BP Comment Quick Links
| Home | Unfiltered | Articles | Newsletter | Statistics | Fantasy | Events | Radio | Glossary | Search |
![]() |
|
|
|
June 20, 2007 Under The KnifeLess Than Ideal
Is there an ideal pitcher's body? There's some irony here since the pitcher who asked me that is 6'10" (as well as 3-0 with an 0.64 ERA), but ignore that for a moment. Scouts often say there's a type that's "durable" or "ideal." In fact, the evidence suggests that what they're actually saying is shorthand for "There are better odds to have someone at or near the average, with a tendency to the bigger"--which usually means stronger. Short pitchers tend to be finesse guys or, less frequently, fireballers like Roy Oswalt or Tim Lincecum, the kind of guys who don't look like they'll hold up, even if they often do. Tall pitchers have divergent biomechanics. For every Randy Johnson, there's a Ryan Anderson, and most end up like Jon Rauch or Andy Sisco. William Burke, one of our tireless behind-the-scenes researchers, pulled up the sizes for the average pitcher in every year ending in 6 (1906, 1916, etc, through to 2006.) It was essentially a way to minimize his work while getting a meaningful sample. While height and weight data is not exactly scientific, you'd be surprised that the changes really aren't that significant. It's gone from 5'11.5"/180 (or roughly Yusmeiro Petit, if you believe his listed weight) in 1906 to 6'1.5"/191 by 1966 (or roughly Lance Cormier). Today, at nearly 6'3"/201 on average, Mark Buehrle is an average pitcher, at least in size. Burke also found the pitchers are generally a bit bigger than position players, something that I find unsurprising. What we're seeing is more variation, largely because the population from which baseball pulls is ever larger. Scouts aren't wrong in playing the odds when looking for the next Tom Seaver, but the next Greg Maddux won't be found by looking purely for a set mold. Powered by the new The White Stripes album, on to the injuries:
|