Another SPARQ Thread

Every showcase my son was asked to run the 60. Didn't matter if he ran one yesterday or last week,....or was going to run it tomorrow.

When he was younger, his times varied,....but as he got older ( Senior HS year his technique got better ) his times stayed very close to the same, or slightly improved.

I think that coaches sometimes want to see for themselves ( get a good read on ) the player's technique.
Some players get good times/scores, but it ain't always pretty. Or perhaps they dont get a good score and the coaches see a problem with technique and know how they could correct it. This giving the athlete the benefit of the doubt,...as opposed to getting scratched off the " potential" list,....due to a poor score/time.
This is just a Saturday morning guess,...void of substantial coffee intake.


With that said, I have known some football players ( who played baseball secondary ) who have kicked the snot out of the SPARQ testing,....and yet couldnt hit a ball with a bat if their life depended on it.
This of course falls into the " Leaving aside the debate about whether or not the SPARQ rating gives much valuable information about how well a kid plays baseball " debate,....so dont pay any attention to my last statement.

always hated that Sparq stuff.In general,Im not a fan of the workout aspects of most camps.Ive been to camps where guys had great rounds of BP,and then couldnt hit a lick in a game.Ive been to a camp where a guy ran a 6.6 on his 60,and he couldnt read a pitchers pickoff to save his life

Game situations>workout/sparq numbers

quote:

Originally posted by futurecatcher27:
always hated that Sparq stuff.In general,Im not a fan of the workout aspects of most camps.Ive been to camps where guys had great rounds of BP,and then couldnt hit a lick in a game.Ive been to a camp where a guy ran a 6.6 on his 60,and he couldnt read a pitchers pickoff to save his life

Game situations>workout/sparq numbers

The SPARQ numbers are like any other statistic. They’re only as valid as the data put in, and useful as the person analyzing them.

I have a pet theory that really makes a lot of folks angry, but just for the purpose of showing you aren’t the only one who isn’t a great fan of that kind of think, I’ll throw it out there and take my lumps if necessary.

I honestly don’t believe the great evaluators are all that great when it gets down to the short and curlies about evaluating players. If the players represent a normal bell curve, it doesn’t take a whole lot to be able to pick out the real cruds or the top studs.

After the studs and duds have been identified and removed from the pool, next comes wink wink, nod nod players, and please don’t anyone say it doesn’t happen. But let’s just accept that it does, and move on. After all those guys are eliminated from consideration, it gets a bit more difficult to differentiate from who’s left.

After getting rid of the duds and studs, how much difference is there gonna be between the best and the worst players? Its obvious that whoever selects players in any sport, other than identifying the very best, there’s a whole lot of spittin’ in the wind goin’ on, and many people may as well be doing eeny meeny miney moe!

In order to cover up the lack of the ability to evaluate in any more than a very general way, all these other things are developed. They’re not necessarily designed to identify quality, but rather to cover one’s arse! It’s a lot like the radar gun. If a player a scout touts fails miserably, he can always point to that radar reading to justify his choice. It’s the same with things like SPARQ.

An evaluator can always go back and say how this kid scored 90 and should have done better than he did. Of course as you point out, its entirely possible to get someone who never heard of baseball to score extremely high on the SPARQ scale, but what good would he do someone who needed a ball player?

What’s happening is, SPARQ is measuring certain athletic abilities, not baseball skills. That would be ok, but there are some evaluators out there who don’t care what its measuring! All they care about is the number. The dangerous thing about it is, given everything else being equal, that number will tell a heck of a lot more than if not. So, everyone has to trust that the evaluators at say school “X” had the common sense to take in other things that allowed baseball skills to be evaluated too.

Baseball’s a funny sport. Unlike most other sports where athletic ability is paramount. In baseball, athletic ability is important, but not more important than pure baseball skills.

I understand your point, skeep, but I've never had any coach or scout tell me that he relied on the SPARQ score for very much.

And - even if it was a great and valid measure of baseball ability, it would still not make sense to get measured 4 times in one summer.

quote:

Originally posted by Rob Kremer:
I understand your point, skeep, but I've never had any coach or scout tell me that he relied on the SPARQ score for very much.

I wouldn’t expect otherwise and wouldn’t give much credence to anyone who did. However, try to tell that to dads or players who have been brainwashed into believing it’s so important, they’ll go to or pay for camps, showcases, or whatever where what’s the 1st thing a player has to do? Do the same old **** to get those numbers.

quote:

Originally posted by Rob Kremer:And - even if it was a great and valid measure of baseball ability, it would still not make sense to get measured 4 times in one summer.

