How do you measure "makeup?"

All you have to do is ignore the papers and the blogs and the rest of the bs - and just watch the guy play.

It isnt that hard to do.

Its -
If it is really that easy, why do teams make so many mistakes by wasting high draft picks on headcases? Don't they watch the guys play?

Perhaps its is meaning measuring "make up" should be easy, but for some reason they make it difficult by getting distracted and simply not observing.

quote:

Originally posted by Rob Kremer:
Its -
If it is really that easy, why do teams make so many mistakes by wasting high draft picks on headcases? Don't they watch the guys play?

Nowadays - if Charlie Manson had 5 "tools" - he would go in the first round. LOL And someone would make excuses for his prior felonies.

Say all you want about actual performance - it is relatively unimportant in the grand scheme of things.

Its about "tools" and the marketing thereof - LOL - and money - and protecting your butt business wise.

Just the way it is. IMO.

Rob,

May I add:

The big Rags:

You have to churn and you have to burn - they arent in the business for fun.

They are in it for money. M-O-N-E-Y

So - Baseball America will put out 20 pieces of garbage - for every 1 real good story - every month.

It sells. It gets subscribers. It is like the National Enquirer stuff.

The truly great stories - like Erik Davis - rarely see the light. I am glad his did.

Its what they do - and they do it for money. Thats it.

It isnt really that hard to figure out.

Sadly, I have to agree with its...

Coaches, etc. always say that character matters but seldom follow through with the "big play" guys. Through the years, I've seen many ball players talk back, throw things, show poor leadership skills, behave in an a way negative to their teammates and the coach may engage in an obligatory punishment that ends the moment the player is wanted for the big hit or needed out.

If a player can win ball games, their inappropriate behavior appears to become secondary.

I'm sure that the coach is thankful for the guys who work hard and play with "heart" but they had better learn to deal with those few who bring "ugly" into the game.

It would be nice to think that character would be more of a factor; we don't like to think that jerks get rewarded. But they do, and not just in baseball.

Scouts may watch a high draft pick more than other players, but they don't live with them, get in the dugout with them, or talk to anyone about them other than their parents or coaches who have a vested interest. Even if they would talk to, say, teammates, could they believe they were getting an honest assessment or a jealous rage? The organization probably feel that what a player does between the lines is the only thing that concerns them; can he help the club?

We've personally known several players, drafted high, who are well-known head cases. But they have serious talent. Perhaps the organization thought that the rigors of minor league ball would shape them up. A couple washed out, a couple have taken their behavior to their major league club.

What about the Eddie Haskells --- parents and coaches think they're lovely, but they're a problem to teammates and that handicaps the team. Met a few of those along the way, too.

The Padres are big on psychological testing and my son has been impressed so far with the makeup of the guys he's playing with. Maybe it helps, or maybe it only weeds out the psychotics!

Reading the scouting reports draft day, I only recall one that referenced a questionable attitude (trying to be diplomatic here) and he went very high.

I don't know that the Jerk Factor is any higher in baseball than in other professions, although logically it probably could be. Many players of questionable character have been studs since LL, fawned over, and allowed to get by with all manner of things because of their talent. That behavior continues to be rewarded with a big bonus out of high school, a schollie to a Big Name school, media attention, glowing articles in Baseball America, whatever. No surprise that they keep pushing the envelope when nobody's stopped them before

Fromn what I am hearing, perhaps it is NOT true that character and makeup are thought of as sixth tools. Perhaps it is actually not all that important when it comes to winning ballgames.

I mean, if it is true that scouts and recruiters continue to knowingly draft and sign talented headcases, then I think it is pretty obvious that makeup isn't all that important to them.

And these people are professionals. Sure, everybody makes mistakes, but if the entire profession is telling us by their actions that makeup isn't that big of a deal, then maybe they know something we don't.

The alternative explanations would have to be either:
1) Makeup IS important, but the professional scouts and recruiters just don't realize it and so largely ignore it; and
2) Makeup IS important, but they just can't figure out how to gague it.

Rob

Pro scouts arent idiots. They do it for a living.
But they are also realists.

They are good at spotting true talent.
But that isnt the whole game anymore.

"Makeup" doesnt mean squat if you dont have some marketing cache.

You gotta make your picks - and you gotta hedge yourself - like any other business decision.

You dont pick guys high - and you dont place your bets - on "Makeup". Makeup is squat.

