The Dog Ate My Prospect

Season one of One Tree Hill is a perfect season of television, and I will not be entertaining arguments to the contrary. In it we meet Nathan and Lucas Scott, the sons of hometown basketball hero, Dan Scott, who runs a local car dealership. Nathan was raised in the traditional nuclear family structure by Dan and his college sweetheart and wife. Lucas was raised in a single-parent household by his mother, Dan’s high school sweetheart. Despite sourcing their foundational genetic material from the same DNA pool, Nathan and Lucas are depicted at odds with one another in several key ways. Nathan is his father’s golden child and characterized as hyper competitive, entitled, and emotionally stunted; Lucas receives no acknowledgement from Dan and skews more intellectual, reserved, and empathetic. Both are super good at basketball and both crave the approval of their father. Nathan seemingly has it all, but presents as lonely and ill at ease in his environment. Lucas drew the short straw, but is mostly content and supported by several meaningful relationships.
The whole concept is a pretty straightforward exercise in nature vs. nurture, and if you haven’t seen One Tree Hill, don’t worry, I haven’t spoiled anything; this is all part of the show’s initial setup in the pilot episode. What the viewer is intended to puzzle out as the season unfolds is how much of Nathan’s arrogance and aggression is a reaction to his surroundings and how much is an inherent part of his character. And on the other hand, can Lucas, against his father’s wishes, learn to thrive in new surroundings as he steps into the spotlight of varsity basketball? Or is he more naturally suited to exist in the shadows?
I recently read almost six years of scouting reports, statistical breakdowns, and interviews covering two prospects from the 2018 MLB draft in an attempt to to understand the how and why of each player’s career arc. More on that later, but for now, I want to emphasize how much easier it is to analyze a teen soap opera. And it’s not that the scouting reports were unclear, or that the statistical analysis was misleading, or that the players misrepresented themselves in interviews. It’s that taking 18- to 22-year-olds and turning them into big leaguers is a hard thing to do under the best of circumstances.
Part way through that first season of One Tree Hill, Nathan files for emancipation from his parents to escape the abusive and domineering environment cultivated by his father, and he starts a redemption arc by re-shaping his character away from Dan’s influence. It serves as a pretty clear declaration of which son landed in the better situation and how much that drove his prior behavior. But player development isn’t a scripted narrative, drawing heavily on high school stereotypes, with a nice, tidy season finale.
Every player development system has a lot of moving parts and every player’s development has a lot of crucial nuance and context. This piece is going to draw some broad conclusions about each organization’s ability to draft and develop players, but I don’t want to ignore the variance created by things like staff turnover, facilities upgrades, technology acquisition, and the players’ autonomy throughout the entire process.
Last week, I evaluated teams on their ability to maximize talent at the big league level, talent they acquired via trade or free agency. This was an extension of research from a prior piece comparing the Angels and Dodgers as organizations. In that piece, I also compared the two teams’ ability to get major league production from the players in their respective farm systems. Now the moment has come to extend that analysis to the rest of the league and learn which teams, from a macro perspective, tend to get the largest contributions from their farmhands.
The theory behind the methodology is to compare the expectations for a minor league prospect to the reality of what that player becomes. The proxy for a player’s expected outcome is the Future Value (FV) grade assigned to the player when he enters a team’s system, either by the draft or in a trade. The earliest grade possible is used to capture the outlook on a player before the team exerts its influence. Since many prospects don’t work out, this analysis will focus on players with a 40 FV or higher, so that teams aren’t dinged for failing to develop players with long odds of making the majors.
With FV measuring expectations, the reality side of the comparison will be handled by WAR. But since counting stats make comparisons tricky, WAR will be converted to a rate stat – WAR per 600 PA for hitters and WAR per 600 batters faced for pitchers. Each organization’s evaluation is based only on what players did while they were members of the individual club with which they debuted because, after all, the goal is to measure each team’s ability to get major league contributions from the players it develops. For example, in this particular exercise, Andrés Giménez’s production would be factored into only the Mets’ evaluation because they developed him and he debuted with them before they traded him to the Guardians. Another example: Even though the Rays drafted and developed Joe Ryan, they would not get credit for his MLB production because they traded him to the Twins before he reached the majors.
