This is a great article reminding us about prospects. 

https://blogs.fangraphs.com/managing-prospect-expectations/

Look at those odds for greatness for two great prospects.....

Nothing is guaranteed, for sure, when it comes to the expectations of baseball players' performances. An experienced player has better odds than a prospect, but nothing is certain.

The Cubs example was particularly striking, and every member of that quartet was a top 100 prospect. The Twins have 2 pitchers, Winder at 88 and Balazovic at 91, that fall into that group....

Thanks Mike for this thread. That brings me to the present Twins. We have very solid established base corp of players but so many fans are so quick to give up on them. Putting all their hope on future prospects, IMO is a fool's errand. Especially with the established players we have.

I'm interested in how those numbers change based on what level a prospect currently sits at. I assume a prospect who's currently playing at AAA has a better shot than a similarly-ranked prospect who was just drafted last year? Or do they generally take that into account?

The list is nearly endless, but think Lewis Thorpe and Fernando Romero for just two examples. I remain very hopeful for their current prospects but experience matters.

Roughly 8% of prospects will play a single game in MLB, about 6% will stick around a bit longer and gave any kind if impact. How to figure out which 6 if that 100 person cohort can succeed, and which 94 need to sell insurance? And do the same eval's for every other org in MLB, prepared to taje advantage of their oversights. And constantly update the evolving lists for every team. No wonder theyre hiring rocket scientists to model the info flow. Of course, they could hire dart throwers, and maybe would have similar success over time.? Seems like a massive crapshoot.

Great reason to have the farm stocked with lots of pretty good arms rather than a few great arms, too.

56 minutes ago, Game7-91 said:

Roughly 8% of prospects will play a single game in MLB, about 6% will stick around a bit longer and gave any kind if impact. How to figure out which 6 if that 100 person cohort can succeed, and which 94 need to sell insurance? And do the same eval's for every other org in MLB, prepared to taje advantage of their oversights. And constantly update the evolving lists for every team. No wonder theyre hiring rocket scientists to model the info flow. Of course, they could hire dart throwers, and maybe would have similar success over time.? Seems like a massive crapshoot.

This is exactly why I never understand why so many people freak out about failed drafted players.  Every GM has draft fails and draft steals.  Sometimes it may be the organization and sometimes it is the player.  Sometimes a player comes in and looks like a HR then they fall off out of no where, where others take several years to finally click. 

Every time people discuss draft picks in baseball I always ask them who they would have drafted, normally they have no clue, or they put out a name.  Well you should keep track of that name and see who missed or hit.  Unless you can point to someone you would have taken instead just complaining about missing is dumb.  

Every draft you will find guys that never made it to MLB high in the 1st round, and you will find guys late in first or late in other rounds that are all-stars.  Baseball draft is one of the biggest crapshoots in all of sports. The funny thing is no one remembers when a GM reached and hit early in the draft, but they remember when you take the expected guy in your spot and miss. 

2 hours ago, Unwinder said:

Great reason to have the farm stocked with lots of pretty good arms rather than a few great arms, too.

Sounds like a recipe for a perennial loser.

I am sure MLB is aware of these stats and part of reason behind wanting to lower MiLB players to 150. Even then only a small percentage will make MLB.