More important scouting stats?

[UK1679666180]

The stats of a player (whether it be HS or more so College) or the stats of the scout drafting him?

 

I don't understand how some FOs can override a scout on the basis of a player's stats, the moneyball movie had me thinking about it again.

 

If there's a scout that has a successful track record and demonstrated a very good job to find players, shouldn't that account for something?

 

Organizations don't grade scouts accordingly, they grade on whether or not they get along with the scouting director, work ethic, and the network.

 

The stats are there to grade scouts, the longer they've been scouts, the larger the sample size is.

 

I just find it odd that an organization would continue to operate this way.

 

If a scout has a productive track record and loves a kid that hasn't performed as well statistically as his tools project, that overrides whatever stat the FO might use to draft a kid.

[Tryptamine]

HS stats can be ignored almost entirely in my opinion. I give more credence to college stats, especially for those in the power conferences. Really it seems the further along a player progresses the less needed the scout's opinions are.

[imb]

i try to look at how his knees react to a breaking ball

[Guest]

I don't think most teams do enough on evaluating the evaluators. As you say, the information is there for them to do so, but I rarely hear anything like that in any discussion about scouts.

 

As for stats for the players, as Tryptamine said, the closer a player is to the majors and the better the competition he's playing against, the more important it is to look at the stats. If you're scouting in the dominican, it's all future projection. If you're looking at AA and AAA players, the stats are quite relevant. Obviously most guys are in between somewhere.

[WeGotWood98]

K:BB is a personal favorite.

[UK1679666180]

HS stats can be ignored almost entirely in my opinion. I give more credence to college stats, especially for those in the power conferences. Really it seems the further along a player progresses the less needed the scout's opinions are.

 

If you're going to pay attention to college stats, pay more attention to Friday stats than the combined total as far as hitters.

[davearm2]

The stats of a player (whether it be HS or more so College) or the stats of the scout drafting him?

 

I don't understand how some FOs can override a scout on the basis of a player's stats, the moneyball movie had me thinking about it again.

 

If there's a scout that has a successful track record and demonstrated a very good job to find players, shouldn't that account for something?

 

Organizations don't grade scouts accordingly, they grade on whether or not they get along with the scouting director, work ethic, and the network.

 

The stats are there to grade scouts, the longer they've been scouts, the larger the sample size is.

 

I just find it odd that an organization would continue to operate this way.

 

If a scout has a productive track record and loves a kid that hasn't performed as well statistically as his tools project, that overrides whatever stat the FO might use to draft a kid.

The obvious problem with all this is, the scout's "grade" is hugely dependent upon the player development system he's sending kids into.

 

That's not to say it's an impossible evaluation to conduct, only that it's got a gigantic complicating factor that would have to be dealt with for the findings to be valuable.

[Guest]

The stats of a player (whether it be HS or more so College) or the stats of the scout drafting him?

 

I don't understand how some FOs can override a scout on the basis of a player's stats, the moneyball movie had me thinking about it again.

 

If there's a scout that has a successful track record and demonstrated a very good job to find players, shouldn't that account for something?

 

Organizations don't grade scouts accordingly, they grade on whether or not they get along with the scouting director, work ethic, and the network.

 

The stats are there to grade scouts, the longer they've been scouts, the larger the sample size is.

 

I just find it odd that an organization would continue to operate this way.

 

If a scout has a productive track record and loves a kid that hasn't performed as well statistically as his tools project, that overrides whatever stat the FO might use to draft a kid.

The obvious problem with all this is, the scout's "grade" is hugely dependent upon the player development system he's sending kids into.

 

That's not to say it's an impossible evaluation to conduct, only that it's got a gigantic complicating factor that would have to be dealt with for the findings to be valuable.

As long as you've got scouts who can be measured from other systems plus your own, you can account for that just like you would do so for a park factor for hitters.

[UK1679666180]

The stats of a player (whether it be HS or more so College) or the stats of the scout drafting him?

 

I don't understand how some FOs can override a scout on the basis of a player's stats, the moneyball movie had me thinking about it again.

