fill the position effectively.

By: Forsch31

Forsch31 — Thu, 17 Feb 2011 21:16:07 +0000

The other thing to remember is that analysis called players with less than 1.5 WAR (wins above replacement level) a bust. These are prospects who made the major leagues, so simply “making it to the big leagues” doesn’t mean you’re a successful prospect. Scott McKinney probably did that because a vast majority of the top 100 BA players probably do make it the majors at some point, and to measure the results of a highly talented prospect, you needed to have higher expectations. If a top 100 SS became a utility player in the majors, for instance, he’d be labeled a bust because the expectation was that he’d be a starting shortstop of some value.

By: zuke354

zuke354 — Thu, 17 Feb 2011 19:26:35 +0000

Probably some truth to that. But historicly the cards have also taken many college players. Lots of time HS and younger players are deamed prospects based solely on potential, where college kids rankings are more production based. By this premis alone college kids will have a lower bust rate.

By: Gruntosaurus

Gruntosaurus — Thu, 17 Feb 2011 18:20:54 +0000

It appears from these data that Cardinals farm hands who make it onto the top-100 lists have a somewhat better than average chance of qualifying as a “success” (or at least not a “bust”) in the bigs, but fewer than the statistical share make those lists to begin with. Neither number is far enough from the average to qualify individually as a statistically significant outlier (the way, say, Atlanta’s 43 top-100 players or Arizona’s 11 — yes, 11 — do), but the combination of the two suggests that fewer “busts” than usual emerge from the Cardinals system.

I speculate that what we’re seeing here is more evidence for the “East Coast bias” thing that Cardinals fans have complained about for as long as there have been Cardinals fans. A prospect seemingly has to be better than average to attract the writers’ notice if he’s in the Cardinals system, from which the smaller number of “busts” follows. On balance, things are probably better that way, even if it gets irritating to read about it. Look at it this way: the much ballyhooed Atlanta system has had 31 busts, more than the Cardinals have had top-100 candidates total. Would you rather be like that?

By: cariocacardinal

cariocacardinal — Thu, 17 Feb 2011 15:01:12 +0000

Polanco was a late bloomer with an OPS of over .700 (.709) once in his minor league career. He really came on the map at age 29 when he put up his first .800+ OPS.

By: zuke354

zuke354 — Thu, 17 Feb 2011 14:37:34 +0000

I think fans some times lose perspective. For intance, the data shows that second base has the least success. Other data shows that shortstops are the hardest position to develop. I don’t think most casual fans realize this. You see alot of criticism about the cards not developing middle infielders, but I don’t think those realize this is common among all teams.