Perfect Game: A blessing and a curse?

I love PG too but I do understand what you are saying and to some degree I agree. I have to believe that the rankings are based on the expert eye of projection because I do know of a highly rated player who has the tools but in game situations can't put it all together.

People get excited about who might be the next first rounder.  But you're talking here about maybe a couple dozen kids out of literally thousands evaluated in each class.  I think PG has something over 4,000 college commitments listed in the class of 2015.

Meaning, the buzz you're talking about has nothing to do with 99.9% of the kids who are scouted by PG.  If you're not one of the very top kids, the info is there for entertainment value.

If you're ever at Jupiter, I think it's fun to go see some of the very elite guys in action.  Then when June rolls around and they're on that MLB Network draft show, you can say, "I saw them when ...." 

Beyond that, I don't see how their success has any impact on the typical player one way or the other. 

Basically what PG has done over the past 10-12 years is beat the pants off its competition and put all the scouts and all the database info in one place.  The blessing is, order has come out of chaos.  If there's a curse, it's that some of the events are seeing total costs increase rapidly, especially when you factor in the hotel bills.  You see this in pretty much any industry where one provider achieves a dominant position in the marketplace, I'm afraid.

Jim T,

i understand your concerns and I also appreciate your kind words.

For years and years we only produced a top prospect team, rather than an all tournament team based on statistics. While we added players to the list that had great statistics we would list the players we thought were the best prospects even if they didn't have great numbers.  

After awhile we decided That we do enough already recognizing those we thought were the top prospects and so we thought we would recognize all those players who actually  produced the best statistics at the tournaments.

Now the argument would be who really are the best prospects, those on the All Tournament teams or those that we know are top prospects that didn't make the All Tourney team?  To me, both are important lists. In many cases the top prospects do make the all tourney list.  However in some cases they don't.

It is definitely an interesting subject.   Here is how we look at it.  We rank players based on their potential.  Tools weigh very heavy!   Who should be ranked higher as  prospect, the 6'5" LHP that throws low 90s or the 5'11" RHP that throws mid 80s?  I think most everyone would agree on who is the better prospect between those two.  What if the tall lefty throwing in the 90s pitch 2 games in a tournament, lost both and gave up a bunch of lucky hits.  The RHP in the mid 80s in the same tournament went 2-0 and gave up one earned run.  Which one belongs on the All Tournament list?

We have seen eventual first over all #1 draft picks have extremely bad statistics at our tournaments.  And we have seen some lower level prospects lead the tournament in hits. So the two things don't always go together.

While it is great to be named to an all tournament team and does bring recognition of performance, it can't always tell anyone who the very best prospects are.  

In the end, if you took our rankings and matched that up to the draft and college commitments you would easily see that the rankings really are a better indication of who the best prospects are, rather than just looking at all tournament lists.

That said, performance does add to a prospects status.  So when we see someone has performed well in many different events it is recognized in the rankings.  So those all tournament teams are very important.  After all, it is seldom that a bad player has a great performance against the type of competition we are talking about. so an argument could be made that every player that makes an all tournament team is in fact a prospect, but it doesn't always mean they are the very best prospects in that event.

Not sure I have explained it well, but I tried.

Jim, I think you're putting too much importance on PG rankings, All Tournament Teams, etc. Yes, I have no doubt that college coaches (and MLB scouts) look at those things, and it influences who they take a closer look at, but I just don't believe that it influences the final decision. They all want to see the guy play, talk to his coaches, and make their own evaluation. They aren't lazy, at least not the ones I've met. Don't forget, most of these guys have to win games to keep their jobs.

Your All Tournament example sounds personal, so you probably know the details, but I know of many cases where kids are listed on a tournament roster but did not actually attend.

MidAtlanticDad,

Not sure if I understood you correctly so just to be clear, those that make the All Tournament list are players that did attend.  If not it would make the lists 100% worthless to everyone.

I think you were just talking about the team rosters, in which case is true.

The issue I am seeing as my kid progresses is the focus on the "projectable" body.  As PG indicates the 6'5" five kid is "projectable" compared to the 5'11" kid but may not be able to pitch his way out of a paper bag, yet.  It is kind of like, nobody ever got fired for choosing IBM.  If the 6'5 kid doesn't develop it is his fault because he has all the "tools."  If the 5'11 doesn't, well he never had the tools to begin with. 

I agree with this 100% -  PG has it's place in the recruiting process, but in the end coaches recruit kids they put their eyes on and to determine whether they fit their needs. PG probably does the best in the business in organizing places where coaches can see players and vice versa.  I doubt many players have been recruited because they scored a X.X by PG evaluators.  

Have you actually spoken to a few Recruiting Coordinators about this; or are you extrapolating the conclusion from your observations?

The reason I ask is that every Recruiting Coordinator I know is adamant about the value of seeing players several times, themselves, before deciding whether to add them to their list of active recruits. If not, my son and dozens like him are wasting their time spending summers on the road virtually full time.

They know from their experience that Perfect Game's and other organizations' ratings only amount to so much in helping them identify players; and that, once identified as being worthy of evaluation, they have to see them...preferably, several times.

This summer, that translated into 8 days in the office between 5/25 and 8/2, with no days off for my son; and I think his schedule is typical of his peers.' If it were all about PG, it's hard to imagine that anyone would put themselves through that.

I was trying to explain that just because you don't see "All Tournament Team" on a player's profile/events page, it doesn't necessarily mean he didn't do well. What you don't see is that he may not have played in that tournament. That is, the team put him on the roster, but he was not able to attend. Correct?

You know, I probably shouldn't say this, but I have been under a lot of stress lately

At the risk some might claim I am lying, here is the truth... There have been many cases where kids have been successfully recruited without the coaching staff ever seeing the player.  We have been contacted before by colleges that have a need and want to know if we have someone.  We have sent kids from northern states to colleges down south.  In one case we had a kid from the south go to a northern school. All sight unseen.  And here is the kicker, in some cases this included colleges that play in the top conferences and even a couple that have been to the College World Series. And you know what, it will happen again because in every single case the player went to that college and became a major contributor. In fact, one that I know of ended up in the Big Leagues.

That said, everyone above is still correct 99% of the time when they say college coaches see what they want and then go after it.  In fact, they always want it that way, but sometimes it just doesn't work out that way. Our lists create interest, but that only leads to colleges wanting to see the player.

MidAtlanticDad,

Thanks for clearing that up, yes you are correct. That can and does happen at times.

To go along with what Prepster stated.  Those coaches deeply involved in recruiting are some of the hardest working people we see.  Between the travel, endless hours, weather, it a real grind.  Then there's the competitive aspect to it all.  Everyone is after the best players.

Just my personal opinion, but most college coaches want the players we rank the highest.   I mean those players have the talent to play most anywhere.  However, all those players don't necessarily fit into every system.  Recruiters want to know more than just how talented a player is.  The current talent level is the easiest thing to figure out.  

This could actually be a lesson to some.  I will give a routine one of the best college recruiters I have ever known used.

1. Watch the kid play and once he recognized he liked the talent
2. Watch the kid act on the field, in the dugout
3. Watch the kid off the field, still likes everything so the next day
4. Find the parents if they are there and watch them
5. Start all over again, and watch the kid play and wait for certain situations to pop up.

This recruiter would be all over the place. Behind home plate, behind the dugout, down the lines, in the bleachers.  Not talking much, just watching!

That was his routine and he was highly successful at both evaluating a player and in the end selling his program.  Have to admit, he was at a program that wasn't hard to sell.  But in the end, he wanted to see more than talent, he wanted the whole package.  He also did his homework ahead of time, he knew the grades and other info more often than not.  He had a understanding of that players draft status. If he saw a player he wanted nothing stopped him.  He didn't care if we had the player ranked in the top 500 or if we didn't even have him ranked.

One more thing about ranking prospects.  It really isn't all that difficult.  Any good baseball person could be fairly accurate (which is far from perfect) at figuring out who the best players are.  The difficult part is being able to see them all.  We are very good at it (not perfect) because we actually see more of the top players, more often than most anyone else. It's not that we are the best at doing it, we just see more of them and that makes it somewhat easy.  In the end, we will be wrong at times because some player is much better than we thought.  But those guys at the top of the rankings are for real, you can count on that.  The order could change, one might develop more or less than another, opinions could change, but they all belong in there. There are no big mistakes in the top group.

We can make a mistake and no one gets hurt.  That is something college recruiters and MLB scouts don't have the luxury of.  Their mistakes are magnified and costly.  That is why they want to see the player and determine his value.  Their job is very hard and pressure packed. Talent is not enough all by itself. Not every talented kid is a winner.

PG does a great job of finding early bloomers.  Maybe in the past not so great at finding late bloomers.  Not sure how that would been fixed. I think Trackman levels out much of this now though.  Ex. something like a Top 25 Bat Speed List doesn't care what a persons' scouting report says, how many tournaments you have attended, or what age you are.

PG has proven to be a fantastic company and done a great job putting a lot of baseball recruiting content together like never before. If there is a curse (besides coaching staffs being lazy recruiting and just hanging out at PG events all summer) is that it prices out a lot of talent. There are a handful of solid ball players completely alienated from the recruiting process due to the outrageous money ball tactics of showcase baseball in general, not just PG. It's sad really. Guy A with average talent and money will easily have more options than Guy B with above average talent and less - no money for example.

