"If You Don't Run a 6.9 60 You Can't Play D1" & other Falsehoods

StrainedOblique posted:

Looking at PG profiles and looking for low Velo numbers or bad 60 times is a waste of time.It tells you nothing other than on the day PG graded him that is what he did. It tells you nothing about how the school that recruited him evaluated him. Or what his Velo or 60 time was on campus or at the event that inspired the school to offer him. 

I agree with you that is what he did on that day, but what I like about the PG numbers is that they are objective. Listen to any number of dads who say that their kid throws x or runs y ( handheld measurement by the dad) and then compare it to a PG velo or PG time for that kid . . . This is not limited to baseball, by the way. Every high school running back with any speed apparently "runs a 4.4" LOL

2019Dad posted:

CaCO3Girl posted:

Is anyone else disturbed that a 91mph fastball is considered average, ANYWHERE?

Well, it's worse than that, CaCO -- that's not what they are "touching" -- that's the average fastball of the guy (where he "sits") so someone with a 50 grade fastball is probably touching 94.

The word "average" and the term "91 mph fastball" just shouldn't be used in the same sentence.

Sogard & Drury were 8.5 grades at Perfect Game, too, by the way

I'll be my own Devil's Advocate here and say that perhaps the reason you see so many MLB MI's who never ran below 7 is because it is so hard to hit MLB pitching.  If you can hit MLB pitching and have 7.0-7.3 speed they'll find a place for you.

2019Dad posted:

I don't think anyone has argued that the numbers don't matter or that things like running speed and fastball velocity aren't use to sort players. And no one has argued that slower is better than -- or "just as good" as -- faster. 

I read this topic as pointing out that some of the shorthand used ("better be below 7.0") is just that -- shorthand. And a better read on the topic, IMO, was Fenway's when he said "you better be close." 

I'll go back to the data that an average (50 grade) 60 time for a MLB position player is 6.9 - 7.0. Saying "if you don't run a 6.9 you can't play D1" -- which would put the average for D1 closer to 6.7 -- would indicate that D1 recruits are significantly faster, on average, than MLB players. I, for one, find that hard to believe. 

Kendall Rogers from D1 baseball tweeted a week or so ago, Coastal Carolina's average 60 time for all position players was 6.86 at the beginning of fall ball.   Thought this was interesting in the context of this conversation.  I'm not sure how this applies to the averages for a typical d1 baseball program,  as I know Coastal places an emphasis on recruiting for speed. 

pabaseballdad posted:

2019Dad posted:

I don't think anyone has argued that the numbers don't matter or that things like running speed and fastball velocity aren't use to sort players. And no one has argued that slower is better than -- or "just as good" as -- faster. 

I read this topic as pointing out that some of the shorthand used ("better be below 7.0") is just that -- shorthand. And a better read on the topic, IMO, was Fenway's when he said "you better be close." 

I'll go back to the data that an average (50 grade) 60 time for a MLB position player is 6.9 - 7.0. Saying "if you don't run a 6.9 you can't play D1" -- which would put the average for D1 closer to 6.7 -- would indicate that D1 recruits are significantly faster, on average, than MLB players. I, for one, find that hard to believe. 

Kendall Rogers from D1 baseball tweeted a week or so ago, Coastal Carolina's average 60 time for all position players was 6.86 at the beginning of fall ball.   Thought this was interesting in the context of this conversation.  I'm not sure how this applies to the averages for a typical d1 baseball program,  as I know Coastal places an emphasis on recruiting for speed. 

Timed electronically?

"If the run was hand-timed you can add between 0.22 and 0.26 seconds" See www.naseinc.com/blog/hand-time...-timed-40-yard-dash/

2019Dad posted:

pabaseballdad posted:

2019Dad posted:

I don't think anyone has argued that the numbers don't matter or that things like running speed and fastball velocity aren't use to sort players. And no one has argued that slower is better than -- or "just as good" as -- faster. 

I read this topic as pointing out that some of the shorthand used ("better be below 7.0") is just that -- shorthand. And a better read on the topic, IMO, was Fenway's when he said "you better be close." 

I'll go back to the data that an average (50 grade) 60 time for a MLB position player is 6.9 - 7.0. Saying "if you don't run a 6.9 you can't play D1" -- which would put the average for D1 closer to 6.7 -- would indicate that D1 recruits are significantly faster, on average, than MLB players. I, for one, find that hard to believe. 

Kendall Rogers from D1 baseball tweeted a week or so ago, Coastal Carolina's average 60 time for all position players was 6.86 at the beginning of fall ball.   Thought this was interesting in the context of this conversation.  I'm not sure how this applies to the averages for a typical d1 baseball program,  as I know Coastal places an emphasis on recruiting for speed. 

