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!
