Age And Projection (player development)

by bravos408 on Dec 21, 2007 12:58 PM EST Comment 17 comments

I just found out how to do this..sweet.
So I recently got into a debate with a talker of chop on here, and it turned into an age and stat issue. First off let me say I do have a lot of time around the braves. I am not a stalker, and I am not a braves die hard, (though i do love the braves). The topic was started by a prospect ranking (1-10). I got to thinking how many times these lists were wrong in projecting above average big leaguers and even if a guy was going to get to the big leagues. I look back over the years 02-07 and I think about all the guys who were in the top 10, then by the next year some were barely even in the top 20 if at all..
Why are these lists that claim guys to be the next big thing never pursued when the player goes to the toilet? The top 10 is an elite list! And why on the lists, are there always 3-4 guys that just drop out in the next year or two? I've seen
Andy Marte, Aaron Herr, Scott Thorman, Jose Capellan, Brett Evert, Dan Meyer, Ray Aguilar,Josh Burrus, Jake Stevens, Anthony Lerew, Luis Hernandez, Van Pope, Kyle Davies, Gonzalo Lopez..I mean the list goes on...And all of a sudden they are replaced by the next big thing..Its a vicious cycle. It shows a lot how the makers of the lists have no ability to project. Anywho, I started thinking about the age issue in relation to the level of play that a player is on. I use brad nelson, a 26 year old righty who has put up a career 3.29 era with an outstanding win loss record (playing at evey level except the majors, including the fall league). And then I look at guys who've struggled in the minors and still have had big league success.. Kevin Millwood, Bobby Jenks, and even John Smoltz to name a few. Lets not forget the average age to make a major league debut is 24..thats pretty old in prospect terms (even though Brandon Jones is 24 sammons-24 devine-24 lillibridge-24 manny acosta is two years older born in 81!(and still you list him very highly) dan smith-24) ..Kelly Johnson, Yunel Escobar, and Chuck James were 24 (if you dont include chuck's 5 inning stint in the last weeks of 05). My point here is don't turn your backs on the guys who have made it to AA and AAA and are knocking on the door. My point is a 23 and 24 even 25 year old can still be a top prospects, even if they aren't on the BA top 10. Kids can still have breakout seasons in the latter stages of their minor league careers, though less likely... I'm curious to know where schafers top 10 ranking when he hit 240 or so in 06 was, and where his top 10 ranking was in the beginning of 07..Now he's #1. I've heard it said that Morton was old for the fall league and you have to question the level of competition he was playing against, there were 25 guys older than him on his team alone. He just turned 24! Playing against top prospects and guys who have already been in the big leagues...hmm I dont know. I'm not saying anything bold here, just mentioning that if the braves haven't given up on guys, why should you..and also prospect lists are poop sometimes

Poll

Is 24 too old to be a prospect?

yes

4 votes

no

43 votes

47 votes | Poll has closed

0 recs | Comment 17 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

24 is definitely not too old

Lets just think back to recent memory of some of the Rookie of the Year award winners.

Year - Recipient - Age

2007 - Ryan Braun - 23
2007 - D. Pedroia - 24
2006 - Verlander - 23
2006 - H. Ramirez - 23
2005 - Ryan Howard - 25 ...MVP at 26
2005 - Huston Street - 22
2004 - Jason Bay - 26
2004 - Bobby Crosby - 24
2003 - Angel Berroa - 25
2003 - D-Train - 21
2002 - Eric Hinske - 25
2002 - J. Jennings - 24

and just for fun lets look at a couple of other years....

1997 - Nomar - 24
1993 - Piazza - 24 ....Hall of Famer
1990 - our favorite juicer Dave Justice - 24
1987 - Big Mac - 24

So if you look at the past 6 years from 2002-2007 there have been 12 ROY recipients and over half of them have been 24 years or older. Only 2 of 12 have been under 23 years old. I think this pretty much says that 24 years old is not too old to be a prospect.

by whunt13 on Dec 21, 2007 6:39 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

Yes

But how many of those guys were playing (and sucking) in A-ball at age 23 like Jairo Cuevas was?

by 17843 on Dec 22, 2007 12:46 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I was not defending a particular player

My post was to just confirm the question that he asked, which was "Is 24 years old, too old to be a prospect?" - I just posted this so that everyone can see that 24 years old is defintely not too old to be a prospect and I don't think anyone can argue against that after looking at this.

