Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst ... 234
Results 61 to 78 of 78

Thread: FG top 100

  1. #61
    Arbitration Eligible
    Join Date
    Aug 2017
    Posts
    3,341
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    68
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    1,138
    Thanked in
    753 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Enscheff View Post
    Wrong. Completely and utterly wrong.

    A FV 80 PROSPECT IS NOT AN 80 GRADE HITTER

    Until this misunderstanding is cleared up there is no point in discussing the topic further.
    One point I do think should be addressed is the fact that you laid out the 120+ million dollar = 80 FV framework while the article you linked didn't state that and put a 112 million dollar figure for a 70 FV hitting prospect. Are you suggesting that the value delta between the worst possible 80 FV and the best possible 70 FV prospect is only 8 million dollars?

    This is one of your points that is a little confusing to me. The other is the distinction you make between an 80 grade prospect and an 80 grade major leaguer. I understand that a prospect comes with additional risk that a major leaguer doesn't, but if the distinction is meaningful then what exactly does an 80 FV prospect represent? Is an 80 grade major leaguer a player in the 99.7th percentile of the league while an 80 grade prospect is a 99.7th percentile player in the minor leagues? If so, does that mean that, by definition, at least a few 80 grade prospects have to exist every year?

    I'm seriously asking, because I think both you and Metaphysicist bring up some valid, yet contradictory, points.

  2. The Following User Says Thank You to BeanieAntics For This Useful Post:

    jpx7 (02-13-2020)

  3. #62
    It's OVER 5,000!
    Join Date
    Jun 2016
    Posts
    6,111
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    251
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    1,066
    Thanked in
    822 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by BeanieAntics View Post
    One point I do think should be addressed is the fact that you laid out the 120+ million dollar = 80 FV framework while the article you linked didn't state that and put a 112 million dollar figure for a 70 FV hitting prospect. Are you suggesting that the value delta between the worst possible 80 FV and the best possible 70 FV prospect is only 8 million dollars?

    This is one of your points that is a little confusing to me. The other is the distinction you make between an 80 grade prospect and an 80 grade major leaguer. I understand that a prospect comes with additional risk that a major leaguer doesn't, but if the distinction is meaningful then what exactly does an 80 FV prospect represent? Is an 80 grade major leaguer a player in the 99.7th percentile of the league while an 80 grade prospect is a 99.7th percentile player in the minor leagues? If so, does that mean that, by definition, at least a few 80 grade prospects have to exist every year?

    I'm seriously asking, because I think both you and Metaphysicist bring up some valid, yet contradictory, points.

    I didn't find the FG article cited here to be particularly clear.

    FV is a projection. A Major league grade is a present evaluation of major league tools. That's not hard to follow.

    But I thought it very much did imply that an 80 FV implied a certain amount confidence that the prospect would eventually grade out as an 80 at MLB level. Subject of course to all of the risk that goes with any projection.

    ..........

    I thought the surplus value calculations were actually a completely different set of figures that were reverse engineered from the performance of past prospects by FV grade.

    Basically stating that the field of 50 FV prospects generated on average a certain amount of war, which when projected over 6 years of control yielded a certain amount of surplus value (in the average case).

    ...........

    Because there have been no 80 FV prospects in the past, there is no data to reverse engineer to arrive at a theoretical surplus value calculation.

  4. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Southcack77 For This Useful Post:

    jpx7 (02-13-2020), Metaphysicist (02-14-2020)

  5. #63
    It's OVER 5,000!
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    18,622
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    32
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    6,195
    Thanked in
    3,667 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by BeanieAntics View Post
    One point I do think should be addressed is the fact that you laid out the 120+ million dollar = 80 FV framework while the article you linked didn't state that and put a 112 million dollar figure for a 70 FV hitting prospect. Are you suggesting that the value delta between the worst possible 80 FV and the best possible 70 FV prospect is only 8 million dollars?

    This is one of your points that is a little confusing to me. The other is the distinction you make between an 80 grade prospect and an 80 grade major leaguer. I understand that a prospect comes with additional risk that a major leaguer doesn't, but if the distinction is meaningful then what exactly does an 80 FV prospect represent? Is an 80 grade major leaguer a player in the 99.7th percentile of the league while an 80 grade prospect is a 99.7th percentile player in the minor leagues? If so, does that mean that, by definition, at least a few 80 grade prospects have to exist every year?

