12 year olds when they're 18

I would agree with you , if the kids at 12 are stand outs , pretty good chance they' will be at 18, for the last 8years I have watched all the boys my son has played with , and I know I have a eye for talent , and all the kids that didn't have that next level skill and talent , I was spot on. They all got filtered out !

My 2 cent

        OMG, at the very same time you were posting that I posted the below on another thread   so I 100% agree.  Its all in how you look at and assess these kids not what their 12yo batting average was!

Ok the one thing I still have to disagree with - as I did when I first joined and as I suspect I will when I die or leave the board - is this idea that you can't project 12 year olds...  as I have said before I am old and was a coach long before being a parent.  The same kids (yes with a few exceptions) we identified in our camps were the same kids who were later successful varsity players.  My son is now going into 14u.  And again with very few exceptions the same kids who were talented at 9 are the same kids who are still talented at 14.  And I suspect in a couple years I will say at 16.  I think where this disconnect comes from is how we define 'good' or 'stud' etc.  I guess I have always looked at kids and thought to myself is that a player when he is 18?  Yes there are some kids who have a little success early on and later fail.  But I think a trained eye would have predicted most of those failures.   Therefore they are not truly studs at any point regardless if they hit a few 205 ft. Home runs at 12.  I think the other thing that contributes to this is the idea that kids on travel teams are automatically considered 'studs'.  Other than the big big time travel teams every travel team has some questionable players.  So to say later down the road "oh look at that 'stud' ha ha ha from the travel team now.  He didn't even make his jv team."  Again he was never a stud in the first place!  Now granted hs baseball around here is a bit watered down but there are only two or three players on my son's team who are not slam dunks to make high school teams.  And very good chance they all do.  Now if one of them decides not to play to focus on the weight room for football...  thats not really a fail that is a choice.  From the experiences of my childhood to my coaching and now parenting I can say with very few exceptions that the studs (real studs) at 12 were still studs at say 16.

I think perhaps YOU would have a chance to pick out 10 with a good shot at 5 being correct.  I don't think too many others would.

 

Thats not kissing up, I just don't think most (even coaches) know quite what to look for. A seasoned scout like you?  Yeah, probably.

 

I can tell you there weren't many travel coaches in our area overly impressed with Joe Ross when he was 10-12.  He was wild and didn't get through a lot of innings and wasn't used in big games very often, if ever.  But his arm action was extremely quick and loose even back then and I suppose thats something you woulda easily recognized.

Some of it depends on what happens after you select the 10.  Do you keep them together with the best coaching/training/mental development?  Or do you walk away to see what happens?  Big difference.

I think it is possible to do if an unbiased professional like PG Staff is the selecting official...the outcome would be totally different if District Coach Bob was making the selection.

In nearly any sport, I think speed is the biggest separator. You can't teach a kid to run a sub-four 40 if he doesn't have the genes for it.  Baseball's unique in that you don't have to be 6'8", you don't have to be 260 of solid muscle. Of the five tools I think you can tell what kids have some at 12 and who can develop the other tools. A kid can be taught, with enough practice and dedication, to have soft hands, to have good baseball IQ to be a good defender, and maybe to hit for decent contact. Hitting for power is still a speed issue.  Kolten Wong is not even close to being the biggest guy on the field but he has tremendous bat speed.  An arm and foot speed is where I think the better athletes can be found at 12. A fast kid at 12 is going to remain fast if he trains. A slow kid may become more efficient with training but he will not gain great gains in speed.  Like speed I think an arm can be made to throw more efficiently but some guys are just not going to be ++ hurlers. I think at 12 you can tell who has ability in these areas and who can be made more efficient, andI believe you can project what kind of athlete a kid will be in HS.

PG,

I agree with your post.

I really believe that most people could do this with some accuracy.  You just have to get away from the results at times and glue in on natural ability and movements. It's always possible that one of the 90 you didn't choose could end up being the best of all of them.  But the 10 you pick will be fairly accurate provided they stay with the game.

There's a still-to-be-created algorithm that takes a set of variables and delivers a predictive value for each data record. And I think there are enough metrics to make a determination that can be far higher than 50%

 

PG has a ton of past data that can be used to model the algorithm. My bet is that PG could deliver a predictive value AND offer action items to raise that predictive value.

I think that a big determinant would be whether you're talking about position players, pitchers or both.

 

I believe that you'd have greater accuracy in selecting position players as I see far more consistency among them as they progress than I do pitchers.

