Build a Pitcher: Spin, Speed, Spot

[_MIA_]

At every level there is a minimum speed which you need to throw to be effective. I am guessing everyone will agree with that. If a kid is facing P5 hitters and throwing 55 they will just sit on whatever your most effective pitch is as they don’t have to worry by getting blown up by a fastball. OU against that kid for Northwestern is a perfect example. First time around her CU was effective. Second time around they just sat CU because they didn’t have to worry about her fastball. Maxwell for OSU has a similarly effective CU but she throws harder and she gave the OU hitters trouble when she faced them in the Big 12 Championship.

That said once you have that minimum speed location and spin are probably equally as important, if not more.

 

[jfitch12]

I’m sure I have said this before (memory not being what it should be), but I always liked an observation made by Nate Walker, who is a pitch design and Rapsodo expert (among many other things I am sure). His point was, whatever you do, “don’t be average.” Pitchers can win with spin, or speed, or spot, or a combination, as long as whatever they are doing is sufficiently different than what most batters see at that level. It may seem like an obvious point, but I think it is an answer to the unanswerable “spin, speed, spot” debate.

To take the outlier examples: if you throw 72 mph, it really does not matter whether you can locate or have good spin until you get to the highest levels of D1 softball. Likewise, if you have a rise with 7+ inches of vertical break, or a drop with 10+ inches of vertical break, it really does not matter how hard you throw or whether you can locate that pitch. Same thing if you can throw 98 of 100 pitches within an inch of where you want: speed and movement are largely irrelevant. In each of these examples, the pitcher can deliver something that hitters see so infrequently that they fail. Being one or two standard deviations outside the norm—in any relevant category—is a recipe for success.

To be sure, these examples require a minimal level of competence. The 72 mph thrower and the spinner need enough control to get it in the zone around 55% of the time. Conversely, the spinner and control artist probably have to be in the high 50s to succeed in college. But beyond those minimums, the key criteria is “unusualness”—not speed, spin, or spot.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[_MIA_]

I’m sure I have said this before (memory not being what it should be), but I always liked an observation made by Nate Walker, who is a pitch design and Rapsodo expert (among many other things I am sure). His point was, whatever you do, “don’t be average.” Pitchers can win with spin, or speed, or spot, or a combination, as long as whatever they are doing is sufficiently different than what most batters see at that level. It may seem like an obvious point, but I think it is an answer to the unanswerable “spin, speed, spot” debate.

To take the outlier examples: if you throw 72 mph, it really does not matter whether you can locate or have good spin until you get to the highest levels of D1 softball. Likewise, if you have a rise with 7+ inches of vertical break, or a drop with 10+ inches of vertical break, it really does not matter how hard you throw or whether you can locate that pitch. Same thing if you can throw 98 of 100 pitches within an inch of where you want: speed and movement are largely irrelevant. In each of these examples, the pitcher can deliver something that hitters see so infrequently that they fail. Being one or two standard deviations outside the norm—in any relevant category—is a recipe for success.

To be sure, these examples require a minimal level of competence. The 72 mph thrower and the spinner need enough control to get it in the zone around 55% of the time. Conversely, the spinner and control artist probably have to be in the high 50s to succeed in college. But beyond those minimums, the key criteria is “unusualness”—not speed, spin, or spot.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Ohhhhh...I like this answer!! Be in the 95% percentile with something and at least competent in everything else..

 

[jfitch12]

Ohhhhh...I like this answer!! Be in the 95% percentile with something and at least competent in everything else..

Right. I like this approach because it ties into the “you do you” theme we hear a lot these days. Address deficiencies—areas where you are really below a minimum required competency. But otherwise spend most of your time enhancing strengths, not trying to improve weaknesses.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Agbracing]

These post are always interesting to me and when my daughter was young it was something I read to learn all I could. I’m sure the speed/spin/accuracy debate has been going on since the beginning of Fastpitch and will continue forever. In my opinion if you want to be elite you better have all 3 and work on all 3 equally. Many might not agree with my thought process but at an early age parents need to be honest with their self about the direction for their future pitcher. For example from birth parents are told their kids height percentage. You have an idea of the size your child will be and that needs to be used in decisions about pitching. (Now for those that want to bring up an example of an Amanda Scarborough or similar. Yes there are some that can make it but for every 1 of those you can name 10 or so 6 ft pitchers.) if they are a big kid and expect to be 6ft then I feel spending the younger years focusing on mechanics and throwing hard is key. Down the road those 2 things will pay huge dividends. If they are going to be small the odds of them being a high level college pitcher are smaller. Their best pitching years will probably be the younger years so it would be more important to learn accuracy and spin over just throwing hard. It doesn’t matter the sport smaller kids develop quicker at the young ages and many have their glory years then. The bigger uncoordinated kids take longer to learn their body and how to control it but once they do their glory years come latter.

To answer the percentages I would take 83.3 speed, 83.3 spin and 83.3 accuracy.

 

[wheresmycar]

How much do you need in speed to hit 70mph?

 

[radness]

How much do you need in speed to hit 70mph?

can i get more detail to that question please?

 

[wheresmycar]

How many points in Speed would result in a 70mph pitch? 100 points? 120?

 

[daywalkerdad]

If we are talking about getting a pitcher recruited by a college, I’d have to add in the height factor. A 6’0 pitcher who can cruise at 60+ will get way more looks than a 5’6 pitcher who can throw with the same velocity.

Once in college, the spin and location will become more important - but the speed and body type will still be what gets the player on coaches’ radars (meaning can throw at that speed for strikes and are on the taller side).

ETA: Obviously there will be some of those kids outside of my example who make good D1 programs - like the 5’6 pitcher who can cruise at 65.

Sadly I have noticed body type at every level. You will notice a difference in body type for teams coached by men vs women as well.

 

[daywalkerdad]

Is speed change of as well? If so
100 speed 100 control 50 spin
In not
75 speed 100 control 75 spin
First pitch strikes means .100 in ob% maybe 80, 90, 80