As with prior analyses, we’ll gather data from 2018-2023 in order to amass a decently large sample, while keeping the window tight enough to prevent the signal from getting too muddied by the high turnover rates among player development staff and leadership. The points on the graph below represent the average WAR600 posted by each team’s 40+ FV pitching prospects, with lines extending outward to represent the standard error associated with that average as a way to show the variance of these values. This way we can understand how consistently teams’ pitching prospects are landing near their average outcome and get a more accurate view of the average as a range of likely outcomes.

The ranges overlap quite a bit, indicating that a given player in most systems is working with roughly the same set of possible outcomes. But teams differ from one another enough to still make out which clubs tend to be more proficient and which ones trail the others. The Brewers have a comfortable lead over the second place Dodgers, while Colorado seems to think Rockies is short for rock bottom. Milwaukee and Los Angeles take different routes to their strong rankings. The Brewers have successfully developed fewer total pitchers than the Dodgers, but the ones they’ve hit on have really hit (Devin Williams, Corbin Burnes, Brandon Woodruff), whereas the Dodgers have benefitted from more of a volume play (Walker Buehler, Bobby Miller, Dustin May, Tony Gonsolin, Michael Grove, Gavin Stone).
To really get a feel for development we can lock in on how teams do with their 40 FV prospects specifically. By taking away the comparatively safer prospects with higher FV grades, we can focus on the players who are most dependent on their teams for coaching and resources and see which teams make the largest moves within the rankings.
| Team | Overall Rank | 40 FV Rank | Rank Change |
|---|---|---|---|
| MIL | 1 | 1 | 0 |
| LAD | 2 | 2 | 0 |
| ATL | 3 | 12 | -9 |
| CLE | 4 | 5 | -1 |
| SEA | 5 | 16 | -11 |
| SDP | 6 | 6 | 0 |
| STL | 7 | 8 | -1 |
| CIN | 8 | 18 | -10 |
| CHW | 9 | 15 | -6 |
| HOU | 10 | 3 | 7 |
| SFG | 11 | 7 | 4 |
| TOR | 12 | 14 | -2 |
| BOS | 13 | 11 | 2 |
| NYY | 14 | 9 | 5 |
| MIN | 15 | 4 | 11 |
| CHC | 16 | 19 | -3 |
| TBR | 17 | 10 | 7 |
| MIA | 18 | 25 | -7 |
| BAL | 19 | 17 | 2 |
| NYM | 20 | 26 | -6 |
| LAA | 21 | 23 | -2 |
| DET | 22 | 22 | 0 |
| TEX | 23 | 24 | -1 |
| PHI | 24 | 13 | 11 |
| WSN | 25 | 20 | 5 |
| OAK | 26 | 29 | -3 |
| KCR | 27 | 27 | 0 |
| ARI | 28 | 21 | 7 |
| PIT | 29 | 28 | 1 |
| COL | 30 | 30 | 0 |
Several above average seasons from Bailey Ober help Minnesota move 11 spots up the rankings, while Philadelphia gets a boost from some productive seasons in relief from Bailey Falter and Seranthony Domínguez, and multiple stellar seasons as a starter from Ranger Suárez. Meanwhile, the Mariners and Reds tumble down the rankings. Seattle’s highest producer in this category is Isaiah Campbell, who it turns out is, in fact, a real person. The Reds are led in this category by Graham Ashcraft, who is working on his third slightly below average season as a starter.
On the hitting side, there is a higher variance both within individual clubs and across the population of all teams.

