I've been reading a lot of posters speaking about "projectability". What exactly is meant by that term? Thanks for your help.
Original Post
Replies sorted oldest to newest
It can mean a lot.
Current Size, size of feet, maturity level etc. Can a coach project him to be bigger, stronger, faster?
Look at arm action, bat speed mechanics and if they see upside they will "project" them getting better. For example a 5"10 160 lb players throwing in the low 80's with good arm action and not yet fully mature might have more upside than a 5"10 175 lb mature kid throwing in the mid 80's.
At least that is what I think they mean.
Current Size, size of feet, maturity level etc. Can a coach project him to be bigger, stronger, faster?
Look at arm action, bat speed mechanics and if they see upside they will "project" them getting better. For example a 5"10 160 lb players throwing in the low 80's with good arm action and not yet fully mature might have more upside than a 5"10 175 lb mature kid throwing in the mid 80's.
At least that is what I think they mean.
I would look at it like this...if you have a range of possibilities of what a player could become, you would hope that what he is today is the low end of that range. That's not necessarily true, because of things like body type and work ethic that could work against a player's future projection. But let's just assume that where the player is now is the low end of the range and he will probably get at least marginally better at a minimum.
The top of the range would be what that player would become if everything worked out perfectly. That is, if he maxed out physically, if he put in the work to max out his physical strength, quickness, agility...overall athleticism. And most important if he developed his skills to the max to go along with his physical development. So, that's the top of the range....the best case scenario. In other words, this is the player's projected max ability.
Most likely, that player is going to become something between these two extremes. Also, the seperation between extremes is different with every player. You will see some guys who are all projectability....often just superior athletes who must seriously develop the skill side of the game. The word you will hear most often is "raw". The biggest example of this that I remember was a high school guy named Hewitt (from CT I believe? Maybe TR can jump in on that)...he was apparently an unreal athlete with extremely raw skills. First rounder I think...so far the results haven't been there for him because the skills haven't developed to match his raw athletic ability.
On the other hand, some guys are much closer to their ultimate ability, so the seperation between the two extremes isn't as big. This is generally more true of college players, and is also the reason some organizations tend to lean toward college picks in the draft. There is less of a guessing game about what a player will become.
So, to me, projectability is about looking at what a player is, what he could be come, and where along that spectrum he is most likely to wind up. As far as factors that contribute to projectability, some things have been mentioned by dad43...a few others would be current physical ability and "actions", mechanics, size of parents and siblings, intangibles, etc.
The top of the range would be what that player would become if everything worked out perfectly. That is, if he maxed out physically, if he put in the work to max out his physical strength, quickness, agility...overall athleticism. And most important if he developed his skills to the max to go along with his physical development. So, that's the top of the range....the best case scenario. In other words, this is the player's projected max ability.
Most likely, that player is going to become something between these two extremes. Also, the seperation between extremes is different with every player. You will see some guys who are all projectability....often just superior athletes who must seriously develop the skill side of the game. The word you will hear most often is "raw". The biggest example of this that I remember was a high school guy named Hewitt (from CT I believe? Maybe TR can jump in on that)...he was apparently an unreal athlete with extremely raw skills. First rounder I think...so far the results haven't been there for him because the skills haven't developed to match his raw athletic ability.
On the other hand, some guys are much closer to their ultimate ability, so the seperation between the two extremes isn't as big. This is generally more true of college players, and is also the reason some organizations tend to lean toward college picks in the draft. There is less of a guessing game about what a player will become.
So, to me, projectability is about looking at what a player is, what he could be come, and where along that spectrum he is most likely to wind up. As far as factors that contribute to projectability, some things have been mentioned by dad43...a few others would be current physical ability and "actions", mechanics, size of parents and siblings, intangibles, etc.
Hewitt went to private school in CT, lived in Brooklyn. He was the single most impressive showcase player I've ever seen in my life. Incredible speed, cannon for an arm, great power bat and excellent athletic build. The day I saw him he threw 94 mph across the diamond, ran a 60 in the 6.3-6.4 range and was consistently hitting balls 450 feet in batting practice with wood. This was during the summer after his junior year in high school.
IMO, projectability has to do with the pure skills a player can show. Position players can be athletic, powerful and fast. Pitchers can be tall, loose and powerful.
To me, the perfect examples of a projectability success story is Ken Griffey (as a position player) and Randy Johnson (as a pitcher). Junior was a toolsy, young outfielder that lived off of his pure athletic ability. The Big Unit was a 6'10" LHP with 100 mph fastball and not much control. Each fell into their own and formed HOF careers. Looking at the other side, examples of players taken based on projectability and having it backfire: Matt Bush, Colt Griffin, Brien Taylor.
IMO, projectability has to do with the pure skills a player can show. Position players can be athletic, powerful and fast. Pitchers can be tall, loose and powerful.
To me, the perfect examples of a projectability success story is Ken Griffey (as a position player) and Randy Johnson (as a pitcher). Junior was a toolsy, young outfielder that lived off of his pure athletic ability. The Big Unit was a 6'10" LHP with 100 mph fastball and not much control. Each fell into their own and formed HOF careers. Looking at the other side, examples of players taken based on projectability and having it backfire: Matt Bush, Colt Griffin, Brien Taylor.
Pro scouts are more interested in projectibility. College scouts/recruiters seem to be looking for the finished product, in my opinion.
Thanks for the info. Son is 2010 6'4" 210 lbs. He's a catcher whose dad is also 6'4" and mom is 5'8". Strong arm, good pop time and very good bat; hits for average and power. I think that makes him fairly projectable, right?
Mom may be 5'8, but is she projectable? Has her arm been tested for strength, hits for avg and power?
LOL.
Carol..just a little clown time. You have gotten some great replies above. Sounds like your son has got some excellent size to him! You certainly don't see catchers that big nowadays...or not that much. Is he getting any interest?
YGD
LOL.
Carol..just a little clown time. You have gotten some great replies above. Sounds like your son has got some excellent size to him! You certainly don't see catchers that big nowadays...or not that much. Is he getting any interest?
YGD
IMO - Projectability has some validity.
On the other hand - it is also a frequently used excuse utilized by scouts that arent very good at what they do.
On the other hand - it is also a frequently used excuse utilized by scouts that arent very good at what they do.
quote:Originally posted by YoungGunDad:
Mom may be 5'8, but is she projectable? Has her arm been tested for strength, hits for avg and power?
LOL.
Carol..just a little clown time. You have gotten some great replies above. Sounds like your son has got some excellent size to him! You certainly don't see catchers that big nowadays...or not that much. Is he getting any interest?
LOL. Mom can barely get a foul ball back across the fence. Ha.
Yeah, son has signed with Walters. Seems like a good program and we have been real impressed with the coaching staff. A kid from our town went there a couple of years ago and has spoken very highly of the program.
YGD
Walters State is pre-season ranked #7 so trust me, they are an incredible team. They put out a winning team every year.
My son is a RHP at Vol State and we play them in early March. He is looking VERY forward to facing them...!!
Congrats on the signing! He and you should be very proud of his choice.
YGD
My son is a RHP at Vol State and we play them in early March. He is looking VERY forward to facing them...!!
Congrats on the signing! He and you should be very proud of his choice.
YGD
To me it's pretty much just a hard word to spell..... 
I heard a mid-level division 1 coach tell a nagging, bothersome parent that they wouldn't even consider a rhp unless he's cruising & pitching effectively at 88mph - never the mention of size, build or projectability/projectibility
The word is often interpreted as hope.... and as a result I think that many are mislead into hoping for something great based on projectability/projectibility... real or perceived.
I'm not asserting that it doesn't exist - I'M SURE IT DOES at some levels of the decision process and I do agree with Baseball guy's comments...
Based on my experiences, it's what you have now that truly counts first....
There are many a big footed lad's throwing in the 70's.....
I heard a mid-level division 1 coach tell a nagging, bothersome parent that they wouldn't even consider a rhp unless he's cruising & pitching effectively at 88mph - never the mention of size, build or projectability/projectibility
The word is often interpreted as hope.... and as a result I think that many are mislead into hoping for something great based on projectability/projectibility... real or perceived.
I'm not asserting that it doesn't exist - I'M SURE IT DOES at some levels of the decision process and I do agree with Baseball guy's comments...
Based on my experiences, it's what you have now that truly counts first....
There are many a big footed lad's throwing in the 70's.....
quote:Originally posted by carol:
I've been reading a lot of posters speaking about "projectability". What exactly is meant by that term? Thanks for your help.
Carol,
Your son's projectability, after signing with Walters State may have gone up a bit. Lot's of Senators signees have occurred in the last 20 plus years! Many pitchers, and thus exposure for catchers! And of course easy to get to, being off I-81 in the Smokies. Does he hit LH?
Projectability can be a good thing. For some--in fact most--it is a false hope. It is the difference between "I throw hard and can throw harder in the future" and "I might throw hard in the future, given my 'projectability' ".
Do you get my drift?
Do you get my drift?
Brien Taylor had a very unfortunate accident when he injured his shoulder helping his brother out in a fight. He was extremely talented and I have no doubt would have had a long and successful career. One of the most talented LH pitchers I have ever seen.
Projectibility is having those things or not having those things that lead others to project the players future upside or downside.
It can range from the parents height and build to the length of the players torso to the slope of the players shoulders. What is and will always be the most important projectible's can not be seen by the human eye.
Projectibility is having those things or not having those things that lead others to project the players future upside or downside.
It can range from the parents height and build to the length of the players torso to the slope of the players shoulders. What is and will always be the most important projectible's can not be seen by the human eye.
quote:Originally posted by carol:
Thanks for the info. Son is 2010 6'4" 210 lbs. He's a catcher whose dad is also 6'4" and mom is 5'8". Strong arm, good pop time and very good bat; hits for average and power. I think that makes him fairly projectable, right?
If he is done growing he may not be projectible, if you are talking about physical attributes. And projectibility has nothing to do with what school you will attend or what conference you will play in. JMO.
I never thought that word meant how hard you could throw or how hard you could hit, but based upon what the player would be like physically as he matures to be able to hit harder or throw harder in the future according to his projected physical attributes.