 

If there's a scout that has a successful track record and demonstrated a very good job to find players, shouldn't that account for something?

 

Organizations don't grade scouts accordingly, they grade on whether or not they get along with the scouting director, work ethic, and the network.

 

The stats are there to grade scouts, the longer they've been scouts, the larger the sample size is.

 

I just find it odd that an organization would continue to operate this way.

 

If a scout has a productive track record and loves a kid that hasn't performed as well statistically as his tools project, that overrides whatever stat the FO might use to draft a kid.

The obvious problem with all this is, the scout's "grade" is hugely dependent upon the player development system he's sending kids into.

 

That's not to say it's an impossible evaluation to conduct, only that it's got a gigantic complicating factor that would have to be dealt with for the findings to be valuable.

 

You would have to account for injuries as well. look at the Cubs '02 draft with Brownlie, Hagerty, Jones, Blasko, etc.

 

But the larger tenure the scout has, the larger the sample and likely the more organizations has around him. If you have 10 years of data, you also have the other scouts to compare with within the organization as well as scouts in general.

 

If the Cubs have Scout X who has been here for 7 years and Scout Y who has been here for 8 years and scout x has 6 guys in the majors and most doing well in the minors and scout y has 2 with many cut before AA, if both have had similar amount of signed players mixed in throughout the draft, it's an accurate assumption that scout X has been more successful and deserves a higher grade.

[davearm2]

The stats of a player (whether it be HS or more so College) or the stats of the scout drafting him?

 

I don't understand how some FOs can override a scout on the basis of a player's stats, the moneyball movie had me thinking about it again.

 

If there's a scout that has a successful track record and demonstrated a very good job to find players, shouldn't that account for something?

 

Organizations don't grade scouts accordingly, they grade on whether or not they get along with the scouting director, work ethic, and the network.

 

The stats are there to grade scouts, the longer they've been scouts, the larger the sample size is.

 

I just find it odd that an organization would continue to operate this way.

 

If a scout has a productive track record and loves a kid that hasn't performed as well statistically as his tools project, that overrides whatever stat the FO might use to draft a kid.

The obvious problem with all this is, the scout's "grade" is hugely dependent upon the player development system he's sending kids into.

 

That's not to say it's an impossible evaluation to conduct, only that it's got a gigantic complicating factor that would have to be dealt with for the findings to be valuable.

As long as you've got scouts who can be measured from other systems plus your own, you can account for that just like you would do so for a park factor for hitters.

That's true in theory, but in practice you'd never have anywhere close to enough datapoints to make that sort of analysis meaningful.

[davearm2]

The stats of a player (whether it be HS or more so College) or the stats of the scout drafting him?

 

I don't understand how some FOs can override a scout on the basis of a player's stats, the moneyball movie had me thinking about it again.

 

If there's a scout that has a successful track record and demonstrated a very good job to find players, shouldn't that account for something?

 

Organizations don't grade scouts accordingly, they grade on whether or not they get along with the scouting director, work ethic, and the network.

 

The stats are there to grade scouts, the longer they've been scouts, the larger the sample size is.

 

I just find it odd that an organization would continue to operate this way.

 

If a scout has a productive track record and loves a kid that hasn't performed as well statistically as his tools project, that overrides whatever stat the FO might use to draft a kid.

The obvious problem with all this is, the scout's "grade" is hugely dependent upon the player development system he's sending kids into.

 

That's not to say it's an impossible evaluation to conduct, only that it's got a gigantic complicating factor that would have to be dealt with for the findings to be valuable.

 

You would have to account for injuries as well. look at the Cubs '02 draft with Brownlie, Hagerty, Jones, Blasko, etc.

 

But the larger tenure the scout has, the larger the sample and likely the more organizations has around him. If you have 10 years of data, you also have the other scouts to compare with within the organization as well as scouts in general.

 

If the Cubs have Scout X who has been here for 7 years and Scout Y who has been here for 8 years and scout x has 6 guys in the majors and most doing well in the minors and scout y has 2 with many cut before AA, if both have had similar amount of signed players mixed in throughout the draft, it's an accurate assumption that scout X has been more successful and deserves a higher grade.

What round were each scout's players taken in?

Were they HS or college guys?

What positions do they play?

Etc. etc.

 

In other words, if scout Y got two late-round HS pitchers to the bigleagues, that might be more impressive than Scout X getting 6 highly-drafted college kids there.

 

Bottom line, you can't draw the conclusion you're suggesting with such limited information.

[WrigleyField 22]

It shouldn't be that complicated. Scouts give grades. You can build an expectation on what those grades should translate to- using past results primarily. You track every player he grades, whether your org drafts him or not, and follow the results. Include a grade for injury risk if not there and have an adjustment if a player doesn't succeed due to injury. Position, age, draft slot... don't see why those matters (well HS vs college could matter, but you would allow for more variance with the HS draft grades as far as expected results)

[Guest]

Scouts also grade a lot of players who get signed by other organizations and go through those development systems. The scout can be graded based on how those players develop, as well, which dramatically increases the number of data points as well as vastly reducing the dependence on your own team's player development system.

 

What round the player gets drafted in doesn't matter as much as what grades the player was given initially and then how that player evolves.

[jersey cubs fan]

The stats are there to grade scouts, the longer they've been scouts, the larger the sample size is.

 

They would seemingly have to have been around a very long time to get that sample size, no?

[UK1679666180]

The stats are there to grade scouts, the longer they've been scouts, the larger the sample size is.

 

They would seemingly have to have been around a very long time to get that sample size, no?

 

No, most scouts typically turn in 30-40 reports a year and as I forgot to mention (which Tim mentioned) they turn in reports on all guys in their area. Obviously, they would have to be there at least 5 years given the avg. HS'er takes 4.9 years to reach the majors, while it is 3.2 years for college guys. But, many guys careers have been determined in a bad way by then. In 3-5 years, they'll have 150-200 reports, which is fair.

[UK1679666180]

The stats of a player (whether it be HS or more so College) or the stats of the scout drafting him?

 

I don't understand how some FOs can override a scout on the basis of a player's stats, the moneyball movie had me thinking about it again.

 

If there's a scout that has a successful track record and demonstrated a very good job to find players, shouldn't that account for something?

 

Organizations don't grade scouts accordingly, they grade on whether or not they get along with the scouting director, work ethic, and the network.

 

The stats are there to grade scouts, the longer they've been scouts, the larger the sample size is.

 

I just find it odd that an organization would continue to operate this way.

 

If a scout has a productive track record and loves a kid that hasn't performed as well statistically as his tools project, that overrides whatever stat the FO might use to draft a kid.

The obvious problem with all this is, the scout's "grade" is hugely dependent upon the player development system he's sending kids into.

 

That's not to say it's an impossible evaluation to conduct, only that it's got a gigantic complicating factor that would have to be dealt with for the findings to be valuable.

 

You would have to account for injuries as well. look at the Cubs '02 draft with Brownlie, Hagerty, Jones, Blasko, etc.

 

But the larger tenure the scout has, the larger the sample and likely the more organizations has around him. If you have 10 years of data, you also have the other scouts to compare with within the organization as well as scouts in general.

 

If the Cubs have Scout X who has been here for 7 years and Scout Y who has been here for 8 years and scout x has 6 guys in the majors and most doing well in the minors and scout y has 2 with many cut before AA, if both have had similar amount of signed players mixed in throughout the draft, it's an accurate assumption that scout X has been more successful and deserves a higher grade.

What round were each scout's players taken in?

Were they HS or college guys?

What positions do they play?

Etc. etc.

 

In other words, if scout Y got two late-round HS pitchers to the bigleagues, that might be more impressive than Scout X getting 6 highly-drafted college kids there.

 

Bottom line, you can't draw the conclusion you're suggesting with such limited information.

 

Variables tend to even out over a period of time as far as picks, positions, and rds. selected.