    I'm seriously asking, because I think both you and Metaphysicist bring up some valid, yet contradictory, points.
    I didnít say $120M. I said $120M+. Meaning I donít know what 3 standard deviations from the mean is, but I know itís more than $120M.

    The rest of your post is restating points Iíve already written in this thread.

    There is nothing really debatable. FG created a system to measure surplus value for prospects, and tried to map it back to the 20-80 scouting scale because thatís a Familiar scale in prospect circles.

    Whether or not that mapping was a good idea, or if Wander really projects to $120M+ in surplus value is certainly open for debate. Whatís not open for debate is this misconception that FG is calling Wander the next 7+ win 80 grade player.

    So again...since folks still canít seem to grasp it...

    A FV 80 prospect is not the same thing as a grade 80 player, no matter how hard that is for some to comprehend.
    Last edited by Enscheff; 02-13-2020 at 09:01 PM.

  6. #64
    "What is a clvclv"
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    Nebo, NC
    Posts
    6,947
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    3,919
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    1,741
    Thanked in
    1,161 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Enscheff View Post
    I didn’t say $120M. I said $120M+. Meaning I don’t know what 3 standard deviations from the mean is, but I know it’s more than $120M.

    The rest of your post is restating points I’ve already written in this thread.

    There is nothing really debatable. FG created a system to measure surplus value for prospects, and tried to map it back to the 20-80 scouting scale because that’s a Familiar scale in prospect circles.

    Whether or not that mapping was a good idea, or if Wander really projects to $120M+ in surplus value is certainly open for debate. What’s not open for debate is this misconception that FG is calling Wander the next 7+ win 80 grade player.

    So again...since folks still can’t seem to grasp it...

    A FV 80 prospect is not the same thing as a grade 80 player, no matter how hard that is for some to comprehend.
    Then exactly what purpose does the system serve?

    As mentioned earlier - possibly even by you - if there are only a handful of 80-grade MLB players in the history of the game (Trout, Mays, whomever you guys want to put that tag on) and prospects have to at least take some sort of hit because they haven't yet succeeded against the highest level of competition that system has to be "broken".

    If Trout's the standard-bearer and is the only 80-grade guy, no one else can possibly be an 80 unless you're certain they're the "next Trout" - if you're factoring in some level of unknown even Acuna's a step lower, and he's proven far more than anyone else has and I'm quite sure no one is willing to put him in Trout's category just yet.

    There are so many variables that can't be quantified that the vast majority of this crap is mostly the numbers crowd looking to provide themselves cover when someone they love doesn't reach their ceiling. "I said he's ABSOLUTELY an 80-grade prospect, but by no means did I ever say he'd turn into Mike Trout". If you're not using the same scale to grade MLB players and prospects, should we assume that if you call someone an 80-grade prospect we should expect them to turn into Ozzie Albies rather than Mike Trout or even Acuna?
    Has there EVER been a statement and question a certain someone should absolutely never have made and asked publicly more than...

    Kinda pathetic to see yourself as a message board knight in shining armor. How impotent does someone have to be in real life to resort to playing hero on a message board?

  7. #65
    It's OVER 5,000!
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    18,622
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    32
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    6,195
    Thanked in
    3,667 Posts
    There are a handful of 80 grade players in MLB at any given time. There were 9 guys just last year who posted 7+ fWAR, and 2 who produced 8+ fWAR.

    The system serves as a way to value and rank prospects compared to the surplus value of known MLB quantities. This allows us to value trades that exchange future value for present value. The fact they decided to attach a 20-80 scale to it is completely arbitrary, and was probably unnecessary. A simple letter grade, or even just sticking with the dollar amounts would have been equivalent.

    Again, for the 17th time now...

    A FV 80 prospect is a prospect projected to produce $120M+ in surplus value after taking into account floor, ceiling, and overall risk.

    A FV 80 prospect is not a player who will become a grade 80 player, nor does it mean they project that player to be the next Trout.

