Judging players without watching them play.

rynoattack,

I understand what you're saying.  Couple things when someone is a very slow runner it can sometimes appear that they are not running very hard.  Your example of McGwire giving up running to 1B for injury prevention reasons might be because his power swing was not conducive to getting out of the box quickly and he was a slow runner.  Only he would know for sure how many he just hit on the ground and gave up on. He did hit over 250 doubles, I'm sure he had o hustle on most of those.

Barry Bonds actually hit close to 700 doubles and triples.  He also stole over 500 bases.  That is a lot of chances to be injured by running.  I'm sure he didn't bust it when hitting a one hopper to the second baseman, but he was only three strides out of the box when the 1Baseman caught the ball.  Anyway, sometimes loafing isn't really loafing.  

I know you are right about Major Leaguers taking it easy at times.  Though I wouldn't call it common. At least on ground balls that are not sure outs.  I just disagree with the injury reasoning for giving up.  Many have played an entire career without suffering an injury running to first base. Some run fast, others run slow.

Let me start by saying I'm all about respecting the game and players conducting themselves accordingly, but this notion that if a kid gets off the bus wrong or gets testy at the plate he can be blackballed by MLB scouts or RC's is nonsense.

This whole thing  ( player evaluation ) centers around TALENT. Period. Is 'make up' important? sure..to a certain degree, but make no mistake, if a HS LHP is throwing 94+ MLB and NCAA RC's will be watching and the priority is the LED # on the radar gun not the kids fashion statement walking off the bus.

Furthermore, as far as pro ball goes, a kid is seen by several scouts from an organization before there is serious talk about pursuing the player via the draft. If a area scout has been sent by his boss to look at a HS hitter and that hitter draws a BB at the plate and subsequently pouts or gets shitty about it. The scout will take notice but he's not gonna rip up his notes on a kid or walk away. That's nonsense.If the scouts boss sent him to see the kid, He stays and watches the AB's. If he doesn't he will not have a job.

Not sure how many people on here have been at a game where a potential pick is throwing or hitting but you'll see multiple scouts; regional, area, national, AGM's from several organizations. They watch together and generally leave together. I've yet to see an MLB scout 'storm off' They just don't do that.

Don't get me wrong , I'm not suggesting they don't consider make up or do thier homework on that. What I am saying is that is further down the road. When a team has decided they may take that guy in the first 5, 6 rounds. Yes, there is due diligence at that point but not initially. Initially its ' Can he play'

          College is another thing but honestly not dramatically different. If an RC goes to see a hitter and he's 6'2 185 banging balls off the wall and running a 6.7 all sins are forgiven. College is more about a boutique fit for THAT program where in pro ball, a draft prospect generally sort of works the same for all 30 MLB clubs. Columbia University is looking for a different kid than say Miami is. And yes Columbia likes the guys Miami is recruiting but most do not fit with what they need in a player for Ivy ball.

Is make up part of college recruiting? Absolutely. But does a RHP with a 84 MPH FB with perfect manners on and off the field, a 4.0 GPA and perfectly ironed uniform, Really have a recruiting advantage over a RHP with a 90 MPH FB,  hot head attitude on the mound , 2.7 GPA , stained uniform and tired looking wore out turfs?

What college and MLB have in common with talent evaluation is a simple question; "Can this kid play" " Can he help my organization/institution win" That's 90% of it. The other 10% is negotiable based on how good the player is.

Furthermore , if you are a parent interested in seeing your son play in college and you see an RC from a school that has a very strict sort of view of how a player 'goes about it' Do you really want your kid going there? How is his experience over 4 years with this guy going to be? Is he going to have to walk on egg shells?

Personally, my 2016 son committed to a D-1 program in the South. The coaches are good men. Family guys. A tight program but not too tight. The goal at this program is to win baseball games and graduate all of their players.Real simple. My son was a good fit academically and YES he's well mannered on the field and shows up 'ready to play' and all that. But they didn't send the NLI last week because of that. Those things were considered but were not the deciding factor. They sent the NLI because they think he can play. They think he can help them win.

