"Pop Time" vs accuracy

It's rather simple.  Son had a bullet throw that was like a bullet.  Other catcher had more a rainbow throw.  In short, arm strength was quite different.

 

I guess you would have to seem them in person.

 

 

Again, that is dynamically impossible.

 

If they both have the same initial velocity, the ball in the air will arrive sooner than the ball that bounces...unless the ball in the air is thrown at a severe arc, which makes this scenario just plain dumb.

 

The only resistance the ball in the air receives is from air drag (in the negative x direction) and gravity (negative y direction).  The ball that bounces is affected by air drag (negative x direction), gravity (negative y direction) and friction from the grass (negative x direction).  The amount of friction is dependent upon the coefficient of friction for the surface at hand (think length of grass).  Is this scientific enough for you?

 

To put it in layman's terms...the ball loses more velocity when it hits the ground.  It doesn't rebound faster.

 

Not trying to be difficult but if you are a scientist, this is beyond basic.  I got my engineering degree years ago.

 It happens quite frequently because arm strength is not the only component to a pop time.  There is footwork, receiving, exchange, etc. involved.

 

With many catchers, improving the exchange cuts more time off than arm strength.

 

I will clarify...I do not know of a college coach, including the D2, D3 and NAIA coaches I have spoken with, who would find a 2.2 attractive UNLESS he saw several areas where he could shave off time.  The goal is 2.0 because the equation is a 1.2 from the pitcher + a 2.0 from the catcher = enough to throw out 90% of the runners.  With a 2.2 behind the plate, that number decreases significantly because there is no deterrent to stealing.  Leads can be bigger, jumps can be greater...more risks can be taken.

 

As for between innings, I will say again...any uncommitted catcher in competitive baseball is most likely looking to impress someone.  The only chance they may have that game to do so is to throw down full speed to get a good pop time.  If they don't impress a college coach or pro scout, they most likely will not catch in college and are out of this conversation.  So, you can discount how often it happens all you'd like, but given my experience around college bound catchers, catchers that will play in college do this MOST of the time. 

Originally Posted by FoxDad:It's rather simple.  Son had a bullet throw that was like a bullet.  Other catcher had more a rainbow throw.  In short, arm strength was quite different.

 

I guess you would have to seem them in person.

 

I’m sorry, but I still don’t understand what difference it makes if both throws get there X number of seconds after hitting the mitt.

Understood (obviously). But if you read my post as specifically regards to my education and training, you'd notice that I requested empirical data that shows the difference in arcs (or lack thereof). Do you have any? I've also heard/read that velocity relatively, accounts for less than half of the time to get the ball to 2B. Speed of transfer, footwork, and momentum are very important. Heck, I'd love to see a detailed/quantitative breakdown of their importance in the overall time.

 

To respond qualitatively/anecdotally, per my first comment on this thread, I noticed that most of the 2.0 and sub-2.0 poptimes I witnessed at the last combine I went to (with 30 or so catchers and 4-5 throws per) one-hopped and had relatively poor accuracy. So, perhaps that was all a huge anecdotal coincidence? This thread reminded me of that and that I recently read, for pop time measurements, get rid of the ball as fast as possible, with a low arc, and accuracy is much less important. Perhaps that advice was also erroneous?

 

***edited to be more civil...apologies***

Originally Posted by redbird5:

I will clarify...I do not know of a college coach, including the D2, D3 and NAIA coaches I have spoken with, who would find a 2.2 attractive UNLESS he saw several areas where he could shave off time.  The goal is 2.0 because the equation is a 1.2 from the pitcher + a 2.0 from the catcher = enough to throw out 90% of the runners.  With a 2.2 behind the plate, that number decreases significantly because there is no deterrent to stealing.  Leads can be bigger, jumps can be greater...more risks can be taken.

 

Much clearer.

 

As for between innings, I will say again...any uncommitted catcher in competitive baseball is most likely looking to impress someone.  The only chance they may have that game to do so is to throw down full speed to get a good pop time.  If they don't impress a college coach or pro scout, they most likely will not catch in college and are out of this conversation.  So, you can discount how often it happens all you'd like, but given my experience around college bound catchers, catchers that will play in college do this MOST of the time. 

 

I’m going to apologize in advance because I’m pretty sure what I’m about to say will strike you as combative. I don[t mean it that way, but I honestly don’t see the same things you’re seeing.

 

You’re talking like 2.0 is so common it might be overlooked, but I’m saying here in NorCal its far from common. So far in fact, coaches and scouts are pretty much as aware of those guys as they are of pitchers cruising at 90+ with 3 solid pitches. Because its somewhat rare, there’s really no reason to try to impress anyone in a regular season HS game. Now if most of the ball you see is showcase ball or high level tournament play, of course those guys are much more common and may well feel they need take every opportunity to “show off”.

 

I tend to look at this stuff from the perspective of using the “average” players as the measuring stick. If all you see if far above average players, you’re seeing a completely different game.

Originally Posted by Batty67:

Thanks for the physics 101 lecture (and condescension; but hey, I'm being a bit sarcastic so we'll call it even). But if you read my post as specifically regards to my education and training, you'd notice that I requested empirical data that shows the difference in arcs (or lack thereof). Do you have any? I've also heard/read that velocity relatively, accounts for less than half of the time to get the ball to 2B. Speed of transfer, footwork, and momentum are very important. Heck, I'd love to see a detailed/quantitative breakdown of their importance in the overall time.

 

To respond qualitatively/anecdotally, per my first comment on this thread, I noticed that most of the 2.0 and sub-2.0 poptimes I witnessed at the last combine I went to (with 30 or so catchers) one-hopped and had relatively poor accuracy. So, perhaps that was all a huge anecdotal coincidence? This thread reminded me of that and that I recently read, for pop time measurements, get rid of the ball as fast as possible, with a low arc, and accuracy is much less important. Perhaps that advice was also erroneous?

 

HERETIC! BLASPHEMER! How dare you ask for evidence? Why can’t you just accept what someone on this site who’s made 5,000 posts says?

 

This whole discussion sure seems to duplicate the feelings about pitching velocity. To many it doesn’t make any difference if one pitcher has superior mechanics, a better work ethic, more movement, better control, and gets batters out at a higher rate than one who has 3 more Klicks on the gun. It’s all about the velocity.

 

That was proved to me when it was said that of 2 catchers who have the same pop-2-pop time, the one who had the better mechanics was seen as inferior to the one with a “bullet” throw.

Much easier to improve on ones mechanics than improvement of arm velocity. The player with the better arm usually has a higher ceiling as far as Pop times.

Late to the party on this one but thats ok.  Bottom line numbers DO matter.  But we constantly have to remember the numbers are not QUALIFIERS they are DISQUALIFIERS!  High exit velocity equals potential (not stardom) low exit velocity equals failure (guaranteed).  High pitch velocity equals potential, low pitching velo...  etc.  Same with pop times.  I think we get the cart and the horse mixed up sometimes in this debate.  No one is saying the kid with the 1.9 pop time is always better than the kid with a 2.3.  I suppose it is theoretically possible (though unlikely) the 2.3 kid could be better cause the 1.9 kid can't hit his target.  But heres the point we sometimes miss...   all that means is neither of them will ever make it.  It DOESN'T mean the 2.3 kid now has a chance.  Just like cause the kid throwing 93 can't find the plate doesn't all of the sudden make some kid throwing 83 recruitable!!  There are minimum standards then AFTER you have reached one you become part of the conversation and are separated from there.  Make sense?

Your first response didn't come off as combative at all.  This comment, however, is very snarky and cynical.    My having made over 5000 posts is not of any importance whatsoever.

 

The difference is that one can be taught and one can't.  I can teach better mechanics to cut down pop time but I can't teach a better arm.  Certainly, I can give advice on how to hopefully improve arm strength but I cannot guarantee it.  The weak arm may be maxxed out as a weak arm.

 

So, it isn't a preference.  It is based on what can be taught and improved upon and what can't.  Is there empirical data to support this?  Not in any form that is acceptable to you.  However, I have a list of catchers who I have personally helped mechanically to reduce their pop time.

 

I apologize.

 

As for the arc of the throw, I do not have empirical data.  However, how big of an arc can throw downs be?  Even a bad throw is 10-12' high at the most. Given that the 2 scenarios mentioned (1. throw reaching the bag in the air and 2. throw bouncing first) have the same initial velocity, the height of the arc cannot be very high if we a) expect the ball to make it to the bag in the air or b) expect it to carry enough velocity to bounce and then make it to the bag.

 

 

My son has done a few catcher showcases. The balls that he one hops are never any of his best POPs in his series of throws (usually around 3-6 throws in a showcase). 

I think the only thing this thread has proven is that catchers at showcases act very differently than catchers in a game, it's almost like they have to have two different sets of catching skills.

 

And yes Stats, the age old question in both pitchers and catchers seems to be accuracy vs. speed of throw, which is more key. As 2020dad pointed out the player that makes it needs to be able to do both, or give off the illusion that accuracy can be achieved, but velocity has to be there to start with.

 

I'm new to this game, but it appears to me that at the youth level there are MANY cross overs on PG as to who is a pitcher and who is a catcher....a good arm is a good arm and despite the ASMI warnings I think we will continue to see a rise in dual P/C profiles.

 

 

 

Glad to see this back to the highly usual HSBW standards of friendliness. I have little to add other than my highly anecdotal observations and what I've read and heard about the throw-downs: I'd say at least half of the fasted, timed throw-downs I witnessed at a combine 1-hopped and often with pretty poor accuracy. It was clear that the catchers were doing all the subtle/perhaps effective "cheats" to get the ball downrange as fast and with as much velocity as possible with accuracy seeming to suffer for it. I have been told by a few supposedly knowledgeable catching instructors that an on-target 1-hop throw is perfectly fine and might get there faster than a more arcing, in the air the whole time throw. Looks like that might not be right, or I'm misinterpreting what I heard (always possible).

That is correct.  The shortest distance between two points in a straight line.  The more direct the throw is the faster it will get there, all else being equal.  If you have enough velocity to counter act gravity and get it there without the hop you're "elite."  While the hop will take something off the ball, it can take less time than the arching throw which has to travel more distance.  Time it out to see for yourself. 

All great points! So is 2 hopper down to 2B by the catcher better than 1? If a 1 bouncer is better than zero? Maybe 3 is better than 2? As long as it gets there and is accurate?

If you could roll a ball hard enough to offset the friction of the turf, then theoretically it could be done.  However it is not likely. 

Just go make a good throw to the bag on the fly. One hopping it has too many variables. Even in a showcase where you are only given an handful of throws and hoping the infielder can come up with it.   

A ball that bounces does not beat a ball thrown in the air...if they have the same initial velocity AND the height of the arc isn't crazy.  But, again, if the two balls are thrown at the same initial velocity, too high of an arc (or initial angle) will end up in CF and too low of an initial velocity will not allow the ball make it to the bag on a bounce.

 

Sounds like a good experiment.  Set up a pitching machine.  Bounce a ball to 2B.  Repeat 5-10 times.   Then, without changing the velocity or the location of the machine, angle the machine up to make it in the air on a reasonable arc.  Record those times and compare.  Lower the velocity and repeat.  If any of you can make the bounced ball get there faster, I will buy you a beer and a hotdog when we meet. (but first I will give you a lesson on how to operate a stopwatch)

Is this serious?  A ball the bounces twice will not throw out your grandmother stealing.

Be sure to set the machine to throw a 4-seam FB. If it throws a 12-6 CB down to 2nd, we're going to have to bring angular momentum into the conversation... and no one wants that, especially me.

 

The problem with your analysis is what is a reasonable arc.  I suppose you can find that sweet spot where the extra distance the arc adds offsets the friction of the hop.  

 

Run the experiment if you can disprove what I have said.

 

I am confident the velocity to accomplish this is too slow to actually throw out a runner. (which would also make the 1 hop almost impossible to carry the velo onto the bag). 

MA Dad,

 

I agree completely.

There is one advantage to the bounce, since pop time is glove to glove...if the second basemen can clearly get the bounce but not the straight throw *shrug*  I'm just saying that people with stopwatches tend to appreciate glove to glove rather than glove to a miss at second.

As a person who has timed tens of thousands of pop times, a ball that is not caught is just an estimate.  It is not usually recorded by a college coach or pro scout so it isn't only appreciated, it is required.

 

But, yes, I would rather a catcher short hop the INF than air mail it to the CF.

 

 

A scout that used to help my son told him its better to air mail the CF then bounce it to the SS, that way the scout can at least see that the arm strength/potential is there!  

 

Of course the coach would prefer the one hop.

Originally Posted by CaCO3Girl:

I think the only thing this thread has proven is that catchers at showcases act very differently than catchers in a game, it's almost like they have to have two different sets of catching skills.

 

Badaboom Badabing!

