How short is too short?

Baseball doesn't have a height requirement. Baseball has a HEART requirement!!

 

 

The All American SHORTstop ...

 

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=OAvTKUDzE6c

Tell the kid that he should get on this website himself.  It's nice of you to post on his behalf, but he will need to help himself eventually and there is a lot of good advice here.  Good luck to him.

Ro Coleman of Vandy is listed at 5'5" and looks shorter than that. 

http://www.vucommodores.com/sp..._coleman_864339.html

 

Thanks all for the replies and examples!  I told him about a pitcher for Arizona or Arizona State (I couldn't remember) that I saw on TV this spring that I thought was 5'5" or 5'6".  I'm going to pass all this on and tell him AGAIN that he needs to get his own login.

He has a shot.   Leverage their skills and stature to their advantage would be my advice.  My oldest son played with two position players who were about 5'5", quick hands and quick feet.  They were a nightmare to pitch to because if you grooved one they could hit it over the fence. 

My son played in the valley league with jose Carrera. He plays at Manhattan College. Roster says he is 5' 6". In reality he is 5' 2".

 

http://gojaspers.com/mobile/Vi...DB_OEM_ID=12500&

 

http://www.valleyleaguebasebal...news-652/news_155534

 

Size helps. Talent is better. I'd sign a kid who's 4 feet tall if he had the tools to compete.

Does it seem like the guys under 6ft are the grinders of the team?

my son's team has two kids about 5'8" / 5'6" MIF / Out field, both give the team 125% every game and Hit the ball very well..

And another thing....

 

My kid plays with an incredible 5' 6" player, a HS senior who I believe is the best athlete at the school and would be a no-doubt D1 player but for the fact his grades are mediocre at best.  I'm pretty sure he'll have to go JUCO for that reason.  Tell the kid to keep his grades up.

I didn't know what to expect when I opened this thread. Just sayin'.

Baseball doesn't have a height requirement. Baseball has a HEART requirement!!

 

Baseball lovers are suckers for the so called scrappers.  Guys like Pedrioa get an enormous amount of love from a wide fan base because he made it with his heart.  I think people like to think anyone can do it so there is some kind of hope.  Nope....like JH says...he made it because he has talent and works hard at it.   But talent has to come first, making the most of it is the heart part.

 

Derek Jeter by comparison seems have a brainy, slick, smooth reputation but always has his talent acknowledged almost immediately.  While he may have more than most anyone that ever lived, do not doubt for a moment that 3,600 base hits etc. happened without a boatload of effort and dedication behind it.

   

5'6"

 

http://www.milb.com/player/ind...r/R/hitting/2014/ALL

Funny, a 5'6" guy is "blocked" from MLB by 5'5" Jose Altuve.

 

Do you think they hit the ball very well because they put in effort? Or do you think they hit the ball well because they have talent?

 

I've seen thousands of players have a lot of passion and put a lot of effort into the game. Only a small handful reach the highest level. Talent comes first, always. Once a player has talent, work ethic can help to separate him from some of his peers. But that really doesn't have much to do with size.

 

 

And Mookie Betts (5' 9") is behind the poster boy for short, successful second basemen. 

Mookie is from here and was drafted out of high school - both Tony Kemp (also local boy) and Ro Coleman are Vandy boys. 

It wasn't that long ago a 5' 9" middle infielder wouldn't have even gotten the handle "short." That would have been quite normal. Then came Cal.

There was a day when a 5'9" shortstop with decent hands, could hit .260 and steal 20 bases was the norm, Here's the best example ... http://www.baseball-reference....parilu01.shtml?redir

Or when a .220 hitter who never hit more than 50 rbi in a season with good hands/range could play for 18 years / 2,000 games and be a part of a world champion team multiple times.

http://www.baseball-reference....rs/b/belanma01.shtml

Belanger was 6'1".

Son's college team had a "5'8" and under" club last year - five members.  They all contributed to a winning team. 

 

Will it limit the number of schools that will look at him?  Probably, but it depends on how much talent he has.  If he is looking to be a pitcher, he should be focused on improving the 80-82 and not worried about what he can't control.  If he wants to be a position player, focus on being the best hitter and fielder he can be...

 

Also, the good GPA will earn him more opportunities.  There is far more academic $ available than athletic.  Many of the better academic colleges are D3's and NAIA's that are sometimes a bit more likely to have smaller players on their rosters.  But the talent still needs to be there.

 

The key, as is always the case, is to find a coach who doesn't care how big he is, but how he performs.  Some coaches want the taller kids, and probably won't give this young man a second thought.  Other coaches will love his effort and determination and won't give a hoot how tall he is.  This young man should start looking at college rosters and looking at the size of the players at various schools for a possible clue.

 

Here's an example about the attitude of a football coach about size.  Heard last night about a Div. I football coach who told all his wide receivers that they needed to weigh at least 195 by Fall camp.  If they weren't 195, they were cut.  Today there is an NAIA coach who is thrilled to have a former Div. I receiver on his team. 

Originally Posted by Rick at Informed Athlete:

The key, as is always the case, is to find a coach who doesn't care how big he is, but how he performs.  Some coaches want the taller kids, and probably won't give this young man a second thought.  Other coaches will love his effort and determination and won't give a hoot how tall he is.  This young man should start looking at college rosters and looking at the size of the players at various schools for a possible clue.

 

Here's an example about the attitude of a football coach about size.  Heard last night about a Div. I football coach who told all his wide receivers that they needed to weigh at least 195 by Fall camp.  If they weren't 195, they were cut.  Today there is an NAIA coach who is thrilled to have a former Div. I receiver on his team. 

 

Spot on Rick! I know a lot of folks still believe “It’s the size of the heart, not the size of the body”, “The cream rises to the top”, or any of many other clichés that seem to say nothing matters but talent and effort. It’s not that I think those things have no merit at all, but rather that I don’t think they’re generally as true as some would have us believe.

 

What you’ve said about the coach, or more precisely the program, makes all the difference in the world. The reason I say the program, is because it’s possible to have a broad minded HC, but if the assistants aren’t equally as broad minded, it’s still gonna be very difficult for the player who doesn’t fit the template.

 

It’s always about opportunity. The super stud who never gets to play for some reason isn’t in any better position than the player who doesn’t fit the profile but has 5 tremendous tools playing for some donkey who won’t give him a fair opportunity because of it.

Not sure how this message is supposed to be helpful or encouraging to the young man the OP is posting for.  Talent and effort are huge pieces of the equation.  MANY short players make it and it is because they have talent and effort and are willing to overcome any obstacles they face, just as other successful players do.  To suggest otherwise to this young man is just wrong.

I've seen college players at 5'4.

I suspect many players give their height with cleats and standing on their toes.

 

My son was coached by a former MLB player. One day we found his rookie card, and it had him listed a good 3 inches taller than his real height. Everyone on the team got a big kick out of that card. The former player laughed and signed it for my son.

 

You can look at college rosters if you want, but that doesn't necessarily tell the story.  My son is 5'9", maybe 5'10" as a stretch.  He's listed on his college roster as 6'.  I have no idea why and neither does he!!  He was surprised his freshman year when the roster got posted and I texted him to ask how it felt to be 6'.  So, I have a feeling a lot of shorter guys get the stretch on the listed roster.

 

That being said, I agree with what others here have said, if the talent is there, there will be a place for the shorter player to play.  Will there be some coaches who discount the player because of his size?  Yes, there will be.  Will there be other coaches who don't care?  Yes, there will be.  Find the coach who doesn't care about the size and who only cares about the talent and you will be fine.  Control what you can, which is the tools you have available.  The rest is not worth worrying about because you can't change it anyway.

Steven Patrick Garvey 

Positions: First Baseman and Third Baseman 
Bats: Right, Throws: Right 
Height: 5' 10", Weight: 192 lb.

 

My wife and I met this person at a summer party. My wife was wearing sandals. She's 5'8". She was taller.

Originally Posted by cabbagedad:

Not sure how this message is supposed to be helpful or encouraging to the young man the OP is posting for.  Talent and effort are huge pieces of the equation.  MANY short players make it and it is because they have talent and effort and are willing to overcome any obstacles they face, just as other successful players do.  To suggest otherwise to this young man is just wrong.

 

Well, hopefully that young man won’t do what you did and stop without reading the whole thing. My whole point was that clichés are crapola, and what Rick said was spot on, and even bballman agrees with that!

 

I said nothing negative, but hopefully pointed out to him a “proactive” plan than just counting on the talent to rise to the top.

I've seen a few good position players at the D1 level at 5-6 or so. They all did at least one thing really well that made it possible. Many of them had very good speed and/or range.

 

Tim Collins with the Royals/Omaha is listed at 5-7.I stood next to him in a high A bullpen one night. I think he is shorter than that.

 

Brett Butler is a short man and there are many other examples, as others have illustrated....Kirby Puckett, etc.

 

College coaches are more results-now oriented than pro ball. College coaches really don't care what you look like if you can help them win games.

 

 

http://www.goducks.com/ViewArt...60&Q_SEASON=2013

 

CCL Allstar Game MVP, now playing for Oregon....

 

Played with my son in the CCL and was, by far, the best position player on the team. Played SS.  Listed as 5'6" and is that maybe with lifted cleats. 

 

My son also played with a kid on his travel team, again most talented player on the team and he is/was at U of Indiana and a starter as a freshmen.  He was maybe 5'6" they list him as 5'10".....  Big 10 freshmen of the year, etc etc.

 

http://www.iuhoosiers.com/spor...ad_clark_779960.html

 

Both had one thing in common....talent. 

 

 

Stats, of course I read the whole thing.  No where do you point out a proactive plan. 

 

I too agree with Rick and bballman.  Their messages come off as positive encouragement.  i.e. - "today there is a coach who is thrilled to have..", "if the talent is there, there will be a place...", "find the coach..", "control what you can..".  I also agree with the others here who have pointed out some of the many short players who did have the talent and heart, didn't settle on excuses and were successful.

 

Your post comes off as negative with the implied message that talent and heart will not be enough, that "donkey" coaches will only look for those who fit the mold.  While, in some instances, there may be a degree of truth to that, I don't think that is the message that puts this young man in the best position to strive for success.  That's just me.

cabbagedad,

 

Did you even consider that you read into what I posted, exactly what you wanted to read? Your predisposition to think about anything I post in a negative way, shines like the sun. Personally, I give people credit for being smart enough to grasp what they’re being told. I.e., the coach makes all the difference. Nothing more, nothing less.

The advice about doing homework is spot on (starting by coming here himself).

I would definitely have someone evaluate the players skills,  but someone other than friends and family. I dont doubt what you are saying but we are not scouts.

 

This will give him an idea of where to begin.

Height has nothing to do with being a grinder or giving it 125%  every time out.

 

Not to be negative, but as root has pointed out,  being under 6ft used to be the norm. So this leads to Stats point, you have to be able to find a coach who is able to look past the height factor.

 

RJM you mention Garvey.I wonder with the game the way it is now would he make it at first base?

 

I've met him as well. He isn't first base size,or really third. Curious where his bat would play in todays game? I know he could hit.

 

My 6'5" LHP would gladly trade 10 inches of height to add 10 mph to his fastball.

 

Seriously, as other have stated, height is nice to have, but does not compensate for a lack of tool(s).

It's a beauty contest. It starts with what can be seen. And is decided by what can not be seen.

Short players can be positional players.  Generating bat speed is more about strength and less about height.  Also the stronger a batter the longer bat they can swing.  With every extra inch of bat the 'sweet spot' increases in speed by about 3%.  However if you read the bios of division 1 positional players they pretty much all hit .400 and above in high school.  About .450 would be a good goal.  But some of that is dependent on competition played so a more nuetral measure may be exit velocity.  Goal should be 90mph.  I am more honest than most so I will tell you there is almost zero chance of your son pitching division 1.  Height means an awful lot to pitching velocity.  Remember any kid who has a little talent and a strong desire to play can find a spot on some d3 or juco team.

Tribe - height does in fact compensate for a lack of tools!  How hard does you 6'5" son throw?  Whatever it is I bet it would be a lot less if he were 5'7".  Its simple physics.  The longer the distance from the middle of your body to the end of your fingers the easier it is to generate velocity.  So that smaller kid has to work much much harder to make his core move incredibly fast in order to generate the same velocity your son could with minimal effort.  Fact of life and physics folks.  And I bet your being modest.  I bet your son is at least in the 80's.  College coaches will believe they can get him to the 90 range and your son will land somewhere.

Jolietboy-

 

Not necessarily true.  Velocity is a combination of a bunch of things.  Most certainly a shorter pitcher can throw as hard or harder than a taller one (Billy Wagner at 5'9" threw as fast as Randy Johnson at 6'10").   It can be tougher for a taller pitcher to coordinate his movements as well as a smaller pitcher.  Smaller pitchers often have an advantage in terms of efficient movements, quick twitch muscles and coordination (it can be easier to synch things up and accelerate a smaller body than a bigger one), while taller pitchers have an advantage in leverage, some times strength, and plane.   That's why you see both tall pitchers and shorter pitchers being able to throw very hard (Kimbrel, Herrera, Holland, and Rodney all are 5'11" or under and can hit 100mph...and Collins who is 5'7" at best is in the upper 90s).  It does help if the shorter pitcher is solidly built (muscle/weight-wise), to help power creation.  See Collins' transformation: http://www.ericcressey.com/tim...n-at-least-for-a-day

 

As far as short D1 pitchers, I remember watching Nathan Kilcrease pitch in college for Alabama.  He was 5'6" at best and was hitting over 90 mph, and was the ace of their staff.  http://www.rolltide.com/sports...crease_nathan00.html

Yes it is possible but at some height as yet undetermined it does become impossible.  The shorter person as I said has to generate so much more explosiveness than the taller person it makes it ALMOST impossible.  Thats why the chances are ALMOST zero.  But I do have to say that citing incredible almost miraculous exceptions to the rule doesn't change the rule of physics.  There are not so many tall pitchers in mlb cause mlb is prejudice against short people!  They are there cause their size helps make them better.  A 6'5" male is something like 300 times more likely to be an mlb pitcher than a 5'11" male.   Look at the big picture not the tiny minority who are physical freaks of nature.

My 6'9" 230# RHP, freshman son, just completed week one of fall practice @ D1, a class of 26 freshman on the current listed 40 man roster, Head coach in his 2nd year, this is his first full recruited class. There are 18 pitchers listed, of that, 9 are over 6'4". He does like the more physical body type with a larger frame,  however,   The prize recruit is 5'10" as stated in one of his interviews.
In my sons case, size got him on the radar, but more importantly his academics sealed the deal, with a high GPA & he is in Engineering College. The coach is most proud of his first year team achieving highest GPA for University, & being so strong last spring they pulled the entire athletic dept GPA up a few notches~
Moral of story: Every coach has different priorities, position needs and personal goals. The only thing you can do is be the best you can with the gifts you have, Spiritually, (high moral character), Academically and Athletically. Strive to be the best version of yourself and grow in all 3 areas weekly.

Jolietboy, I'd be more than happy to take all of the pitchers currently in the MLB who are actually 5'11" or under (without cleats) and against a team of pitchers who are actually 6'5" or greater (without cleats). 

 

On this list of pitchers who threw 100mph in 2014, there is only one who appears to be 6'5" and over.  There are 3 that are 5'11" and under.

The other 4 in between those heights.

http://wallstcheatsheet.com/sp...2014.html/?a=viewall

 

And of the 4 pitchers in the MLB who currently have 42 saves or more, 3 of them are 5'11" or under (Kimbrel, Holland and Rodney).

 

Again, I'm not saying height is irrelevant.  But the physics of it is far from as simple as you make it out to be.  Coordination, fast twitch muscles, strength relative to body mass, leverage, are all factors.  At some point, you can probably be too short to be successful (due to lack of leverage), but at some point you can't move a tall frame fast enough to throw hard either (due to lack of strength and coordination).

 

I agree strongly with HS89...

I am not really sure what to say at this point...  the physics are NOT flawed and it is actually pretty simple.  Again you are citing an extremely small sample size not to mention they have all made it to the pinnacle of their profession.  Look at the bigger picture...  how many of each height in mlb.  Contrast that to percentage of males overall who are those various heights.  If height (and really wingspan is what matters.  I don2 know but I would guess some of these shorter pitchers have freakishly long wingspans) were really not a factor the MAJORITY of mlb pitchers would be under 6'0" tall just like the general population!   It is absurd to think that taller pitchers don't have a major advantage.  Hopefully I am misunderstanding your point.  Hopefully you are not trying to say that height is not a hugely important advantage for a pitcher.

I believe that part of the issue is that decision makers tend to think that bigger players are more durable.  Might not have anything to do with velocity or pitchability, they just think they will last longer and be more durable over a long MLB season.  It would be interesting to know the injury rates for the shorter vs. taller pitchers.

SABR discussion of the topic:

http://sabr.org/research/does-pitcher-s-height-matter

 

"The data speak for themselves. Baseball organizations have been scouting, signing, and developing players based on a fallacious assumption. Shorter pitchers are just as effective and durable as taller pitchers. If a player has the ability to get drafted, then he should be drafted in the round that fits his talent. 

 

The opportunity for major-league clubs is currently at its greatest potential. Clubs that value short pitchers with talent have an opportunity similar to those of clubs that, a decade or more ago, valued on-base percentage at a time when many of their competitors did not."

Another point to consider is the release point of a 6’4” vs that of a 5’10” guy. In most pitching corners, the correct % of stride length, compared to the height of the P, is 87% of the pitchers height. Using that %, a 6’4” P’s release point is approximately a foot closer, actually 9”, to the hitter when the ball is released than the 5’10” guys release point. 90mph traveling 59’6” will arrive sooner than a distance of 60’6”. Simple math. Visual Velocity. Now, add the “plane” advantage to the taller Pitcher….. combined with the possible durability point above, IMHO that’s why coaches prefer tall(er) pitchers.

Having said that, if you're putting up 0's, I don't think the coach will care if you're 5'nuthin'!

All this height issue really is not what is important.  The important thing is can the pitcher get outs, period.  I will agree that "eye candy" may open some doors along the way, but in the end, the ones that are successful are the ones that will continue to get opportunities.  I know I have read things very similar by PG and other posters.  The further my son gets along in the process, the more I tend to believe this.  Ultimately, at every level, the coach had better win as this is a results-oriented business.  I agree that the professional route can stand a little more development as opposed to the college route, but in the end you better produce.  Even that professional team has a clicking time clock on every player.  It may not be fair, but what in life is fair?  It is what it is.  Unless you are a college pitching coach or a MLB decision maker, our opinions are just that, our opinions.  And let's face it, nobody really cares about our opinions.

This is the reason I signed up here   I am so frustrated that baseball is lagging behind especially at high school and youth levels.  There is pure science, physics and data available for all to see.  Opinions are exactly what I want to get away from.  It is not my opinion that the average height for an mlb pitcher is just over 6'2".  That is a fact.  Not my opinion that the average male height is still about 5'10" (and you can even find some sources that say 5'9").  Now I am sure that if you pull out your probability and statistics text books this difference would be well over..  and I mean well over any standard deviation.  So you now are left only with the multibillion dollar industry known as mlb doesn't know what they are doing??  Is that really the ground you want to stand  on?  I challenge anyone on here to produce any reliable study showing that sub 6'0" pitchers at the amateur level throw just as hard as say 6'3" and above pitchers.  Remember there is a certain minimum velocity you need to achieve to even get to the major league level.  So naturally all major leaguers are fairly close in velocity or they wouldnt be there!!  But even then if you look at the whole league and not a sample size of five or six there is about a 1.5 mph difference COLLECTIVELY between the shortest group of pitchers and the tallest.  And 1.5 is still significant.  Bit again common sense tells you that if height didn't matter like society as a whole the vast majority of mlb pitchers would be under 6'2".  Does anyone here really want to step up and say mlb has a height bias?  Do you know how silly that would sound?

Speaking of PG...  does this guy work for perfect game?  If he can access data base it would be absolutely enthralling if he could break down average top speeds for pitchers that attend PG showcases based on age and height.  In other words maybe you take all 16yo or all 17yo.  Then break them down by height.  I am guessing you will find more than the 1.5 mph gap that exists in mlb.  And then if you could somehow do the same in regular high school baseball (high schoolers who know they are not college material don't go to PG events!) The gap would be huge.  Remember the kids who can't throw hard (many of them due to size limitations) don't get their velocities recorded at PG showcases or in college baseball and certainly not in mlb!

"This guy", PG is the founder and President of Perfect Game and does a fantastic job of donating his time and wisdom here.

Joliet - the point is that throwing 95 is what is required.  More guys throw 95 at 6'5" than at 5'6".  However, their height is still irrelevant.  Throwing 95 is relevant.  A little heart doesn't hurt.  Height still irrelevant.

Well I certainly wasn't trying to disrespect anyone by using that really awful slur 'this guy'...  and are you going to produce any evidence that height is irrelevant?  Like scientific?  Physics preferably.  Or how about relevant data?   Again I signed up to try and get people to present facts not opinions.  You know what they say about opinions right?

Ps.  The heart is irrelevant.  And I am sure from what I have read of his posts PG would tell you that!  Most dedicated ballplayers have 'heart'.  Higher level baseball is a cruel world.  You either have enough ability or you don't.   Maybe among a bunch of evenly matched recruits a coach may start considering 'heart' whatever that really means.

Joliet, I'm not trying to be argumentative here, but you keep asking for scientific facts. If it was simply physics and lever lengths, then why doesn't all 6'5" guys throw hard?  I just don't believe it is as simple as physics. Sure the laws of physics are what they are and I'm certainly not arguing against science. I am just not convinced it can be broken down into those simplistic terms. There are so many factors that produce velocity. Some can be improved (mechanics, strength, flexibility, etc) and some that can't be changed (genetics). I certainly don't have all the answers, but I don't subscribe to the fact that a pitcher can throw harder simply because he is taller and therefore has a mechanical advantage. Maybe I am misunderstanding your point.

Ok again lets talk big.picture.  you are correct in that if you take any miscellaneous 6'5" kid off the street he may or may not be able to throw a baseball hard.  If you take any 5'10" kid off the street he may or may not be able to throw hard.  But if you take ALL 6'5" kids who actually pitch and ALL 5'10" kids who actually pitch I would bet my life the 6'5" group would average out higher.  And by the way by high school or older age travel ball most 5'10" kids have already been eliminated from the mound so their group would even have the advantage of only the best of the best being left!  But still nobody has provided a shred of data or scientific evidence ti show height is irrelevant to pitching velocity! 


       

Did you miss the post by McLoven above?  Not sure what you want.

 

Someone close to him to not be considered short.

