Managing Prospect Expectations

© Staff Photo by Richard Pollitt via Imagn Content Services, LLC

Every offseason, we work diligently to produce prospect rankings for every team in baseball — when all is said and done, our lists typically incorporate well over 1,000 player write-ups. And based on the engagement with last week’s Top 100 Prospects list and our other Prospects Week content, our readers are as excited about prospects as we are. I’m proud of the work we do here at FanGraphs, but there is one area in which we haven’t done as well as we could, and that’s in helping you properly manage expectations.

We see it in the comments, on Twitter, and in pieces at other publications that reference the work done here. People line up a team’s prospect list and assume that is what the team will look like in two, three, or more years. Look up a system’s top five pitching prospects and that’s what the big league rotation will look like down the road. Three good middle infield prospects? That’s too many! What will the club ever do? We’ve tried our best to communicate the exceptionally real (and yet still underrated) failure rate when it comes to projecting prospects, but it’s become clear that we haven’t done a good enough job.

On our Top 100, we included Estimated Probable FV Outcome distribution graphs with each writeup in an attempt to better communicate the chances of each player becoming a big leaguer, let alone a good or even great one. As an example, here is Nick Pratto’s distribution graph:

Those numbers weren’t set out of the blue; we based them on historical data on how prospects given 50-grade or higher FVs actually turn out in the end, and then applied our own judgements about the player.

People spend a lot of time looking at the right side of the scale and with good reason. That’s where the fun is. That’s where stardom lies, where team wins comes from. But too often, we ignore the left side, the role player side, the (gulp) bust side, where the data shows an overwhelming chance that none of this will work out the way some fans might hope.

You Aren't a FanGraphs Member
It looks like you aren't yet a FanGraphs Member (or aren't logged in). We aren't mad, just disappointed.
We get it. You want to read this article. But before we let you get back to it, we'd like to point out a few of the good reasons why you should become a Member.
1. Ad Free viewing! We won't bug you with this ad, or any other.
2. Unlimited articles! Non-Members only get to read 10 free articles a month. Members never get cut off.
3. Dark mode and Classic mode!
4. Custom player page dashboards! Choose the player cards you want, in the order you want them.
5. One-click data exports! Export our projections and leaderboards for your personal projects.
6. Remove the photos on the home page! (Honestly, this doesn't sound so great to us, but some people wanted it, and we like to give our Members what they want.)
7. Even more Steamer projections! We have handedness, percentile, and context neutral projections available for Members only.
8. Get FanGraphs Walk-Off, a customized year end review! Find out exactly how you used FanGraphs this year, and how that compares to other Members. Don't be a victim of FOMO.
9. A weekly mailbag column, exclusively for Members.
10. Help support FanGraphs and our entire staff! Our Members provide us with critical resources to improve the site and deliver new features!
We hope you'll consider a Membership today, for yourself or as a gift! And we realize this has been an awfully long sales pitch, so we've also removed all the other ads in this article. We didn't want to overdo it.

I think our Top 100 is really good, but I also buy the research that suggests that a meaningful percentage of these players just aren’t going provide any major league value. None. Zero. Zilch. Nada. Indeed, if we average the bust odds for all 114 ranked prospects and apply that average to the population, we can get a rough idea of how many of the those players we might expect to bust — in this case, about 36 players.

Properly setting readers’ expectations is perhaps best done by starting with an extreme example. Right now the Baltimore Orioles have the best position player prospect in baseball, as well as the best pitching prospect in the game. Indeed, Adley Rutschman and Grayson Rodriguez are one of the better hitter/pitcher combos in a single organization in recent memory, and their expected outcomes are equally impressive:

The Orioles Big Two: Expected Outcomes
Bust 40-45 50-55 60-65 70
Adley Rutschman 12% 18% 20% 20% 30%
Grayson Rodriguez 15% 15% 25% 25% 20%

