Why is baseball recruitment so complicated compared to other sports?

I think baseball recruiting isn't as hard as people seem to think.  The one thing everyone has to realize is recruiting at the higher levels is all about talent.

There is no event, showcase, tournament that can help unless the player has the necessary talent.  Often people think all that needs to be done is show up at a certain event and you get recruited.  While this can be true at some events, it only happens when the necessary talent is present.

So exposure can be extremely valuable to many players, it can also be a problem for others.

For those with a lot of talent, college recruiting is fairly easy.  The only difficult thing is those type players end up having many choices/offers.

PG, you make a great point, and looking at kids whose recruitment I know about anecdotally, I completely agree. I can think of players recruited to Pac 12 who clearly have the talent to be D1 and/or pro players to my amateur eye, and have been since they were verballed as HS sophomores.  These guy would get found no matter where they played.  They are that good.

But maybe one of the factors that makes it seem hard is the other kids, the players who to my eye are pretty average, sometimes even average in size, who didn't see the varsity HS field until they were Juniors, and even then struggled to hit their weight, and yet were also verballed by Pac 12  teams after a few PG events while many others at the same events are still looking.   Those can be head-scratchers.

One factor is that more baseball players cling to unrealistic goals for longer than football and basketball players.

A non-prospect in basketball or football who lines up across from a legitimate prospect will quickly experience a memorable demonstration of the difference.

However, the non-prospect in baseball often comes away from a similar mismatch with a false sense of encouragement. Just about everyone who ever played has some story of modest success hitting against or pitching to someone who became a famous ballplayer.  Many of them are telling the truth.

There's a college player from our area who has a pretty good shot at reaching the majors, and everyone around here knew it from the time he entered high school. Every time he didn't pitch a no-hitter in high school, two or three kids acquired the favorite baseball story of their lives by reaching base off a guy who will be famous. 

A related factor is that basketball and football have more rigid measureable physical qualifications that rule out much larger swaths of the population than baseball does.  Baseball coaches have to take the time to watch normal-sized prospects play to find out if they're any good.

It takes a little longer for coaches to decide each player's level, and it takes longer for the players to accept it.

Football and basketball is generally the same.  We have area kids missing baseball to go the college combines and college camps (not much different than baseball showcases and camps).  The process is generally the same.  Lots of kids don't get selected.  The difference might be all the publicity surrounding football and basketball. 

Piggybacking on Swamp's post, there are more opportunities to find a niche and have success as a "less athletic" baseball player as you move up the ladder.  Of course, pitchers account for a significant portion of roster players and many are not athletic in the traditional sense as compared to the typical NBA and NFL roster player.  Then, you have a little bit more of a chance of guys like Pablo Sandoval, John Kruk, Altuve, Pedroia, etc., making it because they have a knack for hitting a baseball well.  If you are a small guy who can shoot the basketball, you still have to deal with getting your shot over a much taller and athletic defense.  If you are a small guy who can catch anything in the vicinity or stick like glue to a receiver, you still have a disadvantage when the football arrives and there is a taller, equally athletic opponent battling you for the ball.  If you are a huge OL in football, you still have to be quick enough to prevent a DL from getting around you.  Baseball generally doesn't have that type of immediate physical matchup issue.  

To me the one biggest difference is the number of scholarships that baseball has as opposed to football. Even though baseball has 9 players on the field at a time and football has 11.  There are more scholarships in football and therefore they can afford to "miss" more than baseball. A backup RB on a football team has a full 100% scholarship while the number three starting pitcher in the rotation may only be 50%.  

Basketball has fewer players on the court at one time but their scholarship numbers are disproportionately higher. Maybe it is the revenue they generate. College baseball and softball are gaining in popularity and are on tv more than they were 10 years ago. Hopefully that will translate into more scholarships being available for college athletes who choose baseball.

I've helped with both baseball and softball.  Softball is a lot harder.  Players are verballed in softball at 12, 13 years of age.  If your daughter is a junior and now on someone's radar, you are looking at a JUCO.  Rarely is a senior that has not been offered given any consideration at most NCAA D-I and D-II schools. 

I would echo NXT LVL.

In football, D1A's have 85 scholarships, but only 30 really play.  Another 15 fill out special teams.  The rest are recruiting "misses" yet on full rides.  Really, coaches recruit talent, then wait until players are on campus and workouts have occurred to sort out who's who.

In baseball, you have a roster of 35 but only 11.7 scholarship equivalencies to work with (if that; many programs have less than the maximum in their budgets).  The team can ill afford to have many "misses."  Not to mention the complicating factor of deciding who gets 25%, who gets 40%, who gets 65%, etc. 

