Valuing the 2017 Top 100 Prospects

Earlier this morning, Eric Longenhagen rolled out his list of the top-100 prospects in baseball, with Red Sox-turned-White Sox prospect Yoan Moncada at the top of his rankings. Helpfully, Eric’s rankings include the FV grade for each player, so that we can see that he really does see a difference between Moncada and the rest of the pack, as Moncada was the only prospect in the sport to garner a 70 grade.

As Eric notes in his piece, the grade is really the more important number here, as the ordinal ranking can create some false sense of separation, where players might be 20 or 30 spots apart on the list but offer fairly similar expected future value. The FV tiers do a good job of conveying where the real differences lay, highlighting those instances when Eric actually does see a significant difference between players, versus simply having to put a similar group of prospects in some order regardless of the strength of his feelings about those rankings.

But while the FV scale is helpful in binning players, it doesn’t do much to convey the differences between the tiers themselves. How much more valuable is a 60 than a 55? Or is a team better off with one elite 65 or 70 FV prospect or a multitude of 50-55 types? These are interesting questions, and ones that teams themselves have to answer on a regular basis.

To attempt to answer those questions, we’re proud to announce that we’ve licensed the prospect valuation model on which Kevin Creagh and Steve DiMiceli have worked for the last few years. Kevin and Steve have advanced the framework of previously published research on draft pick and prospect valuation, and have created a system that attempts to quantify the expected future value of a prospect based on how similarly rated prospects have performed in the major leagues. The model looks at the level of expected performance and the expected cost of a player during the years before he reaches free agency, and then estimates a player’s value to his organization during that time.

In the previous iterations of this model, the model based the similarity of current prospects to players with similar rankings from Baseball America’s annual top-100 list. Thanks to some tireless work from Kevin this winter, assigning assumed FV grades to every player ranked on BA’s top 100 from 1994 through 2007 based on that player’s ranking, performance, and the scouting reports available at the time, the model is now able to project value based on a player’s FV grade rather than simply his ordinal rank.

This change most significantly alters the expected values of the guys at the very top of the list, as the previous bins lumped all top-10 prospects together into a single bin, while the FV grade allows for separation between the truly elite, once-every-10-years kind of prospect and guys who are good but not quite as special. For instance, Eric’s grades make it clear that he sees a tangible difference between Moncada and every other prospect in the top 10, and there’s a 10-point difference in FV grade between Moncada and Gleyber Torres or Victor Robles, but all three would have been assigned the same value under the prior “top-10 hitter” tier.

By moving the valuations to the FV scale, we can more reasonably account for real differences between players who may be ranked similarly but still have very different expectations of future value. As the chart of expected value below shows, the historical performances of the very best prospects is quite a bit different than players even just one rung down, which is why teams are so intent on developing high-end prospects. Historically, elite prospects have returned significantly more value than just good prospects, and this model attempts to capture those differences.

Estimated Prospect Value by FV Grade
Grade Hitter Pitcher
75 $175M $83M
70 $107M $62M
65 $70M $62M
60 $60M $34M
55 $38M $22M
50 $20M $14M
45 $11M $13M

As you can see, Kevin didn’t feel that any player in the 1994-2007 sample was considered an elite enough prospect to generate an 80 FV grade, so it’s not in the chart. Alex Rodriguez and Andruw Jones were the hitters who got the closest, both receiving 75 FV grades in Kevin’s estimation, but with a sample size of two, you can put a very large error bar around that $175 million valuation. Prospects that good are so rare that nailing down their actual value is something of an academic pursuit anyway, as it’s almost impossible to see a team possessing that kind of young talent actually trading them anyway.

Once you get down to the lower-tier grades, though, the sample size grows large enough that we can start to see some real trends. As is generally thought to be true, elite hitting prospects are simply more valuable than highly graded arms, as hitters just don’t get hurt at the same rate, and thus, they are far safer investments. You can see the large differences in expected value between hitters and pitchers at the top of the chart, though this lessens as you go down towards the lower grades; the fact that “low upside” pitchers can seemingly develop into frontline starters more easily than “low upside” hitters can turn into superstars reduces the gap between them when it comes to good-not-great prospects.

