One thing that I am still not quite sure of. When taking grounders during the fielding part of a showcase my guy tries to be fluid and smooth and quick. This does not necessarily equate into a power throw to 1st base. I see many players fielding the ball, stand up, and throw as hard as they can, turning in a high infield radar time.
What is the recomended way to show infield skills, power throw or smooth actions and quick hands?
quote:Originally posted by floridafan:
One thing that I am still not quite sure of. When taking grounders during the fielding part of a showcase my guy tries to be fluid and smooth and quick. This does not necessarily equate into a power throw to 1st base. I see many players fielding the ball, stand up, and throw as hard as they can, turning in a high infield radar time.
What is the recomended way to show infield skills, power throw or smooth actions and quick hands?
both
Quote by Bum-
These are the measurable tools of present potential vs. overall future potential(OFP) which Bum and others in this thread speak of in evaluating prospects.
It is my belief, as well as many other top baseball people, that the most important aspect of identifying those who are projectible is far important than "just talent".
Those who are hidden amongst the multitudes of possible professional prospects are expected to demonstrate something special in their purpose. Not to say it isn't important to have a fast 60 yard dash time, arm strength, hitting ability, hitting power, fielding or instincts; however, it is becoming more and more important to separate the wheat from the chaff by carefully considering the internal mechanisms of the clock that make a prospect tick.
The really good scouts will sort through the bundles rather quickly and will identify faulty internal mechanisms. It's like a timex opposed to a rolex.
One good thing about the ones who aren't ready yet to get that ringing rolex endorsement, they take a lickin and keep on tickin. 
It's not wise to totally eliminate the prospects who have internal issues because I've seen many prospects mature and learn from their mistakes to eventually become major league players. It's up to each individual prospect to decide which label will win over in the road less traveled. The organizational label wins over more times than not. The fast track prospect usually has far greater powers working hard behind the scenes they believe in.
The exceptional scout will sign many players who will reach the major leagues because that scout can see the heart and soul of the player. There are more scouts than most realize that put much weight in projecting what a player will do when he gets money or how he will handle his potential fame and success on the field. Just my opinion, for what it's worth.
Longtime Player now Longtime Observer
The character and makeup of a player is number one in today's scouting community.-MLB GM
quote:The first part of scouting is science: measuring present tools and ability. The second part of scouting is art: predicting future tools and ability.
These are the measurable tools of present potential vs. overall future potential(OFP) which Bum and others in this thread speak of in evaluating prospects.
It is my belief, as well as many other top baseball people, that the most important aspect of identifying those who are projectible is far important than "just talent".
Those who are hidden amongst the multitudes of possible professional prospects are expected to demonstrate something special in their purpose. Not to say it isn't important to have a fast 60 yard dash time, arm strength, hitting ability, hitting power, fielding or instincts; however, it is becoming more and more important to separate the wheat from the chaff by carefully considering the internal mechanisms of the clock that make a prospect tick.
The really good scouts will sort through the bundles rather quickly and will identify faulty internal mechanisms. It's like a timex opposed to a rolex.
One good thing about the ones who aren't ready yet to get that ringing rolex endorsement, they take a lickin and keep on tickin. It's not wise to totally eliminate the prospects who have internal issues because I've seen many prospects mature and learn from their mistakes to eventually become major league players. It's up to each individual prospect to decide which label will win over in the road less traveled. The organizational label wins over more times than not. The fast track prospect usually has far greater powers working hard behind the scenes they believe in. The exceptional scout will sign many players who will reach the major leagues because that scout can see the heart and soul of the player. There are more scouts than most realize that put much weight in projecting what a player will do when he gets money or how he will handle his potential fame and success on the field. Just my opinion, for what it's worth.
Longtime Player now Longtime Observer
The character and makeup of a player is number one in today's scouting community.-MLB GM
Good stuff on Kazmir. Sometimes when I look at player profiles I see players who throw 78 at 15, 85 at 16, and 90 at 17. Then I see those that throw 89 at 15, 90 at 16, and 90 at 17. Both kids end up about 90 but wouldn't the first kid be more "projectible", if for no other reason that his arm is probably fresher?
