Projectibility

itsinthegame,

I love your thinking here. I have always subscribed to the theory of either a player can play or he can't.

I have found that projectibility usually means tall and thin. Some tall and thin players are really good, some aren't.

I like watching players that can play-period. I too have grown tired of the projectible player...many have projected to careers other than baseball.

Bottom line, I like the eye of the tiger player. He is the guy that you just know is going to find a way to beat you at crunch time.

He may not "project" to the major leagues, but he may get there anyway.

I have to agree about the projectable player, even though mine fall into that catagory. I too, think that players just have a feel for the game or not. They are a student of the game or not. This is not to say that players also have room to grow mentally and physically. To me, it kind of relates to sports writers, media, etc....they just have to find something to write about, it is their job. Same with baseball websites, showcases, etc. they have to come up with something to say, kids to rate, people have paid for it, expect it and sometimes the terms are overused and at some point become meaningless. Bring it on the field, every chance you get. The same websites, showcases, tournaments, whatever, are never ever going to leave out a guy that brings it to the field and impresses. Remember that, and have confidence in your ability and work ethic, if you have one

Discovered Bum, Jr. has exactly two curly chin hairs. I guess he's done.

quote:

Originally posted by tychco:
I too have grown tired of the projectible player.

Now Tycho, you are talking about both of my boys. I have spent a lot of time on them this "off season" to get them projected. And here is what I project them to do, I project them to cost me$----.-- in Hotels, $----.-- in food on the road, $----.-- in lesson's, $----.-- in gas,$----.-- in equipment, $----.-- on their "select,travel,scout,showcase( whatever it is called this year) team. This is so we can project them out as soon as we can so their mom and I can save some$$$$, wait a minute, I am sure the future grandkids will take the rest of our$$$.

Well I feel that making light of projection is basically poking fun at scouting. Which is OK with me, if that is what someone really wants to do.

“Projection” has always been an important (most important) part of scouting for a long long time. In fact, other than what you see presently it is exactly what scouting is all about. How good will a player be in the future? It’s fairly easy to figure out how good a player is now.

As in everything there will be mistakes made. Scouting is not an exact science.

I’m not sure people understand what makes a player extremely projectable. Most seem to think it’s all about size and physical maturity. Size, body type, and maturity are valid reasons to project, but there is so much more involved. If a player does not have any present talent, there is no need to project him. If he lacks desire it is hard to project him. If he lacks athletic ability he is hard to project. Sometimes a players present skills, athleticism and physical features will mirror a past player so closely that it gives reason to project based on comparison.

Projection is based on many things, but it all boils down to… Do you think that in the future the player will run faster than he does now, throw better than now, hit better, hit with more power. Being that strength is an important ingredient in improving… Projection obviously favors the player who has the most room to grow and get stronger. However, we often project based on reverse thinking. This happens when we see players/pitchers like Connor Graham or Chris Perez who certainly didn’t need to get any bigger than they were in high school. They projected to get better by conditioning their bodies. The skills were present.

Often people get upset when a player is labeled as having very little projection. The truth is that everyone is projected in some way. But when someone is said to lack projection, it means the person evaluating him thinks the player has little room for any significant gain. No reason to believe he will throw harder, hit with more power, run faster, etc. Some players even “project” to lose some running speed as they grow older.

I personally don’t like labeling anyone as “lacking projection”. That is a bit too all knowing IMO. It is usually used to describe physical projection. Lack of projection has a negative feel to it and baseball is very much a mental game. It’s just hard to project the mental part. Often it is associated with physical maturity with disregard for other important factors. The truth is that every single young player in the world has some level of projection. If they didn’t it would mean they have reached their full potential. Not many, if any, have ever reached their full potential at anything. Full potential is always an unknown.

OFP – Is all about projection. Future Potential is a projection! It’s certainly not anything that can be proven before hand.

It’s all a guess, based on the guessers experience and expertise. It’s not a buzz word used for marketing purposes. It doesn’t replace any present day skills. But anyone who has been around baseball a long time can look at two players with somewhat equal skills and make an educated guess as to which one projects the best. As in everything else in baseball, that educated guess could end up being wrong. No one can predict based on what is hidden inside a player. But if you did know what is inside the player it would be a basis for projection.

There is the present and there is projection. The future is what is most important in scouting. Maybe we should downplay the importance of the present.

Guess I’ll shut up now!

