So my oldest just turned 15. Rising freshman.  He is going to be small.  5-9, maybe 5-10.  Good eye at plate. High avg, walk rate, doubles power.  7.2 recent 60.  Throws 75.  Exit 80.   Better than avg mif, elite OF.   Our, at least my, priority is getting him into the best academic school he can get into.   Really high level student.  Just give me some guesses.  If a kids grades/scores match at very upper range and lets say he runs 6.7, throws 85, exit 90 by junior yr,  what are odds a little guy can play ball at say stanford, duke, ivy, Vanderbilt, etc...?  1000 to 1?   500 to 1?   How about an elite D3 like amherst, williams, mit, hopkins, etc...    

Original Post
Goosegg posted:

Size is not any impediment.

Skills rule. 

See, e.g.,  http://m.milb.com/milb/player/669242

Tom was recruited by Ivys and ended up at Stanford. Now with Cardinals.

One of his parents used to post here.

Goosegg is on point!  Do not let the size thing get in the way.  Son is 5' 10" playing for a top 25 P5 School.  Son ignored all the hype about size and kept working on "Skills".    

However Tom was recruited very, very young and had off the chart skills (switch hitter).  Had other West Coast D1 offers (not Stanford) in hand as a high school underclassmen.  Very much an outlier for his size with many, many tools.  He started his freshmen year at Stanford, drafted 6th round, and made it to the majors in two years.   His talent is ridiculous, and very much not the norm.  I agree size should not be an impediment and it is about skills but I think comparing yourself to this  young man is setting yourself up for failure.  He is an anomaly.

As always, JMO.  

I just looked up Tommy Edman's profile.  He was really highly regarded at a young age.  Dad played at Williams College and was the coach at his high school in LaJolla.  Interestingly though, he doesn't look like a burner like you'd think.  But at this point, my oldest is definitely not this kid.

Goosegg posted:

Size is not any impediment.

Skills rule. 

See, e.g.,  http://m.milb.com/milb/player/669242

Tom was recruited by Ivys and ended up at Stanford. Now with Cardinals.

One of his parents used to post here.

Goose, good post and link. I have a special place in my heart for 5'10" MI.

Scott- enjoyed your list of the 107 players in MLB as well. Agree that skills rule. Size is not an impediment, though shorter players may require a second or third look from "evaluators."

 

I enjoyed the list of 107 as well but let's face it... wasn't that long ago that 5'11" was considered a good sized man.. certainly not small anyway.  When you take that list to below 5'10", it quickly goes down to 21 players, some names barely recognizable to the average fan.

Once you've made it through the gauntlet of levels of play in professional baseball, skill will win out.  But, as it relates to college recruiting, make no mistake - if you are short, you better be two full clicks better than the next good player (or significantly faster with the ability to put it to use in the baseball sense).  As much as I am one to stand firmly on "don't make excuses", I have seen this play out far too many times.  Most college coaches are not gonna roll out a short kid if there are similarly able dudes available that better fit "today's college athlete" image (as it applies to D1 and traditionally competitive programs at other levels).   

Don't leave any doubt.  Be two clicks better.

The average height of an American man is only 5’9”. The average MLBer is 6’2”. Pitchers skew the height average. There are fourteen MLB teams without a pitcher under six feet. The Yankees have five pitchers at least 6’7”. The baseball info is from a 2015 article. I doubt players have got shorter in the past four years.

From being an athlete and having a lot of tall friends (as an adult played a lot of pickup basketball and two man volleyball) I don’t feel tall at 6’1”. On the 107 list there are a bunch of players 5’10” and 5’11”. I’ve never seen short as any height where I can’t start to see the tops of their heads. Guys 5’9” or less appear short to me. Or, if you’re a guy and shorter than my daughter (5’10”) .... you just might be a short guy. 

Agree size shouldn't limit you trying but it is used to consider players. Each position has a desired height also. All things being equal the taller bigger guys have an advantage.

My 5'10 CF who ran 6'6 60 was told many times by D1 that he had the tools but he was too small for them, he was told he should have been a SS. 

A patriot league scout saw my son working out with a local HS team prior to starting college  and when the scout learned he was going D3 the scout wondered why he wasn't going D1. The HS coach replied that you scouts tend to look at the numbers on the paper and not look first at the kid. 

