Hey Smoke.....Is your 2019 a position player, PO, or combo?
What are his measurable's like? (pm me if preferred).
Happy to share where he 'might' grade based on my 2018's PG showcaase participation last year (Dec. 2015)as a rising sophomore (MIF, RHP).
Like others who've posted here, my 2017 gained considerably more from Headfirst than from the Stanford camp. But one experience which was fantastic at Stanford were the guest speakers. "Stanford Baseball Camp" is a youtube channel, and they have video of the three speakers -- Sean Flikke, Mike Robbins and Dean Stotz. If you don't go to the camp, you may want to watch the speeches online.
Thx for the tip!
Hope someone who did this in the past can answer these questions.
I went out to the camp registration websites and it says "your active.com account is not associated with this organization."
1) Is this because the registration is not open yet?
2) is an active.com account required? It says you can log in with your Facebook?
thanks
SanDiegoRealist posted:Hope someone who did this in the past can answer these questions.
I went out to the camp registration websites and it says "your active.com account is not associated with this organization."
1) Is this because the registration is not open yet?
2) is an active.com account required? It says you can log in with your Facebook?
thanks
I think your first guess is correct. You will create an an Active account when you register. Many sites will take your FB credentials to create that account, so I guess Active is one of them. If you have any concerns there just open a new account with a different email address. I will say that when registration opens - next week I believe - you want to jump in right away. If you wait a day or two you could be out of luck, esp. if kid is a MIF.
smokeminside posted:JCG posted:2019&21 Dad posted:Would it make sense for a 2019 to attend this year or wait til next year? We are on East Coast, so not a quick, cheap trip in addition to the camp fee. Expensive proposition and thinking there may be more affordable, closer high academic options. 2019's PSAT's were in the National Merit Semifinalist range and he's interested in engineering. Thanks - love the info sharing on this board!
Gonna disagree, very mildly, with Gov. It really depends on the player and the family's situation. Stanford is a great experience, and you can't have too many of those, but compared to HeadFirst, you don't get as a many eyes on a kid at Stanford. It sounds like your son is an elite student. If he's an elite player as well, you're going to want to get him in front of Ivies, Patriots, and maybe above. You can get in front of those without the expense of a CA trip if that's an issue. If he's more likely to be a D3 type player, then you should hold off a year anyway. D3's pay little attention to players until the summer before their senior year.
Just one opinion....
If you, and I hope others will chime in, had to do it all over again, and you KNEW your kid was a D3 level player, would you be willing to roll the dice, wait until the summer before senior year, and attend only ONE event where you knew there would be an excellent variety of D3 choices?
(I do not mean this as a challenge. I'm being sincere: Could one camp/showcase be enough?)
I am going to jump in on this thread and go back to this post and give some perspective about possibly attending only one academic showcase - mostly because I've considered this several times since we went through the process. We were lucky enough not to have spent a ton of money on other showcases - our 2016 attended one PG showcase (and didn't do great) the summer between Soph-Jr year and then attended HF on Long Island in Aug before his Sr. year. He attended several one day prospect camps at local Northeast D1s but no other high priced one/two day showcases.
I think that one of the problems with this premise - attending only one showcase and focusing on D3s - is that from our experience most of these players are still holding out hope for D1 interest and offers all through the summer between Jr.-Sr. year. And in the northeast that's really when all the offers come through. There are very few early commits. All of the D1 players we know from his class received their offers after being seen at tournaments or other events that summer. Even the very highly ranked players are finalizing things that summer in our area (we do have 2 very highly ranked 2018 players from our area who have already committed but they are outlyers).
Even at HF our 2016s focus wasn't so much on getting D3 interest - it was just getting interest from one or more of the schools on his list - either D3 or D1. And it just so happened that all the interest came from D3 schools. Was attending just that one event enough? Yes. All of the interest he received - which was offers from D3 schools in the Midwest Conference, Liberty League, UAA Conference and three schools in the Centennial Conference - came from the one event at HF on Long Island. The Centennial Conference school he ended up at did see him earlier in the summer at a tournament but he was not seen by any of those schools at other events (that we are aware of).
If we had to do it over again I don't think we would have just attended HF - he probably would have played on a different travel team that was more competitive and hopefully played in front of more schools at different events (his exposure was very limited over the summer because his team was horrible) and he probably still would have done the local D1 camps - and then we may have had him do two HF camps (I know and spend more money). All of the schools he wanted to attend were there, I think expanding the number of schools that could see him live (on the first day) would have been good. Either way it worked out.
