What if ...

In other words Old school scouting vs Sabermetrics.

In virtually every conversation I've ever seen on this topic the whole subject of "projecting" what individual players will become drives the evaluation business for offering College Scholarships and professional drafting.

A HS Senior pitcher that is 6'5" and 190 lbs with big hips and broad shoulders throwing 86 MPH probably will project higher than another senior that is 5'11" and 185 lbs throwing 89. The obvious reason is the 1st player may fill out to 225 lbs and add 6-8 MPH while the other pitchr is maxed out and may not have the body to withstand the abuse.

I would agree that at some point this stops being a signifcant factor but that would be at the end of the college career at age 21 or 22. From that point forward all that matters is performance.

I think the helmets should be designed to be completely enclosed so that it provides some anonymity and protection for the face and head.

Stats,

I would want to know if it was a strong 21 year old or a out of shape 50 year old. That would definitely change any evaluation I would make.

The feet and the hands are already focal points for scouts. The other things are also important. I know you are an information fan! So wouldn't you want as much information as you can possibly get?

I think the more information you have, the better you can evaluate a player. But if you can ever invent that invisible suit, I will buy one for sure.

quote:

Originally posted by Stats4Gnats:
...most of the things that bias us when we’re evaluating “talent” would be gone, and we’d be stuck with evaluating performance.

Under those conditions, would the evaluations those players received from coaches or scouts change, and would those evaluations be any better or any worse?

Yes. Worse.
When a coach or scout is evaluating talent, whether it be for positional direction, depth chart slotting, determining what level of play they belong and/or may project to, etc., etc., everything matters. Everything is factored into the thought process. The more info one has, the more accurate the evaluations can be. Performance and stats of the day are just one piece of the equation. Sometimes a meaningful piece, sometimes not at all.

To provide a little perspective on why this question was asked (my opinion) the OP is the father of a 5'9", 145, 80mph throwing all conference high school pitcher. When this kid was in high school (six years ago) the father was very upset his kid wasn't getting college and pro looks because he was getting hitters out. If I recollect there were also grade and discipline issues along with dreadlocks and a girlfriend with purple hair.

quote:

Originally posted by Stats4Gnats:
For the purposes of discussion, ASSUME there was a “suit” one could wear at a ballgame, that when you looked at the players, the only thing that would be visible would be the hands and feet, and of course anything on them or held by them such as cleats, a glove, or a bat. Also, ASSUME that when wearing that suit, there would be no way to get information that would allow the wearer to figure out who the players were, such as someone mentioning their name or what team they played on. I know at 1st it would seem a stupid exercise, but stay with me for a few minutes.

Think about it. There’d be no way to know if the pitcher was 5’6” or 6’6”. No way to know if the hitter was a Latino or an oriental. No way to know if the runner was a strong 21YO or an out of shape 50YO. IOW, most of the things that bias us when we’re evaluating “talent” would be gone, and we’d be stuck with evaluating performance.

Under those conditions, would the evaluations those players received from coaches or scouts change, and would those evaluations be any better or any worse?

In college I dated performance. I married the complete package

I am as big a fan of sabermetrics as anybody out there, but just as the old school scouting community has to (and has) adapted to allowing sabermetric performance analysis have a place at the table, it would be a huge step backwards to ignore much of what informs the traditional scouting / projectability decision on a player (which is what I view the "invisible" suit as doing). The analysis would necessarily become much more of a snapshot in time, based on observed performance, and IMO would be much worse because of (a) the inherent small sample sizes involved in making decisions based on observed performance, and (b) the inability to see anything that goes to projectability.

Players who "don't fit the mold" certainly do have an uphill battle (probably undersized pitchers as much as anybody), and baseball still has a long ways to go to using performance analysis in a fully complementary way with old school scouting, but I think coaches would be worse off going all performance analysis than they would be with all old school scouting.

But why choose? You don't have to.....

quote:

Originally posted by RJM:
To provide a little perspective on why this question was asked (my opinion) the OP is the father of a 5'9", 145, 80mph throwing all conference high school pitcher. When this kid was in high school (six years ago) the father was very upset his kid wasn't getting college and pro looks because he was getting hitters out. If I recollect there were also grade and discipline issues along with dreadlocks and a girlfriend with purple hair.

