Skip to main content

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.

Last edited by StrainedOblique

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.

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 1st 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 3rd 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.

2020dad posted:
Originally Posted by Buzzard05:

       

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.

So true 2020.  I have yet to see any travel team and I'm speaking about very elite type teams get off the bus with their uniforms on and ready to warm up and play.  All teams now use warm up gear and that gear is usually shorts and sneakers. Even in shorts/sneakers just getting off the bus you can tell the truly good players apart.  I think coaches like in most industries they only talk about the best case scenarios.  We parents need to listen to coaches because sometimes even when they don't say something they're saying something but we also need to learn how to decipher some of their talk.

I have had a few dealings with scouts and recruiters. I know for a fact that, for both, being a winner caries a lot of weight. The As scout told us that he wasnt sold on Donaldson until he watched him go 0fer one night at Auburn. Josh was at the top step of the dugout leading the team and helping them win best he could while having a terrible night at the plate.

We've had kids get offers from schools that have never seen them play. An undersized 2ND baseman gets an offer from a JUCO because a D1 scout saw him play while scouting one of our pitchers and told the JUCO recruiter about him. College coaching community is pretty tight knit for the most part. That D1 recruiter could have just as easily forgotten about the undersized 2nd baseman had he threw his helmet after striking out.

We tell our players you never know who's watching or what they are watching for. So run out every hit, jog back to the dugout after a K, run to your position, and block every pitch in the dirt (even warm ups) It always matters! I don't believe they are urban legends at all, but even if they are, why give the scout a negative thing to put in his report?

Goosegg posted:

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.

 

 

Agree 100%. My former college coach is currently a scout as is a former college teammate. 

College coach has more of an old school philosophy but teammate realizes that times have changed and kids mature at different times. Teammate is much more forgiving especially with the more talented the kids.  He said his job is to find "dudes" and they can teach them how to become men later if necessary. 

So proof that all scouts are grumpy old baseball purists that are looking for any reason to scratch a kid off his list. 

Add Reply

×
×
×
×
Link copied to your clipboard.
×