How short is too short?

Height is a bell curve.  While the average height of an MLB pitcher may be higher than the average height in the adult male population, there will always be plenty of individual successful pitchers in the tails of the curve that will be shorter (or taller) than the average.  

In basketball, height is an advantage because of two things.  You are trying to put a ball into a hoop that is 10' high.  Obviously, the taller you are, the easier that will be to do especially as you get close to the basket.  The other is, you are playing against really tall guys.  Unless you are super quick, they have the advantage because they can block your shots and stand over you when you are trying to put the ball into the air.

 

There are no such restrictions in baseball.  You're not trying to get a ball over someone's head and there is no requirement to jump high to put a ball into a hoop.  It's not exactly the same comparison.

 

In regards to your last statement.  If you have a pitcher at 16 throwing 75, it's going to be tough for him to make it to the MLB or a D1 college whether he's 5'8" or 6'6".  I think what we're really talking about is kids of equal ability.  If you have a 5'9" pitcher cruising at 91 and a 6'4" pitcher cruising at 91, who will get the chance?  Probably the 6'4" pitcher.  That's the way it is.  But if you have a 5'9" pitcher cruising at 93 with nasty movement and a 6'4" pitcher cruising at 89 with a flat ball, the 5'9" guy will or should get the nod.  

 

No matter the size, you need the talent.  But, it should be talent that decides, not how tall a pitcher is.  

Just to attempt to translate here between younggun and jolietboy...I agree, there are MANY complicated actions that define what a pitcher can throw, jolietboy surely would agree to that as well. 

 

However, I also agree that if we assume a pitching motion is a circle and we assume the same amount of force is being applied to the ball...then the larger circle would provide a greater end speed; surely younggun would agree to that assertion.

 

       
       


Well since there are only about 21 mlb pitchers 5'10" or less...  and 5'10" far from being at the tail of the bell is actually the exact apex of the bell...  and since the shortest mlb pitcher to my knowledge is 5'7"...  I would say that just about means there is nobody at that tail of the bell.  Empty set.

Very interesting discussion.  Many good points IMO.  

 

Yes, the average height of a Major League pitcher is more than the average height of the general public.  The taller pitcher does have certain advantages.

 

That said, there is nothing stopping the shorter pitcher from becoming as good or better than all the tall pitchers.  Pedro Martinez was the most dominant pitcher in the Big Leagues for a spell.  

 

The fact is the shorter pitcher has to be special.  This is not just a MLB issue, it is a baseball issue.  At nearly every level starting at around 14 years old, you can almost pick out who the pitchers are when they walk in the park.  Just pick the tall guys and you will be right most of the time.  Then you see a young Sonny Gray, Marcus Strohman, Rob Kaminsky, etc. and you find out that they are much better than most all the tall guys.

 

So we know there are more tall pitchers than short pitchers.  What really counts the most is not the size, but who is the best.  Let's face it, they are all bucking the odds of pitching in the Big Leagues.  Sure there are more tall guys that make it.  There are more tall pitchers on every minor league roster.  There are a lot more tall guys that don't make it, also.  The shorter pitcher needs to be special, so does the taller pitcher.

 

So back to the original question... "How short is too short". The only answer is we don't really know for sure. How did Billy Wagner throw a baseball 100 mph? Would Pedro Martinez been even better had he been 6'5"?  

 

Bottom line, we have seen a change in thinking over the past 20 years. Back then there were clubs that instructed their scouts to never turn in a RHP who was under 6' tall.  Then we started to see RH pitchers under 6' tall winning Cy young awards.  That tends to change the thinking!  Now we see 6' and under pitchers going in the first round.

 

Still, the big guy has an advantage!  He is easier to project. He fits the mold. 

