Why do many cant miss prospects by the major league scouts not come anywhere near the major leagues???
Original Post
Replies sorted oldest to newest
Injury's??
Personal choices??
Can't hit MLB hitting??
Did not develop a third pitch??
Gave up to early??
Was not given enough time to develop??
I'm sure there's plenty more??
EH
Personal choices??
Can't hit MLB hitting??
Did not develop a third pitch??
Gave up to early??
Was not given enough time to develop??
I'm sure there's plenty more??
EH
++
Girls
Booze
......you can't take the truth! .....
$
Girls
Booze
......you can't take the truth! .....
$
A big one, major league scouts over drafted a player. Good example. One 1st rounder was only on 4 teams draft list in any round. The player never made it out of Class A Ball
What about the transition from metal to wood, or is this overrated?
quote:Originally posted by Frank Martin:
Why do many cant miss prospects by the major league scouts not come anywhere near the major leagues???
1. Flawed mechanics.
2. Overuse when younger.
3. Lack of mental toughness.
4. Burnout.
5. Bad luck.
A few very high profile players careers went no where because of
Drug & Alcohol use
Make up problems
Steve Blass disease ( Cant throw a strike)
Drug & Alcohol use
Make up problems
Steve Blass disease ( Cant throw a strike)
Empty tank of passion!
Scouting is an art, not a science...
Mistakes are made
Mistakes are made
I"d like to see some stats on how many of the (required as a scout told me) 6'4"+ pitchers don't progress and compare it to the 6' (+/-) pitchers that don't.
obrady,
That would be an unfair stat to compare. Scouting is a business of projection and size is a projection factor. I'm sure that you know that probably, percentage wise, there are more more big pitchers that don't pan out out over the number of smaller pitchers. At the same time there are many more big guys who sit on the edge of the talent bubble who are given a chance because they are "physically attracive" than the small guy with the same talent. You have to draw a line somewhere in the process as far as number of participants and the closer you get to that line the more intangibles that are put in the selection, size is one of them. Your request for statistics would be flawed because of sampling issues.
Now if you're talking "big time" prospects you first have to define "big time". Is that top 3 rounds. Then you could your question is more easily defined and that answer would be interesting.
That would be an unfair stat to compare. Scouting is a business of projection and size is a projection factor. I'm sure that you know that probably, percentage wise, there are more more big pitchers that don't pan out out over the number of smaller pitchers. At the same time there are many more big guys who sit on the edge of the talent bubble who are given a chance because they are "physically attracive" than the small guy with the same talent. You have to draw a line somewhere in the process as far as number of participants and the closer you get to that line the more intangibles that are put in the selection, size is one of them. Your request for statistics would be flawed because of sampling issues.
Now if you're talking "big time" prospects you first have to define "big time". Is that top 3 rounds. Then you could your question is more easily defined and that answer would be interesting.
Finally! An easy question!
The reason is, of course, that there is no such thing as a can't miss prospect!
The reason is, of course, that there is no such thing as a can't miss prospect!
Rob, good point.
quote:Originally posted by obrady:
I"d like to see some stats on how many of the (required as a scout told me) 6'4"+ pitchers don't progress and compare it to the 6' (+/-) pitchers that don't.
Not every scout or organization buys into the idea that height is mandatory.
quote:Originally posted by rz1:
obrady,
That would be an unfair stat to compare. Scouting is a business of projection and size is a projection factor. I'm sure that you know that probably, percentage wise, there are more more big pitchers that don't pan out out over the number of smaller pitchers. At the same time there are many more big guys who sit on the edge of the talent bubble who are given a chance because they are "physically attracive" than the small guy with the same talent. You have to draw a line somewhere in the process as far as number of participants and the closer you get to that line the more intangibles that are put in the selection, size is one of them. Your request for statistics would be flawed because of sampling issues.
Now if you're talking "big time" prospects you first have to define "big time". Is that top 3 rounds. Then you could your question is more easily defined and that answer would be interesting.
I don't think it would be flawed at all, much less unfair, for the point which O'Brady is trying to make.
quote:Not every scout or organization buys into the idea that height is mandatory.
I agree completely. However, In most cases when a decision has to be made for player X and player Y when all things are relativily even the height issue may be a variable. It should be. These guys are not idiots and they have historical data to support their decisions. We can sit here and say that we know this, or we know that, and give an example here or there, but when all is said and done they do it for a living and we sit on message boards and grade their results post mortem. That's what we are here for, but in many cases we back our data up with hearsay, opinions, and not data. This is not a rip on anyone because I'm guilty as charged.
I think when a guy gets labeled as a can't miss prospect a lot of others then become convinced that they are, rather than looking through there own eyes to see potential flaws.
How many times have you seen players that have gotten that type of reputation and wondered what it was you were missing that the supposed experts were seeing.
How many times have you seen players that have gotten that type of reputation and wondered what it was you were missing that the supposed experts were seeing.
How is height an "intangible?"
