Skip to main content

Replies sorted oldest to newest

StrainedOblique posted:
Gov posted:

Hi all,

Just saw the 2017 Stanford Camp dates and thought I'd post.

Hands down the Best academic showcase in the Country. It's a MUST DO for all 3.4 + GPA guys that are serious about playing NCAA Baseball

+1

PS:  And though Coach Stotz is no longer a Stanford coach, I see he's still running this event.  So it should still be great.

Last edited by Truman
Truman posted:
StrainedOblique posted:
Gov posted:

Hi all,

Just saw the 2017 Stanford Camp dates and thought I'd post.

Hands down the Best academic showcase in the Country. It's a MUST DO for all 3.4 + GPA guys that are serious about playing NCAA Baseball

+1

PS:  And though Coach Stotz is no longer a Stanford coach, I see he's still running this event.  So it should still be great.

Exactly. Stotz is a legend. He runs the best college showcase camp in the country. Dude wrote the book!

Going to provide a little devil's advocate advice here...Stanford was NOT as good this past summer as past.  Too many mistakes/too much down time, poor management of scheduling and really awful issues with videos and their "report cards."

The camp is still nevertheless at Stanford and fun for boys to stay in the dorms and play (one game) at Sunken Diamond.  And lots of coaches from a variety -- NOT JUST high academic -- colleges attend (from JUCO to high powered D1 to Ivy to D3 of all levels).  

However a few issues:  Numerous people received wrong rating/videos that did not work etc and these issues were never solved or resolved.  In other words, wrong info was shared with the coaches there.  This is NOT an isolated incident of one kid, it was numerous as we knew many people there and ran into more along the rest of the recruiting summer showcase schedule.  My own 2017 received the stats from his previous year, completely different.  Another 2018 good friend had a videos that never worked, same with a 2017 later offered from an Ivy at the end of the summer who had no video and for some reason the hit tracking was never measured either although he did the BP/hitting drills.  Another 2017 received a rating that was like "you should never play baseball" despite the fact he already had offers, and did very well at the camp so it had to be a mistake.  And on and on.  

Another issue which has been discussed on this forum, the schedule at Sunken Diamond.  One game of the 3 played.  Who pitches there has a huge advantage as most coaches just stay there to watch games.  PLUS the scheduling of pitching is just poor.  You check in and don't do much that Sunday.  Year before the schedule was given for pitching that Sunday night.  Not last year.  Instead, many guys had a THREE hour practice with their coach who they are trying to make a first impression on and THEN found out the pitching schedule.  Friend scheduled to pitch immediately after that 3 hour practice and had ZERO time to inform the coaches who wanted to see him pitch, and to boot, it was way way off site.  The kid was dead tired and still did well, but the stats from his game were reported incorrectly, and kids from the other team were the ones holding the radar gun used for the official velocity.  Really?  How hard is it to have a preliminary pitching schedule IN ADVANCE?!  How hard is to have a COACH be in charge of the radar gun (there are several coaches assigned at each field, including one to evaluate pitchers)?  And how hard is it to keep accurate stats?  It was a mess.

Stotz, when emailed by parents, copies the emails to coaches without telling parents their email will be shared -- which is so unbelievably inappropriate.  He also made some really awful comments about the weight of certain coaches (anyone on the recruiting road will know there are a few coaches at almost everything and this one guy from one of the most well known universities on the planet was told to stop eating so many twinkies in front of everyone, comments about the girls in bathing suits at certain schools, about finding a beautiful wife, and lots of just politically incorrect good old boy comments.  There were even a few dads with dropped jaws.

I don't mean to malign the camp.  We loved it two years ago.  Last year was markedly different.

 

 

I've written about our experiences at the Future Stars Camp and All Star Camp before.  Both my boys did these camps and enjoyed them a lot.

I will agree with TWOBOYS that the experience has changed over time, and not for the better IMHO.

Kids will love this camp.  The hat, the jersey, the photo on the Jumbotron, batting / playing on the sunken diamond, living in the dorms, etc.  It's pretty fun for them and my guys really had a good time.  Coach Stotz is a hoot...I really like the guy.

That said, I do not believe this is the best high academic camp for exposure to the most college coaches of D1 and D3 high academic schools.  As noted above, the list is diverse from JuCo through D1 at Stanford.  One of my guys had the Kansas coach as his team coach.  Another had Butte JuCo.  Those may be fine schools, but they are not high academic as defined by a Headfirst or Showball or me for that matter, and they weren't on my boys' high academic schools lists.

When the structure was Future Stars and All Stars, mostly rising Sophs and rising Juniors did Future Stars.  Mostly rising Seniors (and some rising Juniors) did All Stars.  I felt the camps were more focused to those audiences and the college coaches attended accordingly.  The camps are now open for all age groups. 

Showcasing for high school players is about exposure to the coaches on their vetted lists.  It's not about random chance... "I hope somebody sees me and likes me".  While that's possible, IMO, fishing in the right pond is important.

At $950 for the camp, it is now very expensive and similar in price but not experience to HF...again IMO.  HF has more high academic D1 and D3 coaches...at HF Long Island there were over 100 schools represented and all were four year, high through highest academic.  Access to those coaches is concentrated on two fields (Sacramento) or four (NY and FL) fields that are adjacent.  And access to coaches is overtly encouraged at HF.  At Stanford, games are played throughout fields around Palo Alto.  Other than the Sunken Diamond game, we found at most a half dozen coaches at the high school game locations across several days of play.  

If the coaches on a player's vetted list will be at the Stanford Camp, then this camp should be an option in the context of exposure to those coaches.  If the coaches on a player's vetted list are not at Stanford, a family with the time and money could still choose to send their player.  The kids will have a great time! I'm not sure that's the best use of limited time and money for recruiting, but that's an individual decision.

