PDA

View Full Version : Scouts vs. Stats


pudge
01-14-2003, 03:53 PM
Interesting stuff in the Hot Stove Heater for the A's, who have fleeced the Sox time and again for talent (see Bradford, Durham, Valentine)...

I like the comments distingushing between Scouts (who love tall pitchers with "stuff") and Stats, which actually reveal a player's *performance*. What a concept!

Now my question is, do you think KW (and the Sox organization in general) relies too much on Scouts as opposed to actual performance?

I think they do, although they're not alone - so many ML clubs do the same... credit to the A's for not falling in love with scouting and putting together great teams year after year.

Link: http://espn.go.com/mlb/hotstove2003/athletics.html

kermittheefrog
01-14-2003, 04:05 PM
I think thats a little cut and dry. You need both scouts and stats. Stats really don't help you with high school players for example. I'd say the closer to the majors the player is the more important the stats and less important the scouts.

pudge
01-14-2003, 06:08 PM
Okay, um, I don't think I ever said you should only use *one* method.

So is your assesment that scouts are used too frequently for players who are close to the ML level?

MarkEdward
01-14-2003, 08:40 PM
Originally posted by pudge
Okay, um, I don't think I ever said you should only use *one* method.

You implied that when you placed "Scouts vs. Stats" in the subject line.

So is your assesment that scouts are used too frequently for players who are close to the ML level?

There are enough statistical tools to evaluate players at (or near) the major league level.

At the high school level, scouts can see if a pitcher has the right mechanics or a hitter has a good swing. I'd go as far as to say stats are useless for a high school player.

Sorry for speaking for Kermit, but we usually agree on stuff like this.

kermittheefrog
01-14-2003, 09:20 PM
Originally posted by MarkEdward
You implied that when you placed "Scouts vs. Stats" in the subject line.



There are enough statistical tools to evaluate players at (or near) the major league level.

At the high school level, scouts can see if a pitcher has the right mechanics or a hitter has a good swing. I'd go as far as to say stats are useless for a high school player.

Sorry for speaking for Kermit, but we usually agree on stuff like this.

I agree with all of this :cool:

Daver
01-14-2003, 09:47 PM
Originally posted by kermittheefrog
I think thats a little cut and dry. You need both scouts and stats. Stats really don't help you with high school players for example. I'd say the closer to the majors the player is the more important the stats and less important the scouts.

I would offer the opinion that you can gain from scouting at every level of baseball,including AAA.

Stats are not going to tell you the little things like what a players warm up habits,if any. They will tell you what his practice habits are,how well he gets along with the rest of the players on the team,little things like that can mean a lot.

You can scout whether a guy is a team player or a self interested player,you use the stats to back that up.

jeremyb1
01-14-2003, 10:47 PM
Originally posted by pudge
[B]Now my question is, do you think KW (and the Sox organization in general) relies too much on Scouts as opposed to actual performance?


some things said by the organization scare the crap out of me. our assistant gm's quote stating that erstad is worth over 8 million per year despite his poor offensive stats because his value coudln't be assesed sabermetrically frightened me.

in general though, i think our organization is pretty good at evaluating talent or at least young talent. personally, i think every team should hire someone like bill james if only to throw around ideas and get the best use out of statistics. that said, though, from the little information i know i don't have any huge problem with the extent to which our team is using stats.

pudge
01-14-2003, 11:01 PM
Originally posted by kermittheefrog
I agree with all of this :cool:

You guys have some sort of relationship we don't know about? :)

MarkEdward
01-14-2003, 11:16 PM
Originally posted by pudge
You guys have some sort of relationship we don't know about? :)

Shhh! Don't ask, don't tell...

baggio202
01-15-2003, 02:30 AM
to answer the question , yes the sox do rely too much on scouts if kenny williams is being honest when he talks about trades or signing these guys...but i have my doubts about that...examples..

ryan kohlmeier..williams said our scouts feel he is right back to where he was with balt two years ago...we know what happened there..

onan masaoka...williams said we were after masaoka for years and our scouts loved his stuff..in ST the next season he is released for not having a "major league curveball"

same story with thomas jaquez , corey lee , todd ritchie , ect , ect ,ect..

the only one that turned out correct was damaso marte..where williams said again that our scouts followed him for years and he had nasty major league stuff....while that turned out to be the case, i still doubt KW's word because during those years we "followed" him he was traded twice and not to us..if we were that high on him for years seems like we could have gotten him easily enough...in reality, we didnt start looking at him until it was obvious kelly wunsch wasnt going to be back 100% in time for the season and we had no other lefty alternative (mike porzio withstanding :))...then williams made the best deal he could with what was out there..this "following for years" bull is just that ..bull..imo