Change My Mind

@3and2Fastball posted:

I would say that, with all due respect to everyone, it is more obvious than the fact that water is wet, to 99% of the parents that post here, that a Baseball player will need to actually be able to play Baseball at a competent level to stay and play in college.

Its similar to going on “High School Basketball Web dot com” and saying “well, you know, if your kid shoots 22% from the free throw line in college he’s probably not going last in college ball.”

C’mon now.

I don’t agree with that at all. I will grant you that HSBBW members are more knowledgeable than most…..but I have talked with countless parents that think if their kid is a varsity starter in HS, and posts good showcase measurables, that automatically makes him a college prospect that should be recruited. And it doesn’t.

And… the number of SEC outfielders who run 7.1 60’s or slower is….

@3and2Fastball posted:

And… the number of SEC outfielders who run 7.1 60’s or slower is….

Probably the same number as those who run a 6.4 but can't hit or catch a fly ball.

@Smitty28 posted:

Probably the same number as those who run a 6.4 but can't hit or catch a fly ball.

Bingo

/end thread

@3and2Fastball posted:

And… the number of SEC outfielders who run 7.1 60’s or slower is….

That’s not the point and I’m pretty sure you know that. My point is that just because you are a HS varsity player with decent stats and you post good showcase metrics, that doesn’t automatically mean you are a prospect to play college baseball - especially in the SEC!! That’s why the best RCs watch players in game action more than one time before offering. Its also true that schools that work the hardest at recruiting are less likely to over-recruit.

1). You have to meet the minimum athletic measureables.  Period.  With extremely rare exceptions

2) After meeting the minimum athletic measureables, you have to prove you can actually play.

This is extremely obvious to those that pay attention here.  

Adbono;

one of our International Coaches, was a HS Coach in El Cerrito, Northern California. One of his BASEBALL players also ran track and timed a 6.4 in the 60.

Larry,  the Coach taught this player to hit lefthanded and the rest is history.

Players name WILLIE MCGEE.

BOB

3and2fstball I would agree however the 6'4" player, 90+ mph pitcher or speedster has to prove they can't play while the 5'10 stud, 85-88 MPH pitcher with good stuff or an average speed outfielder has to prove they can play

Mental toughness matters a lot. There are plenty of parents who don’t understand their kid doesn’t have it. Their kid has always been successful. They get to college and everyone was all something in high school. Sometimes they’re such good athletes they were all something in multiple sports.

With a 35 player roster.there are 6-8 no doubt about it, these guys are going to be on the field or mound players. There are about eight non scholarship players who are fighting for their life to stay on the roster year to year or will transfer after the season. The other 19-21 players are fighting for playing time. 12-14 of them will win the battle and get on the field or mound. What separates them is their ability to stay mentally and physically prepared for the opportunity. Sometimes getting the opportunity to show you belong only leads to the next opportunity.

@adbono posted:

It’s possible to not have great metrics and still be a very good player.  It’s also possible to have great metrics and not be a good player at all.

My son is an example.  MI son who received very few looks and only a couple of offers for D1.  Currently he isn't tall (6'), big (barely 200), fast (maybe around  7.2), average arm (debatable) , zero genetic help from his parents (lol).  Thing he lacked above he made up for it by being a student of the game, to understand it better than the other players, to execute what he learned, to have the right mentality and understanding of what is demanded of him, and to have a plan every pitch of the game.  Combine this advantage with his decent talent and he is able to compete with the top players.  As I've seen watching his college games, talent alone will get you to a certain point, the rest is up to the player.

@adbono posted:

I agree with @@RJM but I would add this:  (——/————-). Assume this represents all HS players that post showcase measurables that impress. The right side indicates the number of players that can use their metrics to be productive players in a game. The left side indicates the ones that can’t.

Is it reasonable to say that when you limit the conversation to HA schools (the definition of which is debated elsewhere on this web), the continuum looks more like (------/--), with the right side being the HS players who can play at the relative NCAA level, who have showcase measurables good enough to get looks/offers, AND who actually have the academic chops to get admitted?  Or, on the other hand, does the dividing line slide more toward the middle because what baseball measurables, etc. are required by HA coaches actually goes down in value to meet what is truly in the potential talent pool once the 3rd criterion is added?