We have been working hard to get our team prospect rankings out to you as soon as possible. Starting with the Arizona Diamondbacks, the lists will proceed in alphabetical order by city and team name. As we start rolling out the organizational reports, I wanted to give you some guidelines for understanding my ideas and grades, to avoid confusion over why the grades here differ from other publications, even in cases where we may be saying the same thing. Though this will not be an all-encompassing article of my scouting opinions, it should provide the framework for our conversations on each of the team’s prospects.

I want to go through each of the five tools for hitters and the grades for pitchers, and explain basically what I believe are the most important factors going into them. Since some of you may not read this whole blurb, and then ask questions about why a pitcher who throws 95 only got a 50 grade on his fastball, I will admit to one overarching theme: functionality. How functional is that 95 mile-per-hour fastball if it’s straight and the pitcher who threw it has no idea where it’s going? Similarly, what is the use of an 80 grade for power if the hitter is blind and doesn’t also possess echolocation or some other means to hit a baseball?

One other difference for the way I’ll be communicating scouting grades to you is the presence of three numbers on each tool instead of just two, at least for the professional players. Here’s an example. Consider Rick Vaughn’s fastball before he was given his magical spectacles: 35/50/70. The first number is the current grade; it’s fast, but he can’t locate it, and when it does find the zone, it gets tattooed for a home run by a stereotypically douchy slugger. The second number is the likely future grade; he’s still young and not in prison, and he’s played by Charlie Sheen (the star of the movie), so you know it will get better. Still, the current state of the pitch makes it unlikely to be crazy effective, so an average future fastball could be the most likely outcome. Or, if you prefer percentiles, call this the 50th percentile projection. The third number is the ceiling grade, or 90th percentile projection, to help demonstrate the volatility and raw potential of a tool. I feel this gives readers a better sense of the possible outcomes a player could achieve, and more information to understand my thoughts on the likelihood of reaching those levels.

Kiley gave us a great conversion table last year for understanding scouting grades in an objective (though admittedly estimated) context. I absolutely loved the idea, especially because my brain tends to think more in terms of what statistical production a player’s future ability will produce, and then convert it into the more universally used 20-80 scouting scale. Here is my slightly altered version of the same table for hitters, followed by a breakdown of the individual tools:

Scouting Grades in Context: Hitters

Grade	Tool Is Called	Batting Average	HR	ISO	Baserunning Runs	Fielding Runs
80	80	0.320	40	0.300	12	30
75		0.310	35-40	0.275	10	25
70	Plus Plus	0.300	30-35	0.25	8	20
65		0.290	27-30	0.225	6	15
60	Plus	0.280	23-27	0.200	4	10
55	Above Average	0.270	19-22	0.175	2	5
50	Average	0.260	15-18	0.150	0	0
45	Below Average	0.250	12-15	0.125	-2	-5
40		0.240	8-12	0.100	-4	-10
35		0.230	5-8	0.075	-6	-15
30		0.220	3-5	0.05	-8	-20

Remember these are estimates of true talent that we are trying to project multiple years down the road. Please don’t hate on me in two years when a player with a 55-grade power hits 25 home runs. First, why be so mean? And second, scouting grades are an attempt to peg true talent. Even if a tool remains static for years, the statistical evidence of the quality of that tool can vary due to league adjustments to the player, hidden injuries, randomness, etc. Think of it like BABIP and UZR, of which you need a few years of data to know anything about where a player really stands.

Read the rest of this entry »