What ever happend to Jeremy Brown?

[jojo]

Not if the scouting crew dismissed him based on his bad body -- ultimately it was shown his body would not hold up -- and, relatedly, his suspect defense.

I thought you were big on defense, jojo.

I am big on defense.

Scouts dismissed him because he didn't look like adonis not because of his defense or worries about injuries. They saw a fat kid and said he has no chance of making it to the majors.

He did make it to the majors.

[traderumor]

Brown actually played in the majors.

It's begging the question that traditional scouting could've produced a better result.



Once again, the original point wasn't that the end game is simply to predict who will have a better minor league career........ Concerning Brown, the As were much closer to accurately projecting Brown than the traditional scout crowd was. That's a point that has huge potential ramifications and really Brown's career seems to be validation of the point Moneyball was arguing at the time of it's first print rather than a feather in the scouting-only cap.

The goal of scouting should be to accurately project player potential. Few scouts would've suggested a draft pick should have even been spent on Brown let alone that Brown would get major league playing time. I'm not sure I'd consider that a case of "scouts" being right and the As being wrong. Scouts were wrong about Brown.

Ah, a cup of coffee in September for Brown is not "major league playing time." To use one of my mom's favorite expressions, close only counts in horseshoes and handgrenades. A clear sign that your argument, with respect to Brown, is on life support.

Also, you are the one making much of his minor league career and made it a point to make a weak attempt at justifying the means.

Finally, you are mischaracterizing me with a "scouts only" philosophy. My position is that both are useful means to the end of finding major league baseball players. The superiority of one over the other has yet, and I doubt ever will be, objectively quantified.

[*BaseClogger*]

IIRC the A's were transitioning Brown to first base... perhaps he could have held up better physically there? The retirement suprises me because he is a much more productive player than some of the atbats being given to DH's and 1B's in the majors...

[M2]

A guy who plays in the middle of the diamond better be able to play defense. Brown couldn't. Schramek was a 3B -- defense isn't nearly as big a deal there.

We've all seen Javier Valentin and dozens of others major leaguers who are catchers only in that they're willing to wear the gear and squat behind the plate. Brown would hardly stand out on that front.

Some would say his health problems were forseeable in his bad body, already evident at Alabama. They may very well have made the same mistake with Landon Powell.

Yogi Berra had a bad body. Gabby Hartnett had a bad body. Ernie Lombardi looked like he was designed by aliens and built by Italians.

Powell's a pretty solid defender, but he's got bad knees. He's a better all-around catching prospect than anyone the Reds have drafted since Jason LaRue. Maybe Mesoraco will change that, but he hasn't yet.

Easy or not, I think it's safe to say that looking for little beyond high OBP guys at big colleges is not a formula for success. Seems to me you have to put your outdoor shoes on more often.

Szymanski's appeal was clearly his athleticism and the fact that he may have had more room to devlop baseball skills, given that he'd been a two-sport guy. I have no problem with that profile in a 2nd rounder.

And yet Brown was a better pick than Szymanski. Seems to me that if you're fine with the logic behind a disaster like Szymanski, you can't be too hard on a fairly near miss like Brown.

Right. Key point being they never would have even considered the high schooler McCann. They were shopping at the strip mall while the mega-mall loomed across the street.

A mega-mall that every other club in MLB also failed to notice. In fact, with McCann, Snyder, Russ Martin and Jeff Clement (who dropped down the board and went to USC rather than sign) on the board, BA was calling 2002 a down year for catchers. That's right, the scouts thought very little of what's turning into the best catching draft in decades.

Now, I agree McCann should have been on their board. Yet he doesn't exactly have the best body either. However, he is a coach's son and the A's actually have identified baseball bloodlines as a desirable trait.

If you want the best shot at big league talent, you better be fishing in the biggest ocean. The As weren't doing that. And it had nothing to do with the available talent in 2002.

Wrong. They were fishing in the right ocean, the one that's produced most of the fish from the late first round on from the 2002 draft. Strategically they were in the exact right spot, they just missed some big catches with their nets.

No one's ever going to hit on all picks. That degree kind of refinement is impossible in the MLB draft. In my opinion, their Moneyball draft was an exercise in working the compensation pick market. They got themselves 7 of the top 39 picks and managed to hit on 3. Nice job there. The indictment of the Moneyball approach comes in the fact that of the 4 1st rounders who missed, and of the entire rest of that draft, not a single player will benefit the major league squad in any way. In blunt terms -- you have to look at more than "college guys with good offensive skills, including good plate discipline."

I agree with that last part. I suspect the A's always agreed with that last part too. Like I said, they identified the opportunity, but they didn't seize it. They needed to do a better job of scouting the college guys they'd identified as possible opportunities. I'll guarantee you Granderson and Hill were on their lists and I imagine the A's smack themselves regularly over preferring McCurdy and Obenchain.

