Prospecet value based on FV

[thewupk]

It's been talked about in length in other threads throughout the winter. Well the guys at pointofpittsburgh who have modeled the surplus value of prospects the last couple of years have worked with Fangraphs and updated their model on the FV of players and not simply where they rank on a top 100 list.

I like this idea better because a as we've seen a 50 FV player can be ranked in the bottom 4th of a top 100 list or not at all. Yet the real difference between 75 and 125 is really small.

http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/valui...100-prospects/


Prospects all the way down to 45 FV have value. For a team like the Braves who go 18 deep with at least a 45 FV that is super deep.

[thewupk]

And in case anyone was curious I put the Braves farm at 417 in surplus value. Someone can fact check my math if they would like. I haven't done other teams but I doubt it's close.

[nsacpi]

isn't there a lot of uncertainty in these estimates

[thewupk]

isn't there a lot of uncertainty in these estimates

It's based on what similarly valued prospects have done at the MLB level their first 6 years before FA.

[Enscheff]

It's been talked about in length in other threads throughout the winter. Well the guys at pointofpittsburgh who have modeled the surplus value of prospects the last couple of years have worked with Fangraphs and updated their model on the FV of players and not simply where they rank on a top 100 list.

I like this idea better because a as we've seen a 50 FV player can be ranked in the bottom 4th of a top 100 list or not at all. Yet the real difference between 75 and 125 is really small.

http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/valui...100-prospects/


Prospects all the way down to 45 FV have value. For a team like the Braves who go 18 deep with at least a 45 FV that is super deep.

Really small, as in about a $3.74M (21.68-17.94) difference between the #75 guy and the #125 guy? Or about what my model suggests the difference between the values of those players are?

Fact of the matter is the 75th ranked prospect is more valuable than the 125th ranked prospect...or he wouldn't be ranked higher. How much more valuable? My model suggests he is $3.74M more valuable, and I'm positive the difference in value is greater than $0 as FG claims.

[thewupk]

Really small, as in about a $3.74M (21.68-17.94) difference between the #75 guy and the #125 guy? Or about what my model suggests the difference between the values of those players are?

Fact of the matter is the 75th ranked prospect is more valuable than the 125th ranked prospect...or he wouldn't be ranked higher. How much more valuable? My model suggests he is $3.74M more valuable, and I'm positive the difference in value is greater than $0 as FG claims.

I'm sure there is a difference but again it's marginal. Which is why across several different lists you will see those who are on the back end of a top 100 and on some lists they are not. They are essentially interchangeable. If KLaw ranks a guy 85 and he's not on BA's top 100 but is in a just missed list then I would say they have the same value. At that point it's in the eye of the beholder of who is more valuable. I have no problem with those types of players being valued the same.

And on the opposite end it's clear that overall Top 10 lists are not always created equally. Having a clear and distinct value at the top makes a lot of sense.

[Southcack77]

I'm sure there is a difference but again it's marginal. Which is why across several different lists you will see those who are on the back end of a top 100 and on some lists they are not. They are essentially interchangeable. If KLaw ranks a guy 85 and he's not on BA's top 100 but is in a just missed list then I would say they have the same value. At that point it's in the eye of the beholder of who is more valuable. I have no problem with those types of players being valued the same.

And on the opposite end it's clear that overall Top 10 lists are not always created equally. Having a clear and distinct value at the top makes a lot of sense.

I agree with you. You certainly can try to affix a particular value to a prospect rating slot, but I would not think it should purport to any real accuracy as you move down the chart. It's easy to find the consensus best players and those players by virtue of being consensus players are more likely to succeed. Beyond that, you are talking about guys who have question marks and don't stand out in all areas to all people.

Moreover, their values fluctuate greatly over relatively short periods of time and their ultimate success is often determined by character and injury luck and opportunity. I think there is too much certainty there. What you conclude is that you want the guys everyone agrees are the best and you want a large handful of the guys that people think are very good.