@fenwaysouth posted:@SpeedDemon - No worries. You just hit on one of those things that really bothered me in the recruiting process. In my mind it does not make logical sense to pick one guy with less skill over another guy with more skill...it is an illogical justification. Sensitive is probably a word 99.99% of people would not use to describe me with the possible exception of my mother.
In all seriousness & honesty, I don't understand why coaches put so much emphasis on the "Projectability"...its a dirty word if you are a recruit and a Coach says that. As a HC, your success and livelihood is measured on wins, losses, conference championships... I'm recruiting the the guy that can help me win now. There is no future ifs. Too often I see extremely capable guys get passed over for future unproven talent because of their pedigree, size, speed, or whatever. As a hiring mgr in a company, give me the guy who can do the job today & tomorrow....don't give me the guy who may be able to do the job in the future. Baseball managers take unnecessary risks with these guys, and it is everywhere. I would go so far as to say that a lot of these "P" guys will end up in the transfer portal. I just don't like the word or how it is used in college baseball.
You can change the word, but it still means the same thing.
JMO.
I went through the 2022 Stanford roster last night and looked up how fast each pitcher was throwing summer before junior year: 2-3 were 90+, the rest were mid-high 80s.
Now, hundreds of rising juniors throw in the mid-high 80s, so it made me wonder - why did Stanford picked those specific guys? Surely many of them are great students... Then I noticed that each of the slower pitchers were currently 6'2" or better. No exceptions, not even for lefties.
Yet they all weren't 6'2"+ in high school. So, clearly, the Stanford coaches consider projected height as a key factor when recruiting.
And some 6'0" guys throwing 90 as juniors were probably pretty confused and disappointed when Stanford didn't want them.