jimoh
Veteran
Posts: 3,984
|
Post by jimoh on Sept 6, 2021 10:02:47 GMT -5
I don't get the problem with "severe judgments without ever having seen Yorke." There are hundreds, thousands of prospects that people have not seen personally and yet they trust someone else's opinion that "X should go no higher than the third round" and "Y sounds like a fifth rounder." Now Law has still not seen Yorke and he reports that he has heard raves about his offense and at least a 45 for his defense. A "no comments until you've seen someone" rule would be pretty silly. And one or two looks are not always reliable.
The off the cuff comment about Yorke's start in a chat was pretty dumb, but pretty minor.
|
|
|
Post by kingstephanos on Sept 6, 2021 10:26:12 GMT -5
I don't get the problem with "severe judgments without ever having seen Yorke." There are hundreds, thousands of prospects that people have not seen personally and yet they trust someone else's opinion that "X should go no higher than the third round" and "Y sounds like a fifth rounder." Now Law has still not seen Yorke and he reports that he has heard raves about his offense and at least a 45 for his defense. A "no comments until you've seen someone" rule would be pretty silly. And one or two looks are not always reliable. The off the cuff comment about Yorke's start in a chat was pretty dumb, but pretty minor. I agree with your general point, jimoh. However, (even as a guy whose supported $$ KLaw in the past) I recognize that this isn't the first time he's made an off the cuff analysis/eval and put his foot in his mouth.
|
|
|
Post by philsbosoxfan on Sept 6, 2021 10:43:56 GMT -5
Exactly which analysts get it right every time ?
|
|
|
Post by kingstephanos on Sept 6, 2021 10:56:22 GMT -5
Exactly which analysts get it right every time ? Phils, that's kind of a strawman argument - as we all generally know that no one is always going to get it right. Klaw is known for being "snarky" and he's relished that moniker somewhat in the past. Again, I've monetarily supported Law - but he has a history of poo pooing young men, without walking back previous statements that were more provocative than scouting based. I still read him. Though I take his opinion with more grains of salt than other writers/scouts.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Sept 6, 2021 11:30:46 GMT -5
I don't get the problem with "severe judgments without ever having seen Yorke." There are hundreds, thousands of prospects that people have not seen personally and yet they trust someone else's opinion that "X should go no higher than the third round" and "Y sounds like a fifth rounder." Now Law has still not seen Yorke and he reports that he has heard raves about his offense and at least a 45 for his defense. A "no comments until you've seen someone" rule would be pretty silly. And one or two looks are not always reliable. The off the cuff comment about Yorke's start in a chat was pretty dumb, but pretty minor. If you want to come across as legitimate, I would temper severe judgments of players I never saw before. Kind of like they do here at soxprospects. Law is relying on some scouts' judgement while not giving any credibility to team scouts' judgement. You really think the organization that found Mookie Betts in the 5th round is incapable of being right about Nick Yorke? I see the entire industry of guys like Keith Law as being a collaboration of the work of hundreds of scouts. And in the end, you can still make the right choice at the time and have it fail miserably because you cannot predict the future with any certainty. You can only assign probabilities, floors and ceilings. And when guys like Keith Law are horribly wrong, why would anyone (including himself) think that it cannot happen again and again? All the more reason to temper severe judgments. But then again, he's in the entertainment industry, not actually working for a team where his performance is judged by how good he is at judging prospects. He's judged on his clicks.
|
|
jimoh
Veteran
Posts: 3,984
|
Post by jimoh on Sept 6, 2021 20:29:32 GMT -5
I don't get the problem with "severe judgments without ever having seen Yorke." There are hundreds, thousands of prospects that people have not seen personally and yet they trust someone else's opinion that "X should go no higher than the third round" and "Y sounds like a fifth rounder." Now Law has still not seen Yorke and he reports that he has heard raves about his offense and at least a 45 for his defense. A "no comments until you've seen someone" rule would be pretty silly. And one or two looks are not always reliable. The off the cuff comment about Yorke's start in a chat was pretty dumb, but pretty minor. If you want to come across as legitimate, I would temper severe judgments of players I never saw before. Kind of like they do here at soxprospects. Law is relying on some scouts' judgement while not giving any credibility to team scouts' judgement. You really think the organization that found Mookie Betts in the 5th round is incapable of being right about Nick Yorke? I see the entire industry of guys like Keith Law as being a collaboration of the work of hundreds of scouts. And in the end, you can still make the right choice at the time and have it fail miserably because you cannot predict the future with any certainty. You can only assign probabilities, floors and ceilings. And when guys like Keith Law are horribly wrong, why would anyone (including himself) think that it cannot happen again and again? All the more reason to temper severe judgments. But then again, he's in the entertainment industry, not actually working for a team where his performance is judged by how good he is at judging prospects. He's judged on his clicks. All of this reasoning seem really weak. The great people at Sox prospects have one team to cover, and do not have to offer opinions on high school and college players much at all. Law has to make provisional judgments about 30 teams and hundreds of amateur and pro prospects. If his sources tell him someone is a third round talent and somebody picks him in the first round, he has every right to express his opinion and say he thinks it is a bad pick. The idea that he should give the Sox the benefit of the doubt because "they" (a different crew) picked Mookie Betts literally TEN YEARS AGO is risible. He thought it was a bad pick. He said so. he was wrong. Stop acting like he kidnapped the Lindberg baby.
|
|
TearsIn04
Veteran
Everybody knows Nelson de la Rosa, but who is Karim Garcia?
Posts: 2,835
|
Post by TearsIn04 on Sept 6, 2021 21:36:58 GMT -5
And tripling down after One Week of pro ball This. He said in a Draft chat, when asked if the Sox would go underslot with the 4th pick and spread the money in the later rounds, "I don't think they will since the Yorke pick backfired and he's struggling mightily in Low-A". Garbage take. Utterly amazing that he would declare that a pick "backfired" that early in the guy's career. The NYG should have dumped their young CFer in 1951 after he started out 0 for 12. It was clear their decision to acquire Willie Mays from the Negro Leagues had backfired!
|
|
jimoh
Veteran
Posts: 3,984
|
Post by jimoh on Sept 7, 2021 11:46:43 GMT -5
Alright folks, I think we’re going in circles on the Keith Law stuff now, would ask that we please move on. Can I just say, he did not use the word "backfired"? The word that someone put in quotation marks? Then I'll be thrilled to stop talking about this. meadowparty.com/blog/2021/05/27/klawchat-5-27-21/
|
|
|
Post by incandenza on Sept 7, 2021 12:13:42 GMT -5
Alright folks, I think we’re going in circles on the Keith Law stuff now, would ask that we please move on. Can I just say, he did not use the word "backfired"? The word that someone put in quotation marks? Then I'll be thrilled to stop talking about this. meadowparty.com/blog/2021/05/27/klawchat-5-27-21/Nonetheless, I think radiohix's paraphrase of the sentiment there is accurate.
Now, let me move on by making a *new* complaint about Keith Law. Here's how my own personal Klawchat experience unfolded: And then here's what he said after the draft:
So there was some intellectual dishonesty there, given his response to my question before the draft which specified Mayer.
I don't even have anything against him, really, but I do get a little annoyed about his self-certainty (which he expresses across many domains). There's nothing wrong with relying on sources and basing opinions on them, which is not anyone's complaint; but if you do that then a little bit of humility is in order. A little bit of humility is always in order, really.
Feel free to move this to a Keith Law Complaints thread.
|
|