But let’s do the math. As the top prospect in the game, we are saying, and I think accurately so, that Rutschman is the most likely perennial MVP candidate on our list. We’re saying the same for Rodriguez in term of his year-to-year Cy Young chances. Their odds of becoming a 70+ FV player aren’t topped by any other prospect in their player group. But the chances that both end up being that player? How about just 6%, or roughly 1-in-16, because that’s what the math tells us. Let’s lower expectations, and see what the chances are that both become star-level players (60+ FV). That’s 22.5%. Think about that for a second. This is, once again, the best position player prospect and the best pitching prospect in all of baseball. The chances of both becoming stars is outstanding compared to any other combination you might come up with, but it’s also less than 1-in-4. Assuming Rodriguez will be the staff ace and that Rutschman will be a perennial All-Star? The odds are stacked against that, and in fact, quite strongly. That said, the chances are good that they’ll provide something. There’s a 91% chance that both will be big leaguers, using the low bar of both becoming a 40+ FV. But the odds that only one of the pair provides big league regular level performance (50+ FV) are exactly the same as both doing so:

Being Realistic About Outcomes
Outcomes Odds
Both will be 50+ FV 45.5%
One will be 50+ FV 45.5%
Both are busts 9%

Both of them working out, even just in terms of being big league regulars? Probably not. Just barely probably not, but nonetheless under 50%. And this is in no way an indictment of the players or their respective rankings; it’s an indictment of how prospect rankings are perceived following their release.

We can do this math with any pair of highly regarded prospects. The Tigers have first baseman Spencer Torkelson and outfielder Riley Greene sitting as the fifth and sixth best prospects in baseball. The chances both of them are 60+ FV stars? That comes out to 17.1%, or roughly 1-in-6. The chances that both are 50+ FV big league regulars? Just over 40%. Again, the most realistic outcomes are those other than both players becoming even major league average regulars or better.

This is why teams need depth as much as star power. The more high-end prospects a team has, the better those outcomes become, not in terms of them all working out (that’s never going to happen), but in terms of some working out.

Still, there is incredible risk, especially when a system is populated by players who are still very far away. A great example is the Chicago Cubs, a team that has an incredible number of intriguing, high-upside prospects, many of whom are still teenagers. Four such players are in the bottom part of our Top 100, ranking from No. 87 to No. 114. But Cubs fans who are already pencilling Kevin Alcantara, Owen Caissie, James Triantos and Reginald Preciado into their favorite team’s 2025 lineup are setting themselves up for considerable disappointment:

Attrition Can Be Brutal
Outcomes % Chance
All Four 50+ FV 1.0%
3-of-4 50+ FV 8.9%
2-of-4 50+ FV 28.4%
1-of-4 50+ FV 40.3%
Zero 50+ FV 21.4%

And to be clear, these are not their chances of stardom; these are just the odds of them being major league regulars at an average or better clip. They’re a wonderful quartet of players, but the realistic odds are set at just over 90% that half or more won’t live up to what amount to only moderately lofty expectations.

Prospects are great, prospects are fun, and prospects are exciting. They can offer an enticing glimpse of how your team gets better. But that doesn’t mean they will. No team in baseball can build a champion entirely from within. Even the team with the best system is baseball — and even a system that enjoys better-than-expected outcomes from its bulk of prospects — at some point needs to spend money and/or trade said prospects in order to improve its roster from the outside. As my good friend Jason Parks used to say, “Prospects will break your heart.” It’s always important to have that in the back of your mind when accurately considering the future of an organization.





Kevin Goldstein is a National Writer at FanGraphs.

81 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
kylerkelton
4 years ago

Thanks for writing this! It is natural to be excited about prospects but every baseball fan should read this. As a Braves fan, the example I always think of is Jason Heyward. At one point he was the top prospect in baseball. When he came up and slugged his first big league home run Braves fans were dreaming on him batting in the middle of the order and hitting 30+ bombs a year for the next decade+. But that didn’t happen. Most would say Heyward was a disappointment. But here he is with 30+ career WAR. He’s been a solid to good player for 12 seasons. I don’t know what his FV was when he was a prospect and even if 30+ WAR is not the top percentile, that’s a really good career outcome.

Last edited 4 years ago by Slenderman
sadtromboneMember since 2020
4 years ago
Reply to  kylerkelton

Jason Heyward is by any rational standard an enormous success, but that seemed to me to be the golden days of overhyped prospectdom. He was getting Dave Winfield comps. No one should be getting comped to a Hall of Famer unless you’re talking about the 90th percentile outcome, and even then…

FrancoeursteinMember since 2025
4 years ago
Reply to  sadtrombone

Overhyped prospectdom is correct. I remember hearing Hank Aaron comps.