Good topic its. Projectibility to me is a variety of things. For the parent and the player it is a way to continue pursuing a dream with the hopes that everything will fall into place later on. That's not all bad if you enjoy the journey. It basically describes an average to above average player (that hasn't reached stud status) that doesn't appear to be limited by his physical characteristics. For instance he isn't too short, too fat, too skinny, or too tall to play the game. Secondly it is the politically correct way to segregate players that "look" like they could play (if they develop) from those that obviously don't have a chance. Telling a player he doesn't project is much kinder than telling him he's too short or too fat. It was probably coined by a showcase promoter or an fee based instructor looking for a way to keep the less talented players as paying customers. I wish the word would disappear from the baseball vocabulary ----- Spell-check doesn't recognize it. Players are what they are ----- not what they look like they could be.
Fungo

Good topic. Projecting what a player will do is not an exact science. Who would of thought that Joba Chamberlain would have lost all that weight in high school before arriving in Nebraska. Who would of projected a 165 pound sophomore, Michael Main, would hit a 100MPH the next season following his sophomore year. Not to mention, the lightning rod arm of a real-life ZEUS throwing 101MPH at the PG event this past week in one Jarred Cozart who reminds me of Main. There are so many variables and factors that scouts cannot control in the unexact birth of a star. I believe they are chosen.
It may be wiser to pick and project the players who are prospects of receiving God's blessings peace, shep

PG,

Just to clarify a bit - I am not poking fun at scouts - nor am I dismissing the importance of looking at a young prospect and trying to determine what his next level of challenge will be - or what next level is an appropriate challenge for him. I am also sure glad I dont have to do it for a living - because it seems like a very very difficult job.

Perhaps it is just one's perspective.

I prefer to enjoy the moment.
I enjoy watching what actually happens on the field - and then assessing what actually happened.

As opposed to not really caring what has actually happened - and instead - thinking about what may happen.

Again - just perspective.

And I also do believe that the word has become - for many - a convenient excuse for their own mistakes.

Old Slugger - you dont have to believe the numbers and I didnt say a word about credit scores either.

What I said was that "subprime" mortgages constitute a very tiny percentage of the mortgage market in the USA. Yet - the media blasts it into our faces every single day - and attempts to give the impression that the mortgage market in the US is falling apart. Total BS.

What is the projection with a guy like Jason Neighborgal (sp)? In college, he already threw harder than 99% of MLB. I am guessing his projection was whether or not he could learn how to pitch? Then, if you have to ask that question it seems to put one in this nebulous area of performance versus what may happen in the future

and when does projection stop? Because I keep getting bigger....

OldSlugger,

We should ask Julie to create a new forum for Economic issues. Now that would be exciting! LOL

PG,

May I add this:

About 3 years ago - in Ft.Myers I believe - you watched me spitting sunflower seeds - and rated me very low. I believe the write up indicated I lacked both velocity and accuracy with my seeds.

Granted - at that event - I had a bad day. I mis-spit several seeds - and many landed in the hair and soda cups of the fans sitting in front of me. What you didnt know was that I had a sprained tongue at the time. But I told noone.

Fast forward to Jupiter - you watched me again - and by your own admission - I may have been the best seed spitter you have ever seen.

There have been many that have PM'ed me - and have said that the only reason you rated me so high was because we are friends. That is BS - and it bothers me.
But, as we both know - the truth is - the performance I put on at Jupiter may never be surpassed.

Interesting discussion.

PG no way should you shut up, I think you explained it rather well.

PG's evaluation of son in 2003 "projects in a big way" "should end up being a mid 90's guy before long".

I wasn't really sure of what meant at that time, but I did understand that they were looking into a crystal ball that they really had no control over, just their opinion based on what he had or didn't have at that time and what he might have or not have in the future. I suppose it's easier to "project" some player when they are younger (HS) than others. This year, I didn't see the word "project" used as much on him, it was replaced with the word "upside". That indicated to me, at 22, he most likely had reached a lot of that early projection they saw four years ago. No where in his evaluation in 2003 did the word indicate to me that he would have more talent than someone else, just that he had a lot more to work with as he matured.

I just recently read where an incoming freshman in college "projects" to be a starter. A recently drafted player for 2B "projects" that he could be a ss. It has many different meanings.

