"If You Don't Run a 6.9 60 You Can't Play D1" & other Falsehoods

Carter Young undoubtedly a good player.. If you notice his last PG grade results was from a year ago as well, probably some strength has increased resulting in stronger throwing velo and 60 time has probably dropped a bit... But as a 2019 I'm wondering how he got on the USA 18 team, sure he's good, but there had to be plenty of 2018's that could have been considered?  A lot of times it's about hitting your stride at the right place when the right people are watching.

But he performed and earned his keep with that OBP, will be good synergy for next years team.

As someone who personally knows Carter and played with him, besides actually being faster than that 7.27 60 shows, he is just a gamer who goes out there and can compete with anyone. I think it helped that he was a stud on the 15u national team last year and did well through the tournament of stars and USA team trials. He is also very versatile and pops a 1.9 from behind the dish.

When Brent Suter threw 77 mph as a Rising Junior in HS and was ranked 1,772nd by Perfect Game his fastball was in the 26% range for his age group. 

Now granted, he had the "golden ticket" of being a lefty pitcher.  He also had grades.  He went to Harvard.  He was drafted in the 31st Round out of college.  31st Round?  That is where they draft the guys who fill up rosters so that the "real prospects" have someone to play, right?!

Brent Suter in pitching in Major League Baseball now. His fastball tops out around 86-87 most nights.  I can only imagine how many naysayers he encountered along the way.

Don't get too wrapped up in early accolades and accomplishments. Good for those kids! For the rest, it doesn't matter..... Get better. 

If you dig in for the information, history shows us all the time that rankings,college, draft, draft position doesn't matter nor does it guarantee a players success. 

1999 draft saw Josh Hamilton go first to the Rays, Josh Beckett second to the Marlins............both very good players and careers. Moving on to the 399th pick, the Cardinals pick a kid that some questioned had the ability to play at the MLB level. He ran a 7.1 60, posted a onetime 1.85 pop time ( he was a ss/3rd baseman) from the catcher position in the singular event he was invited to at Tropicana Field.

I can tell you many locals and associate scouts that I know were perplexed as to why he didn't go sooner........ As in the previous year out of HS. The kid was an absolute beast, hitting some of the longest shots I'd ever seen. 

That player eclipsed the 600 home run mark, fittingly with a grand slam, this season and is most certainly considered a generational player and will undoubtedly be enshrined in Cooperstown after his playing days are done. 

That player...... Albert Pujols.

Ten years later would produce another Cardinals standout, in Trevor Rosenthal. Coincidentally, both played high school ball within 20 minutes of the decision makers sitting at Kauffman Stadium. 

Backpick25 posted:

Don't get too wrapped up in early accolades and accomplishments. Good for those kids! For the rest, it doesn't matter..... Get better. 

If you dig in for the information, history shows us all the time that rankings,college, draft, draft position doesn't matter nor does it guarantee a players success. 

1999 draft saw Josh Hamilton go first to the Rays, Josh Beckett second to the Marlins............both very good players and careers. Moving on to the 399th pick, the Cardinals pick a kid that some questioned had the ability to play at the MLB level. He ran a 7.1 60, posted a onetime 1.85 pop time ( he was a ss/3rd baseman) from the catcher position in the singular event he was invited to at Tropicana Field.

I can tell you many locals and associate scouts that I know were perplexed as to why he didn't go sooner........ As in the previous year out of HS. The kid was an absolute beast, hitting some of the longest shots I'd ever seen. 

That player eclipsed the 600 home run mark, fittingly with a grand slam, this season and is most certainly considered a generational player and will undoubtedly be enshrined in Cooperstown after his playing days are done. 

That player...... Albert Pujols.

Ten years later would produce another Cardinals standout, in Trevor Rosenthal. Coincidentally, both played high school ball within 20 minutes of the decision makers sitting at Kauffman Stadium. 

 

You are right, people have to stop getting wrapped up in this stuff.  Be the best player that YOU can be, period.

As an FYI, people questioned Pujols age, and his ability to adjust in another position and his body type.  I believe this is what made so successful.  