[jojo]

Ah, a cup of coffee in September for Brown is not "major league playing time." To use one of my mom's favorite expressions, close only counts in horseshoes and handgrenades. A clear sign that your argument, with respect to Brown, is on life support.

Also, you are the one making much of his minor league career and made it a point to make a weak attempt at justifying the means.

Developing a catcher in house to the point where he even gets to step into a major league batter's box at any time during a season is an exceptional accomplishment for most systems.

I'm simply pointing out that Brown accomplished much more than scouts argued (vehemently) he would... I think an extremely blunt view of player development has to be adopted in order to argue otherwise.

[M2]

Nice pick there by the Reds, eh? Perhaps if the As had opened their eyes to the high schools ranks, they could have had him too.

The Reds, to their credit, have been proactive in Canada, which really falls outside the HS/college paradigm in the U.S.

Though you keep missing the larger point that had the A's done better job of scouting the college ranks, where they were shopping, they could have come way with players who'd make Joey Votto nothing more than an afterthought.

As it turns out, their approach did net them Teahen while so many other teams netted nothing. Clearly they had their eyes open more than most.

[traderumor]

I agree with that last part. I suspect the A's always agreed with that last part too. Like I said, they identified the opportunity, but they didn't seize it. They needed to do a better job of scouting the college guys they'd identified as possible opportunities. I'll guarantee you Granderson and Hill were on their lists and I imagine the A's smack themselves regularly over preferring McCurdy and Obenchain.

This is as close to the holy grail that I think there is to get. Use the stats as the starting point to narrow the field, then go through the drill down process, which includes kicking the tires and taking the thing for a spin. And pardon my metaphor stew.

[blumj]

We've all seen Javier Valentin and dozens of others major leaguers who are catchers only in that they're willing to wear the gear and squat behind the plate. Brown would hardly stand out on that front.



Yogi Berra had a bad body. Gabby Hartnett had a bad body. Ernie Lombardi looked like he was designed by aliens and built by Italians.

Powell's a pretty solid defender, but he's got bad knees. He's a better all-around catching prospect than anyone the Reds have drafted since Jason LaRue. Maybe Mesoraco will change that, but he hasn't yet.



And yet Brown was a better pick than Szymanski. Seems to me that if you're fine with the logic behind a disaster like Szymanski, you can't be too hard on a fairly near miss like Brown.



A mega-mall that every other club in MLB also failed to notice. In fact, with McCann, Snyder, Russ Martin and Jeff Clement (who dropped down the board and went to USC rather than sign) on the board, BA was calling 2002 a down year for catchers. That's right, the scouts thought very little of what's turning into the best catching draft in decades.

Now, I agree McCann should have been on their board. Yet he doesn't exactly have the best body either. However, he is a coach's son and the A's actually have identified baseball bloodlines as a desirable trait.



Wrong. They were fishing in the right ocean, the one that's produced most of the fish from the late first round on from the 2002 draft. Strategically they were in the exact right spot, they just missed some big catches with their nets.



I agree with that last part. I suspect the A's always agreed with that last part too. Like I said, they identified the opportunity, but they didn't seize it. They needed to do a better job of scouting the college guys they'd identified as possible opportunities. I'll guarantee you Granderson and Hill were on their lists and I imagine the A's smack themselves regularly over preferring McCurdy and Obenchain.

Actually, that's in the book, the 20 players they'd want if money were no object and there was no competition from other teams. Pitchers: Guthrie, Blanton, Francis, Hagerty, Fritz, Brownlie, Obenchain, Murphy. Hitters: Swisher, Adams, Greene, McCurdy, Teahen, Brown, Stanley, Baker, Kiger, Stavisky, Larkin, Colamarino. But the reality of how much it would have cost to sign some of the players they did and/or should have preferred was a big part of this, too.

[traderumor]

Developing a catcher in house to the point where he even gets to step into a major league batter's box at any time during a season is an exceptional accomplishment for most systems.

I'm simply pointing out that Brown accomplished much more than scouts argued (vehemently) he would... I think an extremely blunt view of player development has to be adopted in order to argue otherwise.

I'm just not as impressed with a September call up Major League career as you are, esp. when you consider that there are a myriad of reasons where guys have gotten called up during that time, which could have included saving face for an organization by even giving him the 10 ABs. But amazingly, over the years various kinds of systems have produced major league ballplayers, and some of them have odd body shapes. Have guys like Mike Fetters, Dennis Reyes, Fernando Valenzuela, and various other similar non-athletic body types only gotten chances because of Moneyball premises and/or statistical analysis, because that seems to be the road you are heading down with Brown? You act as if scouts never recommend picking fat kids and that Moneyball gave the non-ballplayer looking type a chance for the first time, which is sorta like saying guys never dated fat chicks until computerized matchmate systems came along.

