I went to a Cal League game late last year.  There were a bunch of scouts in the stands with their radar guns.  I was trying to figure out who they were watching.  I think it was Brooks McNivan of the San Jose Giants.  There were trade rumors at the time about the Giants acquiring Jose Mesa from Pittsburgh and I think McNivan was the bait.  Anyway.  They worked in pairs with one guy holding the gun and another guy taking notes.  They appeared to be quite professional.  I know that's a different situation than scouting college and HS before the draft, but you'd think they'd be on their toes this close to the draft.

With two high profile schools like you mentioned, it may just be a case of being the only game in town that day.  Most area scouts spend the early part of the season taking in college games as they get an earlier start than the high schools.  It may be a case where they have seen Buck etc. numerous times and were there basically because there was a game in town but their evaluations on those players were mostly complete.

This close to the draft, the majority of the scouting is probably done and these guys are more than likely cross-checking the information produced in earlier scouting reports.

I doubt that any team that is looking Buck would be seeing him for the first time this past weekend. They are looking for something new, something to gain. And Buck didn't impress a couple of guys at all. A couple of my friends tried out for the Cincinnati Reds and I went along just to get a feel for the experience and was talking to a couple of the scouts and they said that within 5 minutes of starting drills they knew the players that had a chance. Then you hone in on those players, obviously nobody was exciting them at the ASU-AU series.

As to the McNivan situation they are in tandem just like you use three guys to scout high school football. You have limited time and opportunities to see a player when a deal is offered so you use the extra set of eyes to get as many chances to see him play as possible.

Agree with what has been said. Any four corners scout who NEEDS to sit and watch Buck hit four times  in Mid May has obviously not covered their area completely. At this point in the year with the exception of senior signs and D&F's it is more or less out of the hands of the area guys with Crosscheckers, national guys and scouting directors coming in.

While it is easy to assume what these guys weren't doing please remember what they could have been doing.

I gather from your writing that you saw the team on Sunday which is typically regarded as a less exciting scouting day as you tend to see #3 starters and/or underclassmen and thus one inning with the radar gun may have sufficed.

The scouts who you said left right at the time of Buck's AB more than likely went down the line to see Buck hit from his open side and either stayed down there for the remainder of the game or went home and worked on reports as writing guys up and keeping in contact with the home office is a full time job in itself not to mention being on the road away from your family for over 200 days a year.

As for the question about pro coverage. I cover the Cal League so more than likely I was at that game last summer. It is very rare for extra scouts  to be brought in to evaluate a player for a trade during the summer, at least I never saw such a scene at the 115 games I scouted at last summer.

 I imagine what you were seeing was the San Jose players charting McNiven (the one player using the gun and the other charting gave it away). Most teams have professional scouting staffs that cover    minor league and big league teams for trade and free agent purposes. After the draft most teams will send their Area scouts out to do pro coverage as well to get a second look at the players the pro staff has already scene as well as give the amatuer scouts an opportunity to gain a sense of perspective by seeing more and better players.

Hope this sheds some light.

...I agree with all the replies, and would only add that if the scouts put away their radar guns in the first, either:

a) they had seen the pitchers before and just wanted to confirm that the velocity hadn't changed

b) or they were looking at someone new and most likely weren't impressed with the velocity.  

As far as the stats/scouting debate, Oakland started ignoring the scouts in '02 and the chickens are coming home to roost.

By the way, is where do most scouts learn their trade?  Is there a school they attend or is it just experience?  I'm retired and wouldn't mind doing some of it.

about how quirky the scouting game can be.  My sophomore season of JC ball, I was heavily recruited.  Also, I was draft eligible.  My dad videotaped my at bats so we could view them later on that night.  As I was in the on deck circle a scout came over and asked me "to run it out real good" so he could get a time to first on me.  Well, I hit a HR this at-bat and ran hard out of the box making the turn as I was unsure if it was going out.  After crossing the plate and coming back to the dugout, the scout leaned over at the fence and told me, "You ran real good!  Good job."  I laugh about it as I have this on video--did he notice I hit the ball out of the park?  Did he notice I made a turn as if I was going for a 2B?  That was not a legit time to 1B as I didn't run straight through the bag.  Needless to say, I've been an advocate of a more stats based approach.  :-)

I used to be more weighted towards a statistical based approach until my eyes were really opened to how easily misled one can be by the way we compile our statistics.  i've posted this before, but it incapsulates my new found thoughts on the matter.

________________
A friend really got me thinking...if you are evaluating players largely based on statistics, is there more to account for the difference between a .275 hitter and a .300 hitter aside from talent?  This was born out of him trying to convince me that past performance is not such a big indicator of future performance (he had a hard time convincing me).

While i know park factors are virtually mainstream considerations now including "environmental"  factors such as thin air and turf, the issue was posed to me framed in a major league instance, though it can be looked at from a draft perspective as well:

if i were a gm looking to sign a bat, should i not consider a .270 hitter from a weak AL East team on par (or close to) with a .300 hitter from a weaker division, let's use the AL central.  His thinking was that the .270 hitter would have to face the likes of Randy Johnson, Curt Schilling, Roy Halladay and other less notables but still well above average pitchers more often because of the weighted schedule whereas the .300 hitter from the AL Central won't have to face such extraordinary pitchers (beyond Johan Santana) in their most heavily weighted group of teams in their sched (i guess that would include Sabathia, Buehrle, Bonderman)

Over time, especially when you consider deep rotations in NY and Bos (arguable perhaps), shouldn't more attention be given to this line of thinking?  I mean the difference is just 16-18 hits over an entire season.  For instance, the .275 hitter might see RJ, Schilling and Halladay an extra 2 times each, which might result (~4ab per game) in 24ab in total.  I realize that wouldn't account for 16-18 extra hits, but it could potentially make a big dent in that number.

I can imagine instances where the level of opposition pitchers is even wider.  And then the same artgument can be made for pitchers who are in the same division as great hitting teams.

This applies to any kind of statistic you can compile, OPS, Sec avg etc.

I think Rob Neyer has touched on this in the past, and i wouldn't be suprised if Bill James has.  I really can't get my head around it and has made me far more cynical in valuating statistics.

I'd love to hear thoughts on this
________________

i'm lucky enough to work with ball players at an amateur level as they become eligible to be drafted or more likely begin considering US College scholarships.  So, naturally i feel scouting capabilities are very important, moreso now than ever.

Radars and Clipboards all have their place.  But often is the case that scouts go to see a certain player (especially this time of year) and are looking for certain things.  There is a huge difference between seeing a player for the first time and say the fifth time with some context.

Furthermore, let's use our favourite Moneyball whipping boy Jeremy Brown.  Yes, he was a very good college player, but scouts were confident there wasn't much ceiling left to reach for, which when you consider the level of talent between college and the show is huge, exemplifies why scouting capabilities are so important.  Statistics don't do a good job when it comes to projectability...and isn't that the name of the game when it comes to drafting?