Timed electronically?

"If the run was hand-timed you can add between 0.22 and 0.26 seconds" See www.naseinc.com/blog/hand-time...-timed-40-yard-dash/

I have no idea.  But I can tell you that my opinion is that the chart that is referenced above is not based on "electronic" time.  I've been to multiple pro scouting events, and I've not seen electronic timing used once.  All I've seen scouts with stopwatches at every event I've been to over the last three years. 

Relative to scouting, the 60 time is not just about speed. From the evaluators perspective, the 60 time gives an indication of the efficiency & explosiveness of the athletes actions. It provides a glimpse of potential power not yet on display. It is a current measure of POTENTIAL future success. By no means a guarantee, but it tells you , "It is there." "It" being a high ceiling.

Look at Byron Buxton for example. By no means would you consider him a polished or even top hit tool guy coming out of HS. But he did run a 6.5 60 & throw it 94 from the OF in HS. Also a "projectable" body, not yet fully developed. It has taken him 5 years to begin to square up MLB pitching but the actions were always there. The quick twitch muscle necessary to compete at the highest level was evidenced by the 60 time, outfield velo & other factors.

Same goes for a Div 1 evaluator. Give me a guy who can run & he has a chance to be special. The odds are greater in this prospects favor. Having said that, we all know if a guy can rake he has a spot. You toss the 60 time out the window. 

StrainedOblique posted:

TPM posted:

Pitchers run a 7.0 60? I think m9y pitcher ran a 9.0 60 and still got a nice schollie.

But you are soooo right though, coaches want athletes!

Quit messing with me.....haha. you know I'm talking about position players only w/ 60 times . Also, why am I writing about the importance of velo and 60 times? Your boys are BEASTS. You know way more about the importance of that stuff than me!

By the way I still owe Coach Harbin a hello from you.

 

-R

Just makin sure you were paying attention!!!!

Shoveit4Ks posted:

Great thread. I feel this topic, heck we lived it with my son. When i look back at the path he took, it is full of twists and turns but he ended up where he should have. The numbers drove him, the projections or lack there of for him ..drove him.....seeing bigger guys throw like girls and get all the love/offers drove him. Numbers matter, hell once you get to college you better produce or they will replace you. 

Thanks for being the first - I think - to bring that up.  Even if you are that lanky 6'4" kid they decide to take at 85mph...   if after a year they don't think you will make it they just cut you.  So again what are your goals?  Just to say you got there?  To say you stayed there?  To say you succeeded there?  Excelled?  Advanced to pro ball?   As Caco said that goal would be different for different folks.  My son (who's chances are zero really) would kill for one year in uniform for a D1.  Many others would find that crazy and think it's not worth it to go and rarely play them get cut as a sophomore.  Different strokes. 

2019Dad posted:

StrainedOblique posted:

Looking at PG profiles and looking for low Velo numbers or bad 60 times is a waste of time.It tells you nothing other than on the day PG graded him that is what he did. It tells you nothing about how the school that recruited him evaluated him. Or what his Velo or 60 time was on campus or at the event that inspired the school to offer him. 

I agree with you that is what he did on that day, but what I like about the PG numbers is that they are objective. Listen to any number of dads who say that their kid throws x or runs y ( handheld measurement by the dad) and then compare it to a PG velo or PG time for that kid . . . This is not limited to baseball, by the way. Every high school running back with any speed apparently "runs a 4.4" LOL

Hey our running back is 4.4!!   I think Rocco is 4.5 givenor take a second!

Steve A. posted:

Relative to scouting, the 60 time is not just about speed. From the evaluators perspective, the 60 time gives an indication of the efficiency & explosiveness of the athletes actions. It provides a glimpse of potential power not yet on display. It is a current measure of POTENTIAL future success. By no means a guarantee, but it tells you , "It is there." "It" being a high ceiling.

Look at Byron Buxton for example. By no means would you consider him a polished or even top hit tool guy coming out of HS. But he did run a 6.5 60 & throw it 94 from the OF in HS. Also a "projectable" body, not yet fully developed. It has taken him 5 years to begin to square up MLB pitching but the actions were always there. The quick twitch muscle necessary to compete at the highest level was evidenced by the 60 time, outfield velo & other factors.

Same goes for a Div 1 evaluator. Give me a guy who can run & he has a chance to be special. The odds are greater in this prospects favor. Having said that, we all know if a guy can rake he has a spot. You toss the 60 time out the window. 

