What makes pitchers successful at the HS level?

Of course they would and that the whole point! The hardest pitch to hit is one thrown on the lowest and furthest corner from the batter. If pitchers could hit that spot whenever they wanted with whatever they wanted, they’d have a heck a lot of success too, but that doesn’t happen a whole lot either.

 

This pitching stuff is a heck of a lot more difficult than people make it out to be, and the hitting stuff ain’t so easy either. In fact, its so difficult there’s no need to make excuses for failure, and a true insult to the players when people try to make it seem easy.

 

If people would think about it, batters who reach base safely 40% of the time and pitchers who can throw strikes 65% of the time are considered pretty good at the HS or above level, and that’s a heck of a lot of failure.

 

They are, but what’s the point?

 

Im going to go out on a limb here and say the point was, that is what her son's college pitching coach considers successful.  I know, call me crazy. 

First pitch strikes to each batter is what feeds the pitcher's psyche, he's already ahead.

 

First pitch strikes don't always benefit the pitcher as in the example of the HR. As we all know,  hits are measured as hits but a strike in pitch counts (as SDBB mentioned) strike/ball ratio is what is measured as an important stat. Yes it's great to keep all off the bases, but impossible.   Walks or lack of is what moves pitchers forward or not, as extra base hits considered a no no for pitchers as it is a plus for hitters.

 

I find no importance in HS stats, they do get mentioned at draft time, but IMO wins, losses, batting average, SO, K has more revelance than the more detailed stuff, but even then you will find more detailed info on other attributes scouts look for other than stats.  Seems to me that stats are  mentioned more about college players than HS. I just don't see how anyone can measure a HS players success at the next level unless a phenom, impossible. There are so many factors to deternine success, just as they are at any level to determine success.

What makes a HS pitcher successful is simple, winning games,  all the other stuff is irrevelant.

 

However, keep in mind that winning at any level is a team effort, so the pitcher may not have had a successful outing but got the win because the hitters did their job. I agree that a win is a win, but the more talented one is the more it matters to coaches and scouts.

 

I was reading over the highlights of milb games this week. I know some guys who have lot of wins in their league and better ERA's than the top prospects, but they aren't mentioned much and they produce good results game after game. Same with some college pitchers.  The stats don't seem to matter much at times.

 

Why would you suppose that is?

 

A pitchers ERA is the best overall tool for measuring the success or failure of a pitcher. All other stats are  subsets of the ERA. A pitcher who can do something, whatever it be, to lower his ERA is going to be more successful. Perhaps a pitcher is walking too many batters and those runners are coming around to score. Why is he walking so many? For one pitcher on our team, too many walks was because of throwing too many breaking balls that were not thrown for strikes- weak command of the off speed pitch. For another pitcher he was giving up too many hits. Video footage along with stats showed too many pitches for strikes in the same area of the strike zone. So, even though he had an incredibly high first pitch strike and overall strike % his ERA was climbing. The fix for him? moving the strikes around the zone better. For any pitcher, being able to locate pitches down in the zone lowers ERA's.  A stat I really like is the WHIP because overall it can measure  the effectiveness of a pitcher being similar to the ERA. Pretty simple- limit walks and hits per inning and you lower the ERA. Whether your offense can bring run support or not for the pitchers, wins and losses dont have as much impact for me because too often good offense can mask a bad pitching outing for a winning pitcher just as a lack of offense can make a pitcher look bad. Truth is, no pitcher wants to pitch for a weak offensive team because wins are going to be difficult to get. Strikeouts also dont say much about a pitchers effectiveness. The leading SO pitcher on our team is by far not the best pitcher with a higher ERA and WHIP.

It continues to baffle me why these types of things get overlooked from the transition from HS to college/pros. We live in a society where velocity and size of pitcher height is paramount even though there is no statistal proof that higher velocity guys or taller pitchers are more successful.

In general there are many different things that can affect a pitchers stats.

One interesting stat can measure the defense behind him (BABIP).  For example,  a pitcher may have a weak team behind him, his ERA might be higher than a pitcher who has a better team to back him up.

 

That's why I believe most college coaches/scouts have more interest in the radar gun than the ERA, WHIP etc on the HS level.

 

http://www.fangraphs.com/library/pitching/babip/

Im going to go out on a limb here and say the point was, that is what her son's college pitching coach considers successful.  I know, call me crazy. 

