Gotta wonder what I am missing

DesertDuck posted:

SanDiegoRealist posted:

ClevelandDad posted:

SanDiegoRealist - I don't think we know each other well enough for you to be calling me by my first name alone - Cleveland without including my last name Dad  

Seriously, I didn't mean what I posted as a beat-down, so I apologize since it came across that way to you.  Looking at what you posted, it appeared you were beating-down that kid so I guess maybe I reacted to that.  Maybe nobody is beating down anybody?

Now the CAVS reference, there is no doubt in my mind that was intended as a beat down

At least you have an NBA team (and a championship) to your credit, a current NFL franchise, and I hear you have a decent MLB franchise there too. No worries, a lot is left up to the reader for intent...guess I shouldn't have asked the question like I did...

Is that what they call the 'Browns'? 

lol

I wondered how long it would take someone to catch that.  We can only wish we had a "current" NFL franchise

"I just don't get it. Help me rationalize this before I begin to think it's not about what you do or how you perform, but more about who you know and who you play for."

I am looking at this in the rear view mirror with CD, justbaseball and some others.  Those who are suggesting you can make yourself crazy about this stuff  are offering the right perspective, in my view.

The process is truly a marathon, not a sprint. It is not where any player starts on the scouting and verbal process, especially now with so many showcasing at such young ages. 

On NLI signing day for football this week I read an ESPN blog post which indicated 59 of 72 QB's who signed NLI's with Power 5 conference schools in 2015 were no longer at that school.

While I don't think the numbers for baseball are quite that dramatic, the transfer and drop down numbers in college baseball clearly prove the process is less than precise, in many situations.  Since their season has already started, you could check out the roster for Menlo College as an illustration.  They have a quite a  number of D1 drop downs, even as seniors.

I don't feel you need to rationalize here. The process really isn't how a player performs now. It is how those evaluating that player feel he will perform in 3-4 years, based on what they see now. To be completely fair, the 15 year old you are referencing has incredible pressure. The tools which got him a verbal may  not get him an NLI in 2-3 years. He likely has to be considerably better.

Catch1721 posted:

Veering a bit off course here but Nuke said scouts are in constant contact with PG and vice versa.  I believe that to be true but....this is one thing I don't understand.  If a scout uncovers a kid a draft prospect, one that hasn't attended a showcase and is off the grid, what motivation would this scout have to disclose any information to anyone but his employing club?   Seems best case scenario would be to keep a lid on the find and not create competition with other clubs? 

Maybe in today's world, the diamond in the rough doesn't exist like it used to, I don't know.  Welcome to PM reply so this thread isn't hijacked.

 

So the reality is, there isn't a kid in the top 10 rounds (and I'd likely be safe to say the top 25) that are under the radar and are a complete unknown to the entire scouting community.  First of all, in the large metro areas, particularly across the southern sunbelt of America, there is a density of area scouts, so not gets missed.  If the remote cornfields of middle America, if there is a legitimate player, not only is he well known in his area, he will become quickly known outside of it.

Now rounds 30-40, likely that a few clubs may have a better handle on one player than some other clubs, but those are longer shots to be impact players at the MLB level (with apologies to Piazza).

Also, for a player to be drafted, an MLB club must place that player on a list with the Commissioner's office (I believe).  If a player isn't on the list, they can't be drafted.  I also believe that list is available to all clubs.  

Perhaps your scenario was the case back when Hickory was advancing to the Indiana Basketball Championship, but today, with social media, email, internet, showcases, etc., etc., not too much of a chance of only one club knowing of a player that is "slot worthy".The top 200 players are also drug tested with results provided to clubs before the draft.

infielddad posted:

...

On NLI signing day for football this week I read an ESPN blog post which indicated 59 of 72 QB's who signed NLI's with Power 5 conference schools in 2015 were no longer at that school.

...

WOW.

cabbagedad posted:

infielddad posted:

...

On NLI signing day for football this week I read an ESPN blog post which indicated 59 of 72 QB's who signed NLI's with Power 5 conference schools in 2015 were no longer at that school.

...

WOW.

 

D1 baseball has about a 50% transfer from original school rate. In baseball a SS won't fight being moved to 2B or 3B. In football a QB typically doesn't  want to be moved to WR or DB until the second school tells him he's not a QB. 

RJM posted:

cabbagedad posted:

infielddad posted:

...

