Skip to main content

Imagine - being able to call today and have a pro scout dispatched to your child's next tournament, or next week's high school games, for an evaluation? I don't mean an associate scout, or an ex-pro player, or a coach... rather, professionals who held a voice in the acquisition of talent for MLB clubs for decades. The end result? Among many other reasons, to determine the gap between current projection versus the child's ultimate goal with notes on how to get there (a limited development plan).

In other words, a third-party PROFESSIONAL scouting service you can dispatch at anytime.

Would there be any interest?

Original Post

Replies sorted oldest to newest

Are you charging for your services?  Unless your charging a huge fee I can't see a profit model here.  You will need to sit around for a couple of hours to see a kid bat 3 or 4 times.  Say you charge $500 a game.  I would want you there the entire game to see every at bat and every play.  Which means you will be putting 3 hours in for my kid.  I would also not want you looking at or providing evals for other kids while I was paying you.  What if my kid does not get a significant amount of playing time while you are there, would you be willing to come to a 2nd game.  In essence you are making about $150 an hour.

I think a better model would be to charge a couple of hundred a kid for a very small showcase type camp.  Say 10 kids at $200 run through a showcase type camp with a full eval afterwards that includes a sit down with the kid and parents to throughly go through the eval.  You could probably run through 10 kids in the morning, take a break and run through another 10 kids in the afternoon.  In an 8 hour day you can see 20 kids, bringing in $4000 in revenue netting you $500 an hour.

BrianTRC posted:

You're saying pro scouts who are affiliated with MLB teams? Not scouting services like PG or PBR? A parent could pay a pro scout to come watch their son on-demand? 

Yes, professional scouts who held a voice with a club (or clubs) for years and years. I won't comment on the value or experience of other services.

joes87 posted:

Are you charging for your services?  Unless your charging a huge fee I can't see a profit model here.  You will need to sit around for a couple of hours to see a kid bat 3 or 4 times.  Say you charge $500 a game.  I would want you there the entire game to see every at bat and every play.  Which means you will be putting 3 hours in for my kid.  I would also not want you looking at or providing evals for other kids while I was paying you.  What if my kid does not get a significant amount of playing time while you are there, would you be willing to come to a 2nd game.  In essence you are making about $150 an hour.

I think a better model would be to charge a couple of hundred a kid for a very small showcase type camp.  Say 10 kids at $200 run through a showcase type camp with a full eval afterwards that includes a sit down with the kid and parents to throughly go through the eval.  You could probably run through 10 kids in the morning, take a break and run through another 10 kids in the afternoon.  In an 8 hour day you can see 20 kids, bringing in $4000 in revenue netting you $500 an hour.

Third-party services and, yes, charging for the service. When you consider prospects are spending thousands per year, this may/should eliminate many of those costs. And, yes, one-on-one follows only who pick your child up from BP (if held) all the way through the last game until your child leaves the park.

Showcase camps limit scouting observations. What velo a player throws from a bullpen mound isn't as important as how he attacks hitters in a game; or a POP time from a coach on an empty field isn't as valuable as what his POP time is during a game; or how fast a player runs a 60 in a combine isn't as important as how fast they get of the box and cross first in a game; all as examples.

Real scouts, during real games = real evaluations = best development plans available.

Thoughts?

Last edited by 4seamer
FFXfireman posted:
BrianTRC posted:

You're saying pro scouts who are affiliated with MLB teams? Not scouting services like PG or PBR? A parent could pay a pro scout to come watch their son on-demand? 

"... rather, professionals who held a voice in the acquisition of talent for MLB clubs for decades."

Sounds like former scouts.

Yes sir. The industry isn't using them so...

4seamer posted:
BrianTRC posted:

You're saying pro scouts who are affiliated with MLB teams? Not scouting services like PG or PBR? A parent could pay a pro scout to come watch their son on-demand? 

Yes, professional scouts who held a voice with a club (or clubs) for years and years. I won't comment on the value or experience of other services.

I think this is just another service for the uneducated parent willing to spend $$$$$ to have someone tell them their kid is a prospect. What will they do after an 0-4 day?....oh he had a rough day can you come back again? Yes, for $$$$$

Does someone really need to pay a scout if they're good enough to be scouted by professionals? 

Also, pro scouts often have a lack of understanding of certain college levels. They can identify pro talent, but what about the kid who is not a pro prospect and isn't sure where he fits at the college level. Can they tell you the type of school you could potentially fit at? 

Personally I don't see the market being people who aren't sure if their kid is a pro prospect. The market is a clueless parent who really thinks their kid has a chance then they're not even in the same ballpark. 

> I think this is just another service for the uneducated parent willing to spend $$$$$ to have someone tell them their kid is a prospect. What will they do after an 0-4 day?....oh he had a rough day can you come back again? Yes, for $$$$$

IMO, you shouldn't hire a pro scout to determine if your child is a 'prospect' because they aren't. Yet. Instead, you hire a professional scout to give you an INDEPENDENT evaluation of your child's tools and the feedback on what it will take to make it to the child's ultimate goal.

Scouts don't evaluate stats... they evaluate tools. Tools either exist or they don't. 

> Also, pro scouts often have a lack of understanding of certain college levels. They can identify pro talent, but what about the kid who is not a pro prospect and isn't sure where he fits at the college level. Can they tell you the type of school you could potentially fit at? 

That simply isn't true. Professional scouts understand the talent required for every and any college level. And your evaluation would help guide you in that process.

> Personally I don't see the market being people who aren't sure if their kid is a pro prospect. The market is a clueless parent who really thinks their kid has a chance then they're not even in the same ballpark. 

The market is for ANY parent wanting an objective analysis of their child's potential.

So, if the "former scout" determines the boy isn't going pro, I guess the parents pack it up - no more lessons, no showcases, and no baseball? Or, if the "former scout" determines the boy has pro potential, the parents decide to up his commitment? As another poster noted, evaluating pro potential and college potential may not overlap. Is the "former scout" also a former RC or college HC? And, why isn't the "former scout" also teaching? 

As to the point that observing the entire "game" a kid brings is better then the showcase velo, the game time pop, or running out an actual ball, that's nice - AND exactly what a scout does before a player is drafted. No scout who remains employed long uses pure showcase numbers in determining if a kid is drafted. Showcases can put a kid on the radar; but a single look in that format doesn't get a kid drafted. My S was drafted out of a very small non-baseball HS as a smallish LHP; scouts attended EVERY home and away game his senior season (he did no showcases and only played scout ball as travel); they watched whatever scouts watch to define his heart, head (I have no clue what they look for), and game. My point is, even a late round throw away pick was seen in depth.

Perhaps you are simply offering a business plan in which a former pro scout (which is not part of the developmental personnel employed by each organization) draws up a long term written plan for the kid based upon repeated in depth views at actual games. To me an expensive and uncertain approach - for example, will the scout be familiar with the unique physiology each player has (fast arm, short arm, stiff hips, super loose, etc) and of which the kid's PC's are aware; or will the written report be generic (like a horoscope or most camp evaluations).

I used the money to get S a personal coach who did the exact same thing ("evaluate") AND teach AND mentor, AND who used his contacts to various colleges, AND who alerted local scouts AND who coached the local scout team.  And, for less than the idea presented here on a per diem basis. Since in my area there are several such people, I don't see the demand in San Diego.

I guess if a family has unlimited money, why not waste a bit - playing on fear, worry, paranoia, and insecurity can actually bottom a business plan.

Last edited by Goosegg
4seamer posted:

> I think this is just another service for the uneducated parent willing to spend $$$$$ to have someone tell them their kid is a prospect. What will they do after an 0-4 day?....oh he had a rough day can you come back again? Yes, for $$$$$

IMO, you shouldn't hire a pro scout to determine if your child is a 'prospect' because they aren't. Yet. Instead, you hire a professional scout to give you an INDEPENDENT evaluation of your child's tools and the feedback on what it will take to make it to the child's ultimate goal.

Scouts don't evaluate stats... they evaluate tools. Tools either exist or they don't. 

> Also, pro scouts often have a lack of understanding of certain college levels. They can identify pro talent, but what about the kid who is not a pro prospect and isn't sure where he fits at the college level. Can they tell you the type of school you could potentially fit at? 

That simply isn't true. Professional scouts understand the talent required for every and any college level. And your evaluation would help guide you in that process.

> Personally I don't see the market being people who aren't sure if their kid is a pro prospect. The market is a clueless parent who really thinks their kid has a chance then they're not even in the same ballpark. 

The market is for ANY parent wanting an objective analysis of their child's potential.

The stat line is my point exactly.  Scout will see what he needs in an 0-4 day or a 4-4 day, but parents won't understand that, or accept that.  

I disagree with the pro scouts understanding college levels.  Same way college coaches don't always understand pro levels.  If you have access to pro scouts who know the ins and outs of the college levels, then you have an excellent and superior resource.  

I love the idea of an objective third party analysis from someone with no agenda as far as where the player ends up at the next level.  Love it enough that it's what I do for a living. 

 

4seamer posted:

IMO, you shouldn't hire a pro scout to determine if your child is a 'prospect' because they aren't. Yet. Instead, you hire a professional scout to give you an INDEPENDENT evaluation of your child's tools and the feedback on what it will take to make it to the child's ultimate goal.

Hire+independent=oxymoron

I mean really, as soon as monies are exchanged independence goes out the window.

Mr and Miss Smith, your son lacks physical stature, isn't athletic, has no real skills, and no chance of playing ball past 8th grade. That will be $600. Yeah people will line up for that.

Last edited by SomeBaseballDad
SomeBaseballDad posted:
4seamer posted:

IMO, you shouldn't hire a pro scout to determine if your child is a 'prospect' because they aren't. Yet. Instead, you hire a professional scout to give you an INDEPENDENT evaluation of your child's tools and the feedback on what it will take to make it to the child's ultimate goal.

Hire+independent=oxymoron

I mean really, as soon as monies are exchanged independence goes out the window.

Mr and Miss Smith, your son lacks physical stature, isn't athletic, has no real skills, and no chance of playing ball past 8th grade. That will be $600. Yeah people will line up for that.

Any professional scout will be happy to give anyone an independent evaluation. Also pro scouts have relationships with college coaches and can identify for their program. College coaches have scouts everywhere evaluating players for them.

TPM posted:
SomeBaseballDad posted:
4seamer posted:

IMO, you shouldn't hire a pro scout to determine if your child is a 'prospect' because they aren't. Yet. Instead, you hire a professional scout to give you an INDEPENDENT evaluation of your child's tools and the feedback on what it will take to make it to the child's ultimate goal.

Hire+independent=oxymoron

I mean really, as soon as monies are exchanged independence goes out the window.

Mr and Miss Smith, your son lacks physical stature, isn't athletic, has no real skills, and no chance of playing ball past 8th grade. That will be $600. Yeah people will line up for that.

Any professional scout will be happy to give anyone an independent evaluation. Also pro scouts have relationships with college coaches and can identify for their program. College coaches have scouts everywhere evaluating players for them.

I highly doubt this guy's target market is the college player pool. He's probably looking to evaluate high school age and younger, the sweet spot for parents who want to get their kid to the next level. I don't know about the impact it would have on a player getting recruited, because as I am learning most college coaches want to see the kid themselves. Sure, recommendations are great, but the kid is still going to have to Showcase, play high profile tournaments etc to get in front of the coaches they are interested in. OP stated families are paying thousands doing this, which is true, but I don't see his service eliminating the need to still go to these events.

So you are sayin that someone here in Florida is doing this?  If thats the case, attend a camp at UF, FSU, UM for excellent evaluations, not to mention instruction. Thats all a young player needs to learn what it takes to play at the highest levels of college ball, as many of those players possess pro talent as well.

Or they can go get an evaluation at the Baseball Ranch in Lakeland. That guy is awesome.

This is Florida where scouts attend many games looking for the next Bryce Harper! 

BTW, you do actually understand how very, very hard it is to get drafted and play at the highest level.

TPM posted:

So you are sayin that someone here in Florida is doing this?  If thats the case, attend a camp at UF, FSU, UM for excellent evaluations, not to mention instruction. Thats all a young player needs to learn what it takes to play at the highest levels of college ball, as many of those players possess pro talent as well.

Or they can go get an evaluation at the Baseball Ranch in Lakeland. That guy is awesome.

This is Florida where scouts attend many games looking for the next Bryce Harper! 

BTW, you do actually understand how very, very hard it is to get drafted and play at the highest level.

Who are you talking to, TPM? I think everyone on this board knows.

4seamer posted:

Imagine - being able to call today and have a pro scout dispatched to your child's next tournament, or next week's high school games, for an evaluation? 

In other words, a third-party PROFESSIONAL scouting service you can dispatch at anytime.

Would there be any interest?

OP, dispatched?.... you mean like Uber? or the maytag repair man? 

So, 1) it's not cost effective, 2) Scheduling issues, as in 2-3+ kids "booked" for same time frame, but different area of town/county/state. 

Seems kind of bass-akwards to me. 

TPM posted:
SomeBaseballDad posted:
4seamer posted:

IMO, you shouldn't hire a pro scout to determine if your child is a 'prospect' because they aren't. Yet. Instead, you hire a professional scout to give you an INDEPENDENT evaluation of your child's tools and the feedback on what it will take to make it to the child's ultimate goal.

Hire+independent=oxymoron

I mean really, as soon as monies are exchanged independence goes out the window.

Mr and Miss Smith, your son lacks physical stature, isn't athletic, has no real skills, and no chance of playing ball past 8th grade. That will be $600. Yeah people will line up for that.

Any professional scout will be happy to give anyone an independent evaluation. Also pro scouts have relationships with college coaches and can identify for their program. College coaches have scouts everywhere evaluating players for them.

Exactly TPM... professional scouts have built an extensive network of trust in collegiate circles over their decades of work for clubs. The Lakeland Ranch or UF type camps are one avenue, a professional scout is another. All three come with costs.  

SanDiegoRealist posted:
TPM posted:
SomeBaseballDad posted:
4seamer posted:

IMO, you shouldn't hire a pro scout to determine if your child is a 'prospect' because they aren't. Yet. Instead, you hire a professional scout to give you an INDEPENDENT evaluation of your child's tools and the feedback on what it will take to make it to the child's ultimate goal.

Hire+independent=oxymoron

I mean really, as soon as monies are exchanged independence goes out the window.

