Stanford future star eval in. A little exasperating because the OFs ones are not complete yet. The scale below was on each page of the eval, but I could find no corresponding # on the eval itself to match with the list. Am wondering if this is because the OF evals are incomplete? Anyone else at the Future stars camp receive one of the numbers below on their eval? I guess I didn't cuz my son's eval is off the charts?
Replies sorted oldest to newest
This is a fairly common complaint among campers especially the large camps. Coaches get weeks and months behind on these evals...I've seen it many times. I remember talking to my sons about this and none of them ever really cared too much about the written eval. What they did care about was the phone ringing or email inbox activity from existing schools or new schools on their lists.
I recall one college camp with my oldest son where they had a 5 point rating system. He actually hit 90mph in the camp and featured 3 pitches at that point in time. His best pitch (by far) is the change-up and they rated it a 2+ even though he got hitters to hit into multiple double plays in the simulated games. When he read the evaluation he laughed and figured they were either disorganized, or had no idea what they had seen, or both. I realize the larger camps are an aggregation of coaches ratings, but I wouldn't put to much emphasis either way on these evals.
Best of luck.
Does anyone know if these evaluations are shared with the coaches in attendance? Reason I ask is the one my son received (via an email link) had his stats right on the top for the skills part (60 time, jump, etc) - but then went on to evaluate his pitching. Problem is he didn't pitch and isn't a pitcher. Sooo not sure if the fielding eval was right either - too vague to tell. As fenway said not worth getting wrapped up over - but if these are shared with coaches I would like to know if we should try to correct it. thoughts?
I remember talking to my sons about this and none of them ever really cared too much about the written eval. What they did care about was the phone ringing or email inbox activity from existing schools or new schools on their lists.
Does anyone know if these evaluations are shared with the coaches in attendance? Reason I ask is the one my son received (via an email link) had his stats right on the top for the skills part (60 time, jump, etc) - but then went on to evaluate his pitching. Problem is he didn't pitch and isn't a pitcher. Sooo not sure if the fielding eval was right either - too vague to tell. As fenway said not worth getting wrapped up over - but if these are shared with coaches I would like to know if we should try to correct it. thoughts?
The email we got said the eval was sent only to us and that it was up to us to distribute to coaches. I'm hoping that's accurate and that we can pick and choose what we want to use. In some sections smoke jr. was rated highly and in some rated low. There were some surprises actually in both instances, so we're not taking the computer info on his swing too seriously (though not ignoring it, either).
it's that overall number on the scale of 1-10 that I'm curious about, at this point. Probably wouldn't matter what that ends up being; he still has to work hard and be seen.
From what I've read here over last 2-4 years.I thought the stanford camp was as good as it gets.Whats the deal?
From what I've read here over last 2-4 years.I thought the stanford camp was as good as it gets.Whats the deal?
The camp is great. I'd do it over again 100x with my son. Incredible experience, well run, great exposure and, the obvious, its at Stanford. Just saying don't read much into the evaluations, mainly because the inherent/human factors that impact how accurate and meaningful they may be.
From what I've read here over last 2-4 years.I thought the stanford camp was as good as it gets.Whats the deal?
The camp is great. I'd do it over again 100x with my son. Incredible experience, well run, great exposure and, the obvious, its at Stanford. Just saying don't read much into the evaluations, mainly because the inherent/human factors that impact how accurate and meaningful they may be.
Completely agree. 2018 loved the camp, and most importantly he felt it made him a better player. As he put it, "I learned more from that OF coach in three days than I did my whole freshman year". Also agree w/ smoke that its a bit frustrating to not have those evaluations back yet, but we weren't going to get too worked up about those either way.
The camp made him a better player, and made him feel more comfortable going against older competition. He has also received a ton of camp invites and email responses to his reaching out to the attending coaches, so it at least cracked open the door a little with some schools he has interest in as well.
All in all a very positive experience for 2018, and we got a great weekend in the Bay Area out of it as well, regardless of the "evaluation" side of the equation.
I want to echo those who are enthusiastic about the camp. My kid liked it a lot, and I agree that it was well run, and that he learned a lot. It was a great experience. I expected it to help me understand my son's "placement" better than I do, and remain eager for the complete eval.
Plan to return next year for the All star camp.
Surprise that evals for a camp with so many schools attending is so late. I know that Headfirst doesn't have an evaluation, but Showball and Under Armour Top96 were always given to campers right before leaving. One camp from a specific U son attended didn't send out eval for 2-3 weeks, but the camp was during the Christmas holiday, so I "guess" we understood.
Smoke- I sent you a PM
