Has anyone ever run the numbers? There has to be enough data to support some of these arguments regarding which path produces what man at 30yrs old.
It would be interesting to hear. Take a random 1000 players who were pursued out of HS with the option of going to college or drafted. As a control you would have to chart a random 1000 HS grads that did not pursue sports. Chart their 12yrs. Where did they end up?
RJM posted:TPM posted:hshuler posted:Obviously, each situation is different but I know of a kid who signed with an ACC school and was also a high draft pick. He got the money that he said it would take for him to sign but his mom says the kid really regrets not going to college.
Now again, each situation is different but a lot of kids aren't mature enough at 17/18/19 to handle baseball as a full-time job.
I know of someone who got the money they said it would take to sign, a million+.
Mom said he should have gone to college. That just tells me a lot right there.
It also depends on the family. A family with a six figure income is going to see the world different,y than a family with a 40k income.
I think this has more to do with it than anything else because most kids are not going to be selfish with this decsion...especially if your family needs financial help.
I know several kids who have turned down the 'dream school' to play locally for the benefit of dad and mom. Now, I am not saying there is something wrong with this thinking but most kids do consider their loved ones when making these decisions.
The whole argument against a smaller signing bonus stems on the fact that the student completes college where he was offered a scholarship. And, that the HS players with a smaller signing bonus never went back to school post BB. Life just doesn't work that way. Their are so many different paths from point A to B. To judge one is better than the other is really dependant on the individual.
real green posted:Has anyone ever run the numbers? There has to be enough data to support some of these arguments regarding which path produces what man at 30yrs old.
It would be interesting to hear. Take a random 1000 players who were pursued out of HS with the option of going to college or drafted. As a control you would have to chart a random 1000 HS grads that did not pursue sports. Chart their 12yrs. Where did they end up?
I'm not sure where I heard this but maybe a few years ago I think data showed most starting MLB pitchers had some the college route and the data gave the advantage to starting positional players going the draft route. Now, obviously the Latin players would probably skew the numbers but I would like to see what route for American born players produce the most success.
PGSTAFF - You have any data on this?
hshuler posted:real green posted:Has anyone ever run the numbers? There has to be enough data to support some of these arguments regarding which path produces what man at 30yrs old.
It would be interesting to hear. Take a random 1000 players who were pursued out of HS with the option of going to college or drafted. As a control you would have to chart a random 1000 HS grads that did not pursue sports. Chart their 12yrs. Where did they end up?
I'm not sure where I heard this but maybe a few years ago I think data showed most starting MLB pitchers had some the college route and the data gave the advantage to starting positional players going the draft route. Now, obviously the Latin players would probably skew the numbers but I would like to see what route for American born players produce the most success.
PGSTAFF - You have any data on this?
The baseball success would be cool, but I am also talking about life success. A good start to their career. Finished their degree. I bet it wouldn't be hard to determine income level.
real green posted:hshuler posted:real green posted:Has anyone ever run the numbers? There has to be enough data to support some of these arguments regarding which path produces what man at 30yrs old.
It would be interesting to hear. Take a random 1000 players who were pursued out of HS with the option of going to college or drafted. As a control you would have to chart a random 1000 HS grads that did not pursue sports. Chart their 12yrs. Where did they end up?
I'm not sure where I heard this but maybe a few years ago I think data showed most starting MLB pitchers had some the college route and the data gave the advantage to starting positional players going the draft route. Now, obviously the Latin players would probably skew the numbers but I would like to see what route for American born players produce the most success.
PGSTAFF - You have any data on this?
The baseball success would be cool, but I am also talking about life success. A good start to their career. Finished their degree. I bet it wouldn't be hard to determine income level.
True - I would be interested in seeing that as well.
Went to an ACC tournament game today courtesy of TPM's son (ticket) - Louisville vs. Clemson. Great game.