Mr and Miss Smith, your son lacks physical stature, isn't athletic, has no real skills, and no chance of playing ball past 8th grade. That will be $600. Yeah people will line up for that.

Any professional scout will be happy to give anyone an independent evaluation. Also pro scouts have relationships with college coaches and can identify for their program. College coaches have scouts everywhere evaluating players for them.

I highly doubt this guy's target market is the college player pool. He's probably looking to evaluate high school age and younger, the sweet spot for parents who want to get their kid to the next level. I don't know about the impact it would have on a player getting recruited, because as I am learning most college coaches want to see the kid themselves. Sure, recommendations are great, but the kid is still going to have to Showcase, play high profile tournaments etc to get in front of the coaches they are interested in. OP stated families are paying thousands doing this, which is true, but I don't see his service eliminating the need to still go to these events.

The market is 13 - 14 (baseline evaluations) and up (short form unless a stud we'll long form). We also privately and anonymously long form a college player or semi-pro for their personal information. Not looking to impact recruiting - we're looking to impact retention in the game (we're seeing larger numbers dropping out earlier and earlier) and education for the parents (development path). We only do evaluations... we don't get involved in recruiting programs or development programs. We're finding that most families prefer the college route to the pro route out of HS and many college coaches accept our scouts recommendation/evaluations so eliminating the expensive third party showcase route is possible, although not probable today. In the near-future, yes. 

baseballmom posted:
4seamer posted:

Imagine - being able to call today and have a pro scout dispatched to your child's next tournament, or next week's high school games, for an evaluation? 

In other words, a third-party PROFESSIONAL scouting service you can dispatch at anytime.

Would there be any interest?

OP, dispatched?.... you mean like Uber? or the maytag repair man? 

So, 1) it's not cost effective, 2) Scheduling issues, as in 2-3+ kids "booked" for same time frame, but different area of town/county/state. 

Seems kind of bass-akwards to me. 

haha - yes, scouts are 'dispatched' to your child's games. As for the cost effectiveness, that's for each family to decide. We believe many will find the service to be well within their budget. No other player is booked for evaluation at the same time - only your child is followed. The service has many, many scouts so quite a few areas can have players seen at the same time, yes. 

Grindneverstop posted:

I personally would not be interested, but  I'm sure you can find some parent that will enjoy paying for someone to tell their son he's the next Bryce Harper!

Parents pay to clearly define their child's needed development path to reach their ultimate goal, not to be told their child is or isn't the next Bryce Harper. 

 

This so reminds me of Bubba's Baseball Bonanza. For those unfamiliar, here's the link, http://www.hsbaseballweb.com/bubba.htm. For Greg Legg's editorial, please read this: http://www.hsbaseballweb.com/legg_editorial.htm

I'm an ancient "oldtimer"...I found this site when son was 12-13...I read, read, read...everything! And, honestly, thru the next few years,  we had no problem "getting an honest evaluation" from scouts (birdogs to Cross Checkers). Along the way (I think 2003), someone contacted Perfect Game...At the time, I had never heard of them or "showcases"...But just kept on reading & asking questions of a few very well trusted folks here on HSbaseballweb, including Gregg Legg (Bama Bomber), One Pitcher's Pop, Fungo, TPM, Bighit15, who had or were going thru the same process with their sons... Long story short, this site & that handful of knowledgeable folks, a PG showcase or 2, a few WWBA tourneys, his great travel coach...contributed significantly. One thing led to another...Things have turned out well! Son got a great scholarship, great education, & is in 7th year of pro career. A few ups & downs in his journey, but so blessed! 

I just don't see any need to re-invent the wheel...

"retention in the game"??? Don't see how a paid evaluation would keep kids playing...Either it's "his game" or it isn't! He will let his parents know soon enough.

Educating parents???

Send them here!!! There is NO BETTER PLACE in the universe for parents to learn all about evaluations, recruiting, pros & cons of showcasing, and so much more! Even Scouts come here! 

 

baseballmom posted:

This so reminds me of Bubba's Baseball Bonanza. For those unfamiliar, here's the link, http://www.hsbaseballweb.com/bubba.htm. For Greg Legg's editorial, please read this: http://www.hsbaseballweb.com/legg_editorial.htm

I'm an ancient "oldtimer"...I found this site when son was 12-13...I read, read, read...everything! And, honestly, thru the next few years,  we had no problem "getting an honest evaluation" from scouts (birdogs to Cross Checkers). Along the way (I think 2003), someone contacted Perfect Game...At the time, I had never heard of them or "showcases"...But just kept on reading & asking questions of a few very well trusted folks here on HSbaseballweb, including Gregg Legg (Bama Bomber), One Pitcher's Pop, Fungo, TPM, Bighit15, who had or were going thru the same process with their sons... Long story short, this site & that handful of knowledgeable folks, a PG showcase or 2, a few WWBA tourneys, his great travel coach...contributed significantly. One thing led to another...Things have turned out well! Son got a great scholarship, great education, & is in 7th year of pro career. A few ups & downs in his journey, but so blessed! 

I just don't see any need to re-invent the wheel...

"retention in the game"??? Don't see how a paid evaluation would keep kids playing...Either it's "his game" or it isn't! He will let his parents know soon enough.

Educating parents???

Send them here!!! There is NO BETTER PLACE in the universe for parents to learn all about evaluations, recruiting, pros & cons of showcasing, and so much more! Even Scouts come here! 

 

I strongly agree with baseballmom.  

I didn't get the sense this was for "is my kid draft material".  Moreover, a private skill-capabilities-tool evaluation for a fee by a former Scout.  There could be value due to many families spending huge dollars on varied showcases and camps without having a clue that there kid isn't college or specific D1 college material.  Could help families reduce big picture costs, and convey a sense of sanity: your kid is not that good, go on a vacation, or the family and player will learn it could make more sense to spend money on development.

Most camps don't provide a written evaluation, if they do provide one it's rare that it provides analysis and suggestions for development.  If any camp eval is provided it will normally state your stats and a one liner: "keep up the good work, we hope to see you at the next Duke Camp".  PG provides nice writeups regarding skills, tools, and measurables.  But honestly if I'm questioning at all if my kid is as good as I think, he thinks, the coach thinks, I'd appreciate a private objective assessment.  

I think there could be a market with $150-200 being the sweetspot for a Scout to come watch a game and provide a report with detail analysis and development suggestions.  The report will tell the family and player if there are any or what type of skill-tools that project to what level of college or higher.  Paying this fee saves the family from splurging on the two upcoming $300-500 camps plus travel.  This could force the motivated player and supportive family to again, focus on development, and maybe attend that showcase 6 months out... 

If 4Seam is thinking about charging more than that I wouldn't be interested.  I can afford it, it makes sense, but more than $150-200 and I'd say NO.  In our case we've always been so development focused, but along the way, I would have paid this fee as a sanity check.  Most families have zero clue about development or if there kid could play beyond high school let alone make the Varsity Team.

Just my .02

Last edited by Gov
Gov posted:

I didn't get the sense this was for "is my kid draft material".  Moreover, a private skill-capabilities-tool evaluation for a fee by a former Scout.  There could be value due to many families spending huge dollars on varied showcases and camps without having a clue that there kid isn't college or specific D1 college material.  Could help families reduce big picture costs, and convey a sense of sanity: your kid is not that good, go on a vacation, or the family and player will learn it could make more sense to spend money on development.

Most camps don't provide a written evaluation, if they do provide one it's rare that it provides analysis and suggestions for development.  If any camp eval is provided it will normally state your stats and a one liner: "keep up the good work, we hope to see you at the next Duke Camp".  PG provides nice writeups regarding skills, tools, and measurables.  But honestly if I'm questioning at all if my kid is as good as I think, he thinks, the coach thinks, I'd appreciate a private objective assessment.  

I think there could be a market with $150-200 being the sweetspot for a Scout to come watch a game and provide a report with detail analysis and development suggestions.  The report will tell the family and player if there are any or what type of skill-tools that project to what level of college or higher.  Paying this fee saves the family from splurging on the two upcoming $300-500 camps plus travel.  This could force the motivated player and supportive family to again, focus on development, and maybe attend that showcase 6 months out... 

If 4Seam is thinking about charging more than that I wouldn't be interested.  I can afford it, it makes sense, but more than $150-200 and I'd say NO.  In our case we've always been so development focused, but along the way, I would have paid this fee as a sanity check.  Most families have zero clue about development or if there kid could play beyond high school let alone make the Varsity Team.

Just my .02

I agree with this too. Keep the cost reasonable.

Interesting concept and I completely understand your value proposition to parents.  Basically, don't get suckered into spending $300-$500 for camps and showcases that are designed to create a goodwill relationship with you as a means to get you to return to their next "pay to play" event.  Baseball Factory is one of the first that comes to mind for me.

So your business model is that the parent will pay $xxx once to your service to come in and provide an "objective", no holds barred evaluation which the parent can then use to spend their money more wisely and not continue to throw good money after bad.

IF you can truly remain objective and not ultimately be driven by the market to begin telling parents what they want to hear so that you don't get bashed to the point that your service becomes poison, it makes sense.  I do suspect that some level of objectivity would be lost as you would begin to protect a longer term business interest.  I also believe that your service would ultimately never result in the goal you desire, which would be to prevent parents from "having" to spend money on multiple camps and showcases when their kid really isn't at the level they believe.  I believe that the parents of a player who receives that "probably need to buy a pair of soccer shoes" evaluation from your service is going to simply chase another evaluation, camp or showcase until they get the answer they're seeking.

I get what you're trying to do, and I believe the market is there, but I don't think it will achieve what you hope and you may struggle to remain objective to sustain your long term business interest.

I guess people must not know that we have many former MLB scouts on our staff and we have had several others.  This includes a former assistant Scouting Director that worked in the front office for the Astros.  Also that we have trained over a dozen other young guys that now work for MLB organizations including three that have become Crosscheckers.  We also have former college coaches and have some former MLB players working for us.  And we give our honest opinion and grade/ranking.

That said,  I see nothing wrong with a former MLB scout evaluating a player.  But in order to accurately evaluate a player you need to get certain measurables and that will take a workout. (Unless it is a pitcher). No scout can depend on going to a game and getting enough information to know for certain everything he needs to know.  Even college teams will hold pro scout days so scouts can get measurables.  Even Predraft workouts are very important.  

Truth is no one could ever know enough from a workout or tryout alone.  And no one could ever know everything by watching a game.  It takes both before a scout gets what he really needs to feel sure about a player.  The more you see the more accurate you are likely to be.  That is why the top prospects are followed so closely.  By the time they get drafted, many scouts from an organization will see them many times.

One thing for sure, any experienced scout certainly would have a very good idea of what level of college a player could contribute at.  I actually think this is a good idea depending how qualified the scout is.  Not sure people understand that there are pro scouts out there that we would never hire.  There are a lot of great scouts, but just like everything else, it's not like every scout is a good scout.  Also, it's not like every scout will tell a player and his parents what he truly thinks.  He might NP (No Prospect) a player and tell  his boss why, but he isn't likely to tell a parent that their son can't play HS or above level.

I think the right guy (former MLB full time scout with years of experience) could be extremely helpful and maybe even do well.  If it were me, think I would set up a place where players came to me rather than travel all over the place.  Or at least make sure I was reimbursed for travel time and expense.

Nuke83, I don't think it could be a situation of "pay once"...Think about it...13-14 yr olds change alot in just a few months. Son grew 11" in 1 yr at that age...He was awkward as an ostrich...all legs & arms...just grappling with coordination...feet shooting out the end of cleats in 5 mo...Then once that growth spurt settles down a little, there will be other changes...so another eval next year, then again, & again...So now the kid is sophomore - junior...and you've been out 3-4-5 evals @ $150-$200 a pop???

That's a bunch of pitching lessons, or swings in a cage...or a showcase...or a WWBA tourney...

Parents need to pay attention, take off rose colored glasses, smell the coffee, do their homework...A LOT of homework! And develop a network of trusted advisers, folks who have walked in your shoes. 

Sons' pitching coach was a former MLB'er, so he got evaluated several times...True, we paid for the lessons...so we paid for the eval...But believe me, if sons' DESIRE & love of the game & competitive spirit + his  talent, tools & projectability weren't there, we would have had no reason to pursue it...

I think back on the kids on all the teams he played on from abt 10 yrs of age. Every year, more than a few dropped out, especially 12-15 yr olds.  Of his HS group (all 4 yrs), a handful went on to play college ball or were drafted each year. Of his College team 3-4 are still playing in the pros...just natural attrition...

Just my opinion, but based on experience, I'd be hesitant to use this kind of service. I'd be hesitant to form this kind of business...

Nuke83 posted:
... I believe that the parents of a player who receives that "probably need to buy a pair of soccer shoes" evaluation from your service is going to simply chase another evaluation, camp or showcase until they get the answer they're seeking.

Great point Nuke83. That said, if we do our job correctly we hope they will chase better development methods instead.  

PGStaff posted:

... But in order to accurately evaluate a player you need to get certain measurables and that will take a workout... And no one could ever know everything by watching a game...

... I think the right guy (former MLB full time scout with years of experience) could be extremely helpful and maybe even do well...

I respectfully disagree with your first part that workouts are a more accurate measure of tools, although I do agree with your general premise that longer follows may indicate tool consistency. 

Remember, the idea here is to identify tools, project them, and then measure them against the player's ultimate goal to then formulate a development plan for that player. Call it their blueprint for success. 

4Seamer,

I have no interest in arguing about these things, and in general this is a good idea.  However, a players goal has nothing to do with an accurate evaluation.  So any advice would have to be geared towards improvement rather than reaching a young person's goals.  Most kids don't have realistic goals.  I'm guessing that is what you mean.

As a scout surely you have held some tryouts.  Surely you have gone to a game and left disappointed in what you saw.  I can go to a game and never see everything I need to see.  Three ABs... One K and three walks.  SS gets one ground ball that is routine.  In a showcase event, I'm going to see BP and see plate appearances against high level pitching and his exit velocity.  I'm going to see him field ground balls in all directions and see his body control charging the ball. I will get his arm velocity.  I'm going to get his 60 yd time, his 10 yd time and his H-1 times.  I will see his actions and I'm also going to see the way he conducts himself and how he reacts to situations.  I will be able to put an accurate grade on all the tools I saw that day. Which if done correctly will be all the tools necessary.

