Tuesday, December 30, 2014

Thoughts on Rankings and Grades

Humans love lists!  I don't know what it is, but whether it is a list of favorite movies, music, travel destinations or athletes, you can write exactly the same things about them in a random order and nobody will pay a scrap of attention.  As soon as you rank them it some sort of order, any order, you will have people flocking to read and then quoting the rankings to others.  Maybe it's just the moral certainty of thinking you know that movie X is the 3 best of all time vs movie Y which is only the 5'th best as opposed to the ambiguity of the actually review?  I don't know.

Just an example of how crazy all this is, there is probably no more subjective experience in life than listening to music.  I recently bought the Rolling Stone Neil Young Collector's Edition.  They did a ranking of Neil's top 100 songs.  I was happy to learn that, like me, Rolling Stone thinks Powderfinger was his best song.  On the other hand, I can think of at least 50 Neil Young songs that I like better than Cortez the Killer which was RS's #3.  Love is a Rose is a song I like a lot, and it did not even make the top 100!  From a rational standpoint, it makes no sense at all to rank something this subjective, yet, I guarantee that Rolling Stone sells a lot fewer copies if it published the exact same reviews of each song, but in a random manner.  Maybe it somehow makes us feel more secure if we know that someone who is considered an authority likes Powderfinger as much as we do?  Maybe it makes us feel superior if we know of a great song that doesn't get ranked at all?  I don't know.  I mean, I really don't care if 9 out of 10 music critics think Tommy is a better album than Quadrophenia.  I personally find Tommy to be virtually unlistenable while I have listened to the entire Quadrophenia album more times than I can count!  Still, we love our lists and rankings and grades.  Lists give us something in a neat, concise package that we can compare, discuss and argue about with others.

Let's take a look at the Giants prospect rankings for 2014 and at Joe Panik in particular.  Last year, I ranked him #11 on my Top 50 Giants Prospects list, not particularly high at all.  BA had him at #9, John Sickels at #13 with a C+ grade.  A lot of rankings had him a lot lower.  Marc Hulett of Fangraphs did not have him in his top 15.  Beyond the Boxscore did a composite of multiple rankings and had him at #15.  Rankings like that in one organization that is generally regarded as weak to begin with will usually generate some yawns and a mental checkbox that this guy might get a cup of coffee someday.  What Joe Panik did for the Giants in 2014 might have caught you by surprise.  On the other hand, if you took the time to read what was said about him in some of those rankings, you might not have been as surprised.

Here's what John Sickels had to say about Joe Panik in his #13 writeup:  "Seems like a useful utility player to me, but there is a chance he can be more than that.  Still showing the contact approach that sometimes correlates with unexpected offensive growth in late 20's."

Now, here is what I had to say in my more extensive discussion:  "2013 was a rough year for the former first round draft pick…."  I then went on to detail his stats from AA Richmond including the fact that his XBH's did not drop off as much as his SLG% would make it appear.  I then went on, "When you add in the difference in league average OPS….Panik did not have nearly as terrible a season as it may appear, and he actually had a higher percentage of his hits go for extra bases."  "Assuming he stays healthy and moves up to AAA Fresno, I think we'll see a much better season out of him in 2014."  "If he can hit .280-.290 with an OBP of .340-.360, he will be a valuable middle infielder regardless of his power and he should be able to hit the gaps regularly.  He should be ready for his MLB debut about the time Scooter is done."

Well, Scooter was done an lot sooner than I or anyone else thought, but damn!  Joe Panik was ready!  But back tot he point of this post.  What gave you a better picture of Joe Panik's future, the various rankings on the lists, Sickels C+ grade, or the comments made by both Sickels and me in the discussion?  I would submit if you simply read my discussion in a vacuum, without the knowledge of where he ranked or what grade Sickels gave him, you would have had a much better idea of who Joe Panik was as a prospect and what his future might hold than you would with the added frills of the rankings and grades.

This is why I constantly preach to not get too hung up on the exact order of prospect rankings.  It really did not matter one wit whether Joe Panik was ranked #9 or #15 or somewhere in between.  What mattered was the information in the write-ups that followed.  In fact, I would go so far as to say the rankings and grades got in the way, producing a biases in people's minds that made their interpretation of the discussions less complete and accurate!

28 comments:

  1. BTW, lest anyone misunderstand, I am NOT criticizing the ranking or grade that Sickels gave Panik. What I AM saying is that my ranking and his ranking and grade are just window dressing. What you really needed to know about Panik at the time was what was in the discussion. I actually though Sickels, while much more concise than I and maybe slightly less optimistic in tone, came pretty close to hitting the nail on the head with Panik.

