Quote:
Originally Posted by PSUColonel
Yeah…I’ve always sort of been in the camp that scouting “grades” should more or less be for prospects. I realize there needs to be some way to assess established players…but I’d rather see a system other than grades. Not sure what actual scouts do in this situation (written reports based off of stats??) but I feel the grades should be reserved for prospects. That’s how it actually seems to be (I could be wrong though)
Edit,: I’d also guess analytics play a major role in scouting more established players.
|
Real-life scouts put grades on established big leaguers just like they do prospects. The skills needed to play baseball - particularly speed, arm strength and defensive instincts - cannot be accurately portrayed or evaluated via statistics alone. And statistics by themselves can be misleading just like a scouting grade on its own can be misleading. For instance, guys who lead the league in outfield assists rarely have the best arms. Teams don't run on Joey Gallo or Larry Walker or Andre Dawson, who all have/had legendary arms. They run on guys like Pat Burrell, who have below average arm strength, but Burrell had high assist rates because he learned to get rid of the ball quickly and accurately, and it took time for teams to realize they shouldn't run on him, hence his 18 assists in his first year as a full-time outfielder.
Scouts also provide a lot of metrics that don't show up in a statistical a report, such as running time from home to first, POP time for catchers, a pitcher's delivery time to the plate from the stretch, and (of course) velocity. That's why the two tried and true scouting tools of a stopwatch and a radar gun will always be part of the game. They also see things like outfielders getting a bad jump or taking a bad route to a ball, or a baserunner getting bad jumps or taking bad turns around the bases. Those things all get written up in a report.