quote:29 Pitchers shorter than 6 feet
Assuming of course, everyone is measured with the same tape measure. A bunch of the 6-1 guys are 5-11.
Assuming of course, everyone is measured with the same tape measure. A bunch of the 6-1 guys are 5-11.
Assuming of course, everyone is measured with the same tape measure. A bunch of the 6-1 guys are 5-11.
I have watched this thread go on and on, but only glanced at it. It seems to still be going strong and now I would have to take off work to read the whole thing. So if I am repeating a point, sorry!
My son is very tall for his age (and athletic) and he always has been. But, the size part has opened doors for him at every age and around every corner: basketball (he ain't that good, but they want him anyway!), football, and baseball (thank you Lord!)
So I am not going to debate the "size matters" issue, but he has been given preferential treatment since about age 8.
My son is very tall for his age (and athletic) and he always has been. But, the size part has opened doors for him at every age and around every corner: basketball (he ain't that good, but they want him anyway!), football, and baseball (thank you Lord!)
So I am not going to debate the "size matters" issue, but he has been given preferential treatment since about age 8.
SoCalDad07:
Thanks for posting that article.
It's facinating.
Thanks for posting that article.
It's facinating.
Those who know from experience will tell you size DOES matter. A few exceptions do NOT prove this wrong - they simply prove it is not a hard and fast rule.
If any player 6'0" and under is considered short in this discussion then we all can agree size does matter. Outside sports a guy who is 6'0" would never be considered short.
Bottom line is that size does limit your opportunities. However, there are enough exceptions to that rule to prove to any player with talent that if he wants it BAD ENOUGH he still has a chance.
After all, it might be nice to have dozens of recruiters and scouts lining up at your door, but if you have the talent to succeed all you really need is ONE person to sit up and take notice. After that, you have the only opportunity you need - on the field.
Yes, it can be very frustrating to watch less talented larger players get more opportunities than you do. However, all the time you spend bemoaning the situation is just wasted time.
A much better use of your time would be to use a little savvy, and find that one person out there willing to give you your chance.
If any player 6'0" and under is considered short in this discussion then we all can agree size does matter. Outside sports a guy who is 6'0" would never be considered short.
Bottom line is that size does limit your opportunities. However, there are enough exceptions to that rule to prove to any player with talent that if he wants it BAD ENOUGH he still has a chance.
After all, it might be nice to have dozens of recruiters and scouts lining up at your door, but if you have the talent to succeed all you really need is ONE person to sit up and take notice. After that, you have the only opportunity you need - on the field.
Yes, it can be very frustrating to watch less talented larger players get more opportunities than you do. However, all the time you spend bemoaning the situation is just wasted time.
A much better use of your time would be to use a little savvy, and find that one person out there willing to give you your chance.
It seems to me that at times we are conflating two different questions: The first one is “Does size matter?” Clearly it matters because scouts and major league baseball have decided it does.
But the second question is more complicated: “Should size matter?” It is one thing to make decisions based on proven criteria. It is another to accept certain criteria as valid where that validity has never been established. Some folks are willing to just say that’s the way it is, why argue about it, and move on. I’m not one of them. If certain teams give their scouts a mandated height minimum, and certain guys never get the look they deserve and the opportunity to develop simply because of unsupported baseball dogma, then I just can’t sign on.
There have been numerous posts from far more technically enlightened people than I discrediting the notion that taller pitchers have an advantage because they throw from a steeper angle, get a better plane, are closer to the plate, etc., etc. I’ve seen no data that even remotely supports any of these theories.
Another argument is that taller pitchers will be more durable. Again, no data, only belief. In fact, the more I look at the situation empirically, the more I observe a lot of big guys breaking down. I don’t have the data either, but the burden is not on me because I’m not drafting guys based on height. Where is the study showing that tall pitchers have proved more durable in professional baseball?
And then, of course, there is the simple assertion that tall guys throw harder. Well, maybe. As a general proposition, I can agree that truly diminutive human beings will simply not generate the necessary momentum to throw in the 90’s. But I would also argue that really tall guys will have more problems efficiently controlling their moving parts. So far there is only one Randy Johnson – one would think that if there were no diminishing returns to the height advantage we would see a bunch of these super tall lanky types in the major leagues. My opinion is that within a certain range – perhaps from around 5” 9” or so to 6’ 5” – the numerical prospects for similarly skilled athletes to succeed as pitchers in the major leagues are largely the same. And at the end of the day, 95 mph is 95 mph no matter what the height of the pitcher.
