POP Time, 1.88 good?

Trying to get a true time from a video like you presented is tough.  But if he is a true and consistent 1.88 that is fantastic.  Obviously accuracy is important.  

Blocking the biggest thing that jumps out to me is his left leg.  When blocking both legs need to be behind you, the glove blocking the "5" hole and the throwing hand behind the glove.  He keeps his left leg out creating a very large 5 hole and almost picking the ball as opposed to taking it in the chest.  Meaning it looks like his glove hand comes up with the ball when it bounces instead of just letting it him square in the chest protector.  Sounds like it sucks (it does) but that is the proper way to block.  In the first block attempt it appeared centered.  He still dropped to one knee and when he did his body came forward.  This will make keeping the ball close to you harder when you block it as well.    Framing there wasn't a lot of examples...  Make sure he has proper glove position when he receives...I would suggest keeping glove a tad lower (around batters knee).  Makes pulling up lower pitches easier and less obvious, plus its a great place for a pitch.

What kind of formal training has he had at the position if you don't mind if I ask?

It takes a lot of work to put a video together, so kudos to you for getting it together.  Only non-technique comment I would suggest is it might help to add video of him catching from the side or front instead of primarily from behind the plate, even if it's not in-game and just practice.  In some of the videos, the umpire blocks a lot of what you can see, especially for receiving and throw downs.  The other views would allow you to emphasize catching skills and footwork.

Great video. Well constructed and great variety of shots and angles. Good work! My son is a 2017 catcher who just finished HS baseball.

Some observations:

Either break the video into two videos, one for offense and one for defense, or shorten total length to say 2.5 minutes or less.

As Kevin noted. The blocking technique needs work (both knees down and glove down and "inside" the knees every time unless no time or block is far off the plate, and which case a slide-pick might be better)... Best of luck going forward. 

Yes, good pop time and good game video.  What were his pop times in any showcases or camps?  It's a reality check to see what his times are when he goes to an event testing his skills.

Have you gone to Perfect Game and PBR sites to look at sample video of high profile catchers?  Could be helpful to see what angles skills video for catchers are used.  

Your son looks strong and def a canon of an arm... 

I agree with a few of the comments....

1) game video is nice, but video from the side or the pitcher (even if it's practice) would be better.....you can show him blocking 6 or 7 pitches...heck, they don't even need to be that hard, but his technique is easier viewed from the front

2) with regard to the blocking....agree that he needs to keep both knees down, but in the video, it appeared that almost every pitch he blocked was to his right...a couple probably could have been blocked with both knees....but I think he did need to slide for a few.  Again, video taken from the front will allow you to show each type because you can locate the pitches

3) where was the 1.88 POP recorded.  If it was the pitch that you showed in the video, that's not accurate....he wasn't in a game situation catching stance (actually not close) and he was almost on the plate by the time he caught it.  No way that can be representative of a game situation pop time.  Not being harsh....but any coach who saw the video would immediately notice the same thing.

Other than that...looks good.  Good catchers are tough to come by....my son is a pitcher and he throws a completely different game depending on the catcher behind the plate.  If he's comfortable with him, he'll throw any pitch in any situation....if not, he limits his pitch selection and it usually doesn't turn out well.

Good luck to your son....there are a ton of guys here who have been thru the recruiting process and are always glad to help

Honest feedback is that he's is nowhere near a 1.88. The best MLB catchers barely avg that. Legit awesome throws in the show are 1.8-ish. Definitely some below. Sanchez the other night was 1.83 from his knees.

If I see arc in the Cs throw like your son's, it's not very likely its sub-2.0. The throws on the video I got at 2.10 and 2.19 on my stopwatch, and those aren't live game reps trying to get a strike. While I'm not saying he couldn't possibly throw 1.88 in a very controlled environment, it's nowhere close to a realistic representation to a college coach for recruiting purposes and probably hurts more than it helps to list it that way. A HS catcher consistently around 2.0 will shut down a lot of running games. Sub-2.0 and only the elite guys will even try to run.

Do you have a velo on him you could post? That would help. If he's close to or over 90mph than 1.88 is more likely, it just doesn't appear that way in the video.

I hope this doesn't come off as harsh, as I don't mean it that way, just unbiased feedback from my perspective.

These are 1.8 pop times, two 2016 Catchers, ranked #1 and #2 nationally from the Midwest: 

Ben Rortvedt: https://www.perfectgame.org/Pl...ofile.aspx?ID=390319

Cooper Johnson: https://www.perfectgame.org/Pl...ofile.aspx?ID=375713

You should read the write ups and look at their video, and current college reports - Perspective.

Cooper is a kid from our area, we've seen him in action plenty of times.

ironhorse posted:

Honest feedback is that he's is nowhere near a 1.88. The best MLB catchers barely avg that. Legit awesome throws in the show are 1.8-ish. Definitely some below. Sanchez the other night was 1.83 from his knees.

If I see arc in the Cs throw like your son's, it's not very likely its sub-2.0. The throws on the video I got at 2.10 and 2.19 on my stopwatch, and those aren't live game reps trying to get a strike. While I'm not saying he couldn't possibly throw 1.88 in a very controlled environment, it's nowhere close to a realistic representation to a college coach for recruiting purposes and probably hurts more than it helps to list it that way. A HS catcher consistently around 2.0 will shut down a lot of running games. Sub-2.0 and only the elite guys will even try to run.

Do you have a velo on him you could post? That would help. If he's close to or over 90mph than 1.88 is more likely, it just doesn't appear that way in the video.

I hope this doesn't come off as harsh, as I don't mean it that way, just unbiased feedback from my perspective.

 

 

I think you meant 80 mph If he's close to or over  than 1.88 

c2019 posted:

ironhorse posted:

Honest feedback is that he's is nowhere near a 1.88. The best MLB catchers barely avg that. Legit awesome throws in the show are 1.8-ish. Definitely some below. Sanchez the other night was 1.83 from his knees.

If I see arc in the Cs throw like your son's, it's not very likely its sub-2.0. The throws on the video I got at 2.10 and 2.19 on my stopwatch, and those aren't live game reps trying to get a strike. While I'm not saying he couldn't possibly throw 1.88 in a very controlled environment, it's nowhere close to a realistic representation to a college coach for recruiting purposes and probably hurts more than it helps to list it that way. A HS catcher consistently around 2.0 will shut down a lot of running games. Sub-2.0 and only the elite guys will even try to run.

Do you have a velo on him you could post? That would help. If he's close to or over 90mph than 1.88 is more likely, it just doesn't appear that way in the video.

I hope this doesn't come off as harsh, as I don't mean it that way, just unbiased feedback from my perspective.

 

 

I think you meant 80 mph If he's close to or over  than 1.88 

Not really. With his mechanics an 80 mph arm aint getting to 1.88. Most guys who are consistently in the 1.88 range are 90mph guys, more or less. I think a mid-80s arm could get you a "best" POP time in that range, but 1.88 wouldn't be the norm with that arm strength. Again, there are obviously exceptions, but this is my experience around here.

Footwork and "mechanics" are 1/2 of the POP time, the other half is velo.

Worry about the velocity that's all that matters.  Coaches believe they can teach the rest.

2forU-  Bad advice.  If he does have a cannon they consider a project.  More likely if he can hit and has a strong arm they may move him.  

I didn't see a 1.88 either.  he had to jump up for the ball and automatically he is out of position and not prepared with foot work, etc.   I didn't want to disagree with the lady so I left it as, if he IS throwing a 1.88.....  Trying not to hurt feelings..lol     If you see a pop throw where the throwing little skims across the top of the mound and hits second base with out touching the ground, you are looking at a sub 2.00   You know it when you see it.  Damn thing looks like a rocket 4 feet off the ground that doesnt do much dipping at the end.   Fun to watch.

Buck eye-  Other than  the first block that was down the middle, your right.  The rest appeared off the plate and outside but in my opinion several of those should have been blocked.  Problem with his one knee approach isnt just the wide open 5 hole, but on the outside stuff (or inside) he cant turn his body to redirect the ball towards home plate and it also prevents him from really getting over top of the ball.   As a recruiter I would see that and then observe why I wasnt seeing any examples of blocks to his left?  It would make me wonder if he could get to those balls.  Again, not tending to be critical but these are important observations.  

I was also told recruiters prefer practice reps on their recruiting videos over game video.  Again, I am not a recruiter but I have been told that several places.

Cury-  If you look under the CLIPS section I actually have a small video of my 2020 blocking a few balls.  You can see both legs kick out and the catcher get over top (Make sure he buries his chin!).  There is a total of 4 balls directly in front of him.   That is the goal when you block.  Obviously not always doable but when your practicing, that is what you shoot for.   There was an article just out talking about the best catchers in the game TILL to this day spend hours working and perfecting their blocking.

Velocity is an easy disqualifier - simply the truth, you can have all the other intangibles or not, but if you do not have velocity, you won't get the opportunity.  And, the higher you go, the expectations is that you have velocity  and can manage the pitchers, frame and block to a higher level.  Velocity is king

Coaches are looking for potential, show arm strength and athletic ability.  Video showing him asking for help and then throwing it around are of little value as does  watching him jog to backup 1st base.. As another poster suggested shoot mostly from the 1st base side so the viewer can see the glove and hand work and zoom in, the viewer doesn't care what the pitcher etc are doing.  I would not show the kneeling throw downs between innings, that is just a waste of video tape and time and might convey the wrong message to some coaches ("too cool for school").  The throw downs need to be taken seriously, scouts do pay attention to the in-between innings throws.   I would also get rid of the pop up at home plate and add one that shows his athletic ability to chase one down.  More clips, shorter duration all in the runner ready position.

imho Tee work and wearing the hat backwards can be cut. 

