Is it just me

I agree to a point. It does seem to be all about projection (body type and bat speed mostly). I know a kid who is highly (and I mean highly) ranked that simply does not produce as one would think based on his lofty status. Very pedestrian numbers in high school and some very very bad summer tournaments. Yet, due to his lightning bat speed and pop he is a top 10 prospect.

If someone with great tools hits .280 and another with poor tools (slower bat) hit .400 on the same team, the .280 guy will get the looks. Mainly because the bat speed guy will have a better chance to succeed at the next level.

That's Baseball,

We've been somewhat removed from the top prospect showcases, professional combines and top recruiting camps. Unfortunetly, my kids have 50% of my genes. As my Dad used to tell me.....you can't choose your parents.

My two cents....Frankly I think your observations have been going on for a long time in the very top prospects for professional baseball players or those coming out of high school to go pro. I think you really have to put yourself in the shoes of a scout or a top college recruiter as it comes down to risk/reward for every pro recruit. These guys make really tough decisions and their jobs and reputations are on the line if they choose a clunker. So, they select many players and look for that diamond in the rough. These guys have the projectable bodys but it remains to be seen if they have the mental makeup and work ethic at the professional level.

Some organizations feel they can turn an exceptional athlete into a baseball player. The scout has to determine the make-up of the athlete and his desire to be a professional baseball player. Michael Jordan comes to mind. How did that work out? Not so good. Not every world class athlete can hit a minor league curve ball never mind a major league curve ball. These are the decisions that scouts and organizations are making everyday.

Is it easier to make a very good baseball player more athletic or is it easier to make an exceptional athlete into a very good baseball player? I don't know the answer at the professional level. In my travels, I have seen very good college baseball players turned into much better athletes within a couple years.

I think if you look at the roster of almost any MLB team you'll see combinations of the physically talented and the not as physically talented purely because of the risk/reward decisions the organization has made, and how quickly their talents are recognized (and luck). Both types of players are needed.

This is a common thought/observation of folks seeing this for the first time.

There is no doubt that the scouts/evaluators "miss" on some under-sized players. But remember this is, to a degree, a projection based on experience and past data...that by-and-large (not exclusively, but on average) turned out to play out the way they thought it would.

It can be perplexing at times. I have 2 sons who played college and/or pro ball. One project(ed) very well based on size, velocity...and while he had a very good college career and continues to have a good minor league career...was probably over-projected while in HS as he didn't rocket to the big leagues as some may have predicted. The younger one, based on his smaller size (5-11) and mid-to-high 80s fastball did not project nearly as well but has performed in college far beyond most evaluators expectations. Still, he probably remains not too much of a pro prospect based on the same things in play here.

Not all 1st rounders make it to the big leagues...or not all last very long. Conversely, there are plenty of examples of walkon college players, D3 players or low draft picks making it in college in a big way as well as in the pros.

These evaluations are opinions and projections based on experience but no scout worth his pay would tell you that it is absolute or ends right there.

A pro scout answered that question for me once:

"It's a lot easier to explain a million dollar mistake if he's 6'3 and 225 pounds."

Goes for pitchers, also.

Doesnt matter where it goes after it leaves their hand, if you can get the gun to say 88 and above, you get the looks.

Been a very frustrating and eye opening spring and summer watching my low 80s son have numerous scoreless innings and games with very few walks and hits allowed only to see the high velo guys get shelled while having zero control get all the looks.

.

This came to mind after reading this thread.



.

quote:

Michael Jordan comes to mind. How did that work out? Not so good.

It's funny, but whenever this comes up, I defend MJ. Everyone always jokes about how poorly he did when he went to baseball.

However, I look at it differently. Here is a guy who had not played baseball in probably 15 years. He goes out to AA and hits just over .200, 3 HR and 30 SB.

I don't think that is so bad. Probably did much better than guys who had played for all those 15 years.

Our H.S. #3 starting pitcher (meaning, he didn't pitch very often) was 6'7" and didn't really light up the gun (sat in the low 80's with an occasional mid-80's FB). He is the one with the scholarship to play at a D1 school. For comparison, our top two starters (6'1" and 6'4") both had higher velocity and more movement on their pitches. One is going D3 and the other decided on attending a large school over playing college baseball (he will try to walk on but does not have a "preferred" status). All three had some really good exposure through showcases over the Summer, so that definitely was not the difference.

Yes, sometimes it is about projection and not production.

