How they fared. 7 comments

Oh, one more thing.

Continuing from yesterday. Once again, here are all the Rangers who have made the Baseball Prospectus Top 101 prospects since they started ranking them in 2007.

This will, again, point out how inexact of a science the baseball draft is, and the business of grading prospects is. These picks were made by a publication and by writers who specialize in this sort of thing. This is their bread and butter. Their reputation, and revenue, are on the line.

So how did they do?

Taking a look at the Ranger evaluated over the 13 seasons, which coincidentally coincides with Jon Daniels’s tenure as the Rangers general manager, thirty-six different Rangers prospects made the Baseball Prospectus Top 101 list.

Eleven of those thirty-six players you can honestly say paid off in one form or another and were accurately diagnosed: Volquez, Feliz, Andrus, Davis, Smoak, Holland, Ramirez, Odor, Gallo, Mazara, and Guzman. This doesn’t mean they were or are going to be superstars, or even perennial all-stars. It’s just that, you can say each of these eleven  had or are having a degree of success as a major league player.

Thirteen of those thirty-six were busts, either never panned out at all, or never developed into competent major leaguers: Hurley, Beltre, Main, Teagarden, Perez, Scheppers, Olt, Sardinas, Gonzalez, Choice, Jake Thompson, Tate, and Ortiz.

That leaves twelve of the players the jury is still out on, either they haven’t been in professional baseball long enough to be called up, or they have been called up but it’s still too early to call which way their careers will go. They are: Profar, Alfaro, Brinson, Williams, Mendez, Jurado, Traveras, Tejada, Calhoun, Matuella, Martinez, and Bubba Thompson. If the above percentages hold true, that means more than half of the twelve players that the jury is still out will never pan out. The other half will.

They can rank them all day. But more often than not they never materialize.

Baseball is hard.

  • elkaba

    Good stuff, Kevin. It would be interesting to see how a team well known for better development of talent does using the same statistical analysis. I wonder if their success rate would be that much different?

    • GoRangers23

      That is a great question.

      I think it all starts with having good scouts to begin with. I think that we haven’t had very good scouts for a long time. Didn’t they replace some of our scouts recently? I really hope so! Apparently that is not something just anyone can do. And I realize that some of them were battling some horrific illnesses in their lives and the lives of close family members, but I wouldn’t think that that would account for so many years worth of duds. It is horrible though, and those situations would definitely interfere with your work for a time.

      • elkaba

        I think it’s all a crap shoot no matter what a team does. Some players pan out. Others don’t. If you look at how many kids start out playing a sport and how many drop out at each stage along the way, it’s a wonder anyone makes it to the majors. Over 1,200 players are drafted EVERY season, many more in the later rounds than in the highly publicized first few rounds. But every year some of those drafted in the latter rounds make it all the way while others drafter earlier never do.

        Over any 5 year period there are over 6,000 players drafted. Nowhere near a majority of them ever make it to the bigs. Drafting and developing is just not a high reward investment IMO. Like they say, at best and if you’re lucky, you can draft and develop your pitching, but you’re better off hiring everyone else.

        • JacobMcCandles

          I agree as a draft analogy…..disagree as a developmental analogy as some teams have a proven success record.

  • JacobMcCandles

    Splitting hairs but Alfaro has had some success and I think Dillon Tate will be good.

  • JacobMcCandles

    CJ Nitkowski is a enigma to me…listened to him for an hour today on MLB….very intelligent and intuitive dude….just doesn’t translate to the broadcast booth very well.

  • possumrld

    True about the inexact science of grading, rating, or evaluating ‘top prospects”. But in reality around 1/3rd to maybe a bit more than that whoso “make the grade” to some degree or another, doesn’t seem like that bad of a ratio to me. Especially when considering so many different things that can go wrong to derail a young aspiring baseball player’s hopes for an MLB career.