BA's Ben Badler Interview Discussing Int'l Scouting

[Stotle]

The whole interview is a very interesting read. Here is the question that caught my attention and brought me into the piece:

Earlier this week in an interview with BBTIA, you said bonuses have taken a huge jump for even marginal players. How is this affecting a given team’s economic plan? Think Red Sox international scouting vs. Brewers.

I think it’s forcing certain teams to be more patient regardless of whether they are big or small market clubs. If the Red Sox and Yankees wanted to drop $3 million on a player in this market, they have the money to do so, but you don’t see them doing that because a lot of the players’ asking prices aren’t congruent with how they value the players. The escalation of the market really hurts teams that have the antiquated notion that running an international program on a shoestring budget is still a viable option in today’s market.

Look, as long as players can sign when they are 16 years old, there are always going to be players who sign for $50,000 or so who will be late bloomers and turn into quality major leaguers.

But with more teams becoming competitive in Latin America and more agents with vast networks of their own getting to players when they are 15, 14, 13, even 12 years old and helping them get fair market value, I think those bargains are going to be harder to find. They will still be there, but being willing to spend $500,000 on an international free agent and finding a bargain for $50,000 aren’t mutually exclusive–you can do both. That doesn’t mean a team has to spend $2 million every year on an international prospect, but the teams that aren’t willing to spend the money to sign prospects in the low to mid six-figure range have already fallen behind and will continue to do so going forward.

http://dingersblog.com/2010/07/22/mechanics-wealthy-12-year-olds-and-scouting-philosophy-an-e-mail-exchange-with-baseball-americas-ben-badler/

[Stotle]

Another good quote re: expanding scouting departments:

One thing that has changed is that teams have expanded their scouting staffs, a trend I expect to continue both domestically and internationally. Today, most teams have an area scout who is in charge of a multiple states or one big state, with a regional crosschecker supervising an even larger area.

I don’t know when, but I think at some point in the future we’re going to look back and wonder why teams operated this way. I think we’re going to see multiple full-time area scouts with coverage in the same state, which reduces travel for scouts, increases the number of players a team can see and increased the eyeballs and insight you can get on a player. The more good scouts you have getting more looks at amateur players, the better your evaluations are going to be.

[Arthur_Bryant]

Quoted by Stotle:

One thing that has changed is that teams have expanded their scouting staffs, a trend I expect to continue both domestically and internationally. Today, most teams have an area scout who is in charge of a multiple states or one big state, with a regional crosschecker supervising an even larger area.

I don’t know when, but I think at some point in the future we’re going to look back and wonder why teams operated this way. I think we’re going to see multiple full-time area scouts with coverage in the same state, which reduces travel for scouts, increases the number of players a team can see and increased the eyeballs and insight you can get on a player. The more good scouts you have getting more looks at amateur players, the better your evaluations are going to be.

Somebody please help me dig out the Andy Mac quote about diminishing returns from a larger number of scouts -- totally ignoring the obvious advantages bolded above.

[Lucky Jim]

Quoted by Stotle:

Somebody please help me dig out the Andy Mac quote about diminishing returns from a larger number of scouts -- totally ignoring the obvious advantages bolded above.

Okay, I'll take the bait and play devil's advocate.

He's not ignoring it. He disagrees with it. He may very well be wrong. On the other hand, he's been in the business for 30 years - he has some familiarity with the intersection of quality of information and quantity of scouts.

I've said before, I don't think he's necessarily wrong...at a certain point. A distinction he concedes. He's also conceded that he wants to continue building. The point is to what end?

I see two trends on this board: (i) the unstudied assumption that there is a linear relationship between more eyes and better information, and that this relationship continues no matter how many scouts you add, and (ii) that AM doesn't seem to think that he could use more scouts. Neither has any basis that I can see.

"I think there are areas we'd like to continue to grow and improve. I certainly don't think it's a two-to-one variation that that would lead you to believe, when you really get down and look at it.

"Like I ,you do reach the law of diminishing returns, but I don't think we're there yet. I wouldn't sit here and tell you we are completely happy with where we are. We are always looking to find ways to improve in that area.

As for the first quote cited by Stotle: isn't this what the Orioles have done? And doesn't this support my questions regarding going after high-priced Int'l FA?