It seems to me that once a player gets on the "list" it is very hard for him to come off said list. I know of a player that made the top prospect list while a sophomore but never really progressed from there. Signed with a top ten school early and was drafted (late). Lasted one year with no playing time at that school. But never came off of the list.

It's kind of like the NBA draft. A basketball player that stays 4 years in college can't be as good as the hot shot out of high school....right. There's a reason he had to spend all 4 years in school. ie..Jamir Nelson, a senior, was drafted at the end of round one while Sabastion Telfair was drafted top of round one out of high school the same year. Telfair kicked around the league for years never amounting to much while Nelson has had a very productive career in Orlando.

The secret is to be discovered early.

quote:

Originally posted by Mizzoubaseball:
Goes for pitchers, also.

Doesnt matter where it goes after it leaves their hand, if you can get the gun to say 88 and above, you get the looks.

Been a very frustrating and eye opening spring and summer watching my low 80s son have numerous scoreless innings and games with very few walks and hits allowed only to see the high velo guys get shelled while having zero control get all the looks.

Same thins happening to my son 6'3 170 RHP.... great command, control, 3.75 gpa.... tops out at 83 right now....not getting a sniff, summer teammate, 6'3 200 throws 87 can't hit the backstop but he's the one they promote. ... I'm beginning to think these recruiters are not as smart as they lead you to beleive.

You all need to consider this from a slightly different angle to gain some insight..

87 who can't throw strikes...does a coach think he can fix that? Yeah, sometimes...maybe even probably. Especially if the coach sees the mechanical flaw(s).

83 (tops) with great command...does a coach think he can fix that (velocity)? Maybe, occasionally...but fairly unusual...unless this pitcher grows into his body and gets that extra spurt. Something the coach sees somewhat out of his coaching control and more of a probability bet.

They have experience...you and I as parents do not. Its about minimizing risk to them...remember, they want to win and they want to keep their jobs. They will go with who they believe to be their best chance and highest likelihood of success. That usually means (size + velocity) in a pitcher's case.

quote:

Originally posted by bacdorslider:

quote:

Originally posted by Mizzoubaseball:
Goes for pitchers, also.

Doesnt matter where it goes after it leaves their hand, if you can get the gun to say 88 and above, you get the looks.

Been a very frustrating and eye opening spring and summer watching my low 80s son have numerous scoreless innings and games with very few walks and hits allowed only to see the high velo guys get shelled while having zero control get all the looks.

Same thins happening to my son 6'3 170 RHP.... great command, control, 3.75 gpa.... tops out at 83 right now....not getting a sniff, summer teammate, 6'3 200 throws 87 can't hit the backstop but he's the one they promote. ... I'm beginning to think these recruiters are not as smart as they lead you to beleive.

Sure agree as I don't think many are as smart as they think they are, and when one doesn't work out they move on to the next as this is easier than actually working with them and improving them. Happens all the time.

I guess they take the easy way with both pro and college as there is always the next recruiting class or draft.

quote:

Originally posted by justbaseball:
They have experience...you and I as parents do not.

Exactly.

I kind of get a kick out of those that think that scouts and recruiters are not that smart.

The reason people think that way is because they just don't understand how it works. I don't either but having a player go through college and proball it is a little bit less confusing.

The way I see it, is that in order for anyone to notice you among the hundreds of other players out there, you have to have something special that will atrract their attention. That pitcher who is 6'7" has something special than the other pitchers described have. Height. The HS pitcher that touches 92-93 but not as accurate as the guy at 85-86 has something the other doesn't. Velocity. The hitter who belts out HR after HR but not as good at his position as the other guy has something he might not have. Power.

My sugegstion is that if your HS players are attending events, camps, etc and not getting the results you feel he should, this most likely is because he isn't targeting the coaches who will take notice to him for his particular attributes and skills. If the player's skill match up is more of a lower tier D1, or D2 program, I don't get why folks are sending him to the camps of the programs that are in the top 25?

At some point we all have to be realistic. This is a very tough business. Both at the college level and even tougher at the professional level.

Most of these guys know what they are doing, even if we think they don't.

FWIW, I was reading an article today about a new word out there I have never heard, called STOUT, statistics + scouting. When a scout is watching your son, he could be evaluating the players statistics as well, and for many, the ones that we think are important (win, loss, ERA, BA), aren't always to others.


JMO.

quote:

2013 Dad said....It's funny, but whenever this comes up, I defend MJ. Everyone always jokes about how poorly he did when he went to baseball.

