Skip to main content

Need the collective brilliance and wisdom of the experienced here again.

 

Situation:  2017 (rising junior) is debating on returning to his current team that will play 17/18 or staying at 16u for which he's eligible still on a team with a lot of talented kids he knows.

 

As he's entering his key recruiting summer and has a D1 goal, would it be stupid to pass on playing 17/18 tournaments where in I assume the college coaches and/or scouts are more apt to be versus playing again at 16u?

 

I think so I just really wanted someone to confirm that at "top" level tournaments (Pastime, Elite, PG are in the plan) that playing 17/18 will get more eyes on him then 16u level would for his key recruiting summer.

 

Thanks in advance for the feedback! 

Original Post

Replies sorted oldest to newest

Depends. If he's a D1 prospect, it's quite likely that 16u might get more eyes on him. 17u would be optimal. If, however, his team plays a lot of 18u tourneys (especially where there are 17u divisions), it can be problematic. Pro scouts, DII's, JC's, NAIA, and JC's are watching those, but D1's (especially powerhouse programs) have filled those classes and are concentrating on 17u and 16u. My son ran into this a little bit this summer playing 18u as a 2018. There were several inquiries from DII's and JC's who, when told he was a 2018, basically said "too bad, we don't look that far ahead."

If your son can play high to mid level DI baseball, I would make the top priority getting him to the 17U WWBA in Emerson next summer. Otherwise, getting to that event is less important in terms of recruiting.

 

IMO, the most important factor for most kids is getting seen by the schools who might want him, and the more times the better. You say that he could return to the same team, so you should have a good idea how many recruiters attended the games this year. Do you think he would be successful reaching his goals with that? If not, would the 17/18 team be any better?  If not again, then reevaluate the plan. Should he be trying out for another team that's better suited to get him in front of those recruiters?

 

Good luck.

Not sure how useful these percentiles really are.  For 2016s, 82 is 63rd percentile, and 83 is 70th.  75 is 16th percentile.

 

Plus there's the already pointed out lack of separation between RHP/LHP, and the fact that if the percentiles are based off peak velocities a lot of those are overstated and/or big outliers for the individual pitchers.

Originally Posted by jacjacatk:

Not sure how useful these percentiles really are.  For 2016s, 82 is 63rd percentile, and 83 is 70th.  75 is 16th percentile.

 

Plus there's the already pointed out lack of separation between RHP/LHP, and the fact that if the percentiles are based off peak velocities a lot of those are overstated and/or big outliers for the individual pitchers.

Where do these numbers come from? I'm not questioning them - they sound about right - I just wouldn't mind seeing them.

Originally Posted by roothog66:
Originally Posted by jacjacatk:

Not sure how useful these percentiles really are.  For 2016s, 82 is 63rd percentile, and 83 is 70th.  75 is 16th percentile.

 

Plus there's the already pointed out lack of separation between RHP/LHP, and the fact that if the percentiles are based off peak velocities a lot of those are overstated and/or big outliers for the individual pitchers.

Where do these numbers come from? I'm not questioning them - they sound about right - I just wouldn't mind seeing them.

The percentiles?  I pulled up three 2016s I know and looked at the percentile listed (hover over the blue line) under their peak velocity for this season.

Originally Posted by jacjacatk:
Originally Posted by roothog66:
Originally Posted by jacjacatk:

Not sure how useful these percentiles really are.  For 2016s, 82 is 63rd percentile, and 83 is 70th.  75 is 16th percentile.

 

Plus there's the already pointed out lack of separation between RHP/LHP, and the fact that if the percentiles are based off peak velocities a lot of those are overstated and/or big outliers for the individual pitchers.

Where do these numbers come from? I'm not questioning them - they sound about right - I just wouldn't mind seeing them.

The percentiles?  I pulled up three 2016s I know and looked at the percentile listed (hover over the blue line) under their peak velocity for this season.

On PG, I assume. That would be specific to a particular event, right?

 

Originally Posted by roothog66:
Originally Posted by jacjacatk:
Originally Posted by roothog66:
Originally Posted by jacjacatk:

Not sure how useful these percentiles really are.  For 2016s, 82 is 63rd percentile, and 83 is 70th.  75 is 16th percentile.

 

Plus there's the already pointed out lack of separation between RHP/LHP, and the fact that if the percentiles are based off peak velocities a lot of those are overstated and/or big outliers for the individual pitchers.

Where do these numbers come from? I'm not questioning them - they sound about right - I just wouldn't mind seeing them.

The percentiles?  I pulled up three 2016s I know and looked at the percentile listed (hover over the blue line) under their peak velocity for this season.

On PG, I assume. That would be specific to a particular event, right?

 

Yes on PG, but the implication from the percentiles listed is that it's for the entire class, so any 2016 that pitched in a PG event (this year, presumably, though it doesn't specify).

Originally Posted by RedFishFool:

My son's % applied to each event separately and that is what I implied from the percentages. 

I hadn't noticed that individual events also give a percentile, it definitely works as you say.  I was only looking at the main "best recorded" number for each player which is being compared against the class as a whole. It doesn't say if it's all 2016s ever, or just for this season, though I now think it's implying the former.

The advantage to playing up -- and it's not insignificant in these days of super-early recruiting -- is that he will be seen by scouts he would not otherwise be seen by.

 

No right or wrong -- but if he's ready, I'd say play up. It worked out well for my son.

 

(but then, it's worked out well for boys here in Texas who didn't, too)

Originally Posted by jp24:

       

The advantage to playing up -- and it's not insignificant in these days of super-early recruiting -- is that he will be seen by scouts he would not otherwise be seen by.

 

No right or wrong -- but if he's ready, I'd say play up. It worked out well for my son.

 

(but then, it's worked out well for boys here in Texas who didn't, too)


       

I've seen quite a few younger teams or younger kid's playing up in the 16u tournament this year. Even at PG there were two mostly 15u teams we played.  I thought it was more of a bragging rights situation.  My son's team normally beat those younger teams as his team had a few older 16 age kids.

Add Reply

Post
.
×
×
×
×
Link copied to your clipboard.
×