Discussion: The Value of Comparisons

If I want to project a player I prefer to come up with statistical ceilings, floors and expected production and to provide specific analysis of qualitative risks, etc.

As most people use comps they tend to blur the projection because they don’t precisely define what they are comparing and what they are not.

A good, recent example of the tendency to blur with comps might be Yu Darvish, whom drew comps with other Japanese League pitchers. There was a comparison to be made based on workload and the approach of hitters but of course there were many things that weren’t readily comparable; Size, arm strength, fluidity of motion, control, age, command, etc.

At the beginning of my studies of prospecting comps were any easy way to understand the skillset and potential of a player, but now that I’ve learned more I want to hear more about specific attributes rather than just a be-all end-all player comparison. Comparisons are fun and I think they have their place, but they’re never perfect, and I think they’re more useful in football and basketball draft prospects who are easier to project.

If one was to compare a prospect to, lets say, Mike Cameron (a very common comp for a African-American centerfielder with contact issues), I would prefer to hear the type of hitter, rather than comparing two names. For example, a .240/.340/.440 hitter with good defense and stolen bases.

I think comps are very useful in the preliminary stages of player assessment. In a sense, it sets a frame of reference as a starting point. It gives a baseline for tools and/or performance instead of starting with a blank slate. Then you build upon or detract from the specifics within the comp. The pitfalls of comps come when expectations enter the equation and when a prospect is deemed a failure when he detracts from the player with whom he was compared.

Dustin Pedroia’s tools… immediately you get the image of a hard-nosed gamer. So when you hear Cory Spangenberg being compared to Pedroia, you have a nice starting point for assessment. It’s the broad strokes of the type of player he is. Then you can focus on Spangenberg’s intricacies.

As for performance comps, I believe these are best used as a sort of shorthand language amongst baseball enthusiasts. Simply, saying a prospect has the ability to put up Adam Dunn-type numbers easily conveys tons of stats in only a few short words, as opposed to saying that same prospect has potential for 40 homeruns, 100 walks, 100 strikeouts, etc.

So, as long as comps aren’t used retrospectively to evaluate whether a prospect conformed to his comp, they’re pretty much a convenient way to convey thoughts on a player.

but people get too worked up about them.
Keith Law compared Matt Szczur to Juan Pierre and Cub fans flipped out about it because they think Szczur can hit 8-10 more homers a year.
I like to look at minor league avg/obp/slg line, then subjectively adjust based on walk rates, strikeout rates, iso, babip, and SB/CS to come up with a comp. It’s fun for me, but I don’t get all worked up about it.

Is that some people use comps to compare skill sets/tools. Others use comps to compare body types (classic example of that was Dominic Brown to Darryl Strawberry). Without the context of what the comp truly means, things can get blown way out of proportion very quickly.

I think they’re good…if they weren’t good, why would teams do them? They play a role but only within the right context.

So many of the writers we read for prospect news say they don’t like to make comps and I think part of the reason is that many fans are stupid. They’d read a Rendon/Longoria comp as, “OMGOMGOMG…Rendon is the next Longoria!!!!!” because a lot of people are, well, stupid.

I think it is downright silly to expect that two people should be the same type of baseball player because they happen to be shaped similarly or have the same foot speed, arm strength, etc. There’s a lot more to it than that.