Connor Narron- 5th round- SS, C.B. Aycock HS (NC)

[PBR Street Gang]

I can't see how anyone can extrapolate a .317 HS hitter into anything going by stats alone.

Like you said, it's high school.

The stats are incredibly unreliable. I've made this point before, but HS players are largely in the realm of traditional scouting. Most attempts at projecting players based on HS stats will fail.

Would you then say that HS stats are a reliable or unreliable indicator of future success and what % would you give them in your overall evaluation process?

[Stotle]

Weren't touching him due to signability? I'm having a tough time determining the caliber of prospect were getting here.

Weren't touching him period. But who cares? What's important is that Jordan and his team did their homework and like the kid. Have to trust your SD and not get caught up in what other evaluators think.

[Mackus]

Would you then say that HS stats are a reliable or unreliable indicator of future success and what % would you give them in your overall evaluation process?

HS stats are pretty much worthless. Hell, college and lower-level minor league stats only have fleeting value.

The further away from the majors you are, the more scouting dominates over stats. The closer you get, the more stats come into play. In the majors, I think it'd actually be easier to build a team using nothing but the stat books as opposed to nothing but scouting and video, not that you'd ever try to ignore either option.

[LookinUp]

Lower level stats are most meaningful if they're bad w/o injury. In that case, you have to look for guys that you hope to turn into something, but you certainly don't bank on it.

The problem with good stats is a lot of people have them, but they make them against differing levels of competition and even the good competition isn't close to what they're going to face as they advance. So, you have to look past those stats into any number of variabilities.

[RVAbird]

Would you then say that HS stats are a reliable or unreliable indicator of future success and what % would you give them in your overall evaluation process?

Very unreliable. Thousands of players have dominated their HS divisions and gone on to bomb out in the low minors.

Like with all statistics, they begin to have more meaning as you apply context to them. If you can properly assess the talent level of the teams a player faced, figure out how often he faced the better pitchers and how often he faced the poor ones, give a relative comparison of the competition vs. competition in other regions, give a relative comparison of the competition that particular year vs. past years, and then run a regression analysis over several years/regions/divisions and look for what matters the most and how much it matters, then you'd have something.

This is what statistical analysis is comprised of at the professional levels, and that's why it's more meaningful.

What's more troubling about HS stats is that, even if you could properly contextualize them to arrive at some sort of meaning, it would only indicate past performance. When dealing with 17 and 18 year old kids, you're looking at a lot of growth over the next few years. Projection is just as, if not more important than actual performance with kids these young, and the only real way to assess that is through traditional scouting.

So, you have two big reasons why HS stats are unreliable: inconsistent competition and a lack of account for projection.

I'd use HS statistics to back up what my scouts are telling me about a player, sort of like a cross-check reference. If my scouts are high on a guy and he can't hit .300, I'd ask for an explanation. If my scouts were overlooking a guy who was hitting .600, I'd ask them to reassess. In the end, I'd defer to my scouts' opinion of who the player is and who the player is likely to become.

So, I guess HS stats would comprise something like 10% of my evaluation.

[Can_of_corn]

Touche'. If a batter has such a good eye he should be able to hit too because his strike zone is so small. If one studies the MLB players who work the count the best they are usually the better hitters by far because their pitch selection is so good.

Adam Dunn, Jack Cust, Carlos Pena.

Your 3TO guys have good eyes, doesn't make them "better hitters by far".

[PBR Street Gang]

Adam Dunn, Jack Cust, Carlos Pena.

Your 3TO guys have good eyes, doesn't make them "better hitters by far".

You pick three sluggers who are mostly all or nothing? Nice. I would have chosen Youklis, Pedroia, Jeter, Swisher, Abreu, Morneau, Mauer...etc.

[PBR Street Gang]

Very unreliable. Thousands of players have dominated their HS divisions and gone on to bomb out in the low minors.

Like with all statistics, they begin to have more meaning as you apply context to them. If you can properly assess the talent level of the teams a player faced, figure out how often he faced the better pitchers and how often he faced the poor ones, give a relative comparison of the competition vs. competition in other regions, give a relative comparison of the competition that particular year vs. past years, and then run a regression analysis over several years/regions/divisions and look for what matters the most and how much it matters, then you'd have something.

This is what statistical analysis is comprised of at the professional levels, and that's why it's more meaningful.

What's more troubling about HS stats is that, even if you could properly contextualize them to arrive at some sort of meaning, it would only indicate past performance. When dealing with 17 and 18 year old kids, you're looking at a lot of growth over the next few years. Projection is just as, if not more important than actual performance with kids these young, and the only real way to assess that is through traditional scouting.

So, you have two big reasons why HS stats are unreliable: inconsistent competition and a lack of account for projection.

I'd use HS statistics to back up what my scouts are telling me about a player, sort of like a cross-check reference. If my scouts are high on a guy and he can't hit .300, I'd ask for an explanation. If my scouts were overlooking a guy who was hitting .600, I'd ask them to reassess. In the end, I'd defer to my scouts' opinion of who the player is and who the player is likely to become.