       
       


Not only do I agree there is a lot that goes into it...  I am willing (even having done no research) to stipulate to my (insert kinder word for opponents here) that smaller pitchers are quicker and get their core moving better.  Unfortunately for them it is just not enough to overcome the size of the 'lever' with the exception of course of a tiny amount of physical freaks of nature.  And I would still love to know their wingspans.  What would it say if we discovered the 5'9" guy who throws 95 has a freakishly long wingspan of say 6'4"?

Yes, there is a mold.  But is the "mold" valid.  As I've stated, one of the things that helped make the mold is that taller pitchers are more durable.  The study presented in this thread proved that wrong, yet it is still believed (generally) to be true.  I'm not against there being more taller pitchers in baseball.  I just think if the "mold" holds some fallacies and misguided preconceptions, it should be relooked at.  

Ok just to be clear we ALL, every single one of us, believe that if a shorter pitcher is better than a taller pitcher than he is flat out better.  And yes I confess my son is tall.  So when he gets to 16 if he is 6'6" and throwing 72mph while I may not advise him to entirely give up I would certainly start nudging him in that direction.  The only advantage he would have over the 16 year old 5'8" kid throwing 72 would be if by some miracle of god he finds the mechanics at a late age and it allows his 6'6" frame to start producing.  But more than likely both kids throwing 72 at 16 are done as far as playing D1 or pro ball.  Now please don't pepper me with tales of the great exceptions.  I am not interested in the one off horatio alger stories.  Again I like to deal with the norms not the ripleys believe it or not stories.  By the way thats why they become stories cause they are so amazingly rare.  The question is what are the odds that a 6'6" kid who has been playing baseball since 6 years old is only going to throw 72mph at 16?  I would say the odds of that are very very slim.  But I see tons of kids at the high school level of average size throwing in the low to mid 70's.  My older son is in the 99.8 percentile for height.  My younger son is more in the normal range like 65 or 70.  I love both of my sons.  I also logically realize my older son has a far gr eater chance to be a D1 pitcher.  Its not an emotional thing.  Its a statistical fact.  My younger son is a swimmer and a good one.  But honestly I am concerned he will be nudged out eventually by taller swimmers with more leverage.  He will just be in the 'have to work harder' category.  And I have faith he can do it.  But it doesn't mean I don't recognize he is a bit of an underdog while my older son is kind of the chalk in his sport.  Nobody is saying don't dream.  Nobody is saying give up.  Just be realistic along the way.  Oh and by the way to whoever brought up sprinters and height...  bad move as sprinters heights have increased over the years about more than any other sport.  Long levers (in this case legs).  I will try to find that data again and post it.

       
       


I have read and reread the study you speak of long before this discussion started.  And let me be clear I have never in these posts mentioned durability.  As far as I am concerned it is a non issue and there is no correlation to height.  I am simply talking about generating velocity.  So if you want to prove your point and make me and others like me a convert is simple.  Find the data of all the 'short' pitchers who threw lets say 92 or above that didn't go d1.  Not my neighbors kid was 5'9" threw 93 and nobody would take him.  But something like this.  There were (making things up here) 500 high school seniors who topped out at 92mph+.  400 of those were under 5'11".  And yet 97 of the 100 taller pitchers were drafted or went to d1 schools only 54 of their shorter peers received the same consideration.  Now that would be heading down the path to prove bias.  For now we can set aside projectability issues.  Just search for something like that first.  I will wait.

The mold doesn't have to be factual, but it does create opportunity.

 

Perhaps the only thing that would change the mold would be a more shorter pitchers experiencing success at the very highest level.  

 

BTW, as I stated earlier, to an extent the mold has changed some over the past 10-20 years.  Guys like Martinez and Lincecum caused some change in thinking, but it was not enough to entirely change the mold.  There simply are more tall great pitchers than shorter great pitchers.

 

BTW, most of the great short pitchers do seem to have long arms for their height. However that is just an observation.  I would be interested in seeing the actual arm length on pitchers.

