The 20-80 Scouting Scale or Why the Phillies DON’T Have a #1 and Maybe Not Even a #2

(This article was originally posted as the major portion of an open discussion published during the off-season following the 2015 season.  I have intended to publish it separately so that I could add it to the site’s menu.  I felt it a little presumptive to add it to James’ Primer, but there is really no better spot for it.  Anyway, there have been a few references to it the past week or two, so I felt I should get it published and linked for reference.  It is almost word-for-word with the original discussion which I have placed here.  You may find the comments to the original interesting.  This article will go on the Primer drop down menu.)

I know this could be viewed as a patently absurd statement.  I don’t know if I agree or disagree with it.  But I do know that the concepts of a starting pitcher hierarchy from an Ace or #1 pitcher down through a #5 pitcher are often used incorrectly here, on sports and baseball shows, in sports articles, and in sports blogs.

Since first encountering these terms, I have endeavored to understand them.   I often blanch when I see them used incorrectly (as I understand them).  And I have tried to share what I believe is the universal meaning of these terms as used by the scouting community.

Past attempts as a small paragraph within another post or within the comment thread of an article seem to have failed.  So I will try again under the inflammatory title above, suggesting we don’t even have a #2 pitcher.

I spent several days researching this topic online.  And then another couple days verifying that what I presented was a fair representation based on what various sources have stated. I visited Fangraphs, Baseball America, Baseball Prospectus, a couple websites dedicated to an organization’s affiliates, a website for HS baseball, and a couple college websites.  Some were written 10 years ago, and some were written as recently as in the past 9 months.  They try several different ways to explain the 20-80.  Some are simple and direct, others are less simple but compelling.  I’ll include all my sources at the end of the article.

In the following paragraphs, I will present only the facts that support my beliefs.  Just kidding.  I have no horse in this “race” other than to see that the terms are understood and used correctly.  I am heartened that the BP article written in 2006 is remarkably similar in theory to the FanGraphs article written in September 2014.

First, as I implied in the first paragraph, the terms Ace and #1 are virtually  interchangeable in the documents I’ve read.  Broadcasters, beat writers, or the fan base of a team may refer to their team’s top pitcher as the ace of their staff, but that doesn’t mean he is a true #1 or ace as the terms are used in the baseball community.  For instance, as we’ll see shortly, as good as Cole Hamels was for the Phillies, he was probably never a #1, even when he was the best pitcher on the staff.

Second, and this is implied in the above paragraph, there are not 30 #1 pitchers in baseball.  The best pitcher on a team’s staff does not automatically mean that the pitcher will grade out as a #1 pitcher.  Broadcasters, beat writers, or the fan base of a team may rank their pitchers 1 through 5, sometimes based on the order in which they are assigned starts.  But, they would be mistaken to think that every team has a #1, a #2, a #3, etc; and they would be further mistaken to assume that there were by extension 30 #1 pitchers in the league, 30 #2s, 30 #3s, and so on.  In fact, scouts and other baseball people who grade players tend to agree that at any given time there are about 8-12 #1 pitchers in the majors, around 20 #2s, and about 75 #3s.  Since there only 150 starting pitcher slots available in the 30, five-man rotations, that would leave roughly 43-47 #4 and #5 pitchers in major league rotations.

In order to rank pitchers as #1, #2, etc. each rank has been assigned the attributes that define the rank as follows:

Rank          Attributes

  • #1              2 plus pitches, average 3rd pitch, plus-plus command, plus make-up
  • #2              2 plus pitches, average 3rd pitch, average command, average make-up
  • #3              1 plus pitch, 2 average pitches, average command, average make-up
  • #4/#5      command of 2 ML pitches, average velo, consistent breaking ball,                                  decent change-up

The attributes are clouded with terms like plus, plus-plus, and average.  Baseball America defines these and other attributes as follows:

Grade        Description

  • 20             As bad as it gets for a big leaguer.
  • 30             Poor, but not unplayable.
  • 40             Below Average.
  • 45             Major League average.
  • 50             Average.
  • 55             Above average.
  • 60             Plus.
  • 70             Plus-plus.
  • 80             Top of the scale.