On NLI signing day for football this week I read an ESPN blog post which indicated 59 of 72 QB's who signed NLI's with Power 5 conference schools in 2015 were no longer at that school.

...

WOW.

 

D1 baseball has about a 50% transfer from original school rate. In baseball a SS won't fight being moved to 2B or 3B. In football a QB typically doesn't  want to be moved to WR or DB until the second school tells him he's not a QB. 

50 % transfer.  How many just stop playing, quit school or injury...15%?  So 35% stay with D1 for four years? Honestly, that seems high.

Nuke83 posted:

Catch1721 posted:

Veering a bit off course here but Nuke said scouts are in constant contact with PG and vice versa.  I believe that to be true but....this is one thing I don't understand.  If a scout uncovers a kid a draft prospect, one that hasn't attended a showcase and is off the grid, what motivation would this scout have to disclose any information to anyone but his employing club?   Seems best case scenario would be to keep a lid on the find and not create competition with other clubs? 

Maybe in today's world, the diamond in the rough doesn't exist like it used to, I don't know.  Welcome to PM reply so this thread isn't hijacked.

 

So the reality is, there isn't a kid in the top 10 rounds (and I'd likely be safe to say the top 25) that are under the radar and are a complete unknown to the entire scouting community.  First of all, in the large metro areas, particularly across the southern sunbelt of America, there is a density of area scouts, so not gets missed.  If the remote cornfields of middle America, if there is a legitimate player, not only is he well known in his area, he will become quickly known outside of it.

Now rounds 30-40, likely that a few clubs may have a better handle on one player than some other clubs, but those are longer shots to be impact players at the MLB level (with apologies to Piazza).

Also, for a player to be drafted, an MLB club must place that player on a list with the Commissioner's office (I believe).  If a player isn't on the list, they can't be drafted.  I also believe that list is available to all clubs.  

Perhaps your scenario was the case back when Hickory was advancing to the Indiana Basketball Championship, but today, with social media, email, internet, showcases, etc., etc., not too much of a chance of only one club knowing of a player that is "slot worthy".The top 200 players are also drug tested with results provided to clubs before the draft.

Very legitimate questions like these are why bbscout was so important to the HSBBW. (for those who don't know of him, the "Going Pro" Forum is dedicated to Doug for everything he contributed to the site and to so many members who had sons matriculating upward.)

When our son played at a D3 program, one of his goals was to be drafted. For those who do not follow D3 and the draft,  being drafted as a position player is about a 1:1000 chance each June. 

I posed the question to Doug in a PM about the chances for our son to be drafted from D3.  Doug replied immediately.  I remember his words so clearly-MLB scouts are paid to find every draftable prospect in their scouting territory. " If they don't , they get fired." Not too long after that PM exchange 12-13 scouts and 2 cross checkers showed up at a Wednesday night game in San Antonio. I don't think bbscout spilled the beans.

Go44dad posted:

RJM posted:

cabbagedad posted:

infielddad posted:

...

On NLI signing day for football this week I read an ESPN blog post which indicated 59 of 72 QB's who signed NLI's with Power 5 conference schools in 2015 were no longer at that school.

...

WOW.

 

D1 baseball has about a 50% transfer from original school rate. In baseball a SS won't fight being moved to 2B or 3B. In football a QB typically doesn't  want to be moved to WR or DB until the second school tells him he's not a QB. 

50 % transfer.  How many just stop playing, quit school or injury...15%?  So 35% stay with D1 for four years? Honestly, that seems high.

 

It's an NCAA provided number from about eight years ago when my son was sixteen.  The statistic was about 50% of fostered D1 baseball players end up playing at a second program.

Sons' class has had  a 45% transfer rate in two years .  Remember what I mentioned earlier about mental tenacity & focus? It is very important . Many college players & parents probably familiar with the Tap Athletic Test.  Those in the recruitment journey may want to goggle the background. Measures mental aptitude, motivation & competitiveness. Which are items I think trained college coaches/scouts instinctively identify  by watching players  (no field stats involved). But, an untrained & untested eye of a parent , (unless you as parent have coached @ the college level a few years)  does not have the wisdom to grasp when the nuances  of these characteristics are revealed in a live game. 

CaCO3Girl 

SandiegoRealist, I am a chemist and can tell you that numbers out of context are worse than meaningless, they can lead you to false conclusions.

