ryan perry and stats vs. tools

The selection of Orlean's Ryan Perry to the all-star game brings to light an interesting issue -- the dichotomy between stats and tools. Perry's stats aren't great. His ERA out of the bullpen is 4.41. He has a 1-2 record. But he's in the all-star game, probably because he throws in the mid-90's. For scouts, that makes Perry a must-see, and scouts, of course, will flock to the all-star game. That's why Perry is there.

This isn't such a terrible thing. Perry may not deserve the spot, but it makes sense for Cape League coaches to select -- within reason -- players the scouts want to see. If someone like Orleans' Brandon Crawford, a highly-thought of prospect who's really struggling, had been selected, then it might be a problem. That wouldn't be within reason. As it is, I think Perry's selection is fine.

The thing I find most interesting is what Perry's selection represents, not just in the Cape league, but in all of baseball. At some levels, stats matter a lot less than tools, mostly because players have to be "projectible." A 5-foot-10, 170-pound pitcher might hold his own in college thanks to a good feel for pitching and a bulldog mentality, but if he's only throwing in the mid 80s and his stuff isn't that great, he doesn't project as a major league player.

This certainly makes sense. In this case, stats should take a back-seat to tools. But sometimes, I think tools have a little too much weight in determining status, while stats don't have enough weight.

Here's what I'm talking about. I went to a high school baseball game this spring. It was a match-up of two good teams with two very good pitchers. One was widely thought of as the best pitcher in the state, a 6'4" senior right-hander with a high-80's fastball who'd already been in his team's rotation for two years and had made a splash playing AAU ball. The other pitcher was more under the radar, a 6'0" junior righty who threw hard but who'd only made a few starts. There were scouts on hand, watching the senior closely. With every pitch, their radar guns went up. At the end of every half-inning, the radar guns went down and chit-chat between the scouts ensued. When the senior left the game after the fifth inning, most of the scouts left.

What they missed when they put the guns away and when they packed up to leave was the junior, who happened to take a no-hitter into the final inning. Later that year, the junior took a no-hitter into the final inning of the state championship game, two weeks after the senior had been drafted, a week after the senior had been lit up in his final start.

The story opened my eyes to the idea of status. Maybe the junior has made enough of an impression now that scouts will watch him next year. But because he hadn't done anything to earn prospect status to that point, scouts weren't even paying attention.

I imagine this kind of thing happens in high school baseball. In most places, there are only a handful of players every year that scouts will spend their time watching. In contrast, the Cape league is full of players, all of whom are worth watching. I don't think scouts are missing much.

Still, it makes me wonder. How much does status factor in? Scouts have to rely on it in some cases, because they can't see everybody. They have to know who to look for.

But where does that status originally come from? And is it always right? There are plenty of guys who earn top-prospect status in high school, get drafted in the higher rounds, elect to go to college and end up on the Cape, with a must-see tag. Whether they deliver or not, if their tools appear strong, they're probably holding on to that label, at least until the struggles continue, on through the course of several seasons and through several summers.

For one summer on the Cape, that means a player can struggle and still end up in good standing. Corey Brown hit below .200 for Chatham last year then was a compensation round pick. It happens, and in the case of Brown, he probably just hit a slump at the wrong time. The tools were still there.

But what if the tools are always there, and the stats never come around? Perry, for instance, may have a mid-90's fastball but he struggled for Arizona this spring and hasn't exactly torn up the Cape league. Will his arm get him into the draft, regardless of the stats?

Maybe so, and maybe he'll turn out to be a very good pitcher. Or maybe success on the stat sheet will never come and the arm will eventually be overwhelmed.

Who knows?

Ideally, stats and tools will match-- that's what happens when players are considered sure things. In cases where the stats and tools don't match, though, I think I'd be tempted to give some weight to stats. If a guy hasn't done it yet, what's to say he will? And if he has, what's to say he won't be able to at the next level?

Either way, it's a dichotomy that's part of baseball's fabric. It's why late-round picks buck the odds and make the big leagues. It's why high picks with big signing bonuses flame out. And it's another reason why the Cape league is a very fascinating place to watch baseball.