What do you think about SPARQ trying to get rid of the 60?

My opinion: I think evaluating someones running ability should be position specific. You want to time an outfielder in the 60. O.K. maybe. Why time a catcher or first baseman in the 60. That's not why they are there. I think timing a catcher in the 60 is about as important as checking a first baseman's curveball. I'm sure someone can show me where I'm wrong.

But everyone has to run from home to first (at least one would hope) so maybe the 30 makes more sense.

Has anyone looked at the SPARQ ratings for the AC games in the link provided by jonaqui?

Are the headings off or what?

They appear to be showing 30 yard split times of 20 plus seconds and vertical jumps of 40 plus inches.

Your right jonaqui. I didn't make myself clear. The 30 makes much more sense. Sorry about that.

I agree about the 60 being ridiculous.

Take a kid that runs a 7 and a kid who runs a 6.5. Half a second over 60 yards means nothing on a baseball field. lets say the 7 sec. kid is in CF and he has great instincts off the bat. If he gets a better jump by that same half second or more, he will always get to the ball before the 6.5 kid.

As the saying goes, if you are not on base, it does not matter how fast you are!

I would think that half a second would mean a lot going from 1st to 3rd or 2nd to home. The sixty is very important IMO.

Concerning Sparq testing, I think it is a waste of time for baseball. I've seen it administered at 2 events this summer and don't see how any of it relates to benig able to play or excel in the game, except for the running test. We already have that test in a simple 60 yard dash.

quote:

Originally posted by honest and unbiased:
I would think that half a second would mean a lot going from 1st to 3rd or 2nd to home. The sixty is very important IMO.

I think there is so much more involved, so much more happening when a runner is going 1st to 3rd or 2nd to home as opposed to running 60 yards in a straight line with nothing else to think about except finishing as fast as you can. I think it's comparing apples and dumptrucks. When a player runs the 60 he's not being asked to pick up the flight of the ball, coach's signals, fielder's positions/locations ect...
The 60's importance is diminished in my mind because of these and other factors.
At a recent college clinic my son was at the kids were actually timed going from 1st to 3rd but still it was just "put your head down and run".

Poptime,
I agree with you that there is much more involved when running the bases than just speed. Most of the other variables however can be taught with coaching. My son is not extremely fast (6.90 sixty) but is a very good baserunner.

That being said however, speed is a natural ability and raw talent that can makeup for other shortcomings. Assuming you can teach 2 separate prospects to run the bases correctly, I'll take the 6.5 sixty guy over the 7.0 sixty guy every time.

H and U

Agree totally.

If there has to be a straight line run for a baseball prospect, I would advocate the 30 yard dash. That is the MAXIMUM straight line distance a runner has to run to 1) run out a grounder to first and 2) steal any base. Unless there is a baseball field where fly balls hang in the air for 6.5 to 8.0 seconds, no one needs to be evaluated on their straight line distance 60 time. Everyone has to run to first and therefore everyone should be evaluated at that distance [90 feet]regardless of position.

The difficulty with extrapolating 30 yard speed from the 60 time is that some runners start slowly and build up speed as they run further and further; other runners start explosively and reach top speed within a few steps but never get any faster. Relying on the 60 time alone [and dividing it in half to get the 30 time] gives more speed than he has to the former and not enough speed to the later. Likewise converting a 40 time to 60 assists the later and punishes the former.

At first I did not like the SPARQ ratings as I felt they would lead to an over emphasis on athleticism and a decreased evaluation of skills by pros and colleges. But the more I read about SPARQ the better I like it. It is still up in the air whether the promoters of this system will get away from the football and basketball SPARQ evaluations and find a more baseball specific formula but emphasizing the 30 instead of the 60 for baseball useful athleticism is a good start.

TW344

I agree on the skills point. I saw them testing people on some kind of hitting at Area Code, but I didn't know what it was. Does anyone know what they were testing?

30 is much better, I've been saying that for years. I think the SPARQ will catch on quickly for general athletic ability. Son took it at East Cobb. Got a free shirt and team got several hundred dollars in speed training stuff.