Both starters were 88-91. No pitch thrown over 92 today that I saw. Good mix of pitches though. Some real pop in both lineups, but Clemson's showed up today. Clemson 2Bman hit the longest home run I've seen at the Durham Bulls park. 4 of their 5 runs came on solo HRs.
justbaseball posted:Went to an ACC tournament game today courtesy of TPM's son (ticket) - Louisville vs. Clemson. Great game.
Both starters were 88-91. No pitch thrown over 92 today that I saw. Good mix of pitches though. Some real pop in both lineups, but Clemson's showed up today. Clemson 2Bman hit the longest home run I've seen at the Durham Bulls park. 4 of their 5 runs came on solo HRs.
Headed to NC now...whirlwind, three cities in three days, tour and second stop is Raleigh so trying my darnedest to catch the c'ship game on Sunday. My wife probably won't be happy but sometimes a man has to put his foot down...or beg if he has too. Pray for her to let me go please. LoL
fenwaysouth posted:What is amazing to me is that these 95+mph get hit and get hit hard some times. Until the NCAA tournament starts, I'm mostly watching SEC, ACC because that is what is offered in my TV area. FInding an ACC or SEC player hitting under .300 is almost non-existent on these teams. Velocity is King, but the King gets hit really hard unless he's got 2 or 3 other pitches to keep those talented SEC and ACC .300 hitters guessing.
Are those guys really carrying 95 into later innings? Of course 95 can be hit but even at the MLB level there are relievers who throw 80 percent fastballs and still don't get hit all that much. Chapman or Kimbrel often throw 3 straight fastballs past solid MLB hitters.
Diminik85, yes there are multiple starters that are still mid 90s in later innings. I know for a fact that Lange from LSU was still 93-95 in 7th after 114 pitches and Puk from Florida was still 95+ into 7th at 110+ pitches. I have seen multiple Florida, Vandy and Miss State pitchers do the same thing. It's not a fluke.
Texas A&M just put up 7 runs on Kyle Wright from Vandy in the first inning all on base hits. No walks or hit batters. He threw 21 if 27 pitches for strikes. Just so you know, the commentators were saying during the broadcast that a GM told him if Wright was draft eligible this year he would be #1 pick overall. He was 95-96 by the way with ridiculous off speed. Now he was missing his spots somewhat and the A&M batters were making him pay.
coach2709 posted:Kyle Boddy posted:younggun posted:Yea I guess you aren't comparing apples to apples when the college guys are swinging metal bats. That being said, the quality of play I am watching in Hoover is extremely high. There have been quite a few errors so yes defensively not up to par with what you would expect from pro guys. Still the upper level teams have been fielding around .980. The pressure of these games are causing teams to make mistakes that haven't made over a season of work.
Just seems unusual to have so many power arms in one location. Maybe this is just where the game is now. I know there are a lot of 90+ guys out there, but 95+? It just blows my mind. Maybe I am just out of touch.
SEC schools have been getting a lot of good would-be drafted guys from HS. There's a growing trend of top 10 round HS kids going to college instead of pro ball, so you're seeing better than average talent at the D1 level compared to years past. Furthermore, colleges generally have a better idea how to develop velocity in pitchers compared to pro ball, so a lot of those guys get significantly better there while in pro ball that's not always the case.
This really caught my eye and just wondering why you think that is. I don't really keep up with college or MiLB baseball so just curious why pro ball doesn't develop velocity since they have so much invested in them.
The minor leagues by and large have terrible nutrition, sleep schedules, and they play 140 games on full season teams. The teams mostly exist for 8 guys to play around 1 prospect (if that). So if you're not the 1 prospect... hmmm.
Pro ball doesn't develop velocity in guys because they draft guys who already throw hard. Pro ball does a VERY good job of rehabilitating surgical repairs but not a great job of returning players back to function if they've lost velocity, because, well, why would they need to? There's always more Latin players or HS/College kids who will sign for practically nothing that throw hard enough.
