The Theoretical Grade A+ Prospect

It also seems like there is way too big of a gap between an A and an A+. Of the A’s I’ve seen you give, I think there have been prospects who have been a step above that level. These are the hitters that got A’s this year, Harper, Brown, Montero, Trout, Moustakas, Hosmer, Myers.Only one (I believe) plays a premium defensive position, or at least plays one well. Would you really want to give the same grade way back when to a guy like Andruw Jones, who for the most part was younger, had better numbers, projected great in CF, as you do to all of these guys? Sure you can say well he would be a high A and the others would be a lower A, and obviously it is your grading scale, but why have an A+ basically unattainable? It would be interesting to look back and see 4-5 or so A+’s given out over the past 16 years and see how they did and how they compared.

Not trying to say anything is wrong with your ranking system, it is yours after all, I guess just personal preference I would like to see A+ given to someone other than Sidd Finch receive an A+.

Like if you had a great pitching prospect, good control/command, smooth mechanics, two plus offspeed pitches and a 107 MPH fastball. Would that not be enough? Could one superhuman skill overcome other shortcomings?

if makeup factors in (which John says it does), then that and position would likely disqualify him from A+ status.

Does that mean that there is no such thing as an A+ prospect at any position but SP, SS, C or CF?

Not that ANYONE thought he’d be what he is—but he’s the one guy who in hindsight closest meets your criteria (though obviously not an 80 runner, and 3rd/LF aren’t a premium defensive position).

A-Rod wasn’t terrific right out of the gate (granted he was 19 when he lost prospect eligibility), and Jones didn’t quite hit the ground running.

But when John wrote "but to me an A+ would mean “this player has no discernable problems or issues to work on at all.” "—well, Pujols came in to the league with no discernable problems or issues to work on at all.

Just no one knew that yet.

John is grading on a scale that tops out at A.

I wrote the (overly) long post in the Top 50 Hitting Prospects thread that got (this iteration) of the A+ discussion going. Thanks for the opportunity for further discussion, John.

I think the key that some are missing is that John said that A+ is a Platonic Ideal – in other words, it doesn’t exist in the actual manifest “world of appearances” (sort of like Helen of Troy – she didn’t really exist but she represents the pinnacle of earthly beauty; or Roy Hobbs, for that matter). So yeah, A is the top grade that a “real person” can attain.

That said, Alex Rodriguez came about as close as you can come—or Doc Gooden or Stephen Strasburg, if you want to discuss pitchers. But even A-Rod wasn’t “perfect” – if I remember correctly, he was never a great defensive shortstop, especially at age 18.

My initial question wasn’t as much to ask “Why don’t you use A+, what’s wrong with you John?!” as it was to ask, “Take any given A prospect – hypothetically speaking, what would it take for them to be upgraded to an A+?” That would be an interesting discussion.

I brought up Mike Trout. He is certainly one of the most well-rounded prospects in my memory, but certainly not perfect. What would make him perfect? A stronger throwing arm and more power. That’s about all. He already projects to hit .300+, steal 30+ bases, walk 70+ times, and is pretty close to Gold Glove caliber right now; combine all of that with a make-up that scouts rave about and you’ve got a great prospect. But his power is still developing and probably no better than average right now; he might hit 25+ eventually, but probably “only” 15 or so next year (assuming he wins playing time,but that’s another topic).

I suppose that’s the rub: There are no sure things, even A-Rod (when he was 18). Andruw Jones looked like he was going to be an elite hitter at age 18 and has been an overall great player but not a great hitter (a very good one, yes, but not great). Mike Trout might end up being Jacoby Ellsbury c. 2011, or he might be Shane Victorino (which is still very good but not great). Bryce Harper could end up being Hank Aaron, Albert Belle or George Bell.

Remember Karim Garcia? Kal Daniels? Greg Jeffries? Most A prospects end up having good careers, but occasionally one flames out (Garcia), gets hobbled by injuries (Daniels), or becomes a merely good player and not a great one (Jeffries). An A+ grade implies a player that is a certainty to be a star, probably a superstar. You just can’t say that about anyone.

I have followed John for many years and greatly respect his perspective. Certainly it is his prerogative to exclude A+ from his grading scale. That said, to me it seems a missed opportunity to distinguish between the potentially great and the potentially iconic.

Few would argue that Jeremy Hellickson (Grade A) isn’t in the same class as Strasburg. Same for Moustakas and Harper. Its not a matter or Strasburg or Harper having 80 tools across the board, rather their potential to be once-in-a-generation type talents.

In my humble opinion, it would be worthwhile for John to selectively utilize the A+ grade to designate that very rare prospect who has the potential to be transcendent and an unusually high probably of getting there. In a given year there may not be a single player who merits this distinction, but why not use it to call out the truly special?

Aside from the debate over whether an A+ rating should be attainable or not, I see another more important issue with John’s description of an A+ prospect. That is the requirement for “present Gold-Glove caliber defense”.

Everything that goes into rating and evaluating a prospect deals with projection, both how his body and talents will evolve, and how his present talents will translate at higher levels. Defense is included here, too. A young shorstop in the low minors can show all the natural ability to be a good SS, but make a lot of mistakes, but his potential to stick at SS still boosts his prospect rating. If you’re not going to allow for projection to come into play at the A+ rating, I don’t think it should come into play at the lower rating levels either.

John mentioned an A+ prospect needing 80 tools across the board, too. He doesn’t specify whether that’s present or projected, but if he means present, then I’d take issue with that as well.

You can shape your rating system however you want – it’s your rating system – but you need to be consistent within it.

I think it’s a bit of a math fail or disconnect. There are 8 or 9 gradations depending on whether C- is used. That’s about 12 percent per gradation. We know within each gradation there may be some at the high end and some the low end. But A+ is taking up a full grade but never used.

Are there no prospects above that 90 percentile? Or are we considering the A+ grade as spanning a smaller percentile? Eitther way is problematic and confusing for most readers.

IMO it would be best to abandon letter grades and use a numerical grade. I still doubt anyone would ever reach 100, probably not even high 90’s. I would probably take one point off Trout for his arm, another for inexperience with stealing and about 3 ticks for power. This would be a 95. My guess is ARod, Griffey, Andruw would be around the same level.
They wouldn’t get 100 but there would be clean separation fro the A pack.

 as players will always come along and raise the bar for each individual skill. And if that is the case there should be very few grade A prospects. Trout, Moore, and Harper the only ones I can think of. These should be the guys you almost make an A+. But it seems too many are given A grades, lumping very good prospects with extraordinary ones.