Player Evaluation: What are you looking at?

WHAT ARE YOU LOOKING AT???

When it comes to evaluating players in baseball we still see a huge divide personified by the Moneyball debate: Scouts vs. Statistics.

Do you look at tools or production?
Is there a time where one approach is more productive than the other?

My answer to those questions would be Yes, of course and Yes, of course.

In my opinion there is a life cycle and shelf life for each baseball prospect and an approach to evaluate that player based on where they are in that cycle.

When a player is at the high school level, the traditional scout approach of evaluating primarily based on tools rather than statistics is proper for a variety of reasons. First, high school statistics have a wide range of disparity depending on the level of competition in the area, weather, size of fields, score keeping, etc. They are inherently unreliable.

Further, kids physical maturation rates are the prime determinant to their current success level. You have a wide range of heights and weights and foot speeds and ball velocities on each roster. But you do have some physical tools that are reliable, measurable and accurate predictors of future success that you can use in addition to what you see happening on the field. That is what scouts look for. What do I see know, physically. What do I see in terms of ability. And what do I project or forecast this player will be able to do in the future based on what I have seen comparable players do in the past.

"Comparables "are a tool used in real estate to measure value for properties with like features. Scouts do the same thing when they are evaluating players.

THE PHYSICAL TOOLS:
Height, Weight, Body Composition, Strength, Bat Speed, Foot Speed, Throwing Velocity, Agility.

THE FIVE TOOLS:
The traditional "five-tools" or abilities that a player should have are:
hitting for average, hitting for power, running speed, throwing ability or arm strength and fielding ability.

THE BASEBALL SKILLS:
Ability to control the Strike Zone
Ability to hit for Average
Ability to hit for Power
Running Speed and Base Running Ability
Arm Strength or Velocity
Fielding Ability and Range

For high schoolers the you tend to look at Physical Tools,Five Tools and Baseball Skills in that order.

As a players moves into college ball or the low minors (Low-A, Rookie Ball) the Five tools are still prominent and the physical tools are still there, but more weight is given to the results or baseball skills.

As a player moves from High A ball to AA-AAA levels, the baseball skills begin to rule the day. Results matter more and potential matters less.

That is one of the reasons I am a bit hesitant to rank players who have not played pro ball very high on a prospect list. There is no basis for ranking them high other than their draft round and physical tools. High school draftees are even more problematic than collegians. Obviously, the organization thinks highly of them based on their draft status and bonus money, but those two factors do not a prospect make. To me, at that point they are still highly regarded draftees who have no reliable track record. But that's just me. And people from Missouri, you've got to "show me" something.

The statistical measures I look at for hitters are as follows:
OPS - (On base average + Slugging Percent) It combines the ability to control/dominate the strike zone battle with the pitcher and the ability to hit.

You can also use ISO or Isolated Power which is simply (Slugging Percent - Batting Average). This stat tends to favor power hitters over punch and judy hitters. Another stat, not as readily available is SEC or Secondary Average (TB-H+W+SB) which measures Power, Speed and Patience.

After that I look at the K_rate and the W_rate (K and BB per Plate Appearance). How often is the hitter striking out and how often is he walking? This will tell you how well the hitter is wining the strike zone confrontation with the pitcher. As a hitter moves up the chain, pitchers become more able to capitalize on holes in their swing. A high average at low levels with a high K rate or a low BB rate are potential red flags as the hitter moves up the chain.

Ideally, you want a Low K, High BB rate - these guys are your future hitting stars.
Conversely, a high K, low BB rate - don't fall in love with these guys, they fail.

A player with a low K rate, low BB rate better have some speed or hit for a high average.

A high K rate combined with a high BB rate is probably a power type hitter with a prominent hole in his swing. May not hit for a high average, but if the power is there, maybe.

You'd like to see K's less than 15% of a players PA. BB's should be 10% of PA or greater.

For hitter, a K/BB ratio of < 1 is something to look at. A potential superstar hitter. In the 1.00 - 1.50 range is still a prospect. As we approach 1.60 and higher, the bloom starts to come off the rose as far a hitting prospect, something is wrong.

I rely most on OPS as a proxy for evaluating power, BB/PA for evaluating plate discipline and K/PA for evaluating ability to make contact or hit for average down the road.

Conversely, when evaluating pitchers you want to see the same numbers somewhat reversed. (DUH!!)

A high K/BB ratio, 2.50 is good, 3.00 or better is someone to keep an eye on. Less than 2.00 probably going to be a deal breaker as pitching prospect, too low. This is one of the better indicators for future performance for evaluating minor league pitchers.

My favorite indicator is the punch-out ratio. The K/9 or "canine", the number of strike outs per nine innings. It's a sign of dominance. If a pitcher is to be expect to win the battle against major league hitters in the future, they best be able to dominate minor league hitters. You like to see 9.00 + K's per nine innings, ten or more is going to make scouts and GM's drool.

After that BB/9 or walks per nine innings are a good indicator. It's the best measure of command or control out there. Less than 2.00 per nine innings is good.

Ability to keep the ball in the yard is a good indicator, HR/9. Less than 0.40 HR's per nine innings is a good ratio, lower for relief specialists.

WHIP is a readily available and secondary measure of dominance or performance. This is Walks + Hits per Innings Pitched. Less than 1.00 is good. I'd rather see the pieces individually than blended in a stew like this, but whatever.

For pitchers I rely most on K/9 as a proxy for evaluating dominant "stuff". BB/9 is my number for evaluating control or command of pitches and K/BB for overall potential to pitch at higher levels.

In conclusion, eventually the numbers don't lie. They may mislead over the short-term but like Coach Parcells opined, "You are what your record says you are". By the way, if I use the statistical measures listed for the Giants prospects, only two guys come out of the analysis with above average to excellent numbers across all categories -- Buster Posey and Madison Bumgarner. So I hope the numbers don't lie, but it's not a perfect system and there is no system out there that can account for injuries which are relatively random in nature and severity.

Remember, projecting future players is still more of an art than a science. If anyone had it broken down to a science, they wouldn't be writing about it they'd be making millions in fantasy leagues or some major league scouting department. Projections are like plumbers cracks, everybody has one. So have fun with yours.