Scouting: Scales, Roles and Imperfections
This introductory post serves as a primer for scouting and how I write up players with a few reminders at the end. Prospect coverage officially begins Monday with a detailed rundown of the catchers in the Braves system. That will be followed by the initial State of the System post on Atlanta’s player development Wednesday, and next week will wrap up with a rundown of the system’s first basemen Friday, including audio.
Free subscribers will get a glimpse of what they can expect from this newsletter with free coverage next week. Exclusive access to the first pref list, scouting reports, guaranteed access to all positional breakdowns and State of the System posts will start for paid subscribers after next week.
As I mentioned in the newsletter introduction, player evaluation is far from a perfect science. Using 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.
That’s why I’m providing an explainer here to make my work easier to understand once it starts rolling out. I’ll occasionally reference this post in the future as a refresher, especially for pref lists and scouting report posts.
Understanding the scouting scale is the most important part. Without that 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, as I mentioned in the intro, I graded Ronald Acuna 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 Cristian Pache a 60 overall as a plus everyday center fielder with All-Star prime seasons, it’s obviously possible that he ranges to more of a 55 above-average regular if he doesn’t hit enough, or a 65 consistent All-Star candidate if he reaches his ceiling with the bat. 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, Pache’s defense
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
My reports will include:
Hitter - hit, power, raw, run, glove, arm, overall
Observations from that season
Report
Role
Pitcher - each pitch grade, command, fastball velocity, overall
Observations from that season
Report
Role
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. Observations will include anything developmentally noteworthy from my looks during the current season. The report is my comments on the player, which allows me to explain grades or anything else important to understanding the evaluation. 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, such as Ian Anderson’s changeup. 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, such as Kyle Muller’s command. 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 as they come to mind:
I don’t do numbered rankings. What would be considered my “Top 25 Prospects” is what I call my “Pref List.” It will be organized by overall grade, so players will fall under 60, 55, 50 and so on. I probably 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 Acuna, 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 newsletter 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 in my pref list, I either don’t think he’s a prospect (referred to as an org player) or he’s a just-signed teenager with little information, and I’ll eventually get the latter on the list. With that being said, I’ll always happily accept any questions on Twitter about anyone who draws a paycheck in the Braves system (@David11Lee) or in mailbags, which will be announced on Twitter and in newsletter emails ahead of time.
If you ever have a question about grades or terminology, don’t hesitate to reach out.