I think lots of people on here will enjoy this article. Scouts talking about how they scout, etc. I've seen similar stuff before, but this is great as well.
http://www.baseballamerica.com...ls/2010/2610540.html
Original Post
Replies sorted oldest to newest
quote:handsy looseness
I see why they rely on easily measured tools and size.
I really enjoy that type of article. 99% of people at a ballpark don't have the foggiest idea what a scout is looking at. What a college coach and a ML scout are looking for can be two very different things. Many kids are potential college players that are most probably not pro prospects. But even individual scouts have different prospectives. Interesting take on watching the hitter's hands such as how far back in the palms the kid holds the bat.
You beat me to it, just coming on to post it!
Good stuff.
Good stuff.
What I've learned the past year or so is that what a parent is looking at and what a scout/recruiter is seeing are two completely different things most times.
As the article points scouts are not necessarily looking at results while most of us parents are.
They are looking for things most of us parents don't even see. Generally, we are looking for results, they are looking at mechanics, bat speed, arm slot, repeated motions, etc. IMO this is one of the reasons we parents are sometimes miffed as to why one kid is recruited heavier than another.
As the article points scouts are not necessarily looking at results while most of us parents are.
They are looking for things most of us parents don't even see. Generally, we are looking for results, they are looking at mechanics, bat speed, arm slot, repeated motions, etc. IMO this is one of the reasons we parents are sometimes miffed as to why one kid is recruited heavier than another.
Thank you for posting that excellent article!
"It's nice when a guy passes the eye test right when he walks off the bus. If I'm seeing a high school kid, I would hope that I can pick the kid out when I walk up to the field and I don't need to get a program to figure out which kid he is."
some great stuff that I have definitely marked down but you also have the type of thing quoted above that send shivers down my spine and makes me do the chicken sacrifice thing, pick four leaf clovers and carry buckeyes and garlic....
some great stuff that I have definitely marked down but you also have the type of thing quoted above that send shivers down my spine and makes me do the chicken sacrifice thing, pick four leaf clovers and carry buckeyes and garlic....
I agree, its scary for those of us with average sized kids. But if you look at how a scout becomes successful, you can see why they have to rely on the obvious. They've got to produce winners, and they need to identify them and start tracking them as fast as they can. I wouldn't imagine the average scout can afford to be sitting around believing in average sized kids, on the hope that they're a Dustin Pedroia or David Eckstein in the making.
The small/average sized guys just have to be ready prove their way through the system without the benefit of a scout falling in love with them.
The small/average sized guys just have to be ready prove their way through the system without the benefit of a scout falling in love with them.
I think you guys are combining two different thoughts from the scout that were presented together in the article.
I think what he means is that 1) it's nice when the guys pass the eye test getting off the bus (not that it's required, just that it's nice).
And 2) they hope that the guys with talent stand out from the crowd in terms of pure talent even without the scout knowing names and jersey numbers.
I don't think he meant to come across as if a player has to standout size wise on the field (although it's nice) but that's just my interpretation.
I think what he means is that 1) it's nice when the guys pass the eye test getting off the bus (not that it's required, just that it's nice).
And 2) they hope that the guys with talent stand out from the crowd in terms of pure talent even without the scout knowing names and jersey numbers.
I don't think he meant to come across as if a player has to standout size wise on the field (although it's nice) but that's just my interpretation.
My comments aren't really meant to say that scouts are bad or superficial because they often need to rely on obvious indicators. This article notwithstanding.
I'm saying that the average-sized player just has to be pragmatic about what scouts are trying to do. People need to realize that scouting is a process of looking for stand-out indicators with a limited amount of visibility, and under considerable time pressures. The first standout indicator is size, or "projectable" size.
If you don't have that, then you just don't have that.
I'm saying that the average-sized player just has to be pragmatic about what scouts are trying to do. People need to realize that scouting is a process of looking for stand-out indicators with a limited amount of visibility, and under considerable time pressures. The first standout indicator is size, or "projectable" size.
If you don't have that, then you just don't have that.
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Emanski's Heroes:
I think you guys are combining two different thoughts from the scout that were presented together in the article.
I think what he means is that 1) it's nice when the guys pass the eye test getting off the bus (not that it's required, just that it's nice).
