|
View Poll Results: Whats OPs hustle | |||
Is a pro UFC fighter | 8 | 11.94% | |
Is gay, will distract young with sexy gams | 21 | 31.34% | |
Has a KNIFE | 12 | 17.91% | |
young=already dead | 10 | 14.93% | |
is expert at ba-su tado martial art styleeee | 16 | 23.88% | |
Voters: 67. You may not vote on this poll |
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Introduction to Five Tools Analysis: Hitting
[ 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. |
|
|