[quote=“the_K_king#2”]what’s the deal with the the “undersized” pitcher? if a guy has good stuff that is under six feet AND has performed at a high level, then why are teams (collegiate and professional) hesitant to sign them?
all you hear is that bigger guys are somehow more “durable”, but it seems to me that mechanics factor most into someones durabilty. ]
There’s a couple of things going on, and they really need to be understood, but more often than not, aren’t.
The most important thing is, there’s a totally different mentality that goes along with “projecting” a player into the future as in college or professional ball, as opposed to a player having success, even a lot of it at the level he’s at.
The other thing is, there’s really only 3 ways to overcome the “bigger is better” and/or “faster is better” general belief. The 1st is blind luck, and believe me, that doesn’t happen a whole lot! When it does, its usually that some particular player meets a particular team’s needs almost perfectly, and there’s no one else available. More often than not, it’ll happen in college where the “better” players either can’t swing the additional costs, or that they just don’t have the grades.
The 2nd one is that the player throws so hard, like a Billy Wagner, that there’s no way he can be ignored. The last one is that the player has some kind of “connection”. An example would be a long time player in the organization’s son, the guy who built the $300M campus library’s nephew, etc…
As far as mechanics go, chances are if a player has the size and the velocity, they may actually project better if they have lousy mechanics because it may be believed that they can always be fixed. But durability is something different. Chances are if a player is small but has been very durable all through HS, the thinking will be that its just a matter of time, especially with all the wear and tear already on him. But if he’s big and looks like he