Has anyone ever seen a PG grade of less than 7?

yes, I have seen PG grades of less than 7. A fair number of them actually.

 

But also you should know that if you score low you can ask PG to take your grade down.

 

Plus I don't think that is the current PG grading system exactly, but an earlier version.  If you go to the list of "top uncommitted players"  you'll see that the guys at the very bottom of the lists have scores of like 5, 5.5, 6. 

 

 

I'll be honest, I was very much a below average player in high school, and though this was quite a while ago, I got a 6 rating, which I thought was pretty high for me at the time... I'd probably give myself a 6 now lol.

I've seen below 7 as well.  I think the ratings are well done and generally a good reflection of the player, but I wouldn't let the number deter your son's desired path.

Wait there's ANOTHER baseball site? Don't share, I spend enough time here already!

BTW, here is PG's latest Rating System for grades. It has been updated since the list CaCo3Girl posted and this one seems much more reflective of the grades relative to where they may belong in the recruiting hierarchy. 

 

And yes, I have seen grades below 7 as well.


Perfect Game USA's Player Rating System

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 

People, my son hasn't been to a showcase.  I'm trying to gauge how this board thinks these numbers match up with what actually happens with the players.

i.e. Does an 8 actually get D1 attention? Does a 6 actually get to play in college?

I'm not sure I have seen anything below a 7 - maybe one 6.5.  The write-ups that accompany a 7 do not really seem to matchup with "potential low round pick" they often read as more of a "possible DII prospect".  On the other hand, there seem to be a good number of 9's and while these write-ups show excellent skills, not sure they meet "top 10 round draft pick" (which I assume means drafted out of high school).

 

As these require an invitation with some apparent selectivity, I would assume there is an internal cutoff of where the minimum rating should be.  I realize PG needs to fill the rosters but I am sure they prefer not to have many 5's or 6's in attendance in favor of 7's and 8's.

A former coach of my son's was rated an 8.5 by PG.  Was drafted out of HS.  forewent the draft,  Was drafted out of college.  Played several years in the minors.  As to the 6.0 he's not going to play at a D1 in all likelihood.  Put a PG rating is just one data point.   PGstaff who frequents this board is on record saying that they sometimes get things wrong.  PG is quite useful, but it's not the only measuring stick out there.

 

 

Here he is explaining their rating system:

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-q6tpEHpoRY

 

Yep, you can sort the list.  Lowest posted grades are 5.5  The others are blank, which I would assume means the player asked to have the grade removed.

This likely requires a longer answer than this.  As I've said many times, I highly recommend using the search button in the upper left of this site.  This topic has been covered over the years.  There is soooo much great content here....and most of it stands the test of time.

 

A lot depends on when the rating comes.  A player who is rated a 6 or 6.5, unless that rating comes very early and he improves a ton, IMO, will NOT be college baseball material.  Think of the rating system in some respects like some of the judging for Olympics.  Just by showing up and not tripping over oneself, a player can probably get a 6.  I doubt there has been a 5 or below given in a long, long time.  But, this is just based off of my experience, the amount of time I spend on PG and the number of profiles I see.  If a player doesn't receive at least a 7.5-8.0 at an initial showcase, I'd be concerned about whether he has the skills to play in college.  PG may disagree, but that is based on experience.

 

Also, keep in mind that a rating is just a point in time.  There are many examples of kids who were rated 7.5 or 8 early then end up at a 9 or even 10.  To have a rating "upgraded" or "updated", one must attend another showcase.  My son is actually a pretty good example.  I took him to a PG Showcase Summer after 9th grade.  He was rated a 2016 top prospect (size, projectable RHP), topped out at 81 and was given an 8 rating.  Since then, he has developed nicely, can touch 90 mph and is committed to a D1 and is ranked highly in our state and Top 500 nationally.  But, I've not taken him to another showcase (just a bunch of PG tournaments), so his rating is still an 8.0.  While there are no guarantees, I strongly suspect he would be rated higher, and possibly much higher, if I took him to another showcase.  Frankly, I wish PG would consider adjusting these ratings in situations where it is clear that a kid has advanced.

 

 

 

And what does a grade with a ".5" with it mean?  A 9.5 specifically.  

You don't want to go there.  A lot of "my 12u team is better than your 12u team" threads 

Call me crazy, but I think it means the player is in between and not clearly a - in your case - 9 or a 10.  It is an art, not a science, folks.  Same as a 9.7 being better than a 9.6 (or whatever) in figure skating.  Take it for what it is worth and don't read much into it.  There are many kids who will be high draft picks who have no rating.  Why? They never went to a PG showcase.  Happens less and less nowadays, but it happened a lot in the past.

I can only speak to my son's teammates but I have seen a kid with a 9 struggle to get any traction as well as a 7 and a kid with no rating commit to top programs. 

We can agree to disagree and right or wrong but I believe that college coach's trust their own ability to evaluate talent over all things. They might consider another's opinion but ultimately the thumbs up or thumbs down will be most heavily influenced by their opinion.

CaCo3,

To specifically answer your questions, my observations align with Bucsfan.  And be sure to watch the video link that Sluggerdad provided.  I think those two data points will best give you the info you are looking for.

In the video, as usual, Jerry admits occasional misses but understates how right they are with the vast majority.  I think the misses occur when players are particularly young and haven't developed near their potential yet.  I think most 8's would be borderline or not quite major or mid-major D1 potentially.  A 6 will have a great deal of work and development ahead if he hopes to see a college field unless it's a really weak college program.  That said, some players develop a bit more or less than expected in their late HS and early college years.  Some work particularly harder or particularly less toward achieving their potential.

I believe PGStaff has stated that it is fairly common to either take down or not post scores for players who rate fairly low (probably in the 5 to 6.5 range).

