Bill Plaschke

Really, you know, that's not true. Yes, I'm sure you can rattle off six of seven exceptions, but there is a general correlation between minor league and major league performance. Sorry.

 

Um, I'm sure there are hundreds of exceptions. And hundreds of people who made the majors with lackluster minor league stats. There's just so much that goes into what makes a major leaguer.

 

You seem to be arguing against your own point. Of course, throwing 100 mph or having great "tools" etc. is no guarantee of anything. Which is precisely why minor league stats are so valuable. They provide an opportunity to test the conclusions of scouts and talent evaluators.

Now, if you said high school stats, I'd agree with you. Even college stats, to a certain extent. But minor league performances are valuable because teams can compare those stats to a body of data from other players and form better guesses about a player's likelihood of ever making the big leagues.

No system is infallible, of course, but to suggest that the subjective opinion of one scout is more meaningful than the data provided by, say, 300 games at the minor league level, is quite a stretch.

 

In what bizarro world am I contradicting myself? Minor league stats are still stats against a lot of inferior competition. "Issues of athleticism, personality and hustle, among other things" have nothing to do with stats

 

Maybe you can explain your example to me more clearly.

You said there are pitchers who throw 100 mph but still don't make the big leagues. Which is absolutely true. But you appeared to be using that example to defend scouting vs. statistical analysis. In reality, it would be scouts who would be most concerned about the speed of one's fastball, while stats-geeks would be more concerned with the production the pitcher got out of that 100 mph fastball. You seemed to be reinforcing my argument rather than your own. Or maybe I just misunderstood you.

And I agree with you about things like attitude, hustle, etc.