Blogging the San Diego Padres… established 1997

2. Similar Prospects Who Diverged

In Part 1, I outlined the motivation for this study. I also mentioned some of the types of questions we’d be trying to answer. Now it’s time to get our hands dirty.

In his 1996 Minor League Scouting Notebook, John Sickels assigns each prospect a grade from A to C-. It’s pretty self-explanatory: guys who are expected to make more of an impact are given higher grades than those who are not.

One question we might ask is, What if you have two players who are ranked similarly as prospects and who have similar minor-league numbers but who turn out to be very different big league ballplayers? Aside from being a stimulating intellectual exercise, this has a very real practical application; i.e., the next time we come across such a set of prospects, maybe we can find a better way to identify who will pan out and who will not.

As always, it’s possible that there is no answer, or at least no readily identifiable answer. But if we’re not at least asking the question, then what’s the point?

I looked for pairs of players who:

• had the same letter grade
• were the same age
• played the same position

For each pair, I found one who achieved big league success and another who did not. And I looked to see if there was anything in their statistical records to indicate what might have happened. One final note: we’re examining only position players for now.

Grade A

No.: 8
Minors: .294/.369/.470
Majors: .284/.359/.470
Avg. WS: 133.00
Sim. WS: Mark Loretta (132)

Key: No., number of hitters assigned this grade; Minors, aggregate minor league BA/OBP/SLG through 1995 of hitters assigned this grade; Majors, aggregate major league BA/OBP/SLG through 2004 of hitters assigned this grade; Avg. WS, average number of win shares through 2004; Sim. WS, player from our pool with a similar number of win shares to the Avg. WS.

Conveniently enough, there were a couple of 22-year-old outfielders in this group, and even more conveniently, one of them succeeded and the other did not. Here are their minor league numbers through 1995:

                AB   BA  OBP  SLG BB/PA BB/SO  ISO  XBH
Bobby Abreu   1952 .295 .371 .456  .109  .605 .161 .325
Ruben Rivera  1357 .280 .381 .525  .124  .460 .245 .434

Abreu hit for better average and struck out less often, while Rivera drew more walks and displayed more power. Abreu also had more pro experience under his belt, including more at-bats in the high minors (815 at Double- or Triple-A over two seasons for Abreu, vs 430 split between those two levels in one season for Rivera). In retrospect, Abreu did show a more refined approach at a higher level, which may have been an indicator of things to come.

Here are their big league numbers through 2004:

                AB   BA  OBP  SLG BB/PA BB/SO  ISO  XBH  WS WS/500
Bobby Abreu   4140 .307 .408 .522  .155  .838 .215 .399 201  19.90
Ruben Rivera  1586 .216 .307 .393  .104  .363 .177 .414  36  10.16

I’ve thrown in win shares per 500 plate appearances (at-bats + walks) to give a rate stat. This allows us to examine Abreu and Rivera on roughly equal terms. Yeah, it’s kind of a bogus stat because win shares includes defensive value, too, but it’s quick and easy, and it makes the general point well enough.

Abreu improved every aspect of his game on reaching the Show and became one of the best players of his generation. On the flip side, Rivera saw all of his numbers go into the tank and has been no more successful as a big leaguer than the likes of Frank Menechino (Grade C- in Sickels’ book) and Randall Simon (Grade C+).

To give you some idea of how far Rivera has fallen, when I first ran the numbers in 2002, Rivera compared well with Juan Encarnacion and Torii Hunter. At the time, I’d said that “The fact that Rivera’s big-league comps are a couple of guys who were considered vastly inferior prospects at the time is a rather damning indictment of his lack of development as a ballplayer. It’s hard to remember now, but Rivera once was considered on par with Andruw Jones as a prospect.” Fact is, now even Encarnacion and Hunter have completely blown past him.

Maybe Rivera was pushed too aggressively because of his ability to crush balls when he did make contact and he never really learned how to recognize pitches. The poor BB/SO ratio could have been a yellow flag; on the other hand, a similar ratio (.450) didn’t keep the older and less highly regarded Mike Cameron (.243/.330/.361 in 1566 AB through 1995) from going on to achieve big league success.

Maybe there were other issues that don’t show up in any numbers. That can happen, you know. As Sickels noted in his writeup on Rivera, “Some people also hint that Rivera has a nasty temper, as well as a touch of unpleasant arrogance. I don’t know if that is true or not, and even if it true, it may just mean that he has some growing up to do.”

Grade A-

No.: 11
Minors: .288/.357/.454
Majors: .304/.362/.482
Avg. WS: 87.36
Sim. WS: Paul Konerko (88)

Two 22-year-old shortstops with this grade show up in the book. Their minor league numbers through 1995:

                    AB   BA  OBP  SLG BB/PA BB/SO  ISO  XBH
Gabe Alvarez       221 .353 .438 .534  .120  .968 .181 .333
Nomar Garciaparra  618 .272 .341 .390  .088 1.250 .118 .274

And major league numbers through 2004:

                     AB   BA  OBP  SLG BB/PA BB/SO  ISO  XBH  WS WS/500
Gabe Alvarez        266 .222 .289 .357  .083  .316 .135 .373   3   5.17
Nomar Garciaparra  4133 .322 .370 .549  .067  .702 .227 .395 183  20.66

Nomar had done his damage at a higher level, but I think the overriding factor here is lack of sample size. We simply didn’t have enough information to go on at this point in their respective careers.