If we eliminated the word in baseball as far as describing player's attributes, I don't see what you could replace it with. This ia an important part of scouting. "Project" has importance for those that need to use that for evaluating a player's future physical potential but in no way, to me, indicates he will be a superstar among his peers.

TPM,

To clarify - I did not say the word should be abolished.

I said the word means less and less to me each year - and my opinion is that it is frequently used as an excuse for poor decisions.

Two more things, if people don't like the concept of "project" why do people go to showcases. That rating your son receives is based upon what a scout sees for your sons future. It may not be as accurate as you want it, but then your son has the tools he needs (where he fits in) to improve upon. Yes, you can't change what mother nature has given you, but you can improve upon the skills you would need to compete with those that "project" higher than yourself. Look at it as a challenge.

That's why I cringe when I read about parents wanting and trying to make their 16,17,8 year olds look like 20,21,22 year olds. IMO, you could be taking some of the "projection" away when he is evaluated by a scout, college coach, etc.

iitg,
Fungo mentioned that he wished it would disappear from the baseball vocabulary.

IMO, projections have become more accurate than they were many years ago. I am not sure if the emergance of showcases with good scouting has changed that or not.

TPM,

Thanks, guess I won't shut up then!

We were correct about your son and not to sound like some kind of expert... He was one of the easy ones to project. We've also written the same type report on others we thought were just as easy and things didn't work out as well.

Unfortunately, as you well know, it takes much more than our opinion for a player to be a big success. Sure would be nice if our opinion was always right. Wish that were the case, but it isn't.

Anyway, thanks for posting that about David. Makes me slightly more confident, especially thank him for making us look accurate in his case. Can't have too much of that.

Its,

Sorry we didn't project your seed spitting potential the first time around. Maybe that's why your so irritated by the word. How were we to know how driven you were to be the best. Just another example of making a mistake. Is that why you haven't been sending us any money lately?

On a bit more serious note... If that's possible...

Its,

I believe fans, players, parents, coaches, etc. should all live in the present without ever trying to predict the future. So there is no argument there, I agree completely.

However the scouting community looks at the present and has to evaluate that as well as attempt to predict the future potential of a player. (Projection) To a MLB scout all the present ability and future potential is based/graded on how the player compares to those players at the MLB level. However there can still be players who project, at other levels.

I find it strange that so often everything that people might not understand is played off as some kind of scheme to fool people into spending their money. I would guess that we use the word projection as much as anyone. Personally I’ve used that description many times, but not once has the thought crossed my mind that maybe by using this description I can con someone into parting with their money. If I wanted to do that I simply say the player was the best thing since sliced bread. If saying a player projects well, would cause people to spend more money, why not use it for every player? Or is it that just those who are described that way the only targets?

Also understand that projectable or projectible is not a recognized word, but it is recognized in scouting. Besides… project, projection are real words.

I actually feel that telling a player he doesn’t project is kin to telling him to hang it up. Don’t believe I’ve ever told a player or his parents that. This may sound like a double standard, but I’m much better at figuring out who projects the best than figuring out who doesn’t project. I’ve seen too many unbelievable things happen to think a player has no projection. Did Mike Piazza project well?

To me projection simply means that I think the player projects to get a lot better than he is now. Sometimes when a player is exceptionally projectable, we use more descriptive words like “Sky is the limit”, “very high ceiling”. In every case, I would expect the person saying that to be able to explain precisely why they have that opinion. Could turn out to be a mistake, but misleading people or marketing is not even a thought.

The only thing that might involve marketing regarding the reports is that we try to be as polite as possible while also being totally honest. Our stuff is read by lots of people and whether it is because of marketing or just personal choice, it doesn’t accomplish anything or make any sense to trash any young player. Hopefully you’ll never see any descriptions like “Short, fat and ugly, doesn’t project” If by not publishing that type report, we are considered less than honest… So be it!

I have no problem with the subject and understand why most people would think in the present rather than the future. I just don’t see why a scouting term should be considered anything more than what it is.

Good hands
Nice actions
Power potential
Good instincts
Good feel
Bat speed
Nice swing
Athletic
Projects well
Can play
Knows how
Quick arm
Good feet
Can hit
Good body

They’re all words based on opinion, nothing more! Why would “project” be considered any different than the others.

But will keep reading other opinions.

Sorry, for making this such a big deal.

It was easier to evaluate dK because of his physical attributes given to him by nature.

But that projection didn't mean sit back on your laurels and let it happen. No where did it indicate he would end up at a good baseball program or be drafted, that was up to him to achieve that.