Interestingly, you’ll note that the expected value for pitchers with 65 and 70 FV grades are identical. Pitchers that graded out as an assumed 70 FV — based on their ranking, performance, and scouting reports at the time — actually performed worse than 65 FV pitchers, but like with the 75 hitters, the sample size was too limited to draw firm conclusions, so we’ve simply merged the 65/70 FV pitchers into one larger tier to mitigate the sample-size issue. Based on the historical data, it appears to be easier to identify real differences in elite hitters than elite pitchers, or perhaps the attrition rate of pitchers is so high that the marginal difference in aiming for a better pitching prospect isn’t as large as it is with a lower-risk hitter.

Now, it’s important to note that models like this are built on a tremendous number of assumptions, many of which can be reasonably debated. Kevin had to put a lot of work into translating BA’s historical information into an assumed FV grade, but in the end, it was still a subjective evaluation. To translate the performance of players in those FV groups into a valuation model requires assumptions about the market price for a win, the discount rate used to account for the long-term nature of a prospect’s return, and the expected cost of a player during his arbitration years. The model includes all of these variables, but nailing down those numbers is far from an exact science, and the results from the model should absolutely be thought of as estimates with some significant variance.

I would not advise anyone to look at these valuations as the definitive final number of a prospect’s worth. But we do think looking at the historical performances of similarly graded prospects (as best as we can infer, anyway) helps to provide some context for the differences in expected value between types of prospects, and this data emphasizes just how valuable the very best prospects in baseball really are.

Below, we’ve taken Eric’s top 100 and merged the FV grades he gave each player on the list with the valuations from Kevin and Steve’s model, and are presenting them with their rankings, grades, and valuations in one table. When the team reports are done, we’ll also use this model to look at organizational valuations; because non-top-100 prospects are worth enough to change the calculus, I wouldn’t suggest doing an organizational ranking just based on the names below, especially since a large number of players omitted from the list will have received the same FV grade as players ranked Nos. 73-100. We’ll be integrating these values into the prospect data on the site, as well, and are thrilled to be able to feature Kevin and Steve’s work here on FanGraphs going forward.

So, with all those words out of the way, here is how the prospect valuation model sees the expected future value of the players Eric ranked in his top 100.

