On Monday, CBS Sports released our Ranking of the 25 best prospects. In the coming weeks we will begin publishing our list for each individual team. This exercise will culminate early next year with the release of our Top 50.
To provide transparency about a complex process, we wanted to follow up on the rankings and explain why some notable prospects didn't make it. Specifically, we wanted to focus on that Colorado Rockies Outlook Charlie Condonwhich, as you may recall, we classified as ours No. 1 draft prospectus back in summer. (Condon was subsequently selected No. 3 overall by the Rockies.) Rest assured that Condon will be a top-50 pick; Still, we felt it would be worth explaining why we didn't include him in the initial top 25, as we did with some of his peers.
One of the big challenges in prospect reporting is figuring out how to weight each player's initial professional appearance. We spend months analyzing these players and developing expectations for their performance in the coming years. It's a no-brainer if players meet these expectations after joining the professional ranks. It's more interesting when they don't – whether through over– or under-performance.
In general, we tend to treat small sample sizes with reasonable skepticism. Follow baseball long enough and you'll understand that it's foolish, although understandable, to overreact to a few good weeks here and a few bad weeks there. Many evaluation errors are made when trying to respond to each new piece of information. It's often better to keep the bigger picture in mind and give the water time to calm down.
However, sometimes a player deviates so far from these expectations that you become aware of it and reconsider your previous assessment. Bill James invented the concept of “signature meaning.” It's basically the idea that extreme performance can reveal something about a player, even if it's only present in a small sample. Their success may vary depending on the idea (or the way that idea is applied in baseball analysis), but we fear that it is reasonable to categorize Condon as an example of this.
Condon wasn't just bad in his first pro experience; he was bad in a worrying way. He hit .180/.248/.270 in 109 plate appearances against age-appropriate High-A competition. More concerning than its topline results were some of its underlying metrics. Condon made it to the top of our draft list thanks to his mix of contract, power and discipline. These were not evident as he hit the plate on 31.2% of his attacks; or if he appeared in less than 4% of those record appearances; or when he recorded six extra-base hits… one for each pop-up he launched.
We don't mean that these few weeks will condemn Condon to the dustbin of history or anything like that. It is possible that he was exhausted from his college season or that he was dealing with a physical or mechanical illness that will be resolved over the winter. Obviously we're not giving up on it entirely – we still rank it in the top 50 – we're just acknowledging that it was really, really bad, to an extent and in a way that required correction on our part. That's that. Now all we can do is hope that Condon looks more like the player we expected him to be in the future.
With that explanation behind us, here are three other notable prospects who didn't make the top 25 — and our reasoning why.
Caglianone was the most famous draftee in the class thanks to his tackling brilliance at Florida. He has one of the most interesting offensive profiles in the game, an unusual combination of power and bat-to-ball ability. If everything goes right, he'll probably end up resembling something like this Anthony Santander or diet Jordan Alvarez. Unfortunately, we continue to have reservations about Caglianone's approach (he struck out 15% more when he went pro) and his suitability as a pitcher (he lacks the command of a starter), so they prevented us from doing so to place him in the top 25.
Speaking of first basemen with two-way experience. We like Eldridge a lot. He will also be in the top 50 and has an undeniable chance of becoming a mid-range force. We only have one personal rule of thumb when it comes to young first basemen, and that rule is that we don't jump into it until they've proven they can handle Double-A pitching – the offensive bar for that position is so high that You're right to be skeptical about a particular first base prospect's chances of making it. Given that Eldridge played in almost as many Triple-A games (eight) as Double-A games (nine) last season, it's possible the Giants trade him away before he has a chance to meet our needs to fulfill.
On paper, Schultz looks like a star in the making. He's a low-slot lefty with a nasty slider who posted a 1.48 ERA and a 10.77 strikeout-per-nine ratio in 16 Double-A starts. He is expected to debut in 2025. Still, we have him in the 25-30 range for two reasons. Most importantly, Schultz only threw 115 innings in two full pro seasons. Additionally, some evaluators we trust have highlighted the effectiveness of his fastball against right-handed hitters, suggesting he could suffer from platoon issues in the majors. We'll note that Schultz did indeed have a significant platoon split in the minors (.413 OPS with the advantage, .603 without it for his career). That hasn't stopped him from dominating in the minors, and who knows, maybe it won't stop him in the majors either.
