Change to Potential Rating
- recte44
- GB: Commissioner
- Posts: 43171
- Joined: Tue Mar 30, 2010 12:14 pm
- Location: Oconomowoc, WI
- Has thanked: 143 times
- Been thanked: 1636 times
- Contact:
Change to Potential Rating
Beginning with tonights file, the potential rating will no longer be by stars, but instead by the standard prospect grading system of 20-80 (intervals of 5).
Here's a basic explanation from Fangraphs:
The Overall Player Grade
Hitter Starting Pitcher Relief Pitcher WAR
80 Top 1-2 #1 Starter —- 7.0
75 Top 2-3 #1 —- 6.0
70 Top 5 #1/2 —- 5.0
65 All-Star #2/3 —- 4.0
60 Plus #3 High Closer 3.0
55 Above Avg #3/4 Mid Closer 2.5
50 Avg Regular #4 Low CL/High SU 2.0
45 Platoon/Util #5 Low Setup 1.5
40 Bench Swing/Spot SP Middle RP 1.0
35 Emergency Call-Up Emergency Call-Up Emergency Call-Up 0.0
30 *Organizational *Organizational *Organizational -1.0
Here's a basic explanation from Fangraphs:
The Overall Player Grade
Hitter Starting Pitcher Relief Pitcher WAR
80 Top 1-2 #1 Starter —- 7.0
75 Top 2-3 #1 —- 6.0
70 Top 5 #1/2 —- 5.0
65 All-Star #2/3 —- 4.0
60 Plus #3 High Closer 3.0
55 Above Avg #3/4 Mid Closer 2.5
50 Avg Regular #4 Low CL/High SU 2.0
45 Platoon/Util #5 Low Setup 1.5
40 Bench Swing/Spot SP Middle RP 1.0
35 Emergency Call-Up Emergency Call-Up Emergency Call-Up 0.0
30 *Organizational *Organizational *Organizational -1.0
Matt Rectenwald
BBA Commissioner, GM, Las Vegas Hustlers
Milwaukee Choppers (AAA) | Reno Aces (AA) | Pahrump Ranchers (A) | Kingston Legends (SA) | Roswell Aliens (R)
BBA Commissioner, GM, Las Vegas Hustlers
Milwaukee Choppers (AAA) | Reno Aces (AA) | Pahrump Ranchers (A) | Kingston Legends (SA) | Roswell Aliens (R)
-
- Ex-GM
- Posts: 5630
- Joined: Thu Jun 04, 2015 2:50 pm
- Has thanked: 368 times
- Been thanked: 378 times
Re: Change to Potential Rating
Not to give misinformation, but do you think our league well represents the traditional prospects grades? I guess the point is, if your "average regular" isn't a 50, maybe don't be surprised? I think our "avg regulars" are more like 45 to 50 (even some 40's), and there are platoon type players that are 35's hat are useful. Our spread just seems much bigger than the traditional system.
For context, Vlad Guerrero Jr. is a 70 grade prospect, and one of only a handful over the past ten years. He has an 80 grade hit tool, which is one of maybe ten 80 grade tools given out in the last decade. It might be less than that. Fernando Tatis Jr is a 65 prospect. 55 grade prospects are good prospects, and most teams don't have more than 3-5 of them.
For context, Vlad Guerrero Jr. is a 70 grade prospect, and one of only a handful over the past ten years. He has an 80 grade hit tool, which is one of maybe ten 80 grade tools given out in the last decade. It might be less than that. Fernando Tatis Jr is a 65 prospect. 55 grade prospects are good prospects, and most teams don't have more than 3-5 of them.
Ted Schmidt
Twin Cities Typing Nightmares(2044-present)
California Crusaders (2021-2038)
Twin Cities Typing Nightmares(2044-present)
California Crusaders (2021-2038)
- RonCo
- GB: JL Frontier Division Director
- Posts: 19963
- Joined: Sat Nov 14, 2015 10:48 pm
- Has thanked: 2005 times
- Been thanked: 2971 times
Re: Change to Potential Rating
Interesting...if we're going this way, maybe we need to consider using relative ratings.
-
- Ex-GM
- Posts: 1376
- Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2017 4:24 pm
- Has thanked: 123 times
- Been thanked: 118 times
Re: Change to Potential Rating
Well... these new ratings are not making me feel too good about my team...lol.
Especially the rated 20 minor league slug I had to call up since 1/2 my lineup is out.