Well, that’s a little bit different. If it was a valid measure of baseball ability, what would make sense it to measure it as often as possible! Not that measuring it once a year isn’t valid, but measuring it twice a year would lessen the chances of a good or bad session weighing the numbers too greatly. Also, it could be used to see if the player is constantly improving, pretty much at his limit, or digressing.

I done a couple programs, one for an academy and another for a pitching coach that allowed the used to input different things as the SPARQ does. On of the things that could be input was all the different pitches pitchers threw. For each there was the only objective measure there could be, velocity, but for each there was also a subjective measure that the evaluator/measurer could make an entry for.

So, a P might have an entry for a 4SFB at 82 with a quality off “GOOD”, a 2SFB of 79/POOR, a CU of 74/GREAT, etc.. That way there’d be a lot of data that could be used at some time in the future to try to see if there might be ways to associate certain things to slumps. Of course there’s a lot more to it, but the thing to get out of it is that the more data there is, the more one can trust the conclusions drawn. That’s all most data is good for. It can be used to assist one in drawing conclusions.

But for what you’re talking about, I have to agree. Since no one is using it for decision making, why bother? All anyone is really looking for is the studs and duds, not trying to use it to decide anything else.

quote:

Originally posted by SKeep:

quote:

Originally posted by Rob Kremer:
I understand your point, skeep, but I've never had any coach or scout tell me that he relied on the SPARQ score for very much.

I wouldn’t expect otherwise and wouldn’t give much credence to anyone who did. However, try to tell that to dads or players who have been brainwashed into believing it’s so important, they’ll go to or pay for camps, showcases, or whatever where what’s the 1st thing a player has to do? Do the same old garbage to get those numbers.

Its like its being done because everyone expects it to be done.

quote:

Originally posted by Rob Kremer:And - even if it was a great and valid measure of baseball ability, it would still not make sense to get measured 4 times in one summer.

Well, that’s a little bit different. If it was a valid measure of baseball ability, what would make sense it to measure it as often as possible! Not that measuring it once a year isn’t valid, but measuring it twice a year would lessen the chances of a good or bad session weighing the numbers too greatly. Also, it could be used to see if the player is constantly improving, pretty much at his limit, or digressing.

I done a couple programs, one for an academy and another for a pitching coach that allowed the used to input different things as the SPARQ does. On of the things that could be input was all the different pitches pitchers threw. For each there was the only objective measure there could be, velocity, but for each there was also a subjective measure that the evaluator/measurer could make an entry for.

So, a P might have an entry for a 4SFB at 82 with a quality off “GOOD”, a 2SFB of 79/POOR, a CU of 74/GREAT, etc.. That way there’d be a lot of data that could be used at some time in the future to try to see if there might be ways to associate certain things to slumps. Of course there’s a lot more to it, but the thing to get out of it is that the more data there is, the more one can trust the conclusions drawn. That’s all most data is good for. It can be used to assist one in drawing conclusions.

But for what you’re talking about, I have to agree. Since no one is using it for decision making, why bother? All anyone is really looking for is the studs and duds, not trying to use it to decide anything else.

SPARQ probably fall into the category of being an element of showcases and camps used to enhance their marketability. Having the ability to run fast is much more important than knowing how fast you run.
Fungo

Even better is the ability to run the bases

I recently talked to a trainer who administers the SPARQ tests and uses the numbers. He was a AA player but now is an athletic trainer. Most of the kids that use his services are football players.

His explanation of the test and it's score were that they measure athleticism and it's progress. Nothing else. He also pointed out that SPARQ is owned by NIKE and that doesn't hurt when it comes to marketing.

He likes the test as it is a way to show the customer a result and how they got there. It gives the customer a number and something to improve on.

In football scouting circles it is used as stated above. Find the studs and get rid of the duds. Also, scouts can verify the numbers from a reputable third party.

That’s exactly what they should be used for!

Now if a player was going to an academy or on a team that touted themselves as developing players and they were taking the readings on a regular basis, that’s kool because it would be a way for dad to measure what he was spending big bucks for.

I can also understand why NIKE would want as many data points as possible in the database. But all anyone has to do is take a close look at Prince Fielder running the bases after a HR to see that his SPARQ score didn’t have a lot to do with his making it to the ML.