 

OK, and what pertinence does that have to a thread about HS success?

Originally Posted by TPM:... I find no importance in HS stats, they do get mentioned at draft time, …

 

And it always seems to get back to this because people simply can’t separate “NOW” as opposed to what lies beyond. Of course you don’t find any importance in HS stats because you haven’t got a day to day investment it HSB! But show me a HS coach, player, or parent who doesn’t find ANY importance in them. I’ll venture a guess that when your son was playing HSB, you knew exactly what his BA and ERA were, and often thought in terms of what an at bat did to affect his numbers.

 

…I just don't see how anyone can measure a HS players success at the next level unless a phenom, impossible. …

 

I’ll try once more. The OP wasn’t about how to predict success at the next level!

 

What makes a HS pitcher successful is simple, winning games,  all the other stuff is irrevelant.

 

Do you have any idea how many HS pitchers never get a win or loss? Does that mean every HS pitcher who never got credited for a win isn’t successful?

 

However, keep in mind that winning at any level is a team effort, so the pitcher may not have had a successful outing but got the win because the hitters did their job. I agree that a win is a win, but the more talented one is the more it matters to coaches and scouts.

 

So what is it? Talent or W’s and L’s? If its talent, how do you measure it?

 

I was reading over the highlights of milb games this week. I know some guys who have lot of wins in their league and better ERA's than the top prospects, but they aren't mentioned much and they produce good results game after game. Same with some college pitchers.  The stats don't seem to matter much at times.

 

Why would you suppose that is?

 

Why do you keep dragging the conversation away from HSB?

 

Originally Posted by Skylark:

…It continues to baffle me why these types of things get overlooked from the transition from HS to college/pros. We live in a society where velocity and size of pitcher height is paramount even though there is no statistal proof that higher velocity guys or taller pitchers are more successful.

 

They don’t necessarily get overlooked, but they most certainly aren’t near the top of the “importance” ladder.

 

Let’s try to be as accurate as possible. There is lots of evidence that those are the most successful guys, but that’s only because they are the ones who overwhelmingly get the opportunities.

Originally Posted by TPM:

…That's why I believe most college coaches/scouts have more interest in the radar gun than the ERA, WHIP etc on the HS level.

 

Try to keep focused on ONLY the HS level. Is the radar gun reading still the most important stat?

Every year I see kids who are completely legitimate who get overlooked by the  bigger colleges/draft, pros, etc. I know its all about projection and what not but I see a big hole in correctly evaluating and finding the right talent in high school who will or should play at high levels in the future.

I said ERA for HS pitchers, but all pitchers stats are subjective. He can be a greatr pitcher on a not so defensive or hitting team, or he could be just a meh pitcher on a team with sluggers that can out hit the competition.

Or the scorekeeper gave him credit where it was or wasn't due.

What in your opinion is completely legitimate for a HS pitcher?  The ERA?  The SO?  The W?

So you are saying that college coaches and scouts don't know what they are looking for or what will work at the next level and what will not and you do? Are you making your evaluation based on where you live or the entire country?  Understand that every player in HS is in competition with every player that is in their graduation year. There is a big reason why the bigger D1 programs from big conferences go after players in certain states, just as there is a reason why the most get drafted from TX, FL, CA. They play against better competition and better talent.

 

 

Originally Posted by Skylark:

Every year I see kids who are completely legitimate who get overlooked by the  bigger colleges/draft, pros, etc. I know its all about projection and what not but I see a big hole in correctly evaluating and finding the right talent in high school who will or should play at high levels in the future.

 

I think you’re spot on. Its not that the job they do of prognostication doesn’t meet their needs, but rather that it could be done a heck of a lot more efficiently and identify many players at least as good as what they find now. IOW, they miss a lot of good players who could easily have success at the next level.

Originally Posted by TPM:

I said ERA for HS pitchers, but all pitchers stats are subjective. He can be a greatr pitcher on a not so defensive or hitting team, or he could be just a meh pitcher on a team with sluggers that can out hit the competition.

Or the scorekeeper gave him credit where it was or wasn't due.

 

But as soon as you mix in what scouts are looking for, you’ve shot right past talking about HS.

 

And while many stats are subjective, not ALL are. It depends what metric you feel is important.

 

 

What in your opinion is completely legitimate for a HS pitcher?  The ERA?  The SO?  The W?

