Supply and demand by position question

The ONE drawback about multiple positions, is sometimes the colleges just don't know where the player will fit...and it "may" hurt them in the recruiting process (as I have had other parents describe). A key point is to be EXCELLENT at whatever position they play. As far as SS, I have had college coaches tell me they try to recruit as many SS as possible, b/c they are usually the best athlete on the HS team and can be converted once they get to college.

Brian, I have often wondered the same thing. I came to the conclusion that 95% of a player's ability to play a defensive position was accomplished with talent and not knowledge. If a player is a student of the game he pretty much understands the role of each position on a given play. He's heard coaching instructions barked out to every position for many years. Granted there are different "motions" one has to go through to complete their "assignments" but these are fairly simple to "understand". Execution of those assignments is quite different. That's where talent and ability comes in. I think players can be prototypical for a particular position too. Many players are limited in their ability to play different positions because of their physical characteristic or lack of tools. Speed, arm strength, LH/RH and even their offensive output factors in where they will play defensively. For instance if your son is a power hitting 6'-2" lefthander with no speed and a average arm he can be a great asset to any team but there's no need to buy him anything but a first baseman's mitt.
Fungo

Interesting question.

A post-prep shot for a position player is likely going to have more to do with the ability to hit imho. Granted, the hard hitting guy Fungo describes is never going to get a chance at ss but it is the bat more often than not that gets a player in the lineup. There are exceptions. I think back to the Baltimore Orioles and Earl Weaver and the 3-run homer. They had Mark Belanger at short and they had enough hitters in the lineup to overcome any offensive shortcomings.

I think things have changed since then. Thus, a second baseman that can hit may have a better chance getting into the lineup than a great defensive SS in many cases. Where the SS has an advantage is versatility. He mostly likely can play 2nd and 3rd where a pure 3rd baseman or 2nd baseman may not be able to adequately play short.

I say learn as many positions as possible. Having a bat plus defensive versatility is good method to find your way into the lineup. Here is a realted thread:
http://hsbaseballweb.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/6616002781/...1060372?r=3061060372

Welcome to the hsbbweb by the way Brian

Always nice to see someone else on here from Cleveland

quote:

Originally posted by ClevelandDad:
Interesting question.

A post-prep shot for a position player is likely going to have more to do with the ability to hit imho. Granted, the hard hitting guy Fungo describes is never going to get a chance at ss but it is the bat more often than not that gets a player in the lineup. There are exceptions. I think back to the Baltimore Orioles and Earl Weaver and the 3-run homer. They had Mark Belanger at short and they had enough hitters in the lineup to overcome any offensive shortcomings.

I think things have changed since then. Thus, a second baseman that can hit may have a better chance getting into the lineup than a great defensive SS in many cases.

Weaver's mantra was "pitching, defense and three run homers. Mark Belanger, Dave Johnson and Paul Blair provided the up the middle defense. The other guys smacked the ball.

The change in the game is Bill James' Sabermetrics has shown a player demonstrating a certain level of offensive ability offsets his defensive liabilities.

I attribute the change in the game to the increased size of the players---they are bigger , better and more athletic---it has nothing to do with cyber/book theories


Just better players

quote:

Originally posted by TRhit:
it has nothing to do with cyber/book theories


Just better players

I just listened to a MLB Scouting director as to how they decide who to draft for position. Besides the scouts input (physical, mental attributes and upside), all of their hit balls are charted and graphed and then put in to percentages. I don't think position is the key determination in their decsion, but how they hit.

quote:

all of their hit balls are charted and graphed and then put in to percentages.

1500 players drafted, I haven't given those scouts enough credit as that's a lot players to chart, graph, and analyze . Do they chart-n-graph pitchers also?

quote:

Originally posted by rz1:

quote:

all of their hit balls are charted and graphed and then put in to percentages.

1500 players drafted, I haven't given those scouts enough credit as that's a lot players to chart, graph, and analyze . Do they chart-n-graph pitchers also?

Yes pitchers are evaluated in a different process based upon the type of pitcher they are. Example, a ground ball/fly out pitcher is given more/less points depending on if his team has a strong or weak defense behind him and where the percentage of his balls land GO vs. FO.

As far as 1500 spots, I doubt that, but I don't sit in on draft meetings that occur before the draft, but most likely would be based upon who they are interested in drafting, just like any other team. This was just an explanation on their mixing the new with old and mathmatics comes into the equation.

