Buckeye Scout Team

[logitech]

All Buckeye Scout Team released. What do you think?


OF Drew Fitzpatrick (Yotown Cardinal Mooney): LOUISVILLE
OF Marcus Heath (Kinsman Badger): CINCINNATI
OF Casey Wilson (Akron Hoban): KENT STATE
3B Cory Klenke (Coldwater): MIAMI OH
SS Noah Zipko (Oxford Talawanda): CAMPBELL
2B Michael Basil (Cinti St Xavier): INDIANA
1B Zach Boren (Pickerington Central): OHIO STATE (Football)
C Joel Williams (Circleville): MICHIGAN STATE
UT Frank Desico (St Ignatius): NOTRE DAME
DH Jason Bagoly (Austintown Fitch): KENT STATE
DH Caleb Wilburn (Delaware Hayes): CAMPBELL
RHP Ryan Bores (Strongsville): OHIO UNIV
RHP Michael Hamann (Danbury): TOLEDO
RHP Justin Jamison (Strongsville)
RHP Christian Lockett (Gahanna Lincoln): KENT STATE
RHP Cody Umbright (Mogadore Field)
LHP Cody Kopilchack (Lima Shawnee): WRIGHT STATE
LHP Matt Marksberry (Cinti Glen Este): CAMPBELL
LHP Kyle Raleigh (Cinti Oak Hills): BALL STATE
LHP Jonathan Richard (Versailles): XAVIER

[BBallMan]

Looks like these are players that played in the Buckeye Elite tournament? Congrats to them!
The Buckeye Scout top 100 hasn't come out yet.

[gclbaseball1]

Congrats to these players. I've seen alot of them play and they are definitely derserving.

[baseballISlife!]

Its nice to see umbright on here. i have faced him several times and once it was very cold (like upper 30s low 40s) and he was still throwin mid to upper 80s!

[logitech]

Looks like these are players that played in the Buckeye Scout tournament? Congrats to them!
The Buckeye Scout top 100 hasn't come out yet.

\Good point.
7 of the mentioned 20 did not attend the TBS showcase. I think this speaks well of the non biased sampling of the selection. If you wanted to be seen, you would benefit from attendence. Surely all these selections are subjective, but there is no other way. Stats can be padded and competition can be medicore. Mr. Fisher seems to do a great job. Past years selections have done reasonably well after HS.
Time will tell. Best of Luck to all selected.

[BENSPAPA8]

Fish rarely misses

[gclbaseball1]

Why wasn't Brett McKinney on this list?

[AnUnbiasedOpinion]

Fish rarely misses

No offense, but what does that mean? He rarely picks players that end up doing poorly? Or he rarely misses picking players that go on to excel at a higher level? Other meaning?

[Hometeam]

Truth is - it's all VERY subjective.

You need to have a coach who will put in a good word for you to even be invited to these showcases. If you don't have the hype or the "good word" you can be one of the best players around, but, unfortunately, you won't get recognized.

[logitech]

My point was that only players that played in the Tournament are on this team.

What tournament are you speaking of? I already pointed out that seven of the named twenty did not attend the Showcase at Coffman HS.

[bigdawg33]

Fish does a great job. People will always complain about the subjectivity of this list. He does not claim to be perfect, just well informed. Rarely is there anyone on this list that does not deserve to be on the list. On the other hand when you are handing out only 1 name per position except pitching you are bound to have debates about who is missing.

If you did not make the list relax....in the long run it rarely effects anything that will happen in your career. It is a nice recognition, but most of the kids are already signed.

I do feel this is more accurate and less political than the all state honors given at the end of each season. This list is a combination of scouts and college coaches as well athe Buckeye Scout personnel. All state is voted on by the hs a handful of HS coaches who tend to take care of their own. Again being named all state rarely gets you anything other than some short term praise.

The bottom line is the real players realize this award is nice but means nothing in their career.

[BBallMan]

What tournament are you speaking of? I already pointed out that seven of the named twenty did not attend the Showcase at Coffman HS.

Sorry, I was thinking of the Buckeye Elite tournament.I thought the team was made up of those players that played on one of the participating teams. My bad!

[Hometeam]

Fish does a great job. People will always complain about the subjectivity of this list. He does not claim to be perfect, just well informed. Rarely is there anyone on this list that does not deserve to be on the list. On the other hand when you are handing out only 1 name per position except pitching you are bound to have debates about who is missing.

If you did not make the list relax....in the long run it rarely effects anything that will happen in your career. It is a nice recognition, but most of the kids are already signed.

I do feel this is more accurate and less political than the all state honors given at the end of each season. This list is a combination of scouts and college coaches as well athe Buckeye Scout personnel. All state is voted on by the hs a handful of HS coaches who tend to take care of their own. Again being named all state rarely gets you anything other than some short term praise.

The bottom line is the real players realize this award is nice but means nothing in their career.


If the Buckeye Scout recognizes the top players at their positions, you would think the All State list would be pretty identical to Buckeye Scouts list. Even if it's only the h.s. coaches doing the voting, they wouldn't leave off a kid who's considered head and shoulders above his teammates.

Actually, I like the idea of the All State list better than the Buckeye Scout list. All State is based on what the kid accomplished throughout that h.s. season - it's based on actual concrete performance more so than speculative "potential".

[bigdawg33]

That is a good point. However the Buckeye Scout does take into account the previous season and summer ball. A great deal of the kids who make the list never play at their showcase. The All state list as some D1 players on it the Buckeye Scout Top Team has the majority (all?) of D1 players. Perhaps they are looking at different things. One is projecting the top players who will move up to the next level D1, the other is looking at 1 season of play.

I also contend the all state list is biased and has political undertones. Coaches vote for their own, their own conference, and their friends boys. We can argue this all day but you will not change my mind. I will just politely agree to disagree.

Both are an honor.

[bigdawg33]

[QUOTE=Hometeam;3442606]If the Buckeye Scout recognizes the top players at their positions, you would think the All State list would be pretty identical to Buckeye Scouts list. Even if it's only the h.s. coaches doing the voting, they wouldn't leave off a kid who's considered head and shoulders above his teammates.

This statement supports my thought of it being political. Name me one player on the top scout team that should NOT be all state. I think it would be far and few between.....unles they were injured.

I contend there are many all state players who do not belong.

Also ask any on the all state players would they have preferred the all state honor or a D1 scholarship. I have a hunch many would would have traded the all state honor for the D1 opportunity.

