Quote:
Originally Posted by BigRapidsJackass
Y'know, I'd be willing to ascribe the strength of the Yankees organization to financial advantage if, say, they had drafted a bunch of guys demanding huge bonuses that other clubs (Rox) passed on... As for Matt and The Hat: Aspire, you're right. I think that's because the Rox player development team never really soured on Holliday, and Ringolsby is basically a mouthpiece for the Rox insiders.
|
That's the Tigers, who have drafted some highly ranked talents in recent years that other teams wouldn't due to bonus demands. I think they've done a good job of both being aggressive in trying to win now (finally) by dealing some of their prospects for veterans, but also taking risks in the draft to counter that. Detroit certainly isn't some monitary goliath, but just executing a good strategy and optimizing what they do have.
Whether it is Ringolsby himself, or him echoing the sentiments of Rockies scouts and their front office, the point remains that many of a more traditional scouting background still believed in his talent and potential more so than you'd get in a statistical evaluation. In that case, you'd be much better off with their conclusions about his value based upon talent than whatever evaluation of his disappointing numbers alone. There were also other editors at BA involved in the rankings, and weighed heavily the opinions of other scouts in the game regarding those players. Many who observed his talent still believed he had that potential to make an impact beyond just what the numbers said.
For different individuals, though, it might be reversed where the numbers came to a better conclusion than a talent observation. That's why it is foolish IMO to want only one way to provide your answers when a more comprehensive and inclusionary methodology allows one to see both sides of the coin and get a more complete recommendation (even if not entirely numeric) instead of trying to force an answer with incomplete elements.