  8. #66
    Connoisseur of Minors zitothebrave's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    DANGERZONE
    Posts
    17,702
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    1,074
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    2,872
    Thanked in
    2,022 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Enscheff View Post
    A FV 80 prospect is not a player who will become a grade 80 player, nor does it mean they project that player to be the next Trout.
    An FV 80 prospect is expected to produce 7+ WAR each year over their first 6 years. That's in fangraph's own article. They're basically saying that somewhere between Mookie Betts and Mike Trout is where they expect this kid to wind up. Because Trout is the only to fully smoke 42 WAR in his first 6 years. And Betts technically hasn't completed 6 years of service time and should beat that with a strong season this year. That's using service years, no seasons, who knows if Fangraphs is that meticulous.

    I don't feel like doing the math to calculate Surplus value on 42+ WAR player, I'm lazy and don't feel like making a spread sheet to calculate it. But I think Meta is certainly more correct and the surplus value is 220+, not 120+. Looking at Heyward's example used present day for his first 9 years is about 48% his actual war, meaning a surplus of 42+ is worth a minimum of about 20 WAR or 180 with the 9M valuation. Of course I'm not really doing the math, I'm just half assing it.
    AJ does all the other things just as well if not better than Mac - zbhargrove

    I don't think Nolan Ryan should be a poster child for mechanics - SAV

  9. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to zitothebrave For This Useful Post:

    Carp (02-14-2020), clvclv (02-14-2020), Metaphysicist (02-14-2020)

  10. #67
    Connoisseur of Minors zitothebrave's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    DANGERZONE
    Posts
    17,702
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    1,074
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    2,872
    Thanked in
    2,022 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by nsacpi View Post
    Mike Trout is an extreme outlier. But I think it is reasonable to work on the basis of a distribution where the best prospect puts up Betts-like production before he reaches free agency.
    but most people aren't Mookie Betts, since 1980, up to age 27, Mookie Betts has the 10th highest WAR. Other guys on that list, Trout, A-Rod, Griffey, Pujols, Henderson, Bonds, Andruw, Ripken, Raines. What you're saying is that every year the top prospect is a hall of fame level talent. Which isn't true. Some years the top prospect isn't that great.

    2015 had Bryant and Buxton at the top.Bryant and Buxton show the 2 edges of prospect valuation and why an 80 grade is stupid. Bryant in his first 5 years has averaged about 5.5 WAR per season. Buxton in his first 5 years has averaged about 1.5 WAR per season. If you said Bryand was Mookie Betts, you'd still be wrong, as over his first 5 seasons (including a short season in 2014) Betts averaged over 6 WAR per season.
    AJ does all the other things just as well if not better than Mac - zbhargrove

    I don't think Nolan Ryan should be a poster child for mechanics - SAV

  11. The Following User Says Thank You to zitothebrave For This Useful Post:

    Metaphysicist (02-14-2020)

  12. #68
    It's OVER 5,000!
    Join Date
    Jun 2016
    Posts
    6,111
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    251
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    1,066
    Thanked in
    822 Posts
    Considering who fangraphs has not put an 80 FV on, I feel like it's possibly designed to drive traffic.

    Perhaps a shark jumping moment.

  13. The Following User Says Thank You to Southcack77 For This Useful Post:

    Metaphysicist (02-14-2020)

  14. #69
    Expects Yuge Games nsacpi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    27,593
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    2,072
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    9,496
    Thanked in
    6,081 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Southcack77 View Post
    Because there have been no 80 FV prospects in the past, there is no data to reverse engineer to arrive at a theoretical surplus value calculation.
    Now we have a data point. Kind of a small sample. Let's see how Wander does.
    I WANT NOTHiNG. I WANT NOTHiNG.

  15. #70
    Expects Yuge Games nsacpi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    27,593
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    2,072
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    9,496
    Thanked in
    6,081 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by zitothebrave View Post
    An FV 80 prospect is expected to produce 7+ WAR each year over their first 6 years. That's in fangraph's own article. They're basically saying that somewhere between Mookie Betts and Mike Trout is where they expect this kid to wind up. Because Trout is the only to fully smoke 42 WAR in his first 6 years. And Betts technically hasn't completed 6 years of service time and should beat that with a strong season this year. That's using service years, no seasons, who knows if Fangraphs is that meticulous.

    I don't feel like doing the math to calculate Surplus value on 42+ WAR player, I'm lazy and don't feel like making a spread sheet to calculate it. But I think Meta is certainly more correct and the surplus value is 220+, not 120+. Looking at Heyward's example used present day for his first 9 years is about 48% his actual war, meaning a surplus of 42+ is worth a minimum of about 20 WAR or 180 with the 9M valuation. Of course I'm not really doing the math, I'm just half assing it.
    Surplus value on a 42 WAR player is close to 200M.
    I WANT NOTHiNG. I WANT NOTHiNG.

  16. The Following User Says Thank You to nsacpi For This Useful Post:

    Metaphysicist (02-14-2020)

  17. #71
    Arizona Fall Leaguer
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    128
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    25
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    51
    Thanked in
    30 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by zitothebrave View Post
    An FV 80 prospect is expected to produce 7+ WAR each year over their first 6 years. That's in fangraph's own article. They're basically saying that somewhere between Mookie Betts and Mike Trout is where they expect this kid to wind up. Because Trout is the only to fully smoke 42 WAR in his first 6 years. And Betts technically hasn't completed 6 years of service time and should beat that with a strong season this year. That's using service years, no seasons, who knows if Fangraphs is that meticulous.
    As others have pointed out, Fangraphs has two different FV scales, one for prospects and one for MLB players. The 80 FV/7+ WAR mapping applies to MLB hitters and not prospects. They definitely shouldn't have used 'FV' for both scales, but it's not hard to tell they're different if you compare any level other than 80 FV on the two scales:




    A 70 FV position player on the prospect chart corresponds to 12.5 WAR in the first 6 seasons on average, whereas a 70 FV on the hitter chart implies 5-7 WAR per season. Clearly they're not measuring the same thing.

  18. #72
    Connoisseur of Minors zitothebrave's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    DANGERZONE
    Posts
    17,702
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    1,074
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    2,872
    Thanked in
    2,022 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by rawwr View Post
    As others have pointed out, Fangraphs has two different FV scales, one for prospects and one for MLB players. The 80 FV/7+ WAR mapping applies to MLB hitters and not prospects. They definitely shouldn't have used 'FV' for both scales, but it's not hard to tell they're different if you compare any level other than 80 FV on the two scales:
    This is assumptive.

    YOur linking things from 2 different articles without context. The first graph is from Surplus Value, the second is from new scouting primer. From that same article. Above the graph.

    "Future Value is a grade on the 20-80 scale that maps to anticipated annual WAR production during the player’s first six years of service."

    From below

    "Please note we are not projecting peak seasons here but rather the average annual WAR over the player’s first six years of big league employment. Sonny Gray peaked at 3.8 WAR in 2015 (a strong 60) but averaged 2.2 annual WAR (50) over his first six years, and we think the latter is a better representation of his profile because it accounts not only for talent but also the ability to stay healthy and perform consistently. Matt Duffy posted a 4.4 WAR campaign in 2015 but has averaged just shy of two wins per season, and again we think that’s more representative of his true talent."
    AJ does all the other things just as well if not better than Mac - zbhargrove

    I don't think Nolan Ryan should be a poster child for mechanics - SAV

  19. #73
    Connoisseur of Minors zitothebrave's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    DANGERZONE
    Posts
    17,702
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    1,074
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    2,872
    Thanked in
    2,022 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by rawwr View Post
    A 70 FV position player on the prospect chart corresponds to 12.5 WAR in the first 6 seasons on average, whereas a 70 FV on the hitter chart implies 5-7 WAR per season. Clearly they're not measuring the same thing.
    This is just wrong, if you read the article on Surplus value and the little notes that 12.5 is the "Present Value" which is a reduction. Because you're calculating SURPLUS value, not value. You're comparing apples and applesauce.

    You're right, they shouldn't have used 20-80 for everything, it's bad.

    But to solve the conundrum of who's right simply go to the list, move your mouse over the FV, and click the link and it doesn't take you to the surplus value article, but to The New FanGraphs Scouting Primer, you won't find that surplus value chart there, but instead the Hitter and pitcher war.
    AJ does all the other things just as well if not better than Mac - zbhargrove

    I don't think Nolan Ryan should be a poster child for mechanics - SAV

  20. #74
    Connoisseur of Minors zitothebrave's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    DANGERZONE
    Posts
    17,702
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    1,074
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    2,872
    Thanked in
    2,022 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Southcack77 View Post
    Considering who fangraphs has not put an 80 FV on, I feel like it's possibly designed to drive traffic.