 

 

I have seen that study many times.  What is it supposed to prove?  That all people who can throw hard are people who can throw hard???  This study takes only those who have met the minimum velocity requirements to be in mlb.  Even in this study it shows taller pitchers in mlb t o throw a little harder than shorter ones.  But.this study misses the point.  I did this once for somebody else and cant believe I am about to do it again to prove something thatbis so self evident.  I will - from that study - take the number of pitchers at the various heights and compare it to the overall population...  stay tuned.


       

But what point are you trying to prove?   That people who are under 6' shouldn't pitch? 

 

Clearly there are very hard throwers under 6' and over 6'.   If a HS kid is throwing 90 and is 5'10", what's the issue?   Either they throw hard or they don't.   Either they can pitch or they can't.   I don't think anyone in baseball history would enjoy hitting against Billy Wagner or Craig Kimbrel or Randy Johnson.   So, you think physics supplies the answer, and they should have given up?   Physics tells me that a ball going 100 mph is going 100 mph whether it's thrown by Randy Johnson or Craig Kimbrel.  

Okay, since we are all stupid and just can't see the obvious, forget pitchers.  Are you saying that tall people throw harder than short people.  If so, I will certainly challenge that assumption.  I certainly don't have a study to prove my point, but look throughout the history of baseball.  Where would you say the best arms played?  Short and center.  I guarantee you that those positions were not occupied by the tallest players.  Why do you keep bringing in the general population to compare?  We are talking about baseball players, right?  Why do I care what the average height in the general population is?  Where is your scientific study that will prove that the tallest people throw the hardest?  You continue to ask for a study, where is yours?

Ok here it is...  went completely through 10 mlb rosters and to cut time just tripled numbers...  21 pitchers 5'10" or under.  249 5'11" to 6'2" and 327 6'3" and over.  So even though 5'10 and under represents 55.6 % of the male population it represents 3.5 % of mlb pitchers...  need more?  odds of being an mlb pitcher if you are 6'3" or more...  1 in 5024.  Not great but wait for this...  if you are 5'10" or under 1 in 2166788.  So not one in a mollion but more than one in two million!!  A person 6'3" or above is 431 times more likely to be an mlb pitcher than someone of average height.  Why is this not obvious?  We can all cite anecdotal information about the exceptions to the rule.  But how about the RULE!

I am giving you numbers odds and physics and you meet it with opinion.  Think of the circumference of a circle (yes I realize pitching is not a purely circular motion but near the release point it is close enough) the larger the radius the larger the circle.  A point on the outside of the circle travels faster than a point further inside the circle if the circle were rotating.  Same with longer arms.


       

Going to bed.  But would be more than happy to take this up again tomorrow!

Jolietboy, most pitchers (or heck baseball players) inflate their heights, I would imagine it is moreso for pitchers under 6'.   For roster purposes, most measure themselves in complete uniform, adding 1-2" to their height (with some rounding up).  So your 6' pitchers are almost definitely something below that, and more in the 5'10" range, your 5'11" pitchers are more likely in the 5'8"-5'9".  Obviously, if there is a perceived height bias, what do you think a pitcher is going to do when he's asked his height?   I personally know 3 professional pitchers who are each at or under 5'9" and the list themselves as either 5'11" or 6'.   There is no incentive or reason for MLB clubs to make them list their "real" height on a roster, and in fact, their height may be closer to those numbers in cleats with a hat on, so it's not necessarily misleading other than when you try to do calculations like you're doing  (5'9" can easily get to 5'10.5" with cleats, and then round up to the next whole number 5'11").

 

Same thing with NBA heights...the heights on rosters are almost all in shoes (look at the combine heights, and how much shorter many players are doing by "true measurements" or w/o shoes, versus with.) 

See: http://www.nbadraft.net/2014-n...combine-measurements

Generally, shoes add 1.25-2" to each player.  It's their choice what they list on the NBA roster (and I'd imagine most want to list the higher height, due to the height bias with fans....a 7' center sounds more impressive than 6'10.5", a 6'6" guard is more impressive than a 6'4" guard).

 

The general population stats that you are using are doctor's office measurements, and not self-reported, like roster heights. 

 

So, in essence, you're comparing apples to oranges (or apples to apples plus 2" ). 

 

Yes, baseball players are generally taller than the regular population, but, it's not nearly to the extent those stats would indicate, due to the roster height inflation factor.

 

And also, we're not talking lottery stats.   Yes, if you pulled a 5'9" person out of the general population, he or she might not throw hard.  But, if that 5'9" person throws 95mph, he throws 95mph.  That's why I'm asking: what are you even trying to prove with the stat?  Either the person throws hard or he doesn't.    

 

If a 5'8" pitcher is showing great mechanics and throws 88 mph in HS, do you tell him to give up on trying to throw 95mph (and D1/pros) because pitching is only for tall players?   What would have happened to Marcus Stroman, throwing 88 mph as a junior in HS if his coach or parent told him that?

http://www.perfectgame.org/pla...ofile.aspx?ID=106217

 

This is too fun.  I should have done this a long time ago.  So now afterni spend a half hour to go over ten rosters completely and look up us census info and make all the calculations your response is...  ITS ALL A LIE DARN IT!  Well I confess I can not specifically speak t o how these heights are derived but you can bet I will now look into it.  And return with something concrete.  There is nothing wrong with having a theory.  And thus one of yours may hold some water who knows.  But you have to PROVE it not just present it.  As for the major league pitchers I know personally I think all their heights were reported pretty accurately.  But no matter what we may find on 'misreported height' there is no way it will even come close to evening out those numbers.  That shorter group would only be bolstered by those listed at 5'11" and if your point is 100% correct 6'0"".  And there are not even enough of those to bring numbers any where close to proportionate.

In your circle analogy, you are forgetting one important fact.  Potential vs kinetic energy.  Just because the ball is on a bigger circle does not, in fact, mean if will travel faster.  No I am not a physicist, but I certainly took physics in college and have a pretty good grasp of science in general.  Like I said before and I will say again, there is a LOT more that goes into throwing hard no matter the position than simple height (levers or whatever you want to say).  Throwing is a very complicated action that is an unnatural motion.  I really wish Kyle or someone with his background would give their take on this topic.

Ok I have spent all the time I am willing to spend googling various things to find something reliable pertaining to accuracy of roster heights.  Can't find anything.  So I have given physics that make sense.  I have shown that tall people are by a landslide represented among mlb pitchers at a much higher rate than in our population as a whole.  Even within the ranks of mlb in a study designed to make the case for the short pitcher they are forced to admit there is a small mph advantage for taller pitchers. There has been absolutely no data or evidence given here to suggest shorter people have an equal chance to succeed as a pitcher as taller people.  None.  Presenting numbers from the very very few short pitchers in baseball is irrelevant.  Its like saying among the pitchers who can throw 95mph they can all throw 95mph.  You have to be great to get to the mlb level.  So yes they are all great short and tall alike.  Cause the bottom line is there isn't that much separating the greatest pitchers in the world.  But what about the path to greatness? That journey is finished by way more tall people.  Because when it comes to pitching size does matter!  From this point forward til I see some relevant data or evidence I am moving over to other topics.  Shall we agree on a few things?  The only thing that matters is performance.  Recognizing height aids level of performance but if a 5'5" person throws just as hard and accurate as a 6'6" pitcher they are indeed peers.  And please can we all agree that mlb has a performance bias not a height bias?  And I beg if you can we all admit that tall people have a better chance to be mlb pitchers than short people?

Jolietboy-

 

Again, what is the point of this? What value does it provide to a HS pitcher?  At that point it isn't some random drawing, it's already been selected that the player can pitch.

