Who do you follow with more interest and why:
Subject 1 and 2 are both true Juniors, RHP, both with 3 quality pitches, and within a few months of each other in age.
Subject 1: 5'11" 175lbs top Velo 85mph Sits 82-83. Veteran Pitcher and Weight trainer Max Squat 420lbs
Subject 2: 6'4" 155lbs top Velo 77mph Sits 73-75. Novice Pitcher and Weight Trainer Max Squat 170lbs
Replies sorted oldest to newest
Tough to say with limited info, but I'll got with subject 2. His frame is already 6'4" (maybe more coming?) and that frame can hold a LOT more muscle mass over time. Just my 2 cents, but frames really matter for about 98% or so players. Frames often equal projectability. My 2021 is 5'9" on a good day so we've learned how much coaches like projectability.
depends on the school. d3 guy looking for someone who can step in now? d1 guy looking for a sleeper pick up as a late sign?
Questions: Can they read the bat? How would they pitch to the #1 hitter, the #3 hitter, the #4 hitter on the opposing team. What adjustments do they make when the fast ball loses velocity?
Bob
@Consultant posted:Questions: Can they read the bat? How would they pitch to the #1 hitter, the #3 hitter, the #4 hitter on the opposing team. What adjustments do they make when the fast ball loses velocity?
Bob
Agree with Bob. There is so much more to this than you have stated.
And are you a D1, D2, D3 etc. coach?
6'4 155 sounds dangerously unhealthy.
A 5'9 155lb male would be considered small. Now add 7 inches
I can tell you based on my son's experience....(as a junior, he was 5'9, maybe 145 on a good day....and 87-88.....touching 90)........ that it's #2 lol and it's not close. Son did end up at a mid-major and was up to 93 in college. We saw so many 6'3-6'5 guys during his college days that never hit more than 85-86 that it made me sick
A real scout/recruiting coordinator is going to look at criteria you didn’t mention. Looseness in the shoulder, throwing mechanics, even stuff like how long their arms are and the length of their neck
D1’s will yawn at 5’11” throwing low to mid 80’s. No interest. Can he hit? Otherwise he’s a D3 guy
Thanks for the replies, the experiment was meant to be based only on the information provided to make the decision, it's not a real world scenario. Just curious as to which has more appeal maybe say they were sophomores.
@boiler19 I would definitely say 6'4" is more intriguing (i.e. warranting a second or even third look) but that would not automatically turn into offers unless the coaches see some potential, athleticism and work ethic. But I 100% agree that our beanpole would get more chance to prove themselves than the physically mature and well coached smaller guy based purely on projection.
PT Wood;
In 1988, before our Area Code games August in Long Beach, I was assembling the final roster for the Rangers AC team. Josh Beckett of Spring TX had select only the AC games to attend and I promised his pitching on Friday night before 400 Pro Scouts, 30 Scouting Directors and 120 College coaches.
Later that day I received a phone call from Florida. The caller said"this is Bobby Bradley, how do I play in the AC games. I asked Why?
He said, I have the "best curve ball in America". OK, I will pitch you after Beckett on Friday night. The rest is history. Every scout said WOW!!!!
The next draft they both were 1st round draft selections. "Inner arrogance" can not be measured.
Bob
Swag! I love it. You can never discount believing in yourself and knowing you belong.
The small kid has to prove he can play and the big projectable kid has to prove he can't play. Most will go with the 6'4 and hope they progress
@Consultant posted:PT Wood;
In 1988, before our Area Code games August in Long Beach, I was assembling the final roster for the Rangers AC team. Josh Beckett of Spring TX had select only the AC games to attend and I promised his pitching on Friday night before 400 Pro Scouts, 30 Scouting Directors and 120 College coaches.
Later that day I received a phone call from Florida. The caller said"this is Bobby Bradley, how do I play in the AC games. I asked Why?
He said, I have the "best curve ball in America". OK, I will pitch you after Beckett on Friday night. The rest is history. Every scout said WOW!!!!
The next draft they both were 1st round draft selections. "Inner arrogance" can not be measured.
Bob
so how's this...
Subject 1 throws a great game but with game tied and late innings he walks bases loaded with 2 outs. Coach takes him out and replaces with Subject 2, he's still has his outfield glove on during warmups and coach yells out to him if he wants his other glove, Subject 2 yells back in front of everyone, "Nah coach, I'll only be out here for one hitter." then proceeds to punch him out on 4 pitches.
You said this was hypothetical, but it's sounding pretty specific.
If you pin your hopes on game results and not skills, you will be disappointed.
@anotherparent posted:You said this was hypothetical, but it's sounding pretty specific.
If you pin your hopes on game results and not skills, you will be disappointed.
Good post.
Yes, it was stated it was hypothetical. Now we get game highlights.
@boiler posted:Who do you follow with more interest and why:
Subject 1 and 2 are both true Juniors, RHP, both with 3 quality pitches, and within a few months of each other in age.