Trevor Rosenthal had some issues in HS, and didn't play HS ball. He was drafted with one plus pitch from Juco.

These players do represent how the Cardinals draft, and I imagine will continue to do so in the future.  

JMO

Since we are on Cardinals, how about RHP reliever John Brebbia?  Drafted 30th Rd in 2011 (929th overall) by Yankees out of Elon.   Dropped by Yankees couple years later,  bounced around in Indy ball for a couple years.  Then picked up by Cardinals.  Having a great year    

When he graduated HS he had not committed to any college for ball.   He did not commit to Elon until August of rising freshman year of college.  

#extendthegame

TPM posted:

You are right, people have to stop getting wrapped up in this stuff.  Be the best player that YOU can be, period.

The point I'm making is that people should not allow themselves to get discouraged by people here on HSBBW and elsewhere if they don't meet certain measureables "standards".  Those standards are not at all the deal-breakers that many people claim they are.....

3and2Fastball posted:

TPM posted:

You are right, people have to stop getting wrapped up in this stuff.  Be the best player that YOU can be, period.

The point I'm making is that people should not allow themselves to get discouraged by people here on HSBBW and elsewhere if they don't meet certain measureables "standards".  Those standards are not at all the deal-breakers that many people claim they are.....

I don't think that it's a matter of discouraging but rather being realistic. There are always exceptions to the rule and FWIW it's also being in the right place at the right time and using that time wisely. That is extremely hard to do for most.

Also, a lot really has to do with where a player is in his physical as well as his mental development.

"Realistic" is an interesting word.

There are a lot varying factors as to whether someone is ready to Showcase or not, and where.  Bottom line though is that people need to stop saying that "if you don't run a sub 7 sixty you cannot play D1 middle infield or Outfield".  That has proven to be false information over and over again.  I see MI's on SEC rosters who didn't run under 7 at PG Showcases.  Did they "Showcase too early?"  Obviously not

let's not spread false information.

I wonder what Cal Ripken Jr's sixty time was?  JJ Hardy supposedly ran a 7.1 sixty.  I doubt he was that fast most of his career

Sorry, I dont remember anyone ever saying that but I am more aware of pitchers measurables.

I think the issue with that statement is that there are so fewer position players needed, so the competition is fierce.

I do know one think though, if you can hit for power you can be as slow as a turtle!

Clemson football time..go Tigers!

He also is a hard throwing lefty!  Right time, right place.

Good for him!

The accolades, rankings and such are great to read and listen to, but take it all in stride.  Instead of trying to produce what others say you must have, instead focus on improving your best numbers. As I've said previously, not everyone is blessed with blazing speed, great arm, or an athletic physique. Improve with what you have to work with.  Understand the game better than the next player, have a game plan, and become a student of the game.  Whether it's high school, college, milb, or MLB if you can produce you will be playing and have the opportunity to play at the next level.  Don't give up your dreams based on numbers others say you must have.  Base it on results.

Three two,

what is Ripken baseball IQ? During the Area Code games, I interviewed over 5,000 players who paid no fee to play 6 days and 4 games.

Motivation was my objective to learn of their reason to play.

Bob

Consultant posted:

Three two,

what is Ripken baseball IQ? During the Area Code games, I interviewed over 5,000 players who paid no fee to play 6 days and 4 games.

Motivation was my objective to learn of their reason to play.

Bob

Very High

TPM posted:

3and2Fastball posted:

TPM posted:

You are right, people have to stop getting wrapped up in this stuff.  Be the best player that YOU can be, period.

The point I'm making is that people should not allow themselves to get discouraged by people here on HSBBW and elsewhere if they don't meet certain measureables "standards".  Those standards are not at all the deal-breakers that many people claim they are.....

I don't think that it's a matter of discouraging but rather being realistic. There are always exceptions to the rule and FWIW it's also being in the right place at the right time and using that time wisely. That is extremely hard to do for most.

Also, a lot really has to do with where a player is in his physical as well as his mental development.

Being a parent that provides doses of probability-practicality along the way without being a dream killer.