 

The grade scale, I believe, is generously slanted toward optimistic potential.

 

My perspective comes from having regularly checked grades for a period of several years of those who have played for me as well as those who played on showcase and scout teams with son and with others I follow. 

My take is that the overall rating is nice for public consumption, but means little in the eyes of a recruiter. The raw numbers and written evaluations carry weight, but that rating # is just eye candy.

Agree somewhat with Roothog. As to OP Question, yes there have been students with low ratings who have gone on to play D1. The rating may have come when the player was young and hasn't been to PG events/showcases last 2-3 years before graduation. I also know of a pitcher/hitter who is playing D1(multiple offers- one ACC,all state in HS) who doesn't have a PG rating.

Yes, scores of 8 and 8.5 play at D1s.

 

I know a young man who scored a 6.5 at a PG Showcase.  He was 14.

 

Nine months later he made unofficial visits to (2) ACC schools and an Atlantic-10.

 

Still uncommitted, but you get the point.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The score is relative to the rest of the player population in that graduating class, in the eyes of the PG recruiter. Think of a Bell Curve.

 

So if the majority of players are in that 4-7.5 range, then it's a very large recruiting pool relative to a very small number of open spots, assuming the total number of open spots have been filled by the higher scoring individuals. Possible? Yes, but improbable.

 

If college recruiters pay a minimal amount of attention to the PG score, then what's the value of a PG score? More than anything else, it's a metric that is used as a tool to benchmark improvement. Player X is an 8.5? OK, what needs to be done to get to a 9? How does he compare to other 9s? Once the gap is identified and parsed, then a plan can be put in place to attain a 9.

^^i do agree with this.

My son's rating was based primarily as a catcher.  He is committed as a pitcher.

3 follow up points that I totally agree with but that I thought are pretty obvious and, thus,  did not spell out:
1.  There are many, many, many outliers (my response was "directional" and speaking to the "middle of the bell curve" to provide some insight) => 9s that fizzle and can't go D1, 6.5 or 7s who develop and go Top 25/get drafted/make MLB
2. College and pro scouts do not rely on these ratings and have to see and judge for themselves (who would think otherwise?), and
3. A player who is rated, say a 7, then ends up ACC, SEC, PAC12, drafted, etc. is, in fact, not a 7 at the time of said commitment or draft. The rating is likely "stale", from 1 to 3 years prior.  To suggest otherwise would mean PG is way off the mark and doesn't know how to ID talent, and we all know they do.

Also note that a great player might have a bad game or a bad showing in a PG event.

Note too, that sometimes a bad showing can be due to trying to play with some type of injury that hasn't been disclosed.   Such was the case with my son when he played at Area Code where he was just a few weeks into recovery for an oblique muscle pull. He was at a stage where he could play, but it was obvious to me that it affected his play there and he didn't show nearly as strong as he usually did.  I felt bad about it, but he wanted so badly to participate and compete with such top level players I just thought we'd see and take it day by day.  As it turned out, I don't think it hurt him.  But it didn't help either in terms of impressing any of the recruiters and scouts.  

 

As others have eluded to, one event where performance is off doesn't really hurt a play.  But, surely if a player has a particularly good event (like having a very high score in a PG event), it will likely draw attention to those who haven't really noticed before.  That's why scouts and recruiters like to observe multiple games for a player to get an idea for the consistency of playing well or not.

9s and 10s we are very accurate

 

Grades are based on potential

 

We tend to grade a bit on the high side.

 

There have been 7s and 8s that played DI baseball and/or been drafted.

 

There are at least three Major League players we graded lower than 7.

 

Most every player that attends the PG Showcases has some level of college baseball ability.  Between the fee and travel costs, it doesn't make sense if a player lacks some kind of college ability.

 

There are many graded below a 6, but most of those don't appear on our website.

 

Truth is... We are good at what we do, but we certainly aren't perfect.

Thank you everyone for responding.  All of your points make a lot of sense.  I guess I always thought of PG grades as VERY accurate, and assumed if you get a 9 or a 10 you are going to play in college.  I had never seen the verbal explanation of what the numbers mean.

 

The thing that made my head glitch is the idea of some 2016 going to a showcase getting a 6 and because of that 6 he thinks he can and will play in college.  We battle on this board so much about parents wearing rose colored glasses....I wonder how many people have viewed their kids PG score and thought a 6 or a 7 proved they were good enough to play in college because that is what the explanation of the numbers says.

 

I'm not arguing whether or not the grade is accurate...I'm arguing whether or not the explanations are accurate, or if they just give false hope.

I'd just add that a rating may not directly get a kid recruited, but it does offer some credibility in the inital stages with a coach.  If a coach gets two consecutive phone calls or emails from kids, then goes and checks their PG rating - one is a 7 and one is a 9 - who do you think he is going to go see play first?  Which will get a little more benefit of the doubt and maybe a second or third look if they happen to have a mediocre day.  I don't think the number will get a kid an offer, but a good number sure helps in the process, especially in the initial stages or with a coach that might be in a different part of the country than the player.

Did you see the new list of explanations I posted a few posts back?  The new list is much more representative of what is going on, at least I think it is.  If you missed it, here it is again.

 

Perfect Game USA's Player Rating System

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 

One of the many benefits of attending a PG showcase, particularly for those players who are good but not necessarily top tier, is that they can sort of see where they measure up against other good players.  When it comes time for your son to attend, he will do so by comparing his grade to others he saw in attendance and perhaps others who he knows - more so than trying to evaluate how his grade is defined.

Perfect Game USA's Player Rating System

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

 

 

So I'm just a noob, and I've never been to a PG event, but based on the high school players I've seen and how things go for them after school it seems like there ought to be some daylight between HS and college talent.