Looking at the actual heights of professional baseball players in order to prove that tall pitchers have a physical advantage is inherently skewed to favor the bias. It is well established that smaller pitchers are not given the same chance to prove themselves, and thus many are culled from the outset. It is also a fact that baseball organizations do everything they can to enhance the opportunity window for their high priced bonus investments. The early rounders – often selected partly because of their projected height - will get more chances to succeed than the smaller guys who represent a lesser financial risk. And then there are the talented pitchers who are converted to position players in order to avoid the bias altogether. All said, it’s quite amazing how many smaller pitchers actually succeed in the majors. I think they do so far out of proportion to what one would expect if height is so important as a predictive factor.
I know I’m tilting at windmills, and I do so even though my own 14 year old son is already 6’ 1”. I love baseball, but I think the sport suffers when it disregards the reality all around it. It did so for too many years with steroids. This is a far less serious subject but it too deserves a reality check.
But the second question is more complicated: “Should size matter?” It is one thing to make decisions based on proven criteria. It is another to accept certain criteria as valid where that validity has never been established. Some folks are willing to just say that’s the way it is, why argue about it, and move on. I’m not one of them. If certain teams give their scouts a mandated height minimum, and certain guys never get the look they deserve and the opportunity to develop simply because of unsupported baseball dogma, then I just can’t sign on.
There have been numerous posts from far more technically enlightened people than I discrediting the notion that taller pitchers have an advantage because they throw from a steeper angle, get a better plane, are closer to the plate, etc., etc. I’ve seen no data that even remotely supports any of these theories.
Another argument is that taller pitchers will be more durable. Again, no data, only belief. In fact, the more I look at the situation empirically, the more I observe a lot of big guys breaking down. I don’t have the data either, but the burden is not on me because I’m not drafting guys based on height. Where is the study showing that tall pitchers have proved more durable in professional baseball?
And then, of course, there is the simple assertion that tall guys throw harder. Well, maybe. As a general proposition, I can agree that truly diminutive human beings will simply not generate the necessary momentum to throw in the 90’s. But I would also argue that really tall guys will have more problems efficiently controlling their moving parts. So far there is only one Randy Johnson – one would think that if there were no diminishing returns to the height advantage we would see a bunch of these super tall lanky types in the major leagues. My opinion is that within a certain range – perhaps from around 5” 9” or so to 6’ 5” – the numerical prospects for similarly skilled athletes to succeed as pitchers in the major leagues are largely the same. And at the end of the day, 95 mph is 95 mph no matter what the height of the pitcher.
Looking at the actual heights of professional baseball players in order to prove that tall pitchers have a physical advantage is inherently skewed to favor the bias. It is well established that smaller pitchers are not given the same chance to prove themselves, and thus many are culled from the outset. It is also a fact that baseball organizations do everything they can to enhance the opportunity window for their high priced bonus investments. The early rounders – often selected partly because of their projected height - will get more chances to succeed than the smaller guys who represent a lesser financial risk. And then there are the talented pitchers who are converted to position players in order to avoid the bias altogether. All said, it’s quite amazing how many smaller pitchers actually succeed in the majors. I think they do so far out of proportion to what one would expect if height is so important as a predictive factor.
I know I’m tilting at windmills, and I do so even though my own 14 year old son is already 6’ 1”. I love baseball, but I think the sport suffers when it disregards the reality all around it. It did so for too many years with steroids. This is a far less serious subject but it too deserves a reality check.
Diamondboy,
Excellent post! I think you touched on the main reason we see so many pitchers in the Big Leagues who are Big and/or TALL.
I believe the advantages of height mentioned are all legitimate, but fairly insignificant. Back in my scouting days, it was generally thought that the big pitcher was less likely to get injured (more durable). I think, Doc Andrews could easily argue that theory. TJ and labrum surgery seems to hit a lot of tall pitchers. The one exception that no one has mentioned… There are more pitchers capable of throwing 90+ who are over 6’0 tall than there are under 6’0 tall. Is it more leverage, strength, length of arm stroke, or something else? Who knows!
