Quote:
Originally Posted by Markus Heinsohn
I could give you a very long list of first-round picks in real life that turned out to be... crap  |
Of course, we're assuming that there are various grades of scout performance. You hire a poorly regarded scout, you will not be as likely to hit it big in the draft, but you might get lucky. You hire a well-respected scout and you'll likely reap a better group of prospects in the draft. That is how it should be.
I did say I don't expect exemplary results, but the best scouts should be in the ballpark for potential ratings more so than lower quality scouts.
And scouts are going to be more accurate with more seasoned draftees, like college seniors, as opposed to the high-risk/high-reward High School blue chippers.
The process of development and maturation plays a great role in whether or not a prospect meets his ratings potential, so the issue isn't solely with the scout's inability to provide accurate forecasts of a young player's ceiling. Injuries also factor into it...
Ideally, I want the A+ scout to provide close to accurate ratings predictions most of the time, not all of the time, that is why he gets paid the big bucks. And the more mature the prospect, the greater the likelihood that the scout is on target.
Look at Abe Alvarez, the Red Sox #1 pick a few years ago. The scouting report was a college senior, crafty, soft tossing lefty who is closer to meeting his ceiling and closer to being mature enough to pitch in the majors, just don't expect anything more than a young Jamie Moyer.
The scout would have had it about right, yet the GM made the pick and the pick never met expectations. Is that the scout's fault or the GM's? So the fact that not all 1st rounders amount to much in the majors is not just a product of the scout's failure to accurately describe the player's make up.