Relation of physical stature to performance.

This was written in March of 2013: https://drive.google.com/file/...IjT/edit?usp=sharing

J H,

That’s pretty interesting, and seems to disprove at least some of the dogma related to pitchers and physical size.

Being an Indians’ fan, I’ve seen Bauer and am hoping he’ll soon mature enough to work his way into at least the bullpen. From what I’ve seen of him, he’s certainly got the “stuff” to have success at the ML level, but until he cuts way down on the walks, he’ll always stay in trouble.

Once you're in the system it's all about velocity, consistency, wins and stuff.  Size only matters when you're knocking on the door trying to get in.  Bum Jr.'s friend went AA last year and he stands 5'10" but throws 97. 

Not a huge fan of the author of this article, but an interesting read related to this topic.

http://www.topvelocity.net/pit...-power-weight-ratio/

 I think the bigger guys don't necessarily have to possess as efficient mechanics both hitting, or throwing as the smaller guys....which is why you see guys that are able to kinetically sequence their bodies (Bauer, Lincecum, etc.), and get the velocity of the bigger guys with less optimal mechanics (Sabathia, Colon, Verlander, etc.).

I like Bauer as well, however I can't for the life of me  understand why he continues his crazy pre-game routine for his warm-up....his pre-game routine would equal most folks max effort workout....I can't help to wonder if this is part of his inconsistency.  He being hard headed doesn't help.

Bum is right, but also keep in mind as you get further up the ladder your stats and splits become important as well, not as much as the physical attributes that may have gotten you there in the first place.  And of course you have to be special at what you do. 

I find very interesting that the bigger, harder throwing pitcher  (Cole) that was drafted before Bauer (originally drafted by the Diamondbacks) has done much better overall  professionally even though it seems he had a more difficult time in college, than Bauer. 

My opinion, after HS, size does become important to scouts and coaches, but as I have said before, there are special exceptions for lefties, pitchers as well as hitters.

Keep in mind that in HS, the coach SHOULD take the player that will get his team through the season, not who will or will not play after they graduate.

we keep talking about size. But, IMHO size might catch their eye but performance will keep them looking. And anybody who even tries to come up with some kind of metric to tell what performance will be as per size will surely be disappointed. As history has shown you cant judge a book by its cover! Just go ask a Pedro Martinez or a Sonny Grey, or a Dustin Pedroia,or a Shane Victorino or a David Eckstien ora well you get the point, and I will just throw in John Franco for kicks!

We do seme to be discussing size an awful lot.  I don't think anyone would argue that talent supersedes all.  Further, no one would argue the list of names in oldman's post, but how many guys with larger size can you name for every successful one that succeeded in spite of smaller stature? 10?  20?  50?

what is larger size? 6-2, 6-4, 6-5? The player called the greatest living baseball player was only 5-11. Is that large? Willie Mays that is.

oldmanmoses- Cherry picking examples of a few of the best players in the game who just so happen to be smaller individuals is not a very good way of proving a point. There is no denying that size is a very serious factor in the game. Just because the individuals that you listed have reached the pinnacle of the sport does not mean that size doesn't matter.

I'd argue that velocity, consistency, and stuff are all directly correlated and that the end result is the actual contribution to team wins. But, I am going to have to respectfully disagree with the statement that size doesn't matter at the professional level. Evaluations are different for each individual, but projection is very much a factor.

J H - well said.  That was the point I was trying to make when I quoted oldman's post but you said it better than I did.

Median height/weight for 2013 MLBers (both from BBREF, so weights are likely understated by a bit).

Hitters 6'2" ~210

Pitchers 6'3" ~215

US Average, 5'10" 168 (for men in their 20s)

1962:

Hitters 6'1" 185

Pitchers 6'2" 190

This is not scientific, but when the kids are coming out of the dugout on my son's team I sure feel like a shrimp.  

....size helps but skill helps a lot more. 

Projection is a major factor for h.s. draftees, but the fact is, very few h.s. (pitcher) draftees under 6' go pro. They go pro after college when there is very little projectibility left, as far as velocity.  The sub 6-footers chosen in the draft after college are usually relegated to specialty roles and the like.  But the the very fact they're chosen says something.  For these players, results not projectibility count.

that's exactly the point. Its not cherry picking if its a fact. If some of the best players in the game now and in the past were and are of what would be called small then what is the relevance of performance to size, which is the question. The answer is none. What is the relevant factor to performance is,is TALENT. always was, always will be. I agree with Bum as far as the drafting of HS players versus College players. The smaller player most of the time will have to play his way to the next level. Whereas the larger  ballplayer will garner attention for "projectability". But in both cases the underlying reason for any interest is TALENT. You can be big as a house and without talent you are not going very far.

