Grade Changes, January 12, 2012
Could he become a star? Certainly. He could also develop into a fourth outfielder who has a long career due to his speed and defense but who never hits enough to justify full-time play.
This is part of my frustration with distilling a player down to a single letter grade. Some "Grade B+" guys are virtually sure things, with high floors. But some are guys who could be stars, or who could turn into nothing at all (Rymer Liriano of the Padres is another example).
67 comments
|
Add comment
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Seems about right
I assume he would have been one of the higher Bs, and is now one of the lower B+s. Intuitively (as a Jays fan), the B/B+ borderline seems about right.
I’m curious though, have you reviewed the Jays top 5 pitchers? I would have thought that a few of them are in a similar boat and might be ripe for a downgrade. In particular, I’d think Hutchison and McGuire are borderline B/B+ guys (which is where you originally had Hutchison if I recall).
by MjwW on Jan 12, 2026 1:10 PM EST reply actions
whatever happened to
The grades with new Padres Y. Alonso & Y. Grandal? I saw listed as straight B’s but in the comment section you said they were A-/B+ type prospects…? Thanks John!
-peter
by PeterF on Jan 12, 2026 3:17 PM EST via iPhone app reply actions
?
I never said they were Bs. They are both B+.
I haven’t reworked the Padres list yet
by John Sickels on Jan 12, 2026 3:38 PM EST up reply actions
good deal
I saw someone else’s accounting of your grades & wondered about it. Sorry I didn’t look it up myself. Thanks again for the clarification.
-peter
by PeterF on Jan 12, 2026 5:57 PM EST via iPhone app up reply actions
great read on gose
http://www.sportsnet.ca/baseball/2011/12/14/gose_feature/
i’m a big believer in gose and think people are over-reacting to the numbers of a player who is still learning how to play ball………he’s got a rare blend of power, speed, and defense……..i think the game will catch up with that tool box in ’12
by Wheelhouse on Jan 12, 2026 4:03 PM EST reply actions
Should also be noted
Sportsnet and the Blue Jays are both owned by Rogers Communications (part of the same operating division), so a grain of salt may be in order.
by MjwW on Jan 12, 2026 4:27 PM EST up reply actions
Regardless
Even a little bit of an improvement in his strikeout rate would be encouraging
by Seal Clubbing on Jan 12, 2026 4:29 PM EST up reply actions
Sure
I’m just saying, with prospect reports you have to consider the source, and this isn’t exactly an independent source
by MjwW on Jan 12, 2026 4:35 PM EST up reply actions
Considering the grade Billy Hamilton received
I think this makes more sense.
"We are all agreed that your theory is crazy. The question that divides us is whether it is crazy enough to have a chance of being correct."
- Niels Bohr
Sorry, unauthorized hotlinking of copyrighted material not permitted.
by Frag on Jan 12, 2026 4:28 PM EST reply actions
Grades
This is part of my frustration with distilling a player down to a single letter grade. Some “Grade B+” guys are virtually sure things, with high floors. But some are guys who could be stars, or who could turn into nothing at all (Rymer Liriano of the Padres is another example).
I feel with prospects, there should be two grades given for the prospect (each on a point scale, probably 5):
1) Potential ceiling for prospect
5 - HoF
4 - All-Star
3 - Regular
2 - Backup
1 - Minor Leaguer
2) Likelihood of being a success (you can define it as floor, or as likelihood to reach ceiling, or distance from the show)
5 - Near certainty for success
4 - Pretty good chance for success
3 - Average chance for success
2 - Below average chance for success
1 - Longshot chance for success
Then, you can get a general grade by adding or multiplying the scores together….
by Requiem on Jan 12, 2026 5:05 PM EST reply actions
I use a 10-point, Reward/Risk scale
10 being highest reward v. highest risk
Then I subtract the reward total v. the risk total and rank based on that score with a tie breaker being higher reward.
It is not perfect, but it is fun ha.
by jaroche6 on Jan 12, 2026 5:16 PM EST up reply actions
If anyone had any clue about what players' ceilings were, this might make sense
Since professionals routinely get it palpably wrong even with regard to major leaguers, I’m skeptical. I’m increasingly moving toward a disbelief in even the concept of ceiling (or at least the concept of anyone being able to evaluate it): prospects are just good or not good, and ceiling and floor are connected, not orthogonal.
Applying the above, I have no problem whatsoever in evaluating Gose as a B, and I question whether he should even be that high.
"We don't want our people to be preoccupied with seminude, crazy men jumping up and down who are chasing an inflated object," said Sheik Mohamed Osman Arus, head of operations for the Hizbul Islam insurgent group.
by PaulThomas on Jan 12, 2026 7:47 PM EST up reply actions
Pure ceiling and pure floor are indeed useless
Every prospect has a floor of never making the majors and every prospect has a ceiling of superstar.
But I do think there’s value in a reasonable ceiling/floor projection - assuming good health - based on their current abilities and the tool projections. That is much more realistic than claiming knowledge of pure floor/ceiling.
Bullpen Banter
MLB Bonus Baby
Follow @Ioffridus
by Jeff Reese on Jan 12, 2026 8:17 PM EST up reply actions
Agreed
I’m talking more about reasonable ceiling projections here rather than pure ceiling.
by Requiem on Jan 14, 2026 6:31 PM EST up reply actions
Isn't this sort of how it already happens
but on a 12 point scale (A+ through D-)? A grade of B-, for instance, encompasses both risk and ceiling, combined according to JS’s internal rubric.
Kila's slash for Apr 20 to May 4, 2011, right before he was sent down: .276 / .344 / .448
by SagehenMacGyver47 on Jan 12, 2026 8:18 PM EST up reply actions
A+?
Has John ever given anyone an A+?
The wind is in the buffalo.
by journeymen on Jan 12, 2026 11:36 PM EST up reply actions
Would this guy have been an A+
Steven Strasburg If you had done a prospect report on him right before he was originally called up what grade?
by abudabi64 on Jan 12, 2026 11:43 PM EST up reply actions
That's fine
but kind of like slash lines vs. OPS, having a couple of grades which average out/add up seem to make a lot more sense than pure grades.
Obviously, you can refer to the grades also if you want a short hand (like WAR, OPS, etc.), but it also helps to see the breakdown.
And in the case of prospects, it seems like it tends to breakdown into mainly two categories. Reasonable Potential and Likelihood of Achieving that potential.
To give an example, why is Andrew Luck considered the best NFL prospect since Peyton Manning? Because he has a fantastic Reasonable Potential (5 = HoF) and a great likelihood of achieving that potential (or a high floor, etc.) (5 = almost virtually certain of being an NFL quality quarterback).
by Requiem on Jan 14, 2026 6:35 PM EST up reply actions
This is much like hockey future's scale
They use a 1-10 that determines the ceiling and an A-F for chances of reaching that ceiling. Always felt that it was the perfect blend. [Link]
The Gangs of Gotham | @NickPugs97
by Pelferized on Jan 13, 2026 4:32 PM EST up reply actions
Ron Shandler Says Hi
His site has rated prospects that way for years ….
I reject your reality and substitute my own.
by WayneCampbell08 on Jan 13, 2026 11:57 PM EST up reply actions
Good to know
Haven’t really followed Shandler, but it’s good to know that others see value in this idea to give credence that I’m not just going down a blind alley.
by Requiem on Jan 14, 2026 6:37 PM EST up reply actions
I don't agree with Gose as a B+
I see B+ as being around the top 50 range and I don’t think Gose is quite there yet. For me he’s at best a back end of the top 100 guy.
http://www.crawfishboxes.com
by OremLK on Jan 13, 2026 6:40 AM EST reply actions
Agree
The tools are all there but as of right now, Gose just has too much trouble making contact for my taste. He doesn’t need to hit a ton because of how good he is defensively, but he’s got to do better than .250 with 150K’s IMO. Right now, I’d say he’s more of an 80-100 guy in the rankings.
by KentuckyPirate on Jan 13, 2026 1:14 PM EST up reply actions
Contact issue is concerning
I respect Mike Newman a lot though and he seems very high on Gose. I think age/league factor especially and the athleticism.
by wobatus on Jan 13, 2026 4:52 PM EST up reply actions
Don't forget...
This year, the Blue Jays brass specifically told him not to bunt or attempt anything resembling a ‘slap’ hitting style because they wanted him to develop his power. Next year, they’re going to give him more options and allow him to work at bats as he chooses, depending on the situation of course. With that in mind, I don’t think it’s entirely fair to criticize his lack of contact. How many more bunt singles would he have had with his speed/LHness that would have improved his slash line?
by allcanadian34 on Jan 16, 2026 3:52 PM EST up reply actions
He's a top 50 guy for me, pushing top 40
He’s not the same player that George Springer is, but prospect wise, I see them very close together. Big upsides, both could be gold glove CF though Gose is probably closer to being that, both could put up pretty nice power/speed numbers offensively.
by auclairkeithbc on Jan 13, 2026 1:26 PM EST up reply actions
you see them very close
so you think Springer is a top 50 guy also?
by blue bulldog on Jan 13, 2026 4:04 PM EST up reply actions
Easily
Bullpen Banter
MLB Bonus Baby
Follow @Ioffridus
by Jeff Reese on Jan 13, 2026 4:12 PM EST up reply actions
not me
unless the guy has an elite bat I will never rate a guy that has zero pro experience ahead of someone that has success in AA.
Gose is a year younger and saw his HR and walk rate actually jump as he moved to AA. Springer has to actually do something before he’s listed ahead of him IMO
by ScottAZ on Jan 14, 2026 12:25 AM EST up reply actions
I do have Springer ahead of Gose
But I was responding to whether Springer is a top 50 guy, and I say easily. Gose is too.
I don’t really care too much about experience. I saw enough out of Springer over the last two years to be pretty bullsih. I like Springer as the more offensive of the two - not that Gose will be poor offensively by any means - and Gose are the better defender. Both have impact potential.
Bullpen Banter
MLB Bonus Baby
Follow @Ioffridus
by Jeff Reese on Jan 14, 2026 1:02 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
Yeah
Both are around 40th overall for me.
by auclairkeithbc on Jan 13, 2026 5:00 PM EST up reply actions
I think Springer can make more contact than Gose
This is just my subjective opinion as we haven’t seen enough of him in pro ball to know for sure, but looking at his swing and his college track record I think he can do better.
Gose, I’m really concerned about because his contact rate is really dragging him down. When I see a guy hit .250 in the minors I start to think he’s going to struggle to stay above the Mendoza line in the majors, which is dangerous territory to tread.
http://www.crawfishboxes.com
by OremLK on Jan 14, 2026 12:46 AM EST up reply actions
yeah i'm with OremLK on this one, also
While i certianly don’t disagree with Gose as a B+, for me he’s much closer to B+ then B- ….if you look at it that way
he’s either a SOLID “B” (high end B) or a modest B+.
So either way is probably just fine for me.
Yoenis Cespedes
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aW9ge8l3jY8
by SteveHoffmanSlowey on Jan 13, 2026 6:45 AM EST reply actions
Two prospects, both left-handed hitting outfielders.
Player A (current/future)
Power:80/70
Hit: 65/60
Throw: 80/70
Run: 60/50
Field: 50/60
Player B
Power: 50/55
Hit: 45-50
Throw: 75/75
Run: 80/80
Field 70/75
Player B is two years older than Player A.
You pick
by Kelsdad on Jan 13, 2026 10:42 AM EST reply actions
You forgot the part where you tell us who's who at the end
…So we can make fun of your scouting grades.
I kid.
But seriously who are the prospects? I can’t think of a single player in the minors I would give the grades you have listed for Player A.
http://www.crawfishboxes.com
by OremLK on Jan 13, 2026 12:28 PM EST up reply actions
I was thinking Harper for A but 60 current run / 65 current hit?
He’s an amazing prospect but not that amazing.
If B is Gose then 45/50 hit tool, 75 arm, and 70/75 field are also too high. His current hit tool has to be 35 or 40 and he doesn’t have one of the best arms in all of the minor leagues.
http://www.crawfishboxes.com
by OremLK on Jan 13, 2026 12:34 PM EST up reply actions
Well ya I do agree with you but it’s not what you and I think, it’s what Kelsdad thinks.
by hrv2010 on Jan 13, 2026 12:36 PM EST up reply actions
It is Harper and Gose, so a gold star for you.
The point isn’t whether who is better, but the differences between them.
Harper has two plus plus tools, two average to slightly above, and one average.
Gose has one plus plus, two plus, one average and one below.
One guy is the consensus slam-dunk #1 prospect in all of baseball, and the other barely gets a grade above “C” and some who don’t think he’s a top 100 player, much less top 50.
The difference between them isn’t that big.
And thanks to Orem for asking the one question I knew someone would.
The vast majority, here and elsewhere, rank prospects on name and recognition factor.
Would I take Harper over Gose today?
Yes.
But there aren’t 15 minor league outfield prospects better than Gose either.
by Kelsdad on Jan 13, 2026 1:51 PM EST up reply actions
The problem
with the approach of “counting” the number of plus tools that a guy has is that all tools aren’t equal. Speed just doesn’t mean that much if a guy can’t hit. That’s why teams aren’t throwing money at Usain Bolt to try and stick him in center. Now this is an exaggeration, but let’s say a guy had an 80 defense, arm and speed but couldn’t hit at all (.200/.260/.310 for example). Despite having GG caliber defense and the ability to steal if he ever got on, that guy will probably struggle to be more than a 4th OF for most of his career. On the other hand, if a guy has an 80 hit tool and 80 power, but can’t field, run or throw he’s still probably primed for a career as a perennial All-Star either at DH or 1B.
by KentuckyPirate on Jan 15, 2026 9:16 PM EST up reply actions
disagree
Have you seen Gose at all in person? He has an absolute CANNON. Easily one of the top ten OF arms in ALL of baseball, majors included. He was clocked at 97-98 pitching as a high school senior.
Defensively he is a stud. Makes good reads, runs good routes, has elite speed. Not much missing from being a annual GG winner.
Offensively I do agree with you, and alot will ride on his emmerging power.
i’d give his current/future something like this:
Power: 45/55 (if this develops into 60 he’s an allstar)
Hit: 30/40 (will never hit for ave IMO)
Speed: 75/75 (one of the fastest guys in the minors)
Arm: 80/80 (gun)
Defense: 60/70 (already a MLB quality defender, could be elite)
Plate discipline: 50/65 (already solid, rapidly improving)
I tend to play on the safe side with prospects, and I see Gose becoming a 240/330/430 type with around 20 HRs and GG caliber defense
by ScottAZ on Jan 14, 2026 12:35 AM EST up reply actions
What is his ceiling?
Devon White? A bit more steals, a bit less power?
by cookiedabookie on Jan 14, 2026 8:22 AM EST up reply actions
Devo
Gose has a little better plate discipline, think 55-70 walks instead of the 30-40 that Devo would accumalate. Other than that, not a bad comp. Gose has a little better arm and I actually could see Gose putting up a few 20-25 HR seasons.
The ave will probably always be low. 230-250 range most seasons.
I’m probably higher on him than most but there are certainly real flaws to his game
by ScottAZ on Jan 15, 2026 11:46 AM EST up reply actions
Let's also note that power and hit tool are far more valuable than arm
http://www.crawfishboxes.com
by OremLK on Jan 14, 2026 12:56 AM EST up reply actions
i actually think this point
is not stressed enough
i think scouts tend to overrate arm a lot as a tool. defensively speaking, range matters a lot more than arm.
by blue bulldog on Jan 14, 2026 1:56 AM EST up reply actions
A truly elite arm is a pretty valuable thing
By the various defensive systems out there, Francoeurs’s arm has been worth 54 to 60 runs in about 6.5 seasons. Since 2005, when he entered the league, only 2 outfielders have provided that much positive value with their range (probably a bit misleading as a few guys are on pace but came up well after 2005, but still gets across the point that a true 80 arm might actually be undervalued by most people).
by nixa37 on Jan 14, 2026 11:52 AM EST up reply actions
That's still (and Francoeur has an elite arm) only around half of what an elite offensive tool can provide
For instance, Adam Dunn in a 6.5 year span from mid 2004 through 2010 provided approximately 200 runs of value with his hitting (some combination of on-base and power).
http://www.crawfishboxes.com
by OremLK on Jan 14, 2026 12:03 PM EST up reply actions
Oh year I wasn't trying to compare it to hitting
I was more speaking to blue buldog’s comment about range mattering a lot more than arm. Personally, I never realized just how big of a difference an elite arm could make in the OF until recently. I figured it was maybe a couple runs on the outliers, but now I’m seeing you can be talking about upwards of a full win in added value for the elite guys.
by nixa37 on Jan 14, 2026 12:25 PM EST up reply actions
disagree
just looking at UZR, but the two best arms saved about 10 runs last year, and pretty much everyone else was 5 runs or less
on the other hand, tons of people save more than 10 runs last year through their range and even more save 5 runs or more
guys with elite range are more valuable than guys with elite arms. when scouts say a guy has an 80 arm, it sounds like it’s as valuable as an 80 range, when that just doesn’t seem to be true.
by blue bulldog on Jan 14, 2026 6:57 PM EST up reply actions
I wouldn't exactly call 7 guys "tons of people"
You realize you can only look at OF, right? Because at other positions a players arm is already being calculated into his range rating.
No one argued that elite range means helps more than an elite arm. My issue was with the characterization of it as a lot more. Brett Gardner was the only outfielder last year who contributed a lot more with his range than Gordon or Francouer contributed with their arms.
by nixa37 on Jan 15, 2026 10:45 AM EST up reply actions
c'mon
give me more credit. i definitely was only looking at OF.
7 outfielders with +10 run range vs. 1 outfielder with +10 run arm
8 outfielders with +9 run range vs. 2 outfielders with +9 run arm
13 outfielders with +5 run range vs. 4 outfielders with +5 run arm
i think that’s really significant. you have three times the number of players who contribute with their range as opposed to their arms.
maybe the way i think about it/word it is not correct. the major point i’m trying to get at, is that scouts “tend to overrate arm as a tool.” i don’t think 70-80 grades for range are handed out three times more often than 70-80 grades for arm. and, if the grade for arm merely accounts for strength and not accuracy, then how valuable is that grade in the first person?
for instance, what about Justin Upton? over his major league career, his arm has been basically negative value, but his range has been elite. i watch him nearly every day, and the numbers pass the eye test. i’d really like to find scouting grades for him as he came up through the minors but i don’t think his arm and range grades were different.
by blue bulldog on Jan 15, 2026 3:25 PM EST up reply actions
I was giving you credit for not thinking 7 was a ton
Just seemed live over the top hyperbole, so my first thought was that you might be looking at all positions.
And yeah, scouts probably do give out too many 80 grades for arms because they focus too much on strength and not enough on accuracy. There really aren’t that many guys who are great when it comes to both. My point was more along the lines of people losing sight of the difference a truly great arm can make. I know I was guilty of it for awhile. Until maybe a year ago, I never would have thought that a guy like Francoeur could have an arm worth just south of a win a year.
by nixa37 on Jan 15, 2026 5:57 PM EST up reply actions
"i think scouts tend to overrate arm a lot as a tool"
Not true, because arm “strength” is only a small part of the eventual rating.
by Kelsdad on Jan 14, 2026 1:29 PM EST up reply actions
I like how player A basically gets worse across the board
Seriously, what prospect has more power right now than they project to have in the future? Is this the Benjamin Button of prospects or something?
by nixa37 on Jan 13, 2026 12:33 PM EST up reply actions
Gose
It is probably unfair to compare Gose to a guy with caeer WAR as high s Mike Cameron, but he certainly seems like that’s a decent comp (without getting into ceilings and floors, as paul Thomas suggests, and I don’t know what orthogonal means).
High strikeouts, walks (maybe a less than Mr. Mike) some power (maybe a little less than Cameron’s, since he played in poor hitter’s parks a lot, but Gose is still young and starting to flash some iso), great cf d usually, speed (more than Cameron even, although young Mike had some speed scores near 8), likely not a great average hitter year in and out. That can be quite a valuable package. OK, I’m Captain Obvious. I forget where I first heard that comp but likely right here at minorleagueball.
by wobatus on Jan 13, 2026 12:52 PM EST reply actions
i think what he means by orthogonal
is that they aren’t independent variables. or unrelated variables.
i could be wrong, but i think he’s trying to explain that ceiling and floor are essentially just percentile outcomes (for example, maybe ceiling = Top 25th percentile outcome, and floor = Top 75th percentile outcome), whereas some people use floor as a measurement of how likely it is to reach ceiling
another way of thinking about it, is that ceiling and floor lie along the same axis, not perpendicular ones?
at least, i think that’s what he means
by blue bulldog on Jan 13, 2026 4:10 PM EST up reply actions
From the context
I understood it as mutually independent and unrelated. So paul thinks ceiling and floor are related. Players are good or not good. I suppose there are guys who one expects to have a 90% chance of making it as a starter or contributer but never being a star (a lot of good field no hit ss may make that cut) and some guys may have a 10% chance of being huge but maybe a more than 50% chance of flaming out completely (unfortunately the late Greg Halman is coming to mind, although I suppose after a couple of years ago his chance of becoming a star seemed even less than 10%).
by wobatus on Jan 13, 2026 5:14 PM EST up reply actions
Mike Cameron is his CEILING in my opinion
Not his most likely outcome. His most likely outcome is somewhere in the fringe regular area.
http://www.crawfishboxes.com
by OremLK on Jan 14, 2026 12:49 AM EST up reply actions
Maybe
Certainly he could flame out. Cameron has had a long productive career. But if Gose had a year with 50 sb, 30 home runs, 10% bb rate and great d , I wouldn’t fall out of my easy chair. Pretty cameronesque, but his peak could be slightly better, if the chance of that is only 10% or less.
by wobatus on Jan 14, 2026 8:55 PM EST up reply actions
Actually,
Cameron has been kicked around as a possible outcome for Springer for a while.
by charles wallace on Jan 15, 2026 1:54 AM EST up reply actions
I think it likely
he is at least that. Great centerfield d, some power, walks and speed at 20 in AA? The Ks may make it unlikely he becomes a star. Tony Gwynn Jr is a fringe regular. Then again tony has great d himself and much better contact ability. :)
by wobatus on Jan 15, 2026 9:27 AM EST up reply actions
Something to say? Choose one of these options to log in.

- » Create a new SB Nation account
- » Already registered with SB Nation? Log in!

by John Sickels on 













