Skip to main content

Just putting this out there as a discussion starter... to quote from SABR's bio of the HOFer, "Scouts had seen Boggs struggle, and even when he hit they weren’t sure if he had the necessary talent to play professional baseball. He didn’t have much speed or range, and was rated poorly in most areas. The Major League Scouting Bureau called him a nonprospect. One scout wrote, “needs a lot of help with bat,” [...]"

As focused as college recruiters have become on the measurables, I bet Boggs would not have gotten looks even from a lot of D3 coaches these days.  What do you think his 60-time was?  His exit velo at age 17 or 18?

Original Post

Replies sorted oldest to newest

He was selected in the 7th round.  In spite of the Scouting Bureau's label of non-prospect, that clearly wasn't the opinion of all scouts.  There is no question the game, recruiting, and talent assessment techniques have changed, but you have to believe most colleges would have found value in many of the skills he did have.

I think the same could be said about many stars from the past.  However, these guys were exceptional athletes of their time, and they trained and practiced to the standards of their time (one image that comes to mind is that of Len Dawson smoking a cigarette during half-time).  I have to believe that if they were coming up today they would be doing the same thing we tell our own kids to do - hit the weight room, nutrition, etc, etc and they'd have the metrics they need to go along with their exceptional talent.

Nick madrigal got drafted 4th overall. If you have an 80 Grade hit tool that still plays, but you have to prove at a high level that your hit tool is really that good because if you are a 5 Homer guy in mlb you basically need to hit over 300 to be productive.



But that applies to other one tool guys too, if you hit 230 you also better have elite power because 230 with 15 homers is not that good

Last edited by Dominik85

I know that a lot of people don’t agree with me, but college recruiters are not as focused on measurables as most people on this board seem to believe - with the exception of FB velo for a pitcher. Position players are different. They are evaluated primarily on their hit tool and whether or not they project to be able to hit college pitching. How they load, balance, bat path, how quick their hands are, how well they know the strike zone, how often they make solid contact, how often they walk vs strike out, their approach at the plate, understanding of situational hitting, how well they run the bases, body language, and how well they play in the field are the things that determine if a position player is recruitable. None of those things can be measured at a showcase. Those things have to be observed (by someone) in live game action against good competition. Once that happens, and someone is suitably impressed, phone calls start getting made and word gets out about a player. After all of that a coach is gonna watch the player himself more than once. He might look at verified measurables - or he might not. Coaches look for qualities in recruits that remind them of other successful players. Again, something that can’t be measured. When scholarships are involved (in other words not D3) the ability to play the game productivity is the primary reason kids get recruited. Sometimes a school will take a flyer on a kid because of size, speed, or arm strength. Producing a big exit velo number is not an indication that a player can hit good pitching. A good 60 time doesn’t mean a player is a good baserunner. Showcases and camps have adopted the model of the pro style MLB tryout camps that used to take place. I attended a number of them as a player decades ago. But the difference is that in the MLB tryouts the players were evaluated by pro scouts and coaches that knew how to grade what they saw - and those camps were usually free to attend. PG, PBR, etc. are for profit and are all about the money. Many events are run by people with little baseball experience who have no ability to judge anything they see. What they know is that a 6.8 time in a 60 is better than a 7.0 time. And that’s about it, so they push the narrative that recruiting is all about numbers and the public buys it.

I think we've all helped perpetuate coaches get lazier when it comes to recruiting.  We spend money in droves for showcases, camps, velocity increase training, laser measurements, etc.  What's more, we package all that up for them and then ship our kids off to their doorsteps.  I think there are a lot of good coaches that still work hard to look at the finer points (outside of metrics), but the low hanging fruit is in massive supply these days for them.  Literally every coach can use more time.  Every coach wants to be as efficient as possible.  You might need one SS, but you've got 352 of them begging to come play for you.  So you can afford to take the 15 of those who all run 6.50s, have 100 mph exit velos, and 90 mph INF velos and then feel confident that one of those 15 will fill the hole for you.  Are you looking at the all finer (non-metric) points of those 15 guys?  Maybe. Probably.  But you did whittle that massive stack of resumes down to a more manageable size using their metrics to some degree.  And if you don't do that, you won't be coaching much longer.  Time is the most precious commodity any of us have.  Yes, you might miss out the next Boggs, but you only need a couple/few of each recruiting class to actually work out for you.

