HS Player on the cover of Sports Illustrated

I find these kind of post somewhat amusing. "He hit 93 at 14" or "he hit the ball 450' at 16". You know what that means? He matured really early, nothing more. He's not going to be throwing 126 mph at 25. Look at Harper, I think I saw he hit a ball like 500+ at 15 of something like that. What's he hitting the ball now? His longest this year has been 441.

So the kid is going to make the show no doubt. Might be a HOF'er, but right now there are like 70+ pitchers hitting 100+. So it seems to me when he gets there he's going to be "another face in the crowd".

There are limits to what the human body can do. It can only throw a baseball so hard. It can only hit a baseball so far. There's a ceiling, some people just get there faster than others.

Odell Beckham Jr threw a softball, idk, 80+?  I don't think I could throw a softball 60mph.  He got a contract offer immediately: http://www.cbssports.com/nfl/n...eague-baseball-team/

That's crazy considering he didn't even play HS baseball.  He might've played 12U baseball or family softball, or he practiced pitching for a week before that game.  So yeah I think you actually have to be at least an elite athlete to cross over and immediately show some potential.  

Regarding the hard work as a teenager: does that shift the ceiling of a pitcher or does it just shift the max Velo to an earlier age? Obviously many would be out of baseball if they didn't work hard so they need to to even get to college ball but in greenes case he probably would throw 93 with a relatively "light" training schedule.

If he then did get drafted and works hard for 3 years would he then have the same velocity at 22 as a Greene who started working hard on his Velo since age 12?

Dominik85 posted:

Regarding the hard work as a teenager: does that shift the ceiling of a pitcher or does it just shift the max Velo to an earlier age? Obviously many would be out of baseball if they didn't work hard so they need to to even get to college ball but in greenes case he probably would throw 93 with a relatively "light" training schedule.

If he then did get drafted and works hard for 3 years would he then have the same velocity at 22 as a Greene who started working hard on his Velo since age 12?

Again, excellent questions and hard to say for sure.   I don't know if he would hit 93 with relatively light training.  That to me is a real stretch.   Depends entirely on how we define "light" and how much we attribute to genetics and how much we attribute to training.

I think it is more likely he would be throwing mid to high 80's at 17 with light training, and he could've been more at risk for injury taking that approach.  From all accounts, his delivery is flawless, which attributes not only to his velocity but also his health.  

Anyways, good food for thought

With light training I don't mean no sports at all but maybe something like lifting twice a week and just team practices plus maybe a little long toss. Obviously if he just sat on the couch and did 10 push ups once a week he wouldn't throw 90.

MomLW posted:

real green posted:

Steve A. posted:

I will give 2 examples & leave it for the rest to tell me how wrong I am. 

Bryce Harper: A natural, right? A true phenom by any measure? Bryce Harper when asked last offseason as he trained indoors hitting with his Dad how many front toss had he hit growing up until present with his Dad like they were doing just then, put his bat on his shoulder, thought about it a minute & answered; "At least a million." When interviewer questioned that, he thought some more & said, "definitely more than a million, no exaggeration."

Mike Trout: another Natural, right? Look up who Mike trout's Dad was as a player. Jeff Trout hit .519 in Division 1 Baseball as a Sr. in College. Do you think having a Dad like that had any impact on him as a player in his development. If his dad had been Inmate # 087642 at Millville Correctional would we know who Mike trout is?

Do you believe you could have dropped off any random adopted baby boy into those households and came out with the same outcomes?

 

Nope.  Steve A, we might know who Mike Trout is anyway if inmate #087642 at Millville was his dad, so long as someone saw his physical gifts and helped him to develop those gifts (i.e., if Jeff Trout was his neighbor/uncle/coach).

It takes these things:  work ethic + natural athletic ability + head/heart for the game + luck.  The kid himself can only control one of those things.  

Absolutely agree! I simply feel that there are no true "naturals" in baseball. The game is too difficult. Look up what the "original natural" Ted Williams had to say when someone referred to him as a natural. Hint; he did not agree.

I will give one possible exception: Bo Jackson.

Dominik85 posted:

With light training I don't mean no sports at all but maybe something like lifting twice a week and just team practices plus maybe a little long toss. Obviously if he just sat on the couch and did 10 push ups once a week he wouldn't throw 90.

Hey! That's my training regimen. Well, everything except the pushups. And the lifting. And the longtoss. OK, I just sit on the couch.

KilroyJ posted:

Dominik85 posted:

With light training I don't mean no sports at all but maybe something like lifting twice a week and just team practices plus maybe a little long toss. Obviously if he just sat on the couch and did 10 push ups once a week he wouldn't throw 90.

Hey! That's my training regimen. Well, everything except the pushups.

Hey! We must not go to the same gym.