[The Big X]

[QUOTE=Hometeam;3442606]If the Buckeye Scout recognizes the top players at their positions, you would think the All State list would be pretty identical to Buckeye Scouts list. Even if it's only the h.s. coaches doing the voting, they wouldn't leave off a kid who's considered head and shoulders above his teammates.

This statement supports my thought of it being political. Name me one player on the top scout team that should NOT be all state. I think it would be far and few between.....unles they were injured.

I contend there are many all state players who do not belong.

Also ask any on the all state players would they have preferred the all state honor or a D1 scholarship. I have a hunch many would would have traded the all state honor for the D1 opportunity.

The argument between the Buckeye Scout and the All-State list is stupid. Both include politics and both miss players. Look at the current Buckeye List attached to this thread. Basil at 2B. He doesn't play the position and nobody that is not too close to him to see would look at his hands and foot skills, his range, or his build and project him to 2B. He does have a promoter very close to him that will promote him constantly as a middle infielder and he does it to the Buckeye Scout and the coaches that vote on the All-State team. I know Moeller was very glad to see him playing SS last season when the regular SS was hurt.

Last year the Buckeye Scout didn't list in their top 100 a player who was at their showcase that just might win a starting job in the infield in D-1 this season. Defensively and offensively a very strong player that ran a bad 60 time. Those guys you say project to the next level didn't look at baseball skills and project what the kid would do if in better shape. Now in better shape he definitely projects as a D-1 player.

Instead of arguing over which is better just congratulate those mentioned. And for those not mentioned - keep working hard and don't give up on your dream. There is a second signing period and that one will have coaches signing players that fit a need that they have identified AFTER thier current season. That may be a better match for you then for those signing in the early period.

[Hometeam]

That is a good point. However the Buckeye Scout does take into account the previous season and summer ball. A great deal of the kids who make the list never play at their showcase. The All state list as some D1 players on it the Buckeye Scout Top Team has the majority (all?) of D1 players. Perhaps they are looking at different things. One is projecting the top players who will move up to the next level D1, the other is looking at 1 season of play.

I also contend the all state list is biased and has political undertones. Coaches vote for their own, their own conference, and their friends boys. We can argue this all day but you will not change my mind. I will just politely agree to disagree.

Both are an honor.

You think this list is flawed because Buckeye Scout top team has the majority (all?) D1 players on it whereas All-Ohio has some who are NOT D1. This is the beauty of All-Ohio - All-Ohio recognizes that there are some VERY TALENTED boys out there who will not necessarily go to a D1 college. It's open to ANY BOY who plays well - not certain ones.

BigDawg - there's also some VERY GOOD D2 and D3 players out there - some that are better than the D1's. They just didn't have the promoters or connections that many on the BS top team had. Think about this - the BS promoters rarely see many of these boys - so how can they rank them accurately or know how successful they will be after high school? They go by word-of-mouth referrals, etc. Whenever you go by the word of another person rather than seeing the actual player themselves, it's automatically biased. You can't even be invited unless you get referred. This isn't the best way to find the best players, imo.

[frznrope]

who are some of the best players who did NOT make the list?

[GCPRO]

I think the guy does an excellent job with his lists as well. It is subjective, beauty is in the eye of the beholder, don't get caught up in it. They are plenty of good to great players in the state.
All Ohio is not very representative solely because your coach has to nominate the player to begin with and only other coaches across the state vote on any said player. Kids coming from good quality programs with coaching staffs that promote their players will always get those awards.

[BENSPAPA8]

Why do people assume that certain players have a "promoter"?

Could you consider that a player, and his field success promotes itself?

I am always reluctant to provide information because some people refuse to accept facts.

Don't underestimate what the MLB Scouting Bureau does. Don't underestimate what local and regional MLB team scouts do. Don't underestimate the connection between these evaluators and their relationships with college coaches and each other.

It is a vast network of baseball people inter-connected in which they share information about every player on their radar. This baseball network includes Jeff Fisher of the BuckeyeScout.

They rarely miss because of this.

Players need to be successful at the Varsity level, almost dominant.

Players need to be affiliated with a solid summer 18u team that provides exposure opportunities.

Players need to excel in summer 18u which can lead to being singled out for additional regional and national rostering.

If a player can build a "book of success" for himself, he draws scout attention and becomes a "follow". An example would be the STL scout team called the Midwest Redbirds. If you get to that type of Fallball team, you are a "follow" and have a book on you.

What I am saying is that there are mechanisms, or venues available for players, but it absolutely starts with consistent baseball success by the player each step of the way and each success leads to more opportunity to shine.

These are facts. Players who feel "out of the loop" can simply pick up the phone, call college coaches and pro scouts for information and guidance on what it takes to hop on the train. Just have the game for it.

Here is an informative article from BaseballAmerica about the MLBSB:



Baseball America: What do scouts look for—in position players and pitchers—that is not connected to performance?

Frank Marcos: We don't scout performance, like going 3-for-4 with an RBI. We scout skills, we scout mechanics, we scout how the players do those things. Sure it's nice to say that your guy hit a ball 400 feet, but what did he do mechanically to get the bat through the zone in order to hit that ball?

BA: What is on your checklist?

Marcos: First you look for body type. Watch the kids as they're walking from the clubhouse to the field or getting off the bus. You're looking at how they carry themselves.

BA: Of course the body type of a cleanup hitter is quite different from that of a leadoff hitter.

Marcos: Absolutely. But we're not necessarily looking for particular positions. When you're scouting such a big area, you're looking for the best athletes possible. We'll worry later what position they'll end up playing. BA: Now, if a player is a little slow but he's strong, for instance . . .

Marcos: Of course, a corner player, first base, third base, corner outfielder has to have a bat. The guys that can run, the center fielders, second base, shortstop, they have to run first and foremost. Then they have to have a glove; can they catch the ball and can they throw it? And then the bonus is the bat.


BA: Or does he show frustration when he strikes out . . .

Marcos: How do you handle failure? That's so important in baseball. Other sports, other professions it's not that way; a surgeon better not be good just 30 percent of the time. For scouts, we want to look at the confidence level, how he carries himself and then when he starts playing catch, simply warming up, you start to notice things: how does he catch the ball, how does he throw the ball, we're watching those mechanics. And when you see certain kids, you can just see it.

BA: Do the scouts observe batting practice and infield/outfield, or only the game?

Marcos: That's another thing. When they go to high school games, and if it's the only game in town, they're always watching BP and fielding practice, because when you watch the game, for instance, you may never see the right fielder get a ball hit to him and so then how do you evaluate his arm? You grade it in infield/outfield practice. That's why we tell these kids, when you take infield/outfield, don't just sort of nonchalant a throw, because someone is watching you. If we see something in warm-ups that catches our eye—you may never get a ball hit to you in the game or you may go 0-for-3 with a HBP—but if we see something we're coming back.

