Can Baseball Organizations Stop Cherry Picking....

Not that I don't believe you, but could you post some actual links? 

Not gonna do that for kids sakes, but PBR is the culprit. I get it, you want to build up a brand by being out there, but at least make the video match your write ups

As I told someone, if you want me to give up drinking, surround me with PBR...

Just curious, why does this bother you so much?

Each PBR state is an individually owned franchise.  Some are very good and others not so much. In Texas and Oklahoma (for example) PBR does a very good job and their information is credible.   So broad brush criticisms of PBR don't hold water.

Because it doesn’t paint a true picture of what actually transpired 

2022OFDad posted:

Because it doesn’t paint a true picture of what actually transpired 

I think, like me, what he's wondering is why it concerns you to the point of posting about it. Ok, we can all see the moral or ethical issue of it--but what is the additional layer of motivation for your post?

Short Answer: No

There is a reason Bryce Harper was on every poster and billboard even when he was hitting .220 in June. It's not about promoting the best, it's about promoting those perceived to be the best. Harper had a down year, he's obviously a very good player. Maybe these kids are good, but had a down showcase, I don't know. 

Everybody is guilty of it. PBR has players ranked in their top 50 that might not be the best player in their town. PG has scout write-ups of guys who couldn't get out of the 2nd inning but touched 92 once. But a player/the parent of a young player will look at the rankings/tweets see something they perceive to be good and sign up for a showcase/tournament because that it what they think they need to do. 

We have a player on our team committed to a top D1 program. He's big and throws hard, but couldn't record an out in a start down in Georgia. PG still had a nice writeup about him and his 94mph fastball as one of their Top Daily Performers. A friend of ours went to a PBR showcase. He said the "top prospect" they had been touting all over their site and twitter did not put a ball out of the IF. 

It's all for clicks, likes, which lead to money which is what it's all about. A lot of the time they are pretty good at identifying good players and get it right. They're also wrong a good amount. But the sooner you stop worrying about rankings, tweets, and the easier your life will get. The only thing that matters is your son getting in contact with the right schools and coaches. 

At the first PBR event we attended the guy running it made it clear that PBR was an advocate for the player. That they were there to help the players in any way possible get a baseball scholarship.  Also, it stands to reason that putting out a tweet like "here's a video of Johnny Smith striking out, he sucks" probably isn't going to result in an uptick in attendance at your next showcase. It would also stand to reason there's more honest feedback that takes place between PBR and college coaches behind the scenes.

Let's not forget... PBR events are SHOWCASE events.  It is about displaying recruitable tools as much (if not more) as it is about showing results.  So, for example, if a kid throws an inning or two and has the highest velo at the event but struggles to get outs, he is certainly likely to get mentioned in a positive manner due to the very recruitable tool he displayed.  If a hitter shows good, projectable size and strength and an efficient power swing, he may very well get properly noted/recongnized, even if he goes Ofer and pops up four times.  He showed very recruitable tools.

As a dad of a kid who had to show it by getting it done every day instead of possessing top tier tools, this was a very frustrating learning process but you come to understand.

Matt13 posted:

2022OFDad posted:

Because it doesn’t paint a true picture of what actually transpired 

I think, like me, what he's wondering is why it concerns you to the point of posting about it. Ok, we can all see the moral or ethical issue of it--but what is the additional layer of motivation for your post?

Does there have to be a “motivation to your post” or should I post “what brand baseball pants do you like?” 

Ok, so are PG and PBR “player advocates” or are they scouting services? Because to me, to be completely objective, they could never really be considered a scouting service if they consider themselves player advocates. It’s one or the other.

2022OFDad posted:

Matt13 posted:

2022OFDad posted:

Because it doesn’t paint a true picture of what actually transpired 

I think, like me, what he's wondering is why it concerns you to the point of posting about it. Ok, we can all see the moral or ethical issue of it--but what is the additional layer of motivation for your post?

Does there have to be a “motivation to your post” or should I post “what brand baseball pants do you like?” 

I'm going to start calling you Dodge Intrepid, because you seem to grind your gears a lot.

Ha ha, I guess. Should I start calling you Jay Leno?

2022OFDad posted:

Ok, so are PG and PBR “player advocates” or are they scouting services? Because to me, to be completely objective, they could never really be considered a scouting service if they consider themselves player advocates. It’s one or the other.

They're businesses, that's all there is to it. They have a product (recruiting/scouting services), but the goal is to make money. If it wasn't, they wouldn't be charging for memberships, showcases, etc. Yes they're scouting, but they're also promoting to build interest and acquire new customers. It's both, but mostly, they're there to make money. It is not always fair and it is not always right, but if the revenue shows that promoting top players regardless of performance draws more clicks, likes, retweets, etc they're not going to change a thing. 

I've found PBR to be reasonably good around here.  I have some issues with some of their rankings, but in general they seem pretty even handed, handing out some criticism with their praise.

  Sometimes they let the stat do the talking, i.e.(SON BRAG ALERT WARNING) S recorded an unusually high OF velo. Instead of saying that he had a "cannon", they just stated his mph. Any HC/RC watching would know what that number meant. No need for hyperbole.

PBR here is fair.  They came to see my son during preseason last year and he was not his best at all. They wrote about it. It sucked. As a parent, I was like, could t they just say nothing?  He is a good player and it was one outing. Didn’t make or break his career.  They can tell who is good. A kid who continuously pops up isn’t going to stay ranked high.  When everyone (PBR, PG) is considering a guy a stud, it probably holds water and you saw him on a bad day.

