The General Perception

by sagecoll on Aug 27, 2025 2:58 PM EDT

Baseball Scouting is almost as old the game itself. The methods of finding a good baseball player have seemingly stayed pretty consistent over the years until the new millennium. For about a century, the credentials for being a scout would be to have “An eye” for a good baseball player. That hasn’t changed much. Many of us still use our gut to find a good player. It may be a good feeling about watching someone in person, or that a performance looked particularly impressive on a scouting report or a stat sheet, but the whole method of “going with your gut” is certainly not dead.

Moneyball disturbed this tradition in baseball of using your gut by negatively labeling those who don’t use numbers as their means of scouting. It made people pay a lot more attention to the numbers on the right side of the stat sheet such as OBP/Slugging. It made people consider things such as park factors and league adjustments.

Yet despite this shift towards using stats as the sole means of scouting, it certainly has not proved to be the principal way in evaluating talent. The term “tools” is still thrown around which is almost completely independent of numbers, and there is also plenty of weight still put on scouting reports in the baseball community—especially towards young players in low levels.

It seems as if, in general, there’s a very eclectic view of scouting. Sure people will look at the OBP or Slug or WHIP or K/9 but they will also check out the scouting report. I don’t think many people would be completely in favor of someone with an 86mph fastball regardless of performance in AA.

So I turn this to you, my fellow prospectors and baseball fans. What would you consider to be your means of evaluating talent/skill in baseball?

0 recs | Comment 25 comments | Add your comment

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Really Good Question

For myself, i would have to say that i focus more on traditional scouting reports and an eye for talent rather than evaluating a player via Sabermetrics. They say that Stats dont lie, but that doesnt mean that they are telling the truth.

Statistical analysis certainly has its place and the use of WHIP, GB/FB, and even VORP can give you a good idea of what a player is like. But there is just no replacement for seeing a player in person and using a scouts evaluation of them. There are so many things that you can pick up about a player from watching him that the stats dont show.

In my opinion, making a player evaluation using statistical analysis over scouting reports and a scouts perspective is like trying to describe a baseball game you watched vs. one that you just read the box score for. Stats have their place, but i prefer a scouts view.

by Kazmir2657 on Aug 27, 2025 3:44 PM EDT reply reply 0 recs

agreed

I think people over-focus on what the stats are (ie-what is prospect X’s K/BB in low-A this year) rather than what, or how much, they mean.

Stats really do not become all that useful until you’ve got a guy who has been a pro for 2, 3, 4+ FULL (ie-not the fall after he was drafted) seasons and have some AA experience. They provide some information before then but not so much to be confident in making a strong judgment in my mind.. unless a guy is just sucking horribly or something

by nms on Aug 27, 2025 3:59 PM EDT up reply reply 0 recs

I think the problem

is that most people dont understand how to properly interpret stats.

Scouting and stats complement each other, if used correctly. Neither one alone can tell the entire story.

by alskor on Aug 27, 2025 4:52 PM EDT up reply reply 0 recs

nms has it right

Stats are incredibly important, but it’s exponentially more difficult to find meaning in them the further a kid is away from the majors.

Take high school kids. Several people have told me that most beer league teams have a guy or two who could hit balls out of the parks Eric Hosmer played in. So it’s not like a team could know much about him based on his home run total or slugging percentage. But a scout could tell you about his swing, his body, his approach, and his power.

by aap212 on Aug 27, 2025 5:16 PM EDT up reply reply 0 recs

Certainly

But I could equally give you an example of a kid whose swing looks awesome but without statistical analysis I couldnt tell he’s not patient enough to be a big league hitter.

by alskor on Aug 27, 2025 5:59 PM EDT up reply reply 0 recs

True

Hence my post further down citing Dayn Perry’s “Beer and Tacos” adage.

by aap212 on Aug 27, 2025 6:28 PM EDT up reply reply 0 recs

Opposite

I think many people can’t comprehend that certain scouts have the ability to project talent based on tools, so they completely dismiss it and only focus on numbers.

by deezle on Aug 27, 2025 10:21 PM EDT up reply reply 0 recs

I think the numbers can tell you most of the story if you know how to use them

In pretty much every case where somebody makes an argument against the numbers, they pick a situation in which information is missing or skewed somehow. The only exception is a small sample size case.

I think scouting is most useful for supplying that extra information. Is a player doing something different that can further explain numbers? Was a player hurt or coming off injury or something that isn’t reflected in the numbers alone?

by thejd44 on Aug 27, 2025 4:07 PM EDT reply reply 0 recs

What about tools?

Numbers cannot tell you that Joe Blow is a tools monster who, if he could ever put it together, might be a 40/40 man. Granted, Joe Blow is 20, this is his 3rd season, and he’s still not producing. The numbers would say “worthless”, but the scout would say "he’s a smart, hard working kid who has unbelievable athleticism. " What’s the case, then?

