~How ATHLETIC is your PITCHER?

[Gambler Bob]

My daughter is a pitcher and shortstop for the Beverly Bandits. I would say she is the #2 pitcher on her team. She plays shortstop when she is not pitching. I would consider my daughter to be a very good athlete. She is pretty fast, 2.8 to first base but not the fastest girl on the team. She has a very good vertical, and broad jump, and a great arm. She is currently 14 years old.

It is getting extremely difficult to find time to work on all the different skills that she needs to work on. Especially during the school year. I work 50-60 hours per week, so it is not just difficult on her. There is only so much time in a day. Sure, she has a pitching coach that she goes to about 3 times per month and I am the bucket dad. I am also the person that has always trained her for hitting and all the defensive skills that a shortstop needs. I also have a 13 old son that I work with.

I do believe she could play both shortstop and pitcher all the way through 18u on most A level teams but playing both those positions with the Beverly Bandits through 18u will be very difficult. At some point she will probably have to pick one position or the other. As of right now, she would rather play shortstop if she had to pick.

In general, I would say pitchers are less athletic than position players. There certainly seems to be a lot of pitchers that have a very difficult time throwing overhand. That is certainly not always the case!

 

[_MIA_]

In general, I would say pitchers are less athletic than position players.

If you think about it, this would only make sense if either (or both) of the below were true:

1) from a pure genetic perspective, there was something that made you better at pitching but worse in the standard definitions of athleticism. The only thing I would be able to think of is possibly height.

2) Athletic pitchers at a younger age gravitate towards concentrating on being positional players as they get older (hitting is fun... ) .

Both are possible I suppose. It sounds like your DD might fall into 2) ?

 

[cnardone]

Other things have ceilings which are obviously determined by what you are born with but it is less obvious that you cannot become elite through hard work alone hitting, pitching (maybe..), shooting in basketball, etc.

There was an ESPN article sometime over the winter. It covered changes in how the Indians scout pitching and the Rays scout hitting. Shockingly (sarcasm alert), analytics showed them that the vast majority of young hitters that swing and miss a lot, grow into older hitters that.... continue to swing and miss a lot. Same thing with pitchers. Young Pitchers with lousy control grow into older pitchers with lousy control.

As you note, they can both be improved through hard work, but relative to their peers those things are pretty consistent.

 

[Tazman]

If you think about it, this would only make sense if either (or both) of the below were true:

1) from a pure genetic perspective, there was something that made you better at pitching but worse in the standard definitions of athleticism. The only thing I would be able to think of is possibly height.

2) Athletic pitchers at a younger age gravitate towards concentrating on being positional players as they get older (hitting is fun... ) .

Both are possible I suppose. It sounds like your DD might fall into 2) ?

Or maybe pitching skill can be acquired more by hard work than "athleticism can." I also think arm flexibility and ability to generate whip doesn't completely correlate with standard definitions of athleticism while being extremely useful for pitching.

 

[FP26]

'you run like a pitcher'
( even though coach may have been joking, truth in the humor?)
To even say that comment infers a difference between positional performance.

Does that then mean there are some coaches that would never consider a pitcher to be able to perform like other players on the field?

There is a bit of a back story to that. DD played for this coach as a pick up player at more than one tournament prior to this tryout. They had some familiarity. His daughter was also a pitcher on the team and was standing near by when he made the comment. She was also a very good all around player, but not a fast runner, so yes, there was truth in the humor. We all knew the comment was made in jest, but, it was also accurate at least for those two.

As far as your other question, I really can't answer that. I know many coaches live by stereo types. For example, you need to be 6 feet tall and left handed to play 1B. Certain skill sets will help a player excel at certain positions, but results are more important to me than stereotypes. That said, I coach based on the skill set. DD was never a fast runner but she was a very smart runner. If the situation called for speed, I would allow DD to hit because I knew she was one of the better hitters on the team, but then I would bring in a courtesy runner in hopes of generating a run.

