Orioles 2nd round pick - CF Xavier Avery (HS)

[crawdad]

That's what I'm trying to do internally (in more rudimentary fashion). The equvalent of a Davenport translation for each level through the minors - though less scientific. Discounting some things and trying to figure out areas of improvement.

Right now, pitch selection seems to me Avery's biggest hurdle. The power I'm not worried about.

It's a curious intersection for real scouts between something scientific and instinct. It's quasi-scientific.

People do not have instincts. It would be more about personal bias and pattern recognition to go along with qualitative and, to a lesser, extent quantitative derived applications of the scientific method.

[Lucky Jim]

People do not have instincts. It would be more about personal bias and pattern recognition to go along with qualitative and, to a lesser, extent quantitative derived applications of the scientific method.

Which people label instinct. Do you really want to take this digression?

Should we just go off to our corners and read Blink?

[crawdad]

Which people label instinct. Do you really want to take this digression?

Should we just go off to our corners and read Blink?

Eh, pop science. He does not describe instincts. It is pattern recognition. For instance, in the situation where he discusses that fire and how he just ordered everyone out of the house. It was not a conscious decision, it was an unconscious one. He saw things that did not match up to the world as he understood it, unconciously recognized danger, and then responded.

That is not an instinct.

[Lucky Jim]

Eh, pop science. He does not describe instincts. It is pattern recognition. For instance, in the situation where he discusses that fire and how he just ordered everyone out of the house. It was not a conscious decision, it was an unconscious one. He saw things that did not match up to the world as he understood it, unconciously recognized danger, and then responded.

That is not an instinct.

You do realize I'm using the generally accepted/common usage of the word instinct, and not some zoological/biological one, right?

in·stinct [ ín stìngkt ]

noun (plural in·stincts)

Definition:

1. strong natural impulse: a powerful impulse that feels natural rather than reasoned

followed his instincts and took to his heels

2. biological drive: an inborn pattern of behavior characteristic of a species and shaped by biological necessities such as survival and reproduction

the survival instinct

3. knack: a natural gift or skill

an instinct for putting people at ease

I imagine you realize too that a sure way to grind any conversation to a halt is to rely on the most narrow definition of a word and exclude all other, including common, usage.

My instinct is to say you do. Though that's not all that carefully reasoned.

[crawdad]

You do realize I'm using the generally accepted/common usage of the word instinct, and not some zoological/biological one, right?

I imagine you realize too that a sure way to grind any conversation to a halt is to rely on the most narrow definition of a word and exclude all other, including common, usage.

My instinct is to say you do. Though that's not all that carefully reasoned.

Very well then. I think it was apparent from my own posts that I was taking a scientific line to it and was further confused when you brought up a popular science book to back you up.

One does not have to read that book to realize people have impulses, but if you are trying to discuss "gut check" responses . . . bringing up anything regarding science as a piece of evidence certainly confuses the term: instinct.

[Lucky Jim]

Very well then. I think it was apparent from my own posts that I was taking a scientific line to it and was further confused when you brought up a popular science book to back you up.

One does not have to read that book to realize people have impulses, but if you are trying to discuss "gut check" responses . . . bringing up anything regarding science as a piece of evidence certainly confuses the term: instinct.

I'm pretty sure it only confuses you. When someone says that a decision-making process is partly scientific and partly instinct, the only person who doesn't see this as: reason + gut level read is...probably you.

It's a curious intersection for real scouts between something scientific and instinct. It's quasi-scientific.

If this post confused you, I can't really help you. Not that you need my help.

[McLovin]

I think this is a short-sighted opinion. Kind of like global warming. You can and most have to make projective decisions as we go along . . . a good pick is made by looking at all of the data in front of you and making the right decision. Often the right decision at the moment is not the right decision looking back 5 years from now. I find the 5 years from now approach, though useful, not to be very helpful when you are actually trying to judge talent and make decisions. That is the point, right?

Sure. But I am not talking about Avery in the context of judging talent and making decisions in the "running a scouting department" sense. I'm talking about evaluating Avery in the context of making an "in your face, morons" post. It's too early for that. Fair enough?

[McLovin]

The posts and the rekindling of this thread were to show how silly it is to make bold statements about players who've never played a game of professional baseball.

Fine. It's also silly to make an argument on the other side, as if he's accomplished something.

If you've got your feathers ruffled over the whole thing then, well, too bad. BTW, "In your face!".

Very classy of you. Appreciate the show of respect. I expect it from you though, so it's cool.

[glenn__davis]

Of course, since this thread was bumped, Avery has went 1-17 with 8 Ks mixed in, although he does appear to still be drawing some walks.