Actual Performance

From what I've read on this forum, most coaches want to see a player in a game before they commit a roster spot to him.

It was true for my son.

For position players, projectability is the brochure. Performance is the product. That said, projectability can be a tie breaker. When getting into pitching projectability is more of a benefit. The 6'3" kid throwing 93+ all over the place is someone a college coach believes he can work with. The 5'10" kid throwing 85 with location may be viewed as a kid who has hit his upside and will get hit at the higher levels of college ball.

The reason I view the world this way is judging position players can be very subjective. For pitchers, looking at the velocity on the gun is very quantifiable.

Good topic.

I am curious about how they see more projection vs a kid who has hit the upside?

RJM, as a follow-up to that, would you say tracking the increases in velo is an important aspect to that projection on a pitcher?

I saw another thread on velo increases, which got me thinking about this a little bit.

Would a coach look back at either PG performances, and/or his own notes from earlier events, say 'saw this kid in 10th,grade threw 79-80; saw him in junior spring season throwing 83-84; see him now sitting at 86, touching higher" and project that, even if he isn't yet a 90+ guy, there is more in him?

This is the hard part to college recruiting. The coaches just don't have the time to watch that many games. Even if they see 2 or 3 abs for a kid they are only getting a small slice. Hopefully the kid looked great in that small window.

There really isn't much of an alternative for a coach he has to go with athletic ability and projectabilty.

This approach can certainly mean a kid is looked over.

I'm not sure that any good college coach would discount performance. However there are many variables to consider.

What is the competition? being number one!

There are those types that have a good body and all the tools but they don't seem to produce in the games. These types are often the projectable guys.

There are the types that don't have any average tool, but they seem to produce in the games. This type is difficult to project. Will he be able to produce at a much higher level?

Then there are the type that has all the tools and they produce big in the games. Everyone wants these guys!

Performance is always in play!

This year we started naming All Tournament teams based strictly on statistics. This list might be much different than an All Prospect list, but it honors performance at that event. College coaches and MLB scouts appreciate performance, but they are even more interested in physical skills.

So things like running ability, arm strength, raw power, fielding ability, bat speed, etc., are more important than how well someone did in a game or at a tournament. It's easy to figure out who did best in todays game, you can just look at the boxscore. It's more difficult to figure out who has the best chance to succeed in the future at a higher level. In most cases that is the player with the most tools.

A great performance by a player with limited physical ability or a poor performance by a player with extremely gifted skills. Who would you bet on?

What everyone is really looking for is the gifted athlete who also performs in the games. There are a lot of those types to choose from.

To answer the original question performance never goes unnoticed. You can't watch a game without noticing a good performance. Just because it is noticed and appreciated doesn't mean they will put you at the top of their list.

It is a very interesting topic. I've used the comparison of "tools" vs performance rather than projectibility. Performance cannot be used as a common denominator usually because of a varying level of competition and small sample size but when you have a large sample size from a long season and a common schedule it would seem that performance should outweigh tools when evaluating talent.

The fact is talent evaluators drift towards tools and performance is secondary. It's easy to see why it is that way (scouts won't get fired for spending $$ on a guy who aimlessly throws 95mph but will for spending it on a guy who doesn't perform at 88 mph) but I'm still mystified by the over emphasis on tools that don't translate on the field.

quote:

Originally posted by igball:
It is a very interesting topic. I've used the comparison of "tools" vs performance rather than projectibility. Performance cannot be used as a common denominator usually because of a varying level of competition and small sample size but when you have a large sample size from a long season and a common schedule it would seem that performance should outweigh tools when evaluating talent.

The fact is talent evaluators drift towards tools and performance is secondary. It's easy to see why it is that way (scouts won't get fired for spending $$ on a guy who aimlessly throws 95mph but will for spending it on a guy who doesn't perform at 88 mph) but I'm still mystified by the over emphasis on tools that don't translate on the field.

In college ball with 35 roster spots and only about 20-22 players having an impact on the season it's not hard for coaches to take some risks on potential upside.

This past year I saw a stat 50% of D1 baseball players transfer to play somewhere other than their freshman year. It means recruiting is not an exact science. Plenty of players make mistakes in their choices. Coaches make plenty of recruiting mistakes.

With regards to players staying at the school where they were originally recruited, my sons hs travel team illustrates the point. Kids were recruited to Kansas St, LSU, Clemson, Northwestern, Wake Forest and Virginia Tech among others. Only the KSU, NW and WF kids remain at their schools.

My point about tools vs performance was more directed at the professional level. Case in point, a player I know had a good spring season at a high level conference and in one of the top summer leagues was selected as pitcher of the year in the league after a very good summer. So where was he ranked in the league as a professional prospect? There were 13 pitchers ranked ahead of him.

Again, tools over performance. Not complaining but it is what it is.

Great topic. I have watched numerous games and followed many players over the past three years. I am going to reserve judgement for a few years and see how things play out. I would like to think after three years of watching the same kids that I know who can play. I like the OP suggests have seen many players who seem to always perform get overlooked and vice versa. Tools vs performance......

Tools; A kid who is 6'2 195 who can run and throw, hits bombs in bp, looks the part and occasionally runs into one with the bat.

Performance; the kid who always seems to get the hit when needed. The kid who if you asked his teammates who they want up in a key situation would win easily. His uniform is always dirty.

quote:

Originally posted by PGStaff:
There are those types that have a good body and all the tools but they don't seem to produce in the games. These types are often the projectable guys.

That's what I see and it drives me crazy. Nobody seems to see the fact the "stud" doesn't actually produce in a game situation, and some I know never have, and yet get alot of attention.

quote:

Originally posted by warningtrack:
Performance; the kid who always seems to get the hit when needed. The kid who if you asked his teammates who they want up in a key situation would win easily. His uniform is always dirty.

This is what I want as a coach, the gamer, the fearless, the ball player, but sometimes I think I'm the only one...

I think I smell the unmistakable aroma of steel sparks flying off the axe grinder...

quote:

Originally posted by wraggArm:
I think I smell the unmistakable aroma of steel sparks flying off the axe grinder...

Then you would be wrong.

I've watched, coached and umpired a ton of baseball over the last few years. I'm making an observation that has repeated itself over and over.

I've listened to many parents, coaches and kids with the same story. It's just an observation that seems to have some validity.

Have anything to add to the discussion?

quote:

Originally posted by RJM:

For pitchers, looking at the velocity on the gun is very quantifiable.

This is SO true and it aggravates me when you hear often that velocity isn't everything in Pitchers, yet, it seems to be that one thing that gets them noticed in the first place. Over tenacity, grit, grinder, a proven winner, etc. This is just a general observation that I think many of us have seen in the past. You read on BA about the top pitching Prospects and most of them are mid-90's players that bring heat. Yet, you turn over to an average MLB game on TV and these starting pitchers are sitting around 89-90 on a consistent basis. They do have the exceptions of those 95+ but they are far and few between starting.

Now, I'm by no means saying that Scouts DON'T sit and view 88-89mph pitchers to see what else they bring to the table. But typically you will see the guns lowered rather quick if they haven't hit that crooked number 9 after about 3-4 pitches. And seem to lose all interest. Why? I've seen it countless times unfortunately...lol. Only to see a certain pitcher throw a 3 hitter with 9K's....etc.

I just don't get it. And I suppose I never will.

YGD

Listening to game tonight, it was said that Bochy commented that young pitchers overthrow until they learn to be more efficient.

I might suggest they overthrow partly because that's what got them to the major league level.

quote:

You read on BA about the top pitching Prospects and most of them are mid-90's players that bring heat. Yet, you turn over to an average MLB game on TV and these starting pitchers are sitting around 89-90 on a consistent basis.

It's when MLB pitchers hit thirty and become smart pitchers. They're a little older. They don't throw as hard as they used to. But they pitch smarter. Most MLB pitchers in their 20's are 90+.

If you can throw 95, it's possible you could be even more effective throwing 89-90. It's much easier to subtract than it is to add. Your peak velocity isn't necessarily your best pitch.

If you throw 83 you might get up to 89-90 in the future and then you might be able to use it effectively. But it is so much easier to lower the velocity.

It's not rocket science... The guy who can throw 95 has room to back off and maybe even throw with less effort while adding better movement and command.

There is a good reason why the high velocity guys are usually the early draft picks.

Perhaps this is where Greg Maddux is a better example rather than the old Maddux did it without throwing that hard. He actually did have the "ability" to throw that hard and simply dialed it down to become a better pitcher.

Let's discuss the FB since most would agree it's the main pitch in nearly everyone's arsenal.

And for the sake of the discussion let's agree there are three components in an effective FB: velocity, movement and command. Now if you posses high velocity, good movement and great command welcome to Club Verlander.

However most pitchers and certainly nearly all pitchers moving up the ranks are making some trade-offs between the three components. Either they are currently lacking in high velocity or may have it but its relatively straight or when they release it it's not going where they want it to go. (Of course they could also posses any and all combination of the three defects).

I would argue that currently talent evaluators, for the most part, focus on the first component- velocity- almost exclusively in making their initial judgements. It's almost to the point where they establish a velocity threshold and if met, begin to then evaluate the other components.

One reason why this bias occurs which was made earlier, is that its easy to quantify velocity with a radar gun while the other components are more subjective in nature. However I suggest that this "old school" methodology is mistaken and results in talent evaluators over valuing one component while under valuing other measures which are at least equally important and some would say more important.

Finally, imo, since there appears to be a threshold to enter the club, this mindset results in pitchers not being adequately evaluated as a whole; rather they are viewed, evaluated and often selected as a sum of the parts.

quote:

I would argue that currently talent evaluators, for the most part, focus on the first component- velocity- almost exclusively in making their initial judgements. It's almost to the point where they establish a velocity threshold and if met, begin to then evaluate the other components.

Nothing to argue about... Most of what you've said I would agree with. A couple years ago there was a hs pitcher who threw 100 mph, high 90s every time out. There were many pitchers drafted before him. Of course all of them threw in the 90s. So they do evaluate everything and separate accordingly. It's not a conspiracy or anything. The vast majority of the best pitchers in Major League baseball throw in the 90s. Even most of those that don't, once did.

It is what it is... Right or wrong.

Also, one of the things that any good evaluator will consider in a young pitcher is... How does he project. We have seen many young kids throw low 80s and project they will throw 90 or better. It comes from seeing thousands of cases. In this case you are evaluating their potential more than their current velocity. Not always right, but right enough to keep following someone who looks like they have that potential.

Let's replace the word argue with "for the purpose of discussion". I'm not targeting any talent evaluators just having a discussion about current methods.

Not sure I would or could do anything differently and I do know I couldn't do it better but the current methodology does have built in biases that are worth noting, that's all.[FLASH_VIDEO] [/FLASH_VIDEO]

Igball

I agree, you brought up some good points.

Again I have to agree with PG on this one. You can't "teach" 95. Either you have it or you don't. You may can teach control back backing off velocity, etc. Unfortunately there aren't a lot of Tommy Glavines in the world. I think Maddox had the ability to run it up into the low 90's but chose to give up a few mph's for spotting pitches. Glavine probably topped out in mid 80's but was able to be successful because of pin-point accuracy. Seems to me that it would be more difficult to rely on that type of precision all the time than it would be to be a little "wilder" at 95. I can't throw 85 or 95 so I wouldn't know. PG has evaluatedthousands of pitchers versus me seeing a few 100 so I'll have to defer to his judgement, but it makes sense to me. If it was my paycheck on the line it would be easier to justify a kid throwing 95 with some control issues vs a 85 pitcher getting hit. Just seems to make sense that it is easier to hit 85 than 95. JMO

It's real easy to answer this one.

Would you rather have a HS pitcher throwing 85, or 75?

You can discuss all you want about performance over ability but its not going to change what the college coaches and pro scouts are looking for. I feel for you if your son is a performer but doesn't seem to have the tools the coaches and scouts are looking for. Thats one of the nice things about JC ball, kids that don't hit 90 or stand 6' 0"get a chance to show the college coaches they can pitch/play at the college level or better. My son's college team had a right handed JC pitcher that threw 80-85 but got guys out. He also got drafted. Sometimes the path for a "performer" is a bit longer then for a projectable guy.

Its kind of like the kid with bad grades and a high SAT math score v.s a kid with low/average SAT scores and good grades.

I think this is the most common topic on the hsbaseballweb. Seems like I've seen it in one form or another over 50 times. Maybe 100+?

I am a parent of two Pac10/12 pitchers...who fit both categories in HS...one who was 'projectable' and the other who excelled with 'on the field performance' in HS.

Older one was a 'projectable' 6-4 RHP with a 90+ fastball. His HS W/L record was something like 18-14 (based on memory) and it drove some other parents nutty when he was recruited by nearly every school on the West Coast and beyond and signed with Stanford.

