Incoming crotchety old man rant....
Putting an 80 on Franco is asinine and makes me question either Longenhagen's judgment or methodology or both. These grades must be completely untethered from the traditional 20-80 OFP grading process, which makes them misleading at best. Like a
perfect prospect, with 60-70/80s across the board, he could win a batting title, he might win a home run crown, he'll win gold gloves... you know, like Ken Griffey coming up, that guy would still probably get like a 70 because you know, prospects.
An 80 is what you would give to Mike Trout the year before his first MVP, you know, when he was already a 10 WAR player. It's what FG themselves gave Aaron Judge
after he put up 8 WAR as a rookie (they had him at 55 coming into the year)... because that was already his
present value (
link).
Franco is a wonderful prospect, but Longenhagen's own writeup implies Franco may
never develop power,
doesn't have a single present tool higher than 60, only projects to have
one tool over 60, doesn't project as a plus defender, has Cameron Maybin-esque groundball rates, and is still in A ball. Like, his hit tool can be
so good that ultimately none of that matters, but those caveats are the exact reasons you
don't give someone an 80. The idea that his
median outcome is perennial MVP candidate, as his completely made-up "variance" chart shows, is laughable on its face. It reminds me of when BP projected (
link) Matt Wieters to hit .311/.395/.544 as a rookie. Like, stop for a second and think about what your model is telling you.
From
FG's own site:
So Franco, in A ball, is better than Mike Trout was when he debuted. He is equal or better than Mike Trout putting up 10 WAR as a rookie. Laughable. Just makes this entire project look unserious.
Originally Posted by Metaphysicist
Reply With Quote