Organizational Reports

[L-Mets]

I'm getting used to new format for organizational reports. But my biggest concern is the Pollyanna tone that makes nearly every one of these kids sound someone you MUST reserve. Typical: "He could be a stat sheet stuffer with a high BA, 25+ HR, and 25+ SB" But he also could be just another no-miss 19 who never solves AA pitching.

What gives? Could someone from BBHQ explain what has changed -- and why?

[RAY@HQ]

Honestly, nothing has changed except the addition of the couple of new fields/comments: Fantasy Impact at Maturity, etc.

We're only reviewing the top 15 prospects in each organization, so I would expect the overall tone to be optimistic. These are the guys you need to know about, we're not wasting time writing up new ways to pan the hordes of organizational filler guys.

[Derrick@HQ]

I've noticed that the fantasy impact section seems a little optimistic for some hitters, but I like that it opens the mind to the possibility of what COULD be if everything breaks right. I look back at the modest scouting reports for stars like Chase Utley, Joey Votto, Matt Holliday, Robinson Cano, etc. and hope that we won't miss out on these types of players in the future because we will be more aware of their potential ceiling.

[Michael@HQ]

It seems to me that all prospects reviews are by their nature optimistic, focusing on the upside potential. The downside is always "player fails to make adjustments and tops out below the major league level."

At least the BaseballHQ ratings, with the letter portion of the rating, expressly give you an opinion on the probability that the player meets the upside expectations.

[L-Mets]

Michael - the number + letter grade is helpful. But have you guys looked to see if there is any "grade inflation" this year? I checked the organizational reports of 9 AL teams for 2012 and 2013 and found some interesting differences. Small sample size and talent fluctuates year to year. But this is what I found:

* Players in 2012 were twice as likely to get a 9-D rating than in 2013 (24 in 2012; 12 in 2013)
* There were more slightly players rated 9-C, 9-B or 9-A in 2013 than in 2012 (10 in 2012; 13 in 2013)
* There were four times as many players in 2013 rated 8-D than in 2012 (4 in 2012; 16 in 2013)

It's hard to quantify the narrative, and perhaps it's only me who perceives the narratives as more bullish. This perception is even more striking to me as the scores (falling 9s, rising 8s) suggest number of players with higher ceiling is in decline.

Of course, this is a small sample size. But it looked at the same organizations. Makes me wonder if there are new authors. At least, it would seem that for quality control BBHQ might want to monitor is meta numbers for grades to make sure there are no unintentional shifts going on.

[RAY@HQ]

Authors haven't changed, and I don't necessarily think fluctuations in the level of grades handed out is abnormal... especially when you're only looking at a subset of teams. But I'll pass this thread on to Rob/Jeremy. Thanks.

[ROB@HQ]

Authors haven't changed, and I don't necessarily think fluctuations in the level of grades handed out is abnormal... especially when you're only looking at a subset of teams. But I'll pass this thread on to Rob/Jeremy. Thanks.

[L-Mets]

Terrific post, Rob. Very reassuring. Much thanks.