Order a scout today, be there tomorrow???

Technology has become extremely important.  We try to use as much as possible and continue to look for anything new.  This coming from someone that didn't know how to turn on a computer 21 years ago.  During that time it has become obvious that technology is changing the game and scouting departments.  So you either join or be left behind.

That said, I don't see the day that technology replaces good scouts.  Measurables are important and the more things that can be measured would be all that much more important.  However, there are too many separation points between players that technology can't reveal.

The thing to remember when it comes to scouts... They are the same as players, umpires, or even fans... In that they are not all the same.  Just like any other job... Some are much better than others.  It's not about the best player on the field that day, most anyone can recognize that.  It's about how that player compares and projects to everyone else that scout has seen.  And that takes more than modern technology.  It takes talent and experience.  It takes seeing many that have made it to the top over many years.  I can say with complete certainty that there are major league players that technology alone would never have identified. And yes, there are times you just know when you see it.

One thing that is noticeable is scouting seems to be transitioning into a young mans game.  I think this has a lot to do with technology. So I see technology and data gathering increasing and becoming even more important.  At the same time, I can't ever seeing it replace good scouts.

I would also suggest people have respect for those that scout for a living.  It can be a very difficult job and without a lot of security.  Like anything else, the harder you work, the more you see, and the more you see the better you are.  When the art of scouting combines with the science of technology, it produces better results.

PG I make it a habit not to disagree with you...  but unfortunately I have to make an exception on this one. I too am not getting any younger. Think of the 'technology' we had when we first started coaching. You are a little older than I so you may not even have started with the VCR. Bell and Howell perhaps?  Remember the Star Trek communicators?  Primitive now compared to smart phones. But at the time it seemed so impossible and futuristic. With millions or dollars at stake some  very smart people will come up with futuristic diagnostic technology that will be able to gather data on successful players and spit out a competitive analysis between them and players being 'scouted'.  The actual scouts role will be diminished greatly.  Right now we have the ability to measure a lot of things. In the future there will be diagnostic and projection capabilities beyond our current wildest dreams.  Can't send a computer to go talk to someone so the human will never be completely eliminated but it will never be the same.   Even in the NFL draft half the first rounders are busts. Fact is scouts are mostly guessing.  Otherwise a 30th rounder would never ever make it and 1st rounders would always make it.   Unfortunately the machine is simply better and baseball is coming around to that slowly but surely. 

2020Dad, 

Not sure you said anything about technology's potential that PGStaff didn't acknowledge.

I think his point was that even when technology measures everything that can be measured, there will still be a role for subjective evaluation of the non-measurable factors associated with personality, character, potential, and the multitude of other human variables. 

A lot of people today don't understand what subjective knowledge is and tend to undervalue it. They think it means opinions tainted by emotions, prejudices, and other impure, non-objective factors. More properly understood, it refers to knowledge attainable through the conditioning, experience, and idiosyncrasies of a particular mind.

A mind that has paid careful attention to a lot of teenagers who became or did not become major leaguers will still have worthwhile insights to complement the ever-improving objective information. 

At least, I think that's what he meant.

And swamp you too are one I have seldom if ever disagreed with.  But I can't agree with what you sai either. I see scouts as having little value. Period. Now they are a fact of life that's true.  And never completely going away for the need of human contact.  The stereotypical scout probably will go away completely.  But imagine missing your mark as much as they do and being in another line of work and maintaining employment!  It's just a guessing game pure and simple and the numbers show that.  If these scouts had some sort or obiwan like powers first rounders would never miss.  In baseball they miss all the time.  The new age GM's are finally closing the door (thank god) on the old former player era.  Having the ability to throw or hit a ball is zero indication of an ability to evaluate talent.  The scouts (yes I am sure there were a few with stunning records) for the most part have been ineffective since the inception of the draft.  Look it up. 

2020Dad, you are in a spot that not many of us parents are in, you actually know baseball.  While I am in an area that has a plethora of people standing in line to evaluate 9u-18u kids many places don't have that. 

So if you don't have baseball knowledge and you don't have local knowledgeable evaluators then how do you know if your kid is even college material?  How about D1?  How do you know if the kid will even pass the eye test?   I think we have all seen the kid who comes up with the ball but dang that looked like a rough way to catch it...and that is how he ALWAYS catches it.  Getting an outside opinion before you let the kid be seen at a showcase could be of some serious value to people who don't have any other avenue.

Perhaps it's the word "Scout"...what if they called themselves traveling evaluators?  While I agree that technology is likely going to trump 75% of the scouts observations you still have to get the kid to the technology.  How do parents know if it's worth showcasing a kid without someone eye balling him and saying "yup get him to a showcase"?  What if someone could tell you "Your kid looks decent, but people will not like how he does _______.  A Slight modification will put him in a different class."....wouldn't that be worth something?

And please allow me to clarify a little. I am not really as much scout bashing - maybe a little but mostly saying it is an impossible job. I am down right cocky about my basketball coaching abilities. I volunteered to coach my kids 6th grade team on top of my high school duties. Got this transfer in. He could flat out shoot it. We ran our offense through him and I thought he was going to be our own little Larry Bird.  Game time came and he froze.  He couldnt do a thing. Chalked it up to first game jitters but it never changed. He had a quick release so that wasn't the problem.  Never did figure out the problem. He just flat out sucked in game situations.  So sometimes til they are actually in a situation you just don't know.  Just like til a kid goes to pro ball you just don't know for sure.  But someday diagnostics will be available to make more accurate predictions. And those will fail at times too but not nearly as often as we very flawed human beings. 

Measurables can be tested.  How do you measure the unmeasurables?  Scouts and coaches will be watching them during practices and games.  Things like game speed not picked up in an avg 60 time, prepitch routines enabling quicker routes to the ball, body language after an error or poor plate performance, or a bad game.  How a player operates in a team environment.  I don't think passion, pregame prep, or attitude are measurables.  Aren't these unmeasurables keys to great players?  It's likely the reason why there are great scouts and average scouts, and great coaches and avg coaches...  Who has eye for talent for the unmeasurables on the field?  Technology isn't providing that.

CaCO3Girl posted:

2020Dad, you are in a spot that not many of us parents are in, you actually know baseball.  While I am in an area that has a plethora of people standing in line to evaluate 9u-18u kids many places don't have that. 

So if you don't have baseball knowledge and you don't have local knowledgeable evaluators then how do you know if your kid is even college material?  How about D1?  How do you know if the kid will even pass the eye test?   I think we have all seen the kid who comes up with the ball but dang that looked like a rough way to catch it...and that is how he ALWAYS catches it.  Getting an outside opinion before you let the kid be seen at a showcase could be of some serious value to people who don't have any other avenue.

Perhaps it's the word "Scout"...what if they called themselves traveling evaluators?  While I agree that technology is likely going to trump 75% of the scouts observations you still have to get the kid to the technology.  How do parents know if it's worth showcasing a kid without someone eye balling him and saying "yup get him to a showcase"?  What if someone could tell you "Your kid looks decent, but people will not like how he does _______.  A Slight modification will put him in a different class."....wouldn't that be worth something?

There are radar guns and stop watches around every corner.  That's where you start. As you know caco my son has never showcased. Doesn't mean I don't know his exit velo or 60 time or pitch velo.  Til his numbers get near the top of what I see online then he is not recruitable.  The numbers get you in the picture.  Then the scouts will take it from there. So if you don't even have the numbers then you don't have to worry about it. 

Yes, I think that is what I meant.

I am a young 70 years old.  It is amazing to look back and see how the world has changed.  Sometimes I wonder if everything has actually improved our way of life.  I have become a big believer in technology.  However even that creates other issues that aren't necessarily good for everyone.

Will always believe and always have that it is impossible to have too much information in scouting.  Truth is that the first round actually does outperform lower rounds.  Maybe someday technology will be able to cover everything, anything is possible, I guess.  But it will be awhile before a scouts eyes, ears, and experience can be replaced.  I think most people that have never been a scout would be surprised how much is involved.  Things like grading makeup or feel for the game, understanding the human factors aside from talent or ability. The ability to negotiate and be a salesman.  Being a good representation of your club.  Doing the detective work. 

Talent sticks out like a sore thumb.  Technology helps verify things.  Technology can pick up on things the scout may have overlooked.  In my estimation when the day comes that machines replace scouts I won't really care.  Even with all the technology advances, we are still learning what some of the information truly means.  So technology in baseball will continue to grow, but until the players become robots, there will always be human beings finding those players that they need to gather more data on.

BTW, it doesn't bother me if someone disagrees.  Sometimes I end up changing my mind because of that.  Never believe that you can't teach old dogs new tricks.

By mathematical necessity, teams that draft 40 players each year to replenish 25-man rosters whose occupants spend an average of 5.6 years in MLB will "miss" on at least 88% of their draft picks.

So although it's easy to point out the misses, it's not convincing.

The goal of scouting isn't to convert as many early round picks as possible into MLB players.

