PG RANKINGS

Just curious what the second kids PG rating was.  Maybe there wasn't time for that.  Maybe multiple scouts asked to see him again.  They pay PG also, I believe.

Not sure having a "10" take a second round of BP is really the discussion here.  I imagine there could be several reasons why this kid was allowed to repeat - or asked to repeat - BP.  I seriously doubt he repeated so as to maintain his "10".  I think the discussion here is about the 6's and 7's that are hoping for an 8.  Might there be minor exceptions to the rule - maybe.  Does this in any real way undermine the integrity of the process - no.  While PGStaff may settle for nothing less than 100% correctness, I would certainly settle for 99.5% and attribute the occasional lapse to small acts of kindness on the part of the PG staffer.

im6471,

 

I wasn't at that event and I believe you.  There have been times when someone might have been asked to take a few more swings or run the 60 again or field a couple more ground balls.  

 

This could be due to many different circumstances.  However, never is how much money they spend one of those circumstances.  I could see the previous 10 grade as being one of those circumstances.  I know we once gave Carl Crawford an extra round because we couldn't believe how bad he looked in the first round.  BTW, Carl never spent one dime on Perfect Game, but that is another story.

 

Anyway, at the end of an event we want to have enough information that allows us to make a fair and accurate evaluation of a players skills and athleticism.  So asking someone to do something over, is done for that purpose.  It has nothing to do with how much money someone spends.  That said, it is true that the more we or anyone else sees a player, the more accurate our assessment becomes, whether it is positive or not. That is why we like to see players at both individual showcases and playing in tournaments.

 

 

2019Son has never been to a showcase, but every time I see one of these threads it just seems bizarre to me. What motivation could PG (or PBR or a scout) possibly have to not have the most accurate rankings possible? Why would they do that? 

 

It reminds me of something I recently heard -- a dad complained that a particular travel team "didn't give his son a fair shake" -- everybody got the same number of swings, the same number of grounders, the same number of bullpens, etc. And what possible motivation would a travel team that bases its reputation on college commitments and draft picks have to not select the kid if they thought he merited it?

 

I default to Occam's Razor --the simplest explanation is usually the best. And the simplest explanation is that talent evaluators are calling it like they see it. 

You have to take into account individual bias.  People like "there guys."  It is why draft picks frequently get chance after chance to succeed.  Then when the new coach/GM comes in, the player is gone because everyone knew he could not play at that level. 

 

In response to this:

 

"It's all about the $$$$. Pay for several showcases and your rating will rise."

 

It would seem to me that if this is the case, the correlation may be because a large majority of the payers (parents) taking a kid to a second showcase are doing so because of some reasonable belief that he will show better.  Maybe they know the kid didn't show as well as he should have, or grew another five inches, put on (or lost) 20 lbs, or added 5mph velocity, or decreased his 60 time by a half second, or learned something else from the evaluation that he's improved on....

 

I know that there are those outlier parents who are never going to quit believing that their 7 should be a 9 or 10, but I think the vast majority of parents are at least reasonable enough that they wouldn't take a kid to multiple showcases without some legitimate belief that the kid will show better "this time."  Conversely, if they think the kid will be the same or worse, why would they pay for another showcase? 

 

To me it's logical that grades and ratings go up with subsequent showcases more than they go down.  If none ever changed, I'd think that PG relied too much on or was too protective of the initial assessment, rather than giving the player a fresh evaluation. Based on the criteria PG follows for evaluating players ("projection"), my theory is that there are no players whose grades or ratings jump noticeably without some obvious basis for the jump - velocity, height, speed, etc.  

 

PGStaff,

 

   With Trackman being used a lot more, will you start using spin rate as another tool for your rankings?  Also, is their any chance that the spin rate will be added to the players profile?

Uh oh.  Here we go again. 

 This would be interesting, and I am really looking forward to the Zepp readings being scored. I could see that maybe the scores would be of great value towards projection.

In baseball, the only player rankings that really matter are the unpublished ones each MLB team has going into the draft -- and the ones colleges have going into recruiting season. 

 

Neither consults parents.

 

I don't think that's apples and apples though.  MLB teams invest in draft picks, the higher the pic, the more $$.  They have to defend their decisions to spend on a guy.  PG invests in the event, not the individual players.  Sure, there is personal bias in all things but PG's bias is going to be slanted toward the things that make them successful... matching their biases with what the college RC's and pro scouts are looking for.  

True, but it is still there.  Once you say "he's the man" it is hard to take that back. 

To answer a question, yes, we use TrackMan, Zepp, and any information that might help us evaluate a player and predict his future.

 

I think we will be adding many things to the player profiles, including TrackMan and Zepp data.  Soon we will be adding actual game statistics, but first we have some things to figure out.

 

I think we are ready to greatly improve the individual player profiles in 2016.

 Good hand speed and bat speed are great tools to have, I know a couple scouts who say bat speed is the number 1 tool he looks for. Do you think it will be in place by the first of the year?

Yes, in fact I think everything is ready to go now.

There is some truth that the more showcases you attend the higher your rating may be.  But not because of any nefarious motives.  When it comes to baseball scouting and evaluation, beauty is very much in the eye of the beholder.  There will be kids where the ratings may vary greatly among different scouts, especially one of those projectable kids that is more "project" than "able" at that point.  This is even true among the PG staff scouts.  The more showcases such a kid attends, the more likely he is going to be evaluated by a scout that rates him higher.

 

But it's not something to get overly jacked-up about.  JMO, but I think a high PG rating helps a lot more than a bad one hurts.

 

It's one avenue to get exposure.  It's not the only one.

 

My 2016 only went to one last August.  The night before he had a football scrimmage in Georgia summer heat and humidity.  He was exhausted, especially in his legs.  He pitched so-so, did everything else pretty poorly, and got a 6.5, which may make him the only pitcher in PG history to get a rating less than his height.

 

It doesn't seem to have hurt him from a recruiting standpoint, though it clearly didn't help.  But it does hack him off, which is a nice motivational tool.

 

That PG rating certainly didn't hurt when he pitched against both Evoshield Canes and Team Evoshield a couple of weekends ago at a charity tournament (before those teams headed to Jupiter) and threw a combined 3.1 innings against all of those 10s without giving up an earned run.  And those high ratings certainly didn't help the 4 ECanes/TEs that he struck out that day.

 

That PG rating meant nothing to the Tigers scout that stopped him to talk to him when he was in street clothes at a college game, and then wrote down all his particulars and told him he would "see him next spring."

 

And I don't think that PG rating meant anything to the college HC who told me he had a "major league body" at a recent camp.

 

The point is I'm satisfied that PG makes every reasonable effort to get it right - even thought my kid is one of those "sub-7" kids that were discussed on an earlier thread.  But they're not infallible.  And they don't control every prospect's fate.  So keep it in perspective.

True, but Finch could bring you to tears the way he played that French Horn.

I would even Go so far as to say we don't control any player's fate.  For sure, we absolutely know that high grades and hIgh ranking is a huge benefit.  Low grades doesn't help, but doesn't hurt that much either. It only hurts the player that accepts that grade or ranking as a fact.

 

The case in the post above has happened before.  We grade on what we see and what we feel the potential is.  If you ask any Major League scouts how often he has been wrong, you'll start to understand just how inexact things can be.  BTW, any scout that claims he always gets it right is either lying or he has a very short memory.

 

So mistakes are made... We make mistakes.  Personally I love to see players prove us wrong.  It reminds me how important desire and mentality can be and it reminds me that we are not perfect.

 

I just get angry when someone questions our credibility or integrity.  Mainly. because those are the very reasons we have grown and survived for so long. Perfect? NO, Honest? YES, we actually do CARE!

 

I respect every kid that is out there playing and deserves that respect.  Sure our goal is to identify the top players.  But some of the kids I like the most are not among the ranked players.  In fact, we have several former players that attended our events, graduated from college and now making a career working with us.  

 

In a perfect world every kid (if not every parent) would be happy with their PG experience.  Unfortunately we don't live in a perfect world.

       
       
looking forward to it.

I've noticed lately a few Pocket radar readings on the profiles for pitchers. I have to admit I'm at a loss with this one.

roothog,

 

It is part of our agreement with Pocket Radar.  That and most importantly we have an interest in finding out how accurate the readings are.  As of now we use some RaVid, TrackMan at some locations and we have well over 100 stalkers.  However we have many associates all over the country that could use Pocket Radar vrs. using a Stalker.  So far we have found out the Stalker readings are almost always within 1 MPH to the Pocket Radar.  Obvious difference being you can't use the Pocket Radar at some locations because of distance.

 

So the value of listing Pocket Radar readings actually is more important to us than it is to the pitcher. Also works well for exit velocity, especially in cages.  Anyway the easiest way for us to track this info is to automatically enter it into the database. Plus if anyone is interested they can judge for themself the accuracy of the Pocket Radar.

I used my Pocket Radar BC at your PG tournament in Fort Meyers a few weeks ago and was pleased to see it was +/- 1mph with your gun behind the fence. Not bad for a $300 investment. Are the players able to load their own pocket radar readings to their profiles or do those come from only PG events? How does it all work?

All data on a player's PG profile such as 60 times and velocities are generated by PG due to reliability.  I've seen several kids who were 83-85 but on "daddy radar", he is 88-90.

Having used a Stalker 2 radar gun for the past 2 years I found that the PG radar was the same as what I was reading.  

I saw LeBron James play in high school in December of 2002.  So many people wanted to go to his games that they played his high school games at the University of Akron where the gym held over 6,000 people.  Imagine that, 6,000 people per night at a high school game.  LeBron scored 50 that night in 3 quarters before they took him out of the game.  I can tell you that everyone in the gym that night including the grandma's and grandpa's knew without doubt that they were watching someone akin to Mozart play.  A few short months later, he was the first player taken in the NBA draft.  His first NBA game at 18 years old he scored 26 points.

 

Here's the thing with talent evaluation.  Anyone can tell you when a guy can run faster, throw harder, or jump higher.  That's the easy part.  Figuring out who the best player is sometimes more art than science however.  Knowing what people know now, Tom Brady and Mike Trout should have been the first players taken in their respective draft classes although Mike Trout was drafted in the first round.  Bryce Harper appears to have lived up to his status as the number 1 pick but many do not.   

       
       
Agreed PG.  I have had mine next to our organizations stalker as well as our high school stalker.  Other than more misreads it is right there.  Only thing I have found (could just be mine) seems to add 2 or 3 mph to low pitches.

This post illustrates the vast difference between a parent and a scout.  Daddy looks at junior and says "Look!  He went 2 for 3 with a bunt single.  That shows hustle and baseball instincts."  The scout says "He ran a 4.6 to first base on a drag and couldn't handle a decent fastball."

One example of talent evaluation and how that talent will work well in a team environment is Ryan Mallet.  He played football at a school near where I lived.  I heard second hand that while in high school he was a pompous ***.  Seem like college is the highest level he can excel.  Having talent doesn't mean you won't be a poison for team chemistry.  

lionbaseball brings up a subject that is very important and one that the scouting community looks closely at these days.

 

Without mentioning names, there will always be some extremely talented players that actually create a losing atmosphere.

 

I'm talking about great talent, rare talent, players that put up big numbers.  Chemistry is vitally important and often overlooked.  When the entire team is truly a team, everyone tends to be more comfortable which leads to better production which of course leads to more winning.

 

Sure it is big business and very pressure packed, but in the end it is still a game.  I absolutely believe, even at the Big League level, there is a big advantage when your team is having fun "playing" the "game".  

 

Let's face it... Checkers, cards, monopoly, badminton, or any game becomes more fun or less fun depending on who your playing with.  The best player is not always the most important player.  Only when the best player has teammates that produce at a high level, is the best player the most important player. It is possible the player with the most talent could be the weak link.

 

IMO the best coaches and managers aren't necessarily those that make all the best decisions. I think the best are the ones that are able to get the most out of what they have to work with.  Not the best out of one guy, but the best out of everyone on the team. Some individuals can make this very hard to do. Some times the best leaders on a team are far from the best player. You can't be a great leader until you spend some time being a follower.

 

The public doesn't see everything that creates the best atmosphere for winning.  Only those inside that clubhouse or dugout get it.  

 

IMO This is the major reason for the word "makeup" in baseball. I actually look for talented kids that are great teammates. There are a lot of them out there.