Fudging the numbers

.

How'd you do that Swat? I'm still a dumpy 5'7" or 5'8". I can't find the fudge button. I keep getting fuss budget whenever I look.



.

quote:

Originally posted by CADad:

Mine likes to say he's hit 89 and he has fairly often but only on a JUGS.

When we got back from a showcase this fall his HS coach asked how he did. When I said he hit 87-88 he asked if it was a Jugs or Stalker. Fortunately it was a Stalker, but it seems coaches only believe the velo now days if it is recorded by a Stalker. I guess those new little cel phone size devices wont impress anyone.

I'm not really sure why that is. I have a Jugs that I use from time to time and have used it next to stalkers. The readings are usually the same. I have also seen a number of scouts lately using a Jugs. Now using a Bushnell is a different story. I just don't think there is much, if any difference between a Stalker and a Jugs.

Generally speaking a Stalker will read 1 to 2 mph slower than a JUGS. Personally, I see that more at higher velocities. My JUGS tends to read about the same for upper 70s, 1 mph faster in the low to mid 80s and 1 to 2 mph faster in the high 80s or 90.

CADad,

I would say that has been our experience as well.

I don't think it is too big a deal to round one way or the other - especially since we've encountered forms that give you a choice of even inches or 5 lb increments. No, I wouldn't tell my 6'1 3/4" son to list himself as 6'3" or 6' but I wouldn't think it would be too much difference at 6'1" or 6'2"...as has been said, it will boil down to what he can or can't do on the field...or what he does / doesn't do while the coach is watching...

Funny story...son was 6' as a sophomore and his buddy was an inch or so shorter than him...Both boys were playing football and I laughed when I saw the roster for the first time...son was listed at 5'11" and his buddy at 6'1"!

I think its simply a credibility thing. If I say my kid throws 90 and every radar gun reads 85-86, I look like an idiot or my kid looks like an underachiever. Why would I do that?

I'd rather say he throws 85-86 and if he throws 87-88 and they ask what's going on, I can say it must be a good day.

As far as height goes, I've tried to measure JR several times and told people he's 6'4+" only to find HE was cheating a little and is 6'3 1/2" Honestly, I don't think it matters too much when you're talking a half an inch. I usually use 6'4" since the last time I measured him (with his mother watching his feet) he was 6'3 7/8"

It is funny when I (barely 6') tower over all the other 6'1" players on the various teams he plays on.

Also, I've heard the best way to determine how hard a kid throws is to simply ask him and subtract 5.

quote:

Originally posted by JMoff:
Also, I've heard the best way to determine how hard a kid throws is to simply ask him and subtract 5.

You know, I keep hearing that and while it does happen, a dad did it to me two weeks ago - said his son was throwing 90 and topped out at 84, but it kind of makes me mad because I would never do that and neither would my son.

Remember, some of us out here are honest about this stuff and really don't give the daddy reading.

This title disturbs me greatly--it 9ndicates to me thatthe parents are more stressed by the process than the players---fudging the numbers also sets up the player for a great fall and quite possibly no college situation

Look anyone can fudge behind the scenes numbers but no one can fudge the real talent when it is live on stage for the critics to see.

So fudge while it sure sounds sweet- will sour a whole bunch of coaches against a kid real fast!

Consider fudging the sludging in your kids quest to play college baseball. Nothing will bring that sweet dream to a halt faster than fudging!

If fudging the numbers actually worked, I would be 25 again, throwing 98 and pitching for the Yankees!

quote:

Originally posted by TRhit:
This title disturbs me greatly--it 9ndicates to me thatthe parents are more stressed by the process than the players---fudging the numbers also sets up the player for a great fall and quite possibly no college situation

I chose the title based on a polite way of describing the practice some parents, coaches and kids use. A half an inch or a slight increased performance number might seem like a "white lie" to some people trying to promote themselves.

Others must think that it helps when they exaggerate greatly because as this thread shows, many have seen the practice. If I were a coach/scout I would not be worried about the minor stuff, but if someone added 3 inches, 25 pounds, 5 mph or a lot to their batting average, I'd consider it dishonest and question the persons character.

Maybe I’m missing something, but there really isn’t a “Fudging!” problem, is there? Does anyone know of an occurrence where a “Fudger!” got unmerited benefits? Or a time when a “Fudger!” so distracted a Scout or Coach that a truly talented non-“Fudger!” went undiscovered?

I can’t think of a possible scenario where a “Fudger!” won’t be found out. Which means there are built in consequences to “Fudging!”. So the only issue is the annoyance non-“Fudgers!” – of slightly less talent/skills – feel towards “Fudgers!” – of slightly greater talent/skills? In which case, “Fudging!” isn’t the real issue, correct?

