New Prospect Grading System?

by Pelferized on Feb 3, 2026 1:31 AM EST

I took the time to adjust the style Hockey's Future uses to grade prospects and tried to apply it for baseball purposes. I am looking for some feedback on some adjustments I can make to the definitions of each potential to make them more accurate.

And if you want to see how I tried to apply the new system you can see for my Mets prospect list.

Traditional Realistic Potential Rating (1-10)

(a player’s realistic potential ability):

10. Generational Talent - a player for the ages, one who can do things with the bat, glove, or ball that no other player would even contemplate doing. Very, very few players will be deserving of this rating, probably one per decade.

Pitcher: Walter Johnson

Batter: Ken Griffey, Jr.

9. Elite Talent - possesses the potential for greatness, a perennial All-Star throughout his career.

Pitchers: C.C. Sabathia, Justin Verlander, Roy Halladay

Batters: Ryan Braun, Matt Kemp, Jose Reyes

8. Middle of the Order Hitter/ No. 2 Starter - players with definite skill that might be just a cut below elite status, but still possessing All-Star potential.

Pitchers: Matt Cain, Jon Lester, Yovani Gallardo

Batters: Mark Teixiera, Rickie Weeks, Hunter Pence

7. Everyday Player/ No. 3 Starter/Closer - players not quite good enough to anchor a batting order or pitching staff, but still possess enough talent to contribute offensively/defend with some authority, give you innings while floating an ERA around the high-3′s/low-4′s, or be your main stopper in the bullpen.

Pitchers: Mark Buehrle, Shaun Marcum, Hiroki Kuroda

Batters: Nick Swisher, Andre Ethier, Asdrubal Cabrera

Relievers: Jonathan Papelbon, John Axford, Craig Kimbrel

6. No. 8-9 or Platoon Hitter/ No. 4-5 Starter/Setup Man - generally speaking, players whose game is defensively-oriented, or whose abilities aren’t quite good enough to land full-time duty, a back end innings eater, or a back end bullpen guy.

Pitchers: Joe Saunders, John Lannan, Livan Hernandez

Batters: Darwin Barney, Yuniesky Betancourt, Danny Valencia

Relievers: Sean Marshall, Johnny Venters, Joaquin Benoit

5. Bench Player/ Journeyman Starter / Middle Reliever - players that are usually defensive replacements, will fill in for injured batters, some have the ability to start a few games in the MLB but are mostly very good minor league starters, or are good relievers but cant be trusted enough at the end of games.

4. Top Minor League Hitter / Pitcher (AAAA) - players unlikely to have long careers in the MLB, but they’ll be recalled when injuries or other circumstances arise.

3. Average Minor League Hitter/ Pitcher - players who will in all likelihood spend their entire careers in the minor leagues.

2. Minor League Role-Player - players who populate minor league rosters for the purpose of populating minor league rosters. Usually never get above the low minors.

1. Borderline Minor League Player - players one step away from the independent leagues.

Realistic Probability Rating (A-F)
(the player’s realistic chances of achieving their potential):

A – All but guaranteed to reach potential - 100 percent metaphysical certitude that the player will play up to his abilities as noted by his potential rating.

B – Should reach potential, could drop 1 rating - likely to reach potential, but may have a hole or two in his game that will keep him from reaching his full potential.

C – May reach potential, could drop 2 ratings - has shown some flashes, but may ultimately not have what it takes to reach his potential.

D – Unlikely to reach potential, could drop 3 ratings - a player who has a chance to reach his potential but is unlikely to do so.

F – A player possessing little potential who has a mountain to climb just to reach the outermost boundary of that potential.

Better or worse than the traditional letter grades John likes to use?

Tweet Comment 33 comments | Add comment | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

why dont you put it into use and make your own prospect list with this type of grading?

that’d be interesting

Minor League Ball's 2010 Rookie of the Year Poster
If you didn't know by now, my screen name is sarcastic

by mathisrocks5 on Feb 3, 2026 8:50 AM EST reply actions

I tried it with the Mets

as I posted at the top, but as long as I get internet access on the bus later I’ll try to come up with one for all of the minor leagues and see how it goes.

The Gangs of Gotham | @NickPugs97

by Pelferized on Feb 3, 2026 9:27 AM EST up reply actions

OH MY

You gave the players way too high grades!! No way are there that many MLB starting quality players in the Mets system.

by auclairkeithbc on Feb 3, 2026 9:47 AM EST reply actions

This is the problem with a system like this

All prospects have the potential to reach the majors, if they didn’t have that potential they would’t be prospects, but what this does is make the last 5 grades obsolete. So while the grades appear high, if you scale everything down (5s to 1s, 9s to 5s). It looks less jarring when compared to what you would expect.

Just have a peak potential and a likelihood rating ignore the various shades of gray in the safeness of a prospect. If you keep the same scale this is what I would do:

Rank players the way you do with a number potential grade and a letter potential, but have two number grades, one or absolute peak potential and one for a “likely” projection. So for Alex Torres for instance
7.4.B

With 7 being peak, 4 being likely, and B being the probability he does’t drop from those projections.

by Navi's_Navy on Feb 3, 2026 9:55 AM EST up reply actions

Well they are still too aggressive

Everyone with a grade over 5 (which is everyone) needs a F letter grade too. Certainly any of these guys could bust….even the top players ranked.

by auclairkeithbc on Feb 3, 2026 10:19 AM EST up reply actions

Well...not exactly an F

As far as having no potential. The problem with the letter grades is they mean two unrelated things…(1) how many spots they could drop meaning floor I guess (2) odds of hitting ceiling.

by auclairkeithbc on Feb 3, 2026 10:22 AM EST up reply actions

I do like the idea of this type of grading system

But I think he needs to go back to the drawing board in determining what those grades should actually mean.

by auclairkeithbc on Feb 3, 2026 10:23 AM EST up reply actions

I feel like to get a nuanced picture you need more than one letter/number pair

You could have one pitcher with amazing stuff but who throws the ball all over the place; he has a smallish chance of an 8 or 9 ceiling, but if he doesn’t put it together, could never make it out of A ball. You could have another pitcher who’s got great command and pitchability, and could reach 8 or 9 if he adds some velocity. But if he doesn’t, he still has a chance of being a back of the rotation arm.

They might both be 8Ds but the likelihood of what happens if they don’t make it to 8 is very different. Maybe the first guy is something like an 8D7D6C5C4B3A, the second guy is an 8D7C6B5B4A, where the letter gives the chance that he’s at least as likely to make that number. So if they don’t hit their 8 ceilings, guy 1 “should be” at least a 4 (4B) and guy 2 “should be” at least a 6 (6B).

This would be pretty unwieldy but might give a more complete picture of their potential.

(I’m thinking of Stetson Allie as guy 1, though maybe I should give him more of a chance as a high-leverage bullpen guy. I don’t have anyone in mind for guy 2.)

Not actually affiliated with whygavs.

by WHYG Zane Smith on Feb 3, 2026 12:11 PM EST up reply actions

I guess Navi's system does that with less trouble

So guy 1 would be an 8.4D and guy 2 would be an 8.6D.

Not actually affiliated with whygavs.

by WHYG Zane Smith on Feb 3, 2026 12:14 PM EST up reply actions

Yeah

I am thinking to do it this way:

Jeurys Familia right now I have at an 8.0C because I think he has the potential to be a No. 2 starter, but could win up as a setup man. Instead it will be a two grade system where Familia’s new grade would be 8.0C-6.0B with the first number being his potential (No. 2 starter, but unlikely to happen) and the second number being his more realistic/cynical grade (a setup man, but could fall to just middle relief).

Then someone like Chris Schwinden who is a 5.5B (likely a journeyman/5th starter), but his downside is still going to be a 5.0B.

So it would just look like

Jeurys Familia (8.0C-6.0B)
Chris Schwinden (5.5B-5.5)

Mini Mets Pipeline | @NickPugs97

by Pelferized on Feb 3, 2026 1:13 PM EST up reply actions

I like this

I might go back and implement this idea. It would help clear up a lot of things.

Mini Mets Pipeline | @NickPugs97

by Pelferized on Feb 3, 2026 10:50 AM EST up reply actions

The letter grades are really important

If a player is a 8.0 with a D it means there is almost no chance he gets there but if EVERYTHING breaks right he can. It is supposed to be like an ultimate ceiling.

Mini Mets Pipeline | @NickPugs97

by Pelferized on Feb 3, 2026 10:34 AM EST up reply actions

I would even say the letter grades are more Iimportant

Mini Mets Pipeline | @NickPugs97

by Pelferized on Feb 3, 2026 10:38 AM EST up reply actions

Well,

More guys should have an F

by auclairkeithbc on Feb 3, 2026 1:23 PM EST up reply actions

I guess my "problem" is

You are focused almost exclusively on ceiling. The number grade is pure ceiling. The letter grade is odds of reaching that ceiling (with a muddled downgraded ceiling figure or maybe “realistic expectation” mixed in somehow), but you don’t really deal with a 20% expectation/floor type projection, and you aren’t exactly dealing with actual expectations in straightforward way.

