The New Development Curve Is Changing How Teams Think About Prospects

[Cody Christie]

Image courtesy of © Stan Szeto-Imagn Images

Not long ago, player development felt like it followed a fairly rigid timeline. Top prospects dominated at every level on the way up and either established themselves in the big leagues by their mid-twenties or were quietly replaced by the next wave of hype. If you were not producing by 25, the odds of ever becoming an impact player dropped dramatically. That is not how things look anymore.

Across Major League Baseball, teams are starting to see meaningful production arrive later in a player’s career arc. Development is no longer a straight line, and the traditional prospect window may be expanding beyond what organizations once believed possible. Players like Brent Rooker and Ryan O'Hearn spent years bouncing between organizations before emerging as legitimate contributors in their late twenties. They were not top 100 mainstays at the time of their breakout and, in some cases, had already been designated for assignment.

Rooker was drafted by the Twins and spent time in the Padres and Royals organizations before finding a home with the Athletics. He became a first-time All-Star at age 28 while combining for a 138 OPS+ over the last three seasons. O’Hearn made his first All-Star team in 2025, when he was 31 years old. Over the last three seasons, he has an OPS+ of 122, but will be playing for his third different organization during that stretch.

Those stories show that the hitters simply were not finished developing yet. Even pitchers are following a similar trajectory as the learning curve for pitch design and sequencing continues to grow more complex.

Twins right-hander Joe Ryan is a perfect example. Ryan was not a top-tier national prospect coming out of college and did not reach the majors until his age-25 season after being drafted in the seventh round. His rise came through incremental improvement rather than immediate dominance, and he made his first All-Star appearance at 29. With the help of modern pitch design and a better understanding of how to deploy his fastball shape at the top of the zone, Ryan developed into a frontline starter without ever carrying the label of future ace through the minor leagues.

That evolution raises an important question about how teams are handling their best young talent. Over the past several seasons, organizations have aggressively pushed elite prospects to the upper minors. Assignments to the high minors with little success at lower levels have become more common, especially for players with standout tools or advanced plate discipline metrics. The thinking has been that challenging players earlier allows teams to maximize their prime years at the big league level.

But if development is stretching deeper into a player’s late twenties, that approach may carry more risk than reward. Not every hitter benefits from facing advanced sequencing before mastering the fundamentals at lower levels. Pitchers who skip steps in their development may struggle to build the command foundation needed to survive a third trip through a major league lineup. In a sport where mechanical adjustments and pitch usage changes can unlock new ceilings well into a player’s professional career, forcing a timeline may ultimately slow long-term growth.

The modern development environment is more individualized than ever. Players now have access to biomechanical data, bat-tracking metrics, and pitch-modeling tools that simply did not exist a decade ago. Improvements can happen quickly, but they can also arrive later as players learn how to translate raw ability into game-ready skills. A hitter who struggled to lift the ball at 24 might unlock a swing path adjustment at 27 that completely changes his offensive profile.

That reality could push teams toward a more patient model. Instead of viewing prospect status as a ticking clock, organizations may need to think of development as an ongoing process that does not end once a player reaches Triple-A or even the major leagues. The success stories of late bloomers are becoming too frequent to ignore, and they challenge the long-held belief that impact talent must arrive early to matter.

In the end, the league may be entering an era in which both timelines coexist. Some prospects will continue to rise quickly and thrive immediately, while others will take a more winding road before finding their footing. The teams that best balance urgency with patience may be the ones that uncover the next wave of contributors hiding just beyond the traditional breakout window.

What players will be baseball’s next late bloomers? Leave a comment and start the discussion.

View full article

[bean5302]

Can a late bloomer theoretically exist? Sure.

Brent Rookers of the world don't exist because the Twins are the only team stupid enough to overlook a player of Rooker's production with nary a chance at the MLB level, and once a player is cast off, their chances of getting another real opportunity is virtually nil. The cast offs are branded. They're viewed as damaged goods because if the team who developed them cast them off or was willing to part ways for peanuts, there must be a good reason.

Aside from that, Both Rooker and O'Hearn did enough to get their chance by age 25. Rooker in 3 years, O'Hearn taking a leisurely 5yrs at age 24.

Prior to last year, O'Hearn was basically a good enough every day 1B/DH, and then he had his only truly noteworthy season in baseball landing himself a modest 2yr $29MM contract. His chance with Baltimore came after over 1,000 plate appearances of mostly unplayable results. Teams aren't going to tank 2-3 seasons hoping their trash transforms into treasure so this story isn't going to play out.

Rooker is on record basically saying he made no changes to his game, he just needed an opportunity and after KC tried to get cute and sneak him through waivers, the miserable Oakland Athletics had nothing to lose and were rewarded. Of course, it helps Rooker's peripherals with Minnesota suggested there was plenty of MLB caliber talent there.

That said, there are always going to be talented up and coming players higher on the depth chart than prospects entering their mid/late 20s who've struggled to produce. The 1,000:1 odds a team hits the jackpot will change nothing. If anything, Rooker's tale is more of a caution against taking a chance on the late bloomers. After all, the Twins coveted journeyman Kyle Garlick over Rooker, and it cost Minnesota the most successful player Derek Falvey has ever drafted.

[JADBP]

3 hours ago, bean5302 said:

Can a late bloomer theoretically exist? Sure.

Brent Rookers of the world don't exist because the Twins are the only team stupid enough to overlook a player of Rooker's production with nary a chance at the MLB level, and once a player is cast off, their chances of getting another real opportunity is virtually nil. The cast offs are branded. They're viewed as damaged goods because if the team who developed them cast them off or was willing to part ways for peanuts, there must be a good reason.

Aside from that, Both Rooker and O'Hearn did enough to get their chance by age 25. Rooker in 3 years, O'Hearn taking a leisurely 5yrs at age 24.

Prior to last year, O'Hearn was basically a good enough every day 1B/DH, and then he had his only truly noteworthy season in baseball landing himself a modest 2yr $29MM contract. His chance with Baltimore came after over 1,000 plate appearances of mostly unplayable results. Teams aren't going to tank 2-3 seasons hoping their trash transforms into treasure so this story isn't going to play out.

Rooker is on record basically saying he made no changes to his game, he just needed an opportunity and after KC tried to get cute and sneak him through waivers, the miserable Oakland Athletics had nothing to lose and were rewarded. Of course, it helps Rooker's peripherals with Minnesota suggested there was plenty of MLB caliber talent there.

That said, there are always going to be talented up and coming players higher on the depth chart than prospects entering their mid/late 20s who've struggled to produce. The 1,000:1 odds a team hits the jackpot will change nothing. If anything, Rooker's tale is more of a caution against taking a chance on the late bloomers. After all, the Twins coveted journeyman Kyle Garlick over Rooker, and it cost Minnesota the most successful player Derek Falvey has ever drafted.

You mean like David Ortiz?  Twins gave up on him at age 26.  Lots of history followed!

[Brock Beauchamp]

11 hours ago, bean5302 said:

Brent Rookers of the world don't exist because the Twins are the only team stupid enough to overlook a player of Rooker's production with nary a chance at the MLB level, and once a player is cast off, their chances of getting another real opportunity is virtually nil. 

That's weird, because both the Padres and Royals ALSO parted ways with Brent Rooker before he landed with the A's.

[bean5302]

On 2/24/2026 at 7:40 AM, Brock Beauchamp said:

That's weird, because both the Padres and Royals ALSO parted ways with Brent Rooker before he landed with the A's.

Are you basing the players value on whether or not a team "parted ways?" The Padres also parted ways with some apparent cast-offs when they acquired Mason Miller from the Athletics last year.

Rooker was part of 2 trades. No team released him. Rooker never cleared waivers. The Royals tried to get him through and purposely timed their DFA in an attempt to sneak Rooker through, but Rooker was immediately claimed. But please, also see my comment about being branded.

The Twins braded Rooker as trash after 5 years in a non-competitive team's system. That kind of brand sticks with a player.