[M2]

Actually, that's in the book, the 20 players they'd want if money were no object and there was no competition from other teams. Pitchers: Guthrie, Blanton, Francis, Hagerty, Fritz, Brownlie, Obenchain, Murphy. Hitters: Swisher, Adams, Greene, McCurdy, Teahen, Brown, Stanley, Baker, Kiger, Stavisky, Larkin, Colamarino. But the reality of how much it would have cost to sign some of the players they did and/or should have preferred was a big part of this, too.

That was their short list. I assume that was culled down from a longer list, which would have had to include Granderson and Hill, who had big years in the college ranks.

[lollipopcurve]

Developing a catcher in house to the point where he even gets to step into a major league batter's box at any time during a season is an exceptional accomplishment for most systems.

I'm simply pointing out that Brown accomplished much more than scouts argued (vehemently) he would... I think an extremely blunt view of player development has to be adopted in order to argue otherwise.

Ryan Hanigan has major league ABs. Exceptional accomplishment?

Craig Tatum has been routinely characterized on this board as a terrible 3rd rounder. Let's see if that changes if/when he hits the bigs.

For the most part, I am sympathetic to your argument, jojo. Guys who do well in the minors should not be regarded as individual failures if they end up like Brown -- with a cup of joe or less. However, looking at the Moneyball draft as a whole, I think some weaknesses in the approach are now evident. And partly at fault there is the fact the As were picking guys with no consideration for their defensive ability and projectability, including Brown. (Colamarino was another bad body guy). I think we've seen some of that in recent years, too, with big $$$ handed out to Landon Powell and Matt Sulentic.

[jojo]

I'm just not as impressed with a September call up Major League career as you are, esp. when you consider that there are a myriad of reasons where guys have gotten called up during that time, which could have included saving face for an organization by even giving him the 10 ABs.

Suggesting that Brown's career was a construct of an organizational need to save face rings hollow and glosses over a lot.

Have guys like Mike Fetters, Dennis Reyes, Fernando Valenzuela, and various other similar non-athletic body types only gotten chances because of Moneyball premises and/or statistical analysis, because that seems to be the road you are heading down with Brown?

I haven't even come close to suggesting that.

You act as if scouts never recommend picking fat kids and that Moneyball gave the non-ballplayer looking type a chance for the first time

I haven't even come close to suggesting that either.

Returning the the specific topic however, the objections to taking Brown based upon his body-type have been documented.

The issue really is this straightforward-concerning Brown, the As were much closer to accurately projecting his career than the traditional scout crowd was.....

Brown can't be used as "Billy Beane" kryptonite.

[traderumor]

Suggesting that Brown's career was a construct of an organizational need to save face rings hollow and glosses over a lot.



I haven't even come close to suggesting that.



I haven't even come close to suggesting that either.

Returning the the specific topic however, the objections to taking Brown based upon his body-type have been documented.

The issue really is this straightforward-concerning Brown, the As were much closer to accurately projecting his career than the traditional scout crowd was.....

Brown can't be used as "Billy Beane" kryptonite.

You have hammered home the point about the wisdom of stats allowing Brown to be picked despite having an anti-scout body type. It is certainly not a stretch to then consider that you seem to think that this type of analysis lends itself to picking "ugly" players who might perform as good or better as the hard bodies. Yet, the uglies have been picked in high rounds by scouts for years, apart from strictly relying on such methods employed by the A's in this draft.

I would say it might remove some bias, but you have certainly implied that a scout is totally biased against "ugly" players.

[jojo]

You have hammered home the point about the wisdom of stats allowing Brown to be picked despite having an anti-scout body type. It is certainly not a stretch to then consider that you seem to think that this type of analysis lends itself to picking "ugly" players who might perform as good or better as the hard bodies. Yet, the uglies have been picked in high rounds by scouts for years, apart from strictly relying on such methods employed by the A's in this draft.

Once again, that's your construct, not mine.

I've simply argued that Brown's retirement isn't a smoking gun.

You've seemed to argue that Brown's career development isn't a consideration when evaluating his selection and fat players were drafted before Brown. I disagree with the former statement and have no clue how the latter statement is germane to the discussion.

I would say it might remove some bias, but you have certainly implied that a scout is totally biased against "ugly" players.

NO I HAVEN'T. We're specifically talking about Brown and the objections to his lard are legendary and well documented.

[traderumor]

NO I HAVEN'T. We're specifically talking about Brown and the objections to his lard are legendary and well documented.

Shall we mention the old pastor who wrote in his notes "Weak point. Yell here?"

Here is something you said earlier. Looks like you're talking about more than Brown here.

Concerning Brown, the As were much closer to accurately projecting Brown than the traditional scout crowd was. That's a point that has huge potential ramifications and really Brown's career seems to be validation of the point Moneyball was arguing at the time of it's first print rather than a feather in the scouting-only cap.