The mainstream media doesn’t talk about scouts explicitly because they’re part of an organization, often directed to conform to organizational guidelines for identifying talent. When high draft picks fail to advance above the low minors while other picks from the same round or later thrive, the organization that drafted them receives plenty of criticism, and this implicitly falls on the scouts who provided evaluations.

I don’t read about too many scouts with “certitude”, by the way. They usually say things like, “This guy has the tools to become somebody special” rather than “This guy will become somebody special.”

In contrast, statistical projects may be perceived to carry greater “certitude” because the projections take the form of the same quantities and percentages that are used to describe past performance. They look like the kind of thing scouts sometimes say anonymously: “This guy is the next George Brett.” BP with its range of projections is making an effort to counter this perception.

Finally, I think that the claim that the traditional baseball orthodoxy is fighting against innovation is very hard to support these days. Even Brian “Sabermetrics Makes My Head Hurt” Sabean is talking about statistical analysis — in public! Of course we don’t know what methods the Giants’ front office subscribes to, but still, what a difference from just 10 years ago.

I think the likelihood that anyone will find this now that the FanShot has fallen off the main page is pretty small. So I’ll just stop here.