Original Post
Replies sorted oldest to newest
That's a good question. Here’s my take. I put K/BB ratio but I think the most important statistic is dwarfed by the scout’s opinion. I tend to believe that scouts are properly named. They scout talent, not read stats. Scouts probably use college stats to reinforce their opinion of a player and use them to sell their player but I still think a scout’s visual observation and personal evaluation reign are the most important factors of where a player will get drafted. To prove my point let's apply our final tally to someone like 3rd rounder Jason Neighborgall.
I agree with Fungo....K/BB ratio, but Scout's visual & personal observations probably carry the most weight.
O42
O42
I voted K/BB...but I don't think it matters...here's a story on two of my players...got a 5'11 185 LHP...FR, tops at 86 currently pitches 84-86 very dominate plus CH, plus CB, plus Splitter...will pitch 80+ innings for me this season...scouts luke warm! Another lefty 6'2 205, SO, tops at 86, can't hit the broad side of a barn, but when he's in the zone he strikes nearly everyone out...good CH, ok CB...has pitched 5 innings in the fall...0 in HS, 1/3 in college...with control will get some innings this season but primarily an OF...SCOUTS LOVE HIM! they want him to work out this summer, they want in certain leagues! they love his "size" most scouts in our area are no longer looking for guys to fill rosters...they are looking for future major league players! direct quote from one of my friends, whos a scout in MD...go figure!
With a great bias, as both of my sons pitch, I see all too often pitchers getting trashed by scorekeepers in college ball and summer wooden bat leagues. Very questionable plays seem to go down more often as as hits, converting unearned runs to earned runs, creating RBI's and inflating ERA's. Two short scenarios: (1) runners on second/third, grounder to third, ball fielded clean and thrown into the stands behind first. Ruling: batter would've beat the throw, two run single. (2) Bases loaded, two outs, deep fly to center. Centerfielder covers serious ground to get to the ball, gets the ball in his glove, bounces his glove off of his leg and the ball pops out. Ruling: three run double. Stuff like these two seem to happen fairly regularly.
I hope that the previous posters are right. Based on what I've seen, not much beyond walks and strikeouts seem consistently reliable from a numerical standpoint.
I hope that the previous posters are right. Based on what I've seen, not much beyond walks and strikeouts seem consistently reliable from a numerical standpoint.
The only stat that matters when considering a pitcher is ERA.
If a pitcher can get outs and keep the ball in the park, he can just flat out pitch.
I wouldn't care if a player never struck out a batter as long as he controlled the other team and kept us in the game. If MPH were the only barometer of a good pitcher Phil Niekro would not be in the Hall of Fame.
Scouts have to wake up and smell the coffee.
If a pitcher can get outs and keep the ball in the park, he can just flat out pitch.
I wouldn't care if a player never struck out a batter as long as he controlled the other team and kept us in the game. If MPH were the only barometer of a good pitcher Phil Niekro would not be in the Hall of Fame.
Scouts have to wake up and smell the coffee.
WillieBoBo,
But what of the pitcher that gets bases loaded, two outs, then an error allows a run, then three consecutive homers bring in 6 more? All would be unearned, pitcher has a 0.00 ERA, but got waxed.
I view ERA's, at least at the high school and college level, with a cautious eye due to inconsistent scorekeeping as I mentioned earlier. At professional level, scorekeeping is on a much higher plain.
But what of the pitcher that gets bases loaded, two outs, then an error allows a run, then three consecutive homers bring in 6 more? All would be unearned, pitcher has a 0.00 ERA, but got waxed.
I view ERA's, at least at the high school and college level, with a cautious eye due to inconsistent scorekeeping as I mentioned earlier. At professional level, scorekeeping is on a much higher plain.
I don't believe scouts look at stats at all-except maybe the stats that they personally observe. They have no way of knowing what the competition
was that the pitcher achieved their success(or lack of)against.
Fungo hit the nail on the head with Neighborgal from GT. Third round draft
pick and still has trouble finding the strike zone but a 95 to 98 mph is hard to teach.
IMO they look for #1-velocity, #2-body make up, #3-off speed pitch(quality), #4-durability.
However, that being said, if a pitcher in one of the top conferences is a weekend pitcher with SO to IP ratio of over 1 then it would certainly indicate that he has decent velocity or a very good curve or change and has
achieved it against some pretty stiff college competition.
Hokie, I'm with you on the ERA deal. One bad game can mess up an ERA for the whole season and a rediculous ruling by an official scorer can be the cause of it. Just because my sons are pitchers doesn't have any bearing
on my feelings.
was that the pitcher achieved their success(or lack of)against.
Fungo hit the nail on the head with Neighborgal from GT. Third round draft
pick and still has trouble finding the strike zone but a 95 to 98 mph is hard to teach.
IMO they look for #1-velocity, #2-body make up, #3-off speed pitch(quality), #4-durability.
However, that being said, if a pitcher in one of the top conferences is a weekend pitcher with SO to IP ratio of over 1 then it would certainly indicate that he has decent velocity or a very good curve or change and has
achieved it against some pretty stiff college competition.
