SoxProspects News
|
|
|
|
Legal
Forum Ground Rules
The views expressed by the members of this Forum do not necessarily reflect the views of SoxProspects, LLC.
© 2003-2024 SoxProspects, LLC
|
|
|
|
|
Forum Home | Search | My Profile | Messages | Members | Help |
Welcome Guest. Please Login or Register.
Prospect evaluation and valuation
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Dec 19, 2021 9:39:12 GMT -5
Please explain that to me, you've totally lost me. What do you have as the floor of Binelas with 29 games in low A ball? More like it might actually give him a floor and it certainly effects his ceiling. You do realize depending on what position and how much defensive value you generate the range for those guys is crazy right? You can be a 2-3 war DH or 10 bwar Trout. David Ortiz was one of the best hitters of his generation, look at his bwar totals. Now imagine his ceiling being above average at 3B and plus speed, that doesn't change his ceiling in your book? We might as well end this now because if you believe tools don't effect a players ceiling we can't have a good debate. www.redsminorleagues.com/2018/11/27/cincinnati-reds-12-prospect-josiah-gray/It walks you through Gray at the time he was traded. Very risky, yet that stuff and those results is exactly what you want. Live arm, athletic, biggest issues are refining a third pitch and building up innings. Those strikeout to walk rates, while limiting hits, with two above average pitches and he can locate his fastball his best pitch. Yeah I see a higher upside. I have the floor of Binelas as a guy who never makes the majors because his contact issues are bigger than expected. His ceiling is not capped by that or by the fact that he might not be able to play 3B though, because he also might be able to play it and play it well, that's all projection on his future body, and the contact issues might not manifest. Of course his ceiling is higher if he's also an amazing defender who can steal 100 bases, but you don't talk about any minor leaguer like his ceiling is Mike Trout. The potential to be a middle of the order bat is just about as high a ceiling as you give any minor leaguer this side of the guys who have already established themselves as elite. We're getting off track anyways, if he was an elite defender and had the offensive potential he has he would be too good a prospect to be traded for Hunter Renfroe. As for Gray "Biggest issues are refining a third pitch and building up innings" yeah aka his risk is he becomes a reliever, or that he has to get Tommy John and never pitches recovers right. It's fine if you happen to prefer this type of prospect but we're going down a pointless rabbit hole there because we have no evidence someone similar to Gray was on the table and turned down. I'm not even arguing Binelas now is a better prospect than Gray was then, I didn't follow the Reds system and any analysis now is colored by what has happened. My only point is he is a similar type of prospect with a similar type of upside (starting pitcher vs. starting position player) and the more guys like this you get in the system, the better your chances one of them rockets up, like Gray did. Now we're getting somewhere. I see floor as the likely outcome at the major league level, doesn't make it means no floor. So we agree. The bar for a bat only guys is crazy high and position really matters. It's a lesson I learned the hard way. Take Chavis who is actually a good comp. Him at 2B gives him a good chance, him at 1B or DH really doesn't. Yet even at 2B, he's likely negative value on D. It caps his long-term value. Now crazy crap happens, it's not out of the realm of possibility that he becomes above average at 2B, it's just not likely. Tools matter. Absolutely you don't compare any prospect to Mike Trout, it's just to show how position matter. JD Martinez can match Trouts bat in a given season, he'll never reach Trouts bwar total because Trout plays a premium position at CF. Just like you should never say any prospect is Mike Trout, saying a guy is going to be a middle of the order bat after a handful of games at low A ball is just as crazy no? Especially when that player has questions about his hitting. The Gray example is just to talk about tools and rating ceiling. Being a reliever isn't horrible, if he's ceiling is impactful reliever no? I fully agree you likely can't get him if he's darn good at 3B. He's just very risky and that's why I feel we needed more to downgrade our roster in the way we did. This is the return for Moreland at the deadline when you eat money in a lost year and I really like the return. For example I don't have a likely ceiling of Binelas as a middle of the order bat. You dream on that, it's not likely given the information I currently have, like not even close. Now everyone grades differently, it's why you can have so many lively debates. I just cap his ceiling right now at like a Dalbec, which is what I base my grade on him. That's not to say I don't think he can maybe do better either. I just don’t see it as likely. I will admit the everything goes 100% right can certainly happen, I just don't value prospects on that. I feel this was productive, you seem to like the trade more than I do because you have Binelas ceiling as higher than I do and there's nothing wrong with that. I wouldn't have an issue with this trade if I rated his ceiling as middle of the order bat either. Let's hope you're right and he proves just that next year. |
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Dec 19, 2021 15:05:47 GMT -5
I think the term floor is not a literal worst case scenario because there's not a single prospect that is guaranteed to reach their so-called floor. I believe that floor refers to most likely worst case scenarios, not like a Ryan Westmoreland or Daniel Flores. I think of it as a 10% outcome, not a 0% outcome. And ceiling is also not the highest possible outcome, because no one is going to predict the next Trout as a possibility. I have never seen a prospect described as a possible Hall of Fame player. Prospects can also change their floors and ceilings as they develop. A young pitcher that adds a plus pitch completely changes their outlook for example and that happens all the time.
|
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Dec 20, 2021 13:09:20 GMT -5
"Floor" is definitely not "most likely outcome," umassgrad. "Likely outcome" is "projection," and I remove "at the major league level" on purpose there because not every minor leaguer has an MLB projection.
jimed basically has it right. "Floor" and "ceiling" really mean realistic floor and ceiling for the reasons he mentions - literally any player could have some medical issue (not even as drastic as Westmoreland or Flores necessarily) and stop playing tomorrow. Or think like, Garin Cecchini completely changing his swing in AAA to try and hit for more power and both being unsuccessful in that and losing his ability to hit at all for average as well.
