quote:

Professional scouts are wrong, what, 95% of the time in picking Major Leaguers? People that think you can pick how a kid will turn out are very conceited.

I pulled this from another thread because it gives me a jumping off point to meander around and finally express an unpopular opinion.

Professional scouts do a lot better than 5% correct, where I define correct as the drafted player eventually played in MLB. Each year roughly 1500 players are drafted, and over the course of the next 6-8 years, about 100-135 of those players end up in the show. I'm only counting those who signed out of that draft, and not a subsequent draft after attending college. That’s 7 to 9%, but a more realistic measure of correctness is how the scouts did with the players picked in the very early rounds. I took years 1997-2000, and tabulated the first two rounds, including the supplemental picks. There were 186 players picked in the first round of those 4 drafts, and 105 of those have played in MLB. For the second round, the corresponding numbers are 55/125. So in the first two rounds, the success rate was slightly better than 50%.

The pro scouts aren’t the only guys who can predict which players will succeed. These days, most draftees are actually drafted out of college, and Perfect Game had already rated them 3 or 4 years earlier, while they were still in high school. Turns out that PG has a very good idea of who will succeed when the players are in their junior or senior year of high school.

Now, what about younger players? Clearly it is harder to pick out the ones who will make it to MLB as we move away from HS upperclassmen towards underclassmen, and then to (shudder) pre-teen players. But I think that there are two or three dozen people in the USA who can pick out the players who have the talent and mental makeup to go far in baseball, even at 11 or 12 years old. Sure, some of those talented players will end up playing different sports, or getting injured, or just get sidetracked away from sports in general, so the accuracy won't be as good as the pro scouts. The guys I have in mind are the coaches or managers of elite travel baseball programs, that have years of experience in watching young players, with new kids coming in every year, and then following them over time. The more perceptive of these managers and coaches learn over time to recognize the traits shared by the eventually successful pre-teens.

Yet most posters on this site (certainly including me) have no chance of accurately identifying the pre-teen kids who will succeed in baseball. There are, IMO, 2 reasons for that. First, we don't spend a decade or more learning and revising our criteria as wave after wave of kids come through a program. In fact, darn few of us have a program, which is very different than running a team. Secondly, most of us have had minimal opportunity to even see kids who do have the requisite qualities.

For example, several posters here have commented that it is impossible to tell who is going to be good later on, and reference their son's Little League as evidence. (Here LL means LL and Ripken and Pony, etc.) However, a quick calculation shows that most of us have seen very few pre-teens who are budding college players. There are about 500,000 boys playing LL per birth year. Eventually, of that birth year, about 1500 or so will get drafted, and perhaps 5000 will enroll in the top 350 colleges and JCs. So one in a hundred will make it to one of the better colleges. A typical LL has 50 boys of the same birth year. So when we parents compare players in our LL, trying to figure out which ones will make it in college, the odds are that (except, of course, for our own sons ) none of the players will turn out to be college material!

There are some folks posting here (justbaseball comes to mind) that have spent years running rec programs. Maybe they've seen a couple of dozen pre-teen players who ended up playing college ball. It's still a small sample size from which to learn to predict who will be successful later on.

The guys running long lasting elite travel programs, where a third or more of the 12 year olds end up playing college ball, have seen enough talented players to form a basis for judging. I think that some of them learn to predict well. Actually, I know two or three who can.

This is an interesting topic. In our leagues around where I live the talk on the baseball stands is almost always about who will make it and who won't at the next level, even if they just mean High school. I think it is a basic misunderstanding on the real reasons "why" a person does or doesn't make it passed the High school level. I have seen good elite travel teams come to our town and whoop but and have also see elite travel teams come and get their buts whooped byt he local talent.

Just this past year we had a 12 year old Cal Ripken team from our area go all the way to the Cal Ripken world series back east. Of coarse people talk and say this or that kid from that team will make it "pro" someday and this or that reason is why. And yet, as I have watched kids go through the years it is interesting what reasons come up for kids making it or not!

People get hung up on the whole "talent" issue and combine it with stats like you have very well done and then automatically make the determination that of all area league kids, only maybe 1% of them have the talent to play at the next level past high school! So untrue! I believe that most "good" kids who have the adequate talent get so beat down by the local politics and ****in contests that they eventually just agree with what everyone is saying and end up giving up their dreams. Other times they just do not know "how" to get noticed to play at the next level or miss the vital opportunities due to a general lack of knowledge or drive to get noticed. All of these factors act as filters that eventually filter out 99% of the kids, many of which do have the talent to play at the next level, or at least make the competetion stronger.