I have re-read your post several times and cannot tell if you are being tongue in cheek or not.

Are you really saying Stats4Gnats son was all of the above? If so, what on earth does a girlfriend with purple hair have to do with the price of tea in China?

quote:

what on earth does a girlfriend with purple hair have to do with the price of tea in China?

With bad grades, dreadlocks and a discipline issues don't you think a coach/scout is looking at all the peripherals? Why do you think college prospects are advised to clean up their Facebook pages?

quote:

Originally posted by PGStaff:
Stats,

I would want to know if it was a strong 21 year old or a out of shape 50 year old. That would definitely change any evaluation I would make.

The feet and the hands are already focal points for scouts. The other things are also important. I know you are an information fan! So wouldn't you want as much information as you can possibly get?

I think the more information you have, the better you can evaluate a player. But if you can ever invent that invisible suit, I will buy one for sure.

I’m trying to figger out how to say something without insulting anyone. If I fail in that, please forgive me.

I’m assuming we both understand that the 29YO age difference was to accentuate the idea. Let’s talk about a field evaluator needing to know if he was watching a 21 or a 50 YO. If the reason for the evaluation was to find the “best” player who was less than 25, it would make a tremendous difference. But if the reason was to find the best base runner, age would be immaterial.

Someone else faced with this question pointed out that had Fausto Carmona’s true age been known, it may well have meant he’d never have been offered a contract. Other foreign players have been in the same situation where they lied about their age in order to enhance their chances of being picked, and that’s really no different than them lying about their name. There’s a fear that the truth about something having nothing what-so-ever to do with baseball skills will reduce the chances, and it proves that that fear is justified. Look at how much of a difference there would have been in the game’s history if only skills rather than skin color mattered.

But let’s stick to the one specific thing of the evaluator needing to know age. Why? They’re not the one offing a ‘ship or a contract to anyone. They’re only the ones giving someone above them a group of names to choose from. Yes, it helps those higher level officials to not have to wade through hundreds or thousands of names, but as far as providing the best players, that’s a subject for debate.

Stats4Gnats, I think it really comes down to the things I talked about earlier: the snapshot in time of performance (yes, you can say Player X was better than Player Y on the given day or days you observed him, and can tell some but not all of how well that day represented his abilities overall by looking at stats) vs. projectability. Age (and maturity) have a lot to do with that - not so much for the evaluator, as you say, but certainly for the person who has to make a decision on who to spend resources on into the future.

Even just on the sabermetrics side, you need to know this - we have fairly well understood age-related decline rates for pro players, and for the most part understand when players should be expected to peak. If we don't know age, we can't apply that knowlege appropriately.

I am not sure I follow this, and the purpose, if a scout does not provide names of the best players (that fall within their budget and skill level they are looking for) to the organization he could lose his job.
I am in agreement with most everyone else, it's important to evaluate everything, and have all of the facts.
Age might be an important factor, while the younger player may be more talented and healthier, the older one is more experienced. Yadi comes to mind, going into FA, you can't get better than Yadi, with bad knees and an aging player, he has the experience that the young players lack, for his current team anyway. It's all so subjective and I would imagine that most scouts draft also for future potential? I heard an interview with former scouting director Jeff Luhnow (now GM of Astros) a few years back about how they incorporate sabermetrics into scouting, very interesting. Very big part of it, but in the end, the scouts expertise and instincts ties the knot.

Age has an importance, just as everything else does, including "the pretty face" and purple hair!

Interesting discussion on another board about ranking prospects that haven't reached the ML level yet and why. Sometimes its easier to see this when you look at the player close up and watched them a few times, if you have the experience you know that these players are NOT average, and that is why they were drafted where they were and why they are top prospects in their organization.

If I fell off track, I apologize, just not sure of the purpose and why someone would just evaluate on performance alone.

quote:

Originally posted by TPM:
…If I fell off track, I apologize, just not sure of the purpose and why someone would just evaluate on performance alone.

No reason to apologize for anything.

quote:

I am not sure I follow this, and the purpose, if a scout does not provide names of the best players (that fall within their budget and skill level they are looking for) to the organization he could lose his job.