 

Unless  you are at West Springfield High School

Some kids have slow 60y times due to poor technique.  I was one of the slowest on my juco team, running a 7.2.  All the pitchers and big guys were slow.  Everyone else ranged from 6.6-6.9.  I think by the time you get to college you have pretty good technique.  I always had a pretty good start 60ft but not much top end speed after that.  

http://aqspeed.com/articles/the-running-motion/

Three articles that explain sprinting in phases.  You can learn a lot about what to train without buying anything.  I still believe hip flexors are the key and are often overlooked.  Buy some ankle weights, squat, deadlift, and run hills (up and down).  Your speed will increase.

Here's a decent reference for tools and measurables at various levels of baseball:

https://www.cageratbaseball.com/3-measurable-tools/

For outfielders top speed is very important, the statcast  top speed correlates very well with defensive metrics. At lower levels you can compensate with good jumps, routes and sure hands but at higher levels to speed becomes the deciding factor because everyone can catch a fly ball.

For infielders quickness is more important.

However I actually prefer the 60 over say 10 yard splits. The latter might be more baseball specific but the former says more about sprint talent while the acceleration is more dependent on leg strength.

I see that a 2019 middle infielder with a 7.58 sixty recently committed to Stanford.

3and2Fastball posted:

I see that a 2019 middle infielder with a 7.58 sixty recently committed to Stanford.

Perhaps he has a cannon for an arm, drops nukes like a B-1 Lancer and has a 4.6 GPA with perfect test scores?

Or, maybe his dad was a world class sprinter and he's just a late bloomer?

Even if he makes it to campus, will he ever see the field?

DesertDuck posted:

3and2Fastball posted:

I see that a 2019 middle infielder with a 7.58 sixty recently committed to Stanford.

Perhaps he has a cannon for an arm, drops nukes like a B-1 Lancer and has a 4.6 GPA with perfect test scores?

Or, maybe his dad was a world class sprinter and he's just a late bloomer?

Even if he makes it to campus, will he ever see the field?

"Even if he makes it to campus, will he ever see the field?"

Good point!  Up until a few years ago every time I heard/read about an athlete "committing" in my mind I assumed an athletic scholarship for the sport..  Now I realize that isn't always the case.  What is important is the opportunity to go to that college.

Trust In Him posted:

DesertDuck posted:

3and2Fastball posted:

I see that a 2019 middle infielder with a 7.58 sixty recently committed to Stanford.

Perhaps he has a cannon for an arm, drops nukes like a B-1 Lancer and has a 4.6 GPA with perfect test scores?

Or, maybe his dad was a world class sprinter and he's just a late bloomer?

Even if he makes it to campus, will he ever see the field?

"Even if he makes it to campus, will he ever see the field?"

Good point!  Up until a few years ago every time I heard/read about an athlete "committing" in my mind I assumed an athletic scholarship for the sport..  Now I realize that isn't always the case.  What is important is the opportunity to go to that college.

I recently heard a baseball guy describe a HS kid as going to be "a scholarship kid for sure." Thought that was interesting -- distinguishing between walk-on and scholarships. Like you, in my mind when I heard/read about a commitment, I assumed a scholarship. 

you can account for present tools and projected btw,   I could see a school take a chance on a RHP throwing 85-87 especially if the kid is 6"3  and 165lbs,   they probably and correctly could guess that putting good weight on him might get him up to 90 mph.    probably depends on his build also is his body type the kind that can carry more wt.   

btw on football there are plenty of 275lb olinemen commited to pwr 5 conferences.   I think i would prefer a 275 kid that i thought could get up to 310 in a couple of years over the 325lb kid that is constantly battling bad wt. 

3and2Fastball posted:

I see that a 2019 middle infielder with a 7.58 sixty recently committed to Stanford.

I have a hard time visualizing a MI who only runs 7.58.  He must have a really bad start.  A little bit of squats, deadlifts and sprint training could be all it takes to shave off half a second.  NFL linemen have very strong legs and can beat the top sprinters in the 40 at the start.  

gunner34 posted:

you can account for present tools and projected btw,   I could see a school take a chance on a RHP throwing 85-87 especially if the kid is 6"3  and 165lbs,   they probably and correctly could guess that putting good weight on him might get him up to 90 mph.    probably depends on his build also is his body type the kind that can carry more wt.   

btw on football there are plenty of 275lb olinemen commited to pwr 5 conferences.   I think i would prefer a 275 kid that i thought could get up to 310 in a couple of years over the 325lb kid that is constantly battling bad wt. 

Great point on the bad weight.  Could have easily had my son at 275 this year as a sophomore.  But I have told the coaches I won't make him unhealthy for football. He was 255 and in pretty good shape.  With a good off season in the weight room I think he can get that to 275 without being fat.  I would rather he be strong and agile at 275 than big and fat at 300.