Judging players without watching them play.

ABSOLUTELY!!!

TIME Management = $$$ wasted

 

 

Bob

Unfortunately..

 

Its true.  Is it fair? probably not, its no different than a smaller sized player gets discriminated against until they prove they are better than most of the entire team.  sometimes they dont even get the chance to.. First impressions are huge, and you only get one chance.  Personally its a bit short sighted to me, but the coach could be looking for something specific or a spot to fill and has his mind set, its up to the player to make the difference and it starts the second they come in contact with the evaluators.

How do we know its true if they don't talk to the player/coach about it?

 

I am sure it happens, but it is probably mostly "urban legend" to get kids to focus. 

It is non-verbal communication, a great scouting tool.

 

Over 6,000 players have traveled with our USA team Internationally and they are screened by pro scouts before traveling. We reported to over 400 college coaches each year. This is serious business.

 

HS and Youth coaches have dress codes and rules of behavior.

Bob Williams

Goodwill Series 1983-2015

 

 

Starting back in the preteen years through 18u softball and 16u baseball I emphasized two areas a lot of coaches overlooked. While I started with kids were little both affect recruiting. One was act like a ball player from the moment you arrive. The second was teaching parents how to properly act like the parent of an athlete.

If I was a scout and had traveled a significant distance, and wasn't on a tight schedule to go watch another kid somewhere, I would stick around and critique the other players in the game.

The scouts that are too full of themselves probably aren't very good.

Anybody can scout the standout kid. 

 

And certainly wastes the programs money by getting up and leaving if your schedule doesn't dictate it.

Cross that kid off your list and evaluate the other kids.

 

Scouts can be finicky because the pool is SOOOO large to choose from. I think the glamours of the life of a typical minor leaguer have been talked about on here in depth, and yet half the high school players would line up for the chance at the dream.

 

I have also heard of scouts secretly asking coaches to bench a kid, or put them deep in the line up, or in a position the kid doesn't normally play; while the scout sits anonymously in the stands and observes how the player reacts to these odd events.

The amount of tolerance a coach/scout/recruiter will have is going to be directly related to the amount of talent the player has.

 

A complete stud player - scout may be willing to overlook the fact that he didn't hustle hard in warmups.

 

A borderline player that the scout was on the fence about to begin with?  Better not give the scout any reason to move on to the next guy. 

My son attended a showcase late last summer and during the event, some of the coaches held "seminars" with the parents on various topics (recruiting, etc.)

 

One of the D2 coaches in attendance says he likes to get to the field very early (before the team) to do just what was stated above (watch kids get off the bus.)  He said he wants to see if they come off the bus ready to play, or are they still in shorts, shirts untucked, etc.  He said he watches the warmups to see who is goofing off.  He said he is only interested in those kids that are in "game mode" the instant they step foot off the bus...until they set foot back on the bus.

 

So not sure how "common" it is...but I definitely heard it from the coach's mouth in this one instance.

 

EDIT**  Now he also said he likes to see kids playing this game with a smile on their face and enjoying themselves.  He said there is a difference between enjoying the game and your teammates and goofing off.

       
       
Well thats going to be an issue then because players don't show up in their uniforms anymore.  Most teams have some sort of warm up wear.  They like to hang their jerseys over the fence and put them on after warm ups.  Times change.  Much ado about nothing.

I would have to imagine that scouts talk to one other.  Even about players.

Typically an area scout gets a salary and also a bonus based upon signing and subsequent progress of his signees through the MILB/MLB chain. Therefore, it is in scouts financial and work longevity interest to locate, evaluate, turn in and ultimately have his organization draft players from his area.

 

Viewed from that perspective, the urban myths of a scout capriciously leaving because of this (irrational) reason or that (irrational) reason are just that - urban myth.

 

No one here knows if the scput had games stacked back to back - HS games are typically all played the same days and often the scout will need to see a SP on one team and then drive to the next HS to watch the starting catcher and hope to catch the closer on game three (then throw in JUCO and college games the same day and it's even harder)- all in a single three hour period. No one here knows if the scout was told by the coach that a player was being disciplined that day by not starting or even not playing- perhaps for grades or team infractions. No one knows if the player to be seen is recovering from an injury which should turn him into a DH (when the scout really wanted to evaluate fielding). 

 

A scout just doesn't show up at a field to watch a game; during the season every day, every hour is programmed. For example, scouting closers is very difficult for scouts - lots of dominoes need to line up to get a view of that inning. So a day may be keyed around getting to a field at a certain time and everything before that may be effected - a game start delayed may force the scout to leave; a big inning which consumes an hour may do the same.