The goal is to sign the talent that can be developed to enable the parent team to win. Maybe some of those late rounders who make it are actually triumphs of scouts who looked past the measurables, saw potential, and knew the market would allow them to acquire talent at bargain prices. 

Even in an age when everyone has the same objective information, or maybe especially in such an age, the  subjective opinions of competent scouts can give their teams an edge.  And since MLB is a game of small differences over the long haul, that edge can prove significant.

But differences of opinion are what make horse races, markets, and discussion boards possible.

Best wishes,

Probably not an argument over whether scouts will continue to exist, but rather a discussion of the scope of their responsibilities or applicable skills going forward.  You certainly don't want the biggest, fastest kid if they do not have a good makeup (or at least would not want to pay top dollar).  Things like tracking ball, reaction time, route to the ball (i.e. trackman) will help fill in the gaps between 60 speed and an OF's ability to catch up with a ball.  Exit velocity and 3D spray charts will help in ranking the actual best hitters (if it is not apparent to the naked eye), but may prove even more useful once you wander into the second grouping (say you are looking for a good hitting 2B somewhere around rounds 11-15).

Bottom line is if some college scout or RC gives my son a roster spot four years from now then they are great and I love them!  If they don't then they are bad lol. 

I consider college coaches very much a part of the scouting community.  In fact, some of the best scouts are actually college coaches.

Technology aids in scouting, not the other way around.  Doesn't even sound right to say it the other way.   I think the best scout moving forward will be a combination of the tobacco chewing "old timer" that understands how to apply the data that technology is churning out with his instinct.  JMO, just don't see how you can take the human element out of it going forward.  FYI..I'm probably more "old timer" but some of this tech is pretty cool. 

To continue about college coaches and scouting.

MLB scout is looking for any player that can help the club he works for.

College recruiter is looking for any player that can help the college, but also has to try to figure out who will be an early draft pick.  Can't spend all your time following first round picks and losing them all to the draft.

PGStaff posted:

To continue about college coaches and scouting.

MLB scout is looking for any player that can help the club he works for.

College recruiter is looking for any player that can help the college, but also has to try to figure out who will be an early draft pick.  Can't spend all your time following first round picks and losing them all to the draft.

PG ,

I agree with this ,but I see a ton of schools recruiting freshman and 8th graders, wouldnt they be considered 1st round picks?

The problem is that gut instincts are so often wrong. The human mind is subject to so many biases (anchoring and confirmation bias, for example) that a model -- data -- should be used to try to counteract them. Michael Lewis' book, The Undoing Project, has a chapter on Daryl Morey (the GM of the Houston Rockets since 2006) and his data-driven approach to identifying basketball talent. Here is a bit about the Rockets' scouting staff:

"Morey -- being Morey -- had actually tested whether there were any patterns in the predictions made by his staff. He'd hired most of them and thought they were great, and yet there was no evidence any of them was any better than the other, or the market, at predicting who would make it in the NBA and who would not. If there was any such thing as a basketball expert who could identify future NBA talent, he hadn't found him. He certainly didn't think he was one. 'Weighting my personal intuition more heavily did not cross my mind,' he said. 'I trust my gut very low. I just think there is a lot of evidence that gut instincts aren't very good.'"

We're not just talking about gut instincts and we sure as heck aren't talking about guessing.  We're talking about an experienced eye with extensive background, a person who immerses himself more than any others into recognition of talent, tools, character traits, etc. of ball players and falls back on a typically lengthy history of comparison experiences, both tangible and intangible, to assess likely future success.  Today's scout and tomorrow's scout will also continue to utilize more measurables and tangibles as they become available through technology.  So, again, we're not talking about just gut instinct.

If your kid had to go into a dangerous war zone, would you want him to be led by an experienced superior officer or a new guy who was looking at data from a high tech analysis report to make his decisions?  If you child were having a life or death operation, would you want the experienced doc that has done the procedure a thousand times or a new intern who has the latest technology to use and study on before the big moment?  Building a house?  Experienced expert carpenter or a guy using the latest tech book for DIY fans?  Having your glove repaired?  Relying on good police protection?  Want a really good wine?  Have complicated tax issues?  

Technology is an awesome tool.  Let's not discount the value of dedicated experienced professionals.

Cabbage dad;

Outstanding!!!!

Technology cannot measure passion and the 6th tool [courage].

Bob

cabbagedad posted:

We're not just talking about gut instincts and we sure as heck aren't talking about guessing.  We're talking about an experienced eye with extensive background, a person who immerses himself more than any others into recognition of talent, tools, character traits, etc. of ball players and falls back on a typically lengthy history of comparison experiences, both tangible and intangible, to assess likely future success.  Today's scout and tomorrow's scout will also continue to utilize more measurables and tangibles as they become available through technology.  So, again, we're not talking about just gut instinct.

