Sub 6ft LHP's--can they suceed in pro ball?

quote:

Seems there is no correlation between size and success!

Everyone knows a sub 6ft LHP can be successful but then to say there is no correlation between size and success is worlds apart. Since the population of the world is over 6,670,000,000 it would seem that it would take more than 42 players to prove that point. You are only looking at those players that have been drafted and have already passed the size filter and the most rigorist test --- the draft. These players have already been separated from general public by the draft. To make this more accurate maybe you should evaluate those six foot and under ex-college and high school players that have been passed over, un-drafted, and are working in other careers. They would probably disagree with your analysis.
Fungo

Danny Ray (DR- as known by those around the game) is a talented 22 y/o lefty who keeps hitters off-balance with off-speed pitches. DR was a junior draft because of his support from HC Rich Alday, who did not want to lose him, and because of his exceptional performances and contributions as a 2006 Lobo. DR also performed well with the 2005 Graham Roughnecks of the Texas Collegiate Summer League. Of course the Rangers farm system is in dire need of LHP either coming out of the bull-pen or starting.

Picture of Danny Ray

Yes a sub 6' LHP can do well.
I would also point out that you can't rely on stats. Most 5'10 guys suddenly become 6'+ guys. One friend of mine is probably 5'11 max and he is always down as 6'1". He just made the 40 man roster of the Pirates. Even PG has him as 6'1". He was told by one scout that he would have been drafted higher if he was 6'+.

quote:

Originally posted by Fungo:

quote:

Seems there is no correlation between size and success!

You are only looking at those players that have been drafted and have already passed the size filter and the most rigorist test --- the draft. These players have already been separated from general public by the draft. To make this more accurate maybe you should evaluate those six foot and under ex-college and high school players that have been passed over, un-drafted, and are working in other careers. They would probably disagree with your analysis.
Fungo

IMHO, you are confusing the ability to be successful with the opportunity to show you can be successful.

Many of those sub 6'2" pitchers who weren't drafted may have been fully capable of being successful in the MLB. They just were not given the opportunity to show it.

The draft is not the test of whether or not a pitcher can be successful in the pros. The draft provides the oppportunity to show you can be successful. Different things.

Yet all the ability in the world is worthless is you are never given the opportunity to show you can be successful. Nellie Fox probably would never have set foot on the field if he were coming out of HS today. And perhaps not Pedro.

All a player can do is the best that he can...

Texan, the draft isn't the only way into professional ball. The independent leagues/tryout camps/free agency are options to sub 6' lefties to prove they can succeed.
With that said, the draft is the most likely. As bbscout said to me, scouts get paid to find players who can succeed. If they miss them, they get fired. IMO, there aren't many players out there who can succeed who never got a chance.
Also, "success" measuered for most of these draftees was based on Rookie league. It gets geometrically more difficult with each next step in minor league ball. For me, the correlation between size and success is better meassured based on stats at high A and AA. There are lefties under 6' succeeding at that level, but there are 10x succeeding who are 6' and over.

quote:

The draft provides the oppportunity to show you can be successful.

quote:

All a player can do is the best that he can...

Important observations...............

quote:

Many of those sub 6'2" pitchers who weren't drafted may have been fully capable of being successful in the MLB. They just were not given the opportunity to show it.

Texan, your point validates my point. In order for one to succeed he has to have the opportunity to succeed and the consensus is that many short pitchers are passed over and not given the opportunity because of their lack of projectability. IF height is a factor in not being drafted (as you state) then there IS a direct correlation between height and success.

I think there comes a time we have to look at the obvious and not rely on statistical possibilities. Place kickers without toes on their kicking foot can also make it in the NFL but as far as I know Tom Dempsey is the only one to ever do it. So can a toeless kicker make it? Sure he can but ----
Fungo

quote:

Originally posted by infielddad:
Texan, the draft isn't the only way into professional ball. The independent leagues/tryout camps/free agency are options to sub 6' lefties to prove they can succeed.
With that said, the draft is the most likely.

And are the criteria scouts use different for the tryouts vs. the draft? Don't think so...

quote:

As bbscout said to me, scouts get paid to find players who can succeed. If they miss them, they get fired. IMO, there aren't many players out there who can succeed who never got a chance.

And that is an opinion. Others have different opinions.

And how does the MLB club know if a prospect was missed?

When there is a great deal of "group think" among the organizations (e.g., emphasis on velocity and size), there can be misses that never come to light.


But again, this discussion is largely moot. A player can only do his best & what happens, happens.

The overemphasis on size and speed will probably turn some day. But that pendelum will move slowly and no one person will affect its momentum to any great degree.

quote:

The overemphasis on size and speed will probably turn some day.

