Questions about "Projectability"

quote:

Originally posted by Tribe:
"Projectability" is one of those words that we hear frequently in regards to recruiting, but I'm not sure if I've ever seen it defined. Presumably, it describes the likelihood of a player's improvement over time, but is there more to it than that?

What makes a player projectable in a coach's eyes?

How much consideration is given to projectability vs. present skills in college recruiting?

I think that PG most likely would be best qualified to answer about what is projectability as defined by coaches or scouts. I hope that he drops in to explain.

Years ago, because the rules were much less stringent than now, when a coach could take on more than 35, give out more redshirts, they allowed a player time to "grow and mature". Things have changed, coaches recruit to win today not tomorrow, and for the very large programs throwing 90+ is usually a must as is power to hit the ball well. Even so, most programs rarely play freshman as starters, giving them one year to ease into the college game which is unlike that of HS.

There is a lot more to it than a couple of words to sum up what they mean by "projectable" but my experience so far with PG, many showcases, college camps, the whole thing is that they want: athleticism with size. That's it.

Sometimes I think scouts are more enamored with this than whether or not the kid can actually play the game, hit a curve, throw accurately, etc. I guess it's a CYA thing....if they "miss" on a 6'3" guy that runs a 6.8 60, oh well. If they miss on a good baseball player that is 5'9", their reputation and scouting is doubted. They love size. Just my two cents

hardgame summed it up pretty good. In college recruiting (at least at the upper half of D1 level) it means little unless the player meets the minimum performance requirements. If a 6'4" player is throwing 90 and a 5'10" player is throwing 90 then the tall player will get more looks. If a 6'4" player is throwing 87 then it means nothing and he will generally get passed over by a D1 coach, regardless of projectability.

Projection is an educated guess based on many things. It pertains more to professional baseball. Colleges tend to look at the surer thing... Current ability. Colleges don't have as much time to count on development or potential. That doesn't mean it's of no importance to colleges.

Projection is often based on a long range... 4-5 years or more. Trying to figure out the players ceiling or potential. Obviously this is too long for colleges to go by. However, there are players that project to get much better in a shorter period of time. In that case colleges could get very interested in that type of player.

Here are some of the things that can play a part in projecting a player.

Body type
Physical maturity or immaturity
Athleticism
Bloodlines
Comparisons
History of the player
Physical actions
Tools
Love of the game
Competitiveness
Work ethic
Makeup
Experience or lack of
And much more

The best current player/pitcher can have the most projection or in some cases lesser projection than others.

People often get confused when they see a high school player who hits .300 get drafted while another high school player that hits .450 go undrafted. Or when a successful high school pitcher gets very little interest while another less successful pitcher gets all kinds of interest.

Bottom line... What creates the very most interest is when the best current players still project to get much better. After all, every level is a new experience and better competition.

The argument we often hear is about the all state high school pitcher with the great statistics including a 10-0 record being ranked lower than another pitcher with stats that don't compare. "Don't you guys go by production and honors"? The answer is, No! We go by who we think will end up being the best. In that case it could be either the guy with the best stats or it could be someone with not so goood stats.

Truth is... Everything, to a certain extent, is based on projection. Even college coaches need to project because you never know for certain just how good a player is going to be. The big difference is that college coaches can't wait 4 years to see results. That is a big risk, they need more immediate contribution.

People just need to understand that the game changes at every level. Success at one level doesn't mean success at the next level. There are Major League players who weren't among the most successful players when they were young. Of course, there are many who were among the best when they were young, too.

You could say that scouting is all about projection. Trying to figure out who will end up being in the Big Leagues and how much they will contribute there, takes projection. Same for college recruiters, except they try to figure out how important a player will be to their program. It's all about the future and that is what makes it difficult.

quote:

Originally posted by BOF:
hardgame summed it up pretty good. In college recruiting (at least at the upper half of D1 level) it means little unless the player meets the minimum performance requirements. If a 6'4" player is throwing 90 and a 5'10" player is throwing 90 then the tall player will get more looks. If a 6'4" player is throwing 87 then it means nothing and he will generally get passed over by a D1 coach, regardless of projectability.

I have a 6'4 jr throwing 87-88 and the D1 guys are very interested in him...... so I guess it means something.

projectibility is more a concern for the pros than college

Size is important. However, size doesn't eliminate anyone. Velocity is important, but there are other differences between two pitchers throwing 90 other than size.

I saw a 5'10 RHP a few years back who was throwing 90. It was clear in my mind that he would throw mid 90s in the near future. Miami recruited him and I believe he has topped out at 97. This 5'10 RHP was better than many 6'4 RHP that we see throwing 90.

I think people over do the size thing. Of course size is a plus in many cases. However, we have seen many 6'0 and under pitchers that have been extremely successful in college and professional baseball. Just throwing 90 doesn't mean enough no matter how tall the pitcher is.

All the rumors about scouts and recruiters just looking at velocity and nothing else couldn't be farther from the truth. Velocity is just the first thing that is noticed. Very high velocity can't be ignored. All those that throw 90 are not equal. Sometimes the smaller guy throwing 90 is much better than the bigger guy throwing 90. Sometimes the bigger guy is better. Also, size, or more so body type, is not the only factor in projection. When we first saw Gio Gonzalez pitch it was very obvious he was better than nearly all those that were bigger. Same goes for Jeremy Hellickson and many others. There were bigger guys who threw with more velocity at the time, but the bigger guys were not better. And for us anyway, several like Hellickson and Gonzalez were more projectable than most all the big guys that threw with as much, if not more, velocity.

And of course there are a lot of big guys who throw hard that are among the greatest pitchers. So you would be foolish to ignore size completely.

To reinforce the comments here about colleges leaning toward players who can contribute early: If colleges were able to bring players along relatively slowly, you'd see more true "red shirts." As it is, "red shirts" are rare except for health reasons.

The player who "red shirts" for developmental purposes faces an entering class of mostly highly developed players the second year he's there.

Also, 6'4 throwing 87 can be very attractive to a college (DI) recruiter in some cases. But once again you need to know more than 6'4 and throws 87. It's not like all 6'4 pitchers that can throw 87 are the same.

quote:

Originally posted by PGStaff:
Also, 6'4 throwing 87 can be very attractive to a college (DI) recruiter in some cases. But once again you need to know more than 6'4 and throws 87. It's not like all 6'4 pitchers that can throw 87 are the same.

I agree with you, and there are so many factors, Colleges look for immediate need, pro's more projection. College game is different from Minors.

A scout recently told 2014 , that if he was to go to the minors that does not mean he is currently a better player than some of his teammates that picked college, it just means he took a different path.

My son had a 6'7" RHP teammate who received a D1 scholarship. This guy was throwing low to mid 80's on a good day and usually sat around 80. The high school coaches didn't use him in the regular rotation and had him around fifth on the staff. Apparently, the D1 school saw something they can work with (projectable).

We'll see how it goes. This will be his first year of college ball. Hopefully, the college coaches were right and all he needed was some coaching.

quote:

Originally posted by BOF:
hardgame summed it up pretty good. In college recruiting (at least at the upper half of D1 level) it means little unless the player meets the minimum performance requirements. If a 6'4" player is throwing 90 and a 5'10" player is throwing 90 then the tall player will get more looks. If a 6'4" player is throwing 87 then it means nothing and he will generally get passed over by a D1 coach, regardless of projectability.

I understand your overall point, but I'd disagree with you on last part regarding 6'4" throwing 87 will get passed over by D1. Granted everyone wants a 90+ to the point of hitting 89 does not cut it in some coaches books, yet 90 is ok.
To me, that is what the OP and his question go directly to. Do coaches overlook a lower velo or batting % today, and project the kid will develop into a better player in a few years.
To use my son as an example, I was being told he was a "projectible pitcher" because of his size, despite only hitting 88. I'm sure him still not being physically mature helped because they figure once he grows out of his boys body, he would be throwing harder.
So while he did not garner the D1 interest of the flame throwers, he still landed in D1. The funny thing is that We'd been so brainwashed into thinking all D1 pitchers were 90+ guys, we thought my son would be on the very bottom of the heap velo wise. Come to find out that his team and plenty of other D1 teams only had a handful of 90+ guys, with the other 2/3 throwing below that. Heck some pitchers in D1 are only throwing in the low to mid 80's. Granted they might be lefties, sidearmers, or just plain lights out pitchers with great movement. Still it is a myth that if you do not hit 90 by your senior year, you have no shot at D1.

I agree with you Vector. I am seeing the same thing on multiple D1 programs.

I think there may be a misunderstanding as to what BOF actually meant.

You do not have to hit 90 or above to play D1, but you might have to, to be in the larger, more successful programs.

You also have to have more than one pitch to get hitters out, the more you have, the better your chances of going to one of those programs will be. Most top D1 pitchers with size and velocity and 3-5 other pitchers throwing heat are attracterd by the larger programs as starters, pitchers without that 6'4" size or 90 velocity but get everyone out also have opportunities to play in those programs because they have good stuff and other attributes that coaches take into consideration. One of the best pitchers at Clemson when my son was there was neither 6" or threw about 90. FYI he was the team ace for two seasons. He was a bulldog.

There is so much more to it, as pointed out by PG.

College coaches have a very short window to make it happen with a player, as Prepster noted, there is no such thing as redshirt anymore in D1 baseball programs (unless medical). For many of the prospects in top programs, they get less than 4 years to get it done, so a coach doesn't have time to wait for them to "grow up".

Either way, PG pretty much nailed it when he said "just throwing 90 doesn't mean enough no matter how tall the pitcher is".

TPM and PG filled in some blanks. Also note I was talking about the top tier programs and there is a HUGE difference between the upper levels of D1 ball and the bottom half.

Sure a 6'4" kid throwing 87 will get some D1 interest.

However if you want to be one of the three top starters and get some decent scholly money at a top program then you better either have some funky delivery that makes you different, have some nasty second pitches, and or be able to bring it, and as PG pointed out all pitchers are different. A flat 93 is going to get hammered vs a ball moving a lot at 88.

I know a lot about this profile as my son was a 6'4" 86-87 touch 89 pitcher coming out of HS. Like anything in recruiting there are so many variables that you can't really categorize everyone.

Projection is a fascinating subject but unless you're a college coach or scout it is useless to get caught up in it. As a parent or player, what can you do to change this variable? Nothing, really.

My LHP was 5'9 and 170 lbs out of h.s. It has not stopped him from doing anything.. whenever he got the chance he just continued to win and more importantly develop.

So key in on the variables one can control. From a pitching perspective, that's stuff, commmand, and to a degree velocity.

The top controllable variable is competitiveness.

quote:

Originally posted by BOF:
TPM and PG filled in some blanks. Also note I was talking about the top tier programs and there is a HUGE difference between the upper levels of D1 ball and the bottom half.

Sure a 6'4" kid throwing 87 will get some D1 interest.

However if you want to be one of the three top starters and get some decent scholly money at a top program then you better either have some funky delivery that makes you different, have some nasty second pitches, and or be able to bring it, and as PG pointed out all pitchers are different. A flat 93 is going to get hammered vs a ball moving a lot at 88.

I know a lot about this profile as my son was a 6'4" 86-87 touch 89 pitcher coming out of HS. Like anything in recruiting there are so many variables that you can't really categorize everyone.

Indeed, and as I recall your son landed in a top tier D2 which is not far off from D1 programs, and in some cases better.
So while you are correct about top D1 programs in general, you still find programs like Miami which is top shelf in the ACC that have some guys throwing in the 80's.

The bottom line is that kids who are taken on projectibility will turn out exactly like the program had hoped, and others will be a bust. That is why the programs with the best scouts/coaches always seem to be at the top year in and out.