For pro purposes, it is important because most players will not make their MLB debut (if they do make it) until age 23-26 so therefore the question will be what will he be like at that age. It's much harder to project a HS age player than an older college player, who is closer to maturity. And yup, they don't always get it right.
But don't think it is easy to be "projectible". My son was one of those types, he has, IMO reached what he was projected to be like at age 24 (6'4" and 225 pounds and the sloping shoulders and long lean frame filled in) and it has taken years of hard work, proper nutrition and hours and hours in the gym to get where he should be at 24, so the players physical projectibility rests upon what he does to improve that perception. It will take lots of hard work to maintain it as well.
Will this make him throw harder, no, but will help in sustaining the velocity and durablility he may need to be a ML starter. You are expected to be able to hit the 200+ inning mark, that takes a lot of guess work doesn't it, and projectiblilty is part of the quesswork, but never ever think it just comes naturally, no matter who you are, you have to work hard everyday. There are exceptions to every rule of course.
For those that feel that their sons were overlooked in the draft, because they could get hitters out, or hit home runs in HS or college, or that it creates false hopes, try to imagine your son years from now hitting close to the 200+ inning mark, or hitting for more power later on, not currently. This gives you a slight idea of expectations on the ML level, not the milb level, but the ML level. Most (I say most) every pitcher drafted is first looked upon as a possible starter, then the weeding between starters and relievers begins as they mature.
If you understand, really understand the process, it takes some of the guesswork out of the wondering why one did or didn't get drafted.
I believe a scout will use the 1000's of reports he has filed as the basis for a peak into the projectability crystal ball.
Contrary to Bum's assessment "For some-- in fact most--it is false hope" I would suggest projectability is not limited to a positive projection of a players abilities. Certainly players have been projected as having peaked or based on off the field mis-steps are projected as a bad risk.
I think of projectability as tangible risk assessment. The kid who has a perfect ACT or SAT combined with a 4.5 GPA could project nicely for the Cal Techs, MIT's and other academic power houses. Your resume allows your future employer to project as how well you'll fit into a Co's future.
Contrary to Bum's assessment "For some-- in fact most--it is false hope" I would suggest projectability is not limited to a positive projection of a players abilities. Certainly players have been projected as having peaked or based on off the field mis-steps are projected as a bad risk.
I think of projectability as tangible risk assessment. The kid who has a perfect ACT or SAT combined with a 4.5 GPA could project nicely for the Cal Techs, MIT's and other academic power houses. Your resume allows your future employer to project as how well you'll fit into a Co's future.
quote:Originally posted by dswann:
I believe a scout will use the 1000's of reports he has filed as the basis for a peak into the projectability crystal ball.
DS - Hope you are sitting down. Scouts are typically wrong 98% of the time!
quote:Originally posted by Bear:quote:Originally posted by dswann:
I believe a scout will use the 1000's of reports he has filed as the basis for a peak into the projectability crystal ball.
DS - Hope you are sitting down. Scouts are typically wrong 98% of the time!
Bear - I couldn't resist this one. I was always under the impression that you were a scout. Now I understand why only about two percent of your opinions seem to be the correct ones
Just kidding. Hope you still have your sense of humor
The only thing that makes the scouts wrong is that most players don't do what they have to do to reach their full capability of their projection,whether it be for college or for pro ball.
Injury, lack of commitment, off the field issues, etc. are examples.
Injury, lack of commitment, off the field issues, etc. are examples.
TPM,
I don't understand your point, I guess.
How is injury reflective of a player not doing what they have to do? Could it not be reflective of some/many players who try too hard, who work too hard?
I doubt it reflects, in Milb, players who don't work hard, very hard. Guess I don't understand your view it is the players and not the scouts???
I don't understand your point, I guess.
How is injury reflective of a player not doing what they have to do? Could it not be reflective of some/many players who try too hard, who work too hard?
I doubt it reflects, in Milb, players who don't work hard, very hard. Guess I don't understand your view it is the players and not the scouts???
I was responding to Bear's comment that 98% of the scouts don't get it right.
I think they do a pretty good job at projecting in general, but it is not their fault if a player doesn't reach his potential, injury being one of the causes.
A good example of that would be the Cards first round pick in 2005, Mark McCormick. He was recently released, after 4-5 surgeries it was time to end the relationship. Bad pick some say, but I had seen him pitch and IMO he was truely one of the best in the organization, injury was not anyone's fault in projecting him as a future MLB pitcher.
I was just giving a few examples of why I felt that scouts shouldn't always be blamed that they are not accurate.
JMO.
I think they do a pretty good job at projecting in general, but it is not their fault if a player doesn't reach his potential, injury being one of the causes.
A good example of that would be the Cards first round pick in 2005, Mark McCormick. He was recently released, after 4-5 surgeries it was time to end the relationship. Bad pick some say, but I had seen him pitch and IMO he was truely one of the best in the organization, injury was not anyone's fault in projecting him as a future MLB pitcher.
I was just giving a few examples of why I felt that scouts shouldn't always be blamed that they are not accurate.
JMO.