 

My point is parents/observers love to ascribe random reasons - kid had a shirt out, kid wore flip flops, kid had long hair, kid struck out, etc. - to a scout packing and leaving. That is not the way it works - any scout who did this would soon be eclipsed by scouts who were there to evaluate whether a player has MLB potential - and who would then be paid for that players ascent through the system.

 

I have seen kids who threw helmets, engaged hecklers, yelled at their coaches, had long hair, blue hair, tattoos, ear rings, all get drafted. The commonality: each had tools which an expert evaluated as potential MLB quality. If a scout doesn't think a kid has an MLB ceiling, no amount of talking to a coach or the player or the players parents will overcome that obstacle.

 

 

They are searching for the 6th Tool.

 

Bob

Scouts aren't stupid. Eight years ago my son's high school and travel teams had warm up tops. The player comes off the bus/out of the locker room/out of the car ready to do what comes first. The scouts are looking for focus and intent.

I do think that what is said above is true, however, I think it is really short sighted & narrow minded.  What if the kid is just having in off day in his behavior?  In other words, he is goofing off at just that one moment?  The kids are 15 - 18 for goodness sakes.  They are kids, and they are going to lose focus at times.  I think the coaches may miss out, and another coach will benefit.

Does he have a preference on how the bill of the cap is folded/not folded?  High socks/stirrups?  Hair length?  Do white cleats get you crossed off the list?

 

Goofing off, ok, but the rest?  Can't imagine John Kruk got off the bus with his shirt tucked in.

I'm reluctant to criticize scouts for the decisions they make about allocating their time.

 

Actually, I'm kind of jealous that scouts have the luxury to make a quick decision to spend their time more wisely than hanging around to watch a player they know they aren't going to recommend.

 

I don't know how many times I've conducted job interviews and known in the first few minutes the applicant wasn't a good match but went ahead and gave him or her the full opportunity to overcome my early impressions. Being fair was the right thing to do, but it wasn't the most efficient use of my time.  

 

From the accounts I've read, good scouts often have contingency games they are prepared to watch if the player they want to see doesn't play.  I seriously doubt the scouts in these stories left the ballpark, went back to their hotels, and drank beer in front of the TV.

 

They went somewhere else and did something else they thought was a better use of their time.

 

Scouts are paid to form opinions about people. If they form one in the pre-game, they can say, "My work here is done," and go do something else.

I am certain that the decision to leave in pregame is proportionate to the talent the scout thinks/knows the player has prior to showing up at the game.  In other words, if the scout has seen or heard that the player is a stud, he will probably look past the shirt not being tucked in, or a goofing off prior to the start of the game.  If the player is marginal, then yeah the scout will probably move on. 

First of all, players should know that scouts glue in on everything.  So why give them any reason to dislike you?

 

Often said and sometimes true, you can pick out the best players watching them get off the bus.  However, that has more to do with their body type and movement.

 

I could go to a game to see a player I'd seen several times. If he was a late round candidate at best and I saw him making a fool out of himself I might just up and leave.

 

However, if I had never seen a player before and he was suppose to be special, it doesn't matter what he does, I am staying to see what is so special.  Besides, if I am working for a MLB club, I'm expected to turn in a report.  No scout is going to turn in a report saying he left after watching the kid jump off the bus.  What if the kid ends up pitching 97 mph with a good breaking ball.  First round ability!  But you left without seeing him.  Start looking for another job.

 

No you can't leave... You send in your report that includes everything you saw, including the pre game, post game, and getting off the bus.

 

I understand why coaches and scouts say some of the things they say.  But some of the greatest players that ever lived did some of the dumbest things.  The more talent they have the more dumb things they can do.  I'm not talking about goofing off or an untucked shirt... I'm talking about really stupid behavior.  

 

Bottom line, you can always improve behavior.  But if your livelihood depends on winning in any way who do you want?  The well behaved kid that can't play or the kid you will need to work with that has the ability to be your best hitter or pitcher?

 

All that said, I have seen some outstanding players that I simply wouldn't want.  But it took a lot more than watching them get off the bus.

Originally Posted by Golfman25:

…I am sure it happens, but it is probably mostly "urban legend" to get kids to focus. 

 

I’m thinkin’ that covers it as well as it can be covered.

I can relate one story. In a fall tourney this year, my son started a game where he faced the 5A #1 team. On that team was the #1 rated kid in his class (my son is #2). His first at bat, with first open, after getting behind 2-0, we put him on with an intentional walk. This kid, who is a beast of a 2018, was a little upset. Flipped the bat and, as he headed for first, said, "Happy birthday." He happened to be passing a mlb scout who, according to one of our parents sitting behind him, tore the page out of his notebook, shook his head and tossed it in the trash. My son had a great game (K'd the same kid swinging in his next two at bats). He got a questionnaire from the scout - the only one he gave out from that game. The thing is, I know that kid well. he's a genuinely good kid. 4.6 GPA in an IB program. 5' 11" and runs a 6.67 60. Great outfielder. Hit cleanup as a freshman on the #1 5A team in the state. Lead the team in homers. And, throws 88 from the mound! And di I say he's a really good kid? However, that one single moment... 