Not downplaying the importance of watching him compete on a team. This is equally important and in some cases maybe even more important in the end.  But if  I had to turn in a report based on tools alone... I would always want to workout a player.  

Bottomline... Both are very important in order to properly evaluate a player. One without the other is incomplete.  If a player is a true early draft prospect it didn't happen because one person saw him play one game.  You want to know as much as possible about that player.  You want him to workout, you want to see many games.  

Seeing I don't know you or the scouts participating, I take it that you are a former scout.  So if that is the case, I would think you would agree with all of the above.

I think the plan you're talking about might work.  FWIW, Might work even better if the scout comes in early and has a chance to work the player out and then watch the game.  To me this service would be worth a lot more if I were a parent.   Best of luck!  And if you ever find someone that is extra special, please let us know.

Ok now that I realize this is serious...  4seemer I think it is a decent idea from an income standpoint. Baseball parents are crazy and they will pay for any gimmick that comes down the pike.  As The Godfather says "makes no difference to me how a man makes a living".  But if you are already financially secure (none of my business) and don't really need this income I would just ask you to think if you really want to be part of what is becoming borderline unethical practices in youth baseball. We don't do paid lessons, haven't showcased yet, don't pay for personal trainers or anything else. Wish we had the money actually for the personal trainer that is where most of us should be spending. But point is so many parents are so blindly hopeful they pay for all these things and then some. Just had an organization which is gaining some notoriety so I will not mention their name come to our organization for tryouts for some obscure 'national team'. Coincidentally most kids picked were from families that will probably pay the rather large price for the privilege. If I showed you showcase results from a couple kids who made this 'national team' you would fall over. Parents want to believe and will fall for just about anything. If you were to do this honestly and objectively I would propose you need to actually raise the price and do even more than PG suggests. I think you need in game action, pro style workout and video analysis coupled with an extremely specific plan including health, nutrition, strength and fitness, specific mechanical adjustments with prioritization as in fix this first then this then etc.  you would have to test strength so would need a fitness workout as well. In short you would have to spend an entire day with this kid compiling tons of information. Then go back to headquarters if you will, maybe even share video with other 'experts' to get a consensus. Then formulate the plan and send it to the customer with video analysis/comments along with your written evaluation. So what is all that worth?  $1000?  More?  Any $200 package is not going to address enough and will be just another in the long line of youth baseball scams. I hope your heart is in the right place. Hope you don't want to be just another snake oil salesman. We have far too many in baseball now. They get none of my money. But maybe I am passing on something somewhere along the line that would really help my son because I have become so leery of these scam artists. So if you really want to do this and provide true value it needs to be high priced and packed with real value. And I will be honest with you if there were a service out there that would analyze my son up one end and down the other and give us a SPECIFIC AND ACTIONABLE plan we can follow on our own...  I may get just drop the G note. I would love to have a fitness and nutrition plan. But all these guys want you to come to them and won't just sell you a plan (an authentic and personalized plan). So there could be value for a one stop shopping service. Then I think you make money and feel good about the way you are doing it.  Good luck and be one of the few good ones please. 

Last edited by 2020dad

I am going to start this by saying, I am not your target audience as my son is no longer in the recruiting pipeline, and, when he was, I educated myself on the recruiting process pretty early on....

I can see some value here, but it needs to be done right and the price point needs to be properly set.  I realize that families spend thousands of dollars a year on travel teams, coaches, equipment, hotel rooms, etc but the product still needs to be priced correctly to attract the widest audience possible.

One thing that I as a parent would want to understand are the credentials of the scouts being sent.  Are they legit MLB scouts?  I do know of a guy who goes around calling himself an MLB scout.  In reality he is a bird dog who has referred a couple of local players he knows to his neighbor who is an actual local paid scout.  Neither of these referrals have panned out.  He maintains paid scout accounts with PG and PBR.  According to him all of this makes him a legitimate scout.  If Im paying for a service I would want to make sure that the scout I am getting is a legit guy and not someone who is a quasi-scout.

You know 4seamer the more I now think about this the more I think you should sell your idea to PG. they have almost everything you need in place already. You could add fitness and nutrition guys to the mix. Charge $1000 for a showcase weekend that includes deeper analysis and action plan. Now if I could go to PG and play a couple games, get all the tracman measurables, 60 times etc PLUS a nutrition, strength and fitness plan SPECIFICALLY designed for my son, plus a video analysis and written evaluation/projection and a PG profile...  I guarantee you I am in for the G Note. 

4seamer posted


Remember, the idea here is to identify tools, project them, and then measure them against the player's ultimate goal to then formulate a development plan for that player. Call it their blueprint for success. 

Our experience, as parents, was that sons' travel coach & pitching coach were perfectly able to "formulate a development plan" for our son, which was include in the cost of the league fee &/or pitching lessons. 

I'm sure many, if not all, the folks who responded, would tend to agree.

Curious...what is the "commission" split between dispatcher & dispatched? Where/how are you recruiting clients? 

 

joes87 posted:

... One thing that I as a parent would want to understand are the credentials of the scouts being sent.  Are they legit MLB scouts?  I do know of a guy who goes around calling himself an MLB scout.  In reality he is a bird dog who has referred a couple of local players he knows to his neighbor who is an actual local paid scout.  Neither of these referrals have panned out.  He maintains paid scout accounts with PG and PBR.  According to him all of this makes him a legitimate scout.  If Im paying for a service I would want to make sure that the scout I am getting is a legit guy and not someone who is a quasi-scout.

You make a great point. No associate level scouts on our staff... no ex-coaches, no ex-players, no wannabe scouts, no college players, no interns, etc. Just 100% vetted professionals who have been with a club for three or more years, although the average experience of our guys is more than two decades. 

baseballmom posted:
4seamer posted


Remember, the idea here is to identify tools, project them, and then measure them against the player's ultimate goal to then formulate a development plan for that player. Call it their blueprint for success. 

Our experience, as parents, was that sons' travel coach & pitching coach were perfectly able to "formulate a development plan" for our son, which was include in the cost of the league fee &/or pitching lessons. 

I'm sure many, if not all, the folks who responded, would tend to agree.

Curious...what is the "commission" split between dispatcher & dispatched? Where/how are you recruiting clients? 

 

To some parents, their development network is all they need. I respect that. To others, they may want to be sure that the guys they are paying a weekly check to aren't just telling them what the parents want to hear so they keep writing checks. 

baseballmom posted:
4seamer posted


Remember, the idea here is to identify tools, project them, and then measure them against the player's ultimate goal to then formulate a development plan for that player. Call it their blueprint for success. 

Our experience, as parents, was that sons' travel coach & pitching coach were perfectly able to "formulate a development plan" for our son, which was include in the cost of the league fee &/or pitching lessons. 

I'm sure many, if not all, the folks who responded, would tend to agree.

Curious...what is the "commission" split between dispatcher & dispatched? Where/how are you recruiting clients? 

 

I'd disagree with you BaseballMom... we found that there are very few travel coach's and instructors committed to development.  They talk about it, but nothing happens.  Which is why it's incumbent on the parent to get dialed into: "is your kid any good, could he play at a higher level, and does he have the desire-work ethic to develop to get to that level.  The parent needs to network to find a travel program committed to developing players and sees a fit for your son/player.  

The majority of travel teams, coaches, and instructors are just rolling from one instruction session or one season to another.  They like to coach or instruct, and doing so, provides supplemental income and they get their quick fix being involved with baseball, but they don't have the time or desire to get immersed with a questionable committed kid and disconnected parent.  An objective 3rd party evaluation could provide realistic feedback as to what level of tools a player may have.  This could be eye opening to both player and parent.  But in line with what PGStaff said, there needs to some skills testing documented to support the final evaluation.  This combination would be the most valuable to the player and parent.  Skills testing is a key piece of data colleges use to filter to desired players. This is a key offering by PG.   But 4Seamer could scout a kid for tools, provide the writeup, then set up a separate skill testing event at $50 per kid, then combine both in a detailed write up.  The skills testing could be in an economic group format.  I think this could help families save money in the long run.  

There are a lot of families spending money on showcases-camps too early in the baseball timeline... it's wasted money.  We were at a couple of college showcases two weeks ago that were appropriate for 2018 and 2019's; I couldn't believe the number of 2020 families paying $500 for a two day event and traveling a 1000 miles to attend, travel cost plus hotel... wow!  It sure wasn't a family vacation time for 9th graders and I didn't get the sense they were high disposable income families.

I think there's a market for a $150-$200 professional Scout eval, combined with a $50.00 witnessed skill testing. Wrap both up in a final evaluation and you have something worthwhile to players and families.  It would be extemely helpful if the Scout involved was able to guide families/players to a few baseball programs in their area that are committed to development 

(apologies if a bit disjointed, gotta run, will edit later...)

JMO

 

2020dad posted:

You know 4seamer the more I now think about this the more I think you should sell your idea to PG. they have almost everything you need in place already. You could add fitness and nutrition guys to the mix. Charge $1000 for a showcase weekend that includes deeper analysis and action plan. Now if I could go to PG and play a couple games, get all the tracman measurables, 60 times etc PLUS a nutrition, strength and fitness plan SPECIFICALLY designed for my son, plus a video analysis and written evaluation/projection and a PG profile...  I guarantee you I am in for the G Note. 

As a player's parent, do you have the ability to obtain the raw Trackman data for your minor child? Or, do you sign the rights away when you play in a tournament that has a Trackman on the field? Maybe they post leader boards or something like that to keep parents happy?

Anyway, radar tracking devices like Trackman and Flightscope bring an exciting element to the scouting table but are years away from use in the everyday high school realm. But if we could instead figure out how to bring Statcast to high school baseball fields all over the country we'd make a fortune, huh?

Gov posted:
baseballmom posted:
4seamer posted


Remember, the idea here is to identify tools, project them, and then measure them against the player's ultimate goal to then formulate a development plan for that player. Call it their blueprint for success. 

Our experience, as parents, was that sons' travel coach & pitching coach were perfectly able to "formulate a development plan" for our son, which was include in the cost of the league fee &/or pitching lessons. 

I'm sure many, if not all, the folks who responded, would tend to agree.

Curious...what is the "commission" split between dispatcher & dispatched? Where/how are you recruiting clients? 

 


... There are a lot of families spending money on showcases-camps too early in the baseball timeline... it's wasted money.

... It would be extemely helpful if the Scout involved was able to guide families/players to a few baseball programs in their area that are committed to development

 

BINGO! This is exactly the problem we're seeing all across the country. And, yes, scouts need to remain available to the parents after their evaluation. Agreed!

On the other side of the coin, colleges - including D1's, are reaching down and offering verbals to 14's.. even some 13's. It's being said that 13 is the new 15. I don't agree - yet - but if the NCAA continues to allow this practice without any regard to the higher number of decommitments, well...

I have to say I am your demographic, 14 year old son, and I don't get it.

1. My son is an outfielder....how do you judge that if no balls are hit to him? Are we really counting the Fungo's hit to him in warm ups?

2. At 14 I expect him to grow more...who's to say what you report to me today won't fix itself with some growth?

3. If my son was one of these 13 year olds being scouted and getting verbal offers why would I hire a scout to tell me a path, he's already on a path!

If I'm really a gung-ho parent and think I have the next Bryce Harper then I'm going to take him to a PG showcase at which point the write up will say things like needs to develop more strength, or needs to track the ball better, or something along those lines that will let me know where he needs more work.  Then if I really truly hate the write up I can send a polite email to have it removed from his profile.

I can't get a handle on where you would fit into the market unless you are talking about going after the 9u-13u kids. If that is the case I'm sure you would get some takers, but these are the kids that their parents already have them in 4 lessons per week with ex MLB stars for $100 per hour, a.k.a money to burn families.  I can't see how this would appeal to people like me.

So final conclusion for me is you will probably make some money.  Unfortunately baseball parents are crazy.  It won't be my money for sure.  I don't need an MLB scout to point out my son's limitations I am already painfully aware of.  And if you try to go lower price point let's just be honest about this it is going to be a money making scam pure and simple.  So when mommy calls you in for her little boy and he absolutely sucks in every way what will the evaluation be?  Find something else to do?  No, its going to be some fluffy fake write up about his potential and he just needs to work on this or that and mature a little.  It's the old if its too good to be true principal.  You going to tell me I can get a professional scout to come to me, watch a game, write up a well thought out and precise evaluation for about $150???  I would have to call BS on that.  And I still believe that any evaluation by anybody regardless of what a great eye he has based upon one game would not mean much.  Again I would beg you don't be another pariah.  Leave these folks alone.  Be a good person and don't market to people who you know you are taking advantage of.  And please don't rationalize by saying you would be helping.  It is very difficult for me to believe that anyone with a college bound player would hire this service.  You would be preying on the low hanging fruit, the dreamers.  Don't do it!!!!

CaCO3Girl posted:

I have to say I am your demographic, 14 year old son, and I don't get it.

1. My son is an outfielder....how do you judge that if no balls are hit to him? Are we really counting the Fungo's hit to him in warm ups?

2. At 14 I expect him to grow more...who's to say what you report to me today won't fix itself with some growth?

3. If my son was one of these 13 year olds being scouted and getting verbal offers why would I hire a scout to tell me a path, he's already on a path!

If I'm really a gung-ho parent and think I have the next Bryce Harper then I'm going to take him to a PG showcase at which point the write up will say things like needs to develop more strength, or needs to track the ball better, or something along those lines that will let me know where he needs more work.  Then if I really truly hate the write up I can send a polite email to have it removed from his profile.

I can't get a handle on where you would fit into the market unless you are talking about going after the 9u-13u kids. If that is the case I'm sure you would get some takers, but these are the kids that their parents already have them in 4 lessons per week with ex MLB stars for $100 per hour, a.k.a money to burn families.  I can't see how this would appeal to people like me.

Scouts look at a multitude of things to acquire tool value. Even though your son doesn't track a ball during the game, the way he warms up & the way he throws scouts will key in on. As for growth, scouts look at tool projection based on many things - they see his body type and estimate projection fairly well. Tools are tools - whether you are 5' 1" or 6' 1"... professional scouts make a living - and clubs employ them for their voice - in accurately estimating future growth from today's tools.

Being on an contact list for a college doesn't mean the player will actually be offered a ride.

If PG Showcases are your thing, then that's where you should take him. Nothing wrong with being seen. I'm not sure I understand why PG would remove a scouting report once issued but...