If some players work in the present and not the future, they could literally be taking their future away.

If they based my son's performance on the present (the last thing he did), he would be out of a job and so might a lot of our players or your son's would be asked to leave the school he is attending. Without that future potential, many could be, well let's say, down a stream without a paddle.

Last night I read about a player drafted high in 2001 (maybe 2002) just making the 40 man roster. They said his stuff he was drafted for was finally starting to show. Without that possible "projection" he could have been released a long time ago. JMO.

JMO.

Whoa Nellie!!!

The topic is expanding way beyond my original intent.
For the record - I never said anything about a marketing angle.

I said the word means less and less to me each year - and I think it is often times used as an excuse to justify poor decisions.

I also didnt refer to Perfect Game - and what they do - or how they do it - in this discussion.
And I wont - for the thousandth time - repeat my feelings about Perfect Game - and how great of a job they do evaluating talent. - In my opinion - they are the best. (Oops - just did it again.)

And remember - I am a fan of the game - not a scout.
As a fan - I want to see good stuff - now. I dont care about tomorrow - I just care about today - and the actual game that is being played - and the actual performances I am watching.

quote:

Originally posted by PGStaff:
Hopefully you’ll never see any descriptions like “Short, fat and ugly, doesn’t project” If by not publishing that type report, we are considered less than honest… So be it!

PG,

I beg to differ.

I have the report from 2004 right here:

Here is what it says.

"The guy is short - he isnt fat yet - but he will be soon - and he is ugly. He has no velocity on his seeds and when he spits them - they land everywhere except at the intended target.

He also drinks too much beer - talks about eatiing mozzerella much more than is necessary - and attempts to make too many jokes.

This dude is going nowhere fast - and we believe he will be out of the seed spitting business before the year is over."

Projectibility===many times it is simply "Beauty is in the eye of the beholder"---the first event my son went to as a junior saw him be told by a coach that he would never play college baseball---the day he was back in school the AD got a call from a major Division II program offering him a hefty scholarship---he ended up playing major Division I ball

So what is projectibiltiy?--in most cases it is an educated guess---I also think a lot has to do with the player and where plays outside of HS---the stronger the team he is on and the better competition that he plays against will make a huge difference


great discussion

Here was TRHit's evaluation of me in 2002:

"Nice guy - a good goomba - but he sucks at spitting seeds.
He would be better off spitting small balls of mozzerella - as it would improve his chance of hitting the target.

In a nutshell - his future lies in the kitchen - and not in a seed spitting arena".

Needless to say - I called TR up - and objected vehemently.

its,

I have a problem sometimes recognizing what people are saying. Maybe I'll grow out of that someday. Alzheimers?

Tombstone

Here Lies a Man Who Thought Everyone Was Out To Get Him.

Then Finally They Did!

I never worry about you though.

Not to veer away from the topic - but here is my guide to the youngsters out there:


Things You'll Need

* Sunflower seeds

Steps


Step One
Practice with sunflower seeds. John Emslie, a past winner of the Shawnee County Fair watermelon seed spitting contest in Topeka, Kansas, said his sunflower eating habit helped him become a seed-spitting champion.

Step Two
To win a timed speed spitting contest, it is important to spit watermelon seeds, and spit fast. One winner won the contest after spitting 35 seeds into a paper cup in just five minutes. Work on speed and accuracy. And practice carrying as many seeds in your mouth as possible so you don't waste time reloading.

Step Three
Karen Easterling, a past winner of the women's crown in the World Watermelon Seed Spitting Contest, said it is important that a small tip of the seed should point out as it exits your mouth. Think of it as the tip of a dart you're throwing at a board.

Step Four
Take a big breath before expelling the seed.

Step Five
Lean back before you spit. Shoot forward as you spit and aim slightly up to create an arc.

Step Six
Have a bit of watermelon in your mouth for moisture.

Step Seven
Start with your target nearby and begin with a wide-brimmed cup or even an ashtray. Once you're hitting the receptacle with nearly every shot, substitute a container with a narrower opening until you reach the size of a paper coffee cup. Then move the cup further away from you in 3- to 6-inch increments, placing it further after hitting most of your shots in a series.

Tips & Warnings

* Be careful not to choke when practicing or competing. There have been numerous reports of competitors dying due to choking on a seed.
* Parents should supervise young children when they are seed spitting.

