Early Peakers

@Francis7 posted:

We all know the kids who were head and shoulders above the competition at ages 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, etc.

And, we know many of them peaked early and then came back to the pack or out of the game when they got older.

On average, what is the age where know the kid is the real deal when he stands out among his peers? Is it 16? 17? 18? Older than that?

I understand your thought, but it simply isn’t true for the MAJORITY. Most guys that continue to play at the “next level” were kids that stood out against their peers all throughout their childhood. There is no one age where he becomes the “real deal”. The kid was most likely one of the best the whole time. What I think people tend to notice is the 1 or 2 slower/heavy-set kids that were good enough to hit dingers on a 200ft fence. They assume he can do the same on the bigger field, which isn’t obviously true. Then add in the age issue with travel-ball.  If that same kid has a May, June, July birthday then he is usually playing against a grade below him. This changes once he hits 9th grade. He is force into playing not only kids of his own age/grade, but also now has to compete against upper-classmen. The speed of the game changes and he can’t keep up anymore. He is just too slow and un-athletic. However, like I said before this kid is NOT the majority. Most kids that play varsity level baseball and/or collegiate level baseball were standouts at a very early age, whether you noticed it or not!

I think of Tyler Stephenson, catcher for the Reds and drafted our of HS. He was literally "head and shoulders" above the rest as a big kid. He was always that good and incredibly coachable (great family). IMHO, he is the standard of sorts that is referenced above by ROF. Then there are the other kids who have more tools and ability to produce/translate that in pressure, followed by kids with a fewer tools and potential. There's a reason 1% of kids end up playing MLB baseball.

Regarding the OP, i recall thinking back in the day that my kid was just not equivalent in size, speed and determination to play at their level. I think i was pretty accurate and also know that so many of those kids were a ball to watch as a fan of the game. Later, as i reflected on my son's journey, i researched where a lot of those kids were in the game of if they were at all. Many played other sports, some played college ball of various levels and i thought about how life, the breaks, and the 6th tool carry other kids further than many of those studs at younger ages. You never know who really has a shot except for those outliers who seem to be head and shoulders above the rest.

Don’t know anything about how to compare them until they play in either D1, affiliated pro Baseball, or one of the very best summer college leagues.

Everybody else is just another ballplayer.

*emphasis on the word “play”, not sit the bench.

I think part of it is the funnel.  It’s easy to stand out as a 14-year old throwing 83 because there’s so few at that age throwing that hard.  But, when you’re 17 later and throwing 89, there’s more kids that age throwing that hard or more.  So, now you don’t stand out as much and you’re just one of the pitchers out there.  And, those who can’t throw that hard aren’t around as much because the funnel squeezed them out from advancing.

Same thing with hitting.  If you’re the stud pounding homers at 14, you’re probably getting a fair share of  them against pitchers who are average of below average.  And, when you are 17, a lot of those pitchers aren’t playing any more because of the funnel – and now you’re facing tougher pitchers more often and not hitting as many  homers any more. And, instead of being the stand out who hits more homers than most, now you’re just  one of the many good hitters still playing.

Not sure if I am saying this right or if it even makes sense?

Just seems like a lot of the guys who were “the dude” when they were 14 aren’t that far above everyone else anymore at 17 and 18 – and, it seems like the reason why is because there’s less weaker players playing that makes the good ones stand out so much.

@ReluctantO'sFan posted:

I understand your thought, but it simply isn’t true for the MAJORITY. Most guys that continue to play at the “next level” were kids that stood out against their peers all throughout their childhood. There is no one age where he becomes the “real deal”. The kid was most likely one of the best the whole time. What I think people tend to notice is the 1 or 2 slower/heavy-set kids that were good enough to hit dingers on a 200ft fence. They assume he can do the same on the bigger field, which isn’t obviously true. Then add in the age issue with travel-ball.  If that same kid has a May, June, July birthday then he is usually playing against a grade below him. This changes once he hits 9th grade. He is force into playing not only kids of his own age/grade, but also now has to compete against upper-classmen. The speed of the game changes and he can’t keep up anymore. He is just too slow and un-athletic. However, like I said before this kid is NOT the majority. Most kids that play varsity level baseball and/or collegiate level baseball were standouts at a very early age, whether you noticed it or not!

I believe Francis’ description might have been better if defined as “physical early peakers.” There are many kids who are talented at an early age who just haven’t grown yet. What is noticeable and memorable are the kids who dominate early but fall in the ditch by fifteen. They outmuscled the field. But they lacked baseball talent. There aren’t a lot of kids who weren't good players as preteens who became studs later. It’s more likely they went from not playing but athletically gifted to stud baseball players (Lorenzo Cain).

You also have to place things in baseball context. The average height for 12yo boy is 4’10”. At 5’ my son would be considered above average height. But among athletes he was one of the smaller kids. Both kids were physical late bloomers like my wife. He grew to be 6’2”. My daughter went from 5’2” at thirteen to 5’10” sixteen months later. Both went from squaring up the ball to crushing it after they grew. The doubles became homers.

I'd say you'd have a pretty good indication at 17u, assuming the player performs very well in travel tournaments against top level competition.

Some of the "studs" self select other sports.  As an eighth grader one of the stud baseball players decided to do football only.  He will be a wide receiver at UGA.  Football, basketball, lacrosse, soccer, golf, all take time and effort.

Some flamed out because of bad parents or bad coaches.  They hate the game and quit.

Some oversized bombers got to the big field and discovered they couldn't hit a real pitcher with a real curve on a deep field.  The recurring lacrosse joke.