 

If a 5'8" pitcher who throws 88 mph is on your HS team, what are you going to tell him?  

 

And, importantly, your "physics" are not correct.  Two very prominent engineers/physicists involved in pitching (Trevor Bauer and Paul Nyman) have both said that tall and short pitchers have different advantages.  Taller pitchers generally have the advantage of leverage (longer levers/arms/legs), while shorter pitchers have an efficiency/movement pattern advantage (easier to move and accelerate more efficiently and coordinate actions).   Either can be successful.  Now it is "easier" perhaps to teach a tall person (with long levers) to throw harder, because they have greater margin of error, which is why most MLB folks for years thought "you can't teach velocity," however, as many have shown (Kyle Boddy, Wolforth, Wheeler, Nyman), you can teach throwing mechanics and efficient movements.  With the proper strength and conditioning, and instruction, there is no reason a smaller pitcher cannot throw hard. 

 

Go even further to extremes, would you expect a 7'1" person to throw hard?  Or would it be tougher for him to have the proper coordination, hip shoulder separation, and acceleration/movements to throw hard?   As you get larger levers, synching them up can be pretty tough.   If longer levers are of the utmost in importance, why wouldn't taller people make better sprinters?  [Throwing a baseball is more akin to a sprint, or a sport with a short burst.]

 

 

I think jolie's point is that if those advantages were any where CLOSE to being equal advantages, we'd see a lot more guys pitching in the big leagues in the 5' 8" to 5' 11" range. We don't. Which means that whatever advantage being 6' 5" has, significantly outweighs any advantage being 5' 8" may have. Significantly.

Thank you for that very intelligent and to the point response describing what should really be obvious to all!  It is sort of like selecting the best bat length and weight.  The advantage of a light bat is it can be swung faster.  A heavier bat delivers more mass at impact.  In the case of a bat speed is more important.  So if you could increase either length or mass you would choose length.   So long as that length does not slow the core speed significantly.  There are other considerations with a bat choice but this is just to equate it to pitching.  The end of a longer bat is going faster than the end of a MUCH shorter bat even if the core of the person swinging the shorter bat is going faster than the other.  So yes the length advantage out performs the core speed advantage.  Yes both short and tall have.their advantages.  The taller peoples advantages are simply' well...  more advantageous!

I'm not really sure height has an impact on velocity or durability for a pitcher. I've seen 5'10" guys that could throw really hard and that had muscular, athletic builds (good durability).  The advantage that I believe exists with the taller pitchers is the ability to create greater "pitch angle" towards the hitter.  If you compare a 5'10" pitcher with a 3/4 arm slot with a 6'5" pitcher with a 3/4 arm slot, the distance from the pitchers body in which the ball is released is significantly different assuming their arm lengths are in proportion to their height. So, if both pitchers were to throw an 11/5 curveball, the release point for the taller pitcher tends to be more difficult for the hitter to deal with assuming both pitchers have similar break and depth to their pitch. This goes for fastballs, change ups and other pitches as well.  In addition, taller pitchers in theory should have a greater stride to home plate which can make a hitter feel as if the pitcher is getting on them quicker (however, some tall pitches don't stride as far as they could/should).  Just my opinion for what it's worth. 

As to your other point what will I tell my shorter pitcher?  Well what I DO tell my 5'9" pitcher I sincerely hope gets to play D1 is that life isn't fair.  He needs to work that much harder.  Be that much better mechanically.  I put him to video and we.went over a couple things he can improve on.  I also tell him to keep up the great work in the classroom as getting an academic scholarship thus saving a program athletic dollars will open doors for him.  Don't know what he was at his last showcase but I had him at 84 during a game.  So he is not that far away.  If he can get a few mph by the time season rolls around given his grades there will be a taker.  Great kid.  Great student.  Student of the game.  Great teammate.  Will he ever pitch a game in the big leagues?  Probably not - like all the rest of us- but if his desire is strong enough he will pitch in a D1 game and hopefully lots of them.  And thats more than most of us can say.  And I will be very proud of him.  That's what I would tell him.

http://www.baseballamerica.com...00-with-commitments/

 

Interesting re top 100 2014 HS players/college commitments...Looking at all of the players who list themselves as a pitcher (either primary or secondary)...  12 of those pitchers are 6' tall or under, and 4 of them are 6'5" and over.   Though, no doubt, the ideal listed height is probably in the 6'2"-6'4" range.  In any event, the best objective determinant is the radar gun not the height of the pitcher.

 

 Jolietboy, that last response is probably your best--and I do agree with that re the 5'9" pitcher.

 

Just a couple of points.

 

Obviously, there are more tall pitchers in the MLB than shorter pitchers.  One question is, are there more because they are better or because MLB teams and scouts THINK they are better or will be better in the future, therefore, they are given more benefit of the doubt and more opportunities.  The numbers would then be skewed because the numbers you are using are not only based on talent, but on some pre-conceived belief.  I agree that MLB is about performance and that only the best get to the MLB.  But if you look at the draft, it is also skewed towards the taller pitcher.  So the pool of pitchers coming thru the MiLB starts off with a larger pool of taller pitchers.  I'm sure all of us have heard the stories of MLB teams telling their scouts don't bring me anyone under 6'.  I've heard it and I've heard others here mention it as well.

 

The more telling portion of the report above is the correlation of injuries to size.  This has nothing to do with velocity, but purely about injury rates.  I've heard it countless times that the bigger (taller) pitchers are more durable, therefore they are the guys teams want to pitch.  This reports shows that the shorter pitchers are no more likely to be injured than the taller guys.  So I think it debunks the myth that taller guys are more durable.

 

Whether there are more taller pitchers in the MLB because they are actually better or because they are perceived to be better or more durable, it doesn't change the fact there are more of them.  But as others have said, what does it really mean?  The chances of anyone making it to the MLB are miniscule.  But kids have dreams.  Kids want to pursue those dreams.  Tall or short.  The fact of the matter is, shorter pitchers with talent, determination and drive CAN make it there.  Height is one thing that they cannot change, but if they work hard, there is nothing saying that they can't have the opportunity if everything else falls into place.

 

My son is a short RHP.  I understand this reality and so does he.  What I tell him is that if he wants it, he is going to have to be that much better than the taller guys and he needs to work hard to get there.  I'm not going to tell him that he just needs to forget about it because he is too short.  That would be very counterproductive.  

So...  basically you tell your son the same thing I tell the 5'9" pitcher on my team...  work harder and you can do it!  One major difference is I am talking college not mlb.  Listen everybody hates the big guy and I just get sick of it.  Its not fair those little point guards are so darn quick!  But thats just the way it is.  I could point out famous exceptions by saying " well magic johnson played point and he was 6'9".  Or we can all accept the obvious and realize most point guards are smaller and quicker - quicker being the more important.  If they could find a lot of 6'9" guys with that quickness all point guards would be 6'9"!  My son is white.  Immediately that gives him very little chance to play in the nba.  Just a fact.  I don't think it has anything to do with the nba being bias against white kids.  My kid is also not quick.  Now his chances at.the nba are so miniscule as to not really even exist.  Should I encourage him to pursue a dream of playing in the nba?  I suppose that is an opinion.  Mine is NO.  I want to encourage my son in something he can succeed in.  If your son is 5'8" and he can throw 95mph then great.  If he is 16 and has not yet hit 75mph...  well that has to be your decision but I might start at least preparing him for another path.

Before I can slammed on this I want to quickly state that my son will play high school basketball because he ENJOYS it.  It is not always about do you have a chance to go pro.  But he will spend much more time - his choice not mine - on baseball because that represents a possible future for him.

Height is a bell curve.  While the average height of an MLB pitcher may be higher than the average height in the adult male population, there will always be plenty of individual successful pitchers in the tails of the curve that will be shorter (or taller) than the average.  