Hokie, I'm with you on the ERA deal. One bad game can mess up an ERA for the whole season and a rediculous ruling by an official scorer can be the cause of it. Just because my sons are pitchers doesn't have any bearing
on my feelings.
pro scouts don't care about stats...look at size and velocity.
quote:Hokie, I'm with you on the ERA deal. One bad game can mess up an ERA for the whole season and a rediculous ruling by an official scorer can be the cause of it.
Moc:
Yeah...just what is with some of these score keepers.... geeezzzzzzzz
I believe that scouts look at velocity as the most important stat. I know guys drafted last year that hit 91-92 and lsoe evry game I have seen them pitch. I know a guy who is in the nineties and can hit the zone. I watched him for 5-6 years. He is a great kid and steals the show at all the showcases and I have never seen him get past the 2nd inning. The last showcase he was in the second ining and loaded the bases for the 3rd time. My son went in with 0 out and cleaned the mess up and guess who got all the attention. The 1st guy is in A ball and has an ERA over 11. This guy was suspended 2 times by his summer team for behaviour issues and that had no bearing on thye scouts.The 2nd finished 2 YRS at JUCO last spring and his results were the same as I was used to. I have seen him in almost every game walk in 2-4 runs in 2 innings or less. Several times 6 straight walks. Our coaches tend to give our pitchers a chance to work his way out of a jam. He had a ML scout who helped coach our team work with him and still could not get him to throw strikes.
My opinion is ERA is the most important Stat followed closly by Ks if the number is high. Balls don't mean much as long as the number is not too high.
Yes all things get factored in such as score keeper, competition and pitchers can have bad days (low energy etc). I have driven my son to an evening game and he is yawning and streached out in the passenger seat falling asleep and I am thinking this should be interesting.
Nothing can really replace the scouts observing the player in games at a high level of competition. I do believe that college stats are vey important if you are in a decent conference.
My opinion is ERA is the most important Stat followed closly by Ks if the number is high. Balls don't mean much as long as the number is not too high.
Yes all things get factored in such as score keeper, competition and pitchers can have bad days (low energy etc). I have driven my son to an evening game and he is yawning and streached out in the passenger seat falling asleep and I am thinking this should be interesting.
Nothing can really replace the scouts observing the player in games at a high level of competition. I do believe that college stats are vey important if you are in a decent conference.
.
Hate to be a broken record but we're back to one of my favorite topics/pet peeves...qualifing velocities.
Good postings and good examples have been made regarding some VERY successful DI pitchers and high end schools who throw in the low to mid 80's. They probably have wins, bodies, experience, great stats.
I ask you...Will they get seriously drafted?
.
Hate to be a broken record but we're back to one of my favorite topics/pet peeves...qualifing velocities.
Good postings and good examples have been made regarding some VERY successful DI pitchers and high end schools who throw in the low to mid 80's. They probably have wins, bodies, experience, great stats.
I ask you...Will they get seriously drafted?
.
What did one local scout tell me? "Stats are for grandmothers and newspapers."
I doubt he meant it in an absolute sense, but I think he was driving home a point to me. He also was not from a "Moneyball" team.
I doubt he meant it in an absolute sense, but I think he was driving home a point to me. He also was not from a "Moneyball" team.
I don't believe velocity is a "stat" and didn't want to get into the velocity debate again.
I would love to hear bbscouts take on this.
I was recently told, taking out the human factor, lookingat all stats,that strike out to walk ratio can determine a pitcher's control and effective use of pitches. The other's are important, but is determined by difficulty/weekend/weekday performance. It was an opinion, not necessarily a fact, as we see in Fungo's example.
I would love to hear bbscouts take on this.
I was recently told, taking out the human factor, lookingat all stats,that strike out to walk ratio can determine a pitcher's control and effective use of pitches. The other's are important, but is determined by difficulty/weekend/weekday performance. It was an opinion, not necessarily a fact, as we see in Fungo's example.
Go to "DRaft Tracker" and view the videos of the pitchers for the last couple years and you will see what they actually do in regards to velocity.
One of the best pitchers who went to my son's college was a "Barely Break 80" pitcher who was drafted. He went 7-2 in his 1st year at A ball. He broke several records at college.
The fact that this school had a low velocity pitcher with great success was one of the reasons we liked the school so much and that they played against some top quality schools.
The walk thing dosen't tell the story about control in all cases. There are BB and there are BB. In one inning this fall my son had 2 Ks 2BB and a pop up. Is that as bad as it looks ? No the coach said he did great because his pitch location was great. All around the zone, not giving in and throwing one that was hittable just to get the K. I have always preached this and you should not be afraid to locate even if it means giving up a BB.
To me W/L record is more of a team stat but does reflect as a part of the pitchers ability. If you pitch for a low production team you will get a skewed number. Stats should be a part of the picture but not the whole story.
One of the best pitchers who went to my son's college was a "Barely Break 80" pitcher who was drafted. He went 7-2 in his 1st year at A ball. He broke several records at college.
The fact that this school had a low velocity pitcher with great success was one of the reasons we liked the school so much and that they played against some top quality schools.
