Skip to main content

Looking for some advice from the experience on this board- I have a 2024 that I would say is above average but not a kid that you would say is for sure D-1. Went  to a camp this fall and his metrics were good for a 13 year old--Hand timed 7.2 and 79 exit velo . He has been invited to play on a couple of semi local 14u "premier teams", or he can stay closer to home and play with kids he will be playing high school with and still be exposed to some pretty good competition and coaching. Not sure its worth the extra travel and money at this point as he hasn't even stepped foot onto a high school field yet.  So my question I guess is would getting in with a larger organization at an early age be worth it or do I go with if he is good enough they will find him even playing for a smaller organization. Thanks for any direction---

Original Post

Replies sorted oldest to newest

From your post, I sense your son is a position player. At this early stage starting and getting ABs and repetitions is what it's all about. It looks like you already went to a showcase as you list measurables. Good to have an "early" baseline. My son played Legion ball and did fine. Though the Legion guys weren't his HS teammates, the travel was convenient and there was a LOT of games in a short period of time. He supplemented his Legion activity with showcases with schools he was targeting (and vice versa) his sophomore and junior years. What position is your 2024?

Once my kids turned thirteen my attitude was, “What’s the best competition they can play against to get ready for high school?”

For my daughter (the oldest) it was regional ASA softball over a three, four state area. For my son it was regional USSSA Majors tournaments and DH’ers against top teams on off weekends. Fortunately, the USSSA facility was within an hour’s drive. We played a few other tournaments a couple of hours out  to play teams we didn’t see all the time.

As they developed the question became, “How far can they play up and successfully compete?”

Last edited by RJM

I don't think getting into the big organization is the deal.  it is finding the best competitive team that fits your needs and desires for the reasonable amount of money.  I would say if he is 8th grade now he needs to play pretty good competition this summer and strong competition next fall according to what level of HS he desires to play.  I recommend all players play big field next fall and we did the summer before school ball. 

adbono posted:

There is no such thing as a 13 year old position player that is a sure D1 prospect 

Beg to differ there.  I can name 4 position players my son knows in my area that were 100% lock D1s at 13, barring injury.  3 of the 4 have proven as such by signing, and the 4th will sign at some point (though will likely go in the draft). 

Senna posted:
adbono posted:

There is no such thing as a 13 year old position player that is a sure D1 prospect 

Beg to differ there.  I can name 4 position players my son knows in my area that were 100% lock D1s at 13, barring injury.  3 of the 4 have proven as such by signing, and the 4th will sign at some point (though will likely go in the draft). 

You can differ all you want. The facts are that there is no way to project how a 13 year old will progress over the next 5 years. Maybe they continue to improve but maybe they don’t.  If they progress at a rate that the school is still interested, good for them-sort of.  They still won’t be ready to take playing time away from a 22 year old man when they get to a D1 school.  And if they don’t progress the D1 school will bail on them in a heartbeat. Even if they progress and sign, and make a big announcement on Twitter, that doesn’t mean they ever see an inning of play. They are 50% likely to be at a JuCo in 90 days. There are exceptions to every rule but what I’m stating is the norm. And regional differences are huge. I know a kid that at 13 was the best player I saw in Texas. He never got any better. Signed w/ a D1 mid major and got cut. Now at a JuCo and not sure he will play there. The better D1 programs churn their rosters like a dairy farmer making butter. What a kid is at 13 doesn’t mean what you think it does, 

Coachdent, in addition to the focus on a team, as an eighth grader, he is working with a blank academic canvas.

Filling that canvas will mean as much, or more, to his collegiate prospects as baseball. AND, you have the time to really dig in and understand what it takes academically to have the best options. By getting ahead of the college curve, he will not lose options. 

Set up a meeting with his HS guidance counselor, pick up a generalist book on colleges, head over to College Confidential - ASAP. Include him (kicking and screaming) in your research and observations. Make sure any learning issues (if) are diagnosed and resolved. Cut him no slack on the academics and make sure he develops study habits which enable him to deal with juggling multiple priorities (baseball and school) - the further a kid goes, the harder the juggling becomes.

It's impossible to predict if he develops into a power D1 player at this point and so many things (in and out of his control) can interfere with a kid achieving his full baseball potential (loss of interest, injuries, girls, friends, grades, life); but, filling his academic potential is within his total control. That part of the puzzle is on the family.

