Pitcher Projectability

You will find many success stories where a shorter type player succeeds on the field at less than 90 MPH but to be perfectly honest they cannot have bad days in front of the scouts because they have less room to make mistakes. A tall guy throwing 90 can make more mistakes and get away with them in terms of location than a medium to short guy throwing 85. I know we're talking basically 5 MPH difference but in terms of hitting that is a HUGE jump when it comes to being able to time it.

Overall any good hitter can time any speed fastball if they see it enough and this is where you have to be a pitcher although you got the cheese. But if you can pitch then the harder thrower can throw a 3-2 fastball out of the zone and probably get a guy to chase whereas a guy throwing 85 will walk the guy on that same pitch because he has the time to recognize and take the pitch.

As for being taller that's a plus because of the angle the ball is coming in. The pitcher is already 10 inches higher than the batter and if you can put a pitcher who is 6'5" on the mound the ball will be around 8 feet higher than the batter once the pitcher's arm is at the height of his delivery. That downward angle is tough to hit when it is coming in there at 90 plus MPH. The easiest fastball to hit is the flat one and a shorter pitcher won't be reaching the 8 plus feet that a tall pitcher will. So the angle is less steep and therefore the fastball will be more flat.

What all that flat and sharp angle stuff means is that the steeper the pitch the less time the ball stays in the hitting zone at the plate. This example is probably going to be an epic fail but try imagining hitting a baseball coming in at this angle / versus a baseball coming in at this angle -. Obviously any pitcher will have a downward angle to their pitch due to the mound height but I'm hoping you get my point.

As for your situation - honestly we can't tell you anything because we haven't seen your son. Genetics will play a huge factor. Are you and / or your wife tall? Are any other family members tall in either side? One thing you can't coach is height. You can do all kinds of stuff to increase MPH but you can't make them taller. That actually can be a problem because there are guys who look ONLY for tall guys that light up the radar gun. Your son could be mowing down hitters left and right but he won't get noticed due to his height and probably MPH. But the other pitcher could be 6'5 throwing 90 plus and getting lit up like a christmas tree and he will get noticed. Is it fair? Not really but it is what it is.

You said your son has gained 2 MPH a year for the past few years. That's great and he needs to keep working on that but understand he will stop making increases. Every arm has a ceiling as to how hard and fast they throw but each player has to work his butt off in order to reach that ceiling.

Here's my advice - you have two things that scouts / coaches really look for and A) height - you have no control over and B) speed - you have very little control over. Since that is what it is learn to pitch, keep working to reach the MPH ceiling and get guys out. He may not get the attention and accolades like the 6'5 guy but if he's getting outs someone will take a chance on him and that's the name of the game - get on the field and compete.

I mean Jamie Moyer has been pitching for a long time and you can probably catch him without a mitt.

quote:

You said your son has gained 2 MPH a year for the past few years. That's great and he needs to keep working on that but understand he will stop making increases. Every arm has a ceiling as to how hard and fast they throw but each player has to work his butt off in order to reach that ceiling.

Coach2709
I know you may not have the ancer to this but. What are the signs of a kid/adult getting to there ceiling.I know our youth will have a ceiling for there age. But dose most reach it in SH,college,or is on past that. I hope this make sence. As my son pitching coach said "give then pizza and they drive it in the ground, give then one up and you see it in the parking lot"

Coach2709,
Well done!

Coach2709,
Thank you for thoughtful response and good advice. I did not think about the fact that the ball stays in the strike zone longer. My son was 5'6" as a freshman throwing 77, 5'9" as a sophomore throwing 81, and 5'10" as a junior throwing 84-85. He has his sights set on 88 MPH by spring. He has had some pretty good success over the last couple of years but definitely needs to work on becoming a better "pitcher." I don't think his height has been a disadvantage so far when competing, but I think it has been in terms of recruiting. I am 6'3" and my wife is about 5'6", so he may have a little growth left.

Coach May has this one down pat, if he shows up he can give the facts. I am paraphrasing a bit but he has had kids come into his program throwing 86 and leave at 87, and others throwing in the 70’s leaving in the 90’s. Too many variables to predict. Work hard and it will be what it will be.

Thanks TPM and no problem masterofnone

gindog - you're pretty right in that I don't know the answer but not sure anybody does. Each person is different and you reach the ceiling when you stop gaining velocity. Thing is you just sort of end up there.