PG National Academic, Showball, Headfirst, Stanford, et.al., should all be given careful consideration in the context of exposure to the schools on your player's vetted (academically and athletically) list.  For third party assessment, none is better than PG in my opinion.  Their rating is sound and can be shared with all the coaches on your player's list.  For direct exposure to the largest set of high academic coaches, we found HF to be the best.  Again, just my opinion.

I concur with Twoboys and Branson.  2017 went to Future Stars in 2015 and All Star 1 last summer. A lot of fun but questionable results last year. 2015 was great.  Last summer, though, videos were a mess, times incorrect on measurables, contact with coaches far less than HF.  Started to request corrections on videos but first request was misunderstood and I decided not to follow up because my own clips were far better than what Stanford provided (of the ones that worked). 

I wrote Stotz about which coaches will be there next summer, and he wrote back and said the 2016 list would be "85-90% correct."  Ah, but which 85-90%?  With three camps over 9 days, I'm not sure how many coaches will stay for all three of the contiguous sessions.  I will be very surprised if the list of coaches is available before registration starts and the camps are full.

It does look like two of the three games now offered will be at Sunken Diamond, but that is just my opinion based on the reduced # of teams being formed per camp.

 

Last edited by smokeminside

Would it make sense for a 2019 to attend this year or wait til next year? We are on East Coast, so not a quick, cheap trip in addition to the camp fee. Expensive proposition and thinking there may be more affordable, closer high academic options. 2019's PSAT's were in the National Merit Semifinalist range and he's interested in engineering. Thanks - love the info sharing on this board!

2019&21 Dad posted:

Would it make sense for a 2019 to attend this year or wait til next year? We are on East Coast, so not a quick, cheap trip in addition to the camp fee. Expensive proposition and thinking there may be more affordable, closer high academic options. 2019's PSAT's were in the National Merit Semifinalist range and he's interested in engineering. Thanks - love the info sharing on this board!

EDIT:  Yes I think it would.  My 2018 did the Stanford All Star Camp II the past July as a rising junior.  It was a terrific experience for my son; he received valuable feedback from a number of coaches who were on his target list.   He's now played in front of those same coaches twice since the Stanford camp (AZ Fall Junior Classic & HF Jupiter).  It's been a nice positioning opportunity. 

It's a showcase/camp where having a big measurable will enable your son to standout.  Even if money is not an object to go the Stanford Camp, get your 2019's measurables bench marked and get him stronger and faster over the next several months.  You want your son to have the chance to leave a positive impression with coaches he meets who are on his target list.  Prepare....  

 

 

Last edited by Gov

Future Stars was the name of the camp Stanford used to have for rising sophs and jrs.  Now they've mixed everyone together (rising sophs, rising jrs, rising srs) into 4 smaller camps of three days each.  (14 teams per camp, approx 16 players per team, about 225 kids per camp).  We really liked Future Stars when my 2017 went in 2015.  Trying to decide now whether my own 2019 should go next summer or not.  Our decision will NOT be about the new age groupings; it will be whether the boy has something to show or not.

Last edited by smokeminside
2019&21 Dad posted:

Would it make sense for a 2019 to attend this year or wait til next year? We are on East Coast, so not a quick, cheap trip in addition to the camp fee. Expensive proposition and thinking there may be more affordable, closer high academic options. 2019's PSAT's were in the National Merit Semifinalist range and he's interested in engineering. Thanks - love the info sharing on this board!

Gonna disagree, very mildly, with Gov. It really depends on the player and the family's situation. Stanford is a great experience, and you can't have too many of those, but compared to HeadFirst, you don't get as a many eyes on a kid at Stanford. It sounds like your son is an elite student. If he's an elite player as well, you're going to want to get him in front of Ivies, Patriots, and maybe above.  You can get in front of those without the expense of a CA trip if that's an issue. If he's more likely to be a D3 type player, then you should hold off a year anyway.  D3's pay little attention to players until the summer before their senior year. 

Just one opinion....

JCG posted:
2019&21 Dad posted:

Would it make sense for a 2019 to attend this year or wait til next year? We are on East Coast, so not a quick, cheap trip in addition to the camp fee. Expensive proposition and thinking there may be more affordable, closer high academic options. 2019's PSAT's were in the National Merit Semifinalist range and he's interested in engineering. Thanks - love the info sharing on this board!

Gonna disagree, very mildly, with Gov. It really depends on the player and the family's situation. Stanford is a great experience, and you can't have too many of those, but compared to HeadFirst, you don't get as a many eyes on a kid at Stanford. It sounds like your son is an elite student. If he's an elite player as well, you're going to want to get him in front of Ivies, Patriots, and maybe above.  You can get in front of those without the expense of a CA trip if that's an issue. If he's more likely to be a D3 type player, then you should hold off a year anyway.  D3's pay little attention to players until the summer before their senior year. 

Just one opinion....

Good perspective and excellent point about D3's. 

JCG posted:
2019&21 Dad posted:

Would it make sense for a 2019 to attend this year or wait til next year? We are on East Coast, so not a quick, cheap trip in addition to the camp fee. Expensive proposition and thinking there may be more affordable, closer high academic options. 2019's PSAT's were in the National Merit Semifinalist range and he's interested in engineering. Thanks - love the info sharing on this board!

Gonna disagree, very mildly, with Gov. It really depends on the player and the family's situation. Stanford is a great experience, and you can't have too many of those, but compared to HeadFirst, you don't get as a many eyes on a kid at Stanford. It sounds like your son is an elite student. If he's an elite player as well, you're going to want to get him in front of Ivies, Patriots, and maybe above.  You can get in front of those without the expense of a CA trip if that's an issue. If he's more likely to be a D3 type player, then you should hold off a year anyway.  D3's pay little attention to players until the summer before their senior year. 

