How much does padding the eye test matter in your opinion? What experiences have you had with this in recruiting experiences? Just thought about this recently while at a showcase.
Original Post
Replies sorted oldest to newest
Padding the eye test? Can you explain?
Passing*
I think it’s one of many data points they use as a factor in the decision making process.
Personally, I think the most important factor is how well you play the game. Measurables are the only important if you use them effectively while playing.
Now, having great vision/corrected vision or having 100+ mph exit velo is a plus in baseball but only if you can hit.
Does that make sense?
I think that if you pass the eye test you are afforded the luxury of more time to develop good baseball skills. Also true in other sports. (And in life in general...I know plenty of good looking, articulate sales people who are given years to prove that they can't really sell.)
Passing the eye test has a lot to do with recruiting. Especially at good programs. The better the program, the more the eye test comes into play. Good D1 programs can get anyone they want. So can top D2 and top JUCO programs. They won"t recruit a player that doesn't look good playing the game - meaning if a player throws funny or runs funny he will not be recruited by a top program (in almost every instance). Its too big of a risk for the RC - who would be subject to criticism for recruiting a player that did something that didn't look good if that player didn't pan out. Much safer for the RC to recruit players that look good playing the game. So that what they do.
It's the most important. You can be 6'4 225 and have the best measurables at any showcase you go to, none of it matters if you look goofy doing it or have poor mechanics. If you send an email to a coach saying I play for ___ and throw ____ and have an exit velo of ____ , they might come see you. But once they're there if they see something is off, it might be all over. Unless you have poor mechanics throwing, are not fluent in the field, or have a swing that is tailored to having a high exit velo this really isn't something to worry about.
K9 posted:I think that if you pass the eye test you are afforded the luxury of more time to develop good baseball skills. Also true in other sports. (And in life in general...I know plenty of good looking, articulate sales people who are given years to prove that they can't really sell.)
The world class presenters who are afraid to go for the close.
There is literally nothing more subjective in sports than scouts and recruiting coordinators "choosing" who moves on to play baseball at the next level. Within every profession or job there is a bell curve and that applies to the selectors and selection system of next years professional and collegiate baseball players. I do think that professional teams are beginning to more clearly see the value of adding as much objectivity to the process as possible with the number of college level coaches you see being pulled to professional organizations. The college game is ahead of the pro game right now on objectivity...to some degree they care more about how you play and less about how you look...
I think it matters about as much as anything. The first time we went through recruiting, I talked to our son's travel coach, a former high D1 player himself about whether our son was good enough, etc...
One of the first things he said, after saying 'your son is on a path to be a good D1 player' (an important point as well) - was - 'the college coaches are going to have to see him play in person.'
This is something all of you have read on here more than anything else.
To me, thats as clear as it can be - in the end you gotta pass the eye test.
Baseball,
Let me turn this a bit and ask how comfortable should any recruit be if they choose and then attend a school where the coaching staff has not passed the "eye" test-seen them play, met them, visited with them at the school, etc? College baseball is intensely competitive. So many never make it 3-4 years at the college/university chosen as a freshman. I would venture to say that far too many of those who are not playing at their chosen school relates to the "eye" test.
To directly address your question, I cut and pasted from an online interview which has been referenced quite some time back on this site.
Coach Scannell at Trinity (TX.) was voted the Bertman award as the top college coach at all levels (in 2016.)
This is a cut and paste from one of his interviews:
"Q: How can a recruit get your attention? How can they get noticed by you and your staff?
A: It absolutely starts with a young man’s abilities on the baseball field. When I started at Trinity 18 years ago, we had to make the commitment to find ball players, first. With such high academic standards at Trinity, that can create quite a workload for our staff because once we identify a recruit, our staff has to do the legwork to see if he will meet the academic requirements here. We have to really hone in on the guys that are as equally gifted academically, as they are athletically. But to initially get our attention, you have got to be able to play the game. Specifically, a player needs to have a skill or skill set that separates himself from the competition.