(Sorry, I wanted to base entire response on saying “Fudging!”, “Fudger!” and “Fudgers!” as many times as I could)

I do not know of a single instance where a "fudger" as you put it got a scholarship based on the "fudging".
However I was speculating that it might get a coach/scout to look at a kid they might not otherwise take the time to go and watch. Sure he will have to perform, but getting the coaches to look might be an opportunity another kid would not receive if their real numbers were not as appealing.
So at the PG event where a father I know made outrageous exaggerations about his sons size, it obviously will not help. However for a kid who gets a coach to come watch him play, and then performs well despite the exaggeration, who knows?

And if it worked I'd be 36-24-36! Yow!

Our travel coach mistakenly listed 2B as 5-11 165 at one of the PG tourneys a couple of years ago. But he's only 5-10 160 right now. Not that big a difference but if you go to his PG profile, it looks like he shrank.

I don't know if a coach/scout would come watch a kid play just based on what a parent says. I think we parents are probably the last ones those guys want to hear from regarding player stats. In the end, they're looking for players, not numbers.

Sometimes I think that some parents, like the dad Vector mentions at PG, fudge numbers to bring attention to themselves, rather than their sons.

It all comes out in the wash, anyway. Might as well keep it real.

quote:

However I was speculating that it might get a coach/scout to look at a kid they might not otherwise take the time to go and watch.

In that case, I would consider the 'fudging' to have worked. Coming to look is really all we can ask for.

How about kids who are fudging on age? I met a scout at a PG event that was familiar with the kids in our area. He mentioned that he was really impressed with one kid until he found out that he had been sick one year back in elementary school so he was actually a senior in age, not a junior. He seemed to think it was a big deal.

I also know a couple of home schooled kids who entered HS a year behind their age so that they would be more mature for sports (they are both on the small side).

That seems to be done at every talent level, Hawk. Lance McCullers was born in 1992.

quote:

Originally posted by LHPMom2012:
That seems to be done at every talent level, Hawk. Lance McCullers was born in 1992.

Why try throwing Lance under the bus? His birthday is listed in numerous places as October 1993, making him 18 in fall of his Senior year.

Plus, with him, it would not matter what year he was born, he can flat out play.

We have Lance DOB as 10/2/1993

[QUOTE]Originally posted by CABBallFan:
Maybe I’m missing something, but there really isn’t a “Fudging!” problem, is there? Does anyone know of an occurrence where a “Fudger!” got unmerited benefits? Or a time when a “Fudger!” so distracted a Scout or Coach that a truly talented non-“Fudger!” went undiscovered?

I can’t think of a possible scenario where a “Fudger!” won’t be found out. Which means there are built in consequences to “Fudging!”. So the only issue is the annoyance non-“Fudgers!” – of slightly less talent/skills – feel towards “Fudgers!” – of slightly greater talent/skills? In which case, “Fudging!” isn’t the real issue, correct?"

Your belief fudgers have never received unmerited benefits along with your contention fudging is not really an issue or a problem, leads me to believe you are a fudger. And I mean that in the nicest way possible as in--I am cutting you some slack believing you seem oblivious to the reality of fudging and the REAL problems it can cause.

Real example where I was volunteer bench coach at a a local HS --Junior in HS which we all know is a critical year to shine if college baseball is in the works; great student and great kid --he put up season ending real numbers and contributions to his team that put him easily in contention for local All-Area, Conference and area Newspaper All Star selections-- however the paid head coach fudged the numbers of one of his PET players (who his wife once babysat for years) and who was also an outfielder. The fudged numbers put the PET player STILL below the non-pet player and his real numbers but were close enough to garner the fudged player first team selection on all 3 post season selected teams. I kept the books as a volunteer and was shocked to see the stats this head coach fudged for his pet player. We are talking about a difference of 87% points in his real BA and he bumped up every offensive category except one where he "overlooked" his double digit strikeouts at the plate.

The more deserving player was named to the second team on all 3 selections behind a teammate we all knew and he proved, he was better than.

Irony is at season ending school awards program the deserving player got the team MVP in a hands down vote by his team players. Even the crooked coach had to acknowledg the offensive school records the better player set. Nice gesture but fact is he still he got no press coverage for the MVP.

Yes, the head coach was directly responsible for the fudging and lack of adequately promoting the better, more deserving player but minus the fudging--the fudged player does NOT receive such post season merits.

Post season accolades we all know can go along way in gaining college coach interest (note: I did not say scholarships) I am saying the fudged player gained greater exposure by being named first team in the PRESS 3 different times.

There are numerous other such examples to argue how fudged numbers can give an unfair advantage from the exposure standpoint to a HS player. To imply fudging is harmless as if it is a victimless problem or that it is meritless at the HS level IMO, is a foolish comment to make.

BTW, I adamantly let the head coach know of my disappointment in his lack of integrity and no shocker-- I no longer will be volunteering my time to his program.

