20-80 pt scale questions
hey all,
i have a few questions on 20-80 scale ratings and would appreciate it if any of you could help further my understanding on this.
i know it's based on standard deviations, 50 +/- 3SD
so my first question is: i often hear a player has a plus pitch, or a plus plus pitch. what score would a plus pitch rate? how about a plus plus?
second question, since the pt scale is based on standard deviations then it should be possible (but rare) for a person to have tools or a pitch rated higher than 80 (1sd=68%, 2sd=95%, 3sd=99.8% if memory serves me right). who would you say has a tool or pitch higher than 80?
thanks everyone!
0 recs |
15 comments
Comments
I think
by lemonjello on Jan 28, 2008 2:07 AM EST reply actions 0 recs
You lost me
Where does it say that the 20-80 scale for prospect tools is based on standard deviations? You can't actually measure the player's "tool" (well, not THAT one, anyway), so I'm not sure how you could assign a grade based on an SD.
Now, you could grade a whole bunch of prospects and then compute their mean and SD after the fact, but that doesn't seem to be what you're after here.
by siddfynch on Jan 28, 2008 2:09 AM EST reply actions 0 recs
hmm
so a player with 80 power has more power than 99.8% of mlb baseball players. because there's still a 0.2% left it's possible for a player to have an 85 for power, etc...
by bk11 on Jan 28, 2008 2:15 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
formal distribution
in order for something to meet a bell curve, the data would have to be grouped and compared, then assigned numbers AFTER it was all together. in reality, scouts assign numbers on the spot.
sure -- you could tell a scout "only assign 2% of players a 70 or above" or something like that, but: 1) i don't believe humans have the capacity to follow a guideline like that (which is why you'd need to group the data BEFORE assigning the grades), and 2) you wouldn't necessarily want every scout to keep to a curve himself, since some scouts will consistently be looking at better players than others.
anyway, i'm pretty positive the numbers don't signify any type of distribution. though it would be interesting to see what distribution of grades certain scouts did end up giving.
by bleedjaxblue on Jan 28, 2008 2:31 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
There cannot be a standard deviation.
10. Average=50
(because it is in incremental jumps of 10 anyway)
But like you said, you cannot actually measure the player's tool, and there's some error associated with the score.
Say you developed a test in order to measure for this tool, BA as a measure for "Hitting for average"
X ( their test score) (For example .300)
T= (= their true ability, maybe they are only a .280 hitter)
E= (= error in your measure, in this case it would be .2)
Unfortunately you break a bunch of assumptions in classical test theory in constructing this measure. C'est la vie.
by cubsfan2883 on Jan 28, 2008 3:21 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I think
40 = fringe
50 = average
60 = plus
70 = plus plus
80 = "off the charts"
by phuturephillies on Jan 28, 2008 2:20 AM EST reply actions 0 recs
Quote from BA handbook 2007
80 - Outstanding [plus-plus-plus?]
70 - Well-above average [plus-plus]
60 - Above average [plus]
50 - Major league average
40 - Below-average
30 - Well-below-average
20 - Poor
I think the original usage of the scientific 20-80 scale may have been based on standard deviations, but that's never been the case with scouting (at least to the best of my knowledge).
by aCone419 on Jan 28, 2008 2:35 AM EST reply actions 0 recs
LOL
Bingo!
I realize we are a community of statheads and roto geeks but if you think scouts give two strokes and a squirt about "standard deviation" you are losing touch.
by HuskerBob on Jan 28, 2008 2:35 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Standard deviations
by fargocraig1971 on Jan 28, 2008 10:05 AM EST reply actions 0 recs
50
Also, with respect to prospects, usually there are two scales that are graded - current and projected. Not that the site has been active for a couple of years, but calleaguers.com had good examples of this in its scouting reports.
by Brickhaus on Jan 28, 2008 11:20 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I stumbled across the calleague site
For laughs, everyone else guess the prospect .."Power arm was best on a position player in league gives him a legit chance on bump if bat doesn't work out."
by Yoda on Jan 28, 2008 1:43 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Its based off a Normal Distribution
It's generally accepted that the legendary Branch Rickey devised the universally used 20-80 scouting scale. The actual origin of the scale is a bit of a mystery, but some believe it's based on a scientific scale used in some fields that revolves around a median (in this case 50), and three standard deviations above (60, 70, 80) and below (40, 30, 20). What does that have to do with organizational rankings? Not much, unless you're a scouting dork like me. As opposed to being completely subjective here, I went about the task of trying to actually quantify the rankings.
by Kanst42 on Jan 29, 2008 11:05 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Actually
by Dfarth on Jan 28, 2008 10:25 AM EST reply actions 0 recs
I think you all are trying to read...
It's my understanding when grading a prospect, you rate their tools against what the average MLB player does. Then you use OFP (overall future projection) to get a general idea of what he might end up at.
Here is a link I was discussing it with a scout on the Phillies board. I probably shouldn't have put McKamey's stuff up there but I can't edit them out now.
http://www.forums.mlb.com/n/pfx/forum.aspx?webtag=ml-phillies&nav=messages&msg=60367.39
by jfish26101 on Jan 28, 2008 3:05 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
Your thinking about it wrong
by Kanst42 on Jan 29, 2008 11:07 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

by 









