https://theathletic.com/375567/2018...nt-are-they-a-step-ahead-or-will-it-backfire/ — The Astros have fewer scouts in the field than ever before, a vast majority of whom are focused on scouting amateur players, be it at the high school or college ranks or in Latin America. No longer do they have dedicated pro scouts, those who cover major and minor league games across the country. (On top of the pro scouts they let go last August, several of their remaining pro scouts left for other teams not long after). Not sure about reducing in the field scouts for more video scouts, and relying more on statcast for tool grading. I like adding more video scouts and incorporating statcast data, but would prefer in addition instead of as a replacement. Astros will lose some institutional knowledge with lose of some scouts.
I love the plot of that movie...analytics are bad except when the scout uses it to show how stupid analytics are.
With the technology available today, not much gained sending a scout to watch a pro game. Send them to find talent the way Altuve was discovered.
My question would be how much of their pro-scouts' evaluations they have used in recent years and what the results were. They've acquired lots of pro-players over the last 3-5 years in trades/etc - was all that decision-making from stats analysis or from a combo? If scouts helped them acquire any of their useful players, I would question this given that scouts can't be that expensive in the grand scheme of things. On the other hand, if no good moves in the last several years resulted from scouting information, then I guess it doesn't hurt anything.
Did the analysis of the holes in the Dodger players' swings come from pro scouts or going through statcast & video data? Because the Astros were able to find vulnerabilities the Cubs & the rest of the NL could not find. And our batters seemed to have a good handle on their pitchers, as well.
I have to assume they have gotten little good information from boots on the ground scouts in cases where video was available. I can't for the life of me imagine us cutting something so inexpensive in the grand scheme if it was yielding fruit. I've always wondered why it was still so widespread these days. Obviously you need eyeballs when there is no video, but everything at the highest levels is filmed now. Why dedicate one person to watching one game a night, when you could have your scouts watch a whole bunch.
To me, it sounds like the in the field scouts have provided useful information, but the video and analytical scouting has provided more for the buck. Sounds like instead of increasing budget for department or slowly transitioning from field to video, they made a drastic change. Guessing in the field scouts liked being in the field instead of moving to Houston or Spring Training facility and watching video.
I’d think that the travel is likely the worst part of the job. Houston’s guys (the ones who made the cut) can now be home with their families and do their jobs remotely.
Travel sucks, but I'm guessing guys that are scouts like to be at games and put up with travel to do what they love. Scouts aren't scouts for the money. Some people do not like being in an office.