Why do you think evaluating on nothing other than baseball skills would not do that? In fact, if anything he’d be sure to concentrate on skills, rather than other things that might bias his judgment. If you want the players with the BEST skills, then skills is what should be judged. If you want the best citizens, then citizenship is what should be judged.

I wasn’t indicting anyone or anything about the evaluation process, other than to say its biased to a great degree. To me, the primary factor should always be skills. Once that’s been determined, its perfectly understandable that other questions be answered to try to make the best fit possible.

quote:

Under those conditions, would the evaluations those players received from coaches or scouts change, and would those evaluations be any better or any worse?

Yes, they would change. Some would be better and some worse.

The challenge in evaluating, I would think, is trying to "project" both where and when the athlete will peak. How big, strong and fast can he become and where, when where the proverbial "Peter Principle" apply?

Knowing that, todays and even tomorrows performance isn't necessarily relevant. Players will tell you that the minor leagues are full of players with MLB skills. The difference between the two groups is that the minor leaguers haven't yet demonstrated advanced skills on a regular basis. They have peaks and valleys in their performance.

I saw a great piece on Tom Brady this past weekend. All the reasons so many Teams missed on him and how a late 6th round pick, with six QB's taken ahead of him, wound up being a 3-time MVP and S-Bowl winner. He was the slowest athlete with the weakest physical skills at the NFL combines. No one got it right. Even the Patriots where unsure wondering why his own College team didn't initially think he was the best QB at the start of his Senior year.

So, determining how much heart the athlete has, when he will stop getting better (obviously Brady continued improving long after he reached the NFL initially) and when will he physically mature, all play into the equation when trying to figure out what you will end up with. HS performance, and even College performance aren't always enough..

There are a lot of things that go into who a team drafts and who the don't or why a top college program offers to and who they don't. It isn't always about who has the best skills or most talent, and a winning pitcher in HS may or may not have what is needed at the next college or HS level.

Stats,
I am sure that this comes as no surprise to you.

quote:

Originally posted by EdgarFan:
Stats4Gnats, I think it really comes down to the things I talked about earlier: the snapshot in time of performance (yes, you can say Player X was better than Player Y on the given day or days you observed him, and can tell some but not all of how well that day represented his abilities overall by looking at stats) vs. projectability. Age (and maturity) have a lot to do with that - not so much for the evaluator, as you say, but certainly for the person who has to make a decision on who to spend resources on into the future.

Even just on the sabermetrics side, you need to know this - we have fairly well understood age-related decline rates for pro players, and for the most part understand when players should be expected to peak. If we don't know age, we can't apply that knowlege appropriately.

Trust me, if anyone understands that metrics and performance are both directly related to age, I do. But let’s for another second look at metrics as part of the process for a HS player. I can’t begin to estimate the number of times I’ve heard people, say HS stats can’t be counted on as an evaluation tool. As far as I can tell, they’re basically not used more much other than to put a player on the radar. After that, it’s what the evaluator says.

It may be someone at a PG event or something like the Stanford Camp, but basically they’re using a snapshot of the player rather than an IMAX film of his entire career. Even a scout checking out some HS kid during the season is only getting snapshots on the days he observes that kid. Of course I may well be wrong, but I’ve been doing this a long time, and its very rarely a scout will ask for stats. Specific stats maybe, like K:BB for a pitcher, but other than that, from what I can tell stats aren’t playing much of a part in a ‘ship or a contract. I’m not saying that’s a good thing, just what I’ve observed.

quote:

Originally posted by Stats4Gnats:

"Why do you think evaluating on nothing other than baseball skills would not do that ('provide names of the best players that fall within their budget and skill level they are looking for')? In fact, if anything he’d be sure to concentrate on skills, rather than other things that might bias his judgment. If you want the players with the BEST skills, then skills is what should be judged." ... To me, the primary factor should always be skills. Once that’s been determined, its perfectly understandable that other questions be answered to try to make the best fit possible."