(edit - typo)

I think just focussing on measurables is a little overdone and being a ballplayer who can hit for average, run the bases and knows the cutoff man is important too and probably a bit underrated but you also shouldn't overvalue the exceptions.

There are mlb pitchers who throw 86 and hitters who are 5"7 or run slow but have other attributes. It is not an absolute that you have to have a 93 fb, 95 tee exit or 6.5 60 but the majority of guys have the measurables.

But being a player is also important and there are also other levels than d1 so there is no reason to get discouraged. Work on measurables  but also other aspects.

"Measurables" give a player something objective to work on Monday thru Friday, so to speak.  Something to shoot for, a black and white goal to aim for during hum-drum solitary workouts.  Measurables are the opposing team when you are working out by yourself.  Measurables don't lie.  It's the ultimate "process over result," mindset, as there can only be a measurable result if there was a process that preceded it.  At the weekend showcase or tournament, let the chips fall where they may.  The "process" of striving for an objective "result" will reveal itself in positive ways in the game and in your play.  And it will be noticed by others.  

"Process without a measured result, is a waste of time."  - me 

2018, had a goal this summer of hitting 90mph off mound and running a sub-7 sixty.  As a PO, he knew that his 60-time would be insignificant, UNLESS IT WAS SUB-7, then he believed it would demonstrate athleticism and work ethic, especially given his 6-7 frame, and he also believed it would suggest to a coach that he had a lot more "in there" and would be worth looking past his simply above average velocity off mound.  FenwaySouth quoted a college coach who once said, "I don't care what my pitchers run a 60 in, as long as they finish it."   But 2018 was still a "seller" in the process and needed to display as many attributes as possible to move the recruiting market in his favor.  Besides as a PO there was only so much time Monday to Friday to work on his Changeup!  He made time at end of every workout to run sixtys.  

He ran a 6.97 twice this summer.  That was a result worth working for, worth caring about, and worth holding himself accountable to.  To him, just as important as hitting 90 off mound.  

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Here's another thought on "MEASURABLES."  3and2Fastball posted a great NYT article on Driveline/Texas Baseball Ranch/Tom House and the whole velocity hunt.  Boddy and Wolforth started out hunting velocity and exploring arm care.  As the article makes clear they both have pivoted to equal hunting of quality offspeed pitches, even more arm care, AND velocity.  I've been to Texas Baseball Ranch with 2018 twice, and have seen Driveline's  numerous videos posted on line.  Both places are filled with groups of sweaty, shirtless, young men each trying to out-do the other, hopefully in a healthy and safe way, as far as throwing the heck out of a baseball (those activities are usually done well after guys are warmed up and is often the last activity of the day's workout).  All focus is on the "Result," the radar reading on the wall, the hoots and hollers following someone's new PR or the day's top performer.  It's competition at it's best, immediate winners and losers, it's an undeniable result there on the wall for all to see.  No debating it, you either attain the goal or you don't.  Real simple. 

In that setting, the measurable is worth caring about.  It's the game within the game of baseball. Controversial?  Sure, but is it the "process" on it's way to becoming a measured "result?"  Certainly.  Will that translate onto the field of play?   Yes, I believe so.

Last thought;

So back to 3and2's OP title, "If you can't run a 6.9 sixty you won't play D1," and other Falsehoods."  Sure I get it.  Of course you can still play D1 if you don't run a sub-7, and yes you can pitch in D1 with a sub-88 FB.  We all know there all falsehoods out there.  People break them down every day.  But, when you are on the outside looking in, and conventional wisdom suggests those things are valid?  I think the smart player errs on the safe side and works his tail off to hit those objective marks that most in the biz believe to be "generally" true.  And yes, they are generally valid.  Written in stone?  No.  

And if you don't hit them?  And you truly worked hard to reach them?  Then hope that "Your hard work created some good luck for yourself,"  (which I have faith that it usually does) and you will still get to where you want to go.

Just my thoughts on a great topic 3and2!