You place your bets on the Charlie Manson nutcase with the strong arm.

That is the leveraged business bet. Anything else is business suicide.

.
I would tend to disagree...a little...for college anyway...while it can be equated with Character...

Sixth tool in college is now "Stay and graduate on time"

The spots that might once have gone to "character guys" and now goin to go to DA..."Designated Academics"...guys who may not play much, but you're sure will keep your academic indexes up...

...headed for a two tiered system.

I would have to stop with my ranting for a second - and agree with Observer44

College:

If your grades arent good out of high school - you are putting yourself at a disadvantage that has never existed before.

Hard core disadvantage.

Do your homework. Just suck it up and do it.

I’m not sure most people completely understand what make up means to a major league scouting department. It is hard to define and there was a long discussion about this on here a while back.

You can have outstanding character and bad make up! They are not looking for a bunch of nice boys, they are looking for those people who have what it takes to make it to the top and be champions.

That said, talent will always be the first determining factor.

Here are a few questions…

Does Barry Bonds have great makeup?
Did Mickey Mantle have great makeup?
Did Denny McClain have great makeup?
Did Pete Rose have great makeup?
Did Ty Cobb have great makeup?

Character and makeup are two separate things when it comes to baseball. It is extra special when someone has both, though.

I'm very glad that Charlie Manson wasn't a 5 tool guy!

PG,

Manson couldnt hit a slider to save his life.

44 is right; college is a slightly different game and players are chosen based on a mixture of talent, the potential to stay academically eligible, and not get into any bother that's going to get them taken off the team by the Administration.

None of which is true in the professional game where it's pretty much down to how well you play. Individual owners may have more scruples about the character of their players (or their players' agents coughBorascough), but there's still always going to be a place for the talented jerks. Just as there was a place for Ty Cobb.

And it's an entertainment. Look at some of the antics of the NBA & NFL players in games that are eclipsing baseball in popularity. It's not as if it's hurting the gate.

Totally agree, PG - which is why in my original question I asked about both character AND makeup.

Makeup I would define as "is the kid a winner?" Can he handle pressure? Does he make smart decisions in the heat of the battle?

Character is definitely a different question.

quote:

Originally posted by PGStaff:
Does Barry Bonds have great makeup?
Did Mickey Mantle have great makeup?
Did Denny McClain have great makeup?
Did Pete Rose have great makeup?
Did Ty Cobb have great makeup?

She's still got great makeup!

Depending on your moral perspective - and your monetary objectives - it is remotely possible that your first question might be:

Is he a felon?

LOL

quote:

Originally posted by Rob Kremer:
Totally agree, PG - which is why in my original question I asked about both character AND makeup.

Makeup I would define as "is the kid a winner?" Can he handle pressure? Does he make smart decisions in the heat of the battle?

Character is definitely a different question.

Two other questions you need to throw in there IMO.

How many felony convictions does he have?

And what is his potential for future felony convictions regardless of his past "escapes". LOL

" How do you measure make-up? "


Besides integrity, athletic ability, drive, and passion,...perhaps it can be measured in tubes and ounces?

If you can hit the ball - or throw the ball really well - the truth is there is a huge support structure out there for you .

If you can make other people money - directly or indirectly - you can wreck havoc any where you go - and probably get away with it.

I dont think that is the morally right thing to do - but dont be fooled - if you can make people money - you will be blanketed with an army of blood hungry money sycophants.

Be moral. Be a good human being.
That is worth more than any amount of money anyone can ever give you.

IMO

I think PG gave a good explanation of the difference between make up and character.

I do agree that talent will always supercede bad makeup or even bad character in scouting in any sport, because the whole mentality of pro sports is so much different than college or HS. A coach will be quicker to get rid of a player who is always negative and brings the team down, before he will get rid of the player who has been caught off campus drinking and arrested. One has bad makeup the other great character but basically a good teammate who got in trouble. I have seen it happen.

That's why I mentioned Michael Vick. He has good makeup in his game but what he is accused of showed bad character, immoral activity and that generally is unacceptable in today's society. No one would have cared if he was just a jerk in the clubhouse.

I think that the original post that was in another thread got to me. Because a player swears or drinks does not mean he will end up a hoodlum. I really didn't understand the whole point of the topic.

True story. When I was younger living in an apartment by San Jose State University I was told by another resident (after a month of living there) that I was living in Charlie's old apartment. Great.

Charlie had power. But his defense was bad.