Collin Cowgill, Brett Lawrie and Age vs. Level

Leave it to Fangraphs readers to supply thought-provoking questions worthy of an entire post. After last week’s prospect chat, reader “GrittleTooth” belted a grand slam in the comments area with this gem:

I get that age is very important when evaluating prospects, but isn’t it also true that guys develop at different speeds and some ‘get it’ latter than others? What I’m getting at is that when you compare, for example, Collin Cowgill & Brett Lawrie the numbers they put up in the PCL last year were rather similar (.442 vs .460 wOBA over roughly same # PA’s in same league). Yes, Lawrie is 4 years younger, more highly regarded, and plays a different position. But how can you argue with the lesser prospect’s numbers?

Two-hundred words into a response, I realized this would make for an excellent post topic on age-versus-level and how that effects player projection at the major league level – especially given the statistics for both Brett Lawrie and Collin Cowgill were eerily similar in the same league.

Before delving into this topic head on, it’s important to mention the fact that exceptions do exist for every rule and that the best scouts are able to identify those. Having not scouted Lawrie or Cowgill as prospects, I’m only able to speak from prior experience and an understanding of the general rules and timelines for prospects establishing themselves at the big league level and how that impacts projection. It’s also important to understand Kevin Youkilis, Jose Bautista and others who become stars in their late 20s are examples of the exceptions and that their ascent is quite rare in terms of player development.

At 25, Collin Cowgill utterly dominated the PCL en route to a .354/.430/.554 line with 13 home runs and 30 stolen bases. In posting one of the most impressive stat lines in minor league baseball, he earned 100 big league plate appearances in Arizona before being included as a part of the Jarrod Parker-plus for Trevor Cahill trade. However, for as strong as Cowgill looks on paper, he’s already lost the race against the prospect time clock, as the vast majority of big leaguers who surface for good at 26 or later wind up as bench pieces and not first- or even second-division starters at the Major League level.

In comparison, Jays Brett Lawrie also torched PCL pitching to the tune of .353/.415/.661, including 18 home runs and 13 steals prior to accumulating a stunning 2.7 WAR in only 171 plate appearances spanning 43 games. This production has earned Lawrie a place amongst the best young players in baseball, supported by the fact 2012 will only be his age-22 season – an age at which the majority of star-level big leaguers establish themselves.

For me, projecting based on a basic 22-24-26 rule helps keep it simple when at the ballpark scouting. If I can project a player to establish himself for good at 22, then the potential is there for him to be a star. At 24, a player is likely to be a solid regular, but will fall short of star-level status. At 26, a bench role is the most likely outcome. This is not to say it’s a perfect system, as players will occasionally buck the general trend, but I’ve found it serves me quite well in practice. Additionally, it’s important not to forget that prospects flame out more often than not on the whole for a variety of reasons, so any system of projection will ultimately be imperfect.

As for Lawrie versus Cowgill, the difference in how both are viewed is a product of the age difference between the two prospects. For Cowgill, 2012 will be his age-26 season and it’s a generally accepted fact that a player’s prime begins at 26. This means Cowgill will be learning the ropes at the Major League level while already in his prime, so Collin Cowgill at 500 plate appearances may very well be similar to Collin Cowgill at 1,500 plate appearances or more. Beyond making minor adjustments to his approach at the game’s highest level, room for maturation both physically and mentally is limited due to his advanced age.

On the opposite end of the spectrum, projecting Brett Lawrie for 500-600 plate appearances during his age-22 through -25 seasons leaves him with a projected 2,000+ plate appearances to grow and adjust both physically and mentally at the big league level before entering his prime. This drastically increases the likelihood Lawrie becomes an impact player at the Major League level. Like any profession, the longer one is able to compete and learn at its highest level, the better the prime of the career is likely to be.

One caveat to this argument I hear quite often is that a player like Cowgill can’t be penalized for going to college, which is simply not true. Having been drafted at a young 22, Cowgill spent his age-19 through -21 seasons playing approximately 60 games per season at the University of Kentucky plus whatever summer ball college leagues he may have latched onto. For comparison’s sake, Lawrie has appeared in 369 games as a professional in the same amount of time, plus off-season instructs. The added development time is priceless as exemplified by Rany Jazayerli’s piece on the MLB draft and how younger is better.