Keep in mind that he is a PO and there is a lot of focus on pitchers at HF - and he also pitched very well at that camp. It would really stink to put all your focus on HF in Aug heading into your Sr. year and then not pitch well. The rules at HF are also slightly skewed towards pitchers (starting at a 1-1 count) with umps calling balls and strikes from behind the mound - so I don't think this idea works as well for position players. Sorry for the long post.
MK, very thoughtful response!
It can take only one event to be seen. Having been through this process twice with HS players and now again with a college transfer, I wouldn't bet on it for the majority of players including my guys. But the question was about attending one event...
For the vast majority of players, it's about being seen live by the schools on that player's vetted list. That can happen at a single event. Pitchers, which are about half of all recruits, will generally be watched by most coaches at an event. Every team needs lots of pitchers and I would guess that for D3 level talent, it's possible that one event could do it. It's a little more challenging for position only players IMHO.
Since the question asked about D3 players, I will add that in my experience, demonstrated interest in the school (baseball and admissions) is a big piece of the equation. A D3 player is not being offered athletic money. Many coaches have little to no pull with admissions. A student athlete is wise to connect with their admissions rep (e.g., fill out the online admissions profile, interview, meet on campus or at the player's high school, tour campus, etc.) in addition to connecting with the baseball staff (e.g., online profile, sending video, emailing updates, calling, etc.).
Doing all the things necessary in advance of showcasing helps with the process whether it's a one showcase deal or whether the player is ultimately doing several...or more.
And regarding the original topic of the Stanford Camp, given the list of schools attending this coming Summer (which in my experience is similar to previous years) there are not a lot of D3 schools relative to a HF.
July 14-16...we are in! Thanks Gov for the phone call and baseball talk this afternoon.
Happy to assist SANDIEGO.
With the new Stanford schedule there is only one viable date for my 2018, and unfortunately, there are only three colleges on my son's list that are saying Yes they'll attend on that date. So, it looks like we'll have to pass on Stanford Camp. Bummer for my son, because it was his favorite, and one where he played well and received some nice attention as an incoming Junior last year. Qualifier: it was not offer type attention, it was solid developing relationship attention. It helped tee my son up for communication with colleges after Sept 1st. Son subsequently played in front of 4-5 colleges on his list three times from July through AZ Classic, then HF Jupiter in November.
Love the event, but we have to be practical and use our time wisely this upcoming summer when he'll be a rising senior. I know my son will need a weekend of rest in between the tourney's, showcases, and camps to refuel.
Suggest to you all if you haven't had one of these busy tourney - showcase - camp summers yet. Plan "down time" (5-7 days of no throwing or playing) for your son to rest his body and mind so that he'll be fueled up and ready for the end of summer and fall tourneys & showcases. The best thing we did last summer was give my son a week off of doing nothing and going to a beach the week immediately after club season ended. Within a few days after returning he was back in game shape. I'm convinced this allowed him to stay focused and prepare for end of October events. It can be a long season from Feb to Oct.
Happy New Year to you All!
David
Just a heads'-up to those considering it -- the MIF slots are already sold out (waiting lists) for the first three sessions. Yes, it's been <24 hours since registration opened, but I guess it fills up fast! If your kid is a pitcher, however, you can still register him as a pitcher first, with MIF as a second position.
Wow.
Thanks to the info I have gleaned from this forum I took a little extra time before traveling across the street to the neighborhood NYE party to stay at home and register at 9:01 pm...thankful I did now. Now we need a StubHub application to turn a profit on the camp reservations!
Son just got his Stanford evaluation -- got a grade for infield play, got a grade for pitching, but apparently they don't give a grade for hitting? 
There are the Hittrax stats and his ranking in the camp and vs. his class year, but no grade for hitting, which is disappointing.
FWIW, here is the Stanford ranking scale:
Sent you a pm.
So it turns out that Stanford does send an overall numerical ranking and written evaluation, it just is delivered a few days after the metrics/measurables.
And they have clarified their ranking system a bit, adding references to D1 and D3:
Stanford All-Star Camp Rating System
10 Super star in high school, top five round draft out of high school, star in college as freshman
9 Outstanding high school ability, definitely draftable (mid-to-late rounds) chance to start as freshman
8 Exceptional high school ability, 50% to 75% chance to be drafted, contributor as freshman
7 Very good high school ability, outside chance to be drafted, starter in Division 1 by junior year in college
6 Good high school ability, not draftable, but a four-year college level player
5 Above average high school ability, not draftable, chance to play on four-year college level
4 Average high school ability, junior college or Division III ability in future
3 Below average high school ability, chance to play in junior college or Division III
2 Poor high school ability
Am I the only one who thinks their rating system is BS?
