DRAFT NOTEBOOK
By Jerry Ford
May 18, 2007

Three of a Kind: Injuries, Signability and Makeup

The last month before the major league draft always provides for some interesting rumors and posturing. Those who are covering the draft, like us, are talking to decision-makers and forming our own opinions, as well. The past has proven that the rumor mill can create some inaccurate information at times. Three of the major areas where rumor can affect everyone’s view of players are injuries, signability and makeup.

Scouting services like Perfect Game rely mostly on what our scouts have actually seen with their own eyes and the opinion given on a player’s ability is ours alone. This opinion, though, can sometimes differ from what we hear from others in the scouting community.

In the end, Major League scouting departments make their final determination on players based on what their scouts have seen and the follow-up work they have done. But there can be some very big differences in what we (a scouting service) do and what the most important people in the process (the scouting departments) do. The obvious and most important difference is we can afford to be wrong with our evaluation of a player, while a big league team can’t. The teams are the ones determining a player’s value to their club and in the end investing money—sometimes millions of dollars—in the player. 

Personally, I look at the draft as kind of a big poker game—complete with bluffs and power plays by those with the most chips. If you can get the clubs picking before you to pass on the guy you want . . . You win! If you can get a first-round talent in the second or third round . . . You win! It makes sense for a club not to tip its hand by showing the competition its cards or making important draft information available to the media. 

As the actual draft day nears, things start to clear up. Much of the posturing is over and clubs have a good idea of exactly what they will do—if not a good idea what other clubs will do. That is when everyone goes “All In” and the cards are laid on the table. Of course, unlike a poker game, it might take several years to find out who the real winners are.

In the 15 years that Perfect Game has been doing this stuff, I’ve not once asked a scouting director beforehand who he plans on picking. Of course, our staff members will be asking those questions right before the draft, hoping to get some answers or at least a clue on what is about to unfold. It’s what makes the draft so intriguing.

Personally, I’d much rather give our opinion based on what we have seen, because those thoughts are not based on someone else’s opinion. Besides, I think our rankings and evaluations of the top prospects have proven to be fairly accurate over the years. But I’d often much rather be wrong about a player than simply rehashing what others are saying about the player. As a scouting service, we place more value on our opinion.

But I acknowledge there’s room for both—our opinion and a consensus of what the industry is thinking. There’s value and interest in providing both and we’re doing that with all our coverage on the PG Crosschecker site.

After the draft, the analyzing will continue. It’s fun stuff, but the truth is that it can take up to five years to accurately grade how well a club has drafted. History has shown us that the draft can be full of surprises. Not only do about a third of all first-rounders not play in the big leagues, but Albert Pujols wasn’t picked until the 13^th round. The draft history shows a large number of Major League stars who were selected in late rounds.

Meanwhile, back to the three very important issues of injury, signability and makeup—issues that we prefer to avoid whenever possible.

Injuries. Inaccurate injury reports can create serious problems—particularly to a player in line for a significant signing bonus. An inaccurate injury report can cause serious problems for us. It is important for us to check out thoroughly any injury to a player before any report ends up in the public eye. To report inaccurate information based on what one person has told us is unfair and a lack of effort on our part. An anonymous person who reports on an injury has very little to lose. We, on the other hand, stand to lose a lot of integrity by reporting inaccurate information.

Signability. From a club’s standpoint, this can have everything to do with where certain players may go in the draft. It is a major issue for all scouting departments to accurately read a player’s intentions—rather than waste a draft pick on a player who had no intention of signing. For our purposes as a scouting service, signability has very little to do with where we rank a player and teams should pay little or no attention to what we might or might not say on the topic. We didn’t care about signability concerns with Matt Wieters when he was eligible for the draft out of high school. We ranked him among the 10 best high school players in the country, but he went undrafted because of his commitment to Georgia Tech. On the lists predicting the draft in 2004, you couldn’t find Wieters’ name. But on Perfect Game’s list of top prospects that year, he was ranked near the top. We felt that he was one of the better prospects in that class and ranked him accordingly. 

Makeup. Can anyone truly define makeup? Are choir boys more likely or less likely to have the necessary makeup to play well at the major league level? There can be a gigantic difference between great makeup and being a nice young man. There are a lot more nice kids out there than those who have championship-caliber makeup. The typical major league player is supremely confident and not afraid of taking risks. Confidence can be a very misleading read at times, but it’s a necessary component of a player’s makeup. We all know that the game requires a certain amount of mental toughness; there are not many soft guys in the big leagues. On the other hand, everyone has to be concerned with behavior issues and the other things that could cause a player to fail. Some of the important things in my estimation that can cause failure the most often are fear and the lack of true love for the game. Another thing that is a sign of impending failure is anytime you see complete satisfaction in a player. The best major league players are never satisfied, so how can a high school or college player afford to be completely satisfied with his accomplishments?

Our player files are loaded with notes regarding makeup. In fact, we feel we sometimes know more than almost anyone when it comes to a specific player we have seen perform at events many times and gotten to know him (and sometimes his family) very well. However, these notes are not for public consumption because there is always the chance we could be mistaken. Makeup can be very subjective and based on someone’s opinion for the most part. What one club might see as a makeup problem, another club might see as championship-caliber makeup. It’s very easy to be wrong when it comes to a player’s makeup, and it’s a subject we try to avoid rather than start the rumors flying. 

In the end, Major League scouting departments do a very thorough job of doing their homework on potential early-round selections—given how inexact a science baseball scouting can be. Once a player is identified as a top-level prospect, the club starts investigating the player for injury, signability and makeup. This is all privileged information that a club should be reluctant to share, but somehow these things still seem to leak to the public. For the most part, we simply like to publish our information based on the players’ ability rather than any of these other issues. We also would much prefer sticking to the positives on players and Major League clubs, no matter how interesting and controversial the negatives might be.

But we have respected baseball people like Allan Simpson and David Rawnsley to lead our draft coverage, and I consider them to be among the best baseball journalists anywhere. They also happen to be very good baseball scouts who can quickly identify talent. They have a very long list of high-level contacts throughout the baseball world they can call upon. There are few people in the game who have their experience to analyze the inner workings of the draft and the top prospects. They hear things that many of our other scouts and other people will never hear.

With Allan, David and other PG staff members covering the draft as they do, it gives us the best of both worlds. It allows us to accurately cover and predict the draft while at the same time still allowing us to provide our own opinions regarding players.

A final observation: People sometimes believe that Perfect Game shows favoritism in its rankings towards certain players—particularly to players who attend PG events. This is not true, but like all scouts we are dependent on what we actually see rather than what we are told. It’s not a matter of trusting someone else’s judgment; it’s a matter of forming our own judgment. Many scouts follow and rely on our lists, but MLB scouts always make a point of seeing the players themselves and forming their own opinion—which may or may not agree with our assessment. Teams don’t draft anyone based on anyone else’s list but their own.

The bottom line regarding Perfect Game . . .
We can afford to be wrong at times!
We can never afford to be wrong on purpose!
There is no favoritism involved! There is way too much at stake!