And any player could suddenly pop in a way we could not reasonably have projected - to use an example I used recently, if you saw Jonathan Papelbon in Portland, you wrote him up not knowing he'd add a split-finger fastball later that would become his second-best pitch, so you might not have projected as high of a ceiling at that point as what he even became, because there was a development you couldn't have necessarily accounted for. (Maybe not the best example because sometimes you can project a guy to add a pitch - we projected Mata would probably add and have success with a cutter, for example.)
Ceiling and floor are also, like any other aspect of a grade or, by extension, any ranking, a snapshot in time. You would not have seen Mookie Betts in Lowell and said his realistic ceiling (as opposed to literal possible ceiling) was top-5 player in baseball. Yeah, it's possible, but if we're going to use literal possible ceiling, then there's going to be little difference between players and the exercise is meaningless.
And by the way, this isn't even referring to being wrong, which is also a thing of course, because I don't think seeing Betts hit .267/.352/.307 with a bunch of errors at shortstop in Lowell the year after being drafted and not seeing a top-5 player in the game ceiling means you were "wrong." It means the player he was at that time did not realistically have that ceiling. But usually, it's that you're incorrect on projection rather than floor/ceiling, unless you don't really know what you're doing.
|
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Dec 20, 2021 14:33:46 GMT -5
"Floor" is definitely not "most likely outcome," umassgrad. "Likely outcome" is "projection," and I remove "at the major league level" on purpose there because not every minor leaguer has an MLB projection. jimed basically has it right. "Floor" and "ceiling" really mean realistic floor and ceiling for the reasons he mentions - literally any player could have some medical issue (not even as drastic as Westmoreland or Flores necessarily) and stop playing tomorrow. Or think like, Garin Cecchini completely changing his swing in AAA to try and hit for more power and both being unsuccessful in that and losing his ability to hit at all for average as well. And any player could suddenly pop in a way we could not reasonably have projected - to use an example I used recently, if you saw Jonathan Papelbon in Portland, you wrote him up not knowing he'd add a split-finger fastball later that would become his second-best pitch, so you might not have projected as high of a ceiling at that point as what he even became, because there was a development you couldn't have necessarily accounted for. (Maybe not the best example because sometimes you can project a guy to add a pitch - we projected Mata would probably add and have success with a cutter, for example.) Ceiling and floor are also, like any other aspect of a grade or, by extension, any ranking, a snapshot in time. You would not have seen Mookie Betts in Lowell and said his realistic ceiling (as opposed to literal possible ceiling) was top-5 player in baseball. Yeah, it's possible, but if we're going to use literal possible ceiling, then there's going to be little difference between players and the exercise is meaningless. And by the way, this isn't even referring to being wrong, which is also a thing of course, because I don't think seeing Betts hit .267/.352/.307 with a bunch of errors at shortstop in Lowell the year after being drafted and not seeing a top-5 player in the game ceiling means you were "wrong." It means the player he was at that time did not realistically have that ceiling. But usually, it's that you're incorrect on projection rather than floor/ceiling, unless you don't really know what you're doing. In the basic sense floor is worst case and ceiling is best case, in a realistic way. Binelas worst case likely outcome right now is nothing. I see no skills that give him a floor currently. If he was great defensively at 3B, that would change. As a great defender with good power is an up and down guy, bench piece or maybe even second division regular. Now you want to rate guys floor as AAA player knock yourself out, I rate floor and ceiling based on the majors. I don't have any issue with what Jimmed said and I'm basically doing just that. I feel darn good with my floor and ceiling rankings of Binelas at this given time with what information we have. Yeah absolutely that might change in the future. What exactly is the issue with it? The no floor part or the ceiling of Dalbec? |
|
|
|
Post by wcsoxfan on Dec 20, 2021 14:52:08 GMT -5
Are there any sites which provide a percentile basis for floor/ceiling projection? I understand that this isn't how most scouts think, but I'm sure top scouts all have similar ranges when making these assessments and it would be interesting to evaluate where they land from a large sample of former prospects.
As Chris mentioned, a guy could be hit with a horrible sickness and land below his floor; or could add a pitch and raise his ceiling. The projection, I assume, is the scout's best attempt at a 50th percentile median outcome, and if they're good, you would be able to average the outcomes (of the players they scout) together and reach a number close to that based on MLB scouting reports. But is the floor/ceiling, 10th and 90th percentile? I'm curious where this lands.