Personally, I don't think size should matter, but I sure am a fan of speed. What I don't like is the fact that professional baseball has become too much ESPN clips...power and homeruns are the emphasis.
What makes you think players who can play and be successful are being overlooked solely based on size?
I only know scouting from our son's experience. We know that some who saw him found every reason he couldn't play. One in particular came to see him many, many times. Would sit and talk with him and one day spent close to 2 hours just talking baseball..and ours was a DIII kid who doesn't have power but has decent speed. That experience, plus bbscout led me to believe that if you can play, there is one scout out there who will believe that and sell you to his organization.
I understand the reference to Fox, but I am not sure I agree because Fox wasn't too much different than Reese, Richardson, etc.
One thing that is hugely different now is the Latin player domination at the MI positions. But if there is a place for Vizquel, there is a place for Fox. If there is a place for a John McDonald, there is a place for Fox.

We all know several 6'0 and under pitchers who are or have been successful at the highest level (MLB).

For many years the height of a pitcher was almost equal to his talent in importance. There were clubs that were told not to turn in a 6'0 or under RHP.

One thing about baseball is things do change. However, they change very slowly.

Looking at the most recent (06) draft. Here are the pitchers drafted in the first round... About 25 pitchers or so, of which 8 were 6'0 or less. (in bold) Drabek was actually listed at 6'1, but we've been around him a lot and think he is 6'0 TOPS! Of the top 13 pitchers selected in the draft, 6 (almost half) were 6'0 or less.

Are times changing?????? If a player is drafted in the 1st round we can call him successful, can't we?

Hochevar RHP 6’5
Reynolds RHP 6’7
Lincoln RHP 6’0
Morrow RHP 6’3
Miller LHP 6’6
Kershaw LHP 6’3
Lincecum RHP 5’11
Scherzer RHP 6’2
Kiker LHP 5’11
Jeffress RHP 6’0
Drabek RHP 6’1?
Sinkbeil RHP 6’3
Kennedy RHP 6’0
Willems RHP 6’4
Morris RHP 6’3
Bard RHP 6’4
McCulloch THP 6’3
Ottavino RHP 6’5
Beato RHP 6’5
Brown RHP 6’3
Rasmus RHP 6’0
Huff LHP 6’2
Johnson LHP 6’4
Chamberlain RHP 6’2
Perez RHP 6’4
Evarts LHP 6’3
Clay RHP 6’2

If you are a not so tall pitcher, start pulling for all the 6'0 and under guys to become Big League stars. That is what can change things!

All that said, the tall guys still have the advantage when it comes to both the draft and the successful careers. But now days the smaller guys are not ignored if they're good enough.

PG,

How about the young HS prospects - pitchers - you and your staff have seen the last year or two?

Do you see any shift in quality in pitchers over 6'0 and under?

its,

I got over my fascination of tall pitchers just a few years ago... When I first saw Scott Kazmir as a sophomore.

Seriously, while size still is very important, we see more and more great smaller pitchers. Maybe it's just my imagination, but I don't remember as many 6'0 and under guys throwing so well, 5 or 10 years ago. And I do think the thinking is changing somewhat at the ML level.

Yes, it will be interesting to see how this sample-crop performs at the higher levels, but if they're equal to their peers now I don't see any sudden changes in the future.

I am interested in this topic because my own son is a 16 y.o. 5'9" LHP (who by the way was 18-5 this year). If taller pitchers are inherently more successful, I'd like to hear evidence to that effect from anyone who can prove the point. Otherwise, I hope PG is right and the smaller guys (including the righties) at least get the chance.

I'm wondering, too, if in the recent past most of these sub 6-footers were not artificially been filtered out by the scouts who might have otherwise had successful careers. Who knows, but the change is good to see.

quote:

If taller pitchers are inherently more successful, I'd like to hear evidence to that effect from anyone who can prove the point. Otherwise, I hope PG is right and the smaller guys (including the righties) at least get the chance.

There's no way really to prove whether taller pitchers are more successful or not, because your results are dependant on the pool of people you're measuring.

If the vast majority of players considered are greater than 6' tall, your statistics get distorted. People saying that "scouts get paid for finding players, and fired for missing players" is probably a bit of a misnomer, because there's not much of a way to evaluate the missing of a player that wasn't considered in the first place.

I've talked to a fair # of scouts that basically have a template they go by when evaluating players....size, velocity, speed...and they've told me that they won't even consider recommending a player that doesn't fit that mold. With that mindset replicated throughout organizations, it makes it tough for a smaller guy to get noticed.

If there was only a way to measure a players heart and desire, it would certainly simplify matters. That's where a good scout can shine..he may see intangibles that other scouts don't see. I guess the best way to twist the statistics is to say that more pitchers taller than 6' wash out and fail than pitchers less than 6'..

About 5 years ago SI had an article on this topic. 9 Scouts that were interviewed were told not to submit reports on RHP that were not 6'3 or taller. The from cover had the Mariners pitching stajj and the shortest was 6'4". Hopefully that attitude has adjuste.
About 4 years ago the whole scouting staff on the Jays was fired save one . The one who remained was a friend of mine and said it was because they let several Canadians slip through their fingers including Loewen Davison & Francis. They were not producing.

Solid post, 2S.

I know of one in Tampa, FLA that can succeed in pro ball as pitcher or hitter. 2007 HS player named Michael Burgess What's up brother?

Peace,
Shep

Is that 6' in the morning or in the evening?

I consider mine to be 6'. He is 6'1/2" in the morning, about an 1/8" under 6' at night and amazingly is an inch or so taller than the other 6'ers on his team. My guess is that he's taller than most kids listed at 6'1" and some at 6'2" at showcases.

Of course that was a couple weeks ago.

It isn't unusual for hard throwers to struggle for a while in the minors. Many of them have never had to learn to pitch. It isn't unusual for soft throwers to do well at the lower levels and then struggle at the higher levels as the hitters learn plate discipline.

CADad,

Your logic sounds good, but you are assuming the shorter pitcher is a "soft thrower" and the taller pitcher is a "hard thrower". As PG pointed out, there are shorter pitchers that can throw hard, too.

Bum,
I didn't mention height for a reason. I'm well aware that Wagner, Martinez, et al are not very tall. Although taller pitchers in general can throw harder than shorter pitchers there are a lot of shorter pitchers who can bring it. Your two examples from the minors were both under 6' and that was what I was addressing. I pitched against independent league, A and AA players and I probably could have been marginally successful against A players (OK, a bit of wishful thinking there) but AA players, and these weren't the cream of the crop, made mincemeat out of me. I couldn't make even the slightest mistake against them and even when I got some of the stronger ones to pop up the ball got over the fence.

Given a choice between two pitchers throwing the same speed, and who both have decent mechanics, etc., scouts will tend to go for the taller one. Given a choice between a tall pitcher throwing 85 and a short pitcher throwing 95 they'll go for the short pitcher every time.

Projection is nice but a bird in the hand is...

The trend toward taller pitchers goes back quite a ways. Almost 40 years ago my twin brother was living with a foster family (don't ask) and his foster dad had been a minor league pitcher who I remember as looking a lot like Fernando Valenzuela. I remember him telling me back then that they wanted tall pitchers and not guys who were built like him.

BTW, if anyone is wondering if taller pitchers do throw harder ASMI did a study where they took a group of pitchers and divided them into hard, average and slower throwing pitchers. The harder throwing pitchers in general had significantly longer arms and were significantly taller than the slower throwing pitchers.

That doesn't mean a shorter pitcher can't throw hard, it just means that a taller pitcher is more likely to throw hard.

Has it really been seven years since I posted this?  I am so thankful that it all turned out and my sub-6 footer got his chance.  Any new thoughts on this subject?

if you can truly pitch there will be a spot for him

Originally Posted by infielddad:

… IMO, there aren't many players out there who can succeed who never got a chance.

That statement is absolutely valid, and has the perfect proof in baseball. Until blacks were allowed to play in the ML, there weren’t very many that had a lot of success in the ML. That didn’t meant they couldn’t or wouldn’t have success, but never got the chance. Its exactly the same thing for players who don’t meet some aesthetic test.

Stats,

 

I don't understand what you're saying? I don't see the connection.  There is no conspiracy involved. There are short, tall, fat, skinny, good looking, not so good looking, etc., in the Major Leagues. The same holds true for all those that never got the chance. If they think you can play there, they want you. If they don't think you can play there, they probably don't want you. They have a good idea who can and who can't.  They have a much, much better idea than the kids parents and others that care about a single individual.  At some point others make the decision about who gets the opportunity.  There is not enough room for every kid to get that opportunity.

 

Sometimes it gets over looked, but there are talented 6'5" players who never get the chance.  

Stats,

 I am with PGStaff, I am not sure of your point, especially using the quote I made a long time back.  My point was that the manner in which MLB scours not just the United States, but many other Countries , for talent, is pretty thorough.  They give a chance to just about everyone who "might" have the ability to succeed. While we might disagree about the process of the chance, nearly every college player, JC player, Summer Wood bat league player, and HS senior who has any "chance" will most likely get some look from a MLB scout along the way. Necessarily the process builds in the vagaries of the ability, skills and efforts of the scout, but that process does not seem to correlate at all with your example on the exclusion of blacks in baseball. As an illustration on point in this thread, last year's draft included a 5"10" lefty pitcher from just down the highway from you while the 6'2" lefty and 6'3" righty, who had 90mph velocity, from that same college staff didn't get picked.

So the vast population of baseball players get the chance every Spring and are screened out by the scouting process itself.

Those who might have the ability and get drafted then go through a tremendously rigorous and challenging physical and mental process from Rookie ball to AAA to try and get one of those 750 spots which exist in MLB.  Nearly every single day in that process requires the player to be play, compete and perform just a bit better than he did yesterday.

I can envision that at least as many players with the "ability" are screened out by injury in contrast to such things as height, weight, skin color, dominant hand, dominant eye.

That is a very good point... injuries have cost many more opportunities than size or body type. And injuries don't care what size you are.

 

I didn't understand the "exact" connection at all to Black's getting an opportunity way back then. That was entirely different situation caused by racism and stupidity within MLB ownership. Just think what we would have missed had that never changed.