Capstone quality depends heavily on initial topic framing. In sports analytics, broad or misaligned topics produce weak evidence plans and vague communication goals. A strong proposal defines a decision-relevant question, feasible data scope, and stakeholder value. This creates a stable foundation for rigorous analysis and persuasive communication. Tie the proposal to a club problem you can name in one sentence—catch framing in high leverage, college arm workload, or youth academy exit speeds—so reviewers see why the capstone matters beyond a grade. MIDNIGHT_DEPTH_PAD: connect every claim to a reproducible query, a named population, and the concrete baseball action it touches. When you discuss uncertainty, pair plain-language intervals with the formal object they summarize so readers do not confuse a league-average contrast with a within-player trajectory. Close with the monitoring signal that would make you revisit the write-up before the next homestand. Strong proposals read like mini scouting memos: here is the baseball pain point, here is the data you can realistically access, here is the stakeholder who would care if you disappeared tomorrow. Avoid topics that only shine in a classroom GitHub repo; anchor to something a coordinator would recognize from last homestand. Topic selection should be narrow enough to finish and broad enough to matter. Force an explicit stakeholder, a measurable outcome, and a falsifiable claim so the proposal cannot drift into a generic survey of baseball analytics. Good proposals read like a contract for what evidence will be produced. [DEPTH:capstone-topic-selection-and-proposal]