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.