jdb posted:JABMK posted:JDB - I am not suggesting that there is an exact number that gets a C past high school and it we all agree it does not have to be 90. What I am suggesting is that if a C does not have velo, a competitive pop time will be hard to achieve compared to a C with velo . By the PG table on the previous post, one can see that the best pop times have the higher velo. As you also suggested that the player you referenced was notices because of his velo.
A RC is not going to recruit a C without decent velo. If they do I would hope they are 6'3 and bat L! lol
Thanks Batty67, my bad, 2FORU. It was IRONHORSE that indicated catchers need a 90 MPH throw to pop at 1.88 seconds. 2FORU, please accept my apologies for making that mistake.
JABMK: It goes without saying that a catcher with a higher velocity will have a better chance at lower pop times; no one would argue that point. Nor would I argue that there isn't a general decrease in pop times as the velocity increases. However, it is not a perfect corollary, by any means.
When you say an RC is not going to recruit a C without a decent velo; what, in your mind, is a decent velocity. Several folks in this thread have contemplated velocity as a qualifier or disqualifier, but never quantified what velocity they think is required.
Based on what I have seen on PG, I would argue that sub 2.0 pop times with velocities in the low to middle 70's can begin to generate looks from quality programs, especially when the player brings other tools to the table. Everything else being equal, velocity and projectability will win out, but first everything else has to be equal.
The OP asked if a 1.88 pop time is good. It is excellent, if the time is accurate and the player isn't cheating. Several folks answered the question by telling her to find out what velocity her son throws the ball. I'm telling her don't despair if his velocity isn't in the 80's when throwing for a pop time. We are talking about a catcher, not a pitcher. Those who say velocity is king, tell me where that advice is wrong.
I actually said, referencing that specific kid and his footwork/transfer/stride, that if he is close to 90 I might buy him getting to 1.88. I then said mid 80s to 90s guys are the ones that typically have consistent 1.8 something pop times. I stand by both of those statements completely.
I hate to be Negative Ned here, but CONSISTENT sub-2.0 pop times with an arm in the low 70s aren't realistic. In my world a pop time is in game, runner going, batter may swing, non-pitchout pop times.
3and2 referenced Perez at 1.91. I'm guessing he's closer to 90 than 80. How hard do you think Yadi throws on a gun? 76? Come on now.
I'm honestly not sure how this is even debated. The data is out there on the guys with "actual" sub 2.0 pop times. Gov even said the kid referenced above was in the 90s. I know there are a few outliers, but this doesn't seem to complicated.
The main debate here may be how the Pop time is measured. If it's a showcase BP fastball with no batter that's a different world than in game throwing guys out. Just like there is a whole world of difference between a 2.0 and a 1.88. Huge.