Now the kicker… as you mentioned… 95+ mph is 95+ mph… So both are considered high draft prospects. Except for a few clubs that still won’t look at 6’0 and under RHPs. Where the height might enter the picture pertains to which of the two pitchers (short or tall) is most likely to have not reached their peak.
I’m just guessing, but if we researched every high school pitcher we’ve ever seen who has thrown 90+ velocity, the vast majority would be over 6’0 tall. So the percentage of MLB pitchers above 6’0 tall correlates with the percentage of high school pitchers we see over 90 mph. BINGO!
Now, once they are in the Big Leagues, they are equal (so to speak), I think you will find the percentage of success at that level will show the smaller pitchers as a rule and by percentages, tend to have more success than the taller pitchers. In other words… A higher percentage of tall pitchers fail to succeed at that level.
Don’t know if any of what I’ve said, makes any sense, but thank you to everyone for adding to this discussion. Believe me, the same discussion is gaining a lot of popularity among several MLB scouting directors. The way things were, might be changing a bit in the future. ML baseball has always followed the rule of what is presently working and winning championships is what we look for. When the Cardinals and Royals were World Series teams, Running speed was a giant tool that scouts and MLB clubs treasured. Then as power became the rule for championship teams, Power became the big tool. When enough small pitchers become successful at the top (and slowly it is happening) the more likely MLB clubs will change their thinking (at least a little). Of course, it might take some time before that happens.
Excellent post! I think you touched on the main reason we see so many pitchers in the Big Leagues who are Big and/or TALL.
quote:And then, of course, there is the simple assertion that tall guys throw harder. Well, maybe. As a general proposition, I can agree that truly diminutive human beings will simply not generate the necessary momentum to throw in the 90’s. But I would also argue that really tall guys will have more problems efficiently controlling their moving parts. So far there is only one Randy Johnson – one would think that if there were no diminishing returns to the height advantage we would see a bunch of these super tall lanky types in the major leagues. My opinion is that within a certain range – perhaps from around 5” 9” or so to 6’ 5” – the numerical prospects for similarly skilled athletes to succeed as pitchers in the major leagues are largely the same. And at the end of the day, 95 mph is 95 mph no matter what the height of the pitcher.
I believe the advantages of height mentioned are all legitimate, but fairly insignificant. Back in my scouting days, it was generally thought that the big pitcher was less likely to get injured (more durable). I think, Doc Andrews could easily argue that theory. TJ and labrum surgery seems to hit a lot of tall pitchers. The one exception that no one has mentioned… There are more pitchers capable of throwing 90+ who are over 6’0 tall than there are under 6’0 tall. Is it more leverage, strength, length of arm stroke, or something else? Who knows!
Now the kicker… as you mentioned… 95+ mph is 95+ mph… So both are considered high draft prospects. Except for a few clubs that still won’t look at 6’0 and under RHPs. Where the height might enter the picture pertains to which of the two pitchers (short or tall) is most likely to have not reached their peak.
I’m just guessing, but if we researched every high school pitcher we’ve ever seen who has thrown 90+ velocity, the vast majority would be over 6’0 tall. So the percentage of MLB pitchers above 6’0 tall correlates with the percentage of high school pitchers we see over 90 mph. BINGO!
Now, once they are in the Big Leagues, they are equal (so to speak), I think you will find the percentage of success at that level will show the smaller pitchers as a rule and by percentages, tend to have more success than the taller pitchers. In other words… A higher percentage of tall pitchers fail to succeed at that level.
Don’t know if any of what I’ve said, makes any sense, but thank you to everyone for adding to this discussion. Believe me, the same discussion is gaining a lot of popularity among several MLB scouting directors. The way things were, might be changing a bit in the future. ML baseball has always followed the rule of what is presently working and winning championships is what we look for. When the Cardinals and Royals were World Series teams, Running speed was a giant tool that scouts and MLB clubs treasured. Then as power became the rule for championship teams, Power became the big tool. When enough small pitchers become successful at the top (and slowly it is happening) the more likely MLB clubs will change their thinking (at least a little). Of course, it might take some time before that happens.
quote:I think you will find the percentage of success at that level will show the smaller pitchers as a rule and by percentages, tend to have more success than the taller pitchers. In other words… A higher percentage of tall pitchers fail to succeed at that level.
