Change to Potential Rating

[recte44]

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

[Ted]

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.

[RonCo]

Interesting...if we're going this way, maybe we need to consider using relative ratings.

[Bumstead]

I know I shouldn't ask, but why?

[Spiccoli]

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.

[Lane]

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.

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.

[ae37jr]

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.

[jiminyhopkins]

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.

[RonCo]

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.

[Fat Nige]

Never have been too keen on the 20-80 ratings scale, seems a real stupid American idea to me? Whats wrong with 1-10?

[Ted]

Never have been too keen on the 20-80 ratings scale, seems a real stupid American idea to me? Whats wrong with 1-10?

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.

[bschr682]

Maybe think about changing the current overall rating to numbers as well. The mix seems very odd.

[aaronweiner]

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]

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.

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.

[usnspecialist]

Maybe think about changing the current overall rating to numbers as well. The mix seems very odd.

I agree with this, if nothing else from an aesthetic point of view.

[recte44]

It is done. No more stars.

[aaronweiner]

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.

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.

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.

[Fat Nige]

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

[RonCo]

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.

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.