What makes it tough is that you can reach a plateau without reaching the ceiling. In other words a pitcher can be working hard and let's say is hitting 89 MPH pretty consistently. But his ceiling might be 94 MPH and he could reach that if he tweaks his workout or puts a little more time in.

Also, I think the ceiling is reached when you reach adulthood IF you keep working hard at it correctly. A high school kid should never reach their ceiling due to the fact they are still growing and maturing. They may reach a plateau but never the ceiling.

Let me give this example - I also coach football and I can't tell you how many times we have a kid who's got great technique and works like a dog in the weightroom but his physical size is a limitation. We obviously get the most out of them but they graduate and we seem them two years later when they are a sophomore in college and 20 years old. They have become a beast. Great frame with thickness and tremendous strength and speed. They would NOW be the perfect guy at football but they didn't hit their maturity until they got out of school. I see the same thing for a pitcher - get th most out of them in high school but if they keep at it when they hit the last growth spurt then they can reach their ceiling.

I hope that answers your question or at least gets you in the neighborhood.

BOF you are so right in that Coach May has the info. I've read what he's put before about this situation and he's right on the money.

quote:

Originally posted by coach2709:
I mean Jamie Moyer has been pitching for a long time and you can probably catch him without a mitt.

Jamie Moyer is 5'10" and threw 90 in h.s. As for shorter pitchers throwing "flatter" fastballs this has been addressed before and the angle difference is actually less than 1%.

A taller pitcher may be projected to throw harder, that's true, but the baseball world is replete with taller pitchers that never amounted to a hill of beans.

As for predicting velocity I would measure tenacity.

I'm not a big fan of predicting a player's potential height based on genetics. I'm just under 6'3", my wife is 5'7", and my 17 year old daughter is just under 5'10"...yet, my college freshman son is barely over 5'11". His feet are bigger than mine. His hands are bigger than mine...but I'm pretty sure he's done growing!? I have two nephews at 6'3" and 6'4" respectively, their dad is only 5'11"...genetics from mom and dad? I doubt it.

I had the pleasure of meeting BOF and RyanRod23 last year in Arizona. You know what? Their son's tower over them (sorry guys, it's true! ). So where do the genetics come into play? Is it from the paternal side...or the maternal side? I always joke with my other half and blame her for my son's lack of height , as her Sicilian dad is barely over 5'8".

I would love for my son to have my nephews height...but the bottom line is that you can't control your height. You're given the hand that God dealt you, now play the game! There are several great pitchers in the MLB dealing at 6'1" and below...how bad do you want it?

I would like to chime in and also state that pitcher height has relatively no effect on the amount of "downward angle" they come to the plate with. A gew inches un height means almost no gain in downward angle over a pitcher a few inches shorter. Arm slot pretty much decides how much downward angle a pitcher can get. A 5'10" pitcher with an 11:00 arm slot will get better downward angle than a 6'5" guy with a 9:00 arm slot. Different pitchers also pitch from different spots on the pitchers plate which gives some more side angle and others less sideward angle. So, I am not sold at all with height of a pitcher equating to "better angles". Pitchers height has everything to do with being able to generate velocity easier- the longer lever of the arm doesn't have to work as hard to generate velocity and thus, it makes them more projectable velocity-wise.

Pitcher release point is important, no doubt, the taller the pitcher and the faster he throws, the shorter the distance travels to the hitter, the less time hitter has to adjust.

Success has a lot to do with what you throw as well, if velocity wasn't important why are so many of the guys in the minor leagues hitting 90+ or above? They push the cr ap out of pitchers to hit high numbers, then they work backwards (cut back) once you see them in ML, they have dialed down.

Sometimes you come across a player who hits triple digits and has no idea what's going on, but reality is that guy gets more chances than the guy getting guys out with lower velocity. I have been watching a successful milb pitcher for years now, tall (very), just hitting higher velo (90) and finally after all of these years a call up (gorund balls increased), but he sits. It's all pretty really crazy, here he has gotten guys out at the AAA, an allstar for years but they say he won't stick because of his velocity unless he keeps it on the ground. And just for anyone's information, he was not drafted out of college but a FA. Good example if you can't blow ut past them you better have them make weak contact.

It's all pretty crazy, that's why no matter what the pitchers height, which he can't control, his primary goal should be developing his FB, which he can.

Velocity trumps over everything in pro ball, I myself never beleived it, but that's the way it is.

I do agree with the angle not always being of greater importance, but the pitcher blowing it 97 out of the zone and producing a swing and miss to the hitter is much more likely to happen than the pitcher creating a better angle.

Can I chime in, what about arm length/ leg length, not just height?

I would assume the pitcher with a longer-than-typical arm obviously has more projectability. (Even just because his release point is closer to the plate, right? Plus, the longer lever = more velo.

And, longer legs = more power?

Maybe PG should start listing wingspan? (Just kidding, just kidding).

Certain body types lend themselves to certain endeavors...like Michael Phelps appears genetically engineered to become a swimmer.

Interesting conversation.

quote:

Originally posted by BaseballmomandCEP:
Maybe PG should start listing wingspan? (Just kidding, just kidding).

Actually, left heel to right fingertip would be more helpful than height or weight, for a pitcher.

There’s certainly been a lot of baseball dogma expressed so far, with some of it being very true and based on factual evidence, and some being long held beliefs based on little factual evidence. But the long and short of it is this. Whether or not its true that bigger/taller/stronger actually determines pitcher success because of abilities is immaterial. The real fact is, at the lowest level a coach has to pick kids to pitch, chances are he’s gonna “TEND” to pick the biggest/tallest/strongest available because it’s the “normal” mindset.

Sure you’ll find some coaches who are result oriented, but most will choose based on other things like size, familiarity, or their own evaluation of the players because there is no statistical data to help them. And that same mindset goes on as the levels increase. What that means to the players is, not all players will be given equal opportunity, and opportunity is what its all about.

Baseball skills require that things learned on the practice field or from sources like books, videos, or lessons are put into practice in games. Trouble is, there’s only so many opportunities available, so not all players will get the opportunity to pitch, even if they want it. Too many other things, the most important of which is winning the game, make most coaches unwilling to give equal opportunities to demonstrate ability.

So when the players go to the next level, what’s the 1st thing heard on the tryout field? Usually its, “Who are the pitchers?” What people don’t understand is, that’s really a way to keep intact the prejudice established in the prior level. Kids change and develop at much different rates, so when you go from say the 7-9 levels, to the 10-12 levels, it might be entirely different players who will possess the abilities to pitch the best, but no coach stats out at ground zero if he has players with experience.

And that’s how the dogma of “biggest/tallest/strongest” is best gets started and is perpetuated. It is only result oriented to the point of the players already considered pitchers are allowed to be evaluated, with fewer and fewer players in the “club” with every succeeding level.

Those who like to point out that the biggest/tallest/strongest tend to be the “best”, sometimes forget how difficult it would be for “little guys” to succeed given the huge bias against them. Its no wonder the biggest/tallest/strongest are the most successful, since they’re the ones getting the lion’s share of the opportunities.

What makes a pitcher projectable, measureable and effective? That is the million dollar question and it is virtually impossible to take the round peg and fit it into the square hole which is what projecting any talent in any sport is. You never know but try to use experience to make a best guess judgement. The OP was asking a general question and I gave a general answer.

For those who are thinking a shorter pitcher will get noticed just like a taller pitcher please stop kidding yourself. Coaches and scouts look for two things and work backward (I like that analogy TPM). Those two things will be MPH first and height second.

We really should never use MLB players as examples of what they are looking for in terms of projection because they made it. They have proven they got a mish mash of the whole package - they have the velocity, the height and the overall quality they get guys out. I don't care who you are if you can get guys out there will be a spot for your somewhere but if you're not tall or lighting up the radar gun you will have to be proactive in being seen by more scouts and be effective in more outings than the tall power arm.

I realize Jamie Moyer was short when he got started but he got noticed on the 90 MPH fastball. Now that he's the crafty soft tosser he sticks around because he gets people out.

So is he the best case for the short pitcher who can make it or

is he the best case that a strong arm gets noticed or

is he the best case for getting people out

or is he the best case for working hard and taking advantage of any opportunity given

You can use anybody you want as an example of this guy making it over such and such but the ultimate goal is "Can you get guys out?" If you can do that in front of the right people enough then you will get a chance but if you have the attributes that they don't have to coach - height and arm strength - then you will attract interest more quickly.

Take it for what it's worth but a quick google search has the average MLB height for a pitcher at 6'3 so that shows they want the taller guys. The average MPH for a pitcher is 90 overall so that shows they want guys who can hump it up there. The flip side is to get those averages there are guys who are shorter than 6'0 and throw slower than 90 but they have that ability to get people out which is what got them to MLB.

So what about all this genetic talk? Is it a huge factor? Depends on who it is because some guys want to see how the family looks and some don't care because they are going to take who they have and work with them. What makes a pitcher tall with a strong arm? I have no earthly idea because I teach history and barely understand genetics. I do know that to truly understand genetic make up if someone is tall or not you have to see the whole family. Sometimes a dominant gene is prevelant in a family and everyone is tall or a recessive gene will make a kid from a tall family short. These can show up from that great grandfather you never met but hear stories about. All genetics do is give you an idea of what will be and is not a definitive answer to how tall you will be. I took after my uncle more than my dad. I'm six feet tall and my uncle was 6'3 while my dad was 5'10 on a good day and my mom is 5'4 (I know there are some jokes in there but please I'm sensitive LOL). But I know on my mom's side there are some tall relatives. Genetics is just a soup that you throw together and hope for good things. I played college ball with a guy who was short and his dad joked all the time he wanted him to marry a basketball or volleyball player so they could phase the shortness out of their family.

As for angle the ball comes into the hitting zone the difference is minimal in terms of space but in terms of making solid contact it's huge. A few inches here or there (or degrees of angle) makes a world of difference. Obviously if you take a 6'5 guy throwing over the top and compare him to a 5'10 guy over the top and trace the path the pitches come into the zone the two lines will be right on top of each other but that difference can be huge when a hitter steps in. But this isn't what makes a pitcher effective. Arm slot, movement on pitches, location and changing of speeds keeps guys off and gets outs. If it was about angle of approach then we would NEVER see shorter guys pitch because it is a flatter plane of approach. But without all the other stuff the taller guy would get lit up on fastball alone no matter his angle.

Go back and look at BOF's post and read his last sentence. That is what truly matters - take care of what you can take care of and let the rest fall into place as it should be. That's all a person has control of. But in the grand scheme of things a taller pitcher with a strong arm will get more looks and chances than a short guy who throws softer. It doesn't mean the short / soft guy can't get a chance but he better prove fairly definitively he can get people out. They can teach people how to pitch but they can't teach height and only so much they can do with velocity.

Overall this all comes down to that pitching is two totally different things - 1) projecability (what you tools you have that they don't have to teach) and 2) ability (getting people out)

All great posts....The only thing that I have noticed in HS is that while the shorter pitchers may have the same velo as the taller pitchers, the taller pitchers seem to provide the velo with less effort, and look more fluid in their delivery. The shorter pitchers tend to over throw to get the velo, and seem to tire quicker. JMO

Observation…to understand pitcher movement up levels of play...you have to separate the subjective and the objective. And the reality and the dream.

As much as we would like to think so, no one plays or moves levels completely because of performance. Someone has to make that decision and that decision is subjective as a result of the human factor. We all know kids with great stats who were left behind and we all know kids with horrific stats and bad outings that get chosen to play and move up. This is because the guy (recruiter, scout) with the power to move them up valued whatever characteristic that they brought...and that decision is not always the obvious, or the rational…or what we think or what we might want it to be…or what our son’s bring. It is based upon the value system that the decision makers hold than it is anything else. The question is what that value system holds…arm angle, or build, or height, or rhythm, or control, or pitch selection, or a personal opinion of "project ability". For that reason any discussion of moving up has to be based as much upon trying to understand the subjective thought process of the decision makers as it is the physical realities. We make be able to make a completely rational and provable case for the physical reasons for the success of tall, high arm angle pitchers...but if the decision makers "think the world is flat" our proof doesn't amount to a single scholarship, draft pick or a call up. In order to understand the "flavor of the week"...You have to see the trends and the biases (no matter how irrationals we might think them…in the class of people who make those decisions.

Here is a great example...in the thread we have decided...that tall pitchers and the resulting angles produced are of great value and sought out. Not so fast...Look at the Giants lefties, outside of Zito they all throw from a relatively low arm angle...somebody in the organization with the power to make that decision consciously made that choice…telling us that our science and our logic is irrelevant. We have proven that "the world is not flat"...and they, who have the power to make the maps disagree so the world remains flat. You are the high arm angle lefty in the Giants organization when that regime comes in and your physical "truth' suddenly becomes bunk. Same thing happens when a new college coach comes in. Has as much to do with style and opinion and personal power than it does science.

I think that you can rank the characteristics.

It is simply hard to argue with a speed gun. Reality is that Velocity is the most objective measure of a pitcher. It is also the rarest commodity. It is also the most universally accepted by decision makers as a skill for getting hitters out, either as straight fastball and/or for increasing the action of the other pitches. Although it waxes and wanes some, it has always remained #1. As a result is the one most constant objective in an otherwise discussion. It is simply hard to argue with a speed gun. As a result the higher the number, the more chances and the more opportunity given. We can all give examples of slower pitchers who have beaten the odds, but that is exactly what they have done beaten the odds...and the odds are simply horrific...and much worse...for slower pitchers.

The second closest thing to a universal Fact is that there are fewer lefties so that market is smaller. More chances. Better odds.

Beyond that everything else is really subjective. High arm angles better and more appreciated? Not so fast...Look at the Giants lefties, outside of Zito they all throw from a relatively low arm angle...somebody in the organization with the power to make that decision consciously made that choice. You’re the high arm angle lefty…you and your rational logic are done with that organization.

Look at Lincecum and Strasburg…whole lotta smart baseball people tore their mechanics to shreds…they are logical rational and widely held beliefs that those two have huge mechanical flaws, and dangers…on the other hand everyone is looking for the nest one of those or trying to create/modify another pitcher to those mechanics. They changed the conversation…changed the things that “everybody” knew.

In the end if you are velocity, height and handedness challenged it is possible but don’t look to logic, rationality, or science…as has been said here…take care of what you can…be the best that you can be…and know that fact to the depth of your soul…that is the first and most important step in making any dream come true…that is the reality that you can take care of…with all due respect, quit speculating and go out and work on improving.

44
.

quote:

Originally posted by bacdorslider:
...The only thing that I have noticed in HS is that while the shorter pitchers may have the same velo as the taller pitchers, the taller pitchers seem to provide the velo with less effort, and look more fluid in their delivery. The shorter pitchers tend to over throw to get the velo, and seem to tire quicker. JMO

And what do you use to measure the effort and fluidity, or how soon a pitcher gets “tired”? This is where the mistakes get made, IMHO. There is no way to measure any of those things objectively, at least not during a game or even a practice. So people use the things they have at their disposal to make a subjective judgment.

One of those things is what they believe to be true, whether it is or not. IOW, if you have the belief that small guess will tire more quickly than large ones, and there’s no way to objectively measure it, you’ll tend to see all small guys as tiring more easily, even if the opposite was true.

Great thread - still one unanswered question - How tall is Stats4Gnats?

I think Observer pretty much has it nailed. As much as the guys getting paid to do it want to pontificate, the truth of the matter is, a lot of moving into the higher levels of the game has to do a lot more with luck and circumstance of birth and environment, than skills or abilities.

The same isn’t that that’s just the way it is, the shame is, no one will ever know how many fantastic pitchers were ignored for no reason other than they were of smaller stature. It can be compared to any other bias or prejudice. I can still remember when players of any color other than white were rare in the ML, and it sure didn’t have anything to do with their skills.

I know the facts, and understand them. I don’t happen to like them, and I try very hard not to be prejudiced that way, but I understand the system. What really grinds my gears though, is when people try to justify the prejudice, and its all because they don’t have the capacity to do things any other way with the same confidence, even if that confidence is unwarranted.

masterofnone.

Based on nothing more than the information you have provided, I would say your son is "probably" very projectable. Ai least, he projects to throw at a higher velocity.

However, there are other factors involved... Arm action, Arm speed, Feel for pitching, Body type (not always the same as Ht/Wt), etc. Also, there are other important things to consider that deal with "makeup".

Truth is, if all pitchers had the same size and threw from the same angle, hitters would love it.

quote:

Originally posted by YesReally:
Great thread - still one unanswered question - How tall is Stats4Gnats?

My feelings about prejudice have never been about me, or understanding the way life works. It’s always been about people whizzing in my face and trying to tell me its raining.

quote:

Originally posted by Stats4Gnats:
And what do you use to measure the effort and fluidity, or how soon a pitcher gets “tired”? This is where the mistakes get made, IMHO. There is no way to measure any of those things objectively, at least not during a game or even a practice. So people use the things they have at their disposal to make a subjective judgment.

One of those things is what they believe to be true, whether it is or not. IOW, if you have the belief that small guess will tire more quickly than large ones, and there’s no way to objectively measure it, you’ll tend to see all small guys as tiring more easily, even if the opposite was true.

From what I have seen, and you are correct I have the belief, that smaller pitchers tend to over throw and thus lose velo and control sooner than taller bigger pitchers.... are you trying to tell me that you cannot tell when a pitcher is getting tired and losing his effectiveness? I assume you have been a coach at some point since most on this board have been?

quote:

Originally posted by bacdorslider:
From what I have seen, and you are correct I have the belief, that smaller pitchers tend to over throw and thus lose velo and control sooner than taller bigger pitchers....

Why do you feel that way? Have you kept track of it somehow, or are you just speaking from perspective?

I’ve been into the various aspects of pitching for more than a few years now, and as yet have never seen any kind of statistic that measures overthrowing and loss of velocity relative to the stature of the pitcher. Heck, its pretty rare that anyone actually tracks velocities of every pitch until you get into the very upper levels of the sport. So its not that I’m saying your belief is wrong, I’m saying that before I’d depend on it, I’d want to see at least a little bit of proof that supports it.

quote:

are you trying to tell me that you cannot tell when a pitcher is getting tired and losing his effectiveness?

Hmmm. Can I tell when a pitcher is getting tired and/or losing his effectiveness? If I’m very familiar with a given pitcher, including his history, I can generally spot when fatigue begins to affect his delivery. But, I can do that much less accurately with pitchers I’m not familiar with, and the less familiar I am with them, the less accurately I determine how much they’re being affected.

Effectiveness is a totally different issue to me though, because there’s so much difference from one person to the next in how they believe effectiveness is defined. I’ve been pretty much convinced that as long as a pitcher is getting hitters out and not giving up runs because of what he’s doing, he’s effective. Others try to define it by things like strike percentage, whether they’re getting a lot or 1st pitch strikes, GBO/FBO ratio, WHIP, whether they’re giving up solidly hit balls, and the ways it could be defined go on and on.

But again, I’ve never seen or heard of anyone documenting that in relation to a player’s stature.

quote:

I assume you have been a coach at some point since most on this board have been?

Well, I have been a coach of sorts, but what does that have to do with anything? Are you saying that no one other than a person who’s coached is capable of having incite into these kinds of issues? And would it matter if I was a head coach, a pitching coach, a hitting coach, or if any coaching I’d done was at the LL, HS, college, or pro LL?

I don’t mean to get defensive, but usually when someone asks a question like that, I find what they’re doing is challenging someone’s credibility.

This thread makes me happy that my son is a 6' 3" tall LHP who is still growing. Take any advantage we can get!

quote:

Originally posted by redsox8191:
This thread makes me happy that my son is a 6' 3" tall LHP who is still growing. Take any advantage we can get!

I have to put my kid on the rack every night.

quote:

Originally posted by PGStaff:
...there are other factors involved... Arm action, Arm speed, Feel for pitching, Body type (not always the same as Ht/Wt), etc...

PG,
This brings up a sidenote question...
Is it generally considered better for a pitcher to throw with effort or effortlessly?

quote:

Originally posted by Stats4Gnats:
Its no wonder the biggest/tallest/strongest are the most successful, since they’re the ones getting the lion’s share of the opportunities.

I agree with the above.

Actually taller pitchers who throw with lots of velocity sometimes have a tough time keeping in control, they are NOT always as accurate. They get a lot more time trying to become accurate than the shorter pitcher throwing not has hard.

quote:

Originally posted by TPM:I agree with the above.

Actually taller pitchers who throw with lots of velocity sometimes have a tough time keeping in control, they are NOT always as accurate. They get a lot more time trying to become accurate than the shorter pitcher throwing not has hard.

Exactly! And because of that, the shorter guy doesn’t get the opportunity improve himself, perhaps show the coaches his skills are superior, or maybe allow him to improve his velocity. Some of the reason for that is, the built-in prejudice that the hi-velo guy will always be superior, even if his command or skills aren’t as good as the lower velo player. Trouble is, I don’t know that that’s quantifiable, or true.

STATS, being short doesn't limit your chances to pitch if you throw hard enough and have stuff.

Of course scouts will project a taller pitcher to throw harder than a shorter pitcher, there's no doubt about that. But the old arguments that shorter pitchers can't throw hard, break down more, or get hit because of flat fastballs is pure nonsense. Show me the stats.. they don't exist. They hit my kid at a .202 clip this summer.

There is a valid argument that a taller pitcher should be able to release closer to the plate, but many shorter pitchers negate that with a longer stride. I know my son does.

So that leaves the fastball. Do you got it or not?

If any parent of a shorter pitcher is worried about this stuff I can only suggest to you I've been there done that and it isn't worth your time worrying about it. Focus on the fastball and it all is meaningless.

quote:

Originally posted by Bum:
STATS, being short doesn't limit your chances to pitch if you throw hard enough and have stuff.

Well Bum, you can believe whatever you like, but there’s absolutely no reason in the world at the amateur levels a pitcher’s worth should be dependent on his velocity. It should be nothing other than results. I understand when one starts talking about how projectable a pitcher is for purposes of a pro contract, but there aren’t any contracts being offered to LLrs, or even HS players prior to them becoming eligible for the draft.

quote:

Of course scouts will project a taller pitcher to throw harder than a shorter pitcher, there's no doubt about that. But the old arguments that shorter pitchers can't throw hard, break down more, or get hit because of flat fastballs is pure nonsense. Show me the stats.. they don't exist. They hit my kid at a .202 clip this summer.

That’s a perfect example of the way things “SHOULD” be. All anyone should care about is what the results were. You shouldn’t have to qualify a kid who’s getting the job done by saying he’s short, but …. It isn’t fair to that player and certainly doesn’t recognize all of his hard work.

quote:

There is a valid argument that a taller pitcher should be able to release closer to the plate, but many shorter pitchers negate that with a longer stride. I know my son does.

Should schmould. Just because something SHOULD happen doesn’t make it true.

quote:

So that leaves the fastball. Do you got it or not?

Again, the FB shouldn’t have anything to do with it unless all else is equal. But how many times does that happen?

quote:

If any parent of a shorter pitcher is worried about this stuff I can only suggest to you I've been there done that and it isn't worth your time worrying about it. Focus on the fastball and it all is meaningless.

I sure wish everyone making judgment calls believed that, but very few do because they really don’t know how to evaluate pitchers with anything other than a gun. I have this old friend who pitched professionally for 20 years, scouted in Ca for the dodgers for another 8, then was the PC for the dodgers for another 12.

He’s told me over and over about how much differently the game was then, and how players were evaluated. The 1st thing to check was always results. After that came command. Next was movement, and finally came velocity. If a player could achieve results with command and movement, that was plenty to get him lots of opportunities. Velocity was of course a plus, but not to the degree it is today.

I’ve heard that now straight out of the mouth of 3 ML pitching coaches who’s teams won at least one world series, but for some reason people won’t believe it, anf the numbers on the gun remain supreme.

Not sure where anyone said that smaller or slower pitchers don't get opportunities they just don't get as many chances.

One thing I have seen over the years, a pitcher throwing 99, 100 and wild often gets the nod over the guy who is 87-88 with more command and control.

Who would you as a hitter rather face?

Stats, I agree with you at the little league ages velocity should be a little less important, to give kids a chance to catch up. They all progress at different rates. I know my kid wasn't a hard thrower at that age, but he worked very hard at it.

Whether you think it is fair or not you should know that without velocity it's all over. Period. At the higher levels if you don't have velocity, you're toast. Don't kid yourself. It's certainly more important than height!

BTW, why is there always the comparison between high velocity guys with poor command and low velocity guys with great command? These two variables are not mutually exclusive. The truth is, there is a direct positive correlation between high velocity and command. These guys throw harder because they have better mechanics.

quote:

Originally posted by TPM:
Not sure where anyone said that smaller or slower pitchers don't get opportunities they just don't get as many chances….

That’s pretty much it in a nutshell. Many folks don’t get the distinction. They figure, what-the-heck, cream rises to the top, and small guys get to play and a lot of them go on to the highest levels, so all anyone has to do is work their a$$ off and they’ll get to move up, but that’s never been the issue, at least with me.

Many coaches live in a dream world where they take a sow’s ear pitcher and turn him into a silk purse, but more than likely what happens is, because they get so many more opportunities, they develop just as much on their own as with any help from some magical words the coach has. All I’ve ever said was, in the amateur ranks, where there’s supposedly no money on the line, every kid should be afforded the same opportunities to develop. Its truly heartbreaking to watch a small of stature kid have to work much harder, develop much faster, and perform much better than his large of stature counterpart.

Here’s what I believe. If there were a pair of glasses that evaluators could put on that would erase a pitcher from the field of view, so all that could be seen was the result of what happened, the pitchers thought to be the “best” would be far far different. That’s why I love the numbers so much.

Every year for a gag, I run the stats, and replace names with a player ID no one knows who it belongs to but me. Then everyone gets to try to guess the player by nothing other than the numbers. There are always a few players so good or so bad that you can easily pick them out, but for the most part, its pretty much impossible, and always opens more than a few eyes.

If that could be done with an actual performance, there’s no doubt in my mind the same thing would happen.

quote:

Originally posted by Bum:
…BTW, why is there always the comparison between high velocity guys with poor command and low velocity guys with great command? These two variables are not mutually exclusive. The truth is, there is a direct positive correlation between high velocity and command. These guys throw harder because they have better mechanics.

What’s always been important is how something is presented, and he perception it gives. A perfect example is in the terms, “Power” and “Finesse” pitcher. Just the words give the person looking an idea about what they’re looking at, without ever seeing the player or the numbers.

There’s an actual stat used that shows what category a pitcher is in, but most people have no idea how the categories are distinguished.

The ML considers a power pitcher to be one who walks or Ks 28% of all batters faced, and a Finesse pitcher is one who walks or Ks less than 24&% of all batters faced. What that means is, a pitcher who clunks batters and/or walks a lot of them will likely be considered a power pitcher, and automatically receive any benefits that come from such a designation.

Statty,
I get where you are coming from, because there are a lot of guys I know who dismiss pitchers and players success because they beleive that their stats tell the story. Most of these guys who rank these guys haven't even see half of them play.

I will use a player I know as an example, about 6 ft, lower velo, pin point control (strike out machine) and repeatedly an allstar in milb year after year, moved quickly through the system (drafted later round I might add)then stalled, if you went by stats, he was good.
He couldn't get passed one inning on the ML field without major damage being done.

What I am saying is that you put a lot of spin on the stats, I don't beleive they tell the whole story.

JMO.

quote:

Originally posted by TPM:
Statty,
I get where you are coming from, because there are a lot of guys I know who dismiss pitchers and players success because they beleive that their stats tell the story. Most of these guys who rank these guys haven't even see half of them play.

I will use a player I know as an example, about 6 ft, lower velo, pin point control (strike out machine) and repeatedly an allstar in milb year after year, moved quickly through the system (drafted later round I might add)then stalled, if you went by stats, he was good.
He couldn't get passed one inning on the ML field without major damage being done.

What I am saying is that you put a lot of spin on the stats, I don't beleive they tell the whole story.

JMO.

That’s pretty typical, as is the opposite where the stats seem poor, but the player has nothing but success. What it proves is, trying to judge players based only on one kind of input, is pretty foolish. Its foolish to go only by stats, but its just as foolish to go only by a player’s stature, and its equally foolish to go only by one’s “gut” or personal acumen.

Baseball isn’t made up of only a players skills relative to his opponents. There are scads of esoteric things that have a direct impact on what takes place that have to be factored in too. That’s why ball games aren’t just determined by stats, and have to be played.

And you can't go by results, either.

For example, say I have pitcher #1 who always goes against the opponents #1 pitcher and lineup. He goes 3-4 with a 3.03 ERA.

Pitcher #2 goes 6-2, with a 2.87 ERA. He typically goes against the third or fourth best pitcher each time he pitches, as he is lower on the depth chart for his team. Typically too, when he pitches the other team is putting in subs to get in their "reps".

Do results tell the whole story?

Stats have you ever played baseball ?

I think this may be timely... PG Staff's thoughts