And 2) they hope that the guys with talent stand out from the crowd in terms of pure talent even without the scout knowing names and jersey numbers. I don't think he meant to come across as if a player has to standout size wise on the field (although it's nice) but that's just my interpretation.[/QUOTe
EH: I guess the angle I come from is one of experience... I have had the specific and up close experience during the last 3 years with a kid's physicality trumping everything else. To be blunt it was all about their look. IMHO none of the three were even one of the top three kids on the team they were on and I watched each of them for a full summer season. Its the buying of blue jeans as it says in the book Moneyball.
And its not even about being an Eckstein size player. My son has just turned 16 and is 6ft tall and 155. He just doesnt have that mighty joe young look...
I think you guys are combining two different thoughts from the scout that were presented together in the article.
I think what he means is that 1) it's nice when the guys pass the eye test getting off the bus (not that it's required, just that it's nice).
And 2) they hope that the guys with talent stand out from the crowd in terms of pure talent even without the scout knowing names and jersey numbers. I don't think he meant to come across as if a player has to standout size wise on the field (although it's nice) but that's just my interpretation.[/QUOTe
EH: I guess the angle I come from is one of experience... I have had the specific and up close experience during the last 3 years with a kid's physicality trumping everything else. To be blunt it was all about their look. IMHO none of the three were even one of the top three kids on the team they were on and I watched each of them for a full summer season. Its the buying of blue jeans as it says in the book Moneyball.
And its not even about being an Eckstein size player. My son has just turned 16 and is 6ft tall and 155. He just doesnt have that mighty joe young look...
I'm not saying scouts don't prefer bigger players. I'm saying that this is not exactly what this scout was saying in this case, IMO
A great read, either way.
Loved wraggArm's phrase: "prove their way through the system"!
Everybody has to overcome something. Size is just one thing. Unless your kid is a true blue chipper, this article probably highlighted at least three or four areas where he doesn't have exactly what the scouts are looking for.
When I discussed this article with my son, it wasn't hard to identify a number of "deficiencies" this group of scouts would find in him. Then we separated the ones he can't work to correct from the ones that he can. This article should help him and a lot of other players write their "to do" lists for their fall/winter workouts.
Everybody has to overcome something. Size is just one thing. Unless your kid is a true blue chipper, this article probably highlighted at least three or four areas where he doesn't have exactly what the scouts are looking for.
When I discussed this article with my son, it wasn't hard to identify a number of "deficiencies" this group of scouts would find in him. Then we separated the ones he can't work to correct from the ones that he can. This article should help him and a lot of other players write their "to do" lists for their fall/winter workouts.
quote:Originally posted by wraggArm:
A great read, either way.
it is indeed....
I have come to one basic premise in this... all other "tools" aside (and I think of the exception of a young Ozzie Smith as I write this).. you better be able to hit and if you can you better hit when you have the opportunity to show it!
A couple of quotes by ML scouts from some of the tryout camps my sons attended:
Astros scout: The difference between a professional hitter and others is that he can hit long line drives that get to where they're going in a hurry.
Tampa Bay scout: I don't care what you did yesterday in a game; I don't care what you're going to do tomorrow; I just want to see what you can do right now, right here, today.
Astros Scout to player or two who were just flipping the ball across the diamond: Son, if you've got an arm you better show it to me now.
Scout to other scout talking about my son: He's kind of small but he can play, I wonder how tall his dad is? Me--Immediately stepping up on a chunk of concrete next to where I'm standing along the first base side.
Astros scout: The difference between a professional hitter and others is that he can hit long line drives that get to where they're going in a hurry.
Tampa Bay scout: I don't care what you did yesterday in a game; I don't care what you're going to do tomorrow; I just want to see what you can do right now, right here, today.
Astros Scout to player or two who were just flipping the ball across the diamond: Son, if you've got an arm you better show it to me now.
Scout to other scout talking about my son: He's kind of small but he can play, I wonder how tall his dad is? Me--Immediately stepping up on a chunk of concrete next to where I'm standing along the first base side.
quote:Originally posted by Three Bagger:
A couple of quotes by ML scouts from some of the tryout camps my sons attended:
Astros scout: The difference between a professional hitter and others is that he can hit long line drives that get to where they're going in a hurry.
Tampa Bay scout: I don't care what you did yesterday in a game; I don't care what you're going to do tomorrow; I just want to see what you can do right now, right here, today.
Astros Scout to player or two who were just flipping the ball across the diamond: Son, if you've got an arm you better show it to me now.
Scout to other scout talking about my son: He's kind of small but he can play, I wonder how tall his dad is? Me--Immediately stepping up on a chunk of concrete next to where I'm standing along the first base side.
great post 3 bagger.. thank you for it
quote:"It's nice when a guy passes the eye test right when he walks off the bus. If I'm seeing a high school kid, I would hope that I can pick the kid out when I walk up to the field and I don't need to get a program to figure out which kid he is."
I view this quote a bit differently. My son is an average sized young man, 5'11" and about 190, I believe that this has something to do with the way he handles himself with his peers and with his coaches, as well as how his peers and coaches handle him. Does he appear confident, does he appear to be a key component of a team? Things like that. You can usually look at a team and pick out who you think the real players are by how they handle themselves.
Sure being 6'1"+ is nice, but there are plenty of players that fit that profile that know they are not the one that the team looks to, and they will carry themselves that way.
The thing is, you can't always see today what will be tomorrow, that is why scouting is so difficult.
For those so obsessed with size or lack of, here's a good example of a player drafted in the 38th round in 2007 that is way ahead of others drafted earlier than him. Oh and I think (not sure) he went to U of Maine.
http://www.baseball-reference.....cgi?id=chambe001adr
I thing floridafan has got it right, the scout wants to be able to pick out the player when he gets off the bus, not just by expectant size, but how he handles himself, and all those other things tha tgo into it, etc.
For those so obsessed with size or lack of, here's a good example of a player drafted in the 38th round in 2007 that is way ahead of others drafted earlier than him. Oh and I think (not sure) he went to U of Maine.
http://www.baseball-reference.....cgi?id=chambe001adr
I thing floridafan has got it right, the scout wants to be able to pick out the player when he gets off the bus, not just by expectant size, but how he handles himself, and all those other things tha tgo into it, etc.
quote:he went to U of Maine.
i think it was pensacola jc.
FF nailed it. It is exactly what he was talking about.
Thanks Coach! Finally figuring some things out...
I will be happier when I figure out some more!!!
I will be happier when I figure out some more!!!
excellent article, really enjoyable reading. Just came back with my kid from an mlb workout, 200 kids (and a couple 30 yr olds) and a lot of dreams! One guy hit 94 mph, created a little buzz.
This was an awesome article.
This was posted yesterday from baseballamerica.com. It highlights how the MLB managers think have the best tools.
http://www.baseballamerica.com...ls/2010/2610550.html
Stu
This was posted yesterday from baseballamerica.com. It highlights how the MLB managers think have the best tools.
http://www.baseballamerica.com...ls/2010/2610550.html
Stu
quote:Originally posted by floridafan:
Thank you for posting that excellent article!
Oh please!
Ask these scouts what time is it, and they
will be the authority on how to build a frickin' watch!
Sorry that I found the article informative, or felt it would be helpful to share with my son as a 3rd party verification of information he has learned and possibly forgotten over the years.
quote:Originally posted by floridafan:
Sorry that I found the article informative, or felt it would be helpful to share with my son as a 3rd party verification of information he has learned and possibly forgotten over the years.
Don't worry about it FF, was a good article with good info although what is stated doesn't apply to everyone, sift through it and come away what you think is important.
There is a lot of truth in Bear's statement. It is only one man's opinion. And if 99 of them say you can't play. And only 1 of them say's you can. The 1 guy is right. And all 99 of those other guys don't have a clue what they are talking about. And if all 100 of them say you can't play. Then "_ _ _ _ " them. Prove them all wrong and shove it in their face.
Look it doesn't take a scouting guru to spot a kid that sits at 95 with a great off speed pitch. It doesn't take a ton of talent to follow around all the top notch prospects that are so easy to spot. The real scouts are the ones that can find those guys that are not so easy to spot. The ones that are under the radar so to speak. The ones that don't jump right out and everyone can see the talent and projection.
I love to go to the small schools in the middle of nowhere and take in games. The places where most of the kids play three sports. The places where very few if any attend showcase events or play travel baseball. I want to find that kid that no one knows about. Kind of like the kid from a little 1A hs in eastern NC. He played football , basketball and baseball. He worked in his dad's tobacco fields in the summer and didn't play anything.
