About
=== Tools Scouting and Number Crunching, Dept. === About Dr. Detecto a/k/a Jemanji a/k/a Jeff Clarke a/k/a Doc a/k/a Mikey's Chew Toy: If you want to know why a "blogger" would presume to offer baseball opinions that are different from those held by employees of MLB and its affiliates …chew two pieces of gum while reading. :- ) A local blogger with "access" suggested, nicely, we shut up and stop guessing about silly slop like Jose Lopez being Miguel Tejada, or Brandon Morrow not needing a year in AAA, or .199 hitters not being a good idea for LF, that no sane baseball man would accept. After a friendly late-night shin-kick or twenty, the thread vanished. No harm no foul, babe. As y'know, we live to serve. ============== My baseball blogging is entertainment for me, like a painter might do a landscape to appreciate the forest. It is a hobby, a way for M's fans to enjoy the 25 Mariners on the field, and is written for its readers, not for baseball employees. I'm not talking to M's employees here, except tongue-in-cheek. If we wanted to someday make chums with Chuck Armstrong or Howard Lincoln, would we write the way we do? We've been there, done that, working for org's like Howard Lincoln's, and have had alllllllllll we want of it. Our friends are the audience here. . === The Baseball Clergy / Laity System === Yes we roll our eyes at the "Just believe me 'cause I have access" theme when it crops up. Yes we are also cheerfully willing to debate. We believe in apple pie, Chevrolet, and cyber brawls with the foil on. It's what made this country great. Why? What right does Dr. D — or you the reader — have to question somebody who has "access"? — say local beat writers, or a local blogger who talks to scouts? 
If "every scout I know" thinks that Jose Lopez will never hit like Miguel Tejada, what kind of dummy would disagree with that? . Longtime D-O-V'ers know that about 50% of everything we write is based on tools-scouting observations. Most D-O-V'ers don't care about who writes it — they care about what is written. LOL. We're not "guessing" — we're offering analysis, which you can sift through at your leisure, and accept or reject. Unlike many career scouts, I don't insist that you believe me because I say so. I invite you to review my material and decide for yourself. . === Mel Kiper Jr., Dept. === Why does Inside Pitch predict the Angels' prospects better than their own employees do? Because some "Outsiders" just have more talent, and do more homework, than insiders do. 
Mel Kiper was nothing more than a 'net rat … who had so much talent, and did so much homework, that he got better than the people working for NFL teams. A lot better. Kiper's a famous example: you don't have to be inside to be the best. Kiper, and Bill James, did it because they enjoyed studying football and baseball. Their later professional careers were serendipity. Dr. D isn't pining for that; he has three interesting careers now. But baseball is loaded with 'net rats like Kiper. At least one or two of them work for each MLB franchise. But they aren't real popular with the field scouts … Sandy Alderson? Don't go there. If he wasn't a ballplayer, how could he evaluate a ballplayer? Any local GM's in that boat? The Kiper wannabes on the 'net -- they bare their chests against the machine guns. There are many POTD's here, most in excruciating detail. I will thoughtfully defend and debate any analysis I have ever published. We'll debate to the Nth degree, baby, or to the 162nd comment, whichever comes first. And we'll still be friends when we're done. Why would somebody get huffy when you ask them why they believe a thing? Why do you suppose scouts (and some bloggers) hate and fear strong opposition? Is it because of the soundness of their analyses? . === Sour Grapes?, Dept. === Since you ax, we've had relationships with, I dunno, a dozen? scouts or whatever it's been. Learned pitching strategy from a 60's-70's Yankee pitching star who is a friend of mine. Had a hundred or more exchanges with a 50-ish STATS scouting guy. … Other well-known sabermetricians we've worked with, weren't raised as scouts, but have been around the industry their whole lives. …we've had, and still have, occasional access to internal MLB material — studies, scouting reports, etc. It seems everywhere we go around the country to give seminars, there is a college coach or a college baseball player or somebody around who wants to talk baseball. One of my very best friends was a 25-year pitching coach at a huge Seattle high school, and personally coached five future big leaguers. He's a good pitching coach, though not as good as me, Mr. Cagney. Sorry :- ) My son took up pitching for one year — and in that experimental year, won his league ERA title and threw a no-hitter. We constructed the pitching motion from the ground up, corrected flaws as they developed, and crowds gathered to watch the kid. (The bigtime Pitching Coach also was kind enough to work with our kids …. on elementary things. It's a long story.) 