StrainedOblique,

Agree with most everything you have written.

The only thing where I might have a different opinion is regarding makeup.  I have seen college coaches stay clear of kids that have more than enough talent to play at that college.  

Once the actual talent is established, there are three very important items left for MLB organizations.  Medical, Signability, Makeup...

Makeup, like so many other things becomes a risk vs. reward issue.  Makeup often becomes the reason for success or failure.   So in the end, makeup often costs a player a draft round or more (money) because of (more risk)

While no one can watch a kid get off a bus and know he has bad makeup, it can be a clue for future consideration.  I think when people (scouts/coaches) talk about picking out the players by watching them get off the bus, they mean picking out the best players based on what they look like and how they move. Many of the best players really look the part.  Of course, this again is only a first impression, because that would be a very unreliable opinion.

It's always nice to see the perfectly dressed and groomed player that acts like a saint.  But that has very little to do with the makeup I personally look for.  I don't look for choir boys.  I want kids that have what it takes to be big winners and leaders.  Championship caliber makeup!  It's one of those things that is hard to describe, but you know it when you see it, except it could be there even of you don't see it.  We all knew that Eric Hosmer had it, it was very obvious.  Then again sometimes your positive and still proven wrong. Things change!

Anyway, as I said, your post is very accurate IMO.  I just might have a bit higher opinion on the importance of makeup.

No one on this site knows more about player evaluation than PGStaff . I defer to him on this. He knows! I probably should have tried to sort of quantify the importance of player 'make up' because as PGStaff said its not a factor that is overlooked.

For example : If 2 players are equal from a skill set standpoint , the kid with the better make up gets the gig. Also I would add that a kids GPA says a lot about a lot of things. Particularly his work ethic.

Those things are very important.

I think the thing I was trying to get across with my post is that in the final analysis, you gotta be able to 'play' and kids that can 'play' always get looks.

The 6th Tool!

Difficult to scout, almost impossible. Five minutes or 5 hours.

Bob

Originally Posted by PGStaff:

…Of course, this again is only a first impression, because that would be a very unreliable opinion….

PG, I’m sorry if this comes across as disrespectful, but isn’t saying Many of the best players really look the part just as bad as saying one can watch a kid get off a bus and know he has bad makeup?

There’s no doubt first impressions affect an evaluator, but whether that impression is good or bad doesn’t change how reliable it is, does it?

Not sure what you mean, but it is true that many of the best prospects have a certain look about them.  However, that look alone is far from enough to label someone a prospect. First impressions are not reliable.  

Regarding makeup, it takes some investigation and as many viewings as possible.  Then it is still possible to get it wrong.  

That guy with the "look", is very obvious stepping off the bus or standing on the field, he has the look, that part won't change.  But nobody has ever made it on looks alone. Having that look about them doesn't mean they can play. Could be someone that went unnoticed stepping off the bus that is actually the best prospect.

So if I made those two things sound the same, it was unintentional.  One is a certainty - They have the look!  They have it whether they are talented or not.  The other "makeup" would simply be a first impression and could be unreliable.

Originally Posted by PGStaff: … So if I made those two things sound the same, it was unintentional.  One is a certainty - They have the look!  They have it whether they are talented or not.  The other "makeup" would simply be a first impression and could be unreliable.

It’s not that you made them sound the same. I totally agree with what you said about that 1^st impression being very unreliable. It’s just that to me it’s unreliable whether it’s a player looking great or bad. There has to be much more investigation in order to make the best evaluation possible.           

That’s why I have so much trouble with the anecdotes about scouts packin’ it in after just watching players get off the bus or warm up. That may well happen if it’s the 3^rd time that scout showed up to see the same player or is looking to see if what others have previously seen was true. My point is, it’s not something that just happens without any other input because it wouldn't be a 1st impression.