Scouting Refresher: Scale, Terminology, Final Thoughts

On Monday, I unveiled my plans for premium prospect coverage this offseason. On Wednesday, I posted a free scouting report of Ricky DeVito to show what the reports will look like starting Monday.

Player evaluation is far from a perfect science. The scouting scale can also be confusing if you aren’t familiar with it. Having a working knowledge of the scale is important for reading about prospects, as well, because public evaluators use the grades and terminology in their reports and notes.

Without scouting scale knowledge, you’re just looking at a bunch of meaningless numbers and you’re not getting the full picture of the player. The scale runs 20 to 80 with 20 being bottom-of-the-scale organizational players or tools and 80 being elite-level players or tools in the major leagues. I’ll probably never use 20 unless it’s speed, because role 20 players aren’t making it past Single-A. A role 80 player is Mike Trout, a perennial MVP candidate, and an 80 tool is Vladimir Guerrero Jr.’s raw power. For reference, I graded Ronald Acuña Jr. at 70 overall and with 70 raw power when I first saw him with Rome.

Teams and evaluators call their overall player grade different things. I’m labeling it “overall.” It’s what I think the player will land on when he reaches final development. I don’t worry about differing outcomes. As a reader, realize his overall could range a little either way. If I give a player a 60 overall as a plus everyday player with All-Star prime seasons, it’s obviously possible that he ranges to more of a 55 above-average regular or a 65 consistent All-Star candidate if he reaches his ceiling. My overall is flexible. If I’m high on a player, I’ll give him a higher overall than others, and that means I think he has a greater chance of reaching his ceiling. The same can apply for being lower on a player.

Overall

80 - Elite top 3 position player; a No. 1 starter

70 - A top 5 position player; fringe No. 1 starter

65 - Consistent All-Star candidate; fringe No. 2 starter

60 - Plus everyday regular with All-Star prime; No. 3 starter/top 3 closer

55 - Above-average regular; fringe No. 3/high No. 4 starter/impact late-innings reliever

50 - Average regular; No. 4 starter/late-innings reliever

45 - Utility player/platoon bat; back-end starter/fringe late-innings reliever

40 - Bench player; depth starter/middle reliever

35 - Up/down player; up/down pitcher

30 - Organizational player; organizational pitcher

Tools

80 - Elite; perhaps the best tool in MLB, Andruw’s defense in his prime

70 - Plus plus; dominant pitch, consistent .300 hitter, 35+ homers, impact speed, top 3 defense at a position

65 - Differentiates hit and power tools from 60-70

60 - Plus; a strong MLB tool, bat-missing pitch, standout hitter or defender, 25+ homers

55 - Above average; good third pitch for standout starters, valuable contributor, 20 homers

50 - Average; third pitch for average starter, average numbers for position in MLB

45 - Below average; will put “45+” if often flashes 50 to differentiate, serviceable tool

40 - Typically unusable in MLB, can hinder overall profile such as command

30 - If it’s this low and being mentioned, it’s something like catcher speed

20 - Same rule as 30

Miscellaneous

Power means game power. Raw power is his natural ability seen during batting practice. The two sometimes have different grades because a player’s skill to hit or his swing can impact his ability to reach his raw power during a game. Role explains the overall grade, such as an everyday center fielder or No. 3 starter.

Similar to overall, my tool grades are what I think it’ll land on, and consider a small range here, too, for the sake of being realistic. Tool grades are comprised of many factors, such as plate discipline and contact ability being two for the hit tool and a feel to locate a pitch for that individual pitch. Command has its own grade to show the pitcher’s overall feel to pitch, which impacts the overall grade, but command of each individual offering affects each pitch grade.

Teams and evaluators have different rules when it comes to using half grades that end in 5. I use 65, 55 and 45 to differentiate when I feel it’s needed. I’ll rarely use 65, but 55 is common for tools across the board. I use 45 to show that a tool can be serviceable in the majors, more so than a 40, but has enough questions to prevent reaching average. You’ll occasionally see a plus sign next to a grade to show that this tool will flash a half grade higher when all is said and done, or I see enough to think it could develop to that half tick higher. In those cases, I’ll explain my thoughts.

Other Thoughts

The offseason project is being posted in reverse order of my list, but I don’t do numbered rankings. It’s organized by overall grade, so players will fall under 60, 55, 50 and so on. I sometimes subconsciously organize the players within each grade according to my preference, but read more into their future role than where they’re listed. That’s what matters anyway. I know rankings sell, but debating a reliever and utility player between the 10 and 11 spots is a waste of time.

I tend to start conservatively on a player just drafted or in short-season ball until I gain a better understanding of the player. A current example is Michael Harris, who could develop a higher ceiling than I’m giving him at the moment. He just needs more pro reps. This isn’t always the case, though, as I obviously went all in on Acuña, Drew Waters and now Bryce Ball after my first look in Low-A.

Understand that baseball is extremely difficult. Consider how many players are drafted or sign undrafted or internationally each year, and then think about how many are in the majors. If I think a player is going to be a reliever or bench bat, that’s not a knock on them. If anything it’s a compliment because it means I think they’re a major leaguer. The same applies if you’re wondering why I don’t think the Braves have a future ace in the system. I’m not doing this work to spout glory on everyone in the Braves system. I’m an objective evaluator trying to nail down the future of every player.

The players I write about are the ones I think have a chance to reach the major leagues, whether in an impact role or even just a few career games. I consider a prospect to be a potential major leaguer. If he’s not mentioned, I either don’t think he’s a prospect (referred to as an org player) or I’m currently missing the boat on him, which happened once this year because of zero in-game looks. With that being said, I’ll always try to answer any questions on Twitter about anyone who draws a paycheck in the Braves system (@David11Lee).

If you ever have a question about grades or terminology, don’t hesitate to reach out.