Baltimore, Minnesota, and Houston cluster near the top of the rankings, while Miami and Oakland bring up the rear. As we saw with pitching, some teams spread their production over several players, while others rely on one or two heavy hitters. The Twins own a high hit rate led by Royce Lewis, Mitch Garver, Edouard Julien, Ryan Jeffers, Luis Arraez, Nick Gordon, and Jake Cave, whereas the Braves owe their position in the rankings to Ronald Acuña Jr., Michael Harris II, Austin Riley, and Ozzie Albies.
| Team | Overall Rank | 40 FV Rank | Rank Change |
|---|---|---|---|
| BAL | 1 | 4 | -3 |
| HOU | 2 | 3 | -1 |
| MIN | 3 | 1 | 2 |
| STL | 4 | 9 | -5 |
| ATL | 5 | 6 | -1 |
| SEA | 6 | 8 | -2 |
| TOR | 7 | 5 | 2 |
| NYM | 8 | 2 | 6 |
| CIN | 9 | 18 | -9 |
| PHI | 10 | 13 | -3 |
| LAD | 11 | 14 | -3 |
| ARI | 12 | 16 | -4 |
| BOS | 13 | 11 | 2 |
| CLE | 14 | 28 | -14 |
| NYY | 15 | 21 | -6 |
| SDP | 16 | 25 | -9 |
| TBR | 17 | 27 | -10 |
| DET | 18 | 12 | 6 |
| CHC | 19 | 19 | 0 |
| KCR | 20 | 7 | 13 |
| MIL | 21 | 22 | -1 |
| LAA | 22 | 10 | 12 |
| SFG | 23 | 29 | -6 |
| CHW | 24 | 20 | 4 |
| TEX | 25 | 24 | 1 |
| COL | 26 | 17 | 9 |
| WSN | 27 | 30 | -3 |
| PIT | 28 | 15 | 13 |
| MIA | 29 | 23 | 6 |
| OAK | 30 | 26 | 4 |
As you can see, Cleveland and Tampa Bay take a dive in the rankings when we limit the pool to 40 FV hitting prospects. Ernie Clement, with his 74 wRC+ and 0.4 WAR over 133 plate appearances (1.8 WAR600) in 2021, is the best the Guardians have to offer on this front. Meanwhile, Taylor Walls, who has yet to really break out, is the only positive producer for the Rays prospect contingent.
On the upside, the Royals, Angels, and Pirates all take a leap in the standings. Kansas City owes its surge to solid performances from Maikel Garcia and Michael Massey, plus a strong 2021 season from Nicky Lopez. Los Angeles is here because it saw strong defense and passable hitting from David Fletcher over his first few seasons in the bigs, a little over a season of positive production from Jared Walsh, and multiple seasons of league average or better hitting from Taylor Ward. Pittsburgh’s 13-place jump stems from productive seasons from Jack Suwinski, Jared Triolo, and the group’s headliner, Oneil Cruz. And although many of its excellent young hitters are well-regarded former first rounders, Baltimore remains highly ranked in the 40-FV category because of guys like Austin Hays and Cedric Mullins.
To understand how some teams arrive at stronger average outcomes than others, consider the divergent journeys of a pair of pitching prospects, both of whom were drafted in 2018. Logan Gilbert was selected 14th overall out of Stetson University by the Seattle Mariners (no. 5 in the pitching development rankings). The Texas Rangers (23rd on the pitching development list) took Cole Winn with the next pick out of Orange Lutheran High School. Both pitchers were characterized as having average to slightly above-average stuff that plays up due to some combination of command, deception, and tunneling. At the time, both threw a mid-90s fastball, a 12-6 curveball with a spiked grip, a more traditional slider, and a circle changeup to round out their arsenal.
Winn was touted as a polished high school product because of his fluid delivery and advanced command, but that command evaporated in his first full season as a pro. During the 2020 layoff, he worked with three Rangers pitching coaches to fine tune his arsenal using Rapsodo, Trackman, and Edgertronic cameras to understand how his pitches should feel and to find his release point consistently. In 2021, that work paid off and Winn’s command seemed to return, but after missing some time to manage his workload partway through the year, he returned with some sort of mechanics-specific amnesia. The problem persisted throughout 2022, and by mid 2023, his profile had changed from a projected middle-of-the-rotation starter to that of a multi-inning reliever. Winn made his major league debut on April 14 of this year, and thus far he’s appeared in 11 games, posting a 6.91 ERA (173 ERA-) over 14.1 innings.
