How important is Pitching Velocity

In most cases, not all, the mechanics that best create improved velocity are the same mechanics that create improved control.

 

i think people need to understand one thing in all these "how important is velocity" discussions.  There are pitchers that throw low 80s that are wild. There are pitchers that throw mid 90s that are wild.  There are pitchers that throw low 80s that have outstanding control, good off speed pitches and good movement.  And there are pitchers that throw in the mId 90s that have outstanding control, good off speed pitches and good movement.

 

Based on the above, how important is velocity? Also, it's not always the fastball velocity.  The high 80s slider is harder to hit than the high 70s slider if both do the same thing. Same goes for the change up.  If two change ups do exactly the same thing and can be thrown to the same location with the same deception... The 85 mph CH, is harder to hit (or lay off of) than the 70 mph CH.  

 

If two pitches are equal (Do the same thing) the hitter has more time to react to the slower pitch.  In other words, hitters are more likely to chase pitches when behind in the count on the higher velocity.  

 

For some reason, some people seem to think those that throw with good velocity have bad control And those with less velocity have great control.  I do think most pitchers capable of peaking at 97 max will be better pitchers at around 93-94.  Also think most pitchers that can max out at 82 will be better at 78-79. 

 

Velocity is not everything, especially if everything else is missing.  But no one can be a good pitcher when everything else is missing. The level of play often dictates how important velocity is.  Both the hard throwers and soft tossers can be successful In high school if they can throw strikes.  Then in college only the very most talented among those that lack velocity see success. Then in professional baseball even fewer low velocity guys that are successful.  Those that are are extremely talented. Then in the Major Leagues it takes a lot more than velocity and control.  Because nearly everyone that ever makes it that far can throw in the 90s.  And many who can throw very hard never do make it.  

 

Bottom line... Pitchers who have excellent command of two or three quality pitches stand out at any velocity.  So how important is velocity? We have all seen the extremely hard thrower that throws straight fastballs and can't throw a strike. That's not good enough to be successful.  But what about the guy that throws live moving low 90s fastballs with good command. Everything is important when it comes to pitching.

 

One last thing... I understand when people talk about the difference between throwers and pitchers.  But isn't everyone a thrower before they become a pitcher? And usually isn't it the better throwers that become the best pitchers? I can't think of anything more important to a pitcher than his ability to "Throw" a baseball. That is where it all starts.

 

BTW, I really enjoy watching a great pitcher dominate a game whether he is throwing 80 or 100 mph.  In fact, the guy throwing 80 is the most fun to watch, because he has to be closer to perfect.  Still the ceiling is higher for the hard thrower.

 

A couple years ago two UCLA pitchers were picked early in the draft.  Maybe not a great example because they both threw hard.  Many thought they were picked in the wrong order based on what they did in college.  I was very much on the side of the Pirates Who had the first overall pick.  But I talked to some with MLB GM experience who said the other guy was better.  My argument was that the guy they liked best had a ceiling of being a very good Major League pitcher.  The guy I liked best had a ceiling of being one of the very best pitchers that ever lived.  I still believe that is possible, but time will tell.

Originally Posted by PGStaff:

… And usually isn't it the better throwers that become the best pitchers?...

 

That sounds completely logical, as long as one believe only the better throwers CAN become the best pitchers, and if one ignore the fact that the harder throwers get more opportunities from the 1^st year of kid pitch until they sign a contract.

 

So, in the current system what you said is true, but that doesn’t mean it would be true if the system had a different way of prognosticating future performance.

It's a Venn diagram thing...

 

I think it likely that all great pitchers were great throwers (at least really good throwers) who learned to pitch.  However I don't think all great throwers necessarily become great (or even good) pitchers. Some never find the control, some don't have the mental makeup. Of course there is always a place on the field for a guy with a cannon arm, even if he's not a pitcher.  It doesn't work like that for the weaker arms.

 

 

 

 

Yes, there have been many great arms that never became great pitchers. Good example would be the HS kid from Texas a few years back.  We actually saw him touch 100 mph in HS.  He was drafted in the first round and paid a fortune to sign.  More walks than strikeouts even after backing down on the velocity. Released! 

