That would be excellent! Some of the parameters for assesing athletes is not too simple for a novice to process. I am not looking to get brilliant about scouting, just curious as to how it weighs since speed is emphasized to a degree, but not the same speed for all positions........how about all builds? I can see where a big guy who could fly would be an absolute asset, but I read somewhere.... MLB average was 7.0.....no idea if that is accurate. Even less accurate, what the average is for a big guy, or at least a more physically mature man vs a lesser mature manchild
Collegebaseballrecruitingguidelines will give you some interesting perimeters for each position.
Thanks Doctor.
I did look at that guideline. I may have under analyzed.....real possibility 
I could not extrapolate from that chart a good understanding @ the speed relationship/component. Is 7.0-7.8,(ex) for a manchild not as bad as it appears on paper, particularily for a CIF/P/C, of a certain stature?
60 times seem to be expressed more as an absolute, for OF, MIF, at least to me. Velo, pop, 60 are measureably objective. Yet I often see pop and velo expressed in a range, with a goal being a lower # for pop, higher for velo. I suppose I could be asking is there a range, projection, for the 60 times given variable tangibles??
My take, speed is not necessarily the 1st or 2nd tool for CIF,P,C. Faster is likely better, but is 7.55 vs 6.99 a deal breaker? Now I am getting dangerously far away from my personal baseball comfort zone.....
2016 just d*r*e*a*ds the stopwatch!! Hates the label slow. He does work at decreasing his time. Try to tell him he will get faster, leaner, stronger, improve technique, etc. OMG, so impatient. I want to say, "you are really not that slow, for being 16, 6'4", 200+lbs" Uh, then I would have to back that statement up, yikes!
Thanks again folks!
My daughter was always one of the slower kids on her team, but she was a smart base runner and was on base a lot. She always kept pressure on the defense, and would advance on any ball in the dirt. If the outfield didn't throw the ball on a line she would take the next base (we often giggled at her and her below speed aggressiveness) her job was to hit doubles and home runs, and now that is her job at a 4 year school. Every coach likes speed, but sometimes smart will do the job.
Originally Posted by The Doctor:
My daughter was always one of the slower kids on her team, but she was a smart base runner and was on base a lot. She always kept pressure on the defense, and would advance on any ball in the dirt. If the outfield didn't throw the ball on a line she would take the next base (we often giggled at her and her below speed aggressiveness) her job was to hit doubles and home runs, and now that is her job at a 4 year school. Every coach likes speed, but sometimes smart will do the job.
LOL, agreed! I have seen some VERY slow kids have some of the best steal records on the team...it wasn't their speed it was their base running smarts and their amazingly large lead off!
It is true that good instincts and being a smart base runner can make up the difference against a faster runner with bad instincts who is a dumb base runner.
Problem is the next level! Who would you favor when both the fast runner and the slow runner have good instincts and both are smart base runners?
Bottom line...If the pitcher is 1.3 seconds to the plate and the catcher is 1.9 to second base... You can't steal a base if it takes you 3.4 to steal. It makes no difference how good your instincts are or how smart you are. Besides, even the fast smart guys are looking for the right pitch and situation to run on.
For some reason it sometimes seems like people try to talk themselves into things.
Slower runner, but smart runner!
Shorter player, but knows how to play
Slower velocity, but throws strikes
No power, but makes contact
Lacks tools, but stands out in the games.
Are we to assume the following.
Fast runner is a dumb runner?
Tall player doesn't know how to play?
Higher velocity can't throw strikes?
Power hitter can't make contact?
Great tools but no good in the games?
If that were the case, who would want a tall, fast, high velocity guy with power and great tools? Seems like the short, slow, low velocity guy that makes contact but has no tools would be in demand.
Problem is players come in many different combinations of skills, size, and make up. Very few are blessed with everything. But slow is slow and fast is fast! The other intangibles that help a base runner can belong to either the slow or the fast runner.
Originally Posted by PGStaff:
For some reason it sometimes seems like people try to talk themselves into things.
Slower runner, but smart runner!
Great post.
Growing up I had a kid on my team that was a solid player with amazing speed. But he was always in a run down, getting picked off, or making the 3rd out on something stupid. Sometimes I think his speed ending up costing us a few games. Perhaps we could have pinch run for him in critical situations with a slower runner that had a little sense. By the way I have never seen a coach looking for a slow stupid runner!
"If your son son runs a 6.6 60yd which is pretty good (but not elite)"
Fenway, we seldom disagree, but in my experience the Bell curve is pretty steep on its sides -- meaning, a 6.6 runner is pretty darned elite. Provided he really runs 6.6, consistently, as opposed to that being a helicopter parent's fictional account.
Let's put it this way. We'd all like to run 7.0, and that seems to be the turning point in a lot of minds, but the reality is most of us can only dream of being that fast. 7.0 is a number you need to get serious consideration at many positions, but there are still plenty of slower guys getting recruited. (Some, however, are taken on as projects, and show tremendous improvement once their college coaches introduce them to real speed coaches for the first times in their lives.)
