The tooliest player of them all

Don't see how he considers Bryce Harper as a five tool player, unless I misread because his speed is not really above major league average.

As noted, the z-scores for speed come from FSR, which is a subjective measure from a wide array of people. I will state, however, that I've clocked Harper regularly running approximately league average times (with a range from slightly above to slight below, as expected). He has very good instincts, which play up his abilities on the bases and his route efficiencies in the outfield (which are continuously getting better as he grows into the position and continued to get more comfortable). 

The notion that there is an r-squared relationship between tools and tangible results at the MLB level is a dramatically important fact that trickles all the way from free agent negotiations to amateur scouting. That is the most significant aspect of this piece, in my opinion.

"The two most valuable tools are hitting for average and hitting for power, with throwing and fielding close behind. Speed, it appears, is important but not necessary. A player can be successful if he lacks any one tool, but a player who lacks speed is likely to be better than a player who lacks, say, power, if all else was equal."

If this is accurate (and I don't know if it is) then why is the 60 always done first at a showcase/pro style workout???

For a position player focused on offense... I've always considered speed a more important tool than glove or arm.  Pitchers and catchers aside obviously, but SS and CF will usually come with some decent speed as part of the pckage.  And for the other 5 spots, I would think speed ranks behind power and avg. but outweighs arm and glove in importance.  But doesn't sound like that's the case according to the article... which doesn't really make sense to me.  But it's sabremetrics, so it MUST be right!

The reasoning seems circular.  The article is saying that the most important tools are hitting for average and hitting for power. It determines that by looking at WAR.  But if WAR values hitting for average and hitting for power, then of course, those are the two most important variables.

(I'm not saying they are or aren't the most important - I'm just saying that I'm not sure the article provides proof.)

A couple thoughts....just about every sport values/overvalues an exact measurable.  The second is you can't teach it.

I think of speed as a "second order" tool that makes other tools better.  I would expect average, slugging, OPS to be better for a player with better speed - i.e., he is more effective at turning ground outs into hits and singles into doubles.  I'd also expect speed to make a player better defensively.

Take your pick....Michael Bourn or Tony Gwynn?

That one is easy now and illustrates the point.  I wonder what the grade sheets would have been if they both showed up at 15 yo to the same tryout?

I don't know what Gwynn ran as a prospect, but he was much thinner when he was young and played basketball in college. However, I doubt he had Bourn type speed.

Gwynn stole 56 bases in 1987, 5 fewer than Bourn's highest total.

It's difficult to compare eras. When Gwynn stole 56 he was one of five in the NL to steal 50+. The leader stole 109. When Bourn stole 61 he was the NL leader. No one else stole more than 40.

Biggest disappointment...

Athletic body

6.3 - 60 yards

weak arm  

can't hit

Can teach hitting, can't teach speed. At least that's the word around town.

I heard Randy Johnson aka Big Unit was given that nickname for being one of the "tooliest"...

nono,

They get all the fastest runners who can't hit and teach them to hit.

I'll take all the best hitters with the most power and teach them to run a little faster.

Best line I ever heard on this subject was from my son's coach referring to a former nameless player who apparently repeatedly had brain cramps in the field and on the basepaths." Never seen this before he is a 5 tool player ; he just can't play baseball!"  

Ah... The old base path cholesterol huh? No thank you. Speed kills. So does those power hitters who are in a ten game slump.

My two cents. When Euwing Kaufman, Owner of the Kansas City Royals who were playoff bound just about every year at this point in time, decided to set up a baseball academy back in the day, one of the first, in Sarasota , Fl he put Charlie Lau in charge. He was given anything he wanted, whatever he thought was needed to teach baseball and try and develop Major League talent. At the end he lamented, "we got every left halfback and track star they could find but very few baseball players". Hitting a baseball well is something special that not everyone or every good athlete for that matter can do or master. Speed is just one tool, and IMHO not the most important one. As PG said give me guys who can hit and I will teach them to run faster.

I'll echo PG's thoughts, and expand a bit more:

When evaluating selectable talent for a draft, it's very rare to come across an amateur player with a plus future hit tool. Therefore, the majority of the time, talent evaluators must prefer "pure athletes," because of the assumption that development will be easier. However, when you come across the aforementioned plus hit tool, that player will almost always be ranked higher on your pref. list than another player with a lesser hit tool. 

Even further down the line, at the big league level, hitters have the responsibility of getting on base. Better hitters get on base more. No need to have speed if you can't use it.

Speed is great. I love athletes. But athletes can't always hit. When you find a true hitter, it's a wonderful thing.

First round

Prince Fielder

Lots of first round picks are average or below average runners.

The fastest runner we have ever timed, was not drafted.

Speed is extremely important, but only if you can hit.

Joey Votto is a below average runner. He was drafted in the 2nd round because he could hit.

The best hitters go early in the draft, the best runners often go undrafted.  Sometimes you get a McCutchen or Trout that can do both.