If they want to test 1st to 3rd or home to 2nd. Get out the stopwatch add it to the SPARQ.

I don't agree with a 30 yard dash by itself.

I think the 30 yard dash is beneficial for scouting purposes if it is used to SUPPLEMENT a 60 yard time.

The 60 yard dash is the most important.

Yes, 30 yard dash is "baseball" related for short spurts from base to base, and this is also important.

But the shorter you make a testing distance, the less you know about that prospect's speed. For the sake of proving a point, let's exaggerate. What would tell us more about a prospect's speed, a 5 yard dash or a 100 yard dash? Speed is greatest seen over time. Let's say someone runs a 3.2 30 yard dash, and another guy runs a 3.3 30 yard dash. From here all you can really do is project what that prospect would run over a greater distance. And after all, in baseball if you have speed, you are using it to stretch a single to a double (60 yard) or a double to a triple (90 yard), on top of beating out groundballs and stealing bases (30 yard).

A prospect may get a great jump but then plateau from there, and he'll run a great 30 (great acceleration, average speed). But what about the guy who traditionally gets a poor jump or has slow acceleration, but once he gets going, he is flying?

I think both are beneficial. But of the two, the 60 cannot be replaced simply because it tells you more about a prospect's overall speed. 30 is more for acceleration.

I'm aware this thread is pretty much dead, but I just had one question. I looked at the times on the websites, and they seemed very fast for home to first, so is there no swing in the home-first test for SPARQ?

quote:

Originally posted by Prospectwire:
I don't agree with a 30 yard dash by itself.

I think the 30 yard dash is beneficial for scouting purposes if it is used to SUPPLEMENT a 60 yard time.

The 60 yard dash is the most important.

Yes, 30 yard dash is "baseball" related for short spurts from base to base, and this is also important.

But the shorter you make a testing distance, the less you know about that prospect's speed. For the sake of proving a point, let's exaggerate. What would tell us more about a prospect's speed, a 5 yard dash or a 100 yard dash? Speed is greatest seen over time. Let's say someone runs a 3.2 30 yard dash, and another guy runs a 3.3 30 yard dash. From here all you can really do is project what that prospect would run over a greater distance. And after all, in baseball if you have speed, you are using it to stretch a single to a double (60 yard) or a double to a triple (90 yard), on top of beating out groundballs and stealing bases (30 yard).

A prospect may get a great jump but then plateau from there, and he'll run a great 30 (great acceleration, average speed). But what about the guy who traditionally gets a poor jump or has slow acceleration, but once he gets going, he is flying?

I think both are beneficial. But of the two, the 60 cannot be replaced simply because it tells you more about a prospect's overall speed. 30 is more for acceleration.

I understand...but in baseball you almost never run 60 yards in a straight line. I really don't think it gives a great measure of baseball speed...even the 40 would be better (I know Franklin Pierce college does this instead of the 60).

Looking for explanation....what exactly is SPARQ. How is it being used for high schoolers thinking of playing baseball in college?

I believe the SPARQ testing is a baseball adaptation of the standard NFL combine testing. I come from a football background and there are components of the football combine that also have nothing whatsoever to do with football. Take the benchpress testing where kids will max out reps with 225 pounds. I believe the record is somewhere around 55 reps. What does that have to do with football skills? Absolutely nothing whatsoever. Kids will train for drills at the combines and often there will be kids that look All Universe at combines that are total busts when it comes to football ability. In thsi day and age of information overload the SPARQ testing is just that, more information. I am not saying that SPARQ testing is bad, to the contrary I think it provides a good insight to kids overall athletic ability ..... how that transfer to good baseball/football skills is where the a good scout will earn his money.

The SPARQ 30 yd run does NOT include a swing, like the home to first time. On the other hand, the is no "advantage" to LH hitters like their is in the H to 1st time.

In repsponse to prospectwire, your logic really doesn't hold up to scrutiny.