Gilbert did not experience the same hiccups with his command as he embarked on his pro career, but he did spend time using technology to punch up his pitches. While at Seattle’s alternate site in 2020, Gilbert further developed his changeup, a pitch designed to tunnel with his fastball, by generating a ridiculous amount of drop late in the pitch’s trajectory. The revamped pitch was put to the test at the big league level in 2021, where Gilbert was forced to finish his development against major league hitters after Seattle’s rotation suffered a series of injuries. Though the changeup presented a nice complement to the fastball when it worked, Gilbert struggled to locate it, and thus used it only about 8% of the time. In 2022, he switched his grip from that of a circle changeup to a more traditional one, and his command of the pitch improved. And yet, toward the end of that season, he started workshopping a splitter with a couple of coaches and teammates before fully committing to it that offseason at Driveline. As Gilbert explained to David Laurila in early 2023, the splitter felt more natural than the changeup coming out of his hand because of his over-the-top delivery and long fingers. Gilbert made his way to the majors and continued to improve once he got there by maximizing the tools available to him; despite a lack of overwhelming velocity or elite stuff, he’s currently working on a third season with a better than average ERA-.
Gilbert and Winn entered pro ball on similar footing, but found themselves on different paths almost from the jump. Were their routes predetermined by their inherent skills and abilities, or did their environments and support systems play a role? Was Nathan destined to play the heel, or did he learn that role following his father’s footsteps? Did Lucas naturally settle into his role as an outcast, or did he land there after his father literally cast him aside?
At 6’6”, Gilbert owns a 4-inch height advantage over Winn and his release point benefits from the increased extension that comes from added height. Releasing the ball closer to the plate improves a pitcher’s perceived velocity. As of the time of this writing, no organization has the technique or technology for making arms longer, so the Rangers shouldn’t be faulted there. Gilbert also benefited from a couple of years of college development prior to the start of his pro career. Despite Winn’s “polished” status as a draftee, perhaps he’s on a longer timeline due to coming straight out of high school, which again, shouldn’t be a knock on the Rangers PD staff.
But in terms of variables within an organization’s control, we have quotes from both pitchers about using technology to improve, suggesting a level playing field there. However, the subtext skews things. Winn, along with a group of three coaches and some tech toys, fixed his command once, but he hasn’t been able to replicate that success since. But why? I doubt the Rangers threw away all of their high speed cameras. Of the coaches Winn mentions, one is now a roving pitching coordinator (which makes him less accessible), one is coaching Rookie ball (also not very accessible to an upper minors player), and the third is no longer with the organization. One possible interpretation is that the teachers Winn connected with best are gone, and his understanding of the original process they worked on together was not deep enough for him to replicate it on his own.
Gilbert, on the other hand, demonstrates a depth of knowledge as he speaks about the data he uses to develop. Back when he still threw a changeup, he didn’t just know its spin rate; he also knew its spin axis, how that should relate to the spin axis on his fastball, and how that impacted the changeup’s movement. “You put a little natural tilt on the ball, depending on where it comes out,” Gilbert told Laurila in 2022. “I’m trying to ride the fastball from up top, so if I throw my changeup in the same slot, it will naturally look like it’s headed down, even though the movement also has the horizontal axis. It will get the depth and fade just from that.” This suggests that the Mariners aren’t just talking at players with respect to pitch design, but teaching some of the theory behind it as well. Gilbert was confident enough to take an idea that he started spooling up with the team and work through the details during a winter session at Driveline. Some may give Driveline full credit for Gilbert’s splitter, but even in that scenario, the Mariners deserve some credit for developing a player to be comfortable with the technical side of pitching and for being open to their pitchers working with external coaches and trainers. Many teams consider players’ personal coaches more of a bugaboo than a helpmeet.