If your kid had to go into a dangerous war zone, would you want him to be led by an experienced superior officer or a new guy who was looking at data from a high tech analysis report to make his decisions?  If you child were having a life or death operation, would you want the experienced doc that has done the procedure a thousand times or a new intern who has the latest technology to use and study on before the big moment?  Building a house?  Experienced expert carpenter or a guy using the latest tech book for DIY fans?  Having your glove repaired?  Relying on good police protection?  Want a really good wine?  Have complicated tax issues?  

Technology is an awesome tool.  Let's not discount the value of dedicated experienced professionals.

I don't think Daryl Morey is just talking about gut instinct. The Rockets looked at experienced professionals -- their scouts -- and determined that no one could demonstrate that they were any better than "the herd." The point is, when making judgments -- especially when evaluating other human beings -- we are all subject to biases. Our decision-making is flawed. So we need to be aware of our weaknesses in decision-making, and supplement our judgment with data. 

So I would add to your description: "We're talking about an experienced eye with extensive background, a person who immerses himself more than any others into recognition of talent, tools, character traits, etc. of ball players and falls back on a typically lengthy history of comparison experiences, both tangible and intangible, to assess likely future success" and a person who is subject to all the typical weaknesses that humans have in their decision-making. The point of the new wave of GMs -- not just Morey or Hinkie in basketball but in baseball people like Theo, Matt Klentak, etc. -- is recognizing the limits, the weaknesses, in human judgments, especially about other humans. It doesn't mean you get novices to make the decisions, as in your examples. But it does mean that you don't rely blindly on the so-called experts. 

To me, it is only the out-of-consensus judgments that deliver any value. So if you are a scout for an MLB organization for the 2010 draft, and you say "I really like that Harper kid" . . . um . . . BFD. Everybody knew he was a top prospect. Stuck out like a sore thumb.  The value is in advocating for, say, Jacob deGrom, who was taken in the 9th round. He was at the top of no one's board. And I don't think anyone can demonstrate that their out-of-consensus calls were right on any kind of consistent basis. 

cabbagedad posted:

We're not just talking about gut instincts and we sure as heck aren't talking about guessing.  We're talking about an experienced eye with extensive background, a person who immerses himself more than any others into recognition of talent, tools, character traits, etc. of ball players and falls back on a typically lengthy history of comparison experiences, both tangible and intangible, to assess likely future success.  Today's scout and tomorrow's scout will also continue to utilize more measurables and tangibles as they become available through technology.  So, again, we're not talking about just gut instinct.

If your kid had to go into a dangerous war zone, would you want him to be led by an experienced superior officer or a new guy who was looking at data from a high tech analysis report to make his decisions?  If you child were having a life or death operation, would you want the experienced doc that has done the procedure a thousand times or a new intern who has the latest technology to use and study on before the big moment?  Building a house?  Experienced expert carpenter or a guy using the latest tech book for DIY fans?  Having your glove repaired?  Relying on good police protection?  Want a really good wine?  Have complicated tax issues?  

Technology is an awesome tool.  Let's not discount the value of dedicated experienced professionals.

Experienced generals got hundreds of thousands unnecessarily killed in WWI cause they didn't understand modern warfare. Definitely want modern medicine.  reminds me of the line in all the presidents men in the parking garage "Don't believe the myths about Washington, the truth is these guys aren't very smart...".  I just think we want to believe in this type of sage Wiley veteran who can outsmart modern technology. It sounds very romantic but it's just a false narrative.  And they are largely guessing. Again just go look at the drafts.  When Bill Gullickson was pitching at 12 the stands would be full watching him. Didn't take a genius to figure out he was special.  So is a scout supposed to get credit for 'spotting' that?  But still some of these guys fail. Many in fact fail. When we keep drafting guys in the first couple rounds that fail at an alarming rate then that does not speak well for the current evaluation system.  And technology and measurables don't stop with simple 60 times or velocities. It goes so much deeper. Tensile strength is now becoming a big deal. Spin rates obviously.  But What comes in a few years?  Discovery of why some have arm problems and some don't?  Can you imagine the revolutionary change that would make?  What if there is a diagnostic test that can tell you exactly what velocity is reachable by an individual?  Can spit out a SPECIFIC and detailed diet and exercise program to allow that individual to reach that potential?  Crazy you say?  Just like a dopler radar reading spin rate on a ball going 90mph. Imagine telling someone 50 years ago that would be possible. I still can't believe it's possible!!  In 20 years there will be so much we will be able to tell about a prospect scouting will be all but obsolete. Development will be king. I guess I am beating my head against a wall here but with so many early draft picks failing through the history of the draft I just don't see how you could come to any other conclusion than it is highly inaccurate at best!