Just one opinion....

If you, and I hope others will chime in, had to do it all over again, and you KNEW your kid was a D3 level player, would you be willing to roll the dice, wait until the summer before senior year, and attend only ONE event where you knew there would be an excellent variety of D3 choices?

(I do not mean this as a challenge.  I'm being sincere:  Could one camp/showcase be enough?)

Last edited by smokeminside

Wasn't there a recent post by a Seattle boy saying that he only went to one event (the NY Headfirst) and got a couple offers? I think there's another member (NEinmyblood) who's son attend just one event (FL Headfirst) and got 4-5 offers. These guys saved thousands of dollars and probably ended up in their "dream school" anyway (i.e. baseball + academics + merit aid)

smokeminside posted:
JCG posted:
2019&21 Dad posted:

Would it make sense for a 2019 to attend this year or wait til next year? We are on East Coast, so not a quick, cheap trip in addition to the camp fee. Expensive proposition and thinking there may be more affordable, closer high academic options. 2019's PSAT's were in the National Merit Semifinalist range and he's interested in engineering. Thanks - love the info sharing on this board!

Gonna disagree, very mildly, with Gov. It really depends on the player and the family's situation. Stanford is a great experience, and you can't have too many of those, but compared to HeadFirst, you don't get as a many eyes on a kid at Stanford. It sounds like your son is an elite student. If he's an elite player as well, you're going to want to get him in front of Ivies, Patriots, and maybe above.  You can get in front of those without the expense of a CA trip if that's an issue. If he's more likely to be a D3 type player, then you should hold off a year anyway.  D3's pay little attention to players until the summer before their senior year. 

Just one opinion....

If you, and I hope others will chime in, had to do it all over again, and you KNEW your kid was a D3 level player, would you be willing to roll the dice, wait until the summer before senior year, and attend only ONE event where you knew there would be an excellent variety of D3 choices?

(I do not mean this as a challenge.  I'm being sincere:  Could one camp/showcase be enough?)

No, one camp is not enough. If your son is serious about D3 ball & academically solid I would suggest Headfirst. But I would not solely rely on one showcase.

-What if he has a bad day and doesn't show well? There's a bit of luck needed in getting offered a roster spot. More times than not kid has to have ' a day ' in front of the right school.

- Some players are ' an acquired taste' meaning coaches need to see them a few times.

- I also highly recommend 'targeting ' specific schools. Have your son pick 3-4 D3 programs he believes he can play at , then attend on campus baseball camps

 

-Good luck

Gov posted:
JCG posted:
2019&21 Dad posted:

Would it make sense for a 2019 to attend this year or wait til next year? We are on East Coast, so not a quick, cheap trip in addition to the camp fee. Expensive proposition and thinking there may be more affordable, closer high academic options. 2019's PSAT's were in the National Merit Semifinalist range and he's interested in engineering. Thanks - love the info sharing on this board!

Gonna disagree, very mildly, with Gov. It really depends on the player and the family's situation. Stanford is a great experience, and you can't have too many of those, but compared to HeadFirst, you don't get as a many eyes on a kid at Stanford. It sounds like your son is an elite student. If he's an elite player as well, you're going to want to get him in front of Ivies, Patriots, and maybe above.  You can get in front of those without the expense of a CA trip if that's an issue. If he's more likely to be a D3 type player, then you should hold off a year anyway.  D3's pay little attention to players until the summer before their senior year. 

Just one opinion....

Good perspective and excellent point about D3's. 

I agree w/ GOV's original post. But would add that headfirst is more D3 based. Stanford more D1 and a mix.

My son attended Stanford Camp as a rising JR ( summer after sophomore year ) . Clearly, the best event I ever paid for. He received a dozen ' Nov 1 ' letters / emails as a result. And he caught the eye of an Ivy. The Ivy RC phoned / texted him bi- weekly thru Jr season. He ALMOST committed there. But ended up committing to a D1 in the south.

The thing w/ Stanford and Coach Stotz is that they were the First to do this. Stanford camp is approximately 30 years old! And the integrity and reputation that go with that and the recruiting cycle are priceless

Thank you. All great feedback. Most of all, he wants to go to a school where he would be happy if baseball wasn't a part of the experience. He would certainly like to play ball in college, but it doesn't HAVE to be D1. I think the best advice I've heard from multiple sources is to go where you will play and be celebrated, not tolerated at the best academic fit to prepare you for life after baseball. 4 vs. 40. I know there's a lot of work ahead to try to navigate that journey, but we'll try to enjoy the journey along the way. Thanks again!

Great thread. Thanks for the input. I'm in California, so the logistics aren't bad, although $950 is a lot of money. As far as timing, I'm sort of with Smokeminside ("whether the boy has something to show").

With respect to Headfirst, any thoughts regarding the event in NY vs. the one in California? Are they pretty much the same? Anyone been to both?

Great advice here, and good to hear Stanford camp is changing -- though it was less about the format and more about the actual camp and results which were a problem last year.  With all due respect, anyone who attended prior to 2016 probably had a solid experience (including us) but 2016 was not worth it and Coach Stotz should probably not be in charge anymore in my opinion.  It was not a great reflection of the school (registration took hours and then they took a 2 hour break, some kids had to wait around all Sunday with no food, no videos or of the wrong kid, wrong ratings, very inappropriate remarks and emails, etc. most recounted above).     

Have not been to both HF, just HF NY twice.  They also used to be the gold standard but there are other options too.  PTW, Showball, Rising Prospects and others.  If I could back in time we would have tried one of these others.  