In basketball, height is an advantage because of two things.  You are trying to put a ball into a hoop that is 10' high.  Obviously, the taller you are, the easier that will be to do especially as you get close to the basket.  The other is, you are playing against really tall guys.  Unless you are super quick, they have the advantage because they can block your shots and stand over you when you are trying to put the ball into the air.

 

There are no such restrictions in baseball.  You're not trying to get a ball over someone's head and there is no requirement to jump high to put a ball into a hoop.  It's not exactly the same comparison.

 

In regards to your last statement.  If you have a pitcher at 16 throwing 75, it's going to be tough for him to make it to the MLB or a D1 college whether he's 5'8" or 6'6".  I think what we're really talking about is kids of equal ability.  If you have a 5'9" pitcher cruising at 91 and a 6'4" pitcher cruising at 91, who will get the chance?  Probably the 6'4" pitcher.  That's the way it is.  But if you have a 5'9" pitcher cruising at 93 with nasty movement and a 6'4" pitcher cruising at 89 with a flat ball, the 5'9" guy will or should get the nod.  

 

No matter the size, you need the talent.  But, it should be talent that decides, not how tall a pitcher is.  

Just to attempt to translate here between younggun and jolietboy...I agree, there are MANY complicated actions that define what a pitcher can throw, jolietboy surely would agree to that as well. 

 

However, I also agree that if we assume a pitching motion is a circle and we assume the same amount of force is being applied to the ball...then the larger circle would provide a greater end speed; surely younggun would agree to that assertion.

 

       
       


Well since there are only about 21 mlb pitchers 5'10" or less...  and 5'10" far from being at the tail of the bell is actually the exact apex of the bell...  and since the shortest mlb pitcher to my knowledge is 5'7"...  I would say that just about means there is nobody at that tail of the bell.  Empty set.

Very interesting discussion.  Many good points IMO.  

 

Yes, the average height of a Major League pitcher is more than the average height of the general public.  The taller pitcher does have certain advantages.

 

That said, there is nothing stopping the shorter pitcher from becoming as good or better than all the tall pitchers.  Pedro Martinez was the most dominant pitcher in the Big Leagues for a spell.  

 

The fact is the shorter pitcher has to be special.  This is not just a MLB issue, it is a baseball issue.  At nearly every level starting at around 14 years old, you can almost pick out who the pitchers are when they walk in the park.  Just pick the tall guys and you will be right most of the time.  Then you see a young Sonny Gray, Marcus Strohman, Rob Kaminsky, etc. and you find out that they are much better than most all the tall guys.

 

So we know there are more tall pitchers than short pitchers.  What really counts the most is not the size, but who is the best.  Let's face it, they are all bucking the odds of pitching in the Big Leagues.  Sure there are more tall guys that make it.  There are more tall pitchers on every minor league roster.  There are a lot more tall guys that don't make it, also.  The shorter pitcher needs to be special, so does the taller pitcher.

 

So back to the original question... "How short is too short". The only answer is we don't really know for sure. How did Billy Wagner throw a baseball 100 mph? Would Pedro Martinez been even better had he been 6'5"?  

 

Bottom line, we have seen a change in thinking over the past 20 years. Back then there were clubs that instructed their scouts to never turn in a RHP who was under 6' tall.  Then we started to see RH pitchers under 6' tall winning Cy young awards.  That tends to change the thinking!  Now we see 6' and under pitchers going in the first round.

 

Still, the big guy has an advantage!  He is easier to project. He fits the mold. 

       
       


Not only do I agree there is a lot that goes into it...  I am willing (even having done no research) to stipulate to my (insert kinder word for opponents here) that smaller pitchers are quicker and get their core moving better.  Unfortunately for them it is just not enough to overcome the size of the 'lever' with the exception of course of a tiny amount of physical freaks of nature.  And I would still love to know their wingspans.  What would it say if we discovered the 5'9" guy who throws 95 has a freakishly long wingspan of say 6'4"?

Yes, there is a mold.  But is the "mold" valid.  As I've stated, one of the things that helped make the mold is that taller pitchers are more durable.  The study presented in this thread proved that wrong, yet it is still believed (generally) to be true.  I'm not against there being more taller pitchers in baseball.  I just think if the "mold" holds some fallacies and misguided preconceptions, it should be relooked at.  

Ok just to be clear we ALL, every single one of us, believe that if a shorter pitcher is better than a taller pitcher than he is flat out better.  And yes I confess my son is tall.  So when he gets to 16 if he is 6'6" and throwing 72mph while I may not advise him to entirely give up I would certainly start nudging him in that direction.  The only advantage he would have over the 16 year old 5'8" kid throwing 72 would be if by some miracle of god he finds the mechanics at a late age and it allows his 6'6" frame to start producing.  But more than likely both kids throwing 72 at 16 are done as far as playing D1 or pro ball.  Now please don't pepper me with tales of the great exceptions.  I am not interested in the one off horatio alger stories.  Again I like to deal with the norms not the ripleys believe it or not stories.  By the way thats why they become stories cause they are so amazingly rare.  The question is what are the odds that a 6'6" kid who has been playing baseball since 6 years old is only going to throw 72mph at 16?  I would say the odds of that are very very slim.  But I see tons of kids at the high school level of average size throwing in the low to mid 70's.  My older son is in the 99.8 percentile for height.  My younger son is more in the normal range like 65 or 70.  I love both of my sons.  I also logically realize my older son has a far gr eater chance to be a D1 pitcher.  Its not an emotional thing.  Its a statistical fact.  My younger son is a swimmer and a good one.  But honestly I am concerned he will be nudged out eventually by taller swimmers with more leverage.  He will just be in the 'have to work harder' category.  And I have faith he can do it.  But it doesn't mean I don't recognize he is a bit of an underdog while my older son is kind of the chalk in his sport.  Nobody is saying don't dream.  Nobody is saying give up.  Just be realistic along the way.  Oh and by the way to whoever brought up sprinters and height...  bad move as sprinters heights have increased over the years about more than any other sport.  Long levers (in this case legs).  I will try to find that data again and post it.

       
       


I have read and reread the study you speak of long before this discussion started.  And let me be clear I have never in these posts mentioned durability.  As far as I am concerned it is a non issue and there is no correlation to height.  I am simply talking about generating velocity.  So if you want to prove your point and make me and others like me a convert is simple.  Find the data of all the 'short' pitchers who threw lets say 92 or above that didn't go d1.  Not my neighbors kid was 5'9" threw 93 and nobody would take him.  But something like this.  There were (making things up here) 500 high school seniors who topped out at 92mph+.  400 of those were under 5'11".  And yet 97 of the 100 taller pitchers were drafted or went to d1 schools only 54 of their shorter peers received the same consideration.  Now that would be heading down the path to prove bias.  For now we can set aside projectability issues.  Just search for something like that first.  I will wait.

The mold doesn't have to be factual, but it does create opportunity.

 

Perhaps the only thing that would change the mold would be a more shorter pitchers experiencing success at the very highest level.  

 

BTW, as I stated earlier, to an extent the mold has changed some over the past 10-20 years.  Guys like Martinez and Lincecum caused some change in thinking, but it was not enough to entirely change the mold.  There simply are more tall great pitchers than shorter great pitchers.

 

BTW, most of the great short pitchers do seem to have long arms for their height. However that is just an observation.  I would be interested in seeing the actual arm length on pitchers.

 

Also I understand the thought behind the larger circle.  In some cases, all things being equal, (arm speed) it makes perfect sense.  However, I have yet to see a pitcher or player where all things were equal. Probably the angles and extension are bigger advantages for the tall pitcher.  But all tall pitchers don't use this advantage to its fullest extent and some shorter pitchers actually create better angles and get more extension.

