Relation of physical stature to performance.

You absolutely can make more valid sample sizes this way, you take the median height of the population and compare those above it to those below it.  MLB pitchers are already substantially taller than the population at large, if we're just talking about the ability of tall people in general to be better pitchers, the fact that there are so many fewer short MLB pitchers is substantial evidence on its face.  By splitting the MLB sub-population around its mean, we can try to determine if height within that sub-population is advantageous.

 

FWIW, as I stated somewhere upthread, I think it's likely that height within the MLB population is less predictive than height vs the population at large.  That is if you gave me 500 random american males who were under 6', and 500 who were over 6' I think it is a no-brainer that you can build a better pitching staff out of the tall guys more often.  If you give me the same distribution of guys who've pitched in MLB, I'd still take the tall guys, but I'd be less confident about the outcome.

My thought as well.  I would never want someone to be discouraged due to their size.  This coming from the dad of a short pitcher who is still playing college ball.  Bum's son, along with all the other short pitchers who have made it are an inspiration.  Regardless of, or maybe because of the odds stacked against them.

 

And dang PG, you have a basketball team size group of kids!! 

No you can't.  You are then changing the subject of the study.  If your study is about pitchers under 6' and you want to know how they compare to pitchers 6'+ and you change your parameters to look at pitchers under 6'2', you are no longer studying pitchers under 6'.  You are now studying pitchers under 6'2".  It has become a different study.  How can you possibly say it's the same thing?

This is going to be difficult to do systematically.  To start with, I don't know how you define best and compare players across eras.  For instance, you can't really just use HOFers, since the HOF is always weighted towards players who played longer ago (when the average player would have been smaller), since you can't be elected for at least 5 years after you played and many players take longer than that to get in.  The most recently elected pitcher last pitched in 1992, and for position players it looks like 2004.

 

That said, 23 hitters currently in the HOF were 6'2"+.  They have a median OPS+ of 130. 98 HOF hitters were 6' or shorter, with a median OPS+ of 125.

 

For pitchers in the HOF, 29 are 6'2"+ and 31 are 6' or shorter. Using median ERA+ (I'm not a huge fan of ERA for this, but for comparing careers, especially the longer ones of HOFers, it's probably not terrible), the tall group median ERA+ is 120, for the short group it's 115.

 

Again, I think those sample sizes are problematic, but that would be one look at it.

If I want to know how pitchers under 6' compare to pitchers over 6', you're right.  If I want to know if size is relevant within the MLB population, which is greatly skewed towards pitchers taller than 6', it's far more useful to split that population around it's median, and compare guys who are tall for that group to guys who aren't.

 

If I weren't to split the MLB population relatively in half, I leave myself more open to having variance within a small sample swamp the effect (if it exists) that I'm checking for.  If I didn't account for small sample size effects, I could conclude that pitcher's 5'7" and under are clearly superior to those 6'+, because the median ERA+ of the two guys who are 5'7" is better than that of the 614 who are 6'+

 

Finally, in the alternative where I'm curious about whether being taller makes a random person a better pitcher, I could look at the fact that MLB pitchers, as a whole, are taller than the population they are drawn from, and conclude that there is some correlation between height and the ability to be an MLB pitcher.

Wow, there are a lot more short hitters than taller ones in the HOF.  I'm very surprised.  (I know you left out the 6' & 6'1"). 

 

I'm also surprised that there were so many under 6' pitchers compared to 6'2" + pitchers. 

 

And the numbers look pretty similar.  No significant difference in performance.  I truly am surprised at both groups.

That's true.  However, generally speaking, 6' seems to be the number in most people's head.  Being 6' something will always be seen as being better than NOT being 6'.  I think that's just the way it is and why I, personally, was looking for numbers for those 5' something guys.

As always, good stuff from PGStaff and I hope he's right when it comes to the height challenged pitchers.  My son's college roommate and arguably the best pitcher on the staff from last season's team was not drafted this past June after a 10-0 season and being named an All-American.  He was sitting 89-91 and commanded three pitches, but at 6' 170 was not the prototypical physical pitcher that MLB teams are looking for?  Three other pitchers on the staff were drafted and signed, and another signed as a free-agent at the end of the summer.  Basically the team lost the Friday, Saturday, week day starter/set up man, and Closer....so in a way, I'm happy the scouting community dropped the ball on my son's roommate.  This young man has entered his senior year as the likely 2014 Friday starter and gained ten pounds of muscle over the summer.  His velocity has increased a couple of ticks and the local scouts definitely took notice in the Fall.

BTW, my son is 6' & 190lbs.  With that said, I do understand the advantages of a 6'5" pitcher compared to a sub 6'1" hurler, especially as it relates to physical projectability.  Unfortunately, the scouting community can not predict the mental attributes...and as PGStaff pointed out, there are some size challenged players that did not receive any attention in the past that could have likely helped an organization. 

Hey, he's WAY past where most have made it.  Hats off to him and all the other guys - tall or short - who are extending their opportunity to live the dream!!

Here is my two cents.

The statistics that you have given are for MLB players.

My son is a tall long legged, long armed, long fingered 6'3" RHP who has been in the minor leagues for quite a few seasons, and FWIW, he can't be counted in the statistics because he has never MADE it to the ML field.

 

Until that time, he and other pitchers should not be counted as making it, and shouldn't until they do.

 

I believe that he has had more opportunities because of his physical attributes, stuff and his velocity.  I doubt very much he would still be in the game if not for that.

 

Everyone sees it differently but if you don't reach the home field you haven't really made it.  I don't care what size you are and how hard you throw or don't throw that is how I see it.

 

No intent to knock anyone, but it is what it is, the milb system contains many players that will never make it, for various reason, and not part of any

of the above statisitics until the do.

 

JMO

My other two cents.

 

Comparing gymnasts to baseball players is ridiculous.

 

That's like comparing apples to oranges.

If you compare Hall of Fame players you're not going to get a valid sample based on the argument presented. HOFers careers go back over 100 years. People were shorter 50 or 100 years ago. You have to maintain a sample size within an era.

TPM, I understand your perspective.  But we live only once and can always appreciate the journey as well as the ultimate destination.

 

To use an analogy of the movie "Vacation", our sons may never make it to Wally World but packing our dead aunt onto the roof rack of our station wagon.. priceless memories.

There is that very highest level (MLB) but I kind of consider anyone playing past high school is a successful player.

 

Regarding Gymnastics and baseball, I agree with TPM.  Nothing against gymnasts but if that gymnast was a good enough all around athlete why not play a sport that pays millions?  As far as being athletic I would take someone like Lebron James.  I wonder how many gymnasts could jump, handle the ball, or run with him.  And he does it in a great big powerful athletic body. That said, I do enjoy watching gymnastics during the Olympics.  I can only imagine how hard it is to be one of the best.

 

Now if we are talking about a successful athlete.  I will take Jimmy Johnson!  Just kidding, when did they start calling stock car drivers athletes?  Guess all of us who drive a car are athletes.  That said, he probably is fairly athletic.

PGStaff: You said: Many at 6'0 could have longer limbs and better body type.

 

Do good scouts immediately notice longer limbs -- specifically?And if so, why?

 

JP happens to have long limbs and huge hands. Just curious.

 

Wow, what a thread! I got about 15 posts through it when I remembered something I read here years ago on this topic, so had to just post it again. 

 

To summarize: a retired scout was asked why bigger players were so much more sought after in the major league draft. He said: "Because it's a lot easier to explaina million dollar mistake if he is 6'3" and 215 pounds.

 

(Of course, my son is 5-11/205, so I remember that post clearly!)

 

 

Rob, hasn't this thread taught you anything?  Your son is clearly 6'1". 

Oops, Bum, you are right.

 

Just like my friend's son who now pitches for the Phillies (for whom my son has caught off-season bullpen since he was a freshman in high school) is 6'1". I always wondered why my kid looked him eye to eye in their sessions.

 

I didn't realize at the time that it was because my son was actually 6-1!

 

I believe that if truth be told there hasn't been a great deal of 5'9" 175lb studs that have been cut from the game because of their size. Nor has there been 6'4" 220lb talentless players given a scholarship just becuase they were big.

I don't think most people believe that a 5'9" guy can't throw 90 or a 6'4" guy always throws 90.

