MLB’s pro scouts are itching to get back in the ballpark, but it sounds like they’ll have to wait. The 2020 campaign will begin without live scouts, according to Ken Rosenthal of The Athletic (Twitter link).
This is a disappointment for those who’d hoped to see baseball’s birddogs occupying otherwise all-but-empty ballparks during the television-only season launch. They will just have to keep watching film for the time being.
There is a glimmer of hope here. Per Rosenthal, Major League Baseball will consider loosening the restrictions once the campaign is underway. Presumably, it wouldn’t be especially challenging to allow entry from a logistical standpoint. Doing so might even offer an opportunity for teams to shake down their protocols for potential reentry of live spectators.
The broader worry from some segments within the game is the long-term fate of in-person scouting. Baseball America’s Josh Norris recently examined the matter in full. Getting looks on video certainly trims costs, though most scouts believe live attendance is crucial to their job.
Scout can always go back to working for Tonto.
None of the links I’ve clicked this morning are working. They just bring me back to the homepage. Not sure if that’s the site or my own problem.
I wonder how well that show would be received in 2020.
But it’s okay for the media to be there?
MLB teams aren’t paying media to travel. I believe even broadcasters won’t travel. Let’s not pretend this is about safety, it is about money.
Why can’t it be about safety and money?
Because it’s business. If it were about safety, they wouldn’t play. Whenever money is involved, it is immediately the most important factor.
How much is a win worth? How expensive is sending an advanced scout to a game? If this was about money, and the team felt a scout might be the difference of a single win, they’d spend the money.
It’s pretty obvious this isn’t about money.
No reason for scouts not being allowed in the park. No fans is understandable.
Those scouts will need to be traveling on their own, with the possibility of exposing 1) themselves 2) others at hotels, stadiums, etc. Enforcing any sort of safety protocol with them would be hard. Plus, maybe the teams don’t want to pay for the travel and lodging expenses, when the job can be done from one location using video.
How long will this last…..???
No scouts? That seems arbitrary. They can easily social distance. Sounds like an excuse to downsize.
Went away to college in 1975 and met a guy who lived in my dorm named John Barr. Nice guy. Really, really good scout. Still working for the Giants I believe.
Cool story, tell us another one!
The only game in town is MLB baseball, they are not scouts, they are advanced scouts.
They only play a handful of teams, you see the same teams all the time, there are only 60 games. Do you really need advanced scouts?
Anything (legal) to gain an edge. If an opposing pitcher has found a new arm angle that has added more hook to his curve ball, that’s something worth knowing about. If a rookie has started getting more patient about breaking balls out of the zone, pitchers would want to know. Scouting still helps, even in this situation.
That can all be done via video
It’s a good point.
Advanced scouts serve a purpose. Jim Fregosi, my all time favorite player, was an advanced scout.
But in this environment, since teams are playing the same teams over and over, and since every game has many cameras, I think we can do without advanced scouts for a couple of months.
It will be much more relevant during the playoffs and World Series.
@Halo11Fan, Perhaps, but I think they’d still be relevant for interleague series. Playing 1/3 of your games against them can easily make or break your season and you wouldn’t be seeing them over and over.
As big as stadiums are, it seems it’d be really, really easy to stay at least 6 feet away from other scouts, even when you had to use the bathroom. Scouts should be able to opt to just watch tape, but I imagine many prefer to be there in person.
It’s about the travel expenses and has nothing to do with “safety.”
I was about to retort, “How cheap can they get if this matters to them?” but then I remembered what the A’s did to their minor leaguers and, sadly, your comment made much more sense.
Did anyone else find the headline odd? Without “live” scouts? Why not write “no scouts in attendance?” My first thought is that dead scouts are allowed.
Reminds me of the chevy commercials with the “not actors real people” disclaimer. Like actors are not real people?
The nuns who taught me English in the 1970s are rolling over in their grave.s And they through I was a bad student!
Maybe it has something to do with your reading comprehension?
ynot– from Boston ru?
Headline writing emphasizes brevity.
When I read the headline, my first thought was ” I guess dead scouts are OK.”
It was a personal chuckle with no condemnation of the writers. People need an element of discernment, writers can’t worry about every little word or phrase.
Finally, actors are not real people.
How are they going to know the cavalry is coming?