SPARQ Testing

cbg

The tests make no sense for baseball players--just another NIKE gimmick if you ask me

TR,

I do understand that they are testing to determine how good of an athlete a player is but I do not see any reason to be tested unless you have practiced the specific test. Who would take a physics test without attending a single class? The players that use the SPARQ testing methods at their school will have a major advantage even if they are not the best athletes.

This may be a bit rare but I agree with TR 100% on this one.

SPARQ is a good way of measuring if a baseball player plays football or has paid to do the training and that is about it.

Players already run the 40 or the 60 at showcases and that along with watching the player on the field will give you all the information you need about their athletic ability.

cbg,
I think you understand it pretty well. I doubt that many scouts or showcase operators care in the least about the results of the SPARQ tests.

We had them at an event a few weeks back and they ran them on a wet grass surface--I truly went ballistic as the kids were being put in a decion of being hurt do to the wet grass not to mention whatever "readings" they got were meaningless

Baseball players don't need this stuff--they need to be seen playing the game--do you think Derek Jeter is the greatest athlete ? I don't think but he is one heck of a baseball player


Get my point folks--- just another marketing tool for NIKE


CADAD

Are we starting a trend here ? LOL

I certainly hope there is no trend to not looking at new ways to get beyond age old prejudices.
SPARQ appears to be an attempt to OBJECTIVELY MEASURE athletic ability. Such things as quickness, agility, flexibility, strength, speed, etc. Perhaps no one needs to have these qualities to play baseball. But they do have to have those qualities to be delared "athletic" as I understand the term. And we all seem to be interested in having the best "athletes" because we think that the game requires athleticism to perfom at the highest levels. So why so quick to criticize an attempt to develop a test for athleticism that measures potential baseball talent?

"Because, you dope, we know who can play. We watch them play. I can tell you in 5 minutes who can play this game and who can't. We don't need no stupid testing. Just our eyes. And that is why we get to decide who plays. We have great eyes. And we know. We have always known. You don't but we do."

TW344

TW

For one thing the tests are done on various types of surfaces, wet, dry etc--thus true comparisons cannot be made.

The table is not level

To me it is just another NIKE marketing gimmick-and they are the best when it comes to marketing-

You dont need SPARQ to determine who is athletic and who isnt. That is pretty easy to figure out.

All you have to do is watch. LOL

But lets assume you do need SPARQ to determine who will be "declared athletic". OK - Once you are declared athletic - then what?

You still have to play the game.

I think we are all currently witnessing the trickle down effect of money on the game. From high priced travel teams - to $15 million collegiate stadiums - to hard core hype.
In some ways - I think it is great - these college baseball athletes will be getting more and more exposure.

But - like every thing else in life - there is a price to pay.

Ruthless recruiting activities - an explosion of "talent identification" factories - the inevitable "I can add 10 miles per hour on to your fastball in 30 days gurus" - etc,etc,etc...

As the money gets bigger and bigger - you will see more of the same - and the parent will need to continue to improve their skills as a consumer - or be taken to the cleaners.

No different than anything else in our society. Just the way it is. IMO.

How exactly do you "determine who is athletic and who isnt." The big hulking first baseman who swins the bat at 99 MPH, runs the 60 in 8.5 seconds and can only catch a baseball if it never bounces on the ground because his hands are rocks? Is he athletic or not?

How about the 5'5 guy who runs the 60 yard dash in 6.4 seconds, gets to the ball in the hole every time but makes the throw over the first baseman's head 2 out of every three times. Is he athletic?

What about the 6'5" 145 lb sting bean that cna't run, can't field, can't hit but can throw the ball 90 mph. Is he athletic?

If all are athletic, then who isn't?

TW344

All baseball players are athletes to one degree or another--but more importantly they are baseball players--as coaches do we need another test to make people think they are athletes

TW:

I can't tell you for sure, but that first basemen you mentioned might be able to hit a baseball a long way, but he is not close to being athletic.

But he can hit home runs !!!

Bottom line for baseball players

I've never heard of SPARQ so I have no opinion one way or the other. But I do wonder what this test would think of David Wells, Rick Ruschel or David Eckstein?

They might fail

Willie Stargell would have failed.
Brooks Robinson too.

Johnny Bench - fail.
Yogi Berra - fail.
Carl Yastrzemski - fail.
Boog Powell - fail.
Mickey Lolich - fail.

Keith Hernandez - fail.
Gary Carter - fail.

Lee May - fail.
Tony Perez - fail.