 

And yes Stats, the age old question in both pitchers and catchers seems to be accuracy vs. speed of throw, which is more key. As 2020dad pointed out the player that makes it needs to be able to do both, or give off the illusion that accuracy can be achieved, but velocity has to be there to start with.

 

If it really is all about arm strength, and I believe it is, as it pertains to catchers, why bother with the pop-2-pops? Just gun them and don’t worry about anything else. Seriously. No one cares if a P or C can call a game because the coaches are sending in the signs. I’ve heard the “you can teach them how to pitch but you can’t teach velocity” for a loooooong time now, but I sure see a lot of pitchers who can’t pitch very well, and a lot of catchers who can’t catch cold. So if it’s such an easy thing to teach mechanics, why are they still having to be taught by the time the players get to the pros?

 

Why keep allowing the illusion that anything other than velocity makes and difference? Save a lot of time and resources and just measure every player’s arm strength and only allow the top one’s to move to the next level.

Kinda of what is happening

I will also add that its the speed of the game that starts separating players at the different level, be it velocity, foot speed, bat speed, pop times ability to hit the higher velocity etc...   

I agree, this is happening.  Who needs blocking and framing. Late is late, but playing catch with your outfielders is for warm-ups.  I've seen lots of catchers who can be taught how to block and frame, but it's not ingrained anywhere, not a natural move for them, and they can't no matter how hard they try. Ball velocity keeps them in the game, missing blocks, throwing the ball to the OF, losing games, giving up bases.  When asked why did we choose that kid, the answer keeps them in their current job - the kid had an arm.

       
       
What level are you talking about?  I am pretty sure major D1 and professional levels the catchers do both.  Then it becomes a matter of degrees of who is better from there.    Ability (velocity) first intangibles only after ability.

Okay so new spin on the thread, both sophomores.

Kid A has a pop time of 1.95 but a velocity of 65 (his pop is attributed to excellent footwork, transfer, and great pitcher placement).

Kid B has a 2.2 pop, shabby footwork, shabby transfer, but his velo is 75 to the bag.

Now who does the HS coach pick, and who does the Scout make a note to keep an eye on?

       
       
1.95 with a 65mph would be incredibly rare.  Are.these real numbers?  1.95 is pretty darn good.  I am having a real hard time envisioning a 1.95 pop.from a 65mph arm.

Stop thinking and just play along :- )

       
       
fair enough.  Lol.  I.guess in this case I will take the 1.95.  Cause its already darn good and I guess I would rather chance that his arn could be streghnthened

Just look at Kyle Schwarber.  His bat aside, the Cubs have a problem.  He hat a 1.97 pop time in 2009.  Yet in the MLB his knock is he can't "catch."  Problems with receiving, framing and blocking.  Go figure. 

This is the most action the catching thread has had in ages. Good to see and participate. As for which is better/faster, the bullet 1-hop to the glove vs. more arcing throw right on the money, in REALITY, I'm still on the fence. So, get off the fence by throwing a bullet to the glove with a small arc and in the air the whole time in 2 seconds or less.

 

Hope someone can do the experiment.

 

We should talk about the highly imprecise ways pop-times are measured (I.e., calibrated eyes and ears) that provide probably vary by a tenth of a second (or more). Even with 3-5 throws, you can still get the benefit/penalty of them not averaging them out equally.

 

And as another person posted (who I know personally), it seems the ability to be a true defensive wall with soft hands and a sharp baseball mind behind the plate has taken a the firm backseat to the almighty pop-time.

Originally Posted by Batty67:

We should talk about the highly imprecise ways pop-times are measured (I.e., calibrated eyes and ears) that provide probably vary by a tenth of a second (or more). Even with 3-5 throws, you can still get the benefit/penalty of them not averaging them out equally.

 

What’s funny is, when you challenge someone about how imprecise the times really are, the reply is often that they’re close enough. Here we are talking about an event where a tenth of a second is the difference between acceptable and not acceptable, and precision isn’t much cared about.

 

I wonder if the MLBAM system is capable of computing accurate pop times. It sure seems like it should.

 

And as another person posted (who I know personally), it seems the ability to be a true defensive wall with soft hands and a sharp baseball mind behind the plate has taken a the firm backseat to the almighty pop-time.

 

All that means is, the chances are pretty good that the best catching candidates don’t always move up, just like the best pitching candidates don’t.