Is this the 1,000,000th one of these yet?

Statistical analysis all the rage, but scouts still have their place in the game

Has anybody ever said scouts DON'T have a place in the game? I know I've never seen that printed or heard it said anywhere.

AO

Bruce Lee's view on life was to take what worked, not to hold on to any one style of doing thnigs. Jeet Kune Do.

If Bruce Lee ran a Baseball team, he no doubt would utilize both scouting and stats to their fullest potential, while discarding the useless parts of each.

roundtable

I find it amusing that most of these anti-stats pieces seem based on moxie/guts/character. When really, I think the main reason why you have to have scouts and not just stats is to actually determine the tools and talent a player has and how that projects to the majors - so that you know a guy like Yusmeiro Petit will struggle in the majors even though he's tearing up the minors.

That - and tools are a much better predictor at very low levels of ball.

Has anybody ever said scouts DON'T have a place in the game?

Scouts have a place -- in my belly! The fat ones taste good barbecueued and dipped in Worcester sauce.

Anyway, part of the reason they focus on character is because it's a real thing. I tend to doubt whether or not character has too much to do with how well one plays the game, but it can determine who you want on your team. Some guys, like Bonds or whomever, are just so overwhelmingly good that it doesn't really matter how they behave -- you want them. But there are a lot of very good ballplayers who get shipped around the majors because of personality defects -- Bradley, even borderline HoF guys like Sheffield and Jeff Kent. You want to know as a guy comes through your system if he's a clossal dick, if he's got an addictive personality, if he's an inveterate liar who hides things from his coaches, or whatever.

Of course scouts perform other functions that are very important, but character is a significant part of what they do, at least once a guy's in your system.

But in Paul’s words, “the numbers can never tell you about (a player’s) make-up.”

I suppose this is useful, for the 5% of players that choose to use eye black...

I tend to doubt whether or not character has too much to do with how well one plays the game, but it can determine who you want on your team.

I think it is important, in a "will to power" or "drive to succeed" kind of way. Extremely driven people who have their #### together are much more likely to fulfill their full potential than mopey asshats. Now if that mopey asshat already hits like Manny, who cares? But when trying to figure out which guy is going to live up to his "ceiling," character/makeup is essentially the only way to even gauge such a thing.

I find it amusing that most of these anti-stats pieces seem based on moxie/guts/character.

Did you read the entire article ? I didn't see it as an anti stats piece. It was fairly generic "you need balance between the two". But there were some good quotes and points made in the article.

The Expos must've had Palpatine scouting for them when they signed Milton Bradley. "In regards to character, young Milton has shown significant signs of hate, which will lead to home run power in the bigs".

I tend to doubt whether or not character has too much to do with how well one plays the game, but it can determine who you want on your team. Some guys, like Bonds or whomever, are just so overwhelmingly good that it doesn't really matter how they behave -- you want them. But there are a lot of very good ballplayers who get shipped around the majors because of personality defects -- Bradley, even borderline HoF guys like Sheffield and Jeff Kent.

I think you're missing the point. You're talking about whether or not players are nice. I agree that a player's personality is almost beside the point.

But when you're talking about prospects and amateurs, "character" refers to the extraordinarily important factors mentioned in #10.

Actually, Moneyball has an interesting take on this where Beane compares his own calm and reasonable mindset to that of the unintelligent but arrogant and ambitious Lenny Dykstra.

If I'm a GM, and I'm interested in makeup questions, I don't think I'd go to my scouts. They're not around any one player for long enough to make judgments about that player's character.

The scouts should be there to tell me about actual skills - if a pitcher is striking out a ton of guys in the low minors, is he doing it by blowing fastballs by them, or is he getting kids to chase junk? How well does this guy handle second base? That sort of thing.

If I'm a GM, and I'm interested in makeup questions, I don't think I'd go to my scouts. They're not around any one player for long enough to make judgments about that player's character.

The son of some very close friends of mine and my wife's was scouted by many organizations, then drafted and signed by the Astros organization last year. From what we observed, the scouts do their very best to determine the "character and makeup" issues not just by talking to the player, but by getting to know as much as they can about his family, his friends (his "support system"), how well he did in school, talking to his prior coaches, etc. etc. It was apparent to us that they take that stuff very seriously, and to me that makes a ton of sense.

If I'm a GM, and I'm interested in makeup questions, I don't think I'd go to my scouts. They're not around any one player for long enough to make judgments about that player's character.

The whole point of scouts is that they make such judgments in a snap. They have spoken to thousands of amateurs, just like they have analyzed thousands of swings. They are better at this than we are.

I wish your friends' son luck! I see several northern Californians on Houston's 2009 draft pick list, so I won't hazard a guess.

I wish your friends' son luck! I see several northern Californians on Houston's 2009 draft pick list, so I won't hazard a guess

David Berner. He's a left-handed pitcher; was San Jose State's ace last year, but he pitched so many innings with them that by the time the Astros drafted and signed him and sent him to the short-season A NYP, his arm was tuckered out ... he basically just hung around with a sore arm all summer.

But he's apparently healthy now, enjoyed a good spring training, and I think he's being assigned to Lexington in the SAL, regular A.

#16, My problem is that some of them may be good at it. Hell it's likely some are brilliant. But you don't have to look much farther than the comments I posted about Harold Baines to know that not all scouts do a good job of this (I know some scouts had reservations about Tom Seaver because of comments he'd made about basic training)

And fairly recently nobody was tracking this in any kind of systematic way. I understand that's changed -- at least in some organizations.

Further, there are more than a few players who are less than wonderful human beings but have a great drive to succeed in the sport.

Bill James made an interesting observation that almost no elite players can be classified as "flakes". No shortage of nice guys, plenty of driven egomaniacs.

But he's apparently healthy now, enjoyed a good spring training, and I think he's being assigned to Lexington in the SAL, regular A.

Nope, just found out he's been assigned to Lancaster in the California League -- high-A!