Lost in this discussion is the fact, regardless of production, the expectation of a fifth-round college pick versus a first-round high school age pick should be different. When the Diamondbacks and Brewers drafted Cowgill and Lawrie, respectively, each could not have hoped for a more desirable outcome in terms of player development. Putting Cowgill’s success at the triple-A level into perspective is not meant to dismiss his success as a minor leaguer. If anything, that production is responsible for his projecting to have a Major League career at all as he was likely drafted with the intent of being more of a strong organizational piece.




Print This Post



Mike Newman is the Owner/Managing Editor ofROTOscouting, a subscription site focused on baseball scouting, baseball prospects and fantasy baseball. Follow me onTwitter. Likeus on Facebook.Subscribeto my YouTube Channel.


54 Responses to “Collin Cowgill, Brett Lawrie and Age vs. Level”

You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
  1. Frank says:

    TL;DR: A player’s prime is a product of learned experience (plate discipline, power) and physical ability to do it (young, strong muscles). Physical ability usually trends downward the whole career, while learned experience is a more parabolic or plateau-like curve, peaking several years into the career. Those who hit their learned experience peaks while they still rate highly on physical ability are usually those who have better careers.

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    • digital says:

      TL;DR

      +5 Vote -1 Vote +1

    • Mike Newman says:

      So you’re saying 26 as the start of a player’s prime is not “generally accepted”?

      Vote -1 Vote +1

      • Frank says:

        I don’t disagree with that. 26 just seems to be where skills and physical ability match up most often, but I believe in slightly earlier primes for those who hit the majors earlier and slightly later primes for those who hit the majors later. The primes of those who make the show later though seem lesser on average, because their skill improvements are offset by aging somewhat, and their skills are likely lesser if they’ve been unable to make the show up until that point.

        I think the greater fear though for a 26-year old prospect is not proximity to physical prime, but the possibility that an observed good MiLB season is fluky and not more indicative of MLB potential than a mediocre established track record.

        Vote -1 Vote +1

  2. Liam says:

    How do injuries play into your assessment of a player in the 22-24-26 spectrum? Losing a year to a torn ACL, Tommy John, and other injuries that have good, established recovery rates vs the dreaded torn labrum or back injuries that will frequently recur should be addressed.

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    • Mike Newman says:

      Injuries are inexact obviously, but it’s still lost playing time. A pitcher for example will sustain an innings build up starting with 100 or so and jumping by 25 each subsequent season. If a guy develops like this;

      20 – 100 IP
      21 – 125 IP
      22 – 40 IP (TJ)
      23 – 60 IP (Post-TJ)
      24 – ?

      At 24, that guy is still building up innings and isn’t likely to jump from 60 IP to the 150+ needed prior to reaching the bigs. For me, Hagadone of the Indians is a great example of this coming to fruition. A major injury quite often does negatively affect the development curve and that simply can’t be ignored.

      Vote -1 Vote +1

  3. BJ says:

    It seems as if this could be a new market inefficiency. These 26 YO prospects who other organizations deem as developing too late can still make a serious impact.

    There are other factors as well to consider. Liam brings up a good one – injuries. The organization that you play for may be more conservative or aggressive in handling young players promotions. Positional blocks may keep a guy down longer than if he had a clear path to the bigs. Switching defensive positions may force a guy to stay or year or two longer. A teams success may dictate whether you bring a guy up early (if they are out of it) or keep him down in the minors (if they are in the middle of a playoff run).

    The 22/24/26 rule works pretty well for a player that goes along the happy path. However, I bet a smart team could exploit that general rule by finding guys who are still very talented but for one or more of the reasons listed above, never got their shot. They could be had for pennies on the dollar as organizations view them as AAAA players.

    Very good article. Thanks for writing it Mike.

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    • Mike Newman says:

      BJ, that’s the reason scouts collect a paycheck. Their job is to find these inefficiencies and guys whose luster has worn off. Very few 26-year old prospects will become big league regulars so late in a career, but older prospects who fill bench roles at minimum salaries compared to a veteran making 2 million to do the same job is extremely valuable – especially for teams with salary restraints working to keep their key pieces.

      Vote -1 Vote +1

  4. Greg says:

    Certainly age relative to level is very important in evaluating prospects, and age in general has relevance for all the reasons mentioned in this piece. However, as long as we are acknowledging that different players do in fact “get it” at different rates on an individual level, it also bears mentioning that not every player’s physical peak years will be the same, and a departure of even a couple of years from the average would affect their career path significantly.

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    • Mike Newman says:

      Yes, but general terms do define the exceptions. When scouting a player, there is rarely a round peg in a round hole situation. Lumping prospects together in practice makes for ineffective scouting. However, having a general guide allows me to identify scouting targets and forces me to think, “Hey, that Braves Ronan Pacheco is 23 and in A-Ball… He’s WAY behind the learning curve… So if I’m going to write him up as a prospect for Fangraphs, I better have a dang good reason.”