Q: What advice would you have for a high school athlete interested in your program that you have not yet identified?
A: We have to get eyeballs on you! I am proud to say that we have seen every one of our guys, with our own eyes, before they became a part of our program. That is not going to change."
justbaseball posted:I think it matters about as much as anything. The first time we went through recruiting, I talked to our son's travel coach, a former high D1 player himself about whether our son was good enough, etc...
One of the first things he said, after saying 'your son is on a path to be a good D1 player' (an important point as well) - was - 'the college coaches are going to have to see him play in person.'
This is something all of you have read on here more than anything else.
To me, thats as clear as it can be - in the end you gotta pass the eye test.
Isn’t that passing the “he can play test?”
I could be wrong but isn’t the eye test about simply looking the part whether you can actually play or not?
Saw "the eye test" in full view son's (2015) recruiting journey..and it's real! Each offer he received, the coach/recruiter wanted to see him play in game action. His set of skills (speed/contact hitter/defense)may be an acquired taste.
The recruiter of the school he would land, first was became interested with son's stats (they did matter)-- 200+ SB in high school/legion/college camps/showcases with 90%+ success rate. Then son was fastest of 223 campers in 60 yard dash at a showcase where RC attended. But it wasn't until RC went to a doubleheader(eye-test) where son played against top team and faced state HS Player of the year that things happened. Son doubled off ace, then stole third and scored on errant throw. Perhaps even more important, was a two-hopper in next AB that son would ever beat out hit right to the shortstop. This infield hit was followed by a SB, which was preceded by 4-5 pick-off attempts. RC told son that everyone in stadium knew he was running, and still made it (His manager knew RC was there and wanted to give son every opportunity). Offer came on the mound after game. Timing is everything- and doing well for the "eye test" doesn't hurt. You never know.....
I think there is a discrepancy by what folks mean by the "eye test". It seems like:
(1) some posters thinks it means "looking the part." For example, a 6'6" righthander pitcher with a high waist and long arms passes the eye test, whether or not he can actually play.
(2) some posters thinks it means "playing well when a recruiter puts eyes on you."
I think that accounts for the varied responses.
2019Dad posted:I think there is a discrepancy by what folks mean by the "eye test". It seems like:
(1) some posters thinks it means "looking the part." For example, a 6'6" righthander pitcher with a high waist and long arms passes the eye test, whether or not he can actually play.
(2) some posters thinks it means "playing well when a recruiter puts eyes on you."
I think that accounts for the varied responses.
#1 defines the eye test
adbono posted:2019Dad posted:I think there is a discrepancy by what folks mean by the "eye test". It seems like:
(1) some posters thinks it means "looking the part." For example, a 6'6" righthander pitcher with a high waist and long arms passes the eye test, whether or not he can actually play.
(2) some posters thinks it means "playing well when a recruiter puts eyes on you."
I think that accounts for the varied responses.
#1 defines the eye test
^^^this
tequila posted:adbono posted:2019Dad posted:I think there is a discrepancy by what folks mean by the "eye test". It seems like:
(1) some posters thinks it means "looking the part." For example, a 6'6" righthander pitcher with a high waist and long arms passes the eye test, whether or not he can actually play.
(2) some posters thinks it means "playing well when a recruiter puts eyes on you."
I think that accounts for the varied responses.
#1 defines the eye test
^^^this
+2
adbono posted:2019Dad posted:I think there is a discrepancy by what folks mean by the "eye test". It seems like:
(1) some posters thinks it means "looking the part." For example, a 6'6" righthander pitcher with a high waist and long arms passes the eye test, whether or not he can actually play.
(2) some posters thinks it means "playing well when a recruiter puts eyes on you."
I think that accounts for the varied responses.
#1 defines the eye test
#1 places the prospect in the prove you can’t play category. It’s a hell of a lot easier than being 5’9” and in the prove you can play category.
Prove you can’t play gets several opportunities. Prove you can play might get only one.
At some point the “eye test” gives way to the “can he help our team win” reality.