Strikeout Record Watch

[nanwynn]

Originally Posted by WilsonC

One thing to keep in mind here is the distribution of height among the general population. 6'2"-6'3" is right around the top of the 'common' height distribution - people taller than that tend to stand out in a crowd with their height. Over 6'6" is uncommonly tall. For there to be as many pitchers as there are on that list who are significantly taller than the average person, and for the average to be right around the top of the 'common' height spectrum does suggest that size is an advantage for a pitcher. It's not the advantage it is for, say, a basketball player, but it is enough of an advantage that the majority of good pitchers are of above average height.

Wilson C: You raise an interesting point in equating the more "normal" height range, 6'2" - 6'3," against the general population norm and then pointing out the incidence of even taller MLB pitchers who exceed that range by several inches.

However, if we go back as far as 1901 [and earlier], six footers were common on MLB pitching staffs; and that was a time when the general population was shorter than it is now.

There has always been a bias toward taller guys as pitchers; and I suggest it has become lore that increased size [height] and weight somehow translate readily into endurance, power [velocity], dominance and overall pitching competence. The "perception" is persistent, regardless of the degree to which it is accurate.

I'm not suggesting that MLB clubs begin scouting for shorter pitchers. What I am suggesting is that blindness to the talents of players on the shorter range of the scale exacts a cost on those choosing to ignore them.

Torque, not size imparts pitching velocity; and beyond that there must be control. If we take the "velocity" concept and draw a linear line of preogression over a century of guys warranting fastball measurement, most would agree that Walter Johnson [6'0"]; Smoky Joe Wood [5'11"]; Lefty Grove [6'3"]; Bob Feller [6'0"], Sandy Koufax [6'2"]; Ron Guidry [5'11"]; Marl Wohlers [6'4"]; Rob Dibble [6'2"]; Roger Clemens [6'4"]; Randy Johnson [6'10"]; Pedro Martinez [5'10"], and Billy Wagner [5'10"] would provide a fair time line. Srtangely enough, the average height of this all-time dozen works out to 6'1.6." The time-wroe core of pitching greatness seems very much to graviate @ 6'0 - 6'3" regardless of how many outliers are interposed.

The thinking seems to be [1901 or today]: I llok at two kids just standing there. One is 5'9" tall and weighs 155 pounds. The other is 6'2" and weighs 190 pounds. I'll take the taller kid. Maybe I can do something with him. However, this is not new. It is also not a litmus test that can be interpreted as flawless.

Triad has also raised some consideration that must be made for comparisons across generations of play. As has already been pointed out, baseball cannot be compared against individual effort track, swim, weight and other such sports in which a clock, weight or subjective judge performance may make or break an effort.

In many of these specialty [specialized] disciplines, very limited muscle sets are excruciatingly trained for limited performance aims with little wiggle room for ad libbing.

Going back to trigonometry, I'd like to tacke the presumption that pitching height translates mathematically into an edge of superiority to be presumed in the interests of "bigger is better."

I have separate notes on that; and will copy them here in my next post.

[nanwynn]

Triad, you have raised some valid observations about talking across generations of play. Another factor, ageless as roster heights and weights is the pure mathematics of size as an alleged advantage, a presumption that warrants some scrutiny.

Good ole trigonometry addresses the alleged superiority of height as a critical, determining factor in pitcher prime performance. Let’s look at this presumed advantage trigonometrically:

• Purely based on pitcher height, say a Randy Johnson @ 6’10,” we must add that extra leverage as the pitching arm rears back, is extended higher than the top of the head and arcs to a peak before the downward slope of release and follow-through. I have added 8” to Johnson’s 6’8,” to get 7’4” or 7.333’ of elevation for

Randy Johnson. If I select “Stubby” Overmire @ 5’7” for the sake of a much shorter pitching model, I get 5” of overhead extension, bring Overmire’s elevation to 6.00.’

• We then have to establish a triangle base, which, for the sake of simplicity, I will use 58’ for both men, although and extra 18” for Johnson might be in order. In any event, we have enough to work on an angle of elevation relative to the base and elevation for Johnson and Overmire.

• However, the base is NOT the front of home plate, on the plate. To have any meaning in baseball context, we must select that point at home plate that draws a line at the batter’s knee, which again has many variations. For the sake of example, I have opted deducting 2’ from each pitcher’s initial elevation. So Johnson is at 5.333’ feet of net elevation, while Overmire is at 4.’ Add back 10” for each for mound height and Johnson is @ 6’2” [6.167’]; Overmire @ 4’10” [4.833’].