The walk thing dosen't tell the story about control in all cases. There are BB and there are BB. In one inning this fall my son had 2 Ks 2BB and a pop up. Is that as bad as it looks ? No the coach said he did great because his pitch location was great. All around the zone, not giving in and throwing one that was hittable just to get the K. I have always preached this and you should not be afraid to locate even if it means giving up a BB.
To me W/L record is more of a team stat but does reflect as a part of the pitchers ability. If you pitch for a low production team you will get a skewed number. Stats should be a part of the picture but not the whole story.
quote:But what of the pitcher that gets bases loaded, two outs, then an error allows a run, then three consecutive homers bring in 6 more? All would be unearned, pitcher has a 0.00 ERA, but got waxed.
The .000 ERA would hold true in high school , college and the pros if scored that way.
In that example the extra out turned into a big inning as it usually does.
quote:One of the best pitchers who went to my son's college was a "Barely Break 80" pitcher who was drafted. He went 7-2 in his 1st year at A ball. He broke several records at college.
Bobblehead... The question isn't which pitcher ends up being the best after he's drafted, it's what stat a scout likes in a college player. The round in which this "barely break 80" pitcher was drafted will indicate how well the scouts liked him and his stats. There are many pitchers in the bigs that weren't high draft picks or drafted at all but that's another good topic.
Fungo
TPM-I understand the choices you gave about stats and you started the question
out by "If you were a scout" my opinion is that stats don't matter to me and the majority of scouts I know as well. If I HAD to choose one of your choices I would go strictly with strikeouts because that would be the closest
indicator a pitcher(sight unseen) may have some velocity.
I've had scouts tell me they have gone to see a kid for the first time because
someone told them this "prospect" was striking out everyone in sight and when
he put the radar on him he didn't break 83-but he sure was getting his share
of K's. Why? The competition was terrible. We had a kid on our team that only pitched one game and struck out 12 of the 15 batters he faced(game only went 5
innings)-the other team had to borrow our catcher's mitt and so did a few of the fielders. Our pitcher could barely throw 75 mph and nothing but fastballs(for lack of a better term).
Point being, I know you wanted a response to one of your 5 choices but IMO I
don't think a scout would care about any stat unless he could set up the same
circumstances that those stats occurred under for all the pitchers he is scouting. A good SO/W ratio of 9/2 might be great against Texas in June if a kid goes 9 innings, but is that just as good as a 9/2 ratio against Eastern
Michigan on Feb 3rd?(nothing against E.M. but they're probably still in snow that time of year
)
I also would like to see BBScout weigh in on this as well and maybe I'm all wet and don't know what I'm talking about.
out by "If you were a scout" my opinion is that stats don't matter to me and the majority of scouts I know as well. If I HAD to choose one of your choices I would go strictly with strikeouts because that would be the closest
indicator a pitcher(sight unseen) may have some velocity.
I've had scouts tell me they have gone to see a kid for the first time because
someone told them this "prospect" was striking out everyone in sight and when
he put the radar on him he didn't break 83-but he sure was getting his share
of K's. Why? The competition was terrible. We had a kid on our team that only pitched one game and struck out 12 of the 15 batters he faced(game only went 5
innings)-the other team had to borrow our catcher's mitt and so did a few of the fielders. Our pitcher could barely throw 75 mph and nothing but fastballs(for lack of a better term).
Point being, I know you wanted a response to one of your 5 choices but IMO I
don't think a scout would care about any stat unless he could set up the same
circumstances that those stats occurred under for all the pitchers he is scouting. A good SO/W ratio of 9/2 might be great against Texas in June if a kid goes 9 innings, but is that just as good as a 9/2 ratio against Eastern
Michigan on Feb 3rd?(nothing against E.M. but they're probably still in snow that time of year
)I also would like to see BBScout weigh in on this as well and maybe I'm all wet and don't know what I'm talking about.
Moc,
Thanks, not really sure which it is either. Putting velocity aside, I always thought it was ERA. But ERA means different things at different places.
I was just wondering if a scout was to consider a stat an important one, which would it be.
Bobbleheaddoll,
I was thinking more like a college pitchers 3 seasons in college, not one inning in practice.
I am ssuming most really good college pitchers can locate many of their pitches.
Thanks, not really sure which it is either. Putting velocity aside, I always thought it was ERA. But ERA means different things at different places.
I was just wondering if a scout was to consider a stat an important one, which would it be.
Bobbleheaddoll,
I was thinking more like a college pitchers 3 seasons in college, not one inning in practice.
I am ssuming most really good college pitchers can locate many of their pitches.
quote:Originally posted by Tiger Paw Mom:
Moc,
Thanks, not really sure which it is either. Putting velocity aside, I always thought it was ERA. But ERA means different things at different places.
I was just wondering if a scout was to consider a stat an important one, which would it be.
BobbleheadDoll,
I was thinking more like a college pitchers 3 seasons in college, not one inning in practice.
I am ssuming most really good college pitchers can locate many of their pitches.
Knowing what I know how things work in the real world for pitchers. Hands down...wins are the most critical. Why, because most of the time a pitcher has to overcome lousy fielding behind him to ge the win.
I know of pitcher's who have to overcome very poor play, and sometimes it looks like it's deliberate when there is no attempt at all to field a ball hit directly at a player...which I've seen happen numerous times, and then find out later that the scorekeeper scored it a hit.
I've seen half-arse effort where the ball bounces off a glove and have that scored as a hit against the pitcher.
I've seen outfielder's stand in place, not move at all, while the ball falls directly in front of them whereupon they pick it up then throw to the wrong bag...only later to find out it scored a hit.
Don't get me started....grrrrr
A pitcher can't do it all...though I wonder sometimes how any of them ever get the wins they do.
No sir, if a pitcher has a decent winning record he earned it.
I know of pitcher's who have to overcome very poor play, and sometimes it looks like it's deliberate when there is no attempt at all to field a ball hit directly at a player...which I've seen happen numerous times, and then find out later that the scorekeeper scored it a hit.
I've seen half-arse effort where the ball bounces off a glove and have that scored as a hit against the pitcher.
I've seen outfielder's stand in place, not move at all, while the ball falls directly in front of them whereupon they pick it up then throw to the wrong bag...only later to find out it scored a hit.
Don't get me started....grrrrr
A pitcher can't do it all...though I wonder sometimes how any of them ever get the wins they do.
No sir, if a pitcher has a decent winning record he earned it.
any opinion on the WHIP? I think its...
walks+hits/innings pitched
walks+hits/innings pitched
rz1, I like the WHIP also. Anything around a 1 is very good.
RR, I guess Clemens wasn't very good last year since he didn't have all the wins he should have. The Astros were shutout in what seemed like a dozen of his starts, yet he still had a miniscule ERA. Some got a lot of wins despite giving up 4-5 runs a game because their team scored 7-8. IMO wins aren't a good barometer.
RR, I guess Clemens wasn't very good last year since he didn't have all the wins he should have. The Astros were shutout in what seemed like a dozen of his starts, yet he still had a miniscule ERA. Some got a lot of wins despite giving up 4-5 runs a game because their team scored 7-8. IMO wins aren't a good barometer.
I think we have two different discussions going on.
1) Pitcher's most important stat relating to his team
2) College pitcher's most important stat determined by
scouts
IMO they won't be the same.
1) Pitcher's most important stat relating to his team
2) College pitcher's most important stat determined by
scouts
IMO they won't be the same.
Moc1, I agree
Moc1,
Agreed. IMO (like many others) the scouts are not looking at stats, but the intangibles like projectability, make-up (no not that kind), etc...
Agreed. IMO (like many others) the scouts are not looking at stats, but the intangibles like projectability, make-up (no not that kind), etc...
The problem with stats is that they all have to be qualified. What conference,what team etc . If you are on a weak team you will lose more games than an other pitcher on a strong team. Yes strong pitchers will win against teams even when his team is messing up. It is a team sport and wins and losses are a team stat. You see guys signing or being traded for big money with less than great w/l records.
When you get right down to it a scout has to watch a player play against good competition inorder to evaluate him as a MLB prospect.
I think velocity is an attention getter and 90+ gets relatively poor pitchers drafted.
I have an example of a very hard throwing RHP who played 2 years in US college ball. I went to a MLB camp and the guy hit 92. He was signed by the Royals. He had come back to pitch for an Ontario University which is not very strong and did not have good stats. Obviously the stats had no influence what so ever. I sat with his mother at the camp and at several games and she told me he had no interest in him untill the camp. The only conclusion I can make is that he got signed because he was hitting 92.
I do still believe that a great pitcher with lower velocity will get his chance but has to prove he can pitch by having good stats overa longer period of time against good competition.
When you get right down to it a scout has to watch a player play against good competition inorder to evaluate him as a MLB prospect.
I think velocity is an attention getter and 90+ gets relatively poor pitchers drafted.
I have an example of a very hard throwing RHP who played 2 years in US college ball. I went to a MLB camp and the guy hit 92. He was signed by the Royals. He had come back to pitch for an Ontario University which is not very strong and did not have good stats. Obviously the stats had no influence what so ever. I sat with his mother at the camp and at several games and she told me he had no interest in him untill the camp. The only conclusion I can make is that he got signed because he was hitting 92.
I do still believe that a great pitcher with lower velocity will get his chance but has to prove he can pitch by having good stats overa longer period of time against good competition.
If you have pitcher who throws 92 and walks 5 or 6 runners per game and gets drafted IMO the scouting service is like a drug addict who knows the stuff isn't good for them but can't help themselves to get the monkey off their back.
IMO the criteria is can a pitcher get people out...in other words does he know how to pitch within his own skills.
I've watched numerous pitchers throw the ball over 90+ or more and get bored with watching homeplate being stomped on from the runners scoring.
It an ego thing, all the scouts think that a kid that can throw heat can be taught how to pitch...nothing is less true. There is a intuitive side of pitching that is not a skill, it is a God given talent.
