Outfielder needs a stronger arm

Its no secret what the scouts look for. If the definition of "athlete" is that they have all those tools and anyone who doesn't isn't an "athlete", there's one heck of a lot of pro and college players who aren't athletes. 5 tool players are darn few and far between!

I completely agree that speed can't be taught and a player with legs has a very big leg up on all others. But arm strength is something different and can be developed. That's why I think so many "evaluators" allow size to cloud the picture.

As much as anyone wants to believe it, size does not equate to arm strength. Whether its on the mound, behind the plate or in the field, how the ball is thrown has much more to do with technique than size. Of course a player with size and technique will likely be better than one who's small, but those guys just aren't as common as everyone would have us believe. The proof is how they gather around and go after these best players.

The real trick is identifying potential and having a system to develop it because for every exceptional player drafted, there are 100 who aren't. How many 5 tool guys can you name who made the ML? IMHO, the best was Willie Mays.

There have been a lot of players with 4 exceptional tools, but usually they have one toll that's just average. Mickey Mantle was every bit as good as or better than Mays, but had only a good arm. Clemente too was pretty amazing, but his power wasn't exceptional. Larry Walker and Arod are in that same boat, but neither one is exactly fleet of foot.

Its far more reasonable to look for the player with 2 or 3 exceptional tool guys because there will be far more of them. That's the group Mike Schmitt, Brooks Robinson, Johnny Bench, and almost every Hall of Famer you can name are in.

I've been to a few showcases myself and to tell the truth, they aren't really what they're cracked up to be. Most of the coaches or managers who know what they're doing set up artificial situations for the players they really want to expose.

I've watched many a showcase game where the manager has talked to the scouts to find out if there's anything specific they might be looking for and then strange things happen. we played a game last year where our team had 4 catcher on the field at the same time and the other team had 3. That's because the was a scout there who was looking especially hard for catchers.

The ones on our team batted 1-2-3-4 and the ones on the other batted 1-2-3 and they were switching catchers every inning. There was all kinds of things going on that most of the player and fans couldn't understand. After strikeouts, instead of throwing the ball to the 3rd baseman, the throw was going to 2nd, even with runners on. Batters were bunting in the strangest situations like #4 hitters bunting with no outs. Everything was geared to that scout!

One of the strangest one's I've seen was in Colorado. There were 2 fields side by side and there were three games played on each. Out of the clear blue sky, the tournament rules were waived to allow a DH and an EH. Out of the 6 starting lineups that day, every batter was either a left handed batter or a switch hitter! It seems like there was a group of scouts including one from LSU Texas and some other D1 school who were looking specifically for left handed bats, so that's what they got!

I'll grant that those are the exceptions, but that stuff definitely goes on, especially when the manager is being paid to shill for the players, which is becoming more and more common.

Yes, purely defensive players are not in great abundance, but something happened somewhere to bring that about. Under today's system, its unlikely that players like Brooks Robinson, Bill Mazerowski or Nellie Fox would have ever played in the majors, and what a sin that would be!

"Your bat will make a bigger difference in the game than your glove." Although that's what the prevailing thinking is, its faulty reasoning for the same reason that fielding percentage is a lousy way to judge a player's true defensive ability.

Keeping this limited to outfielders, sure they'll get 4 AB's per game and maybe only 3 fly balls, if that. but what about all those other balls that reach the outfield like hits and errors by infielders? Someone has to back up, cut off and do all of the other things necessary, and in that light, an outfielder has a many chances to affect the game.

Runner's didn't test Mays, Clemente, and now Walker and Mondesi because they hit home runs or bat .340. What's really the difference if a team scores an extra run because of a bat, or keeps the other team from scoring because of a defensive play?

Sure, any player who makes it beyond HS can make the routine plays at any position, but the same can be said for batters. Any batter beyond HS can get 1 hits in every 5 ABs too, but would you bat him in the top 5 of the order? Routine plays have to be made, but its the good or great plays that make the real difference.

Once more, let me try to make it plain that its not the fact that if you can hit or pitch a coach will fin you a spot that I'm arguing! I'm just saying that through the years, history has proven that pitching and defense wins championships, but today's "expert's" put less and less value on defense, I think to the detriment of the game overall.

I wish defense held the place of prominence in youth ball that hitting does. I believe if that was true, there wouldn't be such a high premium placed on kids who can throw the ball 70MPH at 10 YO. Its always a much faster and more interesting game when the hitters hit the ball. Its better for everyone except the people who value winning above all and the egos of the pitchers.