"Dear Mr. and Ms. Smith

Thank you very much for the opportunity to provide an in depth evaluation and plan for your son Jon Smith. As you know, I was a professional baseball scout for many years and know some people who are pretty high in various baseball organizations. While scouting is different from developing baseball skills, I am very experienced in watching and rendering opinions and have done so for literally thousands of players over my scouting career - some of those who I evaluated played in the major leagues! My goal is to create a multi-year relationship with your family which will culminate in your son realizing his baseball potential. While I do not coach, teach, or develop, I can tell you what your son will need to do to reach the next baseball level.

I attended two full games of Saturday's high school double header and am pleased to share with you my observations:

Jon is a 5' 2" 150 lb. soft body, right fielder who is just entering puberty. His parents (I don't know if he was adopted) are both average height and build.

While only two fly balls were hit to right over both games, I observed that Jon wore his uniform properly and he warmed up well, with most of his throws to his warm up partner within an acceptable range for both accuracy and velocity. Both fly balls were routine, but I noticed Jon seemed a bit unsure whether to crow hop a throw back to the infield - maybe next game, I'll get to watch Jon catch a ball with a man on base and less than two out. However, during pre-game the three warm up fly balls were caught and his throws went to the base he had been told to throw to; moreover, the throws were reasonably accurate and showed good velocity. For almost every pitch defensively, Jon would seem to be focused on the game and moved to back up throws when appropriate.

At the plate, Jon seemed a bit tentative. He did not seem to have an approach at the plate or a plan to attack the pitcher when the count turned in his favor. His swing was a bit long and loopy and he stepped out a bit - especially on breaking pitches.  

He ran out the balls he put into play and hustled whenever he was on base. His time to first, however, was very slow. I attribute that to his weight and soft body as well as the fact that his head bobs and weaves as he runs and the moving parts don't work in harmony.  His leads were a bit short and his secondary leads lacked aggression - there were several balls in the dirt which could have been used to advance, but weren't.  He needs to pick up the third base coach earlier on plays where he runs from first to third.

For a 14 year old, however, Jon has potential to play at the next level. BUT, the road to the next level is difficult and requires dedication and discipline. Therefore, here are the goals for the upcoming year based upon my observations:

  • find a strength trainer who knows how to instruct baseball players;
  • jon should eat healthy protein heavy foods (chicken, fish) and avoid sugars, fats and fast foods and snacks. He should eat lots of vegetables and fruits and protein supplements. A nutritionist you hire can help.
  • find a batting coach to tighten the swing, straighten the stride and bring a plan to batting.

Thank you very much for the opportunity to evaluate Jon; he is a fine young man with baseball potential and with hard work, discipline, good baseball coaching, a personal trainer and nutritionist, has a very good chance of developing his game to be able to do compete successfully at the next level.

Enclosed you will find my bill. Including the double header, travel, notes, and creating this incredible evaluation and development plan, I spent 12 hours. Please remit the $200 to the address noted and I look forward to watching Jon over the next six years."

So, how helpful?

Goosegg posted:

"Dear Mr. and Ms. Smith

Thank you very much for the opportunity to provide an in depth evaluation and plan for your son Jon Smith. As you know, I was a professional baseball scout for many years and know some people who are pretty high in various baseball organizations. While scouting is different from developing baseball skills, I am very experienced in watching and rendering opinions and have done so for literally thousands of players over my scouting career - some of those who I evaluated played in the major leagues! My goal is to create a multi-year relationship with your family which will culminate in your son realizing his baseball potential. While I do not coach, teach, or develop, I can tell you what your son will need to do to reach the next baseball level.

I attended two full games of Saturday's high school double header and am pleased to share with you my observations:

Jon is a 5' 2" 150 lb. soft body, right fielder who is just entering puberty. His parents (I don't know if he was adopted) are both average height and build.

While only two fly balls were hit to right over both games, I observed that Jon wore his uniform properly and he warmed up well, with most of his throws to his warm up partner within an acceptable range for both accuracy and velocity. Both fly balls were routine, but I noticed Jon seemed a bit unsure whether to crow hop a throw back to the infield - maybe next game, I'll get to watch Jon catch a ball with a man on base and less than two out. However, during pre-game the three warm up fly balls were caught and his throws went to the base he had been told to throw to; moreover, the throws were reasonably accurate and showed good velocity. For almost every pitch defensively, Jon would seem to be focused on the game and moved to back up throws when appropriate.

At the plate, Jon seemed a bit tentative. He did not seem to have an approach at the plate or a plan to attack the pitcher when the count turned in his favor. His swing was a bit long and loopy and he stepped out a bit - especially on breaking pitches.  

He ran out the balls he put into play and hustled whenever he was on base. His time to first, however, was very slow. I attribute that to his weight and soft body as well as the fact that his head bobs and weaves as he runs and the moving parts don't work in harmony.  His leads were a bit short and his secondary leads lacked aggression - there were several balls in the dirt which could have been used to advance, but weren't.  He needs to pick up the third base coach earlier on plays where he runs from first to third.

For a 14 year old, however, Jon has potential to play at the next level. BUT, the road to the next level is difficult and requires dedication and discipline. Therefore, here are the goals for the upcoming year based upon my observations:

  • find a strength trainer who knows how to instruct baseball players;
  • jon should eat healthy protein heavy foods (chicken, fish) and avoid sugars, fats and fast foods and snacks. He should eat lots of vegetables and fruits and protein supplements. A nutritionist you hire can help.
  • find a batting coach to tighten the swing, straighten the stride and bring a plan to batting.

Thank you very much for the opportunity to evaluate Jon; he is a fine young man with baseball potential and with hard work, discipline, good baseball coaching, a personal trainer and nutritionist, has a very good chance of developing his game to be able to do compete successfully at the next level.

Enclosed you will find my bill. Including the double header, travel, notes, and creating this incredible evaluation and development plan, I spent 12 hours. Please remit the $200 to the address noted and I look forward to watching Jon over the next six years."

So, how helpful?

Goosegg, don't you think that's a little ridiculous?  Oh not the eval, the idea the scout wouldn't be prepaid!  Get your head in the game man!

TPM I agree. And the Op has identified a real problem - bringing a family's expectations into the realm of reality. We all know the system extracts way too much money for way too little; with no tried and true path which anyone could follow. So, any realistic method/system to save money would be welcomed.

OP - keep trying; you're thinking outside the box and that is fantastic. You've identified a resource with deep baseball knowledge and tried to leverage it. It's a good idea in theory which - because of the human elements - won't work generally (though would work anecdotally).

jmo

I appreciate OP using our site as due diligence to fine tune his target market, and I personally see an opportunity if he were to combine skills testing and find a way to keep the price point reasonable.     

Goose's narrative was hilarious and I'm sure it brought it home to 4Seam.  If there is a market does the reward justify the risk?   Let's continue to welcome ideas on our site and have a constructive dialogue.  Stating an OP's idea is a scam is not a great approach.  

I'm not vested in this idea nor do I know 4Seam.  Great products and services normally start off with an off the wall (to some) idea to get started....

 

 

 

 

Goosegg posted:

"Dear Mr. and Ms. Smith

Thank you very much for the opportunity to provide an in depth evaluation and plan for your son Jon Smith. As you know, I was a professional baseball scout for many years and know some people who are pretty high in various baseball organizations. While scouting is different from developing baseball skills, I am very experienced in watching and rendering opinions and have done so for literally thousands of players over my scouting career - some of those who I evaluated played in the major leagues! My goal is to create a multi-year relationship with your family which will culminate in your son realizing his baseball potential. While I do not coach, teach, or develop, I can tell you what your son will need to do to reach the next baseball level.

I attended two full games of Saturday's high school double header and am pleased to share with you my observations:

Jon is a 5' 2" 150 lb. soft body, right fielder who is just entering puberty. His parents (I don't know if he was adopted) are both average height and build.

While only two fly balls were hit to right over both games, I observed that Jon wore his uniform properly and he warmed up well, with most of his throws to his warm up partner within an acceptable range for both accuracy and velocity. Both fly balls were routine, but I noticed Jon seemed a bit unsure whether to crow hop a throw back to the infield - maybe next game, I'll get to watch Jon catch a ball with a man on base and less than two out. However, during pre-game the three warm up fly balls were caught and his throws went to the base he had been told to throw to; moreover, the throws were reasonably accurate and showed good velocity. For almost every pitch defensively, Jon would seem to be focused on the game and moved to back up throws when appropriate.

At the plate, Jon seemed a bit tentative. He did not seem to have an approach at the plate or a plan to attack the pitcher when the count turned in his favor. His swing was a bit long and loopy and he stepped out a bit - especially on breaking pitches.  

He ran out the balls he put into play and hustled whenever he was on base. His time to first, however, was very slow. I attribute that to his weight and soft body as well as the fact that his head bobs and weaves as he runs and the moving parts don't work in harmony.  His leads were a bit short and his secondary leads lacked aggression - there were several balls in the dirt which could have been used to advance, but weren't.  He needs to pick up the third base coach earlier on plays where he runs from first to third.

For a 14 year old, however, Jon has potential to play at the next level. BUT, the road to the next level is difficult and requires dedication and discipline. Therefore, here are the goals for the upcoming year based upon my observations:

  • find a strength trainer who knows how to instruct baseball players;
  • jon should eat healthy protein heavy foods (chicken, fish) and avoid sugars, fats and fast foods and snacks. He should eat lots of vegetables and fruits and protein supplements. A nutritionist you hire can help.
  • find a batting coach to tighten the swing, straighten the stride and bring a plan to batting.

Thank you very much for the opportunity to evaluate Jon; he is a fine young man with baseball potential and with hard work, discipline, good baseball coaching, a personal trainer and nutritionist, has a very good chance of developing his game to be able to do compete successfully at the next level.

Enclosed you will find my bill. Including the double header, travel, notes, and creating this incredible evaluation and development plan, I spent 12 hours. Please remit the $200 to the address noted and I look forward to watching Jon over the next six years."

So, how helpful?

HAha - that's hilarious Goosegg... not quite what we do but I will recommend your nurturing way to our scouts. 

Goosegg posted:

TPM I agree. And the Op has identified a real problem - bringing a family's expectations into the realm of reality. We all know the system extracts way too much money for way too little; with no tried and true path which anyone could follow. So, any realistic method/system to save money would be welcomed.

OP - keep trying; you're thinking outside the box and that is fantastic. You've identified a resource with deep baseball knowledge and tried to leverage it. It's a good idea in theory which - because of the human elements - won't work generally (though would work anecdotally).

jmo

If the clubs won't employ the game's specialists, the parents certainly will. Right?

bacdorslider posted:

Are parents so lost in this process that they cannot compare their player to teammates , opponents, high school coaches , travel coaches and get a pretty good idea ? 

My own observations here but, I think that's exactly the problem today bacdorslider. Parents compare their 14u/15u child to the kid from Miami or the So. Cal kid and then say 'my kid doesn't have a chance' and then we see the child drift off to another sport. The Commissioner's plan is to keep every child interested in the game somehow involved and I think we can assist in that goal by not only explaining that this kid does indeed have a chance if he continues to work on his tools. He may not be a D1 guy, but who is to say he isn't drafted in the 10th round as a junior in college if he continues to improve? Quite a few players develop late - could he be one of them? Keep working hard toward your goal. Don't give up.

Last edited by 4seamer
bacdorslider posted:

Go back to the numbers of how many players are actually playing D1 ball , minor league ball let alo e mlb , its a very small percentage. All the camps, lessons , advice, evals are not going to get you there. Talent , raw talent , athletic body,  work ethic .  Dont call use, we'll call you

True. At the same time, we like to think there is a fit in the collegiate ranks for anyone who really wants to play. That's not true, of course, but for the complimentary player hoping to get a pro contract one day NAIA is heaven if if he can't get to D1. Hope is hope. Right?

4seamer posted:
bacdorslider posted:

Are parents so lost in this process that they cannot compare their player to teammates , opponents, high school coaches , travel coaches and get a pretty good idea ? 

My own observations here but, I think that's exactly the problem today bacdorslider. Parents compare their 14u/15u child to the kid from Miami or the So. Cal kid and then say 'my kid doesn't have a chance' and then we see the child drift off to another sport. The Commissioner's plan is to keep every child interested in the game somehow involved and I think we can assist in that goal by not only explaining that this kid does indeed have a chance if he continues to work on his tools. He may not be a D1 guy, but who is to say he isn't drafted in the 10th round as a junior in college if he continues to improve? Quite a few players develop late - could he be one of them? Keep working hard toward your goal. Don't give up.

In all seriousness this is what I do not understand.  Are there a shortage of College players?  Are there a shortage of MiLB players?  Are there a shortage of MLB players?  I don't think there is a shortage at any level, and I also think we are seeing some of the most amazing athletes of all times coming out of these levels. 

So, the D2/D3 potential kid who knows he's not going to be the next Bryce Harper gives up the sport at 15u....so what?  The 15u kid tries another sport that he may be better suited for, or perhaps chooses to focus on computers, or another interest.  There are thousands of passionate baseball players that play for love of the game and they will continue to play.  If the kid doesn't think he's good enough to make it, and isn't passionate about baseball why shouldn't he move on to something else?

It was my understanding that the Commissioner was trying to keep 6u-13u interested in the game...not 15u and up. 

Gov posted:

I appreciate OP using our site as due diligence to fine tune his target market, and I personally see an opportunity if he were to combine skills testing and find a way to keep the price point reasonable.     

Goose's narrative was hilarious and I'm sure it brought it home to 4Seam.  If there is a market does the reward justify the risk?   Let's continue to welcome ideas on our site and have a constructive dialogue.  Stating an OP's idea is a scam is not a great approach.  

I'm not vested in this idea nor do I know 4Seam.  Great products and services normally start off with an off the wall (to some) idea to get started....

 

 

 

 

I dont think its all thst off the wall, or in anyway does he have intentions on scamming anyone. I still think that the title kind of threw everyone off.

The problem is that we have been given limited information, and once again he did come here to get ideas on how to make a concept work, hasnt tried to sell anything.  

TPM posted:
Gov posted:

I appreciate OP using our site as due diligence to fine tune his target market, and I personally see an opportunity if he were to combine skills testing and find a way to keep the price point reasonable.     

