Batter's Box Interactive Magazine - An Interview with Keith Law

Keith Law is well known to Batters Box. Keith was employed by the Blue Jays from 2002 through 2006 and in 2003 dropped into Da Box for an interview. Keith now provides a scouting perspective at ESPN.com where his weekly chats have become a favourite of mine because of Keith's honesty; the large number of questions he answers; and his willingness to answer questions on two of his other passions, books and food. At ESPN Keith also breaks down trades and publishes prospect reports such as the top 5 prospects by organization and the overall top 100 prospects in baseball. Keith agreed to an e-mail interview with Batters Box, reproduced below. Batters Box thanks Keith for the generous allocation of his time to this interview.

1. Moneyball suggested that statistical analysis could play a big part in the annual draft. As you prepare your draft analysis for ESPN and Scouts Inc. how relevant do you think is the statistical analysis of potential draftees?

KL - I think you'd be remiss to ignore it entirely, but at the same time, its value has been wildly overstated. College stats, even properly translated, have less predictive value than A-ball stats, and the strength of schedule problems are very difficult to overcome. It's not just the quality of the opponent - a crappy school can have a single great pitcher, for example. So I'll check the stats, and if a player's stats or specific indicators are very bad, that's a warning sign, but great college stats are no guarantee of greatness.

2. As you evaluate AAA or AA players it appears that today you value scouting more than stats, agree?

KL - It's what I'm paid to do. ESPN doesn't need another statistical analyst. I absolutely look at stats and I certainly know my way around analyzing them, but I want to give the readers a more complete story, whether it's an explanation of why I think the stats will hold up or an argument why they won't.

3. You now work for ESPN Scouts Inc. Most teams have at least five or six scouts covering the minor leagues, other than you, how does Scouts Inc. get the coverage required to scout the minor leagues?

KL - I employed some freelance scouts last year, but this year I'll be solo. Because my focus is just on top prospects, I'll see most of the relevant guys myself by traveling during the year, seeing a lot during spring training, hitting the Futures Game, and doing another week in the AFL. It is imperfect, but I've found I can see at least 70% of the guys I need to see if I plan well.

4. For the annual draft each team puts a lot of effort into scouting potential first rounders, for good reason, but often it's the success of the later picks that can make a draft really successful. When you look at a teams draft success in later rounds, say after the third round, how much of it is luck versus good scouting?

KL - Depends. When a team finds a star in later rounds - Albert Pujols is the classic example - that's luck. If the Cardinals had an inkling that he was Joe Freaking Dimaggio, do you really think they would have played the board and let him slide to the 11th round? It doesn't work that way. But finding role players, middle relievers, bench guys, and even fringe regulars in later rounds is more about good scouting than luck. I also think that good scouting comes more into play with high school, JC, and small-college kids. You find Ian Kinsler out of a Big 12 school in the 17th round ... well, let's be honest, you didn't find him. Scouts from the other 29 teams saw him too, several times. He just came out of nowhere. But you find Roy Oswalt in a Mississippi JC or Chad Gaudin in a Louisiana high school - that's good scouting. Not just good evaluation, but good work covering the area and finding the guys to turn in so that in the umpteenth round, you can raise your hand in that draft room and say, "I've got a guy."

5. Are you aware of teams evaluating their amateur scouts by looking back at their evaluations say from five years ago?

KL - I am not aware of it, but I would guess some teams do it. It was a non-issue in Toronto after Ricciardi let most of the amateur scouts go in 2002-03.

6. Do you think there are significant differences between teams in their ability to develop minor league players for the big leagues?

KL - Absolutely. Some is coaching. A lot is planning - I do not understand why some teams refuse to use player plans for at least their top prospects. I know that Toronto did not use them while I was there, because the director of player development did not wish to do so. (A player development plan is a written document that should, at the least, identify areas in which the player needs work, set measurable goals for progress in those areas, and lay out a plan for the player and his coaches to achieve those goals.)

7. You have seen David Purcey pitch several times and you still question his control. Is it wishful thinking to assume a pitcher can improve his control in his mid-20's?

KL - Not at all. Pitchers improve their control all the time. In Purcey's case, however, I have not seen improved control, and I don't know of any argument why we should expect him to be one of those guys, but if you're Toronto, you hold on to him and work with him (in theory) and hope that he does improve.