Numbers are a huge part of recruiting, especially if a recruiter is not familiar with a recruit.   It seems to me that there are rules, guidelines, and exceptions and it just depends on the specific recruiter or program as to which they want to label a specific recruit's skill set.   It seems to me this thread has taken on the tone of let's discuss exceptions, and I don't think that is a good place to start. 

I think it is absolutely ridiculous to think that numbers don't come into play when a program is looking at a pool of recruits with metrics at a certain position.   Experienced coaches know what they are looking for.  Numbers become the way a pool of recruits and their skill sets are evaluated, separated, and selected whether we like the numbers or not.   This is not only true of baseball, but also college admissions,  and career advancement.   If anything, baseball skills measurables are going to mean even more going forward given the technology advancements and tools available.    

Nobody should be telling a recruit they can't do anything, but I think good advice comes in the form of explaining to a recruit what the measurable goal is and a plan for getting there.

As always, JMO.

I agree Fenway. I do know that when coaches are heading out to a tourney, they looked at information of the type of player they are looking for, however, coaches never seriously consider a player unless they have been seen them play or highly recommended by a professional scout.

FYI, that information usually comes from, who else, Perfect Game.

BTW, don't forget for most players, probably the most important measurables , GPA, ACT or SAT.

Measurables matter. They are a player's calling card. Without above the line measurables it can be hard to get noticed. Sure some players walk on in college and become MLBers. But most don't. Measurables provide an automatic shot at being watched. Run a 6.6 sixty and coaches/scouts want to see the rest of your game. Hit 95 on the gun and can't hit the side of a barn? Some coach is going to believe he can help you find the barn.

Measurables are like being 6'2". The 6'2" player has to play himself off the field. The 5'9" guy has to play himself on to the field. Measurables only need to be backed up once by performance. What the player is capable of doing has been displayed. When a player lacks measurables he has to repeatedly perform the noticeable.

RJM posted:

Measurables are like being 6'2". The 6'2" player has to play himself off the field. The 5'9" guy has to play himself on to the field. 

 

+1

Well said.

There is an old saying "you cannot steal first base"

The 6'2"-6'4" player who runs a 7.2-7.3 sixty is, in part, an example of who I am talking about in the original post.  But, just a part.

We humans like to make hard & fast rules, with strict barriers, about so much in life, not just Baseball.  it is part of how we come to terms with the world around us.  "real life" doesn't quite work that way, no matter how much we want it to.

If you think the reason for my post is to say "don't be concerned with measurables" we are so much not on the same page that we aren't even in the same library.

3and2,

I really tried hard NOT to suggest you were saying "don't be concerned w measurables," and I was afraid things would slip  in that direction.   

My concern is that by treating some of the "falsehoods" as falsehoods, it can lower self expectations for a player.   To me, it all falls under "control what u can control."   Shoot for the 6.9, but if at end of day all you have is 7.1?   Well ok, then I wouldn't be losing any sleep over it and certainly would not expect that my 7.1 will exclude me from D1 or even pro ball (position dependant obviously) for example.

Great OP.   Good discussion.   

Last time I went through and checked, just about every Power Five had at least one Middle Infielder on the roster who, when you go look up their profile on Perfect Game, their Sixty Time is listed as higher than 7 seconds.  Vanderbilt has more than one.

Maybe it is semantics, but perhaps we need to redefine our definition of "exceptions".

Here is what I didn't find: sixty times of 7.4 or slower.  Perhaps 7.3 is a more realistic barrier, provided there are other significant tools in place?

Now, I understand those Power Five MI's likely got faster before signing their NLI's and didn't have those times updated by PG.  Part of my point though is when a parent comes on here saying "my rising Freshman or Soph MI runs a 7.5 sixty" it is really disenengenous or irresponsible to insinuate they might want to switch to catcher or first base and that they aren't ready to showcase etc, and yes I've seen that nonsense on here and many other places.

By the way:  has anyone seen Hunter Greene's sixty time listed anywhere?  I've searched and have only seen reference to Greene being made fun of for his slow 60.  The Greene family has done a great job of erasing any trace of Hunter's recorded sixties.  Obviously Hunter brings other tools to the table that are so otherworldly that mere mortals can only dream of such things.... But still, he has been described as a definite draft pick as a Shortstop even if he didn't pitch.

