I have been checking out some of the scout reports of various tournaments. I constantly see them writing about the same players. We all know them -- the studs committed to the Big U. What is the value in letting the world know once again that Big Johnny has an 90+ mph fastball? These guys for all intents are tied up. Do these reports ever uncover the unsigned diamond in the rough?
Replies sorted oldest to newest
Yes
At the end of the day, it's less about the diamond and about the prototypical studs that they like and hype....nobody wants to be "wrong", right? Ride the train....diamonds in the rough are nice to write about when they show up and shine and they never saw them coming but that is rare and not gonna get attention. It's marketing after all.
A couple years ago I went to a local PG showcase just to see what it was like. As I watched, a particular kid caught my attention. I'm not in the baseball business but I could tell this kid was special. I had a stop watch on the kids running the 60 (from about 200' away) and this kid was 1/2 second faster than everyone else. In the outfield, he looked ungainly but the ball came out of his hand like a an arrow coming out of a cross-bow - smooth, easy and really, really fast. I didn't stick around to watch the games but I made a note of his number and jersey color.
A couple weeks later I checked out the PG website and looked this kid up. It was his first event and it was the fall of his Junior year. He ran a 6.5 60 and threw 92 from the outfield. The write-up said "raw" three times and talked of his high ceiling. They rated him a 9.5. I googled him and there was nothing except his spot on a HS team that wasn't particularly strong. Six months later (summer, rising Senior) he did another PG showcase and was rated a 10 and the write-up said his tools were top-shelf and his skills were improving at an amazing rate. That summer he played a couple PG tournaments, played in the Area Code games and PG All-American Classic.
Summer after his senior year he was drafted in the 2nd round and signed for $1M. Did PG uncover this "diamond in the rough"? I don't know, but they certainly put a stake in the ground, documented his trajectory as a ball player, and pretty much nailed it in their evaluation.
I think the scouting/recruiting process becomes more efficient with each passing year; and, as it does, fewer and fewer stones are left unturned.
When my son was new to this process, I was a very real skeptic about it. Not only did I believe that a number of worthy players were being missed; but, I also questioned the weighting of factors that I saw scouts and recruiters using to identify and elevate players. A big believer in "heart" or "makeup," I felt that too many "****-to-the-wall" players were being slighted.
I now think I was wrong on both counts.
What I think I've learned is the following: (1) That the scouting/recruiting process has become quite pervasive thanks to organizations such as Perfect Game and ready access to player information provided by various technological means. (2) That above-average "makeup" is often insufficient to take a player to the highest levels of the game.
Why? Because at the highest levels, the players often have a combination of above-average "makeup" ("work ethic," dedication," "heart," call it what you wish) AND high level tools. It's the combination of the two that sets them apart sufficiently from the rest that propels them to the top...and I think the current process does a very good (and improving) job of identifying those players.
Why? Because at the highest levels, the players often have a combination of above-average "makeup" ("work ethic," dedication," "heart," call it what you wish) AND high level tools. It's the combination of the two that sets them apart sufficiently from the rest that propels them to the top...and I think the current process does a very good (and improving) job of identifying those players.
I totally agree with you that is takes above average "makeup" along with tools, where you lose me is that the system does a "very good job" of determining that. I see it somewhat different, it appears to me the goal is find kids with the tools they want, pump enough of them into the system so school ends up with a number it is happy with. As long as the kid doesn't have a terrible makeup he will get a shot.
Recruit 40, sign 15, hope 6 turn out to be what you are looking for, repeat next year...the rest just get lost, transfer or forgetten. I don't even know that I would do it different if i was the school but that is how i see it.
I think players need to be honest with themselves, my sons organization keeps shoving D1's at him for a look see. I keep telling him to keep his eyes open for all levels. At the end of the road do you want the incoming freshman that coach is expecting big things from at whatever level it is or do you want to be one of this years 20 that are going to battle to be a pinch hitter and play on Tuesday?
I guess I assume these guys are providing a service -- being the eyes and ears to narrow down the recruiters workload. But if they spend the time only talking about the already committed "can't miss" prospects how useful is it. I already know player x is good. I also know he isn't available. Find me someone who is.
Not sure why anyone thinks that it is only the committed players being reported. Truth is, most often the first time we see a player he has yet to commit. All talented players are followed closely whether committed or not. After all there is the MLB draft to consider.
So the amount of attention or what some call "hype" has nothing to do with a commitment. However, the better a player is the more chance he gets a lot of attention and the more likely he might have committed to a college and the more likely MLB scouts are following him For the draft. It all goes together!
PG, should a player anticipate a few additional contacts from coaches if they receive a good score (8.0+) and write up? Do college coaches scan the reports looking for playersto contact?
I guess I assume these guys are providing a service -- being the eyes and ears to narrow down the recruiters workload. But if they spend the time only talking about the already committed "can't miss" prospects how useful is it. I already know player x is good. I also know he isn't available. Find me someone who is.
I think there's a difference in expectations between you (and others) and I (and others).
I don't see it as PG's job to "find" and promote unknowns. It is their job to report what they see. It is the recruiters & scouts jobs to "find" players. PG is a mechanism that concentrates talent to simplify their job. As an aside, PG promotes the players (and themselves) by reporting what occurs in their events, not to create hype or "find" an unknown. Unknowns "reveal" themselves and when they do, PG reports it.
So, if an unknown becomes a known, then they report it. If an already known excels tournament after tournament, showcase after showcase, they report it.
Then it's up to scouts & RC's to do their job and homework to pursue the known (if they have the fit they're looking for) and identify any unknowns along the way that may be worth pursuing.
I get what you say about the same players always getting the hype, but isn't the same true at the professional level? Hollywood? Talent is talent. Face it, ESPN reporting daily on the performance Ish Smith isn't going to make Ish any better.
I guess I assume these guys are providing a service -- being the eyes and ears to narrow down the recruiters workload. But if they spend the time only talking about the already committed "can't miss" prospects how useful is it. I already know player x is good. I also know he isn't available. Find me someone who is.
I think there's a difference in expectations between you (and others) and I (and others).
I don't see it as PG's job to "find" and promote unknowns. It is their job to report what they see. It is the recruiters & scouts jobs to "find" players. PG is a mechanism that concentrates talent to simplify their job. As an aside, PG promotes the players (and themselves) by reporting what occurs in their events, not to create hype or "find" an unknown. Unknowns "reveal" themselves and when they do, PG reports it.
So, if an unknown becomes a known, then they report it. If an already known excels tournament after tournament, showcase after showcase, they report it.
Then it's up to scouts & RC's to do their job and homework to pursue the known (if they have the fit they're looking for) and identify any unknowns along the way that may be worth pursuing.
I get what you say about the same players always getting the hype, but isn't the same true at the professional level? Hollywood? Talent is talent. Face it, ESPN reporting daily on the performance Ish Smith isn't going to make Ish any better.
First, to be clear I am not referencing PG per se. They are one of many services.
Second, if a kid is already committed to Big U does that really help the recruiter? That kid has already been found and "locked up."
Golfman25 has a poInt regarding those that are committed. However, if anyone follows PG rankings it is easy to see that those rankings are based on the MLB draft potential rather than college commitment. The two (college potential and draft potential) don't always match up for various reasons. There are players we think can be college All Americans, but don't necessarily profile as well in professional baseball. Then again there are those with a very high ceiling in pro ball, that aren't ready to contribute right away at a top college program. Of course there are also many that are equally valuable to both college and pro. I could explain all this if necessary.
Our entire organization is dependent on finding talent and recognizing those with talent. That said, it is impossible to ignore those with the most talent. We know for a fact that most colleges, and especially DI colleges follow our information closely. So do all 30 MLB scouting departments. We get credibility based on our history. Over the past 10 years there have been well over 700 players we have seen at PG events that have played in the Major Leagues. Even more that we actually scouted and reported on. There is a link on the PG site that lists every MLB player that attended PG events. In includes most of those that have been MLB All Stars in the past several years. My point is that we can't ignore those that stand out, in our mind, and remain a credible source. So people will always hear a lot about the best prospects. But everytime we see a new player with unusual talent or a player that has improved to that point, the scouting world will know it.
Keep in mind, we do miss on a player at times. We do not see every player out there and sometimes our evaluation turns out wrong. There is much more involved in reaching the top than just talent alone.
"PG promotes the players (and themselves) by reporting what occurs in their events . . "
And by reporting on players who do not even go to a PG event. S never attended a Perfect Game event (no reason other than his college targets were found through other means), yet Perfect Game reported on him and even tweeted (accurately) while watching one of his college starts.
IMO, the fact that players are scouted and reported outside PG events (meaning it's not a pay for play outfit) adds credibility to an already credible organization.
Golfman25 has a poInt regarding those that are committed. However, if anyone follows PG rankings it is easy to see that those rankings are based on the MLB draft potential rather than college commitment. The two (college potential and draft potential) don't always match up for various reasons. There are players we think can be college All Americans, but don't necessarily profile as well in professional baseball. Then again there are those with a very high ceiling in pro ball, that aren't ready to contribute right away at a top college program. Of course there are also many that are equally valuable to both college and pro. I could explain all this if necessary.
Our entire organization is dependent on finding talent and recognizing those with talent. That said, it is impossible to ignore those with the most talent. We know for a fact that most colleges, and especially DI colleges follow our information closely. So do all 30 MLB scouting departments. We get credibility based on our history. Over the past 10 years there have been well over 700 players we have seen at PG events that have played in the Major Leagues. Even more that we actually scouted and reported on. There is a link on the PG site that lists every MLB player that attended PG events. In includes most of those that have been MLB All Stars in the past several years. My point is that we can't ignore those that stand out, in our mind, and remain a credible source. So people will always hear a lot about the best prospects. But everytime we see a new player with unusual talent or a player that has improved to that point, the scouting world will know it.
Keep in mind, we do miss on a player at times. We do not see every player out there and sometimes our evaluation turns out wrong. There is much more involved in reaching the top than just talent alone.
Hey PGStaff, you said that you could explain more if necessary, I actually find it quite interesting and would love to hear more on this part about college and or pro projection. You wouldn't have to mention names but if there were current examples I would like to know more.
I probably shouldn't use names, so I will give some examples.
Maybe he biggest differences is between tools and polish. That flashy physically immature shortstop that is a plus runner and shows raw power, yet has not performed up to his ability... Might be a very good professional prospect, yet struggle to be a starter at a good college program.
The polished physically mature shortstop that makes all the plays, hits well, and is a steady consistent performer without any true plus tools could be a very good college prospect, but might not be considered a high level pro prospect. Often these types end up performing so well in college that they end up getting drafted early.
The physically mature 6' or less 85-90 pitcher, with a good secondary pitch and good command with extreme competitiveness can be a great college starter. The tall physically immature pitcher with great arm action and a plus fastball and ability to really spin the ball, even if lacking in command will be a much higher level pro prospect. Even though he wouldn't be able to contribute as much right away at a top college as the first pitcher mentioned.
There are other things to consider as well. Truth is most players/pitchers who are the top prospects, are the top prospects at both college or professional baseball. Some others develop early, some develop late. Colleges aren't as likely to spend their money on the chance someone will develop.
The physically mature 6' or less 85-90 pitcher, with a good secondary pitch and good command with extreme competitiveness can be a great college starter. The tall physically immature pitcher with great arm action and a plus fastball and ability to really spin the ball, even if lacking in command will be a much higher level pro prospect. Even though he wouldn't be able to contribute as much right away at a top college as the first pitcher mentioned.
PG, I'm hoping it's ok to pick your brain a little more in regards to the statement above (or anybody else that wants to chime in with knowledge).
I have seen the phrase "physically immature" before when describing a kid, but I'm not sure I could put that description into words. Can you give a little description about what a physically immature kid would look like compared to a physically mature kid?
The other phrase that I could use some help with is "arm action". At 14, a college coach described my son's arm action as "smooth" (there might have been more words, but I don't have the write up in front of me). With regards to arm action, I'm not sure what is desirable in the recruiting world. Can you give me some more information on what is being looked at?
I hope my questions aren't too broad. As my son ages and gets more into this recruiting thing, I am having to learn an entirely new vocabulary.
Often maturity is notable in the face, the bearded 16 year old is not likely to grow as much as the kid that has never needed a razor. Also the frame can be an indicator. When you see a tall skinny kid with wider shoulders it is n indication that he has room to get much bigger and stronger. These things lead to that all important thing called projection. The big strong kid with a beard is more of a "get what you see" type, which might very well be plenty good enough. The athletic skinny kid is more of a "how good can he be" type.
Arm action is very much a "know it when you see it" thing. Words like smooth, effortless, fast, fluid, easy, without anything that looks too mechanical. Truth is there are some excellent pitchers with somewhat poor arm action. There are max effort guys pitching at the highest levels. And not all great arm action is identical, but to a scout it is always pretty.
Something I noticed this week at a 15u tournament. We are a rag tag group of misfit toys -- several 8th graders filling uniforms, etc. We played a 15u "elite" team. Big difference was they were all grown men -- needed razors, etc. Certainly bigger, stronger, faster. But, frankly their baseball skill was questionable. We actually hung in there with them -- led the first few innings until we ran out of gas (no depth).
Organization is all about D1 players. So I guess they are "projectable" with those mature bodies?
Something I noticed this week at a 15u tournament. We are a rag tag group of misfit toys -- several 8th graders filling uniforms, etc. We played a 15u "elite" team. Big difference was they were all grown men -- needed razors, etc. Certainly bigger, stronger, faster. But, frankly their baseball skill was questionable. We actually hung in there with them -- led the first few innings until we ran out of gas (no depth).
Organization is all about D1 players. So I guess they are "projectable" with those mature bodies?
It seems so many get tied up in the results. This statement says it all, "Certainly bigger, stronger, faster."
This statement means almost nothing, "But, frankly their baseball skill was questionable. We actually hung in there with the."
5 tools
Hit for Power
Hit for Aver
Field the ball
Throw the ball
Can he run
Take away all bias opinions (ie- parents, friends, teammates) and most anyone can spot the top 10% five tool players in a crowd pretty darn easily. My wife, a very casual fan, could point out the top 10 of 100 athletes at a tryout.
How easy do you think it is for a recruiter to spot talent? Do you think it has anything to do with who won a game, hit a HR, or threw a no hitter?
they will be the ones that disappear after the freshman season...probably to be drafted by the Phillies! they look like they should be studs but they just can't play.
they will be the ones that disappear after the freshman season...probably to be drafted by the Phillies! they look like they should be studs but they just can't play.
I picture these comments coming from parents of very polished 5'7" 150lb seniors that are not getting any traction from the recruiters.
One of the better known teams in the country (your statement) isn't stacked with a bunch of average talent. Of course unless it's the "bronze" team paying the way for their "true" Elite team Gold team. Than again if that is the case than it truly isn't a nationally recognized team it's only a recognized brand.
they will be the ones that disappear after the freshman season...probably to be drafted by the Phillies! they look like they should be studs but they just can't play.
I picture these comments coming from parents of very polished 5'7" 150lb seniors that are not getting any traction from the recruiters.
Oh I don't have delusions of my son. I am actually the realist when it comes to discussing schools for him. I get the system and what I posted is very very real. I just watched a 2017 verbal to name school and it is well known he can't play and has no heart but he has "tools" I just read an article on the PG web site that made me laugh about another child....granted I have known him for 6 years and PG saw him a couple of times. The system is what is but it is by no means a science.
And the phillies lol just look at the last 10 yrs of drafts and try to argue I am wrong on that one!
I probably shouldn't use names, so I will give some examples.
Maybe he biggest differences is between tools and polish. That flashy physically immature shortstop that is a plus runner and shows raw power, yet has not performed up to his ability... Might be a very good professional prospect, yet struggle to be a starter at a good college program.
The polished physically mature shortstop that makes all the plays, hits well, and is a steady consistent performer without any true plus tools could be a very good college prospect, but might not be considered a high level pro prospect. Often these types end up performing so well in college that they end up getting drafted early.
The physically mature 6' or less 85-90 pitcher, with a good secondary pitch and good command with extreme competitiveness can be a great college starter. The tall physically immature pitcher with great arm action and a plus fastball and ability to really spin the ball, even if lacking in command will be a much higher level pro prospect. Even though he wouldn't be able to contribute as much right away at a top college as the first pitcher mentioned.
There are other things to consider as well. Truth is most players/pitchers who are the top prospects, are the top prospects at both college or professional baseball. Some others develop early, some develop late. Colleges aren't as likely to spend their money on the chance someone will develop.
Great info, thanks for the break down.
Here are the 35 MLB 1st-round draft picks for 2015. You'll see:
Conclusion: Of the very best amateur ball players in college and HS this year, PG got some right, missed some -- and never saw a few.
