Which is more attractive to a college coach?

Midlo said: What troubles me about these sorts of threads is that we seem to get them every so often, and it always seems to turn out that someone is frustrated because their son shuts down his HS and travel opponents, but it's the higher velo guy who gets all the recruiting interest even if he walks the opposing lineup.  Just chill and let things play out, it'll all be fine.

And Golfman said they had 2 D1 LHP commits...

Gotta say, maybe it is just this year or things are changing but Just not having that experience.  

Maybe one explanation is that the number of 90 guys is increasing and maybe that is crowding others out?  

Twoboys posted:

Midlo said: What troubles me about these sorts of threads is that we seem to get them every so often, and it always seems to turn out that someone is frustrated because their son shuts down his HS and travel opponents, but it's the higher velo guy who gets all the recruiting interest even if he walks the opposing lineup.  Just chill and let things play out, it'll all be fine.

And Golfman said they had 2 D1 LHP commits...

Gotta say, maybe it is just this year or things are changing but Just not having that experience.  

Maybe one explanation is that the number of 90 guys is increasing and maybe that is crowding others out?  

I think everyone only focuses on the "Power 5."  A lot of talk about the SEC teams.  It's borderline pro ball.  But there is a lot of other baseball out there.  The two LHP Mid 80's (and under 6 foot) we have are committed to AAC team and a MAC team. 

roothog66 posted:

2017LHPscrewball posted:

roothog66 posted:

2020.2023dad posted:

roothog66 posted:

2020.2023dad posted:

I have been told they will also look at effort exerted.  The kid doing max effort (every ounce of his body) to touch 90 may not be as promising as the one who is throwing 87 with ease over and over again. And someone mentioned the lefty factor as well.  

True,though it always makes me laugh because the small kid will always look like he's exerting more energy than the larger, longer kid even when the reality is that they are both exerting the same full effort. I think a better analysis (which is what they are probably trying to get at when they talk exertion) is how smooth and repeatable does the delivery look.

Right. Smaller pitcher typically HAS to use every once of his body to match a bigger kid's velocity so that is really what they are talking about.  And just like mechanics it means there's room for improvement.   I agree though "smooth and repeatable" is a great way to look at it.   

 

Not really. My suggestion is that taller, longer kids have longer limbs and so, with effort that doesn't differ at all from smaller pitchers, it just appears that they are exerting less effort when, in reality, there is no effort difference at all. Even with two pitchers of similar stature, I think one kid can be at 90% effort and just look like he's exerting more effort than another kid, simply due to too many moving parts in his delivery. It's definitely something recruiters pay attention to, I'm just not sure that they aren't fooling themselves if they think it means anything at all as it pertains to projectability.

I fall into the category that thinks taller pitchers have a mechanical advantage when throwing.  Ever see the guys competing the the long drive contest - they tend to use the longer shafts to get the added clubhead speed.  Taller kid - ALL OTHER THINGS CONSTANT - will have quicker hand speed.  I will admit the ALL OTHER THINGS CONSTANT is a tough nut to crack and you will never see two identical pitchers.  That said, two kids, one 5-11 the other 6-4, both with solid mechanics and both throwing 88 mph.  The 5-11 kid, based on physics, has to develop hand speed that is - proportional to his height - higher than the tall kid such that their actual hand speeds are identical (and therefore they throw the same velocity).  I would suggest that the 6-4 kid is probably throwing appropriately whereas the 5-11 kid has probably learned to ramp things up a notch so he can hang in and compete in the upper 80's.  It would suggest that the 6-4 kid has additional upside (if they then learn to ramp things up) whereas the 5-11 kid may have topped out.  

All this breaks down at the individual level, but if someone is looking at 100-200 pitchers that are all good pitchers, then you need a way to pick and choose among them and high effort versus low effort, IMO, can be one of those factors.

Here's something from Kyle that you might find interesting:

https://www.drivelinebaseball....-in-pitchers-matter/

While it deals with pitchers, the same may hold true as to "fast hands." What further study has found is that in terms of "arm speed" as it is normally measured, there is very little difference from pitcher to pitcher. Heck, it finds that most high school kids have equal or faster arm speed than pros. So how is it that some mlb pitcher with the same arm speed s a HS freshman throws 25mph harder? The idea is that as bodies mature, they develpo longer and stronger limbs. Those limbs require greater force of strength to generate the same arm speed. Where we see the difference is with the whip effect. In other words, if you measured speeds at the wrist to finger, you would see greater velocities through the pitch with bigger stronger, longer limbs because the velocity from the arm is amplified down the forearm because the greater torque required for Chapman to reach the same arm speed as a skinny 14yo freshman translates to greater point velocity (as compared to angular velocity - the traditional method of determining "arm speed"). So, longer, denser arms require greater torque to reach the same arm speed as skinnier, less developed limbs and this increased torque creates greater velocities of delivery.

In the end it is about power output. The longer limbed guy does need less angular displacement to reach the same linear fingertip speed but the longer limb has a higher inertia to overcome. In the end the force will be about the same. The female Olympic champion also has a higher Stride frequency than Usain bolt (as she is about 5"6 or so) but she is a second slower because she puts less force into the ground.

The taller guy still has a slight advantage because he has a longer arm path to accelerate but still there are tons of 5"11 guys in pro ball throwing 98+. There is no doubt that height is an advantage but by far the biggest factor is the wattage of power that a guy can produce.

Midlo Dad posted:

What troubles me about these sorts of threads is that we seem to get them every so often, and it always seems to turn out that someone is frustrated because their son shuts down his HS and travel opponents, but it's the higher velo guy who gets all the recruiting interest even if he walks the opposing lineup.  Just chill and let things play out, it'll all be fine.

Actually, this is some of the better advice given to us by folks that went through the process before us.  You will see all types of players committing, some of them you will look at and say to yourself, "really?".  Or as parents you will think your child is better, in some cases thats true, in others its not.  There is nothing you can do to control what kids certain colleges like.  Most coaches have a particular type of player they like and they stick to that type of player.  If your son is not one, but a less skilled teammate is, they are going to recruit the less skilled teammate.  There is nothing you can do about it.  A lot of times the schools have very few openings and are searching for a certain type of player.  For instance they maybe looking for a player who is quick and hits for average, and your son hits for power and its a step slower.  Yet the quicker, hit for average, player is a little less skilled in the field, they are going to overlook your son for the player type they are looking for.  Again, there is nothing you can do to control what they are looking for.

In the end all you can do is control what you can control and let the process play out.  If you attempt to put some sense to why certain kids are committing and others are not you will end up insane.  

joes87 posted:

Midlo Dad posted:

What troubles me about these sorts of threads is that we seem to get them every so often, and it always seems to turn out that someone is frustrated because their son shuts down his HS and travel opponents, but it's the higher velo guy who gets all the recruiting interest even if he walks the opposing lineup.  Just chill and let things play out, it'll all be fine.

Actually, this is some of the better advice given to us by folks that went through the process before us.  You will see all types of players committing, some of them you will look at and say to yourself, "really?".  Or as parents you will think your child is better, in some cases thats true, in others its not.  There is nothing you can do to control what kids certain colleges like.  Most coaches have a particular type of player they like and they stick to that type of player.  If your son is not one, but a less skilled teammate is, they are going to recruit the less skilled teammate.  There is nothing you can do about it.  A lot of times the schools have very few openings and are searching for a certain type of player.  For instance they maybe looking for a player who is quick and hits for average, and your son hits for power and its a step slower.  Yet the quicker, hit for average, player is a little less skilled in the field, they are going to overlook your son for the player type they are looking for.  Again, there is nothing you can do to control what they are looking for.

In the end all you can do is control what you can control and let the process play out.  If you attempt to put some sense to why certain kids are committing and others are not you will end up insane.  

I'll tell you what as well.  Look at where the kid is 1 or 2 years later.  Very few from my area stick at the same place for more than a year.  A lot transitions.  It's hard to keep up.   

Looking at recruiting and who has committed and comparing them to others is a waste of time. So much more goes into these decisions than most people realize. It's a very complicated analysis. I'll give you an example of how geography and budgets play a role. A major D1 school will fully fund 11.7 scholarships. Lower D1's may not - I have dealt with one mid-major where the school funds only 3.0 scholarships. In addition to the 11.7 scholarship limit, the school sets a budget for the program, so they have to conform to that as well. So, my example will be Arkansas.

If you look at the list of recruits you will see that almost all of them come from in-state, boarder states or Illinois. Now, you may look and see some kid from Illinois committed and think, My kid is a superior recruit to that kid and "we've been talking to Arkansas, why haven't they offered my son? Whaaa!" (that's my wife, by the way - I have to explain this to her, as well). The U of A has a reciprocal deal with all of its boarder states and with Illinois whereby students from those states pay in-state tuition rates (or slightly above depending on grades). In-state tuition at Arkansas is about $9,000 and non-resident about $20,000. So, a 50% offer to a kid from Colorado and a 50% offer to a kid from Missouri both count as .5 against their 11.7 limit. However, the kid from Colorado eats up $11,000 per year more of their budget. The kid from Colorado is a bigger risk, budget-wise.

This is just an example of one factor that affects recruiting. There are many more that have been discussed and many we probably don't even think about.

Dominik85 posted:

roothog66 posted:

2017LHPscrewball posted:

roothog66 posted:

2020.2023dad posted:

roothog66 posted:

2020.2023dad posted:

I have been told they will also look at effort exerted.  The kid doing max effort (every ounce of his body) to touch 90 may not be as promising as the one who is throwing 87 with ease over and over again. And someone mentioned the lefty factor as well.  

True,though it always makes me laugh because the small kid will always look like he's exerting more energy than the larger, longer kid even when the reality is that they are both exerting the same full effort. I think a better analysis (which is what they are probably trying to get at when they talk exertion) is how smooth and repeatable does the delivery look.

Right. Smaller pitcher typically HAS to use every once of his body to match a bigger kid's velocity so that is really what they are talking about.  And just like mechanics it means there's room for improvement.   I agree though "smooth and repeatable" is a great way to look at it.   

 

Not really. My suggestion is that taller, longer kids have longer limbs and so, with effort that doesn't differ at all from smaller pitchers, it just appears that they are exerting less effort when, in reality, there is no effort difference at all. Even with two pitchers of similar stature, I think one kid can be at 90% effort and just look like he's exerting more effort than another kid, simply due to too many moving parts in his delivery. It's definitely something recruiters pay attention to, I'm just not sure that they aren't fooling themselves if they think it means anything at all as it pertains to projectability.

I fall into the category that thinks taller pitchers have a mechanical advantage when throwing.  Ever see the guys competing the the long drive contest - they tend to use the longer shafts to get the added clubhead speed.  Taller kid - ALL OTHER THINGS CONSTANT - will have quicker hand speed.  I will admit the ALL OTHER THINGS CONSTANT is a tough nut to crack and you will never see two identical pitchers.  That said, two kids, one 5-11 the other 6-4, both with solid mechanics and both throwing 88 mph.  The 5-11 kid, based on physics, has to develop hand speed that is - proportional to his height - higher than the tall kid such that their actual hand speeds are identical (and therefore they throw the same velocity).  I would suggest that the 6-4 kid is probably throwing appropriately whereas the 5-11 kid has probably learned to ramp things up a notch so he can hang in and compete in the upper 80's.  It would suggest that the 6-4 kid has additional upside (if they then learn to ramp things up) whereas the 5-11 kid may have topped out.  

All this breaks down at the individual level, but if someone is looking at 100-200 pitchers that are all good pitchers, then you need a way to pick and choose among them and high effort versus low effort, IMO, can be one of those factors.

Here's something from Kyle that you might find interesting:

https://www.drivelinebaseball....-in-pitchers-matter/

While it deals with pitchers, the same may hold true as to "fast hands." What further study has found is that in terms of "arm speed" as it is normally measured, there is very little difference from pitcher to pitcher. Heck, it finds that most high school kids have equal or faster arm speed than pros. So how is it that some mlb pitcher with the same arm speed s a HS freshman throws 25mph harder? The idea is that as bodies mature, they develpo longer and stronger limbs. Those limbs require greater force of strength to generate the same arm speed. Where we see the difference is with the whip effect. In other words, if you measured speeds at the wrist to finger, you would see greater velocities through the pitch with bigger stronger, longer limbs because the velocity from the arm is amplified down the forearm because the greater torque required for Chapman to reach the same arm speed as a skinny 14yo freshman translates to greater point velocity (as compared to angular velocity - the traditional method of determining "arm speed"). So, longer, denser arms require greater torque to reach the same arm speed as skinnier, less developed limbs and this increased torque creates greater velocities of delivery.

In the end it is about power output. The longer limbed guy does need less angular displacement to reach the same linear fingertip speed but the longer limb has a higher inertia to overcome. In the end the force will be about the same. The female Olympic champion also has a higher Stride frequency than Usain bolt (as she is about 5"6 or so) but she is a second slower because she puts less force into the ground.

The taller guy still has a slight advantage because he has a longer arm path to accelerate but still there are tons of 5"11 guys in pro ball throwing 98+. There is no doubt that height is an advantage but by far the biggest factor is the wattage of power that a guy can produce.

Dom I think our first ever real disagreement!  There are not tons of 5'11" guys throwing 98. Look up MLB rosters. Can't even hardly find guys under 6'0". Again as spin rates become more prevalent I think that may change but not now.  

2020dad posted:

Dom I think our first ever real disagreement!  There are not tons of 5'11" guys throwing 98. Look up MLB rosters. Can't even hardly find guys under 6'0". Again as spin rates become more prevalent I think that may change but. It. Ow. 

Generally agree, but one caveat, 2020: the MLB rosters list inflated height. All the 6'0" guys are -- at best -- 5'11", many 5'10" or 5'10.5"; many of the 6'1" guys are really 5'11" or 5'11.5". . . etc. (just stand next to an MLB player sometime, and then look up his listed height; btw, this is not specific to MLB; all the sports seems to do it)

Ok I have now read the thing Kyle wrote. And it totally supports longer limbs as a huge advantage. It also says the force requires to get those bigger limbs going is greater. The angular velocity he speaks of does not take into account how far the limb reaches and he explains this well. So longer limbs with enough force applied to create equal angular velocity = greater pitch velocity. So big AND strong is the key. Remember even 5oz offers resistance when you are trying to get it moving 90+ mph! 

2019Dad posted:

2020dad posted:

Dom I think our first ever real disagreement!  There are not tons of 5'11" guys throwing 98. Look up MLB rosters. Can't even hardly find guys under 6'0". Again as spin rates become more prevalent I think that may change but. It. Ow. 

Generally agree, but one caveat, 2020: the MLB rosters list inflated height. All the 6'0" guys are -- at best -- 5'11", many 5'10" or 5'10.5"; many of the 6'1" guys are really 5'11" or 5'11.5". . . etc. (just stand next to an MLB player sometime, and then look up his listed height; btw, this is not specific to MLB; all the sports seems to do it)

Totally get that. Son listed this year at 6'4". Now that he is 6'4" football coaches already told him he will be listed 6'5" next year even if he's done growing!  But when we have these conversations we have to work with the info we actually have. But even if you included those listed at 6'0" I think you would find fewer than you might expect. Average pitcher height is now over 6'3" now I think. 

I will add, when I say things will work out, I'm assuming the player is working the process correctly. 

If he's sitting home playing HS and Legion ball and wondering why no one contacts him, that's another story.

I also cannot emphasize enough that while discussion on these boards focuses so much on the baseball opportunity, other factors do (and truly should) often control the ultimate decisions.  Academics (including academic level, admissions standards, NCAA eligibility rules, availability of certain desired majors, etc.) and cost factors come ahead of the baseball factors.  And when you're comparing your son to some other player, it bears reminding yourself that you are not privy to how those matters factor into that player's decision. 

2020dad posted:

2019Dad posted:

2020dad posted:

Dom I think our first ever real disagreement!  There are not tons of 5'11" guys throwing 98. Look up MLB rosters. Can't even hardly find guys under 6'0". Again as spin rates become more prevalent I think that may change but. It. Ow. 

Generally agree, but one caveat, 2020: the MLB rosters list inflated height. All the 6'0" guys are -- at best -- 5'11", many 5'10" or 5'10.5"; many of the 6'1" guys are really 5'11" or 5'11.5". . . etc. (just stand next to an MLB player sometime, and then look up his listed height; btw, this is not specific to MLB; all the sports seems to do it)

Totally get that. Son listed this year at 6'4". Now that he is 6'4" football coaches already told him he will be listed 6'5" next year even if he's done growing!  But when we have these conversations we have to work with the info we actually have. But even if you included those listed at 6'0" I think you would find fewer than you might expect. Average pitcher height is now over 6'3" now I think. 

Hah! This is a serious argument my wife and I have had. My son is a legit 6' 4" maybe a half inch above. My wife always tries to go in and change his height to 6' 5". Her argument is that because everyone else we see has obviously done it (I often see my son standing next to guys listed at 6' 5" and he towers over them), when recruiters/scouts see him listed at 6' 4" they will assume he's probably really 6' 2". 

Hah! This is a serious argument my wife and I have had. My son is a legit 6' 4" maybe a half inch above. My wife always tries to go in and change his height to 6' 5". Her argument is that because everyone else we see has obviously done it (I often see my son standing next to guys listed at 6' 5" and he towers over them), when recruiters/scouts see him listed at 6' 4" they will assume he's probably really 6' 2". 

No shame in rounding up assuming you take your measurement in stocking feet

2017LHPscrewball posted:

Hah! This is a serious argument my wife and I have had. My son is a legit 6' 4" maybe a half inch above. My wife always tries to go in and change his height to 6' 5". Her argument is that because everyone else we see has obviously done it (I often see my son standing next to guys listed at 6' 5" and he towers over them), when recruiters/scouts see him listed at 6' 4" they will assume he's probably really 6' 2". 

No shame in rounding up assuming you take your measurement in stocking feet

Yeah, but she'd put him at 6' 6" if I let her. There's something I like about the fact that when he's listed at 6' 4" and he shows up, he actually is a legit 6' 4."

roothog66 posted:

2020dad posted:

2019Dad posted:

2020dad posted:

Dom I think our first ever real disagreement!  There are not tons of 5'11" guys throwing 98. Look up MLB rosters. Can't even hardly find guys under 6'0". Again as spin rates become more prevalent I think that may change but. It. Ow. 

Generally agree, but one caveat, 2020: the MLB rosters list inflated height. All the 6'0" guys are -- at best -- 5'11", many 5'10" or 5'10.5"; many of the 6'1" guys are really 5'11" or 5'11.5". . . etc. (just stand next to an MLB player sometime, and then look up his listed height; btw, this is not specific to MLB; all the sports seems to do it)

Totally get that. Son listed this year at 6'4". Now that he is 6'4" football coaches already told him he will be listed 6'5" next year even if he's done growing!  But when we have these conversations we have to work with the info we actually have. But even if you included those listed at 6'0" I think you would find fewer than you might expect. Average pitcher height is now over 6'3" now I think. 

Hah! This is a serious argument my wife and I have had. My son is a legit 6' 4" maybe a half inch above. My wife always tries to go in and change his height to 6' 5". Her argument is that because everyone else we see has obviously done it (I often see my son standing next to guys listed at 6' 5" and he towers over them), when recruiters/scouts see him listed at 6' 4" they will assume he's probably really 6' 2". 

My personal rule of thumb is 3/8" mark lol. Don't ask me to explain that. Just I guess .5 gets rounded up in the math world so 6'4 1/2" in math parlance is legit rounded up to 6'5".  On board with your wife so I guess that is why I rationalize that extra 1/8 of an inch!  Our football coaches however seem to skip right to the next inch the very second you cross an inch border. So 6'4 1/32" is 6'5"!  And if they like you 6'3 3/4" might also be 6'5"!

roothog66 posted:

Looking at recruiting and who has committed and comparing them to others is a waste of time. So much more goes into these decisions than most people realize. It's a very complicated analysis. I'll give you an example of how geography and budgets play a role. A major D1 school will fully fund 11.7 scholarships. Lower D1's may not - I have dealt with one mid-major where the school funds only 3.0 scholarships. In addition to the 11.7 scholarship limit, the school sets a budget for the program, so they have to conform to that as well. So, my example will be Arkansas.

If you look at the list of recruits you will see that almost all of them come from in-state, boarder states or Illinois. Now, you may look and see some kid from Illinois committed and think, My kid is a superior recruit to that kid and "we've been talking to Arkansas, why haven't they offered my son? Whaaa!" (that's my wife, by the way - I have to explain this to her, as well). The U of A has a reciprocal deal with all of its boarder states and with Illinois whereby students from those states pay in-state tuition rates (or slightly above depending on grades). In-state tuition at Arkansas is about $9,000 and non-resident about $20,000. So, a 50% offer to a kid from Colorado and a 50% offer to a kid from Missouri both count as .5 against their 11.7 limit. However, the kid from Colorado eats up $11,000 per year more of their budget. The kid from Colorado is a bigger risk, budget-wise.

This is just an example of one factor that affects recruiting. There are many more that have been discussed and many we probably don't even think about.

Some great info and insight by many.

On the physical side, I'll add to the overall discussion that 90mph simply has the potential to open a door and 90 mph  doesn't guarantee you'll get any interest. So, is the case for my '18 (6'2,185 RHP) who was 87-88, topped 90 last July. He had one coach tell him, "I like you, but lets see where your at next year". Coincidentally, the only contact last season. Yes, he sent information to RC's introducing himself and is a very good student.

I mark it up to a lesson of not gravitating to the large national events, as he believed one of the two in state D1 schools would want him. LOL, they like the 6'4 to 6'8 guys!

He just sent video of himself throwing flat grounds (90-93mph) to schools in the midwest  on Monday and plans to follow up in a couple weeks when he starts throwing from the mound.

I'm not concerned as I know he will eventually find where he fits. I think many look at throwing 90mph as THE guaranteed mark for recruitment. It's not the case, if your not throwing in front of the right crowd.

2019Dad posted:

2020dad posted:

Dom I think our first ever real disagreement!  There are not tons of 5'11" guys throwing 98. Look up MLB rosters. Can't even hardly find guys under 6'0". Again as spin rates become more prevalent I think that may change but. It. Ow. 

Generally agree, but one caveat, 2020: the MLB rosters list inflated height. All the 6'0" guys are -- at best -- 5'11", many 5'10" or 5'10.5"; many of the 6'1" guys are really 5'11" or 5'11.5". . . etc. (just stand next to an MLB player sometime, and then look up his listed height; btw, this is not specific to MLB; all the sports seems to do it)

Steve Garvey was listed at 5'10". We met him at a party. My 5'8" wife in flat sandals was taller than Garvey in healed loafers. The shorter they are the bigger the lie.

You can't change your height. You can't change you're arm length. You can only work hard, optimize your physical potential and work the process properly. Anything else is a waste of time and a burning of nervous energy. If you're 6' and throw 87 you have to accept the top programs aren't going to pursue you. You have to figure out who will and target them. 

Don't throw spaghetti off the wall and wait to see what sticks. Have a business to attack the college programs that are a potential fit. Don't wait to be found. Tell them who you are.

A friend's son was 6' throwing 84 as a senior in high school. He was recruited by a top ranked, top academic D3. He figured he would get a great education and enjoy baseball for four more years. As a college senior he was 6'3" (mind boggling considering his parents) and threw 94. The pro scouts found him. He couldn't control the journey. But he maximized it by taking advantage of what he had at every turn.

Midlo Dad posted:

I will add, when I say things will work out, I'm assuming the player is working the process correctly. 

If he's sitting home playing HS and Legion ball and wondering why no one contacts him, that's another story.

I also cannot emphasize enough that while discussion on these boards focuses so much on the baseball opportunity, other factors do (and truly should) often control the ultimate decisions.  Academics (including academic level, admissions standards, NCAA eligibility rules, availability of certain desired majors, etc.) and cost factors come ahead of the baseball factors.  And when you're comparing your son to some other player, it bears reminding yourself that you are not privy to how those matters factor into that player's decision. 

Ouch!!

2020dad posted:

So much here...  90>87.  Period. But the good news is both will probably make it. Regardless of the nay sayers you simply have to do a little independent research and you will see D1 is littered with guys who topped 87 in high school.  So if you are throwing 87 with good command you are a D1 prospect. Just maybe not a Sunday pitcher at a power 5!  

Tall is an advantage. This topic has been the proverbial dead horse around here so I will leave it at that. 

FYI from a previous conversation on here I learned MLB pitchers throw about 41% strikes. Trick is making your pitches close enough for a swing but not easily hit. So command is essential - high strike percentage is bad as others have eluded to. 

Finally I am going to carefully read the stuff from Kyle - thanks for posting!

FYI, Clayton Kershaw has a 69% strike ratio.

joes87 posted:

In the end all you can do is control what you can control and let the process play out.  If you attempt to put some sense to why certain kids are committing and others are not you will end up insane.  

this was just to accurate and logical to not repost.

mdschert posted:

2020dad posted:

So much here...  90>87.  Period. But the good news is both will probably make it. Regardless of the nay sayers you simply have to do a little independent research and you will see D1 is littered with guys who topped 87 in high school.  So if you are throwing 87 with good command you are a D1 prospect. Just maybe not a Sunday pitcher at a power 5!  

Tall is an advantage. This topic has been the proverbial dead horse around here so I will leave it at that. 

FYI from a previous conversation on here I learned MLB pitchers throw about 41% strikes. Trick is making your pitches close enough for a swing but not easily hit. So command is essential - high strike percentage is bad as others have eluded to. 

Finally I am going to carefully read the stuff from Kyle - thanks for posting!

FYI, Clayton Kershaw has a 69% strike ratio.

don't confuse Zone percentage and strike percentage. Zone percentage in MLB is under 50% but strike percentage is like 60% or so. even MLB hitters swing at 30% of the balls or so on average, you just have to throw them Close enough to the Zone.

the batter has to decide when the ball is a Little past halfway so even the best guys can't decide between a pitch on the black and an ball 2 inches off the plate (last year the leader with the lowest outside the Zone swing percentage still swung at 20% of the balls thrown).

but if a ball is a foot off the plate even the wildest hackers likely won't swing most of the time.

mdschert posted:

2020dad posted:

So much here...  90>87.  Period. But the good news is both will probably make it. Regardless of the nay sayers you simply have to do a little independent research and you will see D1 is littered with guys who topped 87 in high school.  So if you are throwing 87 with good command you are a D1 prospect. Just maybe not a Sunday pitcher at a power 5!  

Tall is an advantage. This topic has been the proverbial dead horse around here so I will leave it at that. 

FYI from a previous conversation on here I learned MLB pitchers throw about 41% strikes. Trick is making your pitches close enough for a swing but not easily hit. So command is essential - high strike percentage is bad as others have eluded to. 

Finally I am going to carefully read the stuff from Kyle - thanks for posting!

FYI, Clayton Kershaw has a 69% strike ratio.

Sorry, I should clarify that.  The number I was referencing was the percentage of balls actually thrown in the strike zone.  I am assuming the number you are quoting counts all strikes, like if they swing and miss on a ball away.  So yes there are always going to be more strikes than just those actually thrown in the zone.  And that is the trick to get them to swing at balls that are just outside the zone.  And of course 41% is the average there will be outliars in both directions.  

2020dad posted:

mdschert posted:

2020dad posted:

So much here...  90>87.  Period. But the good news is both will probably make it. Regardless of the nay sayers you simply have to do a little independent research and you will see D1 is littered with guys who topped 87 in high school.  So if you are throwing 87 with good command you are a D1 prospect. Just maybe not a Sunday pitcher at a power 5!  

Tall is an advantage. This topic has been the proverbial dead horse around here so I will leave it at that. 

FYI from a previous conversation on here I learned MLB pitchers throw about 41% strikes. Trick is making your pitches close enough for a swing but not easily hit. So command is essential - high strike percentage is bad as others have eluded to. 

Finally I am going to carefully read the stuff from Kyle - thanks for posting!

FYI, Clayton Kershaw has a 69% strike ratio.

Sorry, I should clarify that.  The number I was referencing was the percentage of balls actually thrown in the strike zone.  I am assuming the number you are quoting counts all strikes, like if they swing and miss on a ball away.  So yes there are always going to be more strikes than just those actually thrown in the zone.  And that is the trick to get them to swing at balls that are just outside the zone.  And of course 41% is the average there will be outliars in both directions.  

last year the Zone percentage of the league was 45% in MLB. strike percentage was around 60%.

I've read most of what's been posted in this thread but did gloss over some of it, so if I re post something that's been covered forgive me.

Here at the end of the trip through YB and the recruiting process I'll add my .02.

In a pitcher I'm not sure which garners the most interest, a righty with velo or being a lefty. I've seen both that I thought were average pitchers get more interest over slower, right handed pitchers who had better results on the mound.  I do believe if one were a lefty throwing 94 you could throw the ball over the backstop most pitches and still get interest.

To velo. The kid has always told me it's not necessarily the speed of a pitchers fastball but movement. Hell the kid prefers pitchers who can bring it. When he's struggled he's complained the pitchers FB had a lot of movement to it.

I watched a kid while in AZ this weekend who sat in the low 90's. He was on the mound against a 2018 team (we were playing in the upperclass tournament). I could count on one hand the number of pitches he threw that weren't a FB. I think he only gave up one run over six innings. Lots of scouts there. Thing is the other team didn't have any trouble putting the bat on the ball. And about the "effort" thing. No small amount of the time he had to pick his hat up off the ground after a pitch.

On the other hand there was my kid. Threw two small bullpen sessions before going. Came in vs the team that ended up being runner up. Was brought in middle 2nd after they had put up 6 runs. Pretty well shut them down for the 3 1/3 innings he pitched. Did give up twp runs but due to a missed played GB thrown in the dirt. Team had one hard hit against him. Can throw a CU, CB, and slider for strikes. Hit 87 and no one could have cared less. They did however take notice of the 400'+ HR he had, LOL.

Ok so it seems the consensus is that coaches would prefer the 50% S% 90 mph player over the 65% S% 87 mph player.  I would bet my house payment that the 87 mph pitcher would beat the 90 mph player 8 out of 10 games.  I have never seen a 50% S% pitcher be successful.

mdschert posted:

Ok so it seems the consensus is that coaches would prefer the 50% S% 90 mph player over the 65% S% 87 mph player.  I would bet my house payment that the 87 mph pitcher would beat the 90 mph player 8 out of 10 games.  I have never seen a 50% S% pitcher be successful.

You are probably right but your question was what is more attractive to the college/RC ...  you can't ignore the fact that most of them think they can get the 50/90 guy to become a 60+ 90+ guy.  All expect the HS prospect P to be stronger and more refined by the time they take the mound in a real game for their college.

you don't get it, if he stays 50% they will just cut him....recruit 25, get 12, keep 5...simple math!

cabbagedad posted:

mdschert posted:

Ok so it seems the consensus is that coaches would prefer the 50% S% 90 mph player over the 65% S% 87 mph player.  I would bet my house payment that the 87 mph pitcher would beat the 90 mph player 8 out of 10 games.  I have never seen a 50% S% pitcher be successful.

You are probably right but your question was what is more attractive to the college/RC ...  you can't ignore the fact that most of them think they can get the 50/90 guy to become a 60+ 90+ guy.  All expect the HS prospect P to be stronger and more refined by the time they take the mound in a real game for their college.

I think the odds are higher for the 87 mph pitcher to reach 90 mph than for the 90 mph to reach 65% S%.  I have yet to see a wild pitcher suddenly have command but have seen pitchers go from 87 to 90.

mdschert posted:

Ok so it seems the consensus is that coaches would prefer the 50% S% 90 mph player over the 65% S% 87 mph player.  I would bet my house payment that the 87 mph pitcher would beat the 90 mph player 8 out of 10 games.  I have never seen a 50% S% pitcher be successful.

Well mlb pitchers only throw 45 percent in the zone and 60 percent overall strikes, so 50 percent is not that far off.

mdschert posted:

cabbagedad posted:

mdschert posted:

Ok so it seems the consensus is that coaches would prefer the 50% S% 90 mph player over the 65% S% 87 mph player.  I would bet my house payment that the 87 mph pitcher would beat the 90 mph player 8 out of 10 games.  I have never seen a 50% S% pitcher be successful.

You are probably right but your question was what is more attractive to the college/RC ...  you can't ignore the fact that most of them think they can get the 50/90 guy to become a 60+ 90+ guy.  All expect the HS prospect P to be stronger and more refined by the time they take the mound in a real game for their college.

I think the odds are higher for the 87 mph pitcher to reach 90 mph than for the 90 mph to reach 65% S%.  I have yet to see a wild pitcher suddenly have command but have seen pitchers go from 87 to 90.

Fair point.   But you still aren't giving equal credit to the 90 also improving his velo.  And, I'm not sure he would be classified as "wild" even if he were to have modest improvement with control.  

Always an interesting discussion.  The answer, though, is never as simple as the number comparison we are talking about.  Each individual will display mechanics, effort, size and strength projectibility, demeanor, game intelligence, work ethic, specific potential "fixes" and a host of other things that will all factor in to what the RC thinks his college ceiling may be for velo AND control.

Dominik85 posted:

mdschert posted:

Ok so it seems the consensus is that coaches would prefer the 50% S% 90 mph player over the 65% S% 87 mph player.  I would bet my house payment that the 87 mph pitcher would beat the 90 mph player 8 out of 10 games.  I have never seen a 50% S% pitcher be successful.

Well mlb pitchers only throw 45 percent in the zone and 60 percent overall strikes, so 50 percent is not that far off.

87 to 90 is not far off either.  So doing the math a 50% overall S% pitcher is throwing about 35% in the zone.  Have you ever seen a wild pitcher suddenly have command?  I think it is easier to get a pitcher from 87 to 90 than it is for one to go 50% S% to 65% S%

One last point, Bartolo Colon won 15 mlb games last season with a 68% S% and throws an 87 mph fastball.

 "I have yet to see a wild pitcher suddenly have command but have seen pitchers go from 87 to 90."

You need to get out more.  This happens all the time.

Personally, I believe that sound mechanics enhance both velocity and command.  A kid who is already showing a live arm often just needs to fix his delivery in order to pound the zone. 

I've also seen conditioning work help with great frequency.  If a player is tiring after 70 pitches, he can be off 1/8" in his kick position, which makes him off 1/2" in his release angle, which makes him off by 12" at the plate.  Build up the core and lower body support muscles and those problems go away, while the live arm is still there.

Not every live arm gets fixed, and for that matter, lots of players with natural talent lack the work ethic or the  mindset to prepare fully and then compete even when the going gets tough.  Some guys are really good at avoiding the strike zone for fear of giving up hits.

And yes, guys also gain in velo over time.  I see that all the time, too.

But the guy who throws harder is typically the higher prospect because the upside is higher if you can fix him.  And high level coaches typically have a lot of confidence in their ability to teach.  (Even those who aren't really good at it, have that confidence anyway!)

mdschert posted:

cabbagedad posted:

mdschert posted:

Ok so it seems the consensus is that coaches would prefer the 50% S% 90 mph player over the 65% S% 87 mph player.  I would bet my house payment that the 87 mph pitcher would beat the 90 mph player 8 out of 10 games.  I have never seen a 50% S% pitcher be successful.

You are probably right but your question was what is more attractive to the college/RC ...  you can't ignore the fact that most of them think they can get the 50/90 guy to become a 60+ 90+ guy.  All expect the HS prospect P to be stronger and more refined by the time they take the mound in a real game for their college.

I think the odds are higher for the 87 mph pitcher to reach 90 mph than for the 90 mph to reach 65% S%.  I have yet to see a wild pitcher suddenly have command but have seen pitchers go from 87 to 90.

Sandy Koufax?  more recently Curt Schilling.

Randy Johnson. Big time.

old_school posted:

you don't get it, if he stays 50% they will just cut him....recruit 25, get 12, keep 5...simple math!

This is it. Only half the recruits have to succeed to be a successful recruiting season.  

mdschert posted:

cabbagedad posted:

mdschert posted:

Ok so it seems the consensus is that coaches would prefer the 50% S% 90 mph player over the 65% S% 87 mph player.  I would bet my house payment that the 87 mph pitcher would beat the 90 mph player 8 out of 10 games.  I have never seen a 50% S% pitcher be successful.

You are probably right but your question was what is more attractive to the college/RC ...  you can't ignore the fact that most of them think they can get the 50/90 guy to become a 60+ 90+ guy.  All expect the HS prospect P to be stronger and more refined by the time they take the mound in a real game for their college.

I think the odds are higher for the 87 mph pitcher to reach 90 mph than for the 90 mph to reach 65% S%.  I have yet to see a wild pitcher suddenly have command but have seen pitchers go from 87 to 90.

A kid who throws 92/93 can often gain control by being brought down to 90. With the 87 pitcher you're gambling he gets to 90. Half of recruits fail to earn time on the field. I would rather be teaching control than velocity. Control is likely to be a mechanics or mental issue. Velocity is often a physical limitation.

mdschert posted:

Dominik85 posted:

mdschert posted:

Ok so it seems the consensus is that coaches would prefer the 50% S% 90 mph player over the 65% S% 87 mph player.  I would bet my house payment that the 87 mph pitcher would beat the 90 mph player 8 out of 10 games.  I have never seen a 50% S% pitcher be successful.

Well mlb pitchers only throw 45 percent in the zone and 60 percent overall strikes, so 50 percent is not that far off.

87 to 90 is not far off either.  So doing the math a 50% overall S% pitcher is throwing about 35% in the zone.  Have you ever seen a wild pitcher suddenly have command?  I think it is easier to get a pitcher from 87 to 90 than it is for one to go 50% S% to 65% S%

The discussion is about college prospect recruits not MLB pitchers. Colon got to MLB throwing much harder. He used to cruise mid 90's and sometimes hit 100.  He gets by now on savvy and experience a college recruit does not have.

mdschert posted

I think the odds are higher for the 87 mph pitcher to reach 90 mph than for the 90 mph to reach 65% S%.  I have yet to see a wild pitcher suddenly have command but have seen pitchers go from 87 to 90.

My understanding reading on the subject over the years is,  at the higher levels, the thinking is you can teach control,  you can't teach 95.