#Heisenberg

Often the explanation for these kinds of situations is what my son's travel coach called "baseball eyes."

People who have baseball eyes know when they are looking at talent, even if the outcomes on a particular day or series of games are not impressive. They trust the athletic ability they see more than the stats accumulated in small numbers or against uneven competition. 

There was a ballplayer in our area a few years back who had a gaudy ranking and PG rating of 10. I heard more than a few parents grumble about how he was over-rated citing objective numbers showing that a) he didn't have impressive hitting stats (because opposing coaches didn't want to pitch to him), and b) he had a high number of throwing errors (mostly on balls no other shortstops in our area would have laid a glove on).  The pro scouts and major college coaches didn't seem too concerned about those shortcomings. (Unfortunately, injuries prevented us from finding out who was right.)

Generally speaking, however, when pro scouts, college coaches, PG scouts, and opposing coaches agree that a player is special and dads looking at stats think he's not that special, I tend to credit the baseball eyes.

Regarding the suggestion that "politics" plays a role, I doubt it. PG Staff has explained enough times how his organization compiles and adjusts and refines its rankings for me to discount that theory. He freely admits that his rankings are sometimes wrong--but his credibility depends on being right a lot. And no benefit accrues to him from distorting anything.

SanDiegoRealist posted:

Ok, I am scratching my head. I see on PG recent college commitments a kid who I have seen play, recently committed to a pretty big program. He's small in stature, plays for a very large travel ball organization. His PG national ranking is pretty high, as in there is a number associated with it, not words. He has never showcased. His PG event performance has never garnered him an "All Tournament Team". His career numbers over 5 PG tournaments are .235 BA, total of 2 extra base hits (doubles), an .887 fielding percentage with. Kid is a MIF'r. Kid did play Varsity as a frosh, but not on a powerhouse HS team. High school numbers as a frosh were comparable hitting, fielding were significantly better (.965 on significant full-season total chances).

What am I missing? Can the PG rankings and college commitments be so tied to "projections" that actual current performance doesn't factor into the equation, or is weighted disproportionately to projection? The events this kid has played in at PG have all been at age-appropriate level, so it's not like he's a 15 year old playing 18U, I could understand the stats if that were the case? Is the commitment based on a coaching relationship (remember he is an underclassman, so that club coach was definitely in the loop somehow).

I just don't get it. Help me rationalize this before I begin to think it's not about what you do or how you perform, but more about who you know and who you play for.

You are scouting the stat line. What if this kid runs a 6.4 60yd, has a 38 inch vertical leap, 100 MPH outfield throw, and elite bat speed but had a handful of bad tournaments? He's going to be far more valuable to college and MLB scouts than a non-toolsy gamer-type player.

Swampboy posted:

Often the explanation for these kinds of situations is what my son's travel coach called "baseball eyes."

People who have baseball eyes know when they are looking at talent, even if the outcomes on a particular day or series of games are not impressive. They trust the athletic ability they see more than the stats accumulated in small numbers or against uneven competition. 

There was a ballplayer in our area a few years back who had a gaudy ranking and PG rating of 10. I heard more than a few parents grumble about how he was over-rated citing objective numbers showing that a) he didn't have impressive hitting stats (because opposing coaches didn't want to pitch to him), and b) he had a high number of throwing errors (mostly on balls no other shortstops in our area would have laid a glove on).  The pro scouts and major college coaches didn't seem too concerned about those shortcomings. (Unfortunately, injuries prevented us from finding out who was right.)

Generally speaking, however, when pro scouts, college coaches, PG scouts, and opposing coaches agree that a player is special and dads looking at stats think he's not that special, I tend to credit the baseball eyes.

Regarding the suggestion that "politics" plays a role, I doubt it. PG Staff has explained enough times how his organization compiles and adjusts and refines its rankings for me to discount that theory. He freely admits that his rankings are sometimes wrong--but his credibility depends on being right a lot. And no benefit accrues to him from distorting anything.

Good point.  Reminds me of seeing a highly touted power 5 early commit play last year in a HS game. I had heard that he was really all that and seeing him play was a little disappointing. He looked the part, but he did not have good at bats. He was fine playing SS but nothing special. Then when the game was on the line in the 7th,  a really fast kid hit a slow roller to him at SS -  a base hit 99.9% of the time in HS.  The kid was on that ball in a flash and seemed to get 90mph on his throw with just a flick of the wrist. It was like a magic trick. Game over.

