I feel your pain on this one - I have a 2018 who will be 17 when he graduates. He has commented many times "how do I compete with that" when he hears of a kid throwing 90 who will be nearly 19 if not past when he graduates. My son is 6' 2" and extremely projectable but its going to take another year to get his LHP velo up above 85. For now we are focusing on schools who have a success developing players. JUCO doesn't make sense for him and a gap year would be a tough sell just for baseball.
SOOO many people seemed to have drunk the kool-aid! There are other schools besides D1, and if you are the last man added to the D1 roster you are unlikely to play so what's the point? The tweet that says I am blessed to continue my baseball dream at XYZ college is meaningless in 9th grade, barely has more value in 10th grade, and can all be taken away in 12th grade if a flashier kid comes along.
Don't people transfer to D1 from Juco all the time?
Don't people get drafted from NAIA and D2 schools all the time?
The if/then structure of this whole thread is severely flawed.
-IF the player is draft material THEN he will for sure go D1 so there is no problem securing a D1 offer even in 12th grade.
-IF the player is getting edged out by older guys THEN he wasn't D1 material anyway so there is no problem going D2/D3/NAIA/Juco.
-IF a player could ONLY play D1 baseball, and nothing else, and IF there was no way to MiLB other than D1, then this talk about older kids edging out the younger kids would make sense. Since that is not the case I don't understand this entire thread.
I agree - go where he will play. But you can't also deny the numbers - D1 go in more numbers and higher in the draft - especially the top 50+ D1s. But its not the only path (my son hopes anyways) 
BTW I believe its much easier as a pitcher to make it to the draft from D2/NAIA than other positions.
The truth is that if you are a MLB type prospect in HS, younger at graduation is an advantage as they can "project" you to a higher degree. For everyone else, it is a disadvantage.
If I am a Div 1 Coach do I really care if my Frosh is 18 or 19 incoming? No, can he play is the only question.
Being the older kid relative to the cutoff dates for things like LL, travel ball age limits etc is a distinct advantage. You are often talking about a 10 month swing in age. So when you start at the early years you take 2 kids of the same skill level. Kid #1 is 10 months older, stronger & bigger vs Kid #2 who is smaller & younger. Guess who gets picked for the All Star team? Guess who gets the spot on the top travel team? Guess who gets exposed to better coaching? Guess who gets more reps? Compound this over years 8yo-14/15yo & you have a huge cumulative advantage in development.
One thing that PG does consistently well is clearly acknowledge in their showcase evaluations when a player is younger than average for his class. I had one of those those 17 on draft day kids and the words "young" and/or "projectible" appeared prominently in every one of his six write ups. So age is something that definitely doesn't go unnoticed and I am certain that college coaches and MLB scouts must take it into account when comparing younger players to older ones for recruiting/scouting purposes. They wouldn't be doing their jobs if they weren't. It's not something parents need to be worrying about or comparing family choices over. As many here have said, it all evens out in the end.
There is a flip side to everything....for my 2021 son's age group
you have a kid born in March 2003/2021 graduate who is 5'1" 97 pounds in 12U two years ago
you have another kid born in May 2002/2020 graduate who is 5'10 170 pounds in 12U two years ago
Guess who got overpitched? Guess who never really learned a position because they could get by on being bigger/stronger? Guess who developed a huge uppercut swing going for those 200 foot fence homeruns? Guess who kinda sucked as a freshman in high school this year, 2 years later is still the same size, and skillswise has a lot of catching up to do, except their arm got used up chasing plastic trophies from age 9-12?
My wife (was a teacher then and is now a AP in HS) got great advice from an educator about my son's maturity or lack there of when he was in pre-k. He was ready to go home by noon after completing all of his work and wanted to see his grandma (our paid nanny). She decided to hold him back a year and it worked out great for his academics. Little did we know he would play baseball and that it could help him in this situation. He is not big and was never way ahead of anyone along the way. His Jr. season was a breakout year so i guess he should have been a Sr. That helped with a scholly and so i guess overall that decision ended up as a major factor in the decision to hold him back. I have heard other Dad's/Coaches along the way talk of holding their kids back a grade for athletics when they were about 12-13, before HS. I thought that was crazy. I know of several who were and excelled but only a minority who are still playing college ball today. To each his own, in the end i guess the cream will rise to the top as usual.