MikeD
4 years ago
Reply to  Francoeurstein

Comps always lead to disappointment, or most of the times. I usually argue against them, but occasionally I’m forced to admit I was wrong. When Aaron Judge arrived, I saw more than a few people compare him to Giancarlo Stanton, then of the Marlins. I said he might be good, but don’t put the Stanton comp on him expectation wise. Well, the comp actually wasn’t bad from a success factor, even if their styles a bit different. Judge is a better fielder and more patient. Then there was the Mike Trout comparisons to Mickey Mantle before Trout played a game in the majors. I laughed at that one, even though I was a big Trout fan, and yet Trout really has been Mickey Mantle. Still, these comps hitting are very rare, and mostly lead to fan disappointment.

The Stranger
4 years ago
Reply to  sadtrombone

The perception of Jason Heyward is definitely colored by his meh performance as a Cub. He was really good with Atlanta and St. Louis., easily within that 60+ FV bucket that represents the top half of expected outcomes for any player. He just dropped off fast after that.

Incidentally, in looking at his player page to write this reply, I saw that his wOBA in his 2015 walk year was a fairly robust .346, which was very much in line with his career to that point. But unfortunately for the Cubs, his xwOBA was .296, which makes his performance since then less surprising.

That being the first year of Statcast data, though, I don’t know how many teams had figured out something along the lines of xwOBA at that point. Kevin, any insight?

zurzlesMember since 2018
4 years ago
Reply to  sadtrombone

the golden days of overhyped prospectdom” I don’t really think we’re out of that yet, given how often I see fans bringing up Buster Posey comps for Adley…

sadtromboneMember since 2020
4 years ago
Reply to  zurzles

I will reiterate my prediction that Adley’s career will fall somewhere between that of Matt Wieters and that of Buster Posey. #boldpredictions2022

dl80Member since 2026
4 years ago
Reply to  zurzles

Some people are still comparing Bart to Posey, which is really ludicrous.

sadtromboneMember since 2020
4 years ago
Reply to  zurzles

Also, remember Matt Wieters as “Mauer with Power”. Eeegads. There are still lots of people out there like that but I think (some) people writing up prospects in the media are less likely to advance it.

RoyalsFan#14321Member since 2024
4 years ago
Reply to  kylerkelton

30+ WAR would be an incredible projection for any prospect, 95th percentile I would guess.

kylerkelton
4 years ago

Absolutely.

BillMember since 2017
4 years ago

I lack the statistical chops to confirm your math, but it passes the smell test for me. Love the work that you guys do on prospects. Including this piece, which is long overdue. Thanks.

si.or.noMember since 2017
4 years ago

I’m a little rusty on probability, but if Rutschman is a 70% chance for 50+ and Grayson Rodriguez is 70% for 50+, doesn’t that mean that the likelihood of both of them being 50+ is 49%?

And, similarly, if the odds of busting, respectively, are 12% and 15%, the odds of them both busting are ~2%?

Last edited 4 years ago by si.or.no
szakylMember since 2024
4 years ago
Reply to  si.or.no

Still confusing but it looks like he’s including the 40/45 outcomes as “busting” in this definition. (30% x 30% = 9%) Very confusing with the separate definition of “bust” above.

Uncle SpikeMember since 2020
4 years ago

Yes, I think the calculation is a little off here. Perhaps there some rounding that’s causing a lower number for the odds they both become a 50+ FV but I also get 49%. The odds that at least one of them become a 50+ FV is way off though. I’m getting 91%.

Last edited 4 years ago by Uncle Spike
D-WizMember since 2019
4 years ago

But still apparently too complicated to get correct in the article…

soddingjunkmailMember since 2016
4 years ago

Joe Posnanski related a great story* years ago about getting all excited about the prospects for a team (likely the Royals) and having all the wind taken out of his sails by someone saying “every team has prospects”.

So yeah, not only do you count on a particular prospect at your own peril, but looking at the farm and wishcasting a great future is a great recipe for disappointment.

