How many phenoms actually work out?

[MFS62]

I posted my thoughts before looking him up, too. Was relying on memory. But there were stories at the time that part of the reason they traded him was because it didn't look like he could take to third very well. That said, I stand busted.
LOL!

But what I wrote about the option rule in force at the time is correct.

Later

[nymr83]

i think the "methodology" here is flawed if you're looking to determine what % of the Mets "hyped" prospects worked out. You should agree on a list of all "hyped" prospects and then decide which ones lived up to the hype and which ones didnt.

[Guest Edgy DC]

There we go.

How about anybody who ever made Baseball America's top 50? Is that an objective hype standard?

[MFS62]

Edgy DC wrote: There we go. How about anybody who ever made Baseball America's top 50? Is that an objective hype stnadard?

A good start. But in lean organizational years, a "top" prospect from a team may not even crack the BA top 50, but may still receive some sizeable local hype. So I suggest also including players who were on the BA top 10 team prospect lists for each year.

Later

[Guest Edgy DC]

Well, then we're lost, including girls who are only hot relative to their co-workers.

"Hype" means little enough as it is, without working from the assumption that each team's prospects get equal amounts every year.

We ought to have an objective standard.

[Guest iramets]

I'm happy to develop one.

I began by saying that no one who plays a position or breaks into the starting rotation may count as a hyped rookie, presumably because thaty means we had a real look at them and not the hype.

So Singleton is out. Otis is in.

Other objective standards would be what?

[nymr83]

i think including top 10 organization guys is overinclusive... any Met who made the BA top 50 is a better starting point, we may miss a guy or three but at least we have a pretty good objective starting point