Maybe if the number was realistic expectation (so for those low guys you list, they’d be getting a lot of 4s, maybe some 3s too). Then the letter grade could be a ceiling/floor type indicator. Or something like that.

You need more than ceiling/odds of getting ceiling. There are plenty of players that are considered high floor types (not TRUE floor), who do have a chance to break out and reach a very high ceiling. Going by your current system, they’d be F’s as far as hitting ceiling goes…though they are unlikely to drop more than 2-3 spots from their reasonable ceiling rating.

by auclairkeithbc on Feb 3, 2026 1:32 PM EST up reply actions

I don't think your grasping exactly how it is meant to be used.

If someone is a 6.0C for example it means he is likely to wind up as a AAAA player.

You have to really read the definitions for letter grades. See says:

C – May reach potential, could drop 2 ratings - has shown some flashes, but may ultimately not have what it takes to reach his potential.

I have emphasis on that last part because a C is a pretty low grade. It is primarily for those guys who you say well maybe, BUT. For example a Nick Franklin is a classic C prospect because he has a bunch of question marks, but there are enough people who believe he is legit.

Then for a D prospect you have

D – Unlikely to reach potential, could drop 3 ratings - a player who has a CHANCE to reach his potential but is UNLIKELY to do so.

Classic example that has been used it Stetson Allie. To say that yeah it seems plausible, but most likely will never happen.

An F if you read the definition would only be used on someone like Guillaume Leduc. That would indicate he has .01% of ever making the show.

Maybe it works better for hockey because there is a little bit less uncertainty with their prospects, but I think if this method is applied to a two grade system, so one letter and one number for pure ceiling and one letter and one number for realistic ceiling, I think it could be a very effective method to get a true grasp on how a player is viewed. It is a lot more specific than just A-,B+,B, etc.

Mini Mets Pipeline | @NickPugs97

by Pelferized on Feb 3, 2026 3:06 PM EST up reply actions

Well, you should change your description then

“Could drop 2 ratings” indicates a basic floor type rating…unless it means “Could drop 2 ratings, then another 2, etc etc”

An “F” means two things:

(1) Someone who could drop more than 3 spots…meaning a 8 upside guy who could become a 4 (THIS HAPPENS ALL THE TIME). So there should be a TON of 8Fs, probably a low end straight B prospect according to John’s scale if the player is mainly an upside guy.

(2) Someone possessing little potential (meaning an 8F is basically impossible, but if it were possible, it would maybe be a guy like Oscar Hernandez, but realistically he doesn’t have 8 upside).

by auclairkeithbc on Feb 3, 2026 3:23 PM EST up reply actions

This is similar to BA's new grading system.

I do like how you have a number and a letter grade. Less confusion about how your grading them. This is a problem John has with his C-C+ prospects.

"I couldn't do that. Could you do that? Why can they do it? Who are those guys?"

by maxisagod on Feb 3, 2026 9:48 AM EST reply actions

Looks very similar to what I did in 2010, 2011

http://www.mlbprospectguide.com/2010/11/legend-for-my-reports.html

I did this for over 2000 players prior to the 2010 season. It also uses 20-80 scale for an expected outcome based on the stats they had as well as a grade for risk. The other numbers are stat based on 20-80 scale. I linked the google doc. It was on a page on my site but it’s not embedded there anymore.

I haven’t updated it since. The ceiling grades were very aggressive to delineate my preferences in players more than expected outcomes. The floor is closer to the expected outcome. I’ve adapted this system quite a bit since then but it still might be interesting to look at.

Minor League Ball MLB Prospect Guide
Follow @milbprospects

by Matt Garrioch on Feb 3, 2026 9:52 AM EST reply actions

I would like to

come up with a way that could categorize players like this so that I could grade them for draft reporting purposes.

When I start doing write ups on players for the draft this spring, I’d like to have a number that helps all the readers understand what type of player he is, other than comping him to someone, which is impossible to do accurately most of the time.

Any thoughts would be appreciated. Thanks

Minor League Ball MLB Prospect Guide
Follow @milbprospects

by Matt Garrioch on Feb 3, 2026 10:52 AM EST reply actions

What's wrong with the 20-80 grading scale?

It makes tons of sense because it utilizes three standard deviations on both sides of 50.

Newsdesk contributor to SB Nation Midwest. Baseball writer for Beyond the Box Score and MLB Daily Dish.

I'm one of those Twitter persons, too.

by Satchel Price on Feb 3, 2026 2:16 PM EST reply actions

Different scale

This isn’t supposed to be a substitute for a scouting scale it is a substitute for the grading scale John uses for prospects (A,B,C,D)

Mini Mets Pipeline | @NickPugs97

by Pelferized on Feb 3, 2026 2:50 PM EST up reply actions

With the draft even more so than prospects

I think it is vital to establish what type of upside they guy, but what a more realistic approach would be because of the added uncertainty. So, I think something like the two grade system we were talking about above would work. So when Stetson Allie was getting drafted as the guy above mentioned his upside was there with the best of anyone and would be an 8.0D/8.5D (No. 2 starter who could fall to bullpen arm) and his realistic/cynical grade would be 6.0C because he could be a should still be at least bullpen arm, but his command could cause him to completely falter.

Mini Mets Pipeline | @NickPugs97

by Pelferized on Feb 3, 2026 2:48 PM EST reply actions

This should be a reply to Matt Garrioch

Mini Mets Pipeline | @NickPugs97

by Pelferized on Feb 3, 2026 2:49 PM EST up reply actions

I would put

Allie as a 3-9 using the system I used in the past.
Andrew Brackman was a 3-9, so was Sergio Santos. I maybe would have put him to 4-8 but he didn’t have the polish for a 4 and when a guy is running the ball up at 99-100, he has extreme ceiling if he can replicate it consistently.
I didn’t put a risk factor in. Essentially the 3 is the risk factor. If he’d have a good year, the 3 would go to a 4 and the 9 would stay if he dominated. It would come down to an 8 if he didn’t. This would happen until the numbers meet in their prime.

Minor League Ball MLB Prospect Guide
Follow @milbprospects

by Matt Garrioch on Feb 3, 2026 3:38 PM EST up reply actions

Looks similar to the Hockey Future grades

"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 Feb 3, 2026 4:27 PM EST reply actions

Never mind

It’s in the article. Blargh.

"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 Feb 3, 2026 4:50 PM EST up reply actions

Lol

“I adjusted the style Hockey’s Future uses for baseball.”

Mini Mets Pipeline | @NickPugs97

by Pelferized on Feb 3, 2026 4:44 PM EST reply actions

Already Done.

Minor League Baseball Analyst (highly recommended) has used this scale since at least 2007.

Here’s what author Derick McKamey wrote in the intro:
“The system I settled on is similar to the rating system used at Hockey’s Future, which is an excellent site that rates amateur hockey players, It is a two-part system in which …blah, blah, blah.”

by slacker george on Feb 3, 2026 7:57 PM EST reply actions

Thanks for the heads up.

I hadn’t read anything from them before.

Mini Mets Pipeline | @NickPugs97

by Pelferized on Feb 4, 2026 2:55 PM EST up reply actions

My Problem is

no one is an A. Anyone can drop 3 ratings. Look how low prospect success rates are. This should seriously be modified. No one is a B for me either. Maybe someone is a C, MAYBE the safest player in the minors, but most people are Ds or Fs

by Bososx13 on Feb 3, 2026 8:18 PM EST reply actions 1 recs

Ah, my favorite

.. the age old lament of anyone who can’t spot a ballplayer. You don’t think Mike Trout is a pretty safe bet to be as good as Ricky Weeks or, Hunter Pence - or an 8A or, whatever? Instead of saying that THEY cant prdeict who wuill be a good big leaguer, people always seem to say that NOBODY can do it :)

Personally, just my view, is that I hate the idea of floor/ceiling for the mot part. I say, just tell me how good a player is going to be! i know, sometimes it is difficult but, it gets sharper into view the more info that is gathered. . . for some anyways, the ones with some aptitude for it.

"Does it make your life easier to just throw a quick, racist term at somebody? A man who has seen the things I’ve seen… experienced the loss and pain that I’ve experienced… I transcend race, hombre." - Kenny Powers

by casejud on Feb 4, 2026 1:56 AM EST up reply actions

Relatvity

It really comes down to relativity for me with this type of grading system (as with any grading system). Think about it like a college style grading system. Because most would fall in the D or Fs then C becomes B, D becomes C, and so on. It really makes no difference what the letter grade is as long as the grades are consistently relative.

Plus like casejud alludes to, if we didn’t think there was any type of skill involved in deciding how safe of a bet someone is then we wouldn’t be reading sites dedicated to evaluating prospects. It is certainly a crapshoot, but so is everything in life and the art form of evaluating prospects has been improving over the years if you ask me.

Mini Mets Pipeline | @NickPugs97

by Pelferized on Feb 4, 2026 2:54 PM EST up reply actions