 

This post is dedicated to the fond memory of our former esteemed (?) contributor, Gotwoodforsale.

       
       


LOL.  Thanks for the levity!

 

...or, how alien is too alien?

       
       


I have searched the internet and am probably just not savy enough to google the right things.  But if you do find wingspan info pertaining to pitchers please share it.   Also given your position do you keep any data on progressions?  What I mean is if a kid has an exit velocity of x at age 13 he is likely to have an exit velocity of y at age 17.

jolietboy,

 

You and so many others are missing the real reason there are so many taller pitchers than shorter ones. ML pitchers don’t start pitching the day before they get the call. For most pitchers who get that call, it starts long before they sign a contract, take one college class, or play an inning in HS. Most who last until they can get the call, get that 1^st pitching opportunity around the age of 9-11, and who is it that gets the majority of opportunities?

 

Whether or not there’s any validity to the philosophy : “bigger pitchers are better pitchers”, it’s a philosophy that’s trickled down from the minds of ML owners, GMs, managers, coaches, and scouts to invade and take over the philosophies of inexperienced coaches at the very lowest levels. And with that philosophy, it’s easy to put the most physically mature kids out there to pitch. Because there hasn’t been a lot of time for the kids to develop, the most physically mature can generally throw the ball harder by brute force than the little guys can, and the result is, they get the lion’s share of opportunities.

 

That’s by far the most “popular” paradigm at the lowest levels, so which players will have the most experience and thus get the most opportunities at the next level? Sure, there will always be some degree of attrition, and there will always be some new kids to pitch, but for the most part you won’t be seeing new pitchers getting a lot of opportunities. That’s what forms the makeup of the “talent” pool.  

 

If that pool has more tall kids than short ones, of course that’s something that will carry on all the way up.

 

       
       


Very interesting.  And while largely anecdotal in nature none the less worthy of some thought.  I must say that was not our experience as the travel teams here wanted to win so badly they pitched the smaller more athletic kids at nine and ten cause they could throw strikes.  And at that age if you dont walk people you win.  My son did not throw a single pitch his 9 year old travel season cause his lanky body was struggling with control.  So even though he threw harder he did not pitch.  However to support your point I think it was much more valid in the past.  When I was a kid you are absolutely right the big strong kids who could throw hard were the pitchers.  I think PG is right that has changed.  And let me take a stab at melding all our theories.  I am old so when I was a kid we still swung wood.  Most outs were strike outs.  Striking out the side was common place.  Also there were no travel teams so a hard throwing pitcher could breeze through lineups.  So I think back then you would have been 100% correct.  But now with the drop 10 and even 13 if you want a small barrel it is increasingly difficult to strike kids out.  Add to that most good players play travel and face more good hitters and it is really really hard to strike kids out.  So pitching to contact and fielding has taken a more prominent role in youth baseball thus opening the door to more types of pitchers.  However when we get to high school and.the bbcor monster takes over the advantage switches back to the pitcher.  But that experience gained by all types of pitchers in youth baseball serves them will later on.  So the smaller kid now afforded the opportunity to pitch at a younger age has a better chance to succeed later.  This could account for the change PG spoke of.

We probably have more data on amateur players than anyone in the world. I can find out a lot by asking our IT department. I'm fairly certain we can a take height and peak velocity and come up with some interesting data. For example... All RHP under a certain height and in a certain age group ave velocity vrs. RHPs in that age group above a certain height.  It would be meaningful, I guess, because it would be based on many thousands of pitchers. We could also come up with data that would show average progression from one year to another.  Personally I have never been big on averages.  I am always more interested in the exceptions.  Meaning it makes no difference what the average velocity or running speed or anything else is, I would be more interested in who is in the top percentile.

 

Also, regarding durability... I think it has proven futile trying to project durability in a young pitcher.  They are all capable of going down.  But just got me to thinking... Would longer levers be more likely to create arm/elbow/shoulder injury?  Is it possible the shorter pitcher could actually have a durability advantage? More data... It would be interesting to know the height of every pitcher that had TJ.

That would be really exciting if you shared some of your data.  And I get that you are looking for the exceptional.  As parents and coaches I think what we look for is the statistical data to support or refute our kids chances of reaching that level of exceptional.  Are they ahead I f the curve or behind the curve?  For me its hard cause I am in a state where baseball is a rumor.  So comparing yourself to others her is not necessarily valid.  So if you Would indulge one personal question.  if your 12 almost 13 year old has an exit velocity of 73 with bbcor off the tee is it reasonable to say he is well on track to be at 90 or 95 by 17?

jolietboy,

 

i wish I would have been clearer.  Most all of our data is recorded between the ages of 13 and 18.  largest area 15 to 18!  Just in recent years have we started to work with younger age groups In larger numbers.

 

So as much as I would like to answer your question, I can't give you anything meaningful for that age.  However, if your son is athletic and works hard, he is very likely to reach his goals. But I'm sure you already know that.

 

Stats, I disagree.  I have coached, umpired, and/or observed literally thousands of games from 14U down through LL.  Especially at the LL age level, which is 12yo and below, coaches look for kids who can A) throw strikes, and B) throw hard.  After that they look for specialty pitches, location, mental toughness, etc.  But A followed by B is all they really care about.  Height doesn't enter into it at all. Not one bit.  Physical maturity and strength, of course. But a kid doesn't need to be tall to be mature. If you have big kid, or a  tall kid, or kid with a 5 o'clock shadow, sure, you're going to have him throw a pen or two and see what he's got. But that's true of any kid on your team.  You need all the pitchers you can get.

Originally Posted by jolietboy:

Very interesting.  And while largely anecdotal in nature none the less worthy of some thought.  I must say that was not our experience as the travel teams here wanted to win so badly they pitched the smaller more athletic kids at nine and ten cause they could throw strikes. 

 

Something to keep in mind is, there are a heck of a lot more rec teams out there than travel teams, and where do the travel pitchers come from? Many people look at rec with disdain because they forget that travel ball players don’t come down the chute as the best players. I don’t know if it’s the same today as when my kid played rec about 20 years ago, but back then I could look at a team I’d never seen before and regularly pick out the 2 best pitchers by picking out the most physically mature kids on the field.

 

It was unusual to see a “small” kid doing much more than “mop up”, unless his dad was one of the coaches. It’s also sometimes difficult to tell which kids are the most physically mature in a baggy uni, so a few could easily slip by.

 

And at that age if you dont walk people you win.  My son did not throw a single pitch his 9 year old travel season cause his lanky body was struggling with control.  So even though he threw harder he did not pitch.  However to support your point I think it was much more valid in the past.  When I was a kid you are absolutely right the big strong kids who could throw hard were the pitchers.  I think PG is right that has changed. 

 

Of course it’s changed, but in general, at the rec level, I’m still pretty sure the biggest or most physically mature kids are gonna be the pitchers because they’ll typically have the coordination to throw the ball near the plate or throw much harder than normal.

 

 And let me take a stab at melding all our theories.  I am old so when I was a kid we still swung wood.  Most outs were strike outs.  Striking out the side was common place.  Also there were no travel teams so a hard throwing pitcher could breeze through lineups.  So I think back then you would have been 100% correct.  But now with the drop 10 and even 13 if you want a small barrel it is increasingly difficult to strike kids out.  Add to that most good players play travel and face more good hitters and it is really really hard to strike kids out. 

 

I’ll say it again, I don’t think you’re correct at the rec level, which is where every kid begins. Of course if kids are trying out and there aren’t any limits on where they come from, there’s gonna be a “better” player making the teams, but they’re still only those who got the opportunities early on.