My son was drafted twice and the numerous other Northern players that I watch being scouted must not be taken as seriously as others drafted because never have I seen a player charted as intensively as you mention. That includes one indoor bullpen of my sons where there were 20 crosscheckers in attendance and not one had a pencil in hand. I feel kind of cheated if that's not the status quo way of scouting. They probably had a lunch lunch/meeting scheduled nearby and were just killing time.

rz,
As always you are doubting my word, that's ok, I have no reason to make it up. This is obviously work the scouts are sent out to do.
This has nothing to do with one team doing things a better way, or the status quo, I was responding to TR, my understanding is that there's a lot more that goes into scouting these days.
Not sure why you brought your son's team into this, I did not bring mine into it or mentioned the teams involved. For some reason you are always on the defense for some reason or another.
FYI, I was at a HS game the last week and one scout was basically doing the same, charting. He had his notebook with teams and names and a page for each player. It was very interesting. I do beleive this team has been using this method for a few years,with success. My understanding it is a variation of moneyball.
Lots of teams are changing attitudes and approaches.
If you don't beleive me, you can do your own search.

There is one problem though---it is all too sterile---it leaves out heart and guts and desire

Like mentioned read money ball. very detailed about how analysts put in all sorts of numbers, and data and have some sophisticated way of coming up with their formulas.

tpm,
Did I say I was doubting your word? I was just sharing my experiences. As far as bringing son into it............he was part of that first hand experience. I have no reason to make it up, just pointing out that not everyone does thing one way.

I also agree it leaves out the intangiles.But then so does listing HS players sizes on a blog and nothing else is mentioned.Like HOW big are your hs players. Who really cares.or as I have been told many times isnt supposed to matter.

quote:

Originally posted by fanofgame:
Like mentioned read money ball. very detailed about how analysts put in all sorts of numbers, and data and have some sophisticated way of coming up with their formulas.

I agree that so true when assessing pro talent but I don't know if the scouting resources are there to do a full analysis into the draftable players. As with any data analysis it relies on numbers, and I wonder if scouts can accrue those number in few times they see a prospect.

Yes thats probably true.Maybe a more diluted method.

quote:

Originally posted by TPM:

quote:

Originally posted by TRhit:
it has nothing to do with cyber/book theories


Just better players

I just listened to a MLB Scouting director as to how they decide who to draft for position. Besides the scouts input (physical,mental attributes and upside), all of their hit balls are charted and graphed and then put in to percentages. I don't think position is the key determination in their decsion, but how they hit.

Did I say that the scouts evaluation was not considered?

quote:

Originally posted by rz1:
tpm,
Did I say I was doubting your word? I was just sharing my experiences. As far as bringing son into it............he was part of that first hand experience. I have no reason to make it up, just pointing out that not everyone does thing one way.

Where did I mention everyone does it one way?

Who said you did. All I was doing was pointing out to the group how my experiences differed from yours.

Regarding the original question, I thought for a long time that staying at one position in high school [mainly shortstop] was the only way my son would get any looks by college coaches. A lot of the discussion on this topic earlier has suggested I would have been right to think that. Since my son had a coach's son in front of him who had considerably less talent, he played second base his freshman and sophomore years in high school. Then the head coach decided to put him in center field his junior year when our number 2 pitcher pitched and in right field when our number 4 pitcher pitched. So he only played second base half the time. His senior year he played shortstop exclusively [because the coach's son was gone and so was the assistant coach] and made first team all state infield.

I talked to 3 different college coaches that had actually seen him play who had talked to local scouts that had seen him play and, though the three coaches certainly did not agree on eveything, they all did say one of the reasons they were so high on my son was because he could play so many different (in their words* "critical skill positions". They all looked at him as a second baseman but liked the fact that he could play shortstop and/or centerfield equally well should injury, grades or some other issue come up in the future and require him to fill in.

So my opinion now is, at least in my son's case, playing multiple positions in high school helped him. For once, I was wrong. But, as you can all see, I am big enough to admit it when I am.

Regarding the moneyball/sabarmetrics direction the most recent posts on this thread have taken us, I must agree with RJM, TPM and fanofgame and disagree with TRhit and, to a more limited degree, rz1. First, to say that the important new "change" in baseball scouting is size (I assume height and weight) and that "it has nothing to do with cyber/book theories" is just plain wrong on so many levels that it boggles the mind. Not wishing to put words in anyone's mouth, I believe that what RJM, TPM and fanofgame were saying was scouts are being asked to do a lot more analysis these days other than hold up a radar gun and chart pitches. At least in certain MLB organizations that is the case. It is true that Bill James and other "moneyball" advocates have had an impact on the game regarding not only scouting but also player development. And as more and more teams add sabarmetrics to their drafting and development equations [which does not imply that they are necessarily taking whatever they already do away from that equation], the number of young geeks and computer literate fans out there hired to chart such things either by MLB organizations or for statistic's people in companies working independent of MLB scouts and the scouting bureau will continue to increase in number and influence.