I think most of us are talking right past each other. To even be in the conversation, you are talking about players who are all at a relatively equal skill level. It will always be rough, especially with young players, because how they are performing (or what their stats look like) NOW is not always indicative of what they will be doing a year or two or three from now. So, just because one kid goes 9-13 in a showcase (but maybe had some "seeing eye" hits) while another kid went 3-15 but hit the ball hard consistently, often means the stats aren't going to tell you much much. The evaluator/scout sees these players as roughly equal, and wants to have the kinds of things your "invisibility suit" would deny him to make a better and more informed choice between the two.

I think maybe you are arguing more about what should or should not be considered "roughly equal" performance between two players before intangible and non-performance-related qualities should be used to break the tie. In my opinion, it is a vast chasm in measurable differences that probably don't make a difference, because: (a) in amateur ball, it is difficult to gauge the quality of opponent two different players will face (this is obviously better understood at higher levels of D1 and MiLB); (b) the younger the player, the more likely that maturity/growth will intervene to change things, sooner; and (c) the evaluator usually only has a small window from which to judge, so the observable differences in performance/statistics are just as likely to be random noise as anything statistically significant.

Not sure if you feel I am addressing your concerns, but this is my $0.02 on the subject. As little as scouts see before making an evaluation, it is not very surprising that (at least at lower/amateur levels) they put much more stock in the old school scounting side of things.

quote:

Originally posted by TPM:
There are a lot of things that go into who a team drafts and who the don't or why a top college program offers to and who they don't. It isn't always about who has the best skills or most talent, and a winning pitcher in HS may or may not have what is needed at the next college or HS level.

Stats,
I am sure that this comes as no surprise to you.

You’re correct. There are many many things that go into a choice, and that many times having the best baseball skills isn’t what counts the most. A good example would be a ‘ship. Say college coach has one ‘ship available and he needs a 3B. He has it narrowed down to one of two players. The 1st is a great 3B, hits well and hits with power, and is pretty fast as well. The other is a pretty good fielder too, and while a pretty good hitter, doesn’t hit with much power, and only has average foot speed.

The 1st has barely made grades in HS, and doesn’t have very good SATs, and is from out of state. The other had good grades in HS, average SATs, and his family lives only 50 miles from the school. Little doubt its gonna be player #2 getting the offer, but that’s not what’s important. What’s important is, they both got the opportunity to be chosen.

quote:

Originally posted by Stats4Gnats:
It may be someone at a PG event or something like the Stanford Camp, but basically they’re using a snapshot of the player rather than an IMAX film of his entire career. Even a scout checking out some HS kid during the season is only getting snapshots on the days he observes that kid. Of course I may well be wrong, but I’ve been doing this a long time, and its very rarely a scout will ask for stats. Specific stats maybe, like K:BB for a pitcher, but other than that, from what I can tell stats aren’t playing much of a part in a ‘ship or a contract. I’m not saying that’s a good thing, just what I’ve observed.

Do you think that a college coach offering a scholarship or a GM offering a player big money (millions perhaps) does it on just a snapshot of a game or two?
Sounds like you are saying that people aren't doing their jobs correctly and that in order to make a proper decision they should use stats inputted and taken by a parent?

quote:

Originally posted by Stats4Gnats:

"Trust me, if anyone understands that metrics and performance are both directly related to age, I do. But let’s for another second look at metrics as part of the process for a HS player. I can’t begin to estimate the number of times I’ve heard people, say HS stats can’t be counted on as an evaluation tool. As far as I can tell, they’re basically not used more much other than to put a player on the radar. After that, it’s what the evaluator says.

It may be someone at a PG event or something like the Stanford Camp, but basically they’re using a snapshot of the player rather than an IMAX film of his entire career. Even a scout checking out some HS kid during the season is only getting snapshots on the days he observes that kid. Of course I may well be wrong, but I’ve been doing this a long time, and its very rarely a scout will ask for stats. Specific stats maybe, like K:BB for a pitcher, but other than that, from what I can tell stats aren’t playing much of a part in a ‘ship or a contract. I’m not saying that’s a good thing, just what I’ve observed. "

Fair enough. I'll respond with only this, though: the snapshot that is based on performance analysis and statistics is more variable (and therefore less reliable) than the kinds of things that old-school scouting looks for, so that "snapshot" may be a bit more credible to the decision-makers.

