Taking a look at some early mock drafts...

[JTrea81]

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.

It wasn't that vague. Churchill basically gave away that it was an Orioles guy he was talking to...

"He's terrific," says one scout, whose AL club hopes Ackley gets to them in the middle of the top 10. "He's a safe guy, and there's enough power that he'll survive as an outfielder who plays defense."

You can't spell it out any more clearly than that. The Orioles pick 5th and no other AL club is close.

[allstar1579]

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.

Two back to back nights his junior year. 4-4 with a HR (on a curveball) the first night, and then 0-4 the next night, flailing at curveballs twice (one was hanging belt high).

From the little I could pick out it seemed like he was a bit distracted or disinterested the 2nd night. He wasn't even that upset after an "O-fer", which I couldn't tell you the last time I saw a HS prospect not freak out over that one.

[crawdad]

It wasn't that vague. Churchill basically gave away that it was an Orioles guy he was talking to...

You can't spell it out any more clearly than that. The Orioles pick 5th and no other AL club is close.

I think that is an assumption that I would not bet heavily on. It could be true and seems so, but I would not go around saying it is a certainty. You are stating it as fact. It is not.

[crawdad]

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.

Oh, I totally agree. I think though there is a line between saying his talent is not translating and saying that he is disinterested. The second is using a lot of inference that I think is shaky. My parents are both trained in psychology and I am peripherally aware of some things. I just would not think of making such an explanation without feeling more certain about it.

[allstar1579]

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.

Right, it explains problems that the team is setting out to fix, or they wouldn't be drafting them in the first place if they didn't think they could.

What I was trying to say, is sometimes you can think something is going to take a while to work out, but then they get it right away, vice versa, sometimes it takes longer to sort out what you think will be a quick problem.

Mine was just a minor tweak in batting stance and swing, but I was more referring to the fact that some kids in HS don't get very good instruction, so they might seem raw, but face a much quicker learning curve once they get some better coaching. Not saying you are wrong or anything, cause I completely agree, scouts can tell how serious issues are and how many there are, just saying that other teams that may not have seen some players (thinking further down in the draft), or may just not have seen much special, while other teams take a gamble and then get rewarded with a pleasant surprise in SS leagues.

[ChaosLex]

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

Is this coming from your source or is it just your opinion?

[allstar1579]

Oh, I totally agree. I think though there is a line between saying his talent is not translating and saying that he is disinterested. The second is using a lot of inference that I think is shaky. My parents are both trained in psychology and I am peripherally aware of some things. I just would not think of making such an explanation without feeling more certain about it.

No, I agree there, of course it's impossible to say for sure what it is (without sitting him on my couch for a couple sessions) but that's why I said it was my best guess. I suppose you could look at it as trying to find a reason and explaining why he seemed like he was being lazy, because I don't buy lazy as an excuse. It's not a perfect science (and arguably a science at all) to infer what a player's mental make up is, but I am pretty good at it, and I can tell you there is something that seemed a bit off. Maybe it was just something going on at home that had him distracted, but to see such a stark contrast game to game is a bit of a red flag for me.

[allstar1579]

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

Do you think that is really fair to say when you look at half of our very best prospects are currently Boras guys, and avoiding his players would just weaken a relationship that as a team we could really use.

[Stotle]

Two back to back nights his junior year. 4-4 with a HR (on a curveball) the first night, and then 0-4 the next night, flailing at curveballs twice (one was hanging belt high).

From the little I could pick out it seemed like he was a bit distracted or disinterested the 2nd night. He wasn't even that upset after an "O-fer", which I couldn't tell you the last time I saw a HS prospect not freak out over that one.

Definitely interesting. Though, it was over a year ago. I don't know that I'd read too much into it if that's what you're going on. He'll make it known to teams whether or not he's signable. If he signs, there won't be any questions about his desire to play baseball.

[JTrea81]

I think that is an assumption that I would not bet heavily on. It could be true and seems so, but I would not go around saying it is a certainty. You are stating it as fact. It is not.

So you think Churchill just made that part up or the source wasn't an Orioles scout? All I'm stating is the Orioles are high on Ackley and I don't see why that wouldn't be fact as just about every club drafting in the top 10 should be high on Ackley. It seems like you are trying to discredit the information just to disagree with my point.

[allstar1579]

Definitely interesting. Though, it was over a year ago. I don't know that I'd read too much into it if that's what you're going on. He'll make it known to teams whether or not he's signable. If he signs, there won't be any questions about his desire to play baseball.

Yeah, you could be right there, I mean, he signed with Boras so that's got to mean a certain level of intent right? I think he'll be signable if someone backs up a truck, because he's got a pretty sweet deal at UNC, and will just come out and be a no. 1 overall pick candidate in 3 years barring something horrible.

I'd still take Matzek, Ackley, Gibson or even Davidson over him personally though.

[crawdad]

So you think Churchill just made that part up or the source wasn't an Orioles scout? All I'm stating is the Orioles are high on Ackley and I don't see why that wouldn't be fact as just about every club drafting in the top 10 should be high on Ackley. It seems like you are trying to discredit the information just to disagree with my point.

I'm not saying it is or is not the Orioles. I am saying that to express it as fact is misleading.

This is not discrediting your point or trying to disagree with you. It is about properly representing known information. I think you are improperly expressing what has been written in the media.

[Stotle]

Right, it explains problems that the team is setting out to fix, or they wouldn't be drafting them in the first place if they didn't think they could.

What I was trying to say, is sometimes you can think something is going to take a while to work out, but then they get it right away, vice versa, sometimes it takes longer to sort out what you think will be a quick problem.

Mine was just a minor tweak in batting stance and swing, but I was more referring to the fact that some kids in HS don't get very good instruction, so they might seem raw, but face a much quicker learning curve once they get some better coaching. Not saying you are wrong or anything, cause I completely agree, scouts can tell how serious issues are and how many there are, just saying that other teams that may not have seen some players (thinking further down in the draft), or may just not have seen much special, while other teams take a gamble and then get rewarded with a pleasant surprise in SS leagues.

I understand what you are getting at, I just don't fully agree. I think the corrections you're talking about are all "big corrections" that could take various time to work out. The type of tweaking your talking about with stance and swing that can have overnight positive effects are pretty readily visible. Mike Stanton would be an example of the former, I think.

[allstar1579]

I understand what you are getting at, I just don't fully agree. I think the corrections you're talking about are all "big corrections" that could take various time to work out. The type of tweaking your talking about with stance and swing that can have overnight positive effects are pretty readily visible. Mike Stanton would be an example of the former, I think.

That's fine, we don't always agree, doesn't mean I respect you any less.

[Stotle]

That's fine, we don't always agree, doesn't mean I respect you any less.

Whew, thank heavens...