Especially the rated 20 minor league slug I had to call up since 1/2 my lineup is out.
Scott Piccoli GM Twin Cities
- Lane
- GB: Vice Commissioner
- Posts: 6812
- Joined: Tue Feb 02, 2016 8:18 am
- Location: Los Angeles
- Has thanked: 528 times
- Been thanked: 716 times
Re: Change to Potential Rating
half my bullpen is 40 or under. Guys with splits are more valuable than they appear. Though I suppose that's always been the case.
Stephen Lane
Vice Commissioner / Historian
General Manager, Long Beach Surfers
Since 2026
Ex-GM, Amsterdam Neptunes, 2025 EBA Champions
Vice Commissioner / Historian
General Manager, Long Beach Surfers
Since 2026
Ex-GM, Amsterdam Neptunes, 2025 EBA Champions
- ae37jr
- BBA GM
- Posts: 3009
- Joined: Fri Feb 05, 2016 1:37 pm
- Location: Davenport, FL
- Has thanked: 41 times
- Been thanked: 664 times
Re: Change to Potential Rating
I never really payed much attention to stars and honestly probably won't care much for numbers either. Here is my 8 point procedure for evaluating players....
1. Ratings- the only pure indicator of how good a player is. Sets a general scale in which players are ranked 1-13. Since not all numbers are equal, we need more clues.
2. Stats- 2nd best indicator. Short samples and quirky things such as ballpark factors, splits, and competition could skew perception. But a nice long stat history can go hand in hand with ratings.
3a. Projected Role in BBA(pitchers)- If they don't view my pitcher as a starter... I shouldn't either.
3b. Position Flexibility(hitters)- The scarcity, quality and amount of positions a player can play makes them more valuable their piers.
4. Scouting Report- Sometimes gives you little clues. Like a 3 star player might actually having a scouting report that says he is better then other 3 star players in it's own subtle campy way.
5. Stars/20-80- gives a ridiculous broad range ranking of a player using who knows what kind of formula. Likely includes bunting, pickoff moves and other nonsensical things in an over weighted manner.
6. Prospect List/Positional Strength- Gives a general scope of how good your player is compared to others.
7. Personality- An asshat almost never lives up to his potential and will drag others down. A smart hard worker will do the opposite.
8. Gut Feeling.
1. Ratings- the only pure indicator of how good a player is. Sets a general scale in which players are ranked 1-13. Since not all numbers are equal, we need more clues.
2. Stats- 2nd best indicator. Short samples and quirky things such as ballpark factors, splits, and competition could skew perception. But a nice long stat history can go hand in hand with ratings.
3a. Projected Role in BBA(pitchers)- If they don't view my pitcher as a starter... I shouldn't either.
3b. Position Flexibility(hitters)- The scarcity, quality and amount of positions a player can play makes them more valuable their piers.
4. Scouting Report- Sometimes gives you little clues. Like a 3 star player might actually having a scouting report that says he is better then other 3 star players in it's own subtle campy way.
5. Stars/20-80- gives a ridiculous broad range ranking of a player using who knows what kind of formula. Likely includes bunting, pickoff moves and other nonsensical things in an over weighted manner.
6. Prospect List/Positional Strength- Gives a general scope of how good your player is compared to others.
7. Personality- An asshat almost never lives up to his potential and will drag others down. A smart hard worker will do the opposite.
8. Gut Feeling.
Alan Ehlers
GM of the Twin Cities River Monster
GM of the Twin Cities River Monster
- jiminyhopkins
- BBA GM
- Posts: 3508
- Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2011 2:33 pm
- Location: OH
- Has thanked: 302 times
- Been thanked: 926 times
Re: Change to Potential Rating
I have a 20 rated player who is very valuable to the team. Hyun-oo Yong is a superb defensive replacement and pinch runner, and a perfect 27th man. There is a measure of subjectivity to it aside from the numbers. If there is a 20 guy who fills a valuable niche on your roster, so be it.
