CSS Button No Image Css3Menu.com

Baseball Prospectus home
Click here to log in Click here for forgotten password Click here to subscribe

<< Previous Article
Premium Article Transaction Analysis: ... (08/19)
<< Previous Column
Baseball ProGUESTus: Y... (08/12)
Next Column >>
Baseball ProGUESTus: D... (08/26)
Next Article >>
Premium Article Manufactured Runs: Mul... (08/19)

August 19, 2011

Baseball ProGUESTus

The Dumbing-Down of Scouting

by Frankie Piliere

Believe it or not, most of our writers didn't enter the world sporting an @baseballprospectus.com address; with a few exceptions, they started out somewhere else. In an effort to up your reading pleasure while tipping our caps to some of the most illuminating work being done elsewhere on the internet, we'll be yielding the stage once a week to the best and brightest baseball writers, researchers and thinkers from outside of the BP umbrella. If you'd like to nominate a guest contributor (including yourself), please drop us a line.

Frankie Piliere is currently the National Baseball Expert for FOX Sports/Scout.com, and his analysis and scouting reports can be found at ScoutingBaseball.com. He previously filled the same role for AOL FanHouse. His work has also appeared in USA Today. Prior to that, he worked as a scout in the Texas Rangers’ pro scouting department. Frankie lives in Cape Cod, Mass. and is the only resident who moved there not for the beaches but for the baseball. You can find him on twitter @FrankiePiliere.

This may come as a shock, but the 1994 movie The Scout is not a spot-on portrayal of a modern baseball talent evaluator. Of course I’m being sarcastic, right? Yes, the majority of the baseball-following public understands the complex nature of player evaluation and that portrayals of scouts like that film’s are nothing more than something to chuckle about.

Most people don’t go as far as thinking scouts wander aimlessly around Mexico seeking 110-mph fastballs and carrying nothing but a scorecard, but some careless misconceptions continue to linger. Some are comical enough, but some perpetuate poor baseball philosophies. It’s often the media that is responsible for the dumbing-down of what scouting is all about. It’s at that point that what scouting departments do every day is taken from a science to a simplified process that would make Al Percolo and Steve Nebraska proud.

Myth #1: Players of Small Stature Are Ignored
Tune in during a game where a player under 5-foot-11 is on the field, and you’re likely to hear a broadcaster talk about shorter players having a hard time getting noticed by scouts or how they beat the odds. Yes, there were evaluators who doubted Dustin Pedroia’s pro upside, but the same could be said about just about any prospect. You don’t have to look far for a scout who’s down on any given prospect. Pedroia was a second-round draft pick, and that’s nothing to sneeze at.

There are scouts who probably put more stock in physical size than they should. As is the case in any profession, there are evaluators who are less competent than others. Still, the idea that teams will ignore a player for being undersized couldn’t be more false.

Myth #2: Comparisons Are Skin Deep
It is acceptable to compare an up-and-coming Brett Gardner to Kenny Lofton, and, every African-American, lefty-swinging slugger isn’t necessarily comparable to Ryan Howard. It’s clearly a gut reaction for people to compare players to current or former big leaguers merely because they resemble each other, and quite often it starts with race. It’s not done intentionally, but it’s done time and time again. Members of the media, particularly when they are less familiar with the player, are as guilty of this as anyone.

I get asked on a daily basis to give comparisons for prospects. The surprise for many people is that there isn’t always an obvious one. They’re surprised because for the longest time they’ve been the fed the idea that every prospect has to compare closely to a past or present big leaguer. Because of that, comparisons have become increasingly lazy.

When I was filing reports for the Rangers, sometimes comparisons were included in the summations, and sometimes they weren’t. Often there would be a comparison that referred to one aspect of a player’s game, but rarely would there be a perfect fit. The need to give the casual fan a visual of what a young player could become is not lost on me, and making a comparison to a big leaguer that they know is a quick and easy way of accomplishing that.

On the other hand, I have no doubt that fans are smart enough to accept a comparison of two players who don’t have the same skin tone. Every white center fielder is not Mickey Mantle, just as every hard-throwing, African-American right-hander is not Dwight Gooden. Some of you may laugh at this, but these examples are ones I’ve heard too many times to count.

Myth #3: Scouts Are Slaves to the Radar Gun
Most of us have probably heard the stories at some point. There’s a pitcher in a big-league game with less than a plus fastball, and we’re told by a broadcaster that scouts nowadays barely look at guys who don’t throw hard. We also hear that some of the pitchers of days gone by, like Whitey Ford, would have been overlooked because of a lack of velocity.

Well, allow me to come to the defense of scouts everywhere on this. Simply because a scout carries a radar gun doesn’t mean he loses all ability to evaluate other aspects of a pitcher’s game. Radar guns are used in the first few innings of a game and then again in the final inning or so when scouting a starting pitcher. The rest of the evaluation is done from different angles around the field. Obviously, velocity is taken into account, but it is far from the last word in scouting a pitcher, and there are plenty of pitchers in the big leagues averaging under 90 mph to prove this. These players didn’t just materialize. They were evaluated by scouts.

