In the spirit of lively discussion, I offer another opinion. This is a topic that I have openly debated other coaches for years. There is a reccuring fallacy in evaluating baseball players based on 60 times. This fallacy has resulted in years of irrelevant conclusions. I am sure there are many who might disagree, but here is my deductive reasoning.(or just hot air)
Few, if any game situations, require a baseball player to run 180ft in a straight line. The evaluation of the skill is not relevant. I am
NOT saying judging speed is not relevant, just the the manner of grading scale percentages based on a 60 times.
I've evaluated players who ran eye-popping 60s, but could not run 1st-to-3rd to save their own lives. Plus I've seen many OF's with those same great 60's, fail to get to a ball because they take horrible angles or they just can't adjust to a ball in flight. On the other hand, I've seen OF's hauling a trailer, make plays because they take great paths to the ball and/or read the ball in flight well.
Since baseball players run station-to-station, perhaps a better evaluator would be a short sprint to judge acceleration (+) plus (+) reaction time splits. This is a better judge of game speed or
game running.
And.... evaluating positional speed is a better key indicator. We all agree corner guys and catchers don't need to run as well as an OF or MIF, but currently we grade them all on the same 80/20 scale.
I'm done!!!(falls off soap box)
GED10DaD