It may not be humble … but it may be relevant, and it is definitely the case, that we tell pitching coaches more than they tell us. They just don't know as much about correct pitching motions. We published for two years what the problem with Matt Thornton was, and then he changed teams, and in one day the new org implemented exactly our aiki-style recommendation (independently) and Thornton raved about it. He needed to lower his CG and get it accelerating to promote "trueness." A longer stride did that for him. Thornton's coaches simply didn't think of it. But next time around, we should take their opinions as gospel? No, we should listen with (a) respect and (b) a sense of context. ================= Anyway, there is also everybody we've jousted with on the internet - roto opponents with "access," chat boards, beat writers, etc etc. We've read literally thousands of MLB scouting reports on players. Quite frankly, I'm more impressed with Jeff Sullivan's and g-moneyball's and Inside Pitch's evaluations than I am with a lot of credentialed guys I have talked to. I respect scouts. But I respect a lot of 'net rats, too. Some "visual scouts" have really good intuition. A few, like Roger Jongewaard and Bob Fontaine, have tremendous intuition. There are a few truly talented scouts out there, and then there is the majority, who look very carefully at Ichiro and solemnly declare him a fringe major leaguer. . === Rode Hard and Put Away Wet, Dept. === It's important to understand that Dr. D is an old guy. LOL. 46, in fact. Slap me silly. We've seen 100,000's of pitches, starting with those thrown to the young Johnny Bench in 1970. Compared to other popular bloggers around Seattle, we have seen more, not less, baseball, amigos. When we compared Ichiro to Pete Rose in 2001, it isn't because we read a statline. It's because Pete Rose was one of my favorite players. Many Seattle bloggers never saw Pete Rose. I happen to have a big library of historical precedents to pick from. When we relate Tim Lincecum's mechanics to Kevin Brown's — and stir with sabermetrics to project his future health — it's because Brown made a huge impression on us. Why don't more pitchers rotate as far as Brown does, as far as Jim Beattie used to (when we sat in the Kingdome and watched him, way before your time)? It's an intriguing question. When we compare George Sherrill to Sid Fernandez, it's not a stathead "guess." It's 'cause we used to love to watch El Sid pitch. . === Multiculturalism Dept. === It's also important to understand that a background in aikido — and in golf, basketball, and other sports — creates a perspective on sports movement that is often beyond what baseball-only athletes can find. The Japanese (such as Ichiro) synthesize baseball movements with movements from golf and martial arts, and so do I. How does kaiten nage help you play baseball? Ask Sadaharu Oh, who bowed before O-Sensei and humbly asked for help with his hitting. . 
This isn't going to sound good, but have other hitting coaches studied the CG like we aikidoka have? Let me ask a stupid question: is an aikidoka who understands centrifugality better, or a major league hitting coach? Pentland's different and superior, though. He's a kinesthetics guy. He sensed Beltre's problem fairly early. Most MLB hitting coaches wouldn't have. I only shoot 95 in golf — have only shot sixty rounds or so — but have absorbed and applied the kinetics behind the swing. It's key to understanding the baseball swing. Unfortunately, many hitting coaches don't realize that. ================== With regard to systemic thinking and strategy, both the US Military and Wall Street actively seek out tournament chessmasters (such as the modest Dr. D) as analysts. There probably isn't a lot of need to go into why. The thought processes forged in the crucible of tournament chess, allow chessplayers to maintain their coherency, and sense of proportion, when bogged in a tangle of confusing detail. 
Chessmasters make awfully successful stock analysts, and Wall Street is a little more results-oriented than baseball is. Reputation doesn't secure your scouting job in most industries. What matters is whether you can bring it — except in baseball. There, what matters is whether you have a rep. . === Best Seller, Dept. === In passing … the main career is in public speaking and teaching … live audience, radio, in print, etc. See the Welcome Mat in the About area. Dr. D's people skills are not as scrawnily underdeveloped in real life as they are in his online persona. People skills are our job, in real life. Heh. We have a sci-fi/fantasy novel 30% done and proposal-ready, if that's your bag. . === So Whatta They Got That We Don't? === A sense of being the clergy in the baseball religion. LOL. The biggest difference between Dr. D (or Inside Pitch or g-moneyball) and a "real scout" is that Dr. D does not ask you to take his judgments on faith. The specific reasons that we believe what we do, are laid out in detail. And we're glad to have you disagree if that's where your OWN judgment takes you. There is no clergy and laity in baseball. The fact that M's scouts draw a paycheck did not magically make them right, when they argued against committing to Kenji Johjima and Jose Lopez. Again, scouts are smart, and lots of times they catch things we hadn't noticed. That's why Bill Bavasi listens to all of them, and flags those things they *agree* on. ==================== Has Dr. D ever been out from behind his monitor? :- ) Whether he has or not, his material would still be out in the open for YOU to use, or challenge, or ignore as incompetent, as you deem fit. 100's POTD's are clickable in the detectovision.com, SSI and ProBall USA links. Another hundred at SportSpot. I'll debate any of them you like. How many baseball authors are friendly about defending everything they ever wrote? At D-O-V we will go toe-to-toe any time, any where, with any body, on any subject we've published. Just be sure to put on the foil first! Heh. . === 100% Accuracy Not On Sale Here === We don't say that we're infallible. Craig Wright was correct: a 60% score puts you at the head of the field. D-O-V hits some and misses some, like a certain local $250M-per-year MLB ballclub we know does. Ahem. But don't let the scouts convince you they have a bag of magic sparkle dust, and we outsiders have to accept what they say because they are The Experienced Guys Who Just Know Baseball. The average major leaguer was taken in the 15th round. The average major league scout looked at the Japanese Ty Cobb and was 100% certain that he was a backup in the major leagues. Nowadays, "no scout I know" believes that Jose Lopez will ever be as good as Miguel Tejada. Scouts are smart, especially the best ones. Just not smart enough to declare themselves above question. Scouts' judgments are valuable, but they don't pre-empt what your own eyes tell you. ================== But when scouts, or scout wannabes, tell us to pipe down, then yeah. We're going to offer our reply. Now we're gonna go have a cafe mocha …. and go sponge some Real Baseball Insight from those Genuine Major Leaguers on Baseball Tonight. Cheers, Jeff