It could be the case, as rz1 states, that he saw 20 crosscheckers watching his son take indoor bullpen and not one of them had a pencil in hand. Who am I to doubt his word? For I have seen a local scout come to a game and just hold up a radar gun for the first inning on both pitchers and not take a note. When I asked him what he was doing, he said a favor for the high school coach. However, I have also seen this scout and other local scouts in my area not only charting pitches but tracking in a rough manner where any hits were going that were hit off that pitcher. And, for the life of me, I fail to see how this type of scouting is "too sterile" and "leaves out heart and guts and desire" any more than an emphasis on size alone leaves out such intangibles. The smart MLB organizations will use every tool available to them or they will be passed by. And it will, like Regan economics, eventually trickle down to the college level and the very best high school programs. They will either learn that they must understand this new way of evaluating offensive and defensive value or they won't. But the change is as inevitable as global warming.

TW344

Good post.

BTW, there are a few Scouting Directors out there that have never scouted a player before they became an SD.

I just recently learned that the Cardinals Souting Director is actually a business anaylst. He is the one who makes eh decisions regarding milb development as well. If that doesn't prove things are changing, not sure what else could.

TW you have a pm.

quote:

I just recently learned that the Cardinals Souting Director is actually a business anaylst. He is the one who makes eh decisions regarding milb development as well. If that doesn't prove things are changing, not sure what else could.

I knew somebody was making the decision's for me.
I guess I'm doing OK.
EH

Oh ya! Demand by position.
If a player only plays one position, He is limiting his ability to play the game.
The game is meant to be fun when growing up.
And in order to learn the game .
You need to play all the position's.
There's plenty of time to specialize later.


EH

How can charting where the ball goes, etc. mean anything unless the competition is at a high and equal level?

I can understand this in college, but in high school what a chart shows against weak competition could be completely different than what the chart shows against highest level competition.

If scouting was only about size anyone could be a scout. It's still all about recognizing talent and projecting talent. I can't see how the charts would be very accurate in high school baseball. The guy with the best looking chart might not have the necessary ability to play professional baseball.

While baseball continues to improve technically and mathamatics become more important... Actually mostly involving MLB players and performance. I've never heard of James or anyone else applying their statistics and formulas to high school players.

The top high school players will continue being scouted as they have been. The Cardinals may have hired a businessman, but the scout whose watching the games is not likely to be someone new to baseball.

TW
I said the game changed because of the size and better talent of the players---anyone can see that---forget the money ball aspects et al


I totally agree with PG---charts on a HS player are worth squat----simple fact is players today are bigger and better athletes and that by itself changes the game


The same things still prevail when looking at a player
Can he mash ?
Can he run?
How good is his arm?
Does he get dirty?

PG,
What you say about HS players may be true. I am sure just like everything else taken into consideration, competition or lack of it is one of them.
Unfortunetly, gauging against HS competition is tough.
If this doesn't happen in HS, why did I watch a scout sit and chart at a HS game?
And nowhere was it mentioned that this replaced the scouts input as to what they normally do.
And personally I never said TR or anyone elses post was right or wrong, just adding something to the discussion.

TPM,

I believe you saw it.

Just giving my opinion, as well.

Was this a full time scout or a "fan" scout?

Charting is common in advanced scouting. ie. scouting an upcoming opponent.

Also was he charting a pitcher (which would make a bit more sense) or hitters? Also if a player is a early round prospect, I can see gathering as much information as possible.

PG:

I can only tell you what I saw. It was the AAA West Virginia High School Championship game last year and the scout was an area scout for the Pirates. He has been around for at least 2 millennium. [Wait a minute. I have been around for 2 millennium]. I assume he was charting a particular pitcher because he was only doing it every half inning. Sometimes when the game is boring, I watch the scouts. I figure you just might learn something. Maybe he was told by someone in his organization to do it. Come to think of it, he didn't look very happy about it. I don't know. But I saw it.

I don't think Bill James has time to work on high school statistics since he is a Special Assistant to the owner or someone in the Boston Red Sox orgainzation [adding a bit of levity here]. I think charting might have some value at the high school age level and above but I do not see how charting a pitcher in one game will help anyone. It would seem to me you need to capture that kind of information over a period of time before it would have much use for anything or anybody at any level. Sure there will be weak competition and better/equal competition and that will make a difference in one or a small number of games but if it could be done over a long period of time those statistical anomalies should even out. But what MLB team or College scout could afford to do that for even the most highly touted high school or college prospect? It would have to be done through the high school coach somehow when he had a player that he thought was of that caliber. And whoever did it would have to have training in order to maintain consistency with the charts.