2019DAD,

Fellow Cali family who've been to HF Jupiter, Long Island, and Sacramento.  Boys have also done the Stanford Camps.  I'm now broke...

Comment made above that HF is more D3 than D1 focused than Stanford.  I respectfully disagree.  HF has more schools overall and more high and highest academic schools than the Stanford camp.  I would say the camps had similar academic D1 schools, but HF has a deeper pool of high and highest academic D3s.  HF publishes their attending schools by camp (Stanford was there at HF too) and Coach Stotz will typically send a list of schools if you ask him for Stanford.  I encourage families to compare and contrast lists and to attend the camp(s) that best suit their player.

HF Long Island has a huge number of college coaches attending.  99% of these will be highest academic (e.g., Ivys, Patriot, Duke, Northwestern, Davidson, NESCAC, Top Centennials, et.al.) and high academic (e.g., SAA conference schools, other Centennial schools, Northeastern, Richmond, W&M, CTCL.org schools, et.al.).  Typically there will be ~100 colleges represented per session and all will be at the four contiguous fields. 

HF Sac was less attended than HF NY, but IMO, the timing is ideal for a rising Senior player to be seen in June by the schools on his list, and then again in August, i.e., my 2016 did both HF camps.

HF Jupiter is ideal, again IMO, for a high school Junior to be seen initially by his schools.  The timing in late Oct / early Nov is a little late for Seniors seeking D1, but ok for D3 bound Seniors and great for a Junior if they are ready to be seen.  HF Jupiter is also less attended than HF Long Island.

 

Branson Baseball posted:

2019DAD,

Fellow Cali family who've been to HF Jupiter, Long Island, and Sacramento.  Boys have also done the Stanford Camps.  I'm now broke...

Comment made above that HF is more D3 than D1 focused than Stanford.  I respectfully disagree.  HF has more schools overall and more high and highest academic schools than the Stanford camp.  I would say the camps had similar academic D1 schools, but HF has a deeper pool of high and highest academic D3s.  HF publishes their attending schools by camp (Stanford was there at HF too) and Coach Stotz will typically send a list of schools if you ask him for Stanford.  I encourage families to compare and contrast lists and to attend the camp(s) that best suit their player.

HF Long Island has a huge number of college coaches attending.  99% of these will be highest academic (e.g., Ivys, Patriot, Duke, Northwestern, Davidson, NESCAC, Top Centennials, et.al.) and high academic (e.g., SAA conference schools, other Centennial schools, Northeastern, Richmond, W&M, CTCL.org schools, et.al.).  Typically there will be ~100 colleges represented per session and all will be at the four contiguous fields. 

HF Sac was less attended than HF NY, but IMO, the timing is ideal for a rising Senior player to be seen in June by the schools on his list, and then again in August, i.e., my 2016 did both HF camps.

HF Jupiter is ideal, again IMO, for a high school Junior to be seen initially by his schools.  The timing in late Oct / early Nov is a little late for Seniors seeking D1, but ok for D3 bound Seniors and great for a Junior if they are ready to be seen.  HF Jupiter is also less attended than HF Long Island.

 

Branson,

How did it work out for your son doing both HF Sac and HF Long Island?  

 

Both my 2012 and my 2016 did HF Jupiter as HS Juniors.  

Both had their initial college lists together and had messaged coaches prior to the event.  Met many of them there.  Jupiter really clarified what schools should be on their lists and which should come off. 

Both guys used HS Junior Spring to communicate with coaches on their revised lists.  We also visited a number of colleges over breaks when schedules would allow. 

2016 did HF Sac and LI; 2012 LI only (I regret not doing Sac too with him...he did Stanford All Star). 

Many of 2016's schools were at HF Sac and he met with about 20 coaches there as a rising Senior.  Once he did HF LI his vetted list was much shorter and very focused.  Some of his schools were at LI only.  He ended up with about a dozen D3 Spring roster spot offers and narrowed that list to seven schools when it came time to apply in the Fall (one ED, the rest EA or RD). 

IMO, being seen a couple times by the schools on his vetted list was very helpful.  And he was able to have at least a couple meaningful, in person conversations with many of the coaches of schools on his list.

My 2017's yield wasn't as impressive as Branson's but almost the same pattern worked for us.  I'm just not sure about Jupiter for my 2019's jr. year, but I REALLY like the idea of HF Sac and HF LI during summer before sr. year.  Expensive, but seems ideal.  Love the HF Sac player/coach ratio, and love HF LI for the huge selection of schools present.  Would be willing to substitute Showball or another reputable event if the right coaches were there.

Also intrigued by PG as an option, but not sure my kids' skills are at the level that event seems to be suited for.  It's not a program folks in our neck of the woods flock to, but am  impressed with its objective measurables.

 

I'm considering the "Branson" approach as well for my 2018 next summer.

Regarding PG, Smoke, I think your referring to the PG Academic Showcase?  It's held twice a year I think, and I've heard most of the Ivy's and a number of other top D1 academics attend.  We haven't been, but that's what I've been told.  Curious if anybody knows differently.  

Last edited by Gov

Sorry for posting one more time. 

2012 son did PG National Academic in Florida. Very well run event.  Only challenge is the timing which has varied year to year...Late May or early June date can be a challenge if your son is still in school / finals. 

Not a lot of coaches attended and they aren't / weren't published in advance.  But PG's rating system is respected nationally so sharing the player's rating works for every coach my guys contacted. 

IMO, if your player will rate strongly, this is a must do. All coaches will value PG's analysis. If your player is a 7.0 or 7.5, then I'd spend my time and money having your son seen directly by the coaches on his list at a HF or Showball or wherever his schools will be and not do PG.  Just my opinion. 

Smokeminside,

I'm not an authority on this subject, but because no one else has responded to your question, I'm going to repeat what I've read on here (and have observed first hand over the last few years):  

Yes, figure out where he is now, and compare to those his age (or older players scores when they were his age).  If he has something to showcase - 60 time below 7.0, or velo that is in the top 20 - 25% of those his age, for example - then he'll likely get a good grade and it might be time to go to a PG showcase.  It is a lot easier to compare these days since PG added the dates on which the scores were measured for the individual players.  But don't rely entirely on a comparison between your son and one you find on PG.  If your son looks like a grown man (beard and all) at 15.0 yo, but is throwing the same velo as a prepubescent kid who is 6'2" and weighs 150, it's likely he won't get the same grade due to projectability factors.  

MomLW posted:

Smokeminside,

I'm not an authority on this subject, but because no one else has responded to your question, I'm going to repeat what I've read on here (and have observed first hand over the last few years):  

Yes, figure out where he is now, and compare to those his age (or older players scores when they were his age).  If he has something to showcase - 60 time below 7.0, or velo that is in the top 20 - 25% of those his age, for example - then he'll likely get a good grade and it might be time to go to a PG showcase.  It is a lot easier to compare these days since PG added the dates on which the scores were measured for the individual players.  But don't rely entirely on a comparison between your son and one you find on PG.  If your son looks like a grown man (beard and all) at 15.0 yo, but is throwing the same velo as a prepubescent kid who is 6'2" and weighs 150, it's likely he won't get the same grade due to projectability factors.  

Good advice, MomLW. I do think it is more straightforward for pitchers -- yes, there's projectability, but there seems to be a close correlation between velo and the PG grade. For position players, there are more factors . . .

Having been through most of these with my 2017 C/RHP this past year, I would summarize each (per our experience) as follows:

PG Showcase--great for getting the objective measurables, PG rating and even some video on a web page that you can link in e-mails to coaches.  Showcase games are spread out in different locations, and despite being in baseball hotbeds like San Diego and South OC, I did not see many coaches actually recruiting at the showcases.  As others have said, cost is high, so be sure you have something to show in the measurables (foot speed, velocity, bat speed/exit velo).   From what we've seen, PG recruiting benefits are mostly at their travel team national events--these showcases are more for demonstration and less about meeting coaches. 

Stanford Camp--it is both a camp and a showcase.  In between showcase games the players are working defensively in their positions with the college coaches working.  If you are lucky, your son gets to work with the coach of a school he is interested in--but it is random luck.  Like PG, the showcase games are spread out except the one game at Sunken Diamond.  I thought the coaches doing the recruiting only hung around the main field, but my son was contacted by a number of coaches who saw him on the other nearby high school fields.  However, there was no real interaction that I saw with coaches talking to players--most took notes and then followed up after the event.  As others noted, checking in was a fiasco and there were other glitches, but it is still a great experience.

Headfirst Sacramento-- the gold standard in our experience.  Excellent schools, but at least at Sacramento skewed more toward the D3's with a few Ivies and Duke there.  No better showcase for close proximity with the players and coaches.  If your son is not afraid to talk to coaches, he will have the chance at some point during the camp to walk up and talk to any coach he wants to.  HF does not provide the measurable to the players but the coaches share them.  Be sure your son has already taken at least either the SAT or ACT before you go, preferably both, as these coaches all ask for test scores and transcripts.  I am not sure how much screening HF does about academic qualifications, but rest assured the coaches of these schools want to find out quickly if a kid they like can get in the school.  We did not follow up with the Long Island version because 2017 is more interested in staying in the Western US.

AZ Senior Fall Classic--you need to be part of a travel team that gets a regular invite to play in this showcase style event, but if your son meets the academic requirements, for $100 more he can try to get an invite to the All Academic Game.  My 2017 was fortunate enough to get a tryout and was picked to pitch an inning in the game at the main stadium.  I would estimate 75 coaches watch the tryouts (so even if you do not make the game, you are scouted) and maybe 100 were actually sitting behind home plate during the game.  Dollar for dollar, no better value for exposure, but no guarantee you can get in for the Academic game.  Still lots of schools around all weekend, so if a coach can watch game action if they are interested in a kid.

Not sure yet where 2017 will wind up, but his final group of colleges started mostly at HF with a few others from Stanford and the AZ Academic game.  Maybe only one of his current schools would have been on his list had he not gone to these events, so while they were painful to the bank account, we're still hoping they will pay off somehow in the end.

Like others who've posted here, my 2017 gained considerably more from Headfirst than from the Stanford camp.  But one experience which was fantastic at Stanford were the guest speakers.  "Stanford Baseball Camp" is a youtube channel, and they have video of the three speakers -- Sean Flikke, Mike Robbins and Dean Stotz.  If you don't go to the camp, you may want to watch the speeches online.  

SanDiegoRealist posted:

Hope someone who did this in the past can answer these questions.

I went out to the camp registration websites and it says "your active.com account is not associated with this organization." 

1) Is this because the registration is not open yet?

2) is an active.com account required? It says you can log in with your Facebook?

thanks

I think your first guess is correct. You will create an an Active account when you register.  Many sites will take your FB credentials to create that account, so I guess Active is one of them. If you have any concerns there just open a new account with a different email address.  I will say that when registration opens - next week I believe - you want to jump in right away. If you wait a day or two you could be out of luck, esp. if kid is a MIF.

smokeminside posted:
JCG posted:
2019&21 Dad posted:

Would it make sense for a 2019 to attend this year or wait til next year? We are on East Coast, so not a quick, cheap trip in addition to the camp fee. Expensive proposition and thinking there may be more affordable, closer high academic options. 2019's PSAT's were in the National Merit Semifinalist range and he's interested in engineering. Thanks - love the info sharing on this board!