 

Just considering a similar observation of a smaller sample size.  My son was involved in one of the area NTIS tryouts (round 1) around that age.  As I look back on the players that were at the local tryout, I would say that about half of the kids that would have been in the top 10 out of that event would still be in the top 10 today.  PGStaff, you're very familiar with most of these kids.  One was on Team USA this year and is expected to be a high round draft pick, but didn't make the cut for an invite to Cary (round 2) at that time.  A couple of the kids that did garner an invite to round 2 are now outside of the players considered among the best. Two of the players from that initial tryout were selected to advance after the Cary NTIS (round 3), so at the time, scouted as the best of the best.  Of those two, one would be well outside the top ten today and the other would be on the bubble of the round 1 players where they were originally considered among the top.

 

 

On that front, I would say that the greatest movement in and out of that group would be among the pitchers.  Many that dominate on the mound at a young age don't continue to progress while others that are middle of the road youth pitchers blossom in high school.

I have to disagree Michael27.  I think puberty helps a great deal with speed so unless they have already gone through the bulk at 12 I just don't see how you can tell.

 

I also agree that PGStaff would have a great chance, but to the rest of us untrained goofs we would probably pick the 10 kids that dropped the sport for football because they were the bigger kids.  As for the 4'8 85 pounder who would one day go in the first round, oh, we would all likely be ignoring him because he couldn't throw from first to third without a rainbow involved.

When selecting a team to play at the 12 year old level, you don't take into consideration who you think will be best at 18 years old.  This is where you might pick the biggest, strongest 12 year olds that hit the ball farther and throw harder than and are more mature than the other 12 year olds.

 

We used to be deeply involved with the Junior Olympics which was used to select national teams (16u).  Even then some of the best athletes with the most potential were left behind in order to pick the kids that could produce more at 16. A few that were left behind had Major League careers.

As our kids developed, the front of the pack changed a lot between ages 12 and 18 as kids matured, got bigger (or didn't) and developed their baseball skills (or went in other directions).

 

What didn't change much was which kids were tough, quick, athletic, and competitive. A couple surprises each way, but not many.

 

So I tend to believe that someone like PG Staff with a good set of baseball eyes could do a good job of picking the best ten 18 year old ball players out of a hundred 12 year olds.

 

Note: One thing I also noticed was that the kids who were all-stars at 10, 11, or 12 because of better early instruction or fortuitous birthdays or early growth spurts eventually lost ground to the tough, quick, athletic, competitive kids.

Based on my personal experience, ages 11-13 are possibly the worst ages to try to project from.  In that range, you have some boys that are basically finished with puberty, some that haven't started, and the rest right in the middle of it - which is even worse for projection.

 

At 12-13 my 2016 was so jacked up physically from uneven growth spurts that he literally could not run in a straight line most days.  (I'm not exaggerating. He swerved like he was drunk.)  He would trip and fall over his own feet almost daily, walk into door frames, etc.  And when he ran he looked like he had a trailer loaded with refrigerators hitched to him - ran very "heavy"

 

Bu last year during his junior year, he was the only boy in the entire county (out of over 5000 male students) that lettered in football (starts at OLB, WR & P; played about 80 plays last week), basketball (which he started playing as a hobby in 10th grade after wrestling for 7 years as a youth) and baseball (despite being cut from JV/C-team in both 8th and 9th grades) - and he will again this year.

 

Similarly, my middle son was often the slowest kid in tryouts at that age.  Didn't have as many coordination issues as his older brother, but was anything but smooth and also ran "heavy."  He was cut from numerous baseball and basketball teams during those years.

 

He has since given up baseball (primarily due to his ADHD), but he did leave middle school with a share of 3 school track & field records (long jump, triple jump and 4X400 relay), and won 4 gold medals (previously mentioned 3 events plus short hurdles) and 1 bronze medal (4x100 relay) out of a maximum of 5 events at the county track meet last year - including being the only one to win 3 individual events.  He then went on to qualify for Junior Olympic Regionals in two events - despite having to compete in the 15-16 division (which included raising the hurdles 6 inches from the height he ran in spring) as a 14-year-old due to a "bad birthday."

 

So don't tell me a slow kid will not make great gains in speed.  I've witnessed otherwise.

 

He also made the JV basketball team (he was cut from the 7th grade team just two years ago) and can almost dunk (he can dunk a volleyball), despite being a fraction of an inch under 6-ft tall and barely 15.

 

Considering how many times those two were cut and benched in a variety of sports during those 11-13 years (easily double figures combined), I don't think many would have ever projected either of them to even play high school sports, much less excel at multiple sports.  Meanwhile, a lot of those kids that were "can't miss" superstars ahead of them have fallen away.