 

Something more like:

 

10 - high draft pick and/or D1 star

9 - low draft pick, D1 starter

8 - D1 role player, D2 starter, D3 superstar, HS player of year.

7 - All Star in good HS division, possible D2 or D3 player.  JC also possible esp. if grades are an issue.

6 - HS Varsity All league 1st or 2nd team. Might make JC team as redshirt, 

5 - Very good varsity starter.  Cut from JC team.

etc....

In researching schools with my son, we've found quite a few players, especially pitchers, who are playing for D1 schools and don't have a PG rating at all. A few have pages on PG with some stats, but no rating. However, a lot do not show up on the PG site at all. I was a little surprised that there were so many.   

I believe you only get a rating if you participate in a showcase (stats are collected at tournaments).

Smitty, that is exactly the case with my son. 

I totally get that. I was just surprised at how many kids I found who landed a D1 roster spot without the PG showcase and rating. Especially the number of pitchers.   

k&k, do you attribute that to location (maybe not as good access to PG) or due to specifics schools/conferences or something else?

PG's ratings are better than yours because far less black and white and in a way more humble.  That's because they build in a certain degree of  uncertainty with words like "possible"  "potential"  "with development."   

 

Seems like that think of themselves as doing several things --  assessing the quality of your tools at a time; giving you information that suggest what you need to work on to get to the next level and projecting where some combination of hard work and maturation might take you.  

 

For players below the 9-10 level they aren't passing final judgments on a player. They know that players develop.  They know what it takes to develop.  They are trying to project into the future based on all sorts of things how a player might develop.

 

Plus the information isn't just in the scores but in the brief write-ups as well.   They say things like "excellent present range with room to expand as strength and speed increases"   for example.   

 

 

Delusional parents are a reality, but that's really not the fault of any evaluator or measuring standard, and there is no cure other than the reality that they will face in the coming years.  Much like a perfect SAT score is no guarantee that a student will attend an Ivy, neither does a good (or bad) PG grade guarantee playing (or not) at the next level.

We have a parent on my son's HS team who is completely delusional with his son's talent.  He received the camp email blast for the Stanford camp and immediately began throwing that in the HS coach's face as his son being "recruited" by Stanford.  His son is a rising Sr., made varsity as a backup last year (with an underclassman starting ahead of him) and likely projected for the same next season.  He's an outfielder only.  He plays no secondary position and doesn't pitch, so he's limited his options.  Frankly, while his dad believes he's one of the top players on the team and the best outfielder, in all honesty was the 4th best OF and somewhere around the 9th - 12th best player.  We currently have three DI SEC commits and just graduated a DI and DII with the 2015 class

 

He's not a bad player by any means.  He just isn't cracking the starting lineup.  I'm sure his dad will blame the coach, politics, etc., etc., but his PG grade is 7, which indicates he's a college prospect.  I would agree that he is.  He needs to add some strength and correct a few hitches, but he could certainly play college ball, just not in one of the top D1 conferences (Stanford most definitely included).

 

Now whatever his dad wants to make of his grade of 7 is up to him, but the grade is accurate based on my observation of the kid over the past three years.  He's not an 8 (Excellent college prospect), but could just as easily be considered a 6, (potential college prospect).  I could see where he would be graded a 7 from his single showcase based on his athleticism and whatever projectability was evident to the evaluators.  He has played in over a dozen PG tournaments over the years and been named to all-tournament teams twice.

 

I guess this is a REALLY lengthy way of saying that any false hope is in the eye of the beholder and how THEY want to perceive what the definition of the grades mean to them.

 

There is nothing that PG or any of us can do to fix that problem.  In fact, my solution is to just avoid the guy so I don't get roped into the one-sided conversation that would ensue.  He doesn't have any interest in hearing the truth from me or anyone else.  However, five years from now, reality will have revealed itself and he'll either be proven right, or confirm that politics, et al., were the reason his son didn't fulfill what should have been. 

SluggerDad,

 

Well, they have more experience. But I don't think your explanation negates my point.  Most good HS players do not play at the next level, and that divide doesn't show up in the ratings.

 

What would be interesting, and would give the numbers some bite, would be to know what percentage of players ranked at each grade go on to play college baseball and/or are drafted.

Mine too, but i cannot use location as a reason as we are in Atlanta, i really thought he had the stuff to get a deal based on his sophmore year/summer, college interest then and workout regimen/focus. I think about that $700 and the 3-4 invites ($2800 + expenses saved) we finally starting getting from PG after he was on the "map" with colleges and now use that money for a scooter for getting around campus, new set of golf clubs and whatever else he needs while over there in Clemson.

Kandk, I think one thing that happens often is many kids go to the showcases as HS sophs and juniors.  A few years later they are much stronger, better college players and don't want their PG videos, numbers, etc., to still be showing up from when they were younger, weaker, etc. for a variety of reasons so they contact PG and have them pulled.

Hey, I know that same guy! (I think we all do).

My son does have a rating but it was from the only showcase that he attended. That is why I mentioned, in our situation, that it is only showcases that have ratings. The other 7 PG events he has attended did not have ratings.

Nah....he just has lots and lots of cousins!

I was honestly thinking about location too. I am looking at Pac-12 schools who aren't necessarily the top in the conference and then some mid-level D1s. Some of the kids are from Cali, Texas and AZ though, so now I'm wondering if it's more the case of people asking for the ratings to be taken down as someone else suggested.

This is the answer. If you look at the events, you'll see that almost all of the guys with no rating have not attended a showcase. Many players attend numerous tournaments without attending a showcase and, therefore get no rating.

Although we are from Texas, many Texas boys play in PG tournaments, or tournaments with PG name, but they have never been to a showcase where they got rated. I do know that my son did not go to one until the Summer before his Senior year.

