Relation of physical stature to performance.

If there are no players listed under 5 ft then there is definitely a correlation between physical stature and performance. 

Originally Posted by jacjacatk:

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.

What in the world does that have to do with anything? If ML teams were evaluating all people in the US that would have some meaning. But since they only look at a very small percentage of the entire population, its not valid to compare that small percentage to the whole.

bballman,

I have to admit you’ve hit the nail dead on the head, and explained it nicely.

To be honest, I’d just have run the numbers myself on our players, but sadly I have no way at all to get that height/weight measurement. Even though I’m the guy who posts the player info on-line and off-line, I’ve never done height/weight because I’ve never been given it by the coaching staff, and that’s because they’ve never gathered that info.

If a scout wants to know a players “vitals”, he’ll call the HC and he will give his eyeball guess about H/W. I asked him once why he didn’t get accurate vitals, and he just laughed, saying kids from 13 to 18 can have their weight fluctuate by 10% a month, and there’s no telling how much height a kid that age might gain. In the end, he wasn’t going to have the players get weighed and have their height checked often enough to make it accurate because it was a waste of time.

I’ve been thinking about going ahead and sticking in my best “estimate” of H/W for our players, just to see what kicked out. If I do that I’ll post it here for those who are interested to see.

If size didn't correlate with talent, the size of players in MLB (or college, or MiLB) would mirror the population from which they were drawn.  That these subsets of the population are bigger indicates that a selection process based on size is taking place.

FWIW, this correlation is equally obvious in the NFL, and NBA.  I'd assume it carries to the NHL as well, though hockey-reference.com doesn't apparently list player heights and weights in an easily searchable way. There's this, http://usatoday30.usatoday.com...r-tall-players_n.htm, for tennis.

In general, athletes who are bigger and stronger perform better, which leads to sub-populations of athletes being bigger and stronger than the population as a whole. I'm sure there are exceptions to this rule, jockeys, maybe gymnasts or wrestlers where height at least isn't necessarily selected for, but I don't see how anyone can really logically argue with the fact that bigger baseball players are clearly more valued.

Originally Posted by bballman:

…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.

IMHO, that’s much the same thing going on with pitching velocity. It’s a CYA item on a scout’s checklist.

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/s...s/sr_11/sr11_252.pdf

The median 19 year old male in the US is 5'10", and weighs 169 lbs.  Take your varsity seniors (almost all of whom should be 19 or younger) and see how many of them fall beneath that median (even with the disadvantage of being younger).

At my son's HS, there were two guys below the median (out of 9) for height. It's possible a couple of other guys were in the neighborhood of the median weight, but I'd put the mean for the graduates as a group at closer to 200 than 170.

Edited because I mis-read the height chart the first time.

Originally Posted by jacjacatk:

… I'm sure there are exceptions to this rule, jockeys, maybe gymnasts or wrestlers where height at least isn't necessarily selected for, but I don't see how anyone can really logically argue with the fact that bigger baseball players are clearly more valued.

No one has said bigger baseball players aren’t more valued! I at least am trying to say that whatever that value is, would be different if a bias everyone knows is there could be mitigated.

Having had some experience with gymnasts, I’ve never seen one that was exceptionally tall, but I would bet large sums that the top gymnasts are far better athletes than the top baseball players.

Bigger baseball players are more valued because they're more valuable.  The alternative is it's just because everyone in the world thinks they're more valuable when they're actually not.  The former is a lot more likely than that everyone in the world who evaluates baseball players is wrong.

Football players are evaluated for size, too.  More than baseball players are.  Is size more valuable to being a football player, or is that also a bias?

Goes back to the bigger, stronger, and faster theory that's been validated over the years.  Of course, there are few exceptions.

Several years ago during the Area Code games,

I "teased" several Scouting Directors with the theory that I could predict success based on shoe sizes.

For 17 years, we have placed in our computer profiles the MPH and shoe sizes of all the pitchers in USA. Over 5,000 players.

After a few years, many our Area Code players became ML players. We had a sample if the Scouting Directors desired to request.

For example, Hamilton wore size 18 shoe and at age 17 threw 93 MPH.

Beckett size 14 and threw 97 MPH at age 17.

"The game should be fun". Baseball teaches life!

Bob

Actually, more than 1 out of 3 non-pitchers were under 6' (37%).  Looks like about 14% of all pitchers were under 6' since 1933.

I thought he went back and revised those percentages.  Because didn't he mention that 30 some % of the under 6' were all stars?   That would have been since 1933 when the first All Star game was played.

Anyway, seems like a larger number of sub 6' pitchers than I would have guessed. Interesting stuff, thanks for looking it up, jac.

Sorry, I failed to notice he was referring to non pitchers.

Well, that gives my son some hope... he wears a size 13, although he is currently only 5'9 or so. He can also palm a basketball. I'm hoping the rest of him catches up to his appendages.   

These are two different type of athletes in tow different type of sports that have different skills.

How many top baseball players have you met to make the determination that gymnasts are far better athletes?

I was just looking at the Top 50 Prospects on MLB.com.  Of the top 40, only ONE was under 6' and he is a LHP who is 5' 11".

A few of you seem to want to give too much weight to the scout CYA argument and/or claim an unwarranted bias.  You are ignoring the basic physics principals the state the longer levers will allow for more maximum velocity, speed, power, reach, etc. 

Height/length is advantageous for hitters as well as every position player except 2b. When comparing apples and apples, a strong tall hitter will do everything a strong short hitter will do plus have more max power (more hr, xbh). A tall fast OF will get to more balls with longer strides and more reach than a short fast OF.  The longer levers will also allow for more arm strength on throws.  1B has obvious reach advantage that is remarkable when you actually measure the full reach difference in all directions when a guy is just 3-4" taller than another.  The extra arm strength from the longer levers give the advantage to taller guys on the left side of the infield and, to an extent, the catcher. Taller P's benefit from the arm strength, can pitch downhill more or from farther out to the side while also releasing closer to the plate.  A 90 mph pitch that is released 6" closer is effectively quite faster.  Part of it becomes mental.  When a hitter knows the tall pitcher throws hard and releases closer to the plate or from way out to the side, he will adjust his normal hitting approach and usually not perform up to his normal abilities.  Think Randy Johnson vs. John Kruk All Star game.

Yes, of course we have to be talking about players with very similar athleticism, baseball smarts, desire, etc.  But at the higher levels, there are plenty of those. 

My kids are small.  I root for the little guy as much or more than anyone and I love to see them buck the odds and succeed but lets be real with some of the arguments.  It is not an imaginary bias with no merit.  Yes, there are some CYA decisions made, but there is logic and principal behind it.

Same for the velocity argument.  Generally, if a P doesn't have a FB with velocity that challenges hitters at a given level, it becomes too easy for those hitters to sit on all of his pitches.  Yes, movement, mixing speeds and looks, location and all the other elements are important but you have to start with a velocity base that will keep hitters honest.  It's not just a CYA item on a scout's checklist.

Cabbage, the three main arguments against the shorter pitcher have largely been debunked by science or lack of it.  The arguments:  Taller pitchers 1) are more durable, 2) have an advantage of downward plane in their delivery and 3) deliver closer to home plate.

The rebuttal:

1) I know of no study which has proven shorter pitchers are less durable than taller pitchers.  We went through that here on HSBBW years ago.  Nothing found.

2) I believe CADad (an engineer) did a study on height advantage with respect to downward plane in the delivery and he concluded the delivery angle angle difference for the taller pitcher was < 1%.  Very little difference.   

3) Taller pitchers may have a release closer to the plate if stride lengths proportionate to body height is the same.  But you will notice shorter pitchers compensate for this.  There is an inverse correlation between pitcher height and stride (e.g., shorter pitchers tend to stride further).