3and2 - I don't have the same read at all.  Plenty of people come on this site, even me a few years ago, and the talk was about approaches to help kids improve their speed vs give up and switch positions.  We had constructive dialogue about speed programs...only for most of us to realize, the kids hadn't grown into their bodies yet and it was going to take a bit of time to get sub 7.0.  And yes, that meant they weren't going to have the glowing measurables all around.  My kid was struggling to get under 7.3, yet he was quick as a MIF; I suspected he had growth and tightness issues, or a muscle imbalance, or he "wasn't activating his glutes"...tons of stuff.  I had zero clue.  We figured a few things out: good combination of strength gain, stretching, and improved running mechanics.  A year later he was running a 6.9, now 6.8, trending 6.7, and runs a 4.0 H to 1st.  

Concur that a lot of kids likely have improved their times since the 7.2-3 60 time and they can't be bothered with another PG or PBR event to show the improved time.  Similar to throwing and exit velo's...  

Suggestion to PGStaff: It would be great if there could be an inexpensive PG showcase for uncommitted rising seniors for an opportunity to post improved measureables.  Maybe several regional sites, charge 200.00 for a one day event, no games.  Kids could have one last shot to market themselves as well as document their improvements.

3and2Fastball posted:

There is an old saying "you cannot steal first base"

The 6'2"-6'4" player who runs a 7.2-7.3 sixty is, in part, an example of who I am talking about in the original post.  But, just a part.

We humans like to make hard & fast rules, with strict barriers, about so much in life, not just Baseball.  it is part of how we come to terms with the world around us.  "real life" doesn't quite work that way, no matter how much we want it to.

If you think the reason for my post is to say "don't be concerned with measurables" we are so much not on the same page that we aren't even in the same library.

 

Eventually there is a level where you have to hit for average or if you are a pitcher hit the strike zone. Even guys that throw 97 or have 70 raw power (the guys who not just clear the fence but do it by 50 feet in bp) at some point need to hit, nobody can use a guy who hits 180 with 12 bombs or walks 5 guys a game.

Ability to play is important but tools are a great head start. The toolsy guy gets a lot more chances, billy hamilton made the majors after a 650 ops while slow corner guys sometimes stay down till they are 30 despite having an 850 ops every year.

Now of course there are also tons of toolsy guys eventually flaming  out and some non toolsy guys make it but they have a lot less margin for error.

With regard to the specific measurable (6.9 60-yard dash) in the topic title, I think about it this way: which group on average is likely to be faster: MLB position players or HS position players who have committed to D1 programs? My guess is that that the MLB position players are, on average, significantly faster than the HS kids. The MLB average (50 grade on the scouting scale) for the 60-yard dash is 6.9 - 7.0 (see www.fangraphs.com/blogs/scouti...0-80-scouting-scale/) My guess is that the HS kids on average would be a grade below the MLB guys.

Some of this is just shorthand, I think, using round numbers. It's easy to say "break 7.0 in the 60" or "throw 90 or above" because those are round numbers. And of course it depends on the position. But I think the reason that 3and2 can find so many D1 players who didn't break 7.0 in the 60 is because there are a lot of them.

Also, FWIW it's true that Hunter Greene isn't fast for a shortstop (I'm not knocking the kid; his other tools are otherworldly). From a prospects chat in the summer of 2016:

Logan: Thoughts on Hunter Greene the RHP vs Hunter Greene the SS? Most seem to like him as a RHP first, but would he also be a first round talent at SS?

Eric A Longenhagen: I like the arm. The kid’s actions are good enough for SS (he started a dandy 6-4-3 with Nick Allen on Monday) but I don’t buy into the range. He’s consistently been 4.5+ down the line for me this summer and that just isn’t enough.

www.fangraphs.com/blogs/eric-l...-prospects-chat-810/

It also depends on the other tools. If you have 80 power you don't need to run fast or hit super good (you need to hit some of course but if you hit 250 with a lot of homers that is fine). And likewise if you are super fast in the outfield and you hit some you don't need great power (like dee der gordon).