Baseball players are measured on several definable skills assigned to their position.  For instance, starting pitchers are graded on their fastballs, secondary pitches, command, and make-up.  Velocity is important but not the only thing considered when grading a fastball. command and movement are important, too.  But, I’ll just focus on fastball velocity today:

Grade        Avg. RHP Starter     Avg. LHP Starter     Reliever

  • 80                         97+                                    96+                           98-99
  • 70                         96                                       95
  • 65                         95                                       94
  • 60                         94                                       93
  • 55                         93                                       92
  • 50                         91-92                                90-91
  • 45                         90                                       89
  • 40                         88-89                                87-88
  • 30                         86-87                                85-86
  • 20                         85 or less                       84 or less

The average velocity for a fastball is determined by the average within his range.  The pitcher’s range is determined by where the majority of his fastballs are recorded.  For example, in a very SSS, a pitcher throws 10 fastballs – 93, 92, 95, 94, 91, 98, 92, 92, 95, 93. This is where the terms “sit” and “touch” come into play.  A scout would say the pitcher in the SSS sits 92-95 (discarding the outliers) and touches 98 (recognizing the high outlier). The average of the pitches in his range (where he “sits”) is 93.25, which would grade out to a 55 on the above chart for a RHP, 60 for a LHP.

I can remember being taught about the “bell curve” in grade school and high school. Without going into too much detail, here’s some information I found on the 20-80 scale (

The scouting scale is from 20-80. There is speculation that when first instituted it was decided that 50 would be average in a 0-100 scale.  There is further speculation that a scientific scale of three standard deviations above/below average would be employed. With 50 as average,  three grades in each direction would be the normal distribution – 20, 30, 40 below average and 60, 70, 80 above.

Major League level baseball skills are distributed in a bell curve.  Most players will be bunched near the center of the curve where average skills reside.  Players with a skill level that is greater or worse than the average will fill out the curve until the extremes at each end are reached where the fewest players reside.  A percentage representation would look as follows:

Grade     Term                                     Percentage of MLB Players with a Particular Skill

  • 20          Poor                                          0.2%
  • 30          Well Below Average          2.1%
  • 40          Below Average                  13.6%
  • 50          Average                                 68.2%
  • 60          Plus                                         13.6%
  • 70          Plus-Plus                                2.1%
  • 80          Top End                                   0.2%

Now, you can see that most players graded on any skill are going to bunch in the middle of the curve, hence the bell allegory.  Most teams use the half grades of 45 and 55 to spread the average players out.  Some scouts go a step further to describe players in the middle of the range by describing the skill as “solid average” (between 50-55) or “fringy average” (between 45-50)  This is just another tool to further differentiate among the large number of players in the middle of the curve.

A couple other concepts that come into play are control vs. command and make-up.  All but one of the seven articles I read agreed on the meanings of control and command.  The seventh, spent his time trying to dispute Curt Schilling who apparently agrees with the other six articles I read.  Dude must not like Curt.  Control is the ability to throw strikes, to throw the ball over the plate.  Command is the ability to throw “quality strikes”, to hit the target consistently.  When a pitcher with good control misses, a lot of balls are hit hard and put in play.  A pitcher with good command makes fewer mistakes.  His mistakes can be hit just as hard, but it doesn’t happen as often.  A pitcher with good command will tend to miss more bats over a larger sample size than the pitcher with good control.

Make-up is a more subjective concept.  A scout tries to gauge the type of person the player will become based on his opinion of the player’s surroundings grounding up.  There’s no formula, so sabermatricians haven’t tried to grade this as far as I know.

The 20-80 scale used by scouts to describe a pitcher’s weapons also helps determine a pitcher’s overall rating.  In 2015 Baseball America, for instance, described pitchers as follows:

Grade            Role                                                            Example

  • 75-80          #1 Starter                                                   Craig Kershaw
  • 65-70          #2 Starter                                                   Coles Hamels
  • 55-60          #3 Starter, Elite Closer                        Chris Tillman, Aroldis Chapman
  • 50                 #4 Starter, Elite Set-Up Reliever    Mike Leake, Andrew Miller
  • 45                 #5 Starter, Set-Up Reliever               Scott Feldman, Craig Stammen
  • 40                 Relief Specialist                                     Randy Choate


Baseball America’s overall grade for prospects is slightly different from baseball’s OFP (Overall Future Potential) in that it attempts to numerically guage a prospect’s realistic ceiling while assigning the risk the organization assumes as the prospect progresses to the major leagues:

