Gary Hughes Not Returning Next Year

[javy knows my name]

Let's ask Gary himself...

 

Why are they an unknown? I don't understand.

 

Thanks, Gary.

What was said:

VOROS McCRACKEN: The lower-revenue teams are in a bit of a bind when it comes to high school prospects because they are more of an unknown. It becomes difficult for a team that's not bringing in that much in terms of revenue to take a big-money chance . . .

 

GARY HUGHES: Why are they an unknown? I don't understand. Because of the data?

 

What it meant:

"I don't understand why you believe high school prospects that can be evaluated through scouting are an unknown. They're not unknown."

 

What you heard:

"I don't understand baseball."

 

Gary Hughes doesn't see the difference between projecting a high school kid vs a college kid because he sees them with his EYES and feels their potential with his GUT. Not only does that fly in the face of any responsible use of statistics, it defies common sense. That's a problem.

He didn't say that. That's your spin.

 

I'm going to go ahead and continue to cling to the apparently bizarre notion that a lifelong professional scout grasps the difference between projecting HS prospects and college prospects.

 

He doesn't agree that they're MORE of an unknown. Your context actually helps my argument. He doesn't think it is any harder to project (or any riskier to pay) high school players than college players. That is all there, and you are the only person who doesn't see it (Ping does not count).

[UK1679666180]

 

He doesn't agree that they're MORE of an unknown. Your context actually helps my argument. He doesn't think it is any harder to project (or any riskier to pay) high school players than college players. That is all there, and you are the only person who doesn't see it (Ping does not count).

 

Heh.

[javy knows my name]

 

Gary Hughes doesn't see the difference between projecting a high school kid vs a college kid because he sees them with his EYES and feels their potential with his GUT. Not only does that fly in the face of any responsible use of statistics, it defies common sense. That's a problem.

 

If you were a scouting director of a smaller market club, would you draft a HS pitcher in the 1st?

 

With all things being equal, probably not. They are, on average, going to cost more to sign away from a college commitment and take more resources to develop. They are also more likely to bust than a polished college kid. It doesn't seem like a good gamble.

[bukie]

 

He doesn't agree that they're MORE of an unknown. Your context actually helps my argument. He doesn't think it is any harder to project (or any riskier to pay) high school players than college players. That is all there, and you are the only person who doesn't see it (Ping does not count).

 

Heh.

Kind of an odd thing to say.

[bukie]

 

Gary Hughes doesn't see the difference between projecting a high school kid vs a college kid because he sees them with his EYES and feels their potential with his GUT. Not only does that fly in the face of any responsible use of statistics, it defies common sense. That's a problem.

 

If you were a scouting director of a smaller market club, would you draft a HS pitcher in the 1st?

 

With all things being equal, probably not. They are, on average, going to cost more to sign away from a college commitment and take more resources to develop. They are also more likely to bust than a polished college kid. It doesn't seem like a good gamble.

On the flip side, as a small market team, it's almost easier to gamble on that end of spending than it is to gamble on free agency. Have to go for high reward projects internally if you're not going to be able to afford high reward FAs and you ever plan to compete.

[UK1679666180]

 

Gary Hughes doesn't see the difference between projecting a high school kid vs a college kid because he sees them with his EYES and feels their potential with his GUT. Not only does that fly in the face of any responsible use of statistics, it defies common sense. That's a problem.

 

If you were a scouting director of a smaller market club, would you draft a HS pitcher in the 1st?

 

With all things being equal, probably not. They are, on average, going to cost more to sign away from a college commitment and take more resources to develop. They are also more likely to bust than a polished college kid. It doesn't seem like a good gamble.

 

I disagree, you have to have faith in your developmental staff. If he's projected as a 1st rounder out of HS, you to have assume that the 3 years of pro baseball will allow him to develop more compared to 3 years at schools even like UNC, SC, or Vandy. It does give 3 more years of waiting as far as injury or complete breakdown but you can't draft or scout based on fear. There are too many successful HS pitching prospects to eliminate all of them b/c of the ones that bust.

 

It's probably why I agree with Hughes and see his angle given he is basically defending drafting HS arms regardless of market size. It does appear he is unaware of the differences of HS vs. college, although I still think he was looking at it as times seen and being able to OFP him rather whether or not there is a greater risk.