BombSquad,

You bring up a very good point.

I honestly want to change that system.  I don't want to blame the NCAA because I know why they have the rules they have.  However, some of those rules make it almost impossible to help those under privileged talented kids get the same opportunities as everyone else.

Believe me, we do our part and have helped many.  Some of those draft picks that attended PG are very poor. But we can't do enough.  There are organizations that are trying to help.  Hopefully this will improve in the future.

"There are a handful of solid ball players completely alienated from the recruiting process due to the outrageous money ball tactics of showcase baseball in general, not just PG. It's sad really."

Far far more than just a handful. And increasing in number each day.

And not one For Profit promoter sees it as a problem that should never be allowed to occur.

How do these scouts know they are seeing the best athletes and players when the population being scouted is comprised of only those select few who can PAY for Exposure?

The answer is they can't. The entire process has been subverted by Profiteers. Not for your benefit, but for theirs.

RE: the OP's point..

We always saw the tournament team/top prospect as recognition for a job well done, and for a teenager, that's a feel-good moment. But it's a snapshot in time, and it is not an indicator of consistent quality play. Now if a player strings together a few of those, then there's some evidence pointing to consistent quality play.

Having said that, we have never thought that those bits of recognition played a role in the recruiting process. The PG organization, as a whole, plays a role through the events held, the consultation with coaches and scouts, and so forth. And there are other actors that are just as important in this Kabuki: HS coaches, Summer/Fall team coaches, your own "marketing" efforts, etc. In other words, PG is a tool in your arsenal. The top prospect team thing doesn't make the tool belt.

IO, what cracks me up about your posts is that you spelled observer wrong in your name.

Did you run for class presidint?

BombSquad,

One thing I have to disagree with you about is your comment about lazy college coaches. I know there are some that think that, but the best ones are just the opposite of lazy.

Sure many complex an event and see lots of talent.  That is there job to see as much talent as possible and recruit that talent.  People should look at correctly.  They are away from home, seeing much more talent and many more games than they possibly could traveling from one city to he next.  Typical day starts early in the morning and ends sometimes late at night, all the time looking for talented recruits.  It would be much less work for a lazy person to travel all over watching one game a day.  

Those recruiters that have spent weeks down in 100 degree heat in Georgia have seen more games in a week than they could see in three months running all over the country.  Plus they will see more potential recruits and see them play against other very talented players.  It is not a job for anyone that lazy even a little bit lazy.  It is a real grind, much harder than searching the entire country for a possible recruit. Yet much more productive as well.

What do you do, all the colleges in the ACC and SEC except you are there.  Who is lazy?

I wish just for one day, everyone had to do what these college recruiters do in Georgia at the WWBA.  I guarantee that once you dragged yourself back to your hotel that night knowing you need to get up and do the same thing again tomorrow and every day for the next two weeks, you would never again mention the word lazy when it comes to college recruiters working these events with a ton of players. It's more work, not less work!

Please lay out your alternatives. Let's debate a better solution.

Stop yourself.  It's getting old. 

Ok, if you are so adamant about this, remedy it! Sponsor kids to go. Create a "Perfect Game" and make it so all can attend. Make sure every kid who has aspirations / ability is in front of every college/ pro scout that potentially would want him to come their team.

I keep reading you griping about how PG and others make a profit. That is the way business is generally in USA.

I keep reading that it is evil, they get in between the player and the college. I would like to know how YOU would "fix it".

Right now PG and others have a plan to bring together players that want an opportunity to play in college or pros and the colleges/ pro scouts for those teams. It costs money to day that. That is a lot of work that people expect to be paid for. 

If YOU have a better solution, I am listening 

I have a solution.

Sponsorship, find us a sponsor that will spend the money to give every kid in the world who wants an equal opportunity in baseball and we will get the job done.

Until then you do as much as you can and try to stay afloat so that you can do more.  Taking without giving is not something that works unless all you care about is yourself.

I think the sponsor is Interested Observer.  What say you IO?

Easy to find out with a reverse IP lookup.

You have absolutely no concept of what goes into successful college recruiting if you believe this.

Talk to several successful recruiters and let them describe how they spend their days/nights.

If you decide to use the term "lazy" to describe your perception of what they do to them, make sure that you're standing more than an arm's length away from them and that none of them has a ball in his hand.

Easy answer. The middle man is not needed.

The structure already existed and had for years.

And what was that structure? 

Have I spoken to an RC about laziness regarding identifying players?  No. I haven't.  Have I heard of RC's contacting a kid whom they've never seen and asked him if he's still open?  Yes.  Many times.  They found the player on the PG website.  It's a simple search and sort. 