JMHO

Now I am starting to worry about you!

PG,

If I had a nickel for every time someone said that to me - I would be a very very rich man.

LOL

quote:

Originally posted by TRhit:
Projectibility===many times it is simply "Beauty is in the eye of the beholder"---

You might be right, obviously PG saw no beauty in iitg.

Good point TR, but I have to ask PG, does the word projectibility have to do with evaluationg talent? I don't see it that way, just looking into the future as to what a player could do when he reaches his potential, whenever that may be.

quote:

Originally posted by TRhit:
Projectibility===many times it is simply "Beauty is in the eye of the beholder"---

You might be right, obviously PG saw no beauty in iitg.

Good point TR, but I have to ask PG, does the word projectibility have to do with evaluationg talent? I don't see it that way, but as just looking into the future as to what a player could do when he reaches his potential, whenever or whatever that that might be.

It's,
How much the word means to you, you decide. At that point, it's perception.

I have spent a good part of my life coaching basketball, mostly at the middle school level, and mostly in developmental leagues rather than competitive leagues (although the players are very high caliber). It is my job each year, as I make cuts, to decide which players do I project as having the talent to play at the next level, not the current best player. I must, as a job description, pick the most projectible players.

A senior in the HS this year, was a kid I had seen play (barely, coach hardly used him), in middle school. I had to convince his parents to have him come out for our feeder team. From that feeder team of very exceptional athletes (they won a state football title this year), he is the only starter at Varsity. The kid could see the floor, anticipate movement and deliver the ball on the move...but looked like a gangly d o r k doing it. He was very projectible.

I think it was in the book Moneyball, where some scout said, "if he can do it once, it's in there". If it's in there, then the kid is projectible.

You may be entirely correct that the word is overused, and is an excuse for lack of...but I do not think that things are ordered as we see them today. We can live for the moment, but it certainly does not act as a determiner of our future, which imho is the essence of projectabilty.

TPM,

Here is the 2007 PG report:

"This kid looks good. Speed and accuracy have improved dramatically. He has grown 6 inches - stayed slim - and has gotten much more serious about spitting seeds.

His performance this year with sunflower seeds is the the best we have ever seen. Still needs some work with the watermelon seeds - but we are sure he will get there.

On the negative side - He is still - unfortunately - quite ugly.

quote:

Originally posted by CPLZ:
It's,
How much the word means to you, you decide. At that point, it's perception.

Hey CPL - thanks for the offer.

I believe I already have decided. LOL

quote:

Originally posted by itsinthegame:
TPM,

Here is the 2007 PG report:

"This kid looks good. Speed and accuracy have improved dramatically. He has grown 6 inches - stayed slim - and has gotten much more serious about spitting seeds.

His performance this year with sunflower seeds is the the best we have ever seen. Still needs some work with the watermelon seeds - but we are sure he will get there.

On the negative side - He is still - unfortunately - quite ugly.

Seems like you may have reached your "projection" as far as the sunflower seed thing goes. That's ok, always good to have some multi talent as far as seed spitting.

So keep working on the watermelon thingy, that might just be where your future potential lies.

As far as looks, you just might NOT need that pretty face for seed spitting.

quote:

Originally posted by TPM:

But keep working on the watermelon thingy, that might just be where your future potential lies.

TPM

At this point - that is just about what I have left as far as potential. LOL.

see edits to my post.....

I think I'm starting to grasp what PG is saying about projectability. The first part of scouting is science: measuring present tools and ability. The second part of scouting is art: predicting future tools and ability.

Wish we could see old PG reports on Alex Rodriguez, Randy Johnson, or David Eckstein. Those would be interesting!

Bum,

Here is something you might enjoy even more.
Scouting Report LHP

quote:

Originally posted by PGStaff:
Bum,

Here is something you might enjoy even more.
Scouting Report LHP

Thanks for sharing that report with us PG. Great insight as to how a scout reports on a player throughout a game. I for one would love to see more of these reports on the players that you thought had "IT".

quote:

Originally posted by itsinthegame:
PG,

May I add this:

About 3 years ago - in Ft.Myers I believe - you watched me spitting sunflower seeds - and rated me very low. I believe the write up indicated I lacked both velocity and accuracy with my seeds.

Granted - at that event - I had a bad day. I mis-spit several seeds - and many landed in the hair and soda cups of the fans sitting in front of me. What you didnt know was that I had a sprained tongue at the time. But I told noone.