I think it’s forcing certain teams to be more patient regardless of whether they are big or small market clubs. If the Red Sox and Yankees wanted to drop $3 million on a player in this market, they have the money to do so, but you don’t see them doing that because a lot of the players’ asking prices aren’t congruent with how they value the players. The escalation of the market really hurts teams that have the antiquated notion that running an international program on a shoestring budget is still a viable option in today’s market.

Look, as long as players can sign when they are 16 years old, there are always going to be players who sign for $50,000 or so who will be late bloomers and turn into quality major leaguers.

But with more teams becoming competitive in Latin America and more agents with vast networks of their own getting to players when they are 15, 14, 13, even 12 years old and helping them get fair market value, I think those bargains are going to be harder to find. They will still be there, but being willing to spend $500,000 on an international free agent and finding a bargain for $50,000 aren’t mutually exclusive–you can do both. That doesn’t mean a team has to spend $2 million every year on an international prospect, but the teams that aren’t willing to spend the money to sign prospects in the low to mid six-figure range have already fallen behind and will continue to do so going forward.

In fact, the bolded seems precisely the approach many of us have identified as a possible, rational approach by the O's. It also counsels against diving into the high-dollar prospects, who are suffering from inflated price-tags. We've already spent $500,000 on two prospects this year ($370K and $150K). My guess is we'll spend in six-figures on a couple more. And also sign 20-30 lower-priced ones. That seems to match up w/ what he's saying here. He's certainly not saying that we should be diving in after high-dollar players. Which is what a lot of folks around here have claimed to be the rational approach.

[allstar1579]

Not taking sides, but I've had the question recently if maybe just scouting is changing and some people in the business that have been around a while aren't keeping up.

I just started thinking about it when I was talking about that iPad app for scoring games. I know a ton of guys scouting that are as old school as you can get, and we used to have discussions on the way things are changing and getting more high tech and if it would ever change completely or not.

I guess roundabout point is if you make it high tech enough that you can collect data without ALWAYS needing to have your experienced and knowledgeable staff out for every person, it would have to help the process right? Like lower level younger scouts collecting data and raw stats and then using that data to narrow down who you want to focus on later.

I dunno, not really sure I have an opinion either way yet, just been thinking about it for about a year or so.

[Lucky Jim]

Not taking sides, but I've had the question recently if maybe just scouting is changing and some people in the business that have been around a while aren't keeping up.

This is possible. On the other hand, it's also a rationale that's historically been used to ram all sorts of irrelevant and ineffective products down the throats of consumers.

[allstar1579]

This is possible. On the other hand, it's also a rationale that's historically been used to ram all sorts of irrelevant and ineffective products down the throats of consumers.

Very true, I think that's why I'm a little defensive about it and haven't really formed a decision either way.

I'm much more of a scouting guy myself and don't like to rely on stats by themselves, but I also appreciate the need for both.

I believe in if it's not broke, don't fix it, but obviously it hasn't been working as well for us as it has for other teams, and I guess maybe you can make the case for the quantity as why. I'm just not sure yet.

I do know that some of the younger generation of GMs seem to be having more success at the scouting thing though, Byrnes, Friedman, Epstein...so I wonder what they are doing differently.

[Lucky Jim]

Very true, I think that's why I'm a little defensive about it and haven't really formed a decision either way.

I'm much more of a scouting guy myself and don't like to rely on stats by themselves, but I also appreciate the need for both.

I believe in if it's not broke, don't fix it, but obviously it hasn't been working as well for us as it has for other teams, and I guess maybe you can make the case for the quantity as why. I'm just not sure yet.

I do know that some of the younger generation of GMs seem to be having more success at the scouting thing though, Byrnes, Friedman, Epstein...so I wonder what they are doing differently.

I don't think stats are very helpful in scouting, myself. Not in this sphere, at least.

I think it remains to be seen how well we do. I also think we need more scouts (as does AM, apparently). How many is the question.

[Stotle]

Not taking sides, but I've had the question recently if maybe just scouting is changing and some people in the business that have been around a while aren't keeping up.

I just started thinking about it when I was talking about that iPad app for scoring games. I know a ton of guys scouting that are as old school as you can get, and we used to have discussions on the way things are changing and getting more high tech and if it would ever change completely or not.