*Apologies, I can’t do it justice.

dl80Member since 2026
4 years ago

Exactly. Not only are you rooting for your team’s prospects to succeed, but you’re rooting for every other prospect not to (or at least not to succeed as much as your own).

retrokryptonite
4 years ago
Reply to  dl80

Sure, but everyone else’s prospects suck.

sadtromboneMember since 2020
4 years ago

Those of us who were around 5 or so years ago and read up on KATOH I think have a much more realistic understanding of prospects. He would provide the breakdown of the projections into different buckets and it was unbelievable how many top prospects were projected to bust entirely. The highest projected guy in 2018 was Ronald Acuna. Sounds good, right? He was projected for only 13.3 wins. The bust potential is pretty big for most prospects.

Left of Centerfield
4 years ago
Reply to  sadtrombone

The projected WAR from the article was just for the first 6 years of a player’s career. It’s mentioned in a footnote below the table of prospects.

Last edited 4 years ago by Left of Centerfield
sadtromboneMember since 2020
4 years ago

If I’m not mistaken, I think that the “projections” in the Top 100 article are more like ballpark estimates based on historical factors rather than a formal mathematical projection.

Pirates HurdlesMember since 2024
4 years ago

I’m sure someone has looked, but I would like to see this broken out by position vs pitcher prospects. I would appreciate the link if someone knows of one.

hailstateMember since 2022
4 years ago

I think the difference of reasonable projections between hitters and pitchers is accounted for in how many pitchers and hitters make FG top 100. There are many more hitters. They tend to have smaller error bars and lower bust rates. Could be off, but I believe Eric L has written on this subject before.

PC1970Member since 2024
4 years ago

This explains why Dave Dombrowski has had the successful career he’s had. Not sure if he was the 1st one to figure this out, but, he was always willing to trade prospects for established guys. Did he get burned a few times? Yes. (Looking at Eugenio Suarez, Robbie Ray, Knebel)..but, generally did very well.

I remember gnashing my teeth over guys like Humberto Sanchez, Jacob Turner, Chance Ruffin, etc, but, DD won most of these bets. Even guys like Cameron Maybin or Andrew Miller who are considered successes in the big picture, pale compared to the prospect hype & who they were traded for (Miguel Cabrera).

sadtromboneMember since 2020
4 years ago
Reply to  PC1970

Someone here once said that Dombrowski’s true talent was recognizing that prospect aren’t that valuable. I don’t know if that’s entirely true, because he was really good at keeping certain guys. But both him and Brian Sabean made a career out of being really aggressive at trading prospects.

Mike NMN
4 years ago
Reply to  sadtrombone

I’d be interested in a follow-up post about prospects who turned into ROY candidates and then busted.

montrealMember since 2022
4 years ago
Reply to  sadtrombone

Agreed and this is why you can make a case for established players over prospects. For example, (and they will never do it) but the Yankees may be better off trading Anthony Volpe for the talent of a Corey Seager or Dansby Swanson. (ignore salary and availability for a moment). The Yankees would say NO to that type of trade but even Swanson can easily be better than Volpe. I’m a Yankee fan and don’t want them to trade Volpe but you get the picture.

Richie
4 years ago
Reply to  montreal

Y’all are missing perhaps the main structural advantage of prospects. Man, do they start out cheap!

A young guy who gives you 200 average ABs or 50 average IPs at a bargain rate is a very valuable part of structuring an entire team.

Just no value to anyone’s fantasy team. Which is what drives the lunacy portion of PROSPECTS! PROSPECTS!

soddingjunkmailMember since 2016
4 years ago
Reply to  sadtrombone

Rather than “prospects aren’t that valuable”, I’d characterize it as recognizing that “prospects exist to add talent to the major league team” and that there’s more than one way to skin that cat.

PC1970Member since 2024
4 years ago

That is it, esp if you add in the team’s timeline of being competitive. If you’re a GM & you’re team is set to win now with a bunch of salaries escalating in 2-3 years, is a guy that is blocked by your best player bring more value in a trade? Or does a stud in Low A ball get you a guy that can put the team over the top this year..is that more valuable than what they provide in 3-4 years when the team may be in a different spot?

BTW, one of DD’s worst trades (prob his worst) was like this- Mark Langston for Big Unit, Brian Holman, etc. They needed a stud pitcher to get them over the top & had to pay the freight. Didn’t work out that year for Montreal..& then 5 years later Johnson became a stud. OOPS..but, that’s the risk you take.

sadtromboneMember since 2020
4 years ago

Prospects are valuable in the sense that other teams think they are valuable.

I mean, some prospects are valuable. Just not as valuable as a lot of people seem to think.

NYYfaninLAAlandMember since 2020
4 years ago
Reply to  sadtrombone

When I saw your prior comment about Dombrowski and Sabean I was tempted to chime in about Cashman as well.

In looking back at numerous Yanks trades over the last 5 years or so – last years’ boondoggle of prospect moves is TBD of course – few of their traded prospects have delivered significant value in return to their new clubs. Kaprielian may be forthcoming – and Geo Gallegos for Voit, or Solak to TB flipped to TX and Widener to Ariz for Brandon Drury, Garrett Cooper plus Caleb Smith for Mike King, Shane Greene for Didi, Dillon Tate for Britton – but it took 4 years for Kap’s value to appear from the original trade for Sonny Gray (that one didn’t go so well) and some of these others are still advantage NY from a WAR measure. Some others have delivered value but only after moving to another club

They’ve seemingly done better acquiring prospects when doing so, particularly in their year of “restructuring”. Many of the acquired guys have been repackaged in later deals, and Gleyber, German, and Chad Green have delivered value in NY.

And while spoiled NY fans may complain about no championship as a result, the list of majors guys acquired in the last few years includes Gallo, Rizzo, Taillon, Clay Holmes, Hicks, Chapman (originally from Cincy), Britton, Voit, Paxton, Happ, McCutcheon, Gray, Todd Frazier, Kahnle, and further back Didi, Chase Headley, and Mike Pineda. A lot of prospects of not huge note so far for that.

steveo
4 years ago

The Yankees have had to keep all their prospects because they need them now since they’re running out only an above average payroll. 200M doesn’t go very far anymore. They need young players picking up the slack. In the past they would’ve easily traded a Deivi Garcia for Lance Lynn or whoever, because they could either re-sign Lynn or sign a different player of need. Now, they need a guy like Garcia (before his disaster season) to provide cheap production since they aren’t really signing free agents anymore.

HappyFunBallMember since 2019
4 years ago
Reply to  sadtrombone

I’ve made many a fantasy dollar aggressively trading away prospects. It still boggles my mind how much people (including real life baseball front offices) will pay for a lottery ticket

D-WizMember since 2019
4 years ago
Reply to  sadtrombone

I think it’s important to distinguish “valuable” from “good”, especially from an ownership/management perspective. Prospects certainly aren’t that *good* compared to established major leaguers, but they can be considerably more valuable when cost is taken into account. For better or worse (mostly worse), most teams would prefer to be the Rays than the Dombrowski-era Tigers or the Dombrowski-era Red Sox, and so prospects, more specifically cheap MLB-ready talent, are valued incredibly highly… I think Dombrowski’s truest talent is convincing ownership to bankroll his veteran-heavy rosters!

Mike NMN
4 years ago

Good write up. Particularly with the pairing of top prospects. We all dream of seeing star players come up at roughly the same time (like Trammell and Whitaker or Lynn and Rice) and, bang, your team is 8-10 wins better. But those pairs are notable because the are rare.

PC1970Member since 2024
4 years ago
Reply to  Mike NMN

Even more incredibly, Detroit had Parrish & Morris the same year as Tram & Lou. Then Petry & Kirk Gibson the next year.

Basically 2 60+ WAR guys, 3 other 30+ WAR guys & a 17 WAR SP in 2 seasons.

szielinskiMember since 2026
4 years ago

This article reveals the problems with the current Contract negotiations. Teams like the Rays, Pirates, Marlins, Royals must build through the draft. They depend on prospects and luck.

