You don't have to 6' 5'' 210lbs to throw hard and to throw well.
Checkout this article about the UW ace.
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/sports/2002951437_lincecum25.html
Seadog
Original Post
Replies sorted oldest to newest
SEADOG
I think you and I have always agreed on this--Glad to see you back
How are things with you?
I think you and I have always agreed on this--Glad to see you back
How are things with you?
TR,
I've been dealing with some serious issues none of which I'll go in to, but it is that time of year when the ball park draws me back.
I have had to many fond memories on this board to stay away to long.
Seadog
I've been dealing with some serious issues none of which I'll go in to, but it is that time of year when the ball park draws me back.
I have had to many fond memories on this board to stay away to long.
Seadog
All of you littler guys out there...read up!
Thanks for sharing SeaDog...I hope all goes well for you soon.
Thanks for sharing SeaDog...I hope all goes well for you soon.
Little guy, this guy is 6 feet tall. I posted a conversation I had with a scout about what he looks for, 6’+ and throws in the mid 90s. This guy fits that description.
I agree that size shouldn't matter, but the higher you go the more it DOES. I have a family friend who pitched for a D1 program, been to the College World Series several times, throws in the low 90s, good stuff, oh by the way, he 5'10". He is expecting to get his pink slip anytime now. He say's it very obvious that they only want 6' +.
I agree that size shouldn't matter, but the higher you go the more it DOES. I have a family friend who pitched for a D1 program, been to the College World Series several times, throws in the low 90s, good stuff, oh by the way, he 5'10". He is expecting to get his pink slip anytime now. He say's it very obvious that they only want 6' +.
obrady:
Perhaps they should re-think their approach?
Someone with common sense should have taken a risk and cut against the grain and offered this family friend of yours an opportunity.
Perhaps they should re-think their approach?
Someone with common sense should have taken a risk and cut against the grain and offered this family friend of yours an opportunity.
Remember the Benson and Hedges commercial--"just a silly millimeter longer" ? Height matters in everything, even cigarettes.
obrady: Sorry about your friend. Very disappointing.
obrady: Sorry about your friend. Very disappointing.
I was watching the Mets-Braves game last week when Pedro was going for win 200. They stated an amazing fact that since 1900 only 2 pitchers (might have been 3) under 6ft tall have been elected to the Hall of Fame. Assuming its correct that is unbelievable to me. They discussed it because Pedro is under 6ft tall and will most certainly be a Hall of Famer.
101, that’s incredible. This winter in the batting cages my son and I were having a conversation about pitches that could throw 100 +. He wanted to see how fast that is, set the machine at 100 mph, the expression on his face priceless.
This story is only surprising if you’ve been drinking a steady diet of the major league kool-aid, which of course most of us have. The pesky little fact is that the writer’s original premise – “Guys who hit 100 are generally overgrown, intimidating, mustachioed beasts” – is part of the folklore. Very, very few ever hit 100. Colon did early in his career, as well as Wagner. Both are under 6 feet and I guess they shaved their mustaches. And now we can add “little” Tim Lincecum to the 100 plus club. There are a bunch of smaller guys regularly in the mid to upper 90s. All you have to do is visit the MLB site and check the heights of some of the best, hardest-throwing guys in baseball. Oswalt, Hudson, Santana, Rodriquez, Martinez, Peavy, Harden, Shields, Kazmir, Zambrano, Hoffman, Gordon…
But as others have said, it is what it is and its not going to change any time soon. As far as I can tell, there are no studies, no surveys and no percentages that demonstrate that taller guys make better major league pitchers. But this is what scouts believe, and if they take a risk on a shorter guy who doesn’t work out they have nothing to hide behind. There are some enlightened souls like PG who has written persuasively on this subject, but he is the exception. For the 6” 1” and under crowd it’s just another obstacle on an already long and winding road.
But as others have said, it is what it is and its not going to change any time soon. As far as I can tell, there are no studies, no surveys and no percentages that demonstrate that taller guys make better major league pitchers. But this is what scouts believe, and if they take a risk on a shorter guy who doesn’t work out they have nothing to hide behind. There are some enlightened souls like PG who has written persuasively on this subject, but he is the exception. For the 6” 1” and under crowd it’s just another obstacle on an already long and winding road.
Nice story.
I'm a size guy. Would rather be 6'3" than 5'10".
For every guy under 6 feet that throws 94-96, there are 50 over 6 feet that do it.
I'm a size guy. Would rather be 6'3" than 5'10".
For every guy under 6 feet that throws 94-96, there are 50 over 6 feet that do it.
quote:Originally posted by BeenthereIL:
For every guy under 6 feet that throws 94-96, there are 50 over 6 feet that do it.
Sounds like more folklore. Can you prove it?
Diamond...
Gees, you're a Californian and you "question" that assertion?
I'm not into scientific studies. Just reality.
Watch MLB on tv and you'll get confirmation.
Gees, you're a Californian and you "question" that assertion?
I'm not into scientific studies. Just reality.
Watch MLB on tv and you'll get confirmation.
Last fall my 5'10" 165 lb. son passed on a couple opportunities to sign early with D1 schools. Although I was pretty nervous about his decision to do so, it turns out this was the best decision he could have made. He's been a very effective pitcher in Juco and now about 25 Division 1 and 2 schools are beating a path to his cell phone. Don't let the size thing get you down. If you're good you'll rise to the top and be seen. He's been Maple Woods top guy for the 2 years he's been there and is the smallest pitcher on the team out of a staff of 19.
quote:Originally posted by BeenthereIL:
Diamond...
Gees, you're a Californian and you "question" that assertion?
I'm not into scientific studies. Just reality.
Watch MLB on tv and you'll get confirmation.
Beenthere:
You’re a guy with strong convictions and I respect that. I know where you stand on this issue from previous posts. I suspect we could watch the same MLB games and reach different conclusions. That said, would you agree that the number of major league guys at any height sitting between 94 and 96 is surprisingly low? Relievers more often than starters. What I see are most major league starters cruising somewhere in the low 90s. Makes me wonder about the emphasis on velocity altogether. A lot of the best seem to be getting guys out with location, movement and good but not overpowering velocity.
Diamond,
You and I actually agree about many numbers, from a size and a velocity point of view.
I'm not sure about watching mlb and having different perspectives, but we sure can do that with high school players and college players and coaches.
Just saw Hairston, the potential tying run, steal 3rd in the 4th inning of the game with Jacque Jones at bat. Jacque is from SC, I believe and a left hander. Hairston was safe but a good throw, fielded cleanly would have had him out. Why would he steal with a lefthander up and the catcher's view open when he is the tying run? Even Ron Santo, on radio, was nonplussed.
These are the kinds of guys making millions in the big leagues and they don't know the fundamentals of the game. Earlier, Jones dove for a ball down the right field line and it went for a triple. 1st inning. If it drops, nothing, a single...as it was, it turned out to be a triple.
Way too many players, in my opinion, don't know the game. They have the physical skills to play the game, but there is so much more to baseball than physical skills.
They should test some of these high school and college kids that play baseball with the Wonderlic test and see if they could score more than 6.
Gees.
Bigger is better. Scouts think so. That is enough for me.
You and I actually agree about many numbers, from a size and a velocity point of view.
I'm not sure about watching mlb and having different perspectives, but we sure can do that with high school players and college players and coaches.
Just saw Hairston, the potential tying run, steal 3rd in the 4th inning of the game with Jacque Jones at bat. Jacque is from SC, I believe and a left hander. Hairston was safe but a good throw, fielded cleanly would have had him out. Why would he steal with a lefthander up and the catcher's view open when he is the tying run? Even Ron Santo, on radio, was nonplussed.
These are the kinds of guys making millions in the big leagues and they don't know the fundamentals of the game. Earlier, Jones dove for a ball down the right field line and it went for a triple. 1st inning. If it drops, nothing, a single...as it was, it turned out to be a triple.
Way too many players, in my opinion, don't know the game. They have the physical skills to play the game, but there is so much more to baseball than physical skills.
They should test some of these high school and college kids that play baseball with the Wonderlic test and see if they could score more than 6.
Gees.
Bigger is better. Scouts think so. That is enough for me.
Been:
Don't agree with you on the size issue, but do agree with you on the issue of many MLB players not knowing the game as well as they should.
Don't agree with you on the size issue, but do agree with you on the issue of many MLB players not knowing the game as well as they should.
Stature has always played a roll in the initial reaction of evaluating athletes.
The reason height plays a preferable quality for pitcher is the view that a batter gets of where the ball is released. The higher the release point (taller a pitcher) the more difficult it is for a bater to pick up the ball in relation to the trajectory in its downward movement.
That is the main reason that throwing sidearm gives the batter a better eye's view of the ball's release out of the pitcher's hand. The longer a batter can see the ball the better contact they can make with it.
The most ideal is a pitcher like Randy Johnson...if he threw more 12 to 6 he would be virtually impossible to hit.
It's not the speed that is important...movement and location are the best qualities of a good pitcher. If he can throw above 90 with movement and location he can be as good as Maddux. But if he can throw 90+ WITH MOVEMENT AND LOCATION AND IS 6' 9" AND THROWS 12 TO 6 HE CAN BE UNHITTABLE!!