    Perhaps a shark jumping moment.
    I think this is the likely scenario.
    AJ does all the other things just as well if not better than Mac - zbhargrove

    I don't think Nolan Ryan should be a poster child for mechanics - SAV

  21. The Following User Says Thank You to zitothebrave For This Useful Post:

    jpx7 (02-14-2020)

  22. #75
    It's OVER 5,000!
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    18,622
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    32
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    6,195
    Thanked in
    3,667 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by rawwr View Post
    As others have pointed out, Fangraphs has two different FV scales, one for prospects and one for MLB players. The 80 FV/7+ WAR mapping applies to MLB hitters and not prospects. They definitely shouldn't have used 'FV' for both scales, but it's not hard to tell they're different if you compare any level other than 80 FV on the two scales:




    A 70 FV position player on the prospect chart corresponds to 12.5 WAR in the first 6 seasons on average, whereas a 70 FV on the hitter chart implies 5-7 WAR per season. Clearly they're not measuring the same thing.
    Hey, someone gets it!

  23. #76
    Not Actually Brian Hunter Metaphysicist's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    1,052
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    843
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    927
    Thanked in
    427 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Enscheff View Post

    Thus, by FanGraphs own methodology, an 80 FV means projecting to average 7 WAR per year over the first six seasons.

    Wrong. Completely and utterly wrong.
    I literally posted a picture where they say exactly this. I assume you are not illiterate, so here, I'll post it again for you. The author has helpfully bolded it:


  24. The Following User Says Thank You to Metaphysicist For This Useful Post:

    zitothebrave (02-14-2020)

  25. #77
    Not Actually Brian Hunter Metaphysicist's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    1,052
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    843
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    927
    Thanked in
    427 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by rawwr View Post
    As others have pointed out, Fangraphs has two different FV scales, one for prospects and one for MLB players. The 80 FV/7+ WAR mapping applies to MLB hitters and not prospects. They definitely shouldn't have used 'FV' for both scales, but it's not hard to tell they're different if you compare any level other than 80 FV on the two scales:




    A 70 FV position player on the prospect chart corresponds to 12.5 WAR in the first 6 seasons on average, whereas a 70 FV on the hitter chart implies 5-7 WAR per season. Clearly they're not measuring the same thing.
    I mean, I posted the explanations FG gives for those charts. You can read the articles I linked. They make it clear that FV is one scale about projecting future value. Like, I do not understand why people won't just look at the words FG is actually using.

    The difference is that the first chart is retrospective and the second chart is prospective. That is, the first chart is not a projection. It's not saying what people thought those prospects would do. It's what they did in fact do.

    The second chart is actually telling you what a projection of FV grade is supposed to mean.

    That said, I agree with you that their descriptions don't completely backmap to the surplus value data. This is a valid criticism of what they are doing. But it also kinda makes sense when talking about projections. The pool of 70 FV value players includes both (a) the guys who actually meet that projection, and (b) the guys who fall short. The average of the whole pool is obviously going to be lower than. How to handle that problem is an issue every system is gonna have to figure out how to deal with.

    Nevertheless, these are not different scales. FG already has a scale for present value - it is called WAR. In scouting parlance, this could also be called PV or "Present Value." FV, which obviously is "Future" Value, is a projection about a player will do in the future. You could put this grade on a prospect. You could put this grade on a young player. Because FG is linking it to service time, it would weird to use on a midcareer guy. But the grades are measuring the same thing: what do we expect them to do during their first six years. See here where they put an 80 on not-a-prospect Aaron Judge: Ranking 2017's Graduated Prospects.



    Now, this makes sense given their definition of 80 FV in their prospect methodology. Judge was coming off 8+ WAR in his first season. It is fairly reasonable to project him as a 7+ WAR player going forward. You will note they are also giving a PV rating. This should really make it clear that FV is about prospect projection, and there is not some 2nd untethered FV for MLB players.

  26. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Metaphysicist For This Useful Post:

    Carp (02-14-2020), zitothebrave (02-14-2020)

  27. #78
    Not Actually Brian Hunter Metaphysicist's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    1,052
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    843
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    927
    Thanked in
    427 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Enscheff View Post
    Hey, someone gets it!
    lol

  28. The Following User Says Thank You to Metaphysicist For This Useful Post:

    zitothebrave (02-14-2020)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •