What do you guys think is more important? Would a guy draw a good amount of attention with a 7.5 60 and a 4.0 H to 1st? Or a guy with a 6.5 60 but 4.5 H to 1st?
Original Post
Replies sorted oldest to newest
That's a great question and when you look at it that way, it would make a lot more sense to take the 4.0 H to 1st guy.....but after having gone thru the recruiting process with a kid that wasn't slow by any means....especially on the bases, but never clocked good 60 times in showcases, I can tell you the 2nd guy in your scenario will get all the attention...the first guy won't likely get any.
Well, I don't think I've seen a 7.5 guy break 4 on the HTF. And a 6.5 guy should be way faster to first, so there are issues with both scenarios.
That said, to answer your question, I still think the 60 is a more consistent and accurate reflection of a player's speed. And while a really strong HTF can be a reflection of better field quickness (which is very valuable), it can also be affected by swing type and a few other variables. So, I would put more weight on the 60 and work on field quick. Both have merit. I lean more toward "you can't teach speed" which is more accurately reflected with the 60.
I see kids commit every day who haven’t cracked 7.0 on their 60, and they are committing to D1 programs as position players. A sub 7.0 sixty will definitely make you popular at the dance, but you need to be able to hit the ball and/or get on base for that to have any meaning as all.
Funny thing with the 60 times....son never ran well in a 60 at a showcase. He was an all-district forward in soccer and routinely ran away from guys. He never had any issues with speed on the baseball field...played SS and had a good stolen base percentage, but for some reason it never translated to straight line speed in a timed 60. None of the guys recruiting him as an IF ever questioned it based on seeing him play baseball, but I'm fairly certain he never broke 7.0
Conventional wisdom says the 60 time is more important. That's why every player runs a 60 at every showcase/tryout they ever attend.
The 6.5 sec 60 will get the attention. Almost every recruiting showcase uses the 60yd as their running test, and college coaches use it as their benchmark. Relative to Home to 1st, sometimes you slip at the plate and don't get a good start. If you ran a 6.5, chances are you run a 1.5yd for the first 10yd split.
The 60 is the benchmark and filter.
I was recently talking to a well regarded strength and conditioning coach in our area about the 60 and why baseball uses it. He said that while a 60 yard run doesn't really match up well with many baseball specific actions, that coaches think that it relays information about the overall athleticism of the player. A better 60 probably means that a kid has a certain musculature, can jump higher, etc. He said that he thought it a better measure than the 40, which he said was all about the start.
A player with a 6.5 60 time and a slow home to first time just needs to be taught how to get out of the box quicker. With the 7.5 60 player you can’t teach speed.
60
60 time for the position players.
Finishing the 60 for pitchers.
RJM posted:A player with a 6.5 60 time and a slow home to first time just needs to be taught how to get out of the box quicker. With the 7.5 60 player you can’t teach speed.
Agree here. a 4.5 HTF time with 6.5 60 yard dash means the batter must have a loop or a long swing. 60 seems to be a benchmark at showcases/camps for baseball. I would ask in OP how the 4.0 HTF was clocked (if truly contact to contact). 2015 is an elite runner..so he was asked if (and wanted to run) a HTF time with his plus speed. Glad he did as it opened even more doors. Low HTF time is good for MI/CF who are contact hitters. Like in pitcher cases MPH (hit 92 sitting 89) there too should be a similar mark for runners as so many factors influence times (field, weather, etc...could say "hit 6.6 seconds, "sitting 6.8s"
The 60 as a benchmark for baseball specific relates to the distance from home to 2nd base (180' = 60 yds). This is the origin of the distance used. The test is not exclusive to just speed as it translates to home - first or legging out a double, but more as an indicator to the efficiency and explosiveness of the players overall actions.
Ken Griffey Jr and Rickey Henderson had elite 60 times but were average Home to First because they both had big finishes & got out of the box late. Nobody really cared all that much about the HTF times.....
To your current coach: home to 1st
To any future coach: your 60 time
Yes Swing finish makes a big difference. Ichiro had the fastest home to first times of the league all the way to his late 30s. He was fast and being a lefty helped but once he was past age 35 there were certainly faster guys.
But he basically started running at contact while he was still following through while griffey would follow through high over his head and then down to the catchers feet with one hand while also leaning back with his upper body
That high and long follow through and especially the lean back is not conductive of starting fast (sprinters lean forward at the start).
Griffey probably lost about a third of a second to ichiro before making the first step.
Of course the fast start of the box was part of ichiros skill set as it meant defense has to play in so there are more holes to hit through. However ichiro also only hit like 7-10 HR a year so there was not much to lose. Griffey on the other hand hit 45 bombs per year and used the lean back and high finish the lift the ball more. It might have cost him some hits as defenses could play him deeper but who cares if you hit 45+ hr?
For some types fast starts out of the box can help but for most it is not worth sacrificing swing quality by cutting off the swing.
Ripken Fan posted:RJM posted:A player with a 6.5 60 time and a slow home to first time just needs to be taught how to get out of the box quicker. With the 7.5 60 player you can’t teach speed.
Agree here. a 4.5 HTF time with 6.5 60 yard dash means the batter must have a loop or a long swing. 60 seems to be a benchmark at showcases/camps for baseball. I would ask in OP how the 4.0 HTF was clocked (if truly contact to contact). 2015 is an elite runner..so he was asked if (and wanted to run) a HTF time with his plus speed. Glad he did as it opened even more doors. Low HTF time is good for MI/CF who are contact hitters. Like in pitcher cases MPH (hit 92 sitting 89) there too should be a similar mark for runners as so many factors influence times (field, weather, etc...could say "hit 6.6 seconds, "sitting 6.8s"
I don't think a long swing or a hitch would affect htf, since the clock starts with the crack and a longlot swing mostly happens before contact.
Htf is more influenced by length of follow through and posture after contact.
fenwaysouth posted:60 time for the position players.
Finishing the 60 for pitchers.
Was at a visit with son this past summer, D1 SEC. Pitching coach proudly said "of my 17 pitchers, 9 of them can run a sub 7:00 sixty".
Go44dad posted:fenwaysouth posted:60 time for the position players.
Finishing the 60 for pitchers.
Was at a visit with son this past summer, D1 SEC. Pitching coach proudly said "of my 17 pitchers, 9 of them can run a sub 7:00 sixty".
I guess that will come in handy when they have to back up 3B after giving up a shot off the wall.
Does 60 speed matter at all for pitchers? Explosive legs can help but what matters is the output, so if he throws 90+ the legs are likely fast enough.
Although longenhagen from fangraphs believes that more athletic pitchers have a better chance to improve their command later on so maybe there is a small advantage to the better athlete if two guys both throw 92 but then again CC and Bartolo still pitched in the majors last year
We're getting off topic here. My comment was meant as a half joke, half truth for aspiring college pitchers that I overheard my son's travel coach say many years ago....and I agree with him 100%. If a pitcher can run a sub 7.0 second 60 yards that is great for him athletically but it doesn't offer much in the way of helping a baseball team whether they are from the SEC or any other college baseball conference. I'd much rather see an athletic pitcher that can field his position and make accurate throws to first base than run a sub 7 second 60. I've seen plenty of athletic college pitchers who can't do either of those things much less throw four balls for an intentional walk (under the old rules). Too often we get hung up on metrics and not actual baseball skills, and this is one of those situations. As far as pitching goes, running a fast 60 yard dash has no real value. Throwing strikes, getting people out, not walking people, initiating groundball doubleplay opportunities, and fielding from the pitcher position offers lots of value. Again, JMO.
Boy that's a great post Fenway. You know it reminds me of a conversation I had recently with a former coach at a local D1. The program he was at was and is a perennial bottom feeder. I asked him why they didn't change their recruiting philosophy because what they had been doing for years obviously didn't work. What do they do? Well they have metrics they follow. Kid needs to throw this hard, run this fast, have this build, etc etc. So what happens? They get the left overs after the UNC's NCSU's ECU's UNCW's take their pick. They get the guys with the metrics but can't freaking play. So the ballers who don't hit the metrics end up at the D2 or the JC and sometimes walk on and become studs at their rival school.
I am amazed sometimes at the inability of some to understand metrics are an indicator of potential ability. They are not an indicator of actual ability to play the game. Why do some programs never have a top 20 recruiting class but always are in the mix? They understand what I am talking about. Why are some programs routinely pathetic? They play the metrics game and miss on the guys who can actually play the game.
What's more important a good 60 or a good home to first time? Well the better 60 should produce the better home to first time. The metrics would say so. But the fact is the guy who gets their faster is better. What's more important - the more athletic SS or the more productive SS? What's more important - the guy who can throw harder or the guy who get's hitters out?
The ability to hit the metrics and play - yes. The ability to hit the metrics but can't play - no. The metrics are an indication that the ability to play at a certain level is present - IF. The metrics are an indication that the ability to play at a certain level are not present - But. So I would tell any player always improve your metrics it will make you a better player. If you can actually play.
Interesting stuff. We have a kid with great speed (6.6-6.7 sixty) who can't get a good jump from first for his life. His reads on pitchers is just not good and, to top it off, discipline at the plate is questionable so he does not walk much. Yet coaches stick him at the top of the lineup every game praying he will figure it out. I guess to me, great speed only matters if you can put it to proper and effective use.
Coach_May posted:Boy that's a great post Fenway. You know it reminds me of a conversation I had recently with a former coach at a local D1. The program he was at was and is a perennial bottom feeder. I asked him why they didn't change their recruiting philosophy because what they had been doing for years obviously didn't work. What do they do? Well they have metrics they follow. Kid needs to throw this hard, run this fast, have this build, etc etc. So what happens? They get the left overs after the UNC's NCSU's ECU's UNCW's take their pick. They get the guys with the metrics but can't freaking play. So the ballers who don't hit the metrics end up at the D2 or the JC and sometimes walk on and become studs at their rival school.
I am amazed sometimes at the inability of some to understand metrics are an indicator of potential ability. They are not an indicator of actual ability to play the game. Why do some programs never have a top 20 recruiting class but always are in the mix? They understand what I am talking about. Why are some programs routinely pathetic? They play the metrics game and miss on the guys who can actually play the game.
What's more important a good 60 or a good home to first time? Well the better 60 should produce the better home to first time. The metrics would say so. But the fact is the guy who gets their faster is better. What's more important - the more athletic SS or the more productive SS? What's more important - the guy who can throw harder or the guy who get's hitters out?
The ability to hit the metrics and play - yes. The ability to hit the metrics but can't play - no. The metrics are an indication that the ability to play at a certain level is present - IF. The metrics are an indication that the ability to play at a certain level are not present - But. So I would tell any player always improve your metrics it will make you a better player. If you can actually play.
This should be another one of those required reads for young players and parents. With the measurables becoming such a prominent discussion point in the recruiting and draft world, many forget that these are only points of separation AFTER the player has shown that he has developed into a player.
How many times do we see new threads here that consist of ... "my kid throws xmph of the mound and xmph across the diamond - is he D1?" "my kid runs a 6.6 60 - can he play D1?" "my kid has a 88 exit velo as a freshman - should he be talking to colleges?" "my kid has a 4.0 GPA - can he play at Stanford?"
Those can never be answered without knowing "can he play?".