It appears that size doesn't matter so much for pitchers since velocity is the main measurment of success.

Although I wonder if having a team of 5' players wouldn't create havoc on opposing pitchers and their strike zones? 

Originally Posted by oldmanmoses:

we keep talking about size. But, IMHO size might catch their eye but performance will keep them looking. And anybody who even tries to come up with some kind of metric to tell what performance will be as per size will surely be disappointed. As history has shown you cant judge a book by its cover! Just go ask a Pedro Martinez or a Sonny Grey, or a Dustin Pedroia,or a Shane Victorino or a David Eckstien ora well you get the point, and I will just throw in John Franco for kicks!

Well, I doubt that I’d be disappointed because I don’t believe size is nearly as determining a factor in performance as people generally believe. Its definitely a factor in who gets the opportunities or gets on the radar, but that will never change unless and until it can be proven that the current paradigm is definitely not the most efficient one.

There’s a couple problems in the mix. Those who enjoy the bias will fight any attempt to change it. Those who exhibit the bias will fight any change because it will make them appear as being wrong, and there aren’t a lot of folks who’ll gladly give rock to people who would throw them. Those that don’t enjoy the bias are generally gone before they get the chance exhibit superiority.

The whole problem is that there are so many people willing to reduce players to things like velocity or size, rather than try to use those things as factors in vast array of things that determine performance.

Of course, in the end, its about talent.  The question is whether talent and size are related, and they obviously are given that the average non-baseball player is substantially smaller than the average ball-player at the MLB level. The fact that Billy Wagner was a successful pitcher despite being smaller than average for an MLBer (and more or less average for a US male) doesn't change that fact.  The reason big guys get more chances is the same reason LHP pitchers get more chances, or guys who can catch or play SS get more chances, they have a talent or physical gift that is rare and valuable.

then just stand outside of golds gym and sign every 6 footer who comes out. There is no metric that says a bigger guy will be better than a smaller guy just because he is bigger, none nada, zip. If both are equal talents and both are mentally the same then yes, the larger man has a distinct advantage. But to say that by looking at two players that one is inherently better then the other one because he is bigger is just crazy. I will repeat myself at the risk of being very boring but the difference between two players is talent, not size. Now will one get a quicker look because he is bigger? absolutely, but that doesn't make him a better ballplayer. And bringing in the average height of an American male makes no sense to me because not everyone plays baseball. If every male in the United States played baseball then that comparison would make sense but they don't so it doesn't.  

Stats I don't know exactly what you said but sounds like I agree with you!

No one is saying that size is the only thing that matters, but it does matter.

The size of the average male matters, because if size was not correlated with baseball ability at all, there'd be no reason for the average MLBer to be a different size than the average size of the population from which MLBers are drawn.

If you took a 1000 random HS seniors who were 5'10" 160-180, and I took 1000 who were 6'3" and 190-210, do you honestly think you'd be able to build the better baseball team from your 1000 more often than I could from mine?

To be honest, I have no clue what you mean by people that "enjoy" the bias versus people that "exhibit" the bias. The bias that you're speaking of is the fact that size is a factor in projecting a player's skill level. That bias exists, it's impossible to deny. I don't think anyone "enjoys" this bias. I do know that it's recognizable. As a talent evaluator, if there is a player that is undersized and possesses a skill set applicable to a specific level of play, I will evaluate accordingly. I don't know anyone that will refuse a small player who is talented.

Also, be aware that talent evaluators- whether it be collegiate coaches or professional scouts- don't simply reduce players to things like velocity and size. If it were that easy, everyone could do it.

oldmanmoses- If you recognize that a bigger player is more likely to get an opportunity, than wouldn't you reckon there is a reason behind that? It's absolutely foolish of you to explicitly state there is no such metric relating size to performance when you haven't attempted a study on the topic. I'd encourage you to do some research on the theory of constructal law- and specifically Adrian Bejan- which pretty much rebukes what you're saying.