2019 you are killin' it!

2020DAD - I wholeheartedly agree with 99%, but you will need individual(s) to make those final decisions, whether it is breaking a tie (exact same measurables and modeled development), making club decisions between different positions (is the SS a better pick in round #3 than the LHP), making economic decisions (may not always pick the absolute best available player if the simply cost too much) in addition to sizing up the person (would you want him in the clubhouse - although they may design an online test that will determine this in the future).

I really like 2019DAD's comment about scouting Harper.  I could have scouted Harper and advised my team to pick him (I have zero scouting skills to speak of).  The measurables will start to get a little muddy once you get past the exceptionally elite class (top 3-4 rounds?) and someone is going to have to be able to notice something, good or bad, which will help tilt the scales during the next 20 or so rounds.

I agree with that screwball. I guess I am just saying they will evolve more into a business/sales model. Like mini Theo Epsteins.  Less evaluation and more decision making and relationship building. 

And the tobacco spitters are probably not the guys you are looking for to fill that modernized role. 

I'll not be painted into a corner by a false dichotomy or a mischaracterization.

As far as I can tell, nobody on this page has advocated collecting anything less than all the objective measurements and data that man can devise.

However, some people have advocated discounting or ignoring altogether an entire class of  information: namely, anything that isn't objectively quantified.

That, my friends, is an extreme position that reveals huge unexamined assumptions about knowledge.

The fact that eyewitness testimony can often be wrong does not mean courts shouldn't admit it at all.

The fact that subjective insights and observations can often be wrong does not mean baseball executives should banish them altogether from their consideration.

A wiser approach is to attempt to understand the value and limits of each kind of information.

2020dad posted:

cabbagedad posted:

We're not just talking about gut instincts and we sure as heck aren't talking about guessing.  We're talking about an experienced eye with extensive background, a person who immerses himself more than any others into recognition of talent, tools, character traits, etc. of ball players and falls back on a typically lengthy history of comparison experiences, both tangible and intangible, to assess likely future success.  Today's scout and tomorrow's scout will also continue to utilize more measurables and tangibles as they become available through technology.  So, again, we're not talking about just gut instinct.

If your kid had to go into a dangerous war zone, would you want him to be led by an experienced superior officer or a new guy who was looking at data from a high tech analysis report to make his decisions?  If you child were having a life or death operation, would you want the experienced doc that has done the procedure a thousand times or a new intern who has the latest technology to use and study on before the big moment?  Building a house?  Experienced expert carpenter or a guy using the latest tech book for DIY fans?  Having your glove repaired?  Relying on good police protection?  Want a really good wine?  Have complicated tax issues?  

Technology is an awesome tool.  Let's not discount the value of dedicated experienced professionals.

Experienced generals got hundreds of thousands unnecessarily killed in WWI cause they didn't understand modern warfare. Definitely want modern medicine.  reminds me of the line in all the presidents men in the parking garage "Don't believe the myths about Washington, the truth is these guys aren't very smart...".  I just think we want to believe in this type of sage Wiley veteran who can outsmart modern technology. It sounds very romantic but it's just a false narrative.  And they are largely guessing. Again just go look at the drafts.  When Bill Gullickson was pitching at 12 the stands would be full watching him. Didn't take a genius to figure out he was special.  So is a scout supposed to get credit for 'spotting' that?  But still some of these guys fail. Many in fact fail. When we keep drafting guys in the first couple rounds that fail at an alarming rate then that does not speak well for the current evaluation system.  And technology and measurables don't stop with simple 60 times or velocities. It goes so much deeper. Tensile strength is now becoming a big deal. Spin rates obviously.  But What comes in a few years?  Discovery of why some have arm problems and some don't?  Can you imagine the revolutionary change that would make?  What if there is a diagnostic test that can tell you exactly what velocity is reachable by an individual?  Can spit out a SPECIFIC and detailed diet and exercise program to allow that individual to reach that potential?  Crazy you say?  Just like a dopler radar reading spin rate on a ball going 90mph. Imagine telling someone 50 years ago that would be possible. I still can't believe it's possible!!  In 20 years there will be so much we will be able to tell about a prospect scouting will be all but obsolete. Development will be king. I guess I am beating my head against a wall here but with so many early draft picks failing through the history of the draft I just don't see how you could come to any other conclusion than it is highly inaccurate at best!

