max power

Oh, thanks. Now I'm with you.

I guess I just didn't understand why the order you listed the tools in matters by position if you are just going to average them unweighted. Is it that the overall projection is not really looked at as much as the tool projections for certain positions?

Wow great post. I'm sure that took some time. Thanks. I have a question. How did you get that overall current? Was it a simple average or a weighted average based on the priorities below by position?

Nevermind he is sucking even more than before. OPS .500

QUOTE(scenario @ Dec 18, 2007 -> 09:37 PM) You have to put it in perspective. Hitting stats for the entire league are pretty bad. http://www.mlb.com/milb/stats/stats.jsp?si...131&t=l_tba Compare Pablo Ozuna: http://www.mlb.com/milb/stats/stats.jsp?n=...&pid=150367 Pretty similar numbers. Why are they all bad, though? Obviously the pitching is doing better than the hitting but when these guys go to face even better pitching in the bigs, logic says they will suck even harder. Are all the batters working on the swing or something?

Speaking of richar, is he still sucking in whatever winter league he is in?

He is getting blamed for a season that hasn't even happened yet on top of it all.

QUOTE(Dick Allen @ Dec 23, 2007 -> 08:17 PM) How come Dolan continues to watch Isaiah ruin the Knicks when Krause is available? If its "all about the rings", Walt Jocketty was the best GM in baseball in 2006, how come no one has scooped him up yet? Krause isn't available.

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Dec 23, 2007 -> 07:03 PM) I'd be curious what explanation folks have that took the "KW is good but should be fired" option. I don't get that one at all. Maybe he is good but its just not working in spite of his talent, so its time for a change. That's all I can think of.

This wasn't even supposed to be an argument. You made it one. I just want to learn about scouting so I can know its not what I think it is. That is all. You're being a little too vague, so I ask a little more forwardly, then you get defensive. I'm not attacking you. I've stated several times that I don't know what I'm talking about and I'd like to. I look forward to any in depth insight you'd give into how scouting reports are prepared. If you would say what you do, maybe I would find it valid. I know you don't care what I find valid. I care what I find valid and make an effort to educate myself on what I don't know. Not doing so would be a disfavor to myself and others.

lol, guy deleted his posts. I wish I would have quoted him.

And I am definitely going to question what you say. If you can't deal with, poor baby. I don't give a f***. Are you that insecure that you can't be questioned?

Settle down there, Mr. Professional. I know you don't care if I believe you. I don't care that you don't care. That is so far from my point in asking you about it. I also know I'm not a professional in scouting, and what you said about me having an arm chair view is misleading. I simply said I don't know about it because I don't. Not knowing about it leads me to thinking its a crap industry. All I am trying to do is understand why its not crap. Without another source I am asking you because I want to know. Not because I want you to care what I think.

I didn't mean "faith." I meant confidence of its accuracy. So you are above average or better, whatever. If the industry itself is crap, which I think it is at this point, and which is also why I am asking you about it, then who cares if you are one of the better guys? You're above average crap in that scenario. No offense meant, just making a point. Why don't you know how often you are wrong? That seems like something you might want to keep track of, then you can improve on that number. Also there is no accountability. How in the world can I say, oh you're right a lot, then trust your opinion. I need to know how often you are right or else its meaningless to me. Also, if I want to doubt what you say is accurate, I'm going to. In arguing with you, I am learning something. If you can't be bothered to defend your appraisals of talent, maybe you shouldn't post here. I'm not religious. I don't make dogmatic leaps of faith. I'm not going to give some anonymous internet poster the benefit of the doubt.

Fair enough. You have faith in your own scouting. So how often are you pretty far off? Not sure how I'd define pretty far off. As loosely as you want to I guess.

Only your scouting is good? Just because they are writers, they are worse scouting reports? I don't take their world as gold. I take it with a grain of salt. I take yours the same way too. Scouting in general seems to be a bunch of bulls*** psuedo science based on too many assumptions. No offense meant. If you care to tell me how I'm wrong I'd like to hear it. I don't really know what the scouts you associate yourself with do differently. How often are they wrong? 74% of the time?

QUOTE(3E8 @ Dec 23, 2007 -> 04:24 PM) No I understood what you meant. maggsmaggs used KW's reliance on gut as a criticism. But you're saying if KW relied on stats instead of his gut, he wouldn't have assembled the 2005 team which won the Series. No that's not what I meant, but its a valid point. I legit read it as Kenny Williams relies on stats too much, because I misread his post. I could have easily meant what you said, as its a good point. Using his gut was a good thing and lead to '05. I wonder how joesaiditstrue knew what I was thinking. Somebody hold me. I'm scared. * looks out the window*

Well then. I'm an idiot. Thanks for clarifying.

I wonder if the guy with the scouting reports fully believes they are accurate and usually correct. I don't. Not when the topic is potential. I'm sure they accurate describe the talent's past.

QUOTE(South Side Fireworks Man @ Dec 23, 2007 -> 12:30 PM) In other words, do the Sox really need an accomplished leadoff hitter and starting second baseman now that they have signed a utility player who is not a leadoff type with no major league experience? Yeah, do they?

QUOTE(maggsmaggs @ Dec 23, 2007 -> 01:38 PM) I think KW has been good, but now is mediocre. IMO, he relies too much on gut than stats. I would be curious to see what Rick Hahn could do as GM bekng a more analytical guy. He would be more based off straight stats than pure what you see which is more KW. It is interesting that they are the GM duo being so different in styles. If he relied on stats the moves that lead to 2005 wouldn't have happened.

lol

QUOTE(Vance Law @ Dec 22, 2007 -> 06:37 PM) That and the Diamondbacks glut of young hot prospect outfielders. They are sexy.

But what about all the wee little martians who will lose their lives?

QUOTE(YASNY @ Dec 18, 2007 -> 07:46 AM) Regardless of your opinion, that is the official definition of a quality start. ??? That wasn't his point.