Scouting: Ability vs. Tools

[DrTeeth]

I'm relatively new to baseball and have not yet caught on to all the lingo. A couple of those in relation to OOTP are "ability" and "tools". Both are options for scouts to favor, but I'm not quite sure what each means to my teams, in layman's terms.

I looked in the manual and saw that "ability" gives you more of a "moneyball" player. I know that that is a book and that it has to do with sabermetrics, but beyond that, I'm lost. It also says that in theory, a preference towards "tools" slants ratings more towards star players.

In practice, how does that really affect the overall/potential ratings that the scouts give players? If they favor ability, does that mean they'll give 5 stars out to anyone who would be a good player to have at a particular position (meaning they don't mind spreading 5-star ratings around freely)? If they favor tools, does that mean that they reserve their 5-star ratings for the best of the best and you'd be lucky or broke to have more than a couple on your team?

I guess I'm just looking for a bit more direction as to the difference between these two. Any help would be appreciated.

[Corsairs]

Maybe a better way to view "favor ability" would be "favoring current performance". Scouting Directors who favor ability like to see players who are doing well here and now. While not entirely dismissive of potential, they'd rather go with a player that's showing solid power right now rather than one might hit 40 home runs someday... if he develops.

Conversely, another way of looking at "favor tools" is to think of it as "favoring potential". Scoting Directors who favor tools will be more forgiving of a player who is currently struggling if they feel he has the potential to be a stud at some point in the future. That doesn't mean that current performance doesn't factor in at all, but generally speaking they're more apt to cut the player slack if they feel he has a high ceiling with his potential.

[Cubfan2001]

So for the most part do most of you like Neutral Scouts? or prefer one more than the other?

[DrTeeth]

Originally Posted by Corsairs

Maybe a better way to view "favor ability" would be "favoring current performance". Scouting Directors who favor ability like to see players who are doing well here and now. While not entirely dismissive of potential, they'd rather go with a player that's showing solid power right now rather than one might hit 40 home runs someday... if he develops.

So what does that mean for the potential rating? If he's looking more at current, is potential more of a short-term potential guess?

Originally Posted by Corsairs

Conversely, another way of looking at "favor tools" is to think of it as "favoring potential". Scoting Directors who favor tools will be more forgiving of a player who is currently struggling if they feel he has the potential to be a stud at some point in the future. That doesn't mean that current performance doesn't factor in at all, but generally speaking they're more apt to cut the player slack if they feel he has a high ceiling with his potential.

Again, what does this mean for current ratings? If he IS struggling, are you saying his current rating would not dip as much as if he favored ability?

I would also love to hear what other people prefer and why. Good idea Cubfan.

[injury log]

Corsairs gives a good summary. A scout who heavily favours tools will focus mostly on Potential ratings when assessing a player. It won't much matter to the tools scout if the player is miles away from achieving his potential. A scout who heavily favours ability will focus more on current ability (current ratings) and age, and project a player based on how guys of that age and ability normally develop. Since we know OOTP tries to match real life aging curves, and that Potential ratings are pretty volatile, the 'favor ability' philosophy is not such a bad attitude for an OOTP scout to adopt.

I haven't really had a chance to play OOTP-9 since beta, so I don't know whether there's a big advantage to one type of scout over another. I'd personally want a tools scout, only because I like the high risk, high reward prospects. In any case, the difference isn't quite as dramatic as the above paragraph might make it sound; any type of scout should at least be playable, and all scouts take, to varying degrees, current ability and Potential ratings into account.

[HH20xx convert]

The biggest difference between the two scout types, from my observation, is during the annual amateur draft. Tools scouts favor the young high school types (i.e. current talent low, projected talent high), while ability scouts like the 21, 22 and 23 year olds that could begin their careers in the higher minors, but whose theoretical upside is more limited. This only affects the first couple of rounds of the draft, but the philosophical difference is pretty dramatic there. I haven't seen any impact on trades or veteran free agent signings.

