Pitcher Height

The same is true in just about every major team sport. It does not mean a player cannot make it, but it does mean he/she will have to work and persevere.

Size does matter, but not for the reasons you think. It matters because a 5'9 prospect getting a mil and failing looks alot worse then a 6'5 guy getting a mil and failing.

In over 20 years of scouting the highest grade my Dad ever put on anyone was Tim Lincecum and he is 5'nothing, 100 and nothing...9 players went before him in the draft. IMO the hitter will let you know how good a pitcher is.

In addition the pitchers height started to matter more when the mound was lowered following the 1968 season.

quote:

Originally posted by deemax:
Size does matter, but not for the reasons you think. It matters because a 5'9 prospect getting a mil and failing looks alot worse then a 6'5 guy getting a mil and failing.

Great deal of truth there, dm...

quote:

Originally posted by Rob Kremer:
I'm no expert, but size still seems to matter a lot in the evaluation of pitchers.

Whether or not size is that closely correlated to success in MLB - well, that is still open to question. But the bias is most certainly present.

First, height does still seem to matter to a lot of people. Some people think it increases durability (which I would think has been dispelled by the case of Mark Prior and Kerry Wood). Some people think it increases the plane of the pitch (which doesn't make sense since arm slot determines the height of the release point).

Second, I have studied this at some length using the Lahman database looking for correlations between height and different measures of success and have found no correlation.

PM me and I'll send you the study I did.

There are a number of really solid pitchers this year who are a little on the short side. I'm hoping we'll be able to find some bargains.

A personal friend of my son and I was drafted a few years ago and is still in the Pirate organization.
He was told he was drafted in the 14th round but had 7th round ability. The reason was his hieght according to th scout who drafted him. AnothEr scout told him something very similar. He liusts himself at 6'1 but is morE likE 5'11. He demaned and got 7th round money but his height was a factor. His talent has kept him there.

I saw this old post on height of pitchers drafted.  Interesting statistical analysis showing correlation between height and effectiveness and durability of players drafted in MLB.

 

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

I guess that "short" of guys like Sonny Gray and the select few others that get drafted in the Top 3 rounds, diminutive pitchers have to prove their abilities, again in college and then, can still be de-valued due to height. My son uses the prejudice to fuel his drive to win and compete on every pitch. Wherever he ends up, i know he will compete and chase his dream. I would love to see that study. i like the link master, we still hang on to hope that he will get his chance to play in the pros as a sub-6 footer and see if he has what it takes. He has had a sub 1 era for the last two years in Cobb county and still has a chance to lead the county in Ks for the season. I know it's high school baseball, blah blah blah....but you dont do that 2 years in a row in COBB COUNTY and not have good stuff, whatever your height is. 

Just had to bump this one after Marcus Stroman's performance last night. I can't believe the kid just had ACL surgery 6 months ago. Kind of interesting that Rob probably started this thread around the time that Stroman was getting on Duke's radar.

Yes.  And the way I see it is that it's so because it's really a matter of simple Physics.

Which brings in mind another question. How much trust can we put in the listed height of pitchers in the amateur ranks? My wife and I had this argument over the weekend. My son is almost exactly 6' 4" in bare feet. When registering him for a showcase organization, she listed him at 6' 5" because "everybody fibs by an inch or so" and "he's 6' 5" in shoes." It got heated. I've been of the opinion that it matters that his height be accurately listed. We've all seen the kid listed at 6' 2" that is appreciably smaller than his teammates that we know are only 6' 0." She, OTOH, believes that if a recruiter/scout sees 6' 4" he's automatically thinking the kid is really 6' 2."

"Big guys have to show they suck and Little guys have to prove they don't."  This was a direct quote from a MLB Cross Checker.

they might, until they actually see him...

 

my 2018 is a little over 6'...i will keep it there until i am able to round up.  turned 15 a few months ago, so i'm sure he will get where he is intended to be eventually...i'm content with just letting it go.

Scouts that continue to do this for pitchers should be shamed out of a job.  95 is 95. 