Myth #4: A Strong Consensus Exists
Scouts don’t agree all the time. You will find scouts right now who don’t like Bryce Harper and Mike Trout. They’re out there, and it doesn’t mean they’re necessarily bad scouts. There are also scouts who were high on Brett Gardner, while many others argued he’d never be a big-league regular. I had more than a handful of scouts tell me they believed Gerrit Cole, this year’s first overall pick, would be a bust.

The media likes a consensus. It’s neat, and it helps make the desired point. It’s our job to make top prospect lists for entertainment purposes, but the reality is you’d have a wide variety of names showing up on these lists if you began asking scouts to make their own. After years of being fed lists, particularly leading up to the draft, by people like myself, there is a strong belief among fans that if a team deviates from this perceived consensus, then they’ve done a subpar job.

Like clockwork, the backlash for a team’s draft class seems to come every year. Most of that backlash comes from what we in the media have said. While I’m the last one to complain about readers trusting my opinion, it always fascinates me that a fan is far more inclined to side with the media over the people paid to evaluate the players involved on a daily basis.

Frankie Piliere is an author of Baseball Prospectus. 
Click here to see Frankie's other articles. You can contact Frankie by clicking here

Related Content:  Scouts,  The Who

20 comments have been left for this article. (Click to hide comments)

BP Comment Quick Links

Jason Wojciechowski

Myth #1 seems like a strawman. I don't hear announcers or fans or anyone else claim that short players just don't get looked at -- the argument, IME, is that short players aren't given the benefit of the scouting/projection doubt, and thus they have to do more to prove themselves worthy of a high draft pick, a big contract, a promotion, whatever.

The question isn't whether teams will give short players a chance -- the question is how much of a chance.

Aug 19, 2011 00:32 AM
rating: 5
Richard Bergstrom

Agreed. I never heard someone couldn't pitch because they were 5'10" though I have heard that someone who is 5'10" doesn't project as well. Kind of like a slow first baseman who has "old player skills" will only go as far as his bat takes him.

Aug 19, 2011 01:09 AM
rating: 0
Richard Bergstrom

Rhetorical question... Are these myths perpetuated by the media, in part, due to Fox Sports broadcasters?

Aug 19, 2011 01:14 AM
rating: -2

Rupert Murdoch assured me that FOX perpetuates the truth.

Aug 22, 2011 10:26 AM
rating: 2

They have less of a chance. Its a very common perception that at the HS and college levels that short players have the deck stacked against them. Its often said "Short players have to prove the CAN play, while tall players have to prove they can't."

Especially among pitchers, there is such a thing as a 'classic frame' which many MLB teams will gravitate towards. If all other factors are equal most pro teams will select the taller player, with the thought being his size makes him less likely to break down and therefore a safer investment.

But it's not a strawman, its a very real obstacle for players below 5' 10".

Aug 19, 2011 04:12 AM
rating: 7

"Moneyball" may have perpetuated this. Lewis wrote about hoew the A's look for undervalued assets, such as pitchers under 6 feet tall.

Aug 19, 2011 10:30 AM
rating: 0

If the A's ever did find undervalued short pitchers, they haven't lately. They have had just one SP (Gaudin) shorter than six feet since 2003.

Aug 19, 2011 21:07 PM
rating: 0

"The question isn't whether teams will give short players a chance -- the question is how much of a chance."

Which is exactly what the author originally said. He never said, "short players never get drafted or signed." How does your point differ at all from what was presented?

Aug 19, 2011 20:45 PM
rating: 3

Since you covered 'outside the box' opinions on prospects, let me ask you a question about a blog post I did recently.


I noticed that Jesus Montero has seen many of his rate stats (OBP, SLG, wOBA and wRC+) decline annually as he's climbed the ladder from the lower levels to the upper levels. Not just a down year this season, but a 3 year trend. Most troubling for me was his K%, which has almost doubled since High A. Looked to me like someone with holes in his swing who's getting exposed as he climbs the ladder.

Of course, many Yankee fans would have none of it, and acted as if I attacked a religious figure. What do you think?

Aug 19, 2011 04:01 AM
rating: -2

It's conceivable that there are better pitchers in AAA and AA than there are in High-A. Just saying.

Aug 19, 2011 07:03 AM
rating: 1
Richard Bergstrom

The blatant pimping of your blog aside, I think one of your commentators put it best.

"Well conceived. Poorly researched. You just can’t say due to his increase in strikeouts and decrease in slugging he would be even further exploited at major league level and he would have no value. He’s 21 bro."