I never said they only take the scouting report and rankings into consideration. How you people derived that from my comment is beyond me.  It often starts with a database constructed by PG or another lesser source. That database is invaluable to the RC's.  It may be too influential at the early stage of the process.  That's my point. 

ok, and for those that choose to use the structure you say exists, then what is the problem?  For those that choose to use the structure provided by PG they can be happy too?

You keep talking about a structure that is already in place without the middle man. Does it exist? Yep and for those that choose to do that, fine. But I think that is a hard way to get seen by many colleges

I keep waiting for you to be willing to sponsor all those that cannot afford it.

Or to describe how "Johnny" in Ohio can be seen by colleges in OH, PA, MI. KY, TN. I have not counted but I would guess that is well over 150 colleges. How does Johnny get seen by all the colleges that might be seen efficiently? How does college Big U see all the potential candidates from those  states?

It costs money to attend the showcases, sometimes a lot. But what would it cost to get seen by all those colleges by Johnny if he had to do it individually?

It's not personal.  Just a little due diligence.  I understand what you mean regarding roster though so perhaps my 1 out of 10 is off.  I'm not placing too much stock in the rankings, I'm suggesting the RC's are using the resource as their initial targeting list.  As players are identified/rated earlier in the process, you'll see the down side of a ratings process that doesn't migrate players quickly enough.

I would say that more good players were missed in the structure that existed in the past than good players that are missed now.  I'll bet many more kids from around the country are playing in the SEC and ACC than ever before.  Because those players all come to Georgia where the SEC and ACC recruiters are.  In the past, the recruiters would probably not be traveling to New Hampshire or Montana or Oregon to watch one player at each location.  Or going to those locations hoping to stumble on a HS game where a good player was playing.  Now a recruiter can go to one place and see players from all over the country.  

It really is a better system now.  It just costs money to facilitate it.  No one can do all this out of the goodness of their heart and take the money out of their pocket to build or rent ball fields, have staff man every game, purchase radar guns, publish a humongous web based data base, field questions from scouts and recruiters - the list goes on and on.

If you can find a benefactor to pay for all this and put on events similar to PG without having to charge for it, I say go for it.  I'd say everyone would go to the free events over the paid events providing the services were equal.  

Hey, it's a free country.  If you want to provide something better for a lower cost, I'm all for it.  After all, that's what a free market is all about.

IO comes off harsh but his point is valid. 

Was the system broken prior to companies like PG.  When I played in the 80's they were not around.  It was no secret who was who when it came time to play post high school.  Everyone landed where they should have landed.  It wasn't complicated and it didn't cost a dime.   

That's what is confusing for me.  What has changed? 

All this money we throw at baseball has created some pretty awesome venues.  The youth facilities available in the 80's pale in comparison.  Do facilities create better talent?  No but it's pretty cool for my kid to play at some of these places. 

Can you argue the new system has made it more difficult?  Talent stood out like a sore thumb amongst the average pool of players.  Bringing all the talent in a state or region to one location turns everyone to average in that pool. 

Perhaps it's important to keep in mind that, while Perfect Game's database is one important source to the player identification process, it's far from the sole source. Many names on a recruiter's list of players to see at a tournament or showcase come from other sources, as well. Two important ones that come to mind readily: (1) high school/travel team coaches and (2) players' direct expressions of interest .

Don't underestimate the power of a coach's network with other baseball people to generate leads or their receptiveness to direct expressions of interest from players.

No one player needs 150 schools see him play!  If 150 schools ran across him how many other players did those 150 schools run watch.

From a midwest point of view you could have put things....Pg and PBR......You are correct...........

What do you think happened to those good players of years past that were overlooked? 

I would agree probably more players from around the country in that division but who filled the spots in years past?  Talented players closer to home.  I can see PG and the like redistributing talent around the nation.  Is that a good thing? 

Real Green, you make a valid point in some manner. For instance, My son plays just down the street from where we live. Would my son have ended up there in the 80's maybe, probably.

I think PG makes it possible for those players who want to play farther away from home much easier for both the kid and coach (as BBallman said much better than I ever could).

A couple of the reasons my family choose not to send my son to a PG event was

1. He wanted to play within 3-4 hours of where we live. So we targeted events, whether it be showcases or tournaments he played in, that were in that area.

2. My son's ability as judged by others early in the process- He was deemed good enough to play college when he was a sophomore but not sure what level. Certainly not national at the time (or ever )

So for us, maybe showcases weren't necessary and he would have ended up exactly where he is. I guess the thought for us was he didn't know he wanted to end up there but could have been on of 50 colleges (those within 3-4 hours of home) when he was a sophomore and junior. A few showcases helped him be seen by almost everyone one of those colleges I would guess, plus others he never thought of.

Now that makes complete sense.  If a kids target school is across the country than I can see how he would benefit from these services.