If you were a recruiter?

Teams seem to have cutoffs like a GPA for a job.  So, if their cutoff is 90, they will never consider the 87 guy.

 

(I could be wrong )

Interesting.... so the answer would be to teach the 90 guy control, because the 87 guy never has the opportunity to get to 90.... 

 

I guess I failed to mention this would be D1 level.

Taking the 90 is the less risk-averse move if the job description calls for 90. If the recruiter is secure enough in his position and his judgment to explain to the HC why they should go with the 87, then of course there is the chance they will take the risk. If the recruiter is not the type of guy to stick his neck out, probably no dice.

 

Another consideration is whether it would be harder to coach the 90 to have better command, or coach the 87 to throw 90. At the college entry level, velocity can increase, Coaches get paid (or should) to assess these possibilities/risks, I think

So it boils down to the RC and what he thinks is the best easiest route, based on his past exp.  I was just looking at PG and it seems players are signing even at 85 at D1 schools, of course many factors may exist.

Take both pitchers and send to a JC for a one day tryout against College hitters.

Then you will know who can help your team.

 

Bob

 

Bob, that's your exp talking.

Who's mom's hotter?

 

Back door,

yes. August 9-11. We have pro scouts as coaches.

 

Bob

This could be the best answer and if both are hot then take them both.

I think another factor to look at is mechanics and effort.  If the 90 guy is putting everything he has into a pitch then he's probably done gaining velo unless you can see something in his mechanics holding him back.  In this case probably take the 87 (assuming he's not a max effort guy / good mechanics) because his ceiling is going to be much higher PROBABLY. 

 

But I will say this - if I have the spots and money I will take them both in a heartbeat.  We can talk about projection, possibilities and who may be that better prospect.  At the end of the day if I want to keep my job then my team better win.  Give me an 87 guy who can get people out he's going to pitch.  Give me a 90 guy who needs work then I'm going to work with him.  Honestly, if a guy threw 72 and got people out I would use him........I would have a heart attack from worrying the other team will eventually figure him out but until he fails I'm going to ride him.

In your scenario.....Neither meet the requirements, so I recruit neither.  I keep looking.

 

In the real world....90mph with suspect control and suspect secondary pitches will get hit hard in college or walk many.  87mph guy with command and secondary pitches would be my choice between the two but doesn't meet the 90mph requirement.  If possible, I'd have the Head Coach take a look at him, and decide together if he is worth the risk or are there other intangibles he brings that make him worthwhile.

I'll echo fenwaysouth's statement by saying that at all levels of play, the fastball is a baseline by which to branch off with successful secondary offerings. If it is the only feature of an arsenal, things will general not bode very well for a pitcher. I have seen pitchers that throw 100 mph get hit quite hard in college because of this. Conversely, I've seen pitchers that throw 75 mph do just fine.

 

Your specific scenario is case specific because it is impossible to peg the level at which each player is with their craft. How raw is the 90 mph pitcher? How polished is the 87 mph pitcher? What is already established on the roster? There are many variables to be taken into account in evaluation.

The problem with the scenario, is that there are 50 90 mph guys in the state, and 500 87 mph guys.

 

 

 

Guys that sit 87 usually hit 90-91 and guys that sit 90 usually hit 93-94.  

I would think you would have to check out the 90 guy first.....then the 87 guy.... for D1

 

What sparked my question is that my 2013  is the 87 guy.... lately he has thrown against a couple of 90 guys...  in each case the 90 guys signed mid-level D1.  My 87 guy signed  D1 JUCO.

 

In each case he won the games....and his pitching line was  better, the other 90 guys while good, where not as sharp, allowing more hitter to reach base.  I could see the good and bad in each.  The 87 guy had much better command, and seemed to keep them guessing, the 90 guys were trying to blow it by.... and either got hit or were wild. 

 

Both had positives and negatives...

 

2013 is attending a  nationally ranked JUCO full deal ( except housing)  ... two hours from the house, nice conference , so it was a great fit for him, not begrudging the 90's guys.... hope he is  one someday.

 

This JUCO coach has a mix of pitchers, the 87 guy who can spot and throw 4 pitches for strikes, to the 90+ guy that has two pitches, of course mid 80's leftie's and a couple of sub guys....

 

Thanks for the replies....

 

I take the guy who throws strikes

In my mind, you are describing the difference between a starting pitcher (4 pitches)  and a bullpen pitcher (2 pitches) along with the rest of the bullpen specialists.  It makes total sense to me.

The problem becomes that the 87 mph guy may never throw much harder. That makes him a mid-major D1 guy at best. With the top D1 schools the weekend RH starters almost always sit above 90. It is much easier for the scouts just to go with a 17 or 18 year old who is throwing hard already. Many of them do figure they can teach someone who throws hard already how to "pitch." 

 

The best scouts are the ones with the ability to spot the kid who already can "pitch" but will project from a mid to high 80's guy to a low to mid 90's guy over the next few years. These scouts see that certain "something" about the body type or the way they throw that will lead to a velocity increase. That also works the other way, where there is something about a player that will prevent him from ever throwing much harder.

Right now I think coaches take who they think can help them win, or what type of pitcher they have a need for.  I would say that throwing 90+ will get them to the game to see you pitch, while 87 will not. 

My perspective is the ability of the recruiter to distinguish between the two and project which  gets guys out at the D1 level is why some programs succeed at the highest levels, and others don't.