That’s why I would trade Reynolds (I’m a Pirates fan) for a propect haul. The Pirates have the deepest farm system but need to increase the probability that the team will generate a contender. A Marlin’s trade would help both teams.

steveo
4 years ago
Reply to  szielinski

Lol these teams could easily afford a 100M+ payroll and still be profitable, they just choose not to and instead pocket the additional money. Yes, even the Rays can support a 100M payroll.

sadtromboneMember since 2020
4 years ago
Reply to  steveo

I don’t know about “easily”, but there are definitely teams that can spend way above their market size because they work overtime to put a good product on the field. The Cardinals are the most obvious example, but so are the Brewers. Teams like the Pirates have made the fanbase so cynical that it’ll take a lot of work to be like the Brewers.

The Marlins, Pirates, Rays, and A’s give off such a strong impression that counting dollars is their ultimate goal that it’s hard for fans to overlook it and get lost in the fun…I’m guessing the Cardinals and the Brewers also are interested in making money, but they realize it should be as far away from their public image as possible.

PC1970Member since 2024
4 years ago
Reply to  sadtrombone

I wonder if The Cards & Brewers don’t make more $$? Since MLB won’t open the books, it’s impossible to do an analysis, but, I can see a scenario where their extra spending is more than offset in revenue:

  1. If they draw say 1,000,000 more people to the stadium every year. What is the cost of the average ticket? $40-50?
  2. Do STL & Milwaukee have higher average ticket costs because they’re better & the stadium is fuller?
  3. Those people in the seats are spending $$ on beer & food.
  4. Do they sell more souvenirs because the team is winning more games or they have good players who’s jerseys people want?
  5. How about parking?
  6. Do they own some of the area around the stadium & get more $$ from that since restaurants & bars are busier?
  7. That’s not even counting for possibly higher TV contracts due to having teams that people want to watch.

Biggest loser is they’re not getting revenue sharing, which may tilt the calculus..but, I’m not so sure they don’t make up spending $60-75M more in salaries with extra revenue that is due to fielding competitive teams.

sadtromboneMember since 2020
4 years ago
Reply to  PC1970

The Cardinals and Brewers have huge, huge attendance numbers considering that neither metro area is particularly wealthy (say, compared to Seattle) or particularly large (say, compared to Atlanta). The Cards also have a surprisingly lucrative television deal (I don’t think the Brewers do).

St. Louis is the 20th largest combined statistical area and Milwaukee is the 33rd largest combined statistical area. In between those two you have Cincinnati, Pittsburgh, and Kansas City, and I’m pretty sure that Milwaukee is the smallest MLB market. And yet, St. Louis was SECOND in attendance in 2019, and the Brewers were EIGHTH. Contrary to popular belief, not looking like penny-pinching misers and can be good for your financial health. (Although the Brewers are still getting revenue sharing, don’t think the Cards are)

Last edited 4 years ago by sadtrombone
g4Member since 2020
4 years ago
Reply to  sadtrombone

The Brewers make very little (comparatively) on their TV deal. It might even be lowest leaguewide.

PC1970Member since 2024
4 years ago
Reply to  sadtrombone

Exactly. & I do think, along with higher attendance, they probably get more per ticket. People will pay more to watch a decent team.

Personal anecdote- I’m a Tigers fan, go to 2-5 games a year. When they were good, I would gladly pay $50-80 to go watch them, even if it was in the 2nd deck. Last 5 years? I haven’t paid more than $25. Just go on Stub Hub, they’re practically giving tix away.

My gut says it comes to something like this- You can go cheap & probably almost guarantee a profit with revenue sharing..or you can do what MKE/STL do & spend $$ to put out a good team. If you succeed, you can probably make as much or more.but, if you don’t you lose $$. For some, it’s just easier to take the guaranteed profit.

One other shadow effect of “trying” is it has to help franchise value

LMOTFOTEMember since 2017
4 years ago
Reply to  PC1970

Milwaukee is smallest market in MLB so they probably are not in the highly profitable grouping. But they have at least spent middle of the pack. Seems like a well run organization.

LMOTFOTEMember since 2017
4 years ago
Reply to  sadtrombone

Add Cleveland to your list

Richie
4 years ago

People who most want to read ‘Prospects!’ coverage want to hear all about the upside. Upside, upside, upside.