I show up to watch a couple of 1A schools play a game. I see this gangly kid playing first base who can't hit a lick. I stick around long enough to see him come in to pitch in the 6th inning. The kid has this crazy wind up , legs going everywhere. Then the ball comes out of his hand like a lightning bolt. I am like dam! The radar gun is still in the bag because I dont need one to see 75. I am scrambling to get it out. Next pitch - Bam! Pure gas and tons of movement. The kid is so raw its ridiculous. One pitch is money the next is a foot over the batters head. I finally get the gun on him and the next pitch is 90. Next pitch is 91. Next pitch is 88.
The kid has never had a pitching lesson in his life. His delivery is different on every pitch. His arm slot changes on every pitch. He has no clue what he is doing he is just throwing it. But he is 6'5 200 lbs with arms like a gorilla. And he is a 16 year old soph.
Now I sitting thinking "What will this kid be like when he gets some real instruction? What will this kid be like in 5 years? What can this kid be?" After the game I go to talk to his coach. "Coach what can you tell me about the tall righty that threw the last two innings." "Oh Jordan is a good kid. But we dont pitch him much he is too valuble at first base for us. And he cant throw enough strikes really. But we think he can hit and he helps us on defense."
Well I find his parents who are just great people. They are shocked I would want to talk to them about him playing on a travel team and getting some private pitching instruction. "Oh Jordan is not a pitcher. He is a hitter and he likes playing first base." "And we really dont think it would be a good idea to spend money on a pitching instructor. He has to work in the summer so we dont think he would be able to play."
Well after a couple of months of worrying them to death I finally got them to agree. This kid is going to be special. Now that is what I love to do and alot of guys love to do. Go out and find those type of guys. Its easy to follow the really good ones around. Its alot more fun and rewarding to actually find them.
Look it doesn't take a scouting guru to spot a kid that sits at 95 with a great off speed pitch. It doesn't take a ton of talent to follow around all the top notch prospects that are so easy to spot. The real scouts are the ones that can find those guys that are not so easy to spot. The ones that are under the radar so to speak. The ones that don't jump right out and everyone can see the talent and projection.
I love to go to the small schools in the middle of nowhere and take in games. The places where most of the kids play three sports. The places where very few if any attend showcase events or play travel baseball. I want to find that kid that no one knows about. Kind of like the kid from a little 1A hs in eastern NC. He played football , basketball and baseball. He worked in his dad's tobacco fields in the summer and didn't play anything.
I show up to watch a couple of 1A schools play a game. I see this gangly kid playing first base who can't hit a lick. I stick around long enough to see him come in to pitch in the 6th inning. The kid has this crazy wind up , legs going everywhere. Then the ball comes out of his hand like a lightning bolt. I am like dam! The radar gun is still in the bag because I dont need one to see 75. I am scrambling to get it out. Next pitch - Bam! Pure gas and tons of movement. The kid is so raw its ridiculous. One pitch is money the next is a foot over the batters head. I finally get the gun on him and the next pitch is 90. Next pitch is 91. Next pitch is 88.
The kid has never had a pitching lesson in his life. His delivery is different on every pitch. His arm slot changes on every pitch. He has no clue what he is doing he is just throwing it. But he is 6'5 200 lbs with arms like a gorilla. And he is a 16 year old soph.
Now I sitting thinking "What will this kid be like when he gets some real instruction? What will this kid be like in 5 years? What can this kid be?" After the game I go to talk to his coach. "Coach what can you tell me about the tall righty that threw the last two innings." "Oh Jordan is a good kid. But we dont pitch him much he is too valuble at first base for us. And he cant throw enough strikes really. But we think he can hit and he helps us on defense."
Well I find his parents who are just great people. They are shocked I would want to talk to them about him playing on a travel team and getting some private pitching instruction. "Oh Jordan is not a pitcher. He is a hitter and he likes playing first base." "And we really dont think it would be a good idea to spend money on a pitching instructor. He has to work in the summer so we dont think he would be able to play."
Well after a couple of months of worrying them to death I finally got them to agree. This kid is going to be special. Now that is what I love to do and alot of guys love to do. Go out and find those type of guys. Its easy to follow the really good ones around. Its alot more fun and rewarding to actually find them.