I don't know if that's his school hat at the beginning but I'd go with a more neutral looking hat instead of something that might be an UoArizona hat.

Good luck.

I'd say throwing velocity AND obvious athleticism will come out on top. For example, a tubby, slow, poor technique catcher with a cannon arm might beg the question of why isn't he a pitcher (because he ain't a catcher)? But in general, superior velocity gets a first, second, and maybe a third look.

So, an unpolished catcher with questionable technique but a very strong arm and clear athleticism will likely get the nod (for college recruiting purposes) over a highly polished catcher who does everything right defensively, but has an average arm. The presumption is that the blocking, framing, and running the game can be taught. 

Of course, size, projection of added size, and hitting (especially for power) factor in immensely.

ironhorse posted:

c2019 posted:

ironhorse posted:

Honest feedback is that he's is nowhere near a 1.88. The best MLB catchers barely avg that. Legit awesome throws in the show are 1.8-ish. Definitely some below. Sanchez the other night was 1.83 from his knees.

If I see arc in the Cs throw like your son's, it's not very likely its sub-2.0. The throws on the video I got at 2.10 and 2.19 on my stopwatch, and those aren't live game reps trying to get a strike. While I'm not saying he couldn't possibly throw 1.88 in a very controlled environment, it's nowhere close to a realistic representation to a college coach for recruiting purposes and probably hurts more than it helps to list it that way. A HS catcher consistently around 2.0 will shut down a lot of running games. Sub-2.0 and only the elite guys will even try to run.

Do you have a velo on him you could post? That would help. If he's close to or over 90mph than 1.88 is more likely, it just doesn't appear that way in the video.

I hope this doesn't come off as harsh, as I don't mean it that way, just unbiased feedback from my perspective.

 

 

I think you meant 80 mph If he's close to or over  than 1.88 

Not really. With his mechanics an 80 mph arm aint getting to 1.88. Most guys who are consistently in the 1.88 range are 90mph guys, more or less. I think a mid-80s arm could get you a "best" POP time in that range, but 1.88 wouldn't be the norm with that arm strength. Again, there are obviously exceptions, but this is my experience around here.

Footwork and "mechanics" are 1/2 of the POP time, the other half is velo.

 

 

To your point of a 90 mph arm.  Cooper Johnson (above PG profile with 1.8 pop) routinely threw 90+ at our facility, game velo can be different, but capability is there.

I think that pointing out the importance of velocity is pointing out the obvious.  However, Gov mentioned Cooper Johnson who is a true freshman, shutdown catcher at Ole Miss this year.  He's their starting catcher and, at one point during the season, he had a .470 caught stealing percentage.  On Cooper's Perfect Game profile he was the number 3 catcher in the nation before he graduated from high school.  The profile indicates he had "consistent low 1.8 pop times on the bag, best defensive catcher in the class."  His best pop time was 1.81 and his highest velocity was 84 MPH.  You certainly don't have to touch 90 to be a shutdown catcher.

If you check Perfect Game showcases, the majority of the catchers are in the 70's and there is example after example of sub 2.0 pop times with mid to upper 70's velocities.  Good pop times are a result of good receiving skills, good footwork, good transfers, with a good/powerful load into a quick and accurate throw.  Although Velocity is god given, just because you have velocity doesn't mean that you will be able to do the rest of those things to consistently put the ball on the bag in less than 2.0. 

Although mechanics can be taught, if you don't have them, your a project.  If your polished with mid/late 70's velocity/sub 2.0 pop times, your a known quantity.  There are lots of examples on PG in that category that have committed D1.

Below is the 2016 PG National Showcase workout results:  If you sort the table by pop times, you'll see times from 2.1 to 1.78 and velocities from 71 to 86 MPH.  There are Commits to Vandy, Rice, Notre Dame, OSU, and Coastal Carolina on the list just to name a few.

The 2.1 pop time with a 71 MPH velocity committed to Coastal Carolina, the 2016 College World Series Champs.  Hmmm.

The second best pop time was 1.81; one of the players who achieved that time had a best velocity of 77 MPH.  His name is David Lamanna, and he committed to Notre Dame.

https://www.perfectgame.org/ev...ults.aspx?event=3645

Velocity is a MUST or you don't get the opportunity to C at any level higher than HS.   Once you get the opportunity, technique is what will separate the better C.  I highly doubt a "game" pop is 1.88. If you look at a PG Video of the best C, they lunge forward to go get the ball and stride to where their lead foot is probably over the plate to make the throw to who know  where it may end up.  In a game, the better C will receive the ball to not give up the potential strike and then throw to the bag.

Stealing bases in a game are determined by many variables such as pitchers release, wind up, type of pitch being thrown and are reasons why the best catcher only throws out 28-32 percent of stolen base attempts. The “Game Pop Time” is more important! The C with a 2.0 pop on the bag will use a combination of Velo, transfer and footwork and will be more successful throwing out runners.

IMO “Pop time” is an over rated statistic when evaluating a catcher’s skill set.  Is the "1.88" pop on the correct side of the bag or too high?  If the ball isn't at a position to have enough time to tag the runner what good is it getting it there quick?  If the guy with the 1.8 can’t find the bag he is no different than the 6.3s 60yd guy who can’t get on 1st to even steal 2nd.

Salvador Perez has a 1.91 pop time in games.  I take it with a grain of salt whenever a pop time better than that is performed by a HS kid in a Showcase

We sort of stole the thread from  the OP.  Apologies Curry!

IMO- He's a junior.  Short but solid built.  Needs work on his blocking technique. A good blocker can block and still have a shot a runner going off the ball in the dirt.  If he struggles blocking he has a more difficult road ahead.  Fielding percentage can be more misleading that a second baseman.  A ball that scoots under a catcher is a wild pitch and on the pitcher but my son, as a catcher, is going to wear that guilt on  his shoulders before anyone.  Its a passed ball pretty much if it hits his glove and pops out and a runner advances.  

Get cleaner video.  Non game video.  When blocking, focus on that.  When receiving...focus on that.  Throw downs should have some where its JUST him and his form and then from second showing the throw.  Recommend an impartial showcase or something where they take his pop time.  Some will use video and then use video itself as the timer to get an accurate measure.  

Hope that helps.

JABMK:  "Velocity is a MUST or you don't get the opportunity to C at any level higher than HS." That's a fairly Nebulous statement.  So just to be clear, exactly what velocity gets a player past HS.  I was addressing 2FORU's assertion that you need to be near 90 to get there.  Based on PG's showcase reports, that simply isn't true.  Even low 70 velocities found D1 spots.  When you look at D2,D3, NAIA, and JUCO; the numbers are sure to go lower.  So... exactly what velocity are we talking about.

GOV:   My son and I started watching Cooper this year, and he is a beast.  We noticed him in a game against Texas A&M on the SEC network early in the season.  Now my son watches him every chance he gets.  I assume that Cooper's velocity picked up after the PG showcase, but I think that he got his commitments based on the high 70's, low 80's velocities.  Is that a good or bad assumption?

jdb posted:

JABMK:  "Velocity is a MUST or you don't get the opportunity to C at any level higher than HS." That's a fairly Nebulous statement.  So just to be clear, exactly what velocity gets a player past HS.  I was addressing 2FORU's assertion that you need to be near 90 to get there.  Based on PG's showcase reports, that simply isn't true.  Even low 70 velocities found D1 spots.  When you look at D2,D3, NAIA, and JUCO; the numbers are sure to go lower.  So... exactly what velocity are we talking about.

GOV:   My son and I started watching Cooper this year, and he is a beast.  We noticed him in a game against Texas A&M on the SEC network early in the season.  Now my son watches him every chance he gets.  I assume that Cooper's velocity picked up after the PG showcase, but I think that he got his commitments based on the high 70's, low 80's velocities.  Is that a good or bad assumption?

 

 

 

Cooper was low 80's to start... very strong kid with great training early on from an exMLB Catcher..

jdb posted:

JABMK:  "Velocity is a MUST or you don't get the opportunity to C at any level higher than HS." That's a fairly Nebulous statement.  So just to be clear, exactly what velocity gets a player past HS.  I was addressing 2FORU's assertion that you need to be near 90 to get there.  Based on PG's showcase reports, that simply isn't true.  Even low 70 velocities found D1 spots.  When you look at D2,D3, NAIA, and JUCO; the numbers are sure to go lower.  So... exactly what velocity are we talking about. 

Um...where did 2FORU assert that a catcher needs to be near 90mph? He indicated velocity is the main driver to opportunity. I mostly agree with that, as I pointed out, as did others.

Back to the OP: I happen to like a little bit of in-game footage, especially for receiving but, obviously, getting good shots of THAT can be tough if not impossible. For throw-downs the video should highlight form and mechanics and also the results of the throw, probably separately since getting it all in one shot might do a disservice to both.

JDB - I am not suggesting that there is an exact number that gets a C  past high school and it we all agree it does not have to be 90.  What I am suggesting is that if a C does not have velo, a competitive pop time will be hard to achieve compared to a C with velo .  By the PG table on the previous post, one can see that the best pop times have the higher velo. As you also suggested that the player you referenced was notices because of his velo.  

A RC is not going to recruit a C without decent velo.  If they do I would hope they are 6'3 and bat L! lol

JABMK posted:

JDB - I am not suggesting that there is an exact number that gets a C  past high school and it we all agree it does not have to be 90.  What I am suggesting is that if a C does not have velo, a competitive pop time will be hard to achieve compared to a C with velo .  By the PG table on the previous post, one can see that the best pop times have the higher velo. As you also suggested that the player you referenced was notices because of his velo.  

A RC is not going to recruit a C without decent velo.  If they do I would hope they are 6'3 and bat L! lol

Thanks Batty67, my bad, 2FORU.  It was IRONHORSE that indicated catchers need a 90 MPH throw to pop at 1.88 seconds.  2FORU, please accept my apologies for making that mistake.

JABMK:  It goes without saying that a catcher with a higher velocity will have a better chance at lower pop times; no one would argue that point.  Nor would I argue that there isn't a general decrease in pop times as the velocity increases.  However, it is not a perfect corollary, by any means. 

When you say an RC is not going to recruit a C without a decent velo; what, in your mind, is a decent velocity.  Several folks in this thread have contemplated velocity as a qualifier or disqualifier, but never quantified what velocity they think is required.

Based on what I have seen on PG, I would argue that sub 2.0 pop times with velocities in the low to middle 70's can begin to generate looks from quality programs, especially when the player brings other tools to the table.  Everything else being equal, velocity and projectability will win out, but first everything else has to be equal.

The OP asked if a 1.88 pop time is good.  It is excellent, if the time is accurate and the player isn't cheating.  Several folks answered the question by telling her to find out what velocity her son throws the ball.  I'm telling her don't despair if his velocity isn't in the 80's when throwing for a pop time.  We are talking about a catcher, not a pitcher.  Those who say velocity is king, tell me where that advice is wrong.

Gov posted:

jdb posted:

JABMK:  "Velocity is a MUST or you don't get the opportunity to C at any level higher than HS." That's a fairly Nebulous statement.  So just to be clear, exactly what velocity gets a player past HS.  I was addressing 2FORU's assertion that you need to be near 90 to get there.  Based on PG's showcase reports, that simply isn't true.  Even low 70 velocities found D1 spots.  When you look at D2,D3, NAIA, and JUCO; the numbers are sure to go lower.  So... exactly what velocity are we talking about.

GOV:   My son and I started watching Cooper this year, and he is a beast.  We noticed him in a game against Texas A&M on the SEC network early in the season.  Now my son watches him every chance he gets.  I assume that Cooper's velocity picked up after the PG showcase, but I think that he got his commitments based on the high 70's, low 80's velocities.  Is that a good or bad assumption?

 

 

 

Cooper was low 80's to start... very strong kid with great training early on from an exMLB Catcher..

He's fun to watch.  He's also one of those catchers that really gets a lot of strikes called on marginal pitches.  I'm sure that his pitchers love it when he is behind the plate.  He definitely has all those other tools that make a great defensive catcher.  His velocity is gravy.

jdb posted:

JABMK posted:

JDB - I am not suggesting that there is an exact number that gets a C  past high school and it we all agree it does not have to be 90.  What I am suggesting is that if a C does not have velo, a competitive pop time will be hard to achieve compared to a C with velo .  By the PG table on the previous post, one can see that the best pop times have the higher velo. As you also suggested that the player you referenced was notices because of his velo.  

A RC is not going to recruit a C without decent velo.  If they do I would hope they are 6'3 and bat L! lol

Thanks Batty67, my bad, 2FORU.  It was IRONHORSE that indicated catchers need a 90 MPH throw to pop at 1.88 seconds.  2FORU, please accept my apologies for making that mistake.

JABMK:  It goes without saying that a catcher with a higher velocity will have a better chance at lower pop times; no one would argue that point.  Nor would I argue that there isn't a general decrease in pop times as the velocity increases.  However, it is not a perfect corollary, by any means. 

When you say an RC is not going to recruit a C without a decent velo; what, in your mind, is a decent velocity.  Several folks in this thread have contemplated velocity as a qualifier or disqualifier, but never quantified what velocity they think is required.

Based on what I have seen on PG, I would argue that sub 2.0 pop times with velocities in the low to middle 70's can begin to generate looks from quality programs, especially when the player brings other tools to the table.  Everything else being equal, velocity and projectability will win out, but first everything else has to be equal.

The OP asked if a 1.88 pop time is good.  It is excellent, if the time is accurate and the player isn't cheating.  Several folks answered the question by telling her to find out what velocity her son throws the ball.  I'm telling her don't despair if his velocity isn't in the 80's when throwing for a pop time.  We are talking about a catcher, not a pitcher.  Those who say velocity is king, tell me where that advice is wrong.

I actually said, referencing that specific kid and his footwork/transfer/stride, that if he is close to 90 I might buy him getting to 1.88. I then said mid 80s to 90s guys are the ones that typically have consistent 1.8 something pop times. I stand by both of those statements completely. 

I hate to be Negative Ned here, but CONSISTENT sub-2.0 pop times with an arm in the low 70s aren't realistic. In my world a pop time is in game, runner going, batter may swing, non-pitchout pop times. 

3and2 referenced Perez at 1.91. I'm guessing he's closer to 90 than 80. How hard do you think Yadi throws on a gun? 76?  Come on now.

I'm honestly not sure how this is even debated. The data is out there on the guys with "actual" sub 2.0 pop times. Gov even said the kid referenced above was in the 90s. I know there are a few outliers, but this doesn't seem to complicated.

The main debate here may be how the Pop time is measured. If it's a showcase BP fastball with no batter that's a different world than in game throwing guys out. Just like there is a whole world of difference between a 2.0 and a 1.88. Huge.

Obviously the faster the pop time the more immediate the attention.  Granted my 2020 is only in 9th and plays travel.  His best throws currently come in around 2.2 or so. His co-catcher has a gun. But T predominately gets the starts.  Past two tournaments he caught 19 innings out of 27 (Other two catchers split 8) and this past weekend caught 17 out of 21.  Main reason is his ability to block and receive behind the plate.  14/u guys can tend to struggle and it is not unheard of for T to have to block over ten  balls during an inning. I have counted his co-catcher have 10 balls get by him in an inning.  NOT a game but an inning. Plus T's catcher IQ is there.  We actually had his back up give up the eventual game winning run on a play he should have never attempted (throw down to second with a guy on third). This weekend.  Assistant coach reached out and was lamenting on how he thinks that T should have been in.  HC was trying to give T some time off his knees.  As soon as that debacle occurred, he put T back in to finish the game.

We have been dealing with arm strength, throw down speed his entire catching career.  Kids who had stronger arms always got nods.  Yet every damn time you see a photo taking after a tournament win, who had the gear on?  T did.    This kids coming up through 10-11-12/u had great arms but they would give up 2-3 or more runs on passed balls.  No kid in his right mind wanted to get in front of a 12/u throwing mid 60's.  T did.  And even did it when no one was on base.  But the daddy coaches never respected him for it.

Last year we moved to a different travel club and the love was immediate.  Hell one game he pulled himself from one start cause he had some elbow soreness.  The co-catcher (Coach was awesome.  Flipped flopped catchers every other game with out fail) had some issues handling the pitcher and then failed to get out to the side and block.  HC looked at T and said get your gear on.  As soon as the team came in, he sat the other catcher and looked at T and told him he didnt care if he had to roll the ball back to the pitcher.  Just do what you do.

Now every team he plays for (HS, Legion, Travel) all appreciate him for what he does BEHIND the plate.  Now that pitchers are learning to slide step pitch, he gets his throw outs.  But 90% of the love comes from his ability to get balls called strikes and to keep it in front. He doesn't need a coach to call his games.  If the JV coach who calls it for the junior lets T call his own games.

Arm velocity is important.  But if its a work in progress and your waiting to hit your growth spurt like T is ( 5'9 135lbs), then perfect all the other aspects of the position.  Work on the mental side of it.  The top MLB catchers today still spend hours perfecting their blocking technique.  Watch how the better catchers call the games.  Phillies catchers just had their butts handed to them by the pitching coach in the media for bad pitch selection at crucial points.  Work on the feet so that a throw down at 75 gets there just as fast as a 80 or 85.

If your throwing 90 and cant do a damn thing behind the plate, cant learn to block or call a game or stay down on a curveball, either they are gonna try and pitch you or put you in the outfield.  Your not gonna be catching for long.

CurryNC posted:

My son is a junior, class of 2018.  He has been the starting varsity catcher for the last two years, starting catcher for our local American Legion Team and Fall High School team. His POP time is 1.88 and fielding percentage is .997.  He caught all 29 games this past 2017 spring varsity season.  He is wanting to go to the next level and play in college.  I have included a video.  My question is, what is considered a good POP time for catchers and could I get some feedback on this video?  Thank you in advance.  

https://youtu.be/7R_uYfKWmfo

-His mother

Love the kid - definitely looks athletic and looks like a gamer.  As you see by others' comments, POP time can be a bit controversial.  Yes, 1.88 is really good but who measured and was it live, showcase or informal?  If you are going to post that time on his recruiting video, you should probably state the verifiable neutral source where it was measured.  Watching the video, I, like others, am left questioning the time... too much arc on the throw for that time.  I think the optimal video is a combination of live game clips and drill work.  There are definitely some clips you can pull out (like the one where he backs up 1st base and some of the repeats on framing basic pitches).  