      Vote -1 Vote +1

      • Greg says:

        No argument whatsoever here, it’s definitely wiser to assume the general rule applies when you’re ranking prospects. It’s just that later blooming as a player could be (and usually is?) indicative of a delayed physical peak as well, and I think that’s something worth considering. I’d hazard that this is also much more common amongst college prospects, who perhaps weren’t well regarded coming out of HS due to a relative lack of physical development at that stage.

        Vote -1 Vote +1

  5. APV says:

    I have a somewhat related question that has bothered me for some time. Obviously age relative to level is important, but is length of exposure to pro ball also improtant? And if so, how does it compare to the general importance of age? This is an issue that comes up particularly in comparisons between former college draftees and former high-school or JC draftees who entered pro ball at a much younger age. For example, Nick Weglarz, a now marginal prospect in the Indians system, will be entering his age-24 season this year. That is not too old for a guy in AAA, but does it add something additional to know that this will be his 8th pro season (Weglarz was 17 when drafted out of Canada)?

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    • Mike Newman says:

      Exposure at a young age to professional baseball is extremely important – It’s why the Rangers will pay 5-million for a Nomar Mazara at 16, bring him into the organization, and trust him to player development. As I said in the piece, Lawrie played roughly twice as many games as a pro as Cowgill did in college. That exposure to live pitching, work with wood bats, professional coaching, etc. is very valuable.

      As for Weglarz, 2,100+ plate appearances into a professional career is quite a bit, but he’s an example of injuries and old man skills chipping away at his ceiling. I appreciate a disciplined hitter, but I’m much more concerned about K rates than BB rates at such a young age. Take Arenado, he has strong contact skills, but stats guys dinged him for low walk rates. However, he’s a smark kid, has elite contact skills and a solid approach even if the walk rates didn’t show it. The walk rates were an area for improvement. Take a guy walking at a high clip from the jump, and I’m forced to wonder where the improvement is going to come from as he’s already being pretty selective.

      Vote -1 Vote +1

  6. BoSoxFan says:

    I thought the reason for Jazayerli’s results were not because of added development time, but because the players who are younger can get noticed despite being a lot younger than their competition. For example, parents hold their kids back to get an advantage in academics, same with sports. A player who is a year older than their competition is more developed and the peak age is 26, they are closer to it, so they have a natural advantage over their competition. To be younger AND get noticed makes you special.

    If it were true that the reason was for added development time, high school players would be worth more on average than college ones, but that is simply not true, it has been proven time and time again that college players have more value. You cannot punish Cowgill for going to college.

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    • BoSoxFan says:

      also, Jazayerli’s piece was not on high school and college it was on high school hitters. This makes more sense for my theory because they are competing against each other. I think that say, a very young college hitter for his level would be better in Rany’s study than an old high schooler even if the older high schooler is younger.

      Vote -1 Vote +1

    • Greg says:

      Yeah, that’s a very important distinction. It’s odd that the bonuses given to international players vary wildly based on relatively small differences in age, whereas teams seem to care little if at all about the age of HS players relative to one another. Rather, they seem to view them simply as just “class of 2012,” despite the fact that their ages vary by up to a year and sometimes more.

      Vote -1 Vote +1

      • Mike Newman says:

        Greg, your perception is common, but be careful not to mistake what you read online with what’s going on in an organization. Multiple contacts mentioned Lindor’s age to me when talking him up prior to the draft. Just this morning, Laurila’s interview with the Indians scouting director included multiple references to his age.

        As for IFA, draft bonuses were not previously linked to any sort of system, so signing bonuses were based on both talent and connections. Similarly skilled players could go for 300k to one team, but 600k to another team.

        Vote -1 Vote +1

    • Mike Newman says:

      BoSoxFan, I’m forced to disagree with much of your argument. You are right in your direct take on Rany’s piece, but are not connecting the reason for this. The younger a player enters an organization and is exposed to professional baseball, the better in most cases. Take Josh Bell and Francisco Lindor.

      Bell has a birthday of 8/8/92. Lindor is 11/14/93. By the time Lindor is Bell’s age, Lindor will likely have accumulated 500+ professional plate appearances and another off-season instructs. That’s extremely important and the Indians scouting director said has much in his interview with Dave Laurila which went up first thing this morning.