8. Were you surprised with the Jays switch in approach in 2007 to pick so many high-school players?

KL - Sort of, at least in the sense that I never expected Ricciardi to relent. I'm sure the breakout success of Travis Snider - their first-rounder in 2006 and a HS product - made it easier.

9. What is your opinion of the Jays 2007 draft?

KL - Middle of the road. Wasn't wowed by either of their first picks, especially not Arencibia, but they had so many extra picks that they added some bulk value. I like Cecil a lot as a LH reliever who can get righties out, and I think Magnusson's a big-time sleeper. Also, getting Eric Eiland where they did for so little coin was a potential steal; he really should have gone to college, and getting him was a minor coup and a nice bit by Toronto of remembering how promising he looked ten months earlier.

10. Many of the Jays 2007 high school picks got off to slow starts, many experts say not to worry. When does a high school player need to show on field performance?

KL - I couldn't put a specific deadline on it. I'm not a big fan of two-year short-season players, at least not when we're talking about high draft picks. If you have to return to short-season ball in your second pro season - meaning you couldn't break camp with the low-A club - your odds of having a big-league career are diminished. That's more true of hitters than of pitchers, of course.

11. Travis Snider is the Jays top prospect but struck out quite a bit in 2007, are you concerned about this?

KL - Not at all. I see a good hitting plan and good plate coverage.

12. The Jays top four catching prospects all have their detractors. Robinzon Diaz is a hacker and has questionable receiving skills; Curtis Thigpen doesn't stand out in any skill; Brian Jeroloman has a weak bat; and JP Arencibia also has questions regarding his catching. Which of these players do you project to be major leaguers?

KL - Jeroloman could spend ten years in the majors as a once-a-week backup, like a Tom Prince, and you old-timers who remember Nichols' Law of Catcher Defense know that the less he hits, the more his defense will be praised. Arencibia will play in the big leagues as well, but I don't think he's an everyday player back there. I question his defense and also his ability to hit for average.

13. How surprised were you with the success of Jesse Litsch in 2007 and what do you think of his future?

KL - I had pegged him back in '06 as a guy to watch, but the realistic outlook is that he's a high-quality fifth starter, maybe a #4 if everything goes his way. He relied heavily on the defense last year, and I don't see any pitch from him that's going to miss bats on a regular basis.

14. Ryan Patterson looked to have a bright future in 2006 but he has yet to dominate at the AA level. What are your expectations for him?

KL - 4th/5th outfielder. Not enough bat there.

15. You said in an ESPN chat, and on your top 100 prospect list, that Brett Cecil might end up as a closer or power reliever. Is that due to his having just two solid pitches? I assume you would agree that if he can be successful as a starter the Jays would be best to leave him in the rotation?

KL - I saw a three-pitch mix from him, with a solid-average curve to go with the fastball/slider, and I'm told he has a promising changeup. I think the Jays should work him as a starter this year on short pitch counts, just so he gets some reps with his secondary stuff (having to go through opposing lineups twice per game) and builds arm strength.

16. Your top 5 Blue Jay prospects includes Trystan Magnuson, why are you so high on him, seeing as he was drafted as a senior and seen as a "cheap pick" by the Jays?

KL - Magnusson was a fifth-year senior who was a classic "pop-up" guy - everyone was rushing in to see him in May because he was throwing so well. As a fifth-year senior, he would have been a free agent when Louisville's season ended, but because they made the NCAA regionals, he ended up in the draft, and it's a good thing for Toronto, because I know several teams that would have outbid them for Magnusson, including one team that was willing to go to seven figures. He was probably a borderline first-rounder, and if he's fully healthy this year (which he supposedly is), he could move very quickly.

Keith's comments about the draft and the relevance of college stats were interesting. For those who have read Moneyball, specifically the chapter about how Paul DePodesta found players through statistical analysis, that approach to the draft appears to be dead. Keith's comments regarding teams finding talent in the draft were also illuminating, a scout can find talent in an unexpected place and make a draft better for his team.

Keith suggests that he would like to see the Jays 2007 high school draftees make it to Lansing to start this season, that will be one of the most interesting things to watch at minor league spring training next month. Also Trystan Magnuson could move quickly if the scouting reports are to be believed.

Intersting reading and again a thank you to Keith Law.

Posted by Gerry on Thursday, February 14 2008 @ 09:00 AM EST.

