antzdad
I am with you on this but the topic here is graduation age in recruiting
I don't think it matters to those doing the recruiting.
neither do I---if you are a player you are a player !!
CD,
Let's see I've got a talented 18yo who is going into his senior season throwing up to 86-87. On the other hand I've got an talented 18yo who is starting college this year throwing up to 86-87. Both did equally well in summer ball. Which one gives me more bang for the buck? Of course there's a big advantage in college recruiting.
How about if I'm a pro scout? Neither one does a whole lot for me right now but I can wait a year and see how the HS guy ends up and maybe he'll be something by then. A kid from our area was topping out in the mid 80s at 17+ going into his junior season. When he graduated from HS he was 19yo, touching low 90s and was drafted. Now let's take the same kid and give him an August birthday and not hold him back so he graduates just a few months after posting that mid 80s top velocity. He's not the school's stud pitcher as a senior, he isn't drafted and he probably ends up at a D2, a JC or a lower tier D1. Not bad, but not the same.
Let's see I've got a talented 18yo who is going into his senior season throwing up to 86-87. On the other hand I've got an talented 18yo who is starting college this year throwing up to 86-87. Both did equally well in summer ball. Which one gives me more bang for the buck? Of course there's a big advantage in college recruiting.
How about if I'm a pro scout? Neither one does a whole lot for me right now but I can wait a year and see how the HS guy ends up and maybe he'll be something by then. A kid from our area was topping out in the mid 80s at 17+ going into his junior season. When he graduated from HS he was 19yo, touching low 90s and was drafted. Now let's take the same kid and give him an August birthday and not hold him back so he graduates just a few months after posting that mid 80s top velocity. He's not the school's stud pitcher as a senior, he isn't drafted and he probably ends up at a D2, a JC or a lower tier D1. Not bad, but not the same.
quote:For the rest of the kids who are at a disadvantage and don't have a way to stay back with kids their own age I'd recommend that they understand that they do have a disadvantage and that they'll have to outwork the ones who have the advantage.
CADad, while I respect and understand where you are coming from, I disagree with the analysis and result.
In my view, and from what I have seen and learned from talking with a lot of college coaches, nearly every player has a disadvantage when they get on a college baseball diamond. The same is true in recruiting and that is why it is such a tough issue for coaches. It is why too many who don't have the "disadvantage" of age/height/weight end up getting recruited and...
For many, however, it isn't easily identifiable like their age, height or weight.
For some, having the level of mental drive and intensity is the disadvantage.
For some, it is the fact they always dominated, never failed and never had to compete through failure that is the disadvantage.
For some, it is they always dominated, now they don't, and they cannot elevate their game that is the disadvantage.
For some it is the inability to balance the rigors of academics and baseball in college that is the disadvantage.
For others it is the inability to put down the WII or video game that is the disadvantage.
For others it is the inability to manage their independence.
For others, it can be some combination of the above.
The "game" of baseball, as it is played in college, isn't comparable to anything before it.
Whatever your disadvantage, it is likely to be exposed.
In my opinion, if there is anything equal about competing on a college baseball diamond, it is that just about every player has some disadvantage.
The ones who succeed identify it, accept it, and elevate their game.
I think we are co-mingling younger kids with physical late bloomers. They are not the same thing. There are many July, August and September kids who have no problem physically keeping up with other kids in the same grade.
A late bloomer is still a late bloomer no matter when he starts school. If he doesn't get his growth spurt until junior year and kid born the same day spurts during 10th grade he is at a physical disadvantage for a year. Now where's the issue?
Being late to develop physically is not something that can or should be leveled out. It's part of growing up.
My son has a late August birthday and was started "on time" and never repeated a grade. Physically he's fine, but he seems less mature mentally than others in his grade (12th) and his grades have suffered. Lets call him a late maturer. Should I complain to his teachers to give him a break because of his late blooming maturity or should he, and we, have tried harder? I think the later. I'm certainly not complaining about a decision we did or didn't make 12 years ago.
A late bloomer is still a late bloomer no matter when he starts school. If he doesn't get his growth spurt until junior year and kid born the same day spurts during 10th grade he is at a physical disadvantage for a year. Now where's the issue?
Being late to develop physically is not something that can or should be leveled out. It's part of growing up.
My son has a late August birthday and was started "on time" and never repeated a grade. Physically he's fine, but he seems less mature mentally than others in his grade (12th) and his grades have suffered. Lets call him a late maturer. Should I complain to his teachers to give him a break because of his late blooming maturity or should he, and we, have tried harder? I think the later. I'm certainly not complaining about a decision we did or didn't make 12 years ago.
Nine pages and no one has mentioned BYU? 
So two kids of equal talent accept it and work hard. The one who is older for his grade earns a scholarship out of HS. The other got out of HS a year earlier and had to walk on and try to earn a spot. Maybe he makes the team, maybe he doesn't. Who has the advantage?
So he earns a spot on the team, but of course as a walk on freshman he gets very little playing time. He does work hard and manages to keep a spot on the team, or maybe not. Now the scholarship kid shows up. The kid who graduated early is probably a little ahead of him baseball wise now if he's still on the team but he's still a walk on and the other kid has 4 years left and is a scholarship player. He's got the advantage. I played in college and I know how much of an advantage it is to be a scholarship player instead of a walk on. You can go on and on with the platitudes but facts are facts and staying back a year gives players a significant advantage over players of equal talent and in some cases over players with more talent.