Going back to the questions in the original post, the truth is that we simply cannot predict how much faster a player will get during high school, how much harder he’ll throw in two or three years, or how much harder he’ll swing the bat. My observation has been that there is a lot of turnover at the front of the pack every year from middle school through high school. Wherever you are when you stop getting better is where you’ll end up. 

He’s a D3 prospect until he shows skills a D2 or D1 coach thinks will help his team win.

Sounds like he’s in a solid position to create great opportunities for himself.  How  great and in what areas depend on a lot of factors, many of which are not within his control.

Since we can neither predict nor control the outcome, focus on the process. Trust it, work it, and enjoy watching it unfold.

Best wishes, 

 

Pretty much what Swampboy said, except that he is not even a college prospect until he makes his HS team.  Let him focus on the next step and once he makes that one he/you can consider the next one. Don't try to predict an unpredictable process. That said I can pretty much guarantee he will not be playing for Stanford or Vanderbilt, given the statistical reality of playing for those schools.

Finally it needs to be his desire not yours and it will become evident once he plays some HS ball whether he shows the drive and desire to be the best and move to the next level. Enjoy his short HS years and let it play out and see if he has the drive and desire to play the next level up. 

Swampboy posted:

...He’s a D3 prospect until he shows skills a D2 or D1 coach thinks will help his team win... 

Hard to argue this.  Furthermore knowing what those skills are in the eyes of a college recruiter are the things to work on.

For a pitcher that means velo 1st, velo 2nd, and velo 3rd.  The instant a kid touches 90mph, D1 offers will come.  Stats do not matter in the college recruiting business.  Think I'm wrong, for every HS kid you show me sitting 83-85 and going D1 with great control, command, ERA, WHIP, etc. ... I'll show a hundred going D1 who can throw 90+, can't consistently throw a strike, and walk the park every other outing.

For a position player that means exit velo off the bat 1st and 60 time second.  Nothing else (especially stats) matters much.  No one cares if you make great contact on every swing unless you can pull a middle-in fastball over the fence.  A kid who strikes out in 50'% of his ABs but hits 400 foot home runs every 10th at bat will get recruited.  Recruiters don't care if a kid has a phenomenal glove and can slap one in the gap or lay down a bunt unless that kid is sub 6.5s in the 60. Because if he can do that, he can turn that slap hit into extra bases. Does not matter the position. 

So if you want to get recruited.  Work on throwing hard, swinging hard, and becoming as fast as you possibly can.

EastCO posted:

So my oldest just turned 15. Rising freshman.  He is going to be small.  5-9, maybe 5-10.  Good eye at plate. High avg, walk rate, doubles power.  7.2 recent 60.  Throws 75.  Exit 80.   Better than avg mif, elite OF.   Our, at least my, priority is getting him into the best academic school he can get into.   Really high level student.  Just give me some guesses.  If a kids grades/scores match at very upper range and lets say he runs 6.7, throws 85, exit 90 by junior yr,  what are odds a little guy can play ball at say stanford, duke, ivy, Vanderbilt, etc...?  1000 to 1?   500 to 1?   How about an elite D3 like amherst, williams, mit, hopkins, etc...    

73C8B5D8-F695-4A9C-8C39-02EDA6871C81

Attachments

Photos (1)
adbono posted:
EastCO posted:

So my oldest just turned 15. Rising freshman.  He is going to be small.  5-9, maybe 5-10.  Good eye at plate. High avg, walk rate, doubles power.  7.2 recent 60.  Throws 75.  Exit 80.   Better than avg mif, elite OF.   Our, at least my, priority is getting him into the best academic school he can get into.   Really high level student.  Just give me some guesses.  If a kids grades/scores match at very upper range and lets say he runs 6.7, throws 85, exit 90 by junior yr,  what are odds a little guy can play ball at say stanford, duke, ivy, Vanderbilt, etc...?  1000 to 1?   500 to 1?   How about an elite D3 like amherst, williams, mit, hopkins, etc...    

73C8B5D8-F695-4A9C-8C39-02EDA6871C81

My instinct is to agree 100%,  but then I think of one of my favorite ball players, Manny Ramirez.  He had the tangibles, and none of those listed intangibles and was the best right-handed hitter of a generation.

Everyone is entitled to their opinion, and there is an outlier to every statement that applies to the majority.  But some opinions also have more experience and knowledge behind them than others. There is way too much focus on posting measurables than there is on getting better at playing the game. That is my opinion and it’s shared by a lot of people that are way more influential in the game of baseball than I am. 

adbono posted:

Measurables are not necessarily an indication of skills. 

Correct.  However, in today's world, without accomplishing the prerequisite threshold for measureables required for the next level, college coaches won't even consider you...

first you achieve certain measureables, then they look at the rest...

3and2Fastball posted:
adbono posted:

Measurables are not necessarily an indication of skills. 

Correct.  However, in today's world, without accomplishing the prerequisite threshold for measureables required for the next level, college coaches won't even consider you...

first you achieve certain measureables, then they look at the rest...

Well, I would say it differently. I would say that first you become a good player. Then you look at measurables. Too many kids think that hitting a certain milestone will get them recruited.  And that is true for a 90 mph FB and/or a 6.5 sixty. But that’s about it. It doesn’t matter if a kid throws 84 across the diamond or 88.  It matters how well he plays his position. It doesn’t matter if a kid records an 87 mph Exit Velo or a 94. What matters is whether or not he can hit good pitching. Straight line speed isn’t helpful if a kid doesn’t know how to run the bases - or takes bad angles to the ball. A great OF arm isn’t much use if the kid throws to the wrong base. College Coaches want players that know how to play the game. IMO a lot of people have the cart in front of the horse. 

adbono posted:
EastCO posted:

So my oldest just turned 15. Rising freshman.  He is going to be small.  5-9, maybe 5-10.  Good eye at plate. High avg, walk rate, doubles power.  7.2 recent 60.  Throws 75.  Exit 80.   Better than avg mif, elite OF.   Our, at least my, priority is getting him into the best academic school he can get into.   Really high level student.  Just give me some guesses.  If a kids grades/scores match at very upper range and lets say he runs 6.7, throws 85, exit 90 by junior yr,  what are odds a little guy can play ball at say stanford, duke, ivy, Vanderbilt, etc...?  1000 to 1?   500 to 1?   How about an elite D3 like amherst, williams, mit, hopkins, etc...    

73C8B5D8-F695-4A9C-8C39-02EDA6871C81

That statement should be the other way around. These things mean nothing unless you're a good player with these measurables. What's funny is how these people gain followers and credibility with tweets like these. Find me a college coach who recruits an entire class based around their strong competitive nature and awareness and I'll show you a coach who will be looking for a job in June.  

The statement being made in the tweet is true either way. The point of emphasis is that there is too much focus on achieving metric milestones and not enough emphasis on the mental side of the game. And not enough emphasis on training, (good) instruction, and becoming a better player. But it’s not an either/or thing. You need both to be a good enough player to be recruited. Just achieving certain measurables will not (by itself) make you a good ballplayer and get you recruited. That’s the point of the tweet. 

adbono posted:

The statement being made in the tweet is true either way. The point of emphasis is that there is too much focus on achieving metric milestones and not enough emphasis on the mental side of the game. And not enough emphasis on training, (good) instruction, and becoming a better player. But it’s not an either/or thing. You need both to be a good enough player to be recruited. Just achieving certain measurables will not (by itself) make you a good ballplayer and get you recruited. That’s the point of the tweet. 

I think most  people would agree with the importance of the intangibles for sustained success and development as a player and that kids should be encouraged to develop all the things that make you better.   PABASEBALL is right, and I would go even further and say Troy Silva's tweet is useless, touchy fluff.  I point to a guy from my generation named Charlie Ward.  Heisman trophy winner, all the intangibles, all the skills, but none of what NFL personnel directors considered the measurables.  In their eyes, he was too short, too weak of a passer,  and not accurate enough with the football.  No one drafted him.

Jamarcus Russel, Ryan Leaf, Tony Mandarich all the measurables, none of the intangibles.  Huge flops, biggest in the NFL, but all mult-millionaires.  Yes, just having the measurables will get you recruited, but you probably won't have much success without the other attributes. 