Goose's narrative was hilarious and I'm sure it brought it home to 4Seam.  If there is a market does the reward justify the risk?   Let's continue to welcome ideas on our site and have a constructive dialogue.  Stating an OP's idea is a scam is not a great approach.  

I'm not vested in this idea nor do I know 4Seam.  Great products and services normally start off with an off the wall (to some) idea to get started....

 

 

 

 

I dont think its all thst off the wall, or in anyway does he have intentions on scamming anyone. I still think that the title kind of threw everyone off.

The problem is that we have been given limited information, and once again he did come here to get ideas on how to make a concept work, hasnt tried to sell anything.  

Completely concur TPM, I was referring to earlier comments used by posters.  I get his idea, some fine tuning required ....

 

bacdorslider posted:

Go back to the numbers of how many players are actually playing D1 ball , minor league ball let alo e mlb , its a very small percentage. All the camps, lessons , advice, evals are not going to get you there. Talent , raw talent , athletic body,  work ethic .  Dont call use, we'll call you

Perhaps a well timed and well constructed evaluation would save a parent money?  Or let them target their resources to the kid's abilities?  There's more ball than D1, Milb, MLB.

Let me clear something up here.  I assume the scam comment was directed at me.  I apologize my posts were a bit long so perhaps you didnt really read them.  But I said it was a scam at a certain price point.  I took very seriously my advice to 4seamer and made many suggestions on how this could be a useful and relevant service.  Even saying I would be a paying customer at a much higher price point with much more value built in.  I am giving him sincere advice and begged him NOT to take advantage of the naive hopeful.  My hope is he will do this the right way and it WON'T be a scam.  But at $150 or something similar it will be a scam pure and simple.  No reputable MLB scout is going to do this for that amount and then hand whatever percentage over to the owner operator.  

P.S. there is a place for anyone with any ability at all.  There are D3's everywhere willing to trade a uniform for tuition.

2020dad posted:

Let me clear something up here.  I assume the scam comment was directed at me.  I apologize my posts were a bit long so perhaps you didnt really read them.  But I said it was a scam at a certain price point.  I took very seriously my advice to 4seamer and made many suggestions on how this could be a useful and relevant service.  Even saying I would be a paying customer at a much higher price point with much more value built in.  I am giving him sincere advice and begged him NOT to take advantage of the naive hopeful.  My hope is he will do this the right way and it WON'T be a scam.  But at $150 or something similar it will be a scam pure and simple.  No reputable MLB scout is going to do this for that amount and then hand whatever percentage over to the owner operator.  

P.S. there is a place for anyone with any ability at all.  There are D3's everywhere willing to trade a uniform for tuition.

I understand your point 2020, sorry I missed it earlier.  I still think the $150-200 is a key price point a parent may pay, and if a local scout is used, who is likely "semi-retired" or using this to supplement his income, this price point could actually be good for the scout. If the local scout takes 60% times a few  games or more per week, the 60% of $150-200 per evaluation could add up to make it worth his while while providing a service deemed worthy by some parents.  The "house-4Seam" is making 40% per Scout per evaluation nationwide, more of a volume deal where the "house" makes its money.  It's not a "Snapchat" opportunity, but could be a nice business.

I'm in the minority of seeing value here, but I still think there has to be skills testing results imbedded in the final evaluation.  It's the only way to provide true insight on where a player is with both tools & skills.  This combination is of value to the parent-player.  I also think this idea is more of an opportunity in non hot bed baseball markets, (like my area, where there are too many clueless parents spending money in the wrong areas).  I've met a lot of parents in the Georgia and San Diego areas, they seem to have access to a lot more development type programs, and with that the parents are much more informed.  Not in my area.

Any price above $150-200 is a deal killer.

bacdorslider posted:

Are parents so lost in this process that they cannot compare their player to teammates , opponents, high school coaches , travel coaches and get a pretty good idea ? 

I think this comment is the source of my concern for this type of program.  For a parent that educates themselves and works diligently at avoiding the rose colored glasses, the assessment of current and projected skill level is not too terribly difficult.  Assuming a kid needs instruction, one needs to find competent instruction and seek realistic feedback.  Once the rose colored glasses are put on, this type of program will be sought after by parents who have a preconceived notion that their kid is better that he is credited with and wants some ammunition.  These parents will not take kindly to a poor assessment (therein lies the need for the prepaid arrangement).  These scouts may have a tremendous amount a knowledge and experience that they can apply, but I think that value lies in the higher levels (maybe a discussion about what it would take to get drafted high enough to forego college, as an example) and not at the lower levels (what is the development plan for my soft body, soft throwing 12u so as to make the freshman team as an 8th grader).

My idea would be for some average folks to sit with the parent during the double header and have that parent describe how their kid stacks up to all the other players.  For $200, the parent will get a development report on what steps they need to take to begin their return journey to reality so as they might actually be able to assist little Johnny in reaching their goals.  The program would completely ignore the kid in question and simply focus on the parent(s) as well as document any and all paid advisers who have been brought on board.  I would love for Goosegg to take a crack at how that letter might read.  

4seamer posted:
bacdorslider posted:

Go back to the numbers of how many players are actually playing D1 ball , minor league ball let alo e mlb , its a very small percentage. All the camps, lessons , advice, evals are not going to get you there. Talent , raw talent , athletic body,  work ethic .  Dont call use, we'll call you

True. At the same time, we like to think there is a fit in the collegiate ranks for anyone who really wants to play. That's not true, of course, but for the complimentary player hoping to get a pro contract one day NAIA is heaven if if he can't get to D1. Hope is hope. Right?

I agree with you... I think from your post that you are honest and want to do right be the players.  So many others are just out for a buck, telling parents what they want to hear.... IF you give an honest eval and explain to parents WHy the chances are not good for D1 ball( for instance) but chances are good to play NAIA, D3, D2, Juco and explain to them the huge benefits of playing college athletics at any level then yes I think you have a genuine product.  

Now my 2013 was not a D1 player in high school, after two years of Juco he was.    

Well, there has been a little confusion...

4seamer states on pg 1 that, on demand, a parent can pay for an evaluation of sons' ability, talent, tools... his target market is 13-14 (baseline eval) & up. Not looking to impact recruiting, but to impact retention in the game & education for parents (development path). That they "only do evaluating"..."identify tools, project, then measure against the players ultimate goal to then formulate a development plan". 

Then on pg 2, 4seamers' responses allude to NAIA, & 10th rd draft as viable...

So, I'm interpreting this venture as a recruiting service...that is trying to capitalize on "100% vetted pro scouts that have 3-20+ yrs experience... that the industry is not using. 

There you have it folks...

Edited to add...

Yes, there is a need for parents to learn how their kid stacks up & what options are available at all levels...Maybe we ought to do a little bit more to get the word out about this site...to coaches & league admins from LL to Legion to Travel to HS. Maybe we need to update some of the articles, resources here to place more emphasis on levels other than D-1...

Last edited by baseballmom

Our youth baseball league sponsored an open forum for parents and players - ages 5 through 14. The local NAIA HC (now the HC of UA) and a former MILB pitcher drafted out of HS were featured. The object was to give the audience the lay of the land over the horizon; for parents of young players, the focus was HS; for older players it was HS and beyond.

No evaluations; it was purely informational. In an hour and a half, the audience received an overview of the processes, problems, pitfalls - and most importantly - handouts where a parent could go to explore in depth the process (because in the beginning, the lack of knowledge is so formidable, it seems impossible to learn).

The cost was zero; the information priceless and, in hindsight, accurate beyond belief.

As I understand this proposed service, it will make evaluations which may or may not differ from a reputable baseball service like PG. The advantage is to get the evaluation, your kid will be evaluated in a game - as opposed to an expensive showcase, and the cost will be less (how much is unknown). So, e.g., instead of running with 100 kids, seeing their times posted, the kid will run the ball out in a game and get his time. (Back in the day, I think NIKE created a skill testing system. The results of hundreds of players were posted online, freely sortable in multiple categories. You could see where your kid stood in relation with every player in the country who took these tests.)

Will these evaluators use their contacts to reach out to schools; to scouts; to instructors; to nutritionists; to travel ball organizations? Will these evaluators insinuate themselves early (because we're talking 13 - 14 yr olds) so they become "advisors" to the kids with pro potential? What will be cross-sold? What will the parent who purchased the evaluation be told when asking for a coaching, travel team, showcase recommendation? (Or is this like the crazy life-lock commercials hightlighting the difference between a passive monitor of credit and a service which takes action.)

What is the track history - other then a resume; in other words, if the goal is to evaluate the player and create a reasonable workable plan to reach potential, what is the track record of success? It looks to me that it would take at least 5 years before a track record can be uncovered - who are the Guinea pigs? Speaking from my experience, there are lots of "experts" in various facets of baseball - amateur and pro - but very few with a track record - apart from employment history.

No question parents could use dispassionate cheap advice. But most of that advice can actually come right from the same parent as they educate themselves on the process. 

 

2020dad posted:

Let me clear something up here.  I assume the scam comment was directed at me.  I apologize my posts were a bit long so perhaps you didnt really read them.  But I said it was a scam at a certain price point.  I took very seriously my advice to 4seamer and made many suggestions on how this could be a useful and relevant service.  Even saying I would be a paying customer at a much higher price point with much more value built in.  I am giving him sincere advice and begged him NOT to take advantage of the naive hopeful.  My hope is he will do this the right way and it WON'T be a scam.  But at $150 or something similar it will be a scam pure and simple.  No reputable MLB scout is going to do this for that amount and then hand whatever percentage over to the owner operator.  

P.S. there is a place for anyone with any ability at all.  There are D3's everywhere willing to trade a uniform for tuition.

A little more about the service. We've been conducting case studies for going on a year. The price point is significantly lower than $1k, but higher than $150. The average professional scout makes about $1k per day in showcase events where they 'throw a net' on the field to try and write up as many players they - or the set event standards they are working for - feel are worthy. But you typically get blurbs... not an evaluation. We have been approached by numerous tournament circuits to provide scouts and declined them all as we wish to remain a true third-party evaluation service. One day it is possible someone like PG or BF or someone else will approach us - I don't know.

2020dad, you're correct - no scout is going to get up and drive to a local high school field at 4:00 to watch BP and fielding/bullpen practice, then watch the 6:00 game, and then go home 2 - 3 hours later and write up a detailed discussion or short form on a player for $150. They just spent 5 - 7 hours including travel time for this client. We've also been finding parents prefer their children to be seen on Sunday of tournament days. Those days become very, very long for a scout, many times sitting around for hours waiting for games to be played.

And remember, the scout is following only the client. Nobody else. He watches that player from the time he gets to the field to the time the player leaves the field. One-on-one.

As for this being a scam, perhaps some folks will think so. They thought that of BF and other groups when they started too. We believe we're heading in the right direction and with input from folks like on this board, we hope to only get better and better.

4seamer, perhaps Gov has the right of this.  I can't see the value of this type of product, but my kid goes to a 7A sized school and I live 10 minutes from East Cobb and 30 minutes from Lakepoint in Georgia. 

We have over a dozen academies here and multiple "national" teams.  If I lived in Podunk USA where you have to drive an hour to get to some decent baseball perhaps there would be a market for this service, but I don't see it being appealing where I live.

2017LHPscrewball posted:
bacdorslider posted:

Are parents so lost in this process that they cannot compare their player to teammates , opponents, high school coaches , travel coaches and get a pretty good idea ? 

... For a parent that educates themselves and works diligently at avoiding the rose colored glasses, the assessment of current and projected skill level is not too terribly difficult. 

...These parents will not take kindly to a poor assessment (therein lies the need for the prepaid arrangement).  These scouts may have a tremendous amount a knowledge and experience that they can apply, but I think that value lies in the higher levels (maybe a discussion about what it would take to get drafted high enough to forego college, as an example) and not at the lower levels (what is the development plan for my soft body, soft throwing 12u so as to make the freshman team as an 8th grader). 

Many of the parents we meet felt the same way - they believed they had a good handle on the true projection of their child. We've found - so far - 90% of them to be incorrect. In fact, we've read many 'scouting' reports from 'trusted advisers' in their development camps and, as you may guess, there is quite a bit of misclassification.

Can a soft body 12u player be projected? To some degree, I suppose. But, why would we want to do that? Instead, at age 13 on the bigger field we would look at the tool set the player currently had and create a development plan for the child to help him grow his tools. His blueprint for success, if you will. 

baseballmom posted:

Well, there has been a little confusion...

4seamer states on pg 1 that, on demand, a parent can pay for an evaluation of sons' ability, talent, tools... his target market is 13-14 (baseline eval) & up. Not looking to impact recruiting, but to impact retention in the game & education for parents (development path). That they "only do evaluating"..."identify tools, project, then measure against the players ultimate goal to then formulate a development plan". 

Then on pg 2, 4seamers' responses allude to NAIA, & 10th rd draft as viable...

So, I'm interpreting this venture as a recruiting service...that is trying to capitalize on "100% vetted pro scouts that have 3-20+ yrs experience... that the industry is not using. 

Not a recruiting service, not a development service. An evaluation service - assessing future athletic ability and measuring that assessment against the player's ultimate goal to provide a blueprint (plan) for success.

Last edited by 4seamer
CaCO3Girl posted:

4seamer, perhaps Gov has the right of this.  I can't see the value of this type of product, but my kid goes to a 7A sized school and I live 10 minutes from East Cobb and 30 minutes from Lakepoint in Georgia. 

We have over a dozen academies here and multiple "national" teams.  If I lived in Podunk USA where you have to drive an hour to get to some decent baseball perhaps there would be a market for this service, but I don't see it being appealing where I live.

You are in the area that we believe we will have outstanding growth in. 

Ok 4seam as has already been mentioned you didn't come on here like some and hard sell your product. That's cool. So it seems you are using us as a focus group - that's very smart cause we are all parents of serious players - different talent levels but all serious. This is a great place for feedback. So you are doing the right things. I am still struggling to see the benefit. I feel like I have a pretty good handle on my son's potential.  So the product probably isn't for me. And we will continue to work to beat our own estimate no matter what we or others think his ceiling to be. But since you have taken all this very professionally- and thanks for that - I will open the door for you. I will not be walking through it at least at this point but I will open the door!  So what is the name of your business and do you have a website?  I think you at this point have earned the right to post it here!

There are many players and parents who need help getting an honest evaluation from a neutral qualified source.  There is certainly a need and a market and properly culled ex-scouts would certainly qualify. 