These guys were pretty good - but they all would have been declared SPARQ failures.

You forgot Babe Ruth!

Though in fairness to the Babe, at the time he got started he might have done pretty well.

.

quote:

tests are done on various types of surfaces, wet, dry etc--thus true comparisons cannot be made.

For example...the first time I encountered Sparq at The Senior Wood Bat at Peoria in '05...the shuttle/agility run.....Mine tested with others on soft spongy grass. Some had cleates others didn't. Some went early when the grass held up. Others late when it was deep and more slippery. Many slipped, others didn't. The same shuttle run in the right shoes on turf, or on a track surface would bear little relationship to what we did.

I remember thinking at the time the same thing as TR....

quote:

The table is not level

44

quote:

Originally posted by Coach Wyckoff:
Any thoughts on the eye training device on the sparq website? I think it could be a very interesting tool. Thinking about introducing it to our players...

http://sparqtraining.com/features/?p=111

I just checked out that site. With the white print on the black background, I feel like I should sign up for the eyesite training!

This topic has been brought up before here. There are those who think Sparq testing has value and those who think otherwise.

Once again, my take on it! FWIW

IMO ALL information is valuable. The more we can know about a player… the better! Sparq testing provides just ONE piece of info. By it self… Sparq testing will not determine a baseball player’s ability, but it could “help” in determining his potential.

You will see players drafted in early rounds with low Sparq scores. So the Sparq test does not determine who the best baseball players are. You might see players with very high Sparq scores get overlooked by scouts and college coaches because they don’t have the required skills.

People need to look at the Sparq scores as simply one piece of information about a player. Just as we look at 60 times, radar readings, pop times, home-first times, etc. To me there is value in all information. And the above times also come from various field conditions, that make a difference from one place to the next. It’s when you have as much info as possible that you will make the best “guess”. No one bit of information is enough all by itself!

One thing that I’ve noticed is that those who test more than once or actually train for the Sparq Testing tend to score higher. It seems fairly normal that under similar conditions that a player will score lowest his first time being tested. This information by itself is valuable to know when looking at a particular Sparq Score.

I do believe that the Sparq Scores are probably a much better indicator in football than baseball. People could argue that being a good football player doesn’t make you a good baseball player and they would be correct! But many times when a scout is following a good baseball prospect he will go watch that kid play his football or basketball game. Why? Because he wants as much information as he can possibly get on that player! It’s all important! Watching a kid play “ping pong” can give a good scout “some” information!

All this information that is gathered only means something when the player can actually play the game. Everyone that states that, is correct.

I agree with PG that the more data you have in hand the better off you are in getting a more complete assessment of "potential".

Much like a jigsaw puzzle a players profile is is made up of many pieces. Many would say that the mental profile tests given to players by MLB is a waste of time, but they do rely on them extensively when comparing player A and Player B whos athletic skills are similar.

As many others have said, hand you have to be careful how and when those tests are administered. Sparq testing may not be the best tool, but it is a tool.

Michael Jordan - would've set SPARQ records, "failed" baseball

He got a shot because of his athletic ability and celebrity and he did pretty well considering his time away from baseball and his age but it just proves that in baseball, given some athletic ability, baseball skills are far more important than overall athletic ability.

The real question in all this is if a player's time is better spent practicing baseball skills or the powerball throw?

CADad,

Actually there are players who practice the Powerball Throw or at least something very similiar. They do it to increase their power!

People can mention hundreds of names of Hall of Famers who might not of scored well on something like Sparq Testing. And people could name hundreds of athletes who might have scored high in Sparq testing, but couldn't play baseball.

The same thing could be said about the 60 yard dash, yet it has become very standard. It only shows how fast someone can run 60 yards. That can be important information, but its not enough all by itself!

Really it doesn't matter what any of us thinks. When colleges like Stanford, events run by MLB Scouts, and some Perfect Game events are using Sparq Testing (to some degree). It (Sparq) is gaining a lot of popularity.

It's never made mandatory and it is free of charge. They usually give away nice T-shirts and other things to every one who participates.

