With physical characteristics being equal and throwing the same types of pitches (CB, FB, CU); A pitcher throwing 90 mph FB with a 50% strike ratio or one that throws 87 mph FB with a 65% strike ratio? Do recruiting coaches really look at strike ratio (command) for a season?
Replies sorted oldest to newest
Not speaking from experience, but the general feeling is velo is king. A lot of coaches believe they can teach command, so I would say the 90MPH guy is going to be more desirable.
I think there is a more holistic approach with velocity being a much more weighted factor. Honestly, I doubt they pay to much attention to the statistic of strike % because I think it's, for the most part, not very telling. You will often see guys with very high strike percentages that accompany very high era's because they put the ball over the plate too much. Simply throwing the ball for strikes isn't necessarily a very good indicator of control.
I think there is much more to it even in your example. I've seen 16U and 17U guys throwing 95+ get rocked because their fastball is predictable and straight. Always being in the strike zone is dangerous. Give me the guy with swing and miss stuff when he has to throw a strike. If I had to pick, I'd go with the 90mph guy because he can be (hopefully) taught to use his other pitches (set up with the FB) and control those pitches in and around the zone. JMO.
Great points made by all but I think that's why coaches/scouts like to see kids multiple times. They can then find out who can pitch. The ability to pitch is why one kid who throws 94 is a top ten pick and another who throws 94 is maybe a third round pick.
Velo will always open the doors but pitchability, swing and miss stuff, the ability to command multiple pitches, etc. determines how you are valued as a pitcher.
Chances are a coach is going to recruit all pitchers throwing 90+. Then the pitching coach will work with them. Some will wash out and transfer. It's how it works everywhere.
As you move down the power slide of college programs you're more likely to see the 87 mph kid recruited in the hopes he gets to 90+. This is where you see the 87 mph guys in college baseball.
Lefties are another story. The same discussion starts at about 87 and works down into the mid 80's.
There is a lot more to the question.
How is a team stocked currently - is there room to take on a project (the wild but hard throwing kid)?
What can the program get - a lower end baseball program may realize that it simply cannot successfully recruit the hard wild thrower and has had success with the lower velo recruits.
What can the PC do - some PCs (e.g., the former ASU PC since moved to UA as director of ops) have a track record of taking hard throwers and teaching command and control; other programs recognize its limits and will look for the more accurate pitcher.
Some programs have room for a guy who throws less then typical speed and can keep a lineup off balance once through the order.
Does a coach feel that there are immediate changes to mechanics which could bring the needed velo?
This is an art, not a science. Each coach draws on his experience to create a team the coach believes will be competitive - and, therefore, each coach's prior successes (and failures) will effect the type of pitcher he believes will bring succes to the program.
I agree with the other posters that velo is generally weighted higher than HS control; but that is not a universal all-encompassing view.
Also, at showcases, guys are pitching to their peers or younger. Once in college, they will - until junior year - face stronger, smarter, more disciplined hitters so success at showcases must be viewed in that context.
65% to 50% isn't enough to worry about...the 90mph kid gets the looks every time....that was exactly what happened to my son....he was 87 with great command and got overlooked by everyone until he got to 89-90.
Here's a bigger one....5'11, 165 lb kid throwing 89-90 OR a 6'5, 230 lb kid throwing 86-87. Trust me, you don't want to be the 5'11 kid at 17U...it's like you're invisible lol. Fortunately that same 5'11 kid is now 19 and 6'1, 185 and up to 92 
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.
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.
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.
Looking at my sons summer team roster stats, the pitchers with the 65% accuracy were much more successful than the harder throwing 50% accuracy pitchers.
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.
mdschert posted:Looking at my sons summer team roster stats, the pitchers with the 65% accuracy were much more successful than the harder throwing 50% accuracy pitchers.
Yes, but recruiters/scouts aren't looking to see what kind of results a pitcher has against high school batters. They are trying to project how those kids will be able to handle college/pro batters in a couple of years. So, to them, the kid who throws 65% strikes at 83mph and is effective against 17yo batters may, to them, project as a pitcher who will be eaten alive by college batters and has little prospects of improving, while the kid struggling to throw strikes at 90mph projects as a guy who who has the capability of adjusting.