Basketball is somewhere in between on that spectrum.  One thing baseball and basketball have in common is that your very best players can leave before their eligibility is up.  But in basketball, guys like that are very rare, since there's only so many NBA slots available.  In baseball, coaches are left hanging about their juniors often well into the summer, not knowing if they are coming back (and therefore consuming part of the 11.7 allotment) or whether they're going to sign (and therefore leaving the team at a disadvantage, since part of the 11.7 is now not working to help put the strongest team on the field). Top programs go through that with 3-7 juniors every year. 

Plus, baseball coaches are the only ones who may find out, just a few months before fall practices begin, that the stud player they verballed 2-3 years earlier signed a pro deal and won't be coming after all.

Those are just the complications on the programs' side.  Families are often left hanging, too, not knowing how much an offer might be even if a program seems interested.  They aren't going to get 100% (VERY few exceptions), so they end up sometimes having to weigh preferences vs. finances. 

Maybe there's another sport that faces these challenges, but out of the "big three" of football, basketball and baseball, only baseball sees these circumstances as the norm.

I think an issue that is overlooked is exactly what is considered "success"?  Baseball is the only sport I can think of that rewards you if you are successful 30% of the time.  Can you imagine a basketball player that shoots 30-35% from the floor or free throw line?  How about a QB that has a completion percentage of 30-35%.  I think this idea kinda goes along with what Swampboy is saying above.  I just think its easier to "hide" lesser talent on a baseball field, and this can give parents a false sense of their kids talent.  Like PG always says, truly talented player stand out like a sore thumb.  Most anyone can pick out the 2 or 3 most talented guys on a baseball field.  The difficult part is deciding if the other  15 or so can play at the "next" level.

I think the challenge of evaluating baseball players is part of what makes the recruiting process so difficult.  Yes, there are always going to be the "obvious" talents--the kids who throw in the 90's, the big slugger hitting homers, the slick fielder. 

But think about the MLB draft that will be held later this week.  The richest organizations in baseball will spend countless hours and dollars evaluating who to draft, and odds are that more than one-half of the first round will not be successful major leaguers.  This year is particularly challenging as scouts say there is no clear cut #1 and as many as 6 or 7 different kids could be the first pick.  Some of those kids are high schoolers, and so obviously they fit that "stud" definition for colleges who are recruiting, but even some of them may never pan out in college.  Then there is the whole other group of players who teams completely missed on and overlooked who turned into great major league players.  20 teams passed over Mike Trout? 

As one noted, a baseball player can fail 70 percent of the time and still be considered a great hitter.  That does not happen in the other sports.  Baseball is the hardest game to play successfully, so it figures it is the hardest to be sure about in who is going to succeed.  That makes recruiting and scouting a lot more difficult.

CaCO3Girl posted:

My son is a rising 9th grader, over the last 2 years worth of growth spurts he's now lean, tall, athletic, and fairly fast....so now he's a multi sport athlete.  I have been contacted by the football coach and the basketball coach on plans to market my kid to colleges, the 36 page presentation from the football people was VERY impressive, and from the baseball people....nothing.

I'm assuming you are referring to high school football and baseball coaches?  Our experience was that our HS baseball coach was absolutely out of the loop on college recruiting.  It all took place during the summer through the summer ball coach.  This makes sense because there's not a lot of recruiting going on during our HS season- as college baseball is in season, and they don't have large coaching staffs to recruit while they are playing ball.  Our coach is only a HS coach, no summer or fall ball, so in his world, nothing else exists.  He knows the boys play summer and/or fall, but has no idea where or for who.  He spoke to exactly one college coach through our entire process, and it was a local school so they could come to the game during their season.   You may be in this situation, or not, just giving an example.

So- back to your question, it's a little more complicated than football- as your HS coach may not even be coaching your son during recruiting season.    It's very important to get on a summer team that goes to events where colleges are scouting/recruiting.    If you get with the right program it makes things a lot less complicated, as the coaches are in tune with the process and have connections with the college recruiters. 

I'll also echo previous comments- the 11.7 scholarships split amongst 27 scholarship players do complicate things for the programs and the players (and parents)- not to mention the disparities in financial aid, academic money, grants, etc that some schools may or may not be able to offer.

so, yes, I agree that this is all more complicated than football, having been through both with two different sons.  Football is easy- 85 scholarships at he D1 level, only one place to play in HS, and the HS coach is most likely very familiar with the process.   

