Rather than ranking players on upside with little attention to downside, I'd prefer a system that takes both into account. Uncle Dave has mentioned here before the rankings that Hockey's Future does just that.
Everybody loves to ranks prospects. They love to rank anything, but for baseball fans, ranking prospects is fun. I've generally felt that something was missing with each of the rankings, but perhaps it's just me.
It seems to me that many or most of the rankings rank their players entirely on upside with little attention to the downside the player has. This isn't necessarily wrong. Is there really a wrong way to rank something? Probably not, but it's not the way I'd do it.
Even though I am an optimistic person, the downside of baseball prospects is fairly evident and often overlooked. Corey Patterson was MLB's top ranked prospect at one point. The upside that Patterson had was obvious. He had speed, could hit for power, had hit for average and played a very good CF. He also struggled to take many pitches and work his way on base in any other way than a base hit. If there are two skills that translate best to success at the MLB level I would guess those skills to be power and patience. Players with power don't typically lose it and players without patience don't typically gain it.
You can make a living as a guy with some power and little plate discipline. There was no denying that Patterson was a great prospect. He had superstar talent. He also had a very low floor.
I'm not sure how we could compare players using such a method. It would be difficult, but I think it does tell us more about the player than simply ranking a player 16th overall. Not to mention, does ranking a person 16th really mean he's a better prospect than someone ranked 18th, 19th or maybe even lower?
There are many different people, supposedly experts, who rank prospects. The lists are often times similar, but they aren't the same. If everybody had the same list, they wouldn't bother with their own. It's possible that one person may even put a person at the top just to differentiate their list from others. We don't know how honest and sincere these rankings are.
What we do know is that some prospects have a higher upside than others. We know which players might have a lower chance of reaching that upside. We can safely say that Javier Baez is a better prospect than Logan Watkins, but that statement alone doesn't tell us much about either player.
What if we stopped trying to rank them and just start rating them? Baez might have an upside of a 8. All star talent, probably not elite or a generational talent. He also has some holes in his game and is probably not real likely to reach that upside. Logan Watkins obviously doesn't possess the upside of Baez, but realistically speaking, he's a safer bet to reach his potential than Baez is. He might even be a safer bet to end up the better player at the MLB level. I don't know if he is or not and don't really care.
Even if that is true, it doesn't make Watkins the better prospect.
When Uncle Dave first mentioned this, my initial thought was that most every prospect will have the downside of an F. That's just the reality of baseball prospects. Most of them fail to reach their potential. Few of them actually achieve it.
Uncle Dave has been a tremendous help coming up with these rankings. So much help that I'm going to copy and paste the ratings that he came up with over discussion.
Upside
10: Generational talent: literally only two or three of these guys a decade, like Barry Bonds or Pedro Martinez. Perennial all-stars, perennial MVP or Cy Young candidates (and guys who can legitimately be considered to have been screwed out of those awards on a regular basis), first ballot hall of famers (FWLIW). Mike Trout and Stephen Strasburg probably belong here, but nobody else I can think of. Should be about .1% of players.
9: Elite talent: perennial all-stars, frequent MVP or Cy Young candidates, will maybe win those awards occasionally, typically the best in the leauge at their position for extended periods of time. A-Rod, Pujols, Halliday show up here. Should be about 1% of players (top 50 or so).
8: All-star talent: frequent all-stars, occasional MVP candidates, at their peak can be in the conversation to be the best at their position. Cliff Lee or Chase Utley are decent examples. Should be about 5% of players (top 250 or so).
7: Fringe all-star talent: plus regulars on good teams, occasional all-stars, may have a career year that garners MVP consideration. Carlos Beltran or a healthy Dan Haren would fit here. Should be about 7% of players.
6: Plus regular talent: guys who can be regular players on good teams, or one of the top two or three on bad teams, may be an all-star in a career year. Curtis Granderson or maybe Andy Pettite are here. Should be about 10% of players.