The way I look at it is... If I see a low Sparq Score I tend to disregard it. If I see a real high Sparq Score I pay attention.

quote:

Michael Jordan - would've set SPARQ records, "failed" baseball

CADad, I dont know if that's a fair comparision. If Jordan focused on baseball alone in college and then progressed through the minors to MLB who knows where he would have ended up. IMO, with his natural abilities and work ethic I don't think it would be to hard fetched to see him as HOF material. Who knows

If anyone knows any young kids who have Michael Jordan's athletic ability and also play baseball... Please let us know!

quote:

If Jordan focused on baseball alone in college

perhaps....and I suspect he would have been a very good DI baseball player, but the essential "wiring" needed to use a round bat to squarely hit a round ball as it changes directions at 90mph+ is exceptionally rare, and I doubt Jordan had it.

also, having attended many many meetings focused on boosting corporate bottomline, my instincts say SPARQ's initial migration to baseball (from football) was untested and absolutely profit motivated.

"flavor of the month"?

I personally saw Jordan play with the Barons in Chattanooga.

One big problem he couldn't overcome. Lack of bat speed. I mean a serious lack of bat speed. So bad that this man, in fabulous physical shape, was never ever going to get to the needed level. The White Sox were being kind to him in my opinion.

quote:

One big problem he couldn't overcome. Lack of bat speed. I mean a serious lack of bat speed.

I would agree that bat speed was an issue, and that the Sox did him a favor with the invite. However, for a man born in 1963, and playing baseball full time for the first time in his life in 1994 I would think that bat speed would be the least of his problems. He jumped into a profession where his peers had been playing the game full time for most of their lives. Scouts today would drool over a 17 year baseball player with Jordans athletic ability and mental make-up.

I agree rz1,

At age 31, after not having played or even practiced baseball for at least 14 or 15 years… Michael Jordan hit .202 in Double A Baseball. His on base % was around .320 and he stole 30 bases.

How many people would have the ability to play Double A their first year at age 31 after not touching a baseball for so long. You could say he was a failure, but he’s not the first or last player who has hit .200 in Double A. It’s just that all the rest of those .200 hitters were professional “Baseball” players.

For the sake of argument, isn’t it safe to assume Jordan would have been “much” better had he not missed at least 15 years of baseball before starting at the AA level?

I'm kind of amazed by what he actually accomplished.

PG,

Could you even guess what Dieon Sanders or Bo Jackson would have scored?

PG,
Something similar like swinging a bat?

I understand what you are saying and don't particularly disagree but I'd have to say that running the 60 which has been around showcases forever and a day is far more directly related to baseball than anything done in SPARQ, except of course running. Running speed is important in baseball and directly correlates to success although there's far more that goes into running the bases or having range in the outfield. Similarly, fastball velocity directly correlates with success in pitching although there's far more to pitching than just velocity. I don't think the SPARQ tests such as vertical jump and the powerball throw have a direct correlation to anything in baseball. There are a lot of strong guys out there with little batspeed and the 60 already tests speed so what baseball skill is being tested for with the vertical leap? It is football testing and you can't tell me that someone who practices the tests for a couple weeks and dramatically improves their score has improved significantly as an athlete in two weeks. So what meaning do the tests have if a good athlete scores much lower than an average athlete who has practiced them?

Baseball is hitting, throwing/pitching, running and fielding. Those are what need to be tested for baseball players and showcases already do that. The SPARQ testing and training adds virtually nothing.

It seems like you're taking the right attitude but if seeing a high score makes you pay attention then doesn't that make it worthwhile for a player to practice a set of skills that has little to do with baseball to get that high score and to pay for the training?

Don't kid yourself, the moment you say that you pay attention to a high SPARQ score they've achieved their goal and they are going to make money off kids who won't necessarily become better baseball players in the process. In general, the SPARQ training isn't going to make anybody worse and will probably help a little unless it takes away from baseball practice time. In fact, I was planning to have my kid do additional speed, strength and agility training just before he was injured doing that at the HS. However, the reality for most HS baseball players is that time is a precious commodity with a precarious balance between baseball, academics, sleep and on very rare occasions a social life.

On the other hand if seeing a fast 60 time gets you to pay attention and a player works at that then they've improved their ability to play baseball. If a pitcher works on his fastball and adds 5 mph to his velocity then you'll pay attention and he's improved his ability to play baseball.

cbg,
Can you guess what Babe Ruth would have scored? He was actually a pretty darn good athlete but given the way he ran, the belly and that he probably wouldn't have practiced the skills I don't think he would have scored very high.