Maybe if Gilbert had been drafted by the Rangers, he still would have found a way to understand the ins and outs of pitch design and gone to an independent training facility to put what he learned into practice. Maybe if Winn had been drafted by the Mariners, they wouldn’t have been able to help him harness his command either. There’s no sure way to know what could have been. Maybe if Dan Scott needed a heart transplant and a dog ate his would-be replacement heart before the series premiere instead of in season six, both sons could have been spared years of work undoing his traumatic influence on their lives. That’s the world I’d like to exist for prospects. One where a dog inexplicably runs in and eats all the unnecessary obstacles, leaving just the productive tools that help shape them into better baseball players.
Kiri lives in the PNW while contributing part-time to FanGraphs and working full-time as a data scientist. She spent 5 years working as an analyst for multiple MLB organizations. You can find her on Bluesky @kirio.bsky.social.
I see that Maikel Garcia graduated as a 50FV prospect, but based upon the article he must have been a 40FV prospect when the Twins drafted him. I feel like the initial prospect rating is a useful number throughout the career of the player, but I have no idea how to find those. How did you figure out that Garcia started at 40FV? Thanks in advance!
My friend named her dog Sculpin. After the beer not the fish. She said the fish is ugly
The beer is ugly too. Grapefruit tasting beer is ugly.
There are 2 versions of Sculpin — the original is not grapefruity.
Even better than that, there used to be many variations of Sculpin. Alas after some pandemic related corporate cuts we have been deprived of the Pineapple and Habanero versions. Only to be replaced by Aloha Hazy Sculpin.
Just use The Board (under the prospects section) and change the year. For drafted players usually just have to look at the year after they were drafted and they will be there. For IFA’s like Garcia you might have to go a few years ahead.
First time Garcia shows up on The Board for KC is 2020 and he was indeed a 40 FV.
I don’t think there are any teams that this methodology gets “wrong”, but the interpretation of this is a nightmare. This is an admirable task but there is no easy way to separate the scouting and development side of this. Did the Brewers see something in Brandon Woodruff that no other team saw, or did the Brewers coax something out of Brandon Woodruff that other teams might not have been able to do? And this is before we even get to the whole “who gets credit for developing a player” issue.
San Diego is interesting. Should we take this to mean that Preller manages to hold onto the pitching prospects that matter and dumps all his non-core hitting guys in trades
Well he didn’t hold on to Max Fried, and he dumped Trea Turner to acquire Wil Myers.
It’s really hard to make much of it. I was shocked that the White Sox seemed to be better at developing position player 40’s than higher ranking prospects. It seems to mostly be tied up in Seby Zavala, Jake Burger, and Danny Mendick who total about 5 fWAR between them and are all listed as 40’s on their player pages. But Burger was a 1st round draft choice and top 100 prospect before blowing out his Achilles twice and having some other injuries. So they didn’t develop him, so much as salvage what was left of him and counting him in with other 40’s doesn’t seem like it is in the spirit of the exercise.
As an example of this, for years the A’s were quite good at picking up SP castoffs from other teams and turning them into a never ending supply of serviceable #4s. Along with the occasional #3 / Chris Bassitt types.
The Rangers used to do this position players all the time under Daniels. And the Orioles under Duquette. It helped paper over a lot of the problems with scouting and development, until it didn’t anymore. It’s a neat trick but not a long term solution.
Park effects may have played a role. A’s used to get fly ball pitchers and use the massive foul territory and marine layer. TBIA used to favor left handed fly ball hitters.
Remember when Minor led the mlb in pitching war by bref? Doesn’t apply at all to this, but still funny
The interpretation is a nightmare but that doesn’t take away the usefulness of this piece.
Looks to me that the Pirates have the worst combined dev and coaching staff in all of MLB. Cherington ought to be run out of town on a rail.
The Brewers have a comfortable lead over the second place Dodgers, while Colorado seems to think Rockies is short for rock bottom.
I’m not at all a fan of the Rockies scouting/development/etc. It’s a team with appalling outcomes and perpetual complacency about said outcomes. But this particular take is only evidence that comparative analysis – meaning normal distribution statistics – does not work when a team is always the 2 σ outlier. And is the outlier because the model is flawed and known to be flawed because it doesn’t include the most obvious element that causes said outlier outcomes. Altitude. It affects one team. Everyone knows it affects only one team. And yet amazingly it is deemed to not exist. Made worse by the apparent fact that the Rockies don’t get it either.
