Couldn't they have picked a better spokesman?

So I'm reading GQ -- a stretch, I know, but work with me -- when I come across the article about predraft baseball player profiles. Generall, well-crafted, good geeky science stuff, really compelling. Then they start talking to Jim Bowden to make their case that baseball is headed for a paradigm shift. There are a handful of teams -- the Nats are one -- that are using this researcher to do vision assessments when rating players. The article went to great lengths to show that baseball teams waste millions of dollars on player development, then they trot out Bowden as their poster child. Sidestepping the issue that nobody seems to like Bowden, is he really the best advocate? I mean, what real success has the guy had? I know the options were limited -- the Braves and the Orioles were the others using this particular evaluation tool -- but at least go to a successful club not using it and ask them why. Just struck me as really odd that Bowden would be the choice.

 

Jim Bowden seems to be a perfect example of someone wasting millions of dollars on player development.

What's the problem?

 

Well, the suggested seemed to be that Bowden's the guy -- or one of them -- who is doing things the new, purportedly more efficient way.

 

"Options are limited"? The Braves? I know they aren't going to the playoffs this year, but I remember them being somewhat decent over the past 14 years.

 

Maybe it's a before and after kinda thing.

 

Options limited because there were only three or four teams using this evaluation tool. Wouldn't surprise me if they tried to talk to Schuerholz and were shown the door. I just found it strange that Bowden was the best they could come up with.