I agree that the message is often used to get kids to focus.  I disagree that it is "mostly urban legend".  Partially, maybe.

 

Look, it is certainly going to be a rare exception that a coach will get up and leave THAT quickly but it is quite common that a coach gets a bad first impression THAT quickly.  And that bad first impression or bad impression at any point based on attitude, attire, disrespect, lack of hustle, etc. matters.  A lot. 

 

If a kid is talented but a pot head, it's going to catch up to him sooner than later.  If a kid is overly cocky to the point where he thinks he has arrived, he hasn't.  If a kid thinks he is so good that he doesn't need to follow the rules and be respectful, he's not.  A lot of the kids who display the types of behavior that we're talking about ultimately fall under one of these categories.  Plenty of coaches and scouts can see that in an instant and it's one big red check on the wrong side of the ledger.  It takes an awful lot of extra checks on the right side to get that player back in the black. 

 

So, what message do we want to send to the kids we influence?  "Naahhhh, it's an urban legend.  Swag away brother."  or  "Carry yourself the right way at all times.  It matters."  ??

Cabbagedad,

 

Why not simply tell the truth instead of embellishing? I’m sure there’s some reason that has to do with survival of the fittest that we all do such things, but is it really necessary? The way you explained it should be enough. If it isn’t, the person you’re trying to influence likely isn’t going to be swayed by any additional threat.

Yeah Stats, I know what you are saying but I believe, in many instances, it is necessary (not embellishing but using the outlier stories).

 

What is your role and who is your audience?  If you are a teacher or coach or parent or adult setting the example or even a participant on the blog of a respected resource, I believe you have a responsibility to impact in a positive manner.  When you are telling a story to convey a message, you are going to choose the stories that are most impactful.  Often, those are the outlier stories, the truely inspirationals, the longshots, the tragedies, the late bloomers, AND the "don't screw up" stories.  Those are what kids remember.  Then, they watch for you to support that message with your daily actions. 

 

I speak a different language and tell different stories here than I do when I get together with my buds on the golf course (who are well beyond any positive influence at this point ).  Yeah, it would be fun to let our hair down (which I don't have) here a bit more, but just as on the field, in the stands and at the kitchen table, I feel we have a responsibility to our audience here.  Parents and players come here for direction.  They deserve the right message.        

I don’t personally like running as a punishment, but as long as the parents are fine with it, so am I. But just for another perspective; often when discussing why batters aren’t required to go full bore running out a BIP, there are those who play the injury card. Why is it ok to risk injury requiring an entire team to run punishments for one player but not ok to require them to go 100% on every ball they put into play?

Those are 2 entirely different scenarios, with completely different injury risks.  Running out every ground ball, as hard as possible, has a much higher risk of injury than say, running a few poles.

Originally Posted by rynoattack:

Those are 2 entirely different scenarios, with completely different injury risks.  Running out every ground ball, as hard as possible, has a much higher risk of injury than say, running a few poles.

 

If it were only running poles I’d agree, but there are those coaches who require running sprints as punishment too.

 

What you’re saying in a backhanded fashion is you’re fine with players not running hard on BIPs.

Yes, and no.  I have stated before that if I was managing a team, I would expect different output from different players. If I had a speedy guy, I want him to run everything out hard.  Why? Because a slight mishandling or offline throw could benefit the team by the runner beating out a play.  However, if I have a slow, big bopper, I don't think it is generally worth it to risk injury on a low percentage opportunity to beat out a throw.  In other words, I do want Vince Coleman to run as hard as he can 95% of the time, and I don't want Mark McGwire to risk injury trying to beat out a throw.  He is too important to my line-up to have him get injured on a low percentage play. 

In other words, I do want Vince Coleman to run as hard as he can 95% of the time, and I don't want Mark McGwire to risk injury trying to beat out a throw.  He is too important to my line-up to have him get injured on a low percentage play. 

 

Good point. Applies to your closer too.

 

 

Doesn't even have his own helmet. Not a good sign.

Originally Posted by rynoattack:

Yes, and no.  I have stated before that if I was managing a team, I would expect different output from different players. If I had a speedy guy, I want him to run everything out hard.  Why? Because a slight mishandling or offline throw could benefit the team by the runner beating out a play.  However, if I have a slow, big bopper, I don't think it is generally worth it to risk injury on a low percentage opportunity to beat out a throw.  In other words, I do want Vince Coleman to run as hard as he can 95% of the time, and I don't want Mark McGwire to risk injury trying to beat out a throw.  He is too important to my line-up to have him get injured on a low percentage play. 

 

I know it’s difficult not to do, but using MLB players as an example isn’t really fair, is it? Would you feel the same way about players on a 10YO or even a HS team?

 

What’s really the risk of injury for a baseball player injuring himself running from home to 1^st on a BIP?

 

Here’s one study. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18519488 Of the 131,555 injuries how many do you suppose were caused by an all-out effort running to 1^st base on a BIP?

 

 

 Maybe if MLB players were expected to run all out (or close to it) on all BIP's and dropped third strikes, they would keep themselves in better shape. Look at the NFL. Linebackers, receivers, defensive ends, cornerbacks, etc don't take plays off at that level and the sprint full out many, many more times than the average baseball player. basketball and soccer the same. How many injuries are actually suffered in those sports simply from running? A few, sure, but nothing significant.

Originally Posted by roothog66:

Maybe if MLB players were expected to run all out (or close to it) on all BIP's and dropped third strikes, they would keep themselves in better shape. …

 

One thing’s for sure. If MLB players ran everything out (or close to it), it wouldn’t be as difficult to get younger players to do it, or be nearly as confusing.

Nearly 12% of all the hits in the National League were infield hits. Then if we add the number of hitters reaching by error it is a much bigger number.  Even power hitters have to hustle when hitting a double.

 

Nothing looks worse than watching a 1st baseman get pulled off the bag and then go back and touch the bag while the base runner is loafing to 1B.  Not very appreciated by the dugout, either.

 

Now there are certain plays where it becomes obvious early on that you are out.  That is when we see the hitter slow down and jog to 1B.  But until the play is an obvious out, everyone's job is to get out of the box and run. It's not something some do and some don't, it is everyone's job. IMO

 

So it's not a 100% full out sprint every time. But you can't hit the ball and just head to the dugout.

I believe in players running out everything, it doesn't have to be World Series hustle but an honest effort, I believe in a 2/3 type run to your position, I believe in tucked in uniforms, grabbing gear for men left on base and I am huge believer in respect the game. I also think flat brim hats should be illegal but I have obviously lost that one!!

 

all of that being said a recruiter, scout or coach who judges a kid by if he runs off the bus, wears his pants or shorts to the field or some of the other things mentioned previously would be doing himself, his organization and the game itself a disservice. 

 

 

wasn't that ridiculed in the moneyball movie? old  Scouts were talking about a "good face" and "Looks like a ballplayer" and were laughed off by beane.

 

not sure if that Kind of talk by Scouts was reality in the pre sabermetrics era or if that was just invented to tell a Story. I don't really know anything about scouting.

No one can tell me that every player is required to, or looked down by their teammates and coaches for not going all out on a ground out.  It's just not true.  In my example, Mark McGwire would not be looked down upon for not busting down the line on a ground out.  Whether the risk is small or not, it is not worth it to risk his injury.  For one, he was a manchild at the plate, and at times a china doll.  Same thing for Barry Bonds, Sammy Sosa, Big Papi, etc.  I would never want to risk their injury for beating out a ground ball.

Originally Posted by rynoattack:

No one can tell me that every player is required to, or looked down by their teammates and coaches for not going all out on a ground out.  It's just not true.  In my example, Mark McGwire would not be looked down upon for not busting down the line on a ground out.  Whether the risk is small or not, it is not worth it to risk his injury.  For one, he was a manchild at the plate, and at times a china doll.  Same thing for Barry Bonds, Sammy Sosa, Big Papi, etc.  I would never want to risk their injury for beating out a ground ball.

 

Heck, in general players aren’t looked down on by their HC/manager for not busting it to 1^st at every opportunity no matter if they’re the prima donna HR hitter or the .211 utility-player. Be that as it may for MLB where players are valued much differently, should that be the standard at every amateur level where 4 year indispensable players are rare?

My examples are different than the situation you mention here. Mark McGwire, Barry Bonds, etc. are established players with proven track records.  I would not advise a high school player, or college player to do the same.  They are trying to establish themselves, and advertise their ability to scouts.

Originally Posted by rynoattack:

My examples are different than the situation you mention here. Mark McGwire, Barry Bonds, etc. are established players with proven track records.  I would not advise a high school player, or college player to do the same.  They are trying to establish themselves, and advertise their ability to scouts.

 

This is why I don’t like seeing people use examples of ML players to make a point about players at all levels. I know some father of a LL or HS player might see his kid as one of those exceptional ML players, but there’s no way that can be done because one venue is a business and the other is supposedly not. Why not just drop the outliers and say ALLplayers SHOULD play the game at as high as intensity and with as much vigor as possible and don’t excuse anybody for giving less than their full ability and intensity?

 

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.