Prep Baseball Report

Become a Member

More +

Projection vs. Production: A Recruiting Case Study

February 19, 2013

By Jacob Gill
Philadelphia Region Director of Scouting

Professional scouts have two main questions to consider when evaluating a prospect:

What is a player's ceiling?
What is the likelihood that the player will reach that ceiling?

Typically not a consideration for pro scouts is when the player will reach his ceiling. The minor leagues are designed to be a developmental system. High school draft picks who reach the major leagues often take 4-5 years to traverse their way up the ladder (Mike Trout is the exception, not the rule). Most big leaguers who are drafted out of college take the equivalent of a college career (3-4 years) to reach The Show (Bryce Harper notwithstanding). Although organizations occasionally make reference to selecting a player because he could advance through the system quickly, the vast majority of picks are not made with immediate pace of development in mind.

College coaches, however, are not afforded the luxury of essentially ignoring how quickly a player might develop. A minor leaguer who takes time to adapt to his first year or two in professional baseball does not directly affect the results of the major league club. An underclassman who struggles when given opportunities hurts his team on the field (or, if he is deemed not ready to contribute at all, limits the coaching staff's in-game flexibility). As a result, college coaches must ask a third major question:

When will this player become productive for our team?

Take the following profile of a rising high school senior: 6-foot-3, 200-pound, broad-shouldered right-handed pitcher. Over-the-top arm slot. Works 83-85 and touches 87 with his fastball. Has the makings of a good breaking ball, but is inconsistent with it. Violent wind-up with some effort in his delivery that lacks repeatability. Needs to sharpen up his command. Also an outfielder; wants to be a two-way guy. Tough competitor, bulldog. Young for his grade.

Two different coaches could take those exact same notes and come to completely opposite conclusions on whether they want to pursue the player in question.

  • He's a guy for us - Great pitcher's frame that projects for more velocity in the future. Will take time to develop, but has nice upside given his size, make-up, age relative to peers, and the fact that he has been splitting his time between pitching and hitting. Boom or bust, but we should take a chance on him because he has a pro body and a chance for pro stuff.
  • He's not a guy for us - Necessary delivery clean-up and command issues mean he might not be a major contributor for a year or two, if ever, especially if he doesn't physically or mentally commit to being a pitcher. We would be better off going after a pitcher who is more likely to have success early in and throughout his career, even if that means he has a lower ceiling.

As it turns out, the player above exists and both schools of thought would have had merit. The profile corresponds to Ryan Kemp, a pitcher at Saint Joseph's University from 2009-11. Let's examine Ryan's career collegiate statistics:

Season Earned Run
Average		 Innings
Pitched		 Hits Walks Strikeouts
Freshman 5.09 23.0 19 30 18
Sophomore 6.46 15.1 19 12 17
Junior (Feb-Mar) 6.75 9.1 8 5 10
Senior (Apr-May) 1.09 19.1 13 7 32

 

Freshman year, Ryan's stuff was evident (fastball improved to 85-88), but so was his lack of command (more walks than strikeouts). The following spring, his command improved (he began working exclusively from the stretch), but he became more hittable (possibly because he was so focused on throwing strikes that he backed off his stuff in order to do so). While his early junior year ERA was unimpressive, Ryan's peripheral stats continued to improve (less hits than innings pitched, 2:1 K:BB ratio) and his velo was up to 88-91. Come the second half of that season, Ryan was dominant as the team's closer (he had stopped hitting altogether and his fastball was peaking at 94).

When you put it all together, Ryan had one productive half-season in college; a tremendous two months that made him the 14th-round selection of the Cincinnati Reds in the 2011 MLB First-Year Player Draft. Had he returned for his senior year, he undoubtedly would have been a team captain and a candidate for all-conference recognition. However, over the course of the first two and a half years of his career, he did not have a significant impact on the team's win total.

Potential development patterns such as this force college coaches to consider more than just how good a player could be when they recruit; they also need to consider the likelihood a player reaches their ceiling, as well as a reasonable time frame for how quickly that player actually will contribute.

There are no absolutes in the recruiting game. Each coaching staff is going to have its own risk-aversion level and recruiting philosophy; a philosophy that could change from year to year based on the program's roster composition and available scholarship budget. As a result, a particular school's desire to recruit one player over another may have less to do with raw tools and more to do with fit, which, ultimately, should be every player's goal to begin with.

Additional PA News: