Relation of physical stature to performance.

TPM is absolutely correct.  But sometimes I'm amused when people make the assumption that all shorter pitchers in pro ball are soft throwers.  All of these guys throw 90+.  If you can't hit 90, get a job at Sack-n-Save or finish your Accounting degree because as for baseball, you're done.

PG that's it in nutshelll. You just said everything I was trying to say only more concise. Thanks.

There is no doubt there is a correlation between height and velocity at the pro level but as I've mentioned before, all of these guys throw 90+ so for the shorter pitchers stuff, movement, consistency and left-handedness all come into play.  It may be "harder" for a shorter player to succeed at that level but I'm guessing if they've come that far they bring more to the table than just an average MLB fastball. 

 

As for h.s., the previous poster mentioned his coach preferred the taller player--that part is pure folly.  A high school (and to a certain extent a college) coach doesn't care about "projection" but wins NOW. 

 

In his four summer seasons post-h.s. against wood (summer collegiate and pro) Bum Jr. has logged a 23-12 win-loss record.  His coaches wanted WINS not projection.  Projection unlocks the door.  Wins lock the door.

 

PG Staff has it right.  My 2017 will show up at his high school try outs with the advantage of being 6'3", 215 pounds.  The coach has never seen him play.  I am sure that size will give him the advantage of getting a closer look.  He then has to be able to play as good or better then the other players.  Yes, we have all seen that big kid who can't reach first base unless he hits one to the fence.  A lot of people assume that is my son until they see him play.  That is also why he has been doing speed and agility training all winter.  He understands that size is a gift that he needs to build on if he wants to continue playing at a high level.  

Size most definitely matters. Have well above average size and you'll get close looks sooner (and probably more often). Have well below average size and it will be an uphill struggle from the start to get a close look. What you DO when you get the close looks what counts.

 

And as someone else noted, if you take two identical pitchers in terms of velocity and control, but one is 6'2" and the other 5'10", guess who will get the nod? And as others have noted, at the higher levels everyone is good... 

I have two sons. The older one played college baseball, the younger one plays currently. The older one is 5'8" 165 pounds, may have broken 7 flat in the 60 on a good day. The younger one is 6'0" 210 and runs a 6.6. The older one received little recruiting interest, went to a JUCO and after that walked on at the DI he went to after graduating JUCO and made the team as a walkon. The younger one received his first DI offer towards the end of his ninth grade year. The wife wondered why despite being a really good high school player the older one got so little interest and it was just seemingly thrown at the younger one. I explained to her that the older one had to prove he COULD play and prove it every day. The younger one will have to prove he CAN'T play. That's the difference size and measurables make. There will still be avenues open for the smaller guy to get where he wants to go, but the road may be a little longer and more winding. The guys with the measurables get on the interstate.

Found this somewhere on the great www

 

 

 

 

The average height of a major league player has increased almost 7% since the 1870's, from 68.9 inches to 73.7 inches. In terms of weight, the average ballplayer is almost 14% heavier than the average player in the 1870's, increasing from 167.3 lbs to 190.6 lbs. There was a pretty steep acceleration of player weight from the 1870s to 1900's, then a decline through the 1920's, and then a steady increase since 1930. Oddly enough, we don't see big jumps in weight during the advent of weight training.

Comparatively speaking, major league players have maintained a 5-6% height advantage over other US males every decade since 1960. What's interesting is that the gap between the average major league and US male weight-wise has shrunk dramatically since 1960, all the way from a 12% difference to just a tad over 2%.

and this too.....

 

 

 

The average height of MLB players is just over 6’1″.  The difference between the tallest players (pitchers) and shortest players (2B) is three inches which relatively seems like quite a bit

 

Let's not go overboard on this size thing.  Bum, Jr.'s travel team in h.s. had three pitchers drafted --including son-- and two of them were under 6'.  There were 10 pitchers 6' and above that were not drafted.

 

Son won pitcher of the year in his state at 5'9" and was an early sign for D1.  They didn't care about his lack of size and neither did he.

 

 

 

MLB weights, at least listed on sites like BBREF, fairly substantially understate player's actual weights because they tend to be the player's weight at or near their debut, and they are rarely updated.  BBREF, for instance, lists David Wells at 187.

 

Also, the weight gap shrinking can be at least partially explained by the average population getting fatter, as well.

