Suggestion for prospect potential rating system

[jbluestone]

After reading numerous articles and the midseason top 50, i am beginning to think that the rating system is too botom heavy. Just about every top prospect is a 9C, with a few 8Cs and one 10. And yet in discussions people believe that one 9C is way better, or has way more potential then an other 9C. Not too mention that it is very rare to see anything below 8 ( a few 7s here and there). I think that the Rating system should have its top spread a little deeper

10 is a hall of fame caliber
9 is a perenial all star (who if he plays long enough could end up in the hall)
8 is a star who will go to a few all star games over his career
7 is a solid player who could have a couple of all star like seasons over his career
6 is a major league regular but not an impact player
5 is a platoon type major leaguer (or long reliever)
4 is a solid bench guy

etc. Because i think the current rating system really bunches too many guys together.

You might even want to spread it out even more especially considering we dont care about anyone below a 6 or 7 on that list, and odds are there you wont be doing too many updates on anyone that low.

[Markus_ls]

In theory I agree with you - the majority of the scale is not used and not of concern. But in practice do we really "know" enough to make the kinds of distinctions at the top you are suggesting?

[jbluestone]

I dunno, do we really know anything about the future. I just think they need to divide up the 9 category into 2 or 3 differnt levels.

[GoldenEagle]

I like it the way it is. The "old way" with fewer delineations was not nearly as clear as the new way.

[maisany]

I also don't think adding more is necessarily yielding better info. I mean, in "Top XX" lists, shouldn't you really be only looking at guys who grade out between 7 and 10 (though admittedly, far more 7's than 10's). What's really gained by adding anything below that? Do you really want to see a list that lists a 4?

Moreover, as we all know, these lists and the reviewers who put them together are going to be as positive as they can (who wants to see a list of prospects who suck?). Let's face it: whether we like it or not, we're never going to see any lists with any 4s or 5s, and the 6s should be as rare as the 10s. That's not to say that there aren't a lot of mediocre players in the minors, but unless they start publishing lists like "The Middle 100", we aren't going to see their names in print.

[NICK@HQ]

I also like it the way it is. It's useful to me to have those lower numbers rarely used, for you really don't want those guys anyway. So when a guy gets called up who is a "4" or a "3" it really stands out as a big, red flag.

I made up a matrix for my minor league draft this year. I wouldn't go near anyone who wasn't a 7, 8 or 9, and if they were a 7 they had to be no lower than a "C." Did it matter to me that I was ignoring 1-6? Not at all, any more than the school grading levels of A-D only take you down into the 60s.

Now when I read the weekly call-ups, I can safely ignore anyone who is "6" or below and only perk up when I see a "7" or higher.

[DERIC@HQ]

The lists that you see on HQ (top 100, positional, organizational top 15) will rarely contain anything below a 6, but a few 5's did creep up on the positional lists. I would also imagine that the Minor League Baseball Analyst will have some 4's and 3's. The purpose of creating these ratings was to enhance the Daily Callups report and the 2007 version of the MLBA, not so much for the lists.

[jbluestone]

I think most of you are missing the point of my post... basically all i am saying is the range of level 9 players is too large, and that it should be spread out over 2 or 3 levels... or maybe add .5s or something at the upper levels, like an 8.5 and 9.5, but otherwise it seems like too many players lump into level 9 who have very different upsides.

p.s. i stopped at 4 because i figured u would get the point, not because thats where i thought it should stop.

[Markus_ls]

I understood you JB. But I'll say again that I think such fine distinctions between prospects are likely to be more misleading than helpful.

The "science" of prospect evaluation doesn't work at that level of precision. In fact, even as is we could easily see some players rated "9" outperformed by players rated 8 or even 7. I just look for players rated 7 or higher and then investigate the player myself, usually according to role.