 

/ and my pitcher son is on the taller side

Oh boy here we go again.  This is the same subject that got me to sign up on these boards and is one of my biggest pet peeves.  Life is not fair I get that.  So a certain amount of bitterness from the vertically challenged crowd I can take.  But calling it a bias or claiming there is no correlation between height and success is just plain wrong.  That 'study' I am guessing is the same one I debunked in that thread a year ago.  When you only look at mlb pitchers of course there is not much difference -- they are in the major leagues for pete's sake.  But even there is a small advantage to tall pitchers.  This is so obvious it really is hard to believe it keeps coming up!  Forget the very, very few exceptions.  THE RULE is taller is better as a pitcher.   Period.

After seeing this pop up and reading my post from April, i googled this topic and read this and found it interesting:

http://www.hardballtimes.com/s...etting-short-shrift/

 

I suspect this is NOT the only data that is available to MLB but here is my question: 

 

Since baseball is so data driven in so many aspects of the game, situational baseball matchups, shifts, righties vs lefties....why do they almost exclusively uses scouts & execs (humans) to determine talent and projectability when the data in the link above contradicts the height/effectiveness/health premise?

 

I get that the norm today is the investment+failure on the taller guy vs shorter guy is acceptable in the current mindset of scouts/execs AND that humans can see the way a kid reacts, interacts and handles pressure - computer cant etc.....BUT i wonder why we arent seeing more 7' tall dominant pitchers IF height is the metric that pushes that player to be selected over the shorter player.

 

My kid is not tall, and we are ok with that. RHP at a Power 5 on scholarship is a great starting point. Hope the study is interesting to folks who choose to read it and it drives some more compelling comments.

That's a good question and again, I would suggest it's a matter of Physics.  The flesh and bone of human bodies have limits.  The larger the body the more stress that's applied to things like joints and ligaments as longer limbs also require more power to generate the needed acceleration.  So, with the human body there's is an optimum range with regard to height vs. maximum effectiveness, I would expect if one could draw a graph of that, it would look like a bell curve. 

 

I think you can see the same issue in other sports where height (whether shorter or taller) tends to be a factor in the ability to achieve maximum performance.  For example, take the 100 meter race in Track and Field; you don't see 5'0"  or 7'0" athletes competing as they tend to no be as quick for that particular event.  Take the high jump and you will tend to see taller athletes in that event rather than short ones.  Just about any athletic event will show a bell curve in terms of height and performance.  

 

The further outside the bell one goes the less one would see an ability to compete with those who are within the bell.   Physics!  

 

PS:  BTW, my reference to Physics has mostly to do with torque and angular acceleration, particularly with regards to throwing or hitting.

Well you don't see a lot of 7 foot pitchers because...  well there aren't a whole lot of 7 footers!!  Speaking of 7 footers, would you say that we shouldn't be 'biased' against 6'2" centers in the NBA?  Or white slow guys?  Different sports and different positions demand different qualities.  For some there are exceptions to the rule and for others there are not.  Height matters in pitching,  or more to the point wingspan matters which is 99% of the time associated with height!

White slow guys - Black slow guys

They are the same. They are slow!

 

I once did a little research and at that time there were more Major League pitchers 6'0 and under, than 6'6 and over. Wonder what it would look like if you did that today?

 

While there are advantages with size, if you look at the past 20 years of Cy Young winners, you'll see a lot of not so big pitchers.  So at times, the best in the world has been a smaller pitcher. MLB clubs will always prefer the big amateur pitcher, but they no longer completely ignore the talented smaller guys.

Size is important for and helps with velocity and the ability to sustain it during a game, BUT. . . . there's SO much more to pitching than velocity.

