Don wrote:It is not about who is best in those categories. You have a baseline of current tools that make up that player and based on your gut and your observations, you tend to grade out players higher down the road. The scouting intangibles are combined to give players a degree of improvement.
You base these figures and go along with a future projection on the body type, what they can be to figure out their ceiling as a ball player.
If you see tow guy and one has a bit stronger work ethic, etc... you would end up grading that guy higher and future OFP would be a big higher because you feel that his skills would improve based on his character allowing a proper growth curve.
Safe to say this is more true in baseball than other sports (where players are more immiediate impact)? Seems like even as drafts approach when looking over Top lists from different sources the variety is significant. Most will agree on who top 5 are, but order varies, and as you get down to 50 and 100 the variation can be significant. Don't want to call it a crap shoot because it diminishes what you and other do so well (evaluate talent), but the formula for success seems fleeting to say the least.
I think of the 2010 draft for the O's where they drafted Wiston Sawyer out of Ranch Scribbs HS in CA (I think that was the name of the school) and in later rounds drafted two pitchers from that same high school. Is it because they really felt they were the best players at that spot? Or was it more likely that they had seen them enough in scouting Sawyer that they were comfortable with them?
(Sorry I know that is a little off topic)