San Diego,

Coaches recruit and offer recruits for many different reasons, some covered by Caco3girl.  

As discussed in other post, the ability to pay and remain eligible is very important. A 4.5 GPA is just as important as a 4.5 ERA.  Ability for a family to pay full tuition is important as well.  So is not having too many Indians and not enough chiefs.

Those all tournament teams means nothing.  It makes people feel good. It doesnt mean getting a commitment.

You have gotten some good advice. Control what you can and stop reading those commitment lists. It will drive you crazy.

So a question. Which player do you think an MLB scout would value higher, someone who singles every time at bat or one that homers once every four times at bat.

SomeBaseballDad posted:

So a question. Which player do you think an MLB scout would value higher, someone who singles every time at bat or one that homers once every four times at bat.

Hahaha... well, if we're taking things literally, that's pretty simple.  The guy who never makes an out would be the way to go.  But neither is remotely close to realistic so...  not really relevant and not really sure where you're going with this.

SomeBaseballDad posted:

So a question. Which player do you think an MLB scout would value higher, someone who singles every time at bat or one that homers once every four times at bat.

The guy with the better BA and RBI.   

Questions like this make me tend to wonder if some actually know what scouts actually look for.

JMO

cabbagedad posted:

SomeBaseballDad posted:

So a question. Which player do you think an MLB scout would value higher, someone who singles every time at bat or one that homers once every four times at bat.

Hahaha... well, if we're taking things literally, that's pretty simple.  The guy who never makes an out would be the way to go.  But neither is remotely close to realistic so...  not really relevant and not really sure where you're going with this.

I might just have a point to make, we'll see.

So one is batting a thousand, the other two fifty. Which one is more appealing to the scout?

SomeBaseballDad posted:

So a question. Which player do you think an MLB scout would value higher, someone who singles every time at bat or one that homers once every four times at bat.

Sort of like asking whether you'd rather have a centaur or a minotaur play left tackle for your Super Bowl team. Neither exists, so it doesn't matter which you prefer.

But the answer would depend on which behavior the scout thought was more likely to continue in pro ball.

The Centaur plays left tackle.  The minotaur plays wide receiver or CB.

SomeBaseballDad posted:

cabbagedad posted:

SomeBaseballDad posted:

So a question. Which player do you think an MLB scout would value higher, someone who singles every time at bat or one that homers once every four times at bat.

Hahaha... well, if we're taking things literally, that's pretty simple.  The guy who never makes an out would be the way to go.  But neither is remotely close to realistic so...  not really relevant and not really sure where you're going with this.

I might just have a point to make, we'll see.

So one is batting a thousand, the other two fifty. Which one is more appealing to the scout?

Does someone win a prize if they give you the answer you are looking for?

Swampboy posted:

SomeBaseballDad posted:

So a question. Which player do you think an MLB scout would value higher, someone who singles every time at bat or one that homers once every four times at bat.

Sort of like asking whether you'd rather have a centaur or a minotaur play left tackle for your Super Bowl team. Neither exists, so it doesn't matter which you prefer.

But the answer would depend on which behavior the scout thought was more likely to continue in pro ball.

Granted it's an exaggeration to make a point concerning what the upper levels are looking for. 

So the kid worked with a MLB level hitting coach a few years ago. He was all about line drives between 2nd and ss. HR's were fine but miss hits and singles didn't help because then you somehow had to advance the runner, which at his level wasn't easy.

So now the kid is lucky that he has played in a fall league and worked in the off season with a guy who is the #2 scout in his MLB org. If you watched the draft you would have seen him. My son receives negative feedback for ground balls and line drives. The reason being is unless you can steal bases (and not many can against MLB catchers) singles don't help. And given the shift and outfielders running 6.5 60's balls into the outfield are outs. Basically the defense has gotten so good they are looking for the players that can take it out of the equation.

One thing I've learned from watching the kid and hearing it out of the scouts mouth, HS and most TB coaches have no clue and are leaving kids unprepared.

SomeBaseballDad posted:

Swampboy posted:

SomeBaseballDad posted:

So a question. Which player do you think an MLB scout would value higher, someone who singles every time at bat or one that homers once every four times at bat.

Sort of like asking whether you'd rather have a centaur or a minotaur play left tackle for your Super Bowl team. Neither exists, so it doesn't matter which you prefer.

