Define and defend "ceiling"

[CubinNY]

When I read what scouts say about prospects inevitably they talk about a player's "ceiling".

 

What is a ceiling? To me it is a tottaly subjective projection of where a player should end up. I don't much care for the projection.

 

Does it have objective anchors? What is the difference between ceiling and toolsy? Can a player be toolsy but have a low ceiling? Can a player not be toolsy and have a high ceiling? Does it have to do with where the player is drafted?

 

To me it is scoutspeak nonsense.

[Mephistopheles]

Toolsy is more or less the overall athletic ability a position player has (you don't hear about toolsy pitchers they simply call them athletic). A "toolsy" player is a player who can do most of the five tools at a fairly high level {hit for average, hit for power, play defense, run well and good throwing arm}. Obviously most toolsy players have a very high ceiling.

 

Potential in it of itself is a little different. For example take say Mark Teixeira. He could do the two hitting "tools" at a very high level, but none of the others. He wasn't very "toolsy" but he had a very high ceiling.

 

A player's ceiling to me is the type of player they can develop into if everything breaks for them and they develop. Sure it's defined by their tools to a certain extent, but tools =/= skills. A tool is something innate a player has, whether or not that tool plays is a different case.

 

They all CERTAINLY matter a great deal because they encompass so much of what the player will develop down the road. Because we are talking about PROJECTING players five years down the road when drafting (or when they are even in Double A) we don't care about what they can do now, we care about what they're able to do down the road.

[UK1679666180]

A ceiling is how well a player likely will do if he reaches his maximum ability.

 

I don't know what you mean by objective anchors.

 

Ceiling and toolsy are two separate issues. A toolsy player (depending on which tools you're speaking of or all 5) has a ceiling as so does a limited tools player.

 

Depending on how many high grades he has for his diff. tools, a closer can have one high and one avg. and still have a high ceiling.

 

Draft slot has nothing to do with it.

[craig]

...What is a ceiling? To me it is a tottaly subjective projection of where a player should end up......

 

I read it very differently. Ceiling allows where a player "could" end up, not where he "should" end up. Very rare for a prospect to reach his perceived ceiling.

 

This bears on scouting rankings. Often guys with higher perceived ceilings are rated above guys with better performance. But there are a lot of minor-leaguers whose ceilings are sub-major-league. There are lots of these guys like JR Mathes or Jesus Valdez or Alberto Garcia. They may be better than Grant Johnson or Justin Berg or Dylan Johnston now. But it may be that they are viewed as having sub-major-league ceilings. Even if they work hard and come close to their max potential, you still don't have anything. If Johston or Johnson do approach their potential, perhaps they will be useful.

 

This is even more true in HS or college. Often there are big-arm guys who aren't as good as blah college arms. But the big arms with the higher ceilings, if they learn control have a shot at majors. The blah-arm guys, often not so.

 

The point is, do you have a chance? If you judge all scouts as dopes because most of the guys with ceilings never reach them, then of course they all look dumb. But it makes more sense to take a chance on somebody who could be big-league useful than somebody who won't even if they do approach their max potential.

[Rob]

Ceiling is what a player would be able to produce if he turns all of his tools into skills.

[CubinNY]

A ceiling is how well a player likely will do if he reaches his maximum ability.

 

I don't know what you mean by objective anchors.

 

Ceiling and toolsy are two separate issues. A toolsy player (depending on which tools you're speaking of or all 5) has a ceiling as so does a limited tools player.

 

Depending on how many high grades he has for his diff. tools, a closer can have one high and one avg. and still have a high ceiling.

 

Draft slot has nothing to do with it.

 

An objective anchor is smething tangible that the label is tied to. For instance, Mental retardation is tied to IQ scores and adaptive skills. However, Learning Disability is not tied to any objective anchor. Instead most states use a discrepency critiea between IQ socres and achievement.

 

What is ceiling tied to? How is it projected. How accurate? Do players break their ceiling? If a player with a low ceiling makes it to the bigs does that mean that the imposed ceiling was wrong? If a player who supposedly has a high ceiling doesn't make it and wasn't injured was the ceiling wrong? Or did the player not live up to his ceiling? If so why? Or is projecting "ceilings" non-sesnsical BS scoutspeak?

[UK1679666180]

There's nothing tangible tied to a ceiling.

 

Ceiling is tied to a prospect's ability to improve from where he is now, every player has a current and future grade. The older/younger, ability to add strength/size and how raw that player is will determine how far the present and future are apart.

 

Not many players reach their ceiling, it's not designed for that, it's designed for maximum worth on the muscle. If a player doesn't reach his ceiling, it wasn't wrong b/c you're grading him on the most optimistic term. Players are drafted, signed, and traded for based on potential, especially amatuers and minor leaguers.

 

Pujols' ceiling when he was drafted was much lower than his current production.

 

If players were robots with no progression/regression, it would be scout speak.

