Hi, there. Eric here to tee you up for the conversation you’re about to read. Kiley and I wanted to be as open as possible about how we went about compiling our overall top-100 prospects list (and, it follows, how we compile each organization’s list of prospects). Below we provide some broad exposition about how we determine a prospect’s grade, as well as how we’ve reflected on and tweaked our methodology. We don’t necessarily believe the way we do it is objectively correct, but we want you to know we’re searching for the best way to evaluate players, especially as (for better or worse) major-league baseball evolves.

*****

Kiley McDaniel
So, let’s talk a little bit about how we determine an FV for a prospect. First, readers may want to check out this link about the connection between FV and WAR.

We can start with Colin Moran here since he’s essentially big-league ready. Once we get beyond players like that and into lower-level players, aspects of the process become hypothetical and vague.

Eric Longenhagen
We look to current MLB players as statistical baselines for this. We know the average MLB regular produces 2.0 to 2.5 WAR annually. Last year, both Chase Headley and Mike Moustakas were in that range, though of course they got there in totally different ways. We’ll compile every bit of information we can (scouting reports of our own or from people in baseball, any relevant data from the growing pie of player evaluation) and get an idea of what kind of output a prospect projects to have at maturity, then compare that to baselines created by individual players or league averages at a given position and things like that.

Read the rest of this entry »

When publishing our lists — and, in particular, the top 100 — we’re frequently asked who, among the players excluded from this year’s version, might have the best chance of appearing on next year’s. This post represents our best attempt to answer that question.

When attempting to decide which prospects to include here, we ended up with a collection mostly of 45 Future Value players with some 40s mixed in. We’ve separated those players into groups or “types” to make it a little more digestible.

The aim for us here is to focus on guys who we like, but to whom we can’t yet give a 50 FV because they haven’t done enough. Think of them like stocks we are buying. (Or, does that make it insider trading since the measure of success is our own rankings?)

Lower-Level Starting Pitchers
Pitchers who project to be solid MLB starters and who have already proven themselves to some degree in the upper minors tend to be rated a 50 FV or better, rendering them ineligible for this list. The starting prospects here are all lower-level arms and various shades of one type: guys with electric stuff, who have a chance to start, but who face questions about whether they can do it long term. Some are more electric than others and Paddack, for example, doesn’t fit that description: he’s coming off of Tommy John surgery and his best pitch is his changeup. Without surgery, he likely would’ve posted strong enough numbers to appear on the actual top 100.

Edward Cabrera, RHP, Miami Marlins
Dylan Cease, RHP, Chicago White Sox
Brusdar Graterol, RHP, Minnesota Twins
D.L. Hall, LHP, Baltimore Orioles
Hunter Harvey, RHP, Baltimore Orioles
Luis Medina, RHP, New York Yankees
Tobias Myers, RHP, Tampa Bay Rays
Chris Paddack, RHP, San Diego Padres
Cionel Perez, LHP, Houston Astros
Hector Perez, RHP, Houston Astros
JoJo Romero, LHP, Philadelphia Phillies
Jose Soriano, RHP, Los Angeles Angels

Read the rest of this entry »

Read the rest of this entry »

Below is our list of the top-100 prospects in baseball. Scouting summaries were compiled with information provided by available data, industry sources, as well as from our own observations.

Note that prospects are ranked by number but also lie within tiers demarcated by their Future Value grades. The FV grade is more important than the ordinal rankings. For example, the gap between prospect No. 5 on this list, Fernando Tatis Jr., and prospect No. 35, Corbin Burnes, is 30 spots, and there’s a substantial difference in talent there. The gap between Ke’Bryan Hayes (No. 56) and Leody Taveras (No. 86), meanwhile, is also 30 numerical places, but the difference in talent is relatively small. Below the list is a brief rundown of names of 50 FV prospects who didn’t make the 100. This same comparative principle applies to them.

As a quick explanation, variance means the range of possible outcomes in the big leagues, in terms of peak season. If we feel like a prospect could reasonably have a best big league season of anywhere from one to five wins/WAR, then that would be “high” whereas someone like Colin Moran where it’s something like two to three wins/WAR is “low.” High variance can be read as good since it allows for lots of ceiling, or bad since it allows for a lower floor. Your risk tolerance could lead you to sort by variance within a given FV tier if you feel strongly about variance. Here is a primer about the connection between FV and WAR.

Read the rest of this entry »