I'm not convinced about the advantage, but maybe I've got a bias because I've never seen my son "disadvantaged" by his height.  Not at any level he's played.

Good post Bum. 

FWIW, it wouldn't have to be something we think of as directly related to height.  I'd bet taller players have bigger hands/longer fingers, for instance, which could directly impact pitching.

For the ranges of heights typically associated with baseball I wouldn't be surprised if taller players are also stronger. Raw strength isn't necessarily the benefit in baseball that it would be in football, say, but it's going to have some effect.  Eric Cressey also has some interesting things to say about weight, http://www.ericcressey.com/cc-sabathia-weight, and taller players are going to be heavier, or at least have a bigger frame on which to put weight/muscle, in general.

http://www.hardballtimes.com/m...mythbusting-machine/

A good discussion of bias and height.

And, I know that Ron Wolforth and Trevor Bauer believe that shorter pitchers have an advantage...both due to release point and due to shorter pitchers being able to be more efficient in their movements and body control.  For example see:

http://www.letsgotribe.com/201...-bauer-wants-to-know

One successful small guy doesn't change the numbers for the whole population, not to mention it's a bit early to assume Stroman sticks as a starter, http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs...here-he-was-drafted/, which seems to be the core of the myth-breaking argument.

Also, note that Tim Lincecum is mentioned in the article as "diminutive".  Lincecum is 5'11", 170, per BBREF.  That makes him small relative to his MLB peers, but if he walked into a decent sized office, he'd be taller than the majority of the men there, and only lighter because he's in his 20s and in shape.  Hell, at 5'9" 185, Stroman wouldn't particularly standout as being small in the general population.

You've never seen Lincecum in person then.  If he's 5'11 I'm 6'5.  Lincecum is 5'8" on a good day.

Bum is totally right. 

You keep stating "official" heights. 

You can see from the article that scouts say Stroman is 5'6".  Licnecum is almost definitely under 5'11".  Generally pitchers under 6' add 1" to 2" in height (or more) due to being measured in their uniform/cleats.

as Bum states...Lincecum is neither 5'11'' nor is he 170 lbs., unless wearing very high heels, and with lots of rocks in his pocket to help add weight.

5'8" - 5'9 / 160ish is much more like it.

Here are the official heights from the NBA combine.  Almost every player is "officially" listed as their height with shoes, but this also has their height without shoes:

http://www.nba.com/2013/news/0...aft-combine-results/

When you know there is a bias toward taller players, you're going to obviously inflate your height if that's an area where you come up short.  [pun intended] 

https://docs.google.com/file/d...h94ZXJmWTDvlIjT/edit

I know Stroman and would agree that 5'9" is probably a bit of a stretch for him.

To be quite honest, I'm not really too sure I understand the point of this thread. Talent is talent regardless of how tall you are. As cabbagedad noted, and I pointed out previously in citing Professor Adrian Bejan, there are physiological advantages to being taller and, as a result, being able to perform at the highest levels. No one denies that it is possible for a shorter pitcher to succeed. At the same time, the numbers are so obviously skewed toward the fact that tall pitchers, by and large, are more likely to reach the higher levels of play.

If you're short and you're good, then that's great. If you're tall and you're good, that's great too. The moral of it all is that you cannot control how tall you are, so don't worry about it. Control what you can control and be the best that you can be and let the rest fall into place.

FWIW, I am contributing to the prospect lists at Baseball Prospectus and the Blue Jays' list comes out tomorrow. We plan to rank Stroman our #1 prospect in the organization, with 6'4" Aaron Sanchez coming in at #2. There was a lot of discussion about flip-flopping them, but height was never one of the reasons. If you're good, you're good.

Originally Posted by TPM:

These are two different type of athletes in tow different type of sports that have different skills.

How many top baseball players have you met to make the determination that gymnasts are far better athletes?

Participants in both sports are ATHLETES, and athlete ability is what I was thinking about, not skills related to either sport.