If we had enough data it could also lead to a way to 'scout the scouts'. Maybe one scout's floor is in the 20th percentile range, and knowing so, would allow decision makers to more accurately assess their reports (this is a generalization as the data would have to be more granular).
This type of thing probably doesn't interest many, and likely annoys the traditional scouting crowd (I'm sure umpires don't love it either), but I'm ccurious if anyone out there has made an effort in this category, either to assess or normalize.
|
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Dec 20, 2021 15:42:20 GMT -5
Here, we give a set of 3 grades with projection, floor, and ceiling. BA does a projection and a risk grade (low, medium, high, extreme). FG and MLB just give grades.
All that said, the easiest thing to do is read the scouting reports, which usually delve into the topic.
|
|
|
|
Post by incandenza on Dec 20, 2021 15:51:12 GMT -5
Here, we give a set of 3 grades with projection, floor, and ceiling. BA does a projection and a risk grade (low, medium, high, extreme). FG and MLB just give grades. All that said, the easiest thing to do is read the scouting reports, which usually delve into the topic. And I note that Marcelo Mayer has a floor of not making the majors, per this site. No one, in fact, has a higher floor than "up and down player." So it seems probably unreasonable to be upset that the prospect return for Renfroe wasn't a guy whose floor is higher than that. |
|
|
|
Post by scottysmalls on Dec 20, 2021 16:11:27 GMT -5
"Floor" is definitely not "most likely outcome," umassgrad. "Likely outcome" is "projection," and I remove "at the major league level" on purpose there because not every minor leaguer has an MLB projection. jimed basically has it right. "Floor" and "ceiling" really mean realistic floor and ceiling for the reasons he mentions - literally any player could have some medical issue (not even as drastic as Westmoreland or Flores necessarily) and stop playing tomorrow. Or think like, Garin Cecchini completely changing his swing in AAA to try and hit for more power and both being unsuccessful in that and losing his ability to hit at all for average as well. And any player could suddenly pop in a way we could not reasonably have projected - to use an example I used recently, if you saw Jonathan Papelbon in Portland, you wrote him up not knowing he'd add a split-finger fastball later that would become his second-best pitch, so you might not have projected as high of a ceiling at that point as what he even became, because there was a development you couldn't have necessarily accounted for. (Maybe not the best example because sometimes you can project a guy to add a pitch - we projected Mata would probably add and have success with a cutter, for example.) Ceiling and floor are also, like any other aspect of a grade or, by extension, any ranking, a snapshot in time. You would not have seen Mookie Betts in Lowell and said his realistic ceiling (as opposed to literal possible ceiling) was top-5 player in baseball. Yeah, it's possible, but if we're going to use literal possible ceiling, then there's going to be little difference between players and the exercise is meaningless. And by the way, this isn't even referring to being wrong, which is also a thing of course, because I don't think seeing Betts hit .267/.352/.307 with a bunch of errors at shortstop in Lowell the year after being drafted and not seeing a top-5 player in the game ceiling means you were "wrong." It means the player he was at that time did not realistically have that ceiling. But usually, it's that you're incorrect on projection rather than floor/ceiling, unless you don't really know what you're doing. In the basic sense floor is worst case and ceiling is best case, in a realistic way. Binelas worst case likely outcome right now is nothing. I see no skills that give him a floor currently. If he was great defensively at 3B, that would change. As a great defender with good power is an up and down guy, bench piece or maybe even second division regular. Now you want to rate guys floor as AAA player knock yourself out, I rate floor and ceiling based on the majors. I don't have any issue with what Jimmed said and I'm basically doing just that. I feel darn good with my floor and ceiling rankings of Binelas at this given time with what information we have. Yeah absolutely that might change in the future. What exactly is the issue with it? The no floor part or the ceiling of Dalbec? We can quibble over the ceiling piece, I think it's higher than Dalbec but as is being discussed it depends what percentile outcome we're calling a ceiling. The floor piece we agree on, but as Incandenza points out that's most minor leaguers this early in their career. Even speed/defense guys don't have MLB floors if they never hit enough. Where we disagree is that you seem to think Hunter Renfroe is worth more than a couple guys in this general vicinity of prospect value (+ the negative value from JBJ), and I do not. |
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Dec 20, 2021 16:20:56 GMT -5