 

All good throwers don't become great pitchers, but all great pitchers are good throwers!

maybe that is a better way to describe it! Please let's not enter the knuckleball in this discussion. 

Really interesting article in today's LA Times about Zack Greinke.  While it does not talk about the importance of velocity, per se, I think it touches on some points made in this thread.

 

http://www.latimes.com/sports/....story#axzz2hMocgKtm

 

 

That last comment cracks me up! My son and I often talk about this. That final statement couldn't be more true in so many cases.

Very interesting conversation.  Since this question comes up a lot on here, I wonder if it should be a "Golden Thread?"

 

I didn't read the whole thing, so maybe I'm wrong, but PGStaff's comments are priceless IMO.

You either throw hard or you do not. In my coaching days i would hear somebody say so and so is at your school and he throws in the (fill in the blank). He shows up for tryouts and cant throw the ball over the plate.  another kid who does not throw as hard throws strikes. His ball moves and his location is good. Is it a no brainer???

The article describes something very familiar that happens to many pitchers as they mature. 

Watching the game last night I didn't see a guy (maybe the lefty) that didn't hit mid to upper 90's.  They are where they are because of their "stuff" which includes velocity. And most of them were throwers before they actually became pitchers (see article on Greinke).

 

So anyone that argues the point that velocity is not important really doesn't understand what is expected as a ML pitcher.  If a player wishes to reach the highest level he has to learn to throw as hard as he can when he is young.  It all begins from there.

Velocity is critical. First of all are you even going to get the chance to pitch if you don't at least have a certain level of velocity? Or do you just put guys on the hill that can throw good BP?

Of course command is important. Of course changing speeds and off pitch pitches are important. Are we trying to say that the soft throwers can command and the guys with good arms can't?

A good pitching instructor should be working on mechanics. And helping with the development of velocity as well. It would be like a hitting coach telling a kid that power is not important. Driving the ball is not important. Just make contact.

Every young player not just pitchers should be building their baseball foundation. Proper throwing mechanics along with building arm strength. Velocity at every level is important. Yes velocity is very important.

Every pitcher makes mistakes and leaves the ball up and over the plate.  The difference is, you are much more likely to get away with that mistake throwing 95 than 85.  That's a big reason velocity is so important.

800+ wins between them:

 

"Hitting is timing. Pitching is upsetting timing." –Warren Spahn

 

"I became a good pitcher when I stopped trying to make them miss the ball and started trying to make them hit it." –Sandy Koufax

 

"My job isn't to strike guys out, it’s to get them out, sometimes by striking them out." –Tom Seaver

Great pitchers, two of them lefties. 

However, that was then and today is now, the game is not the same.  A young pitcher cannot get to the show with mediocre velocity (under 90), unless his delivery is so deceptive or  that he just baffles the hitter.  It's all about power, on the mound and at the plate. Or a lefty specialist.

 

 

 

Funny thing about those quotes is that Sandy and Seaver both threw mid to upper 90'S. Sandy backed off from 98 to 92-93 and Seaver was talking about getting guys to swing at his pitches not striking them out. But both struck out 200+ batters for many years. As an aside, all three of those guys could pitch in any era to any batter,period. The game might have changed some philosophically to some degree, but 92-95 is the same, and setting up a batter is still the same. But it all starts off of the fastball.

Yup!

I didn't know they threw that hard as lefties, but it only proves further what you stated above, it all works off of the fastball!

 

Speaking of velocity, is it just me or does it look like the radar gun is a bit inflated in the post-season TV coverage.  I'm just saying.

Either that or there's a lot more guys throwing 95+ than I thought.

Not inflated. In fact, some of those guys can hit triple digits and have in several stadiums throughout the year.

There are, but most are in the big leagues.  Relievers especially.

I know that the cardinal philosophy is to throw as hard as you can on every FB pitch. 

You are seeing the results of that philosophy.

93 is now considered what used to be the 90 threshold just a few years ago. Coaching and training methods just keep getting better and we are seeing the results of this IMO. 

I agree BOF.

But on the flip side the pitcher, right handed to boot, who eliminated the US from the WBC didn't throw a pitch over 87! Go figure.

Probably because they are not used to seeing a guy throw that velo. If they faced 87 on a routine basis you think they would hit it better than 97 on a routine basis?