I've seen 6.8-6.9 guys who read pitchers well and get great jumps, and they pretty much steal at will. I've seen 6.7-6.8 guys who don't and they are safe most of the time but will get caught on their bad jumps. A 6.6 guy, with a little instruction, should be safe every time the ump isn't blind.
We do all we can to look to recruit speed on our team. So far, as we start our 6th cycle, we've had one guy who peaked at 6.3 and consistently ran 6.4-6.5; he could not be thrown out stealing or bunting, and he's now playing in the ACC. We had one guy who peaked at 6.6, more typically was 6.8, he's an outfielder in the Big South. We had one guy who was 6.75, very aggressive but sometimes sloppy with technique. He was unstoppable in HS, got caught occasionally in travel. He was forced to improve in college, now runs 6.3 and is unstoppable (also Big South). We've had only one other guy with 6.6 speed, everyone wanted him, and he's now at JuCo because of the need to get his academic numbers up.
I've seen only 1 other guy out of probably over 1,000 who've tried out with us over the years who was even in that range. So to me, 6.6 is "elite."
Not trying to be picky, I just don't want someone who runs a 6.9 or something to feel discouraged.
I would also add that sometimes these numbers are one indicator that a kid is indeed highly athletic. Most of our super fast guys were guys with very little body fat and a lot of other athleticism evident. If there's a moral to be found it is this: Get yourself into top physical condition. If you haven't done this, everyone who sees you knows you aren't working as hard as you could, and that is probably the negative that stands out more so than any stopwatch number.
Chiming back in, after reading some of the comments:
I agree with the last posting here, based on feedback my son has gotten from several coaches after running a consistent 6.6 at two different camps.
"If your son son runs a 6.6 60yd which is pretty good (but not elite)"
Fenway, we seldom disagree, but in my experience the Bell curve is pretty steep on its sides -- meaning, a 6.6 runner is pretty darned elite. Provided he really runs 6.6, consistently, as opposed to that being a helicopter parent's fictional account.
Let's put it this way. We'd all like to run 7.0, and that seems to be the turning point in a lot of minds, but the reality is most of us can only dream of being that fast. 7.0 is a number you need to get serious consideration at many positions, but there are still plenty of slower guys getting recruited. (Some, however, are taken on as projects, and show tremendous improvement once their college coaches introduce them to real speed coaches for the first times in their lives.)
I've seen 6.8-6.9 guys who read pitchers well and get great jumps, and they pretty much steal at will. I've seen 6.7-6.8 guys who don't and they are safe most of the time but will get caught on their bad jumps. A 6.6 guy, with a little instruction, should be safe every time the ump isn't blind.
We do all we can to look to recruit speed on our team. So far, as we start our 6th cycle, we've had one guy who peaked at 6.3 and consistently ran 6.4-6.5; he could not be thrown out stealing or bunting, and he's now playing in the ACC. We had one guy who peaked at 6.6, more typically was 6.8, he's an outfielder in the Big South. We had one guy who was 6.75, very aggressive but sometimes sloppy with technique. He was unstoppable in HS, got caught occasionally in travel. He was forced to improve in college, now runs 6.3 and is unstoppable (also Big South). We've had only one other guy with 6.6 speed, everyone wanted him, and he's now at JuCo because of the need to get his academic numbers up.
I've seen only 1 other guy out of probably over 1,000 who've tried out with us over the years who were even in that range. So to me, 6.6 is "elite."
Not trying to be picky, I just don't want someone who runs a 6.9 or something to feel discouraged.
I would also add that sometimes these numbers are one indicator that a kid is indeed highly athletic. Most of our super fast guys were guys with very little body fat and a lot of other athleticism evident. If there's a moral to be found it is this: Get yourself into top physical condition. If you haven't done this, everyone who sees you knows you aren't working as hard as you could, and that is probably the negative that stands out more so than any stopwatch number.
Thank you, and I'm glad your son is doing well.
I agree with a lot of what has been said above. My son is short and very athletic 5'8, fairly fast 6.7-6.8 (timed two years in a row at the Stanford Camp), and has an OF velocity of 85-87 (also timed at Stanford two years in a row). He is a contact batter who hits singles and doubles in the gap (.500 HS average, .350 travel average against top competition in the SW) and led the state in SBs and his HS in RS. The doctor posted a link that would project that our son would probably play D2 (except for the height) and that is where he is. He is at a competitive D2 in the SW. He never got a PG rank, so I don't know what that would have looked like.
BTW-I believe the reason that he made the travel roster as a freshman is because not only is he fairly fast, but he is also a very good base runner. I am telling you this because to my untrained eye, it sounds like there will be a place for your son Coachold.
Thank you for every reply. According to the link 2016 projects as a D1, speed is not mentioned for 3B/P/C.
I can't imagine speed is not some part of the equation for the corner positions.