    One other point: It may not mean any more than any other ranking, but the highest ranking for Panik was given by Andy Baggarly in BA's list, and Baggs gets most of his information from talking to Giants management.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I actually could care less if you ranked him as #11 or give him a B. To me, either was fine. The point I was trying to make was that although you explained that the numbering wasn't that important, it became very important with some posters and it was taking away from the point of the conversation which is to analyze the potential and quality of the prospect. Whether Edie belongs that high even though he is still in the DSL is irrelevant in my opinion. He seems to have the tools as you suggest and skys the limit.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I am a teacher, and the hardest part of my job (to me) is giving out grades. Grades just seem so meaningless to me, and I am only a first-year educator! I would much rather write up a detailed report about a student and share it with his or her parents. Putting a student's entire body of work, their strengths, their weaknesses, their gains, and everything in between... and compiling all into one letter seems like an easy way out to me.

    Professional baseball players are not students, and in my opinion it is pointless to assign them a grade. I almost feel as if we're de-humanizing them in a sense when we do that. These are living-breathing men, and I would much rather try to figure out whether they have the tools to make the major leagues, and what strengths they will offer if they do make it. I think a lot of people overlook that aspect when they make their rankings.

    Joe Panik was also ranked #11 on my list last year, and here's a clip of what I wrote: "He’ll be in Fresno next year, and he’s still got every opportunity to take the 2B job when Marco Scutaro’s contract is up. He probably won’t ever hit for power, but his plate approach has been above average at every level so far… I think that trend will continue." Nobody predicted that Panik would essentially help save the Giants season in 2014. but the funny thing DrB is that people like you and I (and others around here) weren't surprised when pitchers literally couldn't get him out in the month of August. The Giants drafted him for his advanced approach at the plate, which he showed from his day in Salem, OR! You don't get that from a C+ letter grade!

    Great post DrB. I'm in total agreement.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Why not give the grade and also write up a detailed report about the student. It would be beneficial to the student, his parents,his counselor and you,as a teacher.

      Delete
    2. Luckily that is what most teachers do anyway. I never thought I'd feel this way, but grades are very unimportant to me.

      Delete
    3. The whole grading part of our educational system needs to go, IMO. Education needs to be achievement and goal oriented as opposed to grade oriented.

      Delete
    4. Pretty good post! I give it a B+

      Delete
  4. Harvest moon at 37, meh, maybe I'm a little sappier but thats easily top 15.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Damnit! Where does Cinnamon Girl rank?

    I shall wear your "button" as a badge.

    Again, this what Sickels has to say about his grading system. It's helpful to have. Panik sure sounded like a B prospect and he seems well on his way to a successful MLB career, most likely without the star status. But if he hits .300 enough that could change. Cheers.

    "Grade A prospects are the elite. In theory, they have a good chance of becoming stars or superstars. Theoretically, most Grade A prospects develop into stars or at least major league regulars, if injuries or other problems don’t intervene. Note that is a major "if" in some cases.

    Grade B prospects have a good chance to enjoy successful careers. Some will develop into stars, some will not. Most end up spending several years in the majors, at the very least in a marginal role.

    Grade C prospects are the most common type. These are guys who have something positive going for them, but who may have a question mark or three, or who are just too far away from the majors to get an accurate feel for. A few Grade C guys, especially at the lower levels, do develop into stars. Many end up as role players or bench guys. Some don’t make it at all.

    Finally, keep in mind that all grades are shorthand. You have to read the full comment in the book for the full analysis about a player, the letter grade only tells you so much. A Grade C prospect in rookie ball could end up being very impressive, while a Grade C prospect in Triple-A is likely just a future role player."

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I don't care how many ways you or Sickels explain his grading system. I believe it is useless, especially when he is agonizing and splitting hairs over the difference between a B and B- or B- and C+ which is just ridiculous.

      As for Cinnamon Girl, I am more of Cowgirl in the Sand guy than Cinnamon Girl.

      Delete
  6. If we are talking Neil Young, "Cinnamon Girl" is HIS #1 (IMHO). "For What It's Worth" (with Buffalo Springfield) a close 2nd. "Rockin' in a Free World" a distant third. The rest is whining third world drivel. G9 back to the Great White North if America is so bad, Neil.

    Speaking of Great White North, Geddy Lee & the McKenzie Brothers Xmas album is awesome. In fact, Rush is awesome. Gimme some Neil Pert any day. AC-DC as well. Get the Led out! And have to respect Journey, given this is a Giants blog.

    Oops, forgot to put all that in a numbered list.

    Let's Go Giants!

    NWGiantsFan
    DtF!!!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. right on NWGF !