Another thing I see commonly at the HS level, is a kid who throws hard but struggles with the strike zone often finds he has more success as the competition gets better. Weak competition will often take a lot of pitches where better competition will look to swing the bat.
I've often seen my own son (6'4" / 235 lbs.) described as having an effortless delivery. Trust me, he's going full effort out there. If he could muster more effort, he would.
roothog66 posted:mdschert posted:Looking at my sons summer team roster stats, the pitchers with the 65% accuracy were much more successful than the harder throwing 50% accuracy pitchers.
Yes, but recruiters/scouts aren't looking to see what kind of results a pitcher has against high school batters. They are trying to project how those kids will be able to handle college/pro batters in a couple of years. So, to them, the kid who throws 65% strikes at 83mph and is effective against 17yo batters may, to them, project as a pitcher who will be eaten alive by college batters and has little prospects of improving, while the kid struggling to throw strikes at 90mph projects as a guy who who has the capability of adjusting.
Another thing I see commonly at the HS level, is a kid who throws hard but struggles with the strike zone often finds he has more success as the competition gets better. Weak competition will often take a lot of pitches where better competition will look to swing the bat.
Exactly! Even more than that, Root, weak competition swings and misses when they do swing, so the kid who struggles with command will have a very high pitch count and will have to throw 3 out of every 6 over the plate to avoid walks . . . whereas with a good team, they'll put the ball in play more when they do swing.
How does one measure "effort extended"? This seems very subjective and I believe the eye test might be deceiving. I actually tend the think the other way. If a kid looks like he is "max effort", there may be something in his delivery that can be ironed out and he can throw even harder.
mdschert posted:Looking at my sons summer team roster stats, the pitchers with the 65% accuracy were much more successful than the harder throwing 50% accuracy pitchers.
Most pitchers with less velocity will become batting practice at the next level. Chances are the harder throwing pitcher with control issues has a mechanical flaw that can be fixed.
A college team is going to probably have seventeen pitchers. Only ten have to pan out. They might as well all be hard throwers.
I've had a few of those kids over the years that can throw high velocity, but throw quite a few tics lower because they find it more effective. For example, I have a pretty good 2017 LHP who I've worked with for years. He throws a two-seamer with great movement that sits around 81-82 mph. I've had to brow beat him into the idea that a few times per inning, he just needs to suck it up and throw a hard four-seam fastball. He can hit 85-87mph with that pitch. Sure, it's not how you operate as a pitcher, but at least let the recruiters watching know that you can throw 87.
mburtner17 posted:How does one measure "effort extended"? This seems very subjective and I believe the eye test might be deceiving. I actually tend the think the other way. If a kid looks like he is "max effort", there may be something in his delivery that can be ironed out and he can throw even harder.
It's usually pretty easy because the delivery looks violent instead of smooth and fluent. Head whip is often a giveaway!
fenwaysouth posted:I've seen 16U and 17U guys throwing 95+ get rocked because their fastball is predictable and straight.
Really? Give me some names of 16u-17u 95+ guys that are not effective because they throw to many strikes.
real green posted:fenwaysouth posted:I've seen 16U and 17U guys throwing 95+ get rocked because their fastball is predictable and straight.
I will say that I saw a highly regarded 2018 throwing 94 at the PG Junior Nationals get absolutely lit up. My son, who was a PO so didn't face him at the plate, said that guys in the dugout reported that once you zeroed in on the velocity, he was actually pretty easy to make contact off of. This, however, hasn't seemed to hurt his stock much.
Twoboys posted:How about a RHP at a showcase who throws 90 but walks 7 of 10 and strikes out no one versus a LHP who throws 84 and gets 7 of 10 Ks, with 5 of them swinging Ks, no hits and no BBs?
Yep you should all guess the answer by now. ALL eyes, all offers, all everything on the guy throwing 90 despite the total lack of command and control. The coaches think they can teach that.
I don't know. Our school has two of those LHP. Both D1 commits.
I tried to look at S% for a couple of college teams and found that it was not recorded. The S% for college seems to be not important. I think a pitcher needs to be > 60% to be competitive. Whenever I see a team labor defensively it's usually the pitcher struggling to throw strikes.
Golfman25 posted:Twoboys posted:How about a RHP at a showcase who throws 90 but walks 7 of 10 and strikes out no one versus a LHP who throws 84 and gets 7 of 10 Ks, with 5 of them swinging Ks, no hits and no BBs?
Yep you should all guess the answer by now. ALL eyes, all offers, all everything on the guy throwing 90 despite the total lack of command and control. The coaches think they can teach that.
I don't know. Our school has two of those LHP. Both D1 commits.
It's a bad comparison. RHP's and LHP's are evaluated so differently by individual coaches that they would almost never compare the two internally.
mdschert posted:I tried to look at S% for a couple of college teams and found that it was not recorded. The S% for college seems to be not important. I think a pitcher needs to be > 60% to be competitive. Whenever I see a team labor defensively it's usually the pitcher struggling to throw strikes.
Nte as well that sometimes when that K % gets up above 70% what you are seeing is a lot of balls put in play because regardless of where a pitch is, it is recorded as a strike if it becomes a BIP or foul ball.
I have seen 87 mph pitchers that I like much more than some 90 mph pitchers. There are many reasons for that, but mostly it is just based on seeing thousands and thousands of pitchers over the years. Some kids you just know are going to gain a lot of velocity in the future. Body type, arm action, arm quickness, are big clues and sometimes it can be a fixable problem they have.
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.
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.
roothog66 posted:real green posted:fenwaysouth posted:I've seen 16U and 17U guys throwing 95+ get rocked because their fastball is predictable and straight.
I will say that I saw a highly regarded 2018 throwing 94 at the PG Junior Nationals get absolutely lit up. My son, who was a PO so didn't face him at the plate, said that guys in the dugout reported that once you zeroed in on the velocity, he was actually pretty easy to make contact off of. This, however, hasn't seemed to hurt his stock much.
First that's 94 not 95+. =-) Being sarcastic.... Second inferring that 16u and 17u throwing 95+ is common and those who do and pound the zone get rocked.
No doubt it happens. Hitting is contagious. Facing a dominant FB pitcher that a team rocks. It's the game. I have seen more "control" true pitcher guys get rocked than +++ velocity guys.
In LL our team faced a +++ velocity pitcher that was known to mow through teams. Our lead off hitter had a 9 pitch AB that ended in a double. Instantly confidence grew within the dugout. He WAS hittable. We scored 2 in the first inning and 6 by third when they pulled him out. That doesn't mean the pitcher throwing 70 at LL distance sucked, we just strung some hits together and our batters gained confidence.
Guys much smarter than us, IE they earn a living doing it, pick the 90 mph guy many times over the 87 mph. As has been stated on here, some recruiters wont even consider you until you hit "their" minimum number on the gun.
real green posted:roothog66 posted:real green posted:fenwaysouth posted:I've seen 16U and 17U guys throwing 95+ get rocked because their fastball is predictable and straight.
I will say that I saw a highly regarded 2018 throwing 94 at the PG Junior Nationals get absolutely lit up. My son, who was a PO so didn't face him at the plate, said that guys in the dugout reported that once you zeroed in on the velocity, he was actually pretty easy to make contact off of. This, however, hasn't seemed to hurt his stock much.
First that's 94 not 95+. =-) Being sarcastic.... Second inferring that 16u and 17u throwing 95+ is common and those who do and pound the zone get rocked.
No doubt it happens. Hitting is contagious. Facing a dominant FB pitcher that a team rocks. It's the game. I have seen more "control" true pitcher guys get rocked than +++ velocity guys.
In LL our team faced a +++ velocity pitcher that was known to mow through teams. Our lead off hitter had a 9 pitch AB that ended in a double. Instantly confidence grew within the dugout. He WAS hittable. We scored 2 in the first inning and 6 by third when they pulled him out. That doesn't mean the pitcher throwing 70 at LL distance sucked, we just strung some hits together and our batters gained confidence.
I also wouldn't want to imply that this kid gets rocked very often. You have to remember, also, that he was facing a very, very, talented group of hitters. He is, overall, more than simply effective. He's dominating. I was just mentioning that I have seen it happen. That's different than saying he's a 94mph guy who is not effective. This kid is also a good fit in this discussion. He's listed at 5' 11" / 180 lbs., but having stood next to him...I'm 5' 11" on a good day and I was noticeably taller than he was wearing cleats.
edit: To be clear, he was wearing cleats. If it were me, that'd be weird.
I like to keep things simple - like a ball on the end of a string. The longer the string, the faster you can get the ball moving. True, the longer the string the more effort it takes to get it going, but once it gets going, watch out. I think my comment about "hand speed" may be the wrong terminology for this discussion, but borrowing from the article, longer arm segments - assuming you have the strength to get them moving - will translate into more velocity. Taller kids generally have longer arm segments. Assuming the taller kid does not have more muscle, then they perhaps have lower arm speed, but the longer arm segments allows the kid to throw as fast or faster.
What is missing from Kyle's article that struck me was a possible third component to arm speed - that being generated from the shoulders (think throwing something solely by turning you shoulders and letting your arm swing freely - no elbow extension or rotation). Especially for pitchers that throw with a lower positon (less overheard and more with arm extended out from plane of shoulder allowing shoulders to increase whip action).
Glad I don't make my living handing out pitching advice or calculating re-entry points for NASA (saw Hidden Figures this weekend - pretty good movie).
With regard to effort....I have always told my son (even up to last fall) that he doesn't look like he's trying hard. He's 6'1, maybe 18 and has hit 92. His drive leg doesn't come up to his waist during his windup and his stride maybe ends up 4' down the mound, not 5-6' like other guys his size. He has another guy on his team throwing 92 that looks like his arm could fly off and end up behind the catcher at any time. I've thought this about my son since he was 12....and others must have too because even at 16-17U when he was throwing 86-88, nobody ever seemed to believe the gun because he just looked like he wasn't trying hard enough to be that high
Buckeye 2015 posted:With regard to effort....I have always told my son (even up to last fall) that he doesn't look like he's trying hard. He's 6'1, maybe 18 and has hit 92. His drive leg doesn't come up to his waist during his windup and his stride maybe ends up 4' down the mound, not 5-6' like other guys his size. He has another guy on his team throwing 92 that looks like his arm could fly off and end up behind the catcher at any time. I've thought this about my son since he was 12....and others must have too because even at 16-17U when he was throwing 86-88, nobody ever seemed to believe the gun because he just looked like he wasn't trying hard enough to be that high
I also fall into the category of thinking that sequencing matters. Kyle's article discusses elbow extension and rotation and he slips in a comment about the timing of movements. My son gave me a really good visual of one aspect of sequencing (I think he was teaching his younger brother) and was describing at what point the stride foot should hit the ground - too early and you sort of stop your momentum and too late you don't get a good pivot point. I never pitched, but tried to get good at golf and finally figured out that I was not great at sequencing - especially the wrist break. I won't attempt to list all the actions that accumulate during a pitch, but the better the pitcher is a sequencing these (i.e. timing), the more velocity he will have. I personally think some good pitchers are throwing with 90% effort as more effort can have a tendency to throw off the timing and result in a drop in velocity (even if it looks like he is trying harder). The real key is to find these guys and teach them how to go 100% and maintain proper sequencing.
mdschert posted:With physical characteristics being equal and throwing the same types of pitches (CB, FB, CU); A pitcher throwing 90 mph FB with a 50% strike ratio or one that throws 87 mph FB with a 65% strike ratio? Do recruiting coaches really look at strike ratio (command) for a season?
From the perspective of college coaches, I don't believe there is one right answer. Some of this will be in the eyes of the beholder.
For some college coaching staffs who do rely, to some degree on sabremetric type information, part of the answer is which gives up more "free" bases.
In college baseball, there is a fair degree of reliability between a W and and L and which team received and gave up more free bases in the game (free including walks, steals, past balls, wild pitches, errors etc).
real green posted:fenwaysouth posted:I've seen 16U and 17U guys throwing 95+ get rocked because their fastball is predictable and straight.
I don't have names, but one of the kids was hitting 100mph in a bullpen session (in front of many scouts) a few days before he faced a Florida team (Scorpions or Bombers??) at 17U PG WWBA in East Cobb. The same team had a guy throwing 95mph that also got shelled in that same game. That Florida team ended up winning the 17U WWBA in East Cobb that year... many years ago. When the flamethrower came into the game, I thought he would shut them down...on the contrary. These Florida guys were shortening it up, hitting line drives, bunting, stealing on this guy. It was very memorable for my son and I. I think at that point in time my son realized that his future was better served competing in the classroom with the hope of playing college baseball.
Bottom line velocity is nothing without movement and control.
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!
You'll get different answers to this question depending on which college coaches you're talking about.
True, a lot of college coaches go after the best players they see, without exception. BUT ...
One thing you may not realize is that a lot of coaches won't recruit the 95 mph guy at all, because they don't want to tie up money (and for that guy, it'd be a big chunk) on a guy only to see him sign pro out of high school. That's a great way to end up with 0.7 or 0.8 of your 11.7 not working for you when you get to your games the next spring.
Similarly, there are mid-major guys who will focus on the 87 mph guy they can coach up, instead of investing their hopes in the 90+ guy only to see an Omaha program come in and sign him out from under them.
(I call this the "Beautiful Mind" approach to recruiting. Anyone remember that movie? The math genius who ultimately goes insane gets a Nobel prize for his insights into choice theory; the idea comes to him when he realizes that his chances in the bar scene will improve if he goes for the second best looking woman in the joint, instead of lining up with everyone else hitting on the absolute bombshell.)
Still other coaches will give a lot of lefties all sorts of chances because they want to be sure they can ultimately have 3-4 they can actually depend on.
Some coaches like everyone to throw very much the same way. They believe in their system, and if one guy isn't executing, they'll bring in another guy who will.
Some coaches like to have a bullpen with a variety of options. If one type of pitcher is getting lit up, go with a different style. For example, a lot of coaches like to have one submariner on staff if they can find one.
What I would say is, if you're throwing 87 and throwing strikes, I would expect you to have options. If you're throwing 90 with fewer strikes, I would expect you to have options. I don't know that you have to rate one as better than the other. Both of them will turn out fine. Three years later, the 87 guy might be in the zone at 93. Or, the 90+ guy might find the zone. So you can't really even say yet who might make the better pro prospect long term.
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.
The other thing I will add is the spin rate revolution will change these dynamics a little over time.
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 postedI 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.
Honestly, I don't think recruiters know or care about the strike % statistic of any pitcher they are looking at. They may form some general opinion of his ability to control an at bat, but they could care less what the actual percentage is. They look at measurable numbers - not statistics. Additionally, throwing that stat out there can be deceptive. Simply being able to throw consistent strikes is not the same as useful "control."
Can someone please define strike percentage to me? Are we saying the strike percentage relates to the percentage of pitches thrown in the strike zone? Are we assuming the pitcher is trying to throw every pitch in the strike zone? Maybe I missed the definition being used for this discussion, but if not, then much of the commentary does not make great sense to me. If a guy can throw 50% strikes and has good swing/miss, then he should be able to strike out a lot of folks. Furthermore, if he is throwing 50% on purpose (actually controls which pitches enter the strike zone and which ones do not), then there needs to be additional comparisons made between the pitchers to account for intent.
I'll use my own kid as an example. Last season, he sported an overall strike % of almost 60%. However, his first pitch strike percentage was around 25%. What this reflected was a LOT of 2-0 counts followed by strikes and often a lot of pitches being fouled off (count these as strikes) before getting the K. So, his overall K% was pretty nice but in no way watching him would you say he was a pitcher with really good control and command.
Strike percentage is, of course, the number of strikes divided by the number of total pitches. Strikes consists of called strikes and any ball that is contacted with, whether it be a foul ball, ground out, fly ball, or even a home run. Of course the majors have the equipment and ability to actually measure strike zone percentage, but at other levels we're only left with strike %. I've had kids in the past with 70% strike percentages - mainly because they were serving up every pitch. I see this a lot ion high school - the kid who just throws it down the middle at 70mph and gets every other pitch drilled. For high school and below, it is, IMO, a useless statistic.
Based on Roothog66's responses, I would answer the OP's question as follows - "It depends."
I don't have exact numbers, but I will brag a little on my 2017. He generally has a high first pitch strike percentage - upwards of 50% - in part due to his control and his understanding that most hitters he faces are generally hesitant to swing on the initial pitch (he is a starter, not a reliever). I would guess his strike percentage goes down as the game progresses as he goes through the lineup for the second or third time (heaven forbid) as he he starts to work the edges a little harder and maybe throws more breaking balls to try to get swing and miss instead of continuing to try to simply throw it past them down the middle.
That said, if I were a college coach recruiting a pitcher, I would love to get ahold of as many games off of Trackman as I could and see if the pitcher has any tendencies that might be much more insightful than strike percentage. If the OP's question is more focused on a reliever type, then I'm still not sure if 50% versus 65% is that big of a gap that you would pas on the added MPH all other things being equal (which we all know is never the case).
RJM, I'm going to disagree with you on that one. Asking a pitcher to "ease up" is a great way to foul him up completely.
When you see a guy willingly trade velo for control, you're typically talking about switching from 4-seamer to 2-seamer for movement. The control is not enhanced by the loss of 2-3 mph, though; that has to be there either way. (Greg Maddux is of course the paradigm.)
Now, if you see a guy straining and yanking his head and shoulder around trying to throw harder, yes, stopping that will help his control. But it'll also help his velocity, because those things also are actually counterproductive to velocity.
roothog66 posted:Honestly, I don't think recruiters know or care about the strike % statistic of any pitcher they are looking at. They may form some general opinion of his ability to control an at bat, but they could care less what the actual percentage is. They look at measurable numbers - not statistics. Additionally, throwing that stat out there can be deceptive. Simply being able to throw consistent strikes is not the same as useful "control."
There was a kid at our high school who threw strikes at 85-87. He was quickly removed from the rotation for getting lit up. I would say he threw 85-90% strikes. He never walked hitters. He gave up screaming liners.
Midlo Dad posted:RJM, I'm going to disagree with you on that one. Asking a pitcher to "ease up" is a great way to foul him up completely.
When you see a guy willingly trade velo for control, you're typically talking about switching from 4-seamer to 2-seamer for movement. The control is not enhanced by the loss of 2-3 mph, though; that has to be there either way. (Greg Maddux is of course the paradigm.)
Now, if you see a guy straining and yanking his head and shoulder around trying to throw harder, yes, stopping that will help his control. But it'll also help his velocity, because those things also are actually counterproductive to velocity.
You touched on what I was referring to. There are pitchers overthrowing at high velocities with poor mechanics. Smoothing them out often reduces their velocity. But they are still throwing hard enough to be effective. I'm not talking about telling a kid to do what you do at a lower velocity.
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%
there is certainly something to it. coaches think they can teach command (or plate discipline for hitters) but those things are not easy to learn and many never learn it. I believe command is partly dependend on mechanics and practice but also partly due to natural Talent.
some can learn it to some degree (for example Randy Johnson - he still was never good at command by MLB Standards but good enough to ride his stuff into being one of the best ever) but many also don't.
ability to improve command also gets projected. for example scouts say that well coordinated natural athletes have more ability to improve than some big klutz who happens to have a good arm.
Velo can be improved too (actually we know now more about Velo developement than command developement) but that also depends on the Body (a filled out strong 5"11 guy won't gain that much vs a thin 6"4 guy).
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.
I have lots of times. Don't know why you think that is so bad??