Travel teams and their coaches do not necessarily choose good players therefore or even have a good eye for it per say. They end up picking up kids who they hear through the grapevine are good kids and have an already high level of committment to playing at the next level. Of those kids who get noticed, make it on elite travel teams, they have a very high likelyhood of making it passed high school because they have broke the common filtration system that would have otherwise knocked them out had they not been noticed. The area I live in, although small (mostly rural schools in a lightly populated area) has a higher than average percentage of kids who make it passed high school. Almost every year at the local high schools, you can count on at least one or two from every team making it to a JC or 4 year program. It is intriguing to me not because the talent is better than average, because it isn't, it is just that there is a better education of how to get noticed and more travel teams that instill the passion of baseball in their blood. Because of this, a high majority of the better kids go to all the camps, play at big tornaments, and end up playing on good travel teams just prior to starting high school. In a sense, the high schools therefore have a great "farm system" through the local competetive travel leagues that teach the kids how to properly get priorities in line and egos aside by the time they get to high school.

I look at it this way- on most of the local high school teams, I can easily point out 5-6 "talented" individuals who if they "want to" could easily play college or professional ball. The sad part is though that only one or two of them actually "want to" push it to the next level or beleive it is even possible. As far as fortelling who will make it after high school from an early age, I place my bets on the kids who play travel ball, have a desire to compete, go to camps to get noticed, and have parents who also share the same dream. It is these kids that elite travel teams pick up, so i do not really believe that they have a knack for picjking the right kids, they just have a knack for keeping their "ears and eyes" open through the traveling grapevine and then giving that kid a shot!

I've been very involved in softball, baseball and basketball. I've only coached one kid I would bet on. I told my son he would be watching him on TV someday bragging he was the point guard that got him the ball back in 10U to 12U travel. The kid is now the top 2011 basketball prospect in the state.

If you want to bet on preteen baseball players, bet on the sons of former college and pro players. From my son's very successsful LL all-star team there are only four playing high school baseball. The other eight are high school athletes, But they failed at baseball in middle school on the 60/90 field. The two in showcase programs have dads that were college athletes (one baseball, one football). Both mothers were athletes and are tall. Another kid is a college s****r prospect. His dad played college s****r. I'm not saying a kid needs to have college athlete parents to develop into a college prospect. But they're the only ones to bet on early in the game. Even then it's a gamble.

In general, I don't believe what happens on a small baseball field defines who will play high school ball, much less college ball. Moving up to the 60/90 field is a huge hurdle for many kids. Puberty levels the field. Often the 12U little kid becomes the big kid while the 12U big kid stops growing. By high school, curveballs and other off speed pitches take them out of the game. Then there's cars, girls, jobs, other sports, grades, alcohol, drugs, etc.. With an eye for talent I picked the four kids from the 12U team I thought would play high school ball. How successful they are at getting to the next level is yet to be determined. They're sophs and juniors. They're just getting their varsity opportunities. As mentioned two are in top 16U feeder teams into showcase programs

While most high school and college players were stud preteen players, the reverse is not true. A very large percentage of preteen studs fail before high school.

3F MLB scouts have a system in place to crosscheck their drafted players. It isn't one scout making a determination.
Also the later rounds have produced some hall of famers. There are also guys who never got drafted or signed until later in their careers that they were wrong about.
The size of the bonus also gives you more chances to succeed or fail.

Predicting preteens that will be baseball studs in HS is very very difficult--to many things change as they go into HS and they mature or do not mature---The stud LL may never get better--he is just the big kid among smaller kids

Gingerbread Man,

I agree that while only 1% of 12 year olds who play baseball end up playing at a high college level, more than 1% are physically talented. Maybe 10% have the physical attributes to succeed. That's why I wrote "talent and mental makeup." It takes both qualities in combination to succeed. I think you mentioned many of the mental/psychological/emotional issues that keep boys with adequate talent from going far in baseball.

quote:

Originally posted by RJM:
.....successsful LL all-star team there are only four playing high school baseball.....
...A very large percentage of preteen studs fail before high school.

I claim that there a some "seers" who can, with moderate success, pick out the pre-teen kids who are likely to make it in college. I don't know how they do it, but I am pretty sure that selection to an all star team is not one of the criteria.

And "stud", which presumably means good production on the field, isn't likely to be sufficient or even necessary. I suppose that the seers are looking at a players ability to, for example, react quickly to a batted ball. Can an infielder range to a ground ball, and then get to an athletic throwing position quickly? Can he then in a split second decide correctly whether to throw or hold the ball? Or to instead decide to throw behind a different runner? Does a hitter have the visual capability to pick up, identify, and track a pitch? If he is a pitcher, does he really want the ball? Can he stand the slow pace of baseball, or relish the social interactions during the 50% of the game he is watching from the bench? Does his interest in baseball flag when the inevitable difficulties arise? Do his physical and mental attributes match baseball better than other popular sports?

See, none of these things depend much on stature or level of hormonal maturity, or the size of the diamond. Yet they are all (I think, but I'm not even remotely one of the "seers") critical to success in baseball.