 

Just hitting those years with the baby brother, who not surprisingly was cut from 4 travel teams that he tried out for this summer and fall.  So here we go again...

Swampboy nails it perfectly, completely agree.

 

And CaCO - there isn't a single example in our local world of a kid who was slow as a pre-teen who became fast because of puberty. Michael27 is right on - my 2018 happens to run track (100m & 200m) & play baseball, and the kids who were fast when he was 8 years old are still the fast ones, period.

 

Kids do get stronger, more athletic, taller, wider, etc. - but while they may train to get a better 60 time, the true leadoff hitter "speed kills" kids are the same ones who where that way when they were playing AAA Little League. Doesn't mean they don't become better players as puberty hits, but speed is one element that can be determined very early. Have seen multiple fast kids get SLOWER - puberty, getting plumper & lack of work ethic can tend to make them lose their skills. Have yet to see a slow kid get fast though. 

Disagree. My 2017 catcher was always built like a catcher. And pretty slow. From when he started tee ball until 12. Then he stretched out and got into super-shape and is staying there. I'd say his 60 time went from 8.0 to close to 7.0 based on pure athleticism and natural speed increase. And he's never had a single "class" on how to run a 60. I suspect he could get sub-7 speed if he worked on it. Of course, as a primary catcher, he spends his time (and some of my money) on hitting and throwing.

 

But in general, I agree with you.

 

As for the topic at hand. I agree with position players. I expect some future POs of that group of 100 that did not make the top-10 could become hard-throwing, highly recruited pitchers.

Guess that would depend why he was slow.  I know a kid who at 10u you did NOT want to send this kid from 3rd on a passed ball!  At 14u (and 12 inches later), he's the leadoff...decent bat, great jump, and the kid can now move his very long legs to his advantage. I will admit his parents sent him for training, but I don't think that's all it was.

Of the 13 boys on JP's team that won the Cooperstown 12U tournament in July 2010, seven are moving on to D1; one will play football, but is an elite HS catcher; three others are among the best on their HS teams, but do not yet have offers.

 

Like many select ball teams, it was comprised of players that coaches had, at 12-years-old, identified as the best in the area for their age.

 

So if we're talking senior-HS-year projectability at 12, I'd say 80-90%.

I'm kind of in the middle on this one.  We are in the worst baseball town out of 5 towns that make up our local HS school district but I saw the 12us from the other towns each year because we played them in travel ball every summer and then when they were a little older we combined them into tournament teams to play more competitively - so we saw all of them quite a bit.  I'd say if u picked 100 of those kids and then picked the 10 best at 12 and looked at them now that over 5 of them would still be in top 10.  Just going by the HS varsity team and the few of them that moved to private schools.  

 

It might be 8 out of 10 based on what will happen with the varsity team (which will probably have 2 Soph starters this coming season).  

 

But - I also look at my 8th grader.  He's 13 and just had his physical so he could tryout for 7th/8th grade middle school hoops.  Last year he played football and hardly played and then was cut from basketball.  He made the middle school baseball team but the family influence may have been effect - he did not play much.  If PG was to pick him out of 100 players at 12 he would have probably been close to 100th, maybe 98th because he is a big kid.  At 12 he was not someone you'd project to be a great baseball player his Sr year of HS.  

 

Fast forward one year - our 8th grader is 6 foot tall, 175 lbs (already taller than both dad and 2016).  His feet are size 13, his arms are ridiculously long - doc thinks another 4 inches are coming.  He just finished football where he started on offense and defense on an undefeated team and already was picked up by an elite travel basketball team after players on the team scouted him in recess (no joke).   I'm not sure what will happen in baseball but his overall athletic ability his increased incredibly in less than a year - and along with it his interest and intensity have gone sky high.  I have to think there are a lot more kids out there like him than I thought before witnessing it.  

A few notes on my earlier comment:

 

First, I said there were a couple surprises in each direction in the group I observed, so everybody who writes in to tell me about their late bloomer can save the effort. I was making a generalization to which I knew there were exceptions.

 

Second, I never said you couldn't teach people how to run. I've seen people improve their foot speed through coaching and practice.

 

Third, I wasn't talking about your kid. 

 

LOL, and we weren't talking to you Swampboy, we were talking to Golden Sombrero with his bold statements of:

 

"And CaCO - there isn't a single example in our local world of a kid who was slow as a pre-teen who became fast because of puberty."