So they help. But they're not absolutely necessary.
(reposted the chart after fixing a few errors. Can't seem to delete the first one).
Deviating a bit from the topic, but I am curious what it means to be named to a PG Top Prospect Team. Is there actually a team that plays in a PG tournament?
jp24,
I know you did some work compiling that list. You are still missing quite a bit. Among the mistakes on high school players drafted you have Randolph and Soroka listed as NONE.
Also there have been numerous scouting reports done on the college players selected. Your chart shows where we had them 4 years ago, rather than where we ranked them for the 2015 draft. Some players develop greatly while they are in college.
Bottom line... Our people saw and reported on every single one of those 35 players. It is archived on the site.
maybe this list will be helpful....
http://www.perfectgame.org/Art...w.aspx?article=11197
It wasn't much work, PG -- but I don't understand your point. This thread is about HS players and PG scouting. The article you linked to is from a month before the draft.
Of course you guys did write-ups on the highly-ranked players at that time. Just like BA, MLB, ESPN, etc etc. But during their HS years, this is how you saw them, when you saw them ... IF you saw them. Right?
Here's corrected chart. But even if there are still a few errors, the point isn't in the particulars, it was as I stated. Do you disagree?
BTW - Why do y'all include Area Code Games in your "PG EVENTS ATTENDED" info?
It wasn't much work, PG -- but I don't understand your point. This thread is about HS players and PG scouting. The article you linked to is from a month before the draft.
Of course you guys did write-ups on the highly-ranked players at that time. Just like BA, MLB, ESPN, etc etc. But during their HS years, this is how you saw them, when you saw them ... IF you saw them. Right?
Here's corrected chart. But even if there are still a few errors, the point isn't in the particulars, it was as I stated. Do you disagree?
BTW - Why do y'all include Area Code Games in your "PG EVENTS ATTENDED" info?
jp24,
about 1/2 of the players on that list were drafted out of college. All of the HS kids drafted had attended PG events.
We don't count Area Codes or East Coast Pro as having attended a PG event. We simply scout those events and because they are highest level events and nearly all those players had previously attended a PG event, it adds to their profile.
Regarding your thought that it isn't necessary to attend a PG event, I agree. However the facts are nearly all of the top draft picks every year do attend a PG event. That includes 32 of the 35 you have listed. Actually if you took every player drafted over the past 8 or 9 years, you will find well over 80% had attended a PG event. Even a much hijer % of the top few rounds. Not very many of the others were drafted out of high school, and some were senior signs out of college.
Might not be necessary, but the top players seem to do it.
On a slightly different note, I was wondering about something I have noticed recently on three different occasions. A player attends a PG showcase and is given a rating of 8.5. Within approximately a month after the initial showcase player reports come out (but in some cases only a week or two later), he commits to a high level college program and his rating is immediately changed to a 9. Is this practice relatively new, or has this always been done? Because national rankings and invites to key events (All American Underclass Games, Jr National, National, etc.) seem to at least be partially dependent on a player's rating, it seems that this could put a similarly skilled player who has comparable quality offers, but has not yet made the decision to verbally commit, at a disadvantage? Just wondering about the rationale - I'm sure there is a lot more to it than I am aware of!
Enjoying the Ride,
It is just a coincident. If you look far enough you will see some grades being adjusted on players that are uncommitted as well. Almost always those adjustments are 0.5.
InterestedObservor,
You are disrespectful and generally a pain in the ass. What is your agenda?
InterestedObservor,
You are disrespectful and generally a pain in the ass. What is your agenda?
LOL this is classic, face it PG you are like the Yankees, the biggest and at least many here consider the best...that is going to leave some folks loving you and others hating you! I think it it pretty obvious IO is not on the loving you list!
The very nature of what your organization does is going to lead to polarized opinions. You do rankings some may not agree, some are incorrect, some are spot on but not appreciated... I do think your reputation is so high that when you make a mistake or when you upset someone they tend to get negative real fast.
it is never easy being on top.