As far as Jairo Cuevas, I don't disagree with your point of view of him. I wasn't saying that he or anyone else for that matter was good because I personally don't feel that he has much of a future (although I hope he proves me wrong). I was simply saying that a player can be 24 years old and still considered a prospect.

by whunt13 on Dec 22, 2007 1:35 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

No, sorry

I wasn't attacking your point, just adding too. Those guys who won Rookie of the Year at age 24 or later all did so while playing major league seasons. In that case it's not unreasonable to think of them as prospects. It is, however, unreasonable to think of a 24 year old playing in A-ball (and not succeeding at all) as a prospect.

And to the guy who posted this, you still aren't making much sense. If the Braves released everyone who they didn't consider a great shot at contributing to their team, they'd have maybe a teams worth of minor leaguers, not six. So again, the fact that the Braves continue to keep them on the roster is not indicative of any great promise, they were merely the guys out of those eligible the Braves felt most deserved to get spots on the 40 man. In fact, most of those of the "stat rat" top ten list did not have to be placed on the 40 man or exposed to the Rule 5 Draft.

by 17843 on Dec 22, 2007 5:32 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

i think you

should go ask braves personel what they think about cuevas. And also ask them to compare cuevas to your "top ten ranking" of dan smith. Because while smith has put up good numbers the braves are not high on him (i know for a fact), while they love cuevas. And that is because cuevas's cieling hasn't been reached while smith's has. And also is true with guys like JC Holt, who'm you'd value higher than cuevas morton and schreiber. Which leads me to believe that all you're doing is speculating..which i can't blame you for. But I'm not speculating! I'm not making this stuff up! I'm not reaching for something desperate to argue about. I know for a fact that the braves love cuevas. The kid will go 5 innings without giving up a hit (and it happens a lot!) then all of a sudden the wheels come off. Thats something he's trying to figure out, but his numbers dont reflect the pitcher he can be. Why do you think they left smith in AAA on the AAA protection roster, while they protect a guy in A ball?? Do you know what has to happen for another team to take a guy off of the AAA protection squad? They have to put him in the big leagues! Why (if cuevas sucked) would the braves protect him?!?!? Do you know what they protected all these guys from?? Other big league teams! Not some A ball club! Morton's protection year was 2 full years ago! he's been protected on the AAA protection roster this whole time, they didn't put him on the 40 man due to "minor league service time", they did it so someone else couldnt take him and put him on their big league roster. Give me a break

by bravos408 on Dec 22, 2007 1:53 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

17843

post above was directed at 117843

and sorry whunt, my post after your rookie of the year post wasn't directed at you, i was explaining why i posted what i did, sorry for the mix up

by bravos408 on Dec 22, 2007 1:55 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Congrats

That you know "for a fact". But comparing Cuevas, Morton, Schreiber, etc. to the other organizational players who were not protected is not what the argument is about. Your argument seems to be based on the following:

"If the Braves protected Cuevas, Morton, and Schreiber, it must mean they expect them to be future major leaguers."

That's not true at all. The Braves protected them because they had the most promise out of the other minor leaguers who were going to be eligible for the Rule 5 Draft if they weren't protected. I mean, look at the competition they had (Holt, Diory Hernandez, Smith*). Sure you'd protect to guys with good stuff who had an outside shot at bullpen jobs over two middle infielders who might be backups and a lefty best suited to pitching long relief. That does not believe they are the best prospects (as I defined prospect in another diary).

*Ranking Smith in the top ten was a mistake made based on flashes of good pitching this year. If I had looked back through previous years, the BB/9 rate would've stuck out as a red flag.

by 17843 on Dec 22, 2007 5:40 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

smith

Well first of all, lets start with dan smith.. and you basing your ranking of him on this years season..it was his worst, by far

I am addressing a few issues so it may not always make sense what direction i'm going in.
first here to make it clear
1) Minor league stats don't always tell the whole story (ie),
johan santana
Dan Uggla
bobby jenks
john smoltz
kevin millwood
jason schmidt
david wells
Kenny Rogers
roy halladay
alfonso soriano
torii hunter
to name some who havent exactly flourished in the minor leagues
2) Age isn't always a factor in determining the reach of a player to their ceiling
3)Age and level of play isn't always important
4)I said you should release everyone because i was being dramatic
5) I believe that one of these three (schreiber cuevas or morton) will turn out to be a better big leaguer than hanson or rorobough, or maybe both..so laugh at me muahahahah

by bravos408 on Dec 22, 2007 9:48 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

and you also said

that schreiber morton and cuevas were all destined to be long relief at best...so..why wouldn't you take a lefty long relief at best guy over 3 righties with mostly far worse stats?

by bravos408 on Dec 22, 2007 9:51 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

and as far as 40 man protection

No one was holding a gun to the braves staff and saying "you have to protect three guys on your 40 man!".. No one "has" to be protected... they couldve just as easily left them all unprotected..and by doing so, keeping guys around that already had been in the big leagues (they wouldnt have had to make room).. you're talking like they always have spaces open reserved for the "top few" that are the "most likely" to be taken. like it was a pity promotion...
I'm sorry i just can't agree with you on this..I know where you're coming from, but you are making it seem like everything is so black and white when its not..thats the only problem i'm having..

by bravos408 on Dec 22, 2007 10:20 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I posted this

I posted this because a large group of people on here seemed to be down on guys that I like (schreiber, cuevas, and morton). Cuevas is one of those guys who people are excited about in the braves system...Gondee said morton was too old to be a prospect..while guys on his list (and many others on tc) included dan smith, clint sammons, joey devine, manny acosta (is way older), and lillibridge who are all older than him and brandon jones is the same age. I like schreiber, i think he's a good pitcher, and is valued by the braves, and cuevas, and morton, otherwise they wouldnt have been protected. And of the 40 guys on the 40 man last year only one i believe, didn't have big league time with the braves in 07 (blanco). I think that speaks volumes for being put on the 40 man and for their case of being of great value to the club

by bravos408 on Dec 21, 2007 7:10 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

Being put on the 40 Man Roster is one thing...

But the mindset of those, like me, who do not expect much from those thre when compared to other prospects is because the other prospects have shown better skills at a younger age, and are projected to be more valuable major leaguers. Not saying any of those three will not be valuable, it just seems less likely of a chance than some of our younger prospects. Of course, once some of those younger prospects get older, and if they do not seem to be improving to their projections, then they will not be valued as highly as our even younger prospects. That is the way it goes of course in any organization, but I think the difference of opinion is that you in the mindset of valuing prospects as to what impact they will have on the major league team in the present, while i value prospects oh how big an impact they will make throughout there career in the majors.

by bravessuperbeast on Dec 22, 2007 2:19 AM EST reply actions 0 recs

i kinda agree

And i'm not necessarily of the mindset that all three of these guys will be more or as valuable than say a francoeur or someone of that caliber. My statements only that stats and prospect rankings dont tell the whole story. And i've listed a good few "top prospects" who didn't really do anything special if they even made it to the big leagues. Only time will tell of course. Ideally, you'd see each of the top 20 end up in a spot that you saw coming, but it never happens where a large majority of the players listed impact as predicted. If someone were to say at the beginning of this season (march or april) that by may of 08 jordan schafer would be the starting cf for the braves people would laugh. And if you were to say 4 years ago andy marte wouldve wound up a total unsuccess they wouldve laughed. I look at the fact that a fairly large portion of once top 10 prospects are booted from the list. And sometimes alltogether. Most of what i'm trying to get at, is that 24 is still very young. And while you see guys like locke a lot more valuable than guys like cuevas and morton I see differently. I see it as locke (if he continues to have success) ends up where morton and cuevas are at some point in his career. And hopefully he has success in the big leagues, but until that happens, he's just another guy in rookie ball making his way through the minor leagues and could as easily (just in one season remarkably) fall drastically in "rank" status based on one season (which is nothing in comparison to a career). This possible drop is also why i dont buy into hype more than the next guy, because if a guy can be 4th or 5th one season and the next drop to 20, then 25 (just for the sake of keeping him on some list) the list was of no use in the first place. Anyone can see pure talent, and can read a stat sheet and put two and two together, but there is another side of player developent that puts down the stats, and leaves the projections to guys like paul snyder.. And I wish someone would see that too.
I also don't see the flawless (or anywhere near that) correlation between minor league stats and big league stats but thats a whole different issue, thanks for the comments