An Interview with Keith Law | 34 comments | Create New Account

The following comments are owned by whomever posted them. This site is not responsible for what they say.

Flex - Thursday, February 14 2008 @ 09:19 AM EST (#179989) #

Good interview in general but I'm disappointed that you didn't ask Law about his perceived bias against the Blue Jays. An opportunity missed I think.

Chuck - Thursday, February 14 2008 @ 09:43 AM EST (#179990) #

Flex, would you imagine that conversation going any differently than the following?

BB: Keith, there is a perception, particularly among denizens of this forum, that you frequently exhibit a strong anti-Blue Jay bias, perhaps due to the acrimonious nature of your relationship with JP Ricciardi.

KL: I disagree.

greenfrog - Thursday, February 14 2008 @ 09:44 AM EST (#179991) #

Interesting interview. In the past, I've wondered whether Law has a bias against the Jays. These days, I'm not so sure. In this interview at least, he provides coherent reasons for his views. It would be interesting to hear someone from the Jays respond directly to Law's points (for example, about firing the amateur scouts, the new appreciation of HS prospects, his assessments of Ahrens and Arencibia).

Mike Green - Thursday, February 14 2008 @ 09:57 AM EST (#179992) #

I basically agree with Keith Law's assessment of the 2007 draft (and did at the time, as could be seen from my comments in the draft thread). I would like to know whether he has seen Rzepczynski, Leffler and Joel Collins, and if so, what his observations of them are.

I do think that Keith undersells the value of understanding college statistics a little, and the name Luke Hopkins comes quickly to mind. Statistical analysis is helpful also in making early round decisions between players at different positions, as the Tulowitzki/Maybin/Ricky Romero question of several years ago illustrates.

Pistol - Thursday, February 14 2008 @ 10:01 AM EST (#179993) #

If you enjoy the food & books portion of Law's chats I'd recommend his personal blog. There's occassionally baseball stuff on there as well (and that's becoming more frequent lately).

It's interesting to see how high he is on Magnusson. When I see a senior reliever picked that high in the draft (or most senior players for that matter) I reflexively think it was a signability pick, but apparently that's not the case here.

Nice work Gerry.

Gerry - Thursday, February 14 2008 @ 10:06 AM EST (#179994) #

One of Keith's best qualities, from a readers perspective, is that he speaks his mind and doesn't "play nice". That quality of straight talking puts a person in the crosshairs of those who don't agree with the stated views. I think Keith's willingness to point out that the Jays system is not as strong as we all would like is somewhat responsible for his reputation, but his opinion is pretty universal among all prospect evaluators.

Keith is a former employee of the Jays and I know from our discussions that there are some areas that he would not or could not discuss although I did not think to ask the "bias" question. Also remember that Keith was recently involved in a dispute over his non admission to the BBWAA, and so I think Keith would like to avoid any more controversy for a while (my opinion).

ChicagoJaysFan - Thursday, February 14 2008 @ 10:40 AM EST (#179995) #

Very interesting interview.

I've often wondered about the potential value of revisiting drafts down the line. From an organizational perspective, I can see some value here - did your organization have a bias that is impacting their success? Did you get appropriate value for money / draft position? Why?

However, I question the value of evaluating individual scouts based on their opinions 5 years or so ago. I think you can best evaluate the job that a scout did the following season, including spring training - you'll see a lot of chances to see the guys he was looking at and compare them to their peers. You can then evaluate how accurate his understanding was of where they fit in with their class.

If I'm looking at retaining / firing a scout - I want to look at how well he'll do in the 2008 draft. How he did in the 2003 draft probably plays a pretty small part in that, as hopefully we've developed and improved his abilities over time.

John Northey - Thursday, February 14 2008 @ 10:47 AM EST (#179996) #

The quote about...
Are you aware of teams evaluating their amateur scouts by looking back at their evaluations say from five years ago?

KL - I am not aware of it, but I would guess some teams do it.

was interesting. I've always thought a smart team would evaluate scouts as best as possible from who they recommended and why and see if they were accurate. Checking other teams scouts as well (normally the scout who 'signed' someone is mentioned) could allow a club to really exploit the low pay for scouts. Suppose someone for the past decade has found 5 or 6 top quality guys in the 5th or later rounds for a club - go up to him and offer more than the average scout makes and you could gain big time. Risking, say, $100k per year on a top scout could easily net you 10+ times that via just one near AS quality player found per 5-10 years. Likewise, a scout who is regularly wrong about guys could cost you that via poor choices in the draft.