Top 100 Valuations
Rank Name Team Position Age FV Value
1 Yoan Moncada CWS INF 21 70 $107M
2 Andrew Benintendi BOS OF 22 65 $70M
3 Amed Rosario NYM SS 21 65 $70M
4 Dansby Swanson ATL SS 23 65 $70M
5 Austin Meadows PIT OF 21 65 $70M
6 Alex Reyes StL RHP 22 65 $62M
7 Gleyber Torres NYY SS 20 60 $60M
8 Victor Robles WAS CF 19 60 $60M
9 J.P. Crawford PHI SS 22 60 $60M
10 Anderson Espinoza SD RHP 18 60 $34M
11 Ozzie Albies ATL 2B 20 60 $60M
12 Yadier Alvarez LA RHP 20 60 $34M
13 Cody Bellinger LA 1B 21 60 $60M
14 Brendan Rodgers COL SS 20 60 $60M
15 Eloy Jimenez CHC OF 20 60 $60M
16 Lewis Brinson MIL CF 22 60 $60M
17 Willy Adames TB SS 21 60 $60M
18 Francis Martes HOU RHP 21 60 $34M
19 Lucas Giolito CWS RHP 22 60 $34M
20 Corey Ray MIL OF 22 60 $60M
21 Michael Kopech CWS RHP 20 55 $22M
22 Rafael Devers BOS 3B 20 55 $38M
23 Manny Margot SD CF 22 55 $38M
24 Vladimir Guerrero TOR 3B 17 55 $38M
25 Cal Quantril SD RHP 21 55 $22M
Rank Name Team Position Age FV Value
26 Tyler Glasnow PIT RHP 23 55 $22M
27 Mickey Moniak PHI OF 18 55 $38M
28 Reynaldo Lopez CWS RHP 22 55 $22M
29 Jason Groome BOS LHP 18 55 $22M
30 Nick Senzel CIN 3B 21 55 $38M
31 Riley Pint COL RHP 19 55 $22M
32 Jorge Alfaro PHI C 23 55 $38M
33 Delvin Perez StL SS 18 55 $38M
34 Clint Frazier NYY OF 22 55 $38M
35 Ronald Acuna ATL CF 19 55 $38M
36 Brent Honeywell TB RHP 21 55 $22M
37 Francisco Mejia CLE C 21 55 $38M
38 Kyle Lewis SEA OF 21 55 $38M
39 Robert Gsellman NYM RHP 23 55 $22M
40 Blake Rutherford NYY OF 19 55 $38M
41 Kolby Allard ATL LHP 19 55 $22M
42 Alex Verdugo LA CF 20 55 $38M
43 James Kaprielian NYY RHP 23 55 $22M
44 Jose DeLeon TB RHP 24 55 $22M
45 Brad Zimmer CLE CF 23 55 $38M
46 Mitch Keller PIT RHP 20 55 $22M
47 Jeff Hoffman COL RHP 23 55 $22M
48 Kevin Maitan ATL 3B 17 55 $38M
49 Leodys Taveras TEX CF 18 55 $38M
50 Josh Bell PIT 1B 24 55 $38M
Rank Name Team Position Age FV Value
51 Ian Happ CHC 2B 22 55 $38M
52 German Marquez COL RHP 21 55 $22M
53 Sandy Alcantara StL RHP 21 55 $22M
54 Ian Anderson ATL RHP 18 55 $22M
55 Triston McKenzie CLE RHP 19 55 $22M
56 Matt Manning DET RHP 18 55 $22M
57 Luis Ortiz MIL RHP 21 55 $22M
58 Isan Diaz MIL 2B 20 55 $38M
59 Josh Hader MIL LHP 22 55 $22M
60 Braxton Garrett MIA LHP 19 55 $22M
61 Aaron Judge NYY RF 24 55 $38M
62 Max Fried ATL LHP 23 55 $22M
63 Kyle Tucker HOU OF 20 55 $38M
64 Yohander Mendez TEX LHP 22 55 $22M
65 Amir Garrett CIN LHP 24 55 $22M
66 Nick Gordon MIN SS 21 55 $38M
67 Franklin Barreto OAK SS 21 55 $38M
68 A.J. Puk OAK LHP 21 55 $22M
69 Christian Arroyo SF 3B 21 55 $38M
70 Luiz Gohara ATL LHP 20 55 $22M
71 Jharel Cotton OAK RHP 25 55 $22M
72 Matt Strahm KC LHP 25 55 $22M
73 Dom Smith NYM 1B 21 50 $20M
74 Walker Buehler LA RHP 22 50 $14M
75 Hunter Renfroe SD OF 24 50 $20M
Rank Name Team Position Age FV Value
76 Adrian Morejon SD LHP 18 50 $14M
77 Justin Dunn NYM RHP 21 50 $14M
78 Fernando Tatis, Jr. SD 3B 17 50 $20M
79 Anthony Alford TOR OF 22 50 $20M
80 Brandon Woodruff MIL RHP 23 50 $14M
81 Carson Kelly StL C 22 50 $20M
82 Andres Gimenez NYM SS 18 50 $20M
83 Kevin Newman PIT SS 23 50 $20M
84 Lucas Erceg MIL 3B 21 50 $20M
85 Chance Sisco BAL C 22 50 $20M
86 Tyler Beede SF RHP 23 50 $14M
87 Dustin Fowler NYY CF 22 50 $20M
88 Anthony Banda ARI LHP 23 50 $14M
89 Willie Calhoun LA 2B 22 50 $20M
90 Raimel Tapia COL CF 22 50 $20M
91 Jorge Mateo NYY SS 21 50 $20M
92 Jahmai Jones LAA CF 19 50 $20M
93 Mike Soroka ATL RHP 19 50 $14M
94 Zack Collins CWS C 21 50 $20M
95 Juan Soto WAS OF 18 50 $20M
96 Sean Reid-Foley TOR RHP 21 50 $14M
97 Justus Sheffield NYY LHP 20 50 $14M
98 Carson Fulmer CWS RHP 22 50 $14M
99 Ke’Bryan Hayes PIT 3B 19 50 $20M
100 Jesse Winker CIN OF 23 50 $20M

We hoped you liked reading Valuing the 2017 Top 100 Prospects by Dave Cameron!

Please support FanGraphs by becoming a member. We publish thousands of articles a year, host multiple podcasts, and have an ever growing database of baseball stats.

FanGraphs does not have a paywall. With your membership, we can continue to offer the content you've come to rely on and add to our unique baseball coverage.

Support FanGraphs




Dave is the Managing Editor of FanGraphs.

newest oldest most voted
Brock244
Member
Brock244

Wouldn’t these figures be more accurate if they compiled FV rankings from other sites? For instance most sites see Moncada as a 60 FV prospect. The difference between a 60 and 70 is massive.

mike sixel
Member
Member
mike sixel

I too thought we’d see some kind of compilation across sites.

Maybe a distribution like we say for KATOH.

JediHoyer
Member
JediHoyer

This is fair.