So he earns a spot on the team, but of course as a walk on freshman he gets very little playing time. He does work hard and manages to keep a spot on the team, or maybe not. Now the scholarship kid shows up. The kid who graduated early is probably a little ahead of him baseball wise now if he's still on the team but he's still a walk on and the other kid has 4 years left and is a scholarship player. He's got the advantage. I played in college and I know how much of an advantage it is to be a scholarship player instead of a walk on. You can go on and on with the platitudes but facts are facts and staying back a year gives players a significant advantage over players of equal talent and in some cases over players with more talent.
quote:So two kids of equal talent accept it and work hard.
I am having a hard time taking your example and applying it to college baseball recruiting.
If you have two of equal ability, equal talent, they both work hard, why does one get a schollie because of age and the other a walk on because of age when there are so many possible DI scholarship options.
If they both wanted the same school and competed for the same spot, then surely the 11.7 will make a difference and whoever gets recruited first, gets the money, unless there is more next year for the same position.
If the older player is a DI schollie player in year one, the younger player would be a schollie player the following year at many other schools, unless they compete for the same slot at the same school, I would think.
AntDad,
Yep there's an advantage. BTW, that makes for a another good example. We know a kid who is headed for BYU. He's a senior this season and the same age as the lefty who was the HS team's ace as a senior last year. The lefty is going to pitch for the local JC. The lefty was co-pitcher of the year in one of the strongest leagues in the nation and no he's not a soft tosser. The other co-pitcher pitched for team USA and another pitcher in the league was a 2nd round draft pick (at almost 19) who was quite polished. This kid who has a roster spot at BYU and may end up getting a scholly depending on how he does as a HS senior pitched about 9 innings as a junior and gave up a lot of walks and a lot of runs. He used the time between his junior season and his senior season to work his tail off and to increase his velocity and tighten up his control. What would have happened if he'd didn't have that extra year like the 4 other pitchers on the team? I'll tell you one thing, he wouldn't be going to his dream school.
Yep there's an advantage. BTW, that makes for a another good example. We know a kid who is headed for BYU. He's a senior this season and the same age as the lefty who was the HS team's ace as a senior last year. The lefty is going to pitch for the local JC. The lefty was co-pitcher of the year in one of the strongest leagues in the nation and no he's not a soft tosser. The other co-pitcher pitched for team USA and another pitcher in the league was a 2nd round draft pick (at almost 19) who was quite polished. This kid who has a roster spot at BYU and may end up getting a scholly depending on how he does as a HS senior pitched about 9 innings as a junior and gave up a lot of walks and a lot of runs. He used the time between his junior season and his senior season to work his tail off and to increase his velocity and tighten up his control. What would have happened if he'd didn't have that extra year like the 4 other pitchers on the team? I'll tell you one thing, he wouldn't be going to his dream school.
infieldad,
Let's assume we've got just one player. His talent is what it is. His performance improves as he gets older and practices and works hard but his talent is what it is. Now let's take this player at 17yo after the HS season. He's a RHP who tops out at 85mph. At 18yo after the HS season he tops out at 88 mph and has developed better command and mastered a change.
Now if you're a college coach and you have a choice between a 17yo who has just graduated from HS and tops out at 85 or an 18yo who has just graduated from HS and tops out at 88 with a change and better command than the 17yo which one are you more interested in? The 18yo of course! The 17yo is headed to a JC. No difference in talent. It is the same kid. The only difference is the age at which they graduated from HS.
Same kid but the kid who graduated at 17yo has a lot tougher road ahead and maybe he'll decide to give up baseball in order to go the school he wants to go to for academic reasons instead of going to a JC where he can develop as a baseball player.
Meanwhile the kid who graduated at 18yo is going to the school he wants to and playing baseball.
BTW, I talked to a D1 college coach at a showcase who told me that the younger kids were at a disadvantage from a recruiting standpoint. He did say that in some cases there were opportunities for those kids at some of the colder weather schools who had a harder time getting the more polished kids.
Let's assume we've got just one player. His talent is what it is. His performance improves as he gets older and practices and works hard but his talent is what it is. Now let's take this player at 17yo after the HS season. He's a RHP who tops out at 85mph. At 18yo after the HS season he tops out at 88 mph and has developed better command and mastered a change.
Now if you're a college coach and you have a choice between a 17yo who has just graduated from HS and tops out at 85 or an 18yo who has just graduated from HS and tops out at 88 with a change and better command than the 17yo which one are you more interested in? The 18yo of course! The 17yo is headed to a JC. No difference in talent. It is the same kid. The only difference is the age at which they graduated from HS.
Same kid but the kid who graduated at 17yo has a lot tougher road ahead and maybe he'll decide to give up baseball in order to go the school he wants to go to for academic reasons instead of going to a JC where he can develop as a baseball player.
Meanwhile the kid who graduated at 18yo is going to the school he wants to and playing baseball.
BTW, I talked to a D1 college coach at a showcase who told me that the younger kids were at a disadvantage from a recruiting standpoint. He did say that in some cases there were opportunities for those kids at some of the colder weather schools who had a harder time getting the more polished kids.
Sorry, but if one is 88mph, with a better change and command, they are not the same talent.
In my view, the college coach at this DI dream school gets paid handsomely to decide which gets the scholarship, if there is only one.
Good college coaches are skilled enough to know that what is in front of them has to get better every year in college.
Good college coaches need to be skilled enough to decide if the 17 year old will develop command and the change and the velocity that apparently happened with the 18 year old in one year.
Even if he picks the 18 year old, that does not equate to JC for the 17 year old. That coach may have had and probably did have other options between those two. Even if he did not, the 17 year old seemingly has plenty of options if he projects to the equal talent you describe.
In my view, the college coach at this DI dream school gets paid handsomely to decide which gets the scholarship, if there is only one.
Good college coaches are skilled enough to know that what is in front of them has to get better every year in college.
Good college coaches need to be skilled enough to decide if the 17 year old will develop command and the change and the velocity that apparently happened with the 18 year old in one year.
Even if he picks the 18 year old, that does not equate to JC for the 17 year old. That coach may have had and probably did have other options between those two. Even if he did not, the 17 year old seemingly has plenty of options if he projects to the equal talent you describe.
infielddad,
It is the same kid. He didn't get more talented. He got older, more practiced and more physically mature. If I've got a 6'2" 15yo throwing 88mph and a 5'10" 18yo throwing 88mph. The 18yo is probably better. The 15yo is more talented. When that 15yo gets to be 18yo and is throwing 94 mph he won't be more talented. He'll be a lot better than he was at 15yo but the talent was there from the beginning.
Sorry, but although I was generalizing I was also speaking from experience and it does mean just that and I also know a kid with a 90 mph arm who gave up the game to go to his dream school. With another year of development there's a pretty good chance he could have done both. I've seen example after example and the HS kid who was older and got the innings ahead of far more talented kids then went to a D3 and got cut is a real example. His advantage ended at that point but the more talented kids who didn't get the innings were placed at a recruiting disadvantage. I've seen the advantage/disadvantage year in and year out. I've also seen kids overcome the disadvantage and succeed. I'm not saying that the disadvantage is insurmountable. I'm just saying that it is there and why rush to get your kid into preschool?
BTW, good college coaches get the best players they can right now. Why take a risk on projecting a kid when they are going to be there 4 years or less? If I'm a college coach and I have a choice between two players with the same upside and one is better right now because he is a year older, I'm going with the older one. The only way I go after the younger one is if I can get him for a bargain price, i.e. a non roster walk-on instead of a scholarship and the older one got a better deal somewhere else.
If you don't like the way I use talent, then substitute upside for talent.
It is the same kid. He didn't get more talented. He got older, more practiced and more physically mature. If I've got a 6'2" 15yo throwing 88mph and a 5'10" 18yo throwing 88mph. The 18yo is probably better. The 15yo is more talented. When that 15yo gets to be 18yo and is throwing 94 mph he won't be more talented. He'll be a lot better than he was at 15yo but the talent was there from the beginning.
Sorry, but although I was generalizing I was also speaking from experience and it does mean just that and I also know a kid with a 90 mph arm who gave up the game to go to his dream school. With another year of development there's a pretty good chance he could have done both. I've seen example after example and the HS kid who was older and got the innings ahead of far more talented kids then went to a D3 and got cut is a real example. His advantage ended at that point but the more talented kids who didn't get the innings were placed at a recruiting disadvantage. I've seen the advantage/disadvantage year in and year out. I've also seen kids overcome the disadvantage and succeed. I'm not saying that the disadvantage is insurmountable. I'm just saying that it is there and why rush to get your kid into preschool?
BTW, good college coaches get the best players they can right now. Why take a risk on projecting a kid when they are going to be there 4 years or less? If I'm a college coach and I have a choice between two players with the same upside and one is better right now because he is a year older, I'm going with the older one. The only way I go after the younger one is if I can get him for a bargain price, i.e. a non roster walk-on instead of a scholarship and the older one got a better deal somewhere else.
If you don't like the way I use talent, then substitute upside for talent.
CADad,
What immediately comes to mind in reading your post about the 15 year old is Rick Ankiel and many, many like him.
Like I posted before, everyone has some disadvantage, even someone as talented as Ankiel.
Whether the 15 year old makes it or his "disadvantage" gets exposed remains to be seen.
With all that said, I am getting confused as you switch from the 17 vs 18 to now the 15 vs 18.
It seems to me the latter two won't even compete for a college position/scholarship. If that 15 year old develops as you project, he will be offered an awful lot of money.
In today's recruiting world, that 15 year old will also be offered a scholarship when he is 15. He won't need to wait until he is a senior or 17.
What immediately comes to mind in reading your post about the 15 year old is Rick Ankiel and many, many like him.
Like I posted before, everyone has some disadvantage, even someone as talented as Ankiel.
Whether the 15 year old makes it or his "disadvantage" gets exposed remains to be seen.
With all that said, I am getting confused as you switch from the 17 vs 18 to now the 15 vs 18.
It seems to me the latter two won't even compete for a college position/scholarship. If that 15 year old develops as you project, he will be offered an awful lot of money.
In today's recruiting world, that 15 year old will also be offered a scholarship when he is 15. He won't need to wait until he is a senior or 17.
infielddad,
Try using upside instead of talent in these examples. Then maybe you'll get it. Two players of equal upside. One is better now because he is older. He gets a scholarship. The younger one doesn't. They both have the same upside. If you don't get that then use long term potential in place of upside.
It has been shown very clearly in many studies that there's an age advantage. It is more so in Hockey where the age groupings for youth hockey tend to match grades more closely. In baseball, it isn't quite as clear cut because the youth baseball groupings and the grade groupings differ. There was an advantage to having an August or September birthday in youth baseball that tended to offset the disadvantage in HS somewhat.
Try using upside instead of talent in these examples. Then maybe you'll get it. Two players of equal upside. One is better now because he is older. He gets a scholarship. The younger one doesn't. They both have the same upside. If you don't get that then use long term potential in place of upside.
It has been shown very clearly in many studies that there's an age advantage. It is more so in Hockey where the age groupings for youth hockey tend to match grades more closely. In baseball, it isn't quite as clear cut because the youth baseball groupings and the grade groupings differ. There was an advantage to having an August or September birthday in youth baseball that tended to offset the disadvantage in HS somewhat.
I got it, upside equal projection.
In today's recruiting world, if the 15 year old truly projects to 94mph, as you represent, he won't be any secret.
That projection, if known and obvious and supported by folks like PG or others, gets at least a scholarship offer from UCLA. That coaching staff won't make him wait until he is 17 or a senior.
I would imagine we both can agree on that.
In today's recruiting world, if the 15 year old truly projects to 94mph, as you represent, he won't be any secret.
That projection, if known and obvious and supported by folks like PG or others, gets at least a scholarship offer from UCLA. That coaching staff won't make him wait until he is 17 or a senior.
I would imagine we both can agree on that.
94 is an extreme example but you'd be surprised. We had one kid at our school who wasn't on anybody's radar except the other players. He played JV as a junior and although he was a hard thrower I don't know how hard he threw back then. He eventually got out and played summer ball after his junior season which the HS coach was never too fond of them doing and got a scholarship. He eventually hit 99 mph and yet I doubt that he was on anyone's radar at 16yo.
quote:He eventually hit 99 mph and yet I doubt that he was on anyone's radar at 16yo
There was a young man in Texas a few years back, maybe 2-3 years ago, who did that. Went from nowhere to being clocked at 100mph during his senior year in HS.
Ended up being a first round pick.
While I think he is still in baseball, those less obvious "disadvantages" I posted about earlier are clearly involved.
I am enjoying the debate here but getting somewhat confused.
CADad - I am starting to get confused about talent and projections and wondering if you are not torturing the point you are trying to make. No college coach views two kids equally so I am going to dispute there are two kids out there with equal upsides. One of the two kids will be rated higher by some coaches and the other rated higher by other coaches. Beauty is indeed in the eye of the beholder.
Please answer my previous question. Will age "prevent" a young man from playing college baseball? I am not asking whether or not age is an advantage.
CADad - I am starting to get confused about talent and projections and wondering if you are not torturing the point you are trying to make. No college coach views two kids equally so I am going to dispute there are two kids out there with equal upsides. One of the two kids will be rated higher by some coaches and the other rated higher by other coaches. Beauty is indeed in the eye of the beholder.
Please answer my previous question. Will age "prevent" a young man from playing college baseball? I am not asking whether or not age is an advantage.
1. Of course I'm torturing the subject.
2. Will age prevent a young man from playing college baseball (if he's willing to persevere and possibly accept playing at a lower level)? No.
3. Has age prevented a young man from playing college baseball at his school of choice? Absolutely.
4. If you take a given player his upside is equal whether he graduates at 17 or 18. However, if he graduates at 18 he's most likely a better player at that point in time and will be more desired by a college coach.
2. Will age prevent a young man from playing college baseball (if he's willing to persevere and possibly accept playing at a lower level)? No.
3. Has age prevented a young man from playing college baseball at his school of choice? Absolutely.
4. If you take a given player his upside is equal whether he graduates at 17 or 18. However, if he graduates at 18 he's most likely a better player at that point in time and will be more desired by a college coach.
quote:4. If you take a given player his upside is equal whether he graduates at 17 or 18. However, if he graduates at 18 he's most likely a better player at that point in time and will be more desired by a college coach.
I get what you are saying here with point 4 but maybe we are arguing about the exceptions here rather than the general rule. If two kids are essentially equal in upside and one has more present ability due to age i.e., throws harder, some coaches are still going to project more upside on the younger player imho. For instance, if two kids are equal and the same age, I believe a certain percentage of coaches will prefer one over the other just because of personal preferences. I believe the same argument holds for equal upside/unequal age. Some coaches will prefer the younger player because in their minds the other kid is a better player. Their personal biases and tastes will dictate who they recruit. In other words, I am arguing that there may be two kids with equal upside in your mind but very likely unequal upside in various different coaches minds. It's human nature. Everyone evaluates talent differently. We basically agree on points two and three but again there are no universal rules.
Interesting discussion nonetheless.
CD,
I understand your point. I guess my experience has been that most if not all coaches will take a bird in hand. However, I haven't met that many different coaches and I could be wrong.
I understand your point. I guess my experience has been that most if not all coaches will take a bird in hand. However, I haven't met that many different coaches and I could be wrong.
quote:Originally posted by CADad:
CD,
I understand your point. I guess my experience has been that most if not all coaches will take a bird in hand. However, I haven't met that many different coaches and I could be wrong.
Too bad you haven't met a coach who will take a player because he has future potential, coachable, likeable, good worker on and off the field, brings something special to the team besides his bat or arm. There are lots of coaches out there who do this, keeping in mind only 9 start, the coach recruits knowing who will most likely need a year (or two) to develop, and who will play right away (remember that most freshman do not have starting roles in most programs). In other words, there is a lot more to recruiting than choosing older players over younger players. In fact, I would as a coach rather have a player that needs the year to hit the weight room and work with trainers than one that is a "bird in hand" (assuming that means play right away). Now alot may depend on who I have to replace, but I doubt most coaches look for ready to start in spring players unless they have to.
Then, in the end, it's up to the player to decide if that will fit into his plans. If he gives up the game because he didn't get into his dream school, well then perhpas baseball wasn't all that important.
Too bad you don't understand what I'm saying. I'm saying that most college coaches will take the player who is better now unless there's a significant difference in possible upside during the player's time in college.
And yes I've met the coach who will bring in the hard worker to inspire the other kids with his hard work while he sits on the bench.
And yes I've met the coach who brings in the young kid with a lot of upside and eventually works with him, but the older kid who is more likely to help this season will get the innings this season while the younger player redshirts despite having more upside and that's how it should be. These guys job is to win games and if they don't win they lose their jobs.
And yes I've met the coach who will bring in the hard worker to inspire the other kids with his hard work while he sits on the bench.
And yes I've met the coach who brings in the young kid with a lot of upside and eventually works with him, but the older kid who is more likely to help this season will get the innings this season while the younger player redshirts despite having more upside and that's how it should be. These guys job is to win games and if they don't win they lose their jobs.
quote:Originally posted by CADad: I'm saying that most college coaches will take the player who is better now unless there's a significant difference in possible upside during the player's time in college.
While I think that present ability factors into a coach's decision, in reality coaches are depending mostly on projection. Nearly all D1 programs have already made verbal offers to several 2011 players--typically made the offers in September or October. Their largest scholarship offers are going to players who will, at the earliest, contribute in spring 2012. That's more than 2 years from now. The coaches fear losing a player to their competitors more than they fear making an error in projection. That implies that they have quite a bit of faith in their ability to project and to properly account for differences in chronological age, as well as hormonal and emotional maturity.
Coaches vary considerably in how they view a particular player. The needs of programs vary. You can see that in recruiting. Player 1 gets interest form schools A and C, Player 2 gets interest from B and D, yet coleges A, B, C, and D are at an equivalent level. Based on my limited experience, these sorts of factors trump age considerations.
quote:Originally posted by 3FingeredGlove:
That implies that they have quite a bit of faith in their ability to project and to properly account for differences in chronological age, as well as hormonal and emotional maturity.
That about sums it up. Yes, the job is to win games, recruiting an older player whose ready to play doesn't necessarily add up to wins.
The claim is that more and more coaches are offering players very early, now are those the older players of their class or the younger? I don't really think it matters if you are asking someone 2-3 years before their HS playing days end, the coaches are using their projection of talent.
One thing I have seen over and over, those big older kids enter into college and the younger smaller player comes in and takes over their spot.
CADad, are you sure this isn't more personal than factual, I understand how that is and sometimes it's very hard for us to step back and be objective of the recruiting or draft process. I've been there and done that too.
JMO.
IMO age does not factor into projection as much as you think. At least that is what PG Staff told me when my son was a junior going into the summer before the senior year. I really do not have an issue here; my son ended up with an early offer to a great D1 school.
The guys you refer to that get early offers from colleges obviously posses some tools the college coach is looking for. But IMO, the top 100 to 200 on PG's ranking scale for a given year does not try to project age and looks at current abilities and physical features of the player in his peer group (i.e. current HS class); If he has a bigger frame as a junior he will project well regardless of age; If the player exhibits exceptional qualities that are evident they are compared against players in their current HS class regardless of age. A 17 year old LHP that is consistent 88/89 mph and peaks at 91/92 gets a lower ranking than a 18/19 year old LHP with consistent throwing at 91/92. At least that is what we experienced. Are there other factors that make up that ranking difference? I am sure there is. But IMO, differences in age between players for a given HS class is not projected near as much as you think.
Can the younger player make up the difference? You bet! I am sure that is how my son excelled by working harder to be better than those older kids.
The guys you refer to that get early offers from colleges obviously posses some tools the college coach is looking for. But IMO, the top 100 to 200 on PG's ranking scale for a given year does not try to project age and looks at current abilities and physical features of the player in his peer group (i.e. current HS class); If he has a bigger frame as a junior he will project well regardless of age; If the player exhibits exceptional qualities that are evident they are compared against players in their current HS class regardless of age. A 17 year old LHP that is consistent 88/89 mph and peaks at 91/92 gets a lower ranking than a 18/19 year old LHP with consistent throwing at 91/92. At least that is what we experienced. Are there other factors that make up that ranking difference? I am sure there is. But IMO, differences in age between players for a given HS class is not projected near as much as you think.
Can the younger player make up the difference? You bet! I am sure that is how my son excelled by working harder to be better than those older kids.
quote:3. Has age prevented a young man from playing college baseball at his school of choice? Absolutely.
CADad, I would propose to you that very few of those who play college baseball end up at the school of "their" choice. My view is this is because of talent and 11.7 issues, not age.
Let me provide a real life example:
3 players from a local area all want to attend the same Pac10 school. They are very similar in their ability to play/produce although the oldest has the best production in head to head competition, by far.
One is born in November and graduates at age 18.
One is born the following March.
The last is born the following July and is 17 at graduation.
The July kid is 6'3" and gets a high rating from BA.
The March kid is 6'4" and is MVP of the best private school league.
The November kid is 5'10, by far the most athletic, with a very high rating out of the Stanford Camp, which the Pac10 coach attends.
The Pac10 school takes the two youngest players.
Switch forward 4 years:
The July birthday player, the youngest, attends 4 schools in 5 years, plays sparingly other than one year at a JC, and never plays an inning at the Pac10 school.