Hmmm... the area for a Moneyball II? :)

ChicagoJaysFan - Thursday, February 14 2008 @ 11:15 AM EST (#180001) #

was interesting. I've always thought a smart team would evaluate scouts as best as possible from who they recommended and why and see if they were accurate. Checking other teams scouts as well (normally the scout who 'signed' someone is mentioned) could allow a club to really exploit the low pay for scouts. Suppose someone for the past decade has found 5 or 6 top quality guys in the 5th or later rounds for a club - go up to him and offer more than the average scout makes and you could gain big time. Risking, say, $100k per year on a top scout could easily net you 10+ times that via just one near AS quality player found per 5-10 years. Likewise, a scout who is regularly wrong about guys could cost you that via poor choices in the draft.

I have a few concerns with this line of thinking, which I somewhat alluded to in my last comment.

First, when evaluating other teams' scouts, you're dealing with a selection bias. The only people they are usually associated with are the ones that the team actually drafted, so essentially you're only evaluating them based on their highest rated players (according to their organization) and those they deemed worthy of selection. The scout won't be associated with his horrible evaluation that his GM said, "Nope, you're stupid, that guy sucks." It's only his selections that are filtered through others that you'll hear about it.

Second, this type of evaluation only considers a scout's ability to find good players when I'd think it's just as an important job for a scout to tell you who to stay away from as who to take. Avoiding a Luke Hopkins is a key component of their job.

Third, when a scout picks a player, how much of a difference are we really talking about them having that will show up down the line? Teams seem to get 4-5 MLB players per year for each draft and employ about 5 or so full-time scouts. If you're looking at the guys that another team signs, so much of that is going to depend on the drafting order and where the guys that he was following go. Casey Janssen was picked 177th - if you're scouting the Texas area and your team had the 180th pick, you don't get credit even if you liked him. Considering that there are only 4 or 5 guys a year that a team gets, that one pick could make or break your year as a scout. So much randomness goes into whether or not a scout produces 7 MLB players over 5 years versus 3 MLB players over 5 years.

Fourth, there is a ton of volatility in the scouting - look at the success rate of first rounders, the most highly touted individuals in each draft (it's about 50% success rate). While some of this may be able to be predicted through scouting, a lot of it is randomness (does he stay healthy? Do any significant off-field events impact his development? Does he grow as would be expected? Can he adjust to a pro life style / income? etc., etc.) Scouting can give some direction to each of these, but no way can scouting ever come close to giving a fully 100% accurate answer.

When looking at which scouts to hire, I'd be more concerned in understanding how they think, the consistency in their evaluations, their ability to establish relationships with key people in their families, etc., etc., rather than use backward looking statistics that are clouded with noise.

SK in NJ - Thursday, February 14 2008 @ 11:26 AM EST (#180003) #

Good interview in general but I'm disappointed that you didn't ask Law about his perceived bias against the Blue Jays. An opportunity missed I think.

I've also always wondered why he doesn't seem to take any responsibility for Toronto's weak farm system when he was working a prominent role in the organization for many of Ricciardi's years on the job. Did he not have any say in the drafting approach the team had when he was there?

Pistol - Thursday, February 14 2008 @ 11:27 AM EST (#180004) #

I'm not sure how well you could evaluate other scouts. You might be able to see that he found a Roy Oswalt for example, but could you tell if he liked player A more than player B who were both taken in the second round and one turned out much better than the other?

However, you would presumably have a pretty big database of your own scouts where you'd be able to look at the picks that you did make, but more importantly, every other player that was evaluated and drafted.

The Jays didn't draft, for example, Matt Garza. But did the area scout and cross checker think that he'd be where he is today?

I'm also not sure Luke Hopkins is a good example to site. While he didn't hit great in Auburn, he just 'retired' following the season.

ChicagoJaysFan - Thursday, February 14 2008 @ 11:31 AM EST (#180005) #

I'm also not sure Luke Hopkins is a good example to site. While he didn't hit great in Auburn, he just 'retired' following the season.

I'm not sure if you were referring to my comment about a scout wanting to avoid a Luke Hopkins or not. If you were, I'll respond why I cited him as an example - I think that scouts should not only be evaluating players based on their baseball ability, but also their mental ability insofar as it related to being able to achieve their baseball potential. As such, guys that are likely to retire, not deal well with adversity, not respond to constructive criticism, etc. should be avoided. I don't know the reason for Hopkin's retirement, so I won't speculate as to why he retired, but depending on the reason, a scout should have noticed some indicators only a few months earlier that he might not play again.

Ducey - Thursday, February 14 2008 @ 11:38 AM EST (#180006) #

I am interested in the "firing of the scouts" mentioned by Law. I had heard about this as one of Toronto's media guys complained about it regularly several years ago.

I had assumed that the scouts had been replaced by Law and his computer and that the organizations preference for college guys was due to the fact they could project them better using statistics. This does not sound like it was the case given the comments of Law.

How then did Toronto compensate for the firings? Did they largely rely on statistical analysis? Did they rehire a bunch of scouts over time and in particular for the 2007 draft? Wouldn't they need a bunch of scouts to draft a lot of highschoolers? Has Toronto(JP) now essentially come full circle on the issue of the necessity of scouts?

Pistol - Thursday, February 14 2008 @ 11:38 AM EST (#180007) #

employ about 5 or so full-time scouts

No, it's much more than that. On their website the Jays have 13 area scouts and 5 cross checkers, not to mention a handful of other people devoted significantly to the draft.

Here's an interview with Lalonde that discussed the Jays scouting operation from a couple years ago.

ChicagoJaysFan - Thursday, February 14 2008 @ 11:41 AM EST (#180008) #

By the way - I misread Janssen details - he was drafted 117th and played at UCLA. So if your team is drafting somewhere around 120 and you're responsible for the California area, you're in trouble.

ChicagoJaysFan - Thursday, February 14 2008 @ 11:45 AM EST (#180009) #

No, it's much more than that. On their website the Jays have 13 area scouts and 5 cross checkers, not to mention a handful of other people devoted significantly to the draft.

Here's an interview with Lalonde that discussed the Jays scouting operation from a couple years ago.

You're correct - I guess I made a mistake in recalling the line from the Keith law interview about how many scouts teams employ. The line says "Most teams have at least five or six scouts covering the minor leagues" but when I was thinking of scouts, for some reason I had it in my head that it was scouts in total, not just pro scouts.

Fortunately for me, the 13 area scouts and 5 cross checkers actually makes my point stronger in how few MLB players you'll actually associate with a scout and how one hit / miss due to randomness can make him look so much better / worse.

Mike Green - Thursday, February 14 2008 @ 11:49 AM EST (#180011) #

My comment about Hopkins related to this. If one makes the appropriate league/environment adjustments, his performance at New Mexico State was not particularly impressive for a 240 lb. first baseman. Many here rolled their eyes when he was drafted in the 5th round.

Wildrose - Thursday, February 14 2008 @ 12:12 PM EST (#180012) #

Teams seem to get 4-5 MLB players per year for each draft and employ about 5 or so full-time scouts.

Generally I agree with your comments, but somebody around here did a study a few years back and found that the average draft yields about 2-3 MLB players per year. Much lower than most expected.

I'd probably ascribe a lot of value to the scout who finds the proverbial " diamond in the rough", in the late rounds from the backwoods , however you need to be looking there first . The whole area of scouting and value for the dollar seems to be woefully under reported. I'd love to see a comparison of what teams actually spend in this area.

The best book ever in my opinion on scouting and baseball is " Dollar Sign on the Muscle" , really some intrepid writer should update it for todays modern era.

John Northey - Thursday, February 14 2008 @ 12:15 PM EST (#180013) #

Would one hit or miss make a scout look really good or really bad? Well, if you just use raw averages it would.

To me the best measure would be taking the guys associated with a scout and seeing if there are patterns (always hurt, quit after a year or two in the minors, no control for pitchers, never K but no power for hitters, etc.) From those patterns you can see the strengths and weaknesses of each scout, much like you can for a player.

Just taking a simple Blue Jay example - Pat Gillick was amazing for finding minor leaguers and international players (or at finding scouts who were great at it) but horrid at the draft, especially the early rounds. The 80's were a disaster in that respect which might have helped lead to the post-93 disaster for the team. From Augie Schmidt to Matt Stark, very little went right (just 2 first rounders in 10 years did anything of note-Cerutti and Sprague plus out of 7 January drafts just 2 made the majors with Eric Yelding's 586 OPS being the best of those). I suspect he looked long and hard before finding the right scouts for the draft, who then took off (we all know how good the first rounders were in the 90's with Green, Stewart, Karsay, Carpenter, Halladay, Koch, Wells, Lopez, Rios all being 1st rounders).

With many teams area scouts being public knowledge (what area and what scout), at least inside baseball I suspect, it would be fairly easy to find out who was key for each drafted player and then to see if patterns exist (say, the SW scout for the Yankees always grabbing power pitchers who don't blow out their arms or something). It is rare to hit stuff as clear as the Jays had (10 years with 2 successes vs 10 with 9) I suspect but it sure shows the difference good scouts can make.

FYI: The 80's included 4 top 10 picks while the 90's had 3 - the 80's 4 didn't have a full ML season between them while the 90's 3 were Lopez/Wells/Koch. To be fair the 90's had 19 first rounders vs the 80's with 10 but if you limit it to the 1st selection each year the big 9 are still there while the 80's would lose Cerutti (picked via Brewers signing Roy Howell who never went over 300 AB's again).

ChicagoJaysFan - Thursday, February 14 2008 @ 12:34 PM EST (#180014) #

To me the best measure would be taking the guys associated with a scout and seeing if there are patterns (always hurt, quit after a year or two in the minors, no control for pitchers, never K but no power for hitters, etc.) From those patterns you can see the strengths and weaknesses of each scout, much like you can for a player.

That is extremely difficult to do for opposing scouts. Scouts don't make the picks, they evaluate players and make recommendations about players. The main source of biases is going to come from the scouting director, or whoever is in charge of the draft, because he is the one that chooses which players get chosen and which talents he favors versus others.

For example, pre-2007 draft, did all Jay scouts have a bias against high schoolers?

Just taking a simple Blue Jay example - Pat Gillick was amazing for finding minor leaguers and international players (or at finding scouts who were great at it) but horrid at the draft, especially the early rounds.

I agree that looking backwards is an effective way to evaluate a GM or an organization, but that doesn't make it an effective way to evaluate the individual scouts.

jgadfly - Thursday, February 14 2008 @ 01:54 PM EST (#180022) #

Thanks again Gerry for your great work! ...

6. Do you think there are significant differences between teams in their ability to develop minor league players for the big leagues?

KL - Absolutely. Some is coaching. A lot is planning - I do not understand why some teams refuse to use player plans for at least their top prospects. I know that Toronto did not use them while I was there, because the director of player development did not wish to do so. (A player development plan is a written document that should, at the least, identify areas in which the player needs work, set measurable goals for progress in those areas, and lay out a plan for the player and his coaches to achieve those goals.)

10. Many of the Jays 2007 high school picks got off to slow starts, many experts say not to worry. When does a high school player need to show on field performance?

KL - I couldn't put a specific deadline on it. I'm not a big fan of two-year short-season players, at least not when we're talking about high draft picks. If you have to return to short-season ball in your second pro season - meaning you couldn't break camp with the low-A club - your odds of having a big-league career are diminished. That's more true of hitters than of pitchers, of course.

Questions 6 and 10 got my hobbyhorse rockin' again... On #6; ...hopefully the Jays have gone back to a policy where prospect planning is an integral part of their development and I get the sense that they have reading between the lines of Travis Snider's interviews. More at a later time... On #10; ...this question has been echoing around my cranium since reading projections of the Single A Lansing Lugnuts. I too have been wondering about why highly rated highschool draftees would be held back another year in split season rookie ball (only Ahrens(?), Chavez and possibly Tolisano have made the list) while lesser but older prospects are given the opportunity to advance at the possible expense of the "A list". Granted the older guys did collectively win the NY-Penn championship and advancing as a winning group has been mentioned as a strong preference in their learning curve/ apprenticeship program but the GCL Jays did finsh 2nd to the older GCL champion Yankee$ and were probably the best team in the 2nd half of their season. They too, were a highly sucessful collection of players who individually may not have performed up to their level of potential but were still sucessful. So... where does that lead to? The guys slated for Lansing in the main have the outside chance of becoming at most serviceable backup ML or AAAA players where as some of the younger kids have more longterm upside potential with above average impact at the ML level. The kids then by default are slated for another split season of extended highschool level ball in a safe environment where monotany and repetition fill in for challenge and new professional growth experiences. They might initially be overmatched but they also might rise to the challenge. At midseason re-evaluate and send them to the GCL if their collective psyches are in need of a championship season... and hopefully the experience will show them what elements of their games need work and they can reinforce their efforts with success at the safer level. Too many times the successes of past minor league championships have not translated into major league fruition. Anyways, enough of my incoherent ramblings for now...

ANationalAcrobat - Thursday, February 14 2008 @ 02:58 PM EST (#180025) #

Thanks Gerry!

John Northey - Thursday, February 14 2008 @ 03:51 PM EST (#180028) #

Mike D - Thursday, February 14 2008 @ 03:53 PM EST (#180029) #

Great article, Gerry. It's been a good, informative week here at Da Box.

Alex Obal - Thursday, February 14 2008 @ 04:42 PM EST (#180034) #

Really stimulating interview. Thanks, Gerry.

Frank Markotich - Thursday, February 14 2008 @ 04:47 PM EST (#180035) #

I don't think scouts can be evaluated from an outside perspective, without access to teams' scouting reports.

What a team ought to do is compare a scout's evaluation of a player with the player's eventual performance or lack thereof.

ChicagoJaysFan - Thursday, February 14 2008 @ 04:52 PM EST (#180036) #

For example, pre-2007 draft, did all Jay scouts have a bias against high schoolers?

Well, that wouldn't be how I was suggesting you evaluate the scouts. Base evaluation on what they _did_ do, not what the _didn't_ do. ie: lets say a team drafts 10 guys a scout recommends and none sign - that could suggest the scout has trouble determining if a guy is signable. Or if 8 guys sign and 7 of them get hurt within a season - suggests the scout is blind to injury risk.

Ok, so instead of saying the Jays had a bias against high schoolers, I'll rephrase it as a bias towards college players, which is what they did as opposed to what they didn't do.

I don't have that much of a problem with looking at trends, but that's a far cry from your original comment of:

Suppose someone for the past decade has found 5 or 6 top quality guys in the 5th or later rounds for a club - go up to him and offer more than the average scout makes and you could gain big time

The above comment is still one that I have a very strong problem with and something that now seems to go against what you are saying - now you're talking about trends, biases, and consistencies and not making any mention of getting 5 or 6 top quality guys.

To me setting up some method is far better than no method at all.

I don't believe that I have ever said you shouldn't set up no method at all. In fact, what I said is:

When looking at which scouts to hire, I'd be more concerned in understanding how they think, the consistency in their evaluations, their ability to establish relationships with key people in their families, etc., etc. [rest omitted because it was in context to the 5 or 6 top-quality guys]

To me, looking at those things is most certainly a method. In fact, you alluded to the importance of at least one of those items when you said:

lets say a team drafts 10 guys a scout recommends and none sign - that could suggest the scout has trouble determining if a guy is signable.

As long as you no longer believe in your statement that signing a scout because he picked "5 or 6 top quality guys in the 5th or later rounds for a club", then we don't have a disagreement.

ComebyDeanChance - Thursday, February 14 2008 @ 09:47 PM EST (#180039) #

Excellent interview. Law's an intelligent analyst and I enjoy his perspective and frankness. As for the 'bias' argument, when you start hearing that rotoworld is 'biased', baseball prospectus is 'biased', almost all writers are 'biased', it begins to wear a bit thin.

HollywoodHartman - Thursday, February 14 2008 @ 10:41 PM EST (#180044) #

KLaw had a chat today on ESPN. He gave the Box a plug and responded to a bias question (against the Rockies). With an answer similar to (going off of memory, as I do not have insider). "Haven't you heard? I hate all 30 teams, all 30 GM's, both sides of every trade, every prospect, any deal over the minimum and you!." It was rather humorous.

Lee - Friday, February 15 2008 @ 02:05 PM EST (#180068) #

Jgadfly,

hopefully the Jays have gone back to a policy where prospect planning is an integral part of their development and I get the sense that they have reading between the lines of Travis Snider's interviews.

Which interviews are these? What did Snider say (or imply)? Sorry if this has been discussed before, but this is the first I've heard of it.