To more of a degree than you know, though, you are preaching to the choir. I still don't think performance analysis is used as much as it could or should be, and most of the reasons for discounting it (including some I have spouted to you here) are more along the lines of "it's hard to do it right" than "it can't be done." If I were the evaluator, I'd want as much of BOTH kinds of information as I could get my hands on, and I'd be skeptical of a kid who is touted but has never really performed. [Like the Billy Beane line from "Moneyball" - the movie - which provides a good question in my book: "if the kid is such a good hitter, why doesn't he hit good?").

Stats,

the heck with this debate. I want one of those invisible suits. Only I want to cover the feet and the hands too.

Anyway, the number 1 thing that a scout looks for is ability. They try to find out how fast a player runs, how well he can hit, how much power he displays, how strong his arm is, how good he is at fielding. That part would be exactly the same in most cases with or without the invisible uniform.

They would miss things like body type and size, it would be impossible to see physical maturity. Chances are they would have to go by the size of the hands and feet to guess at these things. Also can you imagine how silly the dugout would look.

Besides... If players could be invisible it would really hurt attendance. Would the baseball cards be blank?

I know what your getting at, just having some fun. All information is important to me. That includes statistics and who there parents are. Once the physical ability is considered high level, makeup becomes the most important thing. Once a player is considered a very highest level prospect, the search turns to finding out anything negative. There is no such thing as unimportant information. If it were my money on the line, I'm talking to the neighbors!

quote:

Originally posted by PGStaff:
the heck with this debate. I want one of those invisible suits. Only I want to cover the feet and the hands too.

I see what I can do.

quote:

Anyway, the number 1 thing that a scout looks for is ability. They try to find out how fast a player runs, how well he can hit, how much power he displays, how strong his arm is, how good he is at fielding. That part would be exactly the same in most cases with or without the invisible uniform.

Believe me, I know that.

quote:

I know what your getting at, just having some fun. All information is important to me. That includes statistics and who there parents are. Once the physical ability is considered high level, makeup becomes the most important thing. Once a player is considered a very highest level prospect, the search turns to finding out anything negative. There is no such thing as unimportant information. If it were my money on the line, I'm talking to the neighbors!

Remember what I said about not trying to be insulting.

Of course as much information as possible is important. My only intention was to point out that that initial evaluation is often so fraught with bias, totally unintentional, its very hard to get past it.

quote:

Originally posted by TPM:
Do you think that a college coach offering a scholarship or a GM offering a player big money (millions perhaps) does it on just a snapshot of a game or two?

Absolutely not. I’m sure they come back over and over again.

quote:

Sounds like you are saying that people aren't doing their jobs correctly and that in order to make a proper decision they should use stats inputted and taken by a parent?

You’ve totally missed the boat on that one. Where did I even hit that stats, valid or not, be used to make the decision? However, if you think about it, how do players get on the radar?

quote:

Originally posted by EdgarFan:
Fair enough. I'll respond with only this, though: the snapshot that is based on performance analysis and statistics is more variable (and therefore less reliable) than the kinds of things that old-school scouting looks for, so that "snapshot" may be a bit more credible to the decision-makers.

I think what happens in discussions like this is, a lot of folks incorrectly assume I’m advocating dumping scouts as they exist, and replacing them with statistics, but I’m advocating no such thing.

quote:

To more of a degree than you know, though, you are preaching to the choir. I still don't think performance analysis is used as much as it could or should be, and most of the reasons for discounting it (including some I have spouted to you here) are more along the lines of "it's hard to do it right" than "it can't be done." If I were the evaluator, I'd want as much of BOTH kinds of information as I could get my hands on, and I'd be skeptical of a kid who is touted but has never really performed. [Like the Billy Beane line from "Moneyball" - the movie - which provides a good question in my book: "if the kid is such a good hitter, why doesn't he hit good?").

Not only is that question a good one, its opposite IMO is a good question as well. If the kid is such a lousy prospect, why does he have so much success?

