path to the pros.......talent ?????

minivanmom, while I can kinda of understand what your saying I do believe it is all about talent. A young player showing well at a showcase or camp can create a lot of buzz. Sometime the buzz lasts a long time and isn't warranted a few years down the road. I've seen that more than once.

But college coaches and pro scouts, while wanting to see what the buzz is about, will not recruit a player without seeing with their own eyes. A good scout/recruiter will see through the buzz pretty quickly. If real talent is there it will be apparent to trained eyes. Other elements can become part of the equation whether to recruit or draft a player but they are looked into after the talent is identified.

It is simple mathmatics:

Opportunities = f (talent x exposure)

The larger the talent the less exposure required. Infinite talent requires very little exposure and infinite exposure with zero talent is still is zero.

no doubt these 'created' baseball players have talent....the best money can buy. i am just saying sometimes the good player with maxium exposure and connections sometimes seems to fair out better than the more talented players with less exposure. that is my point. at the high school level these kids most all have talent.

"at the high school level these kids most all have talent."

Can't say I agree with that. Great variance in talent of high school players. Some have great talent and some very little.

quote:

Originally posted by minivanmom:

no doubt these 'created' baseball players have talent....the best money can buy. i am just saying sometimes the good player with maxium exposure and connections sometimes seems to fair out better than the more talented players with less exposure. that is my point. at the high school level these kids most all have talent.

This becomes infinitely less true as you reach higher levels of the game. In the end, the cream will always rise to the top.

BOF - nice equation. There are a few talented ball players in the So Cal area that seem to stay out of the lime light, and off the radars... and there are less talented players out there that do everything they can to be seen. Can be a double edged sword too.

My feeble attempt at public math:

IF Opportunities = f(talent x exposure); Then Lack of Opportunities = f(lack of talent x exposure).

Cant wait for Gotwood to simplify it with pics.

quote:

Originally posted by BOF:
It is simple mathmatics:

Opportunities = f (talent x exposure)

The larger the talent the less exposure required. Infinite talent requires very little exposure and infinite exposure with zero talent is still is zero.

BOF - it takes an engineer to appreciate your functional expression, but I am sure that is the right equation.

I think this will be an interesting topic. I was most closely attuned to the type of feelings minivanmom has expressed the final year my son had in college. We prayed he would get drafted and to his credit, he did. I still don't get the round he was taken in however when I saw guys who I had seen with my own eyes (and had a lower opinion) get taken in much earlier rounds. Several of them are out of baseball already and it has only been since 2009.

Maybe the players we speak of are the exception (not as talented as the hype suggests) but you don't have to look hard to find them.

I always wondered about the player with great tools but could not afford showcases, showcase team travel expenses etc....I am sure that the are some kids that get overlooked or do not get as far as some less talented well funded kids.

CD;
your son has the tool that cannot be scouted.
The unbelievable 6th tool! Self determination, desire, faith and his courage.

During my 30 years with International Baseball and the AC games, I often made "silent" beds with myself. I would bet $10,000 that a specific player would not ever make the MLB. There are over 20 players now in the MLB.

With the "short" duration of "Showcases" it is most difficult for pro scouts to recognize or evaluate the 6th tool.

However, with our 2 weeks and 12 game schedule in December, we can now observe the player, as he lives in a "host family" home and plays against the "mentally tough" Aussies athlete. Very few of our USA players know each other or the pro scout that coaches the team. After 22 hours in the air, the land and practice
and the next day begin the games.

Now we observe the 6th Tool.

Bob

.

"Cant wait for Gotwood to simplify it with pics."

Where 'x' equals...



Or something like that!

.

College is about talent and exposure of talent. Most players play college ball within a reasonable distance of home. If money is an issue there's no reason not to target the camps of these schools and show the tools.

Spending money for exposure is only worthwhile if you have talent. No talent = No Scholarship or draft.

Personally I believe the more talented the player the more important exposure is. It creates the most opportunities for the very best players. We seldom see a first round pick that never attended an event while in high school.

quote:

Originally posted by minivanmom:
at the high school level these kids most all have talent.

Sure they have talent because they made it to the next level that others who only made it to middle school or JV did not. The same will happen now that they want to play in college.