 

Also I understand the thought behind the larger circle.  In some cases, all things being equal, (arm speed) it makes perfect sense.  However, I have yet to see a pitcher or player where all things were equal. Probably the angles and extension are bigger advantages for the tall pitcher.  But all tall pitchers don't use this advantage to its fullest extent and some shorter pitchers actually create better angles and get more extension.

 

This post is dedicated to the fond memory of our former esteemed (?) contributor, Gotwoodforsale.

       
       


LOL.  Thanks for the levity!

 

...or, how alien is too alien?

       
       


I have searched the internet and am probably just not savy enough to google the right things.  But if you do find wingspan info pertaining to pitchers please share it.   Also given your position do you keep any data on progressions?  What I mean is if a kid has an exit velocity of x at age 13 he is likely to have an exit velocity of y at age 17.

jolietboy,

 

You and so many others are missing the real reason there are so many taller pitchers than shorter ones. ML pitchers don’t start pitching the day before they get the call. For most pitchers who get that call, it starts long before they sign a contract, take one college class, or play an inning in HS. Most who last until they can get the call, get that 1^st pitching opportunity around the age of 9-11, and who is it that gets the majority of opportunities?

 

Whether or not there’s any validity to the philosophy : “bigger pitchers are better pitchers”, it’s a philosophy that’s trickled down from the minds of ML owners, GMs, managers, coaches, and scouts to invade and take over the philosophies of inexperienced coaches at the very lowest levels. And with that philosophy, it’s easy to put the most physically mature kids out there to pitch. Because there hasn’t been a lot of time for the kids to develop, the most physically mature can generally throw the ball harder by brute force than the little guys can, and the result is, they get the lion’s share of opportunities.

 

That’s by far the most “popular” paradigm at the lowest levels, so which players will have the most experience and thus get the most opportunities at the next level? Sure, there will always be some degree of attrition, and there will always be some new kids to pitch, but for the most part you won’t be seeing new pitchers getting a lot of opportunities. That’s what forms the makeup of the “talent” pool.  

 

If that pool has more tall kids than short ones, of course that’s something that will carry on all the way up.

 

       
       


Very interesting.  And while largely anecdotal in nature none the less worthy of some thought.  I must say that was not our experience as the travel teams here wanted to win so badly they pitched the smaller more athletic kids at nine and ten cause they could throw strikes.  And at that age if you dont walk people you win.  My son did not throw a single pitch his 9 year old travel season cause his lanky body was struggling with control.  So even though he threw harder he did not pitch.  However to support your point I think it was much more valid in the past.  When I was a kid you are absolutely right the big strong kids who could throw hard were the pitchers.  I think PG is right that has changed.  And let me take a stab at melding all our theories.  I am old so when I was a kid we still swung wood.  Most outs were strike outs.  Striking out the side was common place.  Also there were no travel teams so a hard throwing pitcher could breeze through lineups.  So I think back then you would have been 100% correct.  But now with the drop 10 and even 13 if you want a small barrel it is increasingly difficult to strike kids out.  Add to that most good players play travel and face more good hitters and it is really really hard to strike kids out.  So pitching to contact and fielding has taken a more prominent role in youth baseball thus opening the door to more types of pitchers.  However when we get to high school and.the bbcor monster takes over the advantage switches back to the pitcher.  But that experience gained by all types of pitchers in youth baseball serves them will later on.  So the smaller kid now afforded the opportunity to pitch at a younger age has a better chance to succeed later.  This could account for the change PG spoke of.

We probably have more data on amateur players than anyone in the world. I can find out a lot by asking our IT department. I'm fairly certain we can a take height and peak velocity and come up with some interesting data. For example... All RHP under a certain height and in a certain age group ave velocity vrs. RHPs in that age group above a certain height.  It would be meaningful, I guess, because it would be based on many thousands of pitchers. We could also come up with data that would show average progression from one year to another.  Personally I have never been big on averages.  I am always more interested in the exceptions.  Meaning it makes no difference what the average velocity or running speed or anything else is, I would be more interested in who is in the top percentile.