Where accuracy also counts alot, on the PGA Tour, taller players are generally less successful, mostly for the same reasons. The longer swing of the tall guy has more margin for error and is less repeatable. Very few winners on Tour over 6-1. Most are average height, 5-9 to 6-0. Tiger Woods is 6-1 185.
PG,
Interesting Math....
Let me see if I follow what your saying here
"Now, once they are in the Big Leagues, they are equal (so to speak), I think you will find the percentage of success at that level will show the smaller pitchers as a rule and by percentages, tend to have more success than the taller pitchers. In other words… A higher percentage of tall pitchers fail to succeed at that level"
first I am not sure what your definiton of success is. Wins, ERA, longevity, awards?
in any case your math is claiming smaller pitchers as a rule (?) have a greater success rate becuase there are fewer of them ?
You gotta help me out here, not sure how you come to that conclusion
Let me try....
hypothetical example,
400 pitchers in MLB, only 10% will be sucessful (by what ever defintion you desire)
If 20% of the pitchers are "Small" (6'0" or under) and the success rate is uniform over the entire 400, you are claiming the smaller pitchers are more sucessful because more "Big" pitchers fail ? The "Small" pitchers are sucessful beacuse only 72 of them failed versus the 288 "Big" pitchers that failed?
good twist on the new math.
Interesting Math....
Let me see if I follow what your saying here
"Now, once they are in the Big Leagues, they are equal (so to speak), I think you will find the percentage of success at that level will show the smaller pitchers as a rule and by percentages, tend to have more success than the taller pitchers. In other words… A higher percentage of tall pitchers fail to succeed at that level"
first I am not sure what your definiton of success is. Wins, ERA, longevity, awards?
in any case your math is claiming smaller pitchers as a rule (?) have a greater success rate becuase there are fewer of them ?
You gotta help me out here, not sure how you come to that conclusion
Let me try....
hypothetical example,
400 pitchers in MLB, only 10% will be sucessful (by what ever defintion you desire)
If 20% of the pitchers are "Small" (6'0" or under) and the success rate is uniform over the entire 400, you are claiming the smaller pitchers are more sucessful because more "Big" pitchers fail ? The "Small" pitchers are sucessful beacuse only 72 of them failed versus the 288 "Big" pitchers that failed?
good twist on the new math.
You know... I don't really give a diddly who wants to listen to what I'm saying. Take whatever I might say for what it's worth. I haven't got the time or energy to constantly defend my opinion.
The percentage of those 6-0 and under pitching in the Big Leagues RIGHT NOW that are successful by any criteria you wish to use (longevity, wins, ERA, Cy Youngs, etc)... Is higher than the percentage of those who are 6-3 and taller. Check it for yourself, it's easy, just takes a little time!
This subject is really starting to bore me!
The percentage of those 6-0 and under pitching in the Big Leagues RIGHT NOW that are successful by any criteria you wish to use (longevity, wins, ERA, Cy Youngs, etc)... Is higher than the percentage of those who are 6-3 and taller. Check it for yourself, it's easy, just takes a little time!
This subject is really starting to bore me!
PG Gerry....
You are a good man.
You are a good man.
NHF:
I think you gave PG’s math your own twist. What he’s talking about is the success of small vs. tall pitchers at the big league level as a matter of percentages. You’ve somehow converted that into absolute numbers which he never intended.
I think you gave PG’s math your own twist. What he’s talking about is the success of small vs. tall pitchers at the big league level as a matter of percentages. You’ve somehow converted that into absolute numbers which he never intended.
To confuse matters more on this "enlightening topic" - I have done a two factor study.
As follows:
Set A - Tall pitchers with short toenails.
Set B - Tall pitchers with long toenails.
Set C - Short pitchers with long toenails.
Set D - Short pitchers with short toenails.
The results of this study are mind boggling and probably too earth shattering to reveal here.
So perhaps the best advice is just to play the game really hard - and hope for the best.
LOL
As follows:
Set A - Tall pitchers with short toenails.
Set B - Tall pitchers with long toenails.
Set C - Short pitchers with long toenails.
Set D - Short pitchers with short toenails.
The results of this study are mind boggling and probably too earth shattering to reveal here.
So perhaps the best advice is just to play the game really hard - and hope for the best.
LOL
I understand what you are saying PG and I understand what everyone else has said also. All have good points.