I agree.  Lots of time being spent on something that can't be changed.  My son has not had the success that Bum's son has had, but he is pitching at a very competitive D2 school and if he doesn't make it to the next level, I strongly feel it will be because he doesn't have the velocity or stuff it takes to get there.  Not because he didn't have the height.  No excuses.  Either he didn't work hard enough to gain the velocity that he needed or just genetically didn't have it.  Whether he makes it to MLB or not, he has had a very successful baseball career thus far and I am very thankful for that.  I think he is as well.

Originally Posted by TPM:

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.

 

Heck, everything’s important! But to say looking at a pro roster proves bigger is better is faulty logic. The reason there are bigger players on ML roster is because the pool was made up of bigger players. That doesn’t necessarily equate to bigger players are always superior.

 

For the record, I do believe talent is far more important than size, but there’s also something intangible I’ll call desire for lack of a better word, that’s also more important than size as well. The trouble is, talent and desire aren’t as easily recognizable as size, and even the slightest bit of laziness on the part of a coach or evaluator will always tip the scales in favor of size. To me that’s reality, but its also a shame.

Just for fun, here are the pitchers that won the CyYoung award more than one time since 1980.

 

Roger Clemens 6'4" 

Randy Johnson 6'10"

Greg Maddux 6'0"

Pedro Martinez 5'11"

Tom Glavine. 6'0"

Roy Halladay 6'6"

Johan Santana 6'0"

Tim Lincecum 5'11"

Clayton Kershaw 6'3"

For both Pedro, and Timmy, that 5'11"had to be measured with platform heels!!

No one is saying bigger is inherently better.  What those who believe size is a factor are saying is that the things that make good ballplayers, strength, speed, ability to throw 90+, whatever else, are correlated with size.  That is, if you take a group of average size (5'10 160-180ish) males and a group of MLB size males (6'2" 220ish), you will find more baseball talented people per capita in the group of MLB size players, because they're size makes them, on average, faster/stronger/harder throwing.  This isn't about judgments or comparisons of individual players, but rather about the relationship between specific skills and the physical basis from which they are derived.

 

It's worth noting that every one of those guys is taller than the average US male, including guys like Lincecum and Pedro are thought of as small because they're small relative to the MLB population.

Again just for fun, here is a list of a dozen under 6' Position players.  I think this list would compare to most any over 6' list.  What stands out is the large number of great players that were listed at exactly 6'.

 

Under 6' Tall

 

Willie Mays

Mickey Mantle

Roberto Clemente

Carl Yastrzemski

Pete Rose

Ricky Henderson

Kirby Puckett

Tony Gwynn

Yogi Berra

Ivan Rodriguez

Ozzie Smith

Joe Morgan

 

Size is important, we know that. However you don't have to be big to make the Hall of Fame. You don't have to be big to play at the highest level.

Also, there have been 746 pitcher on an All-Star roster since 1901, only 10 of them (1.4%) were under 5'10" (the current US average, though it would have been substantially lower at the beginning of the 20th century).

 

The median height of All-Star pitchers since 1901 is roughly 6' 2.5". The median height of all pitchers in that time span is a bit under 6'2". And 4.5% of the pitchers in that time span were under 5'10".

 

It's not a huge difference at the MLB level (and for various reasons you wouldn't expect it to be), but talent is positively correlated with size both within the MLB population, and when comparing the MLB population with the non-MLB population.

As I'm always telling my diminutive son, "If you don't succeed, it's not because you're too small.  It's because you stink."  ;-)

jac, due to "height inflation" the small percentage "under 5'10" would be players only 5'6" or 5'7".  Those guys, if they could play, were deemed middle infielders long ago.  Your stats seem to imply sub-6 footers represent only 4.5% of the population of pitchers.  The percentage is much, much higher, probably 35%, especially if you count 6-footers who have "rounded up" their height. 

 

jacjacatk,

 

Where can one find that information? The first MLB All Star Game was played in 1933. 

 

One thing about these size discussions.  The size we talk about seems to change.  When talking about athletics my guess is the average professional athlete is bigger than the average person.  Guess in my mind, players under 6' and pitchers under 6'1 would be considered smaller types.   I suppose if we used a number like 5'5 it would be very difficult to put together a list of great players under 5'5. It's not difficult at all to list great players 6'0 or less.

 

Same thing with weight.  I don't know what the average weight of a male is, but I would guess it is quite a bit different than the average weight of a professional athlete/baseball player. For sure the average condition of the body would be much better and stronger among athletes.

 

As interesting as this stuff is to talk about... It's really a waste of brain cells.

Not really sure why we're talking about the percentage of sub 6 footers anyway.  1st, it is not something that anyone can change.  If you want it bad enough and you are good enough, there are plenty of examples of sub 6 footers to prove that it is possible.  Secondly, we have had plenty of people on here state that decision makers at the higher levels value the taller guys.  Therefore, the pool of pitchers will favor what the decision makers, in general, value.  So, as long as the decision makers see the taller players as a better bet, there will be more taller players playing at the higher levels.  It's just the way it is.  Once again, if a shorter player wants it enough and is good enough, it is still possible for that player to make it. 

 

The topic started here was are there numbers out there anywhere that compare the statistics of taller pitchers vs shorter pitchers.  It may be a good idea to look at these at the HS or college level or at whatever level prior to height being considered a determining factor, by at least a majority of the decision makers. 

 

Does anyone here think that taller pitchers are naturally more durable or more effective off the bump than shorter pitchers?  Is there really a quantifiable REASON that the decision makers value the taller pitcher over the shorter pitcher?

BTW, I tend to look at body type just as much as body size.  There are athletic type bodies in all sizes. There are non athletic bodies in all sizes. But one can be 6'5 with the perfect body type and still lack talent. Another one can be 5'7 with a bad body type and be extremely talented.

 

When they walk in the park, the 6'5 will create the most interest. When your leaving the park it's the 5'7 guy you like.

bballman,

 

There really are some advantages that taller pitchers enjoy. That is if they actually use those advantages.  Taller pitchers tend to have longer limbs.  The height and long arms can produce a better angle. Also can create a release closer to he plate.  Though I've been told that Lincecum has one of the closest release points to the plate.

 

Not sure the durability thing has ever been proven.

 

My personal opinion is the most successful MLB pitchers have something out of the ordinary. Usually that is a certain highest quality pitch, extremely high velocity, unusual life and movement, lots of deception, unbelievable command, several quality pitches, etc.   If they (pitchers) were all identical, hitters would take over baseball.  I actually think this can actually be an advantage for both the exceptionally tall and the shorter pitchers.  There is an obvious advantage in being different.  That is why we see so many different types, arm angles, etc. in the Big Leagues. It's also part of the reason we have less complete games thrown now days.  It's hard when hitters have to succeed against three or more "different" pitchers in a game.  The more different those pitchers are the harder it gets.

 

Height inflation is mostly just going to move the whole curve.  Everyone under about 6'5" (for baseball, anyway) is rounding up.  And it's sub 5'10" (not 6') guys that make up the 4.5%, per BBREF heights.

 

Weight's a whole different issue with regards to data, since BBREF (baseball-reference.com) weights bear little relation to reality, especially for guys in their 30s who've been in the league for a while.  See David Wells at 187, for instance.

 

It's an absolute certainty that the average MLB player is bigger than the average US (or whatever population you want to define from which MLBers are drawn) male. Despite what many here seem to be arguing, I don't know how you can do anything but conclude that that is a result of a selection process that wouldn't favor larger players if larger players didn't have an advantage.

 

That taller pitchers are over-represented versus the MLB population on the All-Star team is quantifiable evidence that they perform relatively better.  That decision makers with billions of dollars on the line chose bigger players disproportionately to their representation in the general population is evidence of the same.

 

Look, I'm not denying that there are great players of smaller stature.  I'm suggesting that baseball talent is positively correlated with size, and I think there's an immense amount of data to back that up.

 

Contrary to some other suggestions in this thread, I think within the MLB population size is probably less of factor than across the whole population of baseball players including all the amateur ranks.  This is because at the MLB level, everyone has been "selected" for talent and success, so you'd actually expect the smaller guys who are capable to effectively catch up some.  At lower levels, and here I'm thinking specifically of HS and below, raw size (and the accompanying strength) can do more to make up for talent gaps, especially given that talent is much less evenly distributed.  This is why, for instance, the 12u man-children win Cooperstown and the LLWS so much.

Is the percentage of 6'+ pitchers on the all-star team a higher percentage of the 6'+ pitchers in the league as a whole?  In other words, say 70% of the pitchers in MLB are 6'+.  Is the percentage of 6'+ pitchers in the all-star game 85% or something similar?  Or do the percentage breakdowns in the all-star game correlate with the percentage breakdown in the overall population in the league.  Hope that makes sense.

 

In regard to the second sentence above, it has been stated often that it is safer for a decision maker to make a mistake with a tall guy than a short guy.  You never REALLY know if a drafted player will be an impact player.  However, you will be much less likely to be criticized drafting a 6'3" player that doesn't work out than a 5'9" player who doesn't work out.  So, I think the predisposition to go with the tall guy is still there, just because of the perception of most involved.

Yeah, I know the argument about the angle component.  However, I believe the higher arm angle you throw from, the less lateral movement you will have on your pitches.  You are also correct with the limb issue.  Even if a taller pitcher drops his arm angle, then he is coming at a more severe angle from the side.  I think about the Randy Johnson - John Kruk incident in that all-star game.  Scary as crap.  Haha.

 

I'm not real sure about the durability thing either.  And I agree with your last paragraph.  This is true for any pitcher.  They need to have something beyond special to succeed on a consistent basis against the best hitters on the planet. 

From my previous post on the subject:

 

The median height of All-Star pitchers since 1901 is roughly 6' 2.5". The median height of all pitchers in that time span is a bit under 6'2". And 4.5% of the pitchers in that time span were under 5'10".

 

Roughly, there's something like a 0.75"- 1" difference in median heights over time.It would probably be better to look at the trend on a year-by-year basis vs the league average, but that's way more time consuming to do.  Might also be worth cutting things off at some date in the past, since I don't know how accurate heights are likely to be for guys from before the mid-20th century or so.

 

There probably is a part of this that is selection bias as you suggest, but as I've noted before there are billions of dollars on the line at the MLB level (and certainly at least millions at the levels below that), and I find it difficult to believe that such biases would survive in a significant way given that payoff that would come from exploiting an inefficient market.

Sounds like there is roughly a 0.5"-0.75" difference overall, which doesn't really tell you a whole lot.  You mentioned that 4.5% of the pitchers in the all-star game were under 5'10".  What percentage of the MLB pitchers overall were under 5'10"? 

 

And I think it would be more relevant and interesting if we talked about 6'+ and under 6'.  That seems to be a more relevant measuring stick.  And I personally think it would be more telling to know the % of 6'+ in the all-star game vs the % of 6'+ in the MLB overall.

 

Maybe I'm just being nitpicky.  It's interesting if I could just get a handle on the numbers.

I called it .75-1 because BBREF only list whole inches, so I have to interpolate the actual median.

 

4.5% of all pitchers since 1901 were under 5'10", 1.4% of All-Star pitchers were, see my previous post.

 

21% of all pitchers (since 1901) were under 6', 11.9% of All-Star pitchers were.

 

52.8% of all pitchers were under 6'2", 40.3% of All-Star pitchers were.

bballman,

I think there is a stronger correlation between higher velo guys and inury, no matter what the height.

There are literally hundreds of pitchers in the milb level, some get to the show because their stuff is better than anyone elses, others get there because they got lucky.

And stayed healthy.

Again, The first MLB All Star game was played in 1933 so I don't understand why you mention since 1901.

Because I didn't know that when I ran the searches originally, and 1901 is the default at BBREF.

 

Since 1933:

 

Under 5'10" 2.1% of all, 1.2% of AS

Under 6' 13.8% of all, 11.9% of AS

Under 6'2" 44.5% of all, 40.2% of AS

 

This understates the discrepancy somewhat, since the earliest debut of a player counted as an All-Star for this purpose is 1914 (Babe Ruth, incidentally), so 20 years of players who were contemporaries of some of the earliest All-Stars are being excluded from the "all" pool.  To get a more accurate picture, should probably split the difference and count from like 1924, but I don't feel like running the numbers again.

 

Just curious. You sure did a lot of figuring and that is appreciated. Wondering how you came up with those numbers/percentages?

 

Like where do I go to find out 2.1% of all MLB pitchers were under 5'10"? Or 13.8% under 6' tall? Surely you didn't check each and every players height?  Where are those statistics, I'm kind of a stats freak when it comes to stuff like that.

 

Thanks

http://www.baseball-reference....on_finder.cgi?type=p

 

You can search based on any given height criteria (among a zillion other things) to get the whole population of pitchers for a given time span, or any subset based on a particular height.  That's without subscribing, I'm given to understand that for a small fee you can do even more.

Thanks jac. Looks like there is a difference, although a fairly small one,  between the height of all MLB pitchers and those who make the all-star team. Seems like you may be able to infer that taller pitchers are slightly better than shorter pitchers.

FWIW, for non-pitchers only, Since 1933:

 

Under 5'10" 9.6% of all, 8.2% of AS

Under 6' 37.1% of all, 33.3% of AS

Under 6'2" 72.9% of all, 68.4% of AS

I ran the numbers again controlling for starters vs relievers.  Perhaps counter-intuitively, the gap is larger for relievers, especially for ones over 6'2" (45.2% of all relievers were under 6'2", only 40.2% of AS relievers were).

The most surprising number is that more than one out of every three pitchers was under 6'0".

Bum, your new profile picture threw me off......