Well, you missed, ignored, diverted and twisted so many points, I don't even know where to start.  So I won't.

Swampboy posted:

The fact that eyewitness testimony can often be wrong does not mean courts shouldn't admit it at all.

The fact that subjective insights and observations can often be wrong does not mean baseball executives should banish them altogether from their consideration.

A wiser approach is to attempt to understand the value and limits of each kind of information.

Exactly! Which is why the probative weight (value) of eye witness testimony is much less than objective evidence that can be scientifically proven (DNA). This supports 2020's and 2019's arguement. This case has been decided in favor of the plaintiffs, 2020 and 2019!

SanDiegoRealist posted:

Swampboy posted:

The fact that eyewitness testimony can often be wrong does not mean courts shouldn't admit it at all.

The fact that subjective insights and observations can often be wrong does not mean baseball executives should banish them altogether from their consideration.

A wiser approach is to attempt to understand the value and limits of each kind of information.

Exactly! Which is why the probative weight (value) of eye witness testimony is much less than objective evidence that can be scientifically proven (DNA). This supports 2020's and 2019's arguement. This case has been decided in favor of the plaintiffs, 2020 and 2019!

Exactly wrong.

Some kinds of eyewitness testimony are notoriously unreliable; others can be highly reliable.

Witnesses trying to describe and identify a subject seen only briefly and in surprising circumstances can report wildly different and conflicting information. 

However, the eyewitness testimony of a trained, experienced, dispassionate observer, such as a police officer describing what he saw, heard and smelled in the course of a drunk driving arrest can often make the difference in obtaining a conviction.

Context and credibility matter.

When Buck O'Neil watched Bo Jackson's first batting practice with the Royals and told a colleague he had only heard the ball come off the bat with the same sound from two other hitters--Babe Ruth and Josh Gibson--he provided rare historical perspective beyond the grasp of technology about Bo Jackson's value.

You would have blown him off because you don't have any bat sound metrics and you think if it's not in your toolkit, it must not be worth knowing.

I continue to maintain that some observations in some circumstances can complement the objective information available in determining the potential of players: how quickly and how well they make decisions, whether a gifted athlete will put in the work to develop and maintain his gifts, how well a player reacts and improvises, how natural and coordinated movements are, how badly a player wants to play and win, how a player handles adversity, whether a player has physical and mental toughness to endure an MLB season, how coachable a player is, whether a player has a high baseball IQ.

You do not, and that makes you an extremist who willingly blinds himself to the possibility that anything he cannot put in a spreadsheet might be worth knowing. 

And by the way, what kind of kangaroo court do you think you're running where you get to appoint yourself judge, argue the case for one of the sides, and peremptorily cut off the discussion? 

Let me close by noting the irony of the Michael Lewis citation by one of the parties you favor. Go back and read Moneyball. Billy Beane is the player your methodology picks based on metrics alone. His minor league roommate Lenny Dykstra is the player you'd pass on because his confidence, mental focus, and competitive zeal don't have numbers attached to them.

WOW, this latest exchange reminds me of the Linear vs Rotational 1000 page debate a few years ago!   

Swampboy posted:

I'll not be painted into a corner by a false dichotomy or a mischaracterization.

As far as I can tell, nobody on this page has advocated collecting anything less than all the objective measurements and data that man can devise.

However, some people have advocated discounting or ignoring altogether an entire class of  information: namely, anything that isn't objectively quantified.

That, my friends, is an extreme position that reveals huge unexamined assumptions about knowledge.

The fact that eyewitness testimony can often be wrong does not mean courts shouldn't admit it at all.

The fact that subjective insights and observations can often be wrong does not mean baseball executives should banish them altogether from their consideration.

A wiser approach is to attempt to understand the value and limits of each kind of information.

Swamp I will give this some thought.  I am open to the idea that the human eye and mind can still maybe spot somethings that may be of help.  By far I think science and metrics are much better for evaluation but maybe there is a small place for the human element.  But the difficulty would be when to take a flyer on the scout vs the machine (since we are getting legalistic here I must point out i am using the term machine generically to represent non human data).  Also I will say the old timers don't do themselves any favors with stories like the one about listening to the crack of the bat over the phone.  And these stories are not few and far between.  The cockiness of some of these folks is beyond belief for people with such poor track records.  And the intelligent person looks at this and rolls their eyes.  The good ole boy days are dead.  Just like high school coaches have to live with the fact that travel ball is now boss so too the tobacco spitters have to face the fact that their days are numbered and the machine is in fact far better at their job.