 

Baseball is an art not a science, you can make the most accurate stats for what has already been done, but there isn't anything with more value than projection as far as what will happen.

[CubinNY]

There's nothing tangible tied to a ceiling.

 

Ceiling is tied to a prospect's ability to improve from where he is now, every player has a current and future grade. The older/younger, ability to add strength/size and how raw that player is will determine how far the present and future are apart.

 

Not many players reach their ceiling, it's not designed for that, it's designed for maximum worth on the muscle. If a player doesn't reach his ceiling, it wasn't wrong b/c you're grading him on the most optimistic term. Players are drafted, signed, and traded for based on potential, especially amatuers and minor leaguers.

 

Pujols' ceiling when he was drafted was much lower than his current production.

 

If players were robots with no progression/regression, it would be scout speak.

 

Baseball is an art not a science, you can make the most accurate stats for what has already been done, but there isn't anything with more value than projection as far as what will happen.

 

Ok. So could we call it a best guess? It seems as though some talk of ceiling as a finite entity, as if it actually exists. For example, I would think that my elementary school teachers and probably many of my highschool teachers would have said my career ceiling was dishwaser at TGIF, that didn't make it so.

 

From my limited reading much is made of a minor leaguer's ceiling. However, if so few live up to their ceiling how important a judgment is it?

 

All players are drafted on thier potential, no? Is that what a ceiling is? If so, (going back to my first post) dose draft slot matter. I think it would, at least in the higher rounds. Let's take Farnsworth for example, he was drafted in the 40th round or something like that. Was he drafted that low in spite of his ceiling or because of his ceiling?

[Outshined_One]

Ok. So could we call it a best guess? It seems as though some talk of ceiling as a finite entity, as if it actually exists. For example, I would think that my elementary school teachers and probably many of my highschool teachers would have said my career ceiling was dishwaser at TGIF, that didn't make it so.

 

From my limited reading much is made of a minor leaguer's ceiling. However, if so few live up to their ceiling how important a judgment is it?

 

All players are drafted on thier potential, no? Is that what a ceiling is? If so, (going back to my first post) dose draft slot matter. I think it would, at least in the higher rounds. Let's take Farnsworth for example, he was drafted in the 40th round or something like that. Was he drafted that low in spite of his ceiling or because of his ceiling?

 

Ceiling is one of many factors in evaluating prospects and players. There is something to be said for a player's floor, as well. Felix Pie, for example, has a terrific ceiling because of his physical tools, but because of how good he is now, he also has a fairly reasonable floor. He's a good defender, has some power, and can hit for decent average. He has a very good chance of becoming a league-average CF because of his current tools.

 

The MLB draft is another beast altogether. A lot of it is potential, but take the following things into consideration:

 

-Signability. Plenty of players drop like rocks because they're committed to college or want lots of money or something like that. In essence, there are questions about whether or not a guy can be signed.

 

-Character issues. PLENTY of guys drop because of character issues, with problems like off the field trouble, criminal records, and drug suspicions hurting how high people are drafted.

 

-The vast majority of All Stars are first rounders. The guys with the best potential are scouted the most intensely and oftentimes find themselves drafted in the first round. Some guys have had baseball scouts following them the majority of their lives. These are the guys teams know the most about and have scrutinized the most intensely.

 

-When it comes to later rounds, matters come down to scouting. Samardzija was a fifth rounder, but because the Cubs dedicated the extra mile in scouting him, they discovered that he could be persuaded from playing football. Other guys like Eric Patterson, Chris Huseby, Andrew Rundle, and so on, who were drafted later were similarly persuaded.

 

So, ceiling's one factor of many to take into account with the MLB draft.

[UK1679666180]

Ok. So could we call it a best guess? It seems as though some talk of ceiling as a finite entity, as if it actually exists. For example, I would think that my elementary school teachers and probably many of my highschool teachers would have said my career ceiling was dishwaser at TGIF, that didn't make it so.

 

From my limited reading much is made of a minor leaguer's ceiling. However, if so few live up to their ceiling how important a judgment is it?

 

All players are drafted on thier potential, no? Is that what a ceiling is? If so, (going back to my first post) dose draft slot matter. I think it would, at least in the higher rounds. Let's take Farnsworth for example, he was drafted in the 40th round or something like that. Was he drafted that low in spite of his ceiling or because of his ceiling?

 

Guessing makes it sounds as if it's just picking possibilities out of a hat. Scouts will assign a different ceiling for a player, it's an arbitrary system based on the opinion and knowledge of the scout.

 

Not recognizing their efforts and intelligence towards a logical conclusion (ceiling) would be similar to saying teaching methods while different are basically shots in the dark as far as effectiveness and a guess as to whether or not it will work with kids.

 

It's very important to grade their ceiling, especially kids that haven't fully developed, the younger you go, the more important it becomes compared to where he is in the present. If you draft a HS kid, you're more concerned with how good he'll be 5 years from now moreso than how good he is now and if he has the tools and tangibles to get there.

