Should minor league experts actually see the players they report on?

by jbluestone on Feb 3, 2007 10:26 PM EST Comment 15 comments

I just read John Manuels chat from february 1st... and i knew that BA gets alot of info from the guys in the orginization... but he seemed to be saying that he doesnt see alot of these guys actually play.. and that its not even neccessary

"John Manuel : (2:04 PM ET ) Dave, thanks for the kind words. You don't have to see prospects to get good scouting reports. What Jim Callis does and what I do and what we do at Baseball America is talk to the people who know--the scouts, the managers, the coaches who see these players in the minors, the farm directors, the scouting directors. Stats help the further up the ladder you go; they don't mean a whole lot at the short-season level, though they have some meaning. They can point you in the right direction. But I've never been to an NY-P game in my life. I've covered college baseball for the better part of 10 years without going to many SEC games in person, and I think the people in that league know that I know SEC baseball, without having been there. It's just hard work and journalism, nothing extraordinary. "

How do you guys feel about this?

0 recs | Comment 15 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Re:

In this day and age, for the experts, there doesn't seem much excuse for not atleast seeing these guys on video...

That said, atleast BA talks to scouts and managers a great deal. Many of these other 'experts' do little besides look at stats. With the stats now easily accessible on the net to all of us I would think the 'experts' need to more than stats to continue to produce a worthwhile product.

by im not new on Feb 3, 2007 10:58 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

experts

I think an expert is someone who goes to games (day/night/rain/early in the season/late in the season), watches film, and solicits input from coaches, scouts and others in the game.
If you are not doing that, you are not an expert, but merely someone with an opinion (perhaps informed?) with access to stats and info.
I mean, anyone can report Homer Bailey has a plus fastball, based on scouting and stats, but has he seen him pitch?

by dwiest12 on Feb 3, 2007 11:32 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

disagree

i sort of agree with manuel. there is a difference between somebody like me, who can read about homer bailey on the internet, and somebody who talks to the scouts and managers who watch him on a daily basis. i'm just an informed outsider. not only have i not seen the player, i've never even spoken to anybody who's seen the player. i just read stuff written by guys who have talked to people who have seen the player. there's an extra degree of separation there.

by jpahk on Feb 3, 2007 11:37 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

scouts vs expert writers

What you are describing is a professional scout.

Writers and analysts don't need to be scouts to be very good at what they do. In fact, I'm more often annoyed when writers pretend to be scouts and rely too heavily on their observations rather than a careful look at statistics and informed comments by professionals in the game. I think that Alan Matthews can be guilty of thisat times, for example. He's a nice writer, but I really don't care if he thinks Young-Il Jung looks great in instructional league. I'd rather hear some reports from multiple people in the game.

by FI on Feb 4, 2007 9:20 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Anyone

Can watch a game and form an opinion as well, doesn't make them an expert.
Liek him or not, I think we'd all agree that Gammons is an expert, but the most important thing about Gammons isn't the games he goes to see, it's the information and contacts he has.

God rested one day out of 7, Felix rests 4 out of 5.

by CrimsonLiederhosen on Feb 3, 2007 11:40 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

Scout vs Reporter

BA is a publication. The guys who write for the magazine are reporters. Probably impossible to cover all of minor league baseball as well as college in person. Much more important to have contacts around the country.

Still, would be nice to make an effort to see the best prospects in person to see for yourself what the coaches/scouts are talking about.

I comment quite frequently on Giants prospects and have strong opinions. Most of my opinions are based on what I see in stats and from faithfully following boxscores in season as well as what I read in BA, this site, and others like it. I don't have the time to travel around the country visiting all the Giants minor league teams. I do try to see the San Jose Giants when they come to SoCal. I have to say that seeing the players in person gives you an entirely different perspective than what you read or imagine from boxscores and stats.

by DrBGiantsfan on Feb 4, 2007 2:00 AM EST reply actions 0 recs

What bothers me as a BA subscriber

I pay my money....

For the country's preeminent scouting website, how can they not:

Give us video on the big guys. I'm not asking for everyone but at least give us the main prospects.
Not give us the 20-80 breakdown on all the skills that get graded. If you're going to the effort to give us a write up, why not the grades? I understand that they aren't scouts themselves but, as reporters, maybe combining different sources to give us a grade might even be more valuable.