As one example, I assume that the ground ball/fly ball ratios of two top level prospect high school pitchers over a period of time might be one of the deciding factors in a decision to draft/sign/scholarship one pitcher over another, most everything else you know about them being equal. I also assume if a hitter pulls everything middle in with great power but grounds out against good pitching on the outside third of the plate and another hitter with equal "tools" can consistently take the outside pitch to the opposite field with power, the middle of the plate pitch up the middle with power and pull the inside pitch to the appropriate field with power that might make a difference in who you draft/sign/scholarship. Then the question becomes, how does the GM and his staff know that player A has a better gb/fb ratio or hits to all fields with power consistently and player B can't if someone hasn't charted them? Yes, you have the report with the opinion of the area scout [who may have seen him 10 times at most] and the cross-checker [who may have seen him once or twice?] regarding future projection, etc.. But is that all you need with the kind of money and risk at stake in both the professional and "amateur" markets? I think not having that type of information gives certain MLB organizations faced with those choices a lot of headaches and they are trying to find a way to make those choices easier for them but time will tell if they are on that right track or a passing fad. I, however, am betting of the former.

TR: Let me play Jon Stewart of the Daily Show for just a minute here. Today, February 25, 2008 you say "I said the game changed because of the size and better talent of the players. . . ." Two days ago on February 23, you said "I attribute the change in the game to the increased size of the players---they are bigger , better and more athletic---it has nothing to do with cyber/book theories." Now, had you added the word talent after the word "better" [which you did today] to the statement you made on February 23 [which you did not], I would have said you were right and agreed with you [except, of course, for the cyber/book theory slam]. The argument you and I have over and over and over ad nauseum is simply this. HOW DO YOU MEASURE TALENT? Is it, as you seem to constantly preach, solely based on the 5 tool player and the goal of every organization [MLB, College, Travel Teams, Showcases, etc.] is to find 8 or more 5 tool players for every position all of whom can "mash", "run", "throw" and "get dirty"? and play ball to the exclusion of EVERY OTHER CRITERIA. Or is OBP, SLG, OPS, quickness, defensive range, ability to steal bases successfully, accuracy, release time and taking a shower at least once a week also NECESSARY ELEMENTS [except for the shower thing] in the who shall we choose and who shall we let go by the board equation at any level. You say no and I say yes. So be it.

I concede there are many MLB organizations, College Programs, Travel teams & High Schools that believe exactly like you do. I will even say the vast majority do. But there are others at this moment in control of MLB organizations that are saying 'You know what; I can't find a 5 tool player for every position and the bench. So, after the market runs out of 5 tool players I am going to have to choose which talents I draft/sign/keep and which ones are valued at more than they are worth by others in this baseball market [those I trade or release]. I need to find some individual talent that not everybody measures or sees as having value that actually contributes great value to any team at any level. And since it isn't that important to my competition, I can obtain that talent at a price/cost/scholarship offer far less than the actual value that individual adds to our organization." That is called moneyball, sabarmetrics, whatever you want to call it; that is it. You say, this business philosophy when applied to baseball is meaningless, nothing, worthless, etc. Fine. You have your opinion and I have mine. But when you say it; don't expect me to run and hide. Because I think everyone that is interested in this issue and reading the comments on this site should be exposed to both sides of this ongoing debate.

As Minnie Pearl used to say, "We're all threw now."

TW344

i was at a game where the scout had his laptop out and was charting and a foul-ball crash-landed on his keyboard, bounced up (ricoched) into the LCD panel and busted it with force and you could see the liquid inside the LCD screen running down the crack
Adding insult to injury was that his coffee was then hit by the same ball after it cracked his screen. The coffee went all over him and a little girl in front of him.

Lesson: Chart with a clipboard!

TW

Where do you get that about the 5 tool players ?--- you don't have to like me or what I say but DON"T EVER PUT WORDS IN MY MOUTH---

My son was a SS/P, and was converted to CF his 1st Varsity season as a freshman. His HS coach played D1 and MILB, and suggested to us he would be eventually shifted to the outfield in college and/or the Pros.

Could he, and 1000's of others play any infield position if called upon? YES

Could he, and 1000's of others strap on the tools of ignorance in a pinch if needed? YES

Could he, and 1000's of others take the bump in a pinch? YES

All of the posts in this thread have validity, stop squabbling though....