5: Regular talent: guys who are fringe regulars on good teams or regulars on bad teams, will likely get paid once they hit free agency. Joe Blanton and David DeJesus are examples. Should be about 13% of players
4: Fringe talent: may start on a bad team, could catch as a backup on a good team, will struggle to get work once they hit year six. Ryan Theriot or Noah Lowery could be here. Should be about 15% of players.
3: Quad-A talent: could catch on as a backup on a bad team, will get a cup of coffee or two. Any current Chicago Cub would be an example. About 50% of players project here; nobody who gets drafted should have lower upside than this.
2: Minor league talent: good enough to play in the minors for years, but will not sniff the bigs.
1: Filler: will get a year or two in the minors, but that's it.
Please note that the percentages listed here are with respect to upside, and not the number of guys we expect to actually attain that talent level in the bigs.
This is a fantastic starting point and I couldn't have gotten here without Dave's help.
This is our starting point. I'm anxious to hear what the readers have to say about these and I'd be more than willing to make adjustments. I'm quite happy with this so it will have to be a convincing argument, but please discuss it.
When talking about downside in baseball, it's important to remember that nearly every player has the downside of not being any good. That's just the nature of the game and there's nothing that can be done about it. Most players will never reach the major leagues. Even among 1st round draft picks, most will never amount to anything. Teams do have a tendency to at least call up their 1st round picks, but more often than not they have short and forgettable careers.
A player's chance of reaching that potential is, well, it may as well be the holy grail of scouting. If someone could accurately answer that question, he or she would likely be the best scout ever. I couldn't begin to accurately answer this question and I'm not going to try.
I'm going to apply some common sense to the percentage chance he reaches his potential. For starters, a player in the low minors has very little chance of reaching the potential we often discuss when talking about prospects. There is too much that can go wrong between that point and when he may reach the big leagues. We don't know a great deal about the player and must accept that of two similarly talented players, the player at the higher level has a better chance of reaching his potential.
It's also important to remember that players who have a lower potential will have a better chance of reaching it.
With that in mind, the occasional player who is a 9 or 10, none of which are in the Cubs organization, would have a very low chance of reaching their potential. The player who is in AAA and has the potential of a 5 or 6 is far more likely to do so.
There are about 6000 professional baseball players and only 750 of them can play at the MLB level at any one time. Of those 750, just over half of them are considered to be regulars (position players, 5 starters). If you add a closer, which all teams don't really have, that would be 14 players per team that are regulars. You're well aware that by the time you get to the 4th and 5th starters for most teams, you're not facing a very good pitcher. At all.
Of the 12% of professional players who reach the big leagues, they comprise they range anywhere from Mike Trout to Joe Mather. The very best minor leaguers reach the MLB level, but most of them won't even be what we consider to be regulars. Most of them won't be average or better. Maybe 5% of all professional baseball players end up being average or better at the MLB level.
There is a very high rate of failure in baseball.
Generally speaking, any player below AA has a long way to go to reach his potential and is not likely to do so. One of the problems I was having early on was that for someone like Albert Almora, you can figure out the upside pretty easily. There are enough scouting reports and even though he hasn't played much, that's what we have. The problem was assigning the chance of reaching the big leagues and I couldn't bring myself to doing anything other than a D or even F. That's just the way it is in baseball. Prospects in the low minors are going to low chances of reaching their potential and will most often get a D.
A: the highest chance of reaching the potential among prospects. These are well rounded players who play premium positions, possess all the tools and are in the higher level of the minor leagues. There are only a few players who would get an A.
B: players who play premium positions, but lack a specific tool. This group would also include some guys who play a corner position (3B, LF, RF). It would also include ridiculously good hitters who play 1st base. Most of these players would be in AA or AAA.
C: Middle defenders, good bats, lacks at least one tool. Corner defenders with good gloves and above average bats, but lacking a specific tool.
