[kyleb]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
To answer your question directly, I do not think that scouts/tools are irrelevant, and in fact, with minor leaguers, the scouts/tools are more important.

[/ QUOTE ]

So, basically, you think Billy Beane is wrong.

[/ QUOTE ]

Billy Beane does not think stats tell the whole story. How could stats tell a story for a high school hitter, where the scorekeeper is usually a parent with major bias? How could stats tell the story of an NDFA from the Dominican Republic?

Moneyball made the A's office look like a bunch of scout-hating geeks, which is only true in comparison to the rest of the league. Jeremy Brown was drafted because he could control the plate; his flaw was he was fat. Scott Hatteberg was signed because he could control the plate; his flaw was that he was injured.

In a sense, the stats can only exist if the tools are present. No hitter with a garbage swing and poor tools will generate high walk and power numbers. That being said, focusing on what a hitter could do based on his "raw tools" and ignoring the fact he strikes out in 40% of his plate appearances and walks in 1% is equally stupid.