11-19-2009, 03:42 PM
<!--quoteo(post=69580:date=Nov 19 2009, 01:39 PM:name=KBwsb)-->QUOTE (KBwsb @ Nov 19 2009, 01:39 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->Scarey, there tend to be scouts who like "athletes," and there tend to be scouts who like guys who aren't as specifically "athletic," but have skills that are unique to the game of baseball.
When guys like Hendry and Gary Hughes were making their bones, there were some stars like the great Dave Winfield who were just plain "athletes;" he was drafted by the NBA and could have easily starred in basketball, he was courted by the NFL, he could do anything. He chose baseball, and kicked ass. So did Bo Jackson, and guys like that did things on a ball field that were seen as simply outlandish, freakish almost (like Jackson throwing out a runner on a line-drive throw from the wall). Teams suddenly wanted them.
Also in that era, speed was greatly coveted, and you didn't have to be a great hitter to help out your team if you could steal bases, chase down previously uncatchable fly balls, etc.
Many scouts since then have had the idea of "Draft the good athletes, and we'll MAKE 'em into ballplayers." Many of us on the site think that Hendry and Hughes fall into that camp.
Indeed, our 1st-round pick THIS year is yet another perfect example of that way of thinking.
I personally tend to disagree with it, simply because the game of baseball demands such a unique skill set, that even some of the world's most magnificent athletes (think Michael Jordan, Jim Thorpe, Deion Sanders) can't master these unique skills, while a lot of non-athletic-type guys (John Kruk, Yogi Berra) become great stars.
You can make a case for both sides, I suppose. But there sure are a lot of truly magnificent "athletes" (Corey Patterson, Felix Pie) who never truly learned to play baseball correctly, in recent Cub history.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
First of all, I never contended that baseball officials and the Cubs organization specifically do not draft athletes. What I contended is that a player that "has tools" is not necessarily an athlete. In fact, if the only tools the player has is hitting for average, hitting for power, and defensive ability, those are tools SPECIFIC to only baseball. I just think it's crap that people hear that someone like Tyler Colvin is a 5-tool player and automatically assume he has almost no baseball ability.
Also, you think that Felix Pie was an athlete first and a baseball player second despite the fact that he grew up in an area(Dominican Republic) where kids eat, sleep, and breathe baseball their entire lives? The fact that he's fast works against him somehow?
Finally, I brought up Starlin Castro before. People haven't said it much, but the fact of the matter is he is a 5 tool player. He definitely hits for average, he is projected to hit for power, he is a good defender, has a great arm, and has good speed/runs the bases well. That's a 5 tool player. Does that mean he's an athlete? Not necessarily. Does that mean he's doomed to fail? Not at all. It just means that he is a well rounded player and projects to excell in all of those particular facets of the game.
When guys like Hendry and Gary Hughes were making their bones, there were some stars like the great Dave Winfield who were just plain "athletes;" he was drafted by the NBA and could have easily starred in basketball, he was courted by the NFL, he could do anything. He chose baseball, and kicked ass. So did Bo Jackson, and guys like that did things on a ball field that were seen as simply outlandish, freakish almost (like Jackson throwing out a runner on a line-drive throw from the wall). Teams suddenly wanted them.
Also in that era, speed was greatly coveted, and you didn't have to be a great hitter to help out your team if you could steal bases, chase down previously uncatchable fly balls, etc.
Many scouts since then have had the idea of "Draft the good athletes, and we'll MAKE 'em into ballplayers." Many of us on the site think that Hendry and Hughes fall into that camp.
Indeed, our 1st-round pick THIS year is yet another perfect example of that way of thinking.
I personally tend to disagree with it, simply because the game of baseball demands such a unique skill set, that even some of the world's most magnificent athletes (think Michael Jordan, Jim Thorpe, Deion Sanders) can't master these unique skills, while a lot of non-athletic-type guys (John Kruk, Yogi Berra) become great stars.
You can make a case for both sides, I suppose. But there sure are a lot of truly magnificent "athletes" (Corey Patterson, Felix Pie) who never truly learned to play baseball correctly, in recent Cub history.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
First of all, I never contended that baseball officials and the Cubs organization specifically do not draft athletes. What I contended is that a player that "has tools" is not necessarily an athlete. In fact, if the only tools the player has is hitting for average, hitting for power, and defensive ability, those are tools SPECIFIC to only baseball. I just think it's crap that people hear that someone like Tyler Colvin is a 5-tool player and automatically assume he has almost no baseball ability.
Also, you think that Felix Pie was an athlete first and a baseball player second despite the fact that he grew up in an area(Dominican Republic) where kids eat, sleep, and breathe baseball their entire lives? The fact that he's fast works against him somehow?
Finally, I brought up Starlin Castro before. People haven't said it much, but the fact of the matter is he is a 5 tool player. He definitely hits for average, he is projected to hit for power, he is a good defender, has a great arm, and has good speed/runs the bases well. That's a 5 tool player. Does that mean he's an athlete? Not necessarily. Does that mean he's doomed to fail? Not at all. It just means that he is a well rounded player and projects to excell in all of those particular facets of the game.