Tagged With "critique"
Topic
POP Time, 1.88 good?
My son is a junior, class of 2018. He has been the starting varsity catcher for the last two years, starting catcher for our local American Legion Team and Fall High School team. His POP time is 1.88 and fielding percentage is .997. He caught all 29 games this past 2017 spring varsity season. He is wanting to go to the next level and play in college. I have included a video. My question is, what is considered a good POP time for catchers and could I get some feedback on this video? Thank you...
Reply
Re: POP Time, 1.88 good?
Trying to get a true time from a video like you presented is tough. But if he is a true and consistent 1.88 that is fantastic. Obviously accuracy is important. Blocking the biggest thing that jumps out to me is his left leg. When blocking both legs need to be behind you, the glove blocking the "5" hole and the throwing hand behind the glove. He keeps his left leg out creating a very large 5 hole and almost picking the ball as opposed to taking it in the chest. Meaning it looks like his glove...
Reply
Re: POP Time, 1.88 good?
It takes a lot of work to put a video together, so kudos to you for getting it together. Only non-technique comment I would suggest is it might help to add video of him catching from the side or front instead of primarily from behind the plate, even if it's not in-game and just practice. In some of the videos, the umpire blocks a lot of what you can see, especially for receiving and throw downs. The other views would allow you to emphasize catching skills and footwork.
Reply
Re: POP Time, 1.88 good?
Great video. Well constructed and great variety of shots and angles. Good work! My son is a 2017 catcher who just finished HS baseball. Some observations: Either break the video into two videos, one for offense and one for defense, or shorten total length to say 2.5 minutes or less. As Kevin noted. The blocking technique needs work (both knees down and glove down and "inside" the knees every time unless no time or block is far off the plate, and which case a slide-pick might be better)...
Reply
Re: POP Time, 1.88 good?
Yes, good pop time and good game video. What were his pop times in any showcases or camps? It's a reality check to see what his times are when he goes to an event testing his skills. Have you gone to Perfect Game and PBR sites to look at sample video of high profile catchers? Could be helpful to see what angles skills video for catchers are used. Your son looks strong and def a canon of an arm...
Reply
Re: POP Time, 1.88 good?
I agree with a few of the comments.... 1) game video is nice, but video from the side or the pitcher (even if it's practice) would be better.....you can show him blocking 6 or 7 pitches...heck, they don't even need to be that hard, but his technique is easier viewed from the front 2) with regard to the blocking....agree that he needs to keep both knees down, but in the video, it appeared that almost every pitch he blocked was to his right...a couple probably could have been blocked with both...
Reply
Re: POP Time, 1.88 good?
Honest feedback is that he's is nowhere near a 1.88. The best MLB catchers barely avg that. Legit awesome throws in the show are 1.8-ish. Definitely some below. Sanchez the other night was 1.83 from his knees. If I see arc in the Cs throw like your son's, it's not very likely its sub-2.0. The throws on the video I got at 2.10 and 2.19 on my stopwatch, and those aren't live game reps trying to get a strike. While I'm not saying he couldn't possibly throw 1.88 in a very controlled environment,...
Reply
Re: POP Time, 1.88 good?
These are 1.8 pop times, two 2016 Catchers, ranked #1 and #2 nationally from the Midwest: Ben Rortvedt: https://www.perfectgame.org/Pl...ofile.aspx?ID=390319 Cooper Johnson: https://www.perfectgame.org/Pl...ofile.aspx?ID=375713 You should read the write ups and look at their video, and current college reports - Perspective. Cooper is a kid from our area, we've seen him in action plenty of times.
Reply
Re: POP Time, 1.88 good?
Not really. With his mechanics an 80 mph arm aint getting to 1.88. Most guys who are consistently in the 1.88 range are 90mph guys, more or less. I think a mid-80s arm could get you a "best" POP time in that range, but 1.88 wouldn't be the norm with that arm strength. Again, there are obviously exceptions, but this is my experience around here. Footwork and "mechanics" are 1/2 of the POP time, the other half is velo.
Reply
Re: POP Time, 1.88 good?
Worry about the velocity that's all that matters. Coaches believe they can teach the rest.
Reply
Re: POP Time, 1.88 good?
2forU- Bad advice. If he does have a cannon they consider a project. More likely if he can hit and has a strong arm they may move him. I didn't see a 1.88 either. he had to jump up for the ball and automatically he is out of position and not prepared with foot work, etc. I didn't want to disagree with the lady so I left it as, if he IS throwing a 1.88..... Trying not to hurt feelings..lol If you see a pop throw where the throwing little skims across the top of the mound and hits second base...
Reply
Re: POP Time, 1.88 good?
Velocity is an easy disqualifier - simply the truth, you can have all the other intangibles or not, but if you do not have velocity, you won't get the opportunity. And, the higher you go, the expectations is that you have velocity and can manage the pitchers, frame and block to a higher level. Velocity is king
Reply
Re: POP Time, 1.88 good?
Coaches are looking for potential, show arm strength and athletic ability. Video showing him asking for help and then throwing it around are of little value as does watching him jog to backup 1st base.. As another poster suggested shoot mostly from the 1st base side so the viewer can see the glove and hand work and zoom in, the viewer doesn't care what the pitcher etc are doing. I would not show the kneeling throw downs between innings, that is just a waste of video tape and time and might...
Reply
Re: POP Time, 1.88 good?
I'd say throwing velocity AND obvious athleticism will come out on top. For example, a tubby, slow, poor technique catcher with a cannon arm might beg the question of why isn't he a pitcher (because he ain't a catcher)? But in general, superior velocity gets a first, second, and maybe a third look. So, an unpolished catcher with questionable technique but a very strong arm and clear athleticism will likely get the nod (for college recruiting purposes) over a highly polished catcher who does...
Reply
Re: POP Time, 1.88 good?
To your point of a 90 mph arm. Cooper Johnson (above PG profile with 1.8 pop) routinely threw 90+ at our facility , game velo can be different, but capability is there.
Reply
Re: POP Time, 1.88 good?
I think that pointing out the importance of velocity is pointing out the obvious. However, Gov mentioned Cooper Johnson who is a true freshman, shutdown catcher at Ole Miss this year. He's their starting catcher and, at one point during the season, he had a .470 caught stealing percentage. On Cooper's Perfect Game profile he was the number 3 catcher in the nation before he graduated from high school. The profile indicates he had "consistent low 1.8 pop times on the bag, best defensive...
Reply
Re: POP Time, 1.88 good?
Velocity is a MUST or you don't get the opportunity to C at any level higher than HS. Once you get the opportunity, technique is what will separate the better C. I highly doubt a "game" pop is 1.88. If you look at a PG Video of the best C, they lunge forward to go get the ball and stride to where their lead foot is probably over the plate to make the throw to who know where it may end up. In a game, the better C will receive the ball to not give up the potential strike and then throw to the...
Reply
Re: POP Time, 1.88 good?
Salvador Perez has a 1.91 pop time in games. I take it with a grain of salt whenever a pop time better than that is performed by a HS kid in a Showcase
Reply
Re: POP Time, 1.88 good?
We sort of stole the thread from the OP. Apologies Curry! IMO- He's a junior. Short but solid built. Needs work on his blocking technique. A good blocker can block and still have a shot a runner going off the ball in the dirt. If he struggles blocking he has a more difficult road ahead. Fielding percentage can be more misleading that a second baseman. A ball that scoots under a catcher is a wild pitch and on the pitcher but my son, as a catcher, is going to wear that guilt on his shoulders...
Reply
Re: POP Time, 1.88 good?
JABMK: "Velocity is a MUST or you don't get the opportunity to C at any level higher than HS." That's a fairly Nebulous statement. So just to be clear, exactly what velocity gets a player past HS. I was addressing 2FORU's assertion that you need to be near 90 to get there. Based on PG's showcase reports, that simply isn't true. Even low 70 velocities found D1 spots. When you look at D2,D3, NAIA, and JUCO; the numbers are sure to go lower. So... exactly what velocity are we talking about.
Reply
Re: POP Time, 1.88 good?
Cooper was low 80's to start... very strong kid with great training early on from an exMLB Catcher..
Reply
Re: POP Time, 1.88 good?
Um...where did 2FORU assert that a catcher needs to be near 90mph? He indicated velocity is the main driver to opportunity. I mostly agree with that, as I pointed out, as did others. Back to the OP: I happen to like a little bit of in-game footage, especially for receiving but, obviously, getting good shots of THAT can be tough if not impossible. For throw-downs the video should highlight form and mechanics and also the results of the throw, probably separately since getting it all in one...
Reply
Re: POP Time, 1.88 good?
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...
Reply
Re: POP Time, 1.88 good?
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...
Reply
Re: POP Time, 1.88 good?
He's fun to watch. He's also one of those catchers that really gets a lot of strikes called on marginal pitches. I'm sure that his pitchers love it when he is behind the plate. He definitely has all those other tools that make a great defensive catcher. His velocity is gravy.
Reply
Re: POP Time, 1.88 good?
