Velocity Increase

Bum,

I agree with what your saying about developing the fastball. I was just making the point that in high school, you do not have to throw hard to have success with a changeup. It might be the exception and not the norm, but like I stated earlier, good movement instead of speed deception can work very well, especially a lefty to a righty hitter.

Bum,
I'm not arguing with anything you've said and I understand where you are coming from. I realize that most pitchers will be far more successful early on throwing a curve for a strike and that will help them get innings and develop confidence. I just believe that in the long run for most pitchers making the effort to develop the good change first will still work out for the best.

quote:

Originally posted by TRhit:
TPM


Wrong once again !!!

The fast ball is not always the bread and butter pitch

For many it is a set up pitch for their off speed stuff

Understand what you want but many pitchers use different arm slots--watch Pedro as an example

You can disagree with me but I am not wrong.

Let's not compare with Pedro Martinez. Older professional pitchers with experience pitch much differently than they did when they were in their prime.

Repeatable delivery is important. If it wasn't why did son's pitching coach in college spend two years working on delivery to always be from the same slot regardless of pitch? If you think I am wrong on that, then he must be wrong.
Y
ou don't need 90mph velocity to rely on your FB. You can acheive the same things with your FB if you are taught different grips and different places where to place it. One can also vary speeds with an effective FB and it's less stressful on young players arms. But all too many times, young pitchers are not patient enough to go through that process, turning to off speed for success. Years later they find themselves not successful because they relied too often on those pitches and can't ADAPT (a TR word).

It's easy to dominate in HS with off speed. Try throwing every pitch a CB or slider in college or pro when you are expected to go 7 innings and maximize your pitch count.

A pitcher who wants to be successful needs to be efficient and learn at a young age when to throw which pitch in what count against which hitter. The thinking here is that if a pitcher lacks speed he needs to rely on other pitches for success, this is NOT TRUE. There's nothing that wears down a young pitcher more than CB's and sliders. The wear out shows up years later.

Some may disagree on which pitches to master when, first and always, in agreement with Bum, is the FB. For mine his next pitch was a CU, very young. Going into HS he 2 sean and 4 seam FB and CU and circle change up and he wasn't a 90mph guy when entering HS, all he did was use his FB, in, out, up, down and a change up and did pretty well with that. Junior year he began to rely more on a BB in some situations. He didn't even know how to throw a slider until college and does not use or will ever a knuckleball. I do beleive if he got preoccupied with those early, the FB would have gone out the window.

Anyone who knows anything about pitching knows that the single most important pitch in baseball is the FB. (bread and butter if you will) As in everything there are anomalies, (Wakefield) but without command of a FB you will go nowhere. Period.

Another thing that makes the fastball the most important pitch... For most all pitchers the fastball is the pitch they control the best. The fastball becomes their control pitch.

That is why hitters most often look for fastballs in fastball counts. i.e. 2-0, 3-1.

The breaking ball or even sometimes change might be their out pitch, but the fastball is usually the control pitch. Only on rare occasions does a young pitcher have good command of his off speed stuff.

Which can make the changeup such a deadly pitch - if the pitcher works hard to gain command and throws it properly (e.g., truly has deception). Texan Son would (and did) throw his c/u on any count. It was often unexpected for the reasons PG cites. But he worked on developing command of his c/u far more than most pitchers.

IMHO, the c/u is the most under-appreciated pitch in youth ball.

Texan,

I once knew a high school lefty who threw in the low 80s with a very bad slow curve ball. He was an all state player for one reason... He had a great circle changeup. In fact, it was so good he could have done OK with just that one pitch. He has gone on to have a nice college career.

There are four ways to get a hitter out with the change up.

1. Deception
2. Movement
3. Location
4. Good speed differential

If you have any of those you have a chance. If you have two of those, you will be successful. If you have three of those things you will be extremely successful. when a CH is thrown with all four things... You're unhittable.

I agree, it's the most under rated pitch in baseball... At all levels. It is a hard pitch to command for most, though.

quote:

Originally posted by theygrowupfast:
Bum,

I agree with what your saying about developing the fastball. I was just making the point that in high school, you do not have to throw hard to have success with a changeup. It might be the exception and not the norm, but like I stated earlier, good movement instead of speed deception can work very well, especially a lefty to a righty hitter.

Heck PG, that's what I thought I was saying....

quote:

Originally posted by PGStaff:
It is a hard pitch to command for most, though.

