Let me start with I think comps are useless and I will not be convinced otherwise.

However, I want to know what people think of when they hear a comp and apply it to the player.

a) Do they hear the comp, think of the comp's prime and apply those numbers as a likely prime era for the player?

b) Do you just think of that comps best year and imagine that as every year of the players career?

c) Do you think of the comp's career average and imagine a yearly baseline of that for the player?

d) Literally imagine something like the same start middle and end from the comp to the player.

e) Something else

My impression is people do (b). Like what does it really mean to you that Andrew Vaughn is compd to Josh Donaldson? That he will have a prime as an MVP candidate? That he is a perennial 30 home run guy (starting from what year?)

Not snarking actually interested.

Aside from absurd MLB Network comps, I would take a comp meaning that if a prospect 'hits' (say maybe 85th percentile outcome?) then their career would look not too dissimilar to the player they are comp'd too.

Although most comps are stylistic/superficial. Like Yelich being a Rutherford comp because they were both skinny first round pick lefty outfielders. I don't really think there was much of a reason beyond just that. So I pretty much take them with an enormous grain of salt.

47 minutes ago, TomPickle said:

Aside from absurd MLB Network comps, I would take a comp meaning that if a prospect 'hits' (say maybe 85th percentile outcome?) then their career would look not too dissimilar to the player they are comp'd too.

Although most comps are stylistic/superficial. Like Yelich being a Rutherford comp because they were both skinny first round pick lefty outfielders. I don't really think there was much of a reason beyond just that. So I pretty much take them with an enormous grain of salt.

And Moncada/Cano