JCG posted:Am I the only one who thinks their rating system is BS?
Well, here's PG's scale. I don't know that one is inherently better than the other.
| 10 | -- Potential very high draft pick, Top DI in the nation prospect |
| 9 | -- Potential top 10 round pick, Top DI prospect |
| 8 | -- Potential mid round pick, definite DI prospect |
| 7 | -- Potential low round pick, DI prospect or top level Juco, DII |
| 6 | -- Possible DI prospect, definite DII or Juco prospect |
| 5 | -- Possible DII prospect or mid range Juco prospect |
| 4 | -- Possible low level DII or high level DIII prospect |
| 3 | -- Possible DIII or low level Juco prospect |
| 2 | -- Possible low level DIII prospect |
| 1 | -- No prospect at this time |
2019Dad posted:JCG posted:Am I the only one who thinks their rating system is BS?
Well, here's PG's scale. I don't know that one is inherently better than the other.
10 -- Potential very high draft pick, Top DI in the nation prospect 9 -- Potential top 10 round pick, Top DI prospect 8 -- Potential mid round pick, definite DI prospect 7 -- Potential low round pick, DI prospect or top level Juco, DII 6 -- Possible DI prospect, definite DII or Juco prospect 5 -- Possible DII prospect or mid range Juco prospect 4 -- Possible low level DII or high level DIII prospect 3 -- Possible DIII or low level Juco prospect 2 -- Possible low level DIII prospect 1 -- No prospect at this time
I think it's better. The PG scale doesn't try to correlate levels of HS ability to the scale, which is where the Stanford scale gets really loopy. It also notes differences in levels of Juco and D3 ball, which Stanford does not do. And that's appropriate.
Stanford's first mention of Juco is here:
4 Average high school ability, junior college or Division III ability in future
C'mon. There is a Juco team near us that could beat many if not most D1 teams, and there are other Juco teams nearby that couldn't beat a really good HS team. An "average" HS player would get cut from the first team in the fall, and would ride pine on the others.
The main problem with Stanford is that it's a scale that seems to be meant to let the families of lesser players down gently, and in the process may be giving them more hope than is warranted.
Was the rating attributed to his game coach? We still haven't received an overall rating. Just a narrative about his outfield drills, and stats re: 60 time, etc. Also it's my understanding that coaches do not receive this information. It is only shared with the athlete. Is that correct?
smokeminside posted:Was the rating attributed to his game coach? We still haven't received an overall rating. Just a narrative about his outfield drills, and stats re: 60 time, etc. Also it's my understanding that coaches do not receive this information. It is only shared with the athlete. Is that correct?
Yes, it was attributed to his game coach, but it incorporated a portion of the narrative (and measurables) from the drills and stats. The main differences were (1) it went into quite a bit of detail about hitting, (2) there was an overall numerical rating, and (3) there was an overall judgment --- well, just one sentence -- in narrative form, too.
JCG posted:2019Dad posted:JCG posted:Am I the only one who thinks their rating system is BS?
Well, here's PG's scale. I don't know that one is inherently better than the other.
10 -- Potential very high draft pick, Top DI in the nation prospect 9 -- Potential top 10 round pick, Top DI prospect 8 -- Potential mid round pick, definite DI prospect 7 -- Potential low round pick, DI prospect or top level Juco, DII 6 -- Possible DI prospect, definite DII or Juco prospect 5 -- Possible DII prospect or mid range Juco prospect 4 -- Possible low level DII or high level DIII prospect 3 -- Possible DIII or low level Juco prospect 2 -- Possible low level DIII prospect 1 -- No prospect at this time I think it's better. The PG scale doesn't try to correlate levels of HS ability to the scale, which is where the Stanford scale gets really loopy. It also notes differences in levels of Juco and D3 ball, which Stanford does not do. And that's appropriate.
Stanford's first mention of Juco is here:
4 Average high school ability, junior college or Division III ability in future
C'mon. There is a Juco team near us that could beat many if not most D1 teams, and there are other Juco teams nearby that couldn't beat a really good HS team. An "average" HS player would get cut from the first team in the fall, and would ride pine on the others.
The main problem with Stanford is that it's a scale that seems to be meant to let the families of lesser players down gently, and in the process may be giving them more hope than is warranted.
Fair enough. I agree the evaluation of what is average or above average, etc. at the HS level muddies things. But I guess I don't see it too differently from someone going to a PG showcase, getting a 7.0 rating and seeing that it means they are a "D1 prospect" and a "potential low round pick" to boot! 