I tip my cap to MJ for trying. The guy followed a life time dream. He was in a position to try it and did. He lost a few million in the NBA to make a few thousand in the MiLB.

quote:

A pro scout answered that question for me once:
"It's a lot easier to explain a million dollar mistake if he's 6'3 and 225 pounds."

Yep, that just about sums it up for me.


This discussion about velocity, projectability overshadowing more skilled, talented players has been going on a long time on this board. I recall having a similiar discussion with MidloDad a bunch of years ago. I told him that I could not understand how a pitcher who gets people out will be passed over for a kids throwing gas that can't throw a strike. He gave me all kinds of reasons but it boiled down to a couple reasons. First, the kids throwing gas is a rarer commodity and therefore will be more desireable. Second, the guy throwing gas has more margin for error when he does learn to throw strikes. He convinced me, and I've seen it play out over the years.

Belive it or not this part of the recruiting process. Sometimes you have to overcome some obstacles that you have no control over. My son certainly came face to face with it, and I know others have as well. You just have to get past it, and move onto the next opportunity.

I'd focus on the things that can best help you get recruited, and not on the things you have no control over.

quote:

Originally posted by fenwaysouth:
I'd focus on the things that can best help you get recruited, and not on the things you have no control over.

Yup!

tpm, sorry will have to disagree on the smart comment and sorry don't have a son involved at this time. I also really think they get a bit lazy, heck in Illinois I have watched kids recruited and sigen after 1 look for an inning or 2 and then never pan out. But hey they were rated high in a publication and it is always mantioned there rating in the publication. Thats is not only not to smart and lazy but it a terrible disservice to the player.

Again this is not all scouts or recruiters but plenty of them. I am also amazed at how many college coaches seem to give up to esy on players once ther are on board, work with what you have in the program and I think all the programs would improve and might even see a few more major league players from this country.

As far as Mj, he should was missed here on the Bulls basketball court, but and correct me if I am wrong but it seems like he chased that baseball "dream" when there was a gambling issue going on. Again I could have the time frame mixed up.

quote:

Originally posted by 2bagger:
tpm, sorry will have to disagree on the smart comment and sorry don't have a son involved at this time but do have other players at different levels. I also really think they get a bit lazy, heck in Illinois I have watched kids recruited and sigen after 1 look for an inning or 2 and then never pan out. But hey they were rated high in a publication and it is always mantioned there rating in the publication. Thats is not only not to smart and lazy but it a terrible disservice to the player.

Again this is not all scouts or recruiters but plenty of them. I am also amazed at how many college coaches seem to give up to esy on players once ther are on board, work with what you have in the program and I think all the programs would improve and might even see a few more major league players from this country.

As far as Mj, he should was missed here on the Bulls basketball court, but and correct me if I am wrong but it seems like he chased that baseball "dream" when there was a gambling issue going on. Again I could have the time frame mixed up.

Looking at the OP, I do understand what is being said. Take into consideration the Orioles last pick this year. A football player that either never played baseball or hadn't played in years. I can't remember which, but why throw a pick away in such a manner. Selecting on athletic ability?

This is a touchy subject for me, but it's not just you OP.

I see it day in and day out - "top prospects" who wow the crowd during warmups but fail in the games.

But, nobody seems to care cause they "project" well.


Some kids "have it" and some kids don't, and "it" has nothing to do with 60 yards times or velocity.

quote:

Originally posted by 2bagger:
tpm, sorry will have to disagree on the smart comment and sorry don't have a son involved at this time. I also really think they get a bit lazy, heck in Illinois I have watched kids recruited and sigen after 1 look for an inning or 2 and then never pan out. But hey they were rated high in a publication and it is always mantioned there rating in the publication. Thats is not only not to smart and lazy but it a terrible disservice to the player.

Again this is not all scouts or recruiters but plenty of them. I am also amazed at how many college coaches seem to give up to esy on players once ther are on board, work with what you have in the program and I think all the programs would improve and might even see a few more major league players from this country.

As far as Mj, he should was missed here on the Bulls basketball court, but and correct me if I am wrong but it seems like he chased that baseball "dream" when there was a gambling issue going on. Again I could have the time frame mixed up.

I am not sure what you are trying to say.

Yes there are some college recruiters who watch a player for an inning or two and then sign them. Then the player doesn't pan out so that makes them bad recruiters?
The way I see it, it works both ways. IMO it's most likely a disaster when a coach and the player do not get to know each other a little better on and off the field. Keep in mind that the player that the coach saw play once or twice also accepted the offer. It works both ways.