Keep us informed!

adbono posted:
Senna posted:
adbono posted:

There is no such thing as a 13 year old position player that is a sure D1 prospect 

Beg to differ there.  I can name 4 position players my son knows in my area that were 100% lock D1s at 13, barring injury.  3 of the 4 have proven as such by signing, and the 4th will sign at some point (though will likely go in the draft). 

You can differ all you want. The facts are that there is no way to project how a 13 year old will progress over the next 5 years. Maybe they continue to improve but maybe they don’t.  If they progress at a rate that the school is still interested, good for them-sort of.  They still won’t be ready to take playing time away from a 22 year old man when they get to a D1 school.  And if they don’t progress the D1 school will bail on them in a heartbeat. Even if they progress and sign, and make a big announcement on Twitter, that doesn’t mean they ever see an inning of play. They are 50% likely to be at a JuCo in 90 days. There are exceptions to every rule but what I’m stating is the norm. And regional differences are huge. I know a kid that at 13 was the best player I saw in Texas. He never got any better. Signed w/ a D1 mid major and got cut. Now at a JuCo and not sure he will play there. The better D1 programs churn their rosters like a dairy farmer making butter. What a kid is at 13 doesn’t mean what you think it does, 

As you said, there are exceptions to every rule. And maybe you & I have different definitions of “prospect”. Anyway, I’m not trying to hijack this thread. Agree to disagree. 

IMO prior to high school is when a kid should have fun playing the game.  Important thing is to play where he will get the most opportunities to be on the field.  Couldn't tell by OP whether by playing on a "premier team" he will be playing most of the games.  Omitting solely talent, there are many other variables which will effect how successful a kid can will be to get to the next level (academics, relationships, friends, getting burned out on baseball, injury, etc).  This may be the last opportunity to play with friends and enjoy the game.  Very soon the time will come to dedicate majority of their time and effort into baseball.

The only thing that I could add, is that from 13u (8th grade) until 17u (11th or 12th grade) is a very humbling experience, the only lock will be the locks on the doors of one's car.

Focus on the Academics.

Depending on your home state,  for example in 2019, there were 64 freshman listed positional players from the state of NJ playing D1 baseball.  Of the 64 players, 13 played in their home state.

 

 

2019 New Jersey State Participation Report

 2019 Pennsylvania, there were 62 freshman listed positional players from the state of PA playing D1 baseball.  Of the 62 players, 15 played in their home state.

2019 Pennsylvania State Participation Report

2019 New York, there were 70 freshman listed positional players from the state of NY playing D1 baseball.  Of the 70 players, 36 played in their home state.

2019 New York State Participation Report

Disclaimer,  the information is based on roster information and does not include game statistics, whereas a player listed as a pitcher also played a field position.

Attachments

Images (3)
  • 2019 New Jersey State Participation Report
  • 2019 Pennsylvania State Participation Report
  • 2019 New York State Participation Report
Last edited by CollegebaseballInsights

A player should work on becoming the best player he wants to be. If he doesn’t have phenomenal desire and work ethic chances are he won’t become a D1 prospect (there are stud exceptions). If he doesn’t have phenomenal desire and work ethic he won’t survive a year of D1 baseball.

I’m guessing most 13yos and their parents have no idea what college ball is all about. It’s a lot more than NCAA tournament games and the CWS you see on tv. It starts in the pool at 6am swimming for upper body strength. This after getting to bed at midnight after finishing homework. The kid should have stated homework earlier in the evening? Not if early in the evening he had to attend strength and/or agility sessions.  I could say it’s high school times 1000. But I’m not sure the preparation for high school compares to college ball at all.

Last edited by RJM
Senna posted:
adbono posted:
Senna posted:
adbono posted:

There is no such thing as a 13 year old position player that is a sure D1 prospect 

Beg to differ there.  I can name 4 position players my son knows in my area that were 100% lock D1s at 13, barring injury.  3 of the 4 have proven as such by signing, and the 4th will sign at some point (though will likely go in the draft). 

You can differ all you want. The facts are that there is no way to project how a 13 year old will progress over the next 5 years. Maybe they continue to improve but maybe they don’t.  If they progress at a rate that the school is still interested, good for them-sort of.  They still won’t be ready to take playing time away from a 22 year old man when they get to a D1 school.  And if they don’t progress the D1 school will bail on them in a heartbeat. Even if they progress and sign, and make a big announcement on Twitter, that doesn’t mean they ever see an inning of play. They are 50% likely to be at a JuCo in 90 days. There are exceptions to every rule but what I’m stating is the norm. And regional differences are huge. I know a kid that at 13 was the best player I saw in Texas. He never got any better. Signed w/ a D1 mid major and got cut. Now at a JuCo and not sure he will play there. The better D1 programs churn their rosters like a dairy farmer making butter. What a kid is at 13 doesn’t mean what you think it does, 

As you said, there are exceptions to every rule. And maybe you & I have different definitions of “prospect”. Anyway, I’m not trying to hijack this thread. Agree to disagree. 

That’s okay. A lot of parents of 13 year old players don’t agree with what I say. Check back with me in 5 years. 

The best 13u player I coached against was a 5’10” stud man-child. He dominated at the plate and on the mound. He hit balls as far as men hit them. Then, year by year others passed him in talent. At fifteen he was academically ineligible for high school ball. At sixteen, he was into drugs. 

There are so many distractions for kids. Some of them bad. Some of them are positives the kid decides is more important than baseball (other sports,  academics, music, jobs). 

If you asked my kids at thirteen what’s their favorite sport the response would be, “What season is it?”But they were gearing towards baseball/softball ultimately being the most important.

Last edited by RJM

Son played on a powerhouse high school team. The only guys who played varsity as freshmen were guys who were physically mature and had the skills to match (oh, and often they had been held back a year), and they were rarities. These guys typically were either drafted or were all-American caliber players. Son’s freshman year of HS we had the “man-child” who of course performed well due to a physical strength advantage. His swing was terrible and he could only play 1B. All the “smart” parents already had this kid pegged as an early D1 commit and a 1st round draft pick. He never really developed much beyond his freshman year and ended up going to a D3 school, got no D1 interest at all. Grades were not an issue, kid was a prototypical genius. Maybe he chose to go D3 due to the school, but I tend to think it was due to the fact his skill set did not match what was needed to play at the D1 level at a high academic school, whether P5, Ivy or Patriot League.

I do expect the kid to cure cancer, however.

 

I think there is an argument to be made that the kids who express their talent early, and have everyone around them acting like they are a shoe in for D1 ball, are more likely to flame out without someone actively managing their perspective. It is very difficult mentally to buckle down and work when the kids you dominated in middle school start to pass you up in high school.

collegebaseballrecruitingguide posted:

Son played on a powerhouse high school team. The only guys who played varsity as freshmen were guys who were physically mature and had the skills to match (oh, and often they had been held back a year), and they were rarities. These guys typically were either drafted or were all-American caliber players. Son’s freshman year of HS we had the “man-child” who of course performed well due to a physical strength advantage. His swing was terrible and he could only play 1B. All the “smart” parents already had this kid pegged as an early D1 commit and a 1st round draft pick. He never really developed much beyond his freshman year and ended up going to a D3 school, got no D1 interest at all. Grades were not an issue, kid was a prototypical genius. Maybe he chose to go D3 due to the school, but I tend to think it was due to the fact his skill set did not match what was needed to play at the D1 level at a high academic school, whether P5, Ivy or Patriot League.

I do expect the kid to cure cancer, however.

 

Was he early or late age cutoff? 

collegebaseballrecruitingguide posted:

Early, youngest player on the HS team

Sorry for the short message.  Upon listening to Malcolm Gladwell "The Outliers", I was thinking about the baseball age cut off prior (13u) to high school, I believe it is April 30.  Thus the premise was the players that were born just after the age cutoff are usually bigger than those near the end.  Since they are bigger, initially they tend to get the better training between the ages of 10u - 13u. 

We observed this in our academy, whereas we had three 14u teams.

The "A" Team - 75% 9th graders, 25% 8th graders

The "B" Team - 25% 9th graders, 75% 8th graders

The "B" Team had more athletes, could compete, but didn't have the pitching depth thus normally lost in the semi finals of a tournament.

We observed most of the training was going to the "A" Team.   Once in High School, the "B" Team players had more success.

Last edited by CollegebaseballInsights
CollegebaseballInsights posted:
collegebaseballrecruitingguide posted:

Early, youngest player on the HS team

Sorry for the short message.  Upon listening to Malcolm Gladwell "The Outliers", I was thinking about the baseball age cut off prior (13u) to high school, I believe it is April 30.  Thus the premise was the players that were born just after the age cutoff are usually bigger than those near the end.  Since they are bigger, initially they tend to get the better training between the ages of 10u - 13u. 