There are a thousand different reasons people choose another path.

You have to love the game, love the work and put the work in to continue to whatever the next level is.

@fly996 posted:

I'd say you'd have a pretty good indication at 17u, assuming the player performs very well in travel tournaments against top level competition.

There are a lot of mid major to ranked team D3 pitchers who blossom in college. They grew and add velocity. A friend’s son entered went to a ranked D3 at 5’11” throwing 85. He graduated and was drafted at 6’3” throwing 92. The pitcher on the other team in the D3 championship had the same story.

I was recently talking to a dad who played for the Astros. I asked him " How dominant were you as a kid playing baseball?" He said "I was the best player on the field from age 10 to when I was drafted out of college. But once I got into the majors, I soon realized I wouldn't last very long. The talent is that strong" He then gave me this very interesting nugget, he said "It's harder to stay in the majors, than to make it to the majors."

We often talk about how college ball is dog eat dog, win now, what have you done for me lately. But that's nothing compared to pro ball.

@RHPinSF posted:

...he said "It's harder to stay in the majors, than to make it to the majors."

He may feel that way, and it could be true for him, but it can't be true overall.  The odds of a random player making MLB are almost astronomical. The odds of a rookie coming back for a second year are pretty good.

RE the OP -- in my limited experience, every future pro or top D1 player I've seen is clearly "the guy" by freshman year of HS. A couple of late blooming pitchers would be the exceptions.

Too many variables at play in my opinion.

1. When puberty hits. Sometimes the guy who's the man at 12 didn't peak because they still have a lot of growing to do and they will continue to be a stud through college. Sometime the kid tops out at 5'6" which makes you top dog on the little field but not beyond that (you have to find other ways to excel)...sometime the future D1 prospect is growing into their limbs at 14 and they are ungainly and haven't tapped into their power...or they are on the smaller side and will stay small but all of a sudden (in either case) they start putting on mass and muscle and the velocity goes up for pitchers or the power comes for hitters.

2. If they play another sport. They might be giving up short term skill development for long-term athleticism. Or they might be a freak in multiple sports. But I do think a lot of kids who focus only on baseball have an advantage at younger ages that may even out at older ages.

3. Coaching. Opportunity and belief in a player can make a huge difference. I don't care how high a kid's natural ceiling happens to be some coaches are not a good fit for some players and that will stunt their development. If you are a power hitter and your coach loves to play small ball or vis-a-versa...or if your coach loves a team standing up in the dugout and screaming and yelling and you are a more reserved/contained player, etc.

4. Perseverance, work ethic and love of the game. I think more than any other major sport, baseball offers a chance for that player who just won't give up. Who's willing to outwork and outhustle their competitors. Who's willing to make sacrifices, eat the right way, stay healthy...they give themselves a chance to compete with or pass up guys with more natural tools.

@Francis7 posted:

We often talk about how college ball is dog eat dog, win now, what have you done for me lately. But that's nothing compared to pro ball.

You are making assumptions on what has been stated in many posts.  It's really not that way for the guys who have the skills to excel and stay healthy.

That's why it's really important to make sure that your young athlete has minimal injuries that won't require long rehabs. It's also helpful to play with good coaches, who won't abuse your son as he is developing as well as monitor their time in the gym, unless he is working with those who know what they are doing. That was a priority for us. Very often the best players get over used. That can happen in travel ball, in college ball,  a little less in professional ball.

There are many guys that develop later than others, and end up getting drafted from mid D1, D2, D3 programs. But the majority of elite players will come from the public and private programs with better coaching staffs and usually they are the players that were way above the competition in HS.

The best players always come from the best programs with the best coaches.

So our son was one of those who showed his future ability at a young age. Everyone said your son will play proball one day. We listened to the experts that said proceed with caution and we did,  so that he would have a chance.

As someone posted, you have to love the game, you also have to respect the game. Are willing to take the bad with the good. Those are the players that will be successful, no matter what their size, how hard they throw or how hard they hit.

There are wire to wire kids, I know two personally (not my kid, but same year and ecosystem). Studs at 9U, HS, College and pro ball (one’s in AAA the others made it their debut).

My son showed an aptitude early, and had plus arm. He could throw a ball on a relative line from 3rd to 1st in t-ball (finding someone to catch it was the trick). He started travel ball in 8u and played At the highest level but by 13u was in the bottom third of an elite team - better than a average velo, but nothing that stood out at that level. He got mono at the beginning of his hs Junior season, so no clue what that would have looked like if he’d been healthy. Senior HS year he was touching low 90’s, end of college touching 97, and has touched 100 as a pro. So not wire to wire, but an inkling he had a gift.

we had an old school coach for the incoming hs freshman team (not affiliated with the hs). After a couple practices he broke the team into two groups and said “This group will likely see the field in a varsity game, and unless something drastically changes this other group will not.” The parents went ballistic, and the hs coach appointed a new incoming freshman coach. However the proficiency came true, not one of the kids in “the other group” saw the Varsity field during a game. I couldn’t tell you specifically what the tells where, but there are indicators coaches can see for projection.

We played against a kid I didn’t really notice in 14u, by senior year in hs, he was throwing triple digits. He went 2nd or 3rd overall in 2014. He came out of nowhere, so who really knows…

Not every early peaker will eventually hit a wall though. Bryce harper was an early peaker who hit balls 450 feet at age 14 and he still won two mvps.

What matters is your final level, not how you get there, if you throw 95 you throw 95.

I have to say I'm disappointed that this thread is not about correcting the nefarious behavior of too many ne'er-do-wells on Christmas Eve.