Sometimes (not always) the kid who throws hard early finds it easy to dominate and doesn't learn to locate his fastball. (This is why it's important for these players to go against quality competition.) But Kazmir is a fantastic exception to that theory.. what great control!
Sometimes (not always) the kid who throws hard early finds it easy to dominate and doesn't learn to locate his fastball. (This is why it's important for these players to go against quality competition.) But Kazmir is a fantastic exception to that theory.. what great control!
Yes the first pitcher you described is more projectable. He is the most likely to throw the best in the future.
Having a history on a player can be another good way to project. Once we started doing lots of underclass events it allowed us to compile the type of data that you have described and it is important.
Having a history on a player can be another good way to project. Once we started doing lots of underclass events it allowed us to compile the type of data that you have described and it is important.
I VERY MUCH ENJOYED READING THIS TOPIC AND I TO WOULD LOVE TO SEE SOME 08 SCOUTING REPORTS ON SOME HIGH RANKED POSITION PLAYERS AS WELL AS PITCHERS. VERY INTERESTING READING, THANK YOU.
quote:Originally posted by larrythompson:
Don't most people understand that scouts aren't looking at game performance to determine an OFP rating? Or any sort of rating whatsoever?
I wont speak for other people - just myself.
Of course I realize that.
That is the whole point of the thread.
quote:Originally posted by TPM:
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 I understand you correctly, you're speculating that a player who does extensive weight training may actually end up lowering their projected value because there is less room to improve. So it is tempting to suggest that weight training should be not heavily emphasized, in order to retain "projectibility".
IMO, this thinking stems from the observation that for two players of equal skill, the less developed player (whether in terms of strength, polish, or years spent playing the game) is the more desireable player. He has an advantage, but notice that the advantage is not that he is less developed. Instead his advantage is that he is more talented--that's why he is equally skilled to the more developed player.
Paying attention to projection makes sense for those who are evaluating a group of players with a range of talent and development. But an individual player is concerned with his own future, and his talent isn't a variable. He can only control his development.
I don't think it makes much sense to try to maintain projectibility. On the contrary, it is generally better for a player to develop his skill and strength as soon as he can. If he is a highly talented player, the combination of talent, developed skills, and strength will make him a superior player. No projection is necessary to make him desireable.
I think that a player who hasn't worked on skills and strength would be markedly inferior compared to what he could have achieved. In the middle range of talent, projection won't make up for it, and his chances of making it to the next level will be lower.
If he is not very talented, he won't be desirable whether he is developed to full potential or not, and he probably won't be allowed to play at the next level. But, regardless of ceiling, a player will be better if he's worked on development. At the least he'll derive more fun and satisfaction from the game, and likely more opportunity to play.
3fingeredglove,
I don't know the answer to that, I was just speculating on my own part. It is quite obvious that many HS players are much more aware of what they need to do to achieve their goals, which includes being in better physical condition than players previous were. It will be intersting for me to follow some players whose evaluations include those terms, big strong bodied, major league body as opposed to those that were "projected" to get bigger and stronger and where they end up at 22, 23,24. If they do go further, than what iitg is implying maybe correct, projectible could be just a buzz word that may have no meaning. If the projected players achieve higher success, well then it really has its merits. Obviously talent will be the main factor, but were you more talented because you were in better physical shape at that time or was it true talent that got you a first, second, third round pick?
Obviously projection for many players is a consideration, it's a no brainer that you have to have the tools first for that consideration.
I don't know the answer to that, I was just speculating on my own part. It is quite obvious that many HS players are much more aware of what they need to do to achieve their goals, which includes being in better physical condition than players previous were. It will be intersting for me to follow some players whose evaluations include those terms, big strong bodied, major league body as opposed to those that were "projected" to get bigger and stronger and where they end up at 22, 23,24. If they do go further, than what iitg is implying maybe correct, projectible could be just a buzz word that may have no meaning. If the projected players achieve higher success, well then it really has its merits. Obviously talent will be the main factor, but were you more talented because you were in better physical shape at that time or was it true talent that got you a first, second, third round pick?
Obviously projection for many players is a consideration, it's a no brainer that you have to have the tools first for that consideration.