Subject 1: 5'11" 175lbs top Velo 85mph Sits 82-83. Veteran Pitcher and Weight trainer Max Squat 420lbs
Subject 2: 6'4" 155lbs top Velo 77mph Sits 73-75. Novice Pitcher and Weight Trainer Max Squat 170lbs
The second one obviously has more potential but 77 is just very bad even if you are super weak and thin.
If the tall guy could throw 82-83 it would be better but 77 is just super slow and I wonder if he just has a slow arm that doesn't play up even with more strength. Some guys just have a slow arm no matter how strong you get.
@boiler posted:so how's this...
Subject 1 throws a great game but with game tied and late innings he walks bases loaded with 2 outs. Coach takes him out and replaces with Subject 2, he's still has his outfield glove on during warmups and coach yells out to him if he wants his other glove, Subject 2 yells back in front of everyone, "Nah coach, I'll only be out here for one hitter." then proceeds to punch him out on 4 pitches.
Let me guess, Subject 2 is your son, and you are hoping his 6’4” frame will make up for only throwing 77?
The original question came from reading a tweet at one time that slammed kids with potential stating that they should be in the weight room already and already be at the size and shape recruiters want; basically calling them lazy, That post was replying to someone stating they like seeing someone with height, long limbs with room to grow and Potential they can craft. In that same post someone then chimed in that they believed someone who has put almost everything they can on their frame, has probably maxed out.
Personally I felt it was a bit unfair to put that on kids who 1. grow and mature differently and at different times (seen kids graduating at 17 and some 20), also seen basketball player recruited as a senior 6'4" guard and ended up a 6'11" center) 2. also, what's wrong with the other situation where a kid works his butt off to improve upon what he can (strength vs height).
(and yes I left out any discussion of Division to not guide the discussion as much as possible)
I applied the anecdote to the existing hypothetical to address the brought up notion of "intangibles", which had reminded me of a similar situation I had witnessed once, so I used it. Probably should have just posed it independently. ... I did originally just want to get a handle on what is looked for and preferred based on the seemingly common debate of Potential vs. Existing talent. I kind of muddied that scenario.
6’4” 155 sounds incredibly unhealthy, as a Junior. It would make sense to question a kids work ethic with that type of frame, just 2 years removed from a college campus
@3and2Fastball posted:6’4” 155 sounds incredibly unhealthy, as a Junior. It would make sense to question a kids work ethic with that type of frame, just 2 years removed from a college campus
Not really, adolescents have little control over when they can put size on, I went from 5'8" 105 as a high school freshman to 6'3 135 (yup 135) as a junior (and all that came mostly in one year) to 6'3 205 sophomore year of college 35 years ago, body just grew up before the muscle came. Jumping from 75mph in high school to 86 mph in college. Just a late bloomer, sometimes work ethic has nothing to do with it. Of course nobody had HS pitchers weight lifting like they do now, not that it would have done me much good before 16. Trust me I know enough to know 77MPH doesn't get you anywhere today and it was a good number, similar to mine, outside of today's recruit-able range to emphasize the "potential", but I also know it's not really that unheard of to gain 10mph in a little more than a year. We've also seen it in our program multiple times.
So if you had the answers, why did you ask in the first place?
There are hundreds of high school juniors that are 6'+ and throw 85+ right now. Why would a coach "follow" either of the examples here? When? Fall? Senior HS season?
Neither of these juniors is a D1 recruit now. Lower levels have no roster limits. The less selective a D2 or D3 or JUCO is, the more players they might encourage to apply, saying "if he gets in, he can have a spot on the team." Some schools have 50+ players. The ones who get scholarships will have the skills at the time they're recruited; the ones who get playing time will be the ones whose skills fit what the coach needs at the time the games are played. So, would such coaches bother to "follow" these players? They can just encourage them to show up and see what happens.
@TPM posted:So if you had the answers, why did you ask in the first place?
Nothing I responded with was an answer to the scenario I posted.
The reason I asked was hoping to get a Scout or Recruiter's opinion, you know, an expert who does it currently or in the recent past, based on posting in the topic area of "Ask A Scout". I have my opinion, I have my experience and I have plenty of opinions from those related to baseball but not recruiters specifically, plus the hundreds of layman who responded to the tweet. The most common answer from the group I know is the 6'4" kid at this stage but those answers are based on what people, who are not recruiters, think. I also know if you look up and down most college rosters, 90% of the pitchers are 6'3 plus, unless they are left handed. I'd say under 6'3 is an outlier. So putting one out there with a 70poo FB and extreme height/weight ratio vs good velocity but below avg height with elite strength, helps identify if "tall and lanky" is a stronger variable than mph when projecting potential.
Again I wasn't looking for answers on a specific height, weight, mph etc. or opinions on health or commitment, just what variables in the debate I read garnered higher weighting in a recruiters decision.
Thank you to everyone who took the time to answer and special thanks to those who qualified their opinions stating it was based on your or your child's experience. That is valuable to know also. I do appreciate all of your answers.
If I can find the original tweet that spawned this query, I'll post it.