This is not about college coaches will find out who the better player was with their own 2 eyes--"I AGREE the fudger will be found out at the next level"...but it is hard to argue the fudger got much greater PRESS coverage/exposure he did not earn and accolades to add to his baseball resume, where the more deserving player was more easily overlooked by area college coaches.

bballman,
My son's top is 89 on a JUGS. The highest we've seen on a Stalker is 87. That day he was 85-87 and finshed mostly 86-87. He has had days since when he couldn't break 84 on the JUGS.

In other words although often time the daddy gun 7 mph does apply there are other times when kids just don't have it.

I went and watched a webster's son pitch. The only gun that got him as high as 83 was his dad's gun. Everything I saw was 81 and I can't remember if there was an 82. A week or so later he topped out at 89 in front of scouts during a tournament with a lot of pitches in the high 80s. Don't discount what people say based on a single performance.

quote:

Originally posted by CADad:
bballman,
My son's top is 89 on a JUGS. The highest we've seen on a Stalker is 87. That day he was 85-87 and finshed mostly 86-87. He has had days since when he couldn't break 84 on the JUGS.

In other words although often time the daddy gun 7 mph does apply there are other times when kids just don't have it.

I went and watched a webster's son pitch. The only gun that got him as high as 83 was his dad's gun. Everything I saw was 81 and I can't remember if there was an 82. A week or so later he topped out at 89 in front of scouts during a tournament with a lot of pitches in the high 80s. Don't discount what people say based on a single performance.

I know. My son has also pitched 3-4 mph below his top velocities. This guy was just very cocky about it. I was talking to the dad of a non pitcher and mentioned that my son had the highest velocity so far at 87 (stalker). This dad jumped in and literally said "they must be saving the harder throwers for last to keep the scouts here longer". Then proceeded to brag about how his son throws 90. I will generally say my son has topped out at 88, I hope he gets up there today - or something like that. I try to be a little more humble about it because I understand that he could work in the 83-84 mph range some days and 85-87 others. The way he presented it just put me off is all. Maybe his son can hit 90, I just know he was way below it that day.

My son has frequently pitched with inconsistant velocity almost exactly what bballman posts above.

There are mechanical flaws, failure to eat breakfast, staying up late playing COD, having a 2 1/2 hour practice in the morning and then pitching at the end of the second game in 110 heat, whatever.

I think the bottom line is they just aren't consistant at this age and that comes with time.

ne14bb – The story you told is a true injustice. The accolades a young man rightfully earned where taken from him by a Coach who lied. If your story characterizes Fudging as the OP intended it, we are certainly talking about things that are blatantly wrong and have real consequences.

I was envisioning a situation where a parent sees their son run onto the field at a Showcase next to another player who is smaller than the son. But when the parent looks up the other player in the program, that player is listed as bigger than their son.

Plus, I loved the “Fudger!” term in the same vein as “Meet the Fockers” movie title.

"Meet the Fockers" was on TV the other night - always entertaining!

I wonder how that particular paper defined their first team? In our area, all of the coaches vote, then the paper has the final say. The prep reporters are actually pretty good about getting to games. They see the players play, rather than just looking at their numbers. So if a coach fudges a player's stats, and the other coaches have seen the player and don't vote for him, he's Honorable Mention. Not to say that the best players always get selected for first team by any stretch, but it requires more than fudged stats.

Besides that, everyone who was at the game can see the fudged stats in the box score the next day and knows what's going on. I have friends who get all twisted up about this, but it's another one of those things you can't control.

I know a coach of a local high school who would call the newspapers after the season and have four guys hit .500 or better and all average an RBI per game, four pitchers with 2.00 and under ERAs, no one ever made an error and they stole bases by the dozen. Problem was, his team always was about .500 during the season. It became a source of laughter in our baseball community. Credibility is important and when that's missing, sensiblity will take over from the outside.

Sorry, folks, I'd seen Lance's birthday as October 1992 in a few places. Guess they were wrong.

quote:

Credibility is important and when that's missing, sensiblity will take over from the outside.

Exactly.

quote:

Originally posted by CABBallFan:
ne14bb – The story you told is a true injustice. The accolades a young man rightfully earned where taken from him by a Coach who lied. If your story characterizes Fudging as the OP intended it, we are certainly talking about things that are blatantly wrong and have real consequences.

I was envisioning a situation where a parent sees their son run onto the field at a Showcase next to another player who is smaller than the son. But when the parent looks up the other player in the program, that player is listed as bigger than their son.

Plus, I loved the “Fudger!” term in the same vein as “Meet the Fockers” movie title.

I figured there were worse examples than what I gave, and this thread has shown a few I didn't expect.

There is a local coach who is rumored to do the same thing for his "pet players" even at the expense of his other players. It is only hersay from my perspective, but a few parents have kept score every game and swear it is true.

I don't think there is a single player in AZ less than 6 feet tall.

It seems many players fudge their size and numbers some. In our son's case we only used numbers measured at camps or showcases and his real height. At the time we worried some about it, (that other players were fudging) but it seems that once you get past HS the focus is on how you produce, and not whatever your numbers (or size) used to be.