      For your academics and sports arguments, you are correct to a point, but in baseball, scouts will take that into consideration when assessing said player.

      As for college players having more value, on the B-Ref active WAR Leaderboards, 4 of the active top-26 attended a 4-year college with Pujols going JUCO. Of that 26, 0 of the top-11 attended a 4-year school. Todd Helton has the highest active WAR of any 4-year college player. While I didn’t go through the top-50 with a fine toothed comb, I’d bet no more than 10 of the top-50 came from the college ranks.

      Vote -1 Vote +1

      • BoSoxFan says:

        Victor Wang found here that college hitters are the most valuable. http://www.hardballtimes.com/main/article/valuing-the-draft-part-2/.
        And first round college hitters are more valuable than first round high school hitters. Sky andrecheck found here http://baseballanalysts.com/archives/2009/06/draft_picks_and.php. That college players on average generate 4.6 more WAR in their first 8 years than high schoolers.

        College players are superior to high school players.

        Vote -1 Vote +1

      • BoSoxFan says:

        oh, and the first pick in the draft college players are better than first pick in the draft high school players.

        Vote -1 Vote +1

      • Mike Newman says:

        BoSoxFan,

        Your straight line approach to the data is common, but try using the data to explain reasons why?

        With 3 more years to scout a college player, organizations will know more about the player. Add to this experience against more advanced competition and they become even more “safe”. However, “safe” doesn’t equal ceiling or impact at the big league level.

        The reason 80% or more of the highest cumulative WAR players in baseball are from the HS or IFA ranks is because those players entered organizations younger, were fully developed, and sustained longer careers.

        Your mistake is taking all the little bits and pieces of college player WAR accumulated by high floor guys with limited ceilings and stating the cumulative value of that is more than one impact HS draft pick and a bunch of flame outs on the field. On paper, it may be, but stars win the World Series, not 25 college role players.

        Additionally, age of debut is much more important than HS vs. college players and Wang’s data simply lumps one versus the other without addressing that. Longoria, Pedroia, Ellsbury debuted at 22-23 and many others have as well. it’s cases like Cowgill where he was drafted as nearly 22 and still required years of development time that lower player ceiling.

        Vote -1 Vote +1

      • BoSoxFan says:

        Mike, how come Andrecheck and Wang’s research show that top 10 picks are better if they are college players too? And why aren’t international players even better than high school players? They sign younger than them

        Vote -1 Vote +1

    • Mike Newman says:

      Also, as for Cowgill not being punished for going to college… It’s not about “punishing”, but there is an understanding most star level players are making their debuts at an age when Cowgill was in rookie ball after being drafted. The development clock simply does not stop for college. College or pro, those guys are all competing for the same big league spots in the end.

      Vote -1 Vote +1

      • BoSoxFan says:

        but my question was, if college players won’t be as good because most stars are making their debuts when college players are drafted, how come there are lots of college stars, and if the reason younger high school hitters are better is because of excellent development time, shouldn’t international players be the best, followed by high schoolers, followed by college players, when in reality, college players are the best followed by high schoolers followed by international players.

        Vote -1 Vote +1

      • Mike Newman says:

        It’s not that there won’t be college stars – Evan Longoria was a college player and is a star, but was still drafted at 20 and was in the bigs at 22. Pedroia was also a college guy who debuted at 22. It’s more about the age of debut than whether a guy went to HS or college. Cowgill was almost 22 at the time of his being drafted and still needed years of development time. Because of this, he was old for ever level he played at and debuted at 25.

        Vote -1 Vote +1

      • Mike Newman says:

        3 years of college does equal a later professional debut than if a player signed out of high school and will likely lead to a later Major League debut as well.

        Vote -1 Vote +1

  7. cable fixer says:

    “[those] who become stars in their late 20s are examples of the exceptions and that their ascent is quite rare in terms of player development.”

    I’ve been turning this over in my head. Why should “late bloomer” athletes be statistically fewer than “early bloomers”?

    Is it as simple as understanding the “Winner’s luck” phenomenom? (in that it’s not as financially advantageous for teams to develop “late bloomers” because of pick status/salaries, and similarly “late bloomers” aren’t incentivized with money or status to stay in the game long enough to actualize their potential?

    I feel–although I admit I have no idea–that one possible explanation is that Quad-A players…you mentioned Youk and Bautista…but also Jayson Werth and Nelson Cruz…often didn’t get a ton of ABs to develop. It becomes a negative feedback loop. They don’t get ABs because they aren’t ready to produce. They can’t get better because they’re not getting ABs.