• If we apply the data at hand we can determine an angle of inclination, from the batter’s low point strike zone to the height of the pitcher’s arc and we get a degree change of approximately 1 degree against a 29-30 degree base. This presumes then that a pitcher of 6’10” when compared to a colleague of equal “other” abilities, will have a 3%-4% edge based solely on the trigonometry of his height. So, Mr. 6’10 hold batters to a .291 BA, who would have batted .300 against Mr. 5’7.”

This calculation presumes that a 1 degree to 2 degree increase in angle of inclination, uphill, from the batter's perspective, translates, without question in a deduction from his batting potential.

[nanwynn]

Another way of looking at the height advantage, simply in common sense terms, is that the effective "zone" of leverage between a 5'7" pitcher and a 6'10" pitcher, adjusted for batter strike zone perspective, amounts to 48" or 4'0" for the 5'7" pitcher and 65" or 5'5" for the 6'10" pitcher.

If we then grant the taller pitcher a point of release closer to the plate than the shorter, say 57.5' as opposed to 59,' and look at the picture, in profile, as a right triangle with a height differential of perhaps 17" [net], we can see that the angle of inclination up, from the batter's knee to the point of the pitcher's highest arm arc, will range between 4+ degrees and 5+ degrees, no real net advantage.

Since the math I used took the highest point of the pitcher's arc [rather than the release point] my model is too generous toward the taller pitcher. Moreover, in measuring the distance to the plate at 57.5' that's where the foot is planted AFTER the delivery. So, the distance of release point to plate "edge" is a bit exaggerated.

Once again, the entire model presumes, up front, that we are dealing with two pitchers of identical pitching skills. [That's the math model, NOT the Stubby Overmire-Randy Johnson model, used only for height disparity].

[Triad]

Originally Posted by WilsonC

One thing to keep in mind here is the distribution of height among the general population. 6'2"-6'3" is right around the top of the 'common' height distribution - people taller than that tend to stand out in a crowd with their height.

But the point Grandstander was trying to make is that bigger is better, meaning that 6' 6" pitchers would tend to have an advantage over 6' 3" pitchers. I have seen no substantiation for that argument.

So, his reference of bigger being better was not in comparing major league athletes to the general public, but rather in comparing the varying sizes within the major league pool. In fact, the optimum level seems to hover around 6' 2½" - 6' 3", which is not near the upper end of the major league pool.

Originally Posted by nanwynn

I'm not suggesting that MLB clubs begin scouting for shorter pitchers. What I am suggesting is that blindness to the talents of players on the shorter range of the scale exacts a cost on those choosing to ignore them.

I read a book recently called Blink, by Malcolm Gladwell, which points out general biases in analysis, and he recommends blind selection because it removes our assumptions about style, which kept women out of prime spots in many symphony sections for a long time because of preconceived notions about their abilities.

Earlier, I had listed the active career leaders by height. Now, if we look at this year's leaders, here's what we get...

The average height of the top 5 AL & NL ERA leaders is.... 6' 2½".

Lincecum ...... 5' 11"
Santana ....... 6' 0"
Volquez ........ 6' 1"
Peavy .......... 6' 1"
Dempster ...... 6' 1"
Lee .............. 6' 3"
Duchscherer .. 6' 3"
Halladay ....... 6' 6"
Lackey ......... 6' 6"
Galarraga ...... 6' 4"

So where's the supposed advantage for the taller sector, eh? Not seeing it.

[nanwynn]

Or, as I pointed out earlier in the thread, ERA+ leaders in2007 and active in 2008:

OR, just taking a look at 2007 full season rosters, limited to top ERA+ staff performers, and also restricting any list, even further to include only pitchers no taller than 6'0", and then being sure they are still active in 2008:

["ERA+ Leaders: 2007 [and active]

Pitcher...................Height..........Weight

Moyer.....................6'0"...............178
Geary......................6'0"...............170
Gordon....................5'9"...............180
Wagner...................5'10"..............180
Hudson....................6'0"...............160
Saul Rivera...............5'11"..............150
Lilly.........................6'0"...............1 85
Oswalt.....................6'0"...............170
Y. Petit....................6'0"...............180
Hampton..................5'10"..............180
Herges.....................6'0"...............200
Trevor Hoffman..........6'0"...............205
Meredith...................6'0"...............180
Cameron...................6'0"...............195
Saenez.....................5'10".............185
Billingsley..................6'0"...............24 4

Matsuzaka................6'0"................185
Kazmir......................6'0"................17 0
Fultz........................6'0"................1 96
Byrdak.....................5'11"...............190
Perkins....................5'11"................20 0
Jo. Peralta................5'11"...............170
Fr. Rodriguez.............6'0".................175
Mi. Batista................6'0".................160
Sherrill.....................6'0"................. 210
[Street......................6'0".................1 85]"