The player with the March birthday plays sparingly as a freshman, is projected to be the starting 1B his sophomore year, hits a HR his first time at bat, dislocates his non-throwing shoulder diving back into 1B the next appearance, and plays very sporadically the balance of his Pac10 career, with little good to say about the coaches who recruited him.
The oldest kid out of high school gets drafted into MLB after finishing his career at a DIII program where his skills, talent and desire flourished and was coached far better, for him, than likely would have ever occurred at the Pac10 school.
For these 3 kids, projected talent and size, not age, were the determinative recruiting factors in attending the school of their choice.
Even with size, talent, and projection, attending the school of "your" choice does not mean you get the desired result. For those 2 players, and many others, the results are far more real world reality on the baseball field than the "dream" they had during recruiting.
CADad, I am not trying to change your views on this.
My only reason for posting is to provide a different, but real world,frame of reference in which to view your point 3.
quote:Originally posted by AL MA 08:
IMO age does not factor into projection as much as you think. At least that is what PG Staff told me when my son was a junior going into the summer before the senior year. I really do not have an issue here; my son ended up with an early offer to a great D1 school.
Perhaps PG doesn't take into account age, but what about HS grade and graduation date? I would imagine they do take that into account since they are rating a player for projected college ability, therefore they will factor those in when rating a Junior versus a Senior, regardless of age.
You guys don't seem to get the fact that the older kid has even more of an advantage earlier on. Go look at the 2011s and 2012s who are making commitments and you'll almost certainly see even a greater disparity due to age among them. College coaches aren't dumb. They know that given equal upside a 19yo freshman is more likely to help them in 1 year and in 2 years and in 3 years than an 18yo freshman.
Some of the teams who have more problems recruiting and some of the JCs will try to cherry pick some of the younger for their grade kids who have talent and develop them but that's only because the older ones with similar upside were already taken.
New2this,
PG projects for long term upside, i.e. potential pro ability so it isn't quite as dramatic but I went through the PG rankings and it is definitely skewed in favor of the kids who are older for their grade. That's not anything they are doing to put anyone at a disadvantage. The fact is that the kid who is older for their grade is easier to project because they've already got more present ability.
Some of the teams who have more problems recruiting and some of the JCs will try to cherry pick some of the younger for their grade kids who have talent and develop them but that's only because the older ones with similar upside were already taken.
New2this,
PG projects for long term upside, i.e. potential pro ability so it isn't quite as dramatic but I went through the PG rankings and it is definitely skewed in favor of the kids who are older for their grade. That's not anything they are doing to put anyone at a disadvantage. The fact is that the kid who is older for their grade is easier to project because they've already got more present ability.
infielddad,
So please state again which ones had the most long term success vs. age for their grade. I was having a bit of trouble following the ages vs. grade.
I also realize that we are all biased by what we see around us which doesn't necessarily reflect the whole world. However, there have been many studies showing the age advantage with a large sample and I went through the PG database and it showed an advantage for the kids who were older for their grade.
So please state again which ones had the most long term success vs. age for their grade. I was having a bit of trouble following the ages vs. grade.
I also realize that we are all biased by what we see around us which doesn't necessarily reflect the whole world. However, there have been many studies showing the age advantage with a large sample and I went through the PG database and it showed an advantage for the kids who were older for their grade.
quote:You guys don't seem to get the fact that the older kid has even more of an advantage earlier on.
You are right.
I don't get it and will stop even suggesting college coaches are not thinking about the graduation age in recruiting things parents on this site think they are thinking.
And if I stop suggesting otherwise maybe this thread can finally die. 
Personally I don't think most college coaches consciously think about the ages unless there's something that jumps out about a particular player. They simply look at a player and how he projects through his college career. Present ability plays into that.
BTW, I've based a lot of this on PG's statements in one of the older threads about the difference in the way that college coaches and the pros look at projection.
"College wants players who are ready."
"Colleges want the best "now" player."
Going to roll your eyes at those statements? Look below.
Personally I don't think most college coaches consciously think about the ages unless there's something that jumps out about a particular player. They simply look at a player and how he projects through his college career. Present ability plays into that.
BTW, I've based a lot of this on PG's statements in one of the older threads about the difference in the way that college coaches and the pros look at projection.
"College wants players who are ready."
"Colleges want the best "now" player."
Going to roll your eyes at those statements? Look below.
PGStaff:
quote:DI and professional scouts are looking for the same basic tools in both positions. Pro will consider projection a lot more. College wants players who are ready.
College shortstops need to have outstanding fielding ability, a good arm, and athleticism. The ability to make all the plays is more important than running speed, size or projection. Many recruited shortstops end up playing other positions. Hitting ability is a premium at all positions other than pitching.
College catchers need to have good receiving ability and a good quick strong arm. Intelligence is very important. Size and projection is more important to pro scouts. Hitting ability and power are tools everyone likes.
The higher the college level, the more they look for the same thing the pro scouts are looking for… The biggest difference involving projection. The college doesn't want to take 3-5 years to develop a player, no matter how high his ceiling might appear to be. Of course, solid students are much more valuable to college coaches. Makeup is important in both college or pro, but college and pro might not always look for the exact same type of makeup. Colleges tend to put more emphasis on the good teammate, good kid types. The pros sometimes put a lot of emphasis on the tough, do anything to win, championship caliber types. However “Perfect” makeup for both college and pro would include all of the above and more.