 

Also, regarding durability... I think it has proven futile trying to project durability in a young pitcher.  They are all capable of going down.  But just got me to thinking... Would longer levers be more likely to create arm/elbow/shoulder injury?  Is it possible the shorter pitcher could actually have a durability advantage? More data... It would be interesting to know the height of every pitcher that had TJ.

That would be really exciting if you shared some of your data.  And I get that you are looking for the exceptional.  As parents and coaches I think what we look for is the statistical data to support or refute our kids chances of reaching that level of exceptional.  Are they ahead I f the curve or behind the curve?  For me its hard cause I am in a state where baseball is a rumor.  So comparing yourself to others her is not necessarily valid.  So if you Would indulge one personal question.  if your 12 almost 13 year old has an exit velocity of 73 with bbcor off the tee is it reasonable to say he is well on track to be at 90 or 95 by 17?

jolietboy,

 

i wish I would have been clearer.  Most all of our data is recorded between the ages of 13 and 18.  largest area 15 to 18!  Just in recent years have we started to work with younger age groups In larger numbers.

 

So as much as I would like to answer your question, I can't give you anything meaningful for that age.  However, if your son is athletic and works hard, he is very likely to reach his goals. But I'm sure you already know that.

 

Stats, I disagree.  I have coached, umpired, and/or observed literally thousands of games from 14U down through LL.  Especially at the LL age level, which is 12yo and below, coaches look for kids who can A) throw strikes, and B) throw hard.  After that they look for specialty pitches, location, mental toughness, etc.  But A followed by B is all they really care about.  Height doesn't enter into it at all. Not one bit.  Physical maturity and strength, of course. But a kid doesn't need to be tall to be mature. If you have big kid, or a  tall kid, or kid with a 5 o'clock shadow, sure, you're going to have him throw a pen or two and see what he's got. But that's true of any kid on your team.  You need all the pitchers you can get.

Originally Posted by jolietboy:

Very interesting.  And while largely anecdotal in nature none the less worthy of some thought.  I must say that was not our experience as the travel teams here wanted to win so badly they pitched the smaller more athletic kids at nine and ten cause they could throw strikes. 

 

Something to keep in mind is, there are a heck of a lot more rec teams out there than travel teams, and where do the travel pitchers come from? Many people look at rec with disdain because they forget that travel ball players don’t come down the chute as the best players. I don’t know if it’s the same today as when my kid played rec about 20 years ago, but back then I could look at a team I’d never seen before and regularly pick out the 2 best pitchers by picking out the most physically mature kids on the field.

 

It was unusual to see a “small” kid doing much more than “mop up”, unless his dad was one of the coaches. It’s also sometimes difficult to tell which kids are the most physically mature in a baggy uni, so a few could easily slip by.

 

And at that age if you dont walk people you win.  My son did not throw a single pitch his 9 year old travel season cause his lanky body was struggling with control.  So even though he threw harder he did not pitch.  However to support your point I think it was much more valid in the past.  When I was a kid you are absolutely right the big strong kids who could throw hard were the pitchers.  I think PG is right that has changed. 

 

Of course it’s changed, but in general, at the rec level, I’m still pretty sure the biggest or most physically mature kids are gonna be the pitchers because they’ll typically have the coordination to throw the ball near the plate or throw much harder than normal.

 

 And let me take a stab at melding all our theories.  I am old so when I was a kid we still swung wood.  Most outs were strike outs.  Striking out the side was common place.  Also there were no travel teams so a hard throwing pitcher could breeze through lineups.  So I think back then you would have been 100% correct.  But now with the drop 10 and even 13 if you want a small barrel it is increasingly difficult to strike kids out.  Add to that most good players play travel and face more good hitters and it is really really hard to strike kids out. 

 

I’ll say it again, I don’t think you’re correct at the rec level, which is where every kid begins. Of course if kids are trying out and there aren’t any limits on where they come from, there’s gonna be a “better” player making the teams, but they’re still only those who got the opportunities early on.

 

So pitching to contact and fielding has taken a more prominent role in youth baseball thus opening the door to more types of pitchers.  However when we get to high school and.the bbcor monster takes over the advantage switches back to the pitcher.  But that experience gained by all types of pitchers in youth baseball serves them will later on.  So the smaller kid now afforded the opportunity to pitch at a younger age has a better chance to succeed later.  This could account for the change PG spoke of.

 

I don’t want to hijack the thread, but I really would like you to define what “pitching to contact” is. If its something like porn that people know when they see it, don’t bother. I like know what measures people use when they make statements like that, so if you have one, I’d like to see it.

 

I sure wish there was only one bat standard other than wood so we’d all be speaking the same language. I know around here a lot of TB teams are using wood, so getting whiffed isn’t so rare.

First I would love to see baseball go back to wood at all levels.  And I may be foolish but I am optimistic that someday it will.  Second you are right to ask me to define pitching to contact.  Because its kind of one of those old sayings people use that is counterintuitive.   And I hate those phrases and I used one anyway!  Clearly we really want to miss bats rather than pitch to contact.  But when we find ourselves in a situation we are having a hard time doing that we have to do the next best thing.  And that is don't let them square it up.  So really I guess we should say pitch to poor contact.  We want to throw off timing, move their eyes and locate in areas it is typically hard for them to make solid contact with the ball.  So how it is germane to youth travel ball is since it is hard to make these really good players with a drop 10 in their hands miss the next best thing is to not let 'em hit it hard.  This is accomplished by introducing finesse pitchers at a much younger age than we used to.  And I really thought about if I want to step into the whole rec vs travel thing...  and I think I am going to show more restraint than I usually do and just duck that issue!!

Originally Posted by JCG:

Stats, I disagree.  I have coached, umpired, and/or observed literally thousands of games from 14U down through LL.  Especially at the LL age level, which is 12yo and below, coaches look for kids who can A) throw strikes, and B) throw hard.  After that they look for specialty pitches, location, mental toughness, etc.  But A followed by B is all they really care about.  Height doesn't enter into it at all. Not one bit.  Physical maturity and strength, of course. But a kid doesn't need to be tall to be mature. If you have big kid, or a  tall kid, or kid with a 5 o'clock shadow, sure, you're going to have him throw a pen or two and see what he's got. But that's true of any kid on your team.  You need all the pitchers you can get.

 

Well, I’m not going to argue you aren’t seeing what you say you’re seeing, but be honest. Do you regularly look the pitchers and see how they compare to the other players as far as size goes, or are you stating your perception based on what sound logic dictates?

 

Now I will say that many HS HVCs not only have that mentality, they measure the ability to throw strikes in some way. Our HC was absolutely rabid about the pitchers not giving up free passes, and we were always among the area leaders in fewest free passes given up. But not every coach cares or measures what’s taking place. The reason I say that is, if it’s not going to be something etched in stone at the HSV level, how can I believe it’s something standard at the 9-11 rec league level?

 

But, I admit not being as familiar as I once was with that level of ball, so I called my neighbor who’s been a LLI majors coach on and off for the last 20 years and asked him about it. When he said virtually the same thing you said about throwing strikes and throwing hard, I asked how he measured it. His answer was simple. He didn’t measure accuracy because he could just tell who could throw a lot of strikes. But he does use a gun, and guns every one of his pitchers.

 

I’m not saying he’s not a good coach because he is, but I am saying he doesn’t do what he says he does. He picks the kids he wants to pitch during the early stages of spring practice, then he guns them to see what’s what. How well they throw strikes is pure conjecture because he doesn’t bother computing anything that would show control.

 

I’m sure there are many more coaches out there in today’s world than in times gone by who measure accuracy some way, but there are one heck of a lot of teams and coaches out there, and there’s just no way they’re all picking pitchers the most scientific way possible. I wish all coaches were top notch, but that’s a real stretch.