D: Players who lack at least a couple tools. This is where most prospects under AA are going to be.
F: Low in the system and serious flaws to their game
I'll have to do some adjusting to the bust rate for pitchers, but my plan is to take a look at the prospect list Myles put together and go from there. He only did positional prospects so it works out nicely.
Thanks again to Dave.
Comments
I’m really enjoying this offseason’s Packers UFA signings so far
BerseliusQuote Reply
Brett has Ben Badler on this week’s podcast
BerseliusQuote Reply
Well done, Uncle Dave.
This is a lot of info to digest. I’m gonna have to read it twice, just went through the first time.
Rice CubeQuote Reply
Rice Cube wrote:
Yeah, those rankings are awfully damn good.
dmick89Quote Reply
The “100 Walks” post had exactly 100 comments…
… as long as no one fucks it up. Don’t be that guy!
JonKneeVQuote Reply
Would a downside rating differentiate among which tool is lacking? For example, a corner guy that lacks speed is at less of a disadvantage than if he lacks power.
SVBQuote Reply
I think McNameesBoy or whatever has been angling for top ranked OV screen name, but he’s making it too complicated.
(dying laughing)
SVBQuote Reply
@ SVB:
I’m not adding McNameesBoy to my name, dammit.
mikeakaleroy or elroy or Mackel-roy or Mackerel Sky(which is apparently a cloud or something) or whatever.Quote Reply
@RC & WaLi. I liked Hudson Hawk too. Totally underrated, even moreso than Ishtar.
SVBQuote Reply
@ SVB:
I think downside is probably used loosely here in that it’s more about the percentage chance of reaching the big leagues. In some ways it is downside, but others it’s just the reality that minor leaguers face.
When I use this going forward I’ll explain why each has the grade they have. At least for little while anyway.
dmick89Quote Reply
@ mikeakaleroy or elroy or Mackel-roy or Mackerel Sky(which is apparently a cloud or something) or whatever.:
I figured you could only use a screen name so long. I’m kind of surprised, and impressed, that there doesn’t appear to be a character limit for screen names.
dmick89Quote Reply
@ mikeakaleroy or elroy or Mackel-roy or Mackerel Sky(which is apparently a cloud or something) or whatever.:
Whatever you say, MichelangelosToy.
SVBQuote Reply
@ dmick89:
Challenge accepted.
@ SVB:
Fine.
mikeakaleroy or elroy or Mackel-roy or Mackerel Sky(which is apparently a cloud or something) or McNameesBoy or MichelangelosToy or whatever.Quote Reply
@ SVB:
I shall now call Mikeakaleroyshamalamadingdong “Nunchuck”.
Rice CubeQuote Reply
@ SVB:
It was delightfully absurd. Kinda wish they had found someone other than Sandra Bernhard to play the villainess, but I was cool with everything else.
Rice CubeQuote Reply
Does ranking the valedvictorian top of the class really mean he/she is a better student than Daniel Desario?
WaLiQuote Reply
@ WaLi:
I’m just being an ass. I know what you are saying, but that is due to the fact that the rankings aren’t accurate. If they were, then being ranked 16 should mean you are better than 18. That’s the whole purpose of rankings, right?
WaLiQuote Reply
@ Rice Cube:
I’m sticking with whatever because, as the name says, “or whatever”. I choose that. (dying laughing)
dmick89Quote Reply
This kid wins.
Rice CubeQuote Reply
@ dmick89:
I’ve been called worse.
mikeakaleroyQuote Reply
@ WaLi:
Yes, but ask the average fan who is better, number 1 or number 3 and they’ll say number 1. I think most people here know what I’m talking about, but I don’t believe this blog is representative of the average baseball fan.
dmick89Quote Reply
@ dmick89:
I’d like to think of myself as an abnormal baseball fan.