 

[daywalkerdad]

There was an ESPN article sometime over the winter. It covered changes in how the Indians scout pitching and the Rays scout hitting. Shockingly (sarcasm alert), analytics showed them that the vast majority of young hitters that swing and miss a lot, grow into older hitters that.... continue to swing and miss a lot. Same thing with pitchers. Young Pitchers with lousy control grow into older pitchers with lousy control.

As you note, they can both be improved through hard work, but relative to their peers those things are pretty consistent.

I tried to make this point in an earlier thread. Hand eye and accuracy are athletic skills.
There are many kinds of athletic skills.
The one that gets the most attention is speed. When some discusses an athlete the mean fast and jump.
You also have body control, hand eye, etc.
You would never say a fast shortstop is a bad athlete because the cannot pitch, or they cannot hit.
You will say a pitcher is a bad athlete if they are slow and cannot play short. You will also say slow hitter is not a good athlete if they are slow and can only play first.
This is why Jeff George goes #1. Joe Montana round 3 Tom Brady round 6. There is a huge misconception as to what can be taught and what is athletic. All skills can be improved but all skills have an athletic/natural base.
Coaches have a belief certain skills can be coached up more than others. They are overvaluing themselves.

 

[_MIA_]

Coaches have a belief certain skills can be coached up more than others. They are overvaluing themselves.

If I gave you a 5 YO kid (and you have no idea about who her parents are and you have never set eyes on her..) and said I will give you 1 billion dollars if you can develop this kid into either a) an average P5 100 meter sprinter or b) an average P5 hitter you are telling me it would be a tossup which one you would choose (assuming you somehow have equal knowledge about each sport in order to develop them) ?

I don't know, I guess it is possible that the probability of either one happening given a random kid is equal, I just think that good instruction plus hard work would go a bit further with the hitter than the sprinter but I could be wrong. In either case you probably shouldn't quit your job anticipating the billion dollar payoff..

 

[daywalkerdad]

If I gave you a 5 YO kid (and you have no idea about who her parents are and you have never set eyes on her..) and said I will give you 1 billion dollars if you can develop this kid into either a) an average P5 100 meter sprinter or b) an average P5 hitter you are telling me it would be a tossup which one you would choose (assuming you somehow have equal knowledge about each sport in order to develop them) ?

I don't know, I guess it is possible that the probability of either one happening given a random kid is equal, I just think that good instruction plus hard work would go a bit further with the hitter than the sprinter but I could be wrong. In either case you probably shouldn't quit your job anticipating the billion dollar payoff..

With all the home to first times I see T5 sprinters are everywhere. Elite college women sprinters 20 yards, standing start, dirt, would be 2.75-2.8 seconds. So I would say track would be easier.lol
But in all seriousness, Track has a higher exposure to their elite athletes. If you are fast in 4th you run track, softball lower% exposure so it would be a little bit better odds.
If both had 100% exposure I imagine the odds would be the same.
My point is to 99.999% all the coaching in the world would not put either into T5 category without inherent athletic ability.
Yes colleges have sprint coaches.
Like a .250 being coached to a .300 hitter, a 15 sec 100M running 14 seconds can be coached up to a 13.5.

 

[Rolling Hard]

I agree coaches believe they can turn size and strength into a good player. Or a fast wild pitcher into a good pitcher. A power swing into a good hitter.They rarely can. The true athlete can play multiple sports. They can rock climb, play ping pong, tear up agility/ obstacle courses, fearlessly dive for balls, and can learn new skills very quickly. .

 

[_MIA_]

My point is to 99.999% all the coaching in the world would not put either into T5 category without inherent athletic ability.
Yes colleges have sprint coaches.
Like a .250 being coached to a .300 hitter, a 15 sec 100M running 14 seconds can be coached up to a 13.5.

Yes I got your point (you have made it in two separate threads already... ) and yes I know college track has coaches..my DW ran college track. I just don't think that the attributes/skills required to be good are equally able to be improved upon with good coaching and hard work. You say they are, that is fine. Like every other conversation between you and me on here, we will just agree to disagree .