For two primary reasons, I think. First is that most pitchers just don't throw it enough in practice/pens to gain command. Second, many pitchers only try one c/u grip. Rather than trying at least a couple of grips to discover which grip gives them the best command and movement.

I have observed that some pitchers do much better with the three finger change, while others master the circle easier. But it takes time and effort to determine this. Texan Son could throw both, but he got more movement with the circle so he concentrated on it and dropped the three finger. Other pitchers I worked with just never could get the feel of the circle, but took to the three finger.

And interestingly, hand size seems to have nothing to do with who takes to the circle (in spite of a fairly common belief that the circle requires big hands).

theygrowupfast,

Sorry if I repeated what you posted. I was just responding to what Texan posted.

Texan,

You might be on to something here. The kid I mentioned before had small hands and a dynamite circle change. My son has huge hands and he could never master the command of the pitch. Santana is another guy with a great change. Can you think of many "real big" power pitchers who have a great changeup? Seems like the best ones I've seen are by guys who are not real big. Maybe the large hands takes away from the feel for the circle. Maybe it gets buried in the big hand.

tarheelfaninmd.. I'll take a crack. We're talking about AVERAGE pitch velocity, right? Add 2 for TOP velocity.

Jr. in High School RHP: 77
Jr. in High School LHP: 75

Sr. in High School RHP: 79
Sr. in High School LHP: 77

College Pitcher D1 RHP: 87
College Pitcher D1 LHP: 86

College Pitcher JC RHP: 84
College Pitcher JC LHP: 83

Great info. I've doubted that big pitchers are less injury prone than smaller pitchers. Any studies out there? If I ran a club, I would look for great arms, not great size.

There are a lot of smaller high velo pitchers in the MLB now. It will be interesting to see how long they last. SF has a pretty good smaller guy.

Bear, show me one conclusive study that says smaller pitchers are more injury prone. This is pure fiction in my book. Did the smaller Japanese soldiers break down faster than their larger American foes in battle?

My son is a 5'9" LHP who cruises 88-90, topping 92. Both Baseball America and PG had scouting reports on him that confirm what I'm saying. There are teams that skipped on 5'9" Tim Lincecum because of such a ridiculous philosophy.. I know when my son was drafted out of h.s. that certain teams didn't show interest because of this size philosophy.. it's like they look into a manual and it says "smaller pitchers break down faster" and then close the book. Not once asking if it's really true.

Show me the data that proves what you're saying. I'm saying it doesn't exist.

Bum,
You need to stop being so sensitive. It is patently obvious that big guys like Mark Prior are more durable than little guys.

Wow, talk about reviving an old thread!

quote:

Originally posted by CADad:
Bum,
You need to stop being so sensitive. It is patently obvious that big guys like Mark Prior are more durable than little guys.

Wow, talk about reviving an old thread!

CADad, lol. I didn't even realize how old this thread was! I guess I'm raising the dead issue just in time for Halloween!

Yes, a little sensitive on the issue.. mainly because I have NEVER seen any evidence that smaller pitchers break down faster. If these clubs want to believe this to be true, that's their perrogative, but there are plenty of clubs that don't believe this nonsense and they've got some pretty darn good pitchers. If I recall, didn't Tim win a Cy Young? The Mariners passed on him precisely because of their belief in size.. and they weren't at Bum, Jr.'s games either. Sad.

BTW, in high school the talk was "lack of projectibility" (read: velocity) with respect to his size. Now that his projectibility hasn't stopped, the bugaboo is the potential to break down. I could live with the projectibility argument, but the break down argument is where I cry B*S.

I don't think that it's actually bigger guys but higher velo guys that often break down, and FWIW all pitchers experience injuries of some type. In my son's organization there are all size pitchers, all velo also. Many have all types of injury issues.

Bum, I have to agree with CADdad, you got to get over being so sensitive. All players get past over for many reasons, mine wasn't even drafted out of HS, whether it was his signability or whatever, he never even got drafted out of HS. What he did was go to school and took care of business, that is what seals the deal.
Trust me, your son is in a better place right now (at college), be happy and move forward and enjoy it.

Lincecum is the exception to many rules.

I hope that you take my post in the spirit it was intended, which is put the past behind and look to the future. I hear your son is a very good pitcher and a high achiever in the classroom.

TPM, thank you. The whole size issue is not really one that gets me over-sensitive. Actually, he weighs 192 lbs.. thick legs and solid core.. so he's not really small, just not tall. I just don't understand the myth that "small" guys break down faster. Where does that come from? I keep hearing that and it seems like someone put it down in a manual somewhere, photo copied it, and it keeps popping up like it's truth.. is it? I would like any evidence that it is, that's all.