John Northey - Friday, February 15 2008 @ 02:36 PM EST (#180070) #

I do still think that if you find that a scout for another team seems to be finding top quality guys in later rounds that you should do what you can to sign him. Yes, it might be just due to him having the ear of his GM but the fact is that few players after the first 5 rounds even make it to the majors, let along have success so if you find that there is a scout who seems to find those guys you sign him.

I view that hidden scout as being much like Epy Guerrero was for the Jays in the Dominican. A guy who found talent like few others largely due to being right in the middle of it. Odds are there is a guy out there in the southern US who knows all the local high schools and has dozens of contacts who would often know who could make it before other scouts. Finding that guy would be a big piece of the puzzle for any team, and draft record would be the only way.

We seem to be covering 3 different topics here...
1) Team evaluation - such as the Jays going for college rather than high school talent (see your comment about bias) - which isn't what I thought we were really talking about

2)Judging your own scouts - this is where a team can really dig into stuff with some accuracy. Get your scouts views on players - from injury risk to signability to where they should go in the draft and so on - and compare it over time to what really happened. This way you can mix and match to get a more complete picture (ie: your core scout for the southwest has an eye for power but misses on injury risk while a crosschecker is great on injury risk then you know to mix them together more often).

3) Judging other teams scouts - this is our big dispute, can it be done and if so how to work with it. I feel it can be done well enough to allow for raiding of other teams scouts. Especially if you see someone doing an 'Epy' job somewhere in the post top 5 rounds. Heck, after the first 2 rounds it can be a major crapshoot and if someone wins at that crapshoot regularly then either figure out why they are winning or sign them so you can win.

Scouts tend to be around for decades from what I understand. Some hop team to team put most stay put (again, as I understand it) while pay is minimal. The team that figures out how to measure scouts in a reasonably accurate way gains a major, major advantage on the other 29 teams.

ChicagoJaysFan - Tuesday, February 19 2008 @ 06:46 PM EST (#180167) #

3) Judging other teams scouts - this is our big dispute, can it be done and if so how to work with it. I feel it can be done well enough to allow for raiding of other teams scouts. Especially if you see someone doing an 'Epy' job somewhere in the post top 5 rounds. Heck, after the first 2 rounds it can be a major crapshoot and if someone wins at that crapshoot regularly then either figure out why they are winning or sign them so you can win.

John, Epy never did anything in the draft - he signed free agents ineligible for the draft. There is a huge difference between scouts that sign non-draftable free agents and those looking at players for the draft. I too would agree that if you found a scout in a non-draft area that was picking up tons of players then you should sign him.

I find myself dancing around the Albert Cards-fans-like-it-in-their situation. Pujols was not a great job by the Cards scout. If the scout knew he had spotted a superstar, why wasn't he pushing for him to go higher? Why did he let the team pick 12 or so players before Pujols? Even if this is repeated, again, why does he not push for his guys to go higher?

Whenever I bring up the idea that judging scouts by the players they pick, you bring up examples that aren't scouts (Gillick) or aren't dealing with draft picks (Epy) or else you avoid the players picking discussion, so I'll reiterate my initial issues with choosing opposing scouts based on their late-round success:

1 - How do you eliminate the selection bias? (i.e. you're only dealing with picks that have been vetted by someone else yet attributing all success to the scout and acting as if those were his only recommendations)
2 - What about the other part of the scout's job to avoid flame-outs? You need to evaluate scouts based on things they don't do as well as things they do.
3 - There is way too much luck of the draw involved as to when other teams pick. In the later rounds, there is usually at most one guy in the entire round that makes the majors. If that guy is in your area and went 3 picks earlier are you all of a sudden a bad scout?
4 - With the huge volatility in draft pick success, the difference in success that you'd need to obtain statistical difference would likely be exceedingly rare. Based on numbers others have provided here, if teams put 2-3 players per year in the majors, and have 13+ amateur scouts, you're looking at the average scout putting 1 player into the majors every 6 years or so.

jgadfly - Thursday, February 21 2008 @ 12:47 AM EST (#180196) #

Lee... RE: Travis Snider interviews... one was by Projectprospect's Adam Foster at http://www.projectprospect.com/travis-snider-interview-afl-07/ ... the other I believe was linked with the Lansing Lugnut/fan site but I can't locate it now

An Interview with Keith Law | 34 comments | Create New Account

The following comments are owned by whomever posted them. This site is not responsible for what they say.