Many of the comments I overheard were similar to the ones starting this thread. Despite the fact that he is now in Triple-A, was all-Pac-10 as a senior in college, drafted 3 times (HS, junior college year and senior college year), pitched in the CWS...there is still an area opposing HS coach who tells a mutual friend that he just isn't that good.

Younger son was a 'what you see is what you get' 5-11 RHP throwing in the mid 80s. His HS W/L record was something like 24-4, was 'all district/state/American' and played on a HS team ranked #1 in the nation as a junior. None of the other parents questioned him being recruited by anyone. His choices were slimmer than the older one, but still wide enough to go to one of his 'dream schools.' Younger son pitched almost twice as many innings as older son as a freshman in college but it is questionable whether he'll ever get drafted.

But guess what? It was/is fair and just.

Each of the two took a different path to their 'dream school.' One was filled with showcases, summer travel and tons of exposure while the other relied mostly on great HS and summer coaches who believed in him.

The point is, there are paths to get there in either case...but only if you're good enough. Crying about it is useless. Find the path that fits the situation and the player.

swat---is that player a thrower or a pitcher

quote:

Originally posted by go3:

quote:

Originally posted by warningtrack:
Performance; the kid who always seems to get the hit when needed. The kid who if you asked his teammates who they want up in a key situation would win easily. His uniform is always dirty.

This is what I want as a coach, the gamer, the fearless, the ball player, but sometimes I think I'm the only one...

I think you're over generalizing for the drama of the point.

I've seen about 15 years of very competetive ball, and now my son's playing in college. He's one of those smallish MIF's who's always had to fight his way on to the field, here in the North Texas area. I've seen this from the front row for about 10 of those years now.

From what I've seen, there are few D1 coaches who are too thick-headed pass over the type of "performance" kid you're talking about, when he's the real deal. But there are ton's of "Charlie Hustle's" in the Metro-Scout and Area code leagues out here...kids with great attitudes, dirty uni's, who are fighting to get noticed. On any given week-end, you can catch a number of them having a great game. But everyone knows who's really got the consistent numbers, and who's always clutch. Everyone. And when one of them is a little smaller, or doesn't project well, but still has those numbers, they still get plenty attention from the D1's.

The concept of projectability has been around for a long time (even before they called it that) because in the aggregate sense it works. And that's why coaches rely on it so much. But they're not stupid.

I really don't think you're on to some un-tapped aspect of scouting that nobody else out there gets.

PGStaff, as usually, has provided this thread with some top-notch information.

To add on from a different perspective...one that is certainly not desirable and certainly not in the forefront of any coach's mind. But, it is a reality...

Its a lot easier to explain away a mistake if that mistake throws 92 than if that mistake throws 82.

Correct my man JH, and if you miss your spots, but miss them at 93-94, you may get the ball back, but if you miss at 85, you don't see that ball again. The margin of error goes up as velocity goes up, and vice-versa. A mid 80's pitcher in college has to be near perfect, because mistakes get whacked.

I enjoyed watching Zito succeed never topping 87, as his opposite number went out in the 4th throwing 94, but the track record for success favors the higher velocity guys.

So while I was at my son's All Star Fall showcase yesterday I sat around amongst some of the Scouts. Mainly because it was a VERY hot fall day and the only shade was back behind home plate! Man it was scalding out compared to last year when it was brutally cold and windy all day. Miserable.

So I met and talked to a couple of very nice older Scouts. One was a scout for the Blue Jays. His son is Tyler Pastornicky who opened the past ball season as the Braves starting SS. Very, very nice man. Talked to me about the world and life of a Scout. Very interesting to say the least.

The other Scout is what I will call the Clint Eastwood in the scouting world. Has been a scout for 37yrs and doesn't even have a radar gun. He said those things nowadays could get a man fired, then laughed. He was a scout for the Diamondbacks. I mentioned to him that I had not seen him raise a gun and he said he didn't need one to see who can pitch and watch batters whiff. One kid was throwing around 95-96 and he didn't know that. He turned around and looked at me and said, "now you see why I don't need a gun to know a kid like this can fling it and I'd never be embarrassed by reporting him". Very jolly man who had a great sense of humor. He said back in the day of Nolan Ryan, Doc Gooden, etc. they did't have guns. They could hear the "sizzle" coming off the ball to home plate.