We observed this in our academy, whereas we had three 14u teams.

The "A" Team - 75% 9th graders, 25% 8th graders

The "B" Team - 25% 9th graders, 75% 8th graders

The "B" Team had more athletes, could compete, but didn't have the pitching depth thus normally lost in the semi finals of a tournament.

We observed most of the training was going to the "A" Team.   Once in High School, the "B" Team players had more success.

There are “outliers” and then there are kids who are freaks. When we are talking 12-13 year olds, I consider 6’1” 200lbs more than just an outlier. Same with the 6’2” lefty at age 12. That kind of difference really cannot be accounted for by a late or early birthdate, that’s genetics.

CollegebaseballInsights posted:
RJM posted:

I have a philosophy on outliers. The son of a former college and/or pro athlete is more likely to play college sports than when any kid’s birthday falls on the calendar. 

Is he getting the chance based on skillset or nepotism?

That is something none of your charts address. Nepotism is RAMPANT in college sports, baseball includes. 

collegebaseballrecruitingguide posted:
CollegebaseballInsights posted:
RJM posted:

I have a philosophy on outliers. The son of a former college and/or pro athlete is more likely to play college sports than when any kid’s birthday falls on the calendar. 

Is he getting the chance based on skillset or nepotism?

That is something none of your charts address. Nepotism is RAMPANT in college sports, baseball includes. 

Sure, sometimes its about favors or paying back, but a son of an MLB player or successful college player, or a sibling of a successful college player, is more likely to have the DNA with athleticism and talent.  A lot of times it makes sense to give the kid a shot.

collegebaseballrecruitingguide posted:
CollegebaseballInsights posted:
RJM posted:

I have a philosophy on outliers. The son of a former college and/or pro athlete is more likely to play college sports than when any kid’s birthday falls on the calendar. 

Is he getting the chance based on skillset or nepotism?

That is something none of your charts address. Nepotism is RAMPANT in college sports, baseball includes. 

Charts are data points, no different than when you go by a car.  Nepotism is part of all industries.  Always has been.

collegebaseballrecruitingguide posted:
CollegebaseballInsights posted:
collegebaseballrecruitingguide posted:

Early, youngest player on the HS team

Sorry for the short message.  Upon listening to Malcolm Gladwell "The Outliers", I was thinking about the baseball age cut off prior (13u) to high school, I believe it is April 30.  Thus the premise was the players that were born just after the age cutoff are usually bigger than those near the end.  Since they are bigger, initially they tend to get the better training between the ages of 10u - 13u. 

We observed this in our academy, whereas we had three 14u teams.

The "A" Team - 75% 9th graders, 25% 8th graders

The "B" Team - 25% 9th graders, 75% 8th graders

The "B" Team had more athletes, could compete, but didn't have the pitching depth thus normally lost in the semi finals of a tournament.

We observed most of the training was going to the "A" Team.   Once in High School, the "B" Team players had more success.

There are “outliers” and then there are kids who are freaks. When we are talking 12-13 year olds, I consider 6’1” 200lbs more than just an outlier. Same with the 6’2” lefty at age 12. That kind of difference really cannot be accounted for by a late or early birthdate, that’s genetics.

"When we are talking 12-13 year olds, I consider 6’1” 200lbs more than just an outlier. Same with the 6’2” lefty at age 12.", does not mean athleticism, it means the hormones they introduced in the 1960's have taken effect in later generations of human evolution or genetic mutation.

It does not guarantee success, still need to put in the time and the time must be quality.

CollegebaseballInsights posted:
RJM posted:

I have a philosophy on outliers. The son of a former college and/or pro athlete is more likely to play college sports than when any kid’s birthday falls on the calendar. 

Is he getting the chance based on skillset or nepotism

I’m talking about skill set that comes from genetics. 

Last edited by RJM

I will say the one advantage the prematurely mature “man child” types have is that they typically will play against older, and presumably better, competition at an earlier age, due to looking the part physically. In the case of the 6’1” 200 on man-child in my example, they played a lot as a guest player and never really got any good instruction along the way. That cost him in high school.