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...
Reply
Re: POP Time, 1.88 good?
Obviously the faster the pop time the more immediate the attention. Granted my 2020 is only in 9th and plays travel. His best throws currently come in around 2.2 or so. His co-catcher has a gun. But T predominately gets the starts. Past two tournaments he caught 19 innings out of 27 (Other two catchers split 8) and this past weekend caught 17 out of 21. Main reason is his ability to block and receive behind the plate. 14/u guys can tend to struggle and it is not unheard of for T to have to...
Reply
Re: POP Time, 1.88 good?
Love the kid - definitely looks athletic and looks like a gamer. As you see by others' comments, POP time can be a bit controversial. Yes, 1.88 is really good but who measured and was it live, showcase or informal? If you are going to post that time on his recruiting video, you should probably state the verifiable neutral source where it was measured. Watching the video, I, like others, am left questioning the time... too much arc on the throw for that time. I think the optimal video is a...
Reply
Re: POP Time, 1.88 good?
Hey Ironhorse, I think that we may be talking past each other. You wrote, "The main debate here may be how the Pop time is measured." Based on the OP's question, I see the debate as, "What does her son have to do to get looks from colleges, so he can continue playing after high school." With that in mind, I would argue that a catcher does not have to throw in the 80's to get looks from quality colleges. If you look at the PG page that I referenced, there are several players who committed to...
Reply
Re: POP Time, 1.88 good?
i agree arm angle is huge , my 2019 did a showcase last nov and was clocked at 78 mph and popped at 1.87 by pro scouts and colleges, then he did a pbr in feb 2017 and was clocked at 80 mph and popped a 1.94, and i have the video on both and the numbers are up on those showcases, arm strength and mechs are huge , i was told he has a plus arm ,to even a future plus plus arm
Reply
Re: POP Time, 1.88 good?
Catch and release is .8 seconds of pop time (good footwork and mechanics), means that the ball needs to travel the 127 ft going 86.6 mph to get to 2b in one second, making pop time of 1.8 seconds MPH to Feet per second is 86.6 Miles per Hour = 127.013333 Feet per Second s = d/t Pitcher to home of 1.4 added means you should throw out a runner that is timed 3.2 seconds from 1st to 2b or slower. I'm not a mathematician, there are variables in this (HS, College, Pros - all differ), but you get...
Reply
Re: POP Time, 1.88 good?
MLb most guys arent throwing down on a blocked pitch if the runner was already going. They are already half way there. At the lower levels they are running on the play on the dirt so the typical equation is changed up. Runner is getting a late jump and hopefully the catcher is quick with his recovery and kept the ball close. In the big leagues you see balls squirt away 5-6 feet with no runner advancing. In HS thats enough to move up in most cases... I WILL readily agree that blocking isn't...
Reply
Re: POP Time, 1.88 good?
As an aside, depending upon the situation, if a runner is going and the pitch is in the dirt the catcher may attempt to pick it rather then block it. i.e. the base is stolen whether its blocked or goes to the backstop so attempting a pick and throw is a viable option. Personally I feel 80 is a very workable speed for catchers at the D1 college level. I read a lot of discussion on arm speed, blocking, framing etc..,, in many ways its all meaningless if the player can't hit college pitching. A...
Reply
Re: POP Time, 1.88 good?
2forU, you did make me chuckle with this post. I won't argue with your math. But... For arguments sake, you are using 3.2 seconds as your benchmark for running from 1st to 2nd. So the gist of your argument is that with the parameters you chose, a successful catcher has to have a velocity of 86.6 MPH...in your scenario. So how many baseball players can steal a base in 3.2 seconds? Billy Hamilton, arguably the fastest player in baseball, swipes the bag in a little over 3.1 seconds. So in your...
Reply
Re: POP Time, 1.88 good?
Best argument yet for why higher velocity is better, but it still goes back to the "all else being equal" statement. If you're a catcher throwing 90, you have usually already been turned into a pitcher, especially if you can't hit. You'd be surprised at how many coaches want every pitch in the dirt to be blocked and will penalize catchers for picking rather than blocking.
Reply
Re: POP Time, 1.88 good?
Well, this is turning into a fun discussion anyway. Regarding the OP velo aspect - Forget the numbers for a moment. Forget the pitcher combo because we are only talking about the OP's son's ability to attract college attention as it relates to his velo and POP time and ability to throw a runner out. I will offer up this simple observation... I have not seen a prospect get any attention as a catcher that has the arc on his throw that OP's son currently has. I have not seen a catcher at the...
Reply
Re: POP Time, 1.88 good?