BA: What specific mechanics do you evaluate with pitchers?

Marcos: First off, look at his arm action. Velocity is too big and too important, to me; I hate it. You can throw away the radar gun.

BA: Yet, there are all the scouts sitting at games with their radar guns.

Marcos: It's an unfortunate part of today's game. Thirty years ago, we didn't have radar guns, so how did we evaluate pitchers? First off, how he does things, his delivery, his arm action. Then of course, is there any movement? Does he have a good curveball? Some guys throw a good, tight-breaking curveball; does it matter if he throws 95 miles an hour? No. Everybody falls in love with the guy who throws 95. But is it straight? If it is, he won't last very long. Every big league player can hit a fastball, so it's about location, command, control. Control is, are you throwing strikes and not walking hitters; command is, can you hit the target the catcher sets up, are you throwing it where you want to. You can have those things without being a power pitcher.

BA: Describe how you grade hitters.

Marcos: We grade hitters on a scale of 2 through 8. We always use a major league average as a standard. Five is average but it is not high school average, it's major league average. An average major league tool is a 5. Eight is outstanding.

BA: And you then project into the future.

Marcos: Yes. We assign present and future grades on tools.

BA: How do you predict?

Marcos: By how he does things mechanically, his expected physical growth. For instance, if he is young and throws the ball well, as he gets bigger and stronger, you can project that an average arm will increase to average to plus throwing ability. With pitchers, some are real easy and smooth. If you see a guy with a violent delivery, he might throw hard but you know it's not going to last long.

BA: With hitters, what mechanics are you evaluating?

Marcos: With hitters, mechanically, how does he hold the bat? How does he stand? His approach at the plate, is he comfortable and relaxed? Is he squeezing the bat? A kid who squeezes the bat will never hit. He has to be relaxed. Youkilis with Boston, he does something weird, starts real high but then he brings it down and he's relaxed.

BA: He could be making adjustments in response to how the pitcher is working him.

Marcos: Now you're getting into more advanced levels; high school kids don't usually do that.

BA: What other hitting mechanics does you assess?

Marcos: His lower half. Anybody who's out front all the time and he's committing himself. I mean, that can be corrected. If he does a lot of things good with the hands, that's one thing, but if he's always out front, he's not going to be a good hitter. There's a classic stance for anybody to hit the ball and when he goes to hit the ball, his back leg is here, his front leg is straight, his foot is closed.

BA: What about hitters with a leg lift?

Marcos: It depends where you're from. It's a timing issue. It's all right. What I'm seeing a lot of now is like Bagwell, open stance and you don't even stride, which I don't like, because you need something to get your momentum going. Because Bagwell was struggling and he tried something and it worked for him and he stayed with it. But now young guys try to hit like that and it's not good.

BA: Don't you think a little bit of a leg lift is necessary for timing?

Marcos: Yes, I think it is. If we were teaching kids, we'd always teach a little bit of a lift; not a big stride. Some guys have a wide stride, some have a short stride, you don't want to get out front. Whatever works for you, stick with it.

BA: Of course, you're also looking for players who have good zone judgment.

Marcos: Absolutely. We want aggressive hitters, but we don't want hitters who go up there hacking and are swinging at every pitch around the plate. When we filmed Manny Ramirez in high school, we filmed him when he played for the Youth Service games, and it was a bad field. I think he had a home run, a couple of triples and a double. And the thing that sticks out about Manny is that he only swung the bat four times and he only saw five pitches. Because every pitch, first pitch, wherever it was, he was swinging. I bring him up because that's very rare. That's also kind of an influence of players from Latin America; they're very aggressive, they generally don't walk a lot. Those kinds of players won't play, for instance, for Oakland because Oakland stresses patience. Take pitches, make the pitcher work. Don't swing at the first pitch, because then if it's a ground ball, he's only thrown one or two pitches.

BA: Tell us about the follow list.

Marcos: The real follow is an actual report our scouts write on a kid. If we see a kid we like, we would turn in a follow report and tell all the clubs, "Here is a kid you need to follow for the 2009 draft." Or 2010 or 2011, depending on his age. From January to the June draft, if we report on a guy it's called a selectable because he's selectable at that point. Then there's the suspect list.

BA: What is the suspect list?

Marcos: Kids will be on the suspect list who are not real follows. It's all the info about a kid and brief comments about what he can do right, and we're telling all 30 clubs he's got something you need to go see. But it won't be the full report that we normally write. And we'll turn in 3,000 or 4,000 suspect names throughout the year. Come draft time, we'll turn in only about 900 to 1,000 names.

BA: What is the next step in the process?

Marcos: Once January comes and it's the eligible year, we write a second, updated report (on real follows) and then we start doing signability info. We talk to parents, how interested are you in allowing your son to play pro baseball, et cetera. You'd be surprised how many say, "No, my son is going to college first. You could offer him a million dollars, he's not signing."

BA: What do you advise?

Marcos: Depends. The high draft picks who are high school kids, that have a lot of ability, should sign. If he's offered $700,000 or $800,000 or more, tell me what job is waiting for you when you finish college where, when you sign your name, they'll give you $800,000?

BA: There's the theory that if a talented kid attends a Division I school and has the benefit of top college coaching, he'll be a higher draft pick than he would have been just coming out of high school with mediocre coaching.

Marcos: Depends on the kid, the college, the club interested in him. Also, what kind of student is he? Every year we select 1,500 players for the draft; 900 will sign. That means 900 have to get released. If college is remotely an option for you and you were not a premium pick, go to school. Get some education under your belt. If he's a premium pick out of high school, he has to go out because he'll get the opportunity to get to the big leagues quicker.

BA: Lower draft picks, you recommend that they go to college.

Marcos: If they have the chance to go to school. For some kids, school is not an option. No matter what, some kids, it's "no more school; I'm done." They barely got their diploma if they got it at all. Making them go to junior college to try to stay eligible to play, is not necessarily the right thing to do. They won't do it; now they're wasting time. If a player had a chance to sign and the club really wanted him, sign, go out. So it depends also on what his mom and dad want him to do. Is there a school that really wants him? Sometimes a kid is selected and no school wants him. If they don't set themselves up by getting good grades to go to school, then they failed themselves. And that's what I tell the younger kids: the most important thing is education. Hit the books so you can go to college if pro ball is not an option. Then if your athletic ability allows you a chance to be drafted, then you have an option. But if you're lousy in school and you don't get the contract, what are you going to do? Each kid it's individual, I can't make a blanket recommendation.

