Best West Coast School for Developing a Pitcher?

Being a Texas guy, I would throw Baylor into mix. Head Coach is one of the most respected pitching coaches in the nation. I think they had 4 maybe 5 pitchers get drafted this year.

I know the staff there and they are top notch. Facilities are as good as anybody, and the workouts that they put their pitchers through is a killer. I have seen it work and my pitchers started at the end of our season in May. I have already seen the results this summer.

Long Beach State pitchers have been very successful under Troy Buckley's leadership.
Some names to consider: Jered Weaver, Abe Alvarez, and this year's LBS success story (draft eligible in 06) Jared Hughes who transferred from another west coast college this season.

Also I would suggest keeping in mind that it is a wonderful thing to find a school where the pitchers develop such that they improve, but I believe the concept of developing pitchers so that they get drafted highly and suceed in pro ball is wonderful if it happens, but is not generally the goal for college programs ... it is nice if it happens, but that is not the purpose of the pitching coach IMO.

Plus, let's face it ... some pitchers have physical attributes & strengths (e.g., height, left-handedness, velocity) that are more highly desireable to the pro teams and that are likely to improve those pitchers' draft status no matter what the level of development in college.

So, IMO, developing a pitcher for success in college (read: WINNING) is likely to happen more frequently than developing a college pitcher for a higher/better draft status and professional success.

By the way, I know you included states as far east as Texas in your "definition" of the West Coast but that is quite a stretch

No. 1 is any school where John Savage is the coach, which now happens to be UCLA. Must disagree on Stanford for pitcher development. A lot of guys seem to disappear there.

Stanford is a great school, for sure, but I would take USC or UCLA first every time.

IMO, Cal Poly, with Pitching Coach Jerry Weinstein beats all! His 35+ years of coaching experience cover HS teams, College teams, Pros (majors-Dodgers, minors-Brewers, Expos and Cubs) and also USA Olympic teams. This past 2005 draft, Weinstein had 3 of his pitchers drafted, Olson(Jr)-1st round suppl; Shull(Sr)-4th round; Bille(Sr)-signed as free agent. Program also had 2 position players drafted this year: Blumenthal(C-Sr)-14th round and Bergland(1B-Jr)-16th round. Cal Poly is also a top-rated academic school that is located on the beautiful California coast!

quote:

Originally posted by FutureBack.Mom:
Also I would suggest keeping in mind that it is a wonderful thing to find a school where the pitchers develop such that they improve, but I believe the concept of developing pitchers so that they get drafted highly and suceed in pro ball is wonderful if it happens, but is not generally the goal for college programs ... it is nice if it happens, but that is not the purpose of the pitching coach IMO.

Plus, let's face it ... some pitchers have physical attributes & strengths (e.g., height, left-handedness, velocity) that are more highly desireable to the pro teams and that are likely to improve those pitchers' draft status no matter what the level of development in college.

So, IMO, developing a pitcher for success in college (read: WINNING) is likely to happen more frequently than developing a college pitcher for a higher/better draft status and professional success.

Gotta agree with some of the above. IMO Weinstein at Cal Poly and Savage at UCLA are among the best there are.

No offense to other board members with kids there and they'll know better than me, but SC and Stanford have reputations for either ignoring you (rather than develop you) or wearing out your arm (if you are one of the few being used). I realize that's a large generalization, but seems to have been the case often at those schools.

USF has done some amazing things (Foppert, ETal.)without getting top signs... Pitching Coach Greg Moore appears to be another top flight guy, who gets more out of his charges than anyone expects.

Would echo the positives on LB.

Whats the concensus on some of the others...UCSB? What about the DII's SSU? UCSD?

I agree with Buckley and Savage, and I have heard good things about Moore, and hope they are true as that seems where my son is headed in 06-07. I beleive another good coach, although small school is John Verhoven(please pardon spelling) At Biola. He has turned out several recent draftees

KJ..See previuous posts on USF...Moore was our primary contact. Though our situation didn't work out there for our oldest and pobably will not with the youngest, we did get a good look at the program and I would send either of my sons there without hesitation, and particularly if they were pitchers. Moore is a quality guy and has had some wonderful success. In my world that would be an excellent choice.

I saw the previous thread and I appreciate yours and everyone elses comments. My son likes Moore's demeanor and way he appraoches the game. He is looking forward to visiting the campus as he has never been there, there being San Francisco. This is an exciting time for my son

Okay, I have to put in a plug for Cal here. We have found it to be an excellent program thus far for pitchers. My son really likes and respects Coach Dan Hubbs and believes that he has done a good job developing and nurturing pitchers. He has nothing but good things to say about his experience and is looking forward to the fall.

Would echo TPM and FBM, and take it a step forward...and backward...