Does this, as a paying customer, bother anyone else or is it just me?

by Guyute on Feb 4, 2007 2:20 AM EST reply actions 0 recs

I'm 100% with you...

About the scouting reports at least. I'm not really a scout so the videos would be interesting, but not really help my prospecting.

They had a short lived feature a few years back where they published the real scouting reports of top prospects with the 20-80 ratings, notes, comps and all that jazz, it was great. I wish they had it for all their profiled prospect, and if not on the website, at least in their prospect book (which is really good BTW. Sickels book is also a real good read).

by beastball on Feb 4, 2007 12:43 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

black or white?

Why does everything have to be black or white? There is a full spectrum of 'experts' out there. Someone who talks to scouts and coaches is definately more well informed than someone like me who follows these guys on the internet and just has access to the numbers. But someone who talks to coaches and scouts AND goes to see the guys play (i.e. John Sickels) is probably even MORE well informed. And someone who talks to MORE scouts and sees MORE players in person is probably even more well informed than John. Sure, I probably trust someone at BA more than some random guy posting a diary on this site, but that doesn't mean I don't trust someone more than the guys at BA.

by sabernar on Feb 4, 2007 9:24 AM EST reply actions 0 recs

My 2c on scouting and journalism.

Actually, I have a little different opinion on this, having done a little scouting myself, and some writing about scouting too. I've learned that it's very dangerous to trust a small number of glimpses of a player. These guys are all human beings, and some are really just kids, still. I'm sure every high draft pick looked great on his best days. Even "signability issues" wouldn't have gotten Matt Bush taken first overall unless someone had seen him on a good day, and taken away the impression that he was going to be a major-leaguer.

I have a lot of respect for John Manuel, and guys who do what he does well. He is trained to scout players and experienced as a reporter. I see the "value add" be brings as the ability to discuss players with the guys who see them a lot, day-in and day-out and then report on these discussions. He then has to consider the biases of his sources, as any journalist does, and condense the various inputs into reports that are lucid and meaningful.

I guess I would rather see a guy like John Manuel cultivate sources he trusts to provide reliable scouting information, and then rely on those sources. I guess he'd have to be sure to do his own scouting on players where he didn't consider his sources to be reliable, but I'd rather have the people who see a lot of a guy do the actual scouting than a guy who would only have the time to watch a few video clips on each of thousands of prospects and suspects.

by BobbyMac on Feb 4, 2007 11:49 AM EST reply actions 0 recs

call me master of the obvious

A journalist relying a lot on what managers and others in the game tell him or her will find themselves on a treacherous slope. Often there's an agenda within the organization, and an old school mentality allows such "opinions" to float outside the organization.

For every true B or better prospect, there's probably another so-called B that the org, long ago determined has no shot. You'll hear such honesty in cretain circles, behind certain closed doors, but when John Manuel or whoever calls, even when many scouts drop in the manager's office, they'll get the company line.

by BTL05 on Feb 4, 2007 12:35 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

agreed

This is very perilous, and "breaking the code" is a big part of what a guy in his position needs to do. I'm pretty sure that if someone without the relationships built up (such as myself) were to talk to an "insider", they would be susceptible to getting a "snow job", and I'm sure this is why many journalists get labeled as "organizational shills".

by BobbyMac on Feb 4, 2007 12:46 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

thrills & shills

Well said. And another thing....<g>

Often the way those relationships get built up is by serious butt smooching. There are few writers and less scouts than you'd imagine whose primary interest isn't endearing themselves to managers and high level development people.

by BTL05 on Feb 5, 2007 3:19 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Yes

How many times have I seen something along the lines of "I saw the guy once (or twice) and was unimpressed, therefore I just don't like the guy as much as everybody else."

Plus seeing the guy and basing the opinion off of what you see is just one opinion. Some of these writers take the opinions of many and consolidate it, sometimes with opinions of their own.

It all has its place.

by mcq fesijiba on Feb 4, 2007 12:38 PM EST reply actions 0 recs