BA: How does what Major League Scouting Bureau scouts do differ from what team scouts do?

Marcos: Many years ago Major League Baseball realized that there are a lot of players not getting opportunities. So our goal is to make sure that we find and report on every player who gets an opportunity to play professional baseball. So we have more scouts at the area level to cover more games and make sure that no one goes unnoticed. That's number one. Number two, we don't draft players so our goal is to identify players, give the clubs an opportunity to crosscheck and then place them. First of all, opinions. You like this player, I don't; a difference of opinion, that's common. Our goal is to identify tools on players and all the things that come with it: will he sign, won't he sign, medical issues, health history, vision, psych, we do all these things on players and get them to the clubs so they're not wasting a lot of time getting those things done. We have no stake in whether he gets drafted or not. We supplement what the clubs do and we are objective.

BA: What other resources do you have that an individual club might not?

Marcos: We do things with filming players and video that no club could do in a cost-effective way.


BA: How can parents with talented kids, who maybe have no access to showcases, make sure that their kids are scouted?

Marcos: If I knew my high school coach could help me by getting the word out to local college coaches, that's number one. Go to the high school coaches and ask, "Do you have local contacts, who do you know at colleges, that you can invite to the games and practices to see my kid?" Secondly, find out about Major League Baseball open tryout camps. We at the Bureau have tryout camps throughout the summer and they're posted at MLB.com. I recommend that kids as young as 15 or 16 years of age start going to those tryout camps, for experience and so that you see how you compare to older players.

And if you're good enough, you become a "follow." So get to the open tryout camps. I would not say that you have to spend a lot of money to go to showcases. If parents don't feel their high school coaches have good contacts with colleges, they can even call up college coaches themselves and say, "My kid has talent. How can I get him seen by coaches for your college?" They can even go to college games and look for scouts themselves. Between innings, talk to those scouts about getting their kids seen.

[Hometeam]

Personally, I don't believe you can tell ANYTHING about a kid - ESPECIALLY if he's a good baseball player - just by "how he walks from the clubhouse or how he carries himself as he's getting off the bus". This is pure baloney.

[Xslugger19]

Personally, I don't believe you can tell ANYTHING about a kid - ESPECIALLY if he's a good baseball player - just by "how he walks from the clubhouse or how he carries himself as he's getting off the bus". This is pure baloney.

Trust me, you can tell who's a ballplayer. If a kid walks to his dugout with a hat backwards, belt on his shoulder and pants halfway down his --- then right away thats a red flag for any scout.

[gclbaseball1]

Trust me, you can tell who's a ballplayer. If a kid walks to his dugout with a hat backwards, belt on his shoulder and pants halfway down his --- then right away thats a red flag for any scout.

Your exactly right.

[DR.PITCH]

All high school players should know that FIRST and foremost, the player should be able to pass the "look" test. Too many times scouts have moved on to other games/players because a kid didn't pass the first test.:crush:

[GCPRO]

xslugger-will agree unless that kid has a 96 mph fastball or runs a 6.4 60 and throws lazers. There are rules and then there are rules.

[IMHO]

Trust me, you can tell who's a ballplayer. If a kid walks to his dugout with a hat backwards, belt on his shoulder and pants halfway down his --- then right away thats a red flag for any scout.

Do you think Manny Ramirez looks like a ballplayer?

Do you think Joe Morgan at 5'8" looked like a ballplayer walking from the bus?

Do you notice when seeing many pro players you say, wow I thought they'd be bigger? Dustin Podreia just won the MVP award - does he look like a ballplayer?

Looking like a player is great and I think an intangible. I advocate respecting the game and always looking like a player. But to say you can tell a player just by looking at him is just flat out wrong. Scouting baseball players especially position players is very difficult. I would say this is where more omitions are made in good players and some are given more credit than they deserve becasue scouts and coaches just don't have enough time to adequately see players to judge their talent.

By the way - That scout that Benspapa posted is going to be waiting aroud a long time for BP at the high school games I attended because there was none.

[bigdawg33]

Personally, I don't believe you can tell ANYTHING about a kid - ESPECIALLY if he's a good baseball player - just by "how he walks from the clubhouse or how he carries himself as he's getting off the bus". This is pure baloney.

I happen to disagree with you. MLB scouts have prototypes. Height weight, shoulders, arms, legs, hand size.( If you are a 6’6” lefty pitcher with large hands and long legs you will get noticed even if you are throwing 76) In my discussion with MLB scouts they say they can show up at a HS game and watch the warm up. By watching the warm up they can determine whether they will stay at a game, because they can identify a possible "follow" that quick.
You sell these guys short. This is their job. They study players. They also told me that they have so much video of successful players in the MLB that they use this information to baseline other kids. How tall was Ken Griffey junior at 16, how fast was he at 18, what did his swing look like at 18?. These guys analyzed this video, and compare HS players to these baseline players.
hey begin to follow guys, keeping showcase type stats on them, and year after year look for growth.
Another very interesting point is they are very careful who they recommend as a "follow" because if they make a recommendation and their boss comes to watch the player and the kid is not a legitimate follow the scouts performance puts his job at risk.
The MLB scouts admit that they miss some kids because they don’t fit the prototype….those kids have to work a little harder to be noticed.
The other HUGE point is project-ability. They are looking at how projectable a player is, and this is based on prototype and showcase type observations. I am sure everyone can think of a kid who had little success at the HS level but had project-ability, ended up with a great D1 scholly and developed into a top notch player.
The top HS players (May be those really good D2 and D3 playersall state players), often lack project-ability. Sorry but it is true. It’s usually genetics, but it can be attitude, or inability to handle pressure.

I think Benspaara was right on the nose. The interview goes along with all my discussions with MLB scouts.

[bigdawg33]

xslugger-will agree unless that kid has a 96 mph fastball or runs a 6.4 60 and throws lazers. There are rules and then there are rules.

Yeah they do get the benefit of the doubt with those stats.

[Big-game]

Thanks Benspapa8. The article provides great insight. I am sure that opinions differ depending on one's perspective but it is educational material.

[Hometeam]

Do you think Manny Ramirez looks like a ballplayer?

Do you think Joe Morgan at 5'8" looked like a ballplayer walking from the bus?

Do you notice when seeing many pro players you say, wow I thought they'd be bigger? Dustin Podreia just won the MVP award - does he look like a ballplayer?

Looking like a player is great and I think an intangible. I advocate respecting the game and always looking like a player. But to say you can tell a player just by looking at him is just flat out wrong. Scouting baseball players especially position players is very difficult. I would say this is where more omitions are made in good players and some are given more credit than they deserve becasue scouts and coaches just don't have enough time to adequately see players to judge their talent.

By the way - That scout that Benspapa posted is going to be waiting aroud a long time for BP at the high school games I attended because there was none.

Very well said and I agree with you completely.

This whole thing was very stereotypical and is selling baseball short. It's for the scout who doesn't want to be bothered attending games to see how various kids can play. It's easier going by word of mouth (hype) or saying "Well, he looks like a ballplayer so he must be a ballplayer".

As for BigDawg - if some of these kids lack projectability, which is why they go to D2's and D3's instead of D1's, then why do some of these kids eventually get signed to the pros? Apparently, someone didn't do their homework to begin with by not signing them D1 right out of h.s.

[Hometeam]

Trust me, you can tell who's a ballplayer. If a kid walks to his dugout with a hat backwards, belt on his shoulder and pants halfway down his --- then right away thats a red flag for any scout.

Like the previous poster said - I guess Manny wouldn't pass the "look" test.

[BENSPAPA8]

Yes, looks like a ballplayer

http://blogs.orlandosentinel.com/sports_sportsstuff/images/2008/07/31/manny1991auto.jpg


http://www.mannyramirez.com/about.htm

[IMHO]

Very well said and I agree with you completely.

This whole thing was very stereotypical and is selling baseball short. It's for the scout who doesn't want to be bothered attending games to see how various kids can play. It's easier going by word of mouth (hype) or saying "Well, he looks like a ballplayer so he must be a ballplayer".

As for BigDawg - if some of these kids lack projectability, which is why they go to D2's and D3's instead of D1's, then why do some of these kids eventually get signed to the pros? Apparently, someone didn't do their homework to begin with by not signing them D1 right out of h.s.

I disagree with one thing you said. I think if you follow the scouting that goes on past high school it shows that scouts KNOW that scouting and projecting players at the high school level is a very inexact science. The numbers used to seperate players at showcases and the inability due to time constraints and the number of players/games a scout would have to watch to get an adequate read on players makes it very difficult to not miss players. That is why so much scouting goes on at the D2,D3 and JUCO levels in high school and why most colleges, even D-1, run "scout" days for the pro scouts. I am not talking about scouting the "can't miss" players, I am talking about the guys who are not noticed by their size and or showcase numbers. Those are the guys that make or break teams every year. So what I disagree with is saying someone didn't do their homework by not signing a kid to a D-1 schollie. It happens all the time - especially position players.

[IMHO]

http://blogs.orlandosentinel.com/sports_sportsstuff/images/2008/07/31/manny1991auto.jpg


So you don't use up more valuable space with your pictures a young Manny certainly looks like the athlete that he is doesn't he. Put him in a nice baseball uniform and he looks great. How many of those kids in the Dominican and Puerto Rico come to the ball park looking like that? That is what was said - "coming off the bus" and you can tell a player just by looking at him not a baseball card.

I guess once you make it you don't have to pass the "smell" test anymore correct?

[Amigo]

If you have ever been to Dominican Republic and watched high school age kids practice, they might not have the stylish uniforms or the latest model of gloves, but they know how to handle themselves once they pass through the field gate. They are always aware of the fact someone might be there to watch them or someone else playing on the field. At the academies run by the major league teams, once they leave the locker area, they are ready to start conditioning and stretching with all their practice gear worn the way it should be worn as a ball player. As far as Joe Morgan, 35-40 years ago, 5-8 was the right size for a second baseman. You can't compare then to now..Besides, I wouldn't be shocked if Joe would have passed any look test you wanted to apply back then.:angel:

[IMHO]

If you have ever been to Dominican Republic and watched high school age kids practice, they might not have the stylish uniforms or the latest model of gloves, but they know how to handle themselves once they pass through the field gate. They are always aware of the fact someone might be there to watch them or someone else playing on the field. At the academies run by the major league teams, once they leave the locker area, they are ready to start conditioning and stretching with all their practice gear worn the way it should be worn as a ball player. As far as Joe Morgan, 35-40 years ago, 5-8 was the right size for a second baseman. You can't compare then to now..Besides, I wouldn't be shocked if Joe would have passed any look test you wanted to apply back then.:angel:

Joe Morgan's nickname was "Little Joe" so no I don't think that was the right size for any major ball player then or now. He would not have been a player that you passed on the street and said wow that is a player. We are just talking about sizing up a player's ability by how they look coming off the bus in high school - Nothing else. If he was 5'8" tall as a man ( and that is what theylisted him at) that makes him what size as a high school player?

[Xslugger19]

Joe Morgan's nickname was "Little Joe" so no I don't think that was the right size for any major ball player then or now. He would not have been a player that you passed on the street and said wow that is a player. We are just talking about sizing up a player's ability by how they look coming off the bus in high school - Nothing else. If he was 5'8" tall as a man ( and that is what theylisted him at) that makes him what size as a high school player?

Size isn't everything; you do not have to be 6'5" 230 to look like a ball player. You can be a david eckstein or a roy oswalt, as long as you carry yourself with a sense of "professionalism."

Are looks everything? No. But they are the first thing a scout sees. First impressions are important, unless you are a BJ Upton, then you're right it doesn't matter quite as much.

If a scout walks up to a game and sees a kid who looks like a "ballplayer" then the kid has already caught that scouts eye and he'll be keeping tabs on the player throughout pre-game and the game itself. It's all about getting noticed, that is where the "looks" can come into play, then you have to perform.

[IMHO]

Size isn't everything; you do not have to be 6'5" 230 to look like a ball player. You can be a david eckstein or a roy oswalt, as long as you carry yourself with a sense of "professionalism."

Are looks everything? No. But they are the first thing a scout sees. First impressions are important, unless you are a BJ Upton, then you're right it doesn't matter quite as much.

If a scout walks up to a game and sees a kid who looks like a "ballplayer" then the kid has already caught that scouts eye and he'll be keeping tabs on the player throughout pre-game and the game itself. It's all about getting noticed, that is where the "looks" can come into play, then you have to perform.

I think how a player looks is an intangible that helps seal the deal for a player NOT something that gets him looked at. Much the same as how a player handles adversity is a very big intangible that scouts and coaches definitely look at to seal the deal on a player. I think the skill level that scouts are looking for like speed, power, soft hands, quick feet, strong arm. arm action, body type, etc. is what get a player looked at and the things like how a player carries himself and how he dresses are attributes that seal the deal for th player. While important in the recruiting and scouting process I think yyou guys are over estimating it. How a player carries himself and dresses is something that can be taught very easily to a player. Scouts are looking for things that can not be taught to the player. So I think you guys have it backwords in what scouts look for first that gets you noticed.