   Risk                    Description

  • Safe                    Has shown realistic ceiling, ready to contribute
  • Low                     Likely to reach realistic ceiling, certain MLB career barring injury
  • Medium            Some work to reach MLB caliber skills, but fairly polished player
  • High                    Most picks in 1st season, players w/projection left, injury history
  • Extreme            Teens in rookie ball, significant injury history, struggle w/key skill

And finally, a look at how all the above relates to the Phillies’ pitchers.  I think if we look at the pitchers on the 40-man roster, we can eliminate all as #1 starters and most if not all as #2 starters.

The Phillies have 24 pitchers on their 40-man roster, 12 starters and 12 relievers.  The relievers are Araujo, Cordero, Garcia, Gomez, Hernandez, Hinojosa, Hollands, Mariot, Murray, Neris, Ramos, and Stumpf.

Among the starting pitchers, only Velasquez throws an above league average fastball at 94.99 MPH.

The 12 SP on the roster are graded below.  2-S and 4-S are 2-seamer and 4-seamer. In 2015 the MLB average for a 4-S was 92.90 MPH, for a 2-S it was 92.30 MPH.  The Pre-season info is from BA’s 2015 Prospect Handbook.

  1. Asher                   RHP, 4-S, 91.90, Pre-season: low 90s FB touching 95, low 80s SL and                                       CH that flash AVG, BA Grade 50/Medium Risk, potential #4
  2. Biddle                 LHP, Pre-season: FB 91-93, SL in the low 80s, high 70s CH, mid 70s CB,                                   needs consistency, BA Grade 50/Extreme Risk
  3. Buchanan        RHP, 4-S, 89.81,
  4. Eickhoff             RHP, 4-S, 91.37,
  5. Gonzalez          RHP, 4-S, 89.54, Pre-season: 4 above average pitches, low 90s cutter,                                      mid 80s CH, low 80s SLl, BA Grade 45/High Risk, projects as back                                              end SP
  6. Harrison            LHP, 2-S, 86.85, SSS injured
  7. Hellickson        RHP, 4-S, 90.85,
  8. Morgan              LHP, 4-S, 89.37,
  9. Morton               RHP, 2-S, 92.34,
  10. Nola                     RHP, 4-S, 90.97, Pre-season: FB 93-95, SL that flattens, CH that used to                                 be a Plus pitch, BA Grade 60/Medium Risk
  11. Oberholtzer    LHP, 4-S, 88.85,
  12. Vasquez             RHP, 4-S, 94.99,  Pre-season: FB 92-95 T96, Plus CH, Below Average CB                                    that projects to Solid Average, BA Grade 55/High Risk

Eight prospects are graded below.  They were among the prospects listed in BA’s 2015 Prospect Handbook for the Phillies or their former teams.

  1. Appel                   RHP, Pre-season: FB 92-98 sits 94-95, mid 80s SL, CH, all 3 pitches                                             show as Plus, lacks command BA Grade 60/Medium Risk
  2. Arano                  RHP, Pre-season: FB 88-92 T94, 11-to-5 CB 74-80, sinking mid 80s CH,                                     BA Grade 45/High Risk, projects as back end SP
  3. M. Gonzalez     RHP, Pre-season: FB 94-97 T higher, BA grade 45/High Risk (note:                                             These FB numbers are deceiving.  GCL batters made hard contact                                            against him.)
  4. Imhof                  LHP, Pre-season: FB 86-92 T94, CB 75-80 w/strong break, CH low 80s,                                     none are plus, all are average or approaching average, BA Grade                                               50/High Risk, projects as back end SP
  5. Kilome                RHP, Pre-season: FB 89-92 T95, hard CB 78-80, low 80s CH, BA Grade                                     50/Extreme Risk, projects as mid rotation SP
  6. Pinto                    RHP, Pre-season: FB 93-95 T97, CH 80-82 projects as above average, a                                   SL that could be average in future, low 90s 2-seamer, BA Grade                                                   50/Extreme Risk
  7. Rodriguez         LHP, Pre-season: FB 89-92, CH, and CB that are average at best, BA                                           Grade 40/Mediumk Risk, may transition to RP
  8. Thompson       RHP, Pre-season: FB 2-seamer/4-seamer 89-95, Plus SL that flashes 70                                 on the 20/80, average CH, average CB, BA Grade 60/Medium Risk,                                             potential #2/3 SP

Among the starters, Velasquez appears to have the most promise.  The development of his CB will determine whether he reaches a ceiling of a #2.  Nola may have projected higher when his FB was 93-95, but after barely averaging 91 last season, his FB grades out as average for a RHP.  He looks like a solid #3.  The other 10 are threes or back end of the rotation guys.