The Rockies apparently have a calculation of park effects that differs dramatically from publicly available ones, so their internal WAR calculations typically differ as well (being harder on pitchers and less harsh on batters). But they’re almost halfway through the season and have a -100 run differential, so even though there’s a discrepancy between public WAR stats and the Rockies’ actual record it’s not like having a different park effect has solved their problems.
Yeah, if the Rockies don’t get how to work around the thing that affects them differently from every other team, that isn’t a strike against the conclusion that they’re the worst at developing.
Was interested in checking this out. Pulled splits data for the last 3 calendar years. On average across all MLB, the home team has an ERA around 0.255 below the average away team ERA:
2021 – 4.20 Home Team ERA, 4.56 Away Team ERA
2022 – 3.82 Home vs 4.12 Away
2023 – 4.23 Home vs 4.44 Away
2024 – 3.89 Home vs 4.04 Away
Over this same time period, the Rockies have a 5.45 ERA in Corrs vs their opponents ERA of 5.14. In isolating to one team the quality of batters can obviously have a large impact on ERA and this here is a very simplified view, but I think this is a view that helps show that Rockies have legit been horrible at developing pitching – yes, Coors is a major outlier which can be seen with the 5+ ERA’s coming in about a run higher than league average. But if Colorado was doing well developing pitching, we would expect to see them outperform their opponents at Coors when reality has been the opposite.
WAR takes the park played in into account, and so the model above based off WAR would be doing the same. Not to say it’s being done perfectly, Coors makes things complicated for sure. I just see them as a team that is both the worst team in baseball at developing pitching while also playing in the leagues highest altitude – makes it fun for away fans.
I’m not sure how helpful comparing Rockies pitchers ERA vs opponents ERA is because they are equally horrible at developing hitters.
Agreed – thought that was more interesting than helpful. Looked at a little data out of curiosity and figured I’d share 🙂
I agree with the basis for your comparison. Treating Coors as if it is an entirely separate universe – for both the Rockies and visitors when they play there. And yes, that is a better indicator that the Rockies are failing to develop pitching for Coors right now.
But I think the only way to judge a scouting and development function is to look longer-term. Historically, they have done ok developing pitching for Coors but have been mediocre at best when those pitchers then have to pitch half their games at non-altitude on the road.
Every other team can assume that the scouting/development process/outcome between home/road is the same. A good pitcher here is the same person as a good pitcher there and there is a common development process. There is no reason to believe that a single pitcherperson can succeed at both altitude and non-altitude and 35 years of evidence that it has never happened.
Which may well mean that the basic assumption is wrong. That the measure of ‘success’ for the scouting/development function is to recognize very early on whether a pitcher will succeed at altitude (whether scouted through the draft or on other teams) – and trade them (or play them mainly on the road) before altitude breaks them. Not that the Rockies even attempt to do that and it certainly isn’t a demonstrated skill set for the organization.
As someone who loves dogs much more than humans I am sick and tired of dogs getting the blame for human incompetence and negligence. I’m glad you have the courage to credit dogs for eating all obstacles leaving only productive tools.
Should teams get some kind of adjustment based on where they draft ? LAD looks pretty good when you consider the players they draft in the 40 FV pool are already picked over and been moved to bargain bin by the time they draft
Similarly Oakland and Pittsburgh should get demerits for their results.
I think the 40 FV pool already account for draft order because the players taken at the beginning of the draft are already not included. It’s hard to figure out which teams get the first picks at the 40 FV pool because the 45-50 FV pool dries up at different times every year. For instance the first 40 FV player to be drafted last year was at pick 23 meaning that teams at the end of the first round got first crack at the players included in the rankings.
Wouldn’t that be accounted for by the 40 ratings? Top-ten draft picks typically aren’t 40s. Even players picked around 30, like the Dodgers usually do, don’t seem to start as 40s coming out of the draft.