The studs will be highly recruited and sought after. The next group will get some D1 interest/nibbles, and they will find a program in D1-D3/Juco. Then you have another group still that has talent and can either play NAIA or will play club ball because they chose a school for academics that had too much talent for them to play on the regular team.

What I am trying to say is that talented HS players who are persistent and put themselves in a position to play might find a place to land at some level in college. But rest assured there are kids out there with talent far above what the average HS player possesses.
As to making it to the pros, many studs in HS will become small fish in a big pond in college. Only the most talented will make the majors, while plenty a talented player will dwell in the minors never to make it to the show. Evey step up becomes that much more steeper.

All we can do as parents is put them in the best position to continue to develop, and hope they get the right exposure if they are good enough to take the next step.

I've seen kids with money pay for a pitching coach that increased their velocity by 5 mph in minutes. I've seen talented kids blow their arm with bad form and a poorly tought curve ball because they had no money for a pro pitching coach. I've seen mid level college talent play in a pasture in high school go nowhere due to lack of exposure and lesser talent get a shot in college due to camps showcases connections etc. don't forget pure luck and timing

I am sick and tired of these threads whining about how everyone else gets better opportunities than I do.

He got drafted higher than my son. He is a worse shortstop than my son. His dad is the coach's friend. His mom brought cupcakes to the game.

Good lord, what's going to happen when you're son hits the job market...especially this one?

Papi ... For a good time hit the youth sports boards on June 15th. It's the day LL all-stars are announced. You wouldn't believe how many kids across American get screwed on June 15th.

Rather than use the term talent, I will substitute the word "prospect". Once a player is labeled/identified as such by the "system", the doors of opportunity swing wide open. Coaches see them as poster boys for their program, even other players want them on the field as they too may get seen by scouts watching the prospect.

I find this strain particularly interesting and full of good insight from those who have "been there."

2013 is our only son and no one we know well has ever been recruited to play a college sport of any kind. So to say this site is a Godsend would be quite the understatement.

We live in a larger size Midwestern town where Legion ball exists no more. There are some youth rec leagues and some very quality travel ball programs.

What we have witnessed seems to be what I read a lot about here. The "beasts" at 11-12 are often that way because they are physically larger or better developed. The average, or below-average, sized kids who have to work harder on fundamentals often catch up to - or pass up - those beasts once they get to high school. As with many things, it came easier to some so they never developed the work ethic.

We also see that some of the very good HS players won't be noticed because their families are unaware of the need for quality instruction and showcases. Even many good travel players only do the travel practices, but no additional individual work. I don't see this as paying your way to exposure . . . it's seeking out the best qualified people in your area/price range to help develop form, strength, power, or whatever and to give you objective feedback.

It's not paying to be recruited - it's paying for the people with experience and knowledge to help you get better as a player.

If BOF's relationship between talent, exposure and opportunity is linear, it is probably linear only in two limited effective ranges. The first effective range is centered around replacement-level college talent, the second is at the extreme high end of the talent spectrum.

Replacement-level players, those right on the edge of being good enough to play at any given level of college ball, can definitely create more opportunities for themselves by investing in more exposure.

Similarly, players who have legitimate early round draft potential can create more opportunities by letting more scouts make more detailed observations of them, especially against elite competition.

Other than these two groups, additional investment in exposure can either be hopeless or superfluous: no amount of exposure will create opportunities for someone without talent, and even a small amount of exposure can suffice for talented players whose college potential is readily apparent.

Of course, these observations are useful only for those who have an accurate idea of how much talent their players have.

Nice job on the non-linearity of the function. I was waiting for the HSBBW staff rocket scientist CADad, to give us a more precise model that none of us could understand.

My 2012 son is going on to play college ball. I've seen kids that may be more talented fall by the wayside and I think that plain old hard work has as much to do with where you end up as the $ you spend. The kids that are moving on just seem to out work all the others.

quote:

Originally posted by minivanmom:
the more i watch youth sports and the advancement of players to the next level the more i beleive it is more about networking and showcases and money than it is about talent. parents are creating baseball players/athletes at birth. i hate to sound jaded but wonder if anyone else feels that way?

