Quote:
Originally Posted by Lukas Berger
Yeah all that is reasonable and I appreciate the thoughts. As you say, it's definitely not easy to get right.
That being said, we don't rank the lists on pure upside. If anything I think we value polish a little too much still on they lists (though less than we did last year, which is part of why we were able to lower the potentials for the high upside guys. Last year they had to be overrated to get them to slot in higher than much more modest guys who shouldn't have been valued as highly as we ranked them).
So yes, technically you're right in that making him a 65 makes him more of a potential deGrom or Darvish than it does a potential Kershaw or Kluber.
That being said, no prospect get that sort of potential rating of 80 or "potential future HOFer". Kershaw was not an 80 prospect when he was a prospect, he was probably a 60. Same for Syndergaard, Sale whoever. Trout wasn't an 80 prospect either.
Remember, guys get potential boost as well as hits. The guys who end up being 80's are the guys who get boosts. But if you set a guy to have 80 potential and the he gets boosts, where does he go from there? He becomes better than anyone should be in the set.
|
Thank you, I'm glad you appreciate my thoughts. I appreciate yours as well!
What you're saying definitely makes sense. The best players aren't always the one's we expect, and we definitely don't want too many 75-80s panning out at one time. I didn't think about the fact that an 80 getting boosts would break the scale, so that was a good point as well. Thank you for the discussion!