Still waiting for his game coach evaluation. What team did your boy play for?
I didn't recall what my 2017 got at Stanford Camp 2 last summer. Just looked it up, and I will share in the hope that it's a helpful data point.
7 Very good high school ability, outside chance to be drafted, starter in Division 1 by junior year in college
Two things about that #1 - he had a mediocre camp at best. He hit just okay. He didn't bring a good set of turf shoes so he ran a 7.05 60 after posting a 6.5 at HF a couple weeks earlier. Also had a hard time with IF drills as a result. #2 - he's going to be playing D3. He a little D1 interest but committed to D3 early. Drafted? I doubt they know his name.
JCG posted:I didn't recall what my 2017 got at Stanford Camp 2 last summer. Just looked it up, and I will share in the hope that it's a helpful data point.
7 Very good high school ability, outside chance to be drafted, starter in Division 1 by junior year in college
Two things about that #1 - he had a mediocre camp at best. He hit just okay. He didn't bring a good set of turf shoes so he ran a 7.05 60 after posting a 6.5 at HF a couple weeks earlier. Also had a hard time with IF drills as a result. #2 - he's going to be playing D3. He a little D1 interest but committed to D3 early. Drafted? I doubt they know his name.
Right. But how is that different than this? These are the measurables of a 2019 player (3B/RHP) who recently attended a PG showcase and got a 7.0 rating:
On the PG scale, that 7.0 rating translates to: "Potential low round pick, D1 prospect or top level Juco, DII"
Fair point.
These ratings are just someone else's opinion, of course. We found PG's evals to be pretty spot on. And we found the Stanford ratings, particularly by the boys' game coaches to be way out in left field.
My oldest son had about 30 D1 offers. His Stanford game coach was a D1 head coach at a large state school. Said my oldest probably wouldn't play beyond high school in his write up. Must've been a very bad showing...
Regardless, my sons (and my wife and I) took it all in and tried to learn from it. These ratings can help as one input to creating a targeted, vetted academically and athletically, list of colleges. In the end, is a player fishing in the right pond? And is there interest from the coaches on that vetted list?
2019Dad posted:JCG posted:I didn't recall what my 2017 got at Stanford Camp 2 last summer. Just looked it up, and I will share in the hope that it's a helpful data point.
7 Very good high school ability, outside chance to be drafted, starter in Division 1 by junior year in college
Two things about that #1 - he had a mediocre camp at best. He hit just okay. He didn't bring a good set of turf shoes so he ran a 7.05 60 after posting a 6.5 at HF a couple weeks earlier. Also had a hard time with IF drills as a result. #2 - he's going to be playing D3. He a little D1 interest but committed to D3 early. Drafted? I doubt they know his name.
Right. But how is that different than this? These are the measurables of a 2019 player (3B/RHP) who recently attended a PG showcase and got a 7.0 rating:
- 60 yard dash: 7.65
- Top FB Velo: 68 mph
- IF Velo: 66 mph
- Exit velo: 75 mph
On the PG scale, that 7.0 rating translates to: "Potential low round pick, D1 prospect or top level Juco, DII"
If those numbers are a 7.0 PG rating, then my kid really got screwed on his score (assuming they mean anything to anyone).....lol
Guess they figured a low first time number means he'll likely come back and spend another '8 bills' for a more realistic number...... (which has always been the rub on those PG showcase scores). Now way I'd donate again when the guy hitting fungo's couldn't even get one to the kids' backhand side....
On the other hand, if a kid really is a 5, no sense in pissin' dad off so much he doesn't come back to donate again the next year?
Kind of a 'fine line' has to be walked, I guess......
In the end it's like anything else, isn't it? The market determines the player's value.
2019Dad posted:JCG posted:Am I the only one who thinks their rating system is BS?
Well, here's PG's scale. I don't know that one is inherently better than the other.
10 -- Potential very high draft pick, Top DI in the nation prospect 9 -- Potential top 10 round pick, Top DI prospect 8 -- Potential mid round pick, definite DI prospect 7 -- Potential low round pick, DI prospect or top level Juco, DII 6 -- Possible DI prospect, definite DII or Juco prospect 5 -- Possible DII prospect or mid range Juco prospect 4 -- Possible low level DII or high level DIII prospect 3 -- Possible DIII or low level Juco prospect 2 -- Possible low level DIII prospect 1 -- No prospect at this time
I'm curious where the above PG scale is coming from. Below is the PG scale I am familiar with. Has it changed recently?
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