I’ve MET at least 2 dozen TOP ML players, at least half of whom are either in the HOF or will be, and IMHO, there isn’t even one of them who on their best day could compare athletically with a mid-level gymnast, let alone a top level one, male or female.

That doesn’t mean baseball players COULDN’T become top gymnasts, but its much more likely a top gymnast could become a top baseball player than the other way around.

Well,

I said if I came up with any real data, I’d show it, so here we go.

Unfortunately, as I’ve noted before, I’ve never kept data on player heights and weights, but for this exercise in order to get something done, I did something I don’t normally do. I went through all of our players and gave my best GUESS about height and weight, Remember, this goes back 8 years, and then I’m only guessing.

I genned up a report for our hitters and another for our pitchers. The 1st ones give totals by height. The batting is sorted by OBP, and the pitching by ERA.

http://www.infosports.com/scor...per/images/size1.pdf

The 2nd set breaks the hitting and pitching out by individuals. They are sorted the same way.

http://www.infosports.com/scor...per/images/size2.pdf

I’ve asked the coach to humor an old man and list heights and weights for all the layers as best he can, but I’m not real confident he’s gonna take time to do that. If he does, I’ll certainly redo the reports because I’m sure his heights and weights will be much more accurate than mine.

As always when I generate a metric I have no idea what the outcome will be, I found the exercise interesting indeed, but then again I have the benefit of knowing the players.

NBA height info, all it takes is vertical superiority:

http://www.nytimes.com/interac...-pro-basketball.html

Alright Stats.  I looked at your numbers and although you are just guessing at height, here's what I came up with.

Pitching - ERA

Under 6' - 2.72

6' + - 2.71

Batting - BA

Under 6' - .306

6' + - .297

I'm not seeing much of a difference in performance between those under 6' tall and those 6' tall and over.  Pretty close in both pitching and hitting.  Interesting.

To comment on athleticism.  I don't really think you can compare.  First of all, different athletes have a particular skill set.  Having the hand eye coordination to hit a baseball doesn't translate into doing back flips.  I don't think it means one athlete is any more athletic than the other.  Just as a baseball player might not be able to compete with a gymnast on the mats, a gymnast will not be able to jump on a baseball field and compete with the best baseball players.  Just ask Michael Jordan.

Also, for different sports, there are various advantages to size - in general.  In football, it is a distinct advantage to be bigger because it is such a physical game.  The laws of physics dictate that it is easier for a heavy object to stop or block or get past another heavy object. If you don't have the physical size, you better have unbelievable talent in another area, such as speed to overcome that.  In basketball, the taller you are, the closer you are to the basket and the better you are able to block shots and rebound, etc...  In gymnastics, the shorter you are, the better you should be able to control your body.  The physics of doing flips is an advantage for shorter people.  I think you get what I'm saying.

Baseball has always been the sport in which size really doesn't give a distinct advantage.  There is no 10' rim, you don't have to do flips or spin around a bar, you don't have to block a 6'5", 280 pound defensive lineman so he doesn't kill your quarterback.  You go out and throw, hit and run.  Those are a skillset in and of themselves, but size is not nearly as much of a factor as the physical limitations faced in other sports.  JMHO.

if height isn't important then why do most of the players fudge their height.  Just my observation but to me the reason size matters is for one reason, the scouts say it does.  how many times do you hear "he looks great in his uniform"?  As a 5-9 HS pitcher throwing 93mph out of HS and then being the dad of a 6'4 pitcher throwing 91MPH I've seen both sides.  it ain't fair but it is a fact, scouts love the tall kids.

bballman,

On athleticism: I think this is something so dependent on personal perspective, for even 2 people to compare athleticism between 2 athletes is almost impossible, making it absolutely impossible to do when more observers and more athletes are trying to be taken into consideration.

Here’s the problem. Its entirely possible for one athlete to be superior at one athletic skill to another athlete, but be inferior to the same athlete in different skill. Along with that, each of us has our own standard about what’s good and what’s bad, along with all the possibilities in between. That makes it extremely difficult to set a universal standard, and without that there’s no measurement that will work across the board.

So, what ends up happening is people throw out the word “athleticism” the same way they throw out the word “candy”. It can mean different things but no one cares because its ASSUMED everyone agrees on its meaning. I think the problem is, athleticism gets confused with acquiring sport specific skills, and they are not the same thing. FI, a player might be able to hit like a machine, but not be able to walk and chew gum. What’s more often seen in baseball is a pitcher like David Wells who somehow managed to acquire pitching skills on a tremendously high level, but who’d seldom be taken for an “athlete” by someone who didn’t know who he was.

I agree that baseball is a sport where size does not have as much of an advantage as it does in other sports, but in the big scheme of things I’m guessing athletes all get thrown into the same bag, and therefore sports will overlap. I think people tend to try to make it all too easy to understand, when its really very complicated.

Originally Posted by throw'n bb's:

if height isn't important then why do most of the players fudge their height.  Just my observation but to me the reason size matters is for one reason, the scouts say it does.  how many times do you hear "he looks great in his uniform"?  As a 5-9 HS pitcher throwing 93mph out of HS and then being the dad of a 6'4 pitcher throwing 91MPH I've seen both sides.  it ain't fair but it is a fact, scouts love the tall kids.

Are you saying that happens because tall kids are inherently superior, or because choosing a tall kid and being wrong is nowhere near as bad as choosing a short one and being wrong. IOW, its as much a CYA thing as anything.

Batting average is a terrible metric for hitters for these purposes.

There were 640 non-pitcher hitters who appeared in an MLB game last year.  461 of them were 6'+.  The median OPS+ of those 461 was 90.  Median OPS+ for the 179 guys who were under 6' was 83. Taller hitters hit better.

If I do the same search by WAR, I get 645 eligible players (not sure why, not going to check right now, but maybe I'm pulling in a pinch-hitting pitcher or two). 465 are 6'+, with a median WAR of 0.3. The 180 under 6' tall have a median WAR of 0.2.  Taller hitters are slightly more productive overall.

Note that in the case of WAR, since fielding is included, so is the tendency away from taller players at up the middle positions.  That tendency may be well founded, that is height might be a detriment past a certain point for some critical aspects of fielding.  Despite this potentially counter-balancing effect, taller players are still more productive overall.

For pitchers ERA has substantial problems, especially for relievers.  Let's try some other metrics.

678 pitchers appeared in a game last year. 613 of them were 6'+  Median K/9 was 7.3, median WAR was 0.2.  For the 65 guys under 6', median K/9 was 7.4, and median WAR was 0.2. Which does look like an ever so slight advantage to the short guys.

It's worth noting that we're not really looking at good sample sizes for either group though, given that the pool of small guys is 1/3 the size of tall for the hitters, and 1/10 the size for pitchers, so let's look at roughly equal size groups around a dividing line.

For hitters 354 guys were 6'1" or more, 291 were shorter.  The talls had a median OPS+ of 91 and a WAR of 0.4. The shorts were 82 OPS+ and 0.2 WAR.

For pitchers 348 guys were 6'3" or taller, and 330 were under 6'3".  Split that way, the taller group still had a median war of 0.2, with a K/9 of 7.6.  The short group has a median WAR of 0.2 and a K/9 of 7.2.  So the advantage appears to tip slightly back towards the taller.

Honestly, there probably ought to be some sort of playing time floor for this to isolate all the guys (of both height classes) that are distorting the WAR number for lack of playing time (since WAR is a counting stat and OPS+ and K/9 are rate stats), but someone else can play around with that.

On this issue, all I have to go on is the data available.  To the extent that players fudge their height I suspect it works to compress the range of heights a bit, but probably doesn't massively impact the mean or median, at least relative to the population at large.  Maybe the MLB curve shifts to the left by 1/2-1 inch.  Though I'd note that there are some tall non-pitchers who I'm reasonably convinced are understating their heights.  John Mayberry, for one, I could absolutely buy being taller than his listed 6'6", and I've stood next to Fred McGriff (listed at 6'3") and my son (also 6'3") and I'm not convinced McGriff isn't taller, though maybe it's just that he was that much more massive.