Well, anyone who really believes there aren’t players who fall through the cracks, is either a fool or very naïve. Common sense dictates that a system having so much subjectivity built into it, so much nepotism affecting it, so much “luck of the draw” involved in it, and where $$$$ can so easily affect opportunities, is not going to be what anyone could honestly describe as efficient.

talent is potential fullfilled. Some players fullfill more of thier potential earlier then others. These are the sure fire 1st thru 5th rounders. Others take longer to fullfill thier own potential. Some are drafted on projectability,obviuos potential.Still others need more time as say Evan Longoria who NOBODY had out of high school. Or say Tom Seaver, who went into the marines for 9 months then entered a community college. I think what minivanmom is refering to are the 'showcase players' that scouts are now grumbling about. These players target showcase workouts to be able to shine in basic drills,ie.. 60 yd dash, infield/outfield drills,ect... But these players are exposed soon enough. Whatever the players potential is hard work and lots more hard work will let them fullfill their potential. So I wouldn't grumble to hard about money being a reason. If the potential is there someone will try to help bring it out.

Interesting topic.

Swampboy - I would say that opportunities become almost exponential as the talent level gets near the top. In other words, a lot of things open up if your talent level is at the very high end...opportunities that just aren't there for the 'investor' types. USA Baseball, Area Codes, PG National, AFLAC/UnderArmour, etc... Things really take off for those kids I think.

Do all-conference 5'8", 145 pound pitchers who throw 80 mph fall through the cracks? Or are they just passed over as D1 or pro material?

RJM

I think they are generally passed over. The reason isn't sound necessarily, but it happens just the same. The 5'8" kid doesn't pass the "eye" test, as I've read about so much on this web site. The small kid has to hit .200 pt higher, throw 5mph faster and run .5 sec faster to get any notice at all when compared to the 6'3" kid with "potential" who cant find the strike zone with his 85 mph fast ball only, and who looks great hitting in the cage at a winter showcase but hits .200 on jv in the spring.

Kids who don't fit the description of 'projectable' usually have to play their way to each succeeding level. Fair or not that seems to be the way. If the talent is there it will show over time in the place that matters, during games.

quote:

ts to be ab

quote:

Originally posted by twooutdouble:
I think they are generally passed over. The reason isn't sound necessarily, but it happens just the same. The 5'8" kid doesn't pass the "eye" test, as I've read about so much on this web site. The small kid has to hit .200 pt higher, throw 5mph faster and run .5 sec faster to get any notice at all when compared to the 6'3" kid with "potential" who cant find the strike zone with his 85 mph fast ball only, and who looks great hitting in the cage at a winter showcase but hits .200 on jv in the spring.

Don’t bother trying to use logic or state truths when trying to discuss something with someone who’s the poster boy for what you’re trying to point out. People like that have to constantly attack people like yourself in order to validate their way of thinking, but it doesn’t make them right in any way. It only makes them foolish and helps to perpetuate the system as it now stands.

quote:

Originally posted by oldmanmoses:
Kids who don't fit the description of 'projectable' usually have to play their way to each succeeding level. Fair or not that seems to be the way. If the talent is there it will show over time in the place that matters, during games.

I agree, but depending on pure luck of the draw as to who those kids play for, the chances of getting the opportunity to play in games is much more reduced for those that aren't anointed as projectable than you might believe.

How else should it be done? You either have present talent or you project to have the necessary talent. There has to be separation at some point for some reason.

Sounds 2 me like ders sum profylin goin on en dem dar fields.

If you look at any Top 25 D1 program you will see many players whose size does not fit "projectability" size. I checked South Carolina a month or so ago and they have over 15 players on the roster under 6' tall.
I don't think size alone eliminates any players. If high level talent is in a 5'9" body he will be recruited or drafted. (Jimmy Rollins is 5'7" in cleats and was a 2nd round pick. I'm sure hundreds more).

I think some use size as an excuse when maybe the scouts/recruiters don't see a player in the same light as a parent.

And even more important is that scouts and recruiters are looking at/for things that a non baseball parent, like me, is not aware of. We are looking for results. Hits, HRs, BA, SOs, wins. They are looking at body type, swing speed, arm action, ease of throwing hard. Which, I guess, are projectable to the recruiters/scouts level. Things not always apparent in results or stats.

quote:

Originally posted by fillsfan:
If you look at any Top 25 D1 program you will see many players whose size does not fit "projectability" size. I checked South Carolina a month or so ago and they have over 15 players on the roster under 6' tall.
I don't think size alone eliminates any players. If high level talent is in a 5'9" body he will be recruited or drafted. (Jimmy Rollins is 5'7" in cleats and was a 2nd round pick. I'm sure hundreds more).