One scout sitting around I noticed his pages were FULL of notes on players. Very impressed to see him writing down notes all day. While others took a note here and there.

Back to velocity, it really is amazing to see pitchers who can throw eat with relative ease while with others it looks like they're throwing with all they have.

I admit I rolled my eyes when I initially saw this thread....I was thiniking to myself here we go again. But....

We've focused on pitching which is probably the most common position used to measure "projectability" (brochure) vs "perfornace" (product) borrowing RJM's great analogy.

I agree with everything igball said regarding pitchers. justbaseball used a great example with his sons which I found facinating.

What about position players? I would argue that it is harder to measure projectability vs performance with position players. Most of us have seen it.....the physically imposing OF/CIF who repeatedly tears it up during BP but can't put the ball in play in a game when his team needs him.....or the leadoff (short in stature) 2nd baseman that takes a game over with his speed, glove, and attitude.....or the kid that goes "0 for August" but come up with big hit at PG Jupiter in front of hundreds of pro & college scouts . I'd really like to hear from the folks familiar with position players.

There sure is much more to discuss with position players, a bunch more tools need to be displayed to get a good picture. Accuracy of throws under duress, willingness to dive for a hard grounder in the gap, quickness of hands on the exchange, the intangible of understanding where runners are in relation to where a ball is hit (where's the play?), the ability to hit with runners in scoring position, understanding base running without creating unforced errors. It goes on and on.

90+ fastball? Done.

I think that the two tools that can stand out for hitters, similar to MPH for pitchers, are foot speed and bat speed. These are two things that you can see the first time you see a player. That doesn't mean they translate into a star player, but they are projectable, I think.

All the things floridafan mentioned help a player with those two tools climb the ladder.

I would say position players are just as easy as pitchers to evaluate and project. They're both hard and you have to know ahead of time that you will be wrong at times. Hitting ability, power, fielding ability, arm strength and running ability are just as obvious as pitching ability. Once you recognize the physical ability, you start concentrating on the other very important things... Feel for the game, instincts, make up, intelligence, and many other things.

You can't judge a player based entirely on what you see in one day. The chance that you are seeing that player at his very best on any given day is very slim. Plus if it is a game you're watching you will not get all the information you need to properly grade a player. The guys that go early in the draft or receiving big scholarships are scrutinized the most. Once the physical ability is recognized, the real job begins. You see someone who can run and throw and you can't wait to see him hit. You see a guy who can hit or shows power and you can't wait to see him run and throw.

There is no question that the hardest player to evaluate or project is the kid with great intangibles but average tools. But remember this... There is no one in the big leagues with 5 below average tools. Also, one has to understand that some people are capable of achieving amazing seemingly impossible things.

Here is what I think when it comes to pitching. I really believe there is someone out there that throws 80 mph that could be, or could have been a big winner in the Big Leagues.

The problem is that you would need to seriously look at thousands and thousands of pitchers to find him. Even then you would probably be wrong about the one you found and look like an idiot to everyone in your organization.

There are a lot of very good pitchers who don't throw with great velocity. Being a good pitcher is not easy. I enjoy watching a good finesse type pitcher carve up a good line up. Then I wish that pitcher could gain some velocity.

Rome Braves Turnaround

Follow the link for the "Position Player Poster Boy" for this link. The only difference is he got a chance, some don't. Got the opportunity to get to know him this year in Rome, can't believe he lasted until the 18th round. Ended up leading the team in hitting and is probably the best 2B "baseball player" I have seen in my 10 years in Rome, with many diving plays. Outplayed all the high draft picks we had and finally am hearing about his "prospect" status.

One D1 college offer? How does that happen? He is a local Georgian, walk off HR to win the HS state championship. My kids play baseball and will not have a lot of size, so he has been a role model.

For those watching the NLCS, cardinal reliever Trevor Rosenthal was a 20 something pick out of JUCO (one year). He did not play his senior year in HS, no solid D1 offers.

His 100 mph FB has moved him passed those that have been waiting in the wings for a few years as well as the organizations #1 pitching prospect (Shelby Miller).

If you have seen him and agree he is amazing, now you understand why those that throw heat get the nod almost every time over the slower throwing finesse pitcher.

Zito vs Lynn is a great example how experience over velocity often can win games. You can't even compare the two.

I feel such an example goes go show that velocity doesn't really matter, but effective pitching for any pitcher has to do with having several pitches and being able to locate them.