There shouldn't be an arugument. For example, I think sometimes it all depends on an organizations needs. Some organizations have time to wait for the 6' 18-19 year old to mature, others may want the 6' mature 23 year old as soon as possible. In trying to understand who is drafted and who isn't and why, it can be mind boggling , regardess of the position.
6' to me is tall, so I am not disputing that anyone that height is considered small.
I have noticed that many of the taller pitchers in college (giants in my eyes) have loser arms and project more. Not necessarily better than the smaller pitchers, even with both hitting 90+. I feel that is what makes them more desirable. JMO.
We get into this discussion every once in a while, and I do try to rmemeber this is a HSBBW, most of our players will go onto play college ball, very few will go onto the next level.
In regards to height in relation to the college player, many will argue their players will not get a look because of height. I do not beleive this is not true. Ability gets you noticed,not so much your height. And if anyone wishes to dispute that, take a look at Clemson roster. 15 on a roster of 35 are 6 foot and under,the smallest being listed as 5'8". So plenty of opportunity for those smaller players to be recruited.
Of course if you have ever seen the recruiting coach and head coach aything over 5'9" is tall.
Also, for those parents of HS players whose sons are tall thinking that their height and velocity alone will get them into a top D1 school or high draft pick I can tell you, that is NOT always the case.
JMO.
There shouldn't be an arugument. For example, I think sometimes it all depends on an organizations needs. Some organizations have time to wait for the 6' 18-19 year old to mature, others may want the 6' mature 23 year old as soon as possible. In trying to understand who is drafted and who isn't and why, it can be mind boggling , regardess of the position.
6' to me is tall, so I am not disputing that anyone that height is considered small.
I have noticed that many of the taller pitchers in college (giants in my eyes) have loser arms and project more. Not necessarily better than the smaller pitchers, even with both hitting 90+. I feel that is what makes them more desirable. JMO.
We get into this discussion every once in a while, and I do try to rmemeber this is a HSBBW, most of our players will go onto play college ball, very few will go onto the next level.
In regards to height in relation to the college player, many will argue their players will not get a look because of height. I do not beleive this is not true. Ability gets you noticed,not so much your height. And if anyone wishes to dispute that, take a look at Clemson roster. 15 on a roster of 35 are 6 foot and under,the smallest being listed as 5'8". So plenty of opportunity for those smaller players to be recruited.
Of course if you have ever seen the recruiting coach and head coach aything over 5'9" is tall.
Also, for those parents of HS players whose sons are tall thinking that their height and velocity alone will get them into a top D1 school or high draft pick I can tell you, that is NOT always the case.
JMO.
quote:Of course if you have ever seen the recruiting coach and head coach aything over 5'9" is tall.
You beat me to it.
quote:Originally posted by Dad04:quote:Of course if you have ever seen the recruiting coach and head coach aything over 5'9" is tall.
You beat me to it.
I love those guys!
Folks,
Please pardon me if I have offended anyone here, I thought the idea here was for debate and discussion on the subject at hand.
Itsinthegame....love your post!....
PG,
if I have offended you by questioning your statements or pushing the discussion to see where it leads, then i applogize. I thought that was the whole purpose here, to exchange ideas and information.
The last post i put up was an honest attempt to understand whatever it is you were trying to say. I used an example of real numbers to try to extract whatever it was the your were attempting to say.
Anyway, if the spirit of debate has becoming boring, then perhaps we should all just agree to disagree and move on. By the sheer nature of the topic, people will always disagree on the impact of size.
Once again, To anyone I may have offended by my comments, I'm sorry.
And to ALL players of any size and their families...best of luck !
Please pardon me if I have offended anyone here, I thought the idea here was for debate and discussion on the subject at hand.
Itsinthegame....love your post!....
PG,
if I have offended you by questioning your statements or pushing the discussion to see where it leads, then i applogize. I thought that was the whole purpose here, to exchange ideas and information.
The last post i put up was an honest attempt to understand whatever it is you were trying to say. I used an example of real numbers to try to extract whatever it was the your were attempting to say.
Anyway, if the spirit of debate has becoming boring, then perhaps we should all just agree to disagree and move on. By the sheer nature of the topic, people will always disagree on the impact of size.
Once again, To anyone I may have offended by my comments, I'm sorry.
And to ALL players of any size and their families...best of luck !
I did not think your post was in any way offensive, instead a legitimate question.
