Scouts on Scouting

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.

I agree with you.

milb had an interesting article a while back, going back some years of first round players and where they were, most are in MLB.

First round picks are easy to spot, and I understand that scouts take great pride in the later picks that they discovered or convinced their bosses to come see and made it to MLB.

But doesn't that just show how projection does play a big part in the drafting players (see Coach May's response).

I enjoyed the article, and shared it with my son on an airplane ride home today. It made for good airplane conversation, especially about intangibles.

I interpreted it to be a compilation of interviews with more than one scout, and thought the different takes were helpful to read. There wasn't a single formula, but differing approaches. Interesting stuff.

The thing I don't get about projection is this:

A babied faced kid who has talent seems appealing because people can imagine him maturing and getting bigger, stronger and better. I get that.

But the same age kid who shaves and is physically mature and very strong and has talent also. Is this player going to get weaker in 4 or 5 years? Have his strength and talent levels plateaued? Won't he get better and stronger yet with college or Milb coaching and training?

And will the younger looking kid ever get as big and strong as the matured kid? He may never get as strong as the mature kid, and his top strength might not be as high as the matured player is now.

I understand the projection thing but couldn't a physically matured kid also be projected higher.

Every player is projected. Some just have more projection. It's all an educated guess. Scoutingt is all about predicting the future. There's never any certainty to that.

Maybe it's the old "history repeats itself" theory. If several tall, skinny, baby faced, HS pitchers turned out to be Major League stars and several stocky, mature, HS pitchers with 5 O'clock shadows never got any better... then that would be an indicator. That doesn't mean it's an absolute! That said, there is much more involved in projection, it's not just a size or physical maturity thing.

Some players don't require a lot of projection, they already have the necessary tools and are closer to their potential.

"Makeup" is the thing that can help or hinder a player from reaching something close to his potential. I think that is true in more than just baseball.

quote:

Originally posted by fillsfan:
The thing I don't get about projection is this:

A babied faced kid who has talent seems appealing because people can imagine him maturing and getting bigger, stronger and better. I get that.

But the same age kid who shaves and is physically mature and very strong and has talent also. Is this player going to get weaker in 4 or 5 years? Have his strength and talent levels plateaued? Won't he get better and stronger yet with college or Milb coaching and training?

And will the younger looking kid ever get as big and strong as the matured kid? He may never get as strong as the mature kid, and his top strength might not be as high as the matured player is now.

I understand the projection thing but couldn't a physically matured kid also be projected higher.

Absolutely they would provided their tools were at or close to at a major league level when they have reached full maturity.

example: if a kid is fully developed and mature wtih a 95 mph fastball and a sharp 85 mph breaking ball....don't need much projection to see he has the tools.....the minor league will sniff out the makeup of guys pretty quickly.

A great book to read on this subject is "scout's honor" it's about the atlanta braves scouting system in response to moneyball.....i'd call it a must read.

quote:

the minor league will sniff out the makeup of guys pretty quickly

bsballfan,

Good points you made, but if the minor leagues have to sniff out makeup issues, heads will roll in the scouting department, especially if we are talking about an early round pick. It's basically too late once the player signs. It is the scouts job to sniff out makeup issues before the draft. It's one of the most important things that scouts do. Just like everything else, it's still possible to get it wrong.

quote:

Originally posted by PGStaff:

quote:

the minor league will sniff out the makeup of guys pretty quickly

bsballfan,

Good points you made, but if the minor leagues have to sniff out makeup issues, heads will roll in the scouting department, especially if we are talking about an early round pick. It's basically too late once the player signs. It is the scouts job to sniff out makeup issues before the draft. It's one of the most important things that scouts do. Just like everything else, it's still possible to get it wrong.

I don't disagree with that as far as the top 3 rounds or so go (see: Bush, Matt) but anyone who has every played in the minor leagues knows that there are some 1st class idiots down there and they don't last near as long as the guy with a solid make-up.

disclaimer: disregard that statement if they have a lot of talent (see: Belle, Albert Bradley, Milton Zambrano, Carlos)

One quick followup regarding makeup and projection. A scout projects what a player could become. That involves a lot of variables, some of which are out of a player's control, but many that are totally within the player's control. I'm talking things like work ethic, conditioninng, nutrition, toughness, cojones, etc. Many of these variables fall within the broad idea of makeup.

How hard is a player going to work? How's he going to respond to life on the road, maybe with a little bit of money, but away from family and friends and with plenty of potential "distrations"? How's he going to respond to the inevitable failure that is a fact of life in baseball?

Makeup is the hardest thing to scout and is the biggest factor in a player going from where he is now to "being all that he can be" and it's probably one of the easiest areas for a scout to get "wrong". Just look at Josh Hamilton...from everything I've read, that dude had off the charts makeup in high school, but somewhere along the line he went sideways. No scout in the world could have predicted that, but had he not gotten his life back in order, people would have said that the scouts/execs that drafted Hamilton were "wrong".

Went to a recent showcase type of event and it was interesting to see the college recruiters and professional scouts and who they were watching and taking special notes on. It is interesting to see the "physical specimens" come up to bat and watch the scouts and recruiters congregate to see what happens and then if nothing happens they go back to doing their thing waiting to be surprised or for someone they have been watching for some time. One guy in particular was sparking some interest just based on his size- he was 6'5" and about 215 lbs. He would come up to bat and all the heads would turn and clipboards would come out to see what he could do. Obviously he had attracted much interest because of his physical athletic appearance. And yet, there were other kids there which were smaller in stature who outperformed him on that day and did not attract as much attention.

