If you have someone who is 6'0 and 170 pounds and throws 92 mph then he gets fat and is 6'0 265 pounds. How will his velocity be affected? I'm looking for a best guess at the decrease or increase in velocity like 80 mph?
Original Post
Replies sorted oldest to newest
Goingpro,
Let's use the word "overweight" instead of fat.
A pitcher's velocity and effectiveness is very much determined by his physical condition. Athletes must be in their best physical condition in order to compete and be successful.
A pitcher at 6' 170 may actually not throw as hard if he was, for example 220. But that added weight should be in muscle not fat. If one throws 92 at 170 and 80 at 265, obviously some weight adjustments need to be made.
It's pretty hard to determine how much velocity will increse or decrease upon gaining or losing weight.
Before a player worries about velocity he should consider a strong conditioning and nutrtional program so that he can achieve the positive results he is looking for.
JMO.
Let's use the word "overweight" instead of fat.
A pitcher's velocity and effectiveness is very much determined by his physical condition. Athletes must be in their best physical condition in order to compete and be successful.
A pitcher at 6' 170 may actually not throw as hard if he was, for example 220. But that added weight should be in muscle not fat. If one throws 92 at 170 and 80 at 265, obviously some weight adjustments need to be made.
It's pretty hard to determine how much velocity will increse or decrease upon gaining or losing weight.
Before a player worries about velocity he should consider a strong conditioning and nutrtional program so that he can achieve the positive results he is looking for.
JMO.
Good Post TPM. An example would be one of our kids this year. Last year he was 6'0 220. He was not in the best condition he could be and did not eat properly. He worked hard but needed to lose some bad weight. He worked in the 86-88 range. This year he trained very hard and started eating properly. He lost down to 195 and worked in the 88-90 range. He also had alot more stamina and did not tire in the late innings. In other words he was much better.
Also his 60 time has gone from 7.1 to 6.9 - 6.85. Gaining good weight can help you just like losing bad weight can.
Also his 60 time has gone from 7.1 to 6.9 - 6.85. Gaining good weight can help you just like losing bad weight can.
If someone gained 80 pounds in a year I would be seriously worried about their health. That kind of weight gain in a year or two is astronomical. Is he sick or have some type of disease? Obviously, if someone is not sick it would be a significant decrease in physical activity that allow them to gain that amount of weight. I would predict a serious drop in velocity due to inactivity.
It would be interesting to hear how long it took this player to gain that amount of weight.
It would be interesting to hear how long it took this player to gain that amount of weight.
quote:Originally posted by TPM:
Goingpro,
Let's use the word "overweight" instead of fat.
Hey, GoingPro could have been less delicate...
. . . . . . Fat Tub of Goo . . . . . .
With fond memories of some of my favorite balloon shaped pitchers lingering in the recesses of my brain (maybe it's because I've come to resemble them as I've aged) I decided to do a little bit of INet research just to see if there were any "scholarly" articles written on the subject ... of course, idle gossip and conjecture based upon gut feeling is the norm on these kinds of questions .... but I'm feeling ornery.
Dave Gassko did an article on this very subject in Hardball Times, looking at statistics of pitchers in consecutive seasons from 1946 until 2005. He was trying to correlate size to success, looking at the "BIG AND TALL" branded pitchers (well, the sample size included both Tall and Vertically Challenged but still shopping at the Big and Tall store -- I don't know where CC Sabathia fit into the mix).
Looking at height, he calculated that every extra inch of height adds about 0.02 runs to your ERA. So if you were comparing a pitcher 6'6" to one 5'10", the shorter guy would have an ERA about 0.15 runs lower ...
But his result for overweight pitchers was even stranger. He found that being overweight tends to improve a pitchers projection for the next season by a little over 0.02 runs for every ten pounds.
His reasoning was that "FAT PITCHERS DON'T LOOK GOOD", so they have to be better to get there in the first place. I dunno about that, cause that reasoning falls back into our "idle gossip and conjecture based upon gut feeling is the norm" kinda thing that is so prevalent.
So ...with all that in mind, I'm now planning my comeback ... LLG may be able to strike again !!!!
Link: http://www.hardballtimes.com/main/article/does-size-matter-part-6/
Cheers
H3
Dave Gassko did an article on this very subject in Hardball Times, looking at statistics of pitchers in consecutive seasons from 1946 until 2005. He was trying to correlate size to success, looking at the "BIG AND TALL" branded pitchers (well, the sample size included both Tall and Vertically Challenged but still shopping at the Big and Tall store -- I don't know where CC Sabathia fit into the mix).
Looking at height, he calculated that every extra inch of height adds about 0.02 runs to your ERA. So if you were comparing a pitcher 6'6" to one 5'10", the shorter guy would have an ERA about 0.15 runs lower ...
But his result for overweight pitchers was even stranger. He found that being overweight tends to improve a pitchers projection for the next season by a little over 0.02 runs for every ten pounds.
His reasoning was that "FAT PITCHERS DON'T LOOK GOOD", so they have to be better to get there in the first place. I dunno about that, cause that reasoning falls back into our "idle gossip and conjecture based upon gut feeling is the norm" kinda thing that is so prevalent.
So ...with all that in mind, I'm now planning my comeback ... LLG may be able to strike again !!!!
Link: http://www.hardballtimes.com/main/article/does-size-matter-part-6/
Cheers
H3
Can we all say MICKEY LOLICH ???
I like the word 'fat' better. It is what it is.