Also, TPM's statement that if anyone thinks they can make it on size alone are mistaken,goes without saying. Sometimes the bigger guys are at a disadvantage because they have never had to work as hard for recognition. That will catch up to them for sure.
Also, TPM's statement that if anyone thinks they can make it on size alone are mistaken,goes without saying. Sometimes the bigger guys are at a disadvantage because they have never had to work as hard for recognition. That will catch up to them for sure.
Diamondboy.. great post! PG, as always, thanks for your brilliant insight.
My own thought is that there is a bias towards taller players, and whether you believe this is right or not this has resulted in more taller pitchers at the MLB level.
This would logically explain PG's observation that by most statistical measures the smaller pitchers are more successful, percentage-wise. Not necessarily because the smaller pitchers are BETTER but because they are better-cut "meat"..in the smaller players' cases, only the better ones remain, compared to the taller players which may have been given more latitude.
My own thought is that there is a bias towards taller players, and whether you believe this is right or not this has resulted in more taller pitchers at the MLB level.
This would logically explain PG's observation that by most statistical measures the smaller pitchers are more successful, percentage-wise. Not necessarily because the smaller pitchers are BETTER but because they are better-cut "meat"..in the smaller players' cases, only the better ones remain, compared to the taller players which may have been given more latitude.
I make my first post in 6 months and look what I started.
I only wanted to give the shorter smaller guy some hope because when you listen to scouts or even this discussion taller guys tend to get more looks and opportunities.
I just it was an intersting article about the smaller guy from the UW.
He has been NCAA player of the week 5 times this year.
Seadog
I only wanted to give the shorter smaller guy some hope because when you listen to scouts or even this discussion taller guys tend to get more looks and opportunities.
I just it was an intersting article about the smaller guy from the UW.
He has been NCAA player of the week 5 times this year.
Seadog
quote:Originally posted by sluggo:
I did not think your post was in any way offensive, instead a legitimate question.
I agree with you on that point.
quote:Also, TPM's statement that if anyone thinks they can make it on size alone are mistaken,goes without saying. Sometimes the bigger guys are at a disadvantage because they have never had to work as hard for recognition. That will catch up to them for sure.
I especially agree with you on the portion I made bold. In a head-to-head matchup this could indeed work to a shorter player's advantage. Good observation on your part.
quote:Originally posted by PGStaff:quote:I have yet to hear anyone on this site with scouting credentials state something like "yes, indeed, we consider all players, regardless of height."
Never are "all players" of any size considered. Just those that have outstanding tools and ability.
Play baseball,
I really do have scouting credentials and so do most all of the people who work for us. We didn’t just start doing this stuff as a hobby. I must admit I feel a bit slighted by your remark about someone with scouting credentials speaking up. That’s OK though.
If you read everything I’ve mentioned on the subject, you will find my response is that the taller players are favored by scouts and Major League Clubs. I’ve even stated that I prefer the taller pitchers myself. My response is regarding the idea that scouts overlook all the shorter players. Obviously, there are many they did not completely overlook who are in the Major Leagues right now.
The number 1 most important thing to any scout when he first views a player performing is the players ABILITY. Everything else might be important, but it is secondary!!! There are a lot of tall players who lack ability and they are not drafted. All things being equal, the taller player will be most interesting (seldom are all things equal).
There is no doubt in my mind which of the following two pitchers will create the most scouting and draft interest.
18 year old 6’5 pitcher who has a slow arm, bad mechanics and tops out in the low 80s
18 year old 6’0 pitcher who has great arm action and mechanics and tops at 94 mph
Once again my question is, How does anyone think guys like Maddux, Colon, Oswalt, Santana, Kazmir, Martinez, Hampton, etc. got to the Big Leagues? Shouldn't it be obvious that someone with "scouting credentials" liked them!
Regarding how long they’ve been in the Major Leagues, here’s some things to think about.
The Rookie of the Year last year in the American League is RHP Houston Street. He is listed as 6’0 tall. He was drafted in the supplemental 1st round in 2004. Also in that year high school lefty by the name of Gio Gonzalez at 5’10 was drafted in the first round just before Street. Last year the Atlanta Braves took 5’11 RHP Joey Devine in the first round! Scott Kazmir was a first round choice in 2002. Greg Maddux went in the 2nd round in 1984. On the other hand, Oswalt was selected in the 23rd round in 1996. Last year a high school RHP (Jeremy Hellickson) from Iowa, who is really 5-10 or 5-11 was drafted in the 4th round and paid $500,000 to sign. The American League Cy Young Award last year went to 5’11” RHP Bartolo Colon. The year before the American League Cy Young winner was 6’0” LHP Johan Santana. 5’11 RHP Pedro Martinez won the AL Cy Young in both 1999 and 2000 and the NL Cy Young in 1997.