[Hometeam]

I think how a player looks is an intangible that helps seal the deal for a player NOT something that gets him looked at. Much the same as how a player handles adversity is a very big intangible that scouts and coaches definitely look at to seal the deal on a player. I think the skill level that scouts are looking for like speed, power, soft hands, quick feet, strong arm. arm action, body type, etc. is what get a player looked at and the things like how a player carries himself and how he dresses are attributes that seal the deal for th player. While important in the recruiting and scouting process I think yyou guys are over estimating it. How a player carries himself and dresses is something that can be taught very easily to a player. Scouts are looking for things that can not be taught to the player. So I think you guys have it backwords in what scouts look for first that gets you noticed.


Again, I agree with you completely.

Also, I can't help but notice there seems to be quite a few "scouts" out there - and I doubt that all of them have been directly involved with MLB in any way, especially as players. So what makes them qualified to even decide which kid passes the "first impression" test? Sorry, but I'm not buying it. I've decided that a lot of it is "connections". If a kid is connected, then amazingly he looks like a ballplayer and will be considered a ballplayer. How many kids who have been chosen have uncles or cousins who are connected somehow with the MLB? Quite a few actually. Even at the D1 level, it seems as though if someone's brother or cousin was on the team, that kid will also be chosen to be on the team. Last names DO matter.

Also, with the posting of a young Manny - does this mean once you "make it", you no longer have to look like a ballplayer? Also, a lot of emphasis seems to be on speed yet some of the top players aren't necessarily fast but they sure can rake the ball. Seems like the qualifications for making it as a D1 player aren't necessarily the same qualifications it takes to go pro.

[IMHO]

Again, I agree with you completely.

Also, I can't help but notice there seems to be quite a few "scouts" out there - and I doubt that all of them have been directly involved with MLB in any way, especially as players. So what makes them qualified to even decide which kid passes the "first impression" test? Sorry, but I'm not buying it. I've decided that a lot of it is "connections". If a kid is connected, then amazingly he looks like a ballplayer and will be considered a ballplayer. How many kids who have been chosen have uncles or cousins who are connected somehow with the MLB? Quite a few actually. Even at the D1 level, it seems as though if someone's brother or cousin was on the team, that kid will also be chosen to be on the team. Last names DO matter.

Also, with the posting of a young Manny - does this mean once you "make it", you no longer have to look like a ballplayer? Also, a lot of emphasis seems to be on speed yet some of the top players aren't necessarily fast but they sure can rake the ball. Seems like the qualifications for making it as a D1 player aren't necessarily the qualifications it takes to go pro.

Again just my opionion but I think unfortunately that there are so many players/games to see that scouts do not have time to really "scout" for players, expecially position players so something needs to be in place to eliminate kids when scouting for say D-1 level players. For position players that is the 60 time. It is done first at showcases for areason. It allows scouts an coaches to scratch off players due to their lack of speed. Thsi is primarily used to measure a kids athletic ability. As with every step up in levels of play the D-1 game is much faster than high school so I can see using this as a barometer to eliminate kids. However that means they can miss on some and do miss on some. I also believe that is why MLB scouts spend time watching ALL levels of college play because each level has players that could play at the pro level and are missed by D-1. I think the biggest thing for kids to keep in mind when looking at colleges is to find a match for your skills and find a place that you can play at. NOBODY gets discovered while riding the bench no matter what they look like in a uniform.

[Hometeam]

Again just my opionion but I think unfortunately that there are so many players/games to see that scouts do not have time to really "scout" for players, expecially position players so something needs to be in place to eliminate kids when scouting for say D-1 level players. For position players that is the 60 time. It is done first at showcases for areason. It allows scouts an coaches to scratch off players due to their lack of speed. Thsi is primarily used to measure a kids athletic ability. As with every step up in levels of play the D-1 game is much faster than high school so I can see using this as a barometer to eliminate kids. However that means they can miss on some and do miss on some. I also believe that is why MLB scouts spend time watching ALL levels of college play because each level has players that could play at the pro level and are missed by D-1. I think the biggest thing for kids to keep in mind when looking at colleges is to find a match for your skills and find a place that you can play at. NOBODY gets discovered while riding the bench no matter what they look like in a uniform.

I agree - to a point - about speed. Just because a kid is fast doesn't mean he's necessarily a good ballplayer. It should be just ONE factor - but not necessarily the most important measure by any means. Like you said - in order to get a true measure of the kid's ballplaying abilities, he needs to be watched many times in many games. Scouts can't do this so it's often a hit-and-miss. And it seems like often the scouts are local hitting instructors who might or might not be able to accurately evaluate a boy. Which explains why some teams are very unsuccessful, from D1 on down. Even some pro teams are better recruiters than others.

[spectator123]

I agree - to a point - about speed. Just because a kid is fast doesn't mean he's necessarily a good ballplayer. It should be just ONE factor - but not necessarily the most important measure by any means. Like you said - in order to get a true measure of the kid's ballplaying abilities, he needs to be watched many times in many games. Scouts can't do this so it's often a hit-and-miss. And it seems like often the scouts are local hitting instructors who might or might not be able to accurately evaluate a boy. Which explains why some teams are very unsuccessful, from D1 on down. Even some pro teams are better recruiters than others.

Try reading

Moneyball: The Art of Winning an Unfair Game
By MICHAEL LEWIS
Michael Lewis monitors the stratagems of the maverick general manager of the Oakland Athletics, Billy Beane.

I thought it was a good read

[Hometeam]

Try reading

Moneyball: The Art of Winning an Unfair Game
By MICHAEL LEWIS
Michael Lewis monitors the stratagems of the maverick general manager of the Oakland Athletics, Billy Beane.

I thought it was a good read


As always - great post, Spectator. I read the book and LOVED it!

In a nutshell, Oakland recruited guys who weren't necessarily considered the fastest, but they could hit and field. The statistics they went by was mostly OBP and slugging %, if I remember correctly. To make a long story short, Oakland had one of the smallest budgets in MLB but they put together a winning team.

In other words, the players Beane recruited didnt fit the stereotypical profile of what some people think a ballplayer should be. If they walked out of the clubhouse or got off the bus, many of the posters here on Yappi would say they didn't look "professional" enough and would pass on them. Mistake.

