Why Does Everyone Hate Pie?

[David]

He is.

[minnesotacubsfan]

He is.

 

ok, I was really confused with an earlier post

 

well, still am..

 

o wait, sarcasm..nvm. busy day at the office

[jersey cubs fan]

...play.

 

I have to ask, are you NOT goony? I really thought you were, and if not my appologies to you both...

 

Yeah, I was just making a funny. That was my old screen name. Sorry for the confusion.

[David]

It probably didn't help that it was jersey/goony that was making the joke. :lol:

[minnesotacubsfan]

It probably didn't help that it was jersey/goony that was making the joke. :lol:

 

 

:oops: :D

[sneakypower]

When I said five tool, I wasn't giving weight to one tool or another. When someone is called a five tool prospect, that just means they possess above average talent in every physical skill, which is rare for a baseball player. It doesn't mean they'll be a good baseball player, it just means they're superior physically and can do more things on the field.

 

And will sustain a high level of production later into their careers.

Edited December 20, 2007 by sneakypower

[UK1679666180]

 

 

That's not the stupid part. The stupid part is that the tools are dumb, seemingly chosen completely arbitrarily, and there's an incredible disparity among them in importance.

 

How else are you going to grade a player, especially at the amatuer levels?

[jersey cubs fan]

 

 

That's not the stupid part. The stupid part is that the tools are dumb, seemingly chosen completely arbitrarily, and there's an incredible disparity among them in importance.

 

How else are you going to grade a player, especially at the amatuer levels?

 

I think it would make sense to stop pretending those are the 5 tools that matter, and implying they are of equal value.

 

But one thing I've never understood is how somebody can be described as having the tool of being able to hit for average. I'm assuming that's just a matter of having hit for a high average in his career, but that's not scouting, that's looking at results. The hitting for power tool is self explanatory, you can see when a guy hits the ball he hits it far. Speed is easy. So's the arm. Defense is subjective, but I assume it's more or less watching a guy play defense and judging how good you think he is at it.

 

Presumably, all those things pretty much translate, except for hitting for average.

 

Anyway, how else could you grade a player? I don't know, but there has to be a better way.

[UK1679666180]

I think it would make sense to stop pretending those are the 5 tools that matter, and implying they are of equal value.

 

But one thing I've never understood is how somebody can be described as having the tool of being able to hit for average. I'm assuming that's just a matter of having hit for a high average in his career, but that's not scouting, that's looking at results. The hitting for power tool is self explanatory, you can see when a guy hits the ball he hits it far. Speed is easy. So's the arm. Defense is subjective, but I assume it's more or less watching a guy play defense and judging how good you think he is at it.

 

Presumably, all those things pretty much translate, except for hitting for average.

 

Anyway, how else could you grade a player? I don't know, but there has to be a better way.

 

They're not of equal value not when projecting what position they will likely end up.

 

If you project someone as a SS, he better have the fielding, arm strength, and range to stick there before mentioning how well he hits. You need arm, speed, and fielding to project players at a particular position or maybe a couple of them if need be.

 

Hitting is based on load, stride, balance, bat speed, follow-thru, lack of fear, ability to adjust, ability to center the ball, etc. Batting avg. don't mean crap when all a kid has faced are some HS pitchers topping out at 75 MPH.

[minnesotacubsfan]

 

 

That's not the stupid part. The stupid part is that the tools are dumb, seemingly chosen completely arbitrarily, and there's an incredible disparity among them in importance.

 

How else are you going to grade a player, especially at the amatuer levels?

 

I think it would make sense to stop pretending those are the 5 tools that matter, and implying they are of equal value.

 

But one thing I've never understood is how somebody can be described as having the tool of being able to hit for average. I'm assuming that's just a matter of having hit for a high average in his career, but that's not scouting, that's looking at results. The hitting for power tool is self explanatory, you can see when a guy hits the ball he hits it far. Speed is easy. So's the arm. Defense is subjective, but I assume it's more or less watching a guy play defense and judging how good you think he is at it.

 

Presumably, all those things pretty much translate, except for hitting for average.