The question was supply and demand. Based on observations at the college level, especially D1, it appears a little offense is given up for strong up the middle defense. The 4 corner guys better rake the baseball, and they all were probably once shortstops, except the lefties....

player who rakes will be on a college roster somewhere---they do use the DH---hitting will always open doors

quote:

hitting will always open doors

Thats probably the most accurate statement made yet in this thread.
I don't care how good your defensive skills are.
If you can't hit, You will see limited playing time because of it.
EH

EH


I can only speak from my own experiences

A kid who can hit will be given a position and the team will live with the deficiences---it happens in MLB all the time

quote:

As one example, I assume that the ground ball/fly ball ratios of two top level prospect high school pitchers over a period of time might be one of the deciding factors in a decision to draft/sign/scholarship one pitcher over another, most everything else you know about them being equal.

Theoretically I couldn't argue with anything you posted but I feel that this is an "armchair quarterback" line of thinking and not followed throughout the business model. Organizations may point the press in that this is "the direction" but that would defy "scouting secrets" that organizations go to the grave with. I do data collection for a job and these are the problems I see

1. IMO, you cannot collect data on one side unless you have corresponding data from the other. Ex: You watch two pitchers for lets say 4 outings (thats minimal data) and one has a gb/fb ratio 2:1 and the other 4:1. The first things I'm going to ask is can I see the hitting data from those teams they played. And, can I see the stats of other + pitchers who played against them. My bet is those numbers are not available, thus making the stat inconclusive, and from a mathamatic standpoint inconclusive data is worth less than the paper it is printed on.

2. Hs teams play ~20 games a year, you better be living in his back yard to be able to get enough data and if you are there, aren't you missing many other players games because you need data from them also. Or, do we only chart only a few "special players" and leave the rest to "people charting"? The worst thing an area scout can do is let one slip through the net.

3. Are those sitting in the stands charting ab's and pitches "bird dog" scouts or unpaid "wannabes" who are collecting data for the area guy in order for the real scout to get a better feel on the prospect without getting chartboys personal opinion?

What happens if you get data from 1 scout in NC and another from MN and the numbers show the MN guy is way better statistically than the NC guy. How can you weigh those stats. or is this where you throw them out the window, the next question is when do you throw them out the window? Now you have the worst of all worlds...conflicting stats. People can sit down and negotiate ideas, numbers cannot.

Scouting is a non-exact science unless all of your data is coming from a similar source. MLB can do that, there are X number of teams facing each other, with similar talent levels, and after enough data samples are collected intelligent results can be compared.

IMO, At the HS level and even at the college level to a degree the "eye of the beholder" is the best tool and if you start questioning that tool with unfounded numbers you're breaking data collection rules and going into guess mode because of inconclusive data, and inconclusive data leads to bad guesses.

TW,
Check your pm box.

rz1:

I can't really disagree with what you are saying either. In fact I think you said it very well. This whole sabermatrics thing is in its infancy; especially when it comes to how you put the theory into practice. There will be experiments that fail *Paul Depodesto with the Dodgers, for example]. Should your bird dog scout be out there looking at only one kid and charting pitches for every game or is his job to look once or twice at every prospect's name that comes up? An excellent question. When should the area scout be called in and what should he be doing? Is either scout sufficiently trained to chart the necessary data accurately or will the product be worthless? These are questions that many. certainly not all, MLB organizatons are flirting with. But almost all those organizations are saying that they do not intend to throw the baby out with the bathwater. The scout's traditional place in baseball will not be replaced by computer geeks in my opinion in any MLB organization. But there will be computer geeks hired that will add something to the draft/sign equation. And college and high school coaches that recognize there are pro teams out there that want this data to make their draft decision easier will be helping their players if they can figure out a way to provide it. The forms for charting in this manner are available NOW. The question is, who is already using it?

Do you and I really disagree that much? The information can be valuable, we seem to agre on that, but does the time spent on obtaining it outweigh the cost if you are using your own scouts? Probably not. But what if the work is done by independent companies hiring trained observers that sell the data to MLB organizations, maybe even college organizations? I believe that is beginning to happen. Is the market for such a product here yet? We shall see what the outcome will be.

TW344

quote:

Originally posted by switchitter:
i was at a game where the scout had his laptop out and was charting and a foul-ball crash-landed on his keyboard, bounced up (ricoched) into the LCD panel and busted it with force and you could see the liquid inside the LCD screen running down the crack
Adding insult to injury was that his coffee was then hit by the same ball after it cracked his screen. The coffee went all over him and a little girl in front of him.

Lesson: Chart with a clipboard!

His deep pocketed mlb franchise should have gotten him a toughbook!

My friend has used and abused his for ages, not to mention it being dropped down a couple flights of stairs and still being intact. Maybe a plexiglass cover on the lcd screen?