Baseball: Todd Van Poppel, Brady Aiken, Mark Appel, Mark Prior, etc.  All top picks based purely on measureables.

I respect the point that you are making, but the original poster was asking about measurable skills.  It is no coincidence that every prospect camp begins with 60 yard dash, throws from rightfield, across the infield, and batting practice.   With few exceptions for local kids, college coaches aren't coming to your high school games, don't care about your stats, and see you too few times with all the recruits that they need to see at scattered summer showcases.

When it comes time for in-game scrimmage at prospect camps, the coaches at these events sit behind home plate so that they can check the pitchers velo, location, and movement in that order.  They don't care about the hitters during scrimmage unless they are putting them in the trees every other at bat.  So knowing what gets you recruited, if that is the goal, is the first thing to work on.   

No experience here as my son is just starting HS.  But based on everything I've read here, my conclusion is that measurables are what gets you recruited or drafted, and the immeasurables are what helps you succeed (but still no guarantee).  The colleges and MLB believe that they can always teach someone with the raw talent the skills later on (pitcher with velocity and no control can be taught control, whereas its harder for a pitcher with control but low velocity to be taught velocity later on).  Having immeasurables w/o the measurables will not allow you to get your foot into the door to begin with.  BUT, having these immeasurables will help you succeed in other areas of life later on.  And having both measurables and immeasurables will put a kid ahead of another kid with just measurables in the eyes of the coaches.

fenwaysouth posted:

However Tom was recruited very, very young and had off the chart skills (switch hitter).  Had other West Coast D1 offers (not Stanford) in hand as a high school underclassmen.  Very much an outlier for his size with many, many tools.  He started his freshmen year at Stanford, drafted 6th round, and made it to the majors in two years.   His talent is ridiculous, and very much not the norm.  I agree size should not be an impediment and it is about skills but I think comparing yourself to this  young man is setting yourself up for failure.  He is an anomaly.

As always, JMO.  

I know the family well - agree that Tommy is an anomaly. His hand-eye is a super power. Incredibly bright and a very hard worker. 

 

 

I’m aware that a lot of people think that measurables are what gets a kid recruited or drafted. Professional scouting services have done an amazing job of getting the public to drink that Kool-Aid.  But that is only true with eye popping measurables. Short of that, a kid will also have to prove that he is also a good enough player to be recruited. Most people on this board don’t have kids that are posting eye popping measurables. If they did they wouldn’t need to be on this board.  Silva is an accomplishment instructor with a really good baseball pedigree. He sees kids every day that are chasing metrics and not doing what they need to do to improve their game. The same is true for me. There was a RHP at North Iowa Area CC last year that threw 97 mph.  He only pitched 20 innings all year because he walked 40 batters. They couldn’t use him. UNC had already signed him after his freshman year, but they were hoping he would get drafted cuz they didn’t want him.  But he didn’t get drafted and now he is at a school that is stuck with him but doesn’t want him. For past two years kids entire focus has been on throwing hard with no attention paid to learning how to pitch.  Now he is in a bad spot. You are sadly mistaken if you think most players get great instruction when they get to college. Many players get little to no instruction at all. Colleges recruit players with the belief and the expectation that they will contribute immediately. If they can’t (or don’t) they are often cast aside and it’s next man up. That’s the reality. It’s plug and play.  So even if you are a Showcase superstar you won’t stick with any program if you can’t help the team win games once you get there. 

The Showcase Superstar player who can't play Baseball is a vast minority

if a kid has an 8.6 60, throws 63 mph, with a 71 Exit Velo, he's not going to play college baseball, even if he gets better jumps than Rickey Henderson can read the spin of a Baseball better than Ted Williams, hustles more than Pete Rose and has more Baseball IQ than Sparky Anderson...

You are missing the point. It’s not metrics OR intangibles. It’s BOTH. And they deserve equal attention. But if you want to put everything into chasing metrics by all means go ahead and do that. Be sure to get back to me in a couple of years and let me know how that works out for you. My guess is that it won’t change a thing. You will end up where you belong - eventually. 

Add Reply

Likes (0)
×
×
×
×