Projectability is not the most deisreabl trait. If you lack it means that you are at the peak of your game.That could be a lot better than being projectable.
Being projectable is important. It means that the poeple that matter project you to get better. If your not projectable then the people that matter feel you have peaked.
That does not mean that its over if your not projectable. You can always prove them wrong. And being projectable does not mean you will ever get any better.
Its just a way of trying to predict the future in the game of baseball. 6'5 lean and throwing 88 as a jr vs 5'9 stocky and throwing 88 as a jr. Who is more projectable? If you had to offer one of these kids and they both had good make up and good grades who would you feel had the most upside?
Everytime we look at a hs player we project where he might be in the future wether thats next year or three years down the road. Its part of the game. Does he have wide shoulders , big feet etc etc.
Its part of the game and it always will be. Ultimately it will always come down to performance on the field. But projection is what it is. An educated guess.
That does not mean that its over if your not projectable. You can always prove them wrong. And being projectable does not mean you will ever get any better.
Its just a way of trying to predict the future in the game of baseball. 6'5 lean and throwing 88 as a jr vs 5'9 stocky and throwing 88 as a jr. Who is more projectable? If you had to offer one of these kids and they both had good make up and good grades who would you feel had the most upside?
Everytime we look at a hs player we project where he might be in the future wether thats next year or three years down the road. Its part of the game. Does he have wide shoulders , big feet etc etc.
Its part of the game and it always will be. Ultimately it will always come down to performance on the field. But projection is what it is. An educated guess.
I think I would rather be at the paek of my game than rely on guess work. Most high draft pick are not projrctable although thjey may improve.
I think scout use that word to justify a guy they want to sign who is not there yet but they see potential. It is not a bad thing at all it is just not as desireable as being at the top of your game.
I think scout use that word to justify a guy they want to sign who is not there yet but they see potential. It is not a bad thing at all it is just not as desireable as being at the top of your game.
I cant imagine any player not wanting to be at the peak of their game.
Two players at the peak of their game. One is projectable the other is not. Guess who is sitting in a better situation?
You can be at the peak of your game and still project to have even a higher peak. You can be at the peak of your game and not be projectable. Just because a guy is projectable does not mean he is not at the peak of his current ability. It just means he projects to have a much higher ceiling than the other guy.
Two players at the peak of their game. One is projectable the other is not. Guess who is sitting in a better situation?
You can be at the peak of your game and still project to have even a higher peak. You can be at the peak of your game and not be projectable. Just because a guy is projectable does not mean he is not at the peak of his current ability. It just means he projects to have a much higher ceiling than the other guy.
I dont want any player that feels he is at the top of his game. I want players that believe they are the best they can be today but will work even harder to be better tomorrow.
Top draft picks are top draft picks because their ceiling is very high. Not because they are already on the ceiling.
Top draft picks are top draft picks because their ceiling is very high. Not because they are already on the ceiling.
Coach if you are at the peak of your game you are not projectable. You may still improve but that is not a projectable player.
This is why I said what I said. A scout will no call a guy if he is throwing mid 90s and has a fully developed body etc. No need to project him he is already there.
Projectable in regards to the poster feeling weight training could hurt projectability is not good logic. Better to have arrived if you are MLB material.
This is why I said what I said. A scout will no call a guy if he is throwing mid 90s and has a fully developed body etc. No need to project him he is already there.
Projectable in regards to the poster feeling weight training could hurt projectability is not good logic. Better to have arrived if you are MLB material.
quote:dont want any player that feels he is at the top of his game
Thats a different topic.
You would want 17 yo Nick Weglarz playing for you and he is at the top of his game.
quote:The character and makeup of a player is number one in today's scouting community.-MLB GM
I hate to take issue with someone's tag line; but, I don't happen to believe this GM's assertion.
I used to believe that until I saw suspended players drafted.
I also saw a guy who played college ball who was suspended from all HS sports after decking a Ref in a HS game. Punched hi in the face and kncked him out. The guy was a know trouble maker and even cost his HS BB team a championship when he was turfted by an UMP. He played for a top D1 college.
I think in many cases talent trumps character.