GM, 2051, 2053, and 2058 JL WILDCARD Phoenix Talons (2029-??), BBA
CARETAKER GM, 2053 GBC CHAMPION Tokyo Pearls (2053 - 2058)
GM, THE GREATEST MINOR LEAGUE TEAM OF ALL TIME Toledo Liberty
Vic Caleca Team News Award Winner: 2051, 2054, 2057
CARETAKER GM, 2053 GBC CHAMPION Tokyo Pearls (2053 - 2058)
GM, THE GREATEST MINOR LEAGUE TEAM OF ALL TIME Toledo Liberty
Vic Caleca Team News Award Winner: 2051, 2054, 2057
- RonCo
- GB: JL Frontier Division Director
- Posts: 19963
- Joined: Sat Nov 14, 2015 10:48 pm
- Has thanked: 2005 times
- Been thanked: 2971 times
Re: Change to Potential Rating
Yes. There are issues trying to use a true MLB view on the 20-80 scale, but I like using it to a degree anyway...though I personally like the idea of skipping the gradients and just using 2-8. Relative ratings has the advantage of glumping guys around the middle zone--as Ted suggests is more realistic feeling. It doesn't do anything to change performance.
-
- Ex-GM
- Posts: 3982
- Joined: Fri Apr 09, 2010 3:50 pm
- Location: Leeds, West Yorkshire, ENGLAND
- Has thanked: 586 times
- Been thanked: 456 times
Re: Change to Potential Rating
Never have been too keen on the 20-80 ratings scale, seems a real stupid American idea to me? Whats wrong with 1-10?
Nigel Laverick
(former GM of El Paso Chilis #WeWereShitty) ,
Now GM Riyadh Red Crescents #WeBeNotSoNewNow #WeAreJustAsShitty
Riyadh GM since May 2046
JL Manager of the Year 2000 (Baltimore Monarchs)
Nothing since
An MBBA GM since 1995 (off & on)
(former GM of El Paso Chilis #WeWereShitty) ,
Now GM Riyadh Red Crescents #WeBeNotSoNewNow #WeAreJustAsShitty
Riyadh GM since May 2046
JL Manager of the Year 2000 (Baltimore Monarchs)
Nothing since
An MBBA GM since 1995 (off & on)
-
- Ex-GM
- Posts: 5630
- Joined: Thu Jun 04, 2015 2:50 pm
- Has thanked: 368 times
- Been thanked: 378 times
Re: Change to Potential Rating
As far as I can tell, no one knows. The below paragraph is from Fangraphs, and while the scouting scale was probably originally not seen this way, this is how it is used now. Also, Branch Rickey probably did not make the scale as it is. I think he used something more like 0-60.
The invention of the scale is credited to Branch Rickey and whether he intended it or not, it mirrors various scientific scales. 50 is major league average, then each 10 point increment represents a standard deviation better or worse than average. In a normal distribution, three standard deviations in either direction should include 99.7% of your sample, so that’s why the scale is 20 to 80 rather than 0 and 100. That said, the distribution of tools isn’t a normal curve for every tool, but is somewhere close to that for most.
So with that said, 1-10 just doesn't fit. You could use 0-6, or 1-7, or some multiple of them. Or you could use letter grades.
Ted Schmidt
Twin Cities Typing Nightmares(2044-present)
California Crusaders (2021-2038)
Twin Cities Typing Nightmares(2044-present)
California Crusaders (2021-2038)
- aaronweiner
- BBA GM
- Posts: 12045
- Joined: Wed Jun 16, 2010 1:56 pm
- Has thanked: 51 times
- Been thanked: 770 times
Re: Change to Potential Rating
I like the 80-20. Standard deviations aside, it's suggesting that a top prospect has an 80% chance of doing well while a minimal one has a 20% chance of doing well. After all, how many times have marginal prospects had a career year, or top players had a stinker? It's kind of a good idea.
- RonCo
- GB: JL Frontier Division Director
- Posts: 19963
- Joined: Sat Nov 14, 2015 10:48 pm
- Has thanked: 2005 times
- Been thanked: 2971 times
Re: Change to Potential Rating
Not to be argumentative, but I've never in my life heard the 20-80 scale used to predict the chances of a guy doing well. In fact, it's my understanding/experience that most real scouts will give a 20/80 rating as their best projection of what will really happen, and then sometimes a probability or reliability factor to say how certain they are of it.aaronweiner wrote: ↑Tue Jan 29, 2019 8:50 pmI like the 80-20. Standard deviations aside, it's suggesting that a top prospect has an 80% chance of doing well while a minimal one has a 20% chance of doing well. After all, how many times have marginal prospects had a career year, or top players had a stinker? It's kind of a good idea.
