Perfect Game WWBA All-tourney team

The criteria changed for the WWBA All-tourney list this year. Last year there were 2200 pitchers that made the 17u All tourney list for the 2017 WWBA. This year? A little over 400. Congratulations to all of the players that made the cut, it is a accomplishment!

It is a huge tournament with a TON of talent! 

 

Original Post

I noticed that yesterday, too.  Then I went back today and the list seems to have changed--a quick count shows 1700+ pitchers.  Does PG publish their criteria somewhere?  (I haven't found them.) 

Yesterday I did a couple of quick sorts and it looked like to make the all-tournament list you needed at least 7 innings pitched and an ERA of 2.0 or below.    

Today I sorted the all-tournament pitching team list by IP and noticed eleven members with zero IP.  Clicking through to the games a few of them appeared in shows one actually completed a couple of innings, but others I looked at show the players did pitch, but didn't record any outs.  How does, for example, a line for the tournament of 0 IP, 3 BB, 2 ER, top velo 79, avg velo 76 get a pitcher on the all-tournament team.  (No hits allowed... did PG just sort a spreadsheet on that column?)  Maybe some ongoing technical issues at PG, or do I just need to have another cup of coffee?

This year they did an Elite All Tournament and an All Tournament Pitchers and Hitters.

  Looks like criteria for pitchers for elite was at least 7 innings pitched and 16 K's.  I've yet to figure criteria for elite hitters.  One batted .375 but he did have 9 hits.  idk  there is a kid who went .636  11/14 and did not make elite.  To make all tournament hitter you had to hit .300.

All Tournament Pitcher had to be 2 era or less with 7 innings.

yes I know this already because I looked.  Son went 13.1 innings with 0.00 era 5 hits 14K's and 2 walks.  I know nobody cares and he only topped 87.  He's already committed and not there speed wise for pro scouts.

BTW, his grandmother who has been in Atlanta watching him since Memorial Day does care and it is for her enjoyment to read that he made all-anything so I post it for her to share with her friends on FB that have never met him.

 

 

PitchingFan posted:

All Tournament Pitcher had to be 2 era or less with 7 innings.

 

 

Not that it really matters, but PG seems to have been tinkering with the list a little bit.  2 ERA and 7 IP seemed to be the standard yesterday.  I looked back this morning because of this topic, and there was a much longer list of pitchers with no definite criteria I could figure out.  When I looked ~5 minutes ago, there was a list that appears to be based on 5 IP and and ERA of 2 of lower.  So if anyone's son was disappointed not to have made the cut yesterday, he may want to look again.

I can't tell you what the criteria are.  I just know my son pitched the poorest that he ever has in his 5th WWB.  Played in the 15U and 16U 2 years ago.  Played in the 16U and 17U last year.  Made the all tournament team in every event.  Deserved the other 4.  This year in 17U he had the worst 1st inning ever giving up 6 runs in the first, his first ever HR at any level (ball was crushed), and somehow still made all tourney team. 

My thought as a dad is maybe PG knew they sent blind umpires to our game in BFE that couldn't see a 91-93 mph fastball and 83 mph slider biting on the corner.  But that's the dad in me.  He wasn't good, don't know why he is on it.

Just for the fun of it I looked at velocity of the Elite Pitchers.  Fastest was 94 and that was way up from one tournament ago.  Most were 88-89.  None from the big teams and none of the ones that the big articles were written about.  It is interesting that the more productive guys in the WWBA were not the flame throwers but most of these guys who made the Elite and the top pitchers of the All Tournament were the ones who go out and get strikeouts and get outs.  I was amazed how many guys threw 12 or more innings with 000 era.  None of those guys had 90 plus velocity.  As one scout told me the other day, "in the long run I want the guy with pitchability rather than the guy who lights up the radar gun but can't get it over the plate."  Not bashing the flame throwers but sometimes the guys who are productive need a reminder to keep doing what they are doing.  Get outs and don't give up runs.  My son continually reminds me that his job on the mound is not to throw as hard as he can, it is to keep guys off base and most of all don't let them score if they get on base.  He says I'm not going to give up runs to get a number on a gun.   Especially if that means walking someone.  He prides himself on keeping his walks down.