    I feel like this is a big systematic bias and a potential market inefficiency if you could better pinpoint the characteristics of players who take longer to develop.

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    • baty says:

      What makes this a really tough idea to exploit is that there’s a very limited amount of availability for meaningful at-bats with these types of players. A 24 year old isn’t going to gain any reasonable experience below the AA level, and because of that per position, you’re looking at basically 3 roster spots for these guys to find any meaning in full time development: MLB, AAA, and AA.

      You’re trying to progress the player by advancing levels, but in turn you also have to compensate for the other talent developmental rates you have per position within the system. I know not every team is loaded at every position throughout these upper levels, and it might seem like an overreaction, but conflict is easy to come across. You have to make room for what you view as your most valuable prospects (clear the path). When someone goes up, there’s always someone that has to go down or go away.

      A “late bloomer” is going to soak up a lot of playing time within the most valuable MILB developmental spaces (AA and AAA) between the age of 23 and 26, making it easier for a “prospect collision” to take place when your younger prospects need to advance a level… You’re playing musical chairs, usually resulting in one of those players getting jerked around a bit during transition or overlap. Some guys need to be nurtured more than others, and that makes for some risk taking.

      If you have the space, I can see it working, but first you have to target that “rare elder prospect” (which is hard enough as it is) and then you have to be patient with the space he takes up by sticking to the plan for however long it takes. It’s not an easy feat, especially when you have something younger, “better”, and/or establishing himself faster above or below you on the ladder.

      Vote -1 Vote +1

      • baty says:

        teams try to exploit this stuff all the time through trades, claims, rule 5, etc… it’s just that hard to get it right by finding “the” guy.

        It’s funny to think that Kila got surpassed by not 1 but 2 generations of KC 1B prospects. It certainly could have hindered his development at some point, but you can’t hold back Hosmer and Butler. I imagine it’s not easy to figure what a 25 year old Kila is worth in a deal between two teams also.

        Vote -1 Vote +1

      • Mike Newman says:

        Very interesting stuff Baty. I’ll leave it at that because I don’t want to really respond before taking time to process this.

        Vote -1 Vote +1

      • cable fixer says:

        @ baty. i agree pretty much with all your points and you’re probably right that a lot of times it requires a “beauty in the eye of the beholder” sort of deal to allow a player to get the extra reps he needs…in a different organization.

        it’s also probably true that there are teams that place a greater emphasis on this sort of talent than others. for instance, note that the phillies have pulled 40ish WAR from the rule v draft since 02. that’s more than they (and a few other teams) have pulled from the draft in the past decade. uggla, hamilton, and, of course, johan also became all-stars after being left unprotected.

        now, a portion of that is clearly luck. however…if you’re a team and see those kind of results…shouldn’t at least some be giving it the ole 2% try?

        Vote -1 Vote +1

    • Mike Newman says:

      Try running B-Ref lists over the past 15-20 years of players who debuted at 20-22, 23-25 and 26+. After reading through the names, it will become pretty obvious what ages produce the best MLB players. In some cases, even top college players are drafted as 21 year old juniors and debut at 22.

      Vote -1 Vote +1

  8. Ben Hall says:

    In terms of specifically comparing Cowgill and Lawrie, in addition to the age range, Lawrie was just better last year. Yeah, a .442 wOBA is great, but it’s still almost 20 points lower than Lawrie’s. In addition, they both had unsustainably high BABIP, but Cowgill’s was both higher (.397 compared to .383) and more out of line with prior performance: Cowgill had BABIPs of .353, .325, and .300 in his three previous spots, while Lawrie had .302 and .350.

    Finally, when they were both promoted, Lawrie raked (with a 163 wRC+) while Cowgill tanked (with a 60 wRC+). Yeah, it’s a small sample size, but it adds to the body of work.

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    • Mike Newman says:

      This is all true, but I’m a scouting guy and write through that lens. I’ll certainly utilize stats to support arguments, but this piece was more about philosophy than simply comparing for comparisons sake.