 

Last season our HSV pitchers threw 177 2/3 innings during the season. Those innings were spread among 6 pitchers, with the most being 50 1/3. That’s typical. So far this fall we’ve had 35 1/3 innings spread out among 9 pitchers. The reason so many are throwing is, the new HC is searching for pitchers who can get the ball over the plate, and he’s looking very closely at 1^st pitch strike percentage, strike percentage, and BB+HBP relative to PAs. As I said, I may be way wrong, and I hope I am, but that’s not something I visualize taking place at the 9-11 rec level a high percentage of the time. Since that’s where the TB pitchers come from, it has to have an effect on it.

Originally Posted by jolietboy:

First I would love to see baseball go back to wood at all levels.  And I may be foolish but I am optimistic that someday it will. 

 

I used to be in the same camp, until BBCOR. For all intents and purposes, BBCOR is wood. Yeah a few balls on the hands and off the end of the bat are going to drop in because the bat doesn’t break, but I’ve watched it in HS since 2011, and in essence it performs like wood and that’s all I care about.

 

Second you are right to ask me to define pitching to contact.  Because its kind of one of those old sayings people use that is counterintuitive.   And I hate those phrases and I used one anyway!  Clearly we really want to miss bats rather than pitch to contact.  But when we find ourselves in a situation we are having a hard time doing that we have to do the next best thing.  And that is don't let them square it up.  So really I guess we should say pitch to poor contact.  We want to throw off timing, move their eyes and locate in areas it is typically hard for them to make solid contact with the ball.  So how it is germane to youth travel ball is since it is hard to make these really good players with a drop 10 in their hands miss the next best thing is to not let 'em hit it hard. 

 

Everyone has their own definition of pitching to contact, and although yours is different than mine, it’s better if it works for you. Our coach says his goal is to get rid of batters in 3 pitches or less, and the fewer the better. Every once I a while I’ll produce this for the coach. That way it’s easier to look at individual pitchers to see if they’re meeting his expectations.

 

This is accomplished by introducing finesse pitchers at a much younger age than we used to. 

 

Ya went and did it again. Are you using MLB’s definition for a finesse/power pitcher, or something you’ve come up with on your own?

 

And I really thought about if I want to step into the whole rec vs travel thing...  and I think I am going to show more restraint than I usually do and just duck that issue!!

 

I understand. I only get into to the point where I like to make sure that people realize every player begins in rec.

Go for it PG, that would be really interesting stuff.

 

 

Interesting but I think that it is velocity that gives the pitcher issues, not longer limbs.

 

Height and velocity, will open the door. Top college programs and ML teams want their pitchers tall.  They want that beast at the plate looking up to the guy on the mound, not looking down. They also want them to throw hard.  There are exception to the rule, always, but not as often as it was years ago.

 

JMO

 

Interesting TPM. My son has often said that he likes when hitters underestimate him because he's shorter. He can tell they're up there thinking they're going to rock him and he sits them down one after the other. It gives him a kick. But he's coming from a different perspective than what coaches are thinking.

I do not doubt what you are saying.
There are exceptions as I stated. But in my observance of top D1 programs and professional ball, pitchers are not generally short in stature or throw FB below 87-90.  That would be both RHP and LHP.

I Just finished reading a great new book called "Five Plus Tools" By Dave Perkin. He is a pro MLB scout who now works for Sports Illustrated ( SI.com ) and is their draft analyst each year, scouting all the top HS players in the nation. He talks specifically about player size facts and the truth about what what they look for.This book is a must read if you have a player who might get drafted or play college baseball.

The PG Pre season All American list the 1st teams has 100 players of which only 3 are listed under 6ft. The second team has 10 out of 100 below 6ft. Numbers and ratings are essentially the same only difference appears to be size. Projections appear to weigh heavily in the process and not necessarily confined to pitching. 2014 MLB Batting champion is listed at 5'5. Ratings should be based on current ability not future size.