Ask any college coach or scout what they liked best about a player and they will say how they prepare for a game. That would be observing a pitcher in the bullpen and a hitter in the cage, and on field preparation before a game. No stats for that.

Look my son was drafted in the 2nd round, Jeff Luhnow the scouting director at the time. Being that it was by the cardinals, his groundball metrics was of importance, as was his velo, size and his secondary stuff. Living close to Jupiter he was observed by many over a very long period of time.

He was what someone mentioned here as a early round draft failure. Not because of some tobacco spitting old scout who got it wrong but because of injury.  No stats for that. 

Wonder how often some of these folks actually get out to seriously scout players.  I mean seriously all over the country not just at local HS games. As a new coach, son is at HS and Juco games every other day looking for players that his program feels is a good fit. No stats for that. Just the eye and other stuff college coaches look for. Then an invite for a visit and your transcript. Recommendations. Thats all a college coach really needs. 

Would like to know from PG how many college coaches inquire about spin rates, etc to decide if a player should get an offer?  I know college coaches inquire to PG for scouting reports from their scouts. 

I think some of you got way off the track here, 4seamers plan isnt necessarily to identify future MLB players but help the family in the recruiting process, especially those that have a hard time trying to identify D1 and 2 from D3.  He just came here looking for feedback, not how ML clubs go about their business.

Yes, stats are important, many college coaches as well as ML teams use stats to help their players to understand where they need improvement. Players get this, this is probably the single most important reason why technology for stats are getting better and better. 

Sorry, just so sick of the same folks screaming that they hate the negativity here but all they do is create more.

BTW, about those old chewin tobacco scouts you all keep mentioning, tobacco isnt just reserved for them, but also by the younger generation that uses dip quite often, and more than likely used by young scouts as well as  young adults. Could be your kids. Its bigger than you think guys.

JMO

Swampboy posted:

SanDiegoRealist posted:

Swampboy posted:

The fact that eyewitness testimony can often be wrong does not mean courts shouldn't admit it at all.

The fact that subjective insights and observations can often be wrong does not mean baseball executives should banish them altogether from their consideration.

A wiser approach is to attempt to understand the value and limits of each kind of information.

Exactly! Which is why the probative weight (value) of eye witness testimony is much less than objective evidence that can be scientifically proven (DNA). This supports 2020's and 2019's arguement. This case has been decided in favor of the plaintiffs, 2020 and 2019!

Exactly wrong.

Some kinds of eyewitness testimony are notoriously unreliable; others can be highly reliable.

Witnesses trying to describe and identify a subject seen only briefly and in surprising circumstances can report wildly different and conflicting information. 

However, the eyewitness testimony of a trained, experienced, dispassionate observer, such as a police officer describing what he saw, heard and smelled in the course of a drunk driving arrest can often make the difference in obtaining a conviction.

Context and credibility matter.

When Buck O'Neil watched Bo Jackson's first batting practice with the Royals and told a colleague he had only heard the ball come off the bat with the same sound from two other hitters--Babe Ruth and Josh Gibson--he provided rare historical perspective beyond the grasp of technology about Bo Jackson's value.

You would have blown him off because you don't have any bat sound metrics and you think if it's not in your toolkit, it must not be worth knowing.

I continue to maintain that some observations in some circumstances can complement the objective information available in determining the potential of players: how quickly and how well they make decisions, whether a gifted athlete will put in the work to develop and maintain his gifts, how well a player reacts and improvises, how natural and coordinated movements are, how badly a player wants to play and win, how a player handles adversity, whether a player has physical and mental toughness to endure an MLB season, how coachable a player is, whether a player has a high baseball IQ.

You do not, and that makes you an extremist who willingly blinds himself to the possibility that anything he cannot put in a spreadsheet might be worth knowing. 

And by the way, what kind of kangaroo court do you think you're running where you get to appoint yourself judge, argue the case for one of the sides, and peremptorily cut off the discussion? 

Let me close by noting the irony of the Michael Lewis citation by one of the parties you favor. Go back and read Moneyball. Billy Beane is the player your methodology picks based on metrics alone. His minor league roommate Lenny Dykstra is the player you'd pass on because his confidence, mental focus, and competitive zeal don't have numbers attached to them.

I've known a lot of cops.  Got a lot of cop friends.  I back the badge...  however...  they too see what they want sometimes.  And they are not always fair minded.  I remember being out one night at a local watering hole with a few cop friends and them telling me how they were 'going to get' a friend of mine I taught and coached with.  I am not saying he was completely innocent but the point was they had their mind made up and they were out to get him.  So there was no objectivity left in them.  The mind is truly a powerful thing and if you expect to see something sometimes you will.  I still trust the machine.

