Scouting The College Roster & The Coaches

We did.  In our conversation over the offer we knew the HC had just signed a new contract but we asked the RC/PC how long he had and how confident we could be that he would stay beyond that.  

"A few years back, I knew someone whose son was a catcher.  But, the kid really wanted to go to MIT for academic reasons.  And, the dad found out that the school (at that time) was stocked at catcher and would be for a while.  So, he transitioned his kid to 2B and pitched the kid to the school as being a 2B.  (And, it worked.) "

Beware of urban myths. My son was "recruited" by MIT for their 2010 incoming class. There are no preferences given to athletes (baseball); athletes compete with all unhooked applicants for admission. The family passed because of that uncertainty.

On another more direct note, coaches know (or believe they know) what alternative positions a recruit may satisfy. Yale - for instance - recruits shortstops most of whom will be converted to outfielders.

There is no "gaming" the system; parents dont sell or pitch their kid to a coach. The kid's grades and baseball skills are the sales tools. (For position players it often boils down to a simple equation (assuming grades): can he hit? Period. Full stop. [Assume there is an incumbent all-american first baseman, but the recruit just rakes; coach will play both (dh, right field, whatever]).

Now, it dosent mean your kid should not pick up/develop skills which make him more versatile. But that is on him to develop.

At every baseball level, coaches try to move up the ladder and on the way up, move frequently. Very few schools keep coaches forever UNLESS the coach delivers what is demanded (most of the time that means wins). Schools fire coaches with years remaining on their contracts all the time,  so devining who will be there in three years is more then difficult. Additionally, a year-to-year contract can turn into a long-term contract by winning. A coach is a salesman; he is not contractually bound to tell a recruit his career plans; a coach  - especially an assistant coach - wants to be a HC and is usually either actively or passively looking to move up.

The recruiting game is surprisingly simple: great individual baseball skills PLUS grades gets you recruited. There is an entire industry built to get kids who satisfy this criteria to college ball. Moreover, if the kid meets the criteria,  schools you haven't even considered will surface and you need to be able to consider all those heretofore unanticipated opportunities. 

Develop superior skills. Get the needed grades. The process will find you.

PS. One productive use of looking at rosters are the majors listed for jumiors and seniors (not fr or soph). This can give an indication of the ability if a player to take certain majors (STEM).

I did not scout the coach so much. Each schools philosophy is different. Some put up with a coach that loses a lot some don't. You may want to look at how many coaches the school has had and how long they stick around. 

I reviewed Rosters to see how many years players were on the roster. I was looking to see if their was large turn over. Do a lot of Freshmen come in then are not on the roster as Sophmore's. Size of classes and how many complete 4 years. 

I never worried about depth at his position. If he was the good enough if he would play. If he was not he would not. Advice form people we trusted who knew the program, believed he would start as a freshman. However nothing was guaranteed. Competition allows the cream to rise to the top, and he believed he would. 

(For position players it often boils down to a simple equation (assuming grades): can he hit? Period. Full stop. 

 Exactly.  Parents would do well do read this again and again and maybe get it as a tattoo.

Another benefit of doing "roster" intelligence gathering is the ability to estimate "churn" of players and the likelihood of a staff staying around long-term.

By churn I am referring to over-recruiting and how many of those players actually land on the Spring roster their freshman year. This can be done a couple of ways: 1) PG and PBR websites allow players to update their player profiles with their commitments. That said, they are not always 100% accurate because they are player/parent controlled (and that player may never actually have committed to that school or things fell apart prior to Fall) 2) Some schools use their team website to announce "signings" on NLI signing day or will run a "story" announcing their "Class of 2019 Signees." This is a stronger primary source because it is coming from the team itself. Problem is fewer teams do this type of announcing. Also be looking at how many freshmen are returning for their second year or redshirting. Look at the stats for the teams as well. Are they giving the freshmen a chance to get on the field? Those are all things to consider.

Regarding staff longevity, I guess you could ask the question of the coach or again look at college or media announcements regarding contract extensions, I would feel a little awkward about that personally. Where you see the most churn in my opinion is in the assistant coaching ranks. Younger coaches are more likely to move for the next opportunity than the older guys as they try to climb the coaching ladder. Older, more established assistants tend to only move within a region as they have older kids or have established a bit of equity in their communities (ie houses). Also, look at the school history of head coaching changes. Are they a school that is looking to win and will make personnel decision according to W-L record, or do they let coaches stay for a longer period of time, weathering the good and bad seasons? I was looking for a program for my son that had a blend of all of these things: Low player drop rate, good freshmen opportunities to play, school that has a history of longer tenure of the coaching staffs, experienced older assistants who have coached at the program or other area colleges for a longer period of time, low/no redshirts. I think my son landed in the best possible opportunity for him. Now it's up to him to earn that playing time.

Some due diligence certainly can't hurt - if a coach has been at a program for several years or decades, is successful (wins conference and makes NCAA playoffs with some regularlity), has children or family in the area, etc. etc., that may afford some level of comfort that he'll stay.  But as Goose says, there is a lot of movement especially with assistant coaches - they don't make much dough and are always looking to upgrade.  So the player should expect that his position assistant coach (and quite possibly the HC) will not be there his entire playing career.  I guess it just reinforces that the HC should not be a determining factor in the player's decision - the school has to be a good academic and athletic fit regardless of the HC, then if the player likes the HC and he stays, it is a bonus.  With this mindset, I don't think I would ask about contract status, but others may rightfully feel otherwise.

Looking at rosters and statistics definitely can be helpful and part of the process.  How deep are they at the position in question, what year are the starters in that position, what are the players' majors, do freshmen play, how much does coach change the starting lineup, etc.  But there is no substitute for meeting and talking with the HC regarding these matters.

I've always been an advocate of talking with a few current and recent players and their parents about what it's really like to be a player and student at the schools in which one has a serious interest. If you pick a solid set and engage them in substantive conversation, you'll get a lot of insight from people who are in the best position to know. Conversations should take place at the player-to-player and parent-to-parent levels.

Keep in mind that playing time has a tendency to color impressions; so, I'd try to identify several whose experience has been somewhere in the middle; neither the stars nor the bench-warmers.

You can research the program to aid your decision. But be very careful what questions you ask. No coach is going to tell a player he’s using the college as a stepping stone and as soon as a better offer comes along he’s out of there. Unless a player is a top shelf, gotta have stud the player isn’t selling. The coach is buying. 

There are two positions: Pitcher and position. A lot of position players switch positions in college. There are essentially two type of positions players recruited; up the middle athletes and mashers. 

A friend’s son headed for college as a PG top 50 recruit. He was a catcher. The school had two, brought in three and moved an outfielder to catcher. He didn’t become the #1 catcher until his red shirt junior year. Before then he played first, third, DH and caught mid week games. Even then he was aided by a future MLB catcher being injured.

As noted hit and you play somewhere.

My son was contacted by a couple of schools that I did not know very well (from an academic standpoint).  Looking up the player bios was very helpful.  In one case I was struck by how many of the players were honor students in HS, which was comforting.

K9 posted:

My son was contacted by a couple of schools that I did not know very well (from an academic standpoint).  Looking up the player bios was very helpful.  In one case I was struck by how many of the players were honor students in HS, which was comforting.

80% of high school kids across the country now graduate with a B or better average. Then half of these “honor students” have to take remedial math, English and/or writing freshman year of college. It’s a sad statement on American education. High schools are becoming processing plant, diploma mills.

RJM posted:

K9 posted:

My son was contacted by a couple of schools that I did not know very well (from an academic standpoint).  Looking up the player bios was very helpful.  In one case I was struck by how many of the players were honor students in HS, which was comforting.

80% of high school kids across the country now graduate with a B or better average. Then half of these “honor students” have to take remedial math, English and/or writing freshman year of college. It’s a sad statement on American education. High schools are becoming processing plant, diploma mills.

I tend to agree that high schools can be diploma mills these days, but you can't blame them in many cases.

We all talk about parents of athletes who worry more about getting their kid playing time than getting their kid the skills to earn playing time. The same happens academically.

Parents push hard to get their kid the grades they think they deserve instead of the education to earn those grades on their own.

RJM posted:

K9 posted:

My son was contacted by a couple of schools that I did not know very well (from an academic standpoint).  Looking up the player bios was very helpful.  In one case I was struck by how many of the players were honor students in HS, which was comforting.

80% of high school kids across the country now graduate with a B or better average. Then half of these “honor students” have to take remedial math, English and/or writing freshman year of college. It’s a sad statement on American education. High schools are becoming processing plant, diploma mills.

I'm not sure where the 80% have a 3.0 or better statistic comes from, but it may be true.   Assuming it is, how do the increasing number of schools that are going test optional for the ACT/SAT determine if a kid is qualified to attend the college?  If a kid has no test scores and they essentially all have a 3.0 or better, how can admissions make these admit/deny decisions with credibility?

9and7dad posted:

I'm not sure where the 80% have a 3.0 or better statistic comes from, but it may be true.   Assuming it is, how do the increasing number of schools that are going test optional for the ACT/SAT determine if a kid is qualified to attend the college?  If a kid has no test scores and they essentially all have a 3.0 or better, how can admissions make these admit/deny decisions with credibility?

Having toured, and spoken at length with, quite a few schools in my son's process, what I've seen with relation to test optional institutions is that most are small, private, expensive, and academically rigorous. Now my son is not going the test optional route but, if he were, in several cases we've seen there would be essay, reference, and interview requirements over and above those of the kids electing to include test scores. Just my experience.