I don't believe it's really all that different in any sport. The studs stand out and get a lot of offers/choices. After the studs in any sport it's  generally the same. The kid is a little short on (pick your physical skill). Can he compete at this level? Can we develop him? Will he be useful in some capacity?

In any sport there's generally a filtering process. Studs go first. D3 prospects go last. Many times it's the non stud not understanding where he fits in and targeting the wrong level of competition. They don't experience confusion. They experience cognitive dissonance. I think I'm this good. Coaches don't seem to agree. Now I have to rationalize it and hustle to find a place.

Certain sports are all about measurables. Think of swimming or track -- go this fast and you're a D1 prospect. Go this minus X and you're a D2 or D3.

Team sports don't work that way. Sure, it's about talent, but talent is harder to measure in the context of multiple players on the field (for example, is he a great hitter, or does he just look like a great hitter because of the pitcher?). So it can be harder in team sports to figure out who can really play at the next level. But folks are constantly trying to suss out what measurables will lead to success at the next level. For football, size, 40-time, bench press, etc. For basketball, size is a huge, measurable factor.

Baseball has its own set of measurable: velo, pop time, 60 time. In the past, the hard one to bake down into a measurable has been hit tool -- and, whaddayaknow, it's pretty important for position players. You're starting to see measurements like the Zepp data that PG posts. TBD how it translates.

It's subjective, ultimately. Sure, a transcendent talent will stand out. But how many kids are signing with D1 programs each year? 2000? They're not all transcendent talents . . .

CoachB25 posted:

I've helped with both baseball and softball.  Softball is a lot harder.  Players are verballed in softball at 12, 13 years of age.  If your daughter is a junior and now on someone's radar, you are looking at a JUCO.  Rarely is a senior that has not been offered given any consideration at most NCAA D-I and D-II schools. 

I don't agree, my daughter was followed by d2 and d3 as a Jr. and took the d3 cause her major in nursing . And I know girls who were given d1 as Sr . So you just never know ..

I think sometimes the deeper you get into a subject, the more details you see and hence more complicated it seems.  If you step back/remove the parent worry for a moment, it's not that complicated.  Not easy, but not complicated.  

I'm having the time of my life.  My son is having a blast playing baseball and being part of a team.

When I used the term "measureable" earlier, I should have been more precise.

I was referring to the particular measurables pertaining to physically dominant size and frame that no amount of dedication or determination will allow a normal-sized person to overcome.

One time a military basketball team I was on played a charity game against a team consisting of five members of the then-Super Bowl champion New York Giants. Until that night, I thought rebounding was 90% desire. But after being in the vicinity of a couple loose balls that Pepper Johnson wanted, I quickly realized that my effort, desire, hustle, timing, and technique totaled up to 0% relevance if Pepper decided he wanted the rebound. 

One of my rebound attempts produced one of the most terrifying moments of my life. One of our guys clanged one off the rim that hung in the air long enough for me to evade Pepper's box out and take the three giant steps required to circumnavigate his rear end. As I lunged toward the ball, I accidentally poked Pepper in the eye. For a split second, a look of rage crossed his face and I thought, "Oh no. He's going to kill me right here in front of my whole family and two thousand witnesses!" Fortunately, his professional demeanor asserted itself and the look of rage dissipated as quickly as it had come. Instead of killing me, he took the ball, which he had been effortlessly palming in his right hand after winning the rebound, and fired a strike the length of the court to Stephen Baker the Touchdown Maker for an uncontested layup. 

Football and basketball quickly teach non-prospects it is not safe for them to be on the same field or court as the real prospects. 

For some reason, having a fastball blown by you doesn't produce the same kind of significant emotional event as leaving a court grateful that a giant spared your life.  You walk away thinking, "Yeah, I could learn to hit that" even if there's no way you ever could.

On my D3 college football team, I never heard any teammate express any hope or dream of playing in the NFL. Not once. Ever. We all knew better. We had all had our butts kicked too thoroughly too many times by players who themselves were not prospects to even imagine we could overcome the physical differences.  

However, nearly every college baseball team in every division and classification has several players, sometimes many or even a majority of players, who ignore ample evidence to the contrary and continue to believe their hard work will one day pay off with an opportunity to play pro ball.

And the proportion of baseball players with unrealistic dreams is even higher in high school, and higher still among middle school rec players.

Swamp, you should take up creative writing!  I thought he was going to kill you too for that eye poke!

I think you guys have hit on the major issue, in baseball we can all tell who the top 1%'ers are, but there are still several more spots to fill up on that roster.  For someone with talent, luck, and timing it is possible that a non 1%'er can get to college and maybe even the MLB and be successful 30% of the time. However, in basketball and football there isn't a gray area for failure, they either have it or they don't.