PitchingFan posted:

As one scout told me the other day, "in the long run I want the guy with pitchability rather than the guy who lights up the radar gun but can't get it over the plate."  Not bashing the flame throwers but sometimes the guys who are productive need a reminder to keep doing what they are doing.  

Serious question (just wondering what people think; no sarcasm intended):  Do folks generally believe college coaches / scouts when they say velocity isn't their primary interest? 

Chico Escuela posted:
PitchingFan posted:

As one scout told me the other day, "in the long run I want the guy with pitchability rather than the guy who lights up the radar gun but can't get it over the plate."  Not bashing the flame throwers but sometimes the guys who are productive need a reminder to keep doing what they are doing.  

Serious question (just wondering what people think; no sarcasm intended):  Do folks generally believe college coaches / scouts when they say velocity isn't their primary interest? 

The scout is correct. However, there are different expectations for a college scholarship vs a draft possibility.  There are are a lot of really good pitching coaches who can and will improve a pitchers velocity, as well as control. But they only have a small amount of time to do that as in professional ball, to get to elite status, it takes awhile longer.  Regardless, you have to get hitters out.  

As far as this all tourney team, which is it, 400, 1700, 7IP, 1 IP, 0 IP, elite, non elite, This list means absolutely nothing, but I guess for some it must mean something!

And no doubt it's all churned out electronically. 

JMO

PitchingFan posted:

... My son continually reminds me that his job on the mound is not to throw as hard as he can, it is to keep guys off base and most of all don't let them score if they get on base.  He says I'm not going to give up runs to get a number on a gun.   Especially if that means walking someone.  He prides himself on keeping his walks down...

Funny my son tells me the exact opposite, and I agree with your son, but only if he were playing highs school ball.  Last year, when my son played in 17u WWB as a 16u player.  He relied on a 2-seam, slider and change.  The 2-seam topped at 89.  He had a 0.00 era, .111 batting average against, a whip of about .6, walked 2, in 6 1/3 innings and had 10 ks, pitched and struck out 17u Vandy, Wake Forest, etc. commits,  Hell, he even struck out 2 guys who were just taken in the first round of the mlb draft. He twice  pitched in relief against a couple of stacked teams.

He heard from exactly no one.  Went to a Big D1 camp with several SEC to Juco recruiting coaches present in August, struck out 8 of 10 batters faced in the camp scrimmage, had one ground out, and one pop out. Sat 87-88 with 2 seam.  All he heard was "we are going to keep an eye on you." and couldn't get anyone to take his phone calls on follow-up.

Meanwhile he watched his teammates that touched 90, but sat 84-85 go on school after school visit and get offers to SEC, ACC, etc.  So my son said, no one is recruiting 2-seams, no one is recruiting changes.  He was right.  I'm only throwing 4-seams and sliders as hard as I can next year, because that is what gets you recruited.  Batting average against is about the same, walks and era are way, way up, but averaging 2Ks per inning at PG.  In the fall when he touched 90, started getting recruiting calls from coaches all over the country.  When he sat 91-93 in a tourney and touched 96 once in a tournament this Spring, it was ridiculous.  Fortunately he was already committed and school has always been the top priority.

PG events, college camps, etc. are about velo for pitchers.

BTW, if you didn't know this, they are about exit velo and lift for hitters. Unless you run a 6.3 60, then you can lay down a bunt and showcase your velo to first base.   Otherwise swing out of your shoes and uppercut everything, because no matter how many other things your told, recruiters are looking for things that they can't teach = velo, velo, and velo.

 

TPM posted:

As far as this all tourney team, which is it, 400, 1700, 7IP, 1 IP, 0 IP, elite, non elite, This list means absolutely nothing, but I guess for some it must mean something!

And no doubt it's all churned out electronically. 

That's seems too cynical to me.  I assume the team is selected by sorting the stats--no one could see more than a tiny fraction of players at any given WWBA.  But isn't that true of most awards chosen from a large pool of players--All-American status, for instance?

At bottom the designation means a player had a good week (or one or two good pitching starts), and the competition he faced may have been quite different than that faced by others.  So yes, it has limited import.  But why not recognize good performances in a high-profile event?  For many players, the WWBA is the highlight of the summer baseball season.  

The new criteria screen out my son this year, although he had a good week.  That's fine with me--it's good that PG is tightening things a bit.  In past years, the WWBA all-tournament team included so many players that it was hard to see it as much of an honor.    

Chico Escuela posted

The new criteria screen out my son this year, although he had a good week.  That's fine with me--it's good that PG is tightening things a bit.  In past years, the WWBA all-tournament team included so many players that it was hard to see it as much of an honor.    

That's good if  it's becoming more selective and I am sure that parents enjoy seeing that info, but I don't think that scouts and coaches could care less, my point.

I guess some will argue thats why stats need to be more accurate.

BTW, what exactly IS the criteria.

I agree it means nothing in the long run but it, like all honors, is recognition.  I would say all honors that I know of really come down to stats by someone.  It is nice for players to get recognized.   It is partly the incentive to continue to work hard.  I understand but somewhat disagree with the mindset of scouts looking at velocity over pitchability.  I think it is a lot harder to teach a player to throw strikes than it is to teach a player to increase velocity.  A good pitcher will get outs at any level but I think it is very difficult to teach a guy who just throws hard to get it around the plate.  I noticed one player who was well recognized last week for his velocity had to drop 6 mph's to throw strikes.  At his top velocity, which was very well documented and should be, he could not get it within 5 feet of the plate.  They talked about players batting against him and the struggle.  The struggle was he hit the first and fourth batters at upper 90s and walked the second and third.  The problem was nobody wanted to get hit at upper 90s lack of control.  He had to come down to 92-93 to even throw a strike.  That may be hard to fix on a regular basis but you can bet he will be drafted and high.

Chico Escuela posted:
PitchingFan posted:

As one scout told me the other day, "in the long run I want the guy with pitchability rather than the guy who lights up the radar gun but can't get it over the plate."  Not bashing the flame throwers but sometimes the guys who are productive need a reminder to keep doing what they are doing.  

Serious question (just wondering what people think; no sarcasm intended):  Do folks generally believe college coaches / scouts when they say velocity isn't their primary interest? 

No. Those same coaches balk when you try to sell them on the kid with a 0.50 era with good secondary stuff topping out at 82mph. 

I've listened to coaches spout this line and then two weeks later talked to them about a kid with a fantastic era, great k/bb percentage and good stuff. They are interested, but then ask for velocity. Tell them low 80's and the conversation ends.

roothog66 posted:
Chico Escuela posted:
PitchingFan posted:

As one scout told me the other day, "in the long run I want the guy with pitchability rather than the guy who lights up the radar gun but can't get it over the plate."  Not bashing the flame throwers but sometimes the guys who are productive need a reminder to keep doing what they are doing.  

Serious question (just wondering what people think; no sarcasm intended):  Do folks generally believe college coaches / scouts when they say velocity isn't their primary interest? 

No. Those same coaches balk when you try to sell them on the kid with a 0.50 era with good secondary stuff topping out at 82mph. 

I've listened to coaches spout this line and then two weeks later talked to them about a kid with a fantastic era, great k/bb percentage and good stuff. They are interested, but then ask for velocity. Tell them low 80's and the conversation ends.

Low 80s isn't a D1 prospect, maybe the bottom of the ranking?  If your team faces guys who rake, you will continually be in the loss column, conference or non conference. 

D1 pitchers have to be over 85, 86 with good off speed stuff or velo showing pitchability. Programs will have relievers to change the look, but not less than 84,85, LHP and RHP.  The top velo guys go to the upper tier programs.  

TPM posted:

That's good if  it's becoming more selective and I am sure that parents enjoy seeing that info, but I don't think that scouts and coaches could care less, my point.

I guess some will argue thats why stats need to be more accurate.

BTW, what exactly IS the criteria.

I asked about the criteria in an earlier post in this thread--so far as I know, PG doesn't publish them.  The pitching list has changed a few times over the past few days, but when last I looked it appears the screen was at least 5 IP and an ERA of 2 or lower.  I haven't done any sorts on the list of hitters.

I think folks want the stats to be right for multiple reasons:  One is just pride of accomplishment--if you went 2 for 3, you don't want the stats to show 1-for-3.  I also think PG's online info is the best-known data set out there on HS players, and no one wants to be shortchanged if RCs or scouts look them up.  So I understand when people get agitated, but I try to keep it in perspective.  (I thought a hit charged to my son as a P should have been an error.  It happens.)

IMO, individual honors/stats are all about that fine line we want our children to walk as members of athletic teams (and in life):  A player should want to be the best he can and to win whatever accolades he can.  Wanting to be acknowledged for success is good to the extent it motivates hard work and achievement.  BUT, that drive shouldn't be at the expense of helping one's team win.  Different folks draw that line in different places, for sure, but I'm all for a kid being proud to be all-tournament. 

TPM posted:
roothog66 posted:
Chico Escuela posted:
PitchingFan posted:

As one scout told me the other day, "in the long run I want the guy with pitchability rather than the guy who lights up the radar gun but can't get it over the plate."  Not bashing the flame throwers but sometimes the guys who are productive need a reminder to keep doing what they are doing.  

Serious question (just wondering what people think; no sarcasm intended):  Do folks generally believe college coaches / scouts when they say velocity isn't their primary interest? 

No. Those same coaches balk when you try to sell them on the kid with a 0.50 era with good secondary stuff topping out at 82mph. 

I've listened to coaches spout this line and then two weeks later talked to them about a kid with a fantastic era, great k/bb percentage and good stuff. They are interested, but then ask for velocity. Tell them low 80's and the conversation ends.

Low 80s isn't a D1 prospect, maybe the bottom of the ranking?  If your team faces guys who rake, you will continually be in the loss column, conference or non conference. 

D1 pitchers have to be over 85, 86 with good off speed stuff or velo showing pitchability. Programs will have relievers to change the look, but not less than 84,85, LHP and RHP.  The top velo guys go to the upper tier programs.  

True, but I'm not dealing with only D1's here. Additionally, you will see D1 kids throwing 85-87. Keep in mind, though, that quite often these kids can and have been more 88-90 in high school. Also, there are times when you see such a pitcher who committed as a Sophomore when he was throwing 83-86. He wasn't recruited with the idea that he'd still be 83-86 by the time he arrived on campus. However, that kid may still get a shot if he remained extremely effective through high school, but he definitely wasn't recruited with the expectation that he'd be a low-to-mid 80's guy in college.

I hope they do lower the criteria, and fix it so you have to had pitched at least 7 innings in a week long event like the WWBA.  

It really doesn't count for anything the way they are doing it right now.  I think my son had 9 at last count and he isn't showing D1 skills yet.

CaCO3Girl posted:

I hope they do lower the criteria, and fix it so you have to had pitched at least 7 innings in a week long event like the WWBA.  

It really doesn't count for anything the way they are doing it right now.  I think my son had 9 at last count and he isn't showing D1 skills yet.

I think 7 innings is too many.  A lot of teams balance pitching or save pitching for bracket and then they may not make bracket.  I don't think we had a single kid go 7 innings last week. 

The PG criteria is evolving, it's a work in progress.

Here is the latest draft of what they will use at their Jupiter event:

Overall Grand Supreme..........Highest score in the entire tournament

Grand Supreme.....................Highest score for that division.....example.........Grand Supreme for 16-18 means you have the highest score than anyone else in those age groups.

Mini Supreme........................2nd highest score for that division

Photogenic Supreme...............Highest score overall in photogenic. If you have a sweet follow through on that exaggerated swing with the launch angle that will not translate into hitting for average, this is your category.

Novice Supreme......................In order to win this title, you can not have won a certain amount of money in the pageant systems for that year. The amount varies. It gives some of the new comers a better chance a winning.

Age division beauty supreme..........Highest score in your age division

Age division beauty queen..............2nd highest score in your age division

Come on, folks...these lists are stupid. Do not put any weight on them.