Among the prospects, Appel looks like his command will determine where he slots in as a pitcher, although #3 is probably his floor and the most likely outcome.  Thompson looks like a pitcher who could reach his #2 ceiling.  Kilome and Pinto are both coming off good seasons.  This coming season both should be entering the conversation regarding prospective major league starting pitchers as they move up to Lakewood and Reading respectively.  Arano and Imhof will likely remain in the conversation for back end slots. Rodriguez continues a transition to the bullpen. And, Gonzalez probably just fades away when his contract is up.

So , were looking at a 2017 rotation that could include a couple blossoming #2s in Thompson and Vasquez, a couple of solid #3s in Nola and Appel, a lot of solid pitchers to fill out the rotation in the interim and in ’17, a couple of developing pitchers coming up in ’18 and/or ’19 in Pinto and Kilome, as well as some wild cards in the low minors I didn’t even mention here PLUS the 1/1 pick in the draft.  Future’s looking bright.



17 thoughts on “The 20-80 Scouting Scale or Why the Phillies DON’T Have a #1 and Maybe Not Even a #2

  1. Jim- Thank you very much for posting this again and putting it in the primer section. Somehow I always seem to lose track of this article but now I’ll know where to find it.

  2. There’s a very good opportunity to grab a TOR starter in next year’s draft. The 2017 edition is supposed to be loaded with college arms. Tanner Houck, JB Bukauskas, Alex Lange, and Kyle Wright are some of the top names. However, HS’er Hunter Greene probably has the highest ceiling. Since the Phillies won’t be picking in the top six (and with probably an additional first round pick), maybe they would be more comfortable drafting a high upside prep arm. A guy who is flying under the radar that I’m starting to like a whole lot is Zac Lowther. He’s a LH pitcher from Xavier. He was dominant in the Cape Cod League this summer (35.2 IP, 26 H, 4 BB, 54 K).

  3. @Jim – thanks! I always made reference to this article not only in this site but also with my discussions with my buddies and fans alike. I’m glad you put it in the Primer where for easy access. Keep up the good work!

    1. Thank you. This is probably the best article I’ve done here at Phuture Phillies. It was certainly more challenging than box score reports and open discussions. It rivals (IMO) only the article I submitted as an example of my work when I volunteered to write for this site. In that article I did a report on whom the Phillies should sign when Carlos Ruiz’ contract was up. I went into that article with a guy in mind, but ended up predicting that, not only would the Phillies re-sign Ruiz, but that he was the best catcher available on the free agent market at that time.

      1. @Jim – I’m about to say that it’s also the best reference I’ve read regarding scouting scale and I use it all the time with by baseball discussions with peers. I have to copy and paste and print it out (but made reference of you and this wonderful site) – but now, I can just send the link to whoever who needs guidance about it.

  4. Great stuff, Jim, and spot-on … with one small error, and one big one.

    The small one is leaving out the concept of a polished player’s tools “playing up.” I know Jim understands this, but for those who don’t, it basically refers to the idea that a very polished player might do a better than his raw tools would suggest. JP Crawford is an example of this: most scouts put his hit tool at a ~55, and his power at ~40 …. but they also note that Crawford has great plate discipline and pitch recognition, which will help him perform at a level higher than the kind of .270, 10 HR numbers his raw tools would imply. (and of course, some guys play “below” their tools).

    The big mistake … huge, really is simply that the scouting reports you are basing your judgements on are almost two seasons old: For established major leaguers, that’s a long time ago; for prospects, it’s simply an eternity.

    I see a ton of major developments that aren’t reflected in your ratings (none of this is my own grading, just comparing the grades you have here to what scouts and writers are saying more currently.

    – Kilome’s fastball isn’t 89-92 T95 anymore … it spiked to mid-90s T97 last year, and has stayed there this year. Matt Winkelman just wrote a whole article on him over at Good Phight. His potential is #2 at *minimum* (though obviously still a long ways away).

    – Jake Thompson’s slider, by all accounts, just isn’t what it was a couple years ago. I don’t think any scouts would put a 70 on it anymore; Farnsworth at Fangraphs put a 45 on it, which is almost certainly wrong, but you get the point. Still a solid prospect, but his stock is down from spring 2015.

    – Severino Gonzalez isn’t a starter anymore, but since moving to the pen he’s 92-94 T95. If he can keep that, with his secondaries he will be a very useful reliever.

    – I would love to see Matt Imhof in any spot in any rotation on any team, but I think that injury is career-ending.

    And so on.

    Finally, the two guys that made me include the paragraph above about the limitations of raw tool grades.

    – Appel … I can’t find it right now, but I’m pretty sure I read a scouting report on him from earlier this year that simply said “he’s a mess.” Yes, the raw ingredients are there, but they’ve always been there. The control is not there, the consistency is not there … Calling him a possible #3 in 2017 is just not even close; it’s iffy whether he’ll even be one of the three best starters at AAA next year.

    – Nola. Very much on the other hand, every scouting report ever written on him talks about how his game is better than his tools. First off, the scouting report you’re using there doesn’t even mention his curveball, which is his best pitch. Statistically, Fangraphs has it as one of the best curves in all of baseball. (Eickhoff’s is clearly plus, too, BTW, which it wasn’t in 2015). Yes, his fastball and change are just average, but his command is routinely pegged at 70, and his pitching IQ is very high. Heck just look at the descriptions you have there: one plus pitch (plus-plus, actually), and two average ones sounds like a #3 starter … but plus-plus command and a plus makeup sounds like a #1. Even them out and I get a #2.

    I’d put the 2017 rotation more like Nola and Vasquez as emerging if not quite fully there yet #2 types (assuming health for both), Eickhoff as a #3, and Eflin and Thompson as current back-end guys who have #3 potential. Someone(s) in that group will get hurt/decline, but for now it’s very promising.

    Pinto, Lively, Pivetta, Asher and Appel will be at AAA; again, no stars, but all of them have at least some potential.

    Anyway, thanks for all the work

    1. Well done and put.
      Prospects/young ML players skill and tool levels evolve, within short time frames

    2. Ty Nice great to hear , That’s what I always thought you about putting a grade on a pitching prospect there just a general grade at that time . Some LA pitchers seem skill set seem to take off in the Phillies Minor league sys. That 16 yr old now can throw a 55 grade slider with 92 mph Fb now he’s a 5 th starter . A pitcher can change his grip on a Curveball it becomes a plus pitch. I seen so many times a pitcher at major league level like Eickhoff improves a pitch . So the grade Is simple but ever changing one. A 19 with a 3 grade could become an Ace at 22. Would Baltimore trade Arrieta now no , Schilling the same Dave Stewart too. The grading system was meant for scout to tell there bosses . Then BA, Fangraphs, etc started hiring scouts the system went with them. Now a common fan has it, remember it’s ever changing one.

  5. This is an awesome writeup!

    I do think Kilome has two plus pitches the with the potential for them to both be plus-plus. I don’t think he will ever haver plus command, but it will be good enough.

    1. He’s been so dam good. I’m so very excited about him and personally I’d like to see him start in Lakewood next year with Moniak and maybe Ortiz if they want to get aggressive with their young studs.

  6. I just offer up some Cy Young Award winning pitchers not Picked in the 1st or 2nd rd .Jake Arrieta 5th rd , Jake Peavy 15 rd , Corey kluber 4th rd, Dallas Keuchel 7th , Zane Grienke 6th rd ,Cliff lee 4th rd, Brandon Webb. I could have went on I just wanted there ‘s gems in every rd . Jose Pujols 13 th, Kevin Pillar 32 rd , Crawford SS SF 5th , Nolan Arenado 6th rd, Manny Machado 6th rd .there’s so much more players I could make 2 All teams that are playing right now picked in lower rds.

    1. Tim….Zach Greinke was the 6th pick in the entire draft by the Royals in ’02…not the a 6th rounder around 200 or so.

Comments are closed.