Gonna disagree, very mildly, with Gov. It really depends on the player and the family's situation. Stanford is a great experience, and you can't have too many of those, but compared to HeadFirst, you don't get as a many eyes on a kid at Stanford. It sounds like your son is an elite student. If he's an elite player as well, you're going to want to get him in front of Ivies, Patriots, and maybe above.  You can get in front of those without the expense of a CA trip if that's an issue. If he's more likely to be a D3 type player, then you should hold off a year anyway.  D3's pay little attention to players until the summer before their senior year. 

Just one opinion....

If you, and I hope others will chime in, had to do it all over again, and you KNEW your kid was a D3 level player, would you be willing to roll the dice, wait until the summer before senior year, and attend only ONE event where you knew there would be an excellent variety of D3 choices?

(I do not mean this as a challenge.  I'm being sincere:  Could one camp/showcase be enough?)

I am going to jump in on this thread and go back to this post and give some perspective about possibly attending only one academic showcase - mostly because I've considered this several times since we went through the process.  We were lucky enough not to have spent a ton of money on other showcases - our 2016 attended one PG showcase (and didn't do great) the summer between Soph-Jr year and then attended HF on Long Island in Aug before his Sr. year.  He attended several one day prospect camps at local Northeast D1s but no other high priced one/two day showcases.  

I think that one of the problems with this premise - attending only one showcase and focusing on D3s - is that from our experience most of these players are still holding out hope for D1 interest and offers all through the summer between Jr.-Sr. year.  And in the northeast that's really when all the offers come through.  There are very few early commits.  All of the D1 players we know from his class received their offers after being seen at tournaments or other events that summer.  Even the very highly ranked players are finalizing things that summer in our area (we do have 2 very highly ranked 2018 players from our area who have already committed but they are outlyers).

Even at HF our 2016s focus wasn't so much on getting D3 interest - it was just getting interest from one or more of the schools on his list - either D3 or D1.  And it just so happened that all the interest came from D3 schools.  Was attending just that one event enough?  Yes.  All of the interest he received - which was offers from D3 schools in the Midwest Conference, Liberty League, UAA Conference and three schools in the Centennial Conference - came from the one event at HF on Long Island.  The Centennial Conference school he ended up at did see him earlier in the summer at a tournament but he was not seen by any of those schools at other events (that we are aware of).  

If we had to do it over again I don't think we would have just attended HF - he probably would have played on a different travel team that was more competitive and hopefully played in front of more schools at different events (his exposure was very limited over the summer because his team was horrible) and he probably still would have done the local D1 camps - and then we may have had him do two HF camps (I know and spend more money).  All of the schools he wanted to attend were there, I think expanding the number of schools that could see him live (on the first day) would have been good.  Either way it worked out.

Keep in mind that he is a PO and there is a lot of focus on pitchers at HF - and he also pitched very well at that camp.  It would really stink to put all your focus on HF in Aug heading into your Sr. year and then not pitch well.   The rules at HF are also slightly skewed towards pitchers (starting at a 1-1 count) with umps calling balls and strikes from behind the mound - so I don't think this idea works as well for position players.  Sorry for the long post.

 

MK, very thoughtful response!

It can take only one event to be seen.  Having been through this process twice with HS players and now again with a college transfer, I wouldn't bet on it for the majority of players including my guys.  But the question was about attending one event...

For the vast majority of players, it's about being seen live by the schools on that player's vetted list.  That can happen at a single event.  Pitchers, which are about half of all recruits, will generally be watched by most coaches at an event.  Every team needs lots of pitchers and I would guess that for D3 level talent, it's possible that one event could do it.  It's a little more challenging for position only players IMHO.

Since the question asked about D3 players, I will add that in my experience, demonstrated interest in the school (baseball and admissions) is a big piece of the equation.  A D3 player is not being offered athletic money.  Many coaches have little to no pull with admissions.  A student athlete is wise to connect with their admissions rep (e.g., fill out the online admissions profile, interview, meet on campus or at the player's high school, tour campus, etc.) in addition to connecting with the baseball staff (e.g., online profile, sending video, emailing updates, calling, etc.).

Doing all the things necessary in advance of showcasing helps with the process whether it's a one showcase deal or whether the player is ultimately doing several...or more.

And regarding the original topic of the Stanford Camp, given the list of schools attending this coming Summer (which in my experience is similar to previous years) there are not a lot of D3 schools relative to a HF.

Happy to assist SANDIEGO.

With the new Stanford schedule there is only one viable date for my 2018, and unfortunately, there are only three colleges on my son's list that are saying Yes they'll attend on that date.  So, it looks like we'll  have to pass on Stanford Camp.  Bummer for my son, because it was his favorite, and one where he played well and received some nice attention as an incoming Junior last year.  Qualifier: it  was not offer type attention, it was solid developing relationship attention.  It helped tee my son up for communication with colleges after Sept 1st.  Son subsequently played in front of 4-5 colleges on his list three times from July through AZ Classic, then HF Jupiter in November.  

Love the event, but we have to be practical and use our time wisely this upcoming summer when he'll be a rising senior.  I know my son will need a weekend of rest in between the tourney's, showcases, and camps to refuel.

Suggest to you all if you haven't had one of these busy tourney - showcase - camp summers  yet.  Plan "down time" (5-7 days of no throwing or playing) for your son to rest his body and mind so that he'll be fueled up and ready for the end of summer and fall tourneys & showcases.  The best thing we did last summer was give my son a week off of doing nothing and going to a beach the week immediately after club season ended.  Within a few days after returning he was back in game shape.  I'm convinced this allowed him to stay focused and prepare for end of October events.  It can be a long season from Feb to Oct.

 Happy New Year to you All!

