We (the writers at Future Sox) are often asked some version of the question, "how do you evaluate prospects?". We have an FAQ page for that, but I thought I'd add some color to the picture by laying out how I came to it myself. I used the story of a pitching prospect early in my writing "career" with Future Sox to show how I came to realize that statistics, while sometimes indicative of useful information, can also sometimes lie.

 

Here is the article.

 

Hopefully this helps illustrate for people the limitation of stat scouting of prospects. I also wonder who here even remembers this particular pitcher.

 

I remember him well. Great story.

Nice article, I enjoyed it.

 

What are your thoughts on using things like pitchfx to metricize "stuff"? Have you seen anyone develop models that can be used to indicate how good someone's stuff is, and then calibrate the model against scout evaluations to see if there's agreement?

That was a really good article Matt.

Excellent article and insight. Self evaluation is one of the keys to learning in any situation. For the pitchers,it's learning how to throw good stuff while being biomechanically sound. Any one can throw a great slider if they drop down far enough. However, this will lead to elbow injuries. Can they throw a 94 mph fastball without overthrowing and making it straight? The first part will lead to injuries, the second will lead to it getting hit, as in your example in the article. This is why some pitchers are always injured or cannot come back after surgery. In order to be effective they need to do "unbiomechanically" sound things. Some pitchers can handle it, others cannot.

 

This is part of the challenge from the injury/rehab perspective, how to smooth the mechanics without changing "the stuff." I think this is what happened to Johnson as discussed in another thread. He was fatigued from the previous year's load. He couldn't get the fastball velocity where he wanted it so he lengthened the arm swing to overthrow. This in turn caused mechanical issues and the ball to be more straight. So in an effort to improve "the stuff" he changed alot.

Thanks for the comments everyone, I appreciate it.

 

Nice article, I enjoyed it.

 

What are your thoughts on using things like pitchfx to metricize "stuff"? Have you seen anyone develop models that can be used to indicate how good someone's stuff is, and then calibrate the model against scout evaluations to see if there's agreement?

 

I think getting PitchFX set up in minor league parks would be a nice tool to add, though I don't think it will ever fully replace in-person looks or other areas to look at. What I think it can do is, if you see a pitcher live once or twice, you can then look at PFX to make sure your sample wasn't aberrant in some way. And if you haven't seen them at all, it can add color to the picture.

 

Excellent article and insight. Self evaluation is one of the keys to learning in any situation. For the pitchers,it's learning how to throw good stuff while being biomechanically sound. Any one can throw a great slider if they drop down far enough. However, this will lead to elbow injuries. Can they throw a 94 mph fastball without overthrowing and making it straight? The first part will lead to injuries, the second will lead to it getting hit, as in your example in the article. This is why some pitchers are always injured or cannot come back after surgery. In order to be effective they need to do "unbiomechanically" sound things. Some pitchers can handle it, others cannot.

 

This is part of the challenge from the injury/rehab perspective, how to smooth the mechanics without changing "the stuff." I think this is what happened to Johnson as discussed in another thread. He was fatigued from the previous year's load. He couldn't get the fastball velocity where he wanted it so he lengthened the arm swing to overthrow. This in turn caused mechanical issues and the ball to be more straight. So in an effort to improve "the stuff" he changed alot.

 

As usual, great to add your views, ptatc.

 

Great article indeed!

I thought he was the next Keith Foulke. At worst. He was dominant in the lower levels and a sure fire can't miss prospect in my eyes....but sometimes there's a reason guys go undrafted.