As an example, the Friday night starter in 2013 for CSU Fullerton was a freshman.  He went 12-3,with an ERA of 1.48, with only 3 BB's in 115 innings.  He is a RHP who sits 85-86.

The Saturday starter was also a freshman RHP who is a 2 pitch guy with  a fastball and change.  His starts were not quite as good, but pretty similar to the Friday guy.  How he got those stats was quite different because he used a fastball getting to 95mph, and could carry that velocity into the 7th/8th innings. The fb was backed by a change at about 79-81.

You are describing two pitchers that have not played one college game yet and you have to stop obsessing that you feel that the player who gets more W's is always the better pitcher. Technically at this time he may be, he may be even better a lot later on, a lot changes over the course of a few college years.  But the fact is that the 87 may just reach 90 (or never) and the 90 may reach 93-94. I am just wondering, which player has the looser, easier delivery?

 

 

Most guys that throw harder are not as accurate as those with slower velocity.  Hopefully with proper instruction they will, but they have one thing that the other guy doesn't have, velo.

 

Your son has been given a great opportunity, hopefully he will mature and get an opportunity perhaps at a better D1 than the other guy.

 

 

My two cents:  The JUCO kid is going to get more time then the D1 kid.  I would like to compare the two in year three, numbers for the past two years and were the JUCO ends up.  I like the idea of a pitcher going the JUCO route, getting two under his belt then transfer to D1,

 

I take neither. Neither pitcher meets the requirements. There are lots of prospects. I move on. If these are my only choices I take the one with more command and hope his velocity improves. With either choice', the pitcher starts out as the last (15-17) pitcher on the staff.

I agree with you, but the guy that throws 90 may never get to 94 either...in comparing the ones I saw, one of the 90's guy was loose as was the 87 guy the other 90 guy was shorter, max effort, type pitcher.... so many variables, I think as long as your winning at the level you are playing then you, have a chance to play more, and then have a chance to improve in the areas you are weak at.  I don't know any college that will continue to pitch a guy throwing hard that is losing over a guy locating that is winning.

A college team will have 15-17 pitchers. Only about ten will get enough time on the mound to have an impact. There's room for error in recruiting. Its why with two questionable recruits the one with velocity gets signed.

infielddad,
My thoughts exactly.  I had an opportunity to watch the two young freshman phenoms pitch this past season.  Ironically, the Friday Starter that sits in the mid-80's is 6'3" 195lbs.  The Saturday Starter is 5'9" 165lbs and pumps his FB into the mid-90's and maintains that velocity the majority of the game.  He does have a breaking ball too, but his Change is so nasty that he rarely needs to dial it up.  Both kids have exceptional command.

College recruiters don't have the luxury to wait for a 90mph kid that struggles with command and secondary pitches.  They want pitchers that will contribute within the first couple years.  On the other hand, a professional team has plenty of time to develop their players.  With that said, if the RC feels the pitcher with more velocity will reach his potential in a timely manner, he'll almost always get the nod. 

This can't be true.  I was told that you had to be 6'5" with a 'big wingspan', and 'pitches downhill', and get bigger and stronger, and be 'projectable', and, and you know, like, other stuff to pitch that fast.

The answer to the OP is that both guys will get recruited, each by a coaching staff with a philosophy that matches what they bring to the table.  Because from one staff to the next, the answer to your question will differ.  In fact, it may differ for the same coaching staff from one year to the next, depending on what they think they need to fill out their pitching staff.  But in the end, both types of pitchers described will have ample opportunities.

 

As witness:  The comments above make note of some of the things that many people say about height, angle, etc.  And yet guys who don't fit that mold obviously were recruited and became successful at high level programs.  So obviously not everyone is looking for everyone on their staff to come from the same mold.

 

A comparable thing is the drafting of NFL quarterbacks.  You always hear about how they want a guy like Rothlisberger, someone with a body to withstand the punishment and the height to see over the offensive linemen.  And yet, Robert Griffin III comes along and he's a top draft pick and a highly successful rookie, with a completely different body type and style.  So, this phenomenon is not unique to baseball.

Perfect answer. 

I agree perfect answer.
I myself am personally tired of people comparing players to one another. The bottom line is that all programs are different, coaches are different as well as pitchers. People should try to stop second guessing decisions.

Yea I think that's it,  kinda lends itself, to go where they have a plan for you, regardless of the level. thanks for all the replies

Personally I've always thought a staff would do well to have guys who throw from different angles, with different strengths, different deliveries, etc.  After all, if one guy is getting shelled on day, would you want to replace him with a relieve who looks exactly the same?

 

But there are many who believe strongly in what they do, and they feel like if one guy is getting pummeled, it's not so much about his style as his failure to execute.  So they do indeed turn next to another guy who looks a lot alike.  Stick to the game plan, seek better execution.

 

And some go so far as to make over their recruits in the image they have in mind.  Those who adapt to the school's style have a shot at getting innings.  Those who don't, don't, and often sit the bench or transfer.

 

The latter approach doesn't always work out so well for an individual player, but I've seen programs have great team success in this manner.  A recruit should know going in what the philosophy of the program is and how he fits, or doesn't fit/will be asked to adapt. 

Great post and so true in both college and professional ball. All teams have different philosophies.

I guess this is what I've learned...

 

If evaluation involves my own son compared to other folks' sons...I'm not very good at it.  I see the good he/they have and always know the good thats "possible"...even in the worst of times.

 

With regards to other players...I see the bad with the other guys' sons as if they will never be corrected.

 

Once I learned to just accept this as truth most of the time, I became happier most of the time.