[IMHO]

I agree - to a point - about speed. Just because a kid is fast doesn't mean he's necessarily a good ballplayer. It should be just ONE factor - but not necessarily the most important measure by any means. Like you said - in order to get a true measure of the kid's ballplaying abilities, he needs to be watched many times in many games. Scouts can't do this so it's often a hit-and-miss. And it seems like often the scouts are local hitting instructors who might or might not be able to accurately evaluate a boy. Which explains why some teams are very unsuccessful, from D1 on down. Even some pro teams are better recruiters than others.


I agree with you on the speed thing. It does come into play as far as range is concerned. Obviously in order to play the middle of the infield or OF you must have some range. Speed is only one aspect of range to go along with positioning, anticipation, etc but is is one aspect. How soft your hands are and how quickly you get your feet going and whether you continue to move your feet throughout the fielding process is more important than speed for infielders. Unfortunately, I think when evaluating players there has to be something that is used to eliminate players because scouts/coaches don't have the time to go to enough games to really get a feel for the player in person.

[Hometeam]

I agree with you on the speed thing. It does come into play as far as range is concerned. Obviously in order to play the middle of the infield or OF you must have some range. Speed is only one aspect of range to go along with positioning, anticipation, etc but is is one aspect. How soft your hands are and how quickly you get your feet going and whether you continue to move your feet throughout the fielding process is more important than speed for infielders. Unfortunately, I think when evaluating players there has to be something that is used to eliminate players because scouts/coaches don't have the time to go to enough games to really get a feel for the player in person.

Yeah, but if you eliminate players because they are 1/2 step or a step below the cutoff, you might be missing out on some great hitters, fielders, etc. To me, the most important criteria is hitting the ball and defense. But you're right - these are subjective and can't be measured by a stopwatch like speed can. That's why you can't measure good baseball players with a stopwatch -baseball is so much more than that. You have to actually watch the player a number of times, as you said. But even then, it's an inexact science. There's so many components that go into baseball - running is just one part. No, you can't be slow as a turtle, but you don't have to be fast as a rabbit, either, to be a good ballplayer.

[gclbaseball1]

If you have never read Moneyball read it it's a great book.

[Xslugger19]

Yeah, but if you eliminate players because they are 1/2 step or a step below the cutoff, you might be missing out on some great hitters, fielders, etc. To me, the most important criteria is hitting the ball and defense. But you're right - these are subjective and can't be measured by a stopwatch like speed can. That's why you can't measure good baseball players with a stopwatch -baseball is so much more than that. You have to actually watch the player a number of times, as you said. But even then, it's an inexact science. There's so many components that go into baseball - running is just one part. No, you can't be slow as a turtle, but you don't have to be fast as a rabbit, either, to be a good ballplayer.

I think you are somewhat missing the point of some of these posts. We're not saying speed is ALL that matters. It is, like "looks" are, an ATTENTION GETTER. Like a previous poster mentioned, it helps eliminate some of the players who don't have the speed to play at the next level. And they do not automatically scratch off every kid that is a tenth of a second slower than average, they rate their speed on a scale 0-50. say a player is only a 20/50 with speed, but his power is a 50/60 and hit is 55/60 with arm strength at a 60/65. Then i think they'll overlook the speed and stick him at a corner position.

A lot of the things on here that are being talked about like looking like a ballplayer or having the mental capacity to handle immense amount of pressure, they are what seperates certain ballplayers. Because once you get to the top level, it's hard to differentiate all the top D1 shortstops. At that level they can all hit, they can all run, they all have a hose; you dont get to UNC or UGA or USC by mistake.

[bigdawg33]

Very well said and I agree with you completely.

This whole thing was very stereotypical and is selling baseball short. It's for the scout who doesn't want to be bothered attending games to see how various kids can play. It's easier going by word of mouth (hype) or saying "Well, he looks like a ballplayer so he must be a ballplayer".

As for BigDawg - if some of these kids lack projectability, which is why they go to D2's and D3's instead of D1's, then why do some of these kids eventually get signed to the pros? Apparently, someone didn't do their homework to begin with by not signing them D1 right out of h.s.

Like I said Scouts admit they miss kids, I did not mean to say that those kids don't have a chance, they lacked projectabilty at 16 and 17. The number of kids drafted out of D2 or D3 schools can't compare to D1.....however it can and does happen. Late bloomer, and missed kids happen often.

Why is it so hard to believe that scouts are experts in what they do...just as lawyers know law, CPA Know accounting, doctors know medicine, electricians know electricty?

We can also list many mistakes....kids who were projectable, signed for 500,000 dollars and never made it out of single A. We are talking humans....but there is no denying that scouts don't follow a prototype with a lot of success.


Read Moneyball....it gives you great insight on how they think....may not be "fair" or right....it is what it is.

[Hometeam]

Like I said Scouts admit they miss kids, I did not mean to say that those kids don't have a chance, they lacked projectabilty at 16 and 17. The number of kids drafted out of D2 or D3 schools can't compare to D1.....however it can and does happen. Late bloomer, and missed kids happen often.

Why is it so hard to believe that scouts are experts in what they do...just as lawyers know law, CPA Know accounting, doctors know medicine, electricians know electricty?

We can also list many mistakes....kids who were projectable, signed for 500,000 dollars and never made it out of single A. We are talking humans....but there is no denying that scouts don't follow a prototype with a lot of success.

Read Moneyball....it gives you great insight on how they think....may not be "fair" or right....it is what it is.


Actually, I DID read Moneyball. Beane didn't recruit the prototypical player - and he had more success with his team than teams with much larger budgets who DID recruit the steotypical player. He went more by statistics and past success (OBP and slugging %) rather than hype, stereotypes, etc. To me, this makes more sense than picking a kid with one of the factors being how they carry themselves when they step out of the bus. That's the point I'm making.

Scouts also forget that kids can get faster and stronger as they get older - so if the kid is 1/2 step too slow, he can more than make up for it when he gets his conditioning in college. Like I said - to me, the important thing should be how they can hit and field. These are actual baseball skills. Agreed, you need to be fast for the outfield, etc. but you also need hitters. They also say they can teach a kid how to hit - I disagree. I think it's easier to train a kid to get faster than it is how to hit.

[Xslugger19]

Actually, I DID read Moneyball. Beane didn't recruit the prototypical player - and he had more success with his team than teams with much larger budgets who DID recruit the steotypical player. He went more by statistics and past success (OBP and slugging %) rather than hype, stereotypes, etc. To me, this makes more sense than picking a kid with one of the factors being how they carry themselves when they step out of the bus. That's the point I'm making.