But the answer would depend on which behavior the scout thought was more likely to continue in pro ball.

Granted it's an execration to make a point concerning what the upper levels are looking for. 

So the kid worked with a MLB level hitting coach a few years ago. He was all about line drives between 2nd and ss. HR's were fine but miss hits and singles didn't help because then you somehow had to advance the runner, which at his level wasn't easy.

So now the kid is lucky that he has played in a fall league and worked in the off season with a guy who is the #2 scout in his MLB org. If you watched the draft you would have seen him. My son receives negative feedback for ground balls and line drives. The reason being is unless you can steal bases (and not many can against MLB catchers) singles don't help. And given the shift and outfielders running 6.5 60's balls into the outfield are outs. Basically the defense has gotten so good they are looking for the players that can take it out of the equation.

One thing I've learned from watching the kid and hearing it out of the scouts mouth, HS and most TB coaches have no clue and are leaving kids unprepared.

 

 

Your son was taught in HS and travel ball to be a better youth player. Those rules dont apply later on.

TPM posted:

SomeBaseballDad posted:

Swampboy posted:

SomeBaseballDad posted:

So a question. Which player do you think an MLB scout would value higher, someone who singles every time at bat or one that homers once every four times at bat.

Sort of like asking whether you'd rather have a centaur or a minotaur play left tackle for your Super Bowl team. Neither exists, so it doesn't matter which you prefer.

But the answer would depend on which behavior the scout thought was more likely to continue in pro ball.

Granted it's an execration to make a point concerning what the upper levels are looking for. 

So the kid worked with a MLB level hitting coach a few years ago. He was all about line drives between 2nd and ss. HR's were fine but miss hits and singles didn't help because then you somehow had to advance the runner, which at his level wasn't easy.

So now the kid is lucky that he has played in a fall league and worked in the off season with a guy who is the #2 scout in his MLB org. If you watched the draft you would have seen him. My son receives negative feedback for ground balls and line drives. The reason being is unless you can steal bases (and not many can against MLB catchers) singles don't help. And given the shift and outfielders running 6.5 60's balls into the outfield are outs. Basically the defense has gotten so good they are looking for the players that can take it out of the equation.

One thing I've learned from watching the kid and hearing it out of the scouts mouth, HS and most TB coaches have no clue and are leaving kids unprepared.

 

 

Your son was taught in HS and travel ball to be a better youth player. Those rules dont apply later on.

 

So applies to the OP's question right?

Not IMO.  I must be missing something.

Your son was taught in HS and travel ball to be a better youth player. Those rules dont apply later on.

 

We'll you made mention of it right here. He doesn't understand why what he is seeing here and now doesn't apply (or isn't as highly valued) at/to the next levels.

Huh?   Maybe i dont get what you are trying to get across.  

College coaches have all types of reasons why they offer.  The next level isnt based on that premise.

SomeBaseballDad posted:

Swampboy posted:

SomeBaseballDad posted:

So a question. Which player do you think an MLB scout would value higher, someone who singles every time at bat or one that homers once every four times at bat.

Sort of like asking whether you'd rather have a centaur or a minotaur play left tackle for your Super Bowl team. Neither exists, so it doesn't matter which you prefer.

But the answer would depend on which behavior the scout thought was more likely to continue in pro ball.

Granted it's an exaggeration to make a point concerning what the upper levels are looking for. 

So the kid worked with a MLB level hitting coach a few years ago. He was all about line drives between 2nd and ss. HR's were fine but miss hits and singles didn't help because then you somehow had to advance the runner, which at his level wasn't easy.

So now the kid is lucky that he has played in a fall league and worked in the off season with a guy who is the #2 scout in his MLB org. If you watched the draft you would have seen him. My son receives negative feedback for ground balls and line drives. The reason being is unless you can steal bases (and not many can against MLB catchers) singles don't help. And given the shift and outfielders running 6.5 60's balls into the outfield are outs. Basically the defense has gotten so good they are looking for the players that can take it out of the equation.

One thing I've learned from watching the kid and hearing it out of the scouts mouth, HS and most TB coaches have no clue and are leaving kids unprepared.

 

 

So, help me catch up... the paragraph is a bit confusing to me.   "looking for the players that can take it out of the equation"... so, we're talking about being able to hit HR's right?  That doesn't jive with earlier comment "he was all about line drives between 2nd and ss".

