Tagged With "pop"
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.
Reply
Re: POP Time, 1.88 good?
My point is that a catcher getting a ball down to 2nd base with flight time of 1.2s is really good and will result in a 1.9ish pop time if the other mechanics are good, and this would be an average velo of low 70s, and a max velo in the high 70s. A lot of people don't understand that throwing from the crouch makes it very difficult to get the kind of velo numbers you see off the mound or across the infield or outfield, and even the most elite studs are hitting max velos of low to mid 80s. I...
Reply
Re: POP Time, 1.88 good?
If you go to the perfectgame homepage, on the bottom left there is a showcase leaderboard for each class. Max C velocity by Grad year: 2017: 88 2018: 86 2019:82 2020:77 Looking back at history, a couple of hit 90+. Seeing the progression by age, I guess you can assume they will get a little faster in college. So yes, 88-90 happens every year, but at least for PG showcases, you can still have a top 20 C velo with low-mid 80's.
Reply
Re: POP Time, 1.88 good?
I don't think any catcher can throw 86 on average. you easily would need to be 92 at release which would equal to at least upper 90s from the mound. last year the hardest throw by a catcher was gary sanchez at 88.9 AT RELEASE which probably means an arrive velo of 69 MPH (pitcher loses 10 MPH to home so it should be about twice due to the double distance). that means his throw averaged at best 80 mph. I doubt anyone can make the throw in 1 second flat. this article here from 2012 claimed 83...
Reply
Re: POP Time, 1.88 good?
Just a thought about PG and their "historical" Numbers. You need to look at sampling size too. 2017 will have a much larger sampling size than 2018...2018 than 2019 and so on. 2020 probably has only a handful of athletes listed and the reason a 2020 is already on their board is cause he is the best around. What my point is, my hypothesis is 2017 numbers are made up of more "averages" then a 2020. This make sense or am I way off!!?? My 2020 threw off a mound and he's 5'8 and 135 (listed him...
Reply
Re: POP Time, 1.88 good?
Kevin, You are right about the sample sizes, but the velo range of the top 20 or so stays consistent year after year. I was just pointing out that both the above points were correct. Some people can indeed hit 90, but for the most part if you are low to mid 80's, you would still be in the top 20 of PG, which is good enough to get a look from coaches if you are doing everything else right. And keeping a catching thread alive for 3 days is pretty cool as well...
Reply
Re: POP Time, 1.88 good?
lol- I soak up what ever I can on catchers...LOL... I was checking out some of the guys bio's who done 2017 show cases but are 2020 grads...Its throwing and hitting. Not a single remark that a catcher has or doesn't have polished receiving skills....
Reply
Re: POP Time, 1.88 good?
@ CabbageDad, CPNM, Batty67, KevinA, et al: I think someone on this thread wrote that any player who wants to play catcher has to be a little "off" in the first place. I agree with that assessment. It's a physically and mentally grueling position to play. It also is a position that tends to be really hard on the body. Anyone who has blocked an 80+ MPH fastball knows that it can hurt like hell. Blocking pitches in the dirt is a skill that successful catchers must master, that's a given.
Reply
Re: POP Time, 1.88 good?
Yup, nice post JDB. Of course. the problem is "a little off" and "situationally aware" don't always match up.
Reply
Re: POP Time, 1.88 good?
Ok 2forU, I think that others have already addressed this, so I'll be brief. I also acknowledge that these are averages not initial velocities, so they aren't perfectly equivalent to real world velocities. They do show how required velocities decrease as upstream processes get faster. You said, "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." - and "Well, my math skills don't include gravity. That is where I draw the line -...
Reply
Re: POP Time, 1.88 good?
Any thread where people debate math when the point is to improve an argument lose their way, in general. Yes, a good catcher knows when to block and when to pick. On a beautiful day with defense making outs and pitching rarely putting one in the dirt, it might complete sense for the catcher to try and block virtually everything (since there is not much and that's good form). On a hot and humid day, a long day with extra outs due to errors, and/or lots of balls in the dirt, a good catcher...
Reply
Re: POP Time, 1.88 good?
"Any thread where people debate math when the point is to improve an argument lose their way, in general." Point taken, and yes I did feel like I lost my way. I will redirect in the future, hopefully. My apologies to you too, CURRYNC.
Reply
Re: POP Time, 1.88 good?
Yeah, that's probably why I always got B's in math. Thanks for the correction. Velocity is king, I will not change that!
Reply
Re: POP Time, 1.88 good?
I found this from 2011 on HSBBW: Credit to Catching101 If a player has a release time of .70 and they throw the ball 75mph their pop time would be 1.85. The distance from the back point of home plate to the middle of 2B is 127.28ft (or 90*the square root of 2 for you geometry guys!). When the ball is thrown 75mph it is traveling 110fps (feet per second), which means it would travel the 127.28ft in 1.157s. So...if a player has a release of .7s and is throwing 75mph, the ball will get there in...
Reply
Re: POP Time, 1.88 good?
Thanks to all for helping prove my point - Velo is king. I think Ironhorse is correct. Max velo at 90 is where you need to be or upper 80's so that your average ball speed combined with release provides decent pop time. By the time the ball slows down at 2b, your velo average is in the 70's (please insert something here on how fast the ball slows down or the faster you throw it the less it slows down - I'm sure there is more to it). Quicker release means you can have a lower max and average.
Reply
Re: POP Time, 1.88 good?
I haven't been able to find a single HS catcher in PG database that hit 90. Austin Hedges hit 85 with a 1.75 pop, that's the best I've seen. Maybe they are there but I think it is WAY overstating it to say that 90 is where you need to be.
Reply
Re: POP TIME HELP NEEDED
The video camera is a mile away. Try shooting closer from the 1st dugout side so all your mechanics can be clearly seem. Edit to exclude the standing around time, take more time to recover between throws.
Reply
Re: POP TIME HELP NEEDED
I don't see any more than maybe 2 of those being at 2.2.....your arm strength is a major issue at this point if you're hoping to really cut your pop times down. A few of those throws are 12-15' high when they cross the pitchers mound.....you need to be throwing them at or a foot above his head. Work on that and your POP times will come down. Your footwork doesn't look bad on the throws that the pitcher gave you that you could work with....it's all an arm issue right now. Once you get that...
Reply
Re: POP TIME HELP NEEDED
Thanks for the reply. I am working on arm strength. Lifting now until March. I got more video today on a grass field. Will post the link ASAP.