 

and

 

"speed is one element that can be determined very early. Have seen multiple fast kids get SLOWER - puberty, getting plumper & lack of work ethic can tend to make them lose their skills. Have yet to see a slow kid get fast though. "

 

I've thought about this many times - and talked about it with many other baseball coaches and dads... Here is the data point that I go back to....

 

On the wall here in my office is a picture of my son's 12YO little league all star team. Twelve kids - and since I was a part of the selection process, I can tell you that it was an unusually easy year in picking the team - 10 were unanimous selections and 2 had all but one vote. This was drawing from a league of roughly 75 kids, probably split 50 50 between 11s and 12s - and we only picked 12 YOs this year. So 12 out of 36 or so were chosen.

Our area is a little unusual in that the high school was fed by two elementary schools - and two youth baseball leagues - without a lot of movement in or out of the area. A small high school - but one that has a long tradition of being extremely competitive in the sectional championships for schools of that size (I think it still holds the record for most sectional titles).

So fast forward to high school. Six of the all stars played on the freshman team (high school has three teams). The other six either did not make the team or did not even try out. Three of those went on to Varsity. The rest of the varsity was made up of  six kids who did not make 12 YO all stars and those who came from the other league. 

So did we misjudge the talent? I don't think so. One of the kids, who became a solid cleanup hitter, couldn't hit with any power as a 12 year old - puberty did him a lot of favors as he grew from 4 feet and 70 pounds to 6'+ and 200+. Another figured out how to throw strikes as he became coordinated again - and went on to pitch in college (never could hit worth a darn). Other kids didn't grow. Best pitcher at 12 - never grew another inch and never threw any harder.

And the stories could continue.

Point is - puberty can make a huge difference as can coaching, persistence, and the distractions of life. 

Having said that, I attended a baseball camp hosted by Bobby Bonds when I was 11. One of his little kids was 8 at the time - and ran circles around all of us. Best player on the field and it wasn't close... He ended up pretty darn good as an adult too....

From a 2015 thread. Baseball America had just picked their top 10 12yo's. Pretty good list:

http://community.hsbaseballweb...c/baseball-america-1

 

If you look at that list, you'll find 9 of the 10 eventually played at a very high level of ball. #1 was Delino Deshields and #2 was some kid named Bryce something-or-another.

It's been our experience that over 2/3 who played w son at age 12 did not play as Sr. They got into another sport or they stopped sports all together.

In an Elem PE class for ex u can pick out the the athletic kids who usu go on to play some sport in HS.  There r usu a few standouts who can excel in any sport. However very few go on to play at higher level. That IMO takes commitment to hard work, and a Passion for for the sport.

about 90% of  my sons former teammates in baseball(HS/travel teams) 

are not playing in college. Some definitely had the talent, just not desire for all the work it takes. 

Guess what I'm saying is athletic ability is only one factor in who will succeed in a sport through HS and beyond. strong work ethic is needed and hard to tell at age 12 who will have that.

Here's an experience that is different. In my town, back in 2012, the local Cal Ripken team made it as far as the CR World Series in Aberdeen. That entire team will all play varsity this season as sophomores and a couple of juniors. Every last player on the 11 man roster.

 

Edit: with the exception of one kid who currently plays varsity on another high school team.

I think talent is pretty easy to spot so I don't think that's the hard part. I think it's the kids who will work to continue to improve. Which kids want it bad enough that they will out work a kid who may be bit more talented? I would bet more than a few of the "best" 12 year olds fall by the wayside because they lose interest or don't have the fire to keep working as other kids catch up. 

 

I have seen kids who were very talented at 12 not even play varsity HS ball because they don't work at it whereas others who just don't settle on their "talents" become great ball players. 

Once again, I am not talking about who the best 12 year olds are.  I'm talking about which 12 year olds will be the best several years later.

 

It's kind if similar, but a bit more difficult, to drafting a high school player.  Often the best high school player/producer goes undrafted, while one of his team mates is drafted.

 

There are many signs a person can go by. That might even include blood lines.  Most 12 year old all star teams will pick the best 12 year olds.  Even pick the slow twitch heavy set boy because he can check swing and hit the ball 200 feet, but has no athleticism.  Now, it is always possible that the boy works hard, gains athleticism as he ages and his body changes dramatically.  Size is a gigantic advantage in 12 year olds, but big or small at 12 doesn't always relate to size as an 18 year old.

