I like Luke Scott

[barzilla]

Sometimes I get definitive proof that I think different than most other people.

That realization came to me when I heard sports radio commentary and broadcaster comments on Luke Scott's performance in the opener. They all said he looked overmatched, but I have to wholeheartedly disagree. In all three of his at bats, he laid off bad pitches and it took the pitcher five and six pitches to get him out. That's not what comes to my mind when I think "overmatched". I'd agree he had some nerves, but the guy knows what he's doing up there.

[Sandy]

Funny, but this reminded me of a line from Hoosiers, where one of the parents was yelling, "You can't score if you don't shoot." I think most of the current crop of analysts were brought up "old school", before sabremetrics, and were taught the joys of aggresiveness. I'm thinking way too many baseball analysts view Alfonso Soriano as the 'ideal' hitter, (speed, aggression, power). Too many view a strikeout as a sign of aggression, and a walk as a sign of uncertainty.

I'm guessing it'll take another 15-20 years to put THIS crop of analysts out to pasture, and get some guys who actually understand the real implications of patience at the plate.

Until then, though I have not seen Luke Scott myself, I'd sooner accept your wisdom on the subject, than that of most of todays analysts.

[barzilla]

I was reading an article on ESPN.com about the in fighting between sabermetrical guys and traditional scouts. Some have called for a moratorium on scouts because statistics overcome all. I'm not ready to jump on that bandwagon completely. I would imagine that most level-headed people are the same way. The article painted scouts as people that look at physical skills and game performance while stat guys purely look at numbers. In my mind, it is not that simple.

I have sent studies to both Tim Purpura and Tal Smith, but I think if I could speak with them I could sell them on my philosophy. Essentially, it comes down to this. EVERYONE USES NUMBERS and EVERYONE USES EYEWITNESS EVIDENCE. The question is what numbers do you use and what can you gleem from watching. Since we are on the subject of Luke Scott, I come out impressed because I see how many pitches he watches in each plate appearance. A .400 OBP and .600 SLG tell me a lot, but everyone has to admit that there is a huge difference between the way Vladimir Guerrero reaches those numbers and the way Lance Berkman reaches those numbers. That is where scouting comes into play. I haven't seen too many encyclopedias that include pitches per plate appearance but even the ones that do can't tell what pitches the hitter swung at. How many of them were strikes? How many of them were in his happy zone? These are things that only a present observer can answer. Similarly, when we talk about pitchers, I don't want to know what he hits on the gun or even strikeout to walk ratios. I can look that info up. I want to know how he handles adversity. For instance, what happens when an error is committed or a fielder doesn't get to a ball he should? What happens when there are men on base?

For instance, if you look at last night's game you see a prime example of the difference between a good pitcher and a so-so pitcher. Normally, Oswalt is on the good side, but last night he gave up several two out hits. I would imagine if you chart his pitches he would have a good ratio of pitches that hit his intended location. It's not so much how many you have that don't but WHEN they happen. That's why Tim Redding isn't an Astro anymore.

These are the types of things scouts can determine that pure stat guys simply can't answer. So, there is still a need for good scouting, but scouts should focus on these questions and not gush over the athleticism of a Charleton Jimerson. I think Jimerson has a shot, but scouts charting his development should look at what he does in managing the strikezone and not what his batting average is.