Rice CubeQuote Reply
@ dmick89:
Right. That represents a flaw in the ranking system. I like this rating system a lot better. What is the point of ranking a prospect in the top 10 if he is going to flame out? At what point do you say potential is a higher qualifier than a realistic chance? I know you asked those types of questions before so I’m glad to see this rating system and would like to see our players rated.
Preferably in a slideshow.
WaLiQuote Reply
@ WaLi:
I think this tells us more. I really think the top prospect lists are misleading. People look at a number 1 prospect, even if it’s in their own organization, and they’re thinking superstar. Probably not. Almost certainly not for any player below AA.
Cubs fans are thinking that they have a good number of prospects in the top 100. That’s true and it’s better to have the number they do now than the number they had a couple years ago. However, their top 3 prospects are questionable at this point. At best.
Baez has hit very well, but not anything above Low A. Same with Soler and Almora. Baez might be an 8, but it’s an 8D. Same with Soler. I’d have to think more about it, but I’m inclined to go something like 7D for Almora.
Good players for sure:
But with a low chance of reaching that potential.
Is Soler a 7? He does play RF in the low minors.
dmick89Quote Reply
I really hope you’ve saved your login info into your browser.
GBTSQuote Reply
@ GBTS:
You should see my password…
mikeakaleroyQuote Reply
dmick89 wrote:
Someone should see if they can make their screen name an entire act of Othello. (dying laughing)
GBTSQuote Reply
@ dmick89:
Does position matter with the Upside? I guess to an extent it does, but if he profiles out to an all-star/MVP RF, then an 8 would be justified, he would just be an 8D.
WaLiQuote Reply
@ GBTS:
Seems to work.
WaLi playing the first action of Othello adding a black piece to D3 which flips the white piece on D4 to black as wellQuote Reply
@ WaLi:
Position matters. A good hitting SS has a higher upside than an equally good hitting 2nd baseman.
dmick89Quote Reply
@ WaLi playing the first action of Othello adding a black piece to D3 which flips the white piece on D4 to black as well:
That was a recent mention of a board game I enjoyed.
Rice CubeQuote Reply
@ dmick89:
Don’t you include position in the A-F “chance of making it” rantings though? I didn’t see it mentioned in the 1-10 “upside” ratings.
WaLiQuote Reply
@ WaLi playing the first action of Othello adding a black piece to D3 which flips the white piece on D4 to black as well:
Alright, that’s pretty good.
GBTSQuote Reply
So, what’s up?
Suburban kid and you got no name Your’re too dumb baby and you got no brain I bet you’re all so happy in your suburbian dream But I’m only laughing You ain’t in my schemeQuote Reply
@ WaLi playing the first action of Othello adding a black piece to D3 which flips the white piece on D4 to black as well:
This should have been an unobstructed view.
fang2415Quote Reply
@ Suburban kid and you got no name Your’re too dumb baby and you got no brain I bet you’re all so happy in your suburbian dream But I’m only laughing You ain’t in my scheme:
I could only post with my full name by logging in with one of those temporary user names, because the profile settings say user names can’t be changed. So I guess whatever and WaLi actually went to the trouble of registering completely new user names to get their long versions, seeing as their posts have icons and everything. There’s a girl in Cameron’s school who thinks you’re nerds.
Suburban kidQuote Reply
@ dmick89:
I was on my phone and should have said potential rather than downside…but now I’m in the office over lunch hour, so I can type on a real keyboard. Here’s what I was reacting to, in part.
I guess if you are already at 1B in AA then it is assumed you lack some tools (glove, speed). A CF that lacks power but is otherwise 70-80 and is in AAA is a B, I guess? But lacking power at CF isn’t as big a detriment as lacking defense or speed, I’d think. Just as lacking speed isn’t such an issue for 3B. I guess the 3B can’t be an A except in very very rare occasions because it isn’t a premium position (but it sure is going to like a premium position this year for the Cubs, with the MLB D-ranked people we have there). But could a CF or SS be an A without power?
In the end, as you say, the rankings have to come with some explanation, and any ranking that isn’t clear will be debated in the comments between the discussions about plastic grocery bags, so I guess it’ll be cleared up then.
I really like this strategy overall. Looking forward to seeing it applied.
SVBQuote Reply
@ mikeakaleroy or elroy or Mackel-roy or Mackerel Sky(which is apparently a cloud or something) or McNameesBoy or MichelangelosToy or whatever.:
I can’t keep all that straight. So I’m just going to abbreviate this for you like this:
MMM…BoyToy
SVBQuote Reply
The Mariners have great commercials.
http://seattle.mariners.mlb.com/video/play.jsp?topic_id=42606920&c_id=sea
Rice CubeQuote Reply
mikeakaleroy wrote:
Someone said you looked tired?
BerseliusQuote Reply
@ WaLi:
It wasn’t mentioned with upside, but I’m not sure it needs to be. Use pitchers as an example. A relief pitcher with similar numbers as a starting pitcher has much less upside/potential than the starter. The chance of reaching the big leagues would also be greater for the starter because he’ll get a bump in rate stats if he has to move to the bullpen.
dmick89Quote Reply
WaLi wrote:
Maybe you can slip a few slides advertising Jim Rome’s new show in there, too? So money.
Excellent post, dm. Especially the parts I didn’t write (dying laughing).
I won’t speak for dm here, but the reason why I’ve thought about rankings and why I like this system is because it at least partially answers the question of how valuable players are. We have a pretty good grip on that question for most major leaguers, as we can predict performance (say, via WAR) with decent accuracy, have a reasonable idea of when players peak and decline, and know how much they all get paid. For guys in the minor leagues, we don’t have an exhaustive record of performance and have far less certainty with respect to the level of competition, so it’s way more difficult to figure out what they’re worth.
With all that being said, I think that the reason why most talent evaluators favor ceiling over floor is that low-ceiling, low-floor guys are typically available for nothing. As is noted in the discussion of the rankings, once you get down to the guys given a 4 or 5 you’re talking about players who will not merit a premium salary beyond what they make in their club-controlled years. In other words, there are too many guys who can provide that to make them truly valuable on the market. And once you factor in the downside rating, where even a player with a B rating may slip two levels from his ceiling, you’re talking about a minimum 6 or 7 upside rating to even be in the conversation about having value to the organization.
As dm noted, only 12% of current pro players are in the bigs. When you consider that a good chunk of the guys who reach the bigs stay for a few years and the rate of turnover in the minors is much higher, the number of players who play pro ball and actually reach MLB falls well below 10%. This is part of the reason why tools are often favored over other factors, and rightfully so. If you bring ten guys who might be 8D or 8F type players into your system and one hits, you’ve done well. If you focus on guys with worse tools but better makeup and more refined skills, it’s unlikely that you’ll have that much higher of a success rate in terms of placing big leaguers but those guys who do reach will not be as valuable.
I’m not saying that makeup and approach don’t matter. Good teams find players who have both things going for them (fuck you, Atlanta). But that’s precisely why I’m interested in knowing both sides of the equation, and why this system interests me.
uncle daveQuote Reply
dmick89Quote Reply
@ Suburban kid:
False. I changed my display name, and there’s a dropdown below it. Something about what my name looked like to you numbnuts. (Their word, not mine.)
mikeakaleroyQuote Reply
uncle dave wrote:
This is a really good point. As a result, the number who are average is also below 5%. I actually looked around briefly last night to try and see what number was, but I couldn’t find an article. The very best prospects in the minor leagues become MLB players. Those MLB players are much higher in numbers around replacement level than average and better.
dmick89Quote Reply
Yeah, you can’t change your username, but you can change your screen name or display name.
dmick89Quote Reply
@ uncle dave:
Why is the grading scale from A-D,F instead of A-E? Who is the dumbass teacher who came up with that?