I think this suit of which you speak would be really great if a scout or college coach wanted to put together the best possible team to play a game tomorrow. Most players will be more or less the same tomorrow as they are today (given that there are "bad days"). In that case, all that matters is their "now" ability, and if that fifty year old is better today then he'll likely be better tomorrow.

However, scouts and coaches aren't interested in tomorrow...they're interested in (at a minimum) a year down the road (and typically more like three to five years down the road). In that case, they have to know all these factors which your suit would prevent them from knowing.

Just yesterday, a PG guy said on twitter something to the effect of "if you want to give the impression that you're projectable, shave off your beard before attending a showcase". It's stuff like beards that give scouts clues as to where a player is in terms of physical maturation.

To conclude- for scouts projectability is huge, and your suit would prevent them from knowing some of the key factors affecting projectability.

quote:

Originally posted by Stats4Gnats:
For the purposes of discussion, ASSUME there was a “suit” one could wear at a ballgame, that when you looked at the players, the only thing that would be visible would be the hands and feet, and of course anything on them or held by them such as cleats, a glove, or a bat. Also, ASSUME that when wearing that suit, there would be no way to get information that would allow the wearer to figure out who the players were, such as someone mentioning their name or what team they played on. I know at 1st it would seem a stupid exercise, but stay with me for a few minutes.

Think about it. There’d be no way to know if the pitcher was 5’6” or 6’6”. No way to know if the hitter was a Latino or an oriental. No way to know if the runner was a strong 21YO or an out of shape 50YO. IOW, most of the things that bias us when we’re evaluating “talent” would be gone, and we’d be stuck with evaluating performance.

Under those conditions, would the evaluations those players received from coaches or scouts change, and would those evaluations be any better or any worse?

Of course the evaluations would change.. but you are only evaluating players on what they can do now and not able to project what they may be able to do in the next few yrs.

If the kid throws 80 nobody is going to waste their time checking a Facebook page. He would be doing well to catch on anywhere he can and make any team he could.

He would be paying his own way so the girlfriend can come along too, no problem.
I'm not downing the kid, heck that was me (as an infielder) I caught on at a small school, got to play and had a blast. I didn't need to pay for an "evaluation" to tell me that... nobody else was knocking on the door.

Considering the age range offerred, I'm going to mention what I have seen professional scouts do at team warmups when nobody knows the scout is there.

The better scouts would decide who they like from the players activities and performance during the warm up ( throwing, BP and running). I've seen guys offerred a ticket and a check before the game started.

Other scouts are looking for a 'type'. Taller, attractive etc that have little to nothing to do with the game. I have seen those 'type' of player offerred a ticket and a check before games as well.

The guys who usually make it for at least a cup of coffee are the guys chosen for performance rather that potential.

If projections were really worthwhile, teams would be able to collect high potential MLB rookie clubs that could win at the MLB level on a regular basis. They haven't thus far.

The suit would sure thin out the 'scouting pools' out there.

quote:

Originally posted by Stats4Gnats:
You’ve totally missed the boat on that one. Where did I even hit that stats, valid or not, be used to make the decision? However, if you think about it, how do players get on the radar?

If I missed the boat, that means I don't get the purpose of the topic.

What's REALLY on your mind? Is this personal? Do you have an agenda?

quote:

Originally posted by Stats4Gnats:

quote:

Originally posted by EdgarFan:
Stats4Gnats, I think it really comes down to the things I talked about earlier: the snapshot in time of performance (yes, you can say Player X was better than Player Y on the given day or days you observed him, and can tell some but not all of how well that day represented his abilities overall by looking at stats) vs. projectability. Age (and maturity) have a lot to do with that - not so much for the evaluator, as you say, but certainly for the person who has to make a decision on who to spend resources on into the future.

Even just on the sabermetrics side, you need to know this - we have fairly well understood age-related decline rates for pro players, and for the most part understand when players should be expected to peak. If we don't know age, we can't apply that knowlege appropriately.

Trust me, if anyone understands that metrics and performance are both directly related to age, I do. But let’s for another second look at metrics as part of the process for a HS player. I can’t begin to estimate the number of times I’ve heard people, say HS stats can’t be counted on as an evaluation tool. As far as I can tell, they’re basically not used more much other than to put a player on the radar. After that, it’s what the evaluator says.