3and2Fastball posted:There is a flip side to everything....for my 2021 son's age group
you have a kid born in March 2003/2021 graduate who is 5'1" 97 pounds in 12U two years ago
you have another kid born in May 2002/2020 graduate who is 5'10 170 pounds in 12U two years ago
Guess who got overpitched? Guess who never really learned a position because they could get by on being bigger/stronger? Guess who developed a huge uppercut swing going for those 200 foot fence homeruns? Guess who kinda sucked as a freshman in high school this year, 2 years later is still the same size, and skillswise has a lot of catching up to do, except their arm got used up chasing plastic trophies from age 9-12?
Sounds like big boy had rotten coaches & parents without a clue, which is typical. What about the younger kid? Is he da man now?
I'm talking big picture with my take on it. Clearly, anyone here can give examples for either side but on average, if 2 kids are competing & one is 10 months older than the other, he has a physical advantage. It's just nature, nothing more.
20% of NHL Hockey players are born in Jan & Feb.
14% of NHL Hockey players are born in Nov & Dec.
Why would this be? See my prior post for the answer.
cabbagedad posted:Texas 2 Sons posted:Cabbage I appreciate the thoughtfulness with your response. This thread honestly doesn't have anything to do with that thread. In fact my 2019 and I had an honest conversation about things this past wknd during a tourney and it went better than I could have expected.
The premise of this thread is something that I've thought about and dealt with since my son started playing LL some 12 yrs ago. I've seen 1st hand where this has helped kids stand out long term and when it was only short term. I've always thought that the only reason a kid should be held back is for academics. If not, then the parent is only trying to give their kid an advantage that they weren't born with. The school system used to frown upon parents doing this and so did society, but somewhere along the way that changed. IMO parents are taking advantage of a loophole that changes the natural balance of order, mostly because they didn't want their child to be average.
There's a sense of fairness (and yes I know life's not fair) that's being trampled on. I don't have a problem with my 16 yr old competing against and being judged against his peer group of other 16yr olds for a chance to play college ball. There will always be someone bigger, stronger, faster than him who's his peer. I just think forcing him to have to compete with 17yr olds for the same opportunities isn't right, let them compete with other 17 yr olds. My son was the starting SS for his varsity team this year and the #2 starter, so I'm not talking about playing in HS. I'm talking about playing at the next level at the best possible college he can.
Well, what do you think is going to happen the first day he steps foot on that college field? He is going to compete with guys 3,4,5 years older for the same position. Why the heck wouldn't you 100% encourage him to embrace that challenge every day instead of let it bother you for 12 years?
Then, if he earns PT at that position, the next year the coach is going to try to bring someone in that is better than him... maybe a JC transfer or a bigger, better recruit. You are thinking just about the playing field that leads up to the offer. The most important part of college baseball is what happens after that. If your son is talented enough, which I suspect he is, it won't matter what the "held back" kid gets offered. Your son will make his way to a good place based on his own merits. But he will need to have the mindset that he is ready and willing to take on all challengers, no matter what obstacles lie in front of him.
It is really great to hear that you and son had a good conversation. I respectfully disagree that this thread doesn't have anything to do with the other
Cabbagedad hits on an important point about how hard the college game is both physically and mentally. As a former college athlete (many, many moons ago), one of the hardest things I dealt with from a mental perspective was the idea of the coaching staff constantly on the hunt for my replacement, even when I was a back-up. It was never personal, just one of those things that competitive programs have to do to continually improve; however that realization does not make it any easier for all of the kids working to compete year-in and year-out.
A lot of good points that make sense here. It is one of those debates where everyone is right to an extent.
Here is kind of the way I see it FWIW
We see far more young kids playing in older divisions (playing up) than vice versa (playing down). Usually these are the most talented younger kids. In college there can be four years difference in competition. Same for professional baseball, Some younger kids are better than most older kids. some older kids are better than most younger kids. Colleges and pros are both looking for the best kids. However, projection plays a bigger part in the draft. Everyone is expected to get better as they get older, but younger kids have extra time to develop.
