There could be 2 plausible reasons why no one (or almost no one) gets rated below a 6. First, in order to attend a PG showcase, you must receive an invite. Presumably, PG is not in the business of inviting sub-par players to its events. Second, PG is known as an organization structuring its events in a way to help high school players get to the next level. More than likely, the subpar high school players (and hopefully their parents too) are aware of their mediocre abilities and are realistic enough to not want to waste $600+ on a showcase that will do them no benefit.
CPLZ,
You seem to be questioning our credibility here. I read your post with interest and went directly to the man who runs our database. Here is some data that you may or may not be aware of.
Among the over 16,000 players he checked… We found absolutely no one who was 5’6/120 who threw mid 60s from the OF and was graded a 6 from IL. If you can tell me who your talking about I’d like to check that out. (Please PM me though, I doubt either of us wants to bring up his name, if he actually exists) I doubt that we would have missed him following your description on our database. I took it that he was from your home state.
I have no way of discussing a situation when I don’t know who we’re talking about. Why is your opinion more accurate than ours about this unknown player? We know that we make mistakes, is it possible you’ve made a mistake?
Then I had our guy do a search for anyone we have graded a 5 or below. Here are those results…
1 player – 2 grade
6 players – 3 grade
28 players - 4 grade
393 player – 5 grade
467 players – Asked that their grade be unlisted
CPLZ,
Our credibility with colleges and MLB Scouting Departments is outstanding.
While we are far from getting rich... I feel we have been truly successful! I don't think we have to deliver "bad news" to everyone in America, including yourself, in order to be successful. There are already thousands of people that complain that their sons are graded too low. Some of them are probably right!
I'd be really interested in knowing who that player was you referred to.
You seem to be questioning our credibility here. I read your post with interest and went directly to the man who runs our database. Here is some data that you may or may not be aware of.
Among the over 16,000 players he checked… We found absolutely no one who was 5’6/120 who threw mid 60s from the OF and was graded a 6 from IL. If you can tell me who your talking about I’d like to check that out. (Please PM me though, I doubt either of us wants to bring up his name, if he actually exists) I doubt that we would have missed him following your description on our database. I took it that he was from your home state.
I have no way of discussing a situation when I don’t know who we’re talking about. Why is your opinion more accurate than ours about this unknown player? We know that we make mistakes, is it possible you’ve made a mistake?
Then I had our guy do a search for anyone we have graded a 5 or below. Here are those results…
1 player – 2 grade
6 players – 3 grade
28 players - 4 grade
393 player – 5 grade
467 players – Asked that their grade be unlisted
CPLZ,
Our credibility with colleges and MLB Scouting Departments is outstanding.
quote:A guy told me once, "anyone can deliver good news, the people that are truly successful are the ones that can deliver bad news".
While we are far from getting rich... I feel we have been truly successful! I don't think we have to deliver "bad news" to everyone in America, including yourself, in order to be successful. There are already thousands of people that complain that their sons are graded too low. Some of them are probably right!
I'd be really interested in knowing who that player was you referred to.
My guy was at the National Underclass Showcase in 2006. PG rated him a 7. He booted just about every groundball hit to him during the infielding assessment. He was clearly nervous. I knew he could do better and does do better every day. At first the 7 bothered me a bit, but he did boot those balls!
A couple of D-1's are interested in him now. The 7 rating has not hurt him and was accurate for his performance at the event.
The PG rating system works well, but if you have an off day expect your rating to reflect it!
A couple of D-1's are interested in him now. The 7 rating has not hurt him and was accurate for his performance at the event.
The PG rating system works well, but if you have an off day expect your rating to reflect it!
I've said it before - many times.
If you get a low rating - go out there and smash the hell out of the ball - catch them all - throw it hard and accurate - and run like a wild dog.
If you do that - Sooner or later - the low rating will be smashed into little pieces. It will be vaporized.
Sustained performance, a burning desire to win and a committment to getting better every single day will ultimately write the ending. Not the ratings.
If you get a low rating - go out there and smash the hell out of the ball - catch them all - throw it hard and accurate - and run like a wild dog.
If you do that - Sooner or later - the low rating will be smashed into little pieces. It will be vaporized.
Sustained performance, a burning desire to win and a committment to getting better every single day will ultimately write the ending. Not the ratings.
Its,
I like your style!
If you want to play baseball?
Then play it!
Don't let somebody are anybody tell you what they think your level of play should be you take what the sport will give you.
But remember you have to give back.
EH
I like your style!
If you want to play baseball?
Then play it!
Don't let somebody are anybody tell you what they think your level of play should be you take what the sport will give you.
But remember you have to give back.
EH
PG,
I have pm'd his name to you, and in the interest of accuracy, he is 125 lbs. not 120 and a 2010 not a 2009 and you rated him 6.5 not 6.0. Sorry for the misspeak, I was going off memory, which I should have learned at my age, can be quite faulty!
I'm not questioning your credibility, just the willingness for accuracy of the evaluation that occurs when listing lower echelon players.
So you have shown around 900 players that are ranked 5 or below. Could you please tell me how big a pool that is sampled from, or what percentage of players you rank is 5 or below?
Believe me when I say I have no intention of trying to discredit your organization, as it is obviously well thought of and a used resource. I do believe that your credibility would be extremely high with colleges and pro scouts, because they are the ones looking usually at the higher graded players, where I believe PG is infinately more discriminating and accurate. Which is precisely my point, is that there seems to be a gap in the level of discrmination between 8.5 - 10 ranked players and 6 - 8 ranked players, where more favor is given the lower ranked players.
I have pm'd his name to you, and in the interest of accuracy, he is 125 lbs. not 120 and a 2010 not a 2009 and you rated him 6.5 not 6.0. Sorry for the misspeak, I was going off memory, which I should have learned at my age, can be quite faulty!
I'm not questioning your credibility, just the willingness for accuracy of the evaluation that occurs when listing lower echelon players.
So you have shown around 900 players that are ranked 5 or below. Could you please tell me how big a pool that is sampled from, or what percentage of players you rank is 5 or below?
Believe me when I say I have no intention of trying to discredit your organization, as it is obviously well thought of and a used resource. I do believe that your credibility would be extremely high with colleges and pro scouts, because they are the ones looking usually at the higher graded players, where I believe PG is infinately more discriminating and accurate. Which is precisely my point, is that there seems to be a gap in the level of discrmination between 8.5 - 10 ranked players and 6 - 8 ranked players, where more favor is given the lower ranked players.
CPLZ
That’s the problem with this stuff. We have to be accurate, but others can describe situations that are completely off.
First you posted about a 5'6" 120lb 2009 throwing mid 60's from the outfield, rated a 6.
We check our files and no one exists that fits that description. Then when you PM his name, I look him up and he is a 2010, listed at 5’6/125 who threw 68 across the infield, rated a 6.5.
I understand you were just making a point, but we take this stuff very seriously. We want to be as accurate as possible. We gave him a 6.5 for the following reasons…
He is obviously far from mature physically
He is in the 9th grade
Here are the scout notes that usually no one but us sees.
Fielding - JS-small kid, long slow release, lacks arm speed, 2B only for now, clean hands Grade(5.5), BC - Goes to ball and stop, ok set up, has an idea, reads ball well, ok 1st step, short release, solid and still very young. potential Grade (- 7)
Hitting - med build, needs strength (GoP) BC: SQ, small athletic, ok hands, ok trigger, inside, gonna hit, AS: s******, battles at plate, KG: sq. stance, good hands, young, very lean, wirey body, WP-BP-no stride, long swing, avg bat speed, inc contact, has a chance because young, balanced, Grade(6+), battled at plate, showed good swing, knows strike zone, straight stance, quiet app, short swing, contact type hitter, be interesting to see once he gets stronger.
Report – (Name with held) is a 2010 SS/2B/OF with a 5'6'', 125 lb. frame (deleted). Young body, wirey build, lean, nice set up to ball, reads ball well, short release, has a good idea, square stance, no stride approach, quiet approach, short swing, contact type hitter, uses hands, interesting young player, excellent student.
The above notes came from 6 or 7 of the scouts we had at that event.
We can compare him to a similar player we first saw in 9th grade that ended up being a first round pick. (not that that happens very often) However, it still shows that this kid needs to improve a lot and gain a lot more strength. 9th graders are hard to judge accurately, especially when they are not anywhere near physically mature.
Now you might have seen this kid play a thousand times and know much more than we do about him. We’ve seen him for exactly one weekend in the middle of winter. He has 4 years to develop, and we have seen amazing things happen to baseball players in 4 years. So do we grade him as one who has no chance? Or do we give him the benefit of the doubt and see what happens once he grows up?
I would much rather be wrong about several of these really young players because we have graded them too high, than to be wrong on a few because we graded them too low. We have made mistakes both ways. We once gave a candidate for the AL Rookie of the Year a 6.5 grade. Now that is a terrible mistake on our part. No one ever seems to bring up that stuff. Well parents do! I’ve never once received a call from a parent claiming we graded their son too high! We get nasty calls everyday about grading kids too low. Then the message boards talk about how we over grade players. The scouts and college recruiters never complain. The system seems to be working fine.
Someone once claimed we ranked a kid a 10 and he wasn’t any good. That is impossible! Maybe we were wrong about the 10, but I assure you, that player was a very high level prospect (though, as usual, I never found out who the player was).
When someone gets a 6 from us, it means they have work to do. But we think they have a chance or some potential. We can’t do the necessary work… They have to do it! If they do it we might end up looking smart, if they don’t, we might end up looking dumb.
We have before, but it’s very very tough to tell the world that any particular young man has no business trying to play baseball beyond 9th grade. When we’ve seen hundreds of cases of unbelievable improvement. How can we honestly say… This kid has no chance!!! What if that caused him to give up the game? What if he would have been the guy who might have made it? Why does he deserve to be the laughing stock, listed in the results of an event. Most people don’t even mention the lower level players at an event and attach a grade to them for the entire world to see. Hardly ever do the 9s or 10s complain about us giving a young player a 6. That's because the difference between a 9 or 10 and a 6 is light years and despite the written explanation, everyone knows it!
It’s a fine line… Being as honest as possible and still leaving a glimmer of hope for a young player. We get all kinds of stories where a player has dedicated himself to the game because we showed some interest in his ability. It’s just the right way to go about things.
The DI schools aren’t out there actively recruiting a 9th grader we have graded a 6. The pro scouts aren’t going to work their schedule around in order to see him. This stuff only bothers the people that it doesn’t really pertain to. Yet it might cause that player we gave a 6 to, to have hope. We're not out to destroy young baseball players.
Anyway, we are going to redefine our grading scale, to allow ourselves the ability to be more accurate without having to destroy a young players mind. However, there will always be complaints. We understand that!
Thanks for sending me the young mans name. I know you weren't trying to cause any problems. Best of luck to your talented son.
That’s the problem with this stuff. We have to be accurate, but others can describe situations that are completely off.
First you posted about a 5'6" 120lb 2009 throwing mid 60's from the outfield, rated a 6.
We check our files and no one exists that fits that description. Then when you PM his name, I look him up and he is a 2010, listed at 5’6/125 who threw 68 across the infield, rated a 6.5.
I understand you were just making a point, but we take this stuff very seriously. We want to be as accurate as possible. We gave him a 6.5 for the following reasons…
He is obviously far from mature physically
He is in the 9th grade
Here are the scout notes that usually no one but us sees.
Fielding - JS-small kid, long slow release, lacks arm speed, 2B only for now, clean hands Grade(5.5), BC - Goes to ball and stop, ok set up, has an idea, reads ball well, ok 1st step, short release, solid and still very young. potential Grade (- 7)
Hitting - med build, needs strength (GoP) BC: SQ, small athletic, ok hands, ok trigger, inside, gonna hit, AS: s******, battles at plate, KG: sq. stance, good hands, young, very lean, wirey body, WP-BP-no stride, long swing, avg bat speed, inc contact, has a chance because young, balanced, Grade(6+), battled at plate, showed good swing, knows strike zone, straight stance, quiet app, short swing, contact type hitter, be interesting to see once he gets stronger.
Report – (Name with held) is a 2010 SS/2B/OF with a 5'6'', 125 lb. frame (deleted). Young body, wirey build, lean, nice set up to ball, reads ball well, short release, has a good idea, square stance, no stride approach, quiet approach, short swing, contact type hitter, uses hands, interesting young player, excellent student.
The above notes came from 6 or 7 of the scouts we had at that event.
We can compare him to a similar player we first saw in 9th grade that ended up being a first round pick. (not that that happens very often) However, it still shows that this kid needs to improve a lot and gain a lot more strength. 9th graders are hard to judge accurately, especially when they are not anywhere near physically mature.
Now you might have seen this kid play a thousand times and know much more than we do about him. We’ve seen him for exactly one weekend in the middle of winter. He has 4 years to develop, and we have seen amazing things happen to baseball players in 4 years. So do we grade him as one who has no chance? Or do we give him the benefit of the doubt and see what happens once he grows up?
I would much rather be wrong about several of these really young players because we have graded them too high, than to be wrong on a few because we graded them too low. We have made mistakes both ways. We once gave a candidate for the AL Rookie of the Year a 6.5 grade. Now that is a terrible mistake on our part. No one ever seems to bring up that stuff. Well parents do! I’ve never once received a call from a parent claiming we graded their son too high! We get nasty calls everyday about grading kids too low. Then the message boards talk about how we over grade players. The scouts and college recruiters never complain. The system seems to be working fine.
Someone once claimed we ranked a kid a 10 and he wasn’t any good. That is impossible! Maybe we were wrong about the 10, but I assure you, that player was a very high level prospect (though, as usual, I never found out who the player was).
When someone gets a 6 from us, it means they have work to do. But we think they have a chance or some potential. We can’t do the necessary work… They have to do it! If they do it we might end up looking smart, if they don’t, we might end up looking dumb.
We have before, but it’s very very tough to tell the world that any particular young man has no business trying to play baseball beyond 9th grade. When we’ve seen hundreds of cases of unbelievable improvement. How can we honestly say… This kid has no chance!!! What if that caused him to give up the game? What if he would have been the guy who might have made it? Why does he deserve to be the laughing stock, listed in the results of an event. Most people don’t even mention the lower level players at an event and attach a grade to them for the entire world to see. Hardly ever do the 9s or 10s complain about us giving a young player a 6. That's because the difference between a 9 or 10 and a 6 is light years and despite the written explanation, everyone knows it!
It’s a fine line… Being as honest as possible and still leaving a glimmer of hope for a young player. We get all kinds of stories where a player has dedicated himself to the game because we showed some interest in his ability. It’s just the right way to go about things.
The DI schools aren’t out there actively recruiting a 9th grader we have graded a 6. The pro scouts aren’t going to work their schedule around in order to see him. This stuff only bothers the people that it doesn’t really pertain to. Yet it might cause that player we gave a 6 to, to have hope. We're not out to destroy young baseball players.
Anyway, we are going to redefine our grading scale, to allow ourselves the ability to be more accurate without having to destroy a young players mind. However, there will always be complaints. We understand that!
Thanks for sending me the young mans name. I know you weren't trying to cause any problems. Best of luck to your talented son.
PG,
Thanks for three things.
Taking the time and effort to formulate an appropriate response.
Being open minded enough to consider other points of view, in spite of the drubbing I can only imagine you must take from parents.
Thank you for the best wishes for my son.
Thanks for three things.
Taking the time and effort to formulate an appropriate response.
Being open minded enough to consider other points of view, in spite of the drubbing I can only imagine you must take from parents.
Thank you for the best wishes for my son.
I have always seen the rating system that PG has as What is the players future potential based on our experience on seeing thousands of players over the years. Sometimes players get better , sometimes players dont reach that potential and sometimes it is right on. The bottom line is they have the professional experience in this line of work. Two things "If your rating is good dont be satisfied continue to work even harder". "If your rating is low use it as motivation to get better and prove PG wrong". I would be willing to bet that they are very happy to see kids that improve on their rating. I can say this because I have seen it several times - People that get good ratings have good things to say about PG events. People that get poor ratings tend to have negative things to say about PG events. And some that get poor ratings look at it as an opportunity to prove them wrong down the road. I would be willing to bet that the last group far and away exceeds the second group in performance in the end. JMHO
PG said,
Ever the gentleman, PG has taken some shots, but has responded patiently and eloquently.
The above quote, though, underscores my only trifling quibble with PG's service, or system: The written definitions of the numberical ratings. I trust PG's numerical ratings as fair, accurate, relative assessments of performance potential as compared to others they've seen, but I still don't understand/agree with the definitions ascribed to some of those numbers.
Again, no offense is intended PG.
quote:the difference between a 9 or 10 and a 6 is light years and despite the written explanation, everyone knows it!
Ever the gentleman, PG has taken some shots, but has responded patiently and eloquently.
The above quote, though, underscores my only trifling quibble with PG's service, or system: The written definitions of the numberical ratings. I trust PG's numerical ratings as fair, accurate, relative assessments of performance potential as compared to others they've seen, but I still don't understand/agree with the definitions ascribed to some of those numbers.
Again, no offense is intended PG.
My two cents: Those who will rely on those numbers understand exactly what they mean, regardless of the shorthand definitions provided by PG. Afterall, you are talking about an organization that has rated thousands of players, and consumers (coaches and scouts, not us) who have used this resource over a period of time and understand how PG distinguishes a "7.5" from an "8." I also assume that the definitions are what they are because, in PG's experience, a statistically meaningful number of players who have acheived a certain rating have ended up playing in situations covered by the relevant definition.
As parents, most of us are exposed to the system once, maybe twice if we're lucky. We look at the defintions and try to figure out what they mean for our sons and only our sons (and, perhaps, a few other players we know or have seen play). That is a completely different frame of reference from that of a coach/scout.
I'd have to go back over this string again to be sure, but my guess is that the questions are raised largely by us parents and not the coaches/scouts who use the information for recruiting and other purposes.
As parents, most of us are exposed to the system once, maybe twice if we're lucky. We look at the defintions and try to figure out what they mean for our sons and only our sons (and, perhaps, a few other players we know or have seen play). That is a completely different frame of reference from that of a coach/scout.
I'd have to go back over this string again to be sure, but my guess is that the questions are raised largely by us parents and not the coaches/scouts who use the information for recruiting and other purposes.