I think some use size as an excuse when maybe the scouts/recruiters don't see a player in the same light as a parent.

And even more important is that scouts and recruiters are looking at/for things that a non baseball parent, like me, is not aware of. We are looking for results. Hits, HRs, BA, SOs, wins. They are looking at body type, swing speed, arm action, ease of throwing hard. Which, I guess, are projectable to the recruiters/scouts level. Things not always apparent in results or stats.

True. It isn’t at all uncommon to see a player who doesn’t fit the physical profile of a stereotyped ML player, make it to the next level, whatever that level may be. However, I think there can be little doubt that size is a factor that is given a lot of weight. As soon as that happens, a bias has been introduced into the system that can be very difficult o overcome.

And I definitely agree that there are other things being weighed that are not always apparent in results or stats. Here’s the results of one of those things. See if you can come up with a good reason for it.

40% of the current players for one of the very best D1 programs in the country are from one particular place in a different state, over 500 miles away, and an area less than 20 miles in diameter. Is that an accident, or is there some kind of connection there that gives that particular spot on the earth such a leg up for having a player go to the next level?

quote:

Originally posted by PGStaff:
How else should it be done? You either have present talent or you project to have the necessary talent. There has to be separation at some point for some reason.

It doesn’t matter what anyone thinks should change to make the process more efficient, and thus better at making the picks. There is simply too much resistance to change to allow more than an occasional aberration to slip through. At least though, the numbers are being considered a much more important part of the mix now, than they were 40-50 years ago, at least for the top level.

quote:

i beleive it is more about networking and showcases and money than it is about talent.

Exposure is a good thing but in the end you either can play at a certain level or you can not. Did willie Mays or Mickey Mantle Hank Aaron go to showcases or have their parents spend money. I think we know the answer to that one. Look at some of the stories of the players who have come from Latin america. We have seen stories of them playing ball with little or no equipment as kids. It is talent that gets you there and if somebody else is better they take your place.

quote:

Originally posted by Stats4Gnats:
40% of the current players for one of the very best D1 programs in the country are from one particular place in a different state, over 500 miles away, and an area less than 20 miles in diameter. Is that an accident, or is there some kind of connection there that gives that particular spot on the earth such a leg up for having a player go to the next level?

Just guessing here, could it be that:

Oregon population = 3.7M
California population = 37M?

quote:

Originally posted by Stats4Gnats:
40% of the current players for one of the very best D1 programs in the country are from one particular place in a different state, over 500 miles away, and an area less than 20 miles in diameter. Is that an accident, or is there some kind of connection there that gives that particular spot on the earth such a leg up for having a player go to the next level?

Interesting but I am not sure I understand the logic. I'll take a wild stab that you are talking about Coach Horton up there in Oregon. If that is the case, the reason he recruits so many from California is that is probably a place he is comfortable recruiting as he had previously been at Fullerton. Moreover, I believe California produces more top talent than any other state so it would make sense for that reason alone to recruit there.

If you don't mind, I would be interested in knowing who you are referring to.

quote:

Originally posted by Will:
Exposure is a good thing but in the end you either can play at a certain level or you can not. Did willie Mays or Mickey Mantle Hank Aaron go to showcases or have their parents spend money. I think we know the answer to that one. Look at some of the stories of the players who have come from Latin america. We have seen stories of them playing ball with little or no equipment as kids. It is talent that gets you there and if somebody else is better they take your place.

When Willie and Mickey were in HS, there were no showcases, and it was a much different world. Heck, my friend signed a professional contract in 1939, and he’d only played 5 games of organized baseball! Of course he only lasted 20 years as a pitcher and another 22 as a scout and ML coach, but why quibble.

quote:

Originally posted by Backstop-17:
Just guessing here, could it be that:

Oregon population = 3.7M
California population = 37M?

So why not equally from the whole state. Heck everyone knows there are more and better players un SoCal than NorCal.