Talent evaluators focus on skills, the ability to turn tools into performance.

And I think they know the difference between tools and results.

To evaluate the skills, you need to see the pitcher in game situations.

Indeed. I didn’t suggest otherwise.

Command and control cannot be meaningful evaluated unless there is another player standing in the batters box holding a bat and capable of swinging and hitting the pitcher’s pitches.

And the Midwest League has those.

The quality of those hitters is going to affect that evaluation (as will the hitting environment). In other words, how can you tell how effective a pitcher’s changeup is unless the pitcher throws it to a hitter capable of clobbering one?

Evaluating a changeup isn’t about seeing if a pitcher fools batters with it. That’s the result, not the tool. Evaluating the changeup itself involves evaluating the important elements of the pitch:

- Velocity (how much does the velocity differ from his fastball?)
- Movement
- Arm action/mechanics/delivery (does the delivery of the changeup look like the delivery of the fastball or is it easy to tell which one he’s throwing by the mechanics or tempo he uses?)
(and perhaps other elements beyond my level of knowledge)

Even velocity and movement flashed in warm ups do not become truly meaningful until placed into the context of a pitcher’s skill in repeating them in game situations and translating them into strikes, balls, and batted balls.

Again, no one suggested anything about just evaluating pitchers or position players in warm ups. You need real game conditions. You need to see players performing at 100%.

So basically good stats in a pitcher’s league like the Midwest League need to be viewed in the context of that league. But a good fastball, breaking ball, offspeed pitch, control or makeup is a good tool regardless of league.

I think any scout or other talent evaluator would agree that a pitcher showing dominating skills in the Midwest League is not as impressive as a pitcher showing the same skills in a more advanced and less pitcher friendly league.

When scouts and other talent evaluators grade a tool, they grade it two ways: 1) as the tool currently is, and 2) what they think the tool projects to be eventually. These are not tool-relative-to-league grades. They are absolute grades. A 70 fastball is a 70 fastball. A 50 curveball is a 50 curveball.

Any scout or talent evaluator would agree that a pitcher who is dominating (that’s results) in the Midwest League is not as impressive as a pitcher dominating in a more advanced and less pitcher friendly league. But when you are evaluating tools, a great fastball is a great fastball, regardless of league.

like I said, it seems that in many drafts, the first few picks are clearly the “first few,” but distinguishing who is the better pick pre-draft is hard from this perspective. So I’m not going to mock or congratulate a GM if a guy drafted #3 turns out better than the guy he drafted #1. Now, obviously, if Moustakas busts big time or something, that’s one thing.

My point was simply that of many — that the primary measure of good decision-making in the draft shouldn’t be the first 5 picks.

…then Moore and/or Glass deserves to be ripped for either poor budgeting/judgement (Moore) or stupid stinginess (Glass). Investing $2-3M more in the better player (if they thought Wieters was a better player) at a more scarce position would, of course, have been the way to go.