 

The one thing that makes picking the most "projectable" (sorry for using that word) 12 year olds is you don't know what they want.  Heck, they don't even know what they will want.  So extra attention should be gioven to those that have natural talent and also appear to want!  Who is into it and who isn't!

 

Arm action, the ability to throw a baseball, even the ability to throw with accuracy, is to an extent a natural ability. So other than size you can be somewhat accurate in predicting who will have the best arm.

 

The swing and timing, the hand eye coordination, the ability to make contact, is to an extent a natural ability. Actual power is developed later in those that don't have the current size and strength.

 

Were mom and dad athletes? If dad played professional baseball, his son would be one of my 10 picks regardless of his size or even his ability.  Seen how that goes way too often.

 

Is dad 6'4 and mom 5'8 or is it 5'5 and 4'10? While none of this means anything certain, it does give some clues. We have seen 5'8 dads with 6'5 sons.

 

I even think you can see it in a kids eyes.  Sometimes people spend too much time concentrating on the obvious results and miss a lot of the more important things. Even the feel for the game is a natural ability.  You can teach a lot, a player can learn a lot, buit some have a natural feel for the game that simply can't be taught.  They just seem to do the right thing without even being able to explain why they did it.

 

Bottom line, I think if any of us saw a real stand out 12 year old with unusual natural ability, no matter his size, that kid is going to be very good provided he stays with the game and wants to be good.

 

I don't even think it's that hard picking the right kids. However, even the right picks sometimes don't progress for many different reasons. I think you would get something like 7 out of 10 right.  Also pretty sure that among those you don't pick, two or three will be big surprises.

 

To me, the goal is to keep everyone playing, but especially those 10 you think will develop into the best. Because sometimes those 10 will also be the best at other sports and sometimes baseball loses them to another sport.

If i think back to 12U ball, i'm sure i could be pretty close. There are a few exceptions but the studs who were the man back then are still pretty good, probably at least get 5 out of 10 and maybe 7.

 

100 kids is 9 travel teams and those had a few kids per team that were special.

 Would like to see stat of % of CWS players who continue to play in college. Many don't continue in HS, they go to another sport.

playing Varsity as Soph is all relative to size/talent at said school. I've seen many parents brag that son plays Varsity as even a Freshman, but many times it's because it's a smaller school. Very few are playing as Freshmen at bigger power house programs that exist out there.  The ones that are, are the exception.

PG made good statement about "who is into it". vs not.  The "play ball" program is about keeping kids interested, but other sports are having same issue. Just look at post awhile back about less kids playing football. Big issue IMO is that we r dealing w youth no matter what sport we r talking about.

most struggle w what they want  from day to day.  so many outside influences effect their lives. Technology gave us video games and we've lost a great deal of potential athletes to that. Too many athletes have natural talent, but once they struggle they quit and move on to something else. Maybe work ethic has changed. Those who love it stick it out, others quit. 

A dad from a rival LL and I started tracking players when they were eleven for the purpose of forming a 13u team after 11/12 all stars. We ended up with a list of twenty and reeled in thirteen.

 

Twelve played high school baseball. The thirteenth was a political pick I was hoping would quit after one year (he did). He played another sport in high school. Ten of the thirteen played college baseball at some level.

 

Add: We passed on a couple of dominant man-children with small parents. They both dominated 13u. One was a good player at 14u. Neither made high school varsity.

 

i don't believe you can tell how good a kid will be five,  years down the road from being twelve. But I believe you can tell who is most likely to succeed. It starts with genetics. The kids we selected had athletic parents. Some had older siblings who were proven high school athletes.

I believe 9 of 11 players from the 2005 Council Rock North LL all stars (Mid Atlantic representative in the LLWS) played college ball. One kid focused on basketball in high school. The stud pitcher peaked before high school. He didn't make varsity.

True. It's also circumstantial. In our case (and my son was not one of the CRWS participants - he moved here two years ago), last year's team had 8 senior starters and this year's senior and junior classes had little to no talent. However, the point is that YMMV and, in this instance, the best eleven players from this group at age 12 are still the best 11 at age 15/16 and will still be the best 11 players at age 18.

After picking the 10 best projectable, I'd say max 5 players would still be the best when they're seniors but if I'm forced to put money on it, I'd say 3.  

Only the 100 kids from the Community Program:

With my 2016, it's 3.

With my 2018, as a sophomore, it's at 6 already.

From the Club program:

My 2018's club team; 8 of those kids are still playing.

RJM sent you a dialog

If I get to choose 10 out of 100, and out of those 10, six or more of them have to be among the best 10 baseball players of those 100 at 18 years old, then I think I could pass PG’s pick-10 test.  But here’s my caveat:   The sample of 12 year olds would have to be random, like the kids who might show up for Little League signups.  Don’t expect me to pick out ONLY the top 10 from 100 kids at a national 12 year old NABC national championship tournament, because then you’re starting with a loaded pool of talent.

 

With that caveat, this is how I’d go about my picks:

 

I’d eliminate those without some kind of current or potential athletic ability.  Obviously, this means knowing the gene pool.  The kids already exhibiting exceptional natural athleticism (speed, strength and hand-eye coordination), no matter their size, would go to the top of my list. 

 

Then I’d be looking at their “makeup.”  Competitive kids who hustle without being told would remain near the top of my list.  I’ll likely eliminate the extreme hotheads and whiners, unless they make up for it somehow with some major athleticism and competitive spirit.  Some really talented kids simply don’t have the mental or emotional aptitude to remain a top 10 at 18.  I’m thinking of that old saying “a million dollar body with a nickel brain.”

 

I want a chance to hang out with the kids a bit, too.  Find out if they watch MLB, collect baseball cards, etc.  Do they have a passion for the game that goes beyond playing it themselves?  If they love the game at 12 enough to want to watch others play it, then they have the kind of heart for the game that will make them work at it and learn the strategic parts of the game.  This might be a deciding factor in my final cuts.

 

Finally, I need to know about the kids’ support systems.  Do they have parents or other people in their lives that are going to support them in their development?  I think Go44dad alluded to this when he said “depends on what happens after you select the 10.”  And I think this is what PG means when he wants to identify those that have the athletic ability so that with a proper support system those kids will develop to their potential in baseball.  

 

Thinking about this further...  I don't think that my future 10 would match exactly the 10 I'd pick as the present best, but I'm guessing it would include at least half of the same ones.

I agree with this, and in particular the bolded parts. I once heard a batting coach (he had made it to AAA himself) say: "there are two things I can't teach: (1) bat speed, and (2) hand-eye coordination."

 

The problem the casual fan would run into is focusing on results and not the underlying athleticism. And even when looking at results, people tend to look at overall results and not how did the player do against the better kids -- which I think is much more important. At any level there are better opponents and lesser opponents. And when you move to the next level, the lesser opponents don't move with you. So how does the 12 year old do against the other top players at his age? Or the high-school hitter against the all-league pitcher? Or think of college baseball -- how does a hitter do against the Friday night starters? Or vice-versa for a pitcher against the top hitting teams?

 

In terms of bloodlines, I have a friend who is has coached little league many years. He has three sons. I saw my friend at little league tryouts when his third son was going through little league. My friend was paying absolutely no attention to the three ground balls, three fly balls, and five swings each kid got. Instead, he simply drafted the younger brothers of kids he knew (through his older sons) to be really good baseball players. As drafting strategies go, it worked out pretty well.

 AGGRESSIVE! kids that were very aggressive when they were 12 seamed to be getting more out of the game than the others. these players would hit the first pitch, dive for balls in the outfield, love to swipe bases, not afraid to pitch inside, and come get grounders. Most of the kids I remembered that played this way when they were young continued to play competitive ball and moved on to play college ball.

       
       
I would say though a little league drawing from 36 players is a whole lot different than a travel team drawing from a 30 or 40 mile radius.  And way different than a team drawing from a whole state or multiple states.

My 2 cents. I believe most people around any significant amount of baseball from ages 12 to 18 could pick the top 10 and they would be in the top 30. Maybe 10 for 10 maybe 0 for 10 but I do think in the top 30.

As for some of the earlier comments about projecting speed. I'm sorry I'll argue that with my last breath lol. Yes of the 10 fastest kids in a group 7 or 8 will still be the fastest or the 10 slowest 7 or 8 will still be slow. So 2 out of 10 kids changing their speed stripes as it were, wouldn't seem significant. But out of a 1000 kids that's 200 kids you've seen change. In the past 20 years I've coached over 1000 10-12 year olds in football. I have literally seen hundreds of slow kids become fast and fast kids become slow going through puberty. Now I'm not one of those that try's to sell a running program because I don't think anything the kids did had much to do with it. I believe It was genetically decided but I've seen too many kids go through it to discount it.

It's also why I think the top 10 12 year olds would be in the top 30. I find it hard to believe one could constantly pick the 10 ten and get a majority right. To many genetic variables.

Heck forget 12 to 18 I've seen pretty drastic changes from just 12 to 14.