As for some of the things you mention that cant be measured...  I would say not so fast.  Some of these things may very soon be able to be measured.  Now admittedly I am getting out of my realm here but medical science is showing more and more our DNA makes us what we are.  And in many cases its hard to ever change.  I can't walk away from a good debate like this (especially when it has been respectful like this has been - nice job everyone) its just who I am.  I have always liked to debate, its in my DNA.  Soon they will be able to diagnose all of this and you will know who can make it through a season or who is likely to have a better work ethic etc.  By the way - and I admit I have not researched this before opening mouth maybe I should have - but my memory tells me Lenny Dykstra when put to metrics was actually NOT a very effective player.  Am I wrong?  

2020dad posted:

Swampboy posted:

I'll not be painted into a corner by a false dichotomy or a mischaracterization.

As far as I can tell, nobody on this page has advocated collecting anything less than all the objective measurements and data that man can devise.

However, some people have advocated discounting or ignoring altogether an entire class of  information: namely, anything that isn't objectively quantified.

That, my friends, is an extreme position that reveals huge unexamined assumptions about knowledge.

The fact that eyewitness testimony can often be wrong does not mean courts shouldn't admit it at all.

The fact that subjective insights and observations can often be wrong does not mean baseball executives should banish them altogether from their consideration.

A wiser approach is to attempt to understand the value and limits of each kind of information.

Swamp I will give this some thought.  I am open to the idea that the human eye and mind can still maybe spot somethings that may be of help.  By far I think science and metrics are much better for evaluation but maybe there is a small place for the human element.  But the difficulty would be when to take a flyer on the scout vs the machine (since we are getting legalistic here I must point out i am using the term machine generically to represent non human data).  Also I will say the old timers don't do themselves any favors with stories like the one about listening to the crack of the bat over the phone.  And these stories are not few and far between.  The cockiness of some of these folks is beyond belief for people with such poor track records.  And the intelligent person looks at this and rolls their eyes.  The good ole boy days are dead.  Just like high school coaches have to live with the fact that travel ball is now boss so too the tobacco spitters have to face the fact that their days are numbered and the machine is in fact far better at their job.

What exactly are poor track records?

2020dad,

Since you are in the great state of WI, you can take a trip to Milwaukee and meet up with a friend of mine in the Brewers organization and maybe you can see it from a different perspective, professional one that is.

baseballmom posted:

WOW, this latest exchange reminds me of the Linear vs Rotational 1000 page debate a few years ago!   

Wasn't around then (on the board, but yeah, I was alive), but I remember all the focus on the terms.  Funny, I don't hear the terms spoken at all anymore.

If we can define success as one complete season as a starter in the MLB, than what is the succes rate of draft rounds?  I would guess 1st round drafts have a higher success rates the 2nd round and so on.  It doesn't matter if the success is only 10% for 1st rounders as long as 2nd rounders are only 7% than the scouts did their job.  

real green posted:

If we can define success as one complete season as a starter in the MLB, than what is the succes rate of draft rounds?  

I don't think any major league team would define success in those terms. Their definition of success probably involves all the business aspects of the draft and aggregate results, rather than outcomes for any individual player. It may involve seasonal and career WAR or cost per WAR for an entire draft class and players those draftees are traded for. 

Whether any particular player completes a season as a starter with the MLB team is an example of something that is easy to measure but possibly not very important in the overall scheme of things. 

So I hear 2020dad blocked me and cant read my messages, someone please tell him that I offered him a challenge. 

real green posted:

If we can define success as one complete season as a starter in the MLB, than what is the succes rate of draft rounds?  I would guess 1st round drafts have a higher success rates the 2nd round and so on.  It doesn't matter if the success is only 10% for 1st rounders as long as 2nd rounders are only 7% than the scouts did their job.  

I would not define success as being able to rank order rounds #1 and #2.  With the information available to me, I could probably give it a shot and not be too far off the mark (again, I have zero skills as a scout).  I think what a scout brings to the table is (hopefully) the ability to project a player's ceiling based on any number of factors including both physical, mental and mechanical issues.  I think they earn their money in the mid rounds and perhaps helping identify talent that other teams may have stuffed away if the minors that could add value.

As for the crack of the bat, Alan Nathan (Univ. of Ill) has probably already written about the topic and could probably put some metrics around it if it has value - probably something to do with frequency of vibrations traveling up and down the bat - then again it could simply be that the bat came from a superior blank.