Both colleges and pro scouts are most interested in those who are not afraid to play. Those who stay away from competition because they are satisfied with their current position and don’t want to take a chance on hurting their status or “stock” stick out like a sore thumb. Both college coaches and scouts know that sooner or later there is no place to hide. All players will be “exposed” nearly every day! So those who try to hide to protect their status are missing perhaps the most important ingredients of all… Confidence and Courage! Also they are showing one of the sure fire negatives that often results in failure… They are Satisfied!
Colleges want the best "now" player. The pros want the best "future" player. Often, this is the same player. Because of this, colleges will sometimes shy away from the very best because most early draft picks out of high school, don't end up in college. This creates a similar yet different signability concern for college coaches. Scouts do signabilities on players to determine the players interest in pro baseball and what round or what it will take for them to sign. This often determines which round they are selected or if they are even selected in the draft. On the other hand, college coaches need to determine the player’s interest in attending college and at the same time, determine how early that player might go in the draft.
This has been a very interesting thread, please don't let it die! 
Since our son was born in August and had just turned 5 when he started Kinder I'm biased. Maybe we'll hold him back a year from College!
Also where we live its not uncommon (unfortunately) for parents to falsely lower their son's age by 2 to 4 years. To them the end justifies the means but if that means getting out of poverty they have their motivation. Holding a child back a year in school, as some have mentioned in this thread is tame in comparison. Obviously this is done because age does matter, especially between 13 and 18. College coaches may not consciously consider age, but the performance and physical development they do consider are linked to age. I can say this, the first thing pro scouts here will ask once a player catches their eye is "How old is he?"
Since our son was born in August and had just turned 5 when he started Kinder I'm biased. Maybe we'll hold him back a year from College!
Also where we live its not uncommon (unfortunately) for parents to falsely lower their son's age by 2 to 4 years. To them the end justifies the means but if that means getting out of poverty they have their motivation. Holding a child back a year in school, as some have mentioned in this thread is tame in comparison. Obviously this is done because age does matter, especially between 13 and 18. College coaches may not consciously consider age, but the performance and physical development they do consider are linked to age. I can say this, the first thing pro scouts here will ask once a player catches their eye is "How old is he?"
I read over what PG posted, I see nothing that indicates that college coaches take older players over younger from their grad class.
Ready to play doesn't always mean the player is older, ready to play could mean they have the skills to compete, regardless of their physical ability older or younger.
You have a sophmore catcher who will be the starter next season, so that means, according to what you state, the catchers he recruits to come to his program are ready to be starters. NO WAY, the catchers come being able to compete in his program in a year or two and will most likely be the bp catcher for a year, is that ready to play? Now it is up to the catcher to decide if he wants to attend the top D1 and wait, or go to a smaller program and play right away. That's where I think I get what you are saying, kids are missing out on opportunities to play where they want, but in reality it doesn't work that way.
My personal opinion is that giving parents advice to keep their sons/daughters back for sports is not very good advice.
Why don't we just suggest that parents just plan on what month of the year to have a child so he will not lose out on opportunities.
JMO, but you have done an awful lot of homework on this, so you must be right?
I do hope that no parent reading this ever tells their player they didn't get into the big D1 of their choice and had to settle because they were too young, too small, because I have seen many really big talented guys not get into the school of their choice either.
Ready to play doesn't always mean the player is older, ready to play could mean they have the skills to compete, regardless of their physical ability older or younger.
You have a sophmore catcher who will be the starter next season, so that means, according to what you state, the catchers he recruits to come to his program are ready to be starters. NO WAY, the catchers come being able to compete in his program in a year or two and will most likely be the bp catcher for a year, is that ready to play? Now it is up to the catcher to decide if he wants to attend the top D1 and wait, or go to a smaller program and play right away. That's where I think I get what you are saying, kids are missing out on opportunities to play where they want, but in reality it doesn't work that way.
My personal opinion is that giving parents advice to keep their sons/daughters back for sports is not very good advice.
Why don't we just suggest that parents just plan on what month of the year to have a child so he will not lose out on opportunities.
JMO, but you have done an awful lot of homework on this, so you must be right?
I do hope that no parent reading this ever tells their player they didn't get into the big D1 of their choice and had to settle because they were too young, too small, because I have seen many really big talented guys not get into the school of their choice either.
I am not buying the dream school argument either i.e., because of my age and lack of development I was prohibited from playing baseball at my dream school or school of choice. If your dream school has 3 all-american catchers signed up for the next several years and you are a catcher, guess what? You don't get to go to your school of choice. There are dozens of reasons just like these that would prevent a young man from attending where he so chooses - if in fact he also wants to continue a baseball career.
The perplexing thing that I have read in this thread is that somehow some kids are being treated unfairly, discriminated against, or being denied opportunites because of their age. I don't buy it. I don't like excuses frankly. If some kid wants to attend one particular school, then maybe a couple of years of juco development is in order rather than lamenting some older kid got picked first. Of course, even with juco seasoning or otherwise, there are still no guarantees.
I am not sure that some who have posted don't even see contradictions from past positions they have espoused. On one hand, junior plays up two years or more so he can develop the necessary experience. Then, when it appears that age might work against him, some of the same people argue that the older kids are getting unfair treatment. That's called having it both ways. Rather than looking for excuses, I think it much better to strive for solutions. One simple solution might be to realize that there are dozens of dream schools out there for all kids. Maybe the effort should be finding one of them rather than lamenting one hypothetical school that got away.