Location can be a big deal as well. I know a guy who grew up in Colorado, went to Michigan to run track and was competitive in his main event. Transferred far to the South to attend and run at Campbell. Ran faster times at Campbell, but wasn't as competitive in the Big South as he was in the Big 10.

Speaking of the Big South, Coastal Carolina is a school that a lot of people (non college baseball fans) have probably never heard of. But it is probably harder for a top baseball player to get recruited to Coastal than many of the household names in the Big 10. 

Heck, it may be harder to get recruited to D2 Tampa than many D1 programs. Just like in Real Estate, location can be everything.

younggun posted:

Can you imagine a basketball player that shoots 30-35% from the floor or free throw line? 

Yes.  I believe you call them Cavaliers . . . 

c2019 posted:

CoachB25 posted:

I've helped with both baseball and softball.  Softball is a lot harder.  Players are verballed in softball at 12, 13 years of age.  If your daughter is a junior and now on someone's radar, you are looking at a JUCO.  Rarely is a senior that has not been offered given any consideration at most NCAA D-I and D-II schools. 

I don't agree, my daughter was followed by d2 and d3 as a Jr. and took the d3 cause her major in nursing . And I know girls who were given d1 as Sr . So you just never know ..

 

 

Our areas must be vastly different.  I work on recruitment every day for my softball players.  I have a young lady that is a stud.  She was injured last summer with a broken wrist as a soph turning junior.  She has another amazing season this year with several home runs, triples, stolen bases, ... and every D-I and DII school I've contacted is already out of scholarships and filled.  I'd estimate I've contacted 20-25 at this point.  D-IIIs are different in that they don't offer athletic scholarships anyway.  So, if you have the grades, there isn't really a time crunch.  I can't name one senior in the St. Louis metro area that was offered a scholarship after their senior year was completed and I can go back pretty far.   However, you are right in that you just never know and that applies to every sport. 

From what I've seen in our area, there are a very few players who get D1 slots late in their senior year due to others being drafted. As for D2's, most seem to be uninterested in HS students unless they are total studs.  They spend their time going after JC and D1 transfers.

In about a week we will be at the PG National Showcase.  The history of that event tells us that at least half of the following years first round will have been at this showcase.  We fully expect that to hold true again in this upcoming draft.

All the players there will have DI talent, yet in most every case we will pick out which ones are the very best prospects.  Once in awhile we are wrong, but not that often.  We consider everything from the measurables to the players feel for the game.  And it really isn't very hard to figure out which ones are likely to hit at the next level.  Even when all 300 players are very talented.

There are some that improve more than others and develop a bit later.  They have the desire and work ethic which is much harder to judge over 4 or 5 days.  

Anyway, not many of those 300 players is going to have to do much work in order to be recruited.  Most all will be picking what they consider is the best offer at the best program that meets their desires.  If a player goes to the right places and still finds creating baseball recruiting interest hard to understand, it is because that player hasn't shown the talent they are looking for.  Because once they see something they want, recruiters go to work.  They are very aggressive!

I am talking about DI scholarship programs.  But every college at every level desires talent.  Our people have seen so many first Rd picks, Future MLB players, future college stars, that it is easy to be fairly accurate when we evaluate HS age players.  The more you see, the easier it gets.  However, mistakes are still made.  

Just remember this, if a DI college is bringing in a class of 15 recruits, chances are that nearly all 15 were actively recruited by more than that college. The only thing confusing about recruiting for those players is which school among those that want them, do they deside to commit to.

The best thing a good player without outstanding tools can do is get in front of the scouts and recruiters as much as possible.  Let your ability grow on them.  Yes, that does happen a lot.  But it can only happen if they see you a lot. The more they see you the more they know about you, the more likely they might want you.  And that is what recruiting is all about... Finding someone who wants you!  It really doesn't matter what you want unless they want you.

I think one reason why baseball talent is harder to evaluate is that everyone can rake and hit 400 if he finds a weak enough level to play at. The level of competition just makes a huge difference. That is true for the other sports too but in basketball you know that the 6"2 power forward in hs won't make it in the pros. In hs that little kid with mediocre speed who can hit a little might think if pedroia can do it i can do it too. In nba however it is crystal clear that you need insane speed and ball handling if you are six feet. Mostly that applies for baseball too but people are clinging on the rare exceptions ( albeit Altuve has insane speed, he is not just a short guy who is good at hitting line drives).