 

Players are mostly graded on their tools as well as the intangibles. Ceiling (projection tools) factors greatly in drafting a kid as did his signability and intangibles.

 

I don't know why Farnsworth was drafted when he was, it went to some Georgia agriculture school so exposure could've been limited, he might not have shown anything beyond a straight FB, or his FB could've been topping at 90 and straight and been reworked once drafted. Hard to say why with so many potential reasons.

[Mephistopheles]

Kyle Farnsworth was *probably* a guy who was projectable but didnt throw real hard after HS. The Cubs figured he'd develop so they took him as a draft and follow pick, he enrolled at Abraham Baldwin College spent one season and the Cubs signed him before he re-entered the draft.

[CubinNY]

Ok. So could we call it a best guess? It seems as though some talk of ceiling as a finite entity, as if it actually exists. For example, I would think that my elementary school teachers and probably many of my highschool teachers would have said my career ceiling was dishwaser at TGIF, that didn't make it so.

 

From my limited reading much is made of a minor leaguer's ceiling. However, if so few live up to their ceiling how important a judgment is it?

 

All players are drafted on thier potential, no? Is that what a ceiling is? If so, (going back to my first post) dose draft slot matter. I think it would, at least in the higher rounds. Let's take Farnsworth for example, he was drafted in the 40th round or something like that. Was he drafted that low in spite of his ceiling or because of his ceiling?

 

Guessing makes it sounds as if it's just picking possibilities out of a hat. Scouts will assign a different ceiling for a player, it's an arbitrary system based on the opinion and knowledge of the scout.

 

Not recognizing their efforts and intelligence towards a logical conclusion (ceiling) would be similar to saying teaching methods while different are basically shots in the dark as far as effectiveness and a guess as to whether or not it will work with kids.

 

It's very important to grade their ceiling, especially kids that haven't fully developed, the younger you go, the more important it becomes compared to where he is in the present. If you draft a HS kid, you're more concerned with how good he'll be 5 years from now moreso than how good he is now and if he has the tools and tangibles to get there.

 

Players are mostly graded on their tools as well as the intangibles. Ceiling (projection tools) factors greatly in drafting a kid as did his signability and intangibles.

 

I don't know why Farnsworth was drafted when he was, it went to some Georgia agriculture school so exposure could've been limited, he might not have shown anything beyond a straight FB, or his FB could've been topping at 90 and straight and been reworked once drafted. Hard to say why with so many potential reasons.

 

You are absolutely right. Good scouts can make a difference just as good teaching practices can make a difference. However, I think good player development people are probably more important.

 

Nevertheless, potential or ceiling is an unknowable, but I certianly would want good people to help pick talent. Be that as it may, when I hear people here write about a player like Jake Fox, Ryan Theriot or Angel Guzman's ceiling I cringe.

[Guest]

A great example of a "high ceiling" guy who scouts loved but didn't have exemplary results in college was Verlander. He got things figured out and has come close to reaching his ceiling. But he was a long way from there when he was drafted.

[craig]

I think ceiling eval is pretty different for pitchers than players. For a player, if you lack certain tools there are obvious limits on your ceiling. Steve Clevenger will not be a big HR hitter, does not have a SS arm, and does not have SS quickness. Hitting for power or playing big-league SS, those things are beyond his ceiling. Geo Soto does not have running speed or bat speed. His ceiling is constrained by those physical realities.

 

For pitchers, if a guy throws really fast, it's obvious that he has a high ceiling, even if he's wild or inconsistent. Often a scout will see a guy who throws 50 fastballs in the 88-89 range but throws three at 96, and can say for now he can't throw hard consistently. But the fast ones show what he could do, perhaps consistently, if we could only smooth out his delivery. His results may be mediocre because he's normally not throwing hard or with location, but scout may see the occassional glimpse of dominant fastball and see that as the ceiling.

 

However, there are tons of pre-draft players who don't throw as hard as they will when they hit the majors. Guys add velocity quite often. Result of improved mechanics, or result of filling out, physical maturation. Other guys lose velocity when they mature physically. There are some patterns to this projection. Tall slender guys who obviously are going to fill out physically are more likely to add velocity than short thick guys. But, that's not always the way it goes. Nolasco and Gallagher didn't profile as projection guys, but both did add significantly to their consistent mph. Jon Garland was supposed to project more, but he never really added any from when he was drafted.

 

Farnsworth was in the 80's when drafted. His first BA report was after a statistically unexciting season in low-A. They said he threw in the 89-91 range, with a heavy fastball, but projected for more. That he'd add 10 more, who could guess? As HS senior, Clemens was kind of a chunky, heavy guy with a low-mid-80's fastball. A classmate was drafted, he was either drafted pretty late or not at all. Who was to guess how much untapped fastball, or control, was ahead for him?