Scouts also forget that kids can get faster and stronger as they get older - so if the kid is 1/2 step too slow, he can more than make up for it when he gets his conditioning in college. Like I said - to me, the important thing should be how they can hit and field. These are actual baseball skills. Agreed, you need to be fast for the outfield, etc. but you also need hitters. They also say they can teach a kid how to hit - I disagree. I think it's easier to train a kid to get faster than it is how to hit.

You really think its easier to teach a kid how to run faster than it is to hit? I think it is a lot easier to teach a kid to stay back on a breaking ball or how to go oppo than it is to teach a kid to go from a 7.2 to a 6.6 60.

And i do agree that the most important things are defense and how they hit, depending on where they play. You usually can afford to sacrafice your up the middle defense's stick if they can play outstanding defense. But then your corners have to be able to rake. (i.e. Red Sox: lugo, varitek, ellsbury, pedroia up the middle and they play outstanding defense; bay, ortiz, lowell, youk and drew can all rake at the corners)

[Hometeam]

You really think its easier to teach a kid how to run faster than it is to hit? I think it is a lot easier to teach a kid to stay back on a breaking ball or how to go oppo than it is to teach a kid to go from a 7.2 to a 6.6 60.

And i do agree that the most important things are defense and how they hit, depending on where they play. You usually can afford to sacrafice your up the middle defense's stick if they can play outstanding defense. But then your corners have to be able to rake. (i.e. Red Sox: lugo, varitek, ellsbury, pedroia up the middle and they play outstanding defense; bay, ortiz, lowell, youk and drew can all rake at the corners)

Yeah, I know I'm probably in the minority when I say that if a kid can't hit well in h.s., he won't hit well in college, but I've seen instances of this. I know of a kid who went D1 - he was decent defensely but couldn't hit well consistently. Well, it ended up he didn't play in college because he STILL struggled with his hitting.

As far as speed, I'm not saying you can make a slow kid fast, but he can become faster.

[IMHO]

You really think its easier to teach a kid how to run faster than it is to hit? I think it is a lot easier to teach a kid to stay back on a breaking ball or how to go oppo than it is to teach a kid to go from a 7.2 to a 6.6 60.

And i do agree that the most important things are defense and how they hit, depending on where they play. You usually can afford to sacrafice your up the middle defense's stick if they can play outstanding defense. But then your corners have to be able to rake. (i.e. Red Sox: lugo, varitek, ellsbury, pedroia up the middle and they play outstanding defense; bay, ortiz, lowell, youk and drew can all rake at the corners)

Xslugger - going from 7.2 - 6.6 is very hard depends on the kid. Getting a kid who is not in optimal shape for an athlete to drop that much time in the 60 is not difficult. If the player will work on his nutrition and stregth and conditioning. ---- those speed training places guarentee a 2/10 drop just by showing you how to run.

I think college coaches are starting to see the importance of defense. The college game with the metal bats and the ultra stud pitchers getting drafted is very offensive. I think most schools went to looking for offense first and defense second. However they are starting to see that becasue it is so offensive EVERY out that can be made better be made or the other team will take advantage of it. Even the 3B position is becoming one that the player better be able to "pick it" By the way Pedroia just won the MVP in the AL. Not bad for a guy you qualified as a defensive first middle infielder.

Showing someone how to hit is very difficult. If you don't have good hand/eye coordination it doesn't matter how much you try to teach the kid he will not hit especially a 90 MPH fastball or a good breaking pitch.

[IMHO]

Yeah, I know I'm probably in the minority when I say that if a kid can't hit well in h.s., he won't hit well in college, but I've seen instances of this. I know of a kid who went D1 - he was decent defensely but couldn't hit well consistently. Well, it ended up he didn't play in college because he STILL struggled with his hitting.

As far as speed, I'm not saying you can make a slow kid fast, but he can become faster.

A kid who did not hit in high school will not hit in college. High school pitching is so up and down. Even the big schools will play maybe 5-10 very good pitchers a year. The rest of very average. That is why high school stats need to be discounted. If you are not at the games watching to see how a kid hits the very good pichers you really do not know how he will hit when he steps up a level no matter what his stats are in high school. Stats are very misleading in high school.

[Hometeam]

Xslugger - going from 7.2 - 6.6 is very hard depends on the kid. Getting a kid who is not in optimal shape for an athlete to drop that much time in the 60 is not difficult. If the player will work on his nutrition and stregth and conditioning. ---- those speed training places guarentee a 2/10 drop just by showing you how to run.

I think college coaches are starting to see the importance of defense. The college game with the metal bats and the ultra stud pitchers getting drafted is very offensive. I think most schools went to looking for offense first and defense second. However they are starting to see that becasue it is so offensive EVERY out that can be made better be made or the other team will take advantage of it. Even the 3B position is becoming one that the player better be able to "pick it" By the way Pedroia just won the MVP in the AL. Not bad for a guy you qualified as a defensive first middle infielder.

Showing someone how to hit is very difficult. If you don't have good hand/eye coordination it doesn't matter how much you try to teach the kid he will not hit especially a 90 MPH fastball or a good breaking pitch.

I agree with you about hitting. Also, bad habits are hard to break. If the college recruiter thinks he can undo what's been the kid's habit for 13 or so years, I think he's mistaken. That's why I think the kid needs to have hit well in high school and on his summer teams before he's taken up to any college level team.

[Xslugger19]

Xslugger - going from 7.2 - 6.6 is very hard depends on the kid. Getting a kid who is not in optimal shape for an athlete to drop that much time in the 60 is not difficult. If the player will work on his nutrition and stregth and conditioning. ---- those speed training places guarentee a 2/10 drop just by showing you how to run.

I think college coaches are starting to see the importance of defense. The college game with the metal bats and the ultra stud pitchers getting drafted is very offensive. I think most schools went to looking for offense first and defense second. However they are starting to see that becasue it is so offensive EVERY out that can be made better be made or the other team will take advantage of it. Even the 3B position is becoming one that the player better be able to "pick it" By the way Pedroia just won the MVP in the AL. Not bad for a guy you qualified as a defensive first middle infielder.

Showing someone how to hit is very difficult. If you don't have good hand/eye coordination it doesn't matter how much you try to teach the kid he will not hit especially a 90 MPH fastball or a good breaking pitch.

I never discounted pedroia's stick, he can hit the ball. But he's an outstanding defender. I was just stating that when you are up the middle it's defense first and you take what you can get out of their bat.

[bigdawg33]

If a kid can really hit there will be a place for him.

I think you can make good hitters better, but if you don't hit in high school IMO you will never hit in college.

Fast hands are hard to teach, but guys can learn technique to make a good hitter better.