Anybody that knows a thing about sprinting will tell you that by 30 yards, you pretty much know how fast someone is. Sure, there are athletes that rely more on acceleration, but the difference between 2 athletes with equal 30 yard times by 60, 90, or even 110 yards will be marginal. Your example of a 5 yard dash predicting a 100 doesn't hold water, as a 5 yard dash is not really sprinting, whereas a 30 is.

In addition, you state that true speed is measured in getting doubles and triples and thus a 60 is more illustrative of an athletes speed. Again, you don't account for the fact that an athlete running bases--with turns--goes through a deceleration and re-acceleration with each turn. So your argument about doubles and triples only speaks more to the need for an athlete's ability to accelerate.

In my opinion, a 60 doesn't tell you anything that a 30 wouldn't, and it actually distorts the picture by testing a distance that doesn't matter. If you want to test how fast a kid is at getting doubles or triples, test them on the basepaths, not a straight line.

quote:

Originally posted by jonaqui:
In repsponse to prospectwire, your logic really doesn't hold up to scrutiny.

Anybody that knows a thing about sprinting will tell you that by 30 yards, you pretty much know how fast someone is. Sure, there are athletes that rely more on acceleration, but the difference between 2 athletes with equal 30 yard times by 60, 90, or even 110 yards will be marginal. Your example of a 5 yard dash predicting a 100 doesn't hold water, as a 5 yard dash is not really sprinting, whereas a 30 is.

In addition, you state that true speed is measured in getting doubles and triples and thus a 60 is more illustrative of an athletes speed. Again, you don't account for the fact that an athlete running bases--with turns--goes through a deceleration and re-acceleration with each turn. So your argument about doubles and triples only speaks more to the need for an athlete's ability to accelerate.

In my opinion, a 60 doesn't tell you anything that a 30 wouldn't, and it actually distorts the picture by testing a distance that doesn't matter. If you want to test how fast a kid is at getting doubles or triples, test them on the basepaths, not a straight line.

Thanks for your response. I love a good discussion - everyone is to benefit.

I really think you need to re-read my post. Your putting words in my mouth in a few areas. I never said anything about true speed being measured by doubles and triples, I stated it was one of the uses of speed in the game of baseball on top of other things. And you're taking my "exaggeration example" just for the sake of me trying to prove a point, and trying to make it hold weight as a stand alone example.

I agree with you 100%, however, that you rarely run 60 yards in a straight line in baseball. I understand the logic of baseball-specific testing, and I'm all for it. But you can't replace the 60 at this point.

But you'll have to introduce me to these people that "know anything about sprinting", because apparently, I'm not one of them. I'd tell these people that think that by 30 yards "you pretty much" know how fast someone is, that they will soon be out of a job in the scouting business if that is their standard. "Pretty much" is not precise, it is not accurate, and it can be the difference between a 1st rounder and a 5th rounder, a 5th rounder and a 15th rounder, and between millions of dollars. If you attended a showcase and got timed for the 60 and you looked at the board and it said "Pretty much a 7.0", you'd ask for your money back I hope.

You have to understand, there isn't much debating in that speed is seen greatest over time. Top speed that is. This is just physics. Once you hit your top speed, you may pass a guy over the course of a 60 yard dash, who got a quick jump on you, and you may finish 3 feet ahead of him. Over 30 yards, you may catch up enough only to tie. Now you have two players over the course of a 30 yard dash that have the same 30 yard time because Player B didnt have enough time to pass the quick-starting player A over the short course of 30 yards. If he had 60, you would have seen the difference in RAW SPEED, which is really what we are trying to test here. How much raw speed does the kid have? A coach can coach him up on the rest such as turns and jumps.

Yes, you are sprinting at 30 yard distances. But the athlete with a poor jump needs time to make up that distance. The 60 yard dash is a test of raw speed, not acceleration, not turns. If you want to test acceleration, and acceleration on a turn, hey, I'm all for that. As I said, I'm all for the 30 as an opportunity to supplement the 60. The more the better.