Jerry, I agree 100% with old school. You certainly do not need someone like me to come to your defense. I am sure it gets real old having people bash something you created out of love. I have no problem with you making money, and lots of it. Which of us don't want to be compensated well for what we do? The people who are constantly complaining probably complain about many other things as well. All I know is my son owes a great deal to the opportunities afforded him by Perfect Game events. It was our decision for him to attend PG showcases because he and I were curious where he stacked up in the baseball world. Where better to find out than going where the elite players show up. Before I get blasted, I realize not EVERY talented player attends PG events, but I guarantee you, without doing any research, the largest majority of them DO attend PG events. Is it necessary to attend PG events in order to get a scholarship or drafted? Probably not. I just find it interesting that almost all of the top players do. Is PG perfect? I think Jerry has stated many times that they make a few mistakes. Heck, I feel they made a mistake in not inviting my son to the Underclass or National Showcases. I didn't get on a message board and complain about it, I contacted PG and asked if he deserved an invite. They replied promptly and said he was on their list but they really wanted to see him one more time for further evaluation. Well, the showcase they asked for him to come to happened to conflict with a college visit. We decided the visit was a bigger deal so we passed on the showcase. Son didn't receive an invite to PG National Showcase. It's ok. I'm looking through my rose colored glasses. I know without a doubt my son belonged there because he competed with and against many, many of the kids that did go. The bottom line is that was their decision and they have every right to invite the kids THEY belief deserve to be there. I have no hard feelings about it. My son will have the opportunity in a few months to compete for a spot on one of the premier programs in the country. We will see very soon if he belongs. I didn't want to make this post about my kid, I'm just pointing out that PG evaluates thousands and thousands of kids daily. Obviously they have kids they have seen and followed for many events over many years. My kid simply was discovered a little later in the process than many of his teammates, but I watched him compete with and against these kids, many who were drafted in the top 3 rounds, and he certainly belonged. Jerry, I doubt you and I will ever meet in person, but I want to say for every 1 complainer there are many who are grateful for what your organization provides. The problem is the ones who are thrilled and thankful for what you do typically don't express it. Just know there is at least 1 young man that is forevermore grateful to you and PG for helping him reach his dream! For any young ball player that has the talent to play at the "next level", wherever that is, I cannot even imagine 1 of them turning down an opportunity to compete in a PG event if they were able to.
Just to be clears as the OP, I did not start this thread as a PG "bashing" thread. In fact, it wasn't even their material I was reading when I posted. I was just curious because I constantly read about Big Johnny, committed to Big U, hitting 90mph again. Kind of like telling me the sun will come up tomorrow.
I could echo a lot of what YG said.
My son and I, though, have briefly met Jerry. It was a very pleasant experience and have detailed it in another post last year. Everything that happened to my son happened in basically a 60 day window between June 1 and July 31 of the summer between my son's Junior and Senior year. As of June 1, he basically had no scholarship offers.
The PG events that my son attended allowed an avenue for him to be noticed and noticed by the target audience that he was seeking. Now, he had to perform at those events. Just because you are playing at an event does not mean that you will be noticed BUT if you have a good outing and THEN follow it up with another one, you will be. Coaches/Scouts will get word from others and you can also follow up with emails to all prospective colleges to help ensure that they know when you son is playing. This is what we did. My son is a pitcher so it maybe is easier to determine some quantifiable stats than it might be for a position player.
Perfect Game (Jerry) expedited my son's recruitment at very crucial time in his baseball life. He maybe would have gotten the necessary exposure elsewhere but it may not have come until the Fall of his Senior year when the opportunities would have been much more limited.
Thanks Jerry for helping my son achieve some his baseball goals and have fun doing it at the same time.
Showcase events, both team and individual, have made the process of identifying and evaluating players by scouts and recruiters extraordinarily more efficient than it was, say, 20 years ago. As a result, players and evaluators, alike, have much greater access to one another.
To golfman's original point: While it is the case that published articles tend to focus upon the players at the top of the heap, recruiters use PG's extensive database to help them identify players who don't show up in the writeups.
An observation: The overwhelming majority of the people I've known over the years who complained about the "Gatekeepers" were the parents of sons who didn't measure up to the evaluators' standards. Left with nothing but their own inflated sense of their son's ability, they've taken out their disappointment and frustration on anyone who would listen to or read their cynical rubbish. It's invariably pathetic, eliciting exactly the opposite reaction that I'd think they'd want from the poor souls who have to endure it.
I've learned that the best response is to turn a deaf ear and walk away...or hit the "Ignore" button when one is provided.
Awesome post Prepster!