WHIPS is a good indicator of a pitchers ability to get himself out of trouble. That for me is a very important stat as is the K/BB ratio. But I look at two things ERA and LOB more than all other indicators. Shows me that a pitcher knows how to pitch and I don't care anything about how fast he throws. Most batters can't hit a CHUP or CB pitch that breaks more than three feet and moves away from them from the elbow to the outside corner on the catchers foot, but it is a strike...the Sandy Koufax killer pitch.
IMO the criteria is can a pitcher get people out...in other words does he know how to pitch within his own skills.
I've watched numerous pitchers throw the ball over 90+ or more and get bored with watching homeplate being stomped on from the runners scoring.
It an ego thing, all the scouts think that a kid that can throw heat can be taught how to pitch...nothing is less true. There is a intuitive side of pitching that is not a skill, it is a God given talent.
WHIPS is a good indicator of a pitchers ability to get himself out of trouble. That for me is a very important stat as is the K/BB ratio. But I look at two things ERA and LOB more than all other indicators. Shows me that a pitcher knows how to pitch and I don't care anything about how fast he throws. Most batters can't hit a CHUP or CB pitch that breaks more than three feet and moves away from them from the elbow to the outside corner on the catchers foot, but it is a strike...the Sandy Koufax killer pitch.
quote:Originally posted by Ramrod:
Knowing what I know how things work in the real world for pitchers. Hands down...wins are the most critical. Why, because most of the time a pitcher has to overcome lousy fielding behind him to ge the win.
I know of pitcher's who have to overcome very poor play, and sometimes it looks like it's deliberate when there is no attempt at all to field a ball hit directly at a player...which I've seen happen numerous times, and then find out later that the scorekeeper scored it a hit.
I've seen half-arse effort where the ball bounces off a glove and have that scored as a hit against the pitcher.
I've seen outfielder's stand in place, not move at all, while the ball falls directly in front of them whereupon they pick it up then throw to the wrong bag...only later to find out it scored a hit.
Don't get me started....grrrrr
A pitcher can't do it all...though I wonder sometimes how any of them ever get the wins they do.
No sir, if a pitcher has a decent winning record he earned it.
My observations of most D-1 baseball games the last few years has been exactly the opposite.
As the metal bats have become more and more powerful - I have seen countless games where the scores are 20 run+ affairs.
Many of the pitchers win simply because the opposing hitters arms get tired form whacking the h*** out of the ball. LOL
In the summer leagues - with wood bats - it is an entirely different story.
RR couldn't agree more.
The guy throwing 90+ with 5 BB a game on a good day,he got drafted to and is in the Dominican League with an ERA of 11+
Its I can't get over some of the scores myself. My son's teams played with metal until last year. We used metral when in the States unless it was a wood bat tournament. The difference is huge. The one thing that I seemed to notice though was that more balls seem to drop in. It took an adjustment to get used to the difference.
The guy throwing 90+ with 5 BB a game on a good day,he got drafted to and is in the Dominican League with an ERA of 11+
Its I can't get over some of the scores myself. My son's teams played with metal until last year. We used metral when in the States unless it was a wood bat tournament. The difference is huge. The one thing that I seemed to notice though was that more balls seem to drop in. It took an adjustment to get used to the difference.
About the pitcher that walked 5. Did he walk 5 in 9 innings and struck out 10? Or did he walk 5 in two?
RR,
I never understood the whip, but I do understand that it is very important for a pitcher to know how to get himself out of trouble.
I am just trying to understand, after the human factor, does the scout take into consideration stats, depending of course his level of play. I was told, due to conf differences, it maybe comes down to strike/walk ratios, but don't see that either.
So is it all based on velocity, projection, control how many pitches he uses, or some stats.
In HS I felt it was strikes, not sure in college. For a scout. Does it matter how the pitcher gets the batter out?
Of course I know it's not one thing but if it was ONE stat, which would it be, especially with metal bats.
RR,
I never understood the whip, but I do understand that it is very important for a pitcher to know how to get himself out of trouble.
I am just trying to understand, after the human factor, does the scout take into consideration stats, depending of course his level of play. I was told, due to conf differences, it maybe comes down to strike/walk ratios, but don't see that either.
So is it all based on velocity, projection, control how many pitches he uses, or some stats.
In HS I felt it was strikes, not sure in college. For a scout. Does it matter how the pitcher gets the batter out?
Of course I know it's not one thing but if it was ONE stat, which would it be, especially with metal bats.
RR I'm honestly trying to follow your logic on this subject but somewhere it gets
disconnected each time. If the scouting service keeps signing players they shouldn't because they can't help themselves(like a drug addiction), then who is signing all the successful ML pitchers? Are you saying they are ALL incapable of
recognizing talent or is it just a few, the majority, 30% or what? Are you also
saying that ML owners and GMs like to throw money down the tubes just because of
EGO and wanting pitchers with velocity?
Please give me an example of a ML pitcher that has only an 80 mph fastball and has a Koufax curve. And BTW, Koufax had a mid nineties fastball. Or just tell me any ML pitcher(inc. Wakefield) that can't throw harder than 85.
