Add new comment

Sorry to be absent from the convo for a few days. Busy busy busy and then summer cold/allergies wiped me out...
What I was thinking is that Edgar/Ichiro/Gwynn are 70s in that their ability to hit (encapsulating both eye, contact rates, discipline, bat control, power, lack of strikeouts, etc...) is next-to-elite. Might be grading them a little low, sure enough, but ultimately there are few 80s in history. Teddy Ballgame, Hornsby, Cobb, Shoeless Joe, Ruth, Gehrig, and that's pretty much the level I look at. Pujols would be at least a 75 if not an 80. Guys like Gwynn, Edgar, Ichiro, Musial, Mauer are just a notch below that, even if only barely.  Ackley may well end up in that group (hence my 65 for him) and Seager's a notch or two below Ackley. He'll hit well enough but it won't be at the 70+ level in my book. 
For me, it's not just batting average but a variety of different factors. I wouldn't be so quick to require that there's an 80 in every season (i.e. grading on a curve, giving 80s to the players at the top of that curve every year). That's all, really. 
Of course, I'm nowhere close to a professional scout, so take that for what it's worth. I just look at 80s as historically elite, and might have 15 players tops on that list in all of history. Since scouting uses historical comps as well as current, I'm fine with assigning scores based on overall history rather than current talent level. But even using a more accepted scouting scale, I'm still not quite sure Seager's a 70. Kid can hit, and has a great eye, but I'm not convinced he's gonna hit close to what Ackley will in his peak. 
That's all I'm sayin. Not trying to dis' ya one bit...