It may be someone at a PG event or something like the Stanford Camp, but basically they’re using a snapshot of the player rather than an IMAX film of his entire career. Even a scout checking out some HS kid during the season is only getting snapshots on the days he observes that kid. Of course I may well be wrong, but I’ve been doing this a long time, and its very rarely a scout will ask for stats. Specific stats maybe, like K:BB for a pitcher, but other than that, from what I can tell stats aren’t playing much of a part in a ‘ship or a contract. I’m not saying that’s a good thing, just what I’ve observed.

Up here in the Northwest we have a company that does player rankings and each year they post the top 30-40 prospects for each high scool class (4 years). I have been following this list for a number of years and I have noted that there are certain biases that go into these lists and often times they are based on body type, size of athlete etc. A lot of times they have harder throwing, better hitting, running kids that are lower on the lists behind other athletes who are taller and bigger and more mature skeletally speaking. Over the corse of 4 years these kids will jockey around in the rankings and to be honest- it is seldom right, at least how I see it. Yes, they generally get it close but there is always that group of kids who they just plain get wrong.

They have their showcases from where they base most of their grades by. Yes, it is a 4 day event and not a real overal evaluation. Some of the best kids don't even go and so who is to really know? Yes it is an imperfect system but to be honest I don't know how one would really create an honest and true projectable system for kids that included every player. Each person is going to have different overall criteria for what matters. Sometimes just one at-bat sells a recruiter, coach or scout how good a player is. For some size means a lot, for others attitude makes a big difference while for others still it comes down to stats by themselves.

If a kid has an attitude or problem learning new things or grasping team concepts they may get overlooked based just on that while others may get noticed because they are team players and have a very good IQ for the game.

So many factors...

quote:

Besides... If players could be invisible it would really hurt attendance. Would the baseball cards be blank?

It would make for a great game of shadow ball. All you would need is a play-by-play guy with a vivid imagination.

quote:

Originally posted by TPM:
If I missed the boat, that means I don't get the purpose of the topic.

What you missed the boat on, is that stats never had anything to do with anything. You assumed that because I’m a stat driven person, I wanted to see stats used to pick players for moving to the next level. I never intended that for one second.

quote:

What's REALLY on your mind? Is this personal? Do you have an agenda?

Why do you think something’s personal or that I have some kind of agenda? All I ever tried to point out, was that I believe there are a lot of players who fall through the cracks because of built in biases. Now if you believe every player who COULD play at a higher level is given that opportunity, then we simply don’t agree. No harm, no foul.

I understand how scouts evaluate and draft college and HS players, what I don't understand is the evaluation of minor leaguers and why some players never get called up to the majors.
Ive watched a lot of minor league baseball and I know why some players get the call (thats easy) But I have seen some great players who have hit great and played well at every level but are not seen as big league by the Club and no matter how well they do they will never get the chance.

quote:

Originally posted by Stats4Gnats:

quote:

Originally posted by TPM:
If I missed the boat, that means I don't get the purpose of the topic.

What you missed the boat on, is that stats never had anything to do with anything. You assumed that because I’m a stat driven person, I wanted to see stats used to pick players for moving to the next level. I never intended that for one second.

quote:

What's REALLY on your mind? Is this personal? Do you have an agenda?

Why do you think something’s personal or that I have some kind of agenda? All I ever tried to point out, was that I believe there are a lot of players who fall through the cracks because of built in biases. Now if you believe every player who COULD play at a higher level is given that opportunity, then we simply don’t agree. No harm, no foul.

What's the bias? Height, weight, age, skin color, blonde hair, blue eyes vs brown hair brown eyes?

Indeed lots of players may fall through the cracks, even the ones you may think ever won't, that's part of it, that's the business, either you accept it or you let it beat you down.

BTW, at some point STATS do determine where you fit into the scheme of things unless your experience makes up for the lack of. The difference is, stats on the amateur level unless the guy is top in his class, means nothing.

But you already knew that sooooooooo

what's your point? I still don't get it.