by bravos408 on Dec 22, 2007 3:18 AM EST reply actions 0 recs

I agree!

But.....
"It shows a lot how the makers of the lists have no ability to project."
So who does? The Braves? They're wrong sometimes, too!

See, my thing about these lists is it's like playing the lottery in a way. I'll pick my numbers/players, you pick yours, and in the end we'll see who was right. But don't check the numbers/players until ten years in the future until the proof is really there - until someone's career has either taken off or gone away, which gets into defining a prospect, which, in my humble opinion, is a player who gets to the majors and stays there for years - not just a 2-3 year flash in the pan. To make these lists ( or pick lottery numbers), some people use stats, some use word of mouth, some are fairly well informed, and some have no clue but like to think they're well-informed (and those are the ones who will most often spend lots of time telling you so). There just is no right or wrong answer. Since none of us is employed by the Braves and we are not Kurt Kemp, this is just for fun. Right? And I think MY list was the best!

by secondbass on Dec 22, 2007 7:45 AM EST reply actions 0 recs

Secondbass

I dig your style.
I totally agree with your statements.

by bravos408 on Dec 22, 2007 11:01 AM EST reply actions 0 recs

There's no definition for "prospect"...

The problem here, I think, is that people are trying to come up with an absolute definition for what makes a prospect. There's no rule which says that after age 24, you're done developing. The relevant issue here is that to discuss any player, you have to take into account his age relative to his level. Jairo Cuevas was a 23-year-old pitching at High-A. He was significantly older than many of the people he pitched against. MOST future major-league players would be farther along in their development than High-A by age 23. Are there late developing prospects? Absolutely. But that doesn't make it likely that Jairo Cuevas is ever going to have a big-league career.

by tgthree on Dec 23, 2007 6:03 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

Projectability

I think that everyone is drawing some extreme cases out in this and faily to address the norms. Is 24 yrs old considered too old to be a "prospect?" I would argue Yes and No. I think the maturity point and curve for a pitcher would say that 24 for a pitching prospect is not as old as a position player. I also think you need to consider the route of the player. If the player came out of a college, where he played all four years (not common but possible) he would be 22 when he hit Pro Ball. You would have to at least expect to give him 2 yrs in the minors so in that case; 24 would be expected. Many of the ROY recipients mentioned were college players.

You also have to consider situations. Howard sat in the minors because the Phils signed Thome. Had Thome not been there he would have been up at least a year earlier.

However, I think it is fair to say that age ( or perhaps years of experience) plays a signifigant part in projecting a player. The growth ceiling is going to be higher on someone who is 21 vs someone who is 24.

I also think that we as fans forget the fact that more "polished" or "smarter" players are able to excel at the lower levels because the competition isn't as good and they can take advantage of the opponents week spots. However, as those weak spots become harder and harder to exploit at the higher levels that player begins to struggle.

I think you see this most of the time with pitchers. You will see a soft tossing/ finesse guy who destroys Short Season, Low A, High A, but starts to struggle in AA or AAA. Get him against more experience batters and he gets killed. In most cases talent wins out.

The theory is that you can (hopefully) teach a young flamethrower how to pitch. You can't teach a soft tossing pitcher how to throw heat.

by calbers on Dec 27, 2007 11:02 PM EST reply actions 0 recs