One thing has always bothered me and I am not quite sure why. Scouts are looking for projectability so they say. they are looking for these "babay faced" kids who haven't matured with full grown man features such as beards and such. But what I seem to strggle with understanding here is based off of what criteria? Lest say that prospect "A" is 5'11", 205 lbs, shaves, is a senior in HS and throws 91 mph. Prospect "B" is 6'3", 175 lbs, baby faced, also a senior, doesn't shave and throws 89 mph. If I am understandingt his correctly prospect "B" is more "projectable" but based off of what? Is it just me or does it seem that scouts overstress this projectability issue instead of focussing on results and talent? Lincecum comes to mind as a perfect example.
The 6'3" guy is the "safe" choice and I think there is a lot of --- covering in scouting. If you're wrong about the Lincecum choice, a lot of people say "I told you so", but if you're wrong on the 6'3" guy, they just write it off to "well he didn't pan out". Not a lot taking chances because these guys jobs depend on it. You wonder though if more guys aren't missed who are great baseball players.
there has been a lot written in the last decade about players who enjoyed great success in the minors in the last century but never got what seemed to be a reasonable chance to play in the bigs. I read Coach Mays post and wonder.. will that kid be the real Roy Hobbs? How tenuous was his journey to get to this point: Coach May just happened to be at the game; happened to stay until the kid got in; parents seemingly not interested in him pitching- wanted him to hit; Coach stayed on the case until parents gave in; will the kid stay committed and understand what he has to do to make it.. will the parents to the same? And if they dont will Roy Hobbs continue to be that.. just a legend? As beings possessing of intelligence we try to get our minds around this whole journey by saying if you can play they will find you, because our rationale brains will not allow the alternative to be the reality.... that there may just be random chance involved.
I was thinking the other day back to the 70's when I first started following the game. There were lots of players like Jim Dwyer, Dane Iorg, Mike Jorgansen, Greg Gross etc. These guys were just good hitters.. in a pure sense... that they could hit a baseball. They werent power hitters and generally speaking they were not great arms or fielders tho Jorgansen had the rep of a good glove at 1B.
I don't see this type of player in MLB anymore. Why? Are they not big enough? strong enough? fast enough? Do they not "project"?
Or am I just wrong?
I was thinking the other day back to the 70's when I first started following the game. There were lots of players like Jim Dwyer, Dane Iorg, Mike Jorgansen, Greg Gross etc. These guys were just good hitters.. in a pure sense... that they could hit a baseball. They werent power hitters and generally speaking they were not great arms or fielders tho Jorgansen had the rep of a good glove at 1B.
I don't see this type of player in MLB anymore. Why? Are they not big enough? strong enough? fast enough? Do they not "project"?
Or am I just wrong?
Coach May, in his post, made a statement when speaking of the HS player he saw, "what will this kid be like in 5 years".
Most HS players drafted, unless a phenom, will spend 4-5 years in the lower system of their organization. Most people don't understand it is not a quick rise for most, especially for HS players, especially if that organization makes each player put in a full season at each, or maybe repeat a season.
The player with a full beard may signal he has reached his max growth potential, where the player who doesn't shave yet signals there is more room to grow. Of course you don't just take a player because of his physical attributes, there has to be some more for the consideration.
I think the this scout laid it out pretty easily to understand, especailly when he talked about added velocity, the tall lean kid throwing 89-91 who shows the skills needed for grading him, will be more commited in the weight room (than he was in HS) and conditioning program (you do this everyday), and most likely throw harder, the mature one throwing 90-92, may never throw harder than that, even with a good weight gain and conditioning program. Where will the A player be in 4-5 years compared to the B player? If you read again, he said it's about perception, and projection is just one part of the equation of what they look for. They have to try to imagine, which I suppose if pretty difficult what the player will be like in 4-5 years.
Of course that was based upon his opinion, he likes baby faced guys.
You can't use Lincecum as an example as he was coming out of college, which is different than scouting and projecting players out of HS and able to contribute with his ability right away.
Most HS players drafted, unless a phenom, will spend 4-5 years in the lower system of their organization. Most people don't understand it is not a quick rise for most, especially for HS players, especially if that organization makes each player put in a full season at each, or maybe repeat a season.
The player with a full beard may signal he has reached his max growth potential, where the player who doesn't shave yet signals there is more room to grow. Of course you don't just take a player because of his physical attributes, there has to be some more for the consideration.