Edited September 22, 2011 by UK

[Guest]

 

Gary Hughes doesn't see the difference between projecting a high school kid vs a college kid because he sees them with his EYES and feels their potential with his GUT. Not only does that fly in the face of any responsible use of statistics, it defies common sense. That's a problem.

 

If you were a scouting director of a smaller market club, would you draft a HS pitcher in the 1st?

 

With all things being equal, probably not. They are, on average, going to cost more to sign away from a college commitment and take more resources to develop. They are also more likely to bust than a polished college kid. It doesn't seem like a good gamble.

But things are never equal. If context is accounted for (level of competition) and objective data are in support (radar speed, video analysis of break on off-speed pitches) of the scout team's determination that he's BPA. I think a team should take a HS pitcher in the first round. I guess another variable is where in the 1st round and how much the kid wants. I don't think I'd take a HS pitcher late in the first round if he's still there and it is not because of contract demands.

[UK1679666180]

I don't think I'd take a HS pitcher late in the first round if he's still there and it is not because of contract demands.

 

Why would you draft a HS arm earlier and not later in the 1st?

[Guest]

 

Gary Hughes doesn't see the difference between projecting a high school kid vs a college kid because he sees them with his EYES and feels their potential with his GUT. Not only does that fly in the face of any responsible use of statistics, it defies common sense. That's a problem.

 

If you were a scouting director of a smaller market club, would you draft a HS pitcher in the 1st?

 

With all things being equal, probably not. They are, on average, going to cost more to sign away from a college commitment and take more resources to develop. They are also more likely to bust than a polished college kid. It doesn't seem like a good gamble.

But things are never equal. If context is accounted for (level of competition) and objective data are in support (radar speed, video analysis of break on off-speed pitches) of the scout team's determination that he's BPA. I think a team should take a HS pitcher in the first round. I guess another variable is where in the 1st round and how much the kid wants. I don't think I'd take a HS pitcher late in the first round if he's still there and it is not because of contract demands.

 

Why?

[javy knows my name]

 

Gary Hughes doesn't see the difference between projecting a high school kid vs a college kid because he sees them with his EYES and feels their potential with his GUT. Not only does that fly in the face of any responsible use of statistics, it defies common sense. That's a problem.

 

If you were a scouting director of a smaller market club, would you draft a HS pitcher in the 1st?

 

With all things being equal, probably not. They are, on average, going to cost more to sign away from a college commitment and take more resources to develop. They are also more likely to bust than a polished college kid. It doesn't seem like a good gamble.

On the flip side, as a small market team, it's almost easier to gamble on that end of spending than it is to gamble on free agency. Have to go for high reward projects internally if you're not going to be able to afford high reward FAs and you ever plan to compete.

 

That's a good point. Pitchers are just so volatile that I would do my damndest to minimize the risk in making that pick. Picking a guy who already has some polish out of school AND presumably costs a little less to sign are two things you can kind of control when deciding on a pick.

[Guest]

 

Gary Hughes doesn't see the difference between projecting a high school kid vs a college kid because he sees them with his EYES and feels their potential with his GUT. Not only does that fly in the face of any responsible use of statistics, it defies common sense. That's a problem.

 

If you were a scouting director of a smaller market club, would you draft a HS pitcher in the 1st?

 

With all things being equal, probably not. They are, on average, going to cost more to sign away from a college commitment and take more resources to develop. They are also more likely to bust than a polished college kid. It doesn't seem like a good gamble.

On the flip side, as a small market team, it's almost easier to gamble on that end of spending than it is to gamble on free agency. Have to go for high reward projects internally if you're not going to be able to afford high reward FAs and you ever plan to compete.

 

I'm definitely with you on that.

 

The Pirates are far better off pouring their limited finances on the Jameson Taillons and Josh Bells of the world rather than their silly Matt Morris acquisition.

[UK1679666180]

 

That's a good point. Pitchers are just so volatile that I would do my damndest to minimize the risk in making that pick. Picking a guy who already has some polish out of school AND presumably costs a little less to sign are two things you can kind of control when deciding on a pick.

 

The Hellicksons of the world are few and far between. He was a college junior on the mound when he was junior in HS as far as how he pitched.

[SouthSideRyan]

 

That's a good point. Pitchers are just so volatile that I would do my damndest to minimize the risk in making that pick. Picking a guy who already has some polish out of school AND presumably costs a little less to sign are two things you can kind of control when deciding on a pick.

