Evaluating a pitcher is simpler than evaluating a hitter. It isn’t easier, due to pitcher attrition, but pitchers show you everything they have to offer—stuff, location, delivery, athleticism, etc.—pitch after pitch and are dictating the action. Watching a hitter is more complicated since you’re evaluating their ability to react to what the pitcher is doing, along with the physical tools, ability to use them, approach at the plate, etc. Hitters can go a couple at bats without swinging and full games without having to show their ability in one of these key areas.
The hit tool is the hardest tool to predict and also is the most important. Imagine the job of a pro scout grading the hit tool for every player on a team from a five game look. You’ll have notes from batting practice and every at bat of each player, but the information is asymmetrical. You don’t know how he responds to a fastball on his hands until one is thrown and maybe he never gets one or he doesn’t swing at it. You pay close attention to his plate discipline but maybe he doesn’t see any borderline pitches for a game or two. This is multiplied for every player on the team, some of whom play irregularly, so your notes can have some holes. Evaluating a hitter is difficult because it’s a passive act graded off of a short look but also because it’s very complicated by nature with countless components.
While my method for grading hitters isn’t a revelation, it’s helped me organize my thoughts about hitters while taking notes mid-game and while writing the final evaluations. I separate the hit tool into three components –tools, plate discipline and bat control—and classify any observation into one of the three groups, then use the grades of each of these components to get to the hit tool grade. If I don’t take this methodical, checklist-type approach, I end up looking at a mess of notes, outcomes, stats and background info and gut-feeling my way to a hit tool grade.
Read the rest of this entry »
