From: ez027993@chip.ucdavis.edu (Gary L. Huckabay)
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
Subject: Re: Cordero
Date: 22 Dec 92 17:52:52 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: Bubbly, Sticky Substances, Inc. [Keyboard Division]

(Roger "Good God, Man!  Put on some pants!" Maynard) writes:
>>My objection is to the people who claim that stats are more useful in the
>>evaluation of talent than the opinions of professional scouts, whom, I 
>>presume, could claim, for the most part, that they belong in the 20% of
>>professionals that you claim are knowledgeable.

Some do, some don't.  I would claim that those 20% of knowledgeable
baseball people are distributed over many jobs, with one major exception -
owners.  Also, you can make a case based on organizational dynamics theory
that they'd be concentrated in non-power positions, but I digress.

>>Sherri once claimed that talent could be more accurately assessed by 
>>relying on stats alone and that observation actually hindered the 
>>evaluation process!  Do you agree with this? 

Once the player is 20 years of age I do.  Before that, I think careful
observation is an important tool - but not a perfect one.  I think observation
and analysis of mechanics are DIAGNOSTIC tools, not predictive ones.  Much
as many people hate to admit it, particularly the athletes themselves,
coaching doesn't really mean that much.  It can fix a problem, or help
fix a problem, but by and large, all you can do is teach fundamentals.

Great technique isn't going to give that extra 5% bat speed that someone
needs to be a great major league hitter.  But that extra 5% speed is awfully
hard to spot with the naked eye.  It shows up better in results - and if
the results don't show up, there's probably a reason for it.

I think the one place where great technique is the biggest help is in the
least quantifiable part of the game - defense.

The human eye can't judge effectively enough the differences in bat speed
to judge hitters.  If an average player in the majors is 100, I don't think
any observer can, with any accuracy, claim accuracy enough to distinguish
between 97s and 103s.  Too many parts of the body are moving.  Maybe the
guys with astounding bat speed, like Frank Thomas, Jose Canseco, and Eric
Davis, or the sloths of the leagues, like Jamie Quirk, Brian McRae, and
Tim Wallach.  THOSE are the guys a TRAINED observer can observe.

Scouting is valuable in youngsters.  After age 20, I believe scouting's
utility approaches zero very quickly.

>> Do you believe, as one
>>who claims to understand the game on both levels, that observation
>>hinders the evaluation process?

Depends on who's making the judgment.  If it's a GM who says "I don't care
if Glenn Braggs hasn't hit before - look at those muscles!  Look at that
swing.  He'll hit eventually!" then I would say yes, it hinders the 
evaluation process.  And I would submit that more GMs think like that
than anyone would care to admit.


-- 
*    Gary Huckabay     * "Hi, Joel, it's Kathy."  "Hi, Kath."  "I think you 
*  "Official keeper    *  better come over.  Gary's not well.  He's chewing 
*  of the r.s.b. ammo  *  on the carpet, his eyes are red, and he's sobbing 
*   and weapons hoard."*  uncontrollably." "The A's signed Storm.  He'll live." 
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball