Pitcher Height

FriarFred posted:

The interesting thing as 2017LHP pointed out is that the majority of innings are pitched by guys 6'-6'4" so if you are one of the taller ones or shorter ones, you had better have something special and if you fall into one of those categories, it would be expected that you are special and you could expect the ERA etc to be similar.  If you look at this as  bell chart, the vast majority of college pitchers (based on innings pitched from chart above) are 6'-6'4" and so from an "opportunity" to pitch in college, the taller pitchers have somewhat of an advantage and if you are not 6'-6'4 you better have that special something.

I think the diminishing numbers for players 6-5 and up are more a function of the scarcity of players that size than diminishing return on the height.  Approximately 16.7% of the adult male population is between 6'-6'4".  Only 1.1% is taller than 6'4".

2017LHPscrewball posted:

...6-6 probably being 95th percentile or something like that (did not look it up).

According to the calculator on https://tall.life/height-perce...ulator-age-country/, which claims to use data from the CDC, 6'-6" puts you in the 99.846 percentile, which means that only 1 person out of 648 is likely to be taller.

MrBumstead posted:

2017LHPscrewball posted:

...6-6 probably being 95th percentile or something like that (did not look it up).

According to the calculator on https://tall.life/height-perce...ulator-age-country/, which claims to use data from the CDC, 6'-6" puts you in the 99.846 percentile, which means that only 1 person out of 648 is likely to be taller.

Self reported baseball height is different than actual height.  

I am waiting for 2020dad to prove the taller pitchers are better pitchers myth. I believe the lochness monster is real. I saw a picture. So not a myth.

I think according to the chart it shows only to pitch players that are 6'1 to 6'3 because that is obviously the key height since they were in the 40K innings, 6' and 6'4 were only in low 30k's Obviously not as good.

I think talent wins out. I think tall kids are given the opportunity first. When I coached, we tried desperately to get this one kid to pitch. He was tall (ended up 6'7") and lefty. Perfect. Except he could not pitch. I fell into the "tall is better syndrome". In the end I looked for so many other things besides height

Sorry on my soap box but to me height is a small factor in a pitcher, but there are so many other attributes that are more important to being a good pitcher.  I think velocity, control, attitude, muscle mass, competitiveness, ability to change speeds, off speed pitches, overall athleticism are all more important than height.  I guess if EVERYTHING else was equal then maybe height but nothing is ever equal. I would take someone superior in one of those areas over someone just taller if all else was equal

Go44dad posted:

MrBumstead posted:

2017LHPscrewball posted:

...6-6 probably being 95th percentile or something like that (did not look it up).

According to the calculator on https://tall.life/height-perce...ulator-age-country/, which claims to use data from the CDC, 6'-6" puts you in the 99.846 percentile, which means that only 1 person out of 648 is likely to be taller.

Self reported baseball height is different than actual height.  

That depends on the person doing the self-reporting.  I'm an engineer by trade, so to me "fluffing" any measurement is akin to blasphemy.

Shoes and hair don't count.

Rounding 6' 6-1/2" to 6' 7" is correct.  Rounding 6' 6-7/16" to 6' 7" is not.

chefmike7777 posted:

I am waiting for 2020dad to prove the taller pitchers are better pitchers myth. I believe the lochness monster is real. I saw a picture. So not a myth.

I think according to the chart it shows only to pitch players that are 6'1 to 6'3 because that is obviously the key height since they were in the 40K innings, 6' and 6'4 were only in low 30k's Obviously not as good.

I think talent wins out. I think tall kids are given the opportunity first. When I coached, we tried desperately to get this one kid to pitch. He was tall (ended up 6'7") and lefty. Perfect. Except he could not pitch. I fell into the "tall is better syndrome". In the end I looked for so many other things besides height

Sorry on my soap box but to me height is a small factor in a pitcher, but there are so many other attributes that are more important to being a good pitcher.  I think velocity, control, attitude, muscle mass, competitiveness, ability to change speeds, off speed pitches, overall athleticism are all more important than height.  I guess if EVERYTHING else was equal then maybe height but nothing is ever equal. I would take someone superior in one of those areas over someone just taller if all else was equal

 

The lochness comment is very cute. It is mind boggling anyone even needs proof of this.  This is the very topic (different thread) that got me on this site in the first place.  It's incredulous to me that people really believe height is irrelevant. If you really like I can dig up my old research but it ends with something like a 6'6" guy being like 500 times more likely to be an mlb pitcher than a 5'10" guy.  there is a height bias in sports - against the tall guys!  Not by scouts of course but by bitter or chip on shoulder dads.  At the youth and high school levels it's amazing the beating a post man can take without getting a call. Then the point guard gets brushes up against and a whistle is blown. And when the big man steps out to help the whistle is blowing even before the 'scrappy' little guy even gets to him. One day a guy pointed out to me...  Ever notice the unusually high percentage of refs that look like they were guards?  Lightbulb...

Looks like a good time to clarify my comments.  From reading above, you will see chefmike7777 say that there are many other attributes necessary to being a good pitcher.  My earlier comment about high D1 was meant to imply that pitchers at these schools generally have all of these attributes to begin with, and then many of them have height.  If a non-tall pitcher has better attributes than his tall counterpart, then he is in fact a better pitcher.  

Perhaps the question is - would "your" pitcher be better if the only difference were more height?  Only two measurable differences would be slightly higher hand speed (longer lever - assuming no slow down in arm speed) and release of the ball 12-18(?) inches closer to the plate (longer stride accompanied by longer body/arm).  All other things equal (that is the key assumption) the taller guy throws a little bit harder (say 3 mph) and the fastball looks faster given the release point (say 2 mph) such that the batter is now facing someone throwing "90" instead of "85". 

I guess what I see from taller pitchers is "most" have that arm drag. Those that don't and have all the other attribute are good pitchers.

2020dad, I need to apologize for calling you out yesterday. I was grumpy and it struck me wrong. I agree 100% on a basketball court. Taller is better and the bigs do not get calls. I have coached basketball for over 15 years. I feel your pain on that one.

On the baseball field, I guess what I see is height probably is a small factor if they can get their arm thru at same speed and if they use their height for length of stride to its fullest ability. What I have seen in 1 plus year of D1 college baseball, plus 2 years of following it closely thru recruiting process is that size is all over the place on pitchers. There are very few 5'9" and under but there are very few 6'5" and up too. The above 6'5" pitchers I have seen are no more effective than the 5'10" pitcher. That is just my opinion from watching about 100 or so games over last few years. Some D1 colleges were highly ranked and some at lower end of D1, most in the lower middle.

To me the king is velocity however it gets achieved, Because it changes reaction time by the batter, then every other attribute goes from there, including height but height (to me) would be way down that list

The best 3 pitchers I can recall (all drafted high in last 2 years) were 6'2", 6'1 and 6"3. but all threw in the mid 90's will electric off speed which is what set them apart. Not their height specifically. It was all the other stuff I mentioned earlier

Son's team weekend starters are 6',6'4", 6'2". Son was #2 until he was hurt. He is 5'11'. Top bullpen guys are 5'8", 5'11", 6'2",6'4". We do have 4 other pitchers all between 6'3 and 6'6", there is, also one that is 5'10" and 5'11". they basically get no innings. So our best pitchers are 5'8" -6'4" and (from playing time) our worst pitchers are 5'10"-6'6". The separating factor IMO is velocity - the 4 starters (including my son) and the 5'11" bullpen guy (closer) throw 90+

Given some of the reasoning behind taller pitchers having an advantage, I've often wondered why wing span hasn't become an important measurable.

I think it is correct for folks to say that Height in and of itself is not a true deciding factor.  It is being used as a proxy for size.  Any professional sport require not only incredible skill but durability to be successful.

Size - Height/weight/muscle ARE differentiators when evaluating prospects because it should allow the player to take more wear and the big frame allows for it to become bigger and stronger with proper training and feeding.  So when factored into pitching the bigger guy is expected to be more durable which has significant value.

None of that is a substitute for being able to hit spots, being competitive, changing speeds etc.  But if all those kinds of things are equal the big guy gets the nod. 

If I were a GM getting ready to shell out $250MM for 7 years to a 29 year old free agent pitcher and I had two guys in front of me - one 6'3" 220lbs and the other was 5'10" 175lbs - if they are basically the same guy on the mound - size is getting my money.

I understand size v height. It is interesting to me about durability. Durability in the case of length of inning pitched over a season, maybe even an outing. But I question durability as far as injury. Seems like a large % of pitchers are getting hurt at all levels and size is not the overriding factor but velocity. Is there any study on size and injury to elbow/ shoulder?

There is one more advantage to height that hasn't been mentioned here, but we've heard it talked about a lot with my 2016 (and seen mentioned on the PG scouting notes of just about every tall pitcher that I've ever read).

(Full disclosure - I am admittedly biased since my 2016 is 6-7.)

Unless the pitcher uses a "drop-and-drive" approach or throws sidearm/submarine, height creates a sharper downward plane on the pitch, especially if it is down in the zone, which creates a sharper angle between the swing path and the trajectory of the ball.  The sharper that angle => the less time the ball spends on the path of the sweet spot =>the more precise the batter's timing has to be to barrel the ball => the more weak contact and swings-and-misses the pitcher produces.

It is admittedly a very fine difference in the pitch plane of of a 6-4 pitcher and a 5-10 pitcher.  (Spitballing a few numbers I came up with something on the order of 0.5 degree.)  But as they pointed out in Bull Durham, the difference between a 0.300 hitter and a 0.250 hitter in the majors is 1 base hit per week.  So little differences do matter.

I know that probably sounds like hokum to many.  But remember that back in the 60s when they wanted to increase scoring (after Bob Gibson's 1.12 ERA season), they didn't move the mound farther from the plate (which would have effectively reduced every pitcher's apparent velo). Instead, they lowered the mound 2 inches from 12 inches to 10 inches, making every pitcher effectively 2 inches shorter.  And it worked.

One other point to consider - of all the general attributes that can give a player an advantage in any given sport (speed, strength, etc.), height is the only one that I can think of that isn't diminished by fatigue.  Fatigue is the great equalizer -- it slows you down, makes you weaker, adversely affects your mental approach and focus, and diminishes your coordination and timing.  But it doesn't ever make you shorter.

Lowering the mound is more an effect of changing the amount of leverage the pitcher can gather from the ground, increase the velocity of their leg push down a hill.  Think of running down a steep hill vs running down a slight decline.  A steep hill will increase your top running speed regardless of height.  

Taller pitchers do get a slight increase in their ability to use acceleration due to gravity on the ball from a higher release point and have a longer reach towards home plate.  

I wonder if the durability aspect is true though, as the longer lever arms should throw the ball faster, but at greater torque force on the endpoints (elbow, shoulder).

Just for fun, here are the heights of the pitchers at my son's D1.  Their pitching coach/RC played at this school and pitched in the minors back in his playing days....he may be 5'8 with shoes on.

RHP 

6'  only 1.....my son,   6'1 they have 2,   6'2 there are 3,  6'3 they have 2,  6'4 they have 2 and one 6'7. 

LHP

1 gun at 5'11 and 3 who are 6'1

8 guys 6'2 or taller out of 15 total

Based on this week, their 4 starters are 5'11 and 6'1 lefties and the righties are 6' and 6'1.  Closer is 6'4 RHP

At another Ohio D1, where a son's friend plays, they have 20 pitchers listed on their roster.  16 are 6'2 and taller....and my son's friend who is 6'6 is on a medical redshirt.  That's 17 out of 21....big difference from where my son's team is

roothog66 posted:

Given some of the reasoning behind taller pitchers having an advantage, I've often wondered why wing span hasn't become an important measurable.

Agree 100%. While wingspan and height are usually correlative in nature there are of course exceptions.  Maybe you have a 5'11" guy with a 6'3" wingspan and a 6'2" guy with a 6'3" wingspan.  Other than a slight advantage on the downward angle of the pitch (very minor factor) the two should have an even physical chance.   

And to chef - no worries.  Believe me I am the last person who should call somebody out for a grumpy day!

allenb posted:

Lowering the mound is more an effect of changing the amount of leverage the pitcher can gather from the ground, increase the velocity of their leg push down a hill.  Think of running down a steep hill vs running down a slight decline.  A steep hill will increase your top running speed regardless of height.  

Taller pitchers do get a slight increase in their ability to use acceleration due to gravity on the ball from a higher release point and have a longer reach towards home plate.  

I wonder if the durability aspect is true though, as the longer lever arms should throw the ball faster, but at greater torque force on the endpoints (elbow, shoulder).

Today has a one inch drop for every foot from the rubber.  In order for an advantage that drop would have to be steeper.  Makes no difference (to velocity) how high the mound is.  Most stride 6 to 7 feet.  So they don't get all the way to 'field level' by the end of stride.  Given the same mound area maybe an extra 1 3/8 inch drop over the course of a stride.  Enough to effectively increase velocity?  Doubt it. But open minded at the same time.  I think the decent angle theory is much more plausible. 

Good thing I said I am open minded!  Found this.  And didn't realize they dropped mound 5 inches not 2.  Big difference.  Enjoy.  

http://m.mlb.com/news/article/...duce-elbow-surgeries

2020dad posted:

Good thing I said I am open minded!  Found this.  And didn't realize they dropped mound 5 inches not 2.  Big difference.  Enjoy.  

http://m.mlb.com/news/article/...duce-elbow-surgeries

I'm pretty sure Nolan Ryan said he would prefer pitching off a flat mound in his book "Nolan Ryans Pitching Bible". 

MrBumstead posted:

FriarFred posted:

The interesting thing as 2017LHP pointed out is that the majority of innings are pitched by guys 6'-6'4" so if you are one of the taller ones or shorter ones, you had better have something special and if you fall into one of those categories, it would be expected that you are special and you could expect the ERA etc to be similar.  If you look at this as  bell chart, the vast majority of college pitchers (based on innings pitched from chart above) are 6'-6'4" and so from an "opportunity" to pitch in college, the taller pitchers have somewhat of an advantage and if you are not 6'-6'4 you better have that special something.

I think the diminishing numbers for players 6-5 and up are more a function of the scarcity of players that size than diminishing return on the height.  Approximately 16.7% of the adult male population is between 6'-6'4".  Only 1.1% is taller than 6'4".

Yes. also you still Need to have those fast twitch fibre muscles and the coordination to learn elite mechanics.

so the number of guys who are 6"4+ AND have enough fast twitch muscles AND are coordinated and flexible enough to learn high Level mechanics is quite small. Also if a guy is 6"5+ it is very likely he gets recruited to Play Basketball if he is athletic.

Durability is definitely a factor.  With position players being above 230 increases the risk of injury because you run and jump with that weight but as a pitcher the increased load on the lower body is not a big factor  it the height and weight means you have to be a little less extreme in stride length,  torque and hip shoulder separation to get the same velocity which lessens the load a little over time. 

I have often read in prospects reports that a smaller pitcher projects more as a reliever due to size. 

Dominik85 posted:

 

Yes. also you still Need to have those fast twitch fibre muscles and the coordination to learn elite mechanics.