He looks good and certainly shows potential to play at the next level.  Although, with his size and current skill set along with his current age/year, he is realistically looking at a level other than D1.  He has limited flexibility in his upper body that, I think, restricts his throwing extension and swing extension.  He has some other mechanics that can be cleaned up a bit.  With some work in these areas (and the resulting improvements in arm strength and hitting), he can be not just a college player but a contributor.  Since he is a wrestler, you may have a challenge with the idea of maybe toning things down a bit on lifting to work toward that flexibility.

ironhorse posted:

 

jdb posted:

JABMK posted:

JDB - I am not suggesting that there is an exact number that gets a C  past high school and it we all agree it does not have to be 90.  What I am suggesting is that if a C does not have velo, a competitive pop time will be hard to achieve compared to a C with velo .  By the PG table on the previous post, one can see that the best pop times have the higher velo. As you also suggested that the player you referenced was notices because of his velo.  

A RC is not going to recruit a C without decent velo.  If they do I would hope they are 6'3 and bat L! lol

Thanks Batty67, my bad, 2FORU.  It was IRONHORSE that indicated catchers need a 90 MPH throw to pop at 1.88 seconds.  2FORU, please accept my apologies for making that mistake.

JABMK:  It goes without saying that a catcher with a higher velocity will have a better chance at lower pop times; no one would argue that point.  Nor would I argue that there isn't a general decrease in pop times as the velocity increases.  However, it is not a perfect corollary, by any means. 

When you say an RC is not going to recruit a C without a decent velo; what, in your mind, is a decent velocity.  Several folks in this thread have contemplated velocity as a qualifier or disqualifier, but never quantified what velocity they think is required.

Based on what I have seen on PG, I would argue that sub 2.0 pop times with velocities in the low to middle 70's can begin to generate looks from quality programs, especially when the player brings other tools to the table.  Everything else being equal, velocity and projectability will win out, but first everything else has to be equal.

The OP asked if a 1.88 pop time is good.  It is excellent, if the time is accurate and the player isn't cheating.  Several folks answered the question by telling her to find out what velocity her son throws the ball.  I'm telling her don't despair if his velocity isn't in the 80's when throwing for a pop time.  We are talking about a catcher, not a pitcher.  Those who say velocity is king, tell me where that advice is wrong.

I actually said, referencing that specific kid and his footwork/transfer/stride, that if he is close to 90 I might buy him getting to 1.88. I then said mid 80s to 90s guys are the ones that typically have consistent 1.8 something pop times. I stand by both of those statements completely. 

I hate to be Negative Ned here, but CONSISTENT sub-2.0 pop times with an arm in the low 70s aren't realistic. In my world a pop time is in game, runner going, batter may swing, non-pitchout pop times. 

3and2 referenced Perez at 1.91. I'm guessing he's closer to 90 than 80. How hard do you think Yadi throws on a gun? 76?  Come on now.

I'm honestly not sure how this is even debated. The data is out there on the guys with "actual" sub 2.0 pop times. Gov even said the kid referenced above was in the 90s. I know there are a few outliers, but this doesn't seem to complicated.

The main debate here may be how the Pop time is measured. If it's a showcase BP fastball with no batter that's a different world than in game throwing guys out. Just like there is a whole world of difference between a 2.0 and a 1.88. Huge.

 

Hey Ironhorse, I think that we may be talking past each other.

You wrote, "The main debate here may be how the Pop time is measured."  Based on the OP's question, I see the debate as, "What does her son have to do to get looks from colleges, so he can continue playing after high school." 

With that in mind, I would argue that a catcher does not have to throw in the 80's to get looks from quality colleges.  If you look at the PG page that I referenced, there are several players who committed to great colleges, but were not throwing in the 80's, some even in the low 70's. 

You also wrote, "3and2 referenced Perez at 1.91. I'm guessing he's closer to 90 than 80. How hard do you think Yadi throws on a gun? 76?  Come on now."  Yes, those are in-game throws, with an elite MLB catcher trying to preserve a strike.  In game throw downs are not the same thing as showcase throws or catcher throws between innings.  So, in my opinion, you can't compare the two, especially in the context of this thread.

I am viewing the OP's pop-time like it was a showcase sample.  We all know that catchers in showcases are being taught how to "cheat" on these tests.  Most of the catchers take advantage of the showcase rules, so these pop times are not a true reflection of in-game times.  That said, they are apples-to-apples comparisons of the players competing at the showcase.  Again, the goal is to get looks from colleges.  Velocities in the 70's will get those looks, especially if the player displays the other skills that colleges desire in their catchers.  The OP has received great advice about improving his blocking skills, getting a lower set up, and enhancing his video.

By the way, there have been discussions about Yadi on this site in the past.

http://community.hsbaseballweb...inas-throw-to-second

That thread discusses one of Yadi's most iconic throw downs, shooting Dee Gordon down at 2nd.  To me, this video shows how all the upstream mechanics are just as important as the velocity of the throw.  The throw was calculated to have had a velocity of 83.5 MPH, and it caught one of the fastest players in baseball.  The thread also discusses that a more important "time" is measuring from the pitcher's first move to pop of the glove at second base. 

jdb

ironhorse posted:

c2019 posted:

ironhorse posted:

Honest feedback is that he's is nowhere near a 1.88. The best MLB catchers barely avg that. Legit awesome throws in the show are 1.8-ish. Definitely some below. Sanchez the other night was 1.83 from his knees.

If I see arc in the Cs throw like your son's, it's not very likely its sub-2.0. The throws on the video I got at 2.10 and 2.19 on my stopwatch, and those aren't live game reps trying to get a strike. While I'm not saying he couldn't possibly throw 1.88 in a very controlled environment, it's nowhere close to a realistic representation to a college coach for recruiting purposes and probably hurts more than it helps to list it that way. A HS catcher consistently around 2.0 will shut down a lot of running games. Sub-2.0 and only the elite guys will even try to run.

Do you have a velo on him you could post? That would help. If he's close to or over 90mph than 1.88 is more likely, it just doesn't appear that way in the video.

I hope this doesn't come off as harsh, as I don't mean it that way, just unbiased feedback from my perspective.

 

 

I think you meant 80 mph If he's close to or over  than 1.88 

Not really. With his mechanics an 80 mph arm aint getting to 1.88. Most guys who are consistently in the 1.88 range are 90mph guys, more or less. I think a mid-80s arm could get you a "best" POP time in that range, but 1.88 wouldn't be the norm with that arm strength. Again, there are obviously exceptions, but this is my experience around here.

Footwork and "mechanics" are 1/2 of the POP time, the other half is velo.

 

 

i agree arm angle is huge  , my 2019 did a showcase last nov and was clocked at 78 mph and popped at 1.87 by pro scouts and colleges,  then he did a pbr in feb 2017 and was clocked at 80 mph and popped a 1.94, and i have the video on both and the numbers are up on those showcases, arm strength and mechs are huge , i was told he has a plus arm ,to even a future plus plus arm 

Catch and release is .8 seconds of pop time (good footwork and mechanics), means that the ball needs to travel the 127 ft going 86.6 mph to get to 2b in one second, making pop time of 1.8 seconds

s = d/t

Pitcher to home of 1.4 added means you should throw out a runner that is timed 3.2 seconds from 1st to 2b or slower.

I'm not a mathematician, there are variables in this (HS, College, Pros - all differ), but you get the gist of it.

Also, if you can block 92 (I do not believe this is something you can quickly learn, regardless of what people say, it takes years of muscle and brain memory to just react combined with early pitch recognition burned into your brain through many years of practice and annual increase in ball speed), you still have to field the ball and then throw, lacking velo in that instance means the runner is safe

MLb most guys arent throwing down on a blocked pitch if the runner was already going.  They are already half way there.  At the lower levels they are running on the play on the dirt so the typical equation is changed up.  Runner is getting a late jump and hopefully the catcher is quick with his recovery and kept the ball close.  In the big leagues you see balls squirt away 5-6 feet with no runner advancing.  In HS thats enough to move up in most cases...

I WILL readily agree that blocking isn't something you just do one day.  And once you get good at it you tend to range a little further out and go for even harder pitches to block.  In the end it results in a lot of bruised arms and painful blocks.  Even a clean block into the chest from someone throwing  80's plus sucks.   Seen a lot of "big" kids with snazzy fast arms look like chumps cause they can't block.  Why steal on him?  Wait for the pitcher to get wild and let it be a passed ball.  I have told any kid who I worked with either starting to catch or wanting to learn.....  You have to be a little off your rocker to want to be a catcher.  If you cant stand being hit by a baseball intentionally than catching isn't the spot for you.

As an aside, depending upon the situation, if a runner is going and the pitch is in the dirt the catcher may attempt to pick it rather then block it. i.e. the base is stolen  whether its blocked or goes to the backstop so attempting a pick and throw is a viable option.

Personally I feel 80 is a very workable speed for catchers at the D1 college level.  

I read a lot of discussion on arm speed, blocking, framing etc..,, in many ways its all meaningless if the player can't hit college pitching.  A catcher throwing 90 who can't hit can be made into a pitcher, so he is a low risk from a recruiting point of view, a catcher throwing 75 is a high risk recruit if the bat is in question because there is nowhere else to play him.

2forU posted:

Catch and release is .8 seconds of pop time (good footwork and mechanics), means that the ball needs to travel the 127 ft going 86.6 mph to get to 2b in one second, making pop time of 1.8 seconds

MPH to Feet per second is 86.6 Miles per Hour = 127.013333 Feet per Second

s = d/t

Pitcher to home of 1.4 added means you should throw out a runner that is timed 3.2 seconds from 1st to 2b or slower.

I'm not a mathematician, there are variables in this (HS, College, Pros - all differ), but you get the gist of it.

Also, if you can block 92 (I do not believe this is something you can quickly learn, regardless of what people say, it takes years of muscle and brain memory to just react combined with early pitch recognition burned into your brain through many years of practice and annual increase in ball speed), you still have to field the ball and then throw, lacking velo in that instance means the runner is safe

2forU, you did make me chuckle with this post.  I won't argue with your math.  But...

For arguments sake, you are using 3.2 seconds as your benchmark for running from 1st to 2nd.  So the gist of your argument is that with the parameters you chose, a successful catcher has to have a velocity of 86.6 MPH...in your scenario.

So how many baseball players can steal a base in 3.2 seconds?  Billy Hamilton, arguably the fastest player in baseball, swipes the bag in a little over 3.1 seconds.  So in your scenario, with a relatively slow pitcher (the better pitchers with runners on are 1.0-1.2  first move to home), a decent catch to release (.6 seconds with a good pitch is fast, but not unrealistic), and a world class runner stealing the bag; a catcher needs a velocity of almost 87 MPH to successfully spoil that stolen base attempt.  That is really not a reasonable comparison.

Let's say that you have pitcher who can get the ball to home in 1.3 seconds, a catcher at .7 seconds to release, and a runner at 3.3 (still faster than 95% of high schoolers) seconds, that means if our catcher gets the ball to second 1.1 seconds, he beats the runner by .2 of a second.  What velocity does the catcher now have to throw?  I feel like I'm back in physics class doing vector questions.  That 1.1 second throw requires a velocity of 79.4 MPH; If the catcher takes 1.2 seconds to get the ball to second, he needs a velocity of only 72.5 MPH.  That elite runner will be out by a step on a low 70's throw.

The take away for CURRYNC and her son, is to keep working on his mechanics, in all phases, including receiving, blocking, transfers and throws.  However, don't obsess over your velocity if it doesn't match the elite level guys in the mid 80's.  If he wants to increase his caught stealing percentage, work with his pitchers, get the coaches or other players to time all three phases of the play, and get the pitchers to buy into the premise that they are as important in this process as the catcher.  Tell your son to praise his pitchers every time they (pitcher/catcher as a unit) gun down a runner at the bag.  Once the pitchers buy into the concept and take it personally when a runner steals, it becomes a whole lot easier on the catcher. 

CURRYNC, don't believe this meme that you have to throw mid 80's from a crouch to be a college catcher prospect... not necessarily D1, but you can be wanted at the college level with a lower velocity. 

CollegeParentNoMore posted:

As an aside, depending upon the situation, if a runner is going and the pitch is in the dirt the catcher may attempt to pick it rather then block it. i.e. the base is stolen  whether its blocked or goes to the backstop so attempting a pick and throw is a viable option.

Personally I feel 80 is a very workable speed for catchers at the D1 college level.  

I read a lot of discussion on arm speed, blocking, framing etc..,, in many ways its all meaningless if the player can't hit college pitching.  A catcher throwing 90 who can't hit can be made into a pitcher, so he is a low risk from a recruiting point of view, a catcher throwing 75 is a high risk recruit if the bat is in question because there is nowhere else to play him.

Best argument yet for why higher velocity is better, but it still goes back to the "all else being equal" statement. 

If you're a catcher throwing 90, you have usually already been turned into a pitcher, especially if you can't hit.

You'd be surprised at how many coaches want every pitch in the dirt to be blocked and will penalize catchers for picking rather than blocking. 

Well, this is turning into a fun discussion anyway.  

Regarding the OP velo aspect - Forget the numbers for a moment.  Forget the pitcher combo because we are only talking about the OP's son's ability to attract college attention as it relates to his velo and POP time and ability to throw a runner out.  I will offer up this simple observation...  I have not seen a prospect get any attention as a catcher that has the arc on his throw that OP's son currently has.  I have not seen a catcher at the college level, any division, get meaningful playing time with the arc that the OP's son currently has.

I see a lot of good things in this kid but, unless the video is distorted, his arm strength/velo has to improve.  I have no doubt that it will... just sayin'.  They want to see that throw on a line, not an arc.

jdb posted:

CollegeParentNoMore posted:

As an aside, depending upon the situation, if a runner is going and the pitch is in the dirt the catcher may attempt to pick it rather then block it. i.e. the base is stolen  whether its blocked or goes to the backstop so attempting a pick and throw is a viable option.

Personally I feel 80 is a very workable speed for catchers at the D1 college level.  

I read a lot of discussion on arm speed, blocking, framing etc..,, in many ways its all meaningless if the player can't hit college pitching.  A catcher throwing 90 who can't hit can be made into a pitcher, so he is a low risk from a recruiting point of view, a catcher throwing 75 is a high risk recruit if the bat is in question because there is nowhere else to play him.

Best argument yet for why higher velocity is better, but it still goes back to the "all else being equal" statement. 

If you're a catcher throwing 90, you have usually already been turned into a pitcher, especially if you can't hit.

You'd be surprised at how many coaches want every pitch in the dirt to be blocked and will penalize catchers for picking rather than blocking. 

This "pick on a SB" topic is interesting in itself.  I know there are coaches who are OK with the pick and, in certain circumstances, I am as well.  But I think if that ball does go to the backstop, the runner lands on 3b sometimes instead of 2b (if he is given the heads up before the slide and depending on the depth of the backstop) so there is still added risk.  I think it really comes down to instinct and reaction.  If it is a true short-hop pick, the catcher will likely start his cheat and is committed to the throw attempt anyway - and he is also much more likely to at least glove the ball and prevent the extra base.  Anything further out in the dirt, IMO, should be blocked traditionally and the extra base beyond the steal prevented.

I'll say this having watched the video:  the kid is an interesting ballplayer who looks like he has potential.  There is talent & athleticism there

"You'd be surprised at how many coaches want every pitch in the dirt to be blocked and will penalize catchers for picking rather than blocking."

To each his own level of understanding and/or comfort.  There don't seem to be a lot of college or hs catching coaches that truly appreciate the need to develop a young catcher by allowing him to be aggressive with his throwing which in turns builds confidence, which in turns builds a lot of key outs rather then just letting the opposition take a free base. 

In terms of giving up a second base on a pick attempt if the ball goes to the backstop, I am not sure its statistically any different then what happens with "blocked" pitches that bounce high off a shoulder pad or facemask and roll into a dugout etc.

CollegeParentNoMore posted:

"You'd be surprised at how many coaches want every pitch in the dirt to be blocked and will penalize catchers for picking rather than blocking."

To each his own level of understanding and/or comfort.  There don't seem to be a lot of college or hs catching coaches that truly appreciate the need to develop a young catcher by allowing him to be aggressive with his throwing which in turns builds confidence, which in turns builds a lot of key outs rather then just letting the opposition take a free base. 

In terms of giving up a second base on a pick attempt if the ball goes to the backstop, I am not sure its statistically any different then what happens with "blocked" pitches that bounce high off a shoulder pad or facemask and roll into a dugout etc.

 

CPNM, I would argue that the percentages are better with the block than the pick but that goes back to which pitches the catcher attempts to pick.  If C has a knack for recognizing depth properly and knowing his pitchers' movement, I'm with you.  There is certainly some "chicken or the egg" to this.

CURRYNC:

I watched your son's video with my son, who is also a catcher.  He immediately had several comments about the throw down portion to second base.

First, he said that he hates those high feeds like the one in the video.  As a catcher you have to choose the lesser of two evils, either you reach for the ball and keep your legs flexed or you come completely out of your crouch and lose the ability to quickly load the lower half, but you receive the pitch closer to your transfer point.  My son prefers to reach for the pitch so that he can try to maintain as much flexion and load in his lower half as he can.  It's a tough balancing act, and some catchers prefer to extend their lower half, I suppose it's personal preference.  Either way, it's not optimal.

Second, your son reached above his head to catch the pitch, but then brought his glove down below his belt, and the ball ended up at the mid-thigh to make the transfer to his throwing hand.  He then had to get the ball all the way back up to throwing position.  That's a lot of wasted motion and a lot of wasted time.  Without seeing more throws, it's difficult to say if that is his norm or an outlier, but I would bet that is his normal transfer position.  He should get his transfer point up closer to throwing position.  His current transfer point is probably set in muscle memory now, so he'll have to really work to change it.

Third, he can improve his footwork.  He's gaining too much ground with his post leg, in fact it looks like it gets in front of the stride leg.  As a result, the hips are late getting lined up with second, and the stride leg doesn't get a lot of extension.  Part of the issue might be that the lower half is having to wait for the upper half to get into position.  If he speeds up his transfer, the lower half will have to speed up also.

Last, after the first viewing, my son looked at me and said, "Dad, that's not a 1.88 pop time." He pointed out that the throw was at least 6 feet over the pitcher's head, and the ball dropped on the bag instead of going through it, much like CabbageDad already noted.  My son also pointed out that the pitcher was not watching the throw and took a couple of leisurely steps to get off the mound.  Son said that he wants the throw to go right where his pitcher was standing and head high.  He wants to see the pitcher almost running off the mound.  The pitcher should be very uncomfortable taking his eye off of the ball, because he can hear it whizzing past him.