So the kid hit .235. As I understand it he thinks that is a negative. So maybe no small amount of these were at the fence but caught for fly outs. Stats don't look good but a scout sees power potential. Dad thinks kid sucks scouts see future MLB'er.

SomeBaseballDad posted:

So a question. Which player do you think an MLB scout would value higher, someone who singles every time at bat or one that homers once every four times at bat.

I'll tell you after I see their swings in every at bat, quantify the pitching they faced in each at bat, see their builds, their 60 times and quantify if they may be able to play at least two positions in the minors.

 So, help me catch up... the paragraph is a bit confusing to me.   "looking for the players that can take it out of the equation"... so, we're talking about being able to hit HR's right?  That doesn't jive with earlier comment "he was all about line drives between 2nd and ss".

Different coach. Different time. That was six years ago. The game has changed. Sorry for being unclear.

2019Dad posted:

I think I know who you're talking about. Consider this:

• He got over 100 PAs as a freshman at his HS. Looks like he started every game and batted near the top of the lineup (he was within 4 PAs of the team leader)
• His HS team may not be a powerhouse in the context of SoCal, but Maxpreps had it in the top 800 in the country last year, out of the ~14,000 high schools with baseball teams
• With the new playoff rankings put out by the CIF Southern Section, the high school is ranked solidly in Division 2 (out of 7) --- it is in the top ~12% of programs in the Southern Section, which has quite a concentration of high school baseball talent
• His HS played some good teams last year, including a league opponent they played three times who had a 1st round draft pick pitcher. Don't know what he did against that pitcher, but undoubtedly there were lots of scouts at that game or games.
• As a freshman, he struck out only 7 times in over 100 PAs and had an OBP over .370

Perhaps he is good.

2019 only you could track all that down. Lol!  That's why we love you!  There are. Lot of factors that go into those choices. We have one here - 2019 can tell you about him later lol.  When he committed many were astonished. I sent his dad a text of congrats. He commented that I was one of the few who did. Just as I was one of the few who reached out with best wishes when he broke his ankle a while back. Why?  Cause a whole lot of people are jealous. He is a good kid and I am happy for him. As for what I tell my son?  Hey maybe this means you are closer than we think!

Statistics are important, they involve production.  But look at it this way...

100 are trying to get a recording contract with a big label.  99 of them produce many recordings showing off their voice.  Many of them produce excellent recordings.  One person only produced a 20 second recording, but that one person was Adele.  Who do you suppose will get the contract?

Maybe not the best comparison, but it is why the leading stats don't always belong to the best prospect.  Then again, quite often the best prospect also has the best stats.  

Regarding scouts and PG discussing prospects and sharing information.  When and if a scout finds an unknown prospects, most scouts keep it to them self.  That is what they should do.  However, just like each MLB club, we too have scouts and contacts nearly everywhere.  So unless that kid a scout saw goes into hiding, we are going to know about him.  Once we know about him, everyone knows about him.

Quick story... A West Coast MLB Scouting Director is a very close friend.  He had a son that was very good and played in many PG events. Because he went to some of his sons games he spotted a LHP from a remote spot in New Mexico in a 14u game.  He knew the young LHP was going to be special and he stayed close to the kid for three years.  He never told anyone, including us about the kid.  Then one day one of our people happened to see this kid pitch.  Within weeks he became one of the top prospects in baseball.  Our friend, the Scouting Director, then helped us and the kid get to some big events, Area Codes and PG All American Game. Once the cat was out of the bag, the scouting director had no reason to keep everything secret.  But had that kid stayed hidden, we would have seen a high draft pick that was unknown.

This year we will go over 1,000 players that we have watched at PG events and then later end up playing in the major leagues.  The number of college players, all levels is well over 100,000" maybe even 200,000.  Once you have seen that much talent, different size, different skill set, etc., the next time you see anything similar it sticks out like a sore thumb.  Even then, we are wrong at times.  Sometimes players just mature and develop beyond what we expect.  

I've heard some say that scouts are wrong more often than they're right.  We call those guys... "Former" Scouts!  

Anyway the example of someone that gets a single every time is unrealistic.   And does that mean he is not capable of getting an extra base hit?  If that were the case I would choose the HR hitter because he will also get some singles and other extra base hits.  More realistic, though still with many variables... Is the better prospect the HS .400 hitter with no power or the HS .300 hitter with big power?  Really you don't know for absolute sure until you see both of them.