      The older I get, the more awesome Rush is.

      back to Neil Young and the Giants. Where does Needle and the Damage Done rank and how much damage was inflicted on Adalberto Mejia's prospect status. I don't think he'll be as good as Edwin Escobar, however lofty or not lofty that goal is.

      Delete
  7. It's pretty obvious they drafted Panik to replace Scutaro.Nice pick.Filled the need perfectly.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Um….except that Panik was drafted long before they signed Scutaro. He was drafted because they thought he was the best available player at that point in the draft.

      Delete
  8. Panik was more or less drafted to replace another oft injured player Freddy Sanchez. Scutaro did not become a Giant until late 2012. However, since draftees usually don't appear in the majors for at least 2-4 years (and some maybe never), he was drafted because he was the best player on their board. It just so happened we have an immediate need at 2B. I think everything worked out perfect. I don't think Joe Panik is going to be some superstar but I believe he will be a solid player who has a great approach at the plate. He may even make an All Star appearance someday.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Again, current needs at the MLB level do not factor into draft decisions.

      Delete
    2. I agree that needs at MLB level don't factor into draft decisions. Panik was valued as an up the middle contact bat. And the Giants were crazy happy to get him, to the bewilderment of everybody else. I suspect they did have one factor in mind: they have a fill in around the franchise player in Posey, you draft for a complementary piece with a high floor to add to the club. So in a way, the current makeup IS important, if they weren't competing at all they would a) have a lower draft pick and b) might look for a more swing for the fences type. But the part that is underrated in Panik is that he plays up the middle. I think the Giants adherence to that principle is a great strategy, and something that gets overlooked at times.

      Delete
    3. Agreed. That is why I put "he was drafted because he was the best player on their board". Merely stating Sanchez/Keppinger were the incumbent at 2B in the year Panik was drafted.

      Delete
  9. I am a junkie of The Church, a neo-psychedelic guitar band out of Australia. Under the Milky Way? Lead singer Steve Kilbey released an album of covers, including a nice version of Cortez the Killer. I only own two Young albums, Harvest Moon and Live at Massey Hall + enjoy them both.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Lists (and grades) have appeal because they are relative in nature. It give people easy access to express opinion. A point of comparison is right there at hand.

    Almost no thought has to go into making comment on a list. Or into one's assertion as to how to order a list.

    That being said, Panik has exceeded most people's expectations to thus far and you could do worse than to listen to Van Morrison's early stuff: The Bang Sessions and Astral Weeks.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Dude, who's the next prospect (not that the rank is important here)?

    I am curious as to what you know about Mella's shoulder injury (if it was his shoulder) and as a doctor, what opinions you might have on the matter.

    thanks for doing what you do!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I do not know any details of Mella's shoulder injury, but in general, some types of shoulder injuries are more career threatening than elbow injuries since the advent of TJ surgery.

      Delete
    2. I'll be patient, hopefully you may be able to expound on this a little more in your Mella post. Also curious about your angle on Mella's K rate. It doesn't exactly knock my socks off, but K's aren't everything.

      Delete
    3. No one knows a whole lot about Mella's injury (Augusta's David Lee included), or why he hasn't been able to log a ton of innings as a pro. I believe they shut him down with a sore rotator cuff. Missed nearly two months. He didn't pitch a lot of innings in S-K when he came back, but I also didn't hear about anymore setbacks either. I would think he'll be ready to roll again this spring.

      On the K rates: Just a hunch here, nothing more. I don't think Mella pitches for the strikeout. Even though Lee spotted his fastball up to 98 a few times last year, he usually runs it in the low-90's, and we've all heard about the bowling ball sink that comes with it. From what I've seen, he certainly has the stuff to be a dominant strikeout artist, but I just wonder if he's got a pitch-to-contact mentality. Just a thought.

      Delete
    4. One other thing. Mella's also a big-time strike-thrower (career 2.7 bb/9), which might back up the notion that he is looking for the ground ball. With that heavy sink, it makes a lot of sense to me. And to be fair, the kid does have a career 9.4 k/9, although it was less than 9 in Augusta. Maybe they need to teach this kid some effective wildness!

      Career marks are over only 191 IP... Got to get this guy stretched out this season!

      Delete
    5. We're getting a bit ahead of ourselves here, but yeah, I'm not sure what is wrong with a K/9 of 9. Jeez!

      Also, from David Lee's description, it sounds like the injury was a rotator cuff strain, but probably not a tear. He didn't seem to have any problems in a late season rehab assignment with S-K putting up very similar K and BB numbers to Augusta line.

      Delete
    6. Great posts, Mr. Cove Chatter.

      Effectively wild, exactly. He does sound like a guy that pounds the zone with sink. How much different is Clayton Blackburn? Perhaps a 2-3 mph on average.

      Delete