That might be overstating it a little bit though there is truth to that statement. The average MLB fastball is around 93. The pitcher that sent us home was just fantastic that night in hitting his spots and not leaving that thing up and over the plate. Always room for a little different look!

Even 93 is overstating it.  According to fangraphs only the top 15 qualified pitchers in baseball manage that.  The average fb appears to be 91.

It is movement on the FB. If it is straight it can be attacked!

The best moving up FB was Bob Gibson, Jack Sanford And John Wetteland, one our former Goodwill Series players. All mid ninety and jumping. Your have to guess the change up and curve to hit sometimes.

 

Bob

 

So, half the fastballs are less than 91. 

MLB average fastball velocity has been slowly going up over the past 40+ years.  If memory serves me right it was 87-88 at one point, years ago.  Then went to 88-89, then 89-90, then 90-91. Not sure when it stops, but don't think it will stop anytime soon.

 

Most all MLB Stadiums are set up with sophisticated equipment that provides accurate information on many things, including velocity.  Those provide the accurate numbers. Some scoreboard radar readings are either higher or lower.  Also, the velocity on television can be off low or high.

 

i know we see a lot more 90+ high school pitchers than we used to.  Kids are throwing much harder a these days.  More of them anyway. There are travel teams that have several 90+ pitchers on one team.

 

To go with another topic being discussed some of these pitchers throwing 90+ are under 6 foot tall.  Guys like Sonny Gray, Gio Gonzalez, Jeremy Hellickson, Dylan Bundy, etc., all were able to throw in the 90s while they were in high school and they are still not much taller now.

 

My theory is that the radar guns are better and pick up the peak speed better and kids are learning good mechanics earlier on.  When I was young there wasn't much information available about mechanics and training.  Most coaches didn't know a whole lot about pitching mechanics.  Now days you can just google a question and find a ton of answers to that question. There is so much more information than ever before.

 

Movement and command are both extremely important at any velocity. But it stands to reason that 95 with the same movement and command is altogether different than 75 or 85. The good upper 80s slider is different than the good upper 70s slider. So the easiest way to separate 100 pitchers ceiling or potential is velocity.  I'm not sure if it is fair or not, I just know it is the way it is done.  Near as I can tell they're signing the right guys and scouts are still using n those radar guns. They might see a kid throwing in the 90s and talk about him being wild or doesn't have a good breaking ball. You never hear them talking about a kid throwing 80 mph being wild or lacking anything.  If you think about it... That shows how important velocity is.

Okay, I'm am taking this topic to Cuba!!

 

I hope you'll forgive me for highjacking this thread, but all of a sudden it devolved into a discussion about the number of 90+ throwers in the MLB. I realize that all posters here really really hope that their sons or, if they're a high-schooler or college player themselves, make it to the MLB, but how realistic is that for the majority of people who visit this site?  How many will even be drafted?

 

I suspect that a lot of HSBBW-ers with questions like "How important is pitching velocity?" are parents whose sons are freshmen or sophomores and haven't yet hit 85 on the gun.

 

When I volunteered those quotes from Spahn, Koufax, and Seaver, it was an attempt to refine the conversation into something along the lines of "How important is velocity when it comes to getting outs?" in order for the topic to be relevant to the greatest number of visitors to the site. Heck, I'd love it if my son sat at 96 like Matt Harvey or Justin Verlander, but much more important--to me, anyway--is that he may ximizes his ability so that he can be successful. And "successful" for a majority of visitors to this site (whether they realize it or not) is a constantly moving definition.When my son hit 92 as a high school junior, my idea of success for him (!) was being drafted. Now that he is playing DI, he is a better pitcher but no longer throwing over 90. When he takes the mound, my wish is for him to get outs and help his team. I think that's his wish, too.

The OP was asking about his son making a freshman team - somewhere along the lines the thread jumped off the tracks.

Right now he just needs to worry about throwing the hardest he can.  Whether that is 70 or 90. In a couple of years he can worry about radar readings if he wants to go on to college ball. There is no point now in telling him if he isn't throwing 90 he won't have a chance to play in college - it's completely irrelevant right now.

 

From some of the responses you would think the kid should hang it up now without ever bothering to try out for the team.

I don't understand how throwing hard implies good command and control. What I do understand is that "macho" is a very big part of athletics. In baseball throwing hard is macho. Throwing soft with junk (Moyer, Maddux) is not considered macho.Hitting a ball out of the park is macho. Laying a bunt down doesn't even register on the macho meter.

Interesting comment by slotty:

When my son hit 92 as a high school junior, my idea of success for him (!) was being drafted. Now that he is playing DI, he is a better pitcher but no longer throwing over 90.

I think our older son followed a not-too-different pattern.  As a HS junior/senior, I saw him clocked as high as 94...and quite consistently at 90+.  By his senior year in college, he was an 87-90 guy, starter, good command and very important to his team.

What happened?

 

I guess I don't know.  But I've heard and have some of my own theories.  One theory is that (at least until college bats changed) college pitchers threw a LOT more offspeed stuff to neutralize the big bats.  If I look at how my son pitched in college compared to now, I guess I would have to say that is true.  I heard one respected scout say that a lot of college pitchers don't really learn how to throw a good fastball...at least enough.

 

Make sense?  

 

My own "theory" is that throwing strikes in college is a premium to stay on the field.  As a freshman/sophomore primarily reliever in college, it was not uncommon to see our son lifted after a leadoff walk.  I really don't know, but I think(?) that he may have dialed it back a little to ensure that he threw strikes, reinforced by more pitching time.  And reinforced by "theory #1" above that he found a lot of success with his changeup and later a better curve ball.

 

So does the emphasis on winning in college result in some cases in a little less velocity in favor of command and secondary pitches?  I guess I don't know, but its something I've wondered.  And certainly there are lots of counter-examples to our own son.

 

Now move forward a few years into our son's minor league career...still a starter...velocity up a little to 89-91ish.  Not having to go as deep into games (pitch count) and perhaps a little reassurance in his mind that he had at least some time to work on locating a better fastball?

 

Now...even further into this year.  An MLB debut year.  Now a reliever, his fastball averaged 94 (Edit w/ help from JH and according to Brooks Baseball) in his time in the big leagues.  I've seen it in the past year as high as 97, but never really lower than 91.  Lots of 93s to 95s.  Why?  Well, he says knowing he only has to go 1 or 2 innings he can cut loose.  But I also think he had the time in the minor leagues to develop command of that fastball.  And by the way...his curve ball too which is now much better than in college.

 

His velocity, even today, is up 4-6 mph from college and 2-4 mph above HS.  His command is now better than in college.  And about 60% of his pitches are now fastballs compared to I would guess 40% in college.

 

Is it all related?  Does any of this make sensed?  I don't know.  I think you get better at something by doing it more often...in this case fastballs.  (BTW, I think his changeup developed quite nicely in college).  But I'd be interested to hear others' opinions.

 

These discussions always seem to get off track.

 

Regardless of your sons age, he should be encouraged at this time to throw his FB as hard as he can. Period. 

 

At this point he should be predominately relying on his FB, and learning to use a change up with an occasional curve ball or try the 2 seam before he gets too set in his ways. When I mean use it, don't just chuck it down the middle but learn to throw to all corners of the zone.  He may have to give up something to get something in return later. 

I can relate to what justbaseball has posted. Mine entered college hitting 91-92 on his 4 seam FB, and a bit lower on his 2 seam. He only progressed 2 mph the three years he was there and I do believe that it was because velocity wasn't the key issue but rather learning how to incorporate all of his pitches for strikes and learn to throw them correctly, plus  more emphasis on the slider, known as the college pitch but IMO not a safe pitch for most.

Enter proball 3 years physically more mature, the emphasis became, throw your 4 seam as hard as you can. At 28 he can hit 99.

Realize the emphasis is different in college than in proball.  College you get 3-4 years in proball you get 5, 6 which is average development regardless if you come from college or out of HS. Unless he becomes a phenom already throwing 90+ with plus stuff.

True not everyone ends up to get paid to play, but why not train with the highest goal in mind? It may even get you a paid scholarship at a major D1 program.

Here is a short story. I watched a player (RHP) this year dominate as a relief pitcher. He knows how to pitch for sure.  He has consistently had a  good respectable ERA for years but has never gotten farther than AA. Not in one of the two organizations he has been in. He has never made the 40 man for protection and never been drafted rule 5.