 

Depends on the philosophy of the guy heading up the program. In ours its not giving up free bases by the pitcher, whether its hitting a batter, walking him, throwing wild pitches, or having a slow delivery that allow a lot of stolen bases.

 

So you are saying that college coaches and scouts don't know what they are looking for or what will work at the next level and what will not and you do?

 

Don’t think Skylark meant that at all, and I know I didn’t!

 

…There is a big reason why the bigger D1 programs from big conferences go after players in certain states, just as there is a reason why the most get drafted from TX, FL, CA. They play against better competition and better talent.

 

Is it at least POSSIBLE that they gravitate to those areas for the same reason hockey scouts go to northern climes, i.e. that there are simply more players there?
 

 

 

Wow, go away for a few days and look what happens...

 

When I said strike one was the best pitch in baseball, I really meant it. Not because it is easy to throw, but because throwing it makes pitchers successful. I don't know much about stats and how to develop them, but if you compared % of first pitch strikes against wins and % of first pitch balls against losses that might be interesting.

 

Unsuccessful pitchers fall behind in the count and HAVE to throw strikes or walk people. The best HS pitchers throw their out pitch on strike one for a strike (in the zone). If it is taken, it is strike one. If it is hit, it is most often a one pitch out.

 

Low pitch counts are important in HS as you have to average <14.3 pitches per inning to finish a 7 inning game with 100 pitches, which in my experience is the magic number for getting pulled, assuming the pitcher is otherwise effective. Another way to not be successful is to have your pitch count up in the 6th, put the first three runners on and then turn it over to the bullpen. I've seen that go terribly wrong as well.

 

I would much rather use RA than ERA as the metric for effectiveness. The best HS pitchers can pitch around an error or two and that makes them more valuable.

 

My son's college team uses first pitch strike percentage and every pitcher knows theirs. With a nine inning game it is even more important to get one pitch outs. To finish a nine inning game in 100 pitches, <11.1 pitches/inning are required. Of course in college, they will allow the starters to go 125, or 135 or ...

Originally Posted by JMoff:

When I said strike one was the best pitch in baseball, I really meant it. Not because it is easy to throw, but because throwing it makes pitchers successful. I don't know much about stats and how to develop them, but if you compared % of first pitch strikes against wins and % of first pitch balls against losses that might be interesting.

 

Well, I haven’t done it by 1^st pitch balls, but here’s what I’ve done for the last 10 years or so with 1^st pitch strikes and strike percentages.

 

http://www.infosports.com/scor...r/images/comppct.pdf

 

You made a great point about RA vs ERA at the HS level, and really any amateur level.

 

I don’t think 100 is the magic number as much as 15 PPI is. It pretty standard to look at the inning, multiply it by 15 and see where the pitch count is in relation.

Interesting as there are lot of low first strike percentages that resulted in wins. Maybe I'm all wet or PG has a lot of really good hitters.

 

Nohting helps a starting pitcher more than his offense scoring a ton of runs.

Originally Posted by JMoff:

Interesting as there are lot of low first strike percentages that resulted in wins. Maybe I'm all wet or PG has a lot of really good hitters.

 

Nohting helps a starting pitcher more than his offense scoring a ton of runs.

 

One reason I enjoy communicating with you, is that you actually take the time to look at information that MIGHT add to the conversation.

 

I don’t think you’re all wet, and I know we don’t have a lot of really good hitters. In fact, I’d say our hitters were what I’d characterize as generally above average, but certainly not far above average.

 

I think the thing to take away from information like that is, it validates the idea that throwing 1^st pitch strikes generally leads to more wins than losses. If you looked at the last 2 reports, you can see something I think might me a bit more telling, at least about our team. 147 wins by teams with the highest strike percentage, but only 136 by teams with the highest 1^st pitch strike percentage. So if anything, it looks to me as though strike percentage is more important, and if you think about it, it makes some sense. A low strike percentage generally means walks or at least being behind in the count, and that’s never a good thing.

 

Here’s something else you or anyone else might want to opine about. I’ve been tracking times between pitches and finally decided to do something with it. This is the 1^st thing I did because I wanted to see if there were any tendencies. The pitchers are our pitchers from 2013.