9and7dad posted:

RJM posted:

K9 posted:

My son was contacted by a couple of schools that I did not know very well (from an academic standpoint).  Looking up the player bios was very helpful.  In one case I was struck by how many of the players were honor students in HS, which was comforting.

80% of high school kids across the country now graduate with a B or better average. Then half of these “honor students” have to take remedial math, English and/or writing freshman year of college. It’s a sad statement on American education. High schools are becoming processing plant, diploma mills.

I'm not sure where the 80% have a 3.0 or better statistic comes from, but it may be true.   Assuming it is, how do the increasing number of schools that are going test optional for the ACT/SAT determine if a kid is qualified to attend the college?  If a kid has no test scores and they essentially all have a 3.0 or better, how can admissions make these admit/deny decisions with credibility?

It was in one of the papers I read within the last few months. It referenced where the data came from. I can’t remember. What differentiates students is what they take for courses and at what level.

What the data didn’t specify is whether or not the B/3.0 was weighted or unweighted. 

We have found it helpful to scout the rosters to see the fields of study of players. My son wants to do architecture/civil engineering and if he sees a roster with no science/engineering majors, that prompts conversations with coaches about "restricted majors", etc. There are schools that support players in any academic pursuits, but it's not necessarily the norm.

I guess in the first example I question whether the catcher that converted to 2B and pitcher was recruited as a 2B....which rarely happens.  Typically college coaches recruit SS and CF and figure they can play any position.   My son was a SS and RHP.  He was recruited by a couple schools that told him he'd probably play 3rd because of his arm.  We never considered he would be a D1 SS....just didn't have quite the athleticism.  His recruiting class his freshman year had 6 all-state SS's.   One immediately went to the OF and is still there.  One has never played an an inning at SS.  He was at 3rd for a time and is now playing 1B.  Son is a P and is DH'ing.....one has spent most of his 4 years at 2B.   To give you another idea on what coaches will do....last season we began the year playing 2 catchers pretty regularly but one was much better behind the plate.....the other  one ended up being almost an everyday RF because of his bat....and another kid that was recruited as a C spent quite a bit of time at 1B and DH.   The biggest factor is the bat.....if you can swing it, you'll find a spot defensively

Just make sure the guys who are recruiting you will be there when you get there. If a coach has had four 18-44 seasons in a row and recruits you. Well the new coach is probably going to want to clear house of many of the players behind losing record.  

But if it's playing time more than the coaching - scout the recruiting classes more than the rosters. 

Ex: If your son is a 2021 catcher and they recruited 2 catchers in the 2019 class and 2 more in 2020, plus the one freshmen and sophomore on the roster, it might not be a great situation to get into. 

Buckeye 2015 posted:

I guess in the first example I question whether the catcher that converted to 2B and pitcher was recruited as a 2B....which rarely happens.  Typically college coaches recruit SS and CF and figure they can play any position.   My son was a SS and RHP.  He was recruited by a couple schools that told him he'd probably play 3rd because of his arm.  We never considered he would be a D1 SS....just didn't have quite the athleticism.  His recruiting class his freshman year had 6 all-state SS's.   One immediately went to the OF and is still there.  One has never played an an inning at SS.  He was at 3rd for a time and is now playing 1B.  Son is a P and is DH'ing.....one has spent most of his 4 years at 2B.   To give you another idea on what coaches will do....last season we began the year playing 2 catchers pretty regularly but one was much better behind the plate.....the other  one ended up being almost an everyday RF because of his bat....and another kid that was recruited as a C spent quite a bit of time at 1B and DH.   The biggest factor is the bat.....if you can swing it, you'll find a spot defensively

Son was told if you can hit we will find a spot for you everyday.  So true.

PABaseball posted:

But if it's playing time more than the coaching - scout the recruiting classes more than the rosters. 

Ex: If your son is a 2021 catcher and they recruited 2 catchers in the 2019 class and 2 more in 2020, plus the one freshmen and sophomore on the roster, it might not be a great situation to get into. 

 

But you just never know. A freshman C on my son's team last year wasn't getting much PT until the starting CF got hurt.  RF moved to CF, and backup C found himself playing OF for the first time since Little League, much to the dismay of the backup OF's.    It wasn't pretty seeing him out there, but he rakes and he's got good speed, so coach decided he was the best option.

I think it pays to be flexible at all levels. When my kid was a freshman in HS his ability to play OF as well as MIF helped keep on the field.  I was reading an article the other day where a writer said that a local kid's draft ceiling was limited somewhat because he's a 1B.  What the writer didn't know, but the scouts undoubtedly do, is that the kid can also play 3B and OF,  and that his best position is probably C.