Natural talent does exist, I see it many times every year.  Sure hard work and other things can help a player come closer to his potential, but his potential is always limited by something.  That something is usually natural talent.

Hunter is a natural, no doubt in my mind.  He is 17 and can throw 100 mph.  Of course he has worked hard and had the advantage of good training and has played against the very best competition.  Give some other kid all the same advantages and he might throw 80 mph.  Hunter hit something like 7 in a row out of Petco.  Give some other kid the same exact advantages and training and they might never hit one out of that ball park.

Baseball is a game that requires different types of natural talent.  So some of the most talented don't always end up being the best.  Instincts, feel for the game, thought process are all based on natural ability to a degree.  You can educate all you want, but some things can't be taught.  In the end it becomes a combination of physical ability and mental ability that determines the outcome.

So in my opinion, natural ability is very important and what you do with it is even more important.

Would never argue with Ted Williams, but didn't he have unusual advanced vision?  Wouldn't that be considered natural? He had a natural ability over most others.  To his point,  he got the most out of his ability.  It took more than great vision to hit like he did.

PGStaff posted:

Natural talent does exist, I see it many times every year.  Sure hard work and other things can help a player come closer to his potential, but his potential is always limited by something.  That something is usually natural talent.

Hunter is a natural, no doubt in my mind.  He is 17 and can throw 100 mph.  Of course he has worked hard and had the advantage of good training and has played against the very best competition.  Give some other kid all the same advantages and he might throw 80 mph.  Hunter hit something like 7 in a row out of Petco.  Give some other kid the same exact advantages and training and they might never hit one out of that ball park.

Baseball is a game that requires different types of natural talent.  So some of the most talented don't always end up being the best.  Instincts, feel for the game, thought process are all based on natural ability to a degree.  You can educate all you want, but some things can't be taught.  In the end it becomes a combination of physical ability and mental ability that determines the outcome.

So in my opinion, natural ability is very important and what you do with it is even more important.

Would never argue with Ted Williams, but didn't he have unusual advanced vision?  Wouldn't that be considered natural? He had a natural ability over most others.  To his point,  he got the most out of his ability.  It took more than great vision to hit like he did.

Do not disagree one bit. The great ones are naturally gifted, no doubt. Ted basically said that nobody, ever, swung the bat as much as he did to become the hitter he was & nobody, until then, put as much thought into the art of hitting as he did. He felt he was a made hitter all the way. Ted did have 20-10 vision. No doubt special but not crazy uncommon.

It would be crazy to ignore the fact that the "ceiling" of some special few is just so much greater than others, purely due to genetics. An excellent read on this very subject is "The Sports Gene" by David Epstein. Well worth the read.

30-40 years ago you had perhaps 2 pitchers in the entire game who could throw 100. Nolan & JR Richard. Last year, in 2016, there were at least 24 pitchers in professional baseball who topped 100. Are there just more "naturals" being born than ever? Or, could it be, that perhaps the genie is out of the bottle & there are the same # of special arms per capita & the "secret formula" for elite velocity is now a known that can be attained by the "gifted" with dedication & a plan to get there. Read Michael Kopech's story on the quest to become the hardest thrower of all time..  

http://www.baseballamerica.com...#CTwlxzhBE1ujEm2l.97

Over 15 years the avg MLB FB has increased 3.3mph.  That's the effect of velocity training and various improved training methods (speed, explosiveness).  Not a huge difference, but guys who were throwing 97-98 with gifted arms can hit 100 now with significantly more training.  

Outfielders are also throwing 100mph or more.  There's probably just as many (if not more) major and minor league OFers who can throw 100 from the OF  

But has anyone seen the difference up close and personal?  I remember what 80mph looked like the first time I saw it.  At twilight (we didn't have lights) I could barely see the ball.  95mph?  I couldn't see the ball at all, and I'd hear a loud whip as the ball cut through the air and when it hit the catchers mitt it sounded like a boxer hitting a heavy bag.  Now when I look at a guy who's throwing 95 I can see and track the ball clearly, it cuts through the air with just a little bit of a whiz and the sound it makes when hitting the catchers mitt is underwhelming.  Maybe the balls and gloves are different now.  

I know a former Div 1 coach from back in the 80s-90s who has kept all of the old Radar Guns from back in the day. He claims the old school "Ray" gun registers a full 5-6mph less than the current Stalker & the old Jugs is 3-4mph less. In short, the new gun jacks up the readings in comparison to the old ones. Just what I was told & this is a very reliable guy.

On a side note, if you get a chance try to rent "Fastball" on Netflix. It details all of the methods used to measure velo going back to Walter Johnson, through Bob Feller, Nolan & up to Chapman & present day. In short, it claims Nolan's heater measured at the Astrodome on August 20, 1974 at 100.9 mph would register 108.5 mph with todays gun & be the fastest measured pitch ever.