David

 

Just a heads'-up to those considering it -- the MIF slots are already sold out (waiting lists) for the first three sessions. Yes, it's been <24 hours since registration opened, but I guess it fills up fast! If your kid is a pitcher, however, you can still register him as a pitcher first, with MIF as a second position.

Son just got his Stanford evaluation -- got a grade for infield play, got a grade for pitching, but apparently they don't give a grade for hitting?    There are the Hittrax stats and his ranking in the camp and vs. his class year, but no grade for hitting, which is disappointing.

FWIW, here is the Stanford ranking scale:

  • 10 -- Superstar in H.S., top five round draft out of H.S., star in college as a freshman
  • 9 -- Outstanding H.S. ability, definitely draftable (mid to late rounds) chance to start as a frosh
  • 8 -- Exceptional H.S. ability, 50% to 75% chance to be drafted, contributor as a frosh in college
  • 7 -- Very Good H.S. ability, outside chance to be drafted, starter by Jr. year in college
  • 6 -- Good H.S. ability - not draftable but a four-year college level player
  • 5 -- Above average H.S. ability -- not draftable -- chance to play on a four-year college level
  • 4 -- Average H.S. ability -- junior college ability in the future
  • 3 -- Below average high school ability -- chance to play in junior college
  • 2 -- Poor H.S. ability -- done after high school

So it turns out that Stanford does send an overall numerical ranking and written evaluation, it just is delivered a few days after the metrics/measurables.

And they have clarified their ranking system a bit, adding references to D1 and D3:

Stanford All-Star Camp Rating System
10 Super star in high school, top five round draft out of high school, star in college as freshman
9 Outstanding high school ability, definitely draftable (mid-to-late rounds) chance to start as freshman
8 Exceptional high school ability, 50% to 75% chance to be drafted, contributor as freshman
7 Very good high school ability, outside chance to be drafted, starter in Division 1 by junior year in college
6 Good high school ability, not draftable, but a four-year college level player
5 Above average high school ability, not draftable, chance to play on four-year college level
4 Average high school ability, junior college or Division III ability in future
3 Below average high school ability, chance to play in junior college or Division III
2 Poor high school ability

JCG posted:

Am I the only one who thinks their rating system is BS?

Well, here's PG's scale. I don't know that one is inherently better than the other.

10 -- Potential very high draft pick, Top DI in the nation prospect
9 -- Potential top 10 round pick, Top DI prospect
8 -- Potential mid round pick, definite DI prospect
7 -- Potential low round pick, DI prospect or top level Juco, DII
6 -- Possible DI prospect, definite DII or Juco prospect
5 -- Possible DII prospect or mid range Juco prospect
4 -- Possible low level DII or high level DIII prospect
3 -- Possible DIII or low level Juco prospect
2 -- Possible low level DIII prospect
1 -- No prospect at this time
2019Dad posted:
JCG posted:

Am I the only one who thinks their rating system is BS?

Well, here's PG's scale. I don't know that one is inherently better than the other.

10 -- Potential very high draft pick, Top DI in the nation prospect
9 -- Potential top 10 round pick, Top DI prospect
8 -- Potential mid round pick, definite DI prospect
7 -- Potential low round pick, DI prospect or top level Juco, DII
6 -- Possible DI prospect, definite DII or Juco prospect
5 -- Possible DII prospect or mid range Juco prospect
4 -- Possible low level DII or high level DIII prospect
3 -- Possible DIII or low level Juco prospect
2 -- Possible low level DIII prospect
1 -- No prospect at this time

I think it's better.  The PG scale doesn't try to correlate levels of HS ability to the scale, which is where the Stanford scale gets really loopy.  It also notes differences in levels of Juco and D3 ball, which Stanford does not do.  And that's appropriate.

Stanford's first mention of Juco is here:

4 Average high school ability, junior college or Division III ability in future

C'mon.  There is a  Juco team near us that could beat many if not most D1 teams, and there are other Juco teams nearby that couldn't beat a really good HS team.  An "average" HS player would get cut from the first team in the fall, and would ride pine on the others.

The main problem with Stanford is that it's a scale that seems to be meant to let the families of lesser players down gently, and in the process may be giving them more hope than is warranted.

smokeminside posted:

Was the rating attributed to his game coach?  We still haven't received an overall rating. Just a narrative about his outfield drills, and stats re: 60 time, etc. Also it's my understanding that  coaches do not receive this information.  It is only shared with the athlete. Is that correct?

Yes, it was attributed to his game coach, but it incorporated a portion of the narrative (and measurables) from the drills and stats. The main differences were (1) it went into quite a bit of detail about hitting, (2) there was an overall numerical rating, and (3) there was an overall judgment --- well, just one sentence -- in narrative form, too.

JCG posted:
2019Dad posted:
JCG posted:

Am I the only one who thinks their rating system is BS?

Well, here's PG's scale. I don't know that one is inherently better than the other.

10 -- Potential very high draft pick, Top DI in the nation prospect
9 -- Potential top 10 round pick, Top DI prospect
8 -- Potential mid round pick, definite DI prospect
7 -- Potential low round pick, DI prospect or top level Juco, DII
6 -- Possible DI prospect, definite DII or Juco prospect
5 -- Possible DII prospect or mid range Juco prospect
4 -- Possible low level DII or high level DIII prospect
3 -- Possible DIII or low level Juco prospect
2 -- Possible low level DIII prospect
1 -- No prospect at this time

I think it's better.  The PG scale doesn't try to correlate levels of HS ability to the scale, which is where the Stanford scale gets really loopy.  It also notes differences in levels of Juco and D3 ball, which Stanford does not do.  And that's appropriate.