GaryMe posted:

 

Come on, folks...these lists are stupid. Do not put any weight on them.

I'm not understanding what you object to.  This topic began with a post congratulating those who were named to the all-tourney team.  No one in the thread has complained about their kid not making it or boasted about him doing so.  It's not a Nobel Peace Prize or even an all-state selection, but it's a nice recognition.  This is not "everyone gets a trophy" stuff--it's playing well on a fairly big stage.  A HS baseball player would have to be pretty jaded not to appreciate having turned in one of the better performances there.

Not everything has to be measured against the standard of "will it help me get drafted in the first three rounds?"  When your kid makes the Honor Roll in high school, it doesn't mean he's going to get into Yale; but I hope you still give him an "atta'boy" (even if you go on to ask why he made a B+ in French instead of an A). 

 

Chico Escuela posted:
GaryMe posted:

 

Come on, folks...these lists are stupid. Do not put any weight on them.

I'm not understanding what you object to.  This topic began with a post congratulating those who were named to the all-tourney team.  No one in the thread has complained about their kid not making it or boasted about him doing so.  It's not a Nobel Peace Prize or even an all-state selection, but it's a nice recognition.  This is not "everyone gets a trophy" stuff--it's playing well on a fairly big stage.  A HS baseball player would have to be pretty jaded not to appreciate having turned in one of the better performances there.

Not everything has to be measured against the standard of "will it help me get drafted in the first three rounds?"  When your kid makes the Honor Roll in high school, it doesn't mean he's going to get into Yale; but I hope you still give him an "atta'boy" (even if you go on to ask why he made a B+ in French instead of an A). 

Seconded. 

Thank you Chico Escuela, I appreciate your level-headedness (If that's a word)!

Agreed Chico.  It is good for my son to know that he competed against great competition as he pitched first game of tournament and first game of bracket and still finished in the top.  Did any of the pro scouts that watched him care?  NO!  But it is still neat to know that your numbers match up.  I understand it is a numbers game and that is how it is picked and fun to discuss how those numbers relate and how the numbers match up to scouting for pros and college.  This is a discussion board, or last time I checked it was.  We are just discussing.  Some I agree with and some I don't and some I ignore whatever they are writing because I think some are just trolling for a fight.

PitchingFan posted:

This is a discussion board, or last time I checked it was.  We are just discussing.  Some I agree with and some I don't and some I ignore whatever they are writing because I think some are just trolling for a fight.

A discussion where everyone always sees things the same way would be pretty dull.  Folks on this site usually do very well at disagreeing without being disagreeable.  (I'll also add that when I urge parents not to get caught up in their sons' attempts to play in college or beyond, I'm partly talking to myself.  )

I have never cared if anyone thinks these kinds of things are important, because we liked them as a family.  I've always believed it was nice to get recognized, and the kids like it too.  Is it super important? Of course not, but it's still pretty cool. 

What if making the all tourney team at one of these events is the only time a kid earns recognition in his/her sport?  It might be pretty important to them.  What's important to some, isn't important to others.

mamabb0304 posted:

The criteria changed for the WWBA All-tourney list this year. Last year there were 2200 pitchers that made the 17u All tourney list for the 2017 WWBA. This year? A little over 400. Congratulations to all of the players that made the cut, it is a accomplishment!

It is a huge tournament with a TON of talent! 

 

Holy crud -- 2.2K pitchers were all-tourney???  How many players are there total?

JCG posted:
mamabb0304 posted:

The criteria changed for the WWBA All-tourney list this year. Last year there were 2200 pitchers that made the 17u All tourney list for the 2017 WWBA. This year? A little over 400. Congratulations to all of the players that made the cut, it is a accomplishment!

It is a huge tournament with a TON of talent! 

 

Holy crud -- 2.2K pitchers were all-tourney???  How many players are there total?

~400 teams if I recall correctly.  Figure 8 or 10 pitchers per team (7 games prior to bracket play, so for some teams that number is low).  Call it 4,000 to get a round number.  Yes, the all-tourney lists were too long in prior years.

rynoattack posted:

I have never cared if anyone thinks these kinds of things are important, because we liked them as a family.  I've always believed it was nice to get recognized, and the kids like it too.  Is it super important? Of course not, but it's still pretty cool. 