I am trying to understand more the development of speed as a boy matures, or time going down as they grow. Maybe this is more of a track, sprinting, development question??? If a "baseball man" can project power from the bat as a 16,17,18 y/o gets bigger/stronger, or velo (for example, I often see reached 91 "with more to come" (......can getting faster also be projected....whether the kid is at 7.8, or 6.8?
If a kid is at 6.99 is that the Holy Grail and it is not expected/projected/not important if time will go down? Would average speed for a 16 year old, etc get a future score that would improve too, but never to speedster perhaps?. Surely fast is fast is even better if he is even faster by 2/10 or projected to get faster. However, fast is fast is already fast.
Is slow is slow also projected? I saw many in the top 200 with times above 7.0 yet they are top 200. Obviously, the 60 did not get them into the 200, and all sub 7.0 kids were not in the top 200 by virtue of sub 7.0.
I know my kid will eventually break thru the 7.0 barrier, but I know what he is doing, working, training, etc to get there and I have seen his time steadily decline.
However, what does a "baseball man" do to assess where a ballplayer is now to where that will player will be regarding the stop watch?
I know speed is one tool only. I know other tangibles and intangibles factor in to analyzing an athlete.
Thanks again!!!!
I can't imagine speed is not some part of the equation for the corner positions.
I am trying to understand more the development of speed as a boy matures, or time going down as they grow. Maybe this is more of a track, sprinting, development question??? If a "baseball man" can project power from the bat as a 16,17,18 y/o gets bigger/stronger, or velo (for example, I often see reached 91 "with more to come" (......can getting faster also be projected....whether the kid is at 7.8, or 6.8?
If a kid is at 6.99 is that the Holy Grail and it is not expected/projected/not important if time will go down? Would average speed for a 16 year old, etc get a future score that would improve too, but never to speedster perhaps?. Surely fast is fast is even better if he is even faster by 2/10 or projected to get faster. However, fast is fast is already fast.
Is slow is slow also projected? I saw many in the top 200 with times above 7.0 yet they are top 200. Obviously, the 60 did not get them into the 200, and all sub 7.0 kids were not in the top 200 by virtue of sub 7.0.
I know my kid will eventually break thru the 7.0 barrier, but I know what he is doing, working, training, etc to get there and I have seen his time steadily decline.
However, what does a "baseball man" do to assess where a ballplayer is now to where that will player will be regarding the stop watch?
I know speed is one tool only. I know other tangibles and intangibles factor in to analyzing an athlete.
Thanks again!!!!
Laststretch,
The answer is yes, there are indicators that allow for projection. Even negative technique is an indicator. It is very obvious that most young kids don't know how to run. They have spent a lot of hard work and time polishing the other skills but don't work on their running ability. Also there are young kids that naturally run well, but there body is not yet developed. Those kids are almost certain to run faster as they get older.
Just to throw a number out there. Righthook attended a rather large try out over the Holiday. 40+ kids in the 2017 class, almost 200 overall trying out. I just took at look at the 60 times for the 2017 they averaged out at 7.5. There were several sub 7's and a few 8's in the mix. Not a ton of real burners, so hopefully the 2017 group projects for better speed in the future.
HS indoor track times in the 55m dash provide a reality check for baseball times in the 60yd dash. The two distances are virtually the same (6 inch difference).
Apologies in advance. I'm not looking to endorse any kind of product or organization, but I have found the info below to be very useful and thought I'd share for the benefit of all...
Just for comparison sake, here's a list of the top 2015 uncommitted prospects, according to PG, with 60 times (among other things) listed:
http://www.perfectgame.org/Ran...mittedProspects.aspx
...and here's a listing of the test results (including 60 times) from the Area Code Camp (Northeast and Houston), held earlier this fall:
http://www.studentsports.com/b...ass-testing-results/
http://www.studentsports.com/b...ton-testing-results/
I have zero affiliation with either organization, but they're pretty much considered the "gold standard" for evaluating elite HS players. Pretty good data for measurables, if you're looking to see how your player might fit into these groups.
I'm also currently in the middle of reading "5 Plus Tools" by Dave Perkin (recently retired scout). Excellent book! In addition, I highly recommend the "Prospect" DVD to anybody who is interested in educating themselves on what folks look for when they're checking out baseball players.
FYI Perfect game has a new tool on their website. Pull up anyone's profile and you can see how they rank against others in their class, as well as the average and best number tracked for that class with a blue bar under their scores.
For example, I pulled up a 2016 I know:
60 time = 7.2
Average 60 time of 2016 = 7.42
Best recorded 2016 time =6.33
It also reads that his 7.2 is in the 67th percentile of the class of 2016's that have PG scores in the 60.
This tool is also on every other number tracked for that player, like FB and poptime and it seems to be retro-active. i.e I looked up a 2011 and saw their scores and how they compared as well to their class.
Thank you all so much for the replies and posts. This is all promising.