"Developing" can most often be read as "tweaking". Programs need/want a pitcher who can win...now. Betting on the future is a risky proposition for player and coach.

For players...you may be chosen because the team didn't come up with a guy who can win now, but the team could very well be able to next year depending upon their recuiting. You could be out.

For a coach... you spend a year or two developing a pitcher you get a good year and then he transfers of goes in the draft. Why bother, or risk it, if you can get contrbution from a recuit right now.

IMO there are more "Tweakers" and "Developers". College Coaches with the patience, the skills, the desire and the vision to see what the future holds are hard to find. That being said, the names mentioned above have all pretty much shown an ability to develop - taking a less-then-Blue-Chip recruit and fulfill his potential.

Now that being said,lets go backwards...IMO would suggest that there IS tremendous residual value for a program getting a player drafted and even more from one reaching the bigs and even more from professional stardom. Every school we saw/see, every media guide we saw/are sent, highlights the players in the professional ranks. Colleges would not make such a big deal of that if it did not play right into the dreams of recruits and parents (no matter how unrealistic)and help get top recuits. It works like this..Draft picks=better recruits=higher draft picks=better recruits...
Once a coach gets this thing started he has a potential gravy train.

The Key for any parent/player is to consdier the model of the schoool you are looking at, doing your homework and understanding their particular method. No school is exclusively one method or the other, and neither method is right or wrong, but players/parents need to try to get a read and consider/choose the one that fits you and your expectations the best. Guess what we're back to fit again...

Also wouldn't be too hard on Stanford. Some of the smartest baseball people I know, and some of you most intelligent posters on this board made Stanford their choice for their young pitchers and it is working out beautifully for them.

URKillingmeblue I have replyed to your PM.

Observer ...

Hmmmmm ... couple of thoughts here:

quote:

Every school we saw/see, every media guide we saw/are sent, highlights the players in the professional ranks. Colleges would not make such a big deal of that if it did not play right into the dreams of recruits and parents (no matter how unrealistic)and help get top recuits.

I agree wholeheartedly that the number of professional alumni definitely seem to "reflect" the quality of a school's program and play into the hopes and dreams of those being recruited. However, where I tend to disagree with you is in the apparent presumption (not specifically by you) that the drafting of a player from any given program is a direct result of the developmental techniques of the coaching staff. IMO the players brought an awful lot to the program already and even tho I believe that many players develop significantly during their college years, I believe it is more a result of the talent/skill that the player came with as well as the frequency of actually playing the game ... nothing beats the devlopment that takes place when a player is actively playing, hitting, pitching in live games (as opposed to simulations).

I do not mean to imply that coaches don't help with the development of their players and pitchers, but I know from first hand experience with my son that the development he experienced in college is very very different than that which he is experiencing as a professional, and I have seen it with several of his former pitching buddies from college. But again, these are all just my humble opinions ...

I'll give you a little different slant on this question.

Of the 7 schools that recruited our son the hardest, only 3 had the same pitching coach by the time he started college (less than 50%). Luckily, 1 of the 3 that has stayed stable is where he ended up...the aforementioned evil empire (where nearly everyone wants to go by the way)...Stanford.

Pitching coaches are typically fairly young and looking to move up in the coaching ranks. Its not the surest bet that the guy that recruits you will be the guy who coaches you. Better to base your decision on a wide range of factors that add up to the best fit rather than any single factor.

If you're looking for pure development as a pitcher I would suggest that you hope the Atlanta Braves draft you.

FBM....

Have trained, developed and coached athletes fulltime for more decades than I want to count and as much as it may seem in my post that I may emphasise the developmental factor over what a friend of mine calls the "freak of nature factor". I agree with you completely....Genes play a tremendous roll. In fact (this will open a whole new can of worms as it is not a popular opinion but...) I have come to believe that no matter how hard a player works, now matter how hard he aspires and wants it, at each level of competition there are some with the qualifying genes and some without them. Yes, within the qualifying gene pool player may seperate themsleves with work ethic, but some simply do not have the right pieces.

Have also come to believe that once you get a "rep" you attract from a better gene pool and you look like a genius when in fact you are getting material that just makes you look so. (Until you get get lazy as a result...)

And humble or not, thanks for you response and your valued opinions....it all helps. You don't need to agree with me, I am often wrong/mistaken and do value intelligent dialogue.

Speaking of intelligent dialogue....JB...Right again. (Don't you hate being right all the time?)

Good point on the turnover in pitching coaches and interesting story on the "big 7". Though I figure the story is tainted by the fact that the reason the four coaches left was because they DIDN"T land your son!

Good advice....Another thing to look for is stability in the pitching coach ranks, or any other coaching ranks for that matter. On a visit I believe that you can get a feel.

Oh, and where do I call to let the Braves know that I'm finally ready to sign?...