Draft pick projections versus projections based on minor league production are two different kettles of fish. Previously, I took a look at the results from previous drafts, and showed that even top draft picks skew more toward failure than Hall of Fame. But, of course, draft picks may be high school kids, or college kids, who haven't yet faced their first profession hitters or pitchers. It is important to understand that as more information is gathered, projections WILL improve, though not in a linear fashion when looking at individual players. One year in A+ ball is *NOT*, even at 17, a particularly accurate projection of anything. But, 3-4 years in the minors, with 1500 at bats or a few hundred innings provides more and more information to make more accurate assessments. While this is true, it still doesn't mean that production alone is a particularly solid yard stick for guaranteeing success in the majors.

One of the primary focuses of many of todays prospect projectors is age. There are some decent age/production actuarial tables that show a simple truth. The younger a player is when they "break out", the more likely they are to succeed in the majors. While this is true, to a degree, what is rarely (if ever) stated, is exactly what percentage of AAA 'rakers' go on to stardom? I don't know, precisely. But I DO know with certainty that the perception is skewed toward the positive. It is true that 19-year-olds who clobber the minors tend to do better in the majors than those who don't clobber the minors until age 25. But, there are so few 19-year-olds who clobber the minors that the predictive value of this knowledge is a bit shaky. The reality is that you're looking at the "exceptions" to begin with. And, unfortunately, the 19-year-olds who clobber AAA and don't make it are quickly forgotten for the next teen pheenom.

But, the underlying truth is valid -- young minor league production increases odds of eventual major league production. But, how many people know the "typical" odds of moving from minors to majors at ANY age? When examining draft picks, there was a 40% abject failure rate for top 10 draft picks. So, let us try to get a similar read on the success rate of AAA success and subsequent major league success.

Let's go back to 2005. Let's look at only the top AAA players who qualified with 300+ ABs. Who were they? What did they hit then? And what have they done in the majors to date? Remember, these are players who led AAA in production in 2005, which means they have had 3 full major league seasons since then to prove themselves in the bigs.

===========

These were the BEST hitters in AAA in 2005. Several HAVE played in the majors. Some have not. Some still appear to be on the way to stardom. Some do not.

Victorino, Munson, and Brown have 400+ ML ABs, with muted success. Jurries and Mitch Jones haven't seen a ML pitcher, yet. Shoppach, Marte have a few ML ABs, with generally poor results.

Success stories: Upton Garko Granderson

==============

Freire, I left in to illustrate the reality. **MANY** highly successful minor league hitters *NEVER* get a legit shot at the majors. DESPITE putting up excellent numbers, they are deemed to either be missing something, or they are blocked at their position. Jurries and Mitch Jones are NOT unique. Shoppach and Brown are not unique.

The 'perception' is that if a spec can hit .300/.850 in AAA, (and he's 27 or less), then he can CERTAINLY hit .270/.800 in the majors, and if he's young he's got "upside", so .900 or .950 is reachable. Based on their 2005 data, Victorino appeared every bit the spec that Granderson was - and his only 'minus' compared to Upton was his age.

But, though I didn't include them in the list, the top *TWO* hitters in AAA in 2005 were both over 30, (Brian Daubach and Kevin Barker). It is quite easy to get 'labeled' a AAAA hitter - and languish in the minors.

Out of the above list, only two hitters have actually managed to post .800+ career numbers in the 4 years since their AAA stellar performances. Garko barely makes the list, and Upton just misses. But Upton, for all his hype, had a great 2007 season and then regressed significantly during 2008. And, as for the age thing -- there were two 21-year-olds on that original list, who clobbered AAA at age 21 -- Upton and Marte. One is doing well, while the other has been an abject failure at the major league level.

What does this teach us? That the success rate of even the most productive AAA hitters is more miss than hit. It also shows us that results are almost never instantaneous. Victorina posted .760 -- .770 and .799 numbers in his three major league seasons. This is the "perceived" development of a prospect, which is actually very rare. The Upton line of .593; .894; .784 is actually more common. And mostly it shows us that being the absolute best in AAA guarantees nothing. If you end up being "only" decent in the majors after smacking AAA about the head and shoulders, YOU ARE A SUCCEESS!

The lesson in all of this is that even AAA prospects are still just that - prospects. There are NO guarantees of major league production. The track record of the most productive AAA players in the majors is still essentially a coin flip. And even the success stories typically take longer to blossom after arriving in the majors than is generally believed. So, next time someone starts talking about the next "can't miss" prospect and rattling off production numbers to support their position, nod politely, pull out a quarter and flip it. Your result is likely going to be as accurate as the hype that you hear.