So, I guess HS stats would comprise something like 10% of my evaluation.

Can anyone supply multiple examples of guys that were "average" or "slightly above average" in high school and made it to the majors as an everyday player? Anyone?

And by the way, you would only apply 10% of a high school pitcher's stats as part of his evaluation? 10%? What would be the balance of the breakdown then please.

[Can_of_corn]

You pick three sluggers who are mostly all or nothing? Nice. I would have chosen Youklis, Pedroia, Jeter, Swisher, Abreu, Morneau, Mauer...etc.

They fit your criteria.

Lets look at the AL current top 10 in this category!

Name BA ppa

1-Gardner .314 4.52

2-Ortiz .242 4.46

3-Barton .284 4.46

4-Gutierrez .287 4.36

5-Pedroia .248 4.36

6-Youkilis .320 4.35

7-Abreu .258 4.29

8-Damon .278 4.20

9-Andrus .304 4.20

10-Figgins .225 4.17

Hmm we have three guys with a BA over .300 and three guys with a BA under .250 and four guys between .250 and .300.

That seems to put a damper on your theory.

Edit- On the NL list no one is hitting higher then .292

[Frobby]

Can anyone supply multiple examples of guys that were "average" or "slightly above average" in high school and made it to the majors as an everyday player? Anyone?

And by the way, you would only apply 10% of a high school pitcher's stats as part of his evaluation? 10%? What would be the balance of the breakdown then please.

Why do you have such an axe to grind here? The guy had a .600 OBP -- that is not average! He plays good D, his dad is a former major league player and coach. Sure I would rather that his average was .417 instead of .317, but I'm not sure why you are relegating him to being "slightly above average" in high school. He was rated one of the top 2 high schoolers in the state.

By the way, you say he is striking out in the scouting videos -- do we know how many times he struck out this year, and how that compares with other draft picks?

[RVAbird]

Can anyone supply multiple examples of guys that were "average" or "slightly above average" in high school and made it to the majors as an everyday player? Anyone?

And by the way, you would only apply 10% of a high school pitcher's stats as part of his evaluation? 10%? What would be the balance of the breakdown then please.

Would you consider Conner Narron to be average or slightly above average? He was clearly the best hitter on his team and played a premium position to boot. He was a standout guy.

The research you're asking for would be difficult to compile and very time consuming. I'll do my best to try to find some examples, but I don't think I'll have access to many players HS stats (precisely because no one makes too big a deal of them).

Pitchers wouldn't be all that different from hitters in my evaluation, though I would try to look at specific tendencies like GB% and K/BB ratio. Again, there's not much you can take away from it all though. You need a scout to see his stuff and his frame and make a projection.

[PBR Street Gang]

They fit your criteria.

Lets look at the AL current top 10 in this category!

Name BA ppa

1-Gardner .314 4.52

2-Ortiz .242 4.46

3-Barton .284 4.46

4-Gutierrez .287 4.36

5-Pedroia .248 4.36

6-Youkilis .320 4.35

7-Abreu .258 4.29

8-Damon .278 4.20

9-Andrus .304 4.20

10-Figgins .225 4.17

Hmm we have three guys with a BA over .300 and three guys with a BA under .250 and four guys between .250 and .300.

That seems to put a damper on your theory.

Edit- On the NL list no one is hitting higher then .292

What's each of their OBP also while you're looking up stats for us.

[Can_of_corn]

What's each of their OBP also while you're looking up stats for us.

Narron's OBP is over .600! You can't rip him on his BA then commend others on thier OBP.

[RVAbird]

What's each of their OBP also while you're looking up stats for us.

That's not what you said. You said that players who work the count more, id est see more pitches per plate appearance, are also generally guys who hit better. The reality is that there's a lot of variance among guys with patience and good strike zone recognition. Some also hit for average, some don't. Their ability to hit for average hinges less on their strike zone recognition and more on their bat control and swing length.

Asking for their OBP is irrelevant since it's heavily BA dependent.

[PBR Street Gang]

Would you consider Conner Narron to be average or slightly above average? He was clearly the best hitter on his team and played a premium position to boot. He was a standout guy.

The research you're asking for would be difficult to compile and very time consuming. I'll do my best to try to find some examples, but I don't think I'll have access to many players HS stats (precisely because no one makes too big a deal of them).

Pitchers wouldn't be all that different from hitters in my evaluation, though I would try to look at specific tendencies like GB% and K/BB ratio. Again, there's not much you can take away from it all though. You need a scout to see his stuff and his frame and make a projection.

Link to team stats FWIW

http://www.maxpreps.com/local/team/stats.aspx?schoolid=5252c55c-d839-4be1-9ecc-a2ef6a4941bd&ssid=ebb67413-bb91-4f97-a0ad-78633e52ad41The only guy I can think of who was meh in college was Zagone. His college stats screamed stock boy at Lowes.