4seamer posted:2017LHPscrewball posted:I'm still stuck on the single game theory (along with BP of course - assuming the scout is actually allowed to saunter up close). Many folks have said showcases can be hit or miss and that you can squander your money if you have an off day. At least you'll have X amount of reps fielding and X amounts of AB's as well as getting your speed measured both running and throwing. Moving to the "one game" approach, what if you get 2 AB (maybe you get HBP on one of them) and never truly sprint down the line to first (no real measurement of foot speed - check). In the OF, assume you never got a ball with anyone attempting to advance (no real measurement of arm speed - check...unless the scout tells the kid to go 100% during warm ups and of course zero true fielding reps). I've heard nothing about any video of the game action (assuming there is some action to capture in the first place). Just think about the 25% dullest games your kid has played (please ignore if your kid plays SS or catcher) and tell me whether that performance gave any real indication of what skills were present and which skills were lacking in order to provide an appropriate development plan within 24 hours (I'll assume there is a 24 hour turnaround guarantee as the scout can probably write the plan on site between innings).
If this is a $250 product, it probably cannot deliver what has been proposed. If it is $750, then it is overpriced and had better have a refund policy if the kid doesn't get at least 3 plate appearances and 2 fielding opportunities with runners on base.
What if, for $250, a scout can review up to 2 hours of edited video which gets taken over the course of 10-12 games with the caveat that all action. good and bad, get presented along with BP.
I really just don't get the approach and its inherent shortcomings and am beginning to talk myself into thinking $250 might still be a gamble.
Love the idea of filming, especially AB's and BP. That's a strong idea, but not one we're likely to follow. For instance, IMO there are a few - and I do mean few - outstanding hitting instructors out there that do this already and I think it would be more likely we propose a weaker hitter to go see them. Ernie Rosseau immediately comes to mind.
We don't shoot video. We can shoot video but we're not a showcase processing arm. Nor do we have to voice acquisition opinions upstairs... we are the upstairs.
If we can't get a good read on a player during the event, we'll come back out.
My comment about filming was not necessarily a suggestion for the program but more of a indicator that a sufficient amount of "action" might require a review of 10-12 games to get the necessary combinations of player and plays (i.e. how many times does RF try to throw someone out at 3B or HP). I realize your group could not be tasked with filming 10-12 games and having the parent do this is probably unrealistic also.
I will throw out a question here as it relates to filming/video - I have seen countless suggestions/recomendations on this site about putting together video to assist in college recruiting. On this site you can find pretty detailed suggestions on what to film, how to film and how to edit as well as how to package (there seems to be some minor disagreement as it relates to background music) including measurables and/or links to same. There has not been a tremendous amount of push for a kid to capture game film for this purpose. My question - how would you compare a standard recruiting video to on-site game review? My only request is that the frequency (or lack thereof) be addressed and whether college coaches incorporate some concept of development (apart from projection) when they are looking at some 15yo's video (coach tells the kid they like what they see but would like to see more evidence of hitting development over the summer - as an example).
If "live" action is in fact superior to "showcase" action then do we need to rethink what content we put in the video we use for recruiting?