I agree that getting batters out is the most important thing for a HS, College, and ML pitcher. Their coaches and managers successes depend on W's. But any pitcher that throws under 85 with PERFECT control won't be getting batters out
in the ML. And I'm also including the knuckleball pitchers. I've played against a few, including the Niekro brothers and both could and did come close to a 90 FB. That's what made their knuckler so effective-batters never knew when they were going to slip one by them.
Maddux can still touch 90 on occasion and the only reason he is still pitching is because of his control and he is a rarity. I'll bet he won't be around much
longer if his velocity drops much more than it has.
disconnected each time. If the scouting service keeps signing players they shouldn't because they can't help themselves(like a drug addiction), then who is signing all the successful ML pitchers? Are you saying they are ALL incapable of
recognizing talent or is it just a few, the majority, 30% or what? Are you also
saying that ML owners and GMs like to throw money down the tubes just because of
EGO and wanting pitchers with velocity?
Please give me an example of a ML pitcher that has only an 80 mph fastball and has a Koufax curve. And BTW, Koufax had a mid nineties fastball. Or just tell me any ML pitcher(inc. Wakefield) that can't throw harder than 85.
I agree that getting batters out is the most important thing for a HS, College, and ML pitcher. Their coaches and managers successes depend on W's. But any pitcher that throws under 85 with PERFECT control won't be getting batters out
in the ML. And I'm also including the knuckleball pitchers. I've played against a few, including the Niekro brothers and both could and did come close to a 90 FB. That's what made their knuckler so effective-batters never knew when they were going to slip one by them.
Maddux can still touch 90 on occasion and the only reason he is still pitching is because of his control and he is a rarity. I'll bet he won't be around much
longer if his velocity drops much more than it has.
Maddox has been told by his coaches they did not want him throwing 90 and in an interview said he was more effective in the low 80s.
If you watch MLB which I don't a lot. I prefer amateur baseball and college ball, you will see the velocity on the screen and I have watched several pitchers that do not throw 90. I do know the difference between the pitches and I can read. In the world series I saw a few pitchers who did very well with fastballs at 85-88.
If you watch MLB which I don't a lot. I prefer amateur baseball and college ball, you will see the velocity on the screen and I have watched several pitchers that do not throw 90. I do know the difference between the pitches and I can read. In the world series I saw a few pitchers who did very well with fastballs at 85-88.
Sorry had to leave...
Let's see, where were we...
Speaking about the pitcher with great velocity and no command or control.
MOC1 I have nothing against the guy who has a great arm and can throw 90+...but I don't consider him any better a pitcher than one that throws 77 to 85+ that has command of three good pitches he uses strategicially to kill a batter with his loving off-speed stuff that keeps the batters frustrated because everytime they swing it stings the he*ck out their hands.
The 95+ guy is no good to me if after the first inning I'm down by 5 runs. Four of them by walks. Give me the 77-85 who throws thin strikes, makes the batter reach for a ball, and is fooled by the high speed FB off the plate and the CB/CUP that hits the absolute outside edge to freeze him in his shoes.
Please believe me that I'm not an absolutist on speed...it is not a panacea. What I am is an absolutist on command and control.
I don't give a da*mn that a pitcher can run it up there 100mph and can't get it over for a "THIN STRIKE". A MLB batter can catch up to that pitch because they all learn how to shorten up their swings so that the bat only really moves 10 inches to achieve their maximum power. If you look at Bonds swing he generates all his power in less than 12 inches.
Sure a guy who throws heat in HS and college looks good but he hasn't shown that he understands situational command and control he is doomed when he moves up to the pros.
The most difficult thing that I've seen for pitchers who have that intuitive sense of what to do in stress and tight situations is having to throw called pitches that they can't shake off which ends up with them being the goat. In that case I've told young pitchers that they have to learn to turn the outcome over to the guy who is making the calls and be satisfied with the knowledge that it was the wrong call and the outcome is not his fault. But it still hurts them non-the-less.
I just would like to see pitching coaches teach the art and craft of pitching and stop projecting themselves into the game when they have no knowledge eg., of which pitch last felt really good, from the third pitch thrown to a batter...only the guy on the mound knows that.
WHIPS which stands for WALKS + HITS divided by INNINGS PITCHED is calculated to show that a pitcher doesn't give up ideally not more than one runner per innings pitched. But it is more important as an indicator of how well a pitcher manages his first pitch. and the 0-2 or two strike count.
the ERA shows how a pitcher manages his overall concentration levels.
The LOB shows how a pitcher sees himself in relationship to his opponent. This is the "WARRIOR" stat.
A low LOB and a high ERA and I know the guy has eggs that crack.
A HIGH LOB and a low ERA and I like the guy because i know he has rocks not eggs.
Let's see, where were we...
Speaking about the pitcher with great velocity and no command or control.
MOC1 I have nothing against the guy who has a great arm and can throw 90+...but I don't consider him any better a pitcher than one that throws 77 to 85+ that has command of three good pitches he uses strategicially to kill a batter with his loving off-speed stuff that keeps the batters frustrated because everytime they swing it stings the he*ck out their hands.