All I’m saying is ability is MUCH more important than size, to nearly everyone in baseball. Same amount of ability… Size wins out!
The bottom line… Size is very important for many reasons, but I get tired of reading comments that make kids feel like they have no chance if they aren’t 6’4” tall. It just is NOT true. The odds may be against them, but the odds are against just about everyone ever making it to the Major Leagues. Once a player is in professional baseball, he has a chance. People stop talking about his size and look at his performance.
Usually when these size topics and velocity topics come up, we have people who base their opinions from a personal stand point. For example… Parents with big tall kids think size is important. Parents with smaller sons think it is over rated. Parents who have pitchers who throw 90+ think velocity is very important. Parents who have sons who throw 80 mph think velocity is over rated.
Just so that you know I’m not thinking that way. My son is 6’7” tall and used to throw in the upper 90s and pitched in the Major Leagues. I think size is way over rated! And so is velocity to a certain extent. Both are very important, both are over rated. If that makes any sense?
Great post Jerry. Talent is the number one priority and talent comes in all sizes. I know one thing for sure, there are a lot more top notch pitchers in major league history that are 6'0" and under than there are 6'5" and over.
Bigger players may be more considered more durable. Bigger players also have more room for inconsistency in their mechanics. Smaller pitchers have an easier time with their mechanics {that is just my opinion based on my observations}. Good players come in all sizes.
I think the input from all had some interesting points. There is however a decidedly subtle bias toward small guys here.
Guess that means that most posters avg height is under 6' 0".
PG Staff
With the advent of the radar gun and the pitching machine, the craft and art of pitching has become extinct. I think that is the reason there is less emphasis on height of the pitcher. Beings that the case there is no need to worry about size any longer. Pitchers just need to throw at a speed like a pitching machine...and in that case anyone that can get it up over 90+ can qualify...even short guys.
I watched several games yesterday and was amazed that the idea of location and movement is not as critical at the MLB level. The power pitchers throw it up there as hard as they can and most of the time it is thigh to waist high...right in the wheel house. The guys that I see that don't gothere are more like Maddux, Schmoltz, etc. These are real craftsman...but a dying out breed of cat.
Guess that means that most posters avg height is under 6' 0".
PG Staff
With the advent of the radar gun and the pitching machine, the craft and art of pitching has become extinct. I think that is the reason there is less emphasis on height of the pitcher. Beings that the case there is no need to worry about size any longer. Pitchers just need to throw at a speed like a pitching machine...and in that case anyone that can get it up over 90+ can qualify...even short guys.
I watched several games yesterday and was amazed that the idea of location and movement is not as critical at the MLB level. The power pitchers throw it up there as hard as they can and most of the time it is thigh to waist high...right in the wheel house. The guys that I see that don't gothere are more like Maddux, Schmoltz, etc. These are real craftsman...but a dying out breed of cat.
Lots and Lots of thoughts on this. Was at my youngest sons game the other night. He was on the mound pitching. He is a freshman playing some varsity ball. He is already almost 6'3"/205. I heard the coach tell the other coach before the game started that they are hoping he gets a couple of inches taller so he can get some real attention as a pitcher. Found that odd but after reading all of these post height seems to be the norm as a pitcher
allaboutbaseball:
Yes, what you've said is true.
Keep feeding and watering your son...he'll be fine!
Yes, what you've said is true.
Keep feeding and watering your son...he'll be fine!
All About,
Same thing with us, when my son was 13, a coach I didn't know was at our game watching my son bat and talking to some people sitting close to me. He said "That is the kind of kid that will play college baseball just because of his size." I was stunned.
Then he finished his at bat by hitting one out of the park! It was a good day.
Same thing with us, when my son was 13, a coach I didn't know was at our game watching my son bat and talking to some people sitting close to me. He said "That is the kind of kid that will play college baseball just because of his size." I was stunned.
Then he finished his at bat by hitting one out of the park! It was a good day.