Similarly, there are pitchers like Yusmeiro Petit who the numbers won’t tell you lack an MLB fastball. Same goes for Rowdy Hardy, etc.

Scouting is essential to prospecting and, more times than not, I’d rely on my scouts eyes over the numbers. It can even tell the whole story. Just ask Josh Hamilton. He’s an exceptional talent with a rare story, but he’s also a case where scouts could tell how amazing he was immediately, even after his time away from the game.

by GuyinNY on Aug 27, 2025 5:30 PM EDT up reply reply 0 recs

It doesn't really help your argument

to talk about a player archetype that doesn’t exist…

Almost all “tools busts” are busts because they are stupid, lazy, psychologically fragile or have some other defect in mental makeup. I have literally never heard of anyone who meets that description (smart/hard working/unbelievable athleticism/sucky numbers) who actually went on to have a productive MLB career. I mean, I’m sure there’s someone, but it’s extremely abnormal.

Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.

by PaulThomas on Aug 27, 2025 8:20 PM EDT up reply reply 0 recs

it really isn't that abnormal

Mike Cameron and Kenny Lofton are two guys who were non-hitters at age 20 with tons of tools who put it together. Torii Hunter also had crap numbers for awhile.
Age 20 is SO young in a guy’s development to be making strong judgements.

A lot of MLBers were struggling with COLLEGE pitching at age 20, much less minor league arms.

by nms on Aug 27, 2025 9:02 PM EDT up reply reply 0 recs

Barrett

had a 619 in his first pro year in low-A at age 19.

Shane Victorino had a really sketchy hitting track record in the minors.

Alexis Rios had a 650 OPS in his second full pro year in low-A at age 20

Evan Longoria wasn’t even putting up a COLLEGE OPS over 800 (granted, pitchers park) in his second year out of high school (what would have been his second year in the minors had he had the chance to go pro from HS)

Jason Bartlett had a 747 OPS in his final college year at 21, after only an 805 mark the year before, and then put up a roughly 670 OPS and .255 BA at age 22 between the Cali (308 AB) and FSL (145 AB) leagues

by nms on Aug 27, 2025 9:12 PM EDT up reply reply 0 recs

Michael Barrett

Poster child for “smart, hard working” kids everywhere.

Look, I didn’t say that players cannot possibly ever improve. It does happen, though not as often as people think it does.

I question how often that improvement has anything to do with “tools,” though. Just as frequently the players who improve are guys who no one has marked as “tools” players, like Mike Piazza.

I would also add that with the advent of modern statkeeping, it should be much easier to separate out the sucky from the merely unlucky through things like line drive percentage.

I’m not saying scouts don’t have a substantial place, especially for amateur ballplayers, but once a guy’s been pro for 3 or 4 years, as far as I’m concerned, the scouting reports are explaining the stats, not posing an alternative to them.

Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.

by PaulThomas on Aug 28, 2025 4:16 AM EDT up reply reply 0 recs

" It doesn’t really help your argument to talk about a player archetype that doesn’t exist…"

“I have literally never heard of anyone who meets that description (smart/hard working/unbelievable athleticism/sucky numbers) who actually went on to have a productive MLB career. I mean, I’m sure there’s someone, but it’s extremely abnormal.”

Making it to MLB is an abnormal occurrence, generally. However, there are loads of paths to the majors, and that includes loads of players who were smart, hard working, athletic, and statistically unproductive in their late teens and early 20’s past their first or second year of pro ball. And this isn’t just ARL. Some players are still raw, and they need more time to develop. For these players, scouts are the explanation of where the future likely lies. If they’re making the adjustments, even if the hits aren’t coming, the scouts can tell you that they’re starting to run better routes to the ball, square the ball better (even without line drives), make fewer baserunning errors, and they’re generally improving. This is where scouting > stats for a prospect.

by GuyinNY on Aug 28, 2025 12:50 PM EDT up reply reply 0 recs

OK, so

your argument is basically that scouts can pick out guys who are extreme outliers— guys who are either way underperforming or way overperforming where they “should” be.

OK. How do you measure underperformance? By… gasp… stats. And if you’re smart, the stats that matter rather than the ones that don’t.

I’m not even sure that your original premise is right anyway. It’s quite possible that stats will do a better job of predicting a minor leaguer’s improvement or regression than scouts will. I don’t think there’s ever been a systematic study of it. What has been studied, and is pretty much undeniable, is that if you take a truly random sampling of minor leaguers with a substantial track record and survey their performance, scouts will do a far worse job of predicting their future performance than stats will.

Of course, combining the two will do better than either of them alone. That’s so obvious it hardly bears repeating, but I might as well ward off that inevitable straw man before it shows up. But the proper approach is to weight the stats much more highly than the scouts— 2, 3, maybe even 4 times as much. I don’t think scouting is ever more important than stats for a prospect with substantial big-league time.

Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.

by PaulThomas on Aug 29, 2025 12:04 AM EDT up reply reply 0 recs

also

if you recall, many people around here were quick to label Ryan Braun “overrated” or “non-elite” when his A-ball OPS was sub-800 just two years ago

by nms on Aug 27, 2025 9:15 PM EDT up reply reply 0 recs

Bill Hall

hit .175 with a 490 OPS in limited Pioneer League action at 18
had a 657 OPS in low-A two years later at 20 with a 287 OBP and 18 walks to 127 Ks
and hit 228 with a 578 OPS in AAA two years later at age 22.

by nms on Aug 27, 2025 9:17 PM EDT up reply reply 0 recs

Randy Winn

had a 653 OPS, no homers, 110 Ks and a crap SB% in A-ball at age 22

by nms on Aug 27, 2025 9:24 PM EDT up reply reply 0 recs

+5

And to add to that, Maggs had a very spotted track record when he put up all of 238/297/370 as a 21 year old in high A. Ron Gant hit 237/291/334 as a 19 year old in A ball. Jimmy Rollins hit 244/306/354 in his 3rd pro season in high A (he was 19, so there’s some ARL effect). Garret Anderson his 260/294/342 at 19 in A Ball. And, of course, at 20 years old in high A, Carlos Beltran his 229/311/363 (he’d only had limited success before this).

The fact is that sometimes stats lie. You need a long track record with a prospect before you can really start to analyze their numbers, and due to the quality of fields and defense, you’re better off eschewing really detailed analysis of players below AA or so. There’s a point where scouting is chief, and there’s a time when a scout can tell you that you’ve got a special player on your hands, even if the numbers don’t say so.

by GuyinNY on Aug 28, 2025 2:23 AM EDT up reply reply 0 recs

How can you prove those stats were "lying" though?

From my first post, and from some of PaulThomas’ posts, I think certain “lies” in stats are given. Small sample size, playing through injuries, etc. I guess “He was hurt” is a scouting thing and not a strict numbers thing, but there’s a huge difference between relying on scouts over numbers and taking small but important pieces of non-statistical information into account.

And this doesn’t directly reply to your last post, but to another one: I agree with PaulThomas that your archetypal player really doesn’t exist. There are very, very few examples of smart, hard-working players who have all the physical ability in the world and who fail for an extended period of time. And, like PT said, if this does happen you can check a number of different stats to figure out why.

I don’t think most of the examples given here fall into that category at all. The type you’re talking about is a one in a million player: somebody who is very unlucky for a long time with no statistical explanation. And honestly, those guys are probably released and out of baseball before they get a chance to prove they can actually play.

by thejd44 on Aug 29, 2025 11:55 PM EDT up reply reply 0 recs

I'll expand later

But this goes for you and Paul : sometimes players are raw. They need loads of work, and in these cases, scouting is necessary. Or, perhaps, they’ve encountered personal trouble - here, it’s also important to see how they handle adversity.

NMS and I have cited several recent examples of this sort of player, and yet you refuse to acknowledge their existence. No, they are not common, but they are hardly so endangered as to be non-existent. This is not a case of being unlucky, this is a case of development. Underperformance can be measured in a plethora of ways, from running poorly to cheap HR’s and big strike zones that inflate stats on a game by game basis. There needs to be scouting, and it is more important than stats, especially for the youngest of players.

by GuyinNY on Aug 30, 2025 12:56 PM EDT up reply reply 0 recs

Well, here's where we differ...

because it’s my opinion that development, for position players (NOT for pitchers— it’s extremely important to make that distinction) is basically a myth. Most of what appears to be “development” is just luck and/or the effects of aging. You can take that too far; I’m sure some hitters do manage to make changes in their approach and have them stick, but I think that’s both rare and has less of an effect than people think.

Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.

by PaulThomas on Aug 30, 2025 5:35 PM EDT up reply reply 0 recs

Beer and Tacos

I still come back to Dayn Perry’s comment. When someone asked him which is more important, scouting or statistical analysis, he said that’s like asking beer or tacos. The answer is both.

by aap212 on Aug 27, 2025 5:17 PM EDT reply reply 0 recs

+1

Everyone talking about tools players having poor statistics in their first years and rebounding ignores the hundreds of tool busts that there have been. You’ve got to have em both, and you probably need more of an emphasis on scouting in the lower minors.

by demondeaconsbaseball on Aug 27, 2025 9:20 PM EDT up reply reply 0 recs

Common sense.

It seems like the game has integrated statistical analysis very nicely, and has now started trying to figure out what makes a guy productive…beyond stats…such as psychological makeup and basic mechanics…

It seems like it’s all a matter of common sense now. That kids performing well? How old is he then? What level is he at? How is he as a person? Does he really want it or does he just plan to cruise on his talents?

by SenorGato on Aug 28, 2025 3:46 PM EDT reply reply 0 recs