Size - how much does it really matter?

I think you make a great point. However, the numbers just don't bear that out in quite a few instances.

 

The great thing is you can confirm this by looking at the numbers a lot of the signees are posting.

 

That being said size should not be used as an excuse. Work harder and smarter.

 

 

B

 

Not really too sure what numbers you're referring to. If you're referring to stats, I can assure you that high school stats mean virtually nothing with regard to recruiting or scouting. Any and all high school stats can essentially be thrown out the window. 

Talking about hard numbers like 60 yard dash, arm velocity, and batted ball exit velocity.

 

Forget HS stats when it comes to getting in to college. Simply bragging rights

 

B

UCLA National Champs... 14 players between 5'8 and 6'

South Carolina National Champs 2011 roster. 20 from 5'7 to 6'.... 14 of them 5'10 or less, Some were pitchers.  Maybe those coaches that don't even look at players unless they are taller than 6' need to pay closer attention to what is going on.

 

Of course size is an advantage. So what? Big guys that can't play will say talent is an advantage. Both big and small either have what it takes or they lack what it takes.  When the Hall of Fame has so many players under 6', how can anyone ignore a player because he isn't over 6' tall?

 

Those over 6' tall have no advantage unless they have the required talent. So what if they get an extra look, if that extra look doesn't help them.  Projection is simply guessing the future.  Did Willy Mays project? Micky Mantle? Size is only one part of projection.  An advantage? Yes, but not anywhere near what some might think.

 

Play the damn game and give it all you have.  Don't look for reasons or excuses to fail. You play with the hand you are dealt. If you become one of the very best 5'8 players, you are going to do very well. It has been proven time and again.

 

Now if a player is 5'8, lacks speed and arm strength, and can't hit. His height is not what will hold him back. He could be 6'5 and his height won't help him.

 

Of course, there is that phrase "All things being equal" that pertains to favoring size.  Problem is there is a word that should be added to that phrase.  It should be "All things are NEVER equal. There are lots of opinions, but no two players have ever been equal.

 

http://sportsologist.com/baseb...-height-by-position/

 

Reality is that the average size in the MLB is 6'-1" (as of 2010 article above). 

 

http://espn.go.com/mlb/stats/r...ge_height/order/true

 

Reality is...in the eyes of the beholder. I'll bet you a Mickey Mantle rookie card that--on average--the listed height of MLB position players is one inch more than their actual height.

The other thing that I haven't seen here is body type. I've seen plenty of kids with nondescript body types in the 5'10 170lb range. Just average builds. But I've seen others with a similar height and weight that you could see their athletic frame, build, and musculature with a uniform on. The eyeball test matters.

 

I know a kid who is 5'9"(at the most) 165 but blazing fast (6.4), plays a great centerfield, is a very good hitter, and gets on base a lot with his speed on infield hits. Going to a small D1. Very athletic frame and build and as a youth excelled at every sport he played.

 

I know another kid who is huge, 6'8" 290 and threw in the low 80's at best in high school. Wasn't a very good pitcher in high school or legion. His body type was not good - heavy, and unathletic. He went to a  DII, redshirted, hung around another year, and then quit playing baseball. Fastball never really came around. However, he had an opportunity to play in college whereas many of his smaller teammates, who were better in high school, didn't.

 

Third kid is a lefty first baseman who is under 6 ft but 220lbs. He's a one position only kind of kid with a good bat. Showcase camps don't really help him because of his height, lack of speed, and because he's sort of a one tool kid (but the one tool is that he can hit). He's heavy but has a good build. Has drawn interest from a DII and offered from a very small NAIA. Will probably hear from some D3's.

 

Fourth kid was also a lefty first baseman, one position only kind of kid. Short and heavy through his junior year. Not fast, or athletic with a poor body type. Lost weight and got into better shape for his senior season, though still only around 5'10". Kid was a very good bat and had some power. Signed with a DII.

 

 

Right or wrong there is a perception that height gives one an advantage. 

NFL quarterbacks are an example:

From Foxsports 2012 article:

"Last season, Seneca Wallace, at 5-11 3/8, was the shortest quarterback on an NFL roster. He started three games for the Cleveland Browns.

Only five of the 55 quarterbacks to start a game were listed as being shorter than 6-2: Tyler Palko (Kansas City, 6-1), Rex Grossman (Washington, 6-1), Michael Vick (Philadelphia, 6-0), Drew Brees (New Orleans, 6-0) and Wallace."

 

Unless you are a pitcher it seems that to make the MLB there is a height standard that being below makes it terribly difficult to make a team.

 

The average size of a MLB 1B is 6'-3, 224 lbs.  What is the chance a 5'-9" college player will be a MLB 1B?  Probably not good at all.

 

I am talking MLB here so it should be obvious that you don't get to that level without talent. 

I definitely think that size helps one to get noticed, but I also agree that if you don't have talent, height won't help much.  I will use my son as an example. 6' 4" 195 lbs. 2015 LHP, Nationally Ranked by PG.  Son is extremely slow, even though he a wonderfully, athletic build.  He throws in the low 80's, plays an excellent 1st Base, and can really mash. He gets a lot of attention from scouts, but has only received one offer to this point.  So what am I trying to say here is, son has the height, but he is missing the velocity tool. A Top 10 Baseball Team has told him he needs 3 - 5 MPH to be seriously considered by them.  Basically son has the measurables, but he doesn't have the requisite tools yet to be a big time recruit as a pitcher.  This seems to be holding true, because other major D-1 Teams have said they love him as a hitter, and haven't decided on him as a pitcher.  If height was what mattered, he would have been offered by now.  It takes the whole package.  Size helps, speed helps, power helps, control helps, velocity helps, good glove helps, etc.  if son was 5'9" and threw low 90's, he would definitely be in good shape.  You just can't paint everything with the same brush.

Amen and Amen!!

 

Same is true of USC Gamecocks 2 time national champs.

 

NFL QBs are different than baseball.  QBs have to be able to see over and pass over an offensive line and tight ends that are all 6'7" - 6'8".  You don't have to see over anyone playing baseball.

Great points rynoattack!

 

My kid posted numbers better than a lot of big kids. He just needs to keep working hard and sooner or later a coach will look at him and say... that kid can help my program. He plays the game the right way and has the skills. I am giving the kid an opportunity.

 

This process is daunting at best unless you have a kid a blind man could find.

 

B

 

 

I agree. Height is not an excuse but if you don't have it IS more difficult to make it.

 

B

The average size of a MLB 1B is 6'-3, 224 lbs.  What is the chance a 5'-9" college player will be a MLB 1B?  Probably not good at all.

 

Probably not good. But what are the odds height listings are exaggerated? Steve Garvey was listed as 5'10". My wife and I met him at a party. My 5'8" wife was taller (in flats). 

 

I'm not a physicist, nor did I stay in a Holiday Inn Express last night. It would make sense from a physics standpoint the player with size would have an advantage. So I can understand coaches/scouts liking players with size. But size doesn't mean talented or the most talented. I'm quite sure coaches/scouts prefer talent over size.

 

My son was 5'4" when baseball started in 8th grade. He had a late spring birthday. He hadn't had his growth spurt yet (6'2" now). He was aggravated he was still short. We would walk by a 6'+ geek and he would say to me, "What a waste of height!"

 

I admit I took a 6'2" kid who threw about 85 on my 14U travel team. The kid had command between the pipes (on the backstop). In addition the kid was a moonshot. He was Nuke LaLoosh with no control. I thought I could work with him. He rarely got through an inning. Another team picked him up in 15U. He went to a showcase and drew attention even though he threw about 20% strikes. I don't know what became of him. He moved.

Through our recruiting experience we found a lot of coaches that would dismiss my son because he didn't pass they eye test.  He is 6'3" and lanky.  We have seen lots of less talented kids (IMHO) that meet the "eye test" that got recruited over him. 

 

Coaches told us they wanted to wait to see him fill out - but really?  Are you going to wait until that time?  It would have been now (as he is starting to fill out) and those programs are well past 2014 recruiting timeframe.  We were lucky to find a program that wasn't turned off by his frame - and they are going to be very happy when he gets to college about 20 pounds more than when they recruited him.

I am reading your post to say that Steve Garvey was 5'7". That colors my impression of the rest of what you have to say, fairly or not.

 

My small slice of experience tells me that size is often used as a litmus test by some evaluators. I had thought this was pretty obvious, could be wrong, but in any case I am not posting this up as some kind of ground-breaking revelation or anything.

 

Anyone who disagrees, of course, is free to understate his son's/players' heights and weights on the internet, camp info forms, and college questionnaires. Would be interested to know if anyone has done that.

I just don't understand the thinking of those coaches. Between the ages of 16 and 20, the bodies of most males undergo seismic changes. My son gained 30 lbs of muscle between the start of freshman and sophomore years in college.

Well...how tall is Peter Rose??

I am reading your post to say he is 5'8". Hard to tell with people not standing up straight and with caps on.

 

Easy to Google if you want the official answer

 

Edit: Back to my point. My small slice of experience tells me that size is often used as a litmus test by some evaluators. Would be interested to know if anyone has understated heights/weights on profiles/questionnaires...and if this is the exception or the rule. I think that would kinda answer the original question

I find Steve listed at 5'10" and Rose listed as 5'11".

Well, if you believe what you read on Google, then there's no use arguing. I rest my case with the following picture of Charlie Hustle and Mini-Me. Pete is only a couple of inches taller.

On this note: is there widespread "inflation" of size (and sometime reduction of weight) at the collegiate level for rosters? Do some programs/conferences do it more or less? If done, what is the point?

Hahaha. 

 

I guess Pete is only maybe 4'8" then.  That makes Steve Garvey REALLY short.

 

Hahaha.

Thanks for laugh of the day, Slotty and Bballman!

 

All I can say about that is, you can't trust what if published.  Throughout my son's college career, the height and weight that was published on his bio was equivalent to what he was as a Freshman in HS. . . a far cry from what he actually was (much shorter and lighter than he had become).  I mentioned it to my son and suggest he get it corrected.  But he felt it wasn't important and never addressed it.  And his Bio remained that way all through college and remains in the archives to this day.

 

I'm sure it varies with regards to who inputs the information and what sources they use.  And for the most part, I don't feel there's any real intent to make things seem what they're not.  But I have little doubt that there are those who do and don't realize it indeed doesn't matter what is published.

Drew Brees and Russel Wilson would disagree with you statement. Point being, that perception is still the golden rule, unfortunately.

There was an interesting replay in this past weekends Patriots-Saints game. Aikman pointed out on one play Brees was on his toes and had his nose up to elevate his view over his linemen. It works for Brees.

A lot of great points in this thread.  But just to look a the question with some empirical  data, the first page below is a list of Perfect Game's top 300 underclassmen.  Most have college commitments.  Just at a glance, it looks like only about 10% of the kids are under 6', and barely a handful are under 5' 10".   If you go to the second page, the High Honorable Mention, there are many more under 6', and if you go to the last page, the Honorable Mentions, you'll find a much higher percentage of 5-footers, and a much lower percentage of college commitments.

 

http://www.perfectgame.org/all...lass/AllAmerica.aspx

 

http://www.perfectgame.org/all...s/HighHonorable.aspx

 

http://www.perfectgame.org/all...class/Honorable.aspx

I typically coach a fall team made up of players from three or four local high schools. Several years ago I had a team with 15 players, 14 of who went on to play college basball and three who were eventually drafted.

Of the three, one was a 6' 3" right handed pitcher who topped out at about 90 in high school, one was a 5' 9" SS who was my best players as far as skill level and game production. He had the strongest arm, 91 across the IF and a plus bat, glove and average speed and power. He typically got the tourney or offensive MVP in tourneys we won because he was a high stat guy.

The third was a 6' 3" CF with plus plus speed, and an average arm, glove and average to below average bat and power. He was a low stat guy in HS. But he passed the eye test in every way, father was a former professional athlete.

He was of course, my highest recruited player, signing with an SEC team and was a 2nd round pick out of HS but turned down $450,000.

The RHP went JUCO, and topped out at 95 after his second year and was a 5th round pick. Released after a three years in the minors.

The SS signed at a mid major D1 but continued to be productive even as a freshman, setting numerous offensive records. Seemed to really step up when they played the aforementioned SEC team while the CF struggled.

CF had two very poor years, and one ok year, but lost his starting spot occasionally. And yes, he was a supplemental first round pick as a junior for about $900,000, has had several poor minor league seasons, but continues to get starter's playing time.

The SS has had very high numbers in the lower level minors after a 17th round selection, but has leveled off in the upper levels of milb.

I think this is fairly consistent with what I typjcally see when coaches contact me, high reward but higher risk players get more attention because when they succeed they can be very valuable, and there are far less premium athletes in baseball compared to football and basketball. Supply and demand?

JCG:  Perfect Game highly factors in projectability.  There is no doubt the bigger players get a premium.  But I'm sure Mr. Ford himself would agree, in the end, present ability trumps projectability. 

 

TM1324:  There were six kids drafted on Bum, Jr.'s travel team in h.s.  Four over 6' and two under 6', including Bum, Jr.  Four are still playing MILB, two over 6' and two under.  What does it mean?  Nothing.

This is a 2010 article which listed heights relative to position in the MLB since 1960.  

 

Surprisingly pitchers were the tallest on average.  But this is an average over the last 50 yrs. 

 

http://sportsologist.com/baseb...-height-by-position/

My  experience does not jibe with present ability trumping projectability in a whole lot of cases.

 

One kid hits nothing but hard line drives, runs a 6.9, throws 85 and is 5'9". He performs the offensive drills flawlessly. Hit and run, bunt, sac fly etc.. Excellent glove per the coaches. Said to him they love his swing.

 

Other kid is 6'1", runs a 7.1, throws 78 and yes he could hit some too.

 

Which one do you think the school signed? 6'1"

 

Another kid  is 6'3" runs a 7.35, and throws 80.

 

There are a lot of other factors

 

 

Guess which kid is signed

 

I think UCLA and the type of team the USC had winning back to back championships are great examples of present ability versus projectability. The coaches clearly were after the best player at a given position regardless of size.

 

I think that the BBCOR bat will require the coaches to start going after kids that can play now and execute on offense regardless of size. UCLA kids proved what can be done with great pitching, defense, and kids that will do what ever they can to get on get around and score.

 

B

I my exp it depends on the coach.  2014 has had some coaches and scouts love his size at 6'5 190 lanky throwing 88  ..... but some coaches do not want to wait until he fills out, they like the 6'0 190 that throws 90 right now.  

 

 

College coaches tend to subscribe to this theory more than scouts.,,,,  But I do agree with you ...

I'm not talking about the recruiting process.  The best nine guys are on the field whether HS, College or MLB. 

Oh sorry , yes of course

Thanks for the link on MLB player height avarage by position. I was surprised catchers are close to 6'1". I would have thought 5'11 to 6' would be the norm. No other real surprises.

All I know is, Mantle was 5-11, Mays was 5-11, Pudge and Joe Morgan were 5-7, Jeff Bagwell was 5-10. Dave Kingman was well over 6'. Who do ya want?