 

Anyway, how else could you grade a player? I don't know, but there has to be a better way.

maybe by tweaking what is thought of as a "tool"? idk..

[badnews]

Magglio had a much better K/BB ratio than Pie did in the minors. Magglio also struck out way less. Like I said elsewhere, it seems like most of the guys who are making it good in the majors are not guys with a 3:1 K/BB ratio and a 22% strikeout ratio in their ABs. Let's take Chris Young of the Diamondbacks - more power, better K/BB ratio, better base stealer. Chris Young strikes out more, who knows, maybe that will limit his potential, but he has other things going for him Pie doesn't. Barry Bonds was better than Pie at just about everything at his age. Beltran, again, better K/BB ratio, a better base stealer, and didn't play much above A+.

 

It may be telling that most of the comparisons we're looking to for Pie are guys who maybe didn't spend much time in the minors or who didn't play above A+ before jumping to the majors so who can tell through the comparisons.

[UK1679666180]

There are definite to question whether or not Pie can make it as a major league regular.

 

Of course when the options are him, Fuld, or Pagan at this point in CF, it's fairly obvious as to whether or not Pie should be given a shot.

[Warpticon]

 

 

That's not the stupid part. The stupid part is that the tools are dumb, seemingly chosen completely arbitrarily, and there's an incredible disparity among them in importance.

 

How else are you going to grade a player, especially at the amatuer levels?

 

I think it would make sense to stop pretending those are the 5 tools that matter, and implying they are of equal value.

 

But one thing I've never understood is how somebody can be described as having the tool of being able to hit for average. I'm assuming that's just a matter of having hit for a high average in his career, but that's not scouting, that's looking at results. The hitting for power tool is self explanatory, you can see when a guy hits the ball he hits it far. Speed is easy. So's the arm. Defense is subjective, but I assume it's more or less watching a guy play defense and judging how good you think he is at it.

 

Presumably, all those things pretty much translate, except for hitting for average.

 

Anyway, how else could you grade a player? I don't know, but there has to be a better way.

maybe by tweaking what is thought of as a "tool"? idk..

 

speed, defense, arm, power, and jersey cubs fan?

[jersey cubs fan]

 

 

That's not the stupid part. The stupid part is that the tools are dumb, seemingly chosen completely arbitrarily, and there's an incredible disparity among them in importance.

 

How else are you going to grade a player, especially at the amatuer levels?

 

I think it would make sense to stop pretending those are the 5 tools that matter, and implying they are of equal value.

 

But one thing I've never understood is how somebody can be described as having the tool of being able to hit for average. I'm assuming that's just a matter of having hit for a high average in his career, but that's not scouting, that's looking at results. The hitting for power tool is self explanatory, you can see when a guy hits the ball he hits it far. Speed is easy. So's the arm. Defense is subjective, but I assume it's more or less watching a guy play defense and judging how good you think he is at it.

 

Presumably, all those things pretty much translate, except for hitting for average.

 

Anyway, how else could you grade a player? I don't know, but there has to be a better way.

maybe by tweaking what is thought of as a "tool"? idk..

 

speed, defense, arm, power, and jersey cubs fan?

 

Um, thanks.

[CubinNY]

IMO, there's nothing necessarily wrong with a "tools" assessment. However, I think the assessment should have some objective anchors outside of subjective observations. I see too many, "he has a full scholarship to a D-I football program" in many scouting reports. Although that piece of information may show that the player in question is a good football player it says nothing about baseball.

[Transmogrified Tiger]

IMO, there's nothing necessarily wrong with a "tools" assessment. However, I think the assessment should have some objective anchors outside of subjective observations. I see too many, "he has a full scholarship to a D-I football program" in many scouting reports. Although that piece of information may show that the player in question is a good football player it says nothing about baseball.

 

Why limit information? That's always something that's ancillary at best in a scouting report, and it can be useful in determining how good an athlete a player is, and therefore possibly how well they can make adjustments.

[UK1679666180]

Agreed TT, also that might be an indication of signability as well.