However, I don't agree that the premise is to keep players playing the game.  Let's call a spade a spade.  If they have made it to 13, 14, 15 and have a skill set that gives them a chance at college ball or beyond, they don't need to be talked into continuing play, they need to be given that assessment so that they know what realistic college level to target based on their tools and projections.  Yeah, a plan is fine but they typically know what their strengths and weaknesses are, they just need to know where their likely fit is.   

There is certainly a fair supply of qualified individuals (combined with resources like HSBBW) that would be willing to provide that assessment at little or no cost.  There is also a fair supply of training facilities that would do the same for a nominal cost, far less than the likely $500-$750 we're talking about here.  

That said, if a parent doesn't want to do a little leg work and/or feels this route would be the best bet for a truly qualified assessment, and they have the extra money, then go for it.  

I understand the idea of attending the games but if a decent local instructor did a short on-field evaluation and asked a few coaches about the kid's game make-up, much of the same conclusions will be drawn almost every time.  Those local guys are often willing to attend a game or two as well and, in fact, probably have already seen the kid play.

It always blows me away how many parents are willing to spend thousands when they can utilize resources like HSBBW and learn to target their plan so that they can save a huge portion of those thousands - FOR FREE, yet they just won't take the time to do that.

I guess if you have it and want to spend it that way, who am I to say otherwise.  On the surface, I have no problem with 4seamer's model.  I can, however, imagine some interesting parent-group-at-game discussion when they find out that Jimmy 13U's dad is paying a pro scout to personally follow and assess him. 

 

Last edited by cabbagedad

I'm guessing the $500-750 thrown out by CABBAGE is not far off the mark (Based on OP saying significantly less than $1k but more than $150).  Also wanted to point out some earlier posts by OP wherein he stated that the tools would be viewed/measured in game situation and not in a showcase format.  The OP supports the price point saying that the scout can end up spending 5-7 hours with travel time and pre-game activity (BP - hope they are not taking BP in the "barn" or the coach runs them off).  I am not the biggest fan of showcasing, but I'd take a showcase at $1K over a $750 hit-or-miss date every time.  The opportunity to present a development plan after watching a single game sound bogus.  Say the kid plays can't decide between infield, outfield, catching or pitching and gets stuck in RF during the game and never sees the ball (I refer you to GOOSEGG's comments about throws to the warm up kid).

If you followed 3 kids and charged a total of $750, then maybe it might start to make sense to me (I do not have more money than I know what to do with).  Besides, the scout will probably spend 5% of the actual time watching an individual kid's activities.  Heaven forbid he gets bored and misses the fly ball that the kid doesn't have to move for (again, no one on base but the scout will "project" how well he might throw out a runner at home).  The service does have value, but that value IMO (and based on how I would choose to spend my money) comes nowhere close at $750 and not real close at $500.

2017LHPscrewball posted:

I'm guessing the $500-750 thrown out by CABBAGE is not far off the mark (Based on OP saying significantly less than $1k but more than $150).  Also wanted to point out some earlier posts by OP wherein he stated that the tools would be viewed/measured in game situation and not in a showcase format.  The OP supports the price point saying that the scout can end up spending 5-7 hours with travel time and pre-game activity (BP - hope they are not taking BP in the "barn" or the coach runs them off).  I am not the biggest fan of showcasing, but I'd take a showcase at $1K over a $750 hit-or-miss date every time.  The opportunity to present a development plan after watching a single game sound bogus.  Say the kid plays can't decide between infield, outfield, catching or pitching and gets stuck in RF during the game and never sees the ball (I refer you to GOOSEGG's comments about throws to the warm up kid).

If you followed 3 kids and charged a total of $750, then maybe it might start to make sense to me (I do not have more money than I know what to do with).  Besides, the scout will probably spend 5% of the actual time watching an individual kid's activities.  Heaven forbid he gets bored and misses the fly ball that the kid doesn't have to move for (again, no one on base but the scout will "project" how well he might throw out a runner at home).  The service does have value, but that value IMO (and based on how I would choose to spend my money) comes nowhere close at $750 and not real close at $500.

Concur... I don't think they're considering what parents would really pay to give it a shot.  More than $200-250 it misses the mark, they need to revamp their assumptions for the financial model.  There are clueless parents, but they'll be asking for feedback from other parents that have a clue before they cut a check.  They need to utilize the previously tenured scout who is fairly local, and semi retired and looking for supplemental income.  This guy still has the eye for tools and is dialed into the applicable collegiate levels a kid could possibly play.

At a high price I wouldn't be an investor in the model.  Been there done that... 

As one living in Podunk, USA I could certainly see the value of something like this.  It doesn't sound like the purpose is to get your kid recruited or noticed.  Not specifically.  It is to give him an actionable plan to put himself i a position to be a varsity starter and potential college player.  I can't see paying $500 or more for something like that but probably because I couldn't afford it.  At least not when he was at an age where it would have made sense.  As a junior in high school it might be a bit late for something like this.  My son has done a couple of PBR showcases and the evaluations seem to be more oriented toward a scout than to the kid/family.  Here is his build/metrics/how he throws the ball.   I know that a quality instructor can probably do the same thing but 1) they don't come watch your kid perform in a game and 2) many parents don't know which ones are the quality ones.  Maybe that is unique to my area. 

LivingtheDream posted:

As one living in Podunk, USA I could certainly see the value of something like this.  It doesn't sound like the purpose is to get your kid recruited or noticed.  Not specifically.  It is to give him an actionable plan to put himself i a position to be a varsity starter and potential college player.  I can't see paying $500 or more for something like that but probably because I couldn't afford it.  At least not when he was at an age where it would have made sense.  As a junior in high school it might be a bit late for something like this.  My son has done a couple of PBR showcases and the evaluations seem to be more oriented toward a scout than to the kid/family.  Here is his build/metrics/how he throws the ball.   I know that a quality instructor can probably do the same thing but 1) they don't come watch your kid perform in a game and 2) many parents don't know which ones are the quality ones.  Maybe that is unique to my area. 

Price is still the driver... 

I'm still stuck on the single game theory (along with BP of course - assuming the scout is actually allowed to saunter up close).  Many folks have said showcases can be hit or miss and that you can squander your money if you have an off day.  At least you'll have X amount of reps fielding and X amounts of AB's as well as getting your speed measured both running and throwing.  Moving to the "one game" approach, what if you get 2 AB (maybe you get HBP on one of them) and never truly sprint down the line to first (no real measurement of foot speed - check).  In the OF, assume you never got a ball with anyone attempting to advance (no real measurement of arm speed - check...unless the scout tells the kid to go 100% during warm ups and of course zero true fielding reps).  I've heard nothing about any video of the game action (assuming there is some action to capture in the first place).  Just think about the 25% dullest games your kid has played (please ignore if your kid plays SS or catcher) and tell me whether that performance gave any real indication of what skills were present and which skills were lacking in order to provide an appropriate development plan within 24 hours (I'll assume there is a 24 hour turnaround guarantee as the scout can probably write the plan on site between innings).

If this is a $250 product, it probably cannot deliver what has been proposed.  If it is $750, then it is overpriced and had better have a refund policy if the kid doesn't get at least 3 plate appearances and 2 fielding opportunities with runners on base.  

What if, for $250, a scout can review up to 2 hours of edited video which gets taken over the course of 10-12 games with the caveat that all action. good and bad, get presented along with BP.  

I really just don't get the approach and its inherent shortcomings and am beginning to talk myself into thinking $250 might still be a gamble.

Consultant posted:

When we conducted the White Sox Area Code tryouts at Notre Dame, one of the White Sox scouts said "I heard you can evaluate a hitters swing over the telephone".

Yes, I said use a wood bat and place a tee next to the phone and I can listen to the sound.

TRUE STORY.

Bob

I think I know which Bob this is. I heard a similar story on the West Coast a few years ago - I wonder if it is the same story. haha  That's good stuff.

2017LHPscrewball posted:

I'm still stuck on the single game theory (along with BP of course - assuming the scout is actually allowed to saunter up close).  Many folks have said showcases can be hit or miss and that you can squander your money if you have an off day.  At least you'll have X amount of reps fielding and X amounts of AB's as well as getting your speed measured both running and throwing.  Moving to the "one game" approach, what if you get 2 AB (maybe you get HBP on one of them) and never truly sprint down the line to first (no real measurement of foot speed - check).  In the OF, assume you never got a ball with anyone attempting to advance (no real measurement of arm speed - check...unless the scout tells the kid to go 100% during warm ups and of course zero true fielding reps).  I've heard nothing about any video of the game action (assuming there is some action to capture in the first place).  Just think about the 25% dullest games your kid has played (please ignore if your kid plays SS or catcher) and tell me whether that performance gave any real indication of what skills were present and which skills were lacking in order to provide an appropriate development plan within 24 hours (I'll assume there is a 24 hour turnaround guarantee as the scout can probably write the plan on site between innings).

If this is a $250 product, it probably cannot deliver what has been proposed.  If it is $750, then it is overpriced and had better have a refund policy if the kid doesn't get at least 3 plate appearances and 2 fielding opportunities with runners on base.  

What if, for $250, a scout can review up to 2 hours of edited video which gets taken over the course of 10-12 games with the caveat that all action. good and bad, get presented along with BP.  

I really just don't get the approach and its inherent shortcomings and am beginning to talk myself into thinking $250 might still be a gamble.

Love the idea of filming, especially AB's and BP. That's a strong idea, but not one we're likely to follow. For instance, IMO there are a few - and I do mean few - outstanding hitting instructors out there that do this already and I think it would be more likely we propose a weaker hitter to go see them. Ernie Rosseau immediately comes to mind.

We don't shoot video. We can shoot video but we're not a showcase processing arm. Nor do we have to voice acquisition opinions upstairs... we are the upstairs. 

If we can't get a good read on a player during the event, we'll come back out. 

Gov posted:
LivingtheDream posted:

As one living in Podunk, USA I could certainly see the value of something like this.  It doesn't sound like the purpose is to get your kid recruited or noticed.  Not specifically.  It is to give him an actionable plan to put himself i a position to be a varsity starter and potential college player.  I can't see paying $500 or more for something like that but probably because I couldn't afford it.  At least not when he was at an age where it would have made sense.  As a junior in high school it might be a bit late for something like this.  My son has done a couple of PBR showcases and the evaluations seem to be more oriented toward a scout than to the kid/family.  Here is his build/metrics/how he throws the ball.   I know that a quality instructor can probably do the same thing but 1) they don't come watch your kid perform in a game and 2) many parents don't know which ones are the quality ones.  Maybe that is unique to my area. 

Price is still the driver... 

Absolutely.  In my town a 30 minute private lesson runs $40-50.  Depending on the coach.  If it's more cost effective to test a couple of different coaches people will do that instead.   But I think the overall idea is probably good.  There are several different facilities opening here that are workout/training focused.  And as I'm sure you can all imagine people are eating it up.  Partnering with one of these facilities would probably be a good source of business for both. 

Consultant posted:

4 seamer,

same story, scout was Joe Butler and Duane Schaeffer.

Bob Williams

founder Area Code games

I think I heard the story from scout Rod Fridley. Thought that was you Bob. I spoke with a Rays East Coast guy you know about a younger invite this year. Kid wouldn't have made it off the practice field but nice to know he listened.

I'd love to see Jr. Scout teams - help me get it done. Too many young pups taking roster spaces on scout teams - we need a professional avenue outside of TUSA for the 14-16u class kids to show off outside of pricey tournament circuits. Clubs should go for it - they have an interest in selling season tickets from a fan base that falls in love with them for helping to promote their child. Plus, its - get ready for it - goodwill.  hahaha

4seamer posted:
2017LHPscrewball posted:

I'm still stuck on the single game theory (along with BP of course - assuming the scout is actually allowed to saunter up close).  Many folks have said showcases can be hit or miss and that you can squander your money if you have an off day.  At least you'll have X amount of reps fielding and X amounts of AB's as well as getting your speed measured both running and throwing.  Moving to the "one game" approach, what if you get 2 AB (maybe you get HBP on one of them) and never truly sprint down the line to first (no real measurement of foot speed - check).  In the OF, assume you never got a ball with anyone attempting to advance (no real measurement of arm speed - check...unless the scout tells the kid to go 100% during warm ups and of course zero true fielding reps).  I've heard nothing about any video of the game action (assuming there is some action to capture in the first place).  Just think about the 25% dullest games your kid has played (please ignore if your kid plays SS or catcher) and tell me whether that performance gave any real indication of what skills were present and which skills were lacking in order to provide an appropriate development plan within 24 hours (I'll assume there is a 24 hour turnaround guarantee as the scout can probably write the plan on site between innings).

If this is a $250 product, it probably cannot deliver what has been proposed.  If it is $750, then it is overpriced and had better have a refund policy if the kid doesn't get at least 3 plate appearances and 2 fielding opportunities with runners on base.  

What if, for $250, a scout can review up to 2 hours of edited video which gets taken over the course of 10-12 games with the caveat that all action. good and bad, get presented along with BP.  

I really just don't get the approach and its inherent shortcomings and am beginning to talk myself into thinking $250 might still be a gamble.

Love the idea of filming, especially AB's and BP. That's a strong idea, but not one we're likely to follow. For instance, IMO there are a few - and I do mean few - outstanding hitting instructors out there that do this already and I think it would be more likely we propose a weaker hitter to go see them. Ernie Rosseau immediately comes to mind.

We don't shoot video. We can shoot video but we're not a showcase processing arm. Nor do we have to voice acquisition opinions upstairs... we are the upstairs. 

If we can't get a good read on a player during the event, we'll come back out. 

My comment about filming was not necessarily a suggestion for the program but more of a indicator that a sufficient amount of "action" might require a review of 10-12 games to get the necessary combinations of player and plays (i.e. how many times does RF try to throw someone out at 3B or HP).  I realize your group could not be tasked with filming 10-12 games and having the parent do this is probably unrealistic also.  

I will throw out a question here as it relates to filming/video - I have seen countless suggestions/recomendations on this site about putting together video to assist in college recruiting.  On this site you can find pretty detailed suggestions on what to film, how to film and how to edit as well as how to package (there seems to be some minor disagreement as it relates to background music) including measurables and/or links to same.  There has not been a tremendous amount of push for a kid to capture game film for this purpose.  My question - how would you compare a standard recruiting video to on-site game review?  My only request is that the frequency (or lack thereof) be addressed and whether college coaches incorporate some concept of development (apart from projection) when they are looking at some 15yo's video (coach tells the kid they like what they see but would like to see more evidence of hitting development over the summer - as an example).