Fast forward to Jupiter - you watched me again - and by your own admission - I may have been the best seed spitter you have ever seen.

There have been many that have PM'ed me - and have said that the only reason you rated me so high was because we are friends. That is BS - and it bothers me.
But, as we both know - the truth is - the performance I put on at Jupiter may never be surpassed.

Projectibility can not be affected by a bad day on the field! Projectability, IMO, is about measurable qualities of a player. Power, speed, arm strength, etc...

A guy is as fast as he is fast. He may not get an opportunity to show off his wheels one game (0-3, 3K's), but he is fast. Every player on the field throws the ball, therefore arm strength can be measured and then assessed for improvement in the future. Even if the SS chucks it in the seats, it may get there faster than 99.7% of all the SS in America.

Don't most people understand that scouts aren't looking at game performance to determine an OFP rating? Or any sort of rating whatsoever?

Sorry PGStaff, I didn’t intend to step on your toes with my post when I spoke of the non-word projectability – from my post I said:

quote:

It was probably coined by a showcase promoter or an fee based instructor looking for a way to keep the less talented players as paying customers. I wish the word would disappear from the baseball vocabulary ----- Spell-check doesn't recognize it. Players are what they are ----- not what they look like they could be.

Of course i wasn't talking about you. Let me clarify the point I’m trying to make. If you as an individual or your company, Perfect Game, were to publish (or say) a player projects to be a D-1 player I would understand and would trust your highly regarded opinion. If you were to say you project a player to pitch at the highest level in professional baseball I again would respect your opinion. Using your knowledge and skill to “project” a player is one thing but to say a player has “projectability” is as different as night and day to me. However I can accept you discussing a player in private with a professional scout and in your discussion you mention the player has a high level of “projectability” (because I think you and he know what you are talking about). -------- BUT when a fee based organization tries to make an intangible opinion like a projection into something akin to a tool or a talent I have a problem with that. Lots of things can happen to a player. He can get better or he can get worse no matter what his level of “projectability”. I did find some solace in your post when you said: If a player does not have any present talent, there is no need to project him. If he lacks desire it is hard to project him. If he lacks athletic ability he is hard to project. But then you said ” The truth is that everyone is projected in some way “ ---- I had to stop and think --- I think I know what you mean but it does get complicated.

Why would I even post my opinion on this? You and I both know parents are grasping for straws and hanging on your every word looking for anything positive to validate their son’s dream. Projectability to a parent means their son has the key to greatness he just needs to keep trying to open the right door. PGStaff I appreciate you very much but I still have to tell it as I see it. The bad thing (in my opinion) about “projectability” is no one has egg on their face if the player fails to make it. I still wish the word would go away.
Fungo

ok, since I was without a car today, husband out and DK gone and doing my usual saturday procrastinating, I decided, just for the heck of it to go to PG's website to look for the frequuent use of "projectible" and how it was used and if used how accurate it actually was.

Using names and players that I was familiar with, some that went to college and some drafted, some expected to be drafted and not, some who went to big D1 programs, going as far back to PG's first showcase days, I didn't find this word to be used as frequently as some think it is and when it was used, it was quite accurate. Just as an example, Andrew Miller 2003 National showcase 6'6" 185 (skinny) "projects" out of site. Jarrod Saltalamacchia "projects" to get stronger (arm strength), Chris Lubanski body/makeup make him super "projectible". I found in some of the recent year showcases, 2007 to be exact, some of the early draft choices were "high ceiling", "big league body", "strong athletic build", not a whole lot of the word "projectible". I found this to be interesting, and in comparing those earlier players to recent players,using that word for physical attributes, the word projectible seems not to be used as frequently. These kids are much bigger,stronger than the kids were back in 2001. I realize that the whole workout thing has changed, but in doing so, have these players taken "projection" away from themselves? If you are reading PG, is that a good thing or a bad thing?

I am not that familiar with the class of 2008, but interesting I found a familiar name that is the same height and weight as my son is now at 22, no mention of "project", though has tremendous stuff.

All in all, I found many of the evaluations mentioning projection to be of good reason for them to be "projected".

Understand I was not trying to compare "projection" with the word talent, though it did appear that most who were strongly "projected" are still playing the game. I think that the world "project" or any form of it in baseball, carries a lot more meaning than we might assume. JMO.