I stated that this is a business and it is all about WINNING. Year after year players are signed to college programs or drafted to take your position away. The way I see it, it is the player that has to take full responsibility to get better at his game to keep his job, no one elses. The coach, the organization gave the opportunity, the player has to do whatever he can to keep his job. If a second or third year player loses their starting position to a younger player why is that the coaches fault?

If you think it's bad in college, it's 10 times more difficult in professional ball.

quote:

Originally posted by LOVINGIT:
Looking at the OP, I do understand what is being said. Take into consideration the Orioles last pick this year. A football player that either never played baseball or hadn't played in years. I can't remember which, but why throw a pick away in such a manner. Selecting on athletic ability?

I think this has been discussed here.
Why is that throwing a pick away?
You can teach someone how to play the game but you can't teach athletic skills. Just as you can teach someone to throw a baseball but you can't teach 95-96.
Aroldis Chapman a great example, he was wild and uncontrollable when he first came to the game but he was hitting 100-105. Have you seen him pitch lately?

quote:

Originally posted by TPM:

quote:

Originally posted by 2bagger:
tpm, sorry will have to disagree on the smart comment and sorry don't have a son involved at this time. I also really think they get a bit lazy, heck in Illinois I have watched kids recruited and sigen after 1 look for an inning or 2 and then never pan out. But hey they were rated high in a publication and it is always mantioned there rating in the publication. Thats is not only not to smart and lazy but it a terrible disservice to the player.

Again this is not all scouts or recruiters but plenty of them. I am also amazed at how many college coaches seem to give up to esy on players once ther are on board, work with what you have in the program and I think all the programs would improve and might even see a few more major league players from this country.

As far as Mj, he should was missed here on the Bulls basketball court, but and correct me if I am wrong but it seems like he chased that baseball "dream" when there was a gambling issue going on. Again I could have the time frame mixed up.

I am not sure what you are trying to say.

Yes there are some college recruiters who watch a player for an inning or two and then sign them. Then the player doesn't pan out so that makes them bad recruiters?
The way I see it, it works both ways. IMO it's most likely a disaster when a coach and the player do not get to know each other a little better on and off the field. Keep in mind that the player that the coach saw play once or twice also accepted the offer. It works both ways.

I stated that this is a business and it is all about WINNING. Year after year players are signed to college programs or drafted to take your position away. The way I see it, it is the player that has to take full responsibility to get better at his game to keep his job, no one elses. The coach, the organization gave the opportunity, the player has to do whatever he can to keep his job. If a second or third year player loses their starting position to a younger player why is that the coaches fault?

If you think it's bad in college, it's 10 times more difficult in professional ball.

Not sure what you are trying to say either but I never said anything about a 2nd or 3rd year player losing a position, I am talking about development and yes I agree it is up to the player as from what I keep seeing and hearing the coaching is not really taking care of that aspect.

I don't expect anyone to be hand fed, however it should also be the organization colege or pro that also does some of the development.

Yep watching the same thing in pro ball.

Once again I would expect a coach or recruiter to spend more time than they do when recruiting, but sorry I don't see much of it. Sorry folks looks like this thread is drifting from original idea.

quote:

Originally posted by 2bagger:

quote:

Originally posted by TPM:

quote:

Originally posted by 2bagger:
tpm, sorry will have to disagree on the smart comment and sorry don't have a son involved at this time. I also really think they get a bit lazy, heck in Illinois I have watched kids recruited and sigen after 1 look for an inning or 2 and then never pan out. But hey they were rated high in a publication and it is always mantioned there rating in the publication. Thats is not only not to smart and lazy but it a terrible disservice to the player.

Again this is not all scouts or recruiters but plenty of them. I am also amazed at how many college coaches seem to give up to esy on players once ther are on board, work with what you have in the program and I think all the programs would improve and might even see a few more major league players from this country.

As far as Mj, he should was missed here on the Bulls basketball court, but and correct me if I am wrong but it seems like he chased that baseball "dream" when there was a gambling issue going on. Again I could have the time frame mixed up.

I am not sure what you are trying to say.

Yes there are some college recruiters who watch a player for an inning or two and then sign them. Then the player doesn't pan out so that makes them bad recruiters?
The way I see it, it works both ways. IMO it's most likely a disaster when a coach and the player do not get to know each other a little better on and off the field. Keep in mind that the player that the coach saw play once or twice also accepted the offer. It works both ways.