The 95+ guy is no good to me if after the first inning I'm down by 5 runs. Four of them by walks. Give me the 77-85 who throws thin strikes, makes the batter reach for a ball, and is fooled by the high speed FB off the plate and the CB/CUP that hits the absolute outside edge to freeze him in his shoes.
Please believe me that I'm not an absolutist on speed...it is not a panacea. What I am is an absolutist on command and control.
I don't give a da*mn that a pitcher can run it up there 100mph and can't get it over for a "THIN STRIKE". A MLB batter can catch up to that pitch because they all learn how to shorten up their swings so that the bat only really moves 10 inches to achieve their maximum power. If you look at Bonds swing he generates all his power in less than 12 inches.
Sure a guy who throws heat in HS and college looks good but he hasn't shown that he understands situational command and control he is doomed when he moves up to the pros.
The most difficult thing that I've seen for pitchers who have that intuitive sense of what to do in stress and tight situations is having to throw called pitches that they can't shake off which ends up with them being the goat. In that case I've told young pitchers that they have to learn to turn the outcome over to the guy who is making the calls and be satisfied with the knowledge that it was the wrong call and the outcome is not his fault. But it still hurts them non-the-less.
I just would like to see pitching coaches teach the art and craft of pitching and stop projecting themselves into the game when they have no knowledge eg., of which pitch last felt really good, from the third pitch thrown to a batter...only the guy on the mound knows that.
WHIPS which stands for WALKS + HITS divided by INNINGS PITCHED is calculated to show that a pitcher doesn't give up ideally not more than one runner per innings pitched. But it is more important as an indicator of how well a pitcher manages his first pitch. and the 0-2 or two strike count.
the ERA shows how a pitcher manages his overall concentration levels.
The LOB shows how a pitcher sees himself in relationship to his opponent. This is the "WARRIOR" stat.
A low LOB and a high ERA and I know the guy has eggs that crack.
A HIGH LOB and a low ERA and I like the guy because i know he has rocks not eggs.
quote:The most difficult thing that I've seen for pitchers who have that intuitive sense of what to do in stress and tight situations is having to throw called pitches that they can't shake off which ends up with them being the goat. In that case I've told young pitchers that they have to learn to turn the outcome over to the guy who is making the calls and be satisfied with the knowledge that it was the wrong call and the outcome is not his fault. But it still hurts them non-the-less.
It'd be nice to see a SCOUT or two offer up their views on this one.
RR-you said a lot in your last post-and I would not disagree with most of what
you said but you did not address any of the questions I posed. This thread is about what scouts deem as important stats to have for a college pitcher. You
have implied that scouts are "addicted" to velocity and cannot help themselves
by basically only drafting hard throwers. Would you care to elaborate on the above?
What pitcher in the ML cannot break 85 with his fastball? Again, we are not talking about getting HS and College batters out. We are talking about getting
the best hitters in the world out and the higher up the ladder you go the more
velocity a pitcher needs and OF COURSE the control to go along with it.
Please give me an example of ANY major league pitcher on ANY roster throwing
under 85 mph and being successful.(as I stated, even Wakefield can top 85).
Thanks.
you said but you did not address any of the questions I posed. This thread is about what scouts deem as important stats to have for a college pitcher. You
have implied that scouts are "addicted" to velocity and cannot help themselves
by basically only drafting hard throwers. Would you care to elaborate on the above?
What pitcher in the ML cannot break 85 with his fastball? Again, we are not talking about getting HS and College batters out. We are talking about getting
the best hitters in the world out and the higher up the ladder you go the more
velocity a pitcher needs and OF COURSE the control to go along with it.
Please give me an example of ANY major league pitcher on ANY roster throwing
under 85 mph and being successful.(as I stated, even Wakefield can top 85).
Thanks.
I just looked up a couple guys who I know throw 90+
The one guy just finished 2nd year JUCO scouts have been all over him . His stats last year indicated he got under 1 inning for the whole year. 3 appearances gave up 6 hits 5 walks and an ERA of 42. This for the whole season. Another guy has an era of 11 and did not last 2 innings in the Dominican League.
Forget the states and work on velocity. Everyone seems to talk about it before anything else.
MOC my son has pitched against guys in the minors, drafted players and great college players. The results are usually pretty impressive. My son is still physically immature compared to guys he has played against. These guys still miss great curve balls and even a well placed FB at 82-84 will catch them looking.
We will see what happens in 4 years.
The one guy just finished 2nd year JUCO scouts have been all over him . His stats last year indicated he got under 1 inning for the whole year. 3 appearances gave up 6 hits 5 walks and an ERA of 42. This for the whole season. Another guy has an era of 11 and did not last 2 innings in the Dominican League.
Forget the states and work on velocity. Everyone seems to talk about it before anything else.
MOC my son has pitched against guys in the minors, drafted players and great college players. The results are usually pretty impressive. My son is still physically immature compared to guys he has played against. These guys still miss great curve balls and even a well placed FB at 82-84 will catch them looking.