I guess roundabout point is if you make it high tech enough that you can collect data without ALWAYS needing to have your experienced and knowledgeable staff out for every person, it would have to help the process right? Like lower level younger scouts collecting data and raw stats and then using that data to narrow down who you want to focus on later.

I dunno, not really sure I have an opinion either way yet, just been thinking about it for about a year or so.

Scouting is absolutely changing. All you have to do is look at the variety of tools being used by different organizations to see that teams are experimenting and looking for better ways to do things. That doesn't mean that new is better, but there is no doubt that organizations are trying new things.

LJ, I don't grant your trends as accurate, but rather a slanted interpretation of some legit concerns. I know you have felt the same with regards to some of my statements that you believed misrepresented your positions.

The bottom line for me is that AM, in response to being "outgunned" in the scouting department dismisses the numbers as being not necessarily as important as the quality of the scouts. Fine. I think we can all get behind the idea that at at some point X good scouts is the equivalent of X+Y bad scouts.

But is this really the kind of answer your want to hear? Does it really make sense? I don't think so, unless you are prepared to state that the "extra" scouts the other AL East teams have are inferior. It comes off, to me, as an excuse much more so than as an explanation. It isn't THAT big a deal that we have so many fewer scouts because a high number of scouts doesn't mean they are all good. Well, what if TOR is adding GOOD scouts, or training young promising scouts to be GOOD experienced scouts over the next few years? It's just the wrong mentality. Maybe I'm overreacting, but I'm not alone in thinking that BAL is generally barking-up the wrong tree on the scouting scene.

Shrug, I've been wrong plenty of times before -- this certainly wouldn't be the first. But I don't get the sense that BAL is going to "outscout" their competition in the AL East. Not to say they are behind everyone, but I just don't see aggressiveness, innovative approaches or urgency. Again, maybe I'm way off and I'm just not seeing the "inside" stuff their doing in the organization on the scouting side.

[Lucky Jim]

Scouting is absolutely changing. All you have to do is look at the variety of tools being used by different organizations to see that teams are experimenting and looking for better ways to do things. That doesn't mean that new is better, but there is no doubt that organizations are trying new things.

LJ, I don't grant your trends as accurate, but rather a slanted interpretation of some legit concerns. I know you have felt the same with regards to some of my statements that you believed misrepresented your positions.

The bottom line for me is that AM, in response to being "outgunned" in the scouting department dismisses the numbers as being not necessarily as important as the quality of the scouts. Fine. I think we can all get behind the idea that at at some point X good scouts is the equivalent of X+Y bad scouts.

But is this really the kind of answer your want to hear? Does it really make sense? I don't think so, unless you are prepared to state that the "extra" scouts the other AL East teams have are inferior. It comes off, to me, as an excuse much more so than as an explanation. It isn't THAT big a deal that we have so many fewer scouts because a high number of scouts doesn't mean they are all good. Well, what if TOR is adding GOOD scouts, or training young promising scouts to be GOOD experienced scouts over the next few years? It's just the wrong mentality. Maybe I'm overreacting, but I'm not alone in thinking that BAL is generally barking-up the wrong tree on the scouting scene.

Shrug, I've been wrong plenty of times before -- this certainly wouldn't be the first. But I don't get the sense that BAL is going to "outscout" their competition in the AL East. Not to say they are behind everyone, but I just don't see aggressiveness, innovative approaches or urgency. Again, maybe I'm way off and I'm just not seeing the "inside" stuff their doing in the organization on the scouting side.

I think everyone agrees that they are understaffed right now. Whether there's a legitimate marginal return on staffing all the way up, or even the possibility of "out-scouting" others w/ any degree of significance, is another question altogether. I would assume the answer is yes, but I haven't seen any empirical evidence about how many additional scouts are required to do so. I think everyone is looking for "markets" to exploit, and the Jays and others feel that they can do so.

I think the Rays uncanny ability for finding talent suggests that investment in scouting makes sense, and should be productive. On the other hand, how those scouts interact, who supplies the actionable information, and how that information is processed are all undefined variables.

From a perspective of diminishing returns, btw, it doesn't really matter if the extra scouts are excellent or not - if there's only so much value that can be added, they end up mere redundancies.

