Comments on: The Prospecting Mission Statement, Part II

By: kileymcd

kileymcd — Thu, 03 Apr 2008 18:22:25 +0000

Hey Rat P, thanks for reading.

I think it is a sliding scale, depending on the player and his skills/profile and the level he’s at.

We will be posting various league top 10s or 20s or 30s as we accumulate those reports. I can speak specifically to the Florida State League being in my backyard and I should see every team a few times, I know Frankie has a few leagues around him as well. The analysis will be as you’d expect given how we’ve written so far, with scouting and stats combined.

By: Rat P

Rat P — Thu, 03 Apr 2008 15:05:56 +0000

Interesting stuff. Obviously as players move towards the higher levels, Clubs place more value on statistical performance than “potential/tools”. As a player progesses through the system, how do you weight stats vs. tools? I would think it should be a weighted scale.
Secondarily, will you guys post any prospect lists for the Low A/High A levels taking into account both sabermetrics and old fashioned note pad and pencil scouting? Thanks – great site!!!!!!!!

By: kileymcd

kileymcd — Thu, 03 Apr 2008 06:25:24 +0000

Not much is classified at this point, I am writing for a web site that prides itself on bringing the real information scouts are using and producing to the fans.

As for OBP skills v. BA skills, that depends on what level you’re looking at. A common refrain is that scouting means less and less the higher you get competition-level-wise. Because then the performance can speak for itself more as far as converting more cleanly to MLB terms.

A batting average at AAA is more indicative of MLB-level skills than a Lo-A batting average. At the Lo-A level, you are looking more at scouted hitting ability to make that projection more accurate. When you’re looking at a AAA player, there’s the assumption he can hit a little bit and you can take into account more OBP skills toward getting one hitting tool number than you would at the Lo-A level.

As for other examples, it depends on which position you are and what that position’s profile is. Basically, for a first baseman, power is preferred way ahead of fielding. For a shortstop, fielding is way ahead of power. In a vacuum, which do I take? Power, because it’s harder to find and costs more on the open market than fielding. But I’d prefer both.

Thanks for reading, we encourage questions like these to keep the dialog going, we aren’t as scary as we look.

By: thinkblue1

thinkblue1 — Thu, 03 Apr 2008 06:14:01 +0000

Hey Kiley. First time, long time. How do you weigh the tools against each other? For example, how would you weigh getting on base versus making contact, or hitting for power versus fielding? Or is that classified?

By: kileymcd

kileymcd — Wed, 02 Apr 2008 05:33:07 +0000

Great observation, Grant. That’s another example of teams taking that economic view over the old-school view. Just like some executives will take the “Aramis Ramirez” choice, because it’s “right” even if it makes less for the bottom line all things considered, other teams take the extra year tacked on the end of a premium guy’s career (like the Rays with Evan Longoria) to take PR hit from the old-school mob for two months that forget it after the season is done and you get another cost-controlled season of a superstar.

When there are people and momentum behind ideas like that, it takes awhile to change to where the new idea is acceptable, and we’re almost there with the economic, admittedly more cold-hearted view of sports.

By: Grant

Grant — Wed, 02 Apr 2008 02:21:19 +0000

Another thing becoming a little more common, on the economic side, is teams waiting to bring up top prospects to keep from starting their free agent clock. They are, basically, sacrificing a year now, for an extra year later on (when the player will be closer to his peak years).

What are your thoughts on that approach?