The reason height plays a preferable quality for pitcher is the view that a batter gets of where the ball is released. The higher the release point (taller a pitcher) the more difficult it is for a bater to pick up the ball in relation to the trajectory in its downward movement.
That is the main reason that throwing sidearm gives the batter a better eye's view of the ball's release out of the pitcher's hand. The longer a batter can see the ball the better contact they can make with it.
The most ideal is a pitcher like Randy Johnson...if he threw more 12 to 6 he would be virtually impossible to hit.
It's not the speed that is important...movement and location are the best qualities of a good pitcher. If he can throw above 90 with movement and location he can be as good as Maddux. But if he can throw 90+ WITH MOVEMENT AND LOCATION AND IS 6' 9" AND THROWS 12 TO 6 HE CAN BE UNHITTABLE!!
RR
WRONG !!!!!
Nobody is unhittable !!!!
WRONG !!!!!
Nobody is unhittable !!!!
Size DOES MAtter
TR
UNHITTABLE in the sense that he is harder to hit than the short guy.
Compare Randy to Pedro and you can see that even though Randy doesn't really take full advantage of his height...he has been a better pitcher than Pedro. Randy has a FB, Slider, and kind of a changeup wthat he doesn't throw very often
Pedro uses more "stuff" as a pitcher, though he has a good FB.
Yes, no one is unhittable...it's a euphemism to describe a great pitcher.
UNHITTABLE in the sense that he is harder to hit than the short guy.
Compare Randy to Pedro and you can see that even though Randy doesn't really take full advantage of his height...he has been a better pitcher than Pedro. Randy has a FB, Slider, and kind of a changeup wthat he doesn't throw very often
Pedro uses more "stuff" as a pitcher, though he has a good FB.
Yes, no one is unhittable...it's a euphemism to describe a great pitcher.
quote:He's been Maple Woods top guy for the 2 years he's been there and is the smallest pitcher on the team out of a staff of 19.
Reggie, Good luck to your son. Sounds like he's on his way. I have also seen VERY effective pitchers at the college level, standing below 6 feet, also throwing above and below 90. A college pitchers height is much less important to the coach than their WHIP, GPA and ERA.
If you are 5-whatever and can stay eligible and hang up zero's, you will play in college. It's that simple. College pitching staffs are on the shallow side.The correlation of height and success is higher at the next level.
ramrod,
No, Pedro's career winning percentage is .705. Johnson's is .658. Pedro's career ERA is 2.72. Johnson's is 3.12.
I'm an old Mariners fan, and believe me, I remember when Johnson had the nickname "Mr. Snappy" (wild).
To make the assertion that Johnson is better just because he's taller is to say he's better because his eyes are bluer. They're both great pitchers and the height-reasoning is just an urban myth.
No, Pedro's career winning percentage is .705. Johnson's is .658. Pedro's career ERA is 2.72. Johnson's is 3.12.
I'm an old Mariners fan, and believe me, I remember when Johnson had the nickname "Mr. Snappy" (wild).
To make the assertion that Johnson is better just because he's taller is to say he's better because his eyes are bluer. They're both great pitchers and the height-reasoning is just an urban myth.
Can't WAIT til friday because our team is going to see him pitch against Arizona.
RR
If you dont mean unhittable then dont use the word---
As for Randy and Pedro Bum showed you the stats--I would take Pedro anytime in THE BIG GAME--he is a proven winner in the clutch
If you dont mean unhittable then dont use the word---
As for Randy and Pedro Bum showed you the stats--I would take Pedro anytime in THE BIG GAME--he is a proven winner in the clutch
Good Day All,
I'll throw in my 2 cents worth here as I have a perspective that is a bit unique. My son turned 16 in Feb. He is 6'5" ans 190 lbs and a lefty.
I was introduced to this site by the dad of two excellent baseball players here in NH. The older boy will graduate from Dartmouth in a few weeks and the younger one will start college in the fall.
The young son is 5'10" and 180 lbs and hits 90 on the radar gun. He is headed to a D1 school in the fall. He went thru all the high end showcases and has been seen by many scouts. One thing is absolutely clear! If he were my son's size, he would be headed to pro ball this summer or to any D1 program of his choosing in the fall.
While I agree that size does not determine how successful you wll be in this game, it has become very obvious that it is one of the factors that the professional level as well as the high end D1 programs are using to cull the herd as it were.
Check out the rosters for last years Aflac All American Classic, supposedly the top 38 HS players in country. Only 2 of them were under 6' tall.
In the majors, look at the physical size of guys played SS & 2B nowadays as compared to the guys of the 60's & 70's. you didnt see to many Alex Rodriguez or Derek Jeter types playing those positions back then.
The unfortunate truth is size does matter! If you are 5'11" and of equal ability when compared to a kid 6'4" or 6'5", you will lose out. Especially as the age of 18/19, where there people making these decisions are also looking at how much more you can improve. It may not be fair, but it is the way of things in the real world.
It does not mean that players under 6' cant compete in the game, just that you have to be of exceptional talent and drive in order to complete at the highest of levels.
I'll throw in my 2 cents worth here as I have a perspective that is a bit unique. My son turned 16 in Feb. He is 6'5" ans 190 lbs and a lefty.
I was introduced to this site by the dad of two excellent baseball players here in NH. The older boy will graduate from Dartmouth in a few weeks and the younger one will start college in the fall.
The young son is 5'10" and 180 lbs and hits 90 on the radar gun. He is headed to a D1 school in the fall. He went thru all the high end showcases and has been seen by many scouts. One thing is absolutely clear! If he were my son's size, he would be headed to pro ball this summer or to any D1 program of his choosing in the fall.
While I agree that size does not determine how successful you wll be in this game, it has become very obvious that it is one of the factors that the professional level as well as the high end D1 programs are using to cull the herd as it were.
Check out the rosters for last years Aflac All American Classic, supposedly the top 38 HS players in country. Only 2 of them were under 6' tall.
In the majors, look at the physical size of guys played SS & 2B nowadays as compared to the guys of the 60's & 70's. you didnt see to many Alex Rodriguez or Derek Jeter types playing those positions back then.
The unfortunate truth is size does matter! If you are 5'11" and of equal ability when compared to a kid 6'4" or 6'5", you will lose out. Especially as the age of 18/19, where there people making these decisions are also looking at how much more you can improve. It may not be fair, but it is the way of things in the real world.
It does not mean that players under 6' cant compete in the game, just that you have to be of exceptional talent and drive in order to complete at the highest of levels.
NHF:
Very well said...very concise.
Being the father of two sons under 6' who play baseball the situation is frustrating...but it is what it is.
I've heard the culling out explanation before and I do believe that what you say is the truth.
I also believe that the powers that be are making a mistake by arbitrarily eliminating those great players less than 6' tall...for culling purposes.
It's their loss ultimately. Logic alone can direct you to looking at shorter players...it stands to reason that some of the shorter players are indeed better players than some of the taller players.
It's just too bad that most all of the great, shorter players have to endure this.
Very well said...very concise.
Being the father of two sons under 6' who play baseball the situation is frustrating...but it is what it is.
I've heard the culling out explanation before and I do believe that what you say is the truth.
I also believe that the powers that be are making a mistake by arbitrarily eliminating those great players less than 6' tall...for culling purposes.
It's their loss ultimately. Logic alone can direct you to looking at shorter players...it stands to reason that some of the shorter players are indeed better players than some of the taller players.
It's just too bad that most all of the great, shorter players have to endure this.
TR & BUM
Take the winning % of the teams of both players and Randy is a better pitcher with a lot less talent behind him over his entire career versus Pedro.
Both are excellent pitchers, I just like taller pitchers because when looking at the overall history of MLB, taller pitchers have fared better.
Take the winning % of the teams of both players and Randy is a better pitcher with a lot less talent behind him over his entire career versus Pedro.
Both are excellent pitchers, I just like taller pitchers because when looking at the overall history of MLB, taller pitchers have fared better.
I like Pedro because of the "fire in his belly" plus he is not afraid to protect his batters
TPM:
Thanks for the link to that story.
He's successful in college, but isn't attracting any or much pro interest solely because of his short stature.
Still...I wish him the best.
Thanks for the link to that story.
He's successful in college, but isn't attracting any or much pro interest solely because of his short stature.
Still...I wish him the best.
Hello again,
I certainly wish all the yong men that have brought up here all the best.
The point of this thread though is in its title, "size does not matter". The simple truth is size does matter. While baseball is still probably the only sport where a player of smaller size can make a great impact, the trend ot bigger players in both inevitable and obvious.
In regard to the Randy Johnson Vs. Pedro debate a few posts back, I think your missing the point. It is not about which of them you take today knowing their respective abiities.
It IS about which of them would you take if they were both 18 and showed up at your university or your pro teams tryouts. (Remember, the Dodgers who first took Pedro were convinced that he would not hold up under the rigors of 33 starts a year in MLB)
As I stated in an early post, a young man who lives less than a mile from me would have been considered a pro prospect if he were bigger. He will have a creat career in college, i am convnced of that. He may even get a shot with a pro team as a free agent in a few years, but no one is going to use a top level draft pick on him.
I also know a young man here in NH who may be a very high draft pick in june. He is lefty who is listed at 6'2" and has hit the mid 90s on radar guns.
Both of these young men are outstanding players and high quality individuals, but the simple truth is one is going to be looked at by the pros and the other is barely on the screen.
Size does matter.
I certainly wish all the yong men that have brought up here all the best.
The point of this thread though is in its title, "size does not matter". The simple truth is size does matter. While baseball is still probably the only sport where a player of smaller size can make a great impact, the trend ot bigger players in both inevitable and obvious.
In regard to the Randy Johnson Vs. Pedro debate a few posts back, I think your missing the point. It is not about which of them you take today knowing their respective abiities.
It IS about which of them would you take if they were both 18 and showed up at your university or your pro teams tryouts. (Remember, the Dodgers who first took Pedro were convinced that he would not hold up under the rigors of 33 starts a year in MLB)
As I stated in an early post, a young man who lives less than a mile from me would have been considered a pro prospect if he were bigger. He will have a creat career in college, i am convnced of that. He may even get a shot with a pro team as a free agent in a few years, but no one is going to use a top level draft pick on him.
I also know a young man here in NH who may be a very high draft pick in june. He is lefty who is listed at 6'2" and has hit the mid 90s on radar guns.
Both of these young men are outstanding players and high quality individuals, but the simple truth is one is going to be looked at by the pros and the other is barely on the screen.
Size does matter.
TPM you beat me to the punch! I was just reading that article yesterday. It's a very nice human interest story but I think you'll agree that New Mexico is probably going to be his last hoo-rah? His change up may be devastating but when your FB tops out at 86...it's survivable in college but the pros would eat him alive. I commend this young man and wonder how many thousands of times he heard growing up "have you thought about 2nd base?"
Poptime,
Great minds think alike!
The posting of the article was a follow up on Dad04's comment.
There are some great, great college pitchers out there that can get the job done, over and under 6 ft, LH, RH, hitting 90 or not.
Size matters? For college, big programs, not necessarily. Our senior ace is 5'9", excellent pitcher, one of the best I have seen since watching college baseball. But he knows, coaches know, scouts know his height has basically stopped him from reaching the next level. Do they like their pitchers(at sons school) to be over 6 ft, you bet, but not every pitcher over 6 foot turns out to be the ace and might never be the ace.
Will the pitchers not as good as him over 6 foot be drafted before him, you bet, that's just the way it is.
BUT, my post is not about after college, it's before and during. Become the best pitcher you can be, get hitters out and you will play college ball. Every program needs pitchers, not all are over 6ft and hit 90.
And for those over 6ft hitting 90+, doesn't mean you will become a high draft choice either just because you fit the physical description.
Great minds think alike!
The posting of the article was a follow up on Dad04's comment.
There are some great, great college pitchers out there that can get the job done, over and under 6 ft, LH, RH, hitting 90 or not.
Size matters? For college, big programs, not necessarily. Our senior ace is 5'9", excellent pitcher, one of the best I have seen since watching college baseball. But he knows, coaches know, scouts know his height has basically stopped him from reaching the next level. Do they like their pitchers(at sons school) to be over 6 ft, you bet, but not every pitcher over 6 foot turns out to be the ace and might never be the ace.
Will the pitchers not as good as him over 6 foot be drafted before him, you bet, that's just the way it is.
BUT, my post is not about after college, it's before and during. Become the best pitcher you can be, get hitters out and you will play college ball. Every program needs pitchers, not all are over 6ft and hit 90.
And for those over 6ft hitting 90+, doesn't mean you will become a high draft choice either just because you fit the physical description.
Then again it is possible to be 6-0 or under and get to the next level.
PITCHERS
Bartolo Colon - RHP - 5'11" - Cy Young winner 05, W-21, 2 X All Star
Johan Santana - LHP - 6'0" - Cy Young winner 04, W-20, 2 X All Star
Roy Oswalt - RHP - 6'0" - Cy Young top 5 last 4 yrs, W-20 last 2 yrs, All Star
Pedro Martinez - RHP - 5'11" - Cy Young winner 96, 99, 2000, W-23 99, 7 X All Star
Greg Maddux - RHP - 6'0" - Cy Young winner 92.93.94,95, W-318 Career, 8 X All star
Tom Glavine - LHP 6'0" - Cy Young winner 91,98, over 20 wins 5 times, 9 X All Star
Mike Hampton - LHP - 5'10" - 2nd in Cy Young vote 1999, 2 X All Star
Jake Peavy - RHP - 6'0" - All Star 2005
Jamie Moyer - LHP - 6'0" - Won over 20-01,03, All Star 03
Scott Kazmir - LHP - 6'0" - Young Star
Billy Wagner - LHP - 5'10" - Rolaids Award 99, 4 X All Star
Trevor Hoffman - RHP - 6'0" - Rolaids Award 98, 4 X All Star
Tom Gordon - RHP - 5'10" - Rolaids Award 98, 2 X All Star
Chad Cordero - RHP - 6'0" - Rolaids Award 05, All Star 05
Houston Street - RHP - 6'0" - Rookie of the Year 05, 23 saves
Luis Vizcaino - RHP - 5'11" - Most appearances 2002
* Most of the above are actually a bit shorter than their listed height.
PITCHERS
Bartolo Colon - RHP - 5'11" - Cy Young winner 05, W-21, 2 X All Star
Johan Santana - LHP - 6'0" - Cy Young winner 04, W-20, 2 X All Star
Roy Oswalt - RHP - 6'0" - Cy Young top 5 last 4 yrs, W-20 last 2 yrs, All Star
Pedro Martinez - RHP - 5'11" - Cy Young winner 96, 99, 2000, W-23 99, 7 X All Star
Greg Maddux - RHP - 6'0" - Cy Young winner 92.93.94,95, W-318 Career, 8 X All star
Tom Glavine - LHP 6'0" - Cy Young winner 91,98, over 20 wins 5 times, 9 X All Star
Mike Hampton - LHP - 5'10" - 2nd in Cy Young vote 1999, 2 X All Star
Jake Peavy - RHP - 6'0" - All Star 2005
Jamie Moyer - LHP - 6'0" - Won over 20-01,03, All Star 03
Scott Kazmir - LHP - 6'0" - Young Star
Billy Wagner - LHP - 5'10" - Rolaids Award 99, 4 X All Star
Trevor Hoffman - RHP - 6'0" - Rolaids Award 98, 4 X All Star
Tom Gordon - RHP - 5'10" - Rolaids Award 98, 2 X All Star
Chad Cordero - RHP - 6'0" - Rolaids Award 05, All Star 05
Houston Street - RHP - 6'0" - Rookie of the Year 05, 23 saves
Luis Vizcaino - RHP - 5'11" - Most appearances 2002
* Most of the above are actually a bit shorter than their listed height.
Of course size matters, but so do a lot of other things such as speed, power, arm strength, etc... Most smaller guys would like to be bigger, most slower guys would like to be faster, almost everyone would like to have it all.
But here is the bottom line: the less talent you have, the more important it is to be bigger and the guys who attach the most importance to size are the big ones or the small ones rather than most players in between.
But here is the bottom line: the less talent you have, the more important it is to be bigger and the guys who attach the most importance to size are the big ones or the small ones rather than most players in between.
MLB should be measuring the size of a player's heart, not their bodies. I have a cousin that was an All-American in college, could hit for avg., hit for power, had the footspeed, defense, armstrength...everything you needed...except height...he was a 5'8" outfielder, maybe 5'9" if he stretched. He talked with scouts, went to tryout camps, and outplayed the bigger players. The scouts flat out told him that if he were bigger, he'd be at the top of their lists...and they admitted to him that he was a better player than the guys that would be picked, but that they couldn't recommend someone of his size, because he didn't fit the "ideal" they were looking for.
When Marcus Giles was in the minors, I struck up a conversation with a few scouts before the Single A Allstar game, and mentioned Giles, because I'd seen him play several times. Their response? He's too small...he'll never make it.
Pitchers? I've seen the kid for years that TPM is talking about...he's a quality pitcher, regardless of how tall he is. There's a ton of kids drafted that can throw hard and meet the "ideals" for size, but they don't have a clue how to pitch. Greg Maddux isn't a giant, and he's just won his 5th straight game...maxing out at 84mph. In fact, for some strange reason, in the games I've seen this year, there's a ton of guys throwing 85,86,87,or 88 mph...RH and LH...more of them than the guys throwing 93 or 94. Maybe they all got off of the juice... 
When Marcus Giles was in the minors, I struck up a conversation with a few scouts before the Single A Allstar game, and mentioned Giles, because I'd seen him play several times. Their response? He's too small...he'll never make it.
Pitchers? I've seen the kid for years that TPM is talking about...he's a quality pitcher, regardless of how tall he is. There's a ton of kids drafted that can throw hard and meet the "ideals" for size, but they don't have a clue how to pitch. Greg Maddux isn't a giant, and he's just won his 5th straight game...maxing out at 84mph. In fact, for some strange reason, in the games I've seen this year, there's a ton of guys throwing 85,86,87,or 88 mph...RH and LH...more of them than the guys throwing 93 or 94. Maybe they all got off of the juice...
quote:Originally posted by 2seamer:
MLB should be measuring the size of a player's heart, not their bodies.
MLB measures the size of the "draw" - financially.
That is it.
Forget about heart at the MLB level.
Its the size of the draw - and the Net Income.
Thats it.
Yeah...but somehow, Kirby Puckett was a heck of a player, one that I would take on my team in a second..and he was as big around as he was tall..
One big reason they will take the bigger guy is this:
A 5'10" guy releases the ball at about 52' 6" from home where as the 6'6" releases the ball at around 51' 10" from home. Which is a difference in time to react to the pitch making it simply harder to hit. Being that releasing the ball closer to home would give you less time to react. I don't feel like doing the math to figure out the exact difference but it would probably be a difference in .06 seconds which may not seem like alot but in a matter of hitting and recognizing a pitch it is.
With that being said no not every taller pitcher is better that is just ludicrous to say. But if movement, velo, etc... is equal in the two players then the taller guy should go before the shorter guy.
A 5'10" guy releases the ball at about 52' 6" from home where as the 6'6" releases the ball at around 51' 10" from home. Which is a difference in time to react to the pitch making it simply harder to hit. Being that releasing the ball closer to home would give you less time to react. I don't feel like doing the math to figure out the exact difference but it would probably be a difference in .06 seconds which may not seem like alot but in a matter of hitting and recognizing a pitch it is.
With that being said no not every taller pitcher is better that is just ludicrous to say. But if movement, velo, etc... is equal in the two players then the taller guy should go before the shorter guy.
If they only take the taller guys, where do all these MLB all stars that are under 6'0 coming from. Somebody has to sign them before they can become a MLB all star!
I will agree that in many cases the smaller guy won't get drafted as high or paid as much to sign his first contract, but there are a lot of MLB players under 6'0 tall who are now multi millionaire super stars.
I will agree that in many cases the smaller guy won't get drafted as high or paid as much to sign his first contract, but there are a lot of MLB players under 6'0 tall who are now multi millionaire super stars.
quote:Originally posted by bp140321:
But if movement, velo, etc... is equal in the two players then the taller guy should go before the shorter guy.
From another thread--If that ain't lucky, then I don't know what is!
quote:Originally posted by PGStaff:
but there are a lot of MLB players under 6'0 tall who are now multi millionaire super stars.
But how long have they been in the MLB system?
play baseball,
I'm sorry, but I don't understand the importance of that. I don't see where there would be any difference between tall or short (regarding your question)
Truth is if you look at those 6'0 and under, some have been there for a long time, others are just getting started. Just like the tall players.
I'm sorry, but I don't understand the importance of that. I don't see where there would be any difference between tall or short (regarding your question)
Truth is if you look at those 6'0 and under, some have been there for a long time, others are just getting started. Just like the tall players.
PG Staff
I believe the comparison is size was in terms of why tall pitchers are better than short ones.
I believe the comparison is size was in terms of why tall pitchers are better than short ones.
quote:A 5'10" guy releases the ball at about 52' 6" from home where as the 6'6" releases the ball at around 51' 10" from home. Which is a difference in time to react to the pitch making it simply harder to hit. Being that releasing the ball closer to home would give you less time to react. I don't feel like doing the math to figure out the exact difference but it would probably be a difference in .06 seconds which may not seem like alot but in a matter of hitting and recognizing a pitch it is.
Except that the pitch starts with the ball to the BACK. That's when the batter begins to size up the pitch. The longer the throwing arm, the farther AWAY the ball when it begins its flight toward the batter.
quote:I don't feel like doing the math to figure out the exact difference but it would probably be a difference in .06 seconds which may not seem like alot but in a matter of hitting and recognizing a pitch it is.
Ball takes about .5 second to travel from pitcher to plate. Even if the pitch originated at the release point, a tall pitcher would have an advatage of about 1%, or .005 second.
Or a smaller pitcher could just throw 1% faster than that taller one.
Reaction time, when considering the amount of time it takes the ball to reach the plate means very little. The important thing is when you have to start your swing and that is determined by how fast the ball is moving when it reaches the plate. Velocity is important but being a foot closer to the plate means nothing.
The reaction time for a LLer seeing a 70 mph fastball thrown from a 46' mound is about the same as a big leaguer seeing around a 90 mph fastball. The kids who can hit that 70 mph fastball thrown from a 46' mound couldn't come anywhere close to the 90 mph fastball thrown from the 60' mound.
The reaction time for a LLer seeing a 70 mph fastball thrown from a 46' mound is about the same as a big leaguer seeing around a 90 mph fastball. The kids who can hit that 70 mph fastball thrown from a 46' mound couldn't come anywhere close to the 90 mph fastball thrown from the 60' mound.
RR,
I have no interest in arguing but, did you see that list of shorter pitchers posted earlier in this thread? Here are some of them:
Bartolo Colon - RHP - 5'11"
Johan Santana - LHP - 6'0"
Roy Oswalt - RHP - 6'0"
Pedro Martinez - RHP - 5'11"
Greg Maddux - RHP - 6'0"
Tom Glavine - LHP 6'0"
Mike Hampton - LHP - 5'10"
Billy Wagner - LHP - 5'10"
Trevor Hoffman - RHP - 6'0"
Maybe there are 9 active tall pitchers who could compare with these guys during the last 10 or 15 years. We would have to add up the records and Cy Young awards. I bet it would be pretty close if we compared the very best of the tall pitchers with these shorter ones. Of course, a couple of those above are real young still and could compile much bigger numbers and more awards before they're done.
Of course it is understood that there are more pitchers over 6'0 than 6'0 and under in the Major Leagues. I fall into the same trap of coveting the tall pitchers over the shorter ones, but I've changed my opinion, somewhat, over the years because of things like the success of the pitchers listed above.
My original point was in reference to people thinking shorter pitchers don't have a chance. Major League teams really signed the guys on the list above. They didn't have to sign them, but they did. I think they're glad they did!
By the way, the first 7 pitchers listed above have won 1233 ML games and have 11 Cy Young Awards. The other two are a couple of the best closers of our time.
I have no interest in arguing but, did you see that list of shorter pitchers posted earlier in this thread? Here are some of them:
Bartolo Colon - RHP - 5'11"
Johan Santana - LHP - 6'0"
Roy Oswalt - RHP - 6'0"
Pedro Martinez - RHP - 5'11"
Greg Maddux - RHP - 6'0"
Tom Glavine - LHP 6'0"
Mike Hampton - LHP - 5'10"
Billy Wagner - LHP - 5'10"
Trevor Hoffman - RHP - 6'0"
Maybe there are 9 active tall pitchers who could compare with these guys during the last 10 or 15 years. We would have to add up the records and Cy Young awards. I bet it would be pretty close if we compared the very best of the tall pitchers with these shorter ones. Of course, a couple of those above are real young still and could compile much bigger numbers and more awards before they're done.
Of course it is understood that there are more pitchers over 6'0 than 6'0 and under in the Major Leagues. I fall into the same trap of coveting the tall pitchers over the shorter ones, but I've changed my opinion, somewhat, over the years because of things like the success of the pitchers listed above.
My original point was in reference to people thinking shorter pitchers don't have a chance. Major League teams really signed the guys on the list above. They didn't have to sign them, but they did. I think they're glad they did!
By the way, the first 7 pitchers listed above have won 1233 ML games and have 11 Cy Young Awards. The other two are a couple of the best closers of our time.
The distance from mound to point of plate is 60.5 feet. The strike zone starts at the front of the plate (17") so let's say 1.5 feet. The average major league pitcher strides out 80-90% of body length. A six foot pitcher will stride out about 5 feet. The distance from delivery to strike zone is about 54 feet. The angle of attack is about 4.5 degrees for a 6'5" pitcher and 3.7 degrees for a 5'5" pitcher. One foot difference of a pitcher is about 10 inches closer to the strike zone. It would be a little less than 2% closer (approximately 1/54).
However, baseball does have a thing about taller pitchers. When I ask scouts why they are looking for taller I get (1) angle of attack (no scout can tell me what it is though), (2) they won't get hurt throwing the same velocity as a smaller guy (this should be easily studied and I don't think it is correct), (3) they are closer to the plate.
It is interesting that Randy Johnson has such a low release point. You would think someone would have made him get that release point up.
If I get a job as scouting director I'm going to tell everyone around me to look for arms, not height.
However, baseball does have a thing about taller pitchers. When I ask scouts why they are looking for taller I get (1) angle of attack (no scout can tell me what it is though), (2) they won't get hurt throwing the same velocity as a smaller guy (this should be easily studied and I don't think it is correct), (3) they are closer to the plate.
It is interesting that Randy Johnson has such a low release point. You would think someone would have made him get that release point up.
If I get a job as scouting director I'm going to tell everyone around me to look for arms, not height.
It's not only distance variance in release point but level of release point. The lower the release point the easier it is to gauge the path of the trajectory.
A ball thrown by Randy Johnson iis close to twelve feet above you, if the mound is two feet high, and he is 6' 10" and his arm is 36 inches or three feet you can see if he throws a 12 to 6 arm slot the result is 24+82+36 divided by 12 = 11.93 feet.
With a shorter pitcher that translates to about 9 feet if the pitcher uses a 3/4 arm slot like Pedro.
Those three feet difference make the batter look up for the ball to pick it up then follow it on a downward trek while it could be moving into or away from the batter. That's a big difference in perspective that a shorter pitcher can't use as a weapon.
A ball thrown by Randy Johnson iis close to twelve feet above you, if the mound is two feet high, and he is 6' 10" and his arm is 36 inches or three feet you can see if he throws a 12 to 6 arm slot the result is 24+82+36 divided by 12 = 11.93 feet.
With a shorter pitcher that translates to about 9 feet if the pitcher uses a 3/4 arm slot like Pedro.
Those three feet difference make the batter look up for the ball to pick it up then follow it on a downward trek while it could be moving into or away from the batter. That's a big difference in perspective that a shorter pitcher can't use as a weapon.
Pitching is velocity, movement, location, deception and smarts.
A smaller pitcher with a lower entry-angle than what hitters are used to on a day-to-day basis has the advantage of deception.
A smaller pitcher with a lower entry-angle than what hitters are used to on a day-to-day basis has the advantage of deception.
RR
I dont need the pseudo scientific stuff--- a kid who throws well and knows how to pitch will succeed regardless of his height===the lack of height may only make it harder for him to be noticed--that is why the shorter pitcher works harder to succeed
I dont need the pseudo scientific stuff--- a kid who throws well and knows how to pitch will succeed regardless of his height===the lack of height may only make it harder for him to be noticed--that is why the shorter pitcher works harder to succeed
But Randy Johnson is not a 12-6 arm angle pitcher.
Comparing a very tall pitcher with an average one, the arrival angle difference is about 1/2 degree...microscopic.
If getting the ball to come in at a sharp downward angle were the goal, that could be achieved by simply throwing slower.
If getting the ball to come in at a sharp downward angle were the goal, that could be achieved by simply throwing slower.
quote:If getting the ball to come in at a sharp downward angle were the goal, that could be achieved by simply throwing slower.
Well then, sign me up! I'm getting slower by the day...does that make me worth more as time goes by?
A lot of this discussion is just what should be and not what is.
If a scout will only look at 6'+, then that's what he, or the team, wants.
It's kind of like looking for a promotion, the guy with a college degree in the desired skill area will usually get the job over a guy who doesn't and just has experience.
If a scout will only look at 6'+, then that's what he, or the team, wants.
It's kind of like looking for a promotion, the guy with a college degree in the desired skill area will usually get the job over a guy who doesn't and just has experience.
quote:I dont need the pseudo scientific stuff--- a kid who throws well and knows how to pitch will succeed regardless of his height===the lack of height may only make it harder for him to be noticed--that is why the shorter pitcher works harder to succeed
TRhit
I agree. I wonder how many miilions of dollars MLB teams have wasted in the last, say, 15 years by drafting guys solely on velocity, and not on knowing how to pitch?
My understanding is that Greg Maddux was throwing low-mid 90's in high school. Yet, for years, he's been mid-high 80's, and is 5-0 this year, topping out at 84. I watched him when I could during his first run with the Cubs, and the vast majority of his starts with Atlanta, and I don't recall him hitting the 90's.
The guy's probably going to be a 1st ballot HOF'er, and it's almost criminal to think that if he was throwing 87-88 in HS, he most likely wouldn't even have been drafted.
Bottom line for us in our inviting pitchers to play for us we look for WINNERS--guys who know how to pitch and win-- sure, if we can find the guy in the 90's that is great but he had better be able to get guys out and know how to pitch
Keep in mind that every player in the field behind the pitcher is an All Star at his position thus the pitcher is not working inn the normal HS player environment-- he has a team behind him--
Throw strikes son and let the players behind you do their job
Keep in mind that every player in the field behind the pitcher is an All Star at his position thus the pitcher is not working inn the normal HS player environment-- he has a team behind him--
Throw strikes son and let the players behind you do their job
quote:If a scout will only look at 6'+, then that's what he, or the team, wants.
I think it's called taking the easy way out.
There was a guy several years ago in SC that was a heck of an athlete. After his Jr. year, a scout I was talking to was alluding to this kid, saying that he'd be a 1st or 2nd rounder the next year. I laughed at him, and thought he was joking. The kid played weak compeitition, had no drive, a poor attitude, was a prima donna..but he had the size and speed. Sure enough, he was heavily scouted his Sr year, drafted in the 2nd round, if I remember right...signed for a big bonus, and walked away from baseball after a couple of years without even playing a full season.
I saw that same scout after that, and the first thing he said was,"Pleaase don't say I told you so"....he said they didn't scout character and heart, they were looking strictly for kids that fit the mold they were looking for.
Baseball and the guys who make it ---it is all about HEART---without it it matters not the amount of talent --the players with HEART will be the ones to succeed regardless of their size etal
PG:
Originally, you said: "but there are a lot of MLB players under 6'0 tall who are now multi millionaire super stars."
Then I responded: "But how long have they been in the MLB system?"
And you followed with: "I'm sorry, but I don't understand the importance of that. I don't see where there would be any difference between tall or short (regarding your question). Truth is if you look at those 6'0 and under, some have been there for a long time, others are just getting started. Just like the tall players."
You have listed a number of pitchers and other players who are less than 6' tall. It is true that shorter players are in the MLB. My hunch is that more recently, in the past handful of years, fewer are being considered. The overwhelming emphasis and attention these days are fixed on players who are taller than 6' or 6'2".
I have heard some instances personally where scouts do not look at good, solid players who are less than 6'2". Here on the hsbbw, there are many defenders of the smaller in stature players, but I have yet to hear anyone on this site with scouting credentials state something like "yes, indeed, we consider all players, regardless of height."
I admit that I don't go into every forum. There may very well be responses by scouts that are contrary to my hunch. Believe me, I would be delighted to hear or read such responses.
Originally, you said: "but there are a lot of MLB players under 6'0 tall who are now multi millionaire super stars."
Then I responded: "But how long have they been in the MLB system?"
And you followed with: "I'm sorry, but I don't understand the importance of that. I don't see where there would be any difference between tall or short (regarding your question). Truth is if you look at those 6'0 and under, some have been there for a long time, others are just getting started. Just like the tall players."
You have listed a number of pitchers and other players who are less than 6' tall. It is true that shorter players are in the MLB. My hunch is that more recently, in the past handful of years, fewer are being considered. The overwhelming emphasis and attention these days are fixed on players who are taller than 6' or 6'2".
I have heard some instances personally where scouts do not look at good, solid players who are less than 6'2". Here on the hsbbw, there are many defenders of the smaller in stature players, but I have yet to hear anyone on this site with scouting credentials state something like "yes, indeed, we consider all players, regardless of height."
I admit that I don't go into every forum. There may very well be responses by scouts that are contrary to my hunch. Believe me, I would be delighted to hear or read such responses.
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?
Pg,
Size is never overrated....
You are right, size alone doesnt make a high end ball player, but you yourself admitted it, you like tall pitchers...why exactly?
As evidence I would again offer up the rosters for last years Aflac All American Classic, supposedly the top 38 HS players in country. Only 2 of them were under 6' tall.
Another piece of info to consider, i just went thru ESPNs rosters for MLS teams. 20.8% of the listed MLB pitchers were 6'0" or under, 49.6% of them were 6'1" to 6'3" and 29.8% were 6'4" or taller.
As far as talent level is concerned, i would say as we are all talking about players that have the ability and talent to play at a high level. You right if you big but cant perform at all, you wont get a look. No more than 7' basketball player ho cant dribble or run well will get a look from the NBA or any D1 school.
Your listing of a few players who have attained top level sucess while true, is a bit of a distortion of the simple facts. 80% of MLB pitchers are 6'1" or bigger.
No one is debating that an extremely talented player who is smaller cannot achieve high level status. The truth of the matter is simply it is a harder road for that player. Hence...Size Does Matter.
Best of Luck To ALL players,
Big,Small,fast or slow...Work Hard on your fundamentals and max out what ever your potential is
Size is never overrated....
You are right, size alone doesnt make a high end ball player, but you yourself admitted it, you like tall pitchers...why exactly?
As evidence I would again offer up the rosters for last years Aflac All American Classic, supposedly the top 38 HS players in country. Only 2 of them were under 6' tall.
Another piece of info to consider, i just went thru ESPNs rosters for MLS teams. 20.8% of the listed MLB pitchers were 6'0" or under, 49.6% of them were 6'1" to 6'3" and 29.8% were 6'4" or taller.
As far as talent level is concerned, i would say as we are all talking about players that have the ability and talent to play at a high level. You right if you big but cant perform at all, you wont get a look. No more than 7' basketball player ho cant dribble or run well will get a look from the NBA or any D1 school.
Your listing of a few players who have attained top level sucess while true, is a bit of a distortion of the simple facts. 80% of MLB pitchers are 6'1" or bigger.
No one is debating that an extremely talented player who is smaller cannot achieve high level status. The truth of the matter is simply it is a harder road for that player. Hence...Size Does Matter.
Best of Luck To ALL players,
Big,Small,fast or slow...Work Hard on your fundamentals and max out what ever your potential is
Play,
In case you missed this, I posted this once before, coming from the PG website. I found it very intresting and most helpful and pretty accurate according to scouts that I have met.
http://www.perfectgame.org/crack%5Fof%5Fthe%5Fbat/blain...07%5Fscouting%5F101/
PG brings up very good points. For those of us who have taller sons, we say size is important, those that have smaller sons will argue it is ability fisrt. Same for velocity. I am only speaking for pitchers as that really is the position I follow more closely, but I have heard numerous things about other players. For example, while watching a college game the anouncers spoke about how coaches and scouts like catchers to be smaller (?), same way for CF (?). According to this article, physical attributes are not mentioned for position players but for pitchers.