 

The Hellicksons of the world are few and far between. He was a college junior on the mound when he was junior in HS as far as how he pitched.

 

That's his point.

[javy knows my name]

 

That's a good point. Pitchers are just so volatile that I would do my damndest to minimize the risk in making that pick. Picking a guy who already has some polish out of school AND presumably costs a little less to sign are two things you can kind of control when deciding on a pick.

 

The Hellicksons of the world are few and far between. He was a college junior on the mound when he was junior in HS as far as how he pitched.

 

Yeah, SSR beat me. When the BPA is a high school kid with upper-level college polish and ridiculous upside, yeah, I'll be taking him with my pick.

 

EDIT: And spending a lot to sign him away from his college commitment

[UK1679666180]

 

That's a good point. Pitchers are just so volatile that I would do my damndest to minimize the risk in making that pick. Picking a guy who already has some polish out of school AND presumably costs a little less to sign are two things you can kind of control when deciding on a pick.

 

The Hellicksons of the world are few and far between. He was a college junior on the mound when he was junior in HS as far as how he pitched.

 

That's his point.

 

No.

 

With the ceiling/raw ability for those guys who have the stuff and command of 3 pitches, you're typically not going to find those guys for less.

 

The only reason why Hellickson wasn't drafted higher was b/c he was considered a tough sign and he was undersized with a slightly above FB.

 

It's like Giolito, he's the best HS player in the draft from what I've heard. You're not going to pry someone away like that from UCLA without paying him. The other HS arms are more max effort and raw with their secondary stuff. Giolito has the ability and polish to pitch in the majors at 21 (barring injury).

 

It can't be an either or as far as risk/signability. You either have to overpay for a pick with those assets or not draft him.

 

Edit: Ok, you'd be willing to overspend for someone like that which makes sense.

Edited September 22, 2011 by UK

[Guest]

 

Gary Hughes doesn't see the difference between projecting a high school kid vs a college kid because he sees them with his EYES and feels their potential with his GUT. Not only does that fly in the face of any responsible use of statistics, it defies common sense. That's a problem.

 

If you were a scouting director of a smaller market club, would you draft a HS pitcher in the 1st?

 

With all things being equal, probably not. They are, on average, going to cost more to sign away from a college commitment and take more resources to develop. They are also more likely to bust than a polished college kid. It doesn't seem like a good gamble.

But things are never equal. If context is accounted for (level of competition) and objective data are in support (radar speed, video analysis of break on off-speed pitches) of the scout team's determination that he's BPA. I think a team should take a HS pitcher in the first round. I guess another variable is where in the 1st round and how much the kid wants. I don't think I'd take a HS pitcher late in the first round if he's still there and it is not because of contract demands.

 

Why?

Well I guess because I don't think talent and the draft are linear. I think the very high first round guys are those that are much better bets than any other position or round. If a team is drafting BPA I think it is much more likely that the talent will be more evenly distributed once the first 10 or so guys are taken in the first round. If that is true (and it may not be), I'd take the guy who I had the most objective data for and the most projection because I think the talent of player A vs player B is not that different. Again, I think it would depend on the circumstances though.

[davearm2]

What was said:

VOROS McCRACKEN: The lower-revenue teams are in a bit of a bind when it comes to high school prospects because they are more of an unknown. It becomes difficult for a team that's not bringing in that much in terms of revenue to take a big-money chance . . .

 

GARY HUGHES: Why are they an unknown? I don't understand. Because of the data?

 

What it meant:

"I don't understand why you believe high school prospects that can be evaluated through scouting are an unknown. They're not unknown."

 

What you heard:

"I don't understand baseball."

 

Gary Hughes doesn't see the difference between projecting a high school kid vs a college kid because he sees them with his EYES and feels their potential with his GUT. Not only does that fly in the face of any responsible use of statistics, it defies common sense. That's a problem.

He didn't say that. That's your spin.

 

I'm going to go ahead and continue to cling to the apparently bizarre notion that a lifelong professional scout grasps the difference between projecting HS prospects and college prospects.

 

He doesn't agree that they're MORE of an unknown. Your context actually helps my argument. He doesn't think it is any harder to project (or any riskier to pay) high school players than college players. That is all there, and you are the only person who doesn't see it (Ping does not count).

I reject that conclusion on the grounds that it's preposterous. Of course there are inherent differences between HS players and college players, and a professional scout would be the person most aware of those differences.

 

If we were to have a beer tonight with Gary Hughes, and we asked him, "is it harder to project HS players?" he would answer yes.

 

If we were to ask him "are HS players more of a risk", he would answer yes.

 

People are going way overboard with this and letting common sense fly right out the window.

[SouthSideRyan]

It does appear he is unaware of the differences of HS vs. college

[Magnetic Curses]

If we were to have a beer tonight with Gary Hughes, and we asked him, "is it harder to project HS players?" he would answer yes.

 

If we were to ask him "are HS players more of a risk", he would answer yes.

 

People are going way overboard with this and letting common sense fly right out the window.

 

mccracken said "more of an unknown" (meaning harder to evaluate, one would assume) and hughes criticized him for it. i honestly don't know what you need to admit you're embarrassing yourself.

[UK1679666180]

It does appear he is unaware of the differences of HS vs. college

 

Use proper context or at least the entire quote.

[javy knows my name]

I'm out.

[davearm2]

If we were to have a beer tonight with Gary Hughes, and we asked him, "is it harder to project HS players?" he would answer yes.

 

If we were to ask him "are HS players more of a risk", he would answer yes.

 

People are going way overboard with this and letting common sense fly right out the window.

 

mccracken said "more of an unknown" (meaning harder to evaluate, one would assume) and hughes criticized him for it. i honestly don't know what you need to admit you're embarrassing yourself.

As compared to a college player, a HS player...

 

* is less physically mature. That's known.

* is almost certainly facing inferior competition. That's known.

* has less experience. That's known.

* will require more development time. That's known.

* faces a greater risk of arm injury, if he's a pitcher. That's known.

 

All of these factors, and probably several others I'm leaving out, make the HS kid a greater risk. So you do a classic risk/reward evaluation, and fill out your draft board, with the HS kids slotting in with the college kids however your risk/reward analysis, combined with your organization's risk tolerance, dictates.

 

So what is it that's unknown in this scenario? Between the scouting grades and the statistical data, you have all the information you need to make a fully informed decision.

 

That is what I believe Gary Hughes' point was.

[javy knows my name]

I'm back in.

 

Holy semantical gymnastics! His answer is right there, in black and white. But yes, when you completely divorce his answer from the context and make a ton of assumptions independent of the text, yes, he COULD mean something else by it. You're normally literal to a fault. Now you're reaching God knows where and completely ignoring the textual evidence in front of you because YOU believe that a scout should know these things. Well you know what? I believe our development team should use a computer to compile stats on our minor leaguers rather than a pencil and paper. This organization isn't chock full of people who know what we think they should know or do what we think they should do.

 

The organization in general, and Hughes in particular, has given us no reason to believe this isn't what he actually thinks. The text gives us no reason to believe this isn't what he actually thinks. Good gracious.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

So Hughes knew about unknowns because knowing that an unknown is unknown makes it known?

[Magnetic Curses]

If we were to have a beer tonight with Gary Hughes, and we asked him, "is it harder to project HS players?" he would answer yes.

 

If we were to ask him "are HS players more of a risk", he would answer yes.

 

People are going way overboard with this and letting common sense fly right out the window.

 

mccracken said "more of an unknown" (meaning harder to evaluate, one would assume) and hughes criticized him for it. i honestly don't know what you need to admit you're embarrassing yourself.

As compared to a college player, a HS player...

 

* is less physically mature. That's known.

* is almost certainly facing inferior competition. That's known.

* has less experience. That's known.

* will require more development time. That's known.

* faces a greater risk of arm injury, if he's a pitcher. That's known.

 

All of these factors, and probably several others I'm leaving out, make the HS kid a greater risk. So you do a classic risk/reward evaluation, and fill out your draft board, with the HS kids slotting in with the college kids however your risk/reward analysis, combined with your organization's risk tolerance, dictates.

 

So what is it that's unknown in this scenario? Between the scouting grades and the statistical data, you have all the information you need to make a fully informed decision.

 

That is what I believe Gary Hughes' point was.

 

so it's known that high school players are more of an unknown. i'm glad we have that cleared up.

 

what are you, dothraki?