I also saw a guy who played college ball who was suspended from all HS sports after decking a Ref in a HS game. Punched hi in the face and kncked him out. The guy was a know trouble maker and even cost his HS BB team a championship when he was turfted by an UMP. He played for a top D1 college.
I think in many cases talent trumps character.
Peak of your game with your present ability. But what will be your ultimate peak? Projectability is about what will be your projected peak ability. Some guys project to get better , some project to get alot better and some do not project to get better. Of course I would rather be at my absolute best right now.
How many HS or College pitchers are at their very best that they are ever going to be at that level? Certainly not the ones that make it at the pro level.
How many HS or College pitchers are at their very best that they are ever going to be at that level? Certainly not the ones that make it at the pro level.
I dont believe that for one minute either Prepster. Their actions speak otherwise too many times.
quote:Originally posted by Prepster:quote:The character and makeup of a player is number one in today's scouting community.-MLB GM
I hate to take issue with someone's tag line; but, I don't happen to believe this GM's assertion.
I am glad someone spoke up because I didn't get that either.
However, it doesn't state whether the character and makeup has to be what we all think it should be.
Talent and ability take precedence. JMO.quote:However, it doesn't state whether the character and makeup has to be what we all think it should be. Talent and ability take precedence. JMO.
I'd agree with that based on some of the "characters" I know who have been paid, who may or may not actually wear makeup off the field. It's a nice thought, though.
quote:Of course I would rather be at my absolute best right now.
How many HS or College pitchers are at their very best that they are ever going to be at that level? Certainly not the ones that make it at the pro level.
That is my point.
There are some HS guys that reach their peak or near their peak. Lots of college guys are near their peak like Jaba Chamberlain and others. You don't have to project them and that is better than prjectability. That is my whole point. So do you stop doing weight training because it might hurt projectability ?
Projecting out of HS and college has to be two different things. I would assume where the player is coming from makes a lot of difference and depends on the needs and the drafting philosophy of the team.
Interesting, I saw a player that looked almost peaked out of HS (it was mentioned in his evaluation he needed to lose weight for more effectiveness but had teh goods). He went to college and did just that, getting drafted very high a few years ago and "projected" to become a closer this year at the ML level.
That example falls into with what Coach may says (I think) be at your best level that you can at that point in time. There's no argument about that.
Being projectible, I guess, is only one part of the equation. It's not always about physical attributes. Players can project in many different ways that can give a scout an idea of his future potential. It's one of those hit or miss things and not always correct, but I see it as a very important part of the process for many players.
Interesting, I saw a player that looked almost peaked out of HS (it was mentioned in his evaluation he needed to lose weight for more effectiveness but had teh goods). He went to college and did just that, getting drafted very high a few years ago and "projected" to become a closer this year at the ML level.
That example falls into with what Coach may says (I think) be at your best level that you can at that point in time. There's no argument about that.
Being projectible, I guess, is only one part of the equation. It's not always about physical attributes. Players can project in many different ways that can give a scout an idea of his future potential. It's one of those hit or miss things and not always correct, but I see it as a very important part of the process for many players.
BTW, I never said that weight training could hurt projectibility. I said I was curious if this had any effect of projecting players potential future and posed it as a question.
Projection or potential.
Every player is in one way or another projected. Some have a lot more projection than others.
Projection can be physical and often is, but it can be based on many other things.
Every player that is drafted is projected in some way. If a player has peaked, he should be ready to enter the Major Leagues immediately. Yet we hardly ever see that happen, so if he's not ready there better be something better than the present peak! Sometimes a players mentality is a projection. Sometimes projection can be based on makeup. It can be based on gaining weight and getting stronger or it can be based on losing weight and getting in better condition.
It's all a big guessing game made by those who have lots of experience. Some people just guess a lot more accurately than other people do.
Sometimes the projection has to do with how the player profiles. E.G. #1, 2, or 3 starting pitcher, reliever, sometimes shortstops project or profile better as 2B, 3B, CF, etc.
Body type, and size are important, but every player is projected in some way. I would venture a guess that any amateur player who has already peaked has very little chance of reaching the top. Now he may have peaked physically, but that's the point... Projection covers a lot of different things.