Like I said, I'm merely playing devil's advocate here. If, in a year, we're still doubled-up, or not significantly improved, I'll be pretty upset. On the other hand, I'm somewhat unconvinced that innovation is really the key here. Innovation is fine, but the intersection of science and art w/r/t scouting makes me wonder just how "innovative" these things are. I think it's pretty clear that AM places a lot of emphasis on the "art" part of it - trusting certain subjective opinions over a wealth of information. (I'm not sure I agree w/ this.)

And my comment about trends wasn't w/r/t to you - those are knee-jerk reactions from folks who dabble w/ international and amateur stuff. I don't need to name names, but it's not anyone in this conversation.

Now, what about my Int'l FA comments? Hah. I'm off...to return to this conversation later. Good stuff guys. Thanks.

[QBsILLEST1]

I'm curious what we signed Schoop and Leonora for. They aren't big $$ signings, but seem to be of the "bargain" variety, I'd guess around $50K or less, but that is honestly a shot in the dark...

[Arthur_Bryant]

The big innovation in scouting, which I'm convinced we'll see during this decade, will be the use of tracking technology to capture data on batted balls, throws, and player motion -- the next-gen Pitch f/x technology. Obviously this won't be installed at the venues where amateur FAs usually play, but teams may do this individually, bringing in top players for workouts at an MLB park. More likely, I think we'll see this technology used in showcase events similar to the NFL scouting combines.

When that happens, and if the data is shared among all 30 clubs, then we'll see eyeball scouting become less important; brainpower reflected in the quality of the analysis will separate the better teams from the relatively clueless.

But until that happens -- I mean both the data-gathering and the sharing of data -- then having multiple scouts observe a greater number of players multiple times will always confer a big potential advantage. The quantity of unique information gained will not be linear with the expense, but that's the price of doing business in a competitive environment. Often success goes to those who are willing to go the extra mile.

It's like budget and roster construction. The first 60 or 70 wins can be relatively cheap. The unit price of wins 88 through 95 may be extremely high. The question is, How much do you want to play in the postseason?

[Lucky Jim]

No comments on Int'l FA purchases?

[Stotle]

The big innovation in scouting, which I'm convinced we'll see during this decade, will be the use of tracking technology to capture data on batted balls, throws, and player motion -- the next-gen Pitch f/x technology. Obviously this won't be installed at the venues where amateur FAs usually play, but teams may do this individually, bringing in top players for workouts at an MLB park. More likely, I think we'll see this technology used in showcase events similar to the NFL scouting combines.

When that happens, and if the data is shared among all 30 clubs, then we'll see eyeball scouting become less important; brainpower reflected in the quality of the analysis will separate the better teams from the relatively clueless.

But until that happens -- I mean both the data-gathering and the sharing of data -- then having multiple scouts observe a greater number of players multiple times will always confer a big potential advantage. The quantity of unique information gained will not be linear with the expense, but that's the price of doing business in a competitive environment. Often success goes to those who are willing to go the extra mile.

It's like budget and roster construction. The first 60 or 70 wins can be relatively cheap. The unit price of wins 88 through 95 may be extremely high. The question is, How much do you want to play in the postseason?

I'm just not sold that eyeball scouting will become irrelevant. In your scenario, we are still talking about a handful of workouts, max. And when can they be run? The college season is still going on for a lot of draft eligible kids through June. Players aren't going to leave their college teams for workouts in the final weeks of the regular season or during tournament play. You could schedule for January, but then you are missing out on any growth throughout the Spring.

I absolutely agree with you that the newer tracking technology will do wonders for player eval at the pro level, but I'm not sold on it affecting amateur scouting for quite some time. A huge number of college fields aren't even set-up for television crews.

Now, perhaps the tracking technology will help improve scouts' abilities to accurately profile and project younger players, which in turn could help identify characteristics of amateur players that are more/less important. That could be a distinct possibility.

[Arthur_Bryant]

I'm just not sold that eyeball scouting will become irrelevant.... Now, perhaps the tracking technology will help improve scouts' abilities to accurately profile and project younger players, which in turn could help identify characteristics of amateur players that are more/less important. That could be a distinct possibility.

Not irrelevant, but less important.

I agree that the feedback provided by technology will potentially be a tool to improve eyeball scouting.