So those are some observations from a catcher that is about the same age as your son, with some of my thoughts mixed in.  Maybe another poster can expand on them or correct any recommendations that they believe to be erroneous.

Regarding pop time: if you upload it to the hudl app there is a time function, you can go throw in slow motion and get the time (need to subtract start from stop time).

Regarding velo: it is probably most important but I know that coaches love a polished catcher, gives you more time to worry about other stuff.

Velo is king but two guys with the same or similar velo and one can catch the coach will always prefer the catcher. So best is having both but of course if you don't have the velo technique wont save you either.

But no reason to not work on both and make the coaches job easier.

Interesting to see where this topic has evolved. As for picks vs. blocks, I'd say it is a continually moving fine line of when to do one or the other when runners are on. In GENERAL, I'm a fan of blocking, especially when it is hot and humid because tired catchers are more likely to keep the ball in front of them with a block than relying on an athletic pick (and that's when the balls seem to get to the backstop). Mistakes are still made on occasion by veteran catchers, and even a cleanly blocked ball can hop up off the face mask or to the side. But I think most coaches, in general, would rather see consistent clean blocks than athletic picks most of the time.

Batty is 100% correct.  I gripe at my son if he picks a ball that clearly should have been a block.  There are some that are border line and he will pick those.  But there are catchers who will back hand pick cause they cannot block or are being lazy.  I remind my son he's a catcher, not a first baseman.  And if he does pick it is almost always with empty bases.  He typically blocks everything, even when no one is on base.  Guess it's habit but it also looks good if someone is watching.

As for coaches "penalizing" catchers for every ball.....    I want my son to block every ball too.  Is it realistic?  No.  Tell me how a catcher is to block a ball that is almost out of the batters box.  T will try to flash out and just get his body in front of it almost like a goalie or more likely try to pick it.  But there are some HORRIBLE fields out there where the ball doesn't bounce right or it hits the front of the raised home plate and bounces 8 feet in the air.  Nothing you can do there.   Officially any ball that hits the dirt is considered a wild pitch and is scored a wild pitch if a runner moves up or scores.A passed ball is on the catcher and is usually when it hits his glove and pops out if a normal effort would have caught it.  A catcher getting part of his mitt on a ball 5 feet over his head or 3 feet behind a batter is not a passed ball.  But a curve ball that gets under a catchers five hole allowing a runner at third to score or a batter to reach first on a strike three SHOULD be on the catcher.  It will be a wild pitch but a good coach is gonna expect his catcher to stop those and a good catcher is going to own those mistakes if they get by.

Plus a pitcher knows if he has a blocking catcher back there and will feel more comfortable throwing a strike three in the dirt to get a batter to chase.  When you see guys throwing 0-2 or 1-2 balls down the middle I think either he missed badly or he doesn't trust his catcher to block.  Biggest pet peeve of mine is seeing a catcher set up down the middle when its 0-2 or 1-2 and then pitcher grooves a meatball.  Irks the hell outta me!

2forU posted:

Catch and release is .8 seconds of pop time (good footwork and mechanics), means that the ball needs to travel the 127 ft going 86.6 mph to get to 2b in one second, making pop time of 1.8 seconds

MPH to Feet per second is 86.6 Miles per Hour = 127.013333 Feet per Second

s = d/t

 

2forU,

You've calculated AVERAGE velocity, not MAX velocity.  Over a distance of 127 feet I would guess that velocity drops somewhere in the neighborhood of 15mph, so a throw averaging 86mph requires probably close to 95mph max velo.  I don't think anyone, even Yadi gets this from a crouch.  As an example, in some of Yadi's ~1.8s throws that I've seen broken down by Statcast, his exchange time (catch, transfer, footwork, release) is ~.65s or even better, allowing more time for ball in flight, and his stated (presumed to be max) velo is low-mid 80s but the average velo, using your formula above for 1.15s in flight, is in the mid-high 70s.

jdb posted:

2forU posted:

Catch and release is .8 seconds of pop time (good footwork and mechanics), means that the ball needs to travel the 127 ft going 86.6 mph to get to 2b in one second, making pop time of 1.8 seconds

MPH to Feet per second is 86.6 Miles per Hour = 127.013333 Feet per Second

s = d/t

Pitcher to home of 1.4 added means you should throw out a runner that is timed 3.2 seconds from 1st to 2b or slower.

I'm not a mathematician, there are variables in this (HS, College, Pros - all differ), but you get the gist of it.

Also, if you can block 92 (I do not believe this is something you can quickly learn, regardless of what people say, it takes years of muscle and brain memory to just react combined with early pitch recognition burned into your brain through many years of practice and annual increase in ball speed), you still have to field the ball and then throw, lacking velo in that instance means the runner is safe

2forU, you did make me chuckle with this post.  I won't argue with your math.  But...

For arguments sake, you are using 3.2 seconds as your benchmark for running from 1st to 2nd.  So the gist of your argument is that with the parameters you chose, a successful catcher has to have a velocity of 86.6 MPH...in your scenario.

So how many baseball players can steal a base in 3.2 seconds?  Billy Hamilton, arguably the fastest player in baseball, swipes the bag in a little over 3.1 seconds.  So in your scenario, with a relatively slow pitcher (the better pitchers with runners on are 1.0-1.2  first move to home), a decent catch to release (.6 seconds with a good pitch is fast, but not unrealistic), and a world class runner stealing the bag; a catcher needs a velocity of almost 87 MPH to successfully spoil that stolen base attempt.  That is really not a reasonable comparison.

Let's say that you have pitcher who can get the ball to home in 1.3 seconds, a catcher at .7 seconds to release, and a runner at 3.3 (still faster than 95% of high schoolers) seconds, that means if our catcher gets the ball to second 1.1 seconds, he beats the runner by .2 of a second.  What velocity does the catcher now have to throw?  I feel like I'm back in physics class doing vector questions.  That 1.1 second throw requires a velocity of 79.4 MPH; If the catcher takes 1.2 seconds to get the ball to second, he needs a velocity of only 72.5 MPH.  That elite runner will be out by a step on a low 70's throw.

The take away for CURRYNC and her son, is to keep working on his mechanics, in all phases, including receiving, blocking, transfers and throws.  However, don't obsess over your velocity if it doesn't match the elite level guys in the mid 80's.  If he wants to increase his caught stealing percentage, work with his pitchers, get the coaches or other players to time all three phases of the play, and get the pitchers to buy into the premise that they are as important in this process as the catcher.  Tell your son to praise his pitchers every time they (pitcher/catcher as a unit) gun down a runner at the bag.  Once the pitchers buy into the concept and take it personally when a runner steals, it becomes a whole lot easier on the catcher. 

CURRYNC, don't believe this meme that you have to throw mid 80's from a crouch to be a college catcher prospect... not necessarily D1, but you can be wanted at the college level with a lower velocity. 

A ball traveling 79.4 MPH will travel 116.4533 feet in 1.1 second.  Runner is safe unless the ball travels 86.6 MPH

No bench mark, just an example.  The quicker you get rid of the ball, the slower you can throw it, simple math. But a throw from home to second is still 127 ft. A ball needs to travel at 86.6 MPH to go 127 ft in one second. So a faster catch and release means he can throw slower, but the ball wont travel 127 feet in one second or 1.1 seconds. A ball thrown at 79.4 MPH only travels 116.453333 feet in 1.1 seconds.  It will take 1.599 (1.6) seconds to go 127 feet, add 1.3 and .7 and your complete time is 3.6 seconds from pitch - catch - 2b on the bag.  A 3.3 runner will beat that throw by .3 seconds

Smitty28 posted:

2forU posted:

Catch and release is .8 seconds of pop time (good footwork and mechanics), means that the ball needs to travel the 127 ft going 86.6 mph to get to 2b in one second, making pop time of 1.8 seconds

MPH to Feet per second is 86.6 Miles per Hour = 127.013333 Feet per Second

s = d/t

 

2forU,

You've calculated AVERAGE velocity, not MAX velocity.  Over a distance of 127 feet I would guess that velocity drops somewhere in the neighborhood of 15mph, so a throw averaging 86mph requires probably close to 95mph max velo.  I don't think anyone, even Yadi gets this from a crouch.  As an example, in some of Yadi's ~1.8s throws that I've seen broken down by Statcast, his exchange time (catch, transfer, footwork, release) is ~.65s or even better, allowing more time for ball in flight, and his stated (presumed to be max) velo is low-mid 80s but the average velo, using your formula above for 1.15s in flight, is in the mid-high 70s.

Well, my math skills don't include gravity.  That is where I draw the line - lol.  I'm sure that is someone way better at math than I am.

2forU posted:

Smitty28 posted:

2forU posted:

Catch and release is .8 seconds of pop time (good footwork and mechanics), means that the ball needs to travel the 127 ft going 86.6 mph to get to 2b in one second, making pop time of 1.8 seconds

MPH to Feet per second is 86.6 Miles per Hour = 127.013333 Feet per Second

s = d/t

 

2forU,

You've calculated AVERAGE velocity, not MAX velocity.  Over a distance of 127 feet I would guess that velocity drops somewhere in the neighborhood of 15mph, so a throw averaging 86mph requires probably close to 95mph max velo.  I don't think anyone, even Yadi gets this from a crouch.  As an example, in some of Yadi's ~1.8s throws that I've seen broken down by Statcast, his exchange time (catch, transfer, footwork, release) is ~.65s or even better, allowing more time for ball in flight, and his stated (presumed to be max) velo is low-mid 80s but the average velo, using your formula above for 1.15s in flight, is in the mid-high 70s.

Well, my math skills don't include gravity.  That is where I draw the line - lol.  I'm sure that is someone way better at math than I am.

My point is that a catcher getting a ball down to 2nd base with flight time of 1.2s is really good and will result in a 1.9ish pop time if the other mechanics are good, and this would be an average velo of low 70s, and a max velo in the high 70s.  A lot of people don't understand that throwing from the crouch makes it very difficult to get the kind of velo numbers you see off the mound or across the infield or outfield, and even the most elite studs are hitting max velos of low to mid 80s.  I can't think of any catcher that's been recorded hitting 90s from the crouch.

Smitty28 posted:

2forU posted:

Smitty28 posted:

2forU posted:

Catch and release is .8 seconds of pop time (good footwork and mechanics), means that the ball needs to travel the 127 ft going 86.6 mph to get to 2b in one second, making pop time of 1.8 seconds

MPH to Feet per second is 86.6 Miles per Hour = 127.013333 Feet per Second

s = d/t

 

2forU,

You've calculated AVERAGE velocity, not MAX velocity.  Over a distance of 127 feet I would guess that velocity drops somewhere in the neighborhood of 15mph, so a throw averaging 86mph requires probably close to 95mph max velo.  I don't think anyone, even Yadi gets this from a crouch.  As an example, in some of Yadi's ~1.8s throws that I've seen broken down by Statcast, his exchange time (catch, transfer, footwork, release) is ~.65s or even better, allowing more time for ball in flight, and his stated (presumed to be max) velo is low-mid 80s but the average velo, using your formula above for 1.15s in flight, is in the mid-high 70s.

Well, my math skills don't include gravity.  That is where I draw the line - lol.  I'm sure that is someone way better at math than I am.

My point is that a catcher getting a ball down to 2nd base with flight time of 1.2s is really good and will result in a 1.9ish pop time if the other mechanics are good, and this would be an average velo of low 70s, and a max velo in the high 70s.  A lot of people don't understand that throwing from the crouch makes it very difficult to get the kind of velo numbers you see off the mound or across the infield or outfield, and even the most elite studs are hitting max velos of low to mid 80s.  I can't think of any catcher that's been recorded hitting 90s from the crouch.

If you go to the perfectgame homepage, on the bottom left there is a showcase leaderboard for each class.

Max C velocity by Grad year:

2017: 88  2018: 86  2019:82  2020:77

Looking back at history, a couple of hit 90+.  Seeing the progression by age, I guess you can assume they will get a little faster in college.  

So yes, 88-90 happens every year, but at least for PG showcases, you can still have a top 20 C velo with low-mid 80's. 

2forU posted:

No bench mark, just an example.  The quicker you get rid of the ball, the slower you can throw it, simple math. But a throw from home to second is still 127 ft. A ball needs to travel at 86.6 MPH to go 127 ft in one second. So a faster catch and release means he can throw slower, but the ball wont travel 127 feet in one second or 1.1 seconds. A ball thrown at 79.4 MPH only travels 116.453333 feet in 1.1 seconds.  It will take 1.599 (1.6) seconds to go 127 feet, add 1.3 and .7 and your complete time is 3.6 seconds from pitch - catch - 2b on the bag.  A 3.3 runner will beat that throw by .3 seconds

I don't think any catcher can throw 86 on average. you easily would need to be 92 at release which would equal to at least upper 90s from the mound.

last year the hardest throw by a catcher was gary sanchez at 88.9 AT RELEASE which probably means an arrive velo of 69 MPH (pitcher loses 10 MPH to home so it should be about twice due to the double distance). that means his throw averaged at best 80 mph. I doubt anyone can make the throw in 1 second flat.

this article here from 2012 claimed 83 release, 72 average and 1.2 second time for molina, meaning to get his game 1.8s (which is elite, the fastest pop time 2016 was 1.72) he transfers and releases in about .6 seconds.

http://www.stltoday.com/sports...c1-0019bb30f31a.html

Just a thought about PG and their "historical" Numbers.  You need to look at sampling size too.

2017 will have a much larger sampling size than 2018...2018 than 2019 and so on.  2020 probably has only a handful of athletes listed and the reason a 2020 is already on their board is cause he is the best around.

What my point is, my hypothesis is 2017 numbers are made up of more "averages" then a 2020.  This make sense or am I way off!!??

My 2020 threw off a mound and he's 5'8 and 135 (listed him summer time as 5'9 140).  He hit 64 MPH with NO pitching training just throwing.  Quick feet and he gets the throw down fairly well..I think he could at his best hit a 2.2 somewhere but it averages more like 2.3 or so.  Just hoping on the growth spurt. They had him at a 2.4 last fall and he is throwing much better now....

Kevin,

You are right about the sample sizes, but the velo range of the top 20 or so stays consistent year after year.  I was just pointing out  that both the above points  were correct.  Some people can indeed hit 90, but for the most part if you are low to mid  80's, you would still be in the top 20 of PG, which is good enough to get a look from coaches if you are doing everything else right.

And keeping a catching thread alive for 3 days is pretty cool as well...

lol-

I soak up what ever I can on catchers...LOL...  I was checking out some of the guys bio's who done 2017 show cases but are 2020 grads...Its throwing and hitting.  Not a single remark that a catcher has or doesn't have polished receiving skills....

@ CabbageDad, CPNM, Batty67, KevinA, et al:

I think someone on this thread wrote that any player who wants to play catcher has to be a little "off" in the first place.  I agree with that assessment.  It's a physically and mentally grueling position to play.  It also is a position that tends to be really hard on the body.  Anyone who has blocked an 80+ MPH fastball knows that it can hurt like hell.  Blocking pitches in the dirt is a skill that successful catchers must master, that's a given.  However, there are times when blocking a pitch is completely unnecessary, and there are times when picking a pitch can have a better outcome. 

Pitchers love having a catcher who keeps everything in front of them, when runners are on base.  However, blocking every pitch, even when there is no one on base, unnecessarily beats up your catcher.  Also, if a 90 MPH pitch is yanked into the batters box, it's tough for even the most athletic catcher to block that pitch, much less be in a position to make a throw to second.  If the catcher can pick that ball, he puts himself in a great position (hips already turned, still in a crouch, ball in his glove for a quick transfer) to make a throw to second.  That's with a runner at first; if there is a runner at third, then the catcher has to do everything he can to keep the ball from getting past him.  With the runner at third, the catcher isn't worried about making a throw, just keeping the ball around the plate, so the runner is deterred from attempting to score.  So the catcher has to be situationally aware before every pitch, and mentally prepared for a different action depending on the variables of the play.

My son had a coach who pitched in college, and he wanted his catchers to block when that was the right choice, pick when that was better, and preserve their bodies when there is no need to get beat up.  That requires focus, but doesn't the game always require focus?

The first time a pitcher yanks a pitch wide into the batter's box, and his catcher picks the ball, then throws the runner out at second; that pitcher will be sold.  Again, when runners are on, most pitches in the dirt should be blocked, but there are circumstances when the pick can be a better option.

Yup, nice post JDB.  Of course. the problem is "a little off" and "situationally aware" don't always match up.

2forU posted:

jdb posted:

2forU posted:

Catch and release is .8 seconds of pop time (good footwork and mechanics), means that the ball needs to travel the 127 ft going 86.6 mph to get to 2b in one second, making pop time of 1.8 seconds

MPH to Feet per second is 86.6 Miles per Hour = 127.013333 Feet per Second

s = d/t

Pitcher to home of 1.4 added means you should throw out a runner that is timed 3.2 seconds from 1st to 2b or slower.

I'm not a mathematician, there are variables in this (HS, College, Pros - all differ), but you get the gist of it.

Also, if you can block 92 (I do not believe this is something you can quickly learn, regardless of what people say, it takes years of muscle and brain memory to just react combined with early pitch recognition burned into your brain through many years of practice and annual increase in ball speed), you still have to field the ball and then throw, lacking velo in that instance means the runner is safe

2forU, you did make me chuckle with this post.  I won't argue with your math.  But...

For arguments sake, you are using 3.2 seconds as your benchmark for running from 1st to 2nd.  So the gist of your argument is that with the parameters you chose, a successful catcher has to have a velocity of 86.6 MPH...in your scenario.

So how many baseball players can steal a base in 3.2 seconds?  Billy Hamilton, arguably the fastest player in baseball, swipes the bag in a little over 3.1 seconds.  So in your scenario, with a relatively slow pitcher (the better pitchers with runners on are 1.0-1.2  first move to home), a decent catch to release (.6 seconds with a good pitch is fast, but not unrealistic), and a world class runner stealing the bag; a catcher needs a velocity of almost 87 MPH to successfully spoil that stolen base attempt.  That is really not a reasonable comparison.

Let's say that you have pitcher who can get the ball to home in 1.3 seconds, a catcher at .7 seconds to release, and a runner at 3.3 (still faster than 95% of high schoolers) seconds, that means if our catcher gets the ball to second 1.1 seconds, he beats the runner by .2 of a second.  What velocity does the catcher now have to throw?  I feel like I'm back in physics class doing vector questions.  That 1.1 second throw requires a velocity of 79.4 MPH; If the catcher takes 1.2 seconds to get the ball to second, he needs a velocity of only 72.5 MPH.  That elite runner will be out by a step on a low 70's throw.

The take away for CURRYNC and her son, is to keep working on his mechanics, in all phases, including receiving, blocking, transfers and throws.  However, don't obsess over your velocity if it doesn't match the elite level guys in the mid 80's.  If he wants to increase his caught stealing percentage, work with his pitchers, get the coaches or other players to time all three phases of the play, and get the pitchers to buy into the premise that they are as important in this process as the catcher.  Tell your son to praise his pitchers every time they (pitcher/catcher as a unit) gun down a runner at the bag.  Once the pitchers buy into the concept and take it personally when a runner steals, it becomes a whole lot easier on the catcher. 

CURRYNC, don't believe this meme that you have to throw mid 80's from a crouch to be a college catcher prospect... not necessarily D1, but you can be wanted at the college level with a lower velocity. 

A ball traveling 79.4 MPH will travel 116.4533 feet in 1.1 second.  Runner is safe unless the ball travels 86.6 MPH

Ok 2forU, I think that others have already addressed this, so I'll be brief. I also acknowledge that these are averages not initial velocities, so they aren't perfectly equivalent to real world velocities.  They do show how required velocities decrease as upstream processes get faster.

You said, "A ball traveling 79.4 MPH will travel 116.4533 feet in 1.1 second.  Runner is safe unless the ball travels 86.6 MPH." - and "Well, my math skills don't include gravity.  That is where I draw the line - lol.  I'm sure that is someone way better at math than I am."

"A ball traveling 79.4 MPH will travel 116.4533 feet in 1.1 second." Uhh, Nooo.

A ball traveling 79.4 MPH is traveling at a rate of 116.4533 feet/second, not per 1.1 seconds.  When you add that .1 of a second at 11.6453 feet you have... 128.098 feet.  Sooo, the throw does beat the runner by .1 of a second, which is about 2 feet for a fast runner, and the ball does not have to travel at 86.6 MPH.  The math doesn't require accounting for gravity.

Any thread where people debate math when the point is to improve an argument lose their way, in general.

Yes, a good catcher knows when to block and when to pick.

On a beautiful day with defense making outs and pitching rarely putting one in the dirt, it might complete sense for the catcher to try and block virtually everything (since there is not much and that's good form). On a hot and humid day, a long day with extra outs due to errors, and/or lots of balls in the dirt, a good catcher should know when picking to preserve the energy and lower the punishment is the right thing to do. When to pick vs. block on a ball off the plate takes experience and situational awareness, and cannot be "taught" quickly

Batty67 posted:

Any thread where people debate math when the point is to improve an argument lose their way, in general.

Yes, a good catcher knows when to block and when to pick.

On a beautiful day with defense making outs and pitching rarely putting one in the dirt, it might complete sense for the catcher to try and block virtually everything (since there is not much and that's good form). On a hot and humid day, a long day with extra outs due to errors, and/or lots of balls in the dirt, a good catcher should know when picking to preserve the energy and lower the punishment is the right thing to do. When to pick vs. block on a ball off the plate takes experience and situational awareness, and cannot be "taught" quickly

"Any thread where people debate math when the point is to improve an argument lose their way, in general."

Point taken, and yes I did feel like I lost my way.  I will redirect in the future, hopefully.

My apologies to you too, CURRYNC.

jdb posted:

2forU posted:

jdb posted:

2forU posted:

Catch and release is .8 seconds of pop time (good footwork and mechanics), means that the ball needs to travel the 127 ft going 86.6 mph to get to 2b in one second, making pop time of 1.8 seconds

MPH to Feet per second is 86.6 Miles per Hour = 127.013333 Feet per Second

s = d/t

Pitcher to home of 1.4 added means you should throw out a runner that is timed 3.2 seconds from 1st to 2b or slower.

I'm not a mathematician, there are variables in this (HS, College, Pros - all differ), but you get the gist of it.

Also, if you can block 92 (I do not believe this is something you can quickly learn, regardless of what people say, it takes years of muscle and brain memory to just react combined with early pitch recognition burned into your brain through many years of practice and annual increase in ball speed), you still have to field the ball and then throw, lacking velo in that instance means the runner is safe

2forU, you did make me chuckle with this post.  I won't argue with your math.  But...

For arguments sake, you are using 3.2 seconds as your benchmark for running from 1st to 2nd.  So the gist of your argument is that with the parameters you chose, a successful catcher has to have a velocity of 86.6 MPH...in your scenario.

So how many baseball players can steal a base in 3.2 seconds?  Billy Hamilton, arguably the fastest player in baseball, swipes the bag in a little over 3.1 seconds.  So in your scenario, with a relatively slow pitcher (the better pitchers with runners on are 1.0-1.2  first move to home), a decent catch to release (.6 seconds with a good pitch is fast, but not unrealistic), and a world class runner stealing the bag; a catcher needs a velocity of almost 87 MPH to successfully spoil that stolen base attempt.  That is really not a reasonable comparison.

Let's say that you have pitcher who can get the ball to home in 1.3 seconds, a catcher at .7 seconds to release, and a runner at 3.3 (still faster than 95% of high schoolers) seconds, that means if our catcher gets the ball to second 1.1 seconds, he beats the runner by .2 of a second.  What velocity does the catcher now have to throw?  I feel like I'm back in physics class doing vector questions.  That 1.1 second throw requires a velocity of 79.4 MPH; If the catcher takes 1.2 seconds to get the ball to second, he needs a velocity of only 72.5 MPH.  That elite runner will be out by a step on a low 70's throw.

The take away for CURRYNC and her son, is to keep working on his mechanics, in all phases, including receiving, blocking, transfers and throws.  However, don't obsess over your velocity if it doesn't match the elite level guys in the mid 80's.  If he wants to increase his caught stealing percentage, work with his pitchers, get the coaches or other players to time all three phases of the play, and get the pitchers to buy into the premise that they are as important in this process as the catcher.  Tell your son to praise his pitchers every time they (pitcher/catcher as a unit) gun down a runner at the bag.  Once the pitchers buy into the concept and take it personally when a runner steals, it becomes a whole lot easier on the catcher. 

CURRYNC, don't believe this meme that you have to throw mid 80's from a crouch to be a college catcher prospect... not necessarily D1, but you can be wanted at the college level with a lower velocity. 

A ball traveling 79.4 MPH will travel 116.4533 feet in 1.1 second.  Runner is safe unless the ball travels 86.6 MPH

Ok 2forU, I think that others have already addressed this, so I'll be brief. I also acknowledge that these are averages not initial velocities, so they aren't perfectly equivalent to real world velocities.  They do show how required velocities decrease as upstream processes get faster.

You said, "A ball traveling 79.4 MPH will travel 116.4533 feet in 1.1 second.  Runner is safe unless the ball travels 86.6 MPH." - and "Well, my math skills don't include gravity.  That is where I draw the line - lol.  I'm sure that is someone way better at math than I am."

"A ball traveling 79.4 MPH will travel 116.4533 feet in 1.1 second." Uhh, Nooo.

A ball traveling 79.4 MPH is traveling at a rate of 116.4533 feet/second, not per 1.1 seconds.  When you add that .1 of a second at 11.6453 feet you have... 128.098 feet.  Sooo, the throw does beat the runner by .1 of a second, which is about 2 feet for a fast runner, and the ball does not have to travel at 86.6 MPH.  The math doesn't require accounting for gravity.

Yeah, that's probably why I always got B's in math.  Thanks for the correction.  Velocity is king, I will not change that!

I found this from 2011 on HSBBW:

Credit to

 If a player has a release time of .70 and they throw the ball 75mph their pop time would be 1.85.

The distance from the back point of home plate to the middle of 2B is 127.28ft (or 90*the square root of 2 for you geometry guys!).

When the ball is thrown 75mph it is traveling 110fps (feet per second), which means it would travel the 127.28ft in 1.157s.

So...if a player has a release of .7s and is throwing 75mph, the ball will get there in around 1.857s (.7+1.157).

This is based on the catcher releasing the ball directly over the back point of the plate and the middle infielder catching the ball directly over the middle of 2B. For the purposes of math, you must assume those two things to be true. It would be impossible to measure results based on anything other than that (catcher closer or further from home plate, middle infielder catching the ball in front of the bag, wind, friction of the air against the ball, etc.).

Thanks to all for helping prove my point  - Velo is king.  I think Ironhorse is correct.  Max velo at 90 is where you need to be or upper 80's so that your average ball speed combined with release provides decent pop time.  By the time the ball slows down at 2b, your velo average is in the 70's (please insert something here on how fast the ball slows down or the faster you throw it the less it slows down - I'm sure there is more to it).  Quicker release means you can have a lower max and average.  If you have a .1 reduction in catch and throw, how does that affect max and average velocity to equal the same pop time?

2forU posted:

Thanks to all for helping prove my point  - Velo is king.  I think Ironhorse is correct.  Max velo at 90 is where you need to be or upper 80's so that your average ball speed combined with release provides decent pop time.  By the time the ball slows down at 2b, your velo average is in the 70's (please insert something here on how fast the ball slows down or the faster you throw it the less it slows down - I'm sure there is more to it).  Quicker release means you can have a lower max and average.  If you have a .1 reduction in catch and throw, how does that affect max and average velocity to equal the same pop time?

I haven't been able to find a single HS catcher in PG database that hit 90.  Austin Hedges hit 85 with a 1.75 pop, that's the best I've seen.  Maybe they are there but I think it is WAY overstating it to say that 90 is where you need to be.