Finally there are 3 reasons why the 60 is most important for measuring raw speed, not acceleration, here they are:

1) Speed is greatest seen over time. This has been discussed above.
2) It's been done this way for a long time. People like making comparisons to other players in baseball from their scouting experience for projection purposes. If you make the standard distance such as a 30 yard dash, it will take some time for everyone to adjust.
3) Finally, something called limiting your variables. If you run from home to 2nd, you have more variables in there such as turns. How big was his turn? When did he start it? Maybe one guy is way faster than another guy but he takes a huge turn, or starts his turn too early. Well, now we have two speed times that are identical and give us no information about the prospect's speed because we have to take turns into consideration. Players can be coached on turns, they can't be coached on raw talent, and thats what we are out to find. He can be coached on these things; to make better turns, to get better jumps. But when you run in a straight line, you are limiting your variables and getting real raw speed.

Would I like to see a 30 yard dash implemented? Yes. Would I like to see more baserunning times implemented? Yes. I love information overkill.

But if you ask me once again what is the most important distance to run I'll tell you the 60 yard dash can not be replaced for all of the reasons outlined above.

Personally - I'll take the "large sackful of doubles and triples and stolen bases and runs scored" at season's end - and I'll leave the tape printout of my 6.4 60 yard dash, and the ensuing affirmation of my raw speed, to others to play with and write about.

I think the 60 is an outmoded form of rating for many of the reasons listed in previous posts. However, I'm skeptical about the SPARQ ratings, however. Not their training methodology, mind you, just their ratings.

For example, the medicine ball toss. There are so many reasons why this is an improper arbiter of athletic abality I don't know where to begin. To make a long story short, to expect to compare athletes based upon an activity many of them have never performed before is silly. Their techniques will vary greatly. Also, while if all the kids used the same technique it would be an indication of core strength I'm not sure it would indicate bat speed.

And I am so sick of scouts and coaches using speed as a gauge of ability and NOT teaching their kids proper running techniques. The old thought about you can't improve speed is such outmoded thinking.

You can't make a conditioned 7.5 kid a 6.5 sprinter. However you might be able to make him a 7.0 runner. And that can mean a few legged out base hits or balls caught in a season.

Ask a professional baseball player how often they are formally timed in the 60 after they are signed. If it is once then it is the only time. (yes, I know they are scouted home to first all the time). You'd think that if speed is so important (and it is) they'd be timing kids and working with them all the time.

oldnumber19,

That's a good post.

I think you answered your own concern about speed being gauged as athletic ability in the paragraph below that.

The 60 is a test of raw speed. Not baseball speed, not acceleration, not acceleration after a turn. Just raw speed.

Speed can be coached. It is possible to turn a 7.5 runner into a 7.0 runner. It doesn't happen everyday, I'd consider that to be an extreme improvement, but the point is, your improvements with speed are limited. It's not like the sky is the limit when it comes to coaching speed.

You have to have a baseline. Coaches and scouts are scouting and recruiting raw talent, so they can coach them up when they get there. They'd rather recruit or draft a 6.7 runner, instead of a 7.5 runner because both can be coached and both can get better, but they need that initial baseline raw speed to work off of because improvements are limited.

A friend's son held the SPARQ record last year {Toby Gerhardt}. The results were indicative of the fact that Toby is a very gifted athlete. All things being equal as a scout you would tend to go with the better quality athlete. If you can run a 6.3 sixty chances are you can be taught how to round off bases correctly and to read pitchers to get good jumps thereby putting that GOD given speed to good use. This is what instructional and minor leagues are for, teaching kids skills.

I think the more information you can accumulate about a player the better able you are to evaluate their talent.

This information overload can get a bit crazy, look at NFL with the Wunderlick testing at least MLB has not started implementing that exam.

I do realize that proper baserunning techniques can't improve a 60 time but they sure can make a baserunner better.

One of the real points of my post was that there is a great deal of emphasis placed upon speed but there is not enough coaching at the college or professional level devoted to actual stride/sprinting/breathing techniques.