[StyxNCa]

Yankees = favor ability

A's = favor tools

[Lintyfresh]

Originally Posted by StyxNCa

Yankees = favor ability

A's = favor tools

Actually... the A's favor ability and the Yankees would favor tools.

If an ability player is Moneyball... then you most likely have that comparison backward.

[StyxNCa]

Originally Posted by Lintyfresh

Actually... the A's favor ability and the Yankees would favor tools.

If an ability player is Moneyball... then you most likely have that comparison backward.

From my understanding, ability = what they are doing now while tools = the opinion of what they will do down the road.

I may be wrong, but you hear it all the time in sports, Joe Blow has the tools to become great.

Doesn't mean he will for whatever reason.

[Lintyfresh]

Originally Posted by StyxNCa

From my understanding, ability = what they are doing now while tools = the opinion of what they will do down the road.

I may be wrong, but you hear it all the time in sports, Joe Blow has the tools to become great.

Doesn't mean he will for whatever reason.

But Moneyball is the concept of not finding superstars... but extremely productive players...

[StyxNCa]

Originally Posted by Lintyfresh

But Moneyball is the concept of not finding superstars... but extremely productive players...

I don't know what these new fad terms like moneyball mean. I just look at the words tools and ability at face value.

[injury log]

Looking only at this year's draft, the real life teams that embraced a 'Favor Tools' approach:

Philadelphia Phillies (their first three picks, Anthony Hewitt, Zach Collier and Anthony Gose, are all premium athletes with minimal current ability)

Minnesota Twins (they've focused for years on high upside HS talent, and their pick of Aaron Hicks in the first round this year is no exception, though they picked up more developed guys like Shooter Hunt later in the draft)

Los Angeles Dodgers (Ethan Martin is another high upside HS arm, much like their selections in past years. Still, later in the draft they made several college selections, some, like Kyle Russell, quite established, and Colletti's attitude to the big league roster seems to 'favor ability', not tools)

And the teams that seem to 'Favor Ability':

St Louis Cardinals (they've had a college focus for years, and Brett Wallace, their first rounder this year, was one of the most developed bats in the draft)

Toronto Blue Jays (they picked a developed college bat first this year, and have had a similar focus, with some exceptions, in past years)

San Diego Padres (they picked up Dykstra with their first pick, a guy without much projection left, and even Jaff Decker, a high school pick, was an advanced bat for his age)

The Yankees' amateur philosophy seems to be to buy whatever talent they can find- internationally, they pick up a lot of raw athletes, while in the draft they mix it up, so I would neither call them 'favor tools' nor 'favor ability'. Oakland used to be a 'favor ability' organization, and I'd say they still are, even if they mixed in some HS picks in their last two drafts. Even if Inoa is 16, his current ability is off the charts, so he isn't exactly a raw 'tools' signing, age considered.

[Mattymo]

Originally Posted by StyxNCa

From my understanding, ability = what they are doing now while tools = the opinion of what they will do down the road.

I may be wrong, but you hear it all the time in sports, Joe Blow has the tools to become great.

Doesn't mean he will for whatever reason.

How I look at tools vs. ability would be:

tools=having it somewhere in him to do something, while ability is something that is already showing. OR tools=athleticism, ability=baseball playing acumen.

A guy may have great speed (tool) but he's not a good base-stealer (ability)...and he may never grasp the concept. Likewise, a guy may have really good bat-speed (tool) but may never develop the strength to hit for power (ability).

I think of it as having a box with different tools in it...so what if you have the nicest and newest drill, hammer, nails, screws and wood, that doesn't necessarily you'll have the mental or physical acumen to build a shed at all, let alone a great shed. Meanwhile, there's some people out there who can build the shed without any of the tools...it might not be the sturdiest or nicest, but it'll stand and function.