The decision was made to go to college, and the decision to stay there was his alone. He is his own man and makes his own decisions. He wants to be there, and he is very happy. But do I think he could move on today? Easily.

BTW, Bear, agree 100% with the rest of your post. Happy Halloweeen, everyone.

Bear, thanks.. but Tim Lincecum is nowhere near 5'11". Seen him in person. He's closer to 5'8" 150 lbs. Ain't it great?

The Braves have Chris Medlin. Listed at 5'10", but many say he is actually closer to 5'8". I believe he is listed at 190 lbs. Maybe as some of the smaller guys have success, more clubs will start to look at them. My son is about 5'9", but just a sophmore in HS. Looking for some growth over the next couple of years. But, if he doesn't, I have told him he will just have to work that much harder to get noticed. By the way, he has never missed a start due to injury. Never missed a day of school due to injury or illness either.

I have noticed looking through PG profiles, the big guys are always listed as having a "projectible" body. Shorter guys are never listed that way. May say "athletic build" or something along those lines, but never projectable. I do think it is out there in peoples minds that bigger is better, but like Bum, I have never seen anything that proves that statement.

I've never seen the studies that prove smaller guys are easier hurt than bigger guys. The perception is there though. The smart clubs are running the data.

Also, Lincecum is not necessarily an exception but may be in MLB despite the bias against smaller pitchers. MLB has for so long made pitchers taller and bigger than they really are. How tall is Pedro?

By the way, what is so wrong with Bum getting "sensitive." I saw it as emotional and I don't mind it at all.

It is laughable that some think injury can be avoided through what they believe is correct mechanics. A Phd in physiology told me that about 2/3 of people have a shoulder mechanism that could not hold up in the long run to high velocity throwing. The other 1/3 are just better genetically to do so.

Although bad mechanics can hurt you, you still can go down with good mechanics. A 90 MPH fastball means the hand is moving 90 MPH when it is thrown. To chain from the bottom up means your weakest link (shoulder or elbow) will be stressed. We are all just made up of tissue. It is impossible to predict injury in most cases.

It seems to me the tall, lanky pitcher has as many or more scars than the more compact pitcher. However, I haven't done the study -- would like to see hard data and not a preconceived notion that big holds up better.

I think one thing that can't be argued is that being a tall pitcher is an advantage in the fact that they can throw the ball on more of a downward plane than a small pitcher can. And it may not sound significant, but a taller pither may also release the ball 1-2 feet closer to the plate which shortens reaction time for the batter. I know these advantages are slight, but they definitley are advantages.

A pitcher throws with a delivery from 80-90% of body length (not Lincecum). The pitcher delivers from about 55'. For every 1' in height the pitcher should be about 10" closer to the plate. This is fairly significant because the reaction time is equivalent to about 1-2 MPH.

The angle of attack is not. A pitcher delivers in a 3/4 slot at about the lever point, his landing foot, but with a knee bend on the front side. If a pitcher is one foot taller, say 6'6" versus 5'6" the angle of attack from release point to the bottom of the strike zone is a 1 degree difference. I could do the math and show the angle, but I'll spare everyone unless they want it.

I have very rarely gotten involved in these "big guys" vs. "little guys" discussions before because I never took that much interest, but I'll admit I get a little sensitive on the "break down" issue because I don't think there is anything that supports this conclusion.

If we discount the breakdown philosophy, absent any data to the contrary, then we are left with the other two arguments.. the downward plane (angle) argument and the argument regarding distance from the pitcher's release point to the plate. Two valid arguments, IMHO, but.. if the difference is only 1 degree per foot in height the angle argument doesn't seem too substantial, either.

That leaves us with the release point argument. Now, Tim Lincecum strides 122% of his body height, and the average pitcher 85% or so. This means, compared to a 6'2" pitcher releasing the ball at an average 85%, the 122% Lincecum is releasing the ball about six inches downhill further than this 6'2" pitcher.

Then there's the argument for the shorter pitcher. If the MLB hitter is used to hitting off 6'2-6'3" guys all day long, wouldn't that mean his eye angle would be a little off-kilter having to face a suddenly lower release point?

There's a lot of thought here, but the bottom line is some clubs are against smaller pitchers, and I'm just asking why.. there may or may not be valid reasons, but given the velocity there I don't see a whole lot of difference.

The biggest reason some of these clubs are against smaller pitchers, IMHO, is the argument of projectibility. Given the bigger arm circle of a taller pitcher you could argue they'd project
to add more velocity than the small guy, over time.
But if the velocity of the smaller guys is already there.. like in Tim Lincecum's case where he was throwing 98+ why would you worry about that?

Reaction time means little or nothing. Watch kids hitting 90 mph in a cage who couldn't get the bat around on a pitcher throwing 85 mph. Deception and the speed at which the ball approaches the plate is far more important than the reaction time as measured by the time from release to crossing the plate. Many of the same kids who handle a 70 mph fastball in LL are never able to handle low 80's in HS yet the reaction time is much less for that 70 mph fastball.

A pitcher who hides the ball well and/or mixes up his pitches well gets an advantage. A pitcher who consistently releases the ball a foot or so closer to the plate will simply result in the hitter automatically adjusting his timing, just like the kids in the batting cage and the difference isn't enough to throw good hitters off.

Now if a pitcher throws 5 mph faster than what hitters are used to it will take them time to adjust just like seeing a faster speed in the cage where most of us will miss the first few swings then foul a few off before starting to make decent contact, but if you put high 90s in front of MLB hitters for an entire game they'll adjust to the velocity eventually and the best hitters will do it sooner rather than later.

Pitchers who drop their hand down and leave it behind them until the last moment tend to hide the ball well and be deceptive. Papelbon and Lincecum, among others, are examples of this. Lincecum also mixes his pitches well.

BTW, the "little" guys like Oswalt are able to elevate more effectively because they generate a different angle on the high fastball than the tall pitchers who are throwing "downhill".

I don't think most kids can adjust to 90 MPH. Some can, but I don't believe most can. I think PG showed great stats for higher velo is usually greater effectiveness.

Bum had a great hint in what he said to greater at least functional velocity. CA Dad did also. Two different things.

CaDad I think the ball looks slower when you can pick up the grip and throw sooner and hiding the ball as long as possible does seem to equate to a faster look.

Bum, Lincecum has a stride greater than 120% of body length. There is a paradox in his pitching. Most argue for connectivity of the back foot at release yet long stride lengths. I agree on both. Tim has a long toe drag. He keeps connectivity and yet has one incredible stretch phase in his delivery.

I teach the toe drag. I also teach to get closer to the plate. I'll stretch the player out the older they get. This seems to really load the lower body, get them closer to the plate, and both add up to velocity increase.

A note on the angle of attack. It may be less than 1 degree difference between short and tall pitchers. Angle is achieved more through off-speed than downward plane of release. Also, the more the pitcher strides out the lower the angle of attack. See old video of Sandy Kofax or Tim Lincecum now. Angle of attack is over-rated. What is not is getting on top of the ball.

The reason I want to know the true stats on injury is because I know the angle is a non-issue and a smaller player can get closer to the plate legally through stretch phase. Therefore, the only thing left is the question of injury.

I am not sure there is supporting info that shorter pitchers have more injuries, except that many are max effort guys and some claim that is a prelude to injury. The taller hard throwing guys have more scars because they have been used more often most of their lives, LL, HS, college. I am a firm beleiver that Mark Prior was used up before he signed his first pro contract, check out the amount of innings he logged in college, and how many times he made Boyd Nations PAP list while in college.

I beleive that CC has remained healthy because he by passed college and I beleive his innings in HS were limited, not sure if he played year round bb as he played football and basketball. I'll bet he pitched a lot less than most of our kids have in HS. You can't tell me his 6'7" height (and velo) don't make him successful. I hear once the ball leaves his hand, it's there, guess that is why he leaves some of them looking stupid.

We can all sit here all day and debate tall vs short, lower velo vs. higher velo. The only thing I have learned is that all the rules change at the pro ball level.

Can you guys go into the length of the stride a bit more? I have a 2010 that seems to be stuck in the 83-84 mph fastball. He is 5'9" and about 180. I will measure his stride to see what % of his hight he moves. Will a longer stride, by definition produce greater velocity?

My guy throws 3/4 and has great movement on his fastball and a killer curve. But he gets no attention due to his size and lack of velocity.

His brother throws over 90, so I believe that he has more in him somewhere....

You have two very talented kids. Congratulations. I am no expert on anything. I just see that Lincecum is moving to the plate at a really fast pace when he lands and the rest comes through. I jokingly says he only throws 88 but is running at 8 MPH so it is equal to 96 MPH.

I think the combination of momentum and stretch serves to get his velo up there. I am curious how long he can last. I hope 50 years. He is fun to watch.

Most MLB pitchers that have longevity can throw harder than they do throw. If you can get to 5 to 6 years of service you can command a lot more money. Some mediocre pitchers make as much as Lincecum. If he can last, he will get his great payday. I just hope not in pin-stripes.

quote:

Originally posted by baseballpapa:

Most MLB pitchers that have longevity can throw harder than they do throw.

You are right, experience and better pitch selection rules over velocity as the pitcher matures (in most cases).

I think Lincecum's success is due to the fact that they left him alone, most of the time they take pitchers and want to change their mechanics, what got them there in the first place and what worked best for them now becomes a thing of the past. This can result in injury.

Is it true no one tinkers with him but his dad?

Dontrelle Willis a good example of taking unconventional mechanics, changing them and then changing them back again.

I don't think the reason they back off velo is because they learn better control, etc.

If you pitch at a 3.50 ERA for four years, you are one of the best in the league. You also will make league minimum and graduate up to a couple to few million. If you throw max and get hurt to end your career, you don't realize the money you could make if you stick around.

If you pitch at a 4.00 ERA you are better than average but will make just a little less money over the 4 years. If you could have lowered your ERA, but will not last to pitch 6-8 years then you cost yourself a whole lot of money. It makes sense$ to stick around.

Pitchers, once in MLB, and above average in numbers should try to stick around. That may mean less velo.

Saw Pettite pitch when he was with the Astros. He got peeved at a hitter and registered 95 on the gun. I didn't know he could do that. He hit his spot at that velo also. Would be curious to know Beckett's average regular season velo versus playoffs. Doesn't seem to be the same.

Jamie Moyer was one such guy. Everyone assumes he has always been a soft thrower. Truth is, he threw about 90 out of high school.

BTW, another guy under 6'.

TPM, I've read that about Tim Lincecum's dad. Seems a little over-the-top to me. His dad would show up to his college games and give him hand signals from the bleachers.. wow. Every now and then, Bum, Jr. will call me up and ask for advise. My response is purely fundamental stuff.. and then I tell him son, obviously, you know WAY more than me now.. trust yourself.

Lincecum definitley defies the shorter pitchers dont release as close as tall pitchers issue. Lincecum almost crowhops off the mound. I don't know if there is any pitcher in the league who releases the ball as far as he does. But about the reaction time meaning nothing thats just not true. Sure you need to be able to change speeds, but being able cut down the reaction time be either throwing harder or releasing closer to the plate is an advantage. If you took a 6'8 pitcher and a 5'8 pitcher both throwing 90, the 6'8" pitcher's fastball will get in on the hitters quicker than 5'8" pitcher assuming they have normal strides.

floridafan,
The optimum stride length is different for each pitcher. In general, the longer the better for velocity until it gets in the way of being able to rotate the hips properly. Lincecum is incredibly limber so he can be effective with a longer stride relative to his height than most any other pitcher. Somewhere in the 80-90% of their height range is considered good for most pitchers (measured to the ankle of the stride foot) but there are power pitchers out there at 100% and in Lincecum's case more than 100%. There's no way to be exact about it because for one thing not everyone who is a given height has the same length legs.

Breaking ball pitchers are generally going to have shorter stride lengths.

Bear,
Veiled negativity is still being negative.

Yes, I can read the meaning, too, CADad. As far as better years he didn't even have a year.. unless you count pitching a handful of innings out of the pen in 35 degrees.

Learn command? Take away the seven walks in his first two outings in the Summer after not pitching for two months he ended the Summer with 89 k's, 19 BB's, six straight wins, a bunt away from a perfect game, 8-3 and, oh yea, pitcher of the year in his league.

Bear, you need to think before you post c*** like that.

To change the subject what is this "Las Vegas" stuff all about BUM?

CAWannaDad: Try Maxwell Maltz

Spess, I will resend if noted.

BOF, I now live in Las Vegas. We're having a cold snap.. only 60 degrees today.. will be in the mid-to-upper 70's by this weekend, though. Next time you visit LV look me up.

I started this thread back in Jan. 08... I saw some recent activity and I thought I would update on my progress..My last entry was when I was 15.. Still had nice gains at 16 and 17. These are peak numbers during end of season.

9-53
10-58
11-63
12-68
13-72
14-78
15-84
16-89
17-92
All were recorded using a jugs gun