OTOH, an issue is that the rankings don’t account for players who are 40s because their development stalls out. The Pirates drafted Nick Gonzales seventh overall, he was a 50 on the next two lists,* and dropped back to 40 after struggling in the minors. If he winds up producing, the Pirates shouldn’t get extra credit for turning a relatively safe prospect into a 40 and then developing him.
*I think. Is there a handy way to see teams’ prospect articles year by year?
If I’m reading the article correctly, Gonzales is being treated as a 50 FV (his FV at the time of the 2020 draft) not the 40 FV upon graduating.
I don’t think you can do a whole team easily, but in the BOARD you can click a player’s FV to see his previous year grades.
FV already takes that into account
I am slightly uncomfortable with this because it uses FV as an input for expectations. The very same methodology could arguably be used to measure the accuracy of Fangraphs’
future values rather than team development performance. I’ve long wanted some sort of retrospective work to be done by FG to see what their performance on FVs is, and without that we’re kind of begging the question of if FVs are an accurate barometer of actual future value in the first place, and assuming that if it isn’t that it’s because teams are screwing up development.
I think it would be more effective to plot projections of player performance year-by-year, to see if as a player advances through the organization those projections trend upwards or downwards, then average across all players in the organization. Are players’ projections getting on average rosier or more pessimistic as they spend more and more time in the org.
One option would be to use Baseball America and FanGraphs and whatever Baseball Prospectus does with prospects in combination to establish a proxy for “expectations”. My understanding is that industry evaluations are inputs in these. Another would be to use amateur signing bonus. A third option would be some sort of projection like ZiPS at signing but that would likely have massive error bars
The problem with this is that these “industry” expectations play a huge role in which players get more opportunities to “develop” at all. They are influencing what they are trying to measure, the definition of a confounding variable.
But aren’t the projections also a questionable input for players this far from the MLB? I would assume that the FV that fangraphs assigns to players uses a lot of the same data inputs as the projection systems.
A lot of the barometers for future success are inaccurate for the player population in question (especially high school prospects) yet they are needed for this type of analysis or I would think this would turn into a ranking system of which teams draft the highest.
FV is really just a barometer for what a player is thought of at the time they enter the system. So yeah it might just be based on simple measurables like strength/speed/agility/does he looks ok hitting mediocre college pitchers. But it’s as good a baseline as you’re probably going to get without MLB-only data.
I’m not really sure how you would even do such a study because FV’s are a moving target. They change as players get older and its kind of known that the farther away from MLB the player is, the less accurate the FV is. So if a guy gets tagged with a 40 FV as a 17 year old IFA, graduates as a 50 FV at 21 and then winds up being a MVP at 25 does that mean Fangraphs was “wrong” by labeling him a 40/50 FV or is it just that a whole lot can change between being a 17 year old and a 25 year old? And that doesnt even touch on the fact that two prospects with the same FV can be considered different levels of risk. A 50 FV “high risk” guy turning into a pumpkin is probably “less wrong” than a 50 FV low risk washing out.
I guess in the aggregate you could get a general idea of accuracy but trying to determine how accurate a FV is on an individual player seems impossible.
Is average war really the best way to to this?
You got a better suggestion?
Yes; median WAR or something similar. I think a very persuasive argument can be made that what the Dodgers are doing in developing pitchers is much closer to the point of the article than what the Brewers have done. Getting two aces out of a pile of 40 FV prospects could much more easily be construed as randomness than the Dodgers’ more even approach.
The first thing I thought when seeing this is how is Stl 7th on pitching development and 4th on hitting? Hitting I can understand a little more because of devil magic and players like Edman, Nootbaar, Donovan, but I’ll have to look at the pitchers closer.
I thought the same thing too. If I’m reading the above, correctly, which admittedly I may not be, he’s saying how much homegrown talent got to the major league level… not necessarily how they performed once they got to the major league level
Also, the Cards have been very successful in the development of relivers, if not starters. So in terms of sheer quantity, they do get points from the 40 FV tier. Because that’s where many relievers end up.