I find a lot of parents forget the role that projectability has to play in the PBR and PG ratings/rankings.  There are always kids who are currently terrific players but just don't have the overall athleticism to succeed at the next level.  Likewise there are kids who are raw from a skills perspective but have excellent size and athleticism.  

I always chuckle on any prospect report, anywhere, where it says "Good student."

Reminds me of when I first joined our local Little League board.  At one of my first monthly board meetings, I made the mistake of referencing a player and said "He's a really good kid."

As soon as I said it, in unison, the entire board all said "They're all good kids!" in a mocking way to say that they are all good kids, even when they are not.

When I read "Good student" as the close of someone's prospect report, a little voice in my head says "They're all good students!"

when I read they are a good student I go back to when my friends told me a girl had a great personality.  usually meant she was not the best looking girl. 

PitchingFan posted:

when I read they are a good student I go back to when my friends told me a girl had a great personality.  usually meant she was not the best looking girl. 

That brings back some painful memories.

Perhaps I'm the one who is naive, but when I read "good student" at the end of a profile, I don't think of it as damning the kid with faint praise.  I take it to mean he has a decent GPA, say something above a 3.0.  If it says "very good student" or "outstanding student," I figure the GPA is even higher, perhaps above a 3.75, maybe above a 4.0.  Given that everyone here says that the first question to a kid out of a college coach's mouth is "What are your grades?  Can I see your transcript?" this seems like information college coaches might want to see in the profile so they don't go any further with a kid that is not going to make it through the admissions office.  I have seen first round draft picks with PG profiles that say good student.

I’ve also seen “good student” on a profile for a kid who I personally know is not a good student and will have trouble in college

I always read it as good student of the game. 

LuckyCat posted:

Perhaps I'm the one who is naive, but when I read "good student" at the end of a profile, I don't think of it as damning the kid with faint praise.  I take it to mean he has a decent GPA, say something above a 3.0.  If it says "very good student" or "outstanding student," I figure the GPA is even higher, perhaps above a 3.75, maybe above a 4.0.  Given that everyone here says that the first question to a kid out of a college coach's mouth is "What are your grades?  Can I see your transcript?" this seems like information college coaches might want to see in the profile so they don't go any further with a kid that is not going to make it through the admissions office.  I have seen first round draft picks with PG profiles that say good student.

Everything is about context I guess.  This is the way I usually see it used as well.

In 2017 the average unweighted high school gpa was 3.38. So an average student gets a 3.38.** Yet half of college freshmen have to take remedial level courses. A 3.0 is now a below average student. The problem is in our feel good, hurt no feelings environment kids are raised in now teachers give out A’s and B’s like candy at Halloween.

Therefore, if a kid can’t get a 3.0 in high school can his college coach expect him to survive eligibility in college given the rigorous time demands?

** Source: US Department of Education, National Center for Educational Statistics

Not to get too far off topic, but course rigor matters, a lot. A 3.5 with 13 AP courses is not the same as a 3.5 without.

RJM posted:

In 2017 the average unweighted high school gpa was 3.38. So an average student gets a 3.38.** Yet half of college freshmen have to take remedial level courses. A 3.0 is now a below average student. The problem is in our feel good, hurt no feelings environment kids are raised in now teachers give out A’s and B’s like candy at Halloween.

Therefore, if a kid can’t get a 3.0 in high school can his college coach expect him to survive eligibility in college given the rigorous time demands?

** Source: US Department of Education, National Center for Educational Statistics

While I agree that a 3.0 today isn't what it was 30 years ago (or even 20 years ago), I suspect it is not a bad GPA for a D1 P5 baseball player.  When Perfect Game says "good student" I think they mean safely above the NCAA's minimum 2.3 GPA to be academically eligible to play D1 sports.  When they say very good or outstanding student, I think they are signaling that the kid may be able to get admission based on merit to, and maybe academic money from, a more selective or HA school.

But, I'm just guessing.

RJM posted:

In 2017 the average unweighted high school gpa was 3.38. So an average student gets a 3.38.** Yet half of college freshmen have to take remedial level courses. A 3.0 is now a below average student. The problem is in our feel good, hurt no feelings environment kids are raised in now teachers give out A’s and B’s like candy at Halloween.

 

Don't discount the fact that it makes the teachers look good too.  "I'm a great teacher!  Everyone in my class buys in and excels!  Just look at those grades!  Everyone is an A-student."  

57special posted:

Not to get too far off topic, but course rigor matters, a lot. A 3.5 with 13 AP courses is not the same as a 3.5 without.

I agree. But I’ll guess the typical college baseball prospect isn’t loaded down with a lot of AP courses in high school. On the other hand based on what I read about AP courses in the Sunday paper maybe we should questions how hard they are now. 

Maybe the kids are just smarter?

I would also contend that grade inflation is not all on the teachers...a lot of parents put a ton of time in after school to help their kids improve. There is a huge tutoring industry now as well, so don’t be so quick to throw out the baby with the bath water (there’s an old analogy RJM can get behind).

2022OFDad posted:

Maybe the kids are just smarter?

I will need proof of that.

RJM posted:

57special posted:

Not to get too far off topic, but course rigor matters, a lot. A 3.5 with 13 AP courses is not the same as a 3.5 without.

I agree. But I’ll guess the typical college baseball prospect isn’t loaded down with a lot of AP courses in high school. On the other hand based on what I read about AP courses in the Sunday paper maybe we should questions how hard they are now. 

Calc, Chem, Physics, US Lit, APUSH, etc...they are plenty demanding. There are a couple of weird ones like "AP Introduction to Computer Principles" that are suspect. 

You're right, though. Most kids on the local HS team aren't loaded up on AP's.