However what I wonder is how many 5'9" guys throwing 80 would be throwing 90 if they were 6'4". I've been coaching youth sports for a long time and very seldom have I seen a kid go thru a growth spurt that didn't throw harder or run faster afterward.

I think the scouts think tall is better. they either believe it or don't want to be the guy that's different.  I think the shorter player that has exceptional skill never gets lost in the numbers game but the guy on the bubble usually loses out to the taller guy with similar skill.

Well, Scotty, my son is really 5'9" who was offered a scholly and throws 90+.  Don't feel sorry for Bum, Jr.

Bum Jr. is a Stud...and being a southpaw doesn't hurt him either. 

Originally Posted by PGStaff:… Nothing against gymnasts but if that gymnast was a good enough all around athlete why not play a sport that pays millions? …

 

I’m assuming you made that remark without thinking about it much. I’m only guessing, but I’m thinking the chances a gymnast gets a college scholarship are a lot better than a baseball player. To some that’s a much better bet than counting on making “millions” playing professionally.

 

I’d love to see any group of baseball players compete against any group of gymnasts.  I used to get a kick out of watching many 9YO daughter who was a gymnast, make all the boys on her brother’s 12YO team look like stumble bums. That continued on into HS as well.

 

I'm 23 years old, out of shape and haven't played since college. I guarantee with 100% confidence that I could learn to do a cartwheel on a balance beam faster than the world's greatest gymnasts could learn to hit a 95 mph fastball.

 

Gymnastics is a great sport, extremely challenging and fun to watch, but it's apples to oranges. This is a ridiculous comparison to make.

 

Originally Posted by J H:

I'm 23 years old, out of shape and haven't played since college. I guarantee with 100% confidence that I could learn to do a cartwheel on a balance beam faster than the world's greatest gymnasts could learn to hit a 95 mph fastball. …

 

I suggest you try it, while at the same time trying to perfect all the other skills.

 

Its amazing to me how people who know little about gymnastics insist on making comments about how easy it is. There is absolutely no comparison in what it takes as far as sacrifice and dedication between the two.

 

Do you really think its so impossible for anyone with average hand-2-eye coordination to spend a week pumping quarters into a batting cage and not eventually be able to hit a 95MPH FB?

 

I never said gymnastics was easy. Nor did I say it didn't take sacrifice and dedication. Quit trolling.

 

Guess I was thinking about the World's greatest "male" Gymnast, whoever that might be.  How much money does he make?  Cano just signed for $240,000,000.00!

 

I understand that doesn't mean a whole lot, but neither does comparing the athletic ability between a gymnast and a baseball player. Of course, that would depend on which gymnast and which baseball player we were comparing.  Carl Crawford was recruited to play point guard at UCLA.  He committed to play "option" quarterback at Nebraska before going with professional baseball.  How many gymnasts would have the athletic ability to play three completely different sports at the highest level?

 

I'm positive there is nothing easy about becoming a great gymnast. Size is important in  that sport also, just in the opposite way. A great sport for sure and it is amazing to watch what they can do.  I remember 6'7" Jack Armstrong Jr. doing a standing back flip after pitching in a game.  I bet Ozzie Smith would have been a good gymnast. Not so sure the worlds greatest gymnast could have played baseball like Ozzie did.  How did gymnastics end up in this topic?

Just not sure a 13 y.o. Yugoslavian girl can catch up to a 95 MPH heater and get it out of the infield.  Maybe bunt and avoid the tag with a front flip though. 

 

This thread is bizzare.

Yes, and here's a solid data point in my favor, http://www.baseball-reference.....cgi?id=green-002sha.

Michael Jordan.

jac,

 

those are the worst hitting stats I have ever seen. 39 ABs, 0 hits, 37 Ks. He only hit 2 fair balls.  He is only 19, though, interesting to see if he gets better.  

He's getting better...at linebacker for the U of Washington.

 

A little surprised you haven't heard of him, his story was pretty big when the Red Sox drafted him and he put up that stat line, http://fullcount.weei.com/spor...-football-full-time/

Originally Posted by PGStaff:

…I'm positive there is nothing easy about becoming a great gymnast. Size is important in  that sport also, just in the opposite way. A great sport for sure and it is amazing to watch what they can do.  I remember 6'7" Jack Armstrong Jr. doing a standing back flip after pitching in a game.  I bet Ozzie Smith would have been a good gymnast. Not so sure the worlds greatest gymnast could have played baseball like Ozzie did.  …

 

Just as there’s a heck of a lot more to playing baseball than hitting a 95MPH FB, I assure you there’s a heck of a lot more to being a gymnast than doing a backflip.

 

You’re implication is smaller is better in gymnastics. It may look that way, but the truth is, what’s most important is the relationship of mass to strength. A guy the size of Man mountain Montana could be a great gymnast if he could ever develop the strength to make his mass do the things necessary to excel.

 

FI, if “A” and “B” both had the same exact arm strength, but “A” weighed twice what “B” did, there’s no way “B” could perform at the same level.

Originally Posted by Bum:

Just not sure a 13 y.o. Yugoslavian girl can catch up to a 95 MPH heater and get it out of the infield.  Maybe bunt and avoid the tag with a front flip though. 

 

This thread is bizzare.

 

The thread is bizarre because you have a preconceived image of a 13 y.o. Yugoslavian girl.

Originally Posted by jacjacatk:

Yes, and here's a solid data point in my favor, http://www.baseball-reference.....cgi?id=green-002sha.

 

I fail to see what that has to do with anything.

Nah, it's bizarre because gymnastics and baseball don't even relate at all in terms of skill sets. 

OK "Stas4Gnats" Fess up!  You're an old tumbler, isn't that right?

 

I don't know much about gymnastics, but it seems like doing a back flip at 6'7"/235 would be more difficult than doing a back flip at 5'4"/110. Would you agree?

Do you really think its so impossible for anyone with average hand-2-eye coordination to spend a week pumping quarters into a batting cage and not eventually be able to hit a 95MPH FB?

 

 

So what you're saying is that in order for my team to become a bunch of stud hitters I need to do a fundraiser where people give me quarters?  Man if I can figure out how to use recycled soft drink cans to work on fielding then my team is going to be a state champion in a few years.  You have just unlocked the whole secret to winning in baseball.  Maybe we can figure out how to use credit cards for basketball players.

 

That is a ridiculous statement and cheapens all athletics not just baseball.  I've not read this whole thing and I doubt I will.  In fact I'm amazed it has went on for four pages.  

 

An athlete is able to pick up any athletic skill better than the average person.  The level of ability they are able to pick that skill up is wide open.  There are many factors that determine what that is exactly though.

 

If size didn't matter then after Spudd Webb won the 1986 dunk contest did we not see the NBA going after 5'7 players?  Why was is it not until about 20 years later that Nate Robinson (also 5'7) win the dunk contest if size didn't matter?  Why doesn't MLB go after NBA players like Randy Johnson if size is so important because he was successful?

 

Size is important and goes back to that conditioning program "Bigger, Faster, Stronger" because there is truth to that but that isn't the be all or end all with size as there are others who are that higher level with success at a smaller stature.  Do they have to prove themselves more than others?  Yes they do but it is what it is - you either go out and do it or be that small guy who has talent but griped and complained about not getting a fair chance.  Bum has stated numerous times his son is of a smaller stature but is succeeding in spite of that or because of that or whatever.  I'm sure Bum will be the first one to tell you that his went out on the mound and got the job done in front of the right people many times.  He was able to do this through hard work and some genetic luck.  No matter how big you are in order to succeed you need to win a genetic lottery first because everyone has a ceiling in terms of talent and ability.  The hard work is what allows you to reach that ceiling but nobody knows where that ceiling is so you're left wondering if you did enough or the right work or even if you performed in front of the right people.

 

At the end of the day out of the three components - hard work, genetics, opportunity - you only have control of the hard work, very little control over the opportunity and none over the genetics.  So why worry about it?  Do your best in the ones you have influence over and let the rest sort itself out.  There is no definitive proof this size is better than another size.  Like real life - get the job done.

 

 

 

 

Yeah, I can understand how you wouldn't see any relationship between the near complete inability of a successful college-level athlete to even make contact with sub-95 mph fastballs and your assertion that a week's worth of quarters should get anyone with average hand-eye coordination hitting 95 mph fastballs.