Every player is in one way or another projected. Some have a lot more projection than others.
Projection can be physical and often is, but it can be based on many other things.
Every player that is drafted is projected in some way. If a player has peaked, he should be ready to enter the Major Leagues immediately. Yet we hardly ever see that happen, so if he's not ready there better be something better than the present peak! Sometimes a players mentality is a projection. Sometimes projection can be based on makeup. It can be based on gaining weight and getting stronger or it can be based on losing weight and getting in better condition.
It's all a big guessing game made by those who have lots of experience. Some people just guess a lot more accurately than other people do.
Sometimes the projection has to do with how the player profiles. E.G. #1, 2, or 3 starting pitcher, reliever, sometimes shortstops project or profile better as 2B, 3B, CF, etc.
Body type, and size are important, but every player is projected in some way. I would venture a guess that any amateur player who has already peaked has very little chance of reaching the top. Now he may have peaked physically, but that's the point... Projection covers a lot of different things.
I have gone to a lot of MLB camps with and without my son.
I see scouts who like a pitcher and others who show no interest. Go to the next camp and new scouts like some of the same guys plus a few others. I am always puzzled by some of the comments.
I talked to a lot of scouts. Some were very knowlegeabl and others I had reservations about. It is a guessing game an projectable is a fair catch all phrase that I have heard for years.
I see scouts who like a pitcher and others who show no interest. Go to the next camp and new scouts like some of the same guys plus a few others. I am always puzzled by some of the comments.
I talked to a lot of scouts. Some were very knowlegeabl and others I had reservations about. It is a guessing game an projectable is a fair catch all phrase that I have heard for years.
Sorry to bring up an old thread but didn't think it was necessary to start a new one with my question..
At what age do players typically start getting "projected"
At what age do players typically start getting "projected"
Norstar,
Here is my take.
Projectibility can be alot of fun - and it is hard to do.
The best group of professionals I have seen doing this with youth baseball is Perfect Game. Just my opinion. Hands down - they are the best and most accurate.
They are right - alot.
Projectibility can also get to be a very boring and very tired excuse as well. And for some - (a select few - it can be used - with appropriate "leverage" - to get a kid alot of attention early - and get him somewhere he shouldnt be.)
It happens - not alot - but it happens. Every year.
Bottom line - Projectibilty is good for awhile - but sooner or later - YOU HAVE TO PRODUCE.
If you dont - your "projectibility" isnt worth squat - and it is boring and sad. And it might be worth a mention in BA - but that is about it.
Here is my take.
Projectibility can be alot of fun - and it is hard to do.
The best group of professionals I have seen doing this with youth baseball is Perfect Game. Just my opinion. Hands down - they are the best and most accurate.
They are right - alot.
Projectibility can also get to be a very boring and very tired excuse as well. And for some - (a select few - it can be used - with appropriate "leverage" - to get a kid alot of attention early - and get him somewhere he shouldnt be.)
It happens - not alot - but it happens. Every year.
Bottom line - Projectibilty is good for awhile - but sooner or later - YOU HAVE TO PRODUCE.
If you dont - your "projectibility" isnt worth squat - and it is boring and sad. And it might be worth a mention in BA - but that is about it.
quote:Originally posted by norstar:
At what age do players typically start getting "projected"
I'm just guessing here, but it might be as early as 14 if the player shows he has it.
Of course I was projecting infidel_son when he was 4.
What age do kids start to get projected? In the crib at the hospital.
LOL
Projectibility is cool - but sooner or later - you have to actually hit the ball - or catch it - or strike the guys out.
It is one of those things that is cool when its new - and boring and sad when its old.
IMO.
Projectibility is cool - but sooner or later - you have to actually hit the ball - or catch it - or strike the guys out.
It is one of those things that is cool when its new - and boring and sad when its old.
IMO.
quote:Originally posted by Coach May:
What age do kids start to get projected? In the crib at the hospital.
quote:Projectibility is cool - but sooner or later - you have to actually hit the ball - or catch it - or strike the guys out.
I'll give you the "hit the ball" or "catch it" but I would change the last one to or "