This outstanding study: http://sabr.org/research/does-pitcher-s-height-matter is molded along the lines of what you're outlining- that performance and height are not correlated in pitchers. It does, however, recognize that there are more tall pitchers than short pitchers, and hypothesizes that perhaps the reason for this is because tall pitchers are more likely to be capable of reaching the minimum threshold for performance at that level. It also analyzes strictly in statistical results terms and does not acknowledge the progression made in one's career (Ie: projectability). Saying that a tall player is more projectable than a shorter player is not disproven in this study, or any that I have found.

No one will ever argue that size trumps talent. I don't think many would argue that size is even the 2nd most important attribute. But size is important, and saying that it isn't by citing some examples of a few above average smaller players (David Eckstein and Sonny Gray were, in my opinion, curious inclusions on that list given Eckstein's modest career and Gray's minimal sample of work) does not prove that size is not a factor in evaluation.

And just what would that prove? Do you really think that all 1000 of your guys will be top flight ballplayers or that my guys couldn't compete just because they are smaller. And why are 5-10 guys only 180? The whole premise is ridiculous. As an aside in 2009 when my sons team played in the WWBA 17u in east cobb they had maybe 1 kid 6ft.maybe. They came in 3rd place. Including beating the team that won the 18u the week before to be able to win their pool. No size is not the end all. It helps, helps a lot but isn't the holy grail.

That's an engineering theory not a study of baseball players! Ballplayers are not a river flowing! His theory is irrelevant to this discussion. Bajan cant open a kids chest and check his heart!!!!

I am not sure here (I may not be very smart), but I think in a round about way, most folks here are saying the same thing:

You have to start with all things being equal:

1)  if one player is 5'9 throwing 95MPH, second player is 6'4 throwing 95MPH, then the 6'4 kid will likely get the nod... just common sense if you had to pick one

2) if the 5'9 kid throws 95, and the 6'4 kid throws 88, then talent rules over size

In general terms, the larger athlete will always have the advantage if the skill levels are the same....advantage to the BIG boy.  That is why the Lincecums of the world are the exception, whereas the bigger boys are more the norm....at the top level, everyone has talent, therefore the smaller player has to outwork the bigger players so they can match the genetic deficit that exists.  Same goes with hitters, which is why Pedroia is an exception.

If you are making the assumption that there is a wide variable in talent, then size matters less, however at the higher level, everyone is good, hence you see rosters with more of the bigger boys.

 JH

91 across the infield is 91 regardless if the guy throwing it is 5-9 or 6-2 Bajan is not relevant here. The comparison to a larger river or tree to another smaller river or tree is not the same at all.

I assume that you didn't do a very simple, 2 second Google search on the topic like I suggested. Oh well, here you go: http://lmgtfy.com/?q=Adrian+Bejan+baseball

Back foot slider- Sort of. I'm arguing that there are more tall players that are capable of reaching the minimum talent threshold in order to compete. Yes, shorter players are outliers because they are able to overcome the genetic defect (although that sounds harsh, it is the reality). The reason there are more big players at higher levels is because, in general, big players are more capable of performing at that level.

I never said size was everything, and you're now saying that size "helps a lot".  So you're agreeing with me, then?

In the hypothetical world where we could go to an East Cobb tourney and select players to build a team, and I could only choose from players who were above the median height for the tourney and you could only choose from among those who were below the median height, which one of us is more likely to end up with the better team?

I think this post pretty much wraps it up.  The last sentence is a good synopsis, but the whole post is dead on as far as I see it.

Why not list the very tall pitchers in the game that are/were extremely successful and Cy Young Award winners?

I believe there is a correlation between size and success especially for pitchers.  Keep in mind that some positions require players to be of smaller stature.

Also  realize that their (taller pitchers) delivery is less time to the plate, the less time the hitter gets to see the ball, the less chance he has to hit it.   Smaller pitchers have to make up  the distance, as in example, Tim Lincecum's delivery.

You do not have to be tall or throw hard to be successful in the HS or college game, that has been established.   However, the game and the rules change at the pro level, not too sure why many don't really understand there is a huge difference.

Agreed.

The real funny thing is that people who are biased with size usually are not the ones who consistently bring it up. 

Can you come up with a bigger list of smaller pitchers ( 6ft under) who dominate today's game (forget what transpired in the past) against a list of ones that are much taller? 

There definetly is a correlation between height and success. That's my perception as a fan, not as a parent.

I am not correlating success with height vs velocity just taller vs shorter.

Size is an advantage!  Speed is an advantage! Strength is an advantage! I can go on forever listing different things that are an advantage.

However, not one of any of those things is enough.  If size were the "main" thing, the greatest players would be the largest players.  IMO, the greatest player ever was less than 6 foot tall. 

Baseball is a great game because the not so big guy can become the best player.  We can look at all the rosters and see there are more tall players than short players.  But if we are looking at who might be the most valuable player on any given team, it might be the tallest guy, the average sized guy, or even the smallest guy.

So size does mean a lot.  But only when the size allows a player to perform better than everyone else.  There are millions over 6 foot tall that are not playing college or professional baseball.  Some Major League rosters have shorter players than some Minor League rosters.  Any player reaching college and especially professional baseball is an exception. The 6'4 guy is an exception, the 5'9 guy is an exception.  They have both accomplished things that others couldn't.  So the advantage of size is only an advantage for a low percentage of those that same size.  

I don't believe in the "everything being equal" theory.  No two players are ever exactly equal.  The hard part is figuring out which one will be the best one.  That might be where size has its biggest advantage, in that it allows for more projection.  The Hall of Fame is full of under 6 foot tall players.

Bottom line, if you are a shorter player you have to be better than the other players both tall and short.  If you are a taller player you have to be better than the other players both tall and short.  It is the same for everybody!  You can't control your height, but you can control how close you come to your potential.  

There is no doubt that there are far more pitchers over 6' tall than under 6' tall.  Part of the question is, is that true because they are truly better, or because it is perceived that they are better and therefore given more chances.

As the father of a college pitcher under 6', I don't really make an issue out of it other than to tell my son that if he wants to make it beyond college, he will have to work that much harder and be that much better because of his height.  He understands that.  What I do, however is love it when I see a shorter pitcher make it in MLB.  One of my son's and my favorites, as Braves fans, is Kris Medlen.  He is almost identical in size to my son, so we love to watch him succeed and use him as an inspiration for my son to keep working hard. 

The way I see it is, your height is what it is.  There is nothing you can do about it.  If you want to make it to the next level, you have to be better than 99% of the baseball players out there.  And that's whether you are tall or short.  There are plenty of 6'4" HS and College pitchers who never make it to the MLB either.  Just work hard, keep plugging and try to be the best you can be.  It's the same formula for anyone else out there, short or tall. 

J H,

I don’t think I ever mentioned anything about projecting anything, and there’s a reason. When kids first begin playing, there’s really no reason to project squat because there’s a whole lot of mental and physical maturing that’s gonna take place between say 8YO and when scouts are trying to project them into the future. But, its done starting at day 1.

So what happens is, a lot of players were taken out of the game long before you get to evaluate them, so there’s no way to know how much talent you didn’t even get the chance to evaluate. Every year from the 1^st year there are kids culled out for one reason or another that end up being entirely different people 5-10 years later, but they’re out of the pool.

That’s why I don’t get into whether talent evaluators do a good job or not. They can only evaluate those who are still in the game. I know they way they go about it is pretty inefficient, but no one really seems to care as long as they get enough hard bodies to fill the roster.

Originally Posted by TPM:

…However, the game and the rules change at the pro level, not too sure why many don't really understand there is a huge difference.

What rule change at the pro level has any bearing on this discussion? The game changes in that the players all get better, but I don’t see how that favors a particular stature.

I'm pretty sure the only reason I'm on my team is because of my pitching/size.  I'm 6'3 right now, and the coaches have it stuck in their head that I am going to be throwing hard by my senior year.  It's pretty obvious at my High School our coaches value size.  Majority of pitchers are 6' and over. 

I am not really sure of the reason for the discussion, other than perhaps you are trying to encourage people to understand that talent is the most important thing that will determine where a player will end up. No argument on that.

I just get tired of people who say that velocity is not important, and that size isn't important because as far as I am concerned it is. While not the determining factor, it is an important one.

My point is that when you look at a pro roster, in most cases the majority of the players are 6ft and over.  When you look at a top D1 program, you will find the same.

Young_Baller just told us his coaches value size. They are not the only ones.

You are 100% on the money. As a player short or tall you have to be 99% or better than anyone else. That's how it is. 

And that is how it should be, for anyone. If you let the things that you cannot control discourage you, you will never make any roster.

I find that most people whose sons don't get as far as they would like tend to blame things on others, coaches think he's too small, he doesn't throw hard enough, he doesn't run fast enough, etc.