 

I will admit now, even though, as of last Summer, I had been reading this site for over a year.  I did not understand that that is how ratings were derived. And second, did not realize how important good PG ratings can be in the early stages of being recruited. Had I known that, I would have gotten him to a showcase in the Summer before his Junior year.

But PG does seem to RANK players on the basis of their performances in tournaments, even if they haven't done a PG showcase.

Judging from the complaints we get from parents, I don't think we are giving many false hopes.  Most parents feel their son is actually better than the grade we give him.  In a few cases we actually think their son is better than they thought. In those cases we are usually right.

 

The simple truth is most players that attend these showcases are pretty good.  Most are capable of playing college baseball at some level.  Guess I don't really understand "false hope".  I look at hope as a positive thing. I don't see false hope or true hope as anything but words.  Most amazing accomplishments could be said to be based on false hope according to others.

 

The grade is always based on potential.  It takes work to reach potential.  Anyone that receives a high grade and stops working, will not reach their potential.

 

Because our major goal is to find and identify the very best prospects in the country, we see most of the very best players out there. (10s). We know that because the draft proves it every year.  We miss one once in awhile, but not many.  Because of this, the colleges with the most players that attended PG events tend to be the top programs in the top conferences.  For example Vanderbilt and Virginia rosters are loaded with these players.

 

The PG grade (low or high) isn't enough by itself.   Though we know a very high grade does create a lot of interest.  There are 9s and 10s that end up at DIIs and DIIIs.  There are 6s and 7s that end up at DI.  And as mentioned earlier I know of at least three Major League players that we graded a 6.  You see, some prove us wrong.  It tickles me pink when a player proves us wrong.  It keeps us humble, but more important it renews my faith in what hard work and perseverance can accomplish.

 

When you have seen as many players as we have, you will have seen some amazing things.   Kids that look out of place when they were 15, becoming 1st round picks out of college.  Scrawny weak kids that become big power hitters. Pitchers throwing in the 70s that end up throwing in the 90s.   Maybe all of you have seen one or two examples of the above. We see it a lot!  Then you start looking for the things that these "later blooming" kids have in common.  So when you see a player you know and wonder why we graded him an 8 when you know he isn't that good... It's because he shows something (arm action, bat speed, athleticism, body type, instincts, body control, etc.) that gives him more potential than some of the present day more polished players. 

 

People say baseball is a marathon not a sprint.  I look at our grade pertaining more to a sprint.  What happens after the grade (the marathon) is what counts the most.

Jerry,

 

No false hopes in my family. What your rating gave my son was additional assurance and confidence that he could compete with his peers!

 

I remember being stunned when the father of one of my son's former teammates informed me that his son was being recruited by Miami. And as a matter of fact, they were flying to Miami in a few weeks for a camp so that they could get a closer look at him.

 

I was speechless. This poor guy actually believed a camp mass mailing was legitimate interest. The kid was an average high school player, and could probably play at a lower level JuCo. I honestly felt terrible for him. That trip was not an insignificant expense for them, and of course, nothing good ever came from it.

Yeah, but the stories his son will be able to tell his own son years from now.  How he was a top recruit at Miami. If only . . . 

 

Uncle Rico: How much you wanna make a bet I can throw a football over them mountains?... Yeah... Coach woulda put me in fourth quarter, we would've been state champions. No doubt. No doubt in my mind. 

Well played, Nuke!! Bravo, bravo.  Excellent reference...if I had the power, I'd allocate 1,000 points toward your Community Ranking for that alone.  "How much you wanna make a bet...?"....love that line alone, and it is quoted weekly if not daily at our house.

PG-thanks for the response.  To answer your question about what is false hope...I live near Lakepoint, this area is swarming with kids/parents that are certain they will be playing baseball in college, but most won't.  Those are just the odds.

 

If a 2016 comes to the PG showcase in December and gets a 7 he might look at the PG explanations of the numbers and spend his entire senior year chasing his baseball dream.  Dreams are great, every child represented on this board has/has a baseball dream...I just wish their was some kind of rating that would let that young man know that in 5 months he is unlikely to develop the skills to play baseball at the next level and he should enjoy his senior year, enjoy his last season with his high school friends.

 

I know, it's a personal thing, it's a "to each their own", if the 18u kid wants to chase his dream that's his choice...I just feel bad for the guys like Midatlantic talks about that don't understand getting a PG grade of a 7 five months before you graduate likely means you are done. Will there be the rare exception yes...but for those who don't live on this board they might think the trip to Miami is worth it because after all their PG score did say they were a college prospect.

 

I know no system is perfect, I just wish their were different levels for different years.  If a 9th grader gets a 7, well I think he can take that grade as a compliment and it may give him a boost to keep working hard.  If a 12th grader gets a 7...well, that's an entirely different ballgame (no pun intended).

I think a lot of that is where you are from and what the player is looking for. My son never went to a PG event and plays D1. But his focus was 3-4 hours from home or less (he ended up 20 minutes from home). There are no PG events in Ohio, so we showcased with the predominate showcase company in Ohio.

 It's because he shows something (arm action, bat speed, athleticism, body type, instincts, body control, etc.) that gives him more potential than some of the present day more polished players. 

 

I'm hoping PG can provide everyone the simple formula they use to blend and then project all of these traits along with their laundry list of traits.  I was going to ask about all the various traits PG and others might look at when evaluating a player and then thought better of it.  While I keep wanting a simple formula, I realize there is no such thing.  I guess you need to see it working all together first and then look at some of the more interesting pieces seperately.  I guess that is why video seems to be the key for recruiting coordinators and stats end up meaning little a year down the road. 

Great point too. We have a local prospect/scouting/recruiting group here in the NW that does a lot of local stuff. They mainly focus on Oregon, Washington and Idaho. If you want to play in the NW, its good to get in on their events. I think this organization has a lot more pull regionally than a PG event, although there is at least one PG showcase in the area each year. 

CaCo, again, it won't be the grade, it will be seeing the other players around him and from that, getting a clearer picture of where he stands.  This PG showcase platform really does afford that opportunity...  maybe a couple hundred kids who are all viable candidates for college ball at various levels.  Where did son stack up against this group?  How do his measurables compare?  How does his grading COMPARE with the others and where are they heading?  Now, take a look at the other PG showcases scheduled around the country and do the math.  Understand, also, that there are regions as expressed here where many of the good players go to other branded showcases.  Then you start to get a much clearer vision of the big picture and where son may fit best.  So, again, I would suggest focusing less on the grade interpretation and more on discovering where son stacks up among the group of players that RC's are choosing from.   

Where in the rating system does it say a 6 or 7 2016 cant play college ball?  

There are different levels for all different type of players. 

6 or 7 may reflect future potential and projections but if someone really wants to play and willing to put in the work it takes to improve skills, it can happen.

 

Not sure I understand the false hope thing.

 

While I agree that showcases can be costly, it definetly lets the player and the parent know where they fit into the equation, in comparison to their graduating class and their specific geographical area.  It also lets the player know what level to shoot for.

JMO

 

It is difficult trying to explain this stuff.  Every player is different in some way.  

 

I will say this and I believe it.... If a player believes he is a potential 9 or 10 he should attend a showcase.  9s and 10s create the most interest.  So even if the player wants to stay very close to home, it always helps when other colleges are making offers.  You might end up at the local college, but with a much better offer.  You would be surprised what a BIG 10 college might offer when there are a couple of SEC offers to compete with. Or even what any college might offer when they find out you have many options. So if you are a potential 9 or 10, you should gain as much leverage as possible.  And most every college wants those 9 or 10 type players. Even if a 7 or 8 it could create interest, but 9s and 10s are legitimate no brainers regarding ability and potential.  But the Vanderbilt's, Virginia's, Florida's, UCLA, Texas's, LSU's, Stanford's, Arizona St's, etc., of the world don't have room for them all. However, everyone knows a 10 can possibly make a very big contribution at any program.

Many great explanations here, lots of insight and help with the grading system. I guess i'm just not that willing to pin my hopes or my kid's hopes on someone else grading system, in that...it would've been awesome for my son to get the 9 or 10, maybe he grades out at a 6 or 7 but even in the best case scenario nothing is guaranteed. If parents are falling in love with the PG grade's literal translation and talking with their kid about it and solely "pinning their hopes" on the college guarantee or possibility of playing D1 ball then something is wrong there Nothing in life is guaranteed and while positivity is awesome, you better have a back up plan. We hear about it all the time on this board, options for DII or D3 ball, if you want to play or continue playing when you didnt make D1 or the rosters are chock full of 10s and you may not "play". If baseball if a game that is based on overcoming failure to be successful, how if life much different? I've tried to be brutally honest with my son about competition, hard work and the fact that somewhere, there is always someone who will commit to out work you for your spot, over and over again and they will tell you they will beat you out. I saw an HBO sports episode recently that talked about our society telling kids, this new generation how awesome they are at everything, giving out trophies to everyone and how that promotes "false hope" that i think is referenced here. Shame on the parents of the younger generation, along with the educators, coaches and other enablers....it's gonna get really ugly when life happens to these kids. Talk about meltdowns. 

 

http://www.hbo.com/real-sports...o.html?autoplay=true

These ratings are just a guideline but I can assure you tjat a 10 is a 10.

 

Now if that 10 does nothing just because he is a 10, those rated lower that work harder will out work in him.

 

Working hard has nothing to do with it. JMO

As for PG creating false hope, I think that is garbage.  If some parent is going to plop down $600 (plus travel, etc) and have no real appreciation for the product, then they are to blame.  I suspect PG, the organization, did not set out to monopolize college recruiting.  However, they have provided an excellent product and certainly the top 100+ college program do leverage PG analysis and data extensively.  What should PG do now - stop running showcases because a certain percentage of participants are not fully educated on how PG should fit into a much broader plan for the kid?  Instead, PG comes to sites like this and basically lays it out in black and white.  It is true that PG has created unrealistic expectations in some families, but to place this blame at PG's feet is simply wrong.  As Shoveit4Ks says, "shame on the parents".

It seems that the original poster is doing something that often happens with rating or scoring systems.   In general there is a tendency among evaluators to use only the upper end of a rating system. But once everybody is scored at the upper end ever finer gradations tend to be made  in order to allow distinctions to still be made among those being evaluated.  Gradually a difference that used to be marked by a full point, comes to be marked by a half point and then maybe even a quarter point.   So instead of 1 -10 scale, you end up with, say, a 3 or 4 point scale -- but with decimals.   You see this sort of grade inflation in lots of domains. 

 

But I don't think PG ratings have been subjected to this. And don't think they should be read that way.

 

Seems like PG means it when they say that 10's are, in their estimation,  top draft picks or elite college prospects or that 7's are college prospects and potential future draft picks with development. 

 

If somebody just told you that you kid was a college prospect and a potential future draft pick with development you'd be thrilled.  You'd tell the kid to work his butt of to reach his potential.   It's only when that's put on a 1-10 scale that you could even possible think  "that means he can't play in college and is done after high school."  

Hold your horses there 2017!  I'm not blaming anything on PG, please don't put words on this page that were NEVER there, nor was the intent.  My kid thinks PG is a tiny MLB, where the elite play, we go to LP just to watch other teams play. I have NOTHING against PG, and think the whole organization is fascinating. 

 

My question was does the verbal rating system match up with what people on here have experienced.  I had never seen the verbal explanations and they just seemed wrongly matched up...I would have thought only 9's and 10's were college prospects, the other number explanations had me scratching my head, and yes, feeling bad thinking that some poor kid who got a 6 his senior year still thinks he's a shoe in for college ball.  As it has been explained on here that kid will have also seen his peers exceed him at the showcase, but I still have a big heart and feel bad that a score of a 6 or 7 probably has some struggling family on their way to Miami thinking their kid has a shot...I'm supremely happy I'm not going to be one of the uneducated, but I still feel bad for others.

 

If this came across as slamming PG it was not intentional.

This is a common misunderstanding of not understanding.
I have known absolutely no one who has spent money on a showcase and had no understanding of the rating system.   I have known people who will use the experience as a learning process and use the information to improve.  If you are going to spend that type of money for an evaluation you better understand.
This has nothing to do with getting a letter to attend a camp where the player will have no chance of ever playing but sees that letter as a genuine interest because they s ont understand. The false hope does not reflect any negativity on PG.
JMO

JMO

I would think that if a kid goes to a PG showcase and performs like a 6, he did so in the midst of some stiff competition. He and his parents would be aware of how he stacked up and have a decent understanding about what that 6 means when compared to the other players they saw during the showcase or they are so delusional that even a "1" wouldn't turn their enthusiasm down to a realistic level.

Sadly, in many cases, you would be wrong.  

Thus, my inclusion of the delusional parent for whom even a "1" wouldn't convince them of their place in the talent pool.

I was thinking of the parent who rationalizes the 6 was really a 7.5, because Junior was nursing an injury, or his favorite bat broke in warm-ups, or his hands get stiff in the cold, etc. But you're right, even a "1" wouldn't change anything,

That is why we give advice to never spend money to showcase at less than 100 per cent.

The PG rating is just another tool in the overall recruiting chest.  It is very subjective based on the evaluator, a players performance on specific date, time and conditions.  The most important numbers parents and players should be tracking and improving is their SAT, ACT & GPA.  These numbers will open up far more college opportunities than any showcase rating number.  Kudo's to Jerry and PG for always providing the color around concerns directed towards PG. 

On the subject, I did have another question. How do they handle the kid that goes to one of these as a two-way player and shows considerable talent as, say, a pitcher, and considerably lesser abilities as a position player? Do they then give him a rating based on the combination?

 

An example was this past weekend with my son. His future is as a pitcher. I mean, he's good with a bat and will probably be a 3 or 4 hitter on the high school varsity as a sophomore this year, but definitely not a D1 prospect. However, I put him in a PBR showcase as RHP/OF mainly to give him a good comparison and as a backup if maybe he doesn't progress as hoped and could play two-way in a lesser division in the future. OK, it was also just to keep him from getting too bored.

 

He threw two innings, hitting 85 which got him the attention he needs as a pitcher. However, as a position player he didn't show as well. he skipped the 60 due to his recent glute problem. He hit a miserable 75mph off the tee (we never hit from a tee) although he drilled the ball in the games. PBR doesn't give overall ratings, but I wondered how PG would have handled this. As a 2018, he's obviously a higher caliber recruit as a pitcher. I see guys on PG who throw 92mph, but are listed as, say, RHP/3B and run a 7.65 60 and throw 79mph across the diamond. If they are then a 9, has PG rated them as a high prospect as a pitcher and basically dismissed their position talents or has PG discounted their overall rating based on their poor performance as a position player?

Caco - my comment was not directed at you but rather some regular comments throughout this board that PG has some dark side that they perpetuate on purpose in pursuit of profits.  Comments like "PG's ratings should be more precise" may sound great but just don't fly.  If someone wants more precise ratings, they should build out an infrastructure that is superior to PG (good luck).  As folks point out, PG can help out but it is by no means the only avenue.  As a result, one can either take it or leave and stop blaming.  

 

I too feel bad when folks get disappointed, but feel less bad for the delusional parent.  I'm sure this has been happening long before PG came on the scene.  I've read elsewhere that PG tries to ensure that showcase participants have some base level of skill before they show up and doubt many kids who have zero shot at college baseball participate - they may just not like the level for which their skills fit.  

 

I always choose to blame the parents.  I'm having my 9 yo try out for travel ball because the local park, which 2017 played at, has probably 50% fewer players - the bottom 50% are still at it.  Park ball past machine pitch is apparently dying.  Instead, we get to pay 10x as much and end up playing park ball out of town.  Every (lots) parent with a 9 yo on a travel team equates it to some elite program and thus the delusion begins early.  Parents let this happen and now flock to PG as Mecca - again, why blame PG?  Sorry if I offended.

I thought it was the umpire. 

Thanks for clarifying 2017LHP.  I don't blame PG per say for the delusional parents, but I do wish their was a different verbal system for 9th vs 12th graders...but perhaps the scorers take that into account while scoring.

 

I know what you mean about 9u, that was why we had to start the travel ball option, too many kids just starting baseball at 9u in the rec parks.  If I had left my son there he probably would need TJ surgery by now because he was being asked to play half the field, WHILE he was pitching...and yes this travel ball status, as some would say, has led to MANY an inflated ego.  These aren't rose colored glasses, this is an alternate reality. 

 

I knew of a 10u kid who flew all over the country playing on a special team that requires a 5K deposit!  He had his own website, built by his parents, where they showed video of him batting...most of the balls were hit to the left side of the net, pretty much directly at where the short stop would be.  I've seen this kid play, he was lucky to make the throw from 3B to 1B, and generally played 2B because of it, and in his bio he touted that he was an athletic 4'8, 75 pound player....those people feed their own delusions, I don't feel bad for them, but yes they will be the ones saying things about favorite broken bats and the kid had a cold coming on as reasoning for the low grade. 

This!  

 

Been reading this whole thread and I wanted to address a couple of things I've been thinking about.

 

1st of all, I really don't think PG assigns their grade relative to the current showcase or regional context.  PG sees kids from all over the country.  They judge the talent, skills and potential future skills of the kid in regard to baseball, not in regard to other kids that live in that geographical area.  Maybe I'm wrong, but I don't think these guys go into that much depth.  If you are a 6, you are a 6 regardless of where you are from or who else participated in that showcase.  If you are a 10, you are a 10 regardless of where you are from or who else participated in that showcase.  Maybe PGStaff can correct me if I'm wrong.  

 

The other thing is, the disparity of the talent of those playing college baseball is perhaps more diverse than some realize.  My son plays for one of the better D2 teams in the country.  During my son's 3 years there, they have consistently been ranked in the top 25, and have been as high as #3.  His team has played some out of conference D2 teams over the years that they have just destroyed on a consistent basis.  I'm talking scores of 28-0, 23-0, 26-1, etc.  Both teams are D2, but quite frankly, they shouldn't be on the same field together.  I think you can find the same thing within other divisions.  Last season, my son's team hit 74 HRs.  The D3 team a family friend's son played on hit 3.  Yes, as a team for the whole season.  The top national teams in each division are WAY different than the teams who play every year without a chance to win their conference or remotely compete on a national level.  I don't point this out to brag about my son's team, I'm just saying that I have seen college teams play that don't look like a good HS team.  

 

So, to say that a player who received a 6 or 7 has no realistic chance of playing college baseball is fairly naive.  A 6 is listed as a "Potential College Prospect".  I don't think that's beyond the realm of possibility.  Will they play for Vanderbilt?  Chances are no.  Can they play for a low level D3 or a low level D2?  Definitely a possibility.

 

I don't want to ruffle any feathers here, but there are some college teams out there that are not very good.  Pretty much everyone who wants to play college ball can.  Whether their team will be any good is another story.

The MLB Scouting scale is a 2-8 scale. Of course, those grades are seldom published anywhere.

 

It is a good system and we actually use it internally.  A 5 grade means MLB average in that tool.  So a 5 on the MLB scale would be more like a 9 on the PG scale.  In other words, MLB average is excellent for a high school age player.  

 

Once again, there is nothing misleading about the grades.  The grade is simply an opinion, just like some MLB Scouts would grade a player a 5, other MLB scouts might grade the same player a 4.  Happens all the time, but people just never know it.

 

Our grades are based on potential, our opinion of a player's ceiling or potential.  We use numbers and our eyes to form an opinion.  The more we see a player, the more accurate we become.  But there is no scientific formula that will tell you with certainty what the 16 year old will be like when he is 21 years old. It's really fairly simple, do you want that opinion or not?  I will say that we seem to be consistent with how college recruiters and pro scouts think.  

 

Take a program like Vanderbilt or Florida or most any SEC college.  Go to there website and click on their roster.  Then you can easily check those players old PG profile and see where they ranked or what their grade was, if they had a grade.  Seeing that I haven't done that, I'm just guessing.  But I bet you will see that most of those grades will be very high and there will also be some not so high.

 

The player or parent that thinks a high grade is all it takes would be mistaken.  Same goes for those that think a low grade means they are limited.  And I see nothing wrong with a young player that believes he is better than what others think. That is not false hope, that is real hope! What is worse, perceived false hope or understanding there is no hope.  Some parents will learn, many already know, there are kids out there right now that are the very worst player on their 12-13 year old team and they will become the very best prospect at their high school in 4 or 5 years.  

PG does not rate each other. 

What I meant was if my son lives in Florida more than likely he will be in a showcase in Florida, not in another state. So this gives him an idea of competition for college and the draft.

Yes, while at the showcase, a player and parent will see who he will most likely be competing against for a college roster spot.  

 

But he will not be graded in relation to those players only.  It wasn't specifically you I was talking about TPM.  There have been numerous comments on this thread that have alluded to the PG ratings being generated with a geographic tilt.

Scouting is projecting based on tools. At any age, in any location, vs. any competition.

 

caco: Are the words that define all PG grades definitive? No. But as PGStaff says -- the 9's and 10's are. I think what you'd like to see is the scale indicate that someone with a 6 or 6.5 has virtually no chance to play college ball. Maybe -- but as bballman says, there's lots of variability in college talent.

 

 

This series of articles on FanGraph goes deeper than anything I've found about professional baseball's 2-8 scale. Some cold hard truths ... and still there's subjectivity.

 

Here's the chart, for those who don't have time to read it:

 

 

So JP.....a sixteen year old that throws 87, but is kinda big, quick arm action and has room to fill out, a scout "projects him" to throw 93 in (blank) years would rate the FB a "plus" fastball at sixteen?  And following that logic, PG would rate him a "9" (or something) at a showcase when he is 16?

 

So the MLB pipeline tool scoring and the PG is what the player is projected to be based on eyes and some metrics (velocity, 60 time, bat speed etc.)

 

Just seeking understanding.  I understand that it is an art as much as a skill in projecting and scouting.

Seems like this thread was generated by a simple misunderstanding.  (though some decent conversation has ensued).

 

CaCo, for reasons based on who knows what,  somehow got it in her mind that only grades 9 and 10 from PG were intended to be indicative of "college level talent."

