Seth Beer is currently 2-2 with a double and two runs scored in the early going of Tri-City's game in Aberdeen. Enmanuel Valdez (2) and Michael Wielansky (1) have homered for the ValleyCats.
Chad Donato went 5 innings, giving 1 hit, 1 walk, and striking out 10. I don't think he's going to spend too much time in the NYPL.
FYI George Springer was considered a 40 after being drafted 11th overall. Joe Perez and most of those guys are 40's at best right now. They can certainly over-perform that rating but they're not current 50's. 50 is an expected average major leaguer.
Carlos Machado Homered as well, his first hit of the year, and just his 3rd HR of his career. If he can hit for power, that would be a nice development.
Ryan Hartman, Dean Deetz, and Riley Ferrell held San Antonio to one hit in Corpus Christi's 1-0 win. Hartman: 7 IP, H, 3 BB, 8 K Deetz: IP, K Ferrell: IP, 2 K
Nope. My understanding is that 20-80 scale grades are based on 50%tile outcomes (i.e. upside x risk), not just upside. Springer was a 40 when he was drafted because he had all-star potential (90%tile outcome) but had a substantial bust factor (10%tile) due to his contact issues. He clearly overcame those problems and hit his 90%tile outcome but if he had never put it together it wouldn't have been totally surprising. He was definitely not a can't miss prospect (which is at minimum what a 50 grade denotes). ***to clarify, I don't have a big problem slapping 60 grades on Tucker and Alvarez. That's basically saying they're top 10 hitting prospects, if not top 10 overall. That's fairly defensible with their production, pedigree and other top prospects graduating. Saying that Joe Perez (or Toro, Straw, etc...) is already ticketed for average major league production is wishful at best.
I think Fangraphs bakes a lot more risk into their FV for prospects, 50 is still an average tool for both, but mlb.com will give a 50 FV for a prospect even if he's in A ball and that's something like a 60 percentile outcome, while fangraphs might give that same guy a 45, despite the individual tool grades being pretty much the same.
Sorry dude but you’re ****ing wrong; you’re still muddying between Fangraphs and mlb.com. Mlb.com (the scale I based my grades on) never had Springer with a 40 grade. Mlb.com has 50 grades on Nova and Hector Perez. I don’t like spatting about this **** but coming over here and picking nits like a d******d pisses me off. It’s such a stupid thing to try and catch someone one, as the only real value in the grades I listed (since they’re subjective) is to compare the ranked prospects in my list to each other and give an idea of how they fall within the list. Saying those guys are 40 grades using mlb.com scale would have them outside the Top 30.
Snake, simmer down meow. We’re talking about prospects. Not major leaguers, not major leaguers: just prospects. The discussion could be made (it is a bbs after all) on whether those guys are 50’s or not but it sounds like you want to declare you’re knowledgeable and brook no argument. That’s fine. This is still way better than back in the day arguing on the BBS whether JR Towles was a breakout C+/B- or when Mitch Melusky was gonna take over.
I encourage discussion on the grades; that’s why we’re here. But the only way it’s worthwhile is if we understand and agree on the scale. You were the one who tried to front like mr knowledgeable, acting as if I didn’t have a grasp on what I was talking about, which I also don’t have a problem with except you were dead ass wrong. Your complaint was based on your own misunderstanding of the scale I was using, as evidenced by your comment about Springer being a 40 grade. And when I called your misunderstanding out, you dug in and doubled down on your own mistake. So yeah, that’s fine.