What if making the all tourney team at one of these events is the only time a kid earns recognition in his/her sport?  It might be pretty important to them.  What's important to some, isn't important to others.

The thing is the way the program is set up, if you only pitch one inning your average is low enough to get on the team.  

I’m all for my kids accomplishments, when he earns them.  One inning doesn’t show anything.

That's the change 

CaCO3Girl posted:

The thing is the way the program is set up, if you only pitch one inning your average is low enough to get on the team.  

I’m all for my kids accomplishments, when he earns them.  One inning doesn’t show anything.

That's the change this year.

The minimum innings pitched is 5.

Max ERA 2.00

I'm impressed that the original list had a minimum innings pitched of 7, that list had ~400 ish kids. The revised list has a minimum innings pitched of 5, with 1700 ish pitchers! 

One inning doesn't show anything. But 5 innings? That is a whole game in some cases. 

roothog66 posted:
TPM posted:
roothog66 posted:
Chico Escuela posted:
PitchingFan posted:

As one scout told me the other day, "in the long run I want the guy with pitchability rather than the guy who lights up the radar gun but can't get it over the plate."  Not bashing the flame throwers but sometimes the guys who are productive need a reminder to keep doing what they are doing.  

Serious question (just wondering what people think; no sarcasm intended):  Do folks generally believe college coaches / scouts when they say velocity isn't their primary interest? 

No. Those same coaches balk when you try to sell them on the kid with a 0.50 era with good secondary stuff topping out at 82mph. 

I've listened to coaches spout this line and then two weeks later talked to them about a kid with a fantastic era, great k/bb percentage and good stuff. They are interested, but then ask for velocity. Tell them low 80's and the conversation ends.

Low 80s isn't a D1 prospect, maybe the bottom of the ranking?  If your team faces guys who rake, you will continually be in the loss column, conference or non conference. 

D1 pitchers have to be over 85, 86 with good off speed stuff or velo showing pitchability. Programs will have relievers to change the look, but not less than 84,85, LHP and RHP.  The top velo guys go to the upper tier programs.  

True, but I'm not dealing with only D1's here. Additionally, you will see D1 kids throwing 85-87. Keep in mind, though, that quite often these kids can and have been more 88-90 in high school. Also, there are times when you see such a pitcher who committed as a Sophomore when he was throwing 83-86. He wasn't recruited with the idea that he'd still be 83-86 by the time he arrived on campus. However, that kid may still get a shot if he remained extremely effective through high school, but he definitely wasn't recruited with the expectation that he'd be a low-to-mid 80's guy in college.

Root, not sure I agree completely. 

There a lot of programs that can't afford to over recruit, so they have to be pretty close to the velo that the coach is looking for. Sometimes it just takes too long to get where you should be. Other times not, as seen in a few D1 programs that recruited players they never expected to be 1, 2 round draft picks.

The biggest problem I see is players not targeting the right programs.

Chico Escuela posted:

I noticed that yesterday, too.  Then I went back today and the list seems to have changed--a quick count shows 1700+ pitchers.  Does PG publish their criteria somewhere?  (I haven't found them.) 

Yesterday I did a couple of quick sorts and it looked like to make the all-tournament list you needed at least 7 innings pitched and an ERA of 2.0 or below.    

Today I sorted the all-tournament pitching team list by IP and noticed eleven members with zero IP.  Clicking through to the games a few of them appeared in shows one actually completed a couple of innings, but others I looked at show the players did pitch, but didn't record any outs.  How does, for example, a line for the tournament of 0 IP, 3 BB, 2 ER, top velo 79, avg velo 76 get a pitcher on the all-tournament team.  (No hits allowed... did PG just sort a spreadsheet on that column?)  Maybe some ongoing technical issues at PG, or do I just need to have another cup of coffee?

I could go for another cup of joe.  I'll meet you in the break room. 

Add Reply

Likes (0)
×
×
×
×