-
- Ex-GM
- Posts: 6652
- Joined: Wed Jul 05, 2017 9:39 am
- Location: Manama, Bahrain
- Has thanked: 207 times
- Been thanked: 776 times
Re: Change to Potential Rating
I agree with this, if nothing else from an aesthetic point of view.
Randy Weigand
Havana Sugar Kings/San Fernando Bears: 32-50 (1608-1481)
Des Moines Kernels: 52-
League Champion- 34
JL Champion- 34
FL Champion- 36, 37
JL Southern- 34
FL Pacific- 37, 39
Wild Card- 33, 35, 36, 40, 43
Havana Sugar Kings/San Fernando Bears: 32-50 (1608-1481)
Des Moines Kernels: 52-
League Champion- 34
JL Champion- 34
FL Champion- 36, 37
JL Southern- 34
FL Pacific- 37, 39
Wild Card- 33, 35, 36, 40, 43
- recte44
- GB: Commissioner
- Posts: 43171
- Joined: Tue Mar 30, 2010 12:14 pm
- Location: Oconomowoc, WI
- Has thanked: 143 times
- Been thanked: 1636 times
- Contact:
Re: Change to Potential Rating
It is done. No more stars.
Matt Rectenwald
BBA Commissioner, GM, Las Vegas Hustlers
Milwaukee Choppers (AAA) | Reno Aces (AA) | Pahrump Ranchers (A) | Kingston Legends (SA) | Roswell Aliens (R)
BBA Commissioner, GM, Las Vegas Hustlers
Milwaukee Choppers (AAA) | Reno Aces (AA) | Pahrump Ranchers (A) | Kingston Legends (SA) | Roswell Aliens (R)
- aaronweiner
- BBA GM
- Posts: 12045
- Joined: Wed Jun 16, 2010 1:56 pm
- Has thanked: 51 times
- Been thanked: 770 times
Re: Change to Potential Rating
I'm not sure there's a difference there. And I'm surely not saying it's precisely 80% or precisely 20%. As they say, a 50/50 shot in gambling is really 45/55.RonCo wrote: ↑Tue Jan 29, 2019 9:09 pmNot to be argumentative, but I've never in my life heard the 20-80 scale used to predict the chances of a guy doing well. In fact, it's my understanding/experience that most real scouts will give a 20/80 rating as their best projection of what will really happen, and then sometimes a probability or reliability factor to say how certain they are of it.aaronweiner wrote: ↑Tue Jan 29, 2019 8:50 pmI like the 80-20. Standard deviations aside, it's suggesting that a top prospect has an 80% chance of doing well while a minimal one has a 20% chance of doing well. After all, how many times have marginal prospects had a career year, or top players had a stinker? It's kind of a good idea.
-
- Ex-GM
- Posts: 3982
- Joined: Fri Apr 09, 2010 3:50 pm
- Location: Leeds, West Yorkshire, ENGLAND
- Has thanked: 586 times
- Been thanked: 456 times
Re: Change to Potential Rating
I find I actually like the 20/80 combined with the league relative ratings. First time I’ve ever got on with 20/80 but when you can see it as it refers to each level I kinda like it
Nigel Laverick
(former GM of El Paso Chilis #WeWereShitty) ,
Now GM Riyadh Red Crescents #WeBeNotSoNewNow #WeAreJustAsShitty
Riyadh GM since May 2046
JL Manager of the Year 2000 (Baltimore Monarchs)
Nothing since
An MBBA GM since 1995 (off & on)
(former GM of El Paso Chilis #WeWereShitty) ,
Now GM Riyadh Red Crescents #WeBeNotSoNewNow #WeAreJustAsShitty
Riyadh GM since May 2046
JL Manager of the Year 2000 (Baltimore Monarchs)
Nothing since
An MBBA GM since 1995 (off & on)
- RonCo
- GB: JL Frontier Division Director
- Posts: 19963
- Joined: Sat Nov 14, 2015 10:48 pm
- Has thanked: 2005 times
- Been thanked: 2971 times
Re: Change to Potential Rating
I guess I'm still not getting it. I don't think the 20/80 scale has anything directly (or at least numerically) to do with a player's chances of yielding to the big leagues, though you would certainly hope that a skilled scout would be right more often than they were wrong. Maybe I'm thinking about this too hard.aaronweiner wrote: ↑Wed Jan 30, 2019 5:03 amI'm not sure there's a difference there. And I'm surely not saying it's precisely 80% or precisely 20%. As they say, a 50/50 shot in gambling is really 45/55.
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 8 guests