Grade B+

No.: 20
Minors: .290/.363/.439
Majors: .260/.331/.433
Avg. WS: 49.80
Sim. WS: Ron Coomer, Alex Ochoa (49); Damian Jackson (50)

Two 20-year-old shortstops with a grade of B+ show up in Sickels’ book. Their minor league numbers through 1995:

                  AB   BA  OBP  SLG BB/PA BB/SO  ISO  XBH
Edgar Renteria  1494 .256 .307 .315  .069  .417 .059 .164
Donnie Sadler    644 .280 .382 .421  .137  .911 .141 .317

And major league numbers through 2004:

                  AB   BA  OBP  SLG BB/PA BB/SO  ISO  XBH  WS WS/500
Edgar Renteria  4922 .289 .346 .400  .081  .643 .111 .256 150  14.00
Donnie Sadler    767 .202 .262 .284  .067  .337 .082 .277  10   6.08

Some similarities here with the Alvarez/Garciaparra case. Renteria’s numbers were inferior to Sadler’s, but as 19-year-olds, the former had held his own in the Double-A Eastern League while the latter had spent the season in the Class-A Midwest League. Renteria was two levels above Sadler (between the Midwest League and the Eastern League there is also “advanced” Class-A). So although Renteria hit just .289/.329/.388 at Portland, as opposed to Sadler’s .283/.397/.438 at Michigan, the former was facing much better competition. A young player performing well is a good thing. A young player performing not quite as well but against tougher opponents possibly is a better thing.

There is also the sample size issue. Renteria had four years of pro ball under his belt and had amassed more than twice as many minor-league at-bats as Sadler, who had just finished his second season. By the end of 1996, Renteria was starting for the Marlins; Sadler was practically duplicating what Renteria had done in the Eastern League the previous season, but as a 20-year-old. Not bad work, but maybe not as impressive as it had been coming from a kid still in his teens.

This is already getting pretty long-winded, so I’ll just present the numbers of some other matched pairs and let you do the rest:

Grade B

No.: 38
Minors: .281/.355/.429
Majors: .266/.332/.416
Avg. WS: 30.53
Sim. WS: Bobby Estalella (30); Chris Widger (31)

Two 21-year-old first basemen with a grade of B show up in Sickels’ book. Their minor league numbers through 1995:

                    AB   BA  OBP  SLG BB/PA BB/SO  ISO  XBH
Alejandro Freire   500 .304 .377 .458  .099  .550 .154 .289

Richie Sexson     1079 .280 .350 .444  .083  .439 .164 .334

And major league numbers through 2004:

                    AB   BA  OBP  SLG BB/PA BB/SO  ISO  XBH  WS WS/500
Alejandro Freire   ---------------------------------------------------
Richie Sexson     3065 .271 .349 .528  .100  .423 .257 .445 101  14.83

Grade B-

No.: 38
Minors: .277/.346/.415
Majors: .267/.335/.421
Avg. WS: 30.45
Sim. WS: Bobby Estalella (30); Chris Widger (31)

Two 20-year-old catchers with a grade of B- show up in Sickels’ book. Their minor league numbers through 1995:

               AB   BA  OBP  SLG BB/PA BB/SO  ISO  XBH

Ramon Castro  467 .270 .336 .409  .091  .758 .139 .325
Paul Konerko  705 .281 .368 .447  .119  .679 .166 .323

And major league numbers through 2004:

                AB   BA  OBP  SLG BB/PA BB/SO  ISO  XBH WS WS/500
Ramon Castro   466 .212 .296 .365  .107  .483 .153 .354 10   9.58
Paul Konerko  3420 .278 .345 .481  .085  .638 .203 .364 88  11.77

Grade C+

No.: 46
Minors: .276/.351/.422
Majors: .262/.328/.429
Avg. WS: 19.41
Sim. WS: Sal Fasano, Andy Sheets, Mark Smith (19); Kevin Jordan (20)

Two 21-year-old second basemen with a grade of C+ show up in Sickels’ book. Their minor league numbers through 1995:

              AB   BA  OBP  SLG BB/PA BB/SO  ISO  XBH
Edwin Diaz  1017 .279 .336 .429  .068  .333 .150 .333
Jose Vidro  1361 .276 .339 .389  .083  .618 .113 .295

And major league numbers through 2004:

              AB   BA  OBP  SLG BB/PA BB/SO  ISO   XBH  WS WS/500
Edwin Diaz    12 .167 .333 .333  .200 1.000 .166 1.000   1  33.33
Jose Vidro  3485 .304 .367 .470  .085  .844 .166  .346 119  15.62

Grade C

No.: 70
Minors: .273/.348/.406
Majors: .266/.331/.429
Avg. WS: 15.16
Sim. WS: Todd Greene, Calvin Murray (15)