I stated that this is a business and it is all about WINNING. Year after year players are signed to college programs or drafted to take your position away. The way I see it, it is the player that has to take full responsibility to get better at his game to keep his job, no one elses. The coach, the organization gave the opportunity, the player has to do whatever he can to keep his job. If a second or third year player loses their starting position to a younger player why is that the coaches fault?

If you think it's bad in college, it's 10 times more difficult in professional ball.

Not sure what you are trying to say either but I never said anything about a 2nd or 3rd year player losing a position, I am talking about development and yes I agree it is up to the player as from what I keep seeing and hearing the coaching is not really taking care of that aspect.

I don't expect anyone to be hand fed, however it should also be the organization colege or pro that also does some of the development.

Yep watching the same thing in pro ball.

Once again I would expect a coach or recruiter to spend more time than they do when recruiting, but sorry I don't see much of it. Sorry folks looks like this thread is drifting from original idea.

One more comment and I will leave it alone, when you mention it works both way there is a difference. When it does not work out for the young player he either loses a scholarship or transfers and maybe loses a year, the coach loses nothing. Sure always the possibilty of his job but around here we don't see much of that.

Really interesting comments here to me. This website has discussed just this issue, in one form or another, over and over...and over.

Yes there are lazy coaches just like in every profession. But there aren't many and those that are don't last very long.

To make a broad statement like that based on a relatively small number of misses...and the number is relatively small...well you might as well call every big time coach on the West Coast lazy for not realizing Steven Strasburg would be what he became. Body type was a big factor in his case....he was considered overweight.

Were they all "lazy" for not figuring it out? I guarantee there are some casual observers out there who think so.

Folks, these are subjective evals. Not perfect. But over time they are pretty good at this...far better than you and me on average. 83 mph pitchers just aren't gonna get much attention from D1. Sorry, but that's the way it is because over time it just doesn't pan out very often.

Sorry justbaseball never meant to say they are all lazy.

quote:

Originally posted by 2bagger:

quote:

Originally posted by 2bagger:

quote:

Originally posted by TPM:

quote:

Originally posted by 2bagger:
tpm, sorry will have to disagree on the smart comment and sorry don't have a son involved at this time. I also really think they get a bit lazy, heck in Illinois I have watched kids recruited and sigen after 1 look for an inning or 2 and then never pan out. But hey they were rated high in a publication and it is always mantioned there rating in the publication. Thats is not only not to smart and lazy but it a terrible disservice to the player.

Again this is not all scouts or recruiters but plenty of them. I am also amazed at how many college coaches seem to give up to esy on players once ther are on board, work with what you have in the program and I think all the programs would improve and might even see a few more major league players from this country.

As far as Mj, he should was missed here on the Bulls basketball court, but and correct me if I am wrong but it seems like he chased that baseball "dream" when there was a gambling issue going on. Again I could have the time frame mixed up.

I am not sure what you are trying to say.

Yes there are some college recruiters who watch a player for an inning or two and then sign them. Then the player doesn't pan out so that makes them bad recruiters?
The way I see it, it works both ways. IMO it's most likely a disaster when a coach and the player do not get to know each other a little better on and off the field. Keep in mind that the player that the coach saw play once or twice also accepted the offer. It works both ways.

I stated that this is a business and it is all about WINNING. Year after year players are signed to college programs or drafted to take your position away. The way I see it, it is the player that has to take full responsibility to get better at his game to keep his job, no one elses. The coach, the organization gave the opportunity, the player has to do whatever he can to keep his job. If a second or third year player loses their starting position to a younger player why is that the coaches fault?

If you think it's bad in college, it's 10 times more difficult in professional ball.

Not sure what you are trying to say either but I never said anything about a 2nd or 3rd year player losing a position, I am talking about development and yes I agree it is up to the player as from what I keep seeing and hearing the coaching is not really taking care of that aspect.

I don't expect anyone to be hand fed, however it should also be the organization college or pro that also does some of the development.

Yep watching the same thing in pro ball.

Once again I would expect a coach or recruiter to spend more time than they do when recruiting, but sorry I don't see much of it. Sorry folks looks like this thread is drifting from original idea.

One more comment and I will leave it alone, when you mention it works both way there is a difference. When it does not work out for the young player he either loses a scholarship or transfers and maybe loses a year, the coach loses nothing. Sure always the possibilty of his job but around here we don't see much of that.