However most are neither 80 runners nor 80 sluggers and if you are just OK in power and speed you better don't have a weakness in one.

Sometimes you see a guy with a really good hit tool but neither great power nor great speed. I think wade boggs was like that. He didn't run and did not have much power but he hit 330 with like 8 HR and one steal per year.

That is pretty rare though usually there is at least one of power or speed along with the hitting.

3and2Fastball posted:

There is an old saying "you cannot steal first base"

The 6'2"-6'4" player who runs a 7.2-7.3 sixty is, in part, an example of who I am talking about in the original post.  But, just a part.

We humans like to make hard & fast rules, with strict barriers, about so much in life, not just Baseball.  it is part of how we come to terms with the world around us.  "real life" doesn't quite work that way, no matter how much we want it to.

If you think the reason for my post is to say "don't be concerned with measurables" we are so much not on the same page that we aren't even in the same library.

 

3and2Fastball - The same falsehoods can apply to top recruits that lack complimentary skills.    In your old saying quote:  "you can't steal first base"  reminded me of a player I knew a few years back.   He set the record at the PG Combine in the Metrodome for the 60 yard dash.  It was sub 6.2 seconds.....yes that fast and yes he was a "burner".  Problem was this recruit couldn't hit at that high Power 5 level that he was recruited for after being given many opportuniities over two years.   He was given a choice after two years and decided to leave the team.  He would have been better served (from a baseball perspective) taking offers from D1 mid-majors as he probably would have been given time to develop his offensive skills and start all 4 years.

You are getting to the heart of my point and that is the coaches eyes.  The numbers matter....yes, we all get that and agree.   But the numbers matter only in the context of the recruits overall skill set as seen by trained coaches eyes.    For the most part these coaches know what they are looking for and can size up a recruit in a matter of a few innings.   In my example, there is no doubt in my mind that the coaches knew what they were getting with a speedy recruit, but they were willing to take that risk to develop his hitting skills.   The same can be said for many college recruits, and the numbers tell the coaches how much risk they are taking and how far the recruit has to go to fully develop.   Again, JMO.

Went to the PG underclass event this weekend, still didn't see very high velo, most were 75-83.  However, I did see several people taking notice of movement on the pitch.  I think this goes back to the point Fenway is trying to make.  It will depend on the program and what they want.  I don't think a D1 is going to offer a RHP 70mph kid with movement, but 85....yeah that might happen if their movement is seen as highly effective.

Been debating if I wanted to get in on this...   I have always been a numbers guy not gonna change now.  We all know there are exceptions to rules.  But the rule is a rule for a reason.  I don't think being 7.1 is a killer.  But what are the other numbers?   And I think the slippery slope we allow ourselves to go down is to convince ourselves our son still has a shot - when he doesn't.  And that can be a painful fall.  Why I prefer to know my son's numbers and allow that to temper my parental bias.  I give 99% priority to the numbers and allow myself 1% foolish parental hope.  So let's say a kids max velo is 84.  Is he done for D1?   Realistic answer is yes. Might there be a handful out there at D1, of course.  But then there is a reason.  6'5" lefty project perhaps.  Nephew of a major donor perhaps - yes I am serious.  You don't think that happens?  Then you are foolish.  If that kid maxing 84 is on a roster there is a compelling reason.  So if your kid is maxing 84 it's over - unless you have something really special going on.  Once you get to about 86 then it gets a little murkier.  There are actually a lot of kids like that D1.  But better have size, or great command, special spin rate, full academic scholarship - something to differentiate yourself.  And problem is determining what is 'great command' for example.  I would almost guarantee if you took all the parents of kids throwing mid 80's who say their kid has 'great command' only about 10% of those kids would get the same evaluation from a scout - maybe less.  

So my moral of the story is as follows:

1. Be aware there are exceptions but be careful not to let that delude you

2. If you are weak in one area better be that much stronger in most if not all the others. Being off the mark in multiple categories is a killer

3. Nobody cares about the 6th tool if you don't possess the other five!!!

On the positive side remember they play baseball at non D1 schools!  There is a spot for everyone who just wants to wear a uniform.  