CoachDent,

Summer teams are about exposure and networking.  At 14 your son is just getting started and positioning himself for higher level baseball.  This is one path among many, but this is where and when it started for my son 10+ years ago.  He picked the best travel team that had he could play for while getting quite a bit of exposure.

If your son has the potential skills to play against the best competition and be seen by college recruiters, I strongly encourage you to consider a well known summer travel team with travel coaches that have experiences and relationships at the next level.   It never hurts to have people in your corner as the recruiting gig is tough even when your kid has talent. 

My oldest son played for a national travel team, and it opened many baseball doors to help us get started in his recruiting journey.   We further parlayed that with his grades and SAT scores to get introduced to some schools that we hadn't considered initially.  More doors opened up for him because of his grades/SAT scores.  Bottom line is leverage all the talent your son has that separates him from other recruits.  Rinse and repeat many times over until you find the right fit. 

Good luck!

RJM posted:

I have a philosophy on outliers. The son of a former college and/or pro athlete is more likely to play college sports than when any kid’s birthday falls on the calendar. 

So you mean it's like every other activity in the world in that kids who have the genetics to do AND grow up in a family where that activity is standard and encouraged are more likely to do it? That's incredibly obvious, isn't it?

RJM posted:

I have a philosophy on outliers. The son of a former college and/or pro athlete is more likely to play college sports than when any kid’s birthday falls on the calendar. 

Many of the kids with the "genetics" are priced out of the market in at a early age.  note,  cost to train, travel team, etc. is north of $5k to $10k range.  Thus the required outlier hours (10k) is hard to obtain.

CollegebaseballInsights posted:
RJM posted:

I have a philosophy on outliers. The son of a former college and/or pro athlete is more likely to play college sports than when any kid’s birthday falls on the calendar. 

Many of the kids with the "genetics" are priced out of the market in at a early age.  note,  cost to train, travel team, etc. is north of $5k to $10k range.  Thus the required outlier hours (10k) is hard to obtain.

Disagree.  The ones with genetics shouldn't have to pay to play.  Everyone is looking to add a stud to a team at all ages and normally those kids do not have to pay to play.  I know guys that have gone into the tough neighborhoods to find the kid playing little league that is a stud and was willing to pick him up, pay his costs, and take care of him, even taking them into their home so that argument that a lot of people want to add is wrong.  Now, the argument can be applied to the average kid who does not have the money to get better but not the stud.

PitchingFan posted:
CollegebaseballInsights posted:
RJM posted:

I have a philosophy on outliers. The son of a former college and/or pro athlete is more likely to play college sports than when any kid’s birthday falls on the calendar. 

Many of the kids with the "genetics" are priced out of the market in at a early age.  note,  cost to train, travel team, etc. is north of $5k to $10k range.  Thus the required outlier hours (10k) is hard to obtain.

Disagree.  The ones with genetics shouldn't have to pay to play.  Everyone is looking to add a stud to a team at all ages and normally those kids do not have to pay to play.  I know guys that have gone into the tough neighborhoods to find the kid playing little league that is a stud and was willing to pick him up, pay his costs, and take care of him, even taking them into their home so that argument that a lot of people want to add is wrong.  Now, the argument can be applied to the average kid who does not have the money to get better but not the stud.

You can disagree, that is your right.  What percentage have the perceived genetics and what tough neighborhoods are you talking about?  With respects to picking up his cost, you mean having a 2nd or 3rd team within a specific age group (to absorb the cost)  that don't receive the same training as the people on the 1st team.

stranded1 posted:
RJM posted:

I have a philosophy on outliers. The son of a former college and/or pro athlete is more likely to play college sports than when any kid’s birthday falls on the calendar. 

So you mean it's like every other activity in the world in that kids who have the genetics to do AND grow up in a family where that activity is standard and encouraged are more likely to do it? That's incredibly obvious, isn't it?

It’s my slap at those who make too much of a fuss over Outliers. Being born in October doesn’t mean squat versus athletic ability, work ethic and desire.

Did I suddenly acquire the ability to play college ball because I moved to CA in high school? Were my kids drained of their ability to play college sports because we moved out of state when they were young? It has a lot more to do with the family tree has been playing college sports since 1890. And their mo5er’s side had two previous generations playing college sports. Every make in both sides played college baseball. It means a lot more than my January and their May and July birthdays. 

Add Reply

×
×
×
×
Link copied to your clipboard.
×