Another point is that while a good SPARQ score can be indicative of athletic ability, it is flawed as a comparative tool because it includes a couple of activities that are very dependent upon technique and/or field conditions. I already posted my concerns with the medicine ball toss. I also have concerns about the shuttle run. I saw the test conducted on a grass field that, after a few shuttle runs, became very slick. Unless the field condition is exactly the same for all you won't get comparative results.

And that's another problem I have with the 60 - not all fields are the same. Dry or wet fields on different types of grass in different weather, etc. Not good for comparative purposes. If I were a scout and wanted a 60 or other time I'd ask my prospects to run on a similar surface.

Again, I have to state that in my opinion SPARQ exercises are top notch and will help an athlete. No question about it. However, remember that the SPARQ rating is in part a marketing tool designed to drive you to their site and purchase their products. I'm not against that, not at all. Just keep it in mind is all.

In closing, speed is good. Speed is very good. A 6.3 time is good on any surface. Very, very good. However, if I were a scout looking at two big outfielders with very similar tool projections and one ran a 6.8 and the other a 7.1 I wouldn't necessarily write off the slower kid. The 60 is flawed as a comparative tool.

I know, I know, most pro scouts don't rely just upon speed and the 60 time. I'm just saying that if we all agree about the importance of speed then we should scientifically measure this speed (SPARQ isn't there yet) using a proper comparative test and then work diligently on improving techniques and training that include, but go beyond, baserunning skills.

I had a chance to talk to two Florida D1 coaches yesterday, that I am close with, over the phone and towards the end of the conversations - I asked them their thoughts on SPARQ and the 60.

1. One coach said SPARQ hasn't really caught on yet. It needs to really grow and it needs years and years of testing before it can be relied upon as any kind of an accurate measure of athleticism. The other coach never heard of it.
2. One coach liked the 60, the other coach didn't. One coach said not only is the 60 a test of speed, but it is a test of strength. It takes a strong kid to go those last 10-20 yards and maintain their speed. That's why you rarely see players improve their 60 time on the 2nd try. He likes the 40 better for three reasons: a) it eliminates the strength factor, gee, football must use it for a reason and b) it gives kid's an extra 10 yards to the 30 to try to make up for any bad jumps and c) it is a widely accepted, widely understood running tool

He also added by the time he gets a 40 time, a 60 time, and some base running times, he has more than enough information to make an accurate assessment on this player's one tool.

The 30 and 60 should both be used. They both reveal different insights about the athlete.

The arguement that a baseball player never runs 60 yards in a straight line, while being a true statement, does not hold up when the true reason these tests are used in the first place.

What the 30 and 60 (and other distances) tell you is the strength make-up of that athlete.

There is more than just one aspect of "strength". Most people think of how much weight someone can lift one time when speaking about strength, but it actually goes much further than that.

Just off the top of my head different aspects of strength are reactive (or speed), starting, maximal, relative, endurance and limit. There are many others, but that is for another conversation.

Each type of strength lends itself to different sporting skills. For example a great baseball player has a great deal of reactive strength while a cross country runner has a great deal of endurance strength. There is certainly crossover, but this is a broad explaination.

So the scouts and coaches who know what to look for know that a player with a great 30 time has a great deal of starting and reactive (or speed) strength. These qualities are crucial to baseball.

When you hear the term "good jump" referring to a fielder it basically means he was able to produce a tremendous amount of force and therefore go from point A to point B (linear speed) quickly. This athlete displayed great starting and speed strength.

I hope this gives everyone a better insight into how testing results should be looked at.

As far as SPARQ goes the tests are fine, but certainly nothing new or unique. Good strength coaches have been using these tests for decades. But you have to tip you hat to SPARQ for marketing it properly and making a system out of it. But any good strength coach shouldn't need SPARQ to tell them how to administer these tests.

those jack-rabbits better work on their bunting skills

it is all about the twitch muscles

Prospectwire,

Agreed, excellent discussion.