 

so the number of guys who are 6"4+ AND have enough fast twitch muscles AND are coordinated and flexible enough to learn high Level mechanics is quite small. Also if a guy is 6"5+ it is very likely he gets recruited to Play Basketball if he is athletic.

I've made this point before on this site: yes the athletic 6-3 to 6-5 teens, and most definitely the vast majority of 6-5 to 6-7 teens, end up on the hard court for a multitude of reasons.  Baseball in those 13-16 age years is especially brutal for the tall lanky, still growing into his body type kid, getting used to those size 14s during tryouts for baseball, they are seen as awkward, even the athletic ones.  So like a lot of kids they head to basketball for immediate rewards and praise and PT from basketball coach.  Mom and Dad also do the math and encourage Jr. to play hoops as basketball has usually 11/15 FULL scholarships.   And of course basketball has cheerleaders.  All no-brainers really. 

And logical reasons why , "so the number of guys who are 6"4+ AND have enough fast twitch muscles AND are coordinated and flexible enough to learn high Level mechanics is quite small. Also if a guy is 6"5+ it is very likely he gets recruited to Play Basketball if he is athletic."

And for the record, that handful of elite, athletic 6-6, 17-year olds (2017s) who don't go to basketball at age 15 for the quick rewards in the post? 

They are all committed to Vanderbilt as pitchers. 

I've posted this as a comment on this thread and others, but let me put as a question.  

On average, how much fudge is in the listed roster heights of pitchers on college rosters?

1"

Go44dad posted:

I've posted this as a comment on this thread and others, but let me put as a question.  

On average, how much fudge is in the listed roster heights of pitchers on college rosters?

The length of their cleats on a hard floor.

My sub-6 footer just got his first win last night in his first college start. Frodo......Keep the dream alive!

Shoveit4Ks posted:

My sub-6 footer just got his first win last night in his first college start. Frodo......Keep the dream alive!

Congratulations to Ryley! Great job!

http://www.clemsontigers.com/V...&DB_OEM_ID=28500

Really nice clip from the Clemson website.  That had to be exciting for all.  Did you get to see it in person?

Yup...kinda funny how i found out. He sent me a text at like 12:35am the night before. I was asleep (i'm old). My wife has been battling insomnia over the last year or so and tends to get on her  phone/social media to kill time  in between naps. She shakes me, excited and is "yelling or so it seemed/felt" at 4am, Ryley is starting tomorrow, Ryley is starting tomorrow. I thought we were getting robbed. 

We made an executive decision and drove up separately (i had a meeting south of Atlanta that added several hours to my trip) and made the 6-7 hours trip to Cullowhee (beautiful location for a school) and watched his 1st start. I think we got home at 1:35am this morning. It was so worth it. Started roughed but found his rhythm, went 6.1 and got a win. Bottom of the order really delivered and although it got sideways a bit late, Tigers were able to get the last 3 outs.

Super proud.

Sounds like a memorable story on your end also.  My only question is - given the 12:35 am text, when was he told he would be starting?  Gotta believe the coach told him a few hours earlier than that.  Hopefully next time he gets a start he can give you a little more time to prepare.

Watched the clip, awesome for him and you guys, congrats.  I hardly recognized Riley with the haircut . . . .

Great job Riley.  I was looking and all of the people named in the game's article were 6'0 and under.  I realize the others were position players, but just goes to show you, persist with practice, focus, develop your skills, and forget about the things you can't control (i.e. height).

Please do not refer to Sonny when you make your height comments... he's a freak....

of course there are successfull short pitchers, especially in the bullpen but also some Starters.

Johnny cueto is 5"11 and he had 2 CYA top5 finishes. lincecum is also 5"11 as was Pedro Martinez who might be the most dominant starter ever in his prime.

however the majority is taller and the bias towards height gets only bigger.

but the most important Thing is skill of course. if you throw 95 with command you will get chances no matter how tall you are. you just Need to perform right now because you don't have that projectability sign on you.