 

 Then when she read (old versions of) the accompanying descriptions of what the grades are intended to mean which suggested otherwise, she somehow had the feeling that maybe deluded people were letting themselves be sold a bill of goods by PG.  Not  that she necessarily thought that PG actively intended to be peddling false hope.  But you  know how people are.  It's so easy to take advantage of them. And there seemed to be an undercurrent that that was what PG was doing somehow.   I mean think of all those deluded people who were taken in by those descriptions and so had the misfortune of letting  themselves believe that guys who score  8 or 7 or heaven forbid 6 on this particular scale were maybe good enough to play in college at some level or other. Surely, she seems to have thought, PG need to change how it tells people to interpret the numbers to protect people from themselves. 

 

Where she got all that who knows, really?    There never seemed to be  any real  basis for her initial belief,  except her hunch as far as I could tell, that only a 9 or a 10 could possibly indicate college level talent on any reasonable rating scale.

 

She can stick to that hunch if that suits her for some reason.   Or she can adjust  her belief.  Seems pretty simple, though.  Plus I doubt the descriptions are going to change to match up with her prior beliefs.

You have to read it -- really. It's all about Present Grade and Future Grade.

 

In Part 5, you find this, on amateur hitters, for example:

 

"All but maybe one or two hitters in each draft class will have present 20 hit grades, but the context and amount of evidence will vary greatly.  The peer hitting grade helps tie this all together because, for a player with a short track record, scouts will find themselves projecting only on hitting tools when there isn’t much performance to grade. Using this system, it helps remind you to consider performance, but still weighing it appropriately given the sample size, competition level, etc."

Just for clarification,  there is no regional aspect to the grades.  Also no event basis for grades.  We do showcases that might not have a single 10 grade.  We do showcases that will have as many as 100 10 grades. i.e. National Showcase. A 10 is a 10 in Calfornia or Florida or Canada. Same goes for a 6.

 

Also the scouting scale displayed by JP I details the actual MLB averages.  So a high school kid throwing 90 mph or a 60 time of 6.9 is already a 5 or 50 on the MLB scale without any projection.  On our scale he would grade a 9 at those tools.  Then projection could easily give him a 10.  The grade associated with a scouts view of a players potential is called OFP.  So there is a current grade based on current level of that player, 4.2 HTF time = 5 or 50 current grade.  If the scout sees some potential that the player might get faster in the future, he could upgrade that grade.  In the end all the numbers are added up divided by the number of skills and the player ends up with an OFP score. Overall Future Potential. Once again, an OFP of 50 is MLB average (Future potential)

Thank you PGStaff.  I know you get a lot of crud thrown at you on this site but your insight is just plain invaluable to those of us just starting this journey with our kids.  I hope the pros outweigh the cons for you on here. From a 13 year olds mother, thank you.

You don't have to get a PG  grade to get recruited.  

 

Conversely, I know of players with grades of 9-9.5 that didn't play much their freshman or sophomore years.  

 

Getting a PG grade is just one tool in the recruiting process.

 

 

I know of player rated 9 by PG who played on the JV team of a D3 school his freshman year.   Didn't even get a cup of tea on the varsity that year. 

SluggerDad,

 

I believe you and would be very interested in who that player is and which college he went to. I could easily see where a 9 might not play right away at certain DI programs.  Especially those loaded with 9 and above type players.

 

But unless it is one of the nation's top DIII programs I would expect a 9 to play right away.  Then it could be a case where we graded that player too high. Or it could be a player that simply didn't work and improve.  Actually it could be any of a number of things.  In any case, It's always good to look back and see what happened.

sent you a PM

OK. I resurrected this because, while looking for someone else, I came across a PG profile that answers the question. I won't post a link, out of deference to the young man, but if you want a link, PM me. The kid earned a "4". Catcher with an 8.99 60 time and a 2.38 pop time.

Of course, most kids like this probably wouldn't bother to show up at a PG showcase, I would think.  

You would think. However, looking at the percentiles, bit of those stats weren't the absolute worst. Hey, everybody has a right to figure out where they stand. I couldn't possibly think of anything PG does that would have enticed him unreasonably. However, I always love the comments. Even after raking a kid, they like to soften the blow. His comment section had this:

 

"He has baseball skills he just needs to get in better shape."

I just found someone that was drafted with a 5.5  (many years ago).

I have to laugh..........while posting on another thread regarding the Cape League, I mentioned a young man I remember who was an LHP at a D-3 NESCAC school and managed to get himself a roster spot in the Cape Cod League in 2011.  Played for the Chatham Anglers. 

 

Summer before his senior year of high school his range was 74-76mph.  PG gave him a grade of 7.0. 

 

FOUR YEARS LATER HE WAS PITCHING IN THE CAPE LEAGUE.  One year after that, he signed as a free agent with the Arizona Diamondbacks, and later pitched in Orioles organization.  He retired in 2014 and is now putting his NESCAC degree to work.

 

As Bucsfan stated, a PG rating is "just a point in time."

And if you look at the PG definition of a "7" it reads "College prospect, possible future draft pick with development".

 

I think most people are putting way too much stock in a rating and assume that a 9-10 is a guaranteed draft pick or D1 freshman starter and anything 8 or below is lucky to play after high school.

 

Like you state, it's a snapshot in time and whether a player grows or shrinks from there is dependent on a lot of variables.

 

A PG rating is valid for only 24-hours as long as the player wakes up the next day and decides to improve on weaknesses by way of hard work. 

that's basically what got this thread started.  The OP decided for her self that anything below a 9 or 10 (on a 10 point rating scale no less)  must be a kiss of death for a kid' hopes of playing in college.   Then when she found out what the scores were said by PG to mean, she had the vague suspicion that deluded parents and players with unrealistic visions of grandeur were somehow being sold false hopes by PG.  Instead of readjusting her prior belief that only a 9 or 10 could possibly indicate college talent,  she stuck with her guns.   Basically she was engaging in good old fashioned confirmation bias.    

Sluggerdad,
+1