WaLiQuote Reply
@ WaLi:
The dumbass used E for encomplete. (dying laughing)
dmick89Quote Reply
@ WaLi:
(dying laughing) I’m not sure. I guess I was cribbing that from our schools. I never got an E, but I did pick up some Ds and Fs…
uncle daveQuote Reply
Well, it could be that A, B, C, D were all passing grades. So maybe originally F wasn’t a “grade” and it just meant the student failed or failed to get a grade. Maybe? I don’t know. It makes my head hurt.
JonKneeVQuote Reply
Looks like the cardinals just lost a key man in free agency. Where’s Ryno when you need him?
uncle daveQuote Reply
They just signed former top-5 pick Glenn Dorsey, and I’m trying to figure out his position. He doesn’t have the length of a traditional 5-technique, nor the girth of a traditional nose tackle. My guess is that he’s depth in the base 3-4 and could earn time at nose tackle on passing downs.
Ryno is always here, you son of a bitch, so stop asking questions about where I am. I’m currently watching the news wire to see if the San Francisco 49ers, who oddly enough will play in Santa Clara soon, sign defensive back depth in Charles Woodson soonQuote Reply
@ Ryno is always here, you son of a bitch, so stop asking questions about where I am. I’m currently watching the news wire to see if the San Francisco 49ers, who oddly enough will play in Santa Clara soon, sign defensive back depth in Charles Woodson soon:
Yeah, but what’s their take on liberation theology?
uncle daveQuote Reply
Catholic Church —> Filled the position of “Pope”
WaLiQuote Reply
@ Ryno is always here, you son of a bitch, so stop asking questions about where I am. I’m currently watching the news wire to see if the San Francisco 49ers, who oddly enough will play in Santa Clara soon, sign defensive back depth in Charles Woodson soon:
There’s not much that I can say about Candlestick that hasn’t already been said about Afghanistan, so I can’t blame them for the move. Unrelated, but I’d never known that there was a link between St. Francis and St. Claire. Maybe the move from San Francisco to Santa Clara makes sense in a theological context.
I have no opinion on Glenn Dorsey, though I guess I did kind of wonder what became of him.
uncle daveQuote Reply
@ Ryno:
Here’s a couple articles from my side of the world, Ryno.
http://www.arrowheadpride.com/2013/3/13/4100184/glenn-dorsey-49ers-free-agency-chiefs
http://arrowheadaddict.com/2013/03/13/glenn-dorsey-signs-with-the-49ers/
mikeakaleroyQuote Reply
Cubs were just able to snatch failure from the jaws of success. Bases loaded with nobody out, then…
Soriano K
Hairston K
Navarro F-8
Insert your favorite mid-season form joke here.
Chet MastersonQuote Reply
@ mikeakaleroy:
I like the Dorsey pickup. I think he’s a better fit for the 49ers’ 1-gap scheme. Great run-stuffing 5-tech.
Ryno is always here, you son of a bitch, so stop asking questions about where I am. I’m currently watching the news wire to see if the San Francisco 49ers, who oddly enough will play in Santa Clara soon, sign defensive back depth in Charles Woodson soonQuote Reply
@ uncle dave:
I’m against it.
Ryno is always here, you son of a bitch, so stop asking questions about where I am. I’m currently watching the news wire to see if the San Francisco 49ers, who oddly enough will play in Santa Clara soon, sign defensive back depth in Charles Woodson soonQuote Reply
@ Ryno is always here, you son of a bitch, so stop asking questions about where I am. I’m currently watching the news wire to see if the San Francisco 49ers, who oddly enough will play in Santa Clara soon, sign defensive back depth in Charles Woodson soon:
We’re talking about the Niners here.
uncle daveQuote Reply
@ WaLi:
They didn’t even consider me. Said something about me not even being Catholic.
dmick89Quote Reply
new shit: http://obstructedview.net/commentary-and-analysis/rant-sports-writes-stupid-stuff-on-the-internet-again.html
dmick89Quote Reply