CollegeRecruting who's more intriguing

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