 

So pitching to contact and fielding has taken a more prominent role in youth baseball thus opening the door to more types of pitchers.  However when we get to high school and.the bbcor monster takes over the advantage switches back to the pitcher.  But that experience gained by all types of pitchers in youth baseball serves them will later on.  So the smaller kid now afforded the opportunity to pitch at a younger age has a better chance to succeed later.  This could account for the change PG spoke of.

 

I don’t want to hijack the thread, but I really would like you to define what “pitching to contact” is. If its something like porn that people know when they see it, don’t bother. I like know what measures people use when they make statements like that, so if you have one, I’d like to see it.

 

I sure wish there was only one bat standard other than wood so we’d all be speaking the same language. I know around here a lot of TB teams are using wood, so getting whiffed isn’t so rare.

First I would love to see baseball go back to wood at all levels.  And I may be foolish but I am optimistic that someday it will.  Second you are right to ask me to define pitching to contact.  Because its kind of one of those old sayings people use that is counterintuitive.   And I hate those phrases and I used one anyway!  Clearly we really want to miss bats rather than pitch to contact.  But when we find ourselves in a situation we are having a hard time doing that we have to do the next best thing.  And that is don't let them square it up.  So really I guess we should say pitch to poor contact.  We want to throw off timing, move their eyes and locate in areas it is typically hard for them to make solid contact with the ball.  So how it is germane to youth travel ball is since it is hard to make these really good players with a drop 10 in their hands miss the next best thing is to not let 'em hit it hard.  This is accomplished by introducing finesse pitchers at a much younger age than we used to.  And I really thought about if I want to step into the whole rec vs travel thing...  and I think I am going to show more restraint than I usually do and just duck that issue!!

Originally Posted by JCG:

Stats, I disagree.  I have coached, umpired, and/or observed literally thousands of games from 14U down through LL.  Especially at the LL age level, which is 12yo and below, coaches look for kids who can A) throw strikes, and B) throw hard.  After that they look for specialty pitches, location, mental toughness, etc.  But A followed by B is all they really care about.  Height doesn't enter into it at all. Not one bit.  Physical maturity and strength, of course. But a kid doesn't need to be tall to be mature. If you have big kid, or a  tall kid, or kid with a 5 o'clock shadow, sure, you're going to have him throw a pen or two and see what he's got. But that's true of any kid on your team.  You need all the pitchers you can get.

 

Well, I’m not going to argue you aren’t seeing what you say you’re seeing, but be honest. Do you regularly look the pitchers and see how they compare to the other players as far as size goes, or are you stating your perception based on what sound logic dictates?

 

Now I will say that many HS HVCs not only have that mentality, they measure the ability to throw strikes in some way. Our HC was absolutely rabid about the pitchers not giving up free passes, and we were always among the area leaders in fewest free passes given up. But not every coach cares or measures what’s taking place. The reason I say that is, if it’s not going to be something etched in stone at the HSV level, how can I believe it’s something standard at the 9-11 rec league level?

 

But, I admit not being as familiar as I once was with that level of ball, so I called my neighbor who’s been a LLI majors coach on and off for the last 20 years and asked him about it. When he said virtually the same thing you said about throwing strikes and throwing hard, I asked how he measured it. His answer was simple. He didn’t measure accuracy because he could just tell who could throw a lot of strikes. But he does use a gun, and guns every one of his pitchers.

 

I’m not saying he’s not a good coach because he is, but I am saying he doesn’t do what he says he does. He picks the kids he wants to pitch during the early stages of spring practice, then he guns them to see what’s what. How well they throw strikes is pure conjecture because he doesn’t bother computing anything that would show control.

 

I’m sure there are many more coaches out there in today’s world than in times gone by who measure accuracy some way, but there are one heck of a lot of teams and coaches out there, and there’s just no way they’re all picking pitchers the most scientific way possible. I wish all coaches were top notch, but that’s a real stretch.

 

Last season our HSV pitchers threw 177 2/3 innings during the season. Those innings were spread among 6 pitchers, with the most being 50 1/3. That’s typical. So far this fall we’ve had 35 1/3 innings spread out among 9 pitchers. The reason so many are throwing is, the new HC is searching for pitchers who can get the ball over the plate, and he’s looking very closely at 1^st pitch strike percentage, strike percentage, and BB+HBP relative to PAs. As I said, I may be way wrong, and I hope I am, but that’s not something I visualize taking place at the 9-11 rec level a high percentage of the time. Since that’s where the TB pitchers come from, it has to have an effect on it.

Originally Posted by jolietboy:

First I would love to see baseball go back to wood at all levels.  And I may be foolish but I am optimistic that someday it will. 

 

I used to be in the same camp, until BBCOR. For all intents and purposes, BBCOR is wood. Yeah a few balls on the hands and off the end of the bat are going to drop in because the bat doesn’t break, but I’ve watched it in HS since 2011, and in essence it performs like wood and that’s all I care about.

 

Second you are right to ask me to define pitching to contact.  Because its kind of one of those old sayings people use that is counterintuitive.   And I hate those phrases and I used one anyway!  Clearly we really want to miss bats rather than pitch to contact.  But when we find ourselves in a situation we are having a hard time doing that we have to do the next best thing.  And that is don't let them square it up.  So really I guess we should say pitch to poor contact.  We want to throw off timing, move their eyes and locate in areas it is typically hard for them to make solid contact with the ball.  So how it is germane to youth travel ball is since it is hard to make these really good players with a drop 10 in their hands miss the next best thing is to not let 'em hit it hard. 

 

Everyone has their own definition of pitching to contact, and although yours is different than mine, it’s better if it works for you. Our coach says his goal is to get rid of batters in 3 pitches or less, and the fewer the better. Every once I a while I’ll produce this for the coach. That way it’s easier to look at individual pitchers to see if they’re meeting his expectations.

 

This is accomplished by introducing finesse pitchers at a much younger age than we used to. 

 

Ya went and did it again. Are you using MLB’s definition for a finesse/power pitcher, or something you’ve come up with on your own?

 

And I really thought about if I want to step into the whole rec vs travel thing...  and I think I am going to show more restraint than I usually do and just duck that issue!!

 

I understand. I only get into to the point where I like to make sure that people realize every player begins in rec.

Go for it PG, that would be really interesting stuff.

 

 

Interesting but I think that it is velocity that gives the pitcher issues, not longer limbs.

 

Height and velocity, will open the door. Top college programs and ML teams want their pitchers tall.  They want that beast at the plate looking up to the guy on the mound, not looking down. They also want them to throw hard.  There are exception to the rule, always, but not as often as it was years ago.

 

JMO

 

Interesting TPM. My son has often said that he likes when hitters underestimate him because he's shorter. He can tell they're up there thinking they're going to rock him and he sits them down one after the other. It gives him a kick. But he's coming from a different perspective than what coaches are thinking.

I do not doubt what you are saying.
There are exceptions as I stated. But in my observance of top D1 programs and professional ball, pitchers are not generally short in stature or throw FB below 87-90.  That would be both RHP and LHP.

I Just finished reading a great new book called "Five Plus Tools" By Dave Perkin. He is a pro MLB scout who now works for Sports Illustrated ( SI.com ) and is their draft analyst each year, scouting all the top HS players in the nation. He talks specifically about player size facts and the truth about what what they look for.This book is a must read if you have a player who might get drafted or play college baseball.

The PG Pre season All American list the 1st teams has 100 players of which only 3 are listed under 6ft. The second team has 10 out of 100 below 6ft. Numbers and ratings are essentially the same only difference appears to be size. Projections appear to weigh heavily in the process and not necessarily confined to pitching. 2014 MLB Batting champion is listed at 5'5. Ratings should be based on current ability not future size.