We will see what happens in 4 years.
BobbleheadDoll,
I looked up an ACC pitcher who pitched in his last year of college, 15.5 INNINGS pitched (total in college about 28), record 1-3, 23 hits, 15 runs ,14 of them earned, 26 SO, 12BB and was drafted in the 4th round in 2004.
Has hit the mark of 100 on the gun.
I also know of another pitcher, who, I am pretty sure in his last college year had some control problems but pitched consistantly in the mid 90's get the prize of 2nd overall in his draft year (don't know his record).
I guess it's obvious what their most important asset (not stat) was to scouts.
I used to subscribe by the theory that control, effective use of pitches, and wins gets you drafted high, but now, I am learning,if you don't light up the gun, you don't get the nod.
Maybe scouts are addicted to velocity, I don't know. As MOC points out, give us one pitcher in the majors who pitches with a FB below 85.
I looked up an ACC pitcher who pitched in his last year of college, 15.5 INNINGS pitched (total in college about 28), record 1-3, 23 hits, 15 runs ,14 of them earned, 26 SO, 12BB and was drafted in the 4th round in 2004.
Has hit the mark of 100 on the gun.
I also know of another pitcher, who, I am pretty sure in his last college year had some control problems but pitched consistantly in the mid 90's get the prize of 2nd overall in his draft year (don't know his record).
I guess it's obvious what their most important asset (not stat) was to scouts.
I used to subscribe by the theory that control, effective use of pitches, and wins gets you drafted high, but now, I am learning,if you don't light up the gun, you don't get the nod.
Maybe scouts are addicted to velocity, I don't know. As MOC points out, give us one pitcher in the majors who pitches with a FB below 85.
MOC1
Noah Lowry of the SF Giants their MVP throws his FB from 85 to 90, but he has a Chup that pretty much emulates the FB speed which he throws in the exact same rhythm of that "slow FB and so he is very effective. Had the most wins and best ERA of their team.
I don't know why we went down this road in the MLB. Velocity has always been one component that was necessary for a good pitcher, but it is no more important than at least one or two other pitches a MLB pitcher must have to be truly effective.
I watched Stu Miller who was a closer, went 14-5 play in the All-Star game at candlestick 1961,
http://www.baseball-almanac.com/asgbox/yr1961as.shtml
and he had a career that most pitchers would love to have in the MLB and he never threw the ball near 85.
Velocity is overrated. The fastball is nothing more than a setup pitch. Pitching is about command and control of the pitches you have with movement that puts the ball on the end of the bat or on the handle. That means the most effective pitchers are those that work both sides of the plate and can get batters out by throwing pitches that look like they ware going to be strikes but end up at the contact of the bat to be off the plate or out of the strike zone.
Now is a pitcher that has a FB over 90+ desirable, yes, but without good location and another pitch to help with the FB as the setup, like a good chup, cb...he is no better than a pitcher who throws 87 with no movement. If he throws 90+ and has no command and no control...if I was scouting he would not get any interest from me.
It's to bad that peoiple cannot appreciate the guys like Stu Miller, he put ARSES in the seats because people were just amazed at how he was able to pitch and get the best batter in the world to hit into DB's. He averaged 6.77 K's/IPS with his 45 mph junk...so go figure.
Throwing heat that brings the ball thigh high or above the knees, with an attitude, that a pitcher thinks he can blow it by a MLB batter is just foolishness.
Noah Lowry of the SF Giants their MVP throws his FB from 85 to 90, but he has a Chup that pretty much emulates the FB speed which he throws in the exact same rhythm of that "slow FB and so he is very effective. Had the most wins and best ERA of their team.
I don't know why we went down this road in the MLB. Velocity has always been one component that was necessary for a good pitcher, but it is no more important than at least one or two other pitches a MLB pitcher must have to be truly effective.
I watched Stu Miller who was a closer, went 14-5 play in the All-Star game at candlestick 1961,
http://www.baseball-almanac.com/asgbox/yr1961as.shtml
and he had a career that most pitchers would love to have in the MLB and he never threw the ball near 85.
Velocity is overrated. The fastball is nothing more than a setup pitch. Pitching is about command and control of the pitches you have with movement that puts the ball on the end of the bat or on the handle. That means the most effective pitchers are those that work both sides of the plate and can get batters out by throwing pitches that look like they ware going to be strikes but end up at the contact of the bat to be off the plate or out of the strike zone.
Now is a pitcher that has a FB over 90+ desirable, yes, but without good location and another pitch to help with the FB as the setup, like a good chup, cb...he is no better than a pitcher who throws 87 with no movement. If he throws 90+ and has no command and no control...if I was scouting he would not get any interest from me.
It's to bad that peoiple cannot appreciate the guys like Stu Miller, he put ARSES in the seats because people were just amazed at how he was able to pitch and get the best batter in the world to hit into DB's. He averaged 6.77 K's/IPS with his 45 mph junk...so go figure.
Throwing heat that brings the ball thigh high or above the knees, with an attitude, that a pitcher thinks he can blow it by a MLB batter is just foolishness.