Just a parent, sorry - I never pay attention to what forum these are in, I just look at the current threads.
Where is adbono?
Both should play Juco if they can get in
Boiler,
You actually got some great feedback from those people you consider "amateurs".
My experience is from my x P5, xpro player now mid D1 pcoach.
Scouts aren't looking at anyone throwing under 80 summer before senior year. Recruiters for D2, D3 might give a tall kid a chance? You don't really have to be a recruiter to know what they look for. It's pretty easy after your kid has gone through it. There are so many kids of all sizes that are throwing really hard, that not hitting specific velocity is now the easiest eliminator. My son was 6'2 180 end of sophomore year. He got zero offers until he hit 90. He had several coaches following him because he was consistently 87-89, but the offers waited for 90-91. I can tell you what I told him after a game where he let up on velocity to make sure he had a ton of strikes...sadly, you can throw a no hitter at 84-85 and no one will care. It is really a different ball game. I just watched a kid playing in summer league who was number 46 on the draft board after his senior year in hs. He is a covid freshman throwing 97, he sits on the bench at his P5, next to my son who is a true freshman who ended his hs ranked as a top 30 rhp pitcher in the nation, throwing 96...the competition is stiff and being realistic is very important.
@anotherparent posted:Just a parent, sorry - I never pay attention to what forum these are in, I just look at the current threads.
Where is adbono?
Here I am. I saw no point in me weighing in on a hypothetical situation posed w/o much information. Besides that, there were already plenty of good responses.
@2022NYC posted:Both should play Juco if they can get in
who cant get into a juco?
The scenario posed is right up there with, if you carpeted Florida how long would it take to vacuum?
Yeah, I suppose the correct answer to “who is more intriguing” would be: neither.
The 5’11” kid cruising 82-83 would get interest from D3’s in the upper Midwest though, especially if his secondary pitches have good movement
@old_school posted:who cant get into a juco?
That was my best Adbono impersonation
@boiler posted:Personally I felt it was a bit unfair to put that on kids who 1. grow and mature differently and at different times
life is unfair. The world of Baseball is unfair. All you can do is make the very most of the hand that you are dealt and the opportunities that you receive
Considering several factors, including the pandemic logjam on college rosters currently, if my kid was a 6’4” 155 pound pitcher throwing 77, and he was very serious about playing College Baseball, I would consider advising him to take a gap year after high school.
@boiler posted:The original question came from reading a tweet at one time that slammed kids with potential stating that they should be in the weight room already and already be at the size and shape recruiters want; basically calling them lazy, That post was replying to someone stating they like seeing someone with height, long limbs with room to grow and Potential they can craft. In that same post someone then chimed in that they believed someone who has put almost everything they can on their frame, has probably maxed out.
Personally I felt it was a bit unfair to put that on kids who 1. grow and mature differently and at different times (seen kids graduating at 17 and some 20), also seen basketball player recruited as a senior 6'4" guard and ended up a 6'11" center) 2. also, what's wrong with the other situation where a kid works his butt off to improve upon what he can (strength vs height).
(and yes I left out any discussion of Division to not guide the discussion as much as possible)
I applied the anecdote to the existing hypothetical to address the brought up notion of "intangibles", which had reminded me of a similar situation I had witnessed once, so I used it. Probably should have just posed it independently. ... I did originally just want to get a handle on what is looked for and preferred based on the seemingly common debate of Potential vs. Existing talent. I kind of muddied that scenario.
I think there is something to the lazy argument. Sure there are age and physical maturity differences and you don't want to be maxed out as a HS prospect (say 6'1, 210 or so) but really for a serious prospect there is no reason to weigh 155 at 6'4 (which is like 120 at 6 ft).
I'm not saying he is lazy but a recruiter might have a fear that he is not willing to put in the work with nutrition and lifting
@Dominik85 posted:I think there is something to the lazy argument. Sure there are age and physical maturity differences and you don't want to be maxed out as a HS prospect (say 6'1, 210 or so) but really for a serious prospect there is no reason to weigh 155 at 6'4 (which is like 120 at 6 ft).
I'm not saying he is lazy but a recruiter might have a fear that he is not willing to put in the work with nutrition and lifting
Well said. And, a recruiter will reasonably assume that topping out at 77 has a thing or three to do with nutrition and lifting.
It doesn’t matter where you are at in your physical maturity, there is no excuse for a high school Junior who is serious about playing in college to have weak core muscles
Neither are obvious D1 or draft candidates, but both can go on and play beyond high school if they work at it! They each have the ability to define what success looks like!
@Los Angeles 2021 Parent posted:Neither are obvious D1 or draft candidates, but both can go on and play beyond high school if they work at it! They each have the ability to define what success looks like!
I would agree with you. Worrying about who a scout is going to follow, shouldn’t be the concern. Control what you can control. Work hard, give your best effort and see where it takes you.
@3and2Fastball posted:Yeah, I suppose the correct answer to “who is more intriguing” would be: neither.
end thread lol
