I swear it just amazes me what some people see in their Evaluations of players. After reading some of the reports recently from East Coast Pro and ones at WWBA earlier this year I just shake my head and laugh. Have bit my tongue for a while on these things. For example a player goes 0-8 with 4 K's yet is listed as a notable??? many more examples.
Replies sorted oldest to newest
he projects well.
projects well to what? LOL.
It's not all about results.
What many parents fail to realize is that recruiters and scouts rank players on a scouting scale. I included one example for baseballdad, but there are lots of others if you google it. The facts are that a couple of games with "bad" stats don't mean a thing. Scouts are looking at tools not stats, particularly ERA's and batting avg, as these are meaningless over a small sample. A perfect example is at the pro level and look at Joc Pederson of the Dodgers, he is batting 0.219 right now and will be the Dodgers center fielder for many many more years. Stop looking at stats!
Two things:
-At the ECP, you have on average 1-2 ABs per game against some of the country's best pitchers. Sometimes its tough jumping off the bench and facing low 90s.
-It's called a slump, and you evaluate a player based on a body of work, not a short term slump (and you're referring to 2 consecutive events).
If the player has a commitment to a major D1 school, but does not perform at a few major events, I suggest you take a look at his performance across all events. S h i t happens: its the nature of the game. It's called BASEBALL!!!
I swear it just amazes me what some people see in their Evaluations of players. After reading some of the reports recently from East Coast Pro and ones at WWBA earlier this year I just shake my head and laugh. Have bit my tongue for a while on these things. For example a player goes 0-8 with 4 K's yet is listed as a notable??? many more examples.
That was an Astros scout...they are looking for an upgrade to Chris Carter.
EVERY single hitter at the MLB level projected well... The only way to KNOW 100% that a player can handle MLB pitching is to face it, day-in and day-out... And, guess what...? The ONLY place you can do that is in Major League Baseball...
He's going over 200 Ks again. You can live with a .220 BA and .450+ SLG, but not this year's slash.
I remember my son fretting over an 0-for-4 "slump" when he was 12. Luckily, Chase Utley had a streak of 0-for-24 around the same time. I told my son, "Now that's a slump."
That was 2008. Chase batted .292 and the Phillies won the World Series.
EVERY single hitter at the MLB level projected well... The only way to KNOW 100% that a player can handle MLB pitching is to face it, day-in and day-out... And, guess what...? The ONLY place you can do that is in Major League Baseball...
Your draft board would be pretty empty in the first 5-10 rounds. Guess you would build your club via free agency, just like the Padres did this year and the Marlins last year.
Good luck with that, Mr. Steinbrenner.
Your draft board would be pretty empty in the first 5-10 rounds. Guess you would build your club via free agency, just like the Padres did this year and the Marlins last year.
Good luck with that, Mr. Steinbrenner.
Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak and to remove all doubt.
— ABRAHAM LINCOLN.
Are we really having this discussion on this board? I thought we were a knowledgeable group that "gets it". Fact is, a kid could go 0-64 and still be the best prospect, and that is not a lie. The scouts job is to find the best prospect. What if the kid who went 0-8 with 4 Ks hit four ropes, or even swung and missed at 98 mph bat speed, or hit only 2 ropes but one was deep to the opposite field, 110 mph off the bat. Or, what if he runs a 6.50 60 and throws 92 mph from the OF or across the diamond with smooth, soft hands? Or, what if he has the mental make up and leadership skills that are off the charts. Or, what if he went 0-8 because he had a bad sinus infection but showed up to play anyway. Or, what if he went 0-8 but was distracted by a sad, serious personal family situation. C'mon, man. We know better than that here, don't we?
White Sox were pretty patient with current Manager Robin Ventura when he came up as a rookie. Had hitting streak record in college, but started out in Pros with 0-41 in the middle of a 6-75. Last I read he is up there with the leaders of career grand slams. All that may not save his job though
I watched a game at the PG Nationals where the best hitters in that class were facing the top pitchers. It was a no contest. Numerous hitters were Ofer and struck out every single at bat. Guys who are now in the majors. The hitters don't see this type of pitching all the time yet. It takes time to adjust. If a kid goes 4-4 vs 80 and another goes 0-4 vs 95 would you say the kid that went 4-4 is a better prospect based on the stats? When your kid is lighting up the top arms in the nation you can sit back and chuckle if you want. Otherwise I would just bite my tongue a little longer.