If you’re a “loved” recruit unless there’s an obvious stud ahead of you on a college roster you can’t worry about how many players there are at a position. You have to believe in yourself you will win the position. If not, you’ve half lost the battle before it starts. As always mentioned on this site and in this thread, if you hit you will play somewhere.

A friend’s son was a “loved” recruit at a top ranked program. Recruited catchers started at C, 1B, 3B, LF, RF and DH while he was there. They were all very athletic. He caught for two years. Before that he played 1B, 3B and DH. Every one of them was drafted. One made it as a back up catcher. 

Players get injured, switch positions and transfer. You can only go in believing in yourself.

baseballhs posted:

We did.  In our conversation over the offer we knew the HC had just signed a new contract but we asked the RC/PC how long he had and how confident we could be that he would stay beyond that.  

I would confirm that (besides C and P) being able to play SS, then being able to adjust to anywhere else on the field, will get you  playing time. The ability to get on base a lot, and have excellent speed while on base, can take the place of mashing the ball, if you have a great glove, speed, arm, and game sense.

   I know of some kids who can really hit, and hit with power, but their gloves were so bad that they couldn't move on in baseball. Also, ALL hitters slump....speed and glove, not so much.

None of this catcher talk surprises me, the athleticism needed to catch rivals that of a good shortstop or CF. The problem a lot of catchers run into are tired legs that affect their ability to hit consistently. If you find a catcher that can rake, they often are moved because their bat is more valuable than their defense behind the plate. Many coaches are willing to “get by” with a second-ranked catcher with decent defensive skills and so-so bat in order to move that catcher who can rake and maximize the offense. Son’s HS had a kid who played catcher, 92 mph throw downs, ridiculous pop time and he could rake. Drafted as an outfielder. 

Hands and fingers keep getting damaged catching , too, which makes it hard to bat as well.

Scouting the roster was not something I'd considered but it is probably different for pitchers than for position players.

Scouting the roster should be on the top of your to-do list when determining whether the school is a good fit.  Your son may be liked by the school, but if they are overloaded on a position, they may pass.  Same could hold true for pitchers, albeit to a lesser degree, if, for example, they went heavy in the class prior to your sons'.

I used to think checking the D1 rosters was helpful, however you can never really know who else is being recruited, nor can the roster tell you how the coach feels about a current player/s.  You can easily overthink/evaluate a roster/situation plus the coach will recruit players at your son's position every year, so you don't know what the roster will look like in a year or two.  

As others have said you still have to beat someone else out no matter where you go.  Sure, some rosters will be harder to crack then others. 

On my son's ACC team there were a lot of HS SS and a few outfielders, but the guys who hit played.  

I agree with those saying, “You hit you play”

I’d also like to comment on the state of education at the high school level. Many schools seem to be just passing kids along without truly preparing them for college and the real world. A 3.0 GPA isn’t what it used to be. My brother is a college professor who teaches Anatomy and also coaches the throwing events for the Track & Field team. He often comments on the poor writing skills of his students, saying many students have no concept of sentence structure or basic grammar. Making it all the more important for a student/athlete to get good grades.

Peach49 posted:

I agree with those saying, “You hit you play”

I’d also like to comment on the state of education at the high school level. Many schools seem to be just passing kids along without truly preparing them for college and the real world. A 3.0 GPA isn’t what it used to be. My brother is a college professor who teaches Anatomy and also coaches the throwing events for the Track & Field team. He often comments on the poor writing skills of his students, saying many students have no concept of sentence structure or basic grammar. Making it all the more important for a student/athlete to get good grades.

Some of the worst run on sentences you will ever see are written daily by newspaper columnists. Do you remember breaking down complex sentence structure in 6th or 7th grade English class? You can’t possibly break down a lot of columnist’s sentences. These are freak’n journalism majors,

No doubt about hitting.....if I had to it again with my son it would be 95% hitting and 5% fielding at the practice. 

CollegeParentNoMore posted:

I used to think checking the D1 rosters was helpful, however you can never really know who else is being recruited, nor can the roster tell you how the coach feels about a current player/s.  You can easily overthink/evaluate a roster/situation plus the coach will recruit players at your son's position every year, so you don't know what the roster will look like in a year or two.  

As others have said you still have to beat someone else out no matter where you go.  Sure, some rosters will be harder to crack then others. 

On my son's ACC team there were a lot of HS SS and a few outfielders, but the guys who hit played.  

 

 

 

 

 

just because the guys who played does not mean they also couldn't field correct? In my experience a coach will go with the better hitter unless his fielding is bad enough that it isn't worth the bonus offence. In my experience people also tend to forget that . 

From your example is it safe to assume that the various HS SS who were scattered around the team playing others places were the best hitters and not butchers with the glove?