Taking a look at some early mock drafts...

[allstar1579]

I guess what I don't understand is this. If a guy lacks focus or interest, why does it affect him one game and not the next. I'd understand if it affected him over the course of several games or a season, but for him to turn on or turn off seems peculiar to me in terms of at bats. Typically, in event based scenarios where you know you are involved like an at bat . . . even kids with ADHD can focus on singular events. Lapses in focus typically show up in the field where one often is not part of an ongoing play.

Being a stat guy breaking into a scout perspective, I often find scouting folk use poor language. I really find terminology like just saying a guy is inconsistent or that he lacks focus really are empty descriptors. I know you have something to say . . . it just seems like you are stuck in scout speak. Maybe Stotle can translate for me here.

I have not seen any of Tate, so I do not know his mechanics.

You are right, it's just the language barrier between us scout guys and you stat guys

There really is no quantitative reason why he will do well one game and not the next, which is why you have to attribute it to the mental side. I didn't see anything glaring in the mechanics that said he had a problem. Just one day he'd rake the ball, and the next he'd look silly flailing at slow hanging curveballs.

As best as I can guess, I'd just say his heart isn't completely into it, and he's not putting in that "extra work" that most guys with his ability do. I think he's just skating by on natural talent. He's a guy that is the poster child for going to college, he could really use a couple years to mature and decide once and for all if it's going to be football or baseball.

[crawdad]

Technically it happens all the time. Late round draft picks will put up big numbers unexpectedly. I attribute it more to "gamesmanship" or that "it" factor, whatever you want to call it. Some guys just do more with less natural stuff than others.

Well, development time can be condensed. Players do often improve greatly over a short period of time. I guess the discussion was focused more on folks who are drafted and then after a month or so of down time . . . they wind up being much better than originally thought immediately.

Heyward has progressed greatly over a short period of time, but he was also much better than thought right out of the gates.

[crawdad]

You are right, it's just the language barrier between us scout guys and you stat guys

There really is no quantitative reason why he will do well one game and not the next, which is why you have to attribute it to the mental side. I didn't see anything glaring in the mechanics that said he had a problem. Just one day he'd rake the ball, and the next he'd look silly flailing at slow hanging curveballs.

As best as I can guess, I'd just say his heart isn't completely into it, and he's not putting in that "extra work" that most guys with his ability do. I think he's just skating by on natural talent. He's a guy that is the poster child for going to college, he could really use a couple years to mature and decide once and for all if it's going to be football or baseball.

I guess my perspective on this is that we see a result, but cannot find a quantitative or qualitative explanation for it . . . so we wind up creating a narrative that explains what we see. I just do not find the narrative to be useful unless you have coaches and acquaintances saying such.

I guess to me . . . a better way to say this his talent is not matching his production. Nothing looks wrong, but his talent is not translating into his performance. I think going beyond that without evidence saying otherwise is somewhat dangerous and certainly unfair. It reminds me of folks saying Daniel Cabrera is lazy or dumb when in reality he was a late grower and has never been able to hone motor coordination well enough to repeat his delivery.

[allstar1579]

Well, development time can be condensed. Players do often improve greatly over a short period of time. I guess the discussion was focused more on folks who are drafted and then after a month or so of down time . . . they wind up being much better than originally thought immediately.

Heyward has progressed greatly over a short period of time, but he was also much better than thought right out of the gates.

Oh I wasn't disagreeing, just pointing out like you said that there are guys that are undervalued and there are guys take instruction well and improve rapidly.

I think there is a severely under appreciated aspect of the first professional instruction that these guys get, sometimes they can do SO much more with just the smallest bit of the right instruction. I remember in HS we had a guy our coach knew that played in the minors that came to work with me one day, and the slightest tips he gave me did AMAZING things overnight.

[crawdad]

Oh I wasn't disagreeing, just pointing out like you said that there are guys that are undervalued and there are guys take instruction well and improve rapidly.

I think there is a severely under appreciated aspect of the first professional instruction that these guys get, sometimes they can do SO much more with just the smallest bit of the right instruction. I remember in HS we had a guy our coach knew that played in the minors that came to work with me one day, and the slightest tips he gave me did AMAZING things overnight.

Cool deal.

[JTrea81]

See, the problem is that Tate isn't a "project". Where are you getting that? Because I said it's unfair to ask if he's likely to step in and be rated one of the top 5 prospects in all of baseball next year?

Now, I don't really disagree that there are five players I'd probably prefer, but "later rounds" is not where someone like Tate should be going...

I agree Tate has the talent to be taken in the top 10, but an organization like the Orioles that depends on the draft so much for talent needs to have a home run in the high rounds where the most talent is.

We can't afford to have any busts with high draft picks like in the past if we want to be a successful franchise. Tate has way too many question marks to be a good choice.

[Stotle]

Oh I wasn't disagreeing, just pointing out like you said that there are guys that are undervalued and there are guys take instruction well and improve rapidly.

I think there is a severely under appreciated aspect of the first professional instruction that these guys get, sometimes they can do SO much more with just the smallest bit of the right instruction. I remember in HS we had a guy our coach knew that played in the minors that came to work with me one day, and the slightest tips he gave me did AMAZING things overnight.