Every profession can benefit from having better skilled people enter it; and, certainly, the evaluation of young baseball players fits that description. So, my recommendation to every parent who is certain that they can identify and rectify the shortcomings of those who currently do it for a living is this:
(1) Quit your day job.
(2) Persuade a major league front office that your considerable time in the stands has led you to a level of insight and perception that sets you apart from those currently engaged in it.
(3) Once hired as a scout, understand that your livelihood depends overwhelmingly upon the quality of your assessments. That income that is so precious to you and your family? Dependent upon the quality of your assessments.
Once you're sitting in the midst of your fellow scouts, you won't be aware of the parents sitting near you; chuckling to themselves because they're certain that they could do your job better. You'll be too intent upon building/protecting your professional reputation and making sure that your family can depend upon your keeping your job.
The main thought in this thread seems to be that whatever the scouts are doing is the most efficient and accurate way of projecting player for the professional levels, and not only can’t be improved on, but should never be challenged. Am I reading it correctly?
The main thought in this thread seems to be that whatever the scouts are doing is the most efficient and accurate way of projecting player for the professional levels, and not only can’t be improved on, but should never be challenged. Am I reading it correctly?
Yes you are....
During my 17 years of the Area Code games, I organized and attended every tryout for our 10 teams. We averaged 60-70 players at each tryout. From the tryouts only 250 players were selected for the Games in Long Beach at No cost to the player/.
In an effort to "out scout" the scouts, I placed players, who I believed were future pro players on our 900 Team.
Over 80 players from this team have played in Major Leagues.
Scouting is not an exact science. If you have an opportunity, have a discussion with a pro scout and listen to their comments and learn.
Bob
The main thought in this thread seems to be that whatever the scouts are doing is the most efficient and accurate way of projecting player for the professional levels, and not only can’t be improved on, but should never be challenged. Am I reading it correctly?
I don't think so. I think the main thought of the thread goes back to the OP's POV and the corresponding responses: a player's eval based on 1-2 public demonstrations.
The main thought in this thread seems to be that whatever the scouts are doing is the most efficient and accurate way of projecting player for the professional levels, and not only can’t be improved on, but should never be challenged. Am I reading it correctly?
I don't think so. I think the main thought of the thread goes back to the OP's POV and the corresponding responses: a player's eval based on 1-2 public demonstrations.
I agree that one tournament doesn't make the player and an entire body of work should be evaluated. So then what is the point of the "blurbs" during the tournaments?
The main thought in this thread seems to be that whatever the scouts are doing is the most efficient and accurate way of projecting player for the professional levels, and not only can’t be improved on, but should never be challenged. Am I reading it correctly?
Nah, but nice try.
Talent stands out. It's very obvious and it is not the result that makes it pop!
We once saw Justin Upton go 0-Tournament with about a dozen strike outs.
We ranked him #1 in the nation and rightfully so.
Great for him but it must have sucked for his team at the tournament.
In a court of law, the OP would be shut down with "Asked and answered" -- but then, so would many here -- including yours truly. I think I understand why so many parents get frustrated when they need to get educated: Because in most of life's endeavors, the correlation between RESULTS TODAY and POTENTIAL are more closely aligned than they are in baseball.
Either way, considering JP's BA at WWBA, it's a dang good thing scouts don't judge players just on results!
Twoson,
We have seen many "great" prospects stink up the place in certain events.
One day in Jupiter during the play offs, a team had the bases loaded and two outs, they were one run behind in the last inning. Well over 100 scouts watching the game and up to the plate steps one of the nations best hitting prospects. Three pitches later, all swing and miss by a long ways, the game ends. The poorest At Bat we saw in that entire tournament. Prince Fielder struck out.
This stuff happens a lot.
Last year in the same tournament, much later year, there was a kid from Michigan that was so hyped it was unbelievable. Hundreds of scouts would watch his every plate appearance. As the tournament reached it's final day scouts were saying, I haven't seen him get a hit yet. We still named him a top prospect. Then this June, guess what, yep... he was drafted in the first round, Nick Plummer
We saw a pitcher with a very good arm throw two years in a row in Jupiter. He walked 19 hitters in a total of 6 innings over those two years. Pitch counts got him out of both the games. In fact, he was wild nearly everytime we saw him. We ranked him in the top 10 prospects in the country. in 2014 he was drafted in the first round, Touki Tousaint
When someone shows talent, a stinker outing doesn't eliminate him. That talent will turn into results somewhere else down the road. That is the thing a lot of folks just don't understand. All Tournament teams are to honor those that had the best performances (results). Top Prospect lists are to identify those with the most ability and highest ceiling (call it opinion). Many times the same name appears on both lists.
Great for him but it must have sucked for his team at the tournament.
And for the parents in the stands. Sometimes when your kid is ranked in the top 5 in the country, people seem to think he will do something great just because of his ranking. And then you look up and everyone is watching him have a terrible AB or he boots a ball, hits into a double play. And your wanting him to just get a nice hit somewhere. And then you think oh well today kinda sucked but tomorrow will be better....Not necessarily.
To touch on PGStaffs response about talent. I was in East Cobb back some 5-6 years ago where there was a tryout for some type of team(s) where it seemed like 100's of players were trying out of 4 teams of 25. I got to talking to one of the scouts/evaluators and he explained that the were looking for the "tools" to play and production was secondary. He pointed out to me a kid that had made 2 errors at SS and was 0-3 3K in one game but was on the top of every scouts/evaluators list. Why....tools, hustled and was coachable. That simple..
Here's the thing. Tools are great (and important) for recruiting. But at some point, either College or Professional level, the tools must provide production and results.
Here's the thing. Tools are great (and important) for recruiting. But at some point, either College or Professional level, the tools must provide production and results.
During my visit with the Senior VP of the NY Yankees, we discussed the two difficulties of scouting/ We agreed that the pro scouts have two difficulties.
1. Scout the "heart" - 6th Tool
2. Scout the bat.
We both looked at the Yankees 40 man roster and located the one Yankee who had both - Jeter.
Later, I sent a proposal of a system to evaluate the players heart and bat.
Bob
Here's the thing. Tools are great (and important) for recruiting. But at some point, either College or Professional level, the tools must provide production and results.
Just like in sports and business! All one can ask for is the opportunity. You need to have the tools though to get that opportunity.
I have seen scouts that loved to talk about Seniors that are still 17 when they graduate. Even though there is more to try to project on a kid who hasn't turned 18 yet, they sure do love them. I'm sure the higher ceiling is more exciting to them, than a 20 year old JUCO player if they had their choice.
Doc, I find that strange, too. Unless a kid is a bona fide professional prospect, what difference does it make if he's 17 or 18, unless the 17 year old is obviously physically immature and the 18 year old is at the same frame he's gonna be for the rest of his athletic life. I guess what I mean is this: if an 18 year old is fully mature and a better player than the still developing 17 year old is at that point, why not take the 18 year old? I see why you would gamble on the 17 year old if you were drafting him, but it's not as clear to me if we're talking just about college prospects.
The younger age advantage isn't the advantage some might think. If the 18 year old is a much better prospect, the 18 year old will get drafted first.
Using a current example... Our #1 ranked player in next year's HS class is 16 years old right now. He will be 17 when next years draft takes place. In his case that means a lot, because he is already throwing effortless mid 90s left handed with a good breaking ball and great command. Also he is 6'6" tall.
Anyway the fact that he is a year younger than most everyone in his class is just a big bonus. He looks just as young, if not younger, than he is. When he is 18 he might be even better than when he was 17. However, even if this kid was 18 now instead of 16, he would still be our #1 ranked HS prospect.
So being younger is a plus, but without having unusual talent, your just a year younger than your classmates. But when the 16 year old is better than most every 21 year old, what do you so? I do think those kids that are 19 when they graduate have to be extra talented and ready than those that are younger.
Players are suppose to get better, develop, as they grow older. if they are equal in ability and in other ways, the younger kid has the advantage. Then again, it doesn't always play out that way in the end.
I think what stands out in my mind is that they said he's still 17 multiple times, and all of the other kids were 181/2. But he was a strong player with lots of tools. He kinda looked like a ball player when he was just standing around doing nothing!