Perhaps it could be considered an intangible since height does not necessarily correlate to pitching effectiveness or velocity.
Holden,quote:How is height an "intangible?"
Maybe I'm using the word incorrectly. I was using as defined in Dictionary.com by my thought
INTANGIBLE:
1: hard to pin down or identify;
2: lacking substance or reality;
Yes height itself is not an intangible, height is height but it's advantage is up for discussion. Sorry for the poor use of the word. Are you saying then that height is not an issue or just criticizing the way I used the word?
I can see where it could be any number of things:
I have a friend who was a HS AA a college AA and played 13 yrs in the minors up through AAA ball and lead his league 2 straight years in home runs. Only got called up to the Majors for a 2 week stint. He blames it on being involved with the wrong woman.
However, from me looking at it I can see how a cann't miss can get over confident and not work as hard,
or how a person could have flaws in their game that their athletic ability could hide when the game was played at a lower level and at a slightly slower pace that cann't be hid in the bigs,
or, party too much.
I guess my thought is every cann't miss that missed, had their own particular demon that held them back.
I have a friend who was a HS AA a college AA and played 13 yrs in the minors up through AAA ball and lead his league 2 straight years in home runs. Only got called up to the Majors for a 2 week stint. He blames it on being involved with the wrong woman.
However, from me looking at it I can see how a cann't miss can get over confident and not work as hard,
or how a person could have flaws in their game that their athletic ability could hide when the game was played at a lower level and at a slightly slower pace that cann't be hid in the bigs,
or, party too much.
I guess my thought is every cann't miss that missed, had their own particular demon that held them back.
When I see some of the "quality" of current MLB players I have to wonder if there is no one in the minors who are better than these guys.
quote:Originally posted by Texan:
Perhaps it could be considered an intangible since height does not necessarily correlate to pitching effectiveness or velocity.
I am currently working with a guy who's 6'10" and who has a hard time breaking 90.
Speed doesn't always come with height, especially if your mechanics aren't as efficient as they need to be.
The first problem is that everyone in each organizaton has an opinion and many times they are all different. While the scout and GM may love the kid the coaches that spend each day with him feel that he is not a good player, for whatever reason.
The more that I am around athletics the more I understand that fewer people than ever know how to evaluate a true athlete. They often feel if a player is big and can run they are an athlete which is wrong.
The last thing is that most organizatons feel that they can change a player. They may want to change the way that they throw, hit, run, etc... and sometimes they want to change the players attitude. One thing that I have learned is that a tiger dosen't change its stripes.
The more that I am around athletics the more I understand that fewer people than ever know how to evaluate a true athlete. They often feel if a player is big and can run they are an athlete which is wrong.
The last thing is that most organizatons feel that they can change a player. They may want to change the way that they throw, hit, run, etc... and sometimes they want to change the players attitude. One thing that I have learned is that a tiger dosen't change its stripes.
cbg,
I didn't think the last Miss USA deserved the hat either
. Beauty, talent, baseball ability, projection will always be up for debate. The fact that you feel fewer people can evaluate a true athlete, may be a different opinion than many of your peers, it's your observation. Maybe todays sports business is relying to much on data and not enough on feel. But then again that argument has its flaws. In any case beauty is in the eye of the holder and the numbers show that there sure seems to be a lot of beauty in a tall pitcher.
I didn't think the last Miss USA deserved the hat either
. Beauty, talent, baseball ability, projection will always be up for debate. The fact that you feel fewer people can evaluate a true athlete, may be a different opinion than many of your peers, it's your observation. Maybe todays sports business is relying to much on data and not enough on feel. But then again that argument has its flaws. In any case beauty is in the eye of the holder and the numbers show that there sure seems to be a lot of beauty in a tall pitcher.quote:Originally posted by baseballtoday:
When I see some of the "quality" of current MLB players I have to wonder if there is no one in the minors who are better than these guys.
I am of the opinion that a bunch of minor leaguers are interchangable with numerous big leaguers at one point in time. They are victims of circumstance, unluckily blocked by an untradable or entrenched MLB guy in their oraganization, or behind a bonus baby with a patient club. The way to the big leagues for many is a crack in the line-up to slip through. Some line-ups, like Tampa Bay and Pittsburgh have more cracks than others like New York or Los Angeles.
1) Girls;
2) Booze;
3) Language barrier;
4) Loss of passion for the game;
5) Wanting to live a "normal" life and enjoy summers;
6) Unrealistic expectations.
2) Booze;
3) Language barrier;
4) Loss of passion for the game;
5) Wanting to live a "normal" life and enjoy summers;
6) Unrealistic expectations.
How bout the Earl Cunningham.
Cubs 1 rounder who proceeded to eat his signing bonus. Gained 60 lbs after signing with the Cubs.
Cubs 1 rounder who proceeded to eat his signing bonus. Gained 60 lbs after signing with the Cubs.
1989 1st Rounder at Lancaster HS in S.C.
How can I forget that one...peace Shep
How can I forget that one...peace Shep