Stanford's first mention of Juco is here:

4 Average high school ability, junior college or Division III ability in future

C'mon.  There is a  Juco team near us that could beat many if not most D1 teams, and there are other Juco teams nearby that couldn't beat a really good HS team.  An "average" HS player would get cut from the first team in the fall, and would ride pine on the others.

The main problem with Stanford is that it's a scale that seems to be meant to let the families of lesser players down gently, and in the process may be giving them more hope than is warranted.

Fair enough. I agree the evaluation of what is average or above average, etc. at the HS level muddies things. But I guess I don't see it too differently from someone going to a PG showcase, getting a 7.0 rating and seeing that it means they are a "D1 prospect" and a "potential low round pick" to boot!  

I didn't recall what my 2017 got at Stanford Camp 2 last summer. Just looked it up, and I will share in the hope that  it's a helpful data point.

7 Very good high school ability, outside chance to be drafted, starter in Division 1 by junior year in college

Two things about that #1 - he had a mediocre camp at best.  He hit just okay. He didn't bring a good set of turf shoes so he ran a 7.05 60 after posting a 6.5 at HF a couple weeks earlier.  Also had a hard time with IF drills as a result.   #2  - he's going to be playing D3.  He a little D1 interest but committed to D3 early.  Drafted?  I doubt they know his name.

Last edited by JCG
JCG posted:

I didn't recall what my 2017 got at Stanford Camp 2 last summer. Just looked it up, and I will share in the hope that  it's a helpful data point.

7 Very good high school ability, outside chance to be drafted, starter in Division 1 by junior year in college

Two things about that #1 - he had a mediocre camp at best.  He hit just okay. He didn't bring a good set of turf shoes so he ran a 7.05 60 after posting a 6.5 at HF a couple weeks earlier.  Also had a hard time with IF drills as a result.   #2  - he's going to be playing D3.  He a little D1 interest but committed to D3 early.  Drafted?  I doubt they know his name.

Right. But how is that different than this? These are the measurables of a 2019 player (3B/RHP) who recently attended a PG showcase and got a 7.0 rating:

  • 60 yard dash: 7.65
  • Top FB Velo: 68 mph
  • IF Velo: 66 mph
  • Exit velo: 75 mph

On the PG scale, that 7.0 rating translates to: "Potential low round pick, D1 prospect or top level Juco, DII"

These ratings are just someone else's opinion, of course.  We found PG's evals to be pretty spot on.  And we found the Stanford ratings, particularly by the boys' game coaches to be way out in left field. 

My oldest son had about 30 D1 offers.  His Stanford game coach was a D1 head coach at a large state school.  Said my oldest probably wouldn't play beyond high school in his write up.  Must've been a very bad showing... 

Regardless, my sons (and my wife and I) took it all in and tried to learn from it.  These ratings can help as one input to creating a targeted, vetted academically and athletically, list of colleges.  In the end, is a player fishing in the right pond?  And is there interest from the coaches on that vetted list? 

2019Dad posted:
JCG posted:

I didn't recall what my 2017 got at Stanford Camp 2 last summer. Just looked it up, and I will share in the hope that  it's a helpful data point.

7 Very good high school ability, outside chance to be drafted, starter in Division 1 by junior year in college

Two things about that #1 - he had a mediocre camp at best.  He hit just okay. He didn't bring a good set of turf shoes so he ran a 7.05 60 after posting a 6.5 at HF a couple weeks earlier.  Also had a hard time with IF drills as a result.   #2  - he's going to be playing D3.  He a little D1 interest but committed to D3 early.  Drafted?  I doubt they know his name.

Right. But how is that different than this? These are the measurables of a 2019 player (3B/RHP) who recently attended a PG showcase and got a 7.0 rating:

  • 60 yard dash: 7.65
  • Top FB Velo: 68 mph
  • IF Velo: 66 mph
  • Exit velo: 75 mph

On the PG scale, that 7.0 rating translates to: "Potential low round pick, D1 prospect or top level Juco, DII"

If those numbers are a 7.0 PG rating, then my kid really got screwed on his score (assuming they mean anything to anyone).....lol

Guess they figured a low first time number means he'll likely come back and spend another '8 bills' for a more realistic number...... (which has always been the rub on those PG showcase scores). Now way I'd donate again when the guy hitting fungo's couldn't even get one to the kids' backhand side....

On the other hand, if a kid really is a 5, no sense in pissin' dad off so much he doesn't come back to donate again the next year?

Kind of a 'fine line' has to be walked, I guess......

Last edited by DesertDuck
2019Dad posted:
JCG posted:

Am I the only one who thinks their rating system is BS?

Well, here's PG's scale. I don't know that one is inherently better than the other.

10 -- Potential very high draft pick, Top DI in the nation prospect
9 -- Potential top 10 round pick, Top DI prospect
8 -- Potential mid round pick, definite DI prospect
7 -- Potential low round pick, DI prospect or top level Juco, DII
6 -- Possible DI prospect, definite DII or Juco prospect
5 -- Possible DII prospect or mid range Juco prospect
4 -- Possible low level DII or high level DIII prospect
3 -- Possible DIII or low level Juco prospect
2 -- Possible low level DIII prospect
1 -- No prospect at this time

I'm curious where the above PG scale is coming from. Below is the PG scale I am familiar with. Has it changed recently?

10 - Potential very high draft pick and/or elite level college prospect

9 - Potential top 10 round pick and/or highest level college prospect

8 - Potential draft pick and/or excellent college prospect

7 - College prospect, possible future draft pick with development

6 - Potential college prospect

5 - Possible college prospect and/or possible HS varsity

4 - HS JV

3 - Possible HS JV

2 - No prospect at this time

1 - The game is too dangerous

Add Reply

×
×
×
×
Link copied to your clipboard.
×