Our inability to project young players dosn't mean that it can't be done; it just means that we aren't taking into account the correct player attributes. Again, I've met a couple of guys who can project young players surprisingly accurately.

3FG,
Great points. It makes me think. I had not considered the social aspects of making it. I believe it is pretty easy for most people to pick the athletes from a crowd of kids playing almost anything. They move better, have better coordination, quickness, etc. The kids that make a coach say ,"no, no, no. Great play." But all of the intangibles, whew, I wouldn't know where to start. Hats off to those that can pick'em.

3FG,

I agree that there are a few out there who just have the "magical" knowledge on predicting kids.

Mostlty I was stating that the filtration system for weeding out kids- the 99%, are usually the 99% of them that do not "try" to make it at the next level although a few percent of them have the necessary talent to make it to the next level.

I fear that the whole percntage game gets so locked into players and parents heads that they end up thinking that it is impossible to make it at the next level while in reality it is just a common dogma in baseball circles to believe such philosophy. I am not saying that the stats are wrong about what percentage "actually" go to college, I am stating that the stats do not tell the whole story or can even begin to as far as "talent" goes.

I know of grown-ups in my area that got scouted by MLB scouts and decided not to go that route and ended up settling down with a family and not playing after high school at all. On the other side, I know of kids around here that had no one scouting or recruiting them and they worked hard to get noticed and tried out and made one of the local college teams.

It would be interesting, although quite impossible to see stats of what percentage of High school kids have the required "talent" to play at the next level, even if it is just an out of the way community college. I believe more kids would try harder to achieve the next level if they saw those real stats.

Foretelling ones sports future is all about gambling. If you try to eliminate and filter out all the various factors that surround a player then it is not hard as one grows into teenage years from a pre-teen who will make it "talent wise" and who won't.

While I have no doubt that those guys may be very good, not many were interested in guys like Lincecum, Eckstien, and a host of others who couldn't seem to get anyones attention but still made it to the top level.

quote:

I don't know how they do it, but I am pretty sure that selection to an all star team is not one of the criteria.

It's where you start because it's where the most talented kids will be in an area where kids play LL or Ripken. If you think a kid possesses innate tools to become a pro at age twelve, they're going to show through enough to make the all-star team. This is given you can look at some of the all-stars and know it's over for them on the 60/90 field.

"I suppose that the seers are looking at a players ability to, for example, react quickly to a batted ball. Can an infielder range to a ground ball, and then get to an athletic throwing position quickly? Can he then in a split second decide correctly whether to throw or hold the ball? Or to instead decide to throw behind a different runner? Does a hitter have the visual capability to pick up, identify, and track a pitch? If he is a pitcher, does he really want the ball? Can he stand the slow pace of baseball, or relish the social interactions during the 50% of the game he is watching from the bench?"

This kid is going to be an preteen all-star or travel stud.

"Does his interest in baseball flag when the inevitable difficulties arise? Do his physical and mental attributes match baseball better than other popular sports?"

In many kids you won't know until they hit the 60/90 and face mentally and emotionally challenging situations.

"I've met a couple of guys who can project young players surprisingly accurately."

I'll bet they factor in the parent's athletic and emotional makeup. There's not enough to go on just watching a preteen kid play. He may be physically peaking before your eyes. Worse, he may be emotionally peaking.

If I see a 5'10" son of 6'3" dad and 5'10" mother throwing bee bees relative to age twelve, I'll go out on a limb and predict he has a shot at college ball.

If I'm shown the same kid with a 5'8" dad and a 5'2" mother I hope he enjoys what's left of his journey.

quote:

Originally posted by RJM:
If I'm shown the same kid with a 5'8" dad and a 5'2" mother I hope he enjoys what's left of his journey.

I saw that kid last week with his parents, no kidding, he is now 6'5"! I sat there and wondered how in the world THAT happened? Looked just like his dad but a full foot taller?

I believe we have to look at each player and think of two words --- CAN and WILL. I don't think it's impossible to pick a young player that CAN advance up say 2 levels --- high school and college. The problem lies in determining who WILL advance. The CAN is basically controlled by ONE thing --- present talent. Current talent for the most part can be properly evaluated by MANY knowledgeable baseball people.

However the WILL is comprised of many things. Development plays a big part here. Development can be heavily influence by instructions, coaching, team selection, exposure, academics, friends, eating habits, geography, attitude, work ethic --- even down to parental attitude.

