Health rating should be hidden on players before they are signed.

It would seem that before an ML team signs a Non- ML player they have no idea of a players susceptiblilty to injury. That only becomes apparent as they get injured throughout their career.

It would therefore seem more realistic if that rating was not viewable when you are drafting/signing int'ls. Ideally i would have health hidden entirely, but you dont get everything you want. This would seem a middle ground, and would add some uncertainty to what is at the moment, an almost can't miss process.

Players don't get injured in high school or college? Or is that a secret?

Damn.

In the real world scouts look at as much as possible to ascertain future health/physical maturity. They see Dad over there cheering away, and make note if he's 5'7",140 and nearsighted or a solid 6'2" former athlete. They talk to HS coaches to find out about a prospect's diet and work outs. They are freaking good snoops, it's scary.

Not the same sport, but the only reason Adrian Peterson fell to the Vikings was his ankle, knee, and colarbone injuries. I think some teams saw his 'health rating' as a 50 and said pass.

Quote: Originally posted by bluegreyjay on 9/29/2009In the real world scouts look at as much as possible to ascertain future health/physical maturity. They see Dad over there cheering away, and make note if he's 5'7",140 and nearsighted or a solid 6'2" former athlete. They talk to HS coaches to find out about a prospect's diet and work outs. They are freaking good snoops, it's scary.

They look at dad? Why?

To see what he's gonna be like when he grows up? These kids are already almost fully grown. Or to see how he'll age? An athlete and a non-athlete are going to age differently

I could see looking at family to ascertain potential emotional or family issues but not as a predictor of future injuries.

Quote: Originally Posted By schuyler101 on 9/30/2009

Quote: Originally posted by bluegreyjay on 9/29/2009 In the real world scouts look at as much as possible to ascertain future health/physical maturity. They see Dad over there cheering away, and make note if he's 5'7",140 and nearsighted or a solid 6'2" former athlete. They talk to HS coaches to find out about a prospect's diet and work outs. They are freaking good snoops, it's scary.

They look at dad? Why?

To see what he's gonna be like when he grows up? These kids are already almost fully grown. Or to see how he'll age? An athlete and a non-athlete are going to age differently

I could see looking at family to ascertain potential emotional or family issues but not as a predictor of future injuries.

Maybe some of these scouts ought to look at the mother.We had a kid at my alma mater whose father was tall and ackward. However I went to school with his mother and she could run like hell.The kid got a scholarship to Penn St.

I'm guessing they look at both, but not all kids are done growing at 17. The only reason scottie pippen was given a shot at Arkansas St (or wherever exactly he played college ball) was because the coach also coached his brother who shot up 6" or so during his first year or 2 of college, and he figured Scottie might do the same.

Similar story w/ David Robinson, he didn't enter the Naval academy at 7'-0", I don't think you can even get into the naval academy over 6'-7" or something along those lines. He grew a few inches and developed into a legit NBA prospect.

A kid might be 5'-10" as a high school junior when your first scouting them, but you notice dad goes 6'-3" and mom is a solid 5'-9". You can reason the kid might grow another 4+ inches by the time he's draft eligible w/ the potential to grow a bit more before he'd reach the majors. And yes, 4" does make a difference to traditional scouts in terms of your prospect status.

dennis rodman was 'short' during his high school years, if i remember correctly

Quote: Originally posted by taz21 on 9/30/2009I'm guessing they look at both, but not all kids are done growing at 17.  The only reason scottie pippen was given a shot at Arkansas St (or wherever exactly he played college ball) was because the coach also coached his brother who shot up 6" or so during his first year or 2 of college, and he figured Scottie might do the same.Similar story w/ David Robinson, he didn't enter the Naval academy at 7'-0", I don't think you can even get into the naval academy over 6'-7" or something along those lines.  He grew a few inches and developed into a legit NBA prospect.A kid might be 5'-10" as a high school junior when your first scouting them, but you notice dad goes 6'-3" and mom is a solid 5'-9".  You can reason the kid might grow another 4+ inches by the time he's draft eligible w/ the potential to grow a bit more before he'd reach the majors.  And yes, 4" does make a difference to traditional scouts in terms of your prospect status.

Yeah but...

It seems like it would be such a small factor to consider in regards to future growth.

The possibly apocryphal story about Pippen's brother might be something of use to a scout. A brother having a late growth spurt could be a slightly predictive of a growth spurt for a younger brother.

But looking at parents and trying to determine how tall a kid is gonna be? That would be a very inexact science. There is a correlation, but look at the variance between siblings in families.

Looking at Robinson, Pippen, Rodman, etc... in hindsight and saying "I knew they would grow 6 inches in college!" is one thing. Doing it ahead of time? Another matter entirely

i do agree that 4" makes a huge difference to scouts though

Quote: Originally Posted By schuyler101 on 9/30/2009i do agree that 4" makes a huge difference to scouts thoug

... just not to their girl friends or wives.