2020DAD - well said... The thing is, we don't know the full genetic potential until they get older.  We've all seen the 16 year old who runs 7.5 and then who runs 6.9 at 18, or the line drive hitter as a Soph who starts hitting HR's as a Senior, and yes the Soph who throws 84 who is in the 90's by college.

It isn't "over" until the game of Baseball tells you it is over.  For some it might be a longer steeper road with twists and turns.

One thing I have seen is that for the early bloomers the game flips on them, too, expectations are high, wear and tear in meaningless teenage tournaments is high etc

The bottom line is that coaches want out getters and runs and wins.   Some might really need to prove themselves over & over again.  

One thing that Perfect Game is more advanced than PBR on is the 10 yard split.  There are kids who run 7.2 but have elite burst and quickness, can cover ground with proper angles and many times the 7.2 kid with the 1.59 ten yard is a better Baseball player than the 6.6 guy with the 1.81 ten yard.   PG with the ten yard split is coming up with the early rudimentary method of showing that.  More technology I'm sure is coming.  Same with spin rate as you mentioned.  The 84 mph kid who nobody can hit because he spins it and deceives the best hitters?  There is a place for him.

I am with you on deluding oneself.  At the same time don't get so caught up in numbers that you delude yourself into saying it is over before it even starts.

That hope comes at a cost though 3and2.  Not only financially which is huge but there is an opportunity cost as well. For example my son will be giving up basketball this year to juggle his baseball dreams with the more realistic football future.  Basketball must step aside.  If he did not want to pursue those things he could just be a happy three sport high school athlete.  Will he be able to juggle the need for strength and weight (needs to be 275 by next fall) with maintaining baseball abilities?  Not sure.  So by this time next year will he need to drop his baseball dreams?  Very possible.  Then let's just say it for some reason doesn't work out in football.  He will have given up everything for...   NOTHING! And that's what concerns me.  Before kids decide to give up things that are fun and focus on a mission.   Just want to do the best job I can as a parent to determine that mission is not mission impossible!!  In my son's case there is no doubt he CAN develop the D1 football body.  Will he?  Up to him I suppose.  But what if he just isn't quite able to get mean enough?   Maybe he just can't get his steps down to stop the best pass rushers.  There are things that can still derail the train.  So it's nice to keep D3 baseball in the mix.  These are NOT easy decisions.  For some who are naturally gifted none of this matters.  For those who will really need to pick one and focus it's a lot of stress that goes into that decision. And emotion.  Numbers help sooth some of that. 

I think one has to determine:  where is the love?

If a Kid loves Football that is one thing.  If a kid is playing Football mainly to get a free education I don't know how they are going to be able to compete with the equally talented kid who loves it.

Same with Baseball.  Some Kids will be very happy being at Northwest Idaho Community College if it means they are playing Baseball.  They'd rather go there and be on the team than go to Vanderbilt and not be on the team.

Just like in "real life" when you want to find out the truth in how the world works you follow the money....if you want to carve out a path in life, if you follow what you love you can't go wrong (well unless what you love is sitting on the couch eating Doritos and playing video games!)

For your son 2020DAD:  if money wasn't an issue, which Sport does he love more?  Football or Baseball?  There's your answer

i think things in life move like pendulum, until it gets out of balance and then it swings back...the beauty is everyone understands the theory, everyone agrees that in many forms of life it happens...where people split ways is often people don't realize the pendulum has swung or is ready to swing. Then there is conflict because it both sides are sure they are correct and it isn't until more time goes by that we learn what the actual truth was at the time.

it is my belief to a large degree baseball is at, or close to or possibly the pendulum has already swung in many ways. Scientific data while huge and relative for sure has taken on disproportionate role the game to some but not others...guns and stats in recruiting are the baseline of determining if a guy can play or not...results on the field have little do with it...supply and demand IMO have shown that there are more qualified players then spots available compared to to other sports when comparing depth and scholarship dollars available. 

I think looking forward we will find we are at, close or just past a tipping point in data. the next move will be back to the older school types of guys who are winners, grinders, 6th tool guys and so forth. guys who may not have measurables they just win...of course by the time i am proven correct or not will be long enough from now that something new will be the hot topic. 

For those of you who think i am crazy (I may be) who would have guessed 3 or 4 years ago that our political pendulum would have Trump as our President and how deeply split the numbers are on if that is good or bad...regardless if you like or dislike the current situation NOBODY I know on either side ever saw it coming.

Quote from a VA tech coach (part of a conversation about being a catcher with my oldest):  "if you hit for average, they you better expect to play MI.  And if you want to play MI at VA Tech, you better run a sub 7 sixty"  Pretty clear and direct.  Right or wrong, he's the guy who signs the papers.

3and2Fastball posted:

I think one has to determine:  where is the love?

If a Kid loves Football that is one thing.  If a kid is playing Football mainly to get a free education I don't know how they are going to be able to compete with the equally talented kid who loves it.

Same with Baseball.  Some Kids will be very happy being at Northwest Idaho Community College if it means they are playing Baseball.  They'd rather go there and be on the team than go to Vanderbilt and not be on the team.

Just like in "real life" when you want to find out the truth in how the world works you follow the money....if you want to carve out a path in life, if you follow what you love you can't go wrong (well unless what you love is sitting on the couch eating Doritos and playing video games!)

For your son 2020DAD:  if money wasn't an issue, which Sport does he love more?  Football or Baseball?  There's your answer

The truth be told!  The kid must LOVE whatever sport he chooses.  He may have the talent, genes, environment but if he doesn't love the sport it will be a matter of time before everyone notices, no matter what level.  I watched my son go about his "routine"and realized I could never do it.  Could it possibly be the reason why I am here writing away while he is playing the game he loves? 

First off, wanted to give a shout out to the SPUDS of Northwest Idaho CC.  A lot of hard working kids up there getting fed potatoes three times a day.  That must be a little slice of heaven.  Hash browns for breakfast, maybe some mashed for lunch and either a baker or some nice quartered and baked with olive oil and some rosemary for dinner.  Maybe some potato soup for a quick pick me up snack.

I don't think numbers are going to fade away and I hven't heard of PG working on a "grinder" quotient just yet (they may just be trying to come up with a better name).  Let's say you, as the RC, have one opportunity to see kids before offering.  If that were me, I would try real hard to whittle down the population with some cutoffs if possible.  That said, I don't think I would exclude anybody one the basis of a single data point or a single measurement.  If I am looking for a CF, then I want consistently good 60 times.  For a MI, I'd love to see good 10 yd spits, but would also be interested in other factors.  Soon they will start tracking reaction times and such and numbers will be more improtant.  Take my 2017, he's not the absolute quickest (does have a decent 60 but makes up time in the second half), but from a baserunning standpoint, he seemed (past tense) to enjoy slightly loner lead offs and had a really good sense of the pitcher and the pitch.  He could almost sense a ball in the dirt and would be half way down the baseline before the ball made it to the plate.  Likewise, he seemed to be able to read the ball off the bat better than others (all this is relative to his high school mind you) so he simply got to the ball quicker because started moving  sooner.  I think MLB now has a reaction time as well as distance traveled and average/top speed for outfielders.  Really good stuff and now they start applying percentages as to how probable it was that the "average" MLB OF would have made the catch.  Not sure what, if anything, they are doing with baserunners yet.  I think "numbers" may start to be more telling in the area of "making the play" then perhaps the current standards ones provide.  How does a kid throwing 85 in D1 consistently get batters out?  I suspect that if they starting tracking every pitch electronically, then some computer program could spit out some nice ideas on whether ii is ball movement, ball placement, pitch sequence or some others as well as the combination of several.  Conversely, how does a kid hit 350 - turn the program around and it will lay out precisely which types of pitches he is hitting and provide some solid insight into his strengths and possible weaknesses (again, seen some good MLB analysis that talks about a hitter"s "hole" where a pitcher can exploit the weakness).