If "live" action is in fact superior to "showcase" action then do we need to rethink what content we put in the video we use for recruiting?

2017LHPscrewball posted:
I have seen countless suggestions/recomendations on this site about putting together video to assist in college recruiting.  On this site you can find pretty detailed suggestions on what to film, how to film and how to edit as well as how to package (there seems to be some minor disagreement as it relates to background music) including measurables and/or links to same.  There has not been a tremendous amount of push for a kid to capture game film for this purpose.  My question - how would you compare a standard recruiting video to on-site game review?  My only request is that the frequency (or lack thereof) be addressed and whether college coaches incorporate some concept of development (apart from projection) when they are looking at some 15yo's video (coach tells the kid they like what they see but would like to see more evidence of hitting development over the summer - as an example).

If "live" action is in fact superior to "showcase" action then do we need to rethink what content we put in the video we use for recruiting?

2017LHPscrew...

I think game footage, efficiently edited, is actually very valuable (as a compliment to the usual tools clips) and that, too, has been mentioned here from time to time.  It's just a much more difficult thing to compile for most.  Also, the "tools" aspect is what traditionally gets initial interest.  Then, schools will follow up to see the player live.  But if some of that is available with the video, all the better.

Consultant posted:

4 seamer,

same story, scout was Joe Butler and Duane Schaeffer.

Bob Williams

founder Area Code games

Ok no clue who Joe Butler is but as a long suffering white Sox fan I am more than familiar with the atrocious record Duane Schaefer brings to the table.  I guess maybe he should have been doing something other than listening to the sound of the bat on the telephone!  But seriously while these type of stories are cute and all it demonstrates exactly what's wrong with baseball rather than what's right. The tobacco spitters in full force. "I know a player when I see one". "I could pick my team when they walk off the bus". On and on. Refusal to entertain science and technology.  And these same scouts go years without success - like Schaefer - and keep their jobs forever.  Have you looked at the amateur drafts under him?  As a Sox fan I have. Do it sometime. It is a shockingly poor record and yet he was there forever.  I will take measurables, technology and sabermetrics any day over a 1000 tobacco spitting scouts. 

2020dad posted:
Consultant posted:

4 seamer,

same story, scout was Joe Butler and Duane Schaeffer.

Bob Williams

founder Area Code games

Ok no clue who Joe Butler is but as a long suffering white Sox fan I am more than familiar with the atrocious record Duane Schaefer brings to the table.  I guess maybe he should have been doing something other than listening to the sound of the bat on the telephone!  But seriously while these type of stories are cute and all it demonstrates exactly what's wrong with baseball rather than what's right. The tobacco spitters in full force. "I know a player when I see one". "I could pick my team when they walk off the bus". On and on. Refusal to entertain science and technology.  And these same scouts go years without success - like Schaefer - and keep their jobs forever.  Have you looked at the amateur drafts under him?  As a Sox fan I have. Do it sometime. It is a shockingly poor record and yet he was there forever.  I will take measurables, technology and sabermetrics any day over a 1000 tobacco spitting scouts. 

I think MLB agrees with you.

Yes caco the smarter teams are placing less and less emphasis on the scouts opinions.  Scouts are still unavoidable for evaluating amateur talent but as measurables become more readily available at the amateur level scouts will slowly fade off into the sunset.  And that's fine by me. 

2020DAD - thumbs up!  I think "measurables" sometimes get confused with stats in some peoples' minds.  The occurrence of an error is one stat that helps demonstrate this.  My 2017 got credited with an error in the OF the other day.  He is pretty good at reading balls and is pretty fleet of foot and was able to catch up to the ball and simply dropped in full stride.  Not arguing the error itself, but if he were playing MLB, you could now track reaction time and foot speed, distance covered and maybe a few more items and get some idea of how he actually performs relative to others.  To bring this back to the OP, I don't understand how a few "live" action plays, seen live with no replay or secondary angle, provides a superior set of information with which to construct a development plan as opposed to some game video alongside some solid measurables.  If the kid is slow, measurables will show this and indicate he needs to work on speed.  If exit velocity is weak, measurables will show this and indicate he needs to work on his hitting.  Spray charts can help demonstrate hitting tendencies.  The list goes on and on.  Don't get me started with TrackMan and spin rates (which I would love to learn more about).

2017LHPscrewball posted:

2020DAD - thumbs up!  I think "measurables" sometimes get confused with stats in some peoples' minds.  The occurrence of an error is one stat that helps demonstrate this.  My 2017 got credited with an error in the OF the other day.  He is pretty good at reading balls and is pretty fleet of foot and was able to catch up to the ball and simply dropped in full stride.  Not arguing the error itself, but if he were playing MLB, you could now track reaction time and foot speed, distance covered and maybe a few more items and get some idea of how he actually performs relative to others.  To bring this back to the OP, I don't understand how a few "live" action plays, seen live with no replay or secondary angle, provides a superior set of information with which to construct a development plan as opposed to some game video alongside some solid measurables.  If the kid is slow, measurables will show this and indicate he needs to work on speed.  If exit velocity is weak, measurables will show this and indicate he needs to work on his hitting.  Spray charts can help demonstrate hitting tendencies.  The list goes on and on.  Don't get me started with TrackMan and spin rates (which I would love to learn more about).

Be very careful what you ask for...  I have done extensive possibly even exhaustive research on spin rates!  And you could not be more correct about reaction time and range measurables.  It's as simple as this - do you want a guy who gets to 10 balls and makes zero errors or a guy who gets to 20 balls and makes 4 errors.  If you say the guy who gets to 10 then you are just plain daft and can't be helped.  But for years that's kind of the way the game was. And yes it's frustrating when that rangy guy boots an easy one right to him but you have to see big picture.  Dr Alan Nathan is about all you will need for spin rate stuff.  Look up his baseball physics website. And make sure you understand the concept of 'useful' spin rate.  Very important. Velocity will always be king but spin rate is the crown prince!  As Kyle and others studying it will tell you increasing spin rate is still unsettled science.  And I know high spin rate and therefore swing and miss stuff is much sexier but there are many ways to manipulate your spin rate to be lower.  That's what my son does and he was 12-1 last year and led his team in every significant pitching category EXCEPT strikeouts.  Was half way through the season before even having an ERA.  Hard for a 14yo to want to be the ground ball pitcher instead of the strikeout guy but with everybody chasing the high velo big spin rate...  there's gonna be room for the guy (in college not MLB) who throws 84 with an insanely low 1250 spin rate and mad movement inducing one ground ball after another.  Within the next few years some smart schools are going to start paying a lot of attention to this. 

"Another true story";

during my 1st years with the Area Code games, I interviewed all the scouts as to their system of evaluation. One scout, George Christopher said "Bob, I hope the pitcher's team has an error in the 9th inning so I can watch how the pitcher reacts". Then, I imagine this pitcher in the 7th game of the World Series. Does he have the 6th Tool?

The pro scout will also suggest a change of playing position for a player to assist in his advancement. During our Goodwill tours to Japan, Korea, Australia I often advised a player to bat left if he had running speed and a dominate right eye. The Dodger scouts watched track meets and basketball games for future baseball players.

Today, it is a combination of professional scouting with the computer. My former players now coaching with the Cubs keep me informed.

Bob Williams

My 2 cents.  As a dad of a 2020, I would not be interested.  Sure I'd love to know what the future holds, but I'll find out eventually.  I've invested in a pitching screen, a bucket of balls and a fungo bat. He has his mind set on D1and from what I see, he has a chance at it.   I think if he continues to put in the extra time, continues to get bigger and continues to do well at PG tournaments, he'll have a shot.  I enjoy all the time we spend together working towards his goal. 

This is not to say, your idea won't make money.  I've seen parents spend money on lessons with a former MLB player for kids who have very little potential. 

I'll continue to read this forum to make sure I'm making the right steps to progress down this path, but I see too much risk and little return with your idea.  Good luck.

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).

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.

Last edited by cabbagedad
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 successand 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!

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'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.

Last edited by Swampboy
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!

Last edited by SanDiegoRealist
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.

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

Last edited by TPM
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?

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. 

Last edited by Swampboy
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.

2020dad posted:

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?  

As I said, context and credibility matter.

Your example of cops making a conscious choice not to be objective doesn't seem germane to this discussion. 

Re: Lenny Dykstra. A 13th round pick, his 42.2 WAR in 12 seasons indicate he was a very effective player. 

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.  

Don't agree Real.  I would bet safely with doing no research at all that 1st round success is better than 2nd and 2nd better than 3rd etc.  At least it better be!!!  The question is man vs technology.  If technology would hit on 75% and scout on 50% in the first round then it is argument over.

Swampboy posted:
2020dad posted:

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?  

As I said, context and credibility matter.

Your example of cops making a conscious choice not to be objective doesn't seem germane to this discussion. 

Re: Lenny Dykstra. A 13th round pick, his 42.2 WAR in 12 seasons indicate he was a very effective player. 

I feel its germane because I believe scouts go in with preconceptions and biases.  Not that they are bad people - we all have biases as in the type of player we prefer.  We may be right and we may be wrong but we have preconceptions and its hard as heck to keep those under control and be objective.

I do not know  much about WAR, but if I were a GM I would!  Does it take modern fielding metrics into consideration?

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.

In TODAY'S environment his exit speed would have been recorded, objectively, rendering the anecdotal reference by a. Scout moot.

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 was joking about deciding the case, swampboy. Simmer down big fella. 

Last edited by SanDiegoRealist

Just to be clear, what I was saying -- and what Daryl Morey said in that book -- is not that scouts have no value. It's just that we have to be aware of the biases and cognitive errors that all humans are subject to. Blindly trusting "experts" is not the way forward. But that does not mean that there is no value in scouting.

The chapter in that book gives two germane examples: (1) Marc Gasol, who was rated very highly by Morey's model and low by scouts, turned out to be a fantastic player; (2) DeAndre Jordan, who was rated poorly by Morey's model and highly by scouts, also turned out to be a fantastic player. It's not so simple.

And I agree with Screwball. You don't need an expert to tell you that Hunter Greene is a good prospect for the 2017 draft. It is the out of consensus call that provides value. Think of a money manager -- if all he does is match the market, why are you paying him? It would be cheaper to just buy an index fund. And most money managers -- indeed nearly all -- can't beat the market over a long time period. And they are experts, with years of experience in their field. That doesn't mean you'd hire a novice to manage your money (or a novice surgeon to perform your operation, etc.). But it does mean that you should be aware of the limitations of their expertise.

Think of it this way: half of all scouts are below average at their jobs. 

2019Dad posted:

Just to be clear, what I was saying -- and what Daryl Morey said in that book -- is not that scouts have no value. It's just that we have to be aware of the biases and cognitive errors that all humans are subject to. Blindly trusting "experts" is not the way forward. But that does not mean that there is no value in scouting.

The chapter in that book gives two germane examples: (1) Marc Gasol, who was rated very highly by Morey's model and low by scouts, turned out to be a fantastic player; (2) DeAndre Jordan, who was rated poorly by Morey's model and highly by scouts, also turned out to be a fantastic player. It's not so simple.

And I agree with Screwball. You don't need an expert to tell you that Hunter Greene is a good prospect for the 2017 draft. It is the out of consensus call that provides value. Think of a money manager -- if all he does is match the market, why are you paying him? It would be cheaper to just buy an index fund. And most money managers -- indeed nearly all -- can't beat the market over a long time period. And they are experts, with years of experience in their field. That doesn't mean you'd hire a novice to manage your money (or a novice surgeon to perform your operation, etc.). But it does mean that you should be aware of the limitations of their expertise.

Think of it this way: half of all scouts are below average at their jobs. 

Have read a few articles about how one's investments (401-k type stuff) might best be managed by a robo adviser.  Sounds really scary, but if the fees start approaching zero and the returns are close to market returns (which is quite doable with these models), the the lower fees actually result in a higher net return.

2020dad posted:
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.  

Don't agree Real.  I would bet safely with doing no research at all that 1st round success is better than 2nd and 2nd better than 3rd etc.  At least it better be!!!  The question is man vs technology.  If technology would hit on 75% and scout on 50% in the first round then it is argument over.

^^^^^^^^

SanDiegoRealist posted:
2020dad posted:
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.  

Don't agree Real.  I would bet safely with doing no research at all that 1st round success is better than 2nd and 2nd better than 3rd etc.  At least it better be!!!  The question is man vs technology.  If technology would hit on 75% and scout on 50% in the first round then it is argument over.

^^^^^^^^

Whatever the definition of success really is is irrelevant in my opinion.  The pool of players is the same for all scouts.  What is a scouts job?  To evaluate the talent within the pool.  The organization takes those evaluations and determines which meets the organizations needs.  Of course I am so far away from the nuts and bolts my view is pretty ignorant.  I would guess the most valuable guy in an organization is the guy that reviews the evaluations and can see 5 moves ahead the value of a draft pick for his organization.  For example, a trade two years down the road that involves this years 3rd pick.  

Is there really that much talent difference between the 50th pick and the 60th pick?  Or the 5th and 10th?  It's really dependent on the needs of the organization.  Are scouts missing much of anything?  Can we really argue that technology at some point will be able to "find" a measurement that bumps a player from the 300th pick to a top 20?

Than of course that 6th tool that is missing in sabermetrics and the 5 tools has to be also considered which a have a hard time believing.  

 

you know a depressing thought entered my mind...  We are focusing on identifying top talent...  What if science gets so exact they can test you when you are 10 and tell you that 82mph is the max you could ever throw no matter what you did?  And you love baseball..  and you know it isnt going to end well...  depressing.  Maybe technology isn't always the best thing...  As we continue to crack the genetic code less and less is left to mystery.

2020dad posted:

only half of all second rounders even sniff mlb and 16% play 3 years or more.  That is an awful record that would get people in any other business fired.  If technology cant do better than that I would be shocked.

There is only a finite number of available spots to fill.  It's impossible to expect greater numbers as a pool.  You would have to compare a specific scouts success to another.  If scout A recommendations for 2nd round draft made it 11% of the time and scout B's made it 19% of the time than scout A is performing below average.   