Your minor league contract guarantees you an education and living expenses once you are released from the game. However, the % of people who actually go back to school at 26 for 3-4 years to finish their degree... let's just say the teams aren't spending up a ton of that education pool money. It's a different time in your life. Not a lot of mid-20s or early 30's guys are willing to spend 4 years in a classroom; nor is it necessarily a good idea at that point in their life.
As for velocity in general, it's greatest asset isn't necessarily the primary function of throwing harder - it makes your breaking ball and change so, so much better on so many fronts. Hitters must defend 95+ at all costs but will have to face increased velocity of sliders/changeups as well in any count.
Moving up is largely about knowing how to pitch (not being stupid) and executing it (command). If your approach is polarized in minus counts (1-0, 2-0, 2-1) and heavily biased towards heaters, then yeah, you're going to get hit unless it's 100. You need to be able to land your breaking ball for a strike a high percentage of the time. Doesn't have to be a "good" pitch (low/away on the black), but a 1-0 center-cut slider or curve is a pitch you have to execute regularly for game theory purposes in pro (and to some extent, college) baseball.
Kyle Boddy posted:
Moving up is largely about knowing how to pitch (not being stupid) and executing it (command). If your approach is polarized in minus counts (1-0, 2-0, 2-1) and heavily biased towards heaters, then yeah, you're going to get hit unless it's 100. You need to be able to land your breaking ball for a strike a high percentage of the time. Doesn't have to be a "good" pitch (low/away on the black), but a 1-0 center-cut slider or curve is a pitch you have to execute regularly for game theory purposes in pro (and to some extent, college) baseball.
Don't know what the word "polarized" means in this context.
Btw I read on fangraphs that pitchers velocity basically only goes downhill once they make the majors, I. E. There isn't really any positive velocity development in ml pitchers, it is a young players skill.
Isn't that an incentive to bring them up as young as possible? And isn't that a bad testament for the training at the ml level?
Wouldn't it be a very good investment for ml teams to draft control pitchers in the upper 80s in late rounds and then do a program like Kyle's to get them to 93 or so? I think that could be another market hole like in moneyball, because you could get solid pitchers with good command (which is tough to teach) with later draft picks.
Dominik85 posted:Btw I read on fangraphs that pitchers velocity basically only goes downhill once they make the majors, I. E. There isn't really any positive velocity development in ml pitchers, it is a young players skill.
Isn't that an incentive to bring them up as young as possible? And isn't that a bad testament for the training at the ml level?
Wouldn't it be a very good investment for ml teams to draft control pitchers in the upper 80s in late rounds and then do a program like Kyle's to get them to 93 or so? I think that could be another market hole like in moneyball, because you could get solid pitchers with good command (which is tough to teach) with later draft picks.
Yes, MGL has done a lot of work on that. By and large pitchers lose velocity once drafted. A farm director told me they did a study and 93%+ of HS draftees never throw any harder regardless of how "projectable" they are. The Blake Snells of the world are rare.
And pitchers are called up younger than ever. Urias threw today at 19 years old in the Dodgers rotation! (He is, of course, one of the best prospects in the minor leagues.)
As for your last paragraph, you are starting to see that with some teams. I work for two teams doing exactly that... in a sense... maybe not as complete as you are saying, but it does happen. You have to remember the old guard of coaches and front office personnel aren't always on board. I agree with you in general but after working in pro ball for 4 years, there's a lot of political sense and "feel" I've developed to help me along the way. It's not just about numbers and production; there is a ton of value in knowing how to talk to coaches and players on their terms to get everyone on the same side of the boat. This doesn't mean you don't have to be stern sometimes and set your feet; that does happen. I'm just saying the reasons that minor league baseball doesn't develop pitchers too well have been there for decades and they aren't going away overnight.
Good insight kyle. Didn't pro baseball get less conservative and anti science than it used to be due to the influx of sabermetrics? I know it used to be about connections and that you have played pro ball but I would guess it is pretty ineffective to spend millions on analytics and then pay a former player to tell the minor leaguers to swing down on the ball.
Dominik85 posted:Good insight kyle. Didn't pro baseball get less conservative and anti science than it used to be due to the influx of sabermetrics? I know it used to be about connections and that you have played pro ball but I would guess it is pretty ineffective to spend millions on analytics and then pay a former player to tell the minor leaguers to swing down on the ball.
Yes, but player development and on-field coaches are the last bastion of the old guard. It will take a lot to unseat those who have earned their place at that table. If you're the GM and you fire all the old school coaches who believe in BS, then who do you replace them with? There's a lack of qualified candidates to take these jobs - the pay isn't great and players by and large only respect coaches who have played high levels of baseball. College coaches who make the leap to pro ball have a difficult transition.
It can be made, but it requires time, patience, and feel, as I said before. Things are changing, though. Slowly.
Kyle Boddy posted:Dominik85 posted:Good insight kyle. Didn't pro baseball get less conservative and anti science than it used to be due to the influx of sabermetrics? I know it used to be about connections and that you have played pro ball but I would guess it is pretty ineffective to spend millions on analytics and then pay a former player to tell the minor leaguers to swing down on the ball.
Yes, but player development and on-field coaches are the last bastion of the old guard. It will take a lot to unseat those who have earned their place at that table. If you're the GM and you fire all the old school coaches who believe in BS, then who do you replace them with? There's a lack of qualified candidates to take these jobs - the pay isn't great and players by and large only respect coaches who have played high levels of baseball. College coaches who make the leap to pro ball have a difficult transition.
It can be made, but it requires time, patience, and feel, as I said before. Things are changing, though. Slowly.
I think in hitting it is even worse than in pitching because it is such a reactive thing. Hard to get attention of pro players if you weren't a pro yourself. Guys like Tewksbary have made it but he could only get into it by helping a failed pro player who was out of it anyway.
However at least the swing plane thing seems to change with things like zepp, there are already pro players like for example Chris coghlan who talk about swinging up. The old guard ignored slow motion video but the measured data is hard to reject.
Maybe if guys like Bryant, Donaldson, colabello, coghlan who have looked into more modern analysis get into coaching that helps.
Totally agree that swinging/hitting is far, far worse than pitching. It's a major impact on the game and you see it in the MLB as-is. Offense is at an all time low and a large reason is because hitting instruction is so far behind pitching instruction.
maybe it would make sense for the organisations to have an analytics Crew to teach the coaches the modern stuff. that way you could still have ex Players instead of nerds talk to the prospects
.
BTW there are Teams who have an organisational philosophy regarding pitching or hitting but usually that philosophy is one of limiting movement, get the foot down early and making it simple (those terrible "5 positions to the perfect swing" programs that are killing athleticism and individuality).
Slightly off-topic, but Kyle have you (or do you know if anyone has) ever analyzed whether there is a difference between how bigger starting pitchers should be taught velo vs. how smaller starting pitchers should be taught?
I'm thinking of a Syndergaard or Giolito on the one hand, vs. a young Lincecum, Stroman, or maybe Yordano Ventura. It seems to me that the big guys can rely on their longer arms and greater bulk (weight) to generate high velocity with rather simple mechanics, but the smaller guys really, really need to build momentum down the hill (in order to generate the same force as the bigger guys, they need more acceleration), and, perhaps to maximize their acceleration, they tend to use more rotation (e.g., Lincecum and Ventura turn their back to the hitter) to make up for their shorter levers and less mass.
Or maybe I'm imagining it. In any event, I'm sure I'm not explaining it very well. Has anyone ever seen any research or analysis along these lines?
2019Dad posted:Slightly off-topic, but Kyle have you (or do you know if anyone has) ever analyzed whether there is a difference between how bigger starting pitchers should be taught velo vs. how smaller starting pitchers should be taught?
I'm thinking of a Syndergaard or Giolito on the one hand, vs. a young Lincecum, Stroman, or maybe Yordano Ventura. It seems to me that the big guys can rely on their longer arms and greater bulk (weight) to generate high velocity with rather simple mechanics, but the smaller guys really, really need to build momentum down the hill (in order to generate the same force as the bigger guys, they need more acceleration), and, perhaps to maximize their acceleration, they tend to use more rotation (e.g., Lincecum and Ventura turn their back to the hitter) to make up for their shorter levers and less mass.
Or maybe I'm imagining it. In any event, I'm sure I'm not explaining it very well. Has anyone ever seen any research or analysis along these lines?
Bigger vs Smaller Mechanics: The principles are the same for generating velocity, regardless of size. Now, a pitcher with longer levers will throw harder than otherwise if given identical mechanics. If I crack you with a long whip & a short whip using an identical stroke, you will feel the first more. It is the acceleration & length of the stride (the motor) that generate most of the elastic energy transferred to the ball upon release (the end of the whip). Turning away & rotation away from the plate can add deception & possibly a tick in velocity but are a nightmare for command. There are exceptions, as always (Lincecum, but he has an enormous, very quick stride) Tiant went to it later when he lost velocity to add deception, Johhny Queto for deception. Samardzija also looks back a bit & throws gas.
The majority of your elite velocity throwers had & have an incredibly aggressive & quick stride to the plate (see Chapman). The one guy who amazes me is Syndergaard. I swear he could add 3-5 if he got more in line, stepped straight back & blitzed it towards home like Ryan or Bob Gibson.
Know of a kid who spent 4 years in college, lived in a dorm/suite, meal plan, etc... the typical college environment. He's now in A ball, living in a small house with 5 other teammates. They are all sleeping on air mattresses and have nothing but cheap lawn furniture in the house, living on cereal, microwave ready meals, and fast food. You spend half your time on the road, and you never know when you're going to be called up or sent packing.
In my opinion, as an older guy who spent his first years away from home on campus, he is much better equipped to dealing with his current living environment than an 18 year old, who never lived away from home, would be.
2019Dad posted:Slightly off-topic, but Kyle have you (or do you know if anyone has) ever analyzed whether there is a difference between how bigger starting pitchers should be taught velo vs. how smaller starting pitchers should be taught?
I'm thinking of a Syndergaard or Giolito on the one hand, vs. a young Lincecum, Stroman, or maybe Yordano Ventura. It seems to me that the big guys can rely on their longer arms and greater bulk (weight) to generate high velocity with rather simple mechanics, but the smaller guys really, really need to build momentum down the hill (in order to generate the same force as the bigger guys, they need more acceleration), and, perhaps to maximize their acceleration, they tend to use more rotation (e.g., Lincecum and Ventura turn their back to the hitter) to make up for their shorter levers and less mass.
Or maybe I'm imagining it. In any event, I'm sure I'm not explaining it very well. Has anyone ever seen any research or analysis along these lines?
You are explaining a hard topic fairly well.
There's a ton of ways to throw at elite velocities. Most of velocity is dominated by rotational angular velocity but that's not the entire story. What's super interesting is that even with three-dimensional kinematic analyses and knowing arm speeds and rotational angular velocities of a group of pitchers (say, 10 pros - 7 minor leaguers, 3 big leaguers), you would probably do no better than random at picking out who actually threw the hardest.
How's that possible? If you know their arm speed (internal rotation and elbow extension) and everything else, you should theoretically know for sure who throws the hardest, right?
Not so much, it turns out. Efficiency of arm speed is important - is the arm speed maximally applied towards home plate? Is it "wasted" in a rotational sense, perhaps generating more spin/movement but less linear ball velocity? What's the tradeoff?
These are all questions that are unknown, and ones we work on every day here in the lab using our biomechanics lab, Trackman, and other tools. It's fun. But maddening, as you can tell.
Kyle Boddy posted:2019Dad posted:Slightly off-topic, but Kyle have you (or do you know if anyone has) ever analyzed whether there is a difference between how bigger starting pitchers should be taught velo vs. how smaller starting pitchers should be taught?
I'm thinking of a Syndergaard or Giolito on the one hand, vs. a young Lincecum, Stroman, or maybe Yordano Ventura. It seems to me that the big guys can rely on their longer arms and greater bulk (weight) to generate high velocity with rather simple mechanics, but the smaller guys really, really need to build momentum down the hill (in order to generate the same force as the bigger guys, they need more acceleration), and, perhaps to maximize their acceleration, they tend to use more rotation (e.g., Lincecum and Ventura turn their back to the hitter) to make up for their shorter levers and less mass.
Or maybe I'm imagining it. In any event, I'm sure I'm not explaining it very well. Has anyone ever seen any research or analysis along these lines?
You are explaining a hard topic fairly well.
There's a ton of ways to throw at elite velocities. Most of velocity is dominated by rotational angular velocity but that's not the entire story. What's super interesting is that even with three-dimensional kinematic analyses and knowing arm speeds and rotational angular velocities of a group of pitchers (say, 10 pros - 7 minor leaguers, 3 big leaguers), you would probably do no better than random at picking out who actually threw the hardest.
How's that possible? If you know their arm speed (internal rotation and elbow extension) and everything else, you should theoretically know for sure who throws the hardest, right?
Not so much, it turns out. Efficiency of arm speed is important - is the arm speed maximally applied towards home plate? Is it "wasted" in a rotational sense, perhaps generating more spin/movement but less linear ball velocity? What's the tradeoff?
These are all questions that are unknown, and ones we work on every day here in the lab using our biomechanics lab, Trackman, and other tools. It's fun. But maddening, as you can tell.
That's fascinating stuff, thanks. It seems like the kind of thing that you can and will make a lot of progress on -- and that it will make a big difference, particularly in the 90+ range.
"It seems like the kind of thing that you can and will make a lot of progress on"
That remains to be seen. I like your optimism though!
Kyle, intuitively, it seems the lower half explosion and then how fast the lower half stops is a big part of the velocity equation. I hear a lot of "increase the stride" but I think that is misplaced, and can lead to not "stopping as fast". As well as not being on top of the ball at release. Does that make sense?
Son's pitching coach does instructing to get kids "on top of the ball", and often shortens their stride. Especially if the kid is weak with leg and core muscles.
Go44dad posted:Kyle, intuitively, it seems the lower half explosion and then how fast the lower half stops is a big part of the velocity equation. I hear a lot of "increase the stride" but I think that is misplaced, and can lead to not "stopping as fast". As well as not being on top of the ball at release. Does that make sense?
Son's pitching coach does instructing to get kids "on top of the ball", and often shortens their stride. Especially if the kid is weak with leg and core muscles.
Our internal force plate data shows that rear leg pushoff power is not predictive of ball velocity, but peak lead leg blocking force (and deceleration, as you noted) is.
My experience is limited, but I have yet to see a youth pitcher get better after a coach tries to change his stride length. It ruins intent.
TheEditor posted:My experience is limited, but I have yet to see a youth pitcher get better after a coach tries to change his stride length. It ruins intent.
I have seen improvement in velocity and control with youth pitchers when their stride is shortened.
Kyle Boddy posted:Go44dad posted:Kyle, intuitively, it seems the lower half explosion and then how fast the lower half stops is a big part of the velocity equation. I hear a lot of "increase the stride" but I think that is misplaced, and can lead to not "stopping as fast". As well as not being on top of the ball at release. Does that make sense?
Son's pitching coach does instructing to get kids "on top of the ball", and often shortens their stride. Especially if the kid is weak with leg and core muscles.
Our internal force plate data shows that rear leg pushoff power is not predictive of ball velocity, but peak lead leg blocking force (and deceleration, as you noted) is.
Isn't there a correlation of front leg blocking force and speed of the cog moving into foot plant?
Best way to think of it is that there's a floor that needs to be exceeded with regard to linear force production, but that floor is really low for adult baseball pitchers. Same goes for hip rotational velocity.
Kyle Boddy posted:Best way to think of it is that there's a floor that needs to be exceeded with regard to linear force production, but that floor is really low for adult baseball pitchers. Same goes for hip rotational velocity.
So is the limiting factor more how much force the front leg can handle and not how much momentum goes into the front leg?
hshuler posted:Shoveit4Ks posted:Disclaimer: My kid is in college and we thought about the draft last year and had a number to go. He did not get drafted. We are very happy he is in college.
I suspect this 2014 article has been posted previously but it is an interesting read, especially if you don't know the stats and are being courted by MLB teams or facing upcoming draft vs college decisions.
http://www.numberfire.com/mlb/...han-high-school-ones
As it has been said before, you are a commodity unless you are getting a big a$$ check out of high school. Even then, there is a ratio somewhere that allows them to write you off when you aren't producing. Your son is competing with Latin players who are trying to survive/change their family tree, not just chasing the dream of playing pro ball vs attend college and join the workforce.
All that being said, IF my son would have gotten his $$, i would have let him chase his dream, silly huh? Sorry for highjacking the thread.
Not silly at all. I think it just depends on the kid/situation. For some it makes perfect sense to go through pro route and for others the college route is best.
I think the parent and athlete would need to have a serious and pros and cons discussion to see what's best route for the kid...but the decision would be the athlete's and not the parent's, in my opinion.
I think this question draft vs college is more interesting than ever. At first glance it seems obvious. Life changing money or don't go. But now with all these academies springing up everywhere and youth baseball being big business... If you can get a few years of minor league baseball under your belt your credibility (right or wrong - a debate for another time) skyrockets over the person who played college ball. Obviously if you get to the bigs for even a short time your marketability increases immensely again. And you can always get your degree. It's just not as black and white as it may seem.
I think working as a baseball instructor or having a facility usually is not that attractive financially. You can make money but especially with your own facility the costs are enormous. I think even kyle once said that it took quite some time before he made a significant plus due to all the costs and he is a top dog in the business.
There are facilities who make good money but many go broke and even minor league instructor jobs don't pay that well (HS Jobs are probably not that good either considering the hours you put into it).
Theres really not a whole lot of money a former milb pro player who didnt get his degree can make.
And as far as you can always get your degree, not really. Try starting college for the first time at 30, when all of your friends are established and your mlb scholarship isnt worth what you thought it was.
My son worked at one of those facilities, that went put of business because the costs are prohibitive. And you dont get rich over giving lessons unless you find some kid with very rich parents.
The funny part in all of this is that most dont realize how grueling 148 games are. You have to be in pretty top physical shape to get through a season without injury or simple being exhausted. Thats why ML baseball hasnt yet gotten completely rid of steroid use.
Dominik85 posted:I think working as a baseball instructor or having a facility usually is not that attractive financially. You can make money but especially with your own facility the costs are enormous. I think even kyle once said that it took quite some time before he made a significant plus due to all the costs and he is a top dog in the business.
There are facilities who make good money but many go broke and even minor league instructor jobs don't pay that well (HS Jobs are probably not that good either considering the hours you put into it).
I lost money for 5 years while I got my business up and running. Broke even for 9 months. Made minimum wage for 18 months. And now I'm doing okay. I still don't make as much as I did in software development and I probably won't for another year. Obviously I have 10 employees and a business, capital, assets, etc, so I'm doing fine, but unless you are prepared to work 40-50 hours per week for no/little pay (or lose money like I did) to grow your business and establish yourself - and get lucky - then it's not a way to work full-time for the rest of your life.
All these facilities aren't popping up because people lose money. And these instructors were we are are constantly busy. And at $80 an hour I think they are doing ok. Of course if your goal is to make huge money someday - nothing wrong with that - you have to invest far more and in fact may lose for a while. But if you just want to make a living that can be done in fairly short order. And I went to college when I was 25. I seemed to manage. Why does everyone want to make everything sound soooo impossible? And yet people are doing it all over.
nothing to add just that this is a great read and Kudos to Kyle for responding to so many questions. Almost like a Q&A session with someone on the cutting edge of pitching and velocity training.