Two 20-year-old left fielders with a grade of C show up in Sickels’ book. Their minor league numbers through 1995:

                   AB   BA  OBP  SLG BB/PA BB/SO  ISO  XBH
Juan Encarnacion  743 .264 .323 .425  .064  .248 .161 .352
Anton French      753 .259 .323 .392  .081  .377 .133 .303

And major league numbers through 2004:

                    AB   BA  OBP  SLG BB/PA BB/SO  ISO  XBH WS WS/500
Juan Encarnacion  3339 .265 .311 .439  .056  .321 .174 .364 74  10.46
Anton French      ---------------------------------------------------

Grade C-

No.: 55
Minors: .271/.340/.390
Majors: .261/.325/.394
Avg. WS: 12.40
Sim. WS: Jeff Abbott, Brooks Kieschnick (12); Bobby Smith, Javier Valentin (13)

Three 25-year-old center fielders with a grade of C- show up in Sickels’ book. Their minor league numbers through 1995:

                  AB   BA  OBP  SLG BB/PA BB/SO  ISO  XBH
Doug Glanville  2073 .270 .316 .362  .059  .468 .103 .234
Marquis Riley   1574 .265 .354 .311  .120  .778 .046 .132
Mike Wolff      1493 .279 .375 .461  .131  .666 .182 .368

And major league numbers through 2004:

                  AB   BA  OBP  SLG BB/PA BB/SO  ISO  XBH WS WS/500
Doug Glanville  3964 .277 .315 .380  .050  .414 .103 .234 80   9.59
Marquis Riley   ---------------------------------------------------
Mike Wolff      ---------------------------------------------------

So What?

It’s hard to draw any firm conclusions from this, but here are some factors to consider when evaluating otherwise similar prospects:

• sample size: who has more experience?
• context: is he older or younger than the competition?
• intangibles: what is known beyond what the numbers reveal?

That last one drives some people absolutely nuts. But just because you cannot figure out a way to measure something doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist. After all, the laws of gravity were in effect well before Sir Issac Newton was.

1. Introduction: Background & Motivation

What is a prospect? Why do some succeed and others fail? Are there observable differences between types of young players that lead each down different paths? What role do age, position, ability to draw walks, etc., play? How many current top players were highly regarded as prospects? How many developed into stars despite lack of top prospect status? (Hint: eight of the nine most productive big-league hitters from our sample were assigned the grade of A or A- as prospects in 1996; on the other hand, 6 of the top 25 were given a grade of C+ or lower.)

These are some of the questions I asked myself when I first put this study together back in 2002. As I said at the time, “The general idea of the study was to examine how well former prospects had fared in the big leagues, using John Sickels’ 1996 Minor League Scouting Notebook for the data sample and Bill James’ win shares for measuring the success (or lack thereof) of each player.”

So I went through Sickels’ book and compiled minor- and major-league stats on all 515 players listed. Win shares were all the rage at the time, and they seemed like a good candidate for helping to evaluate what I hoped to evaluate, so I added those in as well.

I looked at prospects who had been graded similarly but whose big league careers diverged considerably. I looked at prospects who had been graded very differently but who somehow ended up arriving at similar points in the big leagues. I looked at guys who according to their statistical record in the minors should have had superior big league careers and wondered why that hadn’t happened and what the limitations might be on evaluating prospects solely on the basis of their minor league performance. I looked at the difference between pitchers and position players, between left fielders and shortstops. Basically I asked a lot of questions and looked at a lot of things.

Speaking of questions, you may be asking yourself, “Why revisit this three years later? Why not just forget about it and move onto something else. Seriously, get a life already.” Point taken. But here’s the deal: A lot can change in three years. For instance, entering 2002, Brendan Donnelly had zero big league innings under his belt. But at age 30 he finally reached the Show and became a terrific setup reliever. A pitcher with a grade of C- in Sickels’ book, he’s barely a blip on the radar in the initial study. This time around, however, he’s a guy with 165+ innings and a 2.12 ERA.

There are plenty of other examples like this, but Donnelly is my favorite because he was such an underdog. The point is, things change and it’s good to take another look and make sure what we thought we learned back then still holds and that we didn’t miss anything else in the process.

That, and it’s fun.

One final note: I’m not a statistician, nor do I play one on television. You won’t see regressions, confidence intervals, or anything like that here. I mainly count stuff. If anyone with more sophisticated knowledge and skills would like to take up the cause and do something more exotic with this, please drop me a line. And if you’re interested in checking out the original study, it’s on pp. 4-19 of Ducksnorts: Best of 2003, which you can download at the old site.

Otherwise, join us each Thursday throughout the baseball season as we revisit the prospects of 1996.

First off, if you let Aaron Sele throw a four-hit shutout against you, it’s hard to complain about no longer being in first place. Second, does anyone know what has happened to Xavier Nady? Whatever he may have done to offend, let me apologize on his behalf. The Padres really need to get his bat in the lineup. When? Hint: The Friars are now headed to Phoenix for a series against the first-place Diamondbacks.

I couldn’t find Nady; maybe you’ll have better luck.