I played against a guy who probably would have set records. He was incredibly fast and quick and I wouldn't doubt he had a great vertical leap and was very agile. Problem was he couldn't hit so he never made it past AAA and by the time I faced him he was playing in an Independent league. Some organization invested in athletic ability and lost.

rz,
I agree that Jordan probably would have been an adequate MLB player if he had concentrated on baseball...and not focused on other skills not directly related to hitting, throwing, etc. Personally, I think he made the right choice. Basketball requires more athletic ability than baseball does and great athletes are far more likely to shine in basketball and in football than they are in baseball which requires more skill than basketball or football. Athleticism is important in baseball and skill is important in basketball and football but the mix is different in each.

quote:

Athleticism is important in baseball and skill is important in basketball and football but the mix is different in each.

CLDad,

I will agree with the sentence above.

We should also add the position factor into the importance of athleticism. We would all agree, that to play Shortstop or Centerfield you need to be more athletic than to play Firstbase or Pitch. But being more athletic is a big advantage at every position on the field.

And for every example of the slow, heavy set, slugger or power pitcher that has been a great baseball player... I could give you hundreds of examples of outstanding athletes playing professional baseball. When people start mentioning Jeter, they should know what a tremendous athlete he is and was.

I'm not sure how Sparq Testing will turn out as a measurement. They only try to measure athletic ability, not baseball ability. We all know it takes more than just athletic ability, but that doesn't mean athletic ability is not part of the equation.

Regarding the "vertical" (this could start another debate) I think the player with the higher "vertical" has an advantage over the guy who can't jump, and at every position on the field! (Some obviously more important than others)

PG,
Not much of a debate. I agree, but the difference is pretty minimal and the player with better anticipation and timing will make more plays. Adam Kennedy makes some great leaping catches and vertical leap is part of it but there's dozens out there with better vertical leaps or who are taller and could reach as high who couldn't come close to making the plays he does. If you want to see the difference between athletic ability and fielding ability just look at Vlad. Great player and definitely worth having out there but if he worked at his fielding the Angels might be in contention right now.

BTW, the taller player has a similar advantage. Some NBA centers don't have much of a vertical leap. Time to get rid of Eckstein and all those other short second basemen and shortstops (OK, I admit most of them would probably score pretty well overall).

I agree with your assessment, I guess the difference is that I believe one can recognize athletic ability as it relates to baseball just fine without the SPARQ testing. Do you really think there's great athletes out there who have passed through your showcases without being noticed? Every bit of information is useful but at some point a little bit more knowledge isn't worth a lot more time and effort.

I understand your point! I guess you're right that great athletes do tend to stand out.

As a parent you make sense, but as a scout I still want as much info as I can possibly latch on to. How's your son at "ping pong"?

A natural! It is in the genes. He doesn't practice it any though so he'll never be able to compete with those who do. Hmmm...didn't ask the doctor about ping pong when I asked if he could start swinging a bat again.

BTW, practicing similar but different skills can have a negative effect at times. The key to the best finish I ever had in a pro tennis tournament was beating one of the seeds in an early round who had messed up his strokes playing too much racquetball.

I was probably an example of a decent athlete who wouldn't have done very well on SPARQ, can't jump, had only average strength, but despite not looking very fast would have shown up as being fairly fast in the 60. My abilities were mostly suited to tennis and baseball.

Brewers JJ Hardy's Mom or Dad (forget which) was a tennis pro. He is not a burner, but extremely athletic!

Here is a clip of a pretty good athlete Reggie Bush

Can he hit a 90 mph fastball?

I would think testing raw athleticism could be valuable for someone who has not yet gotten a lot of solid baseball coaching or experience. All other things equal, the naturally gifted athlete will have greater upside potential over the long term.

That being said, no one should use test results as an excuse to overlook someone who proves it on the field. The fact is, you can be successful if you master one or a few facets of the game, whether or not you have the general athleticism to master them all. E.g., if a guy can hit 40 HR's a year, you can tolerate a bad 60 speed. And if one organization passes on that guy, someone else will snap him up and let him help them beat the dummies.

I would think you'd be interested in proven performers, or those with potential, or those with elements of both. I would think you'd eliminate from consideration only those who don't satisfy either criterion.

Isn't that what we're talking about? So, what's the beef?

Can Reggie Bush hit a 90 mph fastball?

Unfortunately we will probably never know.

Midlo,

I dont think there is really a beef. Just different observations about the relevance of SPARQ.

As I said in a previous post on this subject:

"You can have the high SPARQ guy - I'll take the .330 hitter." LOL

Midlo,
No beef. I enjoy these discussions with PG. He states his opinions firmly without outbursts. He'll concede points here and there without conceding the discussion.

I also agree with its, depending on where he hit .330.