And P.S. Three mph is a huge difference. Very visible if you are in the box! 87 and 90 are not close. Just as 92 and 95 are not close. And of course at the lower levels the 3mph difference is even more noticeable. 77 vs 80.
2020dad 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.
I have lots of times. Don't know why you think that is so bad??
I am very surprised you see this. A pitcher that has a 50% S% is throwing about 35% in the zone. Theoretically the pitcher can be beat with using a manikin at the plate. Since college stats do not include S%, look at MLB to prove my point. All of the good pitchers are > 60% S%
MLB also has more disciplined hitters so that strike % is necessary. You give me a kid throwing 90mph at 50% strikes and I'll win some games over good teams; not great disciplined teams at the plate, but good teams.
And if you put a mannequin at the plate, just like if you "take till you get a strike," that strike % will skyrocket with a fat 88mph fastball making it 0-1 to every hitter.
"Three mph is a huge difference. Very visible if you are in the box! 87 and 90 are not close. Just as 92 and 95 are not close. And of course at the lower levels the 3mph difference is even more noticeable. 77 vs 80."
This is true ONLY if all other things are exactly equal mechanically. For example, if the pitcher shows the ball to the batter in the "back window," and the batter is savvy enough to pick it up, both pitchers will be smashed. Conversely, if the lower velo pitcher's ball is seen first upon release (no back window glimpse) he would tend to have the advantage when compared to the higher velo pitcher who shows the back window.
Every kid will develop differently - mental, physical, coaching - all contribute. So, coaches use their experience to figure out how to take whatever clay they choose and sculpt a zone pounding, big movement, 95 from that.
I have seen guys gain velo and gain command after HS; and I have seen guys plateau, and I have seen guys who have "regressed." (At our local D1 power, the joke has always been amongst scouts: "know how he got this guy sitting 90? He recruited him when he sat 92.")
So, for parents one important facet in deciding where to go is the track record of the PC. Of course, one major problem with that is the successful PCs may not be there when junior arrives.
I didnt read the entire thread, but I don't think coaches are interested in strike percentages, etc at the HS level during recruitment. Of course a lot depends on the program, division, 2 year, 4 year etc.
Colleges coaches are looking at tangibles, more than metrics. Height, weight, build, grades, toughness, is he coachable, willingness to work hard, financial situation, pitches for strikes health issues and put that all together with velocity and projection. They also like " projects".
Putting two players together asking which is more appealing to a coach depends on the coach and which he feels is the best fit for his program.
JMO
I think what matters is not so much strike percentage but the ability to pitch mostly near the strike Zone. if you have a lot of Close misses the Scouts won't care much but if the batters jump out of the box every third pitch to avoid getting hit that is probably a red flag.
there is a difference between having a control that Needs refinement and just being wild.
2020dad posted:And P.S. Three mph is a huge difference. Very visible if you are in the box! 87 and 90 are not close. Just as 92 and 95 are not close. And of course at the lower levels the 3mph difference is even more noticeable. 77 vs 80.
With the title of this thread asking about the perspective of college coaches, it probably also can involve looking through perspective and experience of college hitters.
In the experience of our son (both playing and coaching in college), good college hitters could care less about an 87mph fastball or a 90mph fastball. Absent somebody pitching in that range with extraordinary command (think Eshelman from Fullerton), good college hitters are likely to be very successful against either pitcher.
As I mentioned earlier, with those velocities, a college coach will look at which pitcher gives up free bases and which does not and which can command their fb at those numbers and who does not. Free bases in college bases too often equate to runs..
Either of those velocities in college may have limited success unless combined with, at least, the ability to change speeds. A c/u for instance, thrown with the exact same motion as the fb, and with command, can make either 87 or 90 successful in the eyes of a college coach and hitter.
Again, I am taking someone like Eshelman out of the equation because he was 82-83 when I saw him as a freshman, threw mostly fastballs, had incredible command up, down, in, out and the corners. He would also be a perfect example of the pitching type mentioned in this thread of gaining velocity and was 90/91 as a junior