This should not be a place to discourage any player for any position. And certainly encouraged to always work as hard as he can to fulfill his potential at the highest level.
I do beleive that there is a place in college for any good baseball player, especially pitchers.
My son never wanted to be a pitcher. But his lanky frame and long arms and legs were better suited for his future as a pitcher. We heard that over and over and over when he was younger. So I am assuming there has to be something said for what we were told.
Of course any pitcher can be tall and lanky, but reality is, if you do not have the tools needed you could be 7 feet and it does not matter.
So lets put two pitchers together, same height but one has most of the attributes mentioned and the other doesn't than SIZE DOES NOT MATTER.
Can we all agree on that?
In case you missed this, I posted this once before, coming from the PG website. I found it very intresting and most helpful and pretty accurate according to scouts that I have met.
http://www.perfectgame.org/crack%5Fof%5Fthe%5Fbat/blain...07%5Fscouting%5F101/
PG brings up very good points. For those of us who have taller sons, we say size is important, those that have smaller sons will argue it is ability fisrt. Same for velocity. I am only speaking for pitchers as that really is the position I follow more closely, but I have heard numerous things about other players. For example, while watching a college game the anouncers spoke about how coaches and scouts like catchers to be smaller (?), same way for CF (?). According to this article, physical attributes are not mentioned for position players but for pitchers.
This should not be a place to discourage any player for any position. And certainly encouraged to always work as hard as he can to fulfill his potential at the highest level.
I do beleive that there is a place in college for any good baseball player, especially pitchers.
My son never wanted to be a pitcher. But his lanky frame and long arms and legs were better suited for his future as a pitcher. We heard that over and over and over when he was younger. So I am assuming there has to be something said for what we were told.
Of course any pitcher can be tall and lanky, but reality is, if you do not have the tools needed you could be 7 feet and it does not matter.
So lets put two pitchers together, same height but one has most of the attributes mentioned and the other doesn't than SIZE DOES NOT MATTER.
Can we all agree on that?
PG:
All of the following quotes were originally posted by PGStaff:
I agree with you on that. Perhaps I should have said "of all the players who are considered, they are almost always 6' and taller."
My apologies to you if you felt slighted. That wasn't my intent. I wasn't thinking of you or PG when I made my comments. You, with your credentials, have spoken on behalf of smaller player numerous times.
I can appreciate that, but how much of a deficit does a smaller player have to make up just to be considered even with a taller player? How many small players who have ability are drafted? Taller players get the nod.
Again, I agree. The 6'0 pitcher should draw the interest.
Yes, it is obvious.
All true.
True again, but frustrating if you're a smaller stature player.
Yes, the odds are long for everyone, it's just that they are much longer for the smaller statured player.
It doesn't really matter what the parents think.
OK...in this case, you're just a parent, right?
This issue will always be a controversy. I remember the days when it was common to hear "You don't have to be tall to play baseball." I don't hear that anymore.
PG, No hard feelings?!?
All of the following quotes were originally posted by PGStaff:
quote:Never are "all players" of any size considered. Just those that have outstanding tools and ability.
I agree with you on that. Perhaps I should have said "of all the players who are considered, they are almost always 6' and taller."
quote: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.
My apologies to you if you felt slighted. That wasn't my intent. I wasn't thinking of you or PG when I made my comments. You, with your credentials, have spoken on behalf of smaller player numerous times.
quote: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.
I can appreciate that, but how much of a deficit does a smaller player have to make up just to be considered even with a taller player? How many small players who have ability are drafted? Taller players get the nod.
quote: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
Again, I agree. The 6'0 pitcher should draw the interest.
quote: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!
Yes, it is obvious.
quote: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 true.
quote:All I’m saying is ability is MUCH more important than size, to nearly everyone in baseball. Same amount of ability… Size wins out!
True again, but frustrating if you're a smaller stature player.
quote: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.
Yes, the odds are long for everyone, it's just that they are much longer for the smaller statured player.
quote: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.
It doesn't really matter what the parents think.
quote: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?
OK...in this case, you're just a parent, right?
This issue will always be a controversy. I remember the days when it was common to hear "You don't have to be tall to play baseball." I don't hear that anymore.
PG, No hard feelings?!?
Tiger Paw Mom:
Yes, we can agree on that!!!
btw: Thank you for the link to the article. It was interesting.
quote:Originally posted by Tiger Paw Mom:
So lets put two pitchers togethe, same heightbut one has trhe most attributes mentioned and the other doesn't than SIZE DOES NOT MATTER.
Can we all agree on that?
Yes, we can agree on that!!!
btw: Thank you for the link to the article. It was interesting.
I remember this being posted way back
"If you're short you have to prove you can play, if you're tall you have to prove you can't play"
"If you're short you have to prove you can play, if you're tall you have to prove you can't play"
quote:As evidence I would again offer up the rosters for last years Aflac All American Classic, supposedly the top 38 HS players in country. Only 2 of them were under 6' tall.
Where have I ever spoken on behalf of smaller players without mentioning the importance of size?
OK, first of all, we have selected each and every player who has ever participated in the Aflcac Classics.
Size is always a consideration, but comes in second to ability. Of the 38 players that WE selected last year, here are the players 6-0 and under: Note 3 of the best pitchers there are included. Check this years draft and see if the MLB clubs like these three pitchers.
Kasey Kiker LHP
Jeremy Jeffress RHP (listed 6-1 but he isn't)
Kyle Drabek RHP (listed as 6-0 but he isn't)Torre Langley C
Ryan Adams SS
Hank Conger C
Jared Mitchell OF
Jeff Rapoport OF (Listed as 6-0 but he isn't)
The 2004 Aflac All American teams
Andrew McCutchen OF (first round draft pick)
John Drennen OF (first round draft pick)Diallo Fon OF
Sean O'Sullivan RHP (listed as 6-1 but he isn't - 3rd round draft pick))
Jeremy Hellickson RHP (4th round draft pick, signed for $500,000)
Nick Romero SS
And the first year Aflac All Americans
Eric Campbell 2B/SS (2nd round draft pick)
Stephen Chapman OF
Brad Emaus INF
Gio Gonzalez LHP (first round draft pick)
Chris Nelson SS (first round draft pick)
Warren McFadden OF
Matt Bush SS (1st pick of the draft)
Greg Golson OF (listed above 6-0 but isn't - first round draft pick)
Andy Lentz OF
Troy Patton (listed as 6-1 but he isn't)
Note 6 of the 18 Aflac All Americans who went in the 1st round were 6'0" or under. That's one third of the first rounders! Of the 7 Aflac All American pitchers who went in the first round only one was under 6-0. But there was one and I think there might be a couple more this year.
Listen, I'm not defending anything at all. Simply mentioning some facts that it appears some folks don't quite want to hear.
Does a smaller pitcher have to be better than a big pitcher to receive the same attention? YES, once again... And sometimes that is exactly what happens!!! Why doesn't someone dispute that list of pitchers I posted????
Andrew McCutchen OF (first round draft pick)
Probably my all-time favorite youth player.
What a great kid - Not on topic - but I am so glad he has done well - and is still doing very well.
You go Andrew!!!
Probably my all-time favorite youth player.
What a great kid - Not on topic - but I am so glad he has done well - and is still doing very well.
You go Andrew!!!
PG,
I am not here to argue with you or to tell young men who are not over 6' tall that they can't be top flight players. I simply want to bring a point of view to the discussion that is believe is more realistic to those of us just starting out on the journey. I believe I can speak for everyone here when I say we hope all the young men who are members here or whose parents are, will achieve their goals.
There is a difference however between hopes and dreams and the cold reality of the world. Most all of us parents here have certainly experienced it. I truely believe its only fair to present each player with a fair assesment of his chances to achieve those dreams.
All of this reminds me of a pyramid chart that the director of the first AAU organization my son played for brought in to show the boys when they were 12 yrs old. The base of the pyramid represented the mumber of Little League players in the US. The next level depicted the number of kids playing organized ball (Bath Ruth, Senior LL, AAU, etc) from the ages of 13-15. Next came the amount of players in high school, followed by college. the top two layers of this chart showed the number of players in all of pro ball and then then the number of Major League players. The purpose of showing them this chart and the talk that followed was not to "squash" their dreams. It was to show them that working on the academics was more important than working on baseball. It was important for them to know just exactly how difficult it is to make your living at this sport. A side effect of it though was a realization that the odds of playing college baseball, let alone profession ball, are not great. Also, that as you attempt to move up that pyramid, there is an immense amount of competition for those spots.
No one here is disputing the fact that smaller very talented player will get his opportunities. But the real world facts are that a bigger skilled player will have more oportunities than a smaller skilled player.
I will state this again, the premise of the thread was size does not matter, and that simply is not true. No one is saying ONLY size matters, but that it is one of the first impression factors that helps to decide how all those opportunities are handed out.
Let us consider size in a different way.
we have two players, both 18, both equally talented fielders(range, quickness, arm strength). One is 5'10", 195 lbs, solid muscle.
the second player is also 5'10", but 150 lbs, athletic, but slender.