So long as you honestly cover the prospective downside and middleside, just don’t sweat whether the readers get it or not. That’s on them. If they want to dream, well … really no harm to any of us in they’re doing so.

eely225Member since 2019
4 years ago

Prospect Week(s) forges bravely on!

datdudepch
4 years ago

There’s a whole industry built on not managing prospect expectations, so I come to Fangraphs to get sober.

Last edited 4 years ago by datdudepch
surfdoc37
4 years ago

Reading this, then shaking my head that a MLB team will dump an entire season in part to be able to spend millions to sign one such (probably) guy.

kylerkelton
4 years ago
Reply to  surfdoc37

Are you implying that MLB teams tank for draft position? That doesn’t happen.

elcommish
4 years ago
Reply to  kylerkelton

Of course they do lol. When was the last impact free agent the Orioles signed?

kylerkelton
4 years ago
Reply to  elcommish

What does one thing have to do with another?

Eddie BMember since 2020
4 years ago
Reply to  kylerkelton

I want to add that draft position is more than one guy. The first pick in the draft also gets the first pick in the second,third, etc. rounds.

That draft pool adds up.

Also teams can tank enough that they turn enough fans away and become revenue sharing recipients, suddenly getting that extra competitive balance pick (in addition to those Bialystok-esque riches) and more pool money to play with.

kylerkelton
4 years ago
Reply to  Eddie B

Do teams really do that though? Give me a recent example of a team doing that, I’m genuinely asking because I don’t have knowledge of that happening.

sadtromboneMember since 2020
4 years ago
Reply to  kylerkelton

There are a lot of people confusing saving money while pushing their competitive window forward with tanking. Until I see a team putting Willians Astudillo out there in the first inning in August, I feel pretty comfortable saying there’s no tanking going on.

The closest we’ve seen were the Astros and the Cubs. The Orioles are not tanking. Chris Davis lost playing time, and there are still viable major leaguers playing every day.

kylerkelton
4 years ago
Reply to  sadtrombone

^thank you

Eddie BMember since 2020
4 years ago
Reply to  kylerkelton

The Tigers went from CBT payer to comp balance drafter from 2017 to 2020.

LMOTFOTEMember since 2017
4 years ago
Reply to  Eddie B

But is that “tanking”? They probably tried to stretch their window of contention too far and made bad investments in free agency. They should have retooled sooner but they just missed playoffs in 2016 and tried to make one more run. They did not have the talent in 2017-2021 to compete. If winning a championship is the goal then their decisions since 2017 seem mostly sound. In fact they should have stripped down everything but held onto Boyd and Fulmer and Martinez too long. And even then maybe they really couldn’t find the right offer.

BillMember since 2017
4 years ago
Reply to  kylerkelton

Didn’t used to, because it’s not about that one guy. Draft position is mostly about securing a much larger draft pool. Once the pool was created a decade or so ago, it created sufficient incentive to tank. If you win, you’re more restricted in your talent investment.

Pirates HurdlesMember since 2024
4 years ago

There is an obvious flip side to this – if you don’t have good propsects you will never have good cheap players. It isnt really possible to build entirely through free agency and trades, even if you are LA or NY.

CRPerry13
4 years ago

Killjoy. 🙁

Eddie BMember since 2020
4 years ago

Great article. I did want to bring my critique from Twitter that you responded to in here so some people with statistical chops can poke holes in my argument.

I do not think that multiplying hit or bust probability of two prospects works because their hit or bust rates of eachother may not be independent of eachother, particularly teammates. It doesn’t change the math much, but I did think it may be important to point out.

NathanielMember since 2016
4 years ago

this is great. I’m interested in the flipside of this though – how much value does the long tail of a deep system give you?

I remember Mookie Betts failed to make top 100 lists in 2013 but put up 1.8 wins in 2014 and was a star in 2015. Juan Soto was unranked in 2017, given “just” a 50 in 2018, and now look at him.

How much does having a deep pool of 35s and 40s help a system turn out a few pop-up stars every now and then? Does it counteract the bust rate of top rated prospects?

fanofthemanMember since 2020
4 years ago
Reply to  Nathaniel

Probably largely depends on why those guys are 35s and 40s. Is it because they’re probably not going to reach their ceiling, or because we know their ceiling is low?