 

He barely hits 90. Lives in the 86-89 zone.

 

When son was with the cardinals there was a player who touched 99 in AA. He had no clue where he was throwing half the time, but he holds a place on the 40 man and had a great year in AAA. Has taken a bit longer than expected and hits triple  digits.

 

So why do you suppose that the guy who knows how to pitch is not on the big league roster while the guy who had no control will end up going to the show?

 

Could it be that it is all about the V?

 

You want observers to sit up, raise their eyebrows and nod to the guy sitting next to them?--whether it's LL, Babe Ruth, Legion ball, high school, DIII, DII or DI, minors or the majors--throw harder than average. You want to succeed?--in LL, Babe Ruth, Legion ball, high school, DIII, DII or DI, minors or the majors--get guys out.

No question about it, to succeed as a pitcher you need to get hitters out. Doesn't matter if you throw 70 or 100 if you can't get anyone out. 

 

That said, which one, 70 or 100, has a better chance of becoming a great pitcher?

 

Truth is, it is possible for someone to have success, even at the very highest level with well below average velocity. It's been done before.  But, how many Jamie Moyer's are there?  There are some that get by in the big leagues below 90, but most all of them have the ability to throw 90+.  They're just more affective without throwing their peak velocity.

 

Baseball tells us the importance of velocity.  Decision makers might mention location, movement, etc., as being most important, but that is because they are taking it for granted the velocity is there.  Two guys throwing 95, one with great movement and command, one without... In this comparison it is all about something other than velocity.

 

Scouts are paid to find players/pitchers who will play in the Big Leagues.  They don't make their living figuring out who can get high school hitters out.  That is the high school coaches job.  Even among scouts there are some different opinions, but one thing for sure, The guys that light up the radar gun has the best chance to succeed. After all, these days there are so many young kids that can light it up. The scouts actually have a lot to pick from. 

 

Guess what I'm trying to say is everything except velocity is extremely important... IF the velocity is there!  It doesn't have to be 95, but you have to have a good enough fastball. Maybe there are a few cases where someone has bucked the system and had success. 

 

Watch the games, see what is happening.  Sure it is different for every level on down, but MLB shows us what they want.  And who has more at stake than they do?

 

sometimes in these discussions I think those in favor of location and just getting hitters out, think others who think velocity is critical, don't understand the importance of the other things.  If it is me, I want it all, give me 3 plus pitches, plus command, plus life, plus velocity, plus deception, plus poise, etc. 

 

Maddux subtracted from his peak velocity, to get better at all the other things using less effort. Had his velocity been a lot less to begin with, he would not have been as successful. So even in  his case having that velocity was critical.

 

We all know there are pitchers and throwers. I want the best pitcher who is the best thrower.

Logic flaw in this portion...You ignore that 95 is harder to hit than 85...which is harder to hit than 75.  That is the basic fact behind the current prognostication method.  And it is a fact.

 

While I have an older son who throws close to the mid 90s, I also have a younger college son who throws closer to mid 80s and was one of the most successful HS pitchers in our area in the last 20 years.  I don't have the wool pulled over my eyes about what is likely down the road.  I get it.  I accept it.  Either way, he will have played college baseball and will have a good college education when he is finished.  All good!  

 

PGStaff has done an excellent job of outlining why a 90+ pitcher is more likely to be a success than an 85 mph pitcher and that is why the prognostication is the way it is today.  If you're not getting it then you are choosing not to listen and absorb.

 

Does it eliminate some pitchers that would have been successful?  No doubt it does.  But that would just be one of a number things that filter occasionally wrongly.  The "system" just cannot afford to give everyone a chance until they are 30 years old to see if they would have become successful.

 

Lets turn this around.  Do you want your son who tops out in the mid 80s to spend his time until age 30 to find out he cannot make it when they odds all along were...lets say...5-10...maybe 100 times harder than the guys throwing 90+ who already have only a 20-1 shot?

 

I would not.

 

Like any business or organizational model, baseball has to rely on filters to get to a good (but not perfect) solution.

Great post by PG followed by justbaseball's comments.

PG and JBB those are outstanding posts.