Your primary argument for the 60 seems to be that it measures 'raw speed', in that it gives an opportunity for the player with 'raw speed' to pass the player who is merely fast over 30 yards (home to first). In this case, I would argue that what you call 'raw speed' is a useless measure in baseball. Once again, a linear 60 yards is never run in baseball, so the extra 30 yards that teases out 'raw speed' is rendered moot, you simply never get a chance to use it. You also speak of 'top speed', which is an even more useless measure in baseball. An athlete doesn't reach top speed until 60-70 yards out, again, a distance that is never covered in baseball. So if top speed is never reached on a baseball field, why on earth is it an important measure? Baseball is a game of reaction, power and acceleration, this is what should be measured.

You fail to refute the primary claim against the use of the 60 as a meaningful measure--that a runner goes through a process of deceleration and re-acceleration during each turn around the basepaths. This further deemphasizes the need for 'raw speed' and only highlights the importance of accelerative ability.

Quibbling over laguage is unimportant, but I used the term "pretty much" because I am aware that the relationship between 30 speed and 60 speed is not exact. However, it is pretty darn close. Close enough that a 30 tells you "pretty much" all you need to know about a players linear speed. Again, not everything, but enough that when contrasted against the vast amount of flaws in using the 60, it is a much more meaningful test of speed as it is actually put into practice on the baseball field, which is what we are really trying to get after isn't it?

I should have been more specific when I said "anyone who knows anything about sprinting". What I meant was, almost nobody in baseball knows anything about sprinting, the people who do know about sprinting work with--sprinters. I am kind of an all-sports geek, track included, so my reasoning is partly based on stuff like this: here are the 10 meter splits from the 1997 world 100m championships, Maurice Green vs. Donovan Bailey. By 30 meters, the difference between the two has emerged, there is slight variation in speed between 30-60 and 60-100 meters, but overall the differences are very slight.

Maurice Greene (+0.13s)
1.71 1.04 0.92 0.88 0.87 0.85 0.85 0.86 0.87 0.88s
1.71 2.75 3.67 4.55 5.42 6.27 7.12 7.98 8.85 9.73s
8.71 10.47 11.14 11.50 11.67 11.80 11.68 11.57 11.51 11.30m/s

Donovan Bailey (+0.14s)
1.78 1.03 0.91 0.87 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.86 0.87 0.90
1.78 2.81 3.72 4.59 5.44 6.29 7.14 8.00 8.87 9.77
8.90 10.55 11.28 11.63 11.76 11.80 11.70 11.55 11.38 11.00

So based on all of this, the 60 does tell you something, but it is not worth much more than what the 30 tells you, and when you factor in what an athlete actually does on the baseball field, it seems clear to me that a 30 is a more appropriate test.

note: The coach that you cite as saying the 60 offers a test of strength has an excellent point. Many baseball players are out of shape slobs for whom 60 yards is a long way. In that sense a 60 does tell you something meaningful.
But, for my money, the 30 tells you a whole lot more.

SPARQ is a nice tool for rating football players where raw athletic ability tends to overshadow skill, because the skills can usually be taught. It is close to a waste of time in rating baseball players where skill tends to overshadow raw ability. Ask Michael Jordan. Don't you think he'd have set records in SPARQ testing? The main thing SPARQ seems to be able to predict is if a baseball player also plays football.

If you want to see if someone has a strong arm - use a radar gun.

If you want to see if someone can hit or hit with power - watch them hit.

If you want to see if someone can track down fly balls - watch them take fly balls.

If you want to see if someone can run the bases - watch them run the bases.

If you want to know if someone has range on grounders - watch them take grounders.

If you want to know if someone has raw speed then time them in the 40 or 60 or whatever you feel like. Speed is important in baseball but you have to see how well it is applied to baseball. One of the best base stealers ever, according to Sports Illustrated, never made it to the big leagues. He couldn't hit.

The rest of the SPARQ measurements mean virtually nothing when it comes to baseball and they've been running the 60 at showcases since the beginning of time. Someone is just pushing it to make money.

It is nice to be able to identify players with speed for middle infielders, centerfielders and some corner outfielders, but it doesn't mean much for the rest of the players. Pitchers and catchers usually make up more than half of a big league roster. 1st basemen don't need to be that fast, 3rd basemen don't have to be blazingly fast if they can hit and one of the corner outfielders usually isn't very fast, but can hit and/or has a strong arm. In the American League a spot on the roster is reserved for a DH who doesn't need speed and in the NL one spot is usually reserved for a pinch hitter who doesn't need speed.

quote:

Originally posted by jonaqui:
Prospectwire,

Agreed, excellent discussion.

Your primary argument for the 60 seems to be that it measures 'raw speed', in that it gives an opportunity for the player with 'raw speed' to pass the player who is merely fast over 30 yards (home to first). In this case, I would argue that what you call 'raw speed' is a useless measure in baseball. Once again, a linear 60 yards is never run in baseball, so the extra 30 yards that teases out 'raw speed' is rendered moot, you simply never get a chance to use it. You also speak of 'top speed', which is an even more useless measure in baseball. An athlete doesn't reach top speed until 60-70 yards out, again, a distance that is never covered in baseball. So if top speed is never reached on a baseball field, why on earth is it an important measure? Baseball is a game of reaction, power and acceleration, this is what should be measured.

You fail to refute the primary claim against the use of the 60 as a meaningful measure--that a runner goes through a process of deceleration and re-acceleration during each turn around the basepaths. This further deemphasizes the need for 'raw speed' and only highlights the importance of accelerative ability.

Quibbling over laguage is unimportant, but I used the term "pretty much" because I am aware that the relationship between 30 speed and 60 speed is not exact. However, it is pretty darn close. Close enough that a 30 tells you "pretty much" all you need to know about a players linear speed. Again, not everything, but enough that when contrasted against the vast amount of flaws in using the 60, it is a much more meaningful test of speed as it is actually put into practice on the baseball field, which is what we are really trying to get after isn't it?

I should have been more specific when I said "anyone who knows anything about sprinting". What I meant was, almost nobody in baseball knows anything about sprinting, the people who do know about sprinting work with--sprinters. I am kind of an all-sports geek, track included, so my reasoning is partly based on stuff like this: here are the 10 meter splits from the 1997 world 100m championships, Maurice Green vs. Donovan Bailey. By 30 meters, the difference between the two has emerged, there is slight variation in speed between 30-60 and 60-100 meters, but overall the differences are very slight.

Maurice Greene (+0.13s)
1.71 1.04 0.92 0.88 0.87 0.85 0.85 0.86 0.87 0.88s
1.71 2.75 3.67 4.55 5.42 6.27 7.12 7.98 8.85 9.73s
8.71 10.47 11.14 11.50 11.67 11.80 11.68 11.57 11.51 11.30m/s

Donovan Bailey (+0.14s)
1.78 1.03 0.91 0.87 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.86 0.87 0.90
1.78 2.81 3.72 4.59 5.44 6.29 7.14 8.00 8.87 9.77
8.90 10.55 11.28 11.63 11.76 11.80 11.70 11.55 11.38 11.00

So based on all of this, the 60 does tell you something, but it is not worth much more than what the 30 tells you, and when you factor in what an athlete actually does on the baseball field, it seems clear to me that a 30 is a more appropriate test.

note: The coach that you cite as saying the 60 offers a test of strength has an excellent point. Many baseball players are out of shape slobs for whom 60 yards is a long way. In that sense a 60 does tell you something meaningful.
But, for my money, the 30 tells you a whole lot more.

I don't have enough time to give you a response to all of this, but you bring some valid points.

I think you are going overboard on the baseball specific speed, however. Yes, you never run 60 yards in a straight line in baseball. But you make it sound like on a ball hit in the gap, the batter-runner gets to 1st base, comes to a complete stop, then must completely reaccelerate from 0. Besides this is what coaching is for. You arent supposed to have a huge difference in speed just because you are touching a base. This is why turns were invented, stepping on the inside part of the bag, etc. Minimal acceleration and deceleration.