I am pretty sure that at your showcase event, the bigger player will attract more attention than the smaller one. Now along with that attention comes the dreaded "P" word (Potential) as everyone waits to see him swing.
If he is a dud at the plate, everyone walks away and starts looking for other players to watch. If he starts crushing the ball though, most everyone's eyes will be on him.
I have witnessed this kind of situation at every tryout, camp and showcase I have ever
seen. This is point I am trying to make.
It is easy to say an exceptional smaller athlete will be chosen over a larger one with a low skill level. That is of course a given.
I am very glad for each of the young men you have mentioned in your previous posts. I wish them continued success, but I notice you are only providing info on one side of this discussion. My intentions here are not simply disprove your facts for the sake of doing it, but to shine the light of reality on the discussion. You list a series of individuals who have achieved great success, but statiscally these players are indeed a small minority.
If you want to match names and aomplishemnts, I think even you will admit that a smaller player has a less likely chance, not an impossible one, to be on that list.
As a simple example, you mentioned that Colon was last years Cy Young Winner, yet you did not mention that Chris Carpenter, the NL Cy Young winner is 6'6". The top closer of the past few years and has no peer as far as post season play goes, Mariano Rivera, is 6'2". (ouch, as a Red Sox fan it hurts to say that last sentence).
Just curiousity here, but is every player who is listed at 6'0" or 6'1" really not that height ? and if size doesn't matter, why ccheat on the roster height?
I am not here to argue with you or to tell young men who are not over 6' tall that they can't be top flight players. I simply want to bring a point of view to the discussion that is believe is more realistic to those of us just starting out on the journey. I believe I can speak for everyone here when I say we hope all the young men who are members here or whose parents are, will achieve their goals.
There is a difference however between hopes and dreams and the cold reality of the world. Most all of us parents here have certainly experienced it. I truely believe its only fair to present each player with a fair assesment of his chances to achieve those dreams.
All of this reminds me of a pyramid chart that the director of the first AAU organization my son played for brought in to show the boys when they were 12 yrs old. The base of the pyramid represented the mumber of Little League players in the US. The next level depicted the number of kids playing organized ball (Bath Ruth, Senior LL, AAU, etc) from the ages of 13-15. Next came the amount of players in high school, followed by college. the top two layers of this chart showed the number of players in all of pro ball and then then the number of Major League players. The purpose of showing them this chart and the talk that followed was not to "squash" their dreams. It was to show them that working on the academics was more important than working on baseball. It was important for them to know just exactly how difficult it is to make your living at this sport. A side effect of it though was a realization that the odds of playing college baseball, let alone profession ball, are not great. Also, that as you attempt to move up that pyramid, there is an immense amount of competition for those spots.
No one here is disputing the fact that smaller very talented player will get his opportunities. But the real world facts are that a bigger skilled player will have more oportunities than a smaller skilled player.
I will state this again, the premise of the thread was size does not matter, and that simply is not true. No one is saying ONLY size matters, but that it is one of the first impression factors that helps to decide how all those opportunities are handed out.
Let us consider size in a different way.
we have two players, both 18, both equally talented fielders(range, quickness, arm strength). One is 5'10", 195 lbs, solid muscle.
the second player is also 5'10", but 150 lbs, athletic, but slender.
I am pretty sure that at your showcase event, the bigger player will attract more attention than the smaller one. Now along with that attention comes the dreaded "P" word (Potential) as everyone waits to see him swing.
If he is a dud at the plate, everyone walks away and starts looking for other players to watch. If he starts crushing the ball though, most everyone's eyes will be on him.
I have witnessed this kind of situation at every tryout, camp and showcase I have ever
seen. This is point I am trying to make.
It is easy to say an exceptional smaller athlete will be chosen over a larger one with a low skill level. That is of course a given.
I am very glad for each of the young men you have mentioned in your previous posts. I wish them continued success, but I notice you are only providing info on one side of this discussion. My intentions here are not simply disprove your facts for the sake of doing it, but to shine the light of reality on the discussion. You list a series of individuals who have achieved great success, but statiscally these players are indeed a small minority.
If you want to match names and aomplishemnts, I think even you will admit that a smaller player has a less likely chance, not an impossible one, to be on that list.
As a simple example, you mentioned that Colon was last years Cy Young Winner, yet you did not mention that Chris Carpenter, the NL Cy Young winner is 6'6". The top closer of the past few years and has no peer as far as post season play goes, Mariano Rivera, is 6'2". (ouch, as a Red Sox fan it hurts to say that last sentence).
Just curiousity here, but is every player who is listed at 6'0" or 6'1" really not that height ? and if size doesn't matter, why ccheat on the roster height?
NHFundamentals,
You bring up some very logical points. Your post is well written and makes a lot of sense. Now, if you would be kind enough to read what I have written on the subject.
Allow me to address a few of your points.
I believe it is “hopes and dreams” that is the major reason people overcome cold reality. I’ve experienced both! I truly believe the BIG dreamers have the advantage over the realists! Of course, some people think I’m half crazy. All those people are half wrong!
Academics have never been brought up in this discussion. Why not consider both academics and baseball important? Truth is (in reality) the advice above should be given to players of all sizes. We should tell players of all sizes just how difficult it is to make their living in baseball
Not necessarily true. First time we saw Matt Bush, he was 5-9/145, he drew much more “attention” than all the 195 lbers there. He later became the very first pick of the draft. Scott Kazmir stuck out much more than bigger pitchers. Lastings Milledge stood out more than any 6-2 player, Jeremy Hellickson drew more interest than any 6 foot plus player in our state.
You really don’t know me very well, I was once well known by my scouting friends as the most caught up in size of anyone. Of course, the smaller players are in the minority, always will be. So should every young Greg Maddux get caught up in the cold reality of the situation? I really don't know how much more "reality" I can stand! When it comes to playing at the highest levels... everyone is in the minority! The bigger guys have an advantage... so what? They have an advantage in lots of things.
My son was on the same team, I’ve stood next to Mariano, I’d guess him to be 6-0. Of course, everyone can name tons of great tall pitchers. I only named the shorter ones to make a point. Ability is #1 most important, much more important than size! The odds are greatly stacked against players of all sizes. Yes, the bigger guys have an advantage so long as they have the necessary talent and projection! Smaller guys are not often considered full of projection unless they are very young and have room to grow.
I apologize, if bringing up names of top players who are not over 6’0” tall bothers anyone. I’m simply showing it can (and has) happened. The percentages change when the ability and work ethic stands out. I’m not sticking up for the smaller players, I’m sticking up for baseball players… some of them are not tall!
To end my part in this discussion... Here are a few comments from the posts I’ve made in this thread. I can’t figure out why nobody is reading these. I don't understand why anyone feels I might actually favor the small player over the tall one.
Quotes made by PGStaff in this thread...
The above are all comments I made in this thread. So, there really can’t be much to argue about… is there?
You bring up some very logical points. Your post is well written and makes a lot of sense. Now, if you would be kind enough to read what I have written on the subject.
Allow me to address a few of your points.
quote:There is a difference however between hopes and dreams and the cold reality of the world. Most all of us parents here have certainly experienced it.
I believe it is “hopes and dreams” that is the major reason people overcome cold reality. I’ve experienced both! I truly believe the BIG dreamers have the advantage over the realists! Of course, some people think I’m half crazy. All those people are half wrong!
quote:The purpose of showing them this chart and the talk that followed was not to "squash" their dreams. It was to show them that working on the academics was more important than working on baseball. It was important for them to know just exactly how difficult it is to make your living at this sport.
Academics have never been brought up in this discussion. Why not consider both academics and baseball important? Truth is (in reality) the advice above should be given to players of all sizes. We should tell players of all sizes just how difficult it is to make their living in baseball
quote:Let us consider size in a different way.
we have two players, both 18, both equally talented fielders(range, quickness, arm strength). One is 5'10", 195 lbs, solid muscle.
the second player is also 5'10", but 150 lbs, athletic, but slender.
I am pretty sure that at your showcase event, the bigger player will attract more attention than the smaller one.
Not necessarily true. First time we saw Matt Bush, he was 5-9/145, he drew much more “attention” than all the 195 lbers there. He later became the very first pick of the draft. Scott Kazmir stuck out much more than bigger pitchers. Lastings Milledge stood out more than any 6-2 player, Jeremy Hellickson drew more interest than any 6 foot plus player in our state.
quote:My intentions here are not simply disprove your facts for the sake of doing it, but to shine the light of reality on the discussion. You list a series of individuals who have achieved great success, but statiscally these players are indeed a small minority.
You really don’t know me very well, I was once well known by my scouting friends as the most caught up in size of anyone. Of course, the smaller players are in the minority, always will be. So should every young Greg Maddux get caught up in the cold reality of the situation? I really don't know how much more "reality" I can stand! When it comes to playing at the highest levels... everyone is in the minority! The bigger guys have an advantage... so what? They have an advantage in lots of things.
quote:As a simple example, you mentioned that Colon was last years Cy Young Winner, yet you did not mention that Chris Carpenter, the NL Cy Young winner is 6'6". The top closer of the past few years and has no peer as far as post season play goes, Mariano Rivera, is 6'2".