The perplexing thing that I have read in this thread is that somehow some kids are being treated unfairly, discriminated against, or being denied opportunites because of their age. I don't buy it. I don't like excuses frankly. If some kid wants to attend one particular school, then maybe a couple of years of juco development is in order rather than lamenting some older kid got picked first. Of course, even with juco seasoning or otherwise, there are still no guarantees.
I am not sure that some who have posted don't even see contradictions from past positions they have espoused. On one hand, junior plays up two years or more so he can develop the necessary experience. Then, when it appears that age might work against him, some of the same people argue that the older kids are getting unfair treatment. That's called having it both ways. Rather than looking for excuses, I think it much better to strive for solutions. One simple solution might be to realize that there are dozens of dream schools out there for all kids. Maybe the effort should be finding one of them rather than lamenting one hypothetical school that got away.
quote:Originally posted by CADad:
PGStaff:quote:
Both colleges and pro scouts are most interested in those who are not afraid to play. Those who stay away from competition because they are satisfied with their current position and don’t want to take a chance on hurting their status or “stock” stick out like a sore thumb. Both college coaches and scouts know that sooner or later there is no place to hide. All players will be “exposed” nearly every day! So those who try to hide to protect their status are missing perhaps the most important ingredients of all… Confidence and Courage! Also they are showing one of the sure fire negatives that often results in failure… They are Satisfied!
Not sure what you're trying to say here, PG. Some kids don't have $1000's to attend Perfect Game (et al.) showcases and play on travel teams all summer and fall. I wouldn't call them chickens, just less fortunate.
VicariousDad,
Nowhere in that post did I see mention of attending any particular events, just to get out and be seen.
And you DO NOT have to break the bank to do it.
Good post CD.
Nowhere in that post did I see mention of attending any particular events, just to get out and be seen.
And you DO NOT have to break the bank to do it.
Good post CD.
Quote taken in part:
Originally posted by ClevelandDad:
Age is what it is; for a given high school class you are either the oldest, youngest or somewhere in between. In high school sports this may put you at a disadvantage. A young junior or senior may get displaced in a position by an older sophomore or junior because he is bigger and stronger (older). (This did not happen to my son but I can see it happening.) Is this denying opportunities for the younger kids that are in a higher grade in school? Are they being discriminated against or being treated unfairly because they are younger? In a way, yes; because if they had another year to develop they would be bigger and stronger and might not get displaced by the older (bigger) underclassmen. But many times the older underclassman is also the better player at this point in time.
Also take a national ranking system where all raising seniors are stacked according to their evaluations. A 16 year old raising senior is compared against 17 and 18 year olds, and for pitchers much of this ranking deals with hitting velocities of 90 mph or higher. Now, who do you think has a better chance of hitting 90 or higher, the 16 or the 18 year old? Yet I would hesitate to give credit (or try to project) that the 16 year old would be hitting 90 or higher in two years.
Now the “what if” and I will use my son's situation; my son’s fastball was consistent at 86-88 mph at 16 years old as a raising HS senior and at 90-91 at 18 years old as a raising college sophomore. What if he was a raising high school senior? Do you think he would be ranked higher than he was as a 16 year old when compared against all the other high school seniors? YES he most certainly would be ranked higher. Would this have given him a better opportunity in the draft out of HS? Hard to say, but his chances would probably have been better.
I have no sour grapes here, nor am I disappointed at how my son’s situation turned out but I do see how someone might if their situation did not work out.
quote:Originally posted by ClevelandDad:
... The perplexing thing that I have read in this thread is that somehow some kids are being treated unfairly, discriminated against, or being denied opportunites because of their age.
I am not sure that some who have posted don't even see contradictions from past positions they have espoused. On one hand, junior plays up two years or more so he can develop the necessary experience. Then, when it appears that age might work against him, some of the same people argue that the older kids are getting unfair treatment. That's called having it both ways.
Originally posted by ClevelandDad:
Age is what it is; for a given high school class you are either the oldest, youngest or somewhere in between. In high school sports this may put you at a disadvantage. A young junior or senior may get displaced in a position by an older sophomore or junior because he is bigger and stronger (older). (This did not happen to my son but I can see it happening.) Is this denying opportunities for the younger kids that are in a higher grade in school? Are they being discriminated against or being treated unfairly because they are younger? In a way, yes; because if they had another year to develop they would be bigger and stronger and might not get displaced by the older (bigger) underclassmen. But many times the older underclassman is also the better player at this point in time.
Also take a national ranking system where all raising seniors are stacked according to their evaluations. A 16 year old raising senior is compared against 17 and 18 year olds, and for pitchers much of this ranking deals with hitting velocities of 90 mph or higher. Now, who do you think has a better chance of hitting 90 or higher, the 16 or the 18 year old? Yet I would hesitate to give credit (or try to project) that the 16 year old would be hitting 90 or higher in two years.
Now the “what if” and I will use my son's situation; my son’s fastball was consistent at 86-88 mph at 16 years old as a raising HS senior and at 90-91 at 18 years old as a raising college sophomore. What if he was a raising high school senior? Do you think he would be ranked higher than he was as a 16 year old when compared against all the other high school seniors? YES he most certainly would be ranked higher. Would this have given him a better opportunity in the draft out of HS? Hard to say, but his chances would probably have been better.
I have no sour grapes here, nor am I disappointed at how my son’s situation turned out but I do see how someone might if their situation did not work out.