To my simple mind, SPARQ tests Core athleticism. It is a generalist test, and I think it works in that regard. Does it mean that a kid with a low score is not an athlete/cannot play his/her sport? No. Nor the other way around - one with a high score may not be a better player. But it sets up a general way to test the CORE.

Do I think it is beneficial to test 4 times over the summer? Probably not. But I do think that at the age of 15-18 (or maybe 20?), testing should improve every 6 months, assuming athleticism improves as it should.

quote:

Do I think it is beneficial to test 4 times over the summer? Probably not. But I do think that at the age of 15-18 (or maybe 20?), testing should improve every 6 months, assuming athleticism improves as it should.

Exactly my point. The things measured in SPARQ training simply are not going to vary much over short periods of time.

SPARQ measures certain aspects of athleticism, to be sure. For some positions on the field, those things measured by SPARQ are more important than for others. For hitting, SPARQ isn't very indicitive of anything, I am pretty sure.

So it is applicable directly only to certain positions on one side of the ball.

quote:

Originally posted by Rob Kremer: Exactly my point. The things measured in SPARQ training simply are not going to vary much over short periods of time….

I’m trying to figure out what it is you’re bothered about here. The people who set up the camp/showcase or whatever determine what they’ll do. Whether or not its stupid for them to do it, its still up to them. Are you saying you know better how those folks should run their own camp/showcase, or that they might be just wasting a lot of player time doing that SPARQ stuff rather than something else more important, like playing a game in front of scouts/evaluators?

I hope you understand that I’m pretty sour on the whole thing myself and aren’t against you at all.

Yes, I am saying it is a waste of time to get re-measured every showcase. I'd be willing to bet that half or more of the players at any given showcase have been measured recently enough for that score to be valid.

My premise is that the elements that are measured won't change much from week to week. My son's 60 time or 30 time doesn't vary, his medicine ball throw, shuttle time, etc - all those might change over a six month period, but not between June and August in one summer.

So, I think it would be a better use of time to only measure those kids who haven't been measured recently. For those who have, SPARQ has their score already in their database - just use that score.

quote:

Originally posted by Rob Kremer:
Yes, I am saying it is a waste of time to get re-measured every showcase. I'd be willing to bet that half or more of the players at any given showcase have been measured recently enough for that score to be valid.

As I said earlier, for the most useful and valid numbers, the more often they can be checked, the better. But, I think we all pretty much agree that what SPARQ shows is, is so non-useful to baseball, why its even checked for ball players is really questionable.

If that’s true, and I think it is, why do people just accept it? I recently had a friend take his boy to the Stanford Camp, and was really feeling like his son looked pretty bad because of his SPARQ score. To me that’s asinine!

quote:

My premise is that the elements that are measured won't change much from week to week. My son's 60 time or 30 time doesn't vary, his medicine ball throw, shuttle time, etc - all those might change over a six month period, but not between June and August in one summer.

Well, they definitely could change, but what would that mean in relation to his baseball skills? Let’s say he cut .3 of a second off his 30 time. What would that tell anyone. More importantly, its possible to reduce the 30 time but increase the home-2-first or home-2-second time, or change something in his swing and go from a stud to a dud. So what use is it to have a dud who’s fast as the Devil in the 30?

quote:

So, I think it would be a better use of time to only measure those kids who haven't been measured recently. For those who have, SPARQ has their score already in their database - just use that score.

The biggest problem would be, who would define RECENTLY. Maybe you think within 6 months, the guys at the Stanford Camp think it has to be within 1 month, and the guy at some other place think within 3 months is ok. If Nike would put out a definition, I’m sure everyone would gladly take less time running players through the drills.

But what would you do about the player who wanted to try to improve his numbers? Does he get told no way, you’re scores are too recent? So what you’d have is the logistics of trying to filter players out who need it from the ones who don’t, and that would certainly open up other potential problems.

One would be, what the heck do you do with the players who don’t need to do it? You can’t just have them sit around and wait. In other words, although I agree with you in principle, it just might be logistically more efficient to just set aside a block of time and have everyone do it.

But one thing’s for sure. As long as everyone paying the fees and showing up just blindly does what they’re told to do, nothing’s gonna change. Now I have no idea what the answer to this would be, but I’d like to know. Let’s say you found out that the drills would be goin’ on from 8-11:30 AM, then the rest of the stuff would take place after lunch, so you didn’t show up until 1PM. Would they tell you to bugger off? Would they discount your fees? Or would something else take place?