We have all heard of young pre-high teams that have a phenomenal percentage of their players go on to have very successful baseball carers. There have been posters here give examples of this. If I remember correctly justbaseball gave an example. These players were obviously picked for their current talent at a young age but they were also "conditioned" by other influences (coaches, instructions etc) that laid the groundwork for their future success. I don't think you should give special recognition to that coach for being able to "pre-select" future stars but instead understand the influences that followed his selection that made the big difference.
Fungo

To show you how absurd some parents can be allow me to offer you this---sitting with another parent during hsi frosh year in HS he asked me what round I thought he would be drafted when he came out of HS--- are you kidding !!!---let the kid get thru HS

quote:

Originally posted by RJM:
If I'm shown the same kid with a 5'8" dad and a 5'2" mother I hope he enjoys what's left of his journey.

I laugh a little about hearing about recruiters or scouts looking at parent size on how much their kid might grow. There are clearly too many factors. I guess if the kid is extremely small for his size and both his parents are also small for their size then "yes" of coarse. But often times one cannot predict height off of parents size.

I am the last born child in my family. My da is barely 5'10" and my mom is 5'8". My oldest sister was 6' tall by the time she was in sixth grade my two older brothers both topped out over 6 feet- one at 6'7" and the other at 6'4". The 6'7" brother when he was 19 and joined the navy was barely 6 feet tall. During the coarse of the next 3 years he grew another 7 inches and his frame filled out also. I on the other hand ended up at just 5'10" and my other sister is only 5'2".

It appears that the freaky height comes from my mothers side because on that side I have many cousins in the 6'6" range, it being the average with a few cousins topping out over 7' with the tallest at 7'4" and still growing! Every one of these cousins are taller than their parents. Many think it goes back one more generation to my grandfather who was very tall at well over 6'6" tall with long fingers, legs, arms, and large feet. Whatever it is attributed to, needless to say, in our family height in some siblings is freakish in nature!

Now take my son and daughter. I married my wife who is barely 5'8". Our son who just turned 13 is now approaching 5'9". How much growing he has left I am not sure. My daughter on the other side is in the low 10% of her height and weight. I personally believe height of parents should be the last factor a scout or recruiter looks at in determining future projectability.

quote:

Originally posted by Innocent Bystander:

quote:

Originally posted by RJM:
If I'm shown the same kid with a 5'8" dad and a 5'2" mother I hope he enjoys what's left of his journey.

I saw that kid last week with his parents, no kidding, he is now 6'5"! I sat there and wondered how in the world THAT happened? Looked just like his dad but a full foot taller?

It happens. But it's not the likely scenario.

quote:

Now take my son and daughter. I married my wife who is barely 5'8". Our son who just turned 13 is now approaching 5'9". How much growing he has left I am not sure.

A fairly accurate wive's tale is a boy will grow to be six to eight inches taller than his mother. At fifteen (sixteen later this spring) my son is five inches taller than his mother. The pediatrician predicted 6'2" a couple of years ago when he was 5'4" based on his xrays.

why you guys always focus on the size here? The thing I will most likely focused on are the hitting ability for those fielders. I know a hitter PG rating 9 at the size 5'9". Our best hitter is a 5'8" kid, he drive the ball everywhere on the field, but our 6'2" guy has a very high KO ratio, usually a rally breaker.

We will have one more year before HS, let's see how they end up this year. I haven't seen the big kids made any improvements during the spring training, still way behind a good fastball.

quote:

Originally posted by RJM:

quote:

Originally posted by Innocent Bystander:

quote:

Originally posted by RJM:
If I'm shown the same kid with a 5'8" dad and a 5'2" mother I hope he enjoys what's left of his journey.

I saw that kid last week with his parents, no kidding, he is now 6'5"! I sat there and wondered how in the world THAT happened? Looked just like his dad but a full foot taller?

It happens. But it's not the likely scenario.

Playing high level college/pro baseball isn't a likely scenario either

bbking- You have a very small reference point. My guess is that you have a small kid. The reality is that there are more big players than little players in pro baseball. I will take a big kid over a small kid every day of the week if their skill level is equal. You wouldn't?

There are plenty of great players that are not very big. I've had almost 20 guys play in the big leagues from my program. The best one is 5'8", in cleats, on cement (Jimmy Rollins). That said, we've had eight 1st round picks and they are all pretty good sized guys (P Burrell-6'5, B Morrow-6'3, T Tulowitzki-6'3, B Mills-6'3, C Gruler-6'2, J Castro-6'4, B Wallace-6'2, D Cooper-6'1. Numbers don't lie.

quote:

Originally posted by bbking:
why you guys always focus on the size here? The thing I will most likely focused on are the hitting ability for those fielders. I know a hitter PG rating 9 at the size 5'9". Our best hitter is a 5'8" kid, he drive the ball everywhere on the field, but our 6'2" guy has a very high KO ratio, usually a rally breaker.

We will have one more year before HS, let's see how they end up this year. I haven't seen the big kids made any improvements during the spring training, still way behind a good fastball.

quote:

I will take a big kid over a small kid every day of the week if their skill level is equal. You wouldn't?

If he doesn't understand, all things equal the bigger kid has more potential upside.