What would you rather have? A guaranteed standing crappy shed or the possibilty for a glorious one (or none at all)?

I would say that each team favors ability but likes to sprinkle in guys with tools. Teams want to win, but scouts are the ones who favor one over the other. Some scouts like "players" while others like athleticism.

When I think tools, I think Matt Kemp...a guy who could be a pro basketball player or football player, he's just so gifted with his speed and strength. He's not a great player yet though, but he's improving. He could be a .290/35 HR/35 SB guy, or he could just be another so-so OF.

Dustin Pedroia on the other hand...really good player, but not a ton of tools. What you see is what you get, he's never going to become a huge power guy or improve dramatically in any one area.

You win with guys like Dustin Pedroia...you draw fans, and sometimes win, with guys like Matt Kemp. And when you combine the two, you get a hall-of-famers like Pujols and A-Rod.

[Raidergoo]

Originally Posted by Lintyfresh

But Moneyball is the concept of not finding superstars... but extremely productive players...

Moneyball is not about finding extremely productive players. Anyone can do that. Moneyball is about arbitrage. Arbitrage is profiting from the difference between what something is actually worth and what people will actually pay for.

An example; if defense is not properly valued and paid for around a league, a clever team can steal a few wins by fielding a lower cost, stellar defensive club.

[Mattymo]

Originally Posted by Raidergoo

Moneyball is not about finding extremely productive players. Anyone can do that. Moneyball is about arbitrage. Arbitrage is profiting from the difference between what something is actually worth and what people will actually pay for.

An example; if defense is not properly valued and paid for around a league, a clever team can steal a few wins by fielding a lower cost, stellar defensive club.

...which is why Billy Beane has valued OBP and OPS so much compared to other clubs. Who cares if a guy bats .250 if he's on base just as much as another guy who bats .300?

[Raidergoo]

Originally Posted by Mattymo

...which is why Billy Beane has valued OBP and OPS so much compared to other clubs. Who cares if a guy bats .250 if he's on base just as much as another guy who bats .300?

...and now that there are two dozen GM's that do the same thing, the price for guys that draw a lot of walks has corrected itself, so the opportunity for arbitrage in that area has disappeared. The same with drafting college age guys. The price corrected, and Beane has moved on to other pastures where he can obtain profit.

Michael Inoa is a sign.

[StyxNCa]

Originally Posted by Mattymo

How I look at tools vs. ability would be:

tools=having it somewhere in him to do something, while ability is something that is already showing. OR tools=athleticism, ability=baseball playing acumen.

A guy may have great speed (tool) but he's not a good base-stealer (ability)...and he may never grasp the concept. Likewise, a guy may have really good bat-speed (tool) but may never develop the strength to hit for power (ability).

Yes, that's what I was trying to say. Thanks for saying it better.

[Stu]

I'm still confused as to how Tools vs Ability preference comes into play during the draft (IN OOTP, not IRL). From what I understand a scout who favors ability puts more stock in current ratings. However, during the draft almost all the current ratings are very low except for a few outliers. Does this mean a scout who favors ability is likely underrating the players in the draft?

[Corsairs]

Originally Posted by Stu

I'm still confused as to how Tools vs Ability preference comes into play during the draft (IN OOTP, not IRL). From what I understand a scout who favors ability puts more stock in current ratings. However, during the draft almost all the current ratings are very low except for a few outliers. Does this mean a scout who favors ability is likely underrating the players in the draft?

Yes, very much so. You may find this post by Markus helpful in clearing up confusion. It's good information to know; however, the way it is right now scouts seem almost useless for the draft. They're so pessimistic on every player (particularly those favoring ability) that it's nearly impossible to differentiate between players since everyone is getting equally awful reports. Here's another thread that may be interesting reading for you.

[1998 Yankees]

Originally Posted by Corsairs

Yes, very much so.

Agree completely. A scout who favors ability (forget about highly favors ability) is not very useful for the amateur draft.