I'll stick with pitching for now since that's where my interests lie.

Sounds like the shorter guys were just as effective as the taller guys.  And maybe the shorter guy group is so small because of the belief that taller guys are better, so there are more of them. 

And you can't come up with bigger sample sizes by changing the parameters of the study.  When you change the parameters from players under 6' to players under 6'3", you are essentially changing the study.  The numbers then become irrelevant.

Sounds like whether you use ERA for the HS kids from Stats's study, or WAR and K/9 from the MLB guys, shorter players (under 6') are just as effective as taller players (6'+). 

Another thought.  I said that maybe there are more taller pitchers because of the belief that taller pitchers are better.  There is the possibility that there are simply more taller pitchers available.  That still doesn't mean that the presented evidence doesn't show that the taller pitchers are more effective. 

Statistics can be prove anyone's point if they're manipulated correctly.  All I know is Bum, Jr. was the shortest pitcher on every team he's played on and the tall guys he played with now watch baseball on TV. 

Height is relevant only to those who make it relevant.

BTW don't confuse height or size with strength or power.  Smaller people can be extremely powerful.  The toughest people on the planet (no doubt about it) are the Filipinos and they are generally "shorter".  Pacquiao has made mince meat out of taller guys.

All very interesting stuff.  You could take this many different directions.  Players between 5'11-6'1 I tend to lump together.  Don't really consider them tall or short.  Too many variables to say someone 6'1 is likely to be better than someone 6'0.  Many at 6'0 could have longer limbs and better body type than most 6'1 players/pitchers. In that case who has the advantage the 6'0 or the 6'1?

If size were the "most" important ingredient to success, would it mean the very largest players have been, or would be, the "most" successful?

There is no doubt that those that are undersized need to be very special.  However, the same holds true for those that might be considered too big.  Knowing the average height of a MLB player is just above 6'1, little taller for pitchers, little shorter for position players, should tell us a lot.  

If we look at two people on the street (one 5'8' one 6'4) and had to guess which one would be the best pitcher, who would we pick?  In an exaggerated way, that is how it works.  Problem is, we could very well be wrong!  

The outstanding research done by some in this thread seems to prove there is a slight advantage in production based on height.  However, let's take a list of the best players in history, say top 50 players, and top 20 pitchers.  Wonder what the average height would be among those Players/Pitchers?  

I don't know how that would play out, but just for fun, I will take the position players 6'0 and under against those 6'2 and over.  I will also take those pitchers 6'2 and under against those 6'4 and over.

If that exercise shows I was correct, what does it say about the importance of size?

Also, not that many years ago there was at least one MLB organization that instructed their scouting department that they should never turn in a 6'0 or under RHP.  For quite awhile the scouting community was obsessed by size.  Slowly but surely a change is taking place.  Now days we see a few 6'0 and under pitchers getting drafted, even in the first round.  Obviously his is happening because of the success several smaller pitchers have had in the Big Leagues.  It does make me wonder how many smaller pitchers were left in the dust over the past several decades, due to the scouting community's fascination with size.  Size is still a factor, just not as much as it used to be.

My interest in this topic is based on any younger kids reading this or being told they are too small to make it.  It ain't easy for anyone no matter what size they are.  The Big Leagues are full of players that surprised many people.  Players that bucked the odds!   

And I guarantee that any player with outstanding talent, no matter what size, can play college baseball. Once you take the field, size doesn't matter! They don't spot someone any hits or runs because they're big.

BTW, this has been one of the better "size" discussions we have had on here. Lots of great opinions and factual information.

Just so no one thinks... He is just a guy that has a small son... I have three sons and a daughter.  They are 6'7, 6'6, 6'5 and the daughter is 5'11.