The biggest problem with the "let the kids go out there and let athleticism take over" line of coaching without "gimmicks" or video is that we& #39;ll end up with the genetically elite, big-at-a-young-age crowd, and athletes who move well out of pure luck in pro sports. That& #39;s it.

Some roll out of bed and were born that way, or they luckily successfully imitated the right mechanical pattern (didn& #39;t get bad coaching / chose poor mechanics accidentally).

Some kids have to do a hell of lot more to become prospects and get the most out of their bodies.

For years the strategy around player development was just to find the best at a young age and shuffle them along, and treat outliers as luck. Today we realize there is a lot more talent to be developed from a lesser starting point, and that the age/talent curve may differ.

Modern sabermetric analysis is starting to grab this. The age/talent curve is shifted to the right for late-bloomers and injury-laden pitchers. Examples abound like @PeterBayer47 touching 100 MPH for the 1st time at an "older" pro ball age.

It& #39;s important to note that projections of players are more accurately like a projection of an average athlete with those underlying statistics and inputs. We are not controlling for organizational philosophies, off-field habits, makeup, who trains them, etc.

It isn& #39;t shocking to see the teams listed at the top of @paintingcorner& #39;s work (which is the first of its kind that I& #39;ve seen publicly) about which teams get the most out of their players. Even a 1-2% difference compounds over years. https://tht.fangraphs.com/beating-the-odds-when-teams-outperform-their-projections/">https://tht.fangraphs.com/beating-t...