Aug 19, 2011 08:07 AM
rating: 2

No one ever really asserts #4, yet I've seen 1 through 3 all the time in (1) talking to scouts (although mostly that's pro scouts and not amateur scouts); (2) reading scouting reports; and (3) reading quotes from scouts in the media.

So the protestations that "it's really not the case" don't exactly ring true for me.

I mean hell, I've *done* a study (less than five years ago) using the MLBSB reports database, on #2. Obviously MLBSB only employs a few scouts, but the degree of race correlation in player comparisons was almost perfect (except that black and Latin players were, very rarely, compared to each other).

Aug 19, 2011 05:32 AM
rating: 1

"the degree of race correlation in player comparisons was almost perfect (except that black and Latin players were, very rarely, compared to each other)"

Can you clarify what you mean?

Aug 19, 2011 20:48 PM
rating: 0

I still thought it was a fun read.

Aug 19, 2011 05:59 AM
rating: 6

These myths may be more of myths at the college level, but at the high school level 1 & 3 are absolutely true. I have friends one who was a much better hitter and all state and hit homers off of guys who were drafted and got absolutley no interest drawn because he was 5'10 where my other friend who was an average hitter and built like a tank was told he could get drafted if he wanted to instead of playing college football. Scouts feel that taller guys can put on more muscle as they mature so to get noticed you need to not be just as good as the competition, but must leave no doubt in their production. This is the same with pitchers. Also with pitchers the radar gun is huge. This is proven in the fact that there are tons of position players that get drafted and immediately changed into pitchers because they can throw in the 90s.

Aug 19, 2011 12:20 PM
rating: 0
Richard Bergstrom

As mentioned earlier, the more projection you have, the more room you have for error. Or, to use Corey Patterson as an example, athletic ability (or potential athletic ability) can make up for gaps in baseball skills. On the other hand, scouting's not an exact science which is what makes projection so difficult.

Aug 19, 2011 12:57 PM
rating: 0

On the short myth -- Pedroia was never in the top 50 prospects by BA, despite outhitting almost everyone in front of him (Pecota had him #1 one year because of his actual performance).

I put up a study on the differences between ranking systems on Sickels site a few years ago, comparing the major league value of players versus their ranking position. At that point, BA was notably worse than Sickels, with a significant percentage of the players being underrated by BA being smaller players. As with Pedroia, BA assumed a fairly low ceiling for small players, despite any evidence to the contrary.

Aug 19, 2011 17:41 PM
rating: 1

Do you have a link to this study?

Aug 19, 2011 20:50 PM
rating: 0

The article is an attack on straw men, cliches and the media and, for this audience, is merely a piece of fluff that might properly have been subtitled The Dumbing-Down of BP.

Aug 20, 2011 11:22 AM
rating: -3
Richard Bergstrom

It was a guest piece. And besides, it's kind of dumb to judge an entire site on one guest piece, especially when there are 4-6 articles and miniblogs a day to choose from. Try harder and I'm sure you'll find something you enjoy reading.

Aug 22, 2011 11:51 AM
rating: 0
You must be a Premium subscriber to post a comment.
Not a subscriber? Sign up today!
<< Previous Article
Premium Article Transaction Analysis: ... (08/19)
<< Previous Column
Baseball ProGUESTus: Y... (08/12)
Next Column >>
Baseball ProGUESTus: D... (08/26)
Next Article >>
Premium Article Manufactured Runs: Mul... (08/19)

Premium Article The Prospectus Hit List: July 1, 2015
Fantasy Rounders: The Slump Buster
Premium Article What Scouts Are Saying: July 1, 2015
Premium Article Going Yard: Futures Game: USA Bats
Premium Article Minor League Update: Games of Tuesday, June ...
Premium Article What You Need to Know: July 1, 2015
Premium Article Notes from the Field: July 1, 2015

Premium Article Manufactured Runs: Multifold Changes
Premium Article Transaction Analysis: Familiar Faces
Premium Article Collateral Damage: Pain in the Neck
Premium Article Divide and Conquer, AL East: The Simileast
Fantasy Article Fantasy Beat: Deceptive Stat Lines
Premium Article Divide and Conquer, AL West: The Battle Ahea...

2014-11-25 - Before They Were Pros
2013-06-12 - Premium Article Perfect Game Presents: AL Draft Recap
2011-08-19 - Baseball ProGUESTus: The Dumbing-Down of Sco...

2011-09-09 - Baseball ProGUESTus: Feline Intervention
2011-09-02 - Baseball ProGUESTus: The Moneyball Mispercep...
2011-08-26 - Baseball ProGUESTus: Do Pitchers Really Trad...
2011-08-19 - Baseball ProGUESTus: The Dumbing-Down of Sco...
2011-08-12 - Baseball ProGUESTus: Your Worthless No-Count...
2011-08-05 - Baseball ProGUESTus: Moping About Moneyball
2011-07-29 - Baseball ProGUESTus: The Horror of Their Tim...