      Vote -1 Vote +1

  9. Frag says:

    Since I thought it would relate to this discussion, I actually looked at age-vs-level when I posted a spreadsheet of all AA batters between 1995-2002 on BBB and Minor League Ball. Here is the link if you are interested:

    http://www.bluebirdbanter.com/2012/1/31/2762437/comparing-aa-and-mlb-hitting-production-from-aa-batters-between-1995

    The point of interest:

    “I separated batters into four age categories: 18-21, 22, 23, 24-25 (there was only one 18 year old AA batter that qualified, whom of which was Edgar Renteria in 1995). The number of AA batters that had a minimum of 400 career MLB PA were as follows:

    – 18-21: 73 qualified batters out of 137 total AA batters (53.3%)
    – 22: 63 out of 151 (41.7%)
    – 23: 57 out of 217 (26.3%)
    – 24-25: 70 out of 421 (16.6%)

    The average fWAR/100 of the qualified batters in each age group were as follows:

    – 18-21: 0.91 fWAR/100
    – 22: 0.98
    – 23: 0.63
    – 24-25: 0.66”

    Vote -1 Vote +1

  10. jpg says:

    This was a great read Mike and the comments on this thread have been insightful and thought provoking. Great stuff.

    Vote -1 Vote +1

  11. GrittleTooth says:

    Mike, thanks for giving us this great article. I have to admit I was little bummed when I saw you answer several other post-chat questions and not mine. But then you wrote this!

    Everything makes sense to me except for this from the last paragraph:
    “Lost in this discussion is the fact, regardless of production, the expectation of a fifth-round college pick versus a first-round high school age pick should be different.”

    I disagree with this. Once a player has accrued a year or more of post-draft experience I don’t think you do yourself any favors referencing where he was drafted. In doing so you are referring back to a now outdated assessment that ignores all the new info you gained on the player since he was drafted. If analysis of an MiLB player with experience always begins with a reference to his draft selection then you run the risk of his assessment becoming a self fulfilling prophecy … ‘player x was an 8th round pick, weren’t expecting big things from him, probably a fourth outfielder ceiling’. A players draft selection is more akin to sunk cost in my opinion, which shouldn’t be used when assessing future (potential) usefulness.

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    • Mike Newman says:

      Respectfully Grittletooth, one simply can’t assess a 22-23 year old college hitter and a 19 year old high school pick the same way the next day, next month, next year, or even 2-3 years down the road. One of the things that surprised me after developing contacts was that one scout referenced Mets Jimmy Fuller as a successful pick in the 21st round simply because he had a successful full season in A-ball. Of course every team works to make the best selection possible with the hope a guy becomes a big leaguer, but it’s important to also understand organizational value is weighed as minor leaguers also fill rosters so that true prospects simply have people to play with.

      Additionally, in your “player A” argument, there’s a reason that player was drafted in the 8th round. Occasionally, bonus demands play a role, but the majority of picks in later rounds were later round picks because something was missing. Had they been better, they would have been drafted higher.

      Vote -1 Vote +1

  12. The Congo Hammer says:

    Think I may have just knocked Michael Choice and Mike Olt a few notches down after reading this. Maybe I’ll knock Bogaerts a spot up.

    Vote -1 Vote +1

  13. Snarf says:

    What about Chase?

    Utley went to college and debuted at 24. He really came into his own at 26.

    Vote -1 Vote +1

  14. Brian says:

    I think the takeaway from this is a discourse in potential versus current ability. The best of high school picks/IFAs are rookie ball calibre when they sign but have huge upsides. College picks are usually High A/AA calibre (from playing at a higher level and being older).

    What I take from this is that playing college doesn’t hurt a player’s ceiling, but because he is already playing at a higher level when he’s drafted, he needs to move up quicker to maintain the same developmental path (ie to challenge himself enough to improve his current level at the same pace).

    What the article seems to be trying to say is that Cawgill and Lawrie are probably close for current ability but are very far apart for potential, because Cawgill has 4 years of college ball (which doesn’t directly translate).

    I think the best way to put this would be to say that while both have developed to major league ready in roughly the same amount of time, Lawrie did so from rookie ball calibre while Cawgill didn’t have as far to improve.

    The other factor in age is how long the prime can be. Cawgill is only 6 years from 32, which is when swings start to slow down slightly. Assuming he takes 4 years to hit his absolute ceiling (assuming he took a straight 22-24-26 curve shifted to his age), he’d only have 2 years of top level performance (and that’s assuming he remains healthy).

    Vote -1 Vote +1

  15. steveb says:

    Pure silliness. You can predict what a million people at a certain age could do, or would do, and it’s utterly, completely meaningless. Cowgill isn’t a statistic- he is actually a human being. As such, he has the capacity to better himself, improve, regardless of his age. It’s up to him. The good news is Collin hasn’t read your article, doesn’t know he has little chance of being successful. So, when he succeeds, you will come back and say,”well, there are exceptions, BUT my stats will prove me right”.

    Vote -1 Vote +1