 

http://www.infosports.com/scor...ages/pitchtimes1.pdf

 

 

Haha. Most get drafted from those states because theres more schools. Thats retarded. We have good

competition here in the northwest.
I see a hole with a lot of good talent that gets overlooked due to a myriad of factors. And no, scouts and recruiters arent the best at finding the best talent. Most dont put in the time or work to find it. Then theres politics and all the baggage that goes with that. I know of two local kids right off who are tremendous athletes- hit for power, run hard, throw hard (90 mph) who werent even on any radars because of politics, poor recruiting/scouting, etc. One kid, the ace for his team, was sandbagged by his own team so that other younger kids could get the spotlight. It happens everywhere. If you are lucky you may get seen in these parts. But, it happens everywhere also. I have been around long enough to know there are major holes in how scouts and recruiters do their job. We went to one of the largest organized events last year (USA baseball in Peoria) and their werent even one recruiter or scout at the game where our best pitcher threw because it was "too hot". It happens, scouts and recruiters cant see every game, cant see every player, but I believe most of it is just a slackness on their part for not being completely organized in their efforts.

Say what???? In my forty-plus years of involvement in organized baseball, I have never seen a kid who throws 90 get missed on everyone's radar.  I don't care what the politics are, some scouts are going to know about a kid throwing 90, let alone two who are also tremendous athletes.

 

My travels have included your Pacific Northwest and I have engaged in dialog with travel and HS coaches as well as summer college programs there and they go gaga over big strong P's just like they do everywhere else in the country.

 

To imply that scouts are so lazy and/or disorganized that they would miss such a pair is really a stretch.  The ones I talk to are always aware of the top tier talent in their area and always asking about any they may be missing.

 

There are always gonna be people who believe the myth that scouts and college coaches find ALL the great talent, because they believe in their hearts that the cream always rises to the top. Then there will always be some who believe in their hearts that choosing talent for the levels beyond HS is nothing but another place where $$$$$, nepotism, and/or location can buy a place in the sun, because they’ve seen it happen with their own eyes.

 

The truth is something right in the middle. There’s just no way short of bankrupting the organization for any team or school. to see EVERY eligible athlete and evaluate them in great depth. In short, the system has a lot of “built-in” inefficiencies, and as time goes on as the ability to easily overcome them is available, things do get better. Travel and communications have made scouting much much different than it was even just a few decades ago, and the use of higher level statistics is currently the thing that is coming into its own.

 

Face it. The system ain’t perfect, and it ain’t likely to get noticeably better in time for any of us who have much of a use for it for our children. But, it will get better.

I agree with you. It just isn't feasible or cost effective to have scouts in areas that don't draw what they are looking for. The age of the internet and scouting events, heavily reliance on certain stats,  have changed much of the way things are done now.

If you want to get noticed, never wait for anyone to come looking for you, you have to go out into the world where you might find the right people, the right places at the right time.

Too hot is not an option for scouts, they watch in snow, heat, rain, cold.  maybe they were there, not just watching at that game. 

 

You hit directly onto a point I am  making. If you go and ask ten HS coaches who the best talent is you may be right 50% of the time. I have overheard conversations of scouts asking about talent and a coach give them a completely biased opinion and even intentionally say bad things about good talent as a a way of some kind of sabotage or jealousy, etc. People just are either dishonest or are completely blind. My son was recently invited to a top showcase in our area but after going to the event the previous years my son said he would rather pitch in front of Hellen Keller and passed on the opportunity because of the obvious deficiencies in the system. I am honest in how I see talent. When I get asked who i think the top talent is I always mention who I honestly think is the best based upon a myriad of factors. Its sad that others are like Hellen Keller and are just blind to it all or so far biased they might as well be blind.

Well, I'm a HS coach, so, with bias, I obviously would disagree.  Without bias, 90 is 90 and one coach telling a scout something different is not going to keep the baseball community from knowing about a kid like this.  That was my point.

I don't think that good scouts or college coaches ask the local HS coaches or parents who the best players are, because they realize it's a matter of opinion.

 

 

TPM,

 

I think it likely that SOME scouts ask SOME coaches, but I doubt that it’s an everyday occurrence or that coaches are counted on all that much. Sure there are gonna be some coaches a scoit has grown to know and who’s judgment they trust, but in general if a scout wants an intermediate opinion, he’ll send one of his birddogs to take a look.

 

The problem with MANY HS coaches, is they tend to judge talent by the reading on a gun like many here.