I think the this scout laid it out pretty easily to understand, especailly when he talked about added velocity, the tall lean kid throwing 89-91 who shows the skills needed for grading him, will be more commited in the weight room (than he was in HS) and conditioning program (you do this everyday), and most likely throw harder, the mature one throwing 90-92, may never throw harder than that, even with a good weight gain and conditioning program. Where will the A player be in 4-5 years compared to the B player? If you read again, he said it's about perception, and projection is just one part of the equation of what they look for. They have to try to imagine, which I suppose if pretty difficult what the player will be like in 4-5 years.
Of course that was based upon his opinion, he likes baby faced guys.
You can't use Lincecum as an example as he was coming out of college, which is different than scouting and projecting players out of HS and able to contribute with his ability right away.
GBM,
The reality is that they are looking for a lot of things. Cody Buckel who is listed at 6'1" and tops out at 93 but works around 90-91 was a second round pick ahead of a lot of pitchers with far more projectability wrt velocity.
The 5'11" kid in your example if he projects to have outstanding location and or offspeed stuff is going to get a lot of attention.
The reality is that they are looking for a lot of things. Cody Buckel who is listed at 6'1" and tops out at 93 but works around 90-91 was a second round pick ahead of a lot of pitchers with far more projectability wrt velocity.
The 5'11" kid in your example if he projects to have outstanding location and or offspeed stuff is going to get a lot of attention.
quote:Originally posted by Gingerbread Man:
One thing has always bothered me and I am not quite sure why. Scouts are looking for projectability so they say. they are looking for these "babay faced" kids who haven't matured with full grown man features such as beards and such. But what I seem to strggle with understanding here is based off of what criteria? Lest say that prospect "A" is 5'11", 205 lbs, shaves, is a senior in HS and throws 91 mph. Prospect "B" is 6'3", 175 lbs, baby faced, also a senior, doesn't shave and throws 89 mph. If I am understandingt his correctly prospect "B" is more "projectable" but based off of what? Is it just me or does it seem that scouts overstress this projectability issue instead of focussing on results and talent? Lincecum comes to mind as a perfect example.
Focusing on results can not work in scouting because hs kids play such different levels of competition.....every conference has a kid who strikes out a guy and a half per inning.
As for the baby faced kid who doesn't shave and is tall and lean, I think it's pretty obvious that this type of kid has a better chance to continue to grow and mature into an even better player than a kid who is fully developed at 16.
As for Lincecum......let's not take this analogy too far. He is a tall, thin, baby-faced kid to this day! He has some different mechanics that set him apart, but his body fits the "profile" and he has a loose, fast arm.
I thought that was a good article. Here is my opinion on a few things FWIW...
Projection is what it's all about... in every case!
Projection is also the hardest thing to predict.
Indicators include body type, physical maturity, athletic ability, blood lines, players history, makeup, etc.
Even at that, there are always the players that don't project who end up surprising everyone.
We have seen physically mature 6'0" RHPs gain lots of velocity. We've seen some that go from 87 mph as a sophomore in HS to 97 mph in college.
Obviously it is easier to predict that the tall skinny kid will gain velocity. So it becomes a game of percentages. Problem is... if we are talking about one individual player, as we always do, then percentages don't always mean so much.
Still, when we see the "baby faced" kid with outstanding tools and a good frame, it's easy to dream/project. But there are many things that can,
and do, get in the way.
Once talent and projection are recognized... It's "all" about makeup. Some without as much early talent and projection will fail because of makeup. Some without as much early talent and projection will become Major League players because of their makeup. It (makeup) is the biggest separater in most cases!
Yes, there are those where the talent overcomes everything else, to an extent, but those are the rare exceptions. There are a ton of players with the necessary talent that never make it to the top. There are many who make it, that weren't suppose to.
Every scout that has been around long enough, understands that he is going to be wrong at times. That's because he has already been proven wrong at times. That said... Just like players, the best scouts have to have confidence. Confident that their evaluation is correct, no matter what other people might think!
Projection is what it's all about... in every case!
Projection is also the hardest thing to predict.
Indicators include body type, physical maturity, athletic ability, blood lines, players history, makeup, etc.
Even at that, there are always the players that don't project who end up surprising everyone.
We have seen physically mature 6'0" RHPs gain lots of velocity. We've seen some that go from 87 mph as a sophomore in HS to 97 mph in college.
Obviously it is easier to predict that the tall skinny kid will gain velocity. So it becomes a game of percentages. Problem is... if we are talking about one individual player, as we always do, then percentages don't always mean so much.
Still, when we see the "baby faced" kid with outstanding tools and a good frame, it's easy to dream/project. But there are many things that can,
and do, get in the way.
Once talent and projection are recognized... It's "all" about makeup. Some without as much early talent and projection will fail because of makeup. Some without as much early talent and projection will become Major League players because of their makeup. It (makeup) is the biggest separater in most cases!
Yes, there are those where the talent overcomes everything else, to an extent, but those are the rare exceptions. There are a ton of players with the necessary talent that never make it to the top. There are many who make it, that weren't suppose to.
Every scout that has been around long enough, understands that he is going to be wrong at times. That's because he has already been proven wrong at times. That said... Just like players, the best scouts have to have confidence. Confident that their evaluation is correct, no matter what other people might think!
I still view the "scouting funnel" as only the part of the system that is trying to accelerate the discovery of future talent.
In my mind, every player should view getting scouted as the fast-track for the lucky few. Everyone else just needs to "stick to their knittin'", build on their numbers, and be ready for a bit longer haul.
In my mind, every player should view getting scouted as the fast-track for the lucky few. Everyone else just needs to "stick to their knittin'", build on their numbers, and be ready for a bit longer haul.
Perhaps I wouldn't be the greatest scout because I view projectability quite a bit different. I personally think that size alone and physical maturity have not a whole lot to do with projectability when compared with other factors that I feel are more important. It seems to me that a lot of scouts want to show off their future goliath player regardless of what talent and skill set he has. When I look at some of the great stars in baseball I see size playing some slight advantage. I understand that longer levers can equate to faster balls being thrown and hit. But yet i see a lot of small ball players that don't really fit the physical projectability and are just as successful as others who fit that physical projectability.
Don't get me wrong, I do thing size has it's unique advantages in baseball, its just that I don't see that as being the number 1 reason for projectability. If I was a scout and was asked what was the first thing I look for I would say- "all other things aside, I want to see a skill set that stands out from the competition". Usually, at the high school and college level players vary in both maturity and size. Its a gamble if size and maturity will really have that much difference when faced with the facts of their individual skill set at that age and level. A kid throwing 91-92 out of High school already has a good velocity skill set regardless of his age, maturity or height. Sure, on paper and in showing him off it looks a lot better if he is 6'2" 170 and doesn't shave, but in reality a player of this caliber, if he has a good skill set with a low era, good offspeed, and excellent location is gonna get him drafted regardless of physical projectability.
For me its all about results and what they bring to the field every time I go out to watch him. Predicting the future for players drafted has not been very successful. I mean really- how many players who scouts give the thumbs up to actually make it to the future projectability level that they were projected to be? Is it not true that all players drafted have mlb future projectability? Then why so few who actually make it? Is it bad scouting? No, just impossible to project future ability, especially when the number 1 thing is looking at physical size projectability.
Just my opinion I guess.
Don't get me wrong, I do thing size has it's unique advantages in baseball, its just that I don't see that as being the number 1 reason for projectability. If I was a scout and was asked what was the first thing I look for I would say- "all other things aside, I want to see a skill set that stands out from the competition". Usually, at the high school and college level players vary in both maturity and size. Its a gamble if size and maturity will really have that much difference when faced with the facts of their individual skill set at that age and level. A kid throwing 91-92 out of High school already has a good velocity skill set regardless of his age, maturity or height. Sure, on paper and in showing him off it looks a lot better if he is 6'2" 170 and doesn't shave, but in reality a player of this caliber, if he has a good skill set with a low era, good offspeed, and excellent location is gonna get him drafted regardless of physical projectability.
For me its all about results and what they bring to the field every time I go out to watch him. Predicting the future for players drafted has not been very successful. I mean really- how many players who scouts give the thumbs up to actually make it to the future projectability level that they were projected to be? Is it not true that all players drafted have mlb future projectability? Then why so few who actually make it? Is it bad scouting? No, just impossible to project future ability, especially when the number 1 thing is looking at physical size projectability.
Just my opinion I guess.
Although scouts are often wrong as it is a risky business I've been amazed at how often they are right and the things they can pick up when it comes to the kids I've seen play.
quote:Originally posted by CADad:
Although scouts are often wrong as it is a risky business I've been amazed at how often they are right and the things they can pick up when it comes to the kids I've seen play.
And that is why I am not a scout and they are, eh eh. We also still produce the best baseball players in the world and I think it just may have something to do with the scouting process and the scouts who do their jobs correctly.