Some recruiters and scouts I noticed were very intimate with their books and were taking special note of every player and writing things in their little books on every single player and gunning every pitcher. The look on their face would never change, they were just totally involved and dedicated to what they were doing. And then there were others who carried their black Nike bags around and occasionally get the gun out and point it at a pitcher or get the stopwatch out and time this or that kid running or throwing to a base.

Now certainly different recruiters have different needs in mind in recruiting players and scouts have their own intentions but it really appeared that there were both really dedicated ones and not so dedicated ones. I imagine that each works in somewhat different parameters and looks for different things but I was really impressed with those few scouts and recruiters who were totally consumed in their notes and work ethic. If I were a scout I hope I would be like those few dedicated ones who were taking notes on everything happening with their serious faces and attitudes. I bet they go back to the hotel rooms and enter in all of their crazy information into different spreadsheets and make graps and track results. They are probably the ones so consumed in their jobs that they wake in the middle of the night and open their little book and wonder "what if" or "I wonder" on this or that player and then the next day they show up extra early, already having drank their morning coffee so that bothg hands are availbale to take notes, and prepare themselves for another day in the office.

These types probably get asked what they look for in players and more than likely they want to see the same things that they themselves do- they want to see work ethic coupled with skills. They probably aren't as concerned as other scouts with the eye candy of "physical specimens" as much as they are with tracking each and every player and then in the end, after several years watching all of them can report and make a better evaluation as for any direction the club wants to go.

I like to think that there are scouts- good scouts, and then there are a few outstanding scouts who truly do their jobs with an honest desire to go the extra mile.

GingerbreadMan,

You're saying that some scouts and recruiters work harder than others. There is no doubt about that! The more you see, the better scout you are. There are a lot of very good scouts, and unfortunately, there are some that aren't so good.

There is nothing wrong with paying attention to the physical specimen. Sometimes they are much more than just a physical specimen. Wouldn’t be a very good scout if you didn’t pay attention to them. Size and an athletic body can have some advantages. However, just like everyone else, they need to be able to play.

Then kids like Jimmy Rollins (5’8”), Ben Revere (5’9”), Delino Deshields (5’8”) get drafted ahead of them, because it is based on talent. Scouts find talent, even if it is not in a large package.
Sometimes it seems like people think there is some kind of conspiracy involved. Size can have its advantages, but talent always trumps size.

The better the player, the more attention he will receive. Just outperforming the big guy, might not be enough to get a lot of attention. Maybe the big guy just isn't all that good in their eyes. And there are big guys that get overlooked in the draft every year, its not just the smaller guys..

Scouts are human, some are good, some are bad, and and some can be lazy - it might be easier to do an initial analysis based on size. The difference between a mid level prospect and one that doesn't get a call is really miniscule quite often. Life's # 1 lesson is just keep working hard, have a plan, and good things happen.

.
While I like the article…it is a thin slice of a much bigger picture…

After a couple decades of watching this pretty closely…Would submit that there are six tools that dictate who gets attention/drafted/moved up. Would submit them by order of importance….

1. Physical This one we all know….and have a love/hate relationship with. (hence the obligatory size discussion in this thread) How physically imposing are you? Strength, speed, size, handedness, age...I put this first because some players simply bring physical magic that cannot be ignored and ones that command universal respect regardless of what else they bring. In the end this is an athletic contest and every organization wants kid with measureable physical skills…if they possess the other tools below or not. You bring awesome physical skills (particularly at an early age) and the rest of the tools below become a great less important. A former major league winning manger once told me that the longer he managed the more the trend was toward the physical and away for baseball players. By the end the organization was ending him raw athletes who were not baseball players.

2. Technical Do you conform to the book of MLB technical dogma? Or better yet if you hope to move up…do you conform to the sensibilities of a certain scout/organization? "Handsy Looseness", Raw power, inverted W's, quietness, quiet head, arm angle, pitches, front side, ability to repeat the motion, arm action, effort level. Reading the article enforces this. Problem is that this is all opinion…”I can’t measure it…but I know it when I see it….and I can project it with or without statistics.” And the more political power that you have the more your opinion counts.

3. Political We’d all like to think it’s about who can play, but the further down the food chain you get, the more political it becomes…and it is not too far down the food chain that politics becomes as much of the “game” as talent does. The reality is that baseball is not golf or tennis where who moves up is objective (you win, you move up) …baseball is objective, someone has to choose you. So a huge part of the equation becomes….How connected are you to the "good old boys club" that is MLB? Are you one of the chosen? Do you have friends in high places who can change the game for you? Are you from the right program? Son of a former player? Son of a manager? Son (daughter) of the organization? Drafted previously? The right agent? Favors offered/being repaid? Messages to be sent? "Investment"? Who likes you and how powerful are they?

4. Statistical Have you put up #'s? .400, 20 HR, .700 SLG, .90 ERA, 12-0, 14 K's per game...We would all like to believe that it is all about performance…but it isn’t...However it IS possible to get noticed by performance rather than overwhelming physical tools…but you’d better be off the charts good to even get a look.

5. Mental Toughness, desire, work ethic...we all want to believe this both because it is a great life lesson for our kids (it IS possible to improve and maximize your talent and life is about doing just that) and because we all really want it to be true. Even the scout is fooling himself on this…..but the reality is that this tool alone, by itself is it is simply fourth and maybe fifth on the list of tools. The organizations talk a good game…but IF you can REALLY play and also bring baggage and lack work ethic, no one really cares all that much.

6. Accidental We all have a handful of these stories…right player, right place, right time…who in the end makes the most of his lucky chance after having been ignored and looked over previously.

Great post Observer44, I agree with you on all those points, but I never would have been able to bring it out so clearly.

.
TB...Gratified, thanks.


.