The problem with this analysis is that pro teams know which issues they can quickly fix and which issues will take longer to iron out. Your point may be right on with regards to how posters on the OH view players, but the guys making these decisions for real are quite aware of the clean-ups that are and are not going to be quick.

Using your example, the minor leaguer that helped you would not have had a different opinion of you (from a scouting perspective) before he worked with you than he did after. If this was an issue he fixed in a day, he knew he could fix it when he first watched you play.

Bringing it full circle, it's probably not explanatory in explaning guys like Heyward. I think that situation has more to do with risk analysis. That is, a scout may look at Heyward and know he has the potential to be an elite player, but at the time of the draft is he more likely to do that than Moustakas or Bumgarner.

The "quick instruction" is absolutely something to note, but I think it tends to be taken into account before final assesment on a player, rather than after they start working with the player. Maybe you find out a player is a quick learner and the "bigger issues" end up being easier to address, but the overnight-type stuff should probably be readily identifiable.

[Stotle]

Well, development time can be condensed. Players do often improve greatly over a short period of time. I guess the discussion was focused more on folks who are drafted and then after a month or so of down time . . . they wind up being much better than originally thought immediately.

Heyward has progressed greatly over a short period of time, but he was also much better than thought right out of the gates.

And I think this has to do with the difficulties of determining how exactly a player's game will translate from amateur to pro ball off the bat. Mike Stanton is a good example of this, going early in the second round in '07 and making a seamless transition to the OF with all of his power playing basically right off the bat.

EDIT -- Note "right off the bat" being his first full season. He was limited in '07.

[Stotle]

I agree Tate has the talent to be taken in the top 10, but an organization like the Orioles that depends on the draft so much for talent needs to have a home run in the high rounds where the most talent is.

We can't afford to have any busts with high draft picks like in the past if we want to be a successful franchise. Tate has way too many question marks to be a good choice.

Personally, I disagree. But I can understand the feeling that BAL could be better off with college (more refined) players.

[bigbird]

Not sure who'll we draft but you can bet the farm AM will not approve drafting a Boras client.

[Stotle]

I think it's his focus and interest. Physically there is nothing wrong with him, I just think he's young and hasn't focused enough attention to his game to get that down. Whether he is just not putting enough work in when he's not playing, or he just isn't in to the sport as much as he should be (I suspect football is his first love) something is off.

It's not like he can hit fastballs but can't hit breaking balls, because he'll have a great night one day hitting one, and then have a horrible night the next with the same pitches.

Just curious, are you watching him night to night? This reads like you're noticing a difference in demeanor, which would be interesting. I only saw him at showcases last summer, so he was basically performing for a huge audience of scouts.

[JTrea81]

Not sure who'll we draft but you can bet the farm AM will not approve drafting a Boras client.

That would rule out Ackley, Green, Tate, Davis and Oliver. Considering we are so high on Ackley, I wonder why we are even scouting him if this is the case.

Hopefully MacPhail wouldn't tie Jordan's hands like that, but I wouldn't be surprised. My guess is that we go with either Purke or Matzek and avoid Boras clients without looking like we are avoiding them.

[QBsILLEST1]

Not sure who'll we draft but you can bet the farm AM will not approve drafting a Boras client.

I hope thats not true because Boras represents a lot of the best ball players. We shouldnt allow him to dictate how we run our franchise. I think if Jordan sees a player he likes, he is going to get him no matter who is representing him.....

Question: Jordans job is to draft, does he deal with contract negotiations at all? Or is that some other FO guy?

[crawdad]

That would rule out Ackley, Green and Tate. Considering we are so high on Ackley, I wonder why we are even scouting him if this is the case.

Hopefully MacPhail wouldn't tie Jordan's hands like that, but I wouldn't be surprised. My guess is that we go with either Purke or Matzek

Pretty sure that is not known. The only time I remember someone mentioning being very high on Ackley was a very vague article that came out a month ago. I would not base much on that account.

[allstar1579]

I guess my perspective on this is that we see a result, but cannot find a quantitative or qualitative explanation for it . . . so we wind up creating a narrative that explains what we see. I just do not find the narrative to be useful unless you have coaches and acquaintances saying such.

I guess to me . . . a better way to say this his talent is not matching his production. Nothing looks wrong, but his talent is not translating into his performance. I think going beyond that without evidence saying otherwise is somewhat dangerous and certainly unfair. It reminds me of folks saying Daniel Cabrera is lazy or dumb when in reality he was a late grower and has never been able to hone motor coordination well enough to repeat his delivery.

Yup, just two different thinking minds, just like for me it's impossible to say that statistics tell you everything you need to know (like some guys on here think.)

I majored in Psychology so I have that extra bit of background to help (hence why I like to focus on the mental make-up of players). It's like you say though, something is off, he should be performing here, he's only performing here, but I'm trained to figure out the why in the absence of physical reasoning (although I can find a lot of that too). I appreciate what you say about not hearing it first hand, but then you have to think, what coach, family member or player themselves is going to admit to something that is going to hurt their draft status? So 99% of the time, you won't get that answer from them.