@adbono posted:

Position players are different. They are evaluated primarily on their hit tool and whether or not they project to be able to hit college pitching. How they load, balance, bat path, how quick their hands are, how well they know the strike zone, how often they make solid contact, how often they walk vs strike out, their approach at the plate, understanding of situational hitting, how well they run the bases, body language, and how well they play in the field are the things that determine if a position player is recruitable. None of those things can be measured at a showcase.

Adbono's entire post is money, but this passage is one in particular that every HS kid and parent needs to understand.

I realize that you have to "see a player to know" but do those numbers attract interest.

In recruiting emails, the kids are taught to lead with their best stats.

How do you get that RC or Scout to take a minute to look at the email?  And then get them interested enough to come see.

Would a line like top national travel team, 100 mph exit velo, batting .478 with zero strikes outs and 1 out of 3 hits a double. 1.147 OPS in all PG Events grab their interest?

@JETSR71 posted:

I realize that you have to "see a player to know" but do those numbers attract interest.

In recruiting emails, the kids are taught to lead with their best stats.

How do you get that RC or Scout to take a minute to look at the email?  And then get them interested enough to come see.

Would a line like top national travel team, 100 mph exit velo, batting .478 with zero strikes outs and 1 out of 3 hits a double. 1.147 OPS in all PG Events grab their interest?

At competitive D1 & D2 programs RCs don’t often develop interest as a result of emails they receive from players. Lots of them don’t even read their email. When they become aware of a prospect (usually by word of mouth) they are going to seek out trusted sources for opinions and then react accordingly. When D1/D2 Coaches show up at big events they have a list in hand of the players they want to see.  Good luck being noticed if you aren’t already on somebody’s list.  In D3 maybe emails are more effective and a good showing at an event might turn into something.

@JETSR71 posted:

What about JuCo or NAIA?

Not sure what you are asking. I have found JuCo coaches to be the most approachable and the most responsive. Lots of them even answer their cell phones. On a number of occasions I have contacted JuCo coaches to arrange tryouts for players. The coaches always appreciated it and it almost always worked out for the players. Lots of JuCos have on campus prospect camps in the summer. Cisco had one today. It’s a great idea to go to some of those if you can find them. Sometimes they aren’t very well advertised outside of the school website. Don’t have much experience with NAIA schools tbh.

Keaton Hiura is another even more recent one.  Ran something like a 7.3 60 at a Perfect Game showcase, threw maybe low 80’s across the infield.  Everyone knew he could hit.  Played D1.  Drafted in Round 1.  Has already played parts of 3 MLB Seasons with the Brewers.

What happened with his hit tool though? His reports always were good hitter with some pop and in the low minors he had decent K rates in the high teens with a few Homers and then one year his power spiked but he also started striking out a ton.

I wonder if he started swinging for the fences too much or if it is just the higher level of pitching.

@Dominik85 posted:

What happened with his hit tool though? His reports always were good hitter with some pop and in the low minors he had decent K rates in the high teens with a few Homers and then one year his power spiked but he also started striking out a ton.

I wonder if he started swinging for the fences too much or if it is just the higher level of pitching.

He’s still young.  And I suspect like a lot of MLB hitters, pitchers with Spider Grip happened to his hit tool.  And relative to this thread topic, Hiura is an immense success:  how many players with supposedly “inferior” measureables that the OP postulates wouldn’t get recruited by a D3 would be thrilled with MLB Service time?

Add Reply

×
×
×
×
Link copied to your clipboard.
×