This "pick on a SB" topic is interesting in itself. I know there are coaches who are OK with the pick and, in certain circumstances, I am as well. But I think if that ball does go to the backstop, the runner lands on 3b sometimes instead of 2b (if he is given the heads up before the slide and depending on the depth of the backstop) so there is still added risk. I think it really comes down to instinct and reaction. If it is a true short-hop pick, the catcher will likely start his cheat and...
Reply
Re: POP Time, 1.88 good?
I'll say this having watched the video: the kid is an interesting ballplayer who looks like he has potential. There is talent & athleticism there
Reply
Re: POP Time, 1.88 good?
"You'd be surprised at how many coaches want every pitch in the dirt to be blocked and will penalize catchers for picking rather than blocking." To each his own level of understanding and/or comfort. There don't seem to be a lot of college or hs catching coaches that truly appreciate the need to develop a young catcher by allowing him to be aggressive with his throwing which in turns builds confidence, which in turns builds a lot of key outs rather then just letting the opposition take a...
Reply
Re: POP Time, 1.88 good?
CPNM, I would argue that the percentages are better with the block than the pick but that goes back to which pitches the catcher attempts to pick. If C has a knack for recognizing depth properly and knowing his pitchers' movement, I'm with you. There is certainly some "chicken or the egg" to this.
Reply
Re: POP Time, 1.88 good?
CURRYNC: I watched your son's video with my son, who is also a catcher. He immediately had several comments about the throw down portion to second base. First, he said that he hates those high feeds like the one in the video. As a catcher you have to choose the lesser of two evils, either you reach for the ball and keep your legs flexed or you come completely out of your crouch and lose the ability to quickly load the lower half, but you receive the pitch closer to your transfer point. My...
Reply
Re: POP Time, 1.88 good?
Regarding pop time: if you upload it to the hudl app there is a time function, you can go throw in slow motion and get the time (need to subtract start from stop time).
Reply
Re: POP Time, 1.88 good?
Regarding velo: it is probably most important but I know that coaches love a polished catcher, gives you more time to worry about other stuff. Velo is king but two guys with the same or similar velo and one can catch the coach will always prefer the catcher. So best is having both but of course if you don't have the velo technique wont save you either. But no reason to not work on both and make the coaches job easier.
Reply
Re: POP Time, 1.88 good?
Interesting to see where this topic has evolved. As for picks vs. blocks, I'd say it is a continually moving fine line of when to do one or the other when runners are on. In GENERAL, I'm a fan of blocking, especially when it is hot and humid because tired catchers are more likely to keep the ball in front of them with a block than relying on an athletic pick (and that's when the balls seem to get to the backstop). Mistakes are still made on occasion by veteran catchers, and even a cleanly...
Reply
Re: POP Time, 1.88 good?
Batty is 100% correct. I gripe at my son if he picks a ball that clearly should have been a block. There are some that are border line and he will pick those. But there are catchers who will back hand pick cause they cannot block or are being lazy. I remind my son he's a catcher, not a first baseman. And if he does pick it is almost always with empty bases. He typically blocks everything, even when no one is on base. Guess it's habit but it also looks good if someone is watching. As for...
Reply
Re: POP Time, 1.88 good?
2forU, You've calculated AVERAGE velocity, not MAX velocity. Over a distance of 127 feet I would guess that velocity drops somewhere in the neighborhood of 15mph, so a throw averaging 86mph requires probably close to 95mph max velo. I don't think anyone, even Yadi gets this from a crouch. As an example, in some of Yadi's ~1.8s throws that I've seen broken down by Statcast, his exchange time (catch, transfer, footwork, release) is ~.65s or even better, allowing more time for ball in flight,...
Reply
Re: POP Time, 1.88 good?
A ball traveling 79.4 MPH will travel 116.4533 feet in 1.1 second. Runner is safe unless the ball travels 86.6 MPH
Reply
Re: POP Time, 1.88 good?
No bench mark, just an example. The quicker you get rid of the ball, the slower you can throw it, simple math. But a throw from home to second is still 127 ft. A ball needs to travel at 86.6 MPH to go 127 ft in one second. So a faster catch and release means he can throw slower, but the ball wont travel 127 feet in one second or 1.1 seconds. A ball thrown at 79.4 MPH only travels 116.453333 feet in 1.1 seconds. It will take 1.599 (1.6) seconds to go 127 feet, add 1.3 and .7 and your complete...
Reply
Re: POP Time, 1.88 good?
Well, my math skills don't include gravity. That is where I draw the line - lol. I'm sure that is someone way better at math than I am.