I would slaughter a newborn fox to see his bat be good enough for him to make it

 

 

As long as it's not a newborn panda.

As long as it's not a newborn panda.

I'd think long and hard about it, have you seen his defence?

Yeah. I'm not coaching baseball though. I teach junior high and coach HS football and JR high track. I was trying to make a joke sorry. But yeah, the kids i coach in other sports play for the Sparks and some other teams around here.

Two girls from your track team were thorns in my daughters side last year. They are in high school now and still go at it.

Gorkys!!

I'd like to know Wittman's track record of predicting where A level players end up. To me it sounds like a guy who wants to focus on the negative aspects of a player to make himself seem more of an expert.

 

Maybe he does have some credibility but he could just as easily be another Todd McShay.Have you ever read the story on ESPN "draft guru", Tood McShay? He basically knew somebody that got him a job and ESPN told him that he was going to be their new draft expert because they were/are phasing Mel Kiper out. McShay had no NFL background at all. Yet, there he is telling us how he breaking tape on players and how NFL teams should draft.

Edited April 14, 201411 yr by Lemon_44

I'd like to know Wittman's track record of predicting where A level players end up. To me it sounds like a guy who wants to focus on the negative aspects of a player to make himself seem more of an expert.

 

Maybe he does have some credibility but he could just as easily be another Todd McShay.Have you ever read the story on ESPN "draft guru", Tood McShay? He basically knew somebody that got him a job and ESPN told him that he was going to be their new draft expert because they were/are phasing Mel Kiper out. McShay had no NFL background at all. Yet, there he is telling us how he breaking tape on players and how NFL teams should draft.

Which is what they did with with Mel Kiper many years earlier. Blows my mind how they can do that, and yet I started liking Kiper's analysis. I'm surprised they didn't hire a woman for McShay's job.

I think it is asinine to label Hawkins's ceiling as a extra. You can be critical all you want about his floor, in that he has a long way to go to ever become a major-league regular with all these contact issues. But if he figures it all out, his ceiling is tremendous, not that of an extra

Wittman providing some nice information as to what he sees - but you have to simply take it as that. What he sees in those games. Some guys I'll take broader analysis from too, but a guy who says Hawkins' CEILING is a bench player at this point? Come on now. He may only be a bench player or may not even make it at all, but calling that his ceiling this early means you're just going for the look-I'm-Keith-Law-too angle.

 

Wittman providing some nice information as to what he sees - but you have to simply take it as that. What he sees in those games. Some guys I'll take broader analysis from too, but a guy who says Hawkins' CEILING is a bench player at this point? Come on now. He may only be a bench player or may not even make it at all, but calling that his ceiling this early means you're just going for the look-I'm-Keith-Law-too angle.

 

 

Absolutely. That's why I got into it with him a little bit. I went to WS and saw Hawkins in person last year. He was completely lost. I had seen some positive reports and video this year so I asked him about it. Then he proceeded to s*** all over the kid for some reason. It sounded biased and honestly doesn't give him much credibility as far as I'm concerned.

I think it is asinine to label Hawkins's ceiling as a extra. You can be critical all you want about his floor, in that he has a long way to go to ever become a major-league regular with all these contact issues. But if he figures it all out, his ceiling is tremendous, not that of an extra

They do this because they will be right most of the time. Most players in the minors won't reach the majors or if they do, they aren't stars. So if a prospect has a significant weakness, you say this and he won't be far off.

A lot of these prospect analyst types are trying to break in by adding a personality edge to their profile. Parks and a few others go the silly, intentionally over the top route. Law and people who emulate him like to look big by being dismissive of everything. Younger, newer guys in this field have this idea that the more personality they inject into their work, the more attention they will get, and they are sort of right. But the more they do that, the more skeptical I am of their views. Just my opinion.

 

They do this because they will be right most of the time. Most players in the minors won't reach the majors or if they do, they aren't stars. So if a prospect has a significant weakness, you say this and he won't be far off.

That's true too. Since most prospects will fail or be disappointments, it is easy to look right if you are dismissive of virtually all of them. It is also the lazy approach, but many people take this.