THE BOOK--Playing The Percentages In Baseball

OK, that’s a good scouting perspective on rookie-eligible talent.

So, if one of these players’ projected WAR=(talent-baseline)*playing time, then isn’t it true that (WAR/playing time)-baseline=a projected rate stat of his talent?  If so, has anybody done that?  Would that be valid to compare to the Top 100 prospect lists?

I’m wondering if all these prospect guys give enough weight to position as they should.  A guy like Montero is listed as a C on that list, and if he does play C with the bat he’s shown so far he’d be a great player, but nobody seems to think he’s going to stick there....and moving should greatly devalue him as a prospect, and it just seems to me, based on most lists I see, that position (or projected position) is taken into account all that much.  Anyone else have similar or different feelings on the matter?

#2,

If people thought Montero would stick at catcher he’d be the #1 overall prospect on almost everyone’s list.  A lot of people think he has a better bat then Heyward and for good reason.  Places are most definitely deducting him for a possible position switch to 1B.

B/2 - On every serious list I’ve seen position is taken into account. I can’t say if each person uses proper position adjustments, but when it comes to a guy like Montero, all these guys putting out lists know that he’s significantly more valuable as a catcher than a first baseman.

Thing is, a lot of it is guesswork. Prospect Guy A might rank him higher than Prospect Guy B because he believes Montero will stick at catcher. B might not be so sure. They might both agree on Montero’s value if he’s a catcher, but since they (and we) don’t know where he’ll end up, they’re making educated guesses based on the player, past similar players, etc.

Montero seems to be the consensus #1 hitter in the minor leagues. He’s at #4 primarily because of his questionable defense that may force him to switch positions.

What is distressingly clear is that the research of Victor Wang and others regarding top pitching prospects contributing less value than top hitting prospects is not taken into consideration. You really have to split this list (or the BA list, etc.) into groups of pitchers and non-pitchers to get a true idea for how the top prospects compare.

*click on my name for link to original thread*

I’m aware they take it into account, I just don’t think they take it into account strongly enough.  Hypothetical example - let’s assume a prospect evaluator doesn’t see him sticking at C.  So he’s either going to play 1B or DH.  If he plays 1B, before taking defense into account, his bat is going to have to be 25 runs better than Posey’s just to make him an equal prospect.  If he plays DH, it’s 30 runs.  Posey’s also projected to be an above average defensive C, but maybe he only ends up being average, so if you call him +0-5, well, at DH Montero is going to have to be a 35 run better hitter than Posey, using Tango’s positional adjustments.  If Posey’s just a league average hitter, that means Montero’s bat is going to have to be huge just to equal Posey - you know how many players have averaged 35+ batting runs over the last 3 years?  2.  Pujols and Arod.  And again, that’s just to equal Posey.  Now, I understand I’m simplifying it - there’s obviously a chance he plays 1B - dunno how his defense is there but it’s a pretty awful positional defensively so maybe he ends up a + defender there, there’s a chance he sticks at C....more factors, it just seems to me they don’t put enough weight into position, BA also had Montero over Posey to the degree that Posey was a “70” (suggesting a class below Montero as a prospect as opposed to just lower on the list, which doesn’t give us the relative differnce between guys) whereas Montero was an “80”.  If an evaluator doesn’t think of Montero as a future C, that’s a HUGE loss of value.  Absolutely enormous - the difference between what Miguel Cabrera and Yunel Escobar did at the plate last year.

Also, Phil makes a good point about pitching prospects which seems like a similar point to mine.  I just don’t think they’re taking position into account accurately, and Montero is just the example I used, rather than an individual I’m trying to make a case against.

re#7

BA also had Montero over Posey to the degree that Posey was a “70” (suggesting a class below Montero as a prospect as opposed to just lower on the list, which doesn’t give us the relative differnce between guys) whereas Montero was an “80”.

I basically agree with your overall point, but you misread the BA report on this part.  They gave the 20-80 scouting score for each prospects best single tool, not their overall grade.  Montero was an 80 for power and Posey was a 70 for something else.

Thanks for the correction.  Well now I’m back to not knowing exactly how much of a difference they think there is between them, for all we know they basically are equal....but yeah, doesn’t change my overall point I guess even if it effects my example.