RoyalsFan#14321Member since 2024
4 years ago
Reply to  Nathaniel

I wish I could go back in time and watch Juan Soto at A ball. His numbers are off the charts, but he apparently wasn’t healthy – and that might have dragged his prospect ranking down… also, clearly, projections of all sorts whiffed on him at those levels.

sadtromboneMember since 2020
4 years ago

I think the best call I made in my life with a prospect was when Soto was promoted and I said he was going to be the next Joey Votto. And it looks like I might have undershot!

NoNeedToShiftMember since 2025
4 years ago

I guess I should be very happy that both Vlad Jr and Bo Bichette became star level

dl80Member since 2026
4 years ago
Reply to  NoNeedToShift

And Biggio!

srpst23Member since 2025
4 years ago
Reply to  dl80

Um, Biggio has been decidedly average thus far, and the projection systems don’t see a star in the making. He’s not even that young anymore(26). There’s still a chance I guess, but to call him a star along the likes of Vlad and Bo is a bit of a stretch.

South DetroitMember since 2020
4 years ago

On Dombrowski having success pawning prospects to build winners. Hard to tell how much of that was recognizing that the prospects were over valued and how much was driven by a need for immediate results from ownership with a win now mentality is hard to gage. Both factored in presumably. Regardless, he has definitely proven that it is often better to have a bird in hand than two in the bush.

D-WizMember since 2019
4 years ago

Looks like some of these probabilities need double checked. At the listed probabilities it’s actually quite likely that at least one of Rutschman or Rodriguez become 50+ talents. If they each independently (though I suppose we can quibble with whether or not the outcomes of two prospects in the same org are truly independent of one another) have a 70% chance of being 50 FV then there would be a 91% chance (1-.3*.3) that at least one is a 50+… Seems like the probabilities in that table (both 50+, at least one 50+, both bust) got added to 1 for some reason when the events aren’t mutually exclusive, plus there are also a host of outcomes unaccounted for in that table… The overall point still stands though and it’s definitely a useful reminder that prospects are far from guaranteed things!

D-WizMember since 2019
4 years ago
Reply to  D-Wiz

Ah, I see. Seems like the root of the problem is the term “bust” at times implying <40 FV and at times implying <50 FV. Those two Rutschman-Rodriguez tables and the paragraph between are all over the place with that.

jamesdakrnMember since 2020
4 years ago

Being a Dodger fan definitely unconsciously skewed my perception of prospects the last few years w/ all the success they’ve had w/

Pederson

Seager

Bellinger

Buehler

Urias

May

Smith

And really shows how impatient Dodger fans have been w/ Lux

MTfor42Member since 2025
4 years ago
Reply to  jamesdakrn

Caleb Ferguson, Victor Gonzalez, Matt Beatty, Edwin Rios.

Just developing replacement level guys is valuable. Once upon a time LA sent Carlos Santana to CLE for Casey Blake because they didn’t have a guy like Beatty or Rios around…

MTfor42Member since 2025
4 years ago

Corey Seager and Julio Urias were both top 5 on the FG list around 7 years ago I think. All star appearances, CY young votes, a World Series MVP for one and the last 7 outs of the World Series for the other.

If the Orioles get similar production/results from Rutchman and Rodriguez I’m sure they’d be ecstatic beyond words.

This does speak to our inherent lack of understanding of statistics and probability. If everyone was born with or easily learned this stuff Vegas wouldn’t exist as a gambling mecca.

uncasf1Member since 2022
4 years ago

A friend of mine commenting on prospects and how hard MLB really is used to say, “There are no prospects; only suspects.”

weidnerp4Member since 2017
4 years ago

Excellent article. Managing expectations with context is applicable to so many things in life.

onehundredpercentMember since 2025
4 years ago

Has anyone validated the historical success of past Top-100 prospect lists in line with some of these predictions? For example, where did the guys listed in the Top-100 from 2015 end up? Were ~36 of them busts? I am assuming that the historical data driving the distribution graph suggests that the test would be roughly accurate, but I would definitely be curious to see how it shook out.