My son was on the same team, I’ve stood next to Mariano, I’d guess him to be 6-0. Of course, everyone can name tons of great tall pitchers. I only named the shorter ones to make a point. Ability is #1 most important, much more important than size! The odds are greatly stacked against players of all sizes. Yes, the bigger guys have an advantage so long as they have the necessary talent and projection! Smaller guys are not often considered full of projection unless they are very young and have room to grow.
I apologize, if bringing up names of top players who are not over 6’0” tall bothers anyone. I’m simply showing it can (and has) happened. The percentages change when the ability and work ethic stands out. I’m not sticking up for the smaller players, I’m sticking up for baseball players… some of them are not tall!
To end my part in this discussion... Here are a few comments from the posts I’ve made in this thread. I can’t figure out why nobody is reading these. I don't understand why anyone feels I might actually favor the small player over the tall one.
Quotes made by PGStaff in this thread...
quote:Then again it is possible to be 6-0 or under and get to the next level.
quote:I will agree that in many cases the smaller guy won't get drafted as high or paid as much to sign his first contract, but there are a lot of MLB players under 6'0 tall who are now multi millionaire super stars.
quote:Of course it is understood that there are more pitchers over 6'0 than 6'0 and under in the Major Leagues. I fall into the same trap of coveting the tall pitchers over the shorter ones, but I've changed my opinion, somewhat, over the years because of things like the success of the pitchers listed above.
quote:My original point was in reference to people thinking shorter pitchers don't have a chance. Major League teams really signed the guys on the list above. They didn't have to sign them, but they did. I think they're glad they did!
quote: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.
quote:All things being equal, the taller player will be most interesting (seldom are all things equal).
quote:All I’m saying is ability is MUCH more important than size, to nearly everyone in baseball. Same amount of ability… Size wins out!
quote: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.
quote:Where have I ever spoken on behalf of smaller players without mentioning the importance of size?
quote:Does a smaller pitcher have to be better than a big pitcher to receive the same attention? YES, once again... And sometimes that is exactly what happens!!!
The above are all comments I made in this thread. So, there really can’t be much to argue about… is there?
Anecdotaly, I went to a High A game Saturday night. A righty closer pitched, VERY generously listed at 6-0 212#, probably more near 5-9.
Sat behind the gun for 3 innings. Highest number I saw was 88....for anyone of the 5 pitchers who threw.
Sat behind the gun for 3 innings. Highest number I saw was 88....for anyone of the 5 pitchers who threw.
My LHP at 16 (5'9") is currently "height-challenged". But he's still growing so we'll see. I've heard the arguments about release points and entry planes.. all pretty relevant stuff that may or may not put the shorter players at a disadvantage, I won't argue that..
but I take issue with the argument that the taller kids are somehow more durable. That hasn't been my experience. My kid is the ace of his staff, logs tons of pitches and innings, and gets stronger as the year progresses.
The taller kids in our program almost to a man have serious arm or mechanical issues. I am certainly not saying this is generally true, just in our program. But I really wonder if the shorter kids, being more compact, have less "stuff" to go wrong.
but I take issue with the argument that the taller kids are somehow more durable. That hasn't been my experience. My kid is the ace of his staff, logs tons of pitches and innings, and gets stronger as the year progresses.
The taller kids in our program almost to a man have serious arm or mechanical issues. I am certainly not saying this is generally true, just in our program. But I really wonder if the shorter kids, being more compact, have less "stuff" to go wrong.
Bum:
Makes you wonder about the difference between a Ford Fiesta and a Hummer.
quote:Originally posted by Bum:
But I really wonder if the shorter kids, being more compact, have less "stuff" to go wrong.
Makes you wonder about the difference between a Ford Fiesta and a Hummer.
Fungo
I mentioned previously that Randy Johnson did not take full advantage of his height.
TRhit
Nothing psuedo about it...it's a matter of physics. If a batter can see the pitch with little to no movement of his eyes or moving his head he has a much better chance of hitting it. The taller the pitcher, and the higher the release point the more likely that the eyes and head will have to move to pick up the ball early at the release point.
PG Staff
My input is based upon the "general knowledge" which pitching coaches discussed with us as we were learning. Maybe the emphasis on size has changed because so many kids now are so much smaller than they use to be. Now there is such an emphasis on "gun velocity" and not an emphasis on knowing how to pitch.
It used to be that pitchers had to know how to pitch because they had the "authority" to shake off a "called" pitch. But now with the "must-throw what's called philosophy" a kid only needs to know how to throw a fb because that's what's usually called 90% of the time.
Personally I really enjoy watching pitchers like Maddux who actually know how to pitch then the other types that throw mostly FB's. It gets pretty boring.
I mentioned previously that Randy Johnson did not take full advantage of his height.
TRhit
Nothing psuedo about it...it's a matter of physics. If a batter can see the pitch with little to no movement of his eyes or moving his head he has a much better chance of hitting it. The taller the pitcher, and the higher the release point the more likely that the eyes and head will have to move to pick up the ball early at the release point.
PG Staff
My input is based upon the "general knowledge" which pitching coaches discussed with us as we were learning. Maybe the emphasis on size has changed because so many kids now are so much smaller than they use to be. Now there is such an emphasis on "gun velocity" and not an emphasis on knowing how to pitch.
It used to be that pitchers had to know how to pitch because they had the "authority" to shake off a "called" pitch. But now with the "must-throw what's called philosophy" a kid only needs to know how to throw a fb because that's what's usually called 90% of the time.
Personally I really enjoy watching pitchers like Maddux who actually know how to pitch then the other types that throw mostly FB's. It gets pretty boring.
PG,
Glad To see we agree....Best of luck to you and all the young men you are working with
Glad To see we agree....Best of luck to you and all the young men you are working with
I was trying to make the point that size doesn't matter unless someone can tell me how. No pitcher delivers as high as he can, they all have a bend on the front side and the angle of attack is not of great importance mathematically.
The distance of 6" in height makes a difference of about 4" closer to the plate.
The smaller pitcher gets hurt more often? I don't know how to evaluate this, but this would have to be easy to measure. Does anyone know what the real numbers are? I've talked to tall pitchers that came out of pro ball and they subjectively think the tall guys had more operations than the compact guys.
Someone jokingly said something correct. If you want tall for angle of attack, off-speed has way more impact on angle of attack than size of the pitcher. I told this to a scout who said "we don't draft off-speed." I told him, "that's my point."
With everything else equal, I take the taller pitcher. But my point is, many good smaller guys are getting by-passed because of a belief that does not hold up.
Last by the way, my kid is pretty tall and is not through growing.
The distance of 6" in height makes a difference of about 4" closer to the plate.
The smaller pitcher gets hurt more often? I don't know how to evaluate this, but this would have to be easy to measure. Does anyone know what the real numbers are? I've talked to tall pitchers that came out of pro ball and they subjectively think the tall guys had more operations than the compact guys.
Someone jokingly said something correct. If you want tall for angle of attack, off-speed has way more impact on angle of attack than size of the pitcher. I told this to a scout who said "we don't draft off-speed." I told him, "that's my point."
With everything else equal, I take the taller pitcher. But my point is, many good smaller guys are getting by-passed because of a belief that does not hold up.
Last by the way, my kid is pretty tall and is not through growing.
I always get a kick out of this subject.
For the true athlete - I dont think it matters all that much.
When I played against Art Monk - I can assure you I wasnt thinking about how much bigger he was. All I was thinking about was how hard I was going to hit him if and when he caught the ball.
LOL
For the true athlete - I dont think it matters all that much.
When I played against Art Monk - I can assure you I wasnt thinking about how much bigger he was. All I was thinking about was how hard I was going to hit him if and when he caught the ball.
LOL
I've been reading the boards now for a number of months - but this discussion was one that I couldn't resist adding my $0.02. I do believe that players under 6"0" are at a real disadvantage and have to be that much better than the bigger guys to get a serious look. There was a very interesting article in the San Diego Tribune today on the subject I wanted to share. A few facts to consider from the article:
349 Pitchers currently on major league rosters
29 Pitchers shorter than 6 feet
15 NL pitchers shorter than 6 feet
14 AL pitchers shorter than 6 feet
8 Sub-6-footers who are left-handed (4 NL, 4 AL)
10 Teams without a pitcher shorter than 6 feet
7 Pitchers shorter than 6 feet who have won the Cy Young Award
5-9 Height of St. Louis pitcher Ricardo Rincon, currently the shortest in the majors
3 Cy Youngs for 5-11 Pedro Martinez
3 First-round draft picks shorter than 6 feet to make the majors between 1970-1999
The entire article can be read at http://www.signonsandiego.com/sports/baseball/20060501-9999-lz1s1shortshr.html
Good luck to all!
349 Pitchers currently on major league rosters
29 Pitchers shorter than 6 feet
15 NL pitchers shorter than 6 feet
14 AL pitchers shorter than 6 feet
8 Sub-6-footers who are left-handed (4 NL, 4 AL)
10 Teams without a pitcher shorter than 6 feet
7 Pitchers shorter than 6 feet who have won the Cy Young Award
5-9 Height of St. Louis pitcher Ricardo Rincon, currently the shortest in the majors
3 Cy Youngs for 5-11 Pedro Martinez
3 First-round draft picks shorter than 6 feet to make the majors between 1970-1999
The entire article can be read at http://www.signonsandiego.com/sports/baseball/20060501-9999-lz1s1shortshr.html
Good luck to all!
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.
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.