Is there a sign up list for relivers? Mine could use a redo
I never knew I needed 1TH references in my fangraphs content, but I’m glad I got it. Also, great breakdown to help demonstrate something that we all “felt” about prospect development.
One thing to consider: How does a team’s current big-league roster factor into things and is there a way to account for that? If you’re dealing with a team like the rays (draft and trade dependent, many players depart after their rookie contracts) vs the Yankees (Buy whatever we’re missing, develop whatever we can) could this affect the opportunities for players to reach the bigs and get a chance at putting up any WAR. IDK just something I was thinking while avoiding doing my day job.
The single-most impressive aspect of One Tree Hill was both male leads absolutely looking like competent players during the basketball sequences.
I didn’t see much/any of OTH, but yeah the veil breaks in a lot of sports shows/movies when the actors playing stud athletes are very clearly not athletes at all.
Eight Men Out did a pretty good job of it. Field of Dreams did a good job with the secondary players, but gets negative points for Ray Liotta (who also played Shoeless Joe a bit gangster-ish at times).
Charlie Sheen in Major League looked like he could be a pitcher.
Of course, the Yankees slugger, Heyward, in that movie was played by former Cu Young winner Pete Vuckovich.
The idea of Pete Vukovich winning the Curt Young Award amuses me
Well, he was probably closer in ability to Curt Young than Cy Young.
Yeah forgot those two. Vuckovich and Sheen both looked exactly the part.
Sheen supposedly was throwing in the mid 80s and topping out at 88. Pretty good for an actor.
It’s funny, I had a hard time getting behind the idea behind OTH being great art but that specific character arc of the first season is really good. The rest, not so much.
It’s even crazier to me when they can’t find an actor with any athletic ability for a 30 second pharmaceutical commercial.
My favorite of that “genre” is the guy dunking on the basketball hoop in the front yard with his two kids & then you zoom out and you see that the basketball hoop is set up about four feet off of the ground.
Development in general, but specifically pitching development is an absolute crapshoot. Especially with injuries involved.
Nicky Lopez is probably a very good example of how flawed this exercise is. The Royals get credit for turning him from 40 FV into a 5 win player but the reality is that Nicky Lopez has actually be pretty terrible at the MLB level. The royals didn’t develop him into something better than he was as much as they had no one else to play because they were terrible and he had a massive outlier season that he hasnt (and probably never will) come close to repeating.
His original 40 FV mark is pretty much exactly what he has been (possibly worse).
Doesn’t the fact that teams can rank highly Overall and lower in 40 FV and vice versa mean that developing 40 FV isn’t that important?
I suppose it’s hard to tell without knowing the number of 40 FV vs the number of higher FV. Maybe the Brewers were mediocre in 50 FV and so awesome in 40 FV that they were #1 overall. Maybe the Royals were #7 in 40 FV and #20 overall because they hardly had any 40 FV and got a couple right.
I find it exasperating that FV is treated as some kind of objective number on this website when it is mostly based on gossip from anonymous scouts and “eye tests”. The Steamer projections are right there!
Article was good, but between the “Dog Ate My Prospect” headline and the first three paragraphs focused on “One Tree Hill”, I was a bit disappointed to see no reference to one of the greatest moments in TV history.
An Oral History of the Time a Dog Ate a Heart on ‘One Tree Hill’ – The Ringer
I’m surprised to see Taylor Ward moving the bar for the Angels. Wasn’t he a highly regarded 1st round draft pick?
I think it’s because the methodology in this article isn’t measuring “development”..it’s measuring where anonymous scouts were wrong about players. Taylor Ward was dismissed as a 40 FV because the gossip amongst scouts in 2018 was that his hitting “tools” were all bad, even though he clearly had above average hitting skills.
It’s all very silly.
Not that it means anything at all, but I find it incredible that the Red Sox managed to rank exactly 13th overall in both pitching and hitting development, AND exactly 11th overall regarding 40FV players in both pitching and hitting development.
Huh, today I learned Sophia Bush is not a soccer player.
Why am I a Rockies fan???
I have a friend who is a Rockies fan and has a PhD in economics. We had some good times in late July in the 2010s