As I mentioned briefly, speed isnt just used in baseball for beating out groundballs, stealing bases, etc. It is also used for stretching a single to a double or triple, going from first to 3rd or scoring from 1st on a ball in the gap.... Scoring from 2nd on a basehit.

These are all situations where the minimum is 60 feet, the max is 90 feet. As mentioned, the 60 is not only a test of speed but of functional running strength. What good is a 30 yard dash by itself, if it doesnt tell us that after 30 yards your best base threat doesn't have the strength to maintain that speed, and will probably get thrown out everytime he tries to go from 1st to 3rd.

You also say, "An athlete doesn't reach top speed until 60-70 yards out". What page is this on in the rule book? (Kidding!) Obviously, everyone is different and you may want to rethink this.

Overall, the concept of raw speed is being overthought here. We're just trying to get a player's raw speed. Nothing more, nothing less. Personally, I would like to see the 40 yard dash be the standard. It's universal among sports, it's almost a happy medium between the 60 and 30, etc. But as I said, the 60 is the standard, and it helps to be able to project and compare based on past 60 times.

Have a great night.

we were just at an event where they did the SPARQ testing on rain soaked grass---can someone tell me how they can compare those readings with those on dry surfaces---the players were slipping and sliding all over the place--the footing was horrendous--in fact two of our players came up lame after the tests

TRhit, you can't compare results. You need consistent conditions to produce consistent results.

If you can't use a flat dry surface to time the players you're wasting everyone's time.

TRhit- were the SPARQs run on the s****r field(s)? Those were as dry as can be but the outfield was pretty wet.

Also... did Hamilton give another 6.5-like run?

JH

They were done on the s****r fields and they were soaked on Saturday

I don't know what Ham ran but he tore it up in our Saturday Game both at bat and on the bases

quote:

Originally posted by CADad:

If you want to see if someone can hit or hit with power - watch them hit.

If you want to see if someone can track down fly balls - watch them take fly balls.

If you want to see if someone can run the bases - watch them run the bases.

If you want to know if someone has range on grounders - watch them take grounders.

CaDad,

What novel ideas! Can you imagine that some people still believe that actually watching the player play can tell you something?


How about this one:

He's batting .210 with a .750 fielding % - but he has one heck of a SPARQ rating.

LOL

Excellent point gamer. To me the only people that care about a sparq rating are the ones that cant hit , throw puss and cant field. I want players. Guys that can make plays , know how to run the bags , can HIT and can pitch. You go take all the so called athletes and I will just take the ball players. You will probaly beat the heck out of me in the sparq tests and I will 10 run rule you. This stuff is a gimmick in my opinion. Look, time a kid from home to first in a game. Watch him run the bases in a game. Does he know how to work a lead? Does he get good secondary leads? Does he have good baseball instincts on the bags? Does he get a good jump on the ball off the bat? CAN HE HIT? Does the ball jump out of his hand? Ill stick with these evaluators you can have sparq and other gizmos. I can see where these type of tests would be good for football. Baseball is a unique skill sport. You do not have to be a great athlete to be a great baseball player. You just have to be a ball player period.

CoachM,

I wonder what Willie Stargell's Sparq rating was?
Or Brooks Robinson.
Or Gary Carter
Or Mickey Lolich
Or Yogi Berra
Or Keith Hernandez

Need I go on?

LOL

I watched with interest as they ran the segments of the SPARQ Test and kept asking myself "What does this prove?"

Does it tell me the kid is a "player" ?

I think we are getting JUST a bit too scientific where baseball is concerned. I am with Coach MAy and ITS --a player is a player, tests or no tests !!!!

We had a young man with us last season who ran a 7.5/7.6 60 but put him on the basebpaths and he was hell on wheels--he had instincts which overcame the 7.5/7.6 60--he was our lead off hitter and left fielder and he had never played the outfield until we put him there last August