Dumb me.

quote:

Originally posted by njbb:
I understand how scouts evaluate and draft college and HS players, what I don't understand is the evaluation of minor leaguers and why some players never get called up to the majors.
Ive watched a lot of minor league baseball and I know why some players get the call (thats easy) But I have seen some great players who have hit great and played well at every level but are not seen as big league by the Club and no matter how well they do they will never get the chance.

I agree, but sometimes I do believe a lot of that has to do with being at the right place but at the wrong time. Players get blocked. Biggest obstacle besides injury for sure.

The one thing I have found from the cardinals, they will switch positions for guys if they can mash. Many are used as utility. Guys can play multiple positions.

You often see with pitchers who have velo, even with close to 100mph at times, they don't have a valid second or third offering, or you see a pitcher with an outstanding CB or CU but a weaker FB. Some guys will not make an effort to add to their arsenal, others afraid to. Didn't CC pick up a new pitch this seaso? you have to do this to survive, hitters are too smart they will figure you out sooner than later.

I think that hitting 90 opens up the possibility that as the pitcher matures along with velocity so will his stuff, and IMO that doesn't always happen. Besides injury that for me is why pitchers don't move up.

We may not understand what they are looking for, but they know. We tend to want to use phrases like being biased, but I think that also is just because we don't fully understand it but we like to think that we do. most don't.

JMO.

quote:

Originally posted by TPM:
What's the bias? Height, weight, age, skin color, blonde hair, blue eyes vs brown hair brown eyes?

If you don’t understand that there are biases in almost every process that makes a choice between two options, there’s no point in discussing it further because eventually I’ll say something that offends you, and that’s not my intention.

quote:

Indeed lots of players may fall through the cracks, even the ones you may think ever won't, that's part of it, that's the business, either you accept it or you let it beat you down.

Well, to me not trying to improve something everyone knows can be improved, doesn’t make a great deal of sense. I don’t condemn the “system” at all. I just recognize that it could be improved.

quote:

BTW, at some point STATS do determine where you fit into the scheme of things unless your experience makes up for the lack of. The difference is, stats on the amateur level unless the guy is top in his class, means nothing.

What I don’t think a lot of people understand is how much stats really do impact the game. Why does a LL coach want to draft Billy over Bobby? Why does a coach start Joey rather than Billy? Why does Ed bat in the 3rd slot and Pete in the 8th?

Stats are simply a measure of something that’s taken place, and allow an observer to make decisions based on what those stats are. Unfortunately, most people don’t grasp the fact that a player’s birthday is a stat, as is who his parents are, or what their address is. Stats are really nothing but pieces of data that can be arranged in ways that provide useful information to someone.

Why do you think the people at GOOGLE want to know which **** sites or shopping sites you’ve been to? Its because they’re data points that have tremendous value to someone. And some who has the ability to extract the most useful information from that data will eventually end up being the best manager of where that data comes from.

You’re locked into seeing stats as the # of hits a batter has or the # of Ks a pitcher gets, but stats are far more than that. Heck, look at your stats. You’re from South Fl, registered in July 28, 2003, and have made 16,478 posts during that period of time. Unless my math is wrong, that means you’ve average a bit more than 5 posts a day, ever since you registered. Assume that each post averaged taking up a total of 2 minutes of your time, that’s almost 550 hours, or 22 straight days!

WHEW! When one knows how to do it, one can grab stats from just about anywhere and use them for just about anything.

quote:

But you already knew that sooooooooo

what's your point? I still don't get it.

My point is, you don’t get it because you’re not seeing things from my perspective. You’re seeing them strictly from yours. But that’s ok! Really! I’m not on any crusade to make you believe what I do. I’d just like you to understand that just because our perspectives are different, it doesn’t make either of us wrong.

quote:

Dumb me.

You see, even though some people would see that as a disability, I don’t. Losing the ability to speak hasn’t taken away your ability to communicate.

Sometime ago sometime happened to cause TPM's post total increased. She has not made that 16,000 + posts...
So much for stats

If the "invisible" suits were as stated and all you could see was hands and feet (i.e. they don't have #s), it wouldn't matter how well anyone performed because the scouts couldn't tell who performed! Hey, I liked the player with the red glove and the worn out spikes!

How did I do coach?