Of course things like size, strength, and development play into it and are an advantage. But what if the younger kid is bigger, stronger and more developed than most of the older kids? What if the older kid is much smaller, less strong, and less developed than the younger kids? I mean these kids aren't all the same. Other than in school or those that are cheating, don't you choose what age group you play in? Of course most choose to play based on their grad year, for obvious reasons. The grad year is what determines when you will be a freshman in college or eligible for the draft.
Not sure what it means but here is a study done on a recent MLB draft.
Can't both these things be true?
(1) You and your son shouldn't worry about other kids who were held back in school for athletic purposes. Focus on what you can control -- your attitude and effort -- and try to continue to improve.
(2) Being older does, on average, confer advantages in sports for pre-teens and teens. There is overwhelming evidence of this. See, e.g., Steve A's post about hockey players (where a calendar year cutoff is used), PGStaff's post about the Top 25 kids in the 2018 rankings all being 17 (not a 16 year old to be seen, despite the fact that tons of kids in the general school population of the class of 2018 are still 16), etc., etc., etc.
I don't see why #2 is controversial. It's just data.
P.S. -- the reason that MLB tends to prefer, between two comparably skilled players, the younger player, is because they believe in the age vs skill curve (below). If you thought Moniak and Rutherford were very comparable as of June 2016, then Moniak would likely be the better prospect because he's a year younger than Rutherford. If MLB believes in this curve, why do we find it hard to accept?
Texas 2 Sons posted:PGStaff posted:the best 17 year olds have no problem competing against the best 18 year olds. In fact the best 16 year olds have no problem competing against the best 18 year olds. When it comes time to decide between two players of similar ability, the youngest one wins, because players are expected to improve in time. Maybe some might say that isn't fair to the older kid.
Of course a lot has to do with physical maturity rather than just age. All 16 year olds are not the same. Other than maturity you have college freshman beating out college seniors that are four years older in some cases. Guess I don't understand why anyone would think being older is cheating when the clear advantage is being younger. Either way, it is all about talent and projection when it comes to decision makers.
The highest drafted position player in next years draft, if he were only eligible, will be a junior this coming year. He is actually getting cheated by being too young. If a player cant compete and be recognized playing against kids one or two years older, he isn't likely to play at a high next level when he is older. That said, there are always some late bloomers and they are usually the younger guys. Freshman are freshman and seniors are seniors, baseball doesn't dictate that, but recruiting and the draft go by it.
PG thank you for making my point with your last paragraph. If the kid you're talking about is from Texas and his dad played in the MLB (I don't want to mention the kids name) and he's the #1 ranked 2019 player on your website. That kid is already 17! Had his parents not held him back he would be an incoming senior and therefore be available for next years draft. He's not being cheated at all like you said. He does have an advantage of being a year older than his peers though! It will be interesting to follow and see if he will be drafted 1st overall since he will turn 19 either right before or right after the draft happens.
7 or 8 of those top 25 2018's are the same age or older than my 2017. Of the remaining 18, 2/3 of those are 2-4 months younger.
But, none of this matters. He's playing in a collegiate summer league, doing his college summer workout for the past month, and getting ready to attend school next month.
Their ages are beyond his control, so there's no need to think about it. There's much too much to focus on with college weeks away.
Here is something I think we can all agree on...
Baseball at the top seems to be getting younger. Especially those at the all star level.
I remember it was only 5 years ago or so that shortstop was the position that had the least MLB players that had gone to PG events. This year all four all star shortstops had gone to multiple PG events. And there are others I think Addison Russell made it last year. Actually Russell, Correa, Lindor, and Seager all played in the PG All American game. A lot of people don't know who the youngest of that group is... It is Carlos Correa!. Three of those guys played on the same team at Petco Park before their senior HS year. Wonder how many that were there thought they might be watching 3 future MLB All Stars covering the infield for the East team.
Think about todays superstars... They are mostly kids that signed out of HS. Trout, Harper, Kershaw, Correa, etc.
Then again, here comes the JUDGE. Baseball is really interesting these days, can't remember when there were this many young guys leading the way.
Question... At what age do we quit thinking about a difference in age or in grade? Obviously the younger they are the bigger the difference. What is the age that it no longer matters that you are younger than others?
PGStaff posted:
Question... At what age do we quit thinking about a difference in age or in grade? Obviously the younger they are the bigger the difference. What is the age that it no longer matters that you are younger than others?
Younger is always better. So: never. A player hitting free agency at the age of 27 has more leverage than a player hitting free agency at 29.
PGStaff posted:Here is something I think we can all agree on...
Baseball at the top seems to be getting younger. Especially those at the all star level.
I remember it was only 5 years ago or so that shortstop was the position that had the least MLB players that had gone to PG events. This year all four all star shortstops had gone to multiple PG events. And there are others I think Addison Russell made it last year. Actually Russell, Correa, Lindor, and Seager all played in the PG All American game. A lot of people don't know who the youngest of that group is... It is Carlos Correa!. Three of those guys played on the same team at Petco Park before their senior HS year. Wonder how many that were there thought they might be watching 3 future MLB All Stars covering the infield for the East team.
Think about todays superstars... They are mostly kids that signed out of HS. Trout, Harper, Kershaw, Correa, etc.
Then again, here comes the JUDGE. Baseball is really interesting these days, can't remember when there were this many young guys leading the way.
Question... At what age do we quit thinking about a difference in age or in grade? Obviously the younger they are the bigger the difference. What is the age that it no longer matters that you are younger than others?
Judge is a rookie at 25. Is that young? According to previous graph, he will hit his peak before his first contract. Clint Frazier was drafted at 18 yrs, 9 months at #5. He is 22. For all this talk about age, it seems pretty evident that talent trumps age regardless. If there is another superstar out there, I doubt they will get passed over if they were 19yrs and 1 month when they graduated.
Concerning pros playing PG, aren't we at the point now where PG is the door you must go through to get there (at least for US players)? I don't consider that a negative, just an observation. It would be preferable to have competition but I don't see it. Seems they just did it better. I don't think that pros playing PG is news any longer. The San Diego game is the largest carrot in the baseball today. Hat off to that idea.
There are a lot more younger players these days because of MLBs crackdown on PEDs and HGH. That changed everything.
There was just as much talent as there is now but those players were held back, now you have to bring them up before they waste away.
JMO
TPM posted:There are a lot more younger players these days because of MLBs crackdown on PEDs and HGH. That changed everything.
There was just as much talent as there is now but those players were held back, now you have to bring them up before they waste away.
JMO
Agree, but I see additional factors. With the training and focus on physical development now, as opposed to 20-30 years ago, you are graduating HS kids who are incredibly advanced, physically. In addition, with exposure to playing vs. the best of the best from the entire country throughout the HS years at PG events on a regular basis, these players are WAY more prepared for the MILB level.
If you are a top HS position player today, you will be exposed to 90 plus velo on a regular basis at these events. In previous years, you were likely to have NEVER seen 90 at the HS level, or if so, rarely in your small area. So 20 years ago when you sign, it takes you 2-3 years just to get a grip on that level of pitching.
Today, guys like Correa, Lindor, etc have taken thousands of more reps & been exposed to countless more quality live AB's than a HS player pre PG. These top level guys are almost instantly on the edge of MLB ready.
Steve A. posted:TPM posted:There are a lot more younger players these days because of MLBs crackdown on PEDs and HGH. That changed everything.
There was just as much talent as there is now but those players were held back, now you have to bring them up before they waste away.
JMO
Agree, but I see additional factors. With the training and focus on physical development now, as opposed to 20-30 years ago, you are graduating HS kids who are incredibly advanced, physically. In addition, with exposure to playing vs. the best of the best from the entire country throughout the HS years at PG events on a regular basis, these players are WAY more prepared for the MILB level.
If you are a top HS position player today, you will be exposed to 90 plus velo on a regular basis at these events. In previous years, you were likely to have NEVER seen 90 at the HS level, or if so, rarely in your small area. So 20 years ago when you sign, it takes you 2-3 years just to get a grip on that level of pitching.
Today, guys like Correa, Lindor, etc have taken thousands of more reps & been exposed to countless more quality live AB's than a HS player pre PG. These top level guys are almost instantly on the edge of MLB ready.
That is very good analysis, Steve A
Steve A. posted:TPM posted:There are a lot more younger players these days because of MLBs crackdown on PEDs and HGH. That changed everything.
There was just as much talent as there is now but those players were held back, now you have to bring them up before they waste away.
JMO
Agree, but I see additional factors. With the training and focus on physical development now, as opposed to 20-30 years ago, you are graduating HS kids who are incredibly advanced, physically. In addition, with exposure to playing vs. the best of the best from the entire country throughout the HS years at PG events on a regular basis, these players are WAY more prepared for the MILB level.
If you are a top HS position player today, you will be exposed to 90 plus velo on a regular basis at these events. In previous years, you were likely to have NEVER seen 90 at the HS level, or if so, rarely in your small area. So 20 years ago when you sign, it takes you 2-3 years just to get a grip on that level of pitching.
Today, guys like Correa, Lindor, etc have taken thousands of more reps & been exposed to countless more quality live AB's than a HS player pre PG. These top level guys are almost instantly on the edge of MLB ready.
Attachments
Images (1)
REALGREEN,
I was referring to the stars. The best players in the game today. Not the over all numbers, which would be higher/older because the draft is now dominated by college players. 22, 23 year old players are becoming all stars. And that didn't just start this year.
In the 1972 first round you had (5) 4 Year College Players; 19 HS Players taken.
In the 2016 first round you had 21 College & 20 HS.
So, overall the age trend is higher as the universe of MILB players is older to start, but the top elite HS players are more ready than ever to impact MLB, not just get there.
TPM posted:There are a lot more younger players these days because of MLBs crackdown on PEDs and HGH. That changed everything.
There was just as much talent as there is now but those players were held back, now you have to bring them up before they waste away.
JMO
Also young players are less expensive. They aren't eligible for free agency.
Pro scouts pay attention to how physically mature kids are and assess their projectability. College scouts care much less about projectability and more about what the kid can do now. There is no doubt that more physically developed kids will, on average, appear to be better athletes. Men do not hit full physical maturity until their late 20's, on average (without PEDs). Skill positions / athletes often improve for another decade after that. On top of that biological age is often 2-3 years different + or - than calendar age. Last summer (junior-senior summer) several MLB scouts noticed that my son did not yet have facial hair (not shaving), but was already nearly 6'3'' and was topping out at 88. Very projectable was the term used, and though he wasn't drafted in June, my son agreed with the scouts' thinking, and did what was in his control. This summer he didn't play baseball but made the mechanical adjustments the scouts recommended and trained according to the Long Term Athlete Development Model (Olympic model) and his biological age, which is about 16. His velocity has increased enough that it would put him in the top ranks if he had another year of high school. But the scouts know who he is and where he is playing next year.
PS: Juco is a great choice for late bloomers. If he wants to play college ball at the highest level possible it gives him time to mature; it is very hard to tell what their true ceiling is if they are still growing.
RJM posted:TPM posted:There are a lot more younger players these days because of MLBs crackdown on PEDs and HGH. That changed everything.
There was just as much talent as there is now but those players were held back, now you have to bring them up before they waste away.
JMO
Also young players are less expensive. They aren't eligible for free agency.
This.
Yep, I was trying to bring it back to the original thread topic. But on the point of why there are more younger guys at the highest levels, I would sure like to see data. I don't understand why PEDs would hold younger players back, unless it was keeping older players, whose bodies would otherwise be degrading, in the game longer. Another possible explanation for the younger players, besides more elite competition being available, is the shorter learning curve due to increased information. Once a good athlete is physically mature, he can learn elite mechanics much quicker thanks to the internet and now we have feedback systems like the ZEP.