SanDiegoRealist posted:

Ok, I am scratching my head. I see on PG recent college commitments a kid who I have seen play, recently committed to a pretty big program. He's small in stature, plays for a very large travel ball organization. His PG national ranking is pretty high, as in there is a number associated with it, not words. He has never showcased. His PG event performance has never garnered him an "All Tournament Team". His career numbers over 5 PG tournaments are .235 BA, total of 2 extra base hits (doubles), an .887 fielding percentage with. Kid is a MIF'r. Kid did play Varsity as a frosh, but not on a powerhouse HS team. High school numbers as a frosh were comparable hitting, fielding were significantly better (.965 on significant full-season total chances).

What am I missing? Can the PG rankings and college commitments be so tied to "projections" that actual current performance doesn't factor into the equation, or is weighted disproportionately to projection? The events this kid has played in at PG have all been at age-appropriate level, so it's not like he's a 15 year old playing 18U, I could understand the stats if that were the case? Is the commitment based on a coaching relationship (remember he is an underclassman, so that club coach was definitely in the loop somehow).

I just don't get it. Help me rationalize this before I begin to think it's not about what you do or how you perform, but more about who you know and who you play for.

 

2019Dad posted:

I think I know who you're talking about. Consider this:

• He got over 100 PAs as a freshman at his HS. Looks like he started every game and batted near the top of the lineup (he was within 4 PAs of the team leader)
• His HS team may not be a powerhouse in the context of SoCal, but Maxpreps had it in the top 800 in the country last year, out of the ~14,000 high schools with baseball teams
• With the new playoff rankings put out by the CIF Southern Section, the high school is ranked solidly in Division 2 (out of 7) --- it is in the top ~12% of programs in the Southern Section, which has quite a concentration of high school baseball talent
• His HS played some good teams last year, including a league opponent they played three times who had a 1st round draft pick pitcher. Don't know what he did against that pitcher, but undoubtedly there were lots of scouts at that game or games.
• As a freshman, he struck out only 7 times in over 100 PAs and had an OBP over .370

Perhaps he is good.

In light of the recent kerfuffle -- which for some reason reminded me of this thread -- I thought I would update this based on 2017 results:

• The 2019 in question's high school team won the Division 2 CIF title (and hence will be moved up to Division 1 next year) and finished the year ranked no. 21 in the country by Maxpreps' computer.
• The 2019 in question hit .365 as a sophomore, and in 109 PAs struck out 5 times and walked 15. His OBP was just shy of .500. From all accounts he played very good defense at 2B (his older brother was the team's SS)
• FWIW his older brother (a 2017) was a 2nd round pick in June's draft and hit .297 in rookie ball this summer

Perhaps the talent evaluators at PG (and the Big 12 school where this kid is committed) know what they're doing?

Kinda a long thread that could have been cleared up more easily by simply saying this:

5 tournaments!?!?  That is an extremely small sample of stats.  Scouts care about mechanics, athleticism, measurables, Baseball IQ, not stats in 50-100 at bats! 

SDR is gone. No use trying to bring up an old post he made. 

The way I see it, parents and players have a hard time trying to rationalize commitments while they see their players or others better not getting the love they feel they deserve.  

I wish people would just worry about their player and what they can control, the process will go so much better. 

Players get recruited for many different reasons.

JMO

Understanding past results and consequences allows one to make intelligent decisions about one's own personal future.

Not everyone is screaming "it's not fair", many are trying to understand the process so they can make intelligent choices with their hard earned money.  

I've seen people waste entire years in this world of Travel Ball.  Getting on the wrong team and sitting most of time, showcasing before they are ready,not showcasing when they should have and thus not getting invites to bigger events etc etc

At any rate, HSBBW is a valuable resource on many levels.  Some of us go back to threads from 10-12 years ago to learn from the wisdom shared here.

Regardless of SDR's membership here, it will be valuable for future members of this place to read that stats don't matter much in this process, it is about Baseball skills and measurables in the eyes of scouts.  I'm glad 2019DAD brought this up so that the topic could come full circle to it's logical conclusion, otherwise it reads as sort of open ended and possibly confusing when it really shouldn't be at all.

Stats do matter at some point in the process, not just as much as some think they do.

Not to beat a dead horse, but if you and others go back and do read older posts, which is great btw,  you will notice many times mentioned, dont worry what someone else is doing, control what you can.