2020dad posted:

you know a depressing thought entered my mind...  We are focusing on identifying top talent...  What if science gets so exact they can test you when you are 10 and tell you that 82mph is the max you could ever throw no matter what you did?  And you love baseball..  and you know it isnt going to end well...  depressing.  Maybe technology isn't always the best thing...  As we continue to crack the genetic code less and less is left to mystery.

I hope a computer doesn't start assigning life time job assignments at age 10

2017LHPscrewball posted:
2019Dad posted:

Just to be clear, what I was saying -- and what Daryl Morey said in that book -- is not that scouts have no value. It's just that we have to be aware of the biases and cognitive errors that all humans are subject to. Blindly trusting "experts" is not the way forward. But that does not mean that there is no value in scouting.

The chapter in that book gives two germane examples: (1) Marc Gasol, who was rated very highly by Morey's model and low by scouts, turned out to be a fantastic player; (2) DeAndre Jordan, who was rated poorly by Morey's model and highly by scouts, also turned out to be a fantastic player. It's not so simple.

And I agree with Screwball. You don't need an expert to tell you that Hunter Greene is a good prospect for the 2017 draft. It is the out of consensus call that provides value. Think of a money manager -- if all he does is match the market, why are you paying him? It would be cheaper to just buy an index fund. And most money managers -- indeed nearly all -- can't beat the market over a long time period. And they are experts, with years of experience in their field. That doesn't mean you'd hire a novice to manage your money (or a novice surgeon to perform your operation, etc.). But it does mean that you should be aware of the limitations of their expertise.

Think of it this way: half of all scouts are below average at their jobs. 

Have read a few articles about how one's investments (401-k type stuff) might best be managed by a robo adviser.  Sounds really scary, but if the fees start approaching zero and the returns are close to market returns (which is quite doable with these models), the the lower fees actually result in a higher net return.

They're called equity index funds.  No stock picker analyst, just statisticians and actuaries.  A fund tracks the performance of a group of stocks (dow industrials, Wilshire 2000 etc,)  Expenses are much lower.  Trades are only made within the fund to match the indices.  Management expenses are between .0025 to .005 compared to the 2%-3% load of a heavily managed and traded fund.  My 401k has been in only index funds for about 25 years. Around 12% of publicly held stocks are held by equity index funds and their hybrids.

real green posted:
SanDiegoRealist posted:
2020dad posted:
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.  

Don't agree Real.  I would bet safely with doing no research at all that 1st round success is better than 2nd and 2nd better than 3rd etc.  At least it better be!!!  The question is man vs technology.  If technology would hit on 75% and scout on 50% in the first round then it is argument over.

^^^^^^^^

Whatever the definition of success really is is irrelevant in my opinion.  The pool of players is the same for all scouts.  What is a scouts job?  To evaluate the talent within the pool.  The organization takes those evaluations and determines which meets the organizations needs.  Of course I am so far away from the nuts and bolts my view is pretty ignorant.  I would guess the most valuable guy in an organization is the guy that reviews the evaluations and can see 5 moves ahead the value of a draft pick for his organization.  For example, a trade two years down the road that involves this years 3rd pick.  

Is there really that much talent difference between the 50th pick and the 60th pick?  Or the 5th and 10th?  It's really dependent on the needs of the organization.  Are scouts missing much of anything?  Can we really argue that technology at some point will be able to "find" a measurement that bumps a player from the 300th pick to a top 20?

Than of course that 6th tool that is missing in sabermetrics and the 5 tools has to be also considered which a have a hard time believing.  

 

Taking this '6th' tool thing seriously...  Yes it will be able to be measured.  Again we are cracking the DNA chain and part of that is the guy predisoposed to working hard vs the lazy one.  The injury prone vs. the non injury prone.  We have to step out of our comfort zone here.  What if you told someone in 1850 that we would be able to do this thing called an ultra sound to tell you if you are having a boy or a girl?  That  you could take a small sample from the womb to tell you if the child has birth defects?  That we have discovered galaxies a jillion miles away?  Ever watch MI movies?  Look it up, most of that technology really exists.  Some of it is not as powerful as made out in the movies but soon will be.  Like the gloes to scale a skyscraper.  Those are a real thing!!  Probably within 20 years we will be able to take a blood sample or something and tell that 10 year old how hard his body can throw a baseball at full maturity.  Then when there is that guy with the capability to throw 97 but is a little lazy and currently throwing 89 vs the guy throwing 91 who is capable of 92 but he is that gritty grinding hard worker with the '6th' tool....  guess who's going to get drafted?  Maybe its because scouts have focused on the '6th' tool so much that only 16% of 2nd round choices play at least three years in mlb.  Maybe they should spit the tobacco out and get in the computer lab!!!

2017LHPscrewball posted:
2020dad posted:

you know a depressing thought entered my mind...  We are focusing on identifying top talent...  What if science gets so exact they can test you when you are 10 and tell you that 82mph is the max you could ever throw no matter what you did?  And you love baseball..  and you know it isnt going to end well...  depressing.  Maybe technology isn't always the best thing...  As we continue to crack the genetic code less and less is left to mystery.

I hope a computer doesn't start assigning life time job assignments at age 10

Agreed, but what if it could?

2020dad posted:

only half of all second rounders even sniff mlb and 16% play 3 years or more.  That is an awful record that would get people in any other business fired.  If technology cant do better than that I would be shocked.

This is completely ignoring the nature of the business model and the nature of the life cycle of a baseball player.  It is nature of the beast that numbers brought in are high and numbers that succeed are low, regardless of whether man or machine is driving the decision making process (as 2019dad illustrated).

Some of my work is connected to outbound sales methodology.  I am frequently exposed to seminars, demonstrations, presentations, etc. of the latest practices, business models and yes, technological software tools.  Cold calling for most industries, by nature of the business, has a low success rate.  The numbers can appear disgustingly bleak to an outsider.  For many industries, just call response (let alone a successful sale) is less than 10%.  Technology offers great opportunity for increased efficiency and higher success.  But, in practice, the increase is often only a few percentage points.  While, on the other hand, if you don't have highly competent people there to handle those calls and convert them into sales, the drop in success is significantly more staggering.

I repeat, technology is an awesome tool.  Let's not discount the value of dedicated experienced professionals.

2020dad posted:
real green posted:
SanDiegoRealist posted:
2020dad posted:
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.  

Don't agree Real.  I would bet safely with doing no research at all that 1st round success is better than 2nd and 2nd better than 3rd etc.  At least it better be!!!  The question is man vs technology.  If technology would hit on 75% and scout on 50% in the first round then it is argument over.

^^^^^^^^

Whatever the definition of success really is is irrelevant in my opinion.  The pool of players is the same for all scouts.  What is a scouts job?  To evaluate the talent within the pool.  The organization takes those evaluations and determines which meets the organizations needs.  Of course I am so far away from the nuts and bolts my view is pretty ignorant.  I would guess the most valuable guy in an organization is the guy that reviews the evaluations and can see 5 moves ahead the value of a draft pick for his organization.  For example, a trade two years down the road that involves this years 3rd pick.  

Is there really that much talent difference between the 50th pick and the 60th pick?  Or the 5th and 10th?  It's really dependent on the needs of the organization.  Are scouts missing much of anything?  Can we really argue that technology at some point will be able to "find" a measurement that bumps a player from the 300th pick to a top 20?

Than of course that 6th tool that is missing in sabermetrics and the 5 tools has to be also considered which a have a hard time believing.  

 

Taking this '6th' tool thing seriously...  Yes it will be able to be measured.  Again we are cracking the DNA chain and part of that is the guy predisoposed to working hard vs the lazy one.  The injury prone vs. the non injury prone.  We have to step out of our comfort zone here.  What if you told someone in 1850 that we would be able to do this thing called an ultra sound to tell you if you are having a boy or a girl?  That  you could take a small sample from the womb to tell you if the child has birth defects?  That we have discovered galaxies a jillion miles away?  Ever watch MI movies?  Look it up, most of that technology really exists.  Some of it is not as powerful as made out in the movies but soon will be.  Like the gloes to scale a skyscraper.  Those are a real thing!!  Probably within 20 years we will be able to take a blood sample or something and tell that 10 year old how hard his body can throw a baseball at full maturity.  Then when there is that guy with the capability to throw 97 but is a little lazy and currently throwing 89 vs the guy throwing 91 who is capable of 92 but he is that gritty grinding hard worker with the '6th' tool....  guess who's going to get drafted?  Maybe its because scouts have focused on the '6th' tool so much that only 16% of 2nd round choices play at least three years in mlb.  Maybe they should spit the tobacco out and get in the computer lab!!!

Agreed that technology is racing forward so fast it's hard to grasp the possibilities.  The 6th tool is much more about the ability to accomplish a task in game situations.  As an example.  Player A runs a 6.5 60 and player B runs a 6.8 60.  What the number doesn't tell you is that player A can't get a good read off a pitcher, or the ball off the bat, or recognize RF is cheating the line, etc...  The 6th tool is not a measurable number, or at least not today.   

One final shot before I stop goofing off and get some work done.

Everyone who responded to examples of subjective talent discriminators by saying that x or y could be analyzed through DNA or detected by Star Trek sensors or was written about by some genius professor was implicitly conceding that actual scouts are the only source of such information until those new tools and techniques are deployed to the scouting community. 

P.S. I've seen more than a few scouts, but I've never seen one spit tobacco. And if I did, I wouldn't interpret it as a sign of defective scouting skills.

Agreed that technology is racing forward so fast it's hard to grasp the possibilities.  The 6th tool is much more about the ability to accomplish a task in game situations.  As an example.  Player A runs a 6.5 60 and player B runs a 6.8 60.  What the number doesn't tell you is that player A can't get a good read off a pitcher, or the ball off the bat, or recognize RF is cheating the line, etc...  The 6th tool is not a measurable number, or at least not today.   

Some of this stuff can be quantified in part today - thinking Trackman where a player's actual movement is tracked in relation to the ball.  Stolen bases will no longer be simply a number, but rather all stolen base attempts will have a group of measurements to go along with it that address pitcher's ability to hold the runner (time to plate) as well as the runners start time (where is the ball when he starts his attempt) and his speed and then perhaps his sliding ability on those where the ball is delivered appropriately (success rate at avoiding tag).  This is really today's technology that simply needs to be enhanced - and then perhaps made vastly less expensive such that it gets rolled at at lower and lower levels (eventually reaching t-ball such that inside the park homeruns can be better analyzed).

This won't work at a showcase type event as you would want as many observations as possible, but oer the course of 30-40 games, you should at least get a sense for many of these things.  Maybe less applicable to baserunning, but I have seen it used pretty extensively already on outfielders movements to the ball (the ability to "read the ball off the bat" is getting quantified at the MLB level).

 

I watched a HS Varsity game last night.  A player with good measurables that is missing that 6th tool.  Trying to beat out a throw on a ground ball to the 5-6 hole he slid into 1st base.  The ball was air mailed but by the time the dust settled and the runner got to his feet it was to late to advance to second.  If he would have been able to process more data while running down the line he would have easily advanced to second.  Next batter laid down a good bunt down 3rd baseline, R1 advanced to 2nd, 3rd was not covered but the runner didn't give himself a chance to take the next bag, again by the time he realized he had a shot at 3rd it was to late.  Next batter the pitcher spiked a curve ball in front of the plate that the catcher easily handled and threw out the runner trying to advance to third.  He had what I would call three running errors where another casual observer good have seen a player going all out and just running into bad luck may be even giving him a higher "6th tool" rating for being aggressive on the bases.  

Obviously the talent disparity of the 6th tool at the HS level is much greater than the pool of players drafted.  The disparity is much easier to see in HS.  I would argue a "good" scout can see the disparity between players much clearer than I when the measurables are very close. 

real green posted:

... Agreed that technology is racing forward so fast it's hard to grasp the possibilities.  The 6th tool is much more about the ability to accomplish a task in game situations...  The 6th tool is not a measurable number, or at least not today.   

... Obviously the talent disparity of the 6th tool at the HS level is much greater than the pool of players drafted.  The disparity is much easier to see in HS.  I would argue a "good" scout can see the disparity between players much clearer than I when the measurables are very close. 

There has been some solid observations here and some way out there. Real Green, IMHO, has touched the reality of scouting in his last two posts.

"The 6th tool is not a measurable number, or at least not today."

1. We are not likely to see Statcast (Trackman plus Video system) deployed at high school fields in our lifetime; certainly not in the next ten years. The cost is prohibitive and the net return too slight at this point.

2. The lesser product - Trackman/Flightscope type of systems - will/are being deployed more readily in upper level amateur tournament circuits, the true value of those systems has yet to be determined. True, players A, B, C etc recorded X, Y, Z data, but what is the true value of that data based on the variables? There is disagreement in the scientific community but there is enough agreement that there MAY be value so there has been limited deployment of Trackman in the NCAA. Perhaps we'll see a full roll out across D1 schools over the next 10 years. Doubtful, but perhaps.

"I would argue a "good" scout can see the disparity between players much clearer than I when the measurables are very close."

3. Perhaps we will see the extinction of area type scouts as we know them over the next 10 years. Clubs simply have no desire to 'find' U.S. talent anymore - talent either rises to the top in known events or the unknown kid down the street doesn't get found. Amateur non-professional 'scouting' networks are a definitively larger group - and run significantly deeper (to younger ages) today than just five years ago.. no need for area ground grunts, clubs argue, even if the output data from these groups is highly questionable.

4. Without consistent & reliable measurables available across amateur scouting services over a "good" scout's evaluation (ie: one combine has digital 60's with automated start times, the next combine has digital 60's but it starts the recording on the green light and not on movement, the next combine uses pro scouts with stopwatches, the next combine uses college players with stopwatches, etc // or even better yet, one service uses amateur employees to scout games and write up players, one service uses college players and those type of interns to scout and do write ups, another service might use ex-players or high school coaches, the next event may employ associate scouts, the next event may employ ex pro scouts, etc), bad data in = bad data out. 

Simply put, there is nothing available today that can replace a professional scout in the amateur world. Period. End of story. Science is evolving around the game but it is - at best - complimentary to professional scouting. Another tool to be used for consideration, if you will. And the lower the age you go in amateur baseball, the more this is true. 

But that's my 2cents.

Last edited by 4seamer

Add Reply

×
×
×
×
Link copied to your clipboard.
×