Another old man rant incoming...
You know, I think I'm coming to understand why you have so many sniping haters on this board. It's been awhile since I've been super-active here, so I thought it was strange, but seemingly everything you post contains at least a few of the same traits:
1) Condescending, as if what you are saying should be obvious.
2) Not really bothering to read what you are responding to.
2) Vaguely tethered to something FanGraphs once wrote.
3) Usually wrong on the merits or details or both.
I can understand why this would annoy people. It certainly annoys me. And I am
myself a longtime condescending stathead, so you should really be my people.
For example here, you have repeated a couple points: (a) 80 FV = $120M surplus value, and (b) 80 grade prospects ≠ projecting future 80 grade players. And you have asserted this as if is either the objective reality or the actual framework employed by Fangraphs. Everything you've said I guess seems facially sensible, but it is all aggressively wrong:
- In terms of traditional OFP scores, point (b) is just 100% wrong. A player is graded on both his present tools/skills and his future tools/skills and then the final score of OFP is exactly what it says, a projection of "Overall Future Potential." If you give a guy an OFP of 80 that is literally you saying "in the future I expect this guy will be an 80 player." That's why 80 OFPs don't ever get handed out (to prospects at least; again, you could easily justify putting that on Mike Trout at 22), but for even the best prospects that kind of a crazy thing to say. Now FG is free to do their own thing, but that the normal scouting parlance that they are referencing (embracing?), and presumably trying to improve upon. If you refuse to recognize this basic fact, you are just not living in reality and should not be expressing any opinion on the topic. Further Reading:
The Scouting Scale
- In terms of fangraphs FV, both (a) and (b) are also 100% wrong. Let's look at (a) 80 FV = $120 surplus value. How do I know that what you are saying is wrong? Because as you (condescendingly) note: "The methodology is literally spelled out objectively for all to see." Here are the actual numbers from
the article you linked to:
So the first, and very obvious point is that these numbers
don't say anything about 80 FV. 80 FV players have never existed. There are no expected WAR calculations for them. There are no surplus value calculations for them. Everything you've said about what 80 FV is just explicitly made up and not in this article. Second, $120 surplus value is actually almost exactly the 70 FV number plus inflation since 2018. So if anything,
the article directly contradicts what you've said. Each move up the rung, 50 -> 60 -> 70 -> 80, is a standard deviation. You will note the value basically doubles each jump:
50: 21M (3.5 Surplus WAR)
60: 55M (6 Surplus WAR)
70: 112M (13 surplus WAR)
80: ?
A similar jump would mean an 80 FV player would have ~$224m surplus value (or about 25 surplus WAR). Extremely different than what you've stated.
The second point is that, elsewhere fangraphs has actually said
explicitly what 80 FV means, and it is absolutely not "$120 surplus value." Here's an actual explanation linked to in the actual top 100 explanation: (
link - The New FanGraphs Scouting Primer). Here is what Fangraphs actually says 80 FV means.
Thus, by FanGraphs own methodology, an 80 FV means projecting to
average 7 WAR per year over the first six seasons. That means at least 42 WAR over six years. That is FAR beyond $120M surplus value. An 80 FV will have already exceeded 13 surplus WAR (equivalent to $120M) after only their
second year. (See Aaron Judge, Mike Trout)
Again, that's FanGraphs own statement about what they said that are doing with FV. That's why an 80 FV on Franco is ridiculous, judging by their own principles. Escheff you are free to construct your own framework around whatever you think makes sense. Make a system where their are 2 80s every year. Knock yourself out, that sounds interesting. But it just incredibly annoying for you pop in add just flagrantly wrong information about the topic being discussed. And it is double annoying for you to be condescending about it.