Now you want to rate guys floor as AAA player knock yourself out, I rate floor and ceiling based on the majors. My point was basically that this isn't how it works. I'd typed this in my post above and taking it out, but if you want to create a different definition and have a different conversation, that's your prerogative but please realize you're talking about something else off on your own. I'm not sure whether you just have an unrealistic idea of "floor" or are referring more to what I'd call "risk" and applying it wrong to Binelas. As mentioned above, I don't think there's anyone in the system I'd give a floor higher than an up-and-down guy (even with like Duran and Casas, I could see a scenario where the former never gets over the K and defense issues and is a AAAA outfielder and the latter doesn't get to enough pop for 1B such that he doesn't stay up for any length of time, although I'm certainly not projecting either). "Rating floor based on MLB" is about as useful as discussing true floor and ceiling. Almost no minor leaguer, save MAYBE the top few, has a floor of MLB regular. Is there anyone in the system you give a floor of even being a bench player or middle reliever? There isn't really for me. |
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Dec 21, 2021 15:00:00 GMT -5
Now you want to rate guys floor as AAA player knock yourself out, I rate floor and ceiling based on the majors. My point was basically that this isn't how it works. I'd typed this in my post above and taking it out, but if you want to create a different definition and have a different conversation, that's your prerogative but please realize you're talking about something else off on your own. I'm not sure whether you just have an unrealistic idea of "floor" or are referring more to what I'd call "risk" and applying it wrong to Binelas. As mentioned above, I don't think there's anyone in the system I'd give a floor higher than an up-and-down guy (even with like Duran and Casas, I could see a scenario where the former never gets over the K and defense issues and is a AAAA outfielder and the latter doesn't get to enough pop for 1B such that he doesn't stay up for any length of time, although I'm certainly not projecting either). "Rating floor based on MLB" is about as useful as discussing true floor and ceiling. Almost no minor leaguer, save MAYBE the top few, has a floor of MLB regular. Is there anyone in the system you give a floor of even being a bench player or middle reliever? There isn't really for me. You base that on what? Everyone looks at floor and ceiling differently, it's what we spend a massive amount of time discussing on this board. How you rate prospects depends on how you define that and then apply it to players. I've certainly seen fangraphs do things differently. I've seen them apply future value to a team farm system. I certainly think teams talk about prospects floor value to the major league club. If you're the Red Sox what's the point of floor if it doesn't have any impact on the major league roster? I look at it like Jimmed said. I don't see floor as the worst possible outcome, just like I don't see ceiling as just the best possible outcome. I look at Cassas and easily see an up and down guy at this point, same with Duran. I'd certainly assign floors to many more prospects than you would, yet they would be very low. Before Mata had TJ I wouldn't have been afraid to put a floor of backend bullpen piece, that such a low bar and usually guys that are negative value. Yet pitchers with good arms will be given many chances in the MLB. I see plus defensively at a premium position as an automatic floor. You'll reach the majors if you have that defensive skill set. Again not taking into account the worst type crap like career ending injuries. Add on above average power and plus upside, I like it even more. Garin Cecchini is a great case to study because I would have put a low floor on him. Given his hitting, on base skills and lower strikeout numbers. I don't see what happened to him as a likely outcome. Just like I don't see Rick Ankiel all of a sudden losing the ability to throw strikes as likely. Yeah that crap happens, yet that's looking at absolutely worst case type crap. Even then with Cecchini he would reach the majors and have .2 bwar. If I had to put it into numbers it's more like bottom 10-20% floor and ceiling is like 70 to 80%. Now maybe you don't agree, yet can you really tell me no one in Baseball does anything like that? In the age of analytics and many sites attaching value to prospects? |
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Dec 21, 2021 22:19:00 GMT -5
"Floor" and "ceiling" are terms that have generally accepted meanings. You are describing that places evaluate based on those concepts differently, but they're all starting with the same definitions of those concepts, so I really disagree with that premise of your argument. Eric Longenhagen, Jim Callis, and Ben Badler are all basically going to say the same thing if you ask them "what do you mean when you talk about a prospect's 'floor'?" What they may not agree about is what Player X's floor is.
I think this is devolving into a semantics tangent, so I'll let that go. But just keep this in mind the next time you're describing a player's "floor" and everyone thinks you're crazy.
You can start with a disagreement about what a player's floor is, sure, but that's only even a useful discussion if you agree what a floor is, right? And from there, you can disagree about what to do with that information. But again, to have a discussion that is even worthwhile, you kind of have to agree about what you're talking about.
|
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Dec 23, 2021 11:49:12 GMT -5
"Floor" and "ceiling" are terms that have generally accepted meanings. You are describing that places evaluate based on those concepts differently, but they're all starting with the same definitions of those concepts, so I really disagree with that premise of your argument. Eric Longenhagen, Jim Callis, and Ben Badler are all basically going to say the same thing if you ask them "what do you mean when you talk about a prospect's 'floor'?" What they may not agree about is what Player X's floor is. I think this is devolving into a semantics tangent, so I'll let that go. But just keep this in mind the next time you're describing a player's "floor" and everyone thinks you're crazy. You can start with a disagreement about what a player's floor is, sure, but that's only even a useful discussion if you agree what a floor is, right? And from there, you can disagree about what to do with that information. But again, to have a discussion that is even worthwhile, you kind of have to agree about what you're talking about. What is that meaning? By your own words you basically said you don't think most players have a floor. That's basically what prospect sites do, focus only on upside and ceiling. Scouting reports have multiple ceilings, never any floor projections. If that's your point, that's fine. I'm looking at this from Blooms point of view, the Red Sox, not people ranking prospects. You can't judge how Bill Belichick grades prospects by looking at how Mel Kiper or Todd McShay grade them. If Bloom looks at our system and sees two up and down guys and a bunch of lottery tickets I don't think he's a good GM. That's the Ben Cherington approach. Good GMs are much better than that. No ones perfect, yet guys like DD have a long history of knowing talent. Which guys are building blocks and which are sell high guys. Do you agree with this? "Floor is the minimum reasonably expected from a player while ceiling is plausible upside potential. The key words being "reasonable" and "plausible". Someone wanting to debate me on this will contented everyone's floor is zero with infinity as a ceiling. Let's use some common sense and frame exceptations accordingly." If Fangraphs can look at our system and apply future value to the Red Sox, how isn't it different than what your saying? They aren't going to project zero value for a guy like Mayer. I feel this is much more like what teams do and is using reasonably at a given time. Not trying to be 100% certain. |
|
|
|
Post by scottysmalls on Dec 23, 2021 12:18:32 GMT -5
"Floor" and "ceiling" are terms that have generally accepted meanings. You are describing that places evaluate based on those concepts differently, but they're all starting with the same definitions of those concepts, so I really disagree with that premise of your argument. Eric Longenhagen, Jim Callis, and Ben Badler are all basically going to say the same thing if you ask them "what do you mean when you talk about a prospect's 'floor'?" What they may not agree about is what Player X's floor is. I think this is devolving into a semantics tangent, so I'll let that go. But just keep this in mind the next time you're describing a player's "floor" and everyone thinks you're crazy. You can start with a disagreement about what a player's floor is, sure, but that's only even a useful discussion if you agree what a floor is, right? And from there, you can disagree about what to do with that information. But again, to have a discussion that is even worthwhile, you kind of have to agree about what you're talking about. What is that meaning? By your own words you basically said you don't think most players have a floor. That's basically what prospect sites do, focus only on upside and ceiling. Scouting reports have multiple ceilings, never any floor projections. If that's your point, that's fine. I'm looking at this from Blooms point of view, the Red Sox, not people ranking prospects. You can't judge how Bill Belichick grades prospects by looking at how Mel Kiper or Todd McShay grade them. If Bloom looks at our system and sees two up and down guys and a bunch of lottery tickets I don't think he's a good GM. That's the Ben Cherington approach. Good GMs are much better than that. No ones perfect, yet guys like DD have a long history of knowing talent. Which guys are building blocks and which are sell high guys. Do you agree with this? "Floor is the minimum reasonably expected from a player while ceiling is plausible upside potential. The key words being "reasonable" and "plausible". Someone wanting to debate me on this will contented everyone's floor is zero with infinity as a ceiling. Let's use some common sense and frame exceptations accordingly." If Fangraphs can look at our system and apply future value to the Red Sox, how isn't it different than what your saying? They aren't going to project zero value for a guy like Mayer. I feel this is much more like what teams do and is using reasonably at a given time. Not trying to be 100% certain. Fangraphs FV scores are essentially the equivalent of the projections on sites like this (e.g Mayer is a 55 FV on Fangraphs and a 5.5 here), not sure what the difference is that you're referring to. They also just take it a step further and quantify what those values translate to in terms of $. It doesn't have to do with their thoughts on floor/ceiling of a player though, they simply aren't providing those. |
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Dec 23, 2021 13:27:31 GMT -5
What is that meaning? By your own words you basically said you don't think most players have a floor. That's basically what prospect sites do, focus only on upside and ceiling. Scouting reports have multiple ceilings, never any floor projections. If that's your point, that's fine. I'm looking at this from Blooms point of view, the Red Sox, not people ranking prospects. You can't judge how Bill Belichick grades prospects by looking at how Mel Kiper or Todd McShay grade them. If Bloom looks at our system and sees two up and down guys and a bunch of lottery tickets I don't think he's a good GM. That's the Ben Cherington approach. Good GMs are much better than that. No ones perfect, yet guys like DD have a long history of knowing talent. Which guys are building blocks and which are sell high guys. Do you agree with this? "Floor is the minimum reasonably expected from a player while ceiling is plausible upside potential. The key words being "reasonable" and "plausible". Someone wanting to debate me on this will contented everyone's floor is zero with infinity as a ceiling. Let's use some common sense and frame exceptations accordingly." If Fangraphs can look at our system and apply future value to the Red Sox, how isn't it different than what your saying? They aren't going to project zero value for a guy like Mayer. I feel this is much more like what teams do and is using reasonably at a given time. Not trying to be 100% certain. Fangraphs FV scores are essentially the equivalent of the projections on sites like this (e.g Mayer is a 55 FV on Fangraphs and a 5.5 here), not sure what the difference is that you're referring to. They also just take it a step further and quantify what those values translate to in terms of $. It doesn't have to do with their thoughts on floor/ceiling of a player though, they simply aren't providing those. If you set a player's floor as nothing at the major league level you can't assign future value. |
|
|
|
Post by scottysmalls on Dec 23, 2021 14:13:19 GMT -5
Fangraphs FV scores are essentially the equivalent of the projections on sites like this (e.g Mayer is a 55 FV on Fangraphs and a 5.5 here), not sure what the difference is that you're referring to. They also just take it a step further and quantify what those values translate to in terms of $. It doesn't have to do with their thoughts on floor/ceiling of a player though, they simply aren't providing those. If you set a player's floor as nothing at the major league level you can't assign future value. What? That's absolutely not true. We don't need to restate what floor is for the 100th time, but future value is based on projection which is not the same thing as a player's floor. You really think Fangraphs sees every 40 FV prospect's floor as generating some value at the major league level? |
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Dec 23, 2021 18:25:14 GMT -5
"Floor" and "ceiling" are terms that have generally accepted meanings. You are describing that places evaluate based on those concepts differently, but they're all starting with the same definitions of those concepts, so I really disagree with that premise of your argument. Eric Longenhagen, Jim Callis, and Ben Badler are all basically going to say the same thing if you ask them "what do you mean when you talk about a prospect's 'floor'?" What they may not agree about is what Player X's floor is. I think this is devolving into a semantics tangent, so I'll let that go. But just keep this in mind the next time you're describing a player's "floor" and everyone thinks you're crazy. You can start with a disagreement about what a player's floor is, sure, but that's only even a useful discussion if you agree what a floor is, right? And from there, you can disagree about what to do with that information. But again, to have a discussion that is even worthwhile, you kind of have to agree about what you're talking about. What is that meaning? By your own words you basically said you don't think most players have a floor. That's basically what prospect sites do, focus only on upside and ceiling. Scouting reports have multiple ceilings, never any floor projections. If that's your point, that's fine. I'm looking at this from Blooms point of view, the Red Sox, not people ranking prospects. You can't judge how Bill Belichick grades prospects by looking at how Mel Kiper or Todd McShay grade them. If Bloom looks at our system and sees two up and down guys and a bunch of lottery tickets I don't think he's a good GM. That's the Ben Cherington approach. Good GMs are much better than that. No ones perfect, yet guys like DD have a long history of knowing talent. Which guys are building blocks and which are sell high guys. Do you agree with this? "Floor is the minimum reasonably expected from a player while ceiling is plausible upside potential. The key words being "reasonable" and "plausible". Someone wanting to debate me on this will contented everyone's floor is zero with infinity as a ceiling. Let's use some common sense and frame exceptations accordingly." If Fangraphs can look at our system and apply future value to the Red Sox, how isn't it different than what your saying? They aren't going to project zero value for a guy like Mayer. I feel this is much more like what teams do and is using reasonably at a given time. Not trying to be 100% certain. I'm going to drop it at this point, but your entire first paragraph is wrong. I never said "most players don't have a floor." I said most players don't have what you randomly are calling a "floor" even though that's not how anyone else at all uses the term. And no, prospect sites do not only focus on upside and ceiling - that's absolute nonsense. The general concept that you are somehow not getting is pretty simple. There is "floor," "ceiling" and "projection." You appear to be conflating parts of "projection" with "floor." Triston Casas has a floor of an up-and-down guy. He's got the ceiling of a perennial All-Star type who contends for some MVPs perhaps. His projection is a good power bat in the middle of a lineup, an above-average regular who probably makes some all-star teams. Evaluating him as a prospect takes all of these things into account, applies some element of risk, and so forth. The floor piece is worth knowing because when you look at, say, a Mayer, his floor is maybe a shade below that but only because he's so far away (and I'm being conservative here having not seen him). That's valuable! His ceiling is obviously a top-end MLB shortstop with above-average-to-plus everything save for speed. He also projects to be an above-average regular at this point, but his evaluation also bakes in the high element of risk because of how far away he is. The ranking of he and Casas is something of a toss-up because it depends on how you evaluate those elements of floor, ceiling, projection, and risk, and two very educated people may not necessarily think of it exactly the same way. Now, do we usually talk about floor with guys who are only even role 45 projections? No because what's the point? But that's part of the evaluation. We just don't spend a lot of time on, say, Binelas might just be Hudson Potts because we all get that. That's about as simply as I can break it down. As I said, you're obviously not going to get this if you can't grasp this post, so I'm going to stop presuming the conversation continues to be futile. |
|
|
|
Post by freddysthefuture2003 on Dec 23, 2021 18:32:44 GMT -5
What is that meaning? By your own words you basically said you don't think most players have a floor. That's basically what prospect sites do, focus only on upside and ceiling. Scouting reports have multiple ceilings, never any floor projections. If that's your point, that's fine. I'm looking at this from Blooms point of view, the Red Sox, not people ranking prospects. You can't judge how Bill Belichick grades prospects by looking at how Mel Kiper or Todd McShay grade them. If Bloom looks at our system and sees two up and down guys and a bunch of lottery tickets I don't think he's a good GM. That's the Ben Cherington approach. Good GMs are much better than that. No ones perfect, yet guys like DD have a long history of knowing talent. Which guys are building blocks and which are sell high guys. Do you agree with this? "Floor is the minimum reasonably expected from a player while ceiling is plausible upside potential. The key words being "reasonable" and "plausible". Someone wanting to debate me on this will contented everyone's floor is zero with infinity as a ceiling. Let's use some common sense and frame exceptations accordingly." If Fangraphs can look at our system and apply future value to the Red Sox, how isn't it different than what your saying? They aren't going to project zero value for a guy like Mayer. I feel this is much more like what teams do and is using reasonably at a given time. Not trying to be 100% certain. I'm going to drop it at this point, but your entire first paragraph is wrong. I never said "most players don't have a floor." I said most players don't have what you randomly are calling a "floor" even though that's not how anyone else at all uses the term. And no, prospect sites do not only focus on upside and ceiling - that's absolute nonsense. The general concept that you are somehow not getting is pretty simple. There is "floor," "ceiling" and "projection." You appear to be conflating parts of "projection" with "floor." As I said, you're obviously not going to get this, so I'm going to stop. I love that we've officially hit the point in the thread where Chris was like, "Ya know, Christmas time just isn't the time of year to have an aneurysm." |
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Dec 24, 2021 10:34:39 GMT -5
If you set a player's floor as nothing at the major league level you can't assign future value. What? That's absolutely not true. We don't need to restate what floor is for the 100th time, but future value is based on projection which is not the same thing as a player's floor. You really think Fangraphs sees every 40 FV prospect's floor as generating some value at the major league level? Fangraphs has a cutoff on future projections if I remember right it’s either 45+ or 50. They wouldn't assign any value to a grade 40 prospect, it's why I used Mayer they certainly would with him. |
|
|
|
Post by incandenza on Dec 24, 2021 10:49:29 GMT -5
What? That's absolutely not true. We don't need to restate what floor is for the 100th time, but future value is based on projection which is not the same thing as a player's floor. You really think Fangraphs sees every 40 FV prospect's floor as generating some value at the major league level? Fangraphs has a cutoff on future projections if I remember right it’s either 45+ or 50. They wouldn't assign any value to a grade 40 prospect, it's why I used Mayer they certainly would with him. They assign a value of $2 million for 40 FV batters amd $1 million for 40 FV pitchers. They also assign a value of $500K for 35+ FV prospects.
|
|
|
|
Post by julyanmorley on Dec 24, 2021 15:18:55 GMT -5
Fangraphs has a cutoff on future projections if I remember right it’s either 45+ or 50. They wouldn't assign any value to a grade 40 prospect, it's why I used Mayer they certainly would with him. They assign a value of $2 million for 40 FV batters amd $1 million for 40 FV pitchers. They also assign a value of $500K for 35+ FV prospects.
Their model fails a pretty basic sanity check - it says that lots of draft picks aren't even worth their bonus. |
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Dec 27, 2021 13:15:46 GMT -5
What is that meaning? By your own words you basically said you don't think most players have a floor. That's basically what prospect sites do, focus only on upside and ceiling. Scouting reports have multiple ceilings, never any floor projections. If that's your point, that's fine. I'm looking at this from Blooms point of view, the Red Sox, not people ranking prospects. You can't judge how Bill Belichick grades prospects by looking at how Mel Kiper or Todd McShay grade them. If Bloom looks at our system and sees two up and down guys and a bunch of lottery tickets I don't think he's a good GM. That's the Ben Cherington approach. Good GMs are much better than that. No ones perfect, yet guys like DD have a long history of knowing talent. Which guys are building blocks and which are sell high guys. Do you agree with this? "Floor is the minimum reasonably expected from a player while ceiling is plausible upside potential. The key words being "reasonable" and "plausible". Someone wanting to debate me on this will contented everyone's floor is zero with infinity as a ceiling. Let's use some common sense and frame exceptations accordingly." If Fangraphs can look at our system and apply future value to the Red Sox, how isn't it different than what your saying? They aren't going to project zero value for a guy like Mayer. I feel this is much more like what teams do and is using reasonably at a given time. Not trying to be 100% certain. I'm going to drop it at this point, but your entire first paragraph is wrong. I never said "most players don't have a floor." I said most players don't have what you randomly are calling a "floor" even though that's not how anyone else at all uses the term. And no, prospect sites do not only focus on upside and ceiling - that's absolute nonsense. The general concept that you are somehow not getting is pretty simple. There is "floor," "ceiling" and "projection." You appear to be conflating parts of "projection" with "floor." Triston Casas has a floor of an up-and-down guy. He's got the ceiling of a perennial All-Star type who contends for some MVPs perhaps. His projection is a good power bat in the middle of a lineup, an above-average regular who probably makes some all-star teams. Evaluating him as a prospect takes all of these things into account, applies some element of risk, and so forth. The floor piece is worth knowing because when you look at, say, a Mayer, his floor is maybe a shade below that but only because he's so far away (and I'm being conservative here having not seen him). That's valuable! His ceiling is obviously a top-end MLB shortstop with above-average-to-plus everything save for speed. He also projects to be an above-average regular at this point, but his evaluation also bakes in the high element of risk because of how far away he is. The ranking of he and Casas is something of a toss-up because it depends on how you evaluate those elements of floor, ceiling, projection, and risk, and two very educated people may not necessarily think of it exactly the same way. Now, do we usually talk about floor with guys who are only even role 45 projections? No because what's the point? But that's part of the evaluation. We just don't spend a lot of time on, say, Binelas might just be Hudson Potts because we all get that. That's about as simply as I can break it down. As I said, you're obviously not going to get this if you can't grasp this post, so I'm going to stop presuming the conversation continues to be futile. In Casas profile their isn't a floor listed Chris, we only know this because you told me. Now you can say it's in his grade, yet no one ever lists floor. I'm highly confused because you said Jimed was right with his 10% and 90% comments and overall I agree. Yet that means projections for floor and ceiling, not literal floor and projected ceiling. |
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Dec 27, 2021 13:20:46 GMT -5
They assign a value of $2 million for 40 FV batters amd $1 million for 40 FV pitchers. They also assign a value of $500K for 35+ FV prospects.
Their model fails a pretty basic sanity check - it says that lots of draft picks aren't even worth their bonus. Why isn't that exactly what happens? Basically out of every four batters you'll get one level 40 to give you 1 bwar and for every 8 pitchers. They base their model on past results, it's actually a very sane way of looking at it. Even if it has a bunch of issues. |
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Dec 27, 2021 16:03:16 GMT -5
I'm going to drop it at this point, but your entire first paragraph is wrong. I never said "most players don't have a floor." I said most players don't have what you randomly are calling a "floor" even though that's not how anyone else at all uses the term. And no, prospect sites do not only focus on upside and ceiling - that's absolute nonsense. The general concept that you are somehow not getting is pretty simple. There is "floor," "ceiling" and "projection." You appear to be conflating parts of "projection" with "floor." Triston Casas has a floor of an up-and-down guy. He's got the ceiling of a perennial All-Star type who contends for some MVPs perhaps. His projection is a good power bat in the middle of a lineup, an above-average regular who probably makes some all-star teams. Evaluating him as a prospect takes all of these things into account, applies some element of risk, and so forth. The floor piece is worth knowing because when you look at, say, a Mayer, his floor is maybe a shade below that but only because he's so far away (and I'm being conservative here having not seen him). That's valuable! His ceiling is obviously a top-end MLB shortstop with above-average-to-plus everything save for speed. He also projects to be an above-average regular at this point, but his evaluation also bakes in the high element of risk because of how far away he is. The ranking of he and Casas is something of a toss-up because it depends on how you evaluate those elements of floor, ceiling, projection, and risk, and two very educated people may not necessarily think of it exactly the same way. Now, do we usually talk about floor with guys who are only even role 45 projections? No because what's the point? But that's part of the evaluation. We just don't spend a lot of time on, say, Binelas might just be Hudson Potts because we all get that. That's about as simply as I can break it down. As I said, you're obviously not going to get this if you can't grasp this post, so I'm going to stop presuming the conversation continues to be futile. In Casas profile their isn't a floor listed Chris, we only know this because you told me. Now you can say it's in his grade, yet no one ever lists floor. Right, it's in his grade on the front page of the website. Not sure what "no one ever lists floor" means or adds.I'm highly confused because you said Jimed was right with his 10% and 90% comments and overall I agree. Yet that means projections for floor and ceiling, not literal floor and projected ceiling. Not sure what's confusing about this.Responses, to the extent I have any, above in red. |
|
|
|
Post by julyanmorley on Dec 27, 2021 17:05:46 GMT -5
Their model fails a pretty basic sanity check - it says that lots of draft picks aren't even worth their bonus. Why isn't that exactly what happens? Basically out of every four batters you'll get one level 40 to give you 1 bwar and for every 8 pitchers. They base their model on past results, it's actually a very sane way of looking at it. Even if it has a bunch of issues. The draft is an elaborate salary suppression scheme. We can observe teams acting like picks are quite valuable and being eager to sign all their early draftees. The Fangraphs prospect valuation model says that a typical team will find themselves the day after the draft having spent most of their early draft picks on players who aren't even worth their slot bonus.
It's more likely that their model is making a big mistake than every team is acting irrationally and the second round ought to be filled with players either not signing or signing for way under slot. |
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Dec 27, 2021 17:33:00 GMT -5
Why isn't that exactly what happens? Basically out of every four batters you'll get one level 40 to give you 1 bwar and for every 8 pitchers. They base their model on past results, it's actually a very sane way of looking at it. Even if it has a bunch of issues. The draft is an elaborate salary suppression scheme. We can observe teams acting like picks are quite valuable and being eager to sign all their early draftees. The Fangraphs prospect valuation model says that a typical team will find themselves the day after the draft having spent most of their early draft picks on players who aren't even worth their slot bonus.
It's more likely that their model is making a big mistake than every team is acting irrationally and the second round ought to be filled with players either not signing or signing for way under slot. You've said this a number of times re: Fangraphs. Sorry if I missed this elsewhere, but care to show why you think this? For example, the link below values 45 FV players at $4-6M, all the way down to 40 FV players at $1-2M. blogs.fangraphs.com/putting-a-dollar-value-on-prospects-outside-the-top-100/Now, there are some guys on their Board who signed this year for over $1M and they rate as 35+ FV guys, but I'm sure the response to that is "the team signing the player disagrees," no? There's just a disconnect between what you're saying and what I understand of how they value guys, so I'm trying to reconcile that. |
|
|