Its true slow is slow, a great.pitcher is a great pitcher etc.  But its a matter of what are.the odds.  You know this better than anyone.  If a kid is 5'9" and throwing 97 they will take him and don't care about his size.  But if you have two kids both throwing 89 and one is 5'9" and the other is 6'5" then its a no contest.  History , physics and common sense tell us the 6'5" kid is almost infinitely more likely to throw 95 someday.  The under 6' crowd is drawing from a pool of about 60 or 70 percent of the nation.  The 6'6" crowd draws from about a half or third of a percent.  There is no doubt that a shorter pitcher may be missed now and then but 90% of the time taller is better.

Height is like the heat in Texas and bad hops, you can't do anything about it.

Regarding not seeing more 7' footers, and I would add guys 6-8 and higher, as in a LOT of them. As we all know, baseball is a game of failure and many 12-15 year old baseball players hang up the cleats in those years for more immediately rewarding sports, like basketball, football, or soccer.  I believe baseball's even harder for a 14year old who stands 6-5/160 and is competing against peers who are the more normal 5-8 to 5-11/160 at that age.  Equal physical maturity/puberty etc. but with a lower center of gravity and less moving parts on the 5-8/160. 

 

Son was rarely trusted by LL and early travel coaches to be able to throw a consistent strike.  And he couldn't.  And that always discouraged him.  He only had one early travel coach who never used him to pitch but ALWAYS told him at age 12, "Son, you're gonna be a pitcher!  You're gonna be a pitcher!"  Still, he NEVER used him to pitch, but son always remembered the coach's words and has buoyed him through these years.

 

I think most 14yos who at 6-4 to 6-6, and on their way to being 6-8 to 7-0, find greater fulfillment, success, positive self-esteem, and reward on the basketball court.  So much easier at 14, at 6-4 or 6-5, to play basketball.  Most find being "the BIG man down low" a lot more fun and then bid adieu to the baseball diamond.  Seeing it first hand now with my 6-7 16yo RHP who has yet to hit his "stride" on the mound.  I've tried for years to steer him to Hoops as the short term success is tangible and immediate.  But he stubbornly keeps shunting BASKETBALL to the back burner for PITCHING, where in all honesty due to his height, lankiness, and "boy body" does not afford him a lot of success currently. Still waiting for that "jump" in velo, and "man body."  I nudge him all the time, "Come on man.......what's more fun?  Dunking on a defender in the paint?  Or striking a guy out with a well placed deuce?"  To my chagrin, he still answers, "Striking a guy out." 

 

Gotta say, these past couple years have been a desert as far as success for my son.  He may get to 6-8 but I don't think beyond that.  He is "all-in" on pitching and I will be surprised if he even plays hoops his senior year of HS.  Most "tall guys" stick to the hard court and the thrill of the dunk.  Quick reward with really not a whole lot of athleticism or talent needed at the HS level (generally speaking, no disrespect to the roundballers). 

 

So that's my theory on why you don't see more 7'ers in baseball.  Takes a lot of mental toughness for those guys to "grow" into the game in those adolescent years where it should be most fun.  Most kiss baseball goodbye, and stick to BASKETBALL for the quick rewards.

And let's not forget the obvious reason you don't see more 7'ers in baseball?

 

$$$$.  The athletic 6-7, 15yo and family see the FULL scholarship opportunity for college BASKETBALL much more appealing than the 25% for baseball. And then drop baseball for good sophomore year to go ALL-IN on hoops.

 

Another reason this dad still nudges his 6-7 RHP 2018 to hoops, but with no succe$$.

 

 

#1

I know where you are coming from. Mine was just a little guy Freshman year at 6'1" He wasn't terribly uncoordinated but he wasn't as athletic as his older brothers, he had played basketball in Jr. High and Freshman year. He just never had a desire for the hardwood. He has been playing baseball since he was 5. That's where he has always wanted to be. He was brought up to Varsity to pitch and play first his Soph. Year. He was dominate when whe was on, but very inconsistent. The HC played him like that as well. Very discouraging for son, but he stayed with it. Junior year the pitching coach recommended he be PO. Again the HC used him sparringly and never really let him get time. He threw 17 innings Junior year. Senior year comes along, all the kids he has been playing with since 6th grade, they make it to state. Son has had only 10 inning this year, and no innings in the play offs. Went to the quarter finals. Through it all son was determined to continue. A side note he was seen at a game Sophmore year by a travel team coach, not throwing mind you, just saw him, at the time pushing 6'5". They ended up giving him a chance every summer. They also had a coach that was a LHP that had been in the bigs. Made great strides, and and senior year he ended up with a full ride to a JUCO graduating HS at 6'10". He is now in his Sophmore year at the same JUCO at 6'11" and will sign with an up an coming D1 program next month who has been heavily recruiting him after his summer ball performance in the Jayhawk league. 

