Skip to main content

Originally Posted by GoldenSombrero:

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. 

 

I've seen a lot of tall kids go from slow to fast after they hit puberty.  Matt Jones, who played QB at Arkansas, ran a 4.3 at the NFL combine.  He played O-line on his 7th grade team and started Varsity as a 9th grader at WR.  My son's JR high football team is where I have seen the big speed jumps from the tall kids.  They time the kids before their speed and agility camp.  My son went from a 7.2 40 at 11 to a 5.1 40 at 13.  Our top WR went from 6.5 to 4.8.  Both kids are over 6 ft tall 13 year olds and I expect they will continue to get faster.  Those are just a couple of examples.      

Interesting question.  

I like the use of speed as an example.  My son got slower when he hit 15 or so and had growth spurts.  He was never the fastest kid, top third on every team he played on but not that fastest or slowest.  When he hit 15/16 he just could not move his feet.  Once he grew into his new height a little bit some of his speed returned.  

Coaching football with kids that were around 11-13 I can say kids that hit puberty before other had a huge advantage.  One of my sons friends on that team was taller than all but one kid on his team, ran faster, was stronger.  He played OLB in the 3/4 set and DE in the 4/3 set, played TE or OT on offense, was a QB sometimes and handled the kicking chores.  He also could grow a little mustache at 12.  By the time he was a Junior in high school he was a backup DE, didn't make the team as a Senior.  In a lot of ways I think late bloomers have an advantage.  

There are those kids that are always good a lot of times despite not having ideal physical attributes....the game comes easier to them.  Those kids are easier to spot at 12 or so I think.  In my experience about half the kids who did very well at younger ages didn't play in high school....maybe they lost interest, maybe they peaked at 13.  Two of my sons high school teammates that barely saw the field in high school had the most success in college.  Coaching and development plays a role.  

For a seasoned scout like PG I am sure his percentage would be a lot better than someone like myself, the average Joe.  

Originally Posted by Teaching Elder:
The easier task is determining which ones will quit altogether because dad is so overbearing.

We hear of that all the time but does it really happen that often to genuinely talented players? I know of only one kid like that.  He took two years off and returned as a HS sophomore. After a slow start he is now looking very good as a junior. And dad appears to be doing a good job of leaving the kid alone now.  I can think of other kids with overbearing dads, but those kids either dealt with it okay, or they had no future in the game.  

 

(BTW he is a tall kid who went from slow to fast after puberty.)

Originally Posted by JCG:

       
Originally Posted by Teaching Elder:
The easier task is determining which ones will quit altogether because dad is so overbearing.

We hear of that all the time but does it really happen that often to genuinely talented players? I know of only one kid like that.  He took two years off and returned as a HS sophomore. After a slow start he is now looking very good as a junior. And dad appears to be doing a good job of leaving the kid alone now.  I can think of other kids with overbearing dads, but those kids either dealt with it okay, or they had no future in the game.  

 

(BTW he is a tall kid who went from slow to fast after puberty.)



The kids with the overbearing dads are a horror watch.  Last winter an assistant dad coach showed my sons team a workout routine that he MAKES his son do every day.  It was a great routine and very intense, but having a 12 year old do that every day didn't seem right.  Needless to say the kid was out half the spring with knee and elbow injuries.  There are good intentions and then there is over the top stuff.  That same kid has a real attitude on the field and if he struke out the entire team and stands heard the dad from across the field yelling.  I would hate to be THAT kid.

I'm not sure that picking the 10 fastest runners at 12 years old or the 10 biggest kids would prove to be the 10 best at 18. 

 

First of all the best isn't necessarily the fastest or biggest.  I would concentrate more on fast twitch or slow twitch dominate.  Fast twitch is extremely desirable in most every baseball skill.  And there are fast twitch people that aren't the fastest runners.  

 

Anyway, it is just another genetic advantage many athletes have.  And like most everything it can be improved somewhat, but those that have it to begin with will most likely have the higher ceiling.

I think environment may play a role too. It's one thing to be a standout at ABC HS in XYZ USA, it's quite another to be a HS standout in some of the divisions in Miami, LA, or Chicago, for instance. So, WHERE and WHEN may be as important in that 12yo's future growth and chance as TALENT. Just a thought.

 

If I was going to try and pick the top 10 of those 100 PGStaff, I'd first look behind the scenes at influences first.. say, how often does the family support his growth via development and WHO have they hired to produce the desired outcome? How often does the family allow this growth? Are they involved in the process or drop off parents?

 

Then I'd consider coachability.

 

Then I'd consider his environmental opportunity.

 

Then I'd consider his core - athleticism, velo, speed, etc.

 

I'd hope I'd get the 5 you get.

 

 

 

Originally Posted by JCG:

As the father of a 5' 11" MIF I wish that was true.  However, at the MLB level that is  demonstrably not true. Both current gold glove SS's are 6' 2".  In 2014 3 out of 4 Gold Glove MIFs were over 6'.  The great majority of this year's finalists are 6' or over.

Yeah, it's amazing how big those positions have gotten. With the Andrelton Simmons trade, I just saw that he is 6'2", which surprised me. Plus Tulo (6'3"), Escobar (6'1"), Brandon Crawford (6'2"), and the next wave of top shortstop prospects like Corey Seager (6'4"), JP Crawford (6'2"), and Trea Turner (6'1"). It's remarkable (although with the caveat that on average they are probably an inch less than their listed heights).

IMHO 12's have to demonstrate their superiority in: hand-eye coordination, quickness in contrast to pure speed, fluid arm action, balance, overall athleticism and athletic aggressiveness to project future success.

 

When NTGson was 8 yrs old and the subject of numerous requests to play on travel teams we were aghast at the thought of such an undertaking for a kid so young. Knowing a lot about basketball and little about baseball, I relied on an extremely respected former MLB pitcher and high school coach to assess his potential.

 

He spent 1-1/2 hours with the boy, playing catch, giving soft coaching tips, having him field thrown and batted balls and throwing to a target. His assessment of NTGson at age 8 proved to be spot on, almost eerily so, for the boy through his preteen, teen and soon-to-be college baseball careers.

 

In my discussion with him about my son at age 8, he zeroed in on eyesight and hand-eye coordination, balance, fluidity of movement and arm action, plus the ability to absorb instruction and translate it into action as keys he uses to project a child's future in his sport.

 

Of course, size was also part of his algorithm and our boy eventually grew from scrawny little guy to scrawny 6'0'' at age 17. We also encouraged him to play up as often as possible with and against older, bigger, better players while still playing with his peers. At 12 he wasn't a stud in the traditional sense, but constantly produced, hustled, made good decisions and most importantly, competed to the best of his ability. At 13 he was asked to join a travel team of quality players, thirteen on the roster. As of this date, 9 of those 13 kids, including NTGson, have signed to attend and play for D-1 programs in conferences such as SEC, ACC, Ivy, C-USA, MEAC, Southern, Big South, Colonial and American.

 

None of the kids on that team stood out above the others, they were all good, all were skilled, were quick, coachable and ALL had excellent overall balance and athleticism without regard to pure straight line speed. The attribute the kids shared with one another was the joy of playing, competing and dealing with the adversity of baseball's bounces. In assessing a player today, after 10 years of watching my son and his teammates, that joy is probably the one aspect that I would consider the most important trait a ball player of any age has to possess.

 

 

 

 

Add Reply

Post
.
×
×
×
×
Link copied to your clipboard.
×