He believed in himself and kept working hard to do what it takes. He didn't really start maturing physically until last year, so I am sure your son could do the same if he stays after it.

 

Great story TooTall.  Keep us posted on his progress.  From 6-1 to 6-10?

 

Those are some long and lonely years.  And you're right not many coaches who believe you're the guy for that night.  In 4 years? Sure.  But not tonight.  If you find one coach that will encourage you, you're lucky.  Otherwise, like your boy, he's got to just believe in himself.

Both of your stories have bolstered me.  My son is a 6'3"8th grader.  In fairness I also grew fast and stopped at 6'4".  So he may be that or maybe an inch taller when said and done.  But the years of rapid growth take their toll.  And people expect herculean things.  Nothing is ever enough.  He should be hitting more home runs, should be throwing harder etc.  But I really believe the early advantage goes to the athletic kids who didn't grow as fast.  Then the big kids catch up later.  Can't wait for him to stop growing and start putting his pieces together in a repeatable way.

I thought I might add some statistics to this topic.  This is NCAA D1 statistic from the Top 10 RPI conferences of each of the last 5 years.  The only filter I used was minimum 3 innings pitched per player in a given year.

 

Not a whole lot of difference between the 6'0" & Under category and the taller guys.  Slightly better ERA, slightly worse K/9, similar WHIP, and identical Win/Loss ratio.

 

Height Range	Height	IP	ERA	K/9IP	WHIP	Win/Loss Ratio
6'0" & Under	5'5"	35	4.84	4.08	1.56	n/a
	5'6"	210	3.50	8.02	1.35	1.73
	5'7"	327	3.61	6.80	1.34	2.42
	5'8"	1,103	3.95	7.48	1.35	1.26
	5'9"	3,722	3.73	7.61	1.36	1.66
	5'10"	11,728	4.09	7.09	1.43	1.34
	5'11"	15,659	3.95	7.04	1.38	1.24
	6'0"	32,876	3.89	6.99	1.37	1.24
Total		65,659	3.93	7.07	1.38	1.29
Taller that 6'0"	6'1"	41,781	3.81	7.16	1.36	1.32
	6'2"	45,786	3.81	7.09	1.35	1.32
	6'3"	47,801	3.84	7.01	1.36	1.33
	6'4"	33,245	3.82	6.90	1.35	1.25
	6'5"	16,886	3.85	6.97	1.36	1.26
	6'6"	8,919	4.10	6.52	1.40	1.09
	6'7"	3,587	3.86	6.84	1.36	1.06
	6'8"	1,685	4.05	7.09	1.41	1.20
	6'9"	503	4.00	7.69	1.41	1.47
	6'10"	154	3.32	5.64	1.36	3.67
>6'0" Total		200,346	3.84	7.01	1.36	1.29
Grand Total		266,006	3.86	7.03	1.36	1.29

How tall should a pitcher be? Tall enough to reach the plate at 95+.

I think the stats posted above help demonstrate that at the individual level height does not matter - but you have to understand that the underlying premise is that those guys can all pitch (i.e. they are all pitching D1).  Conversely, I would point out the 75% of all inning pitched were in the heights of 6-0 to 6-4 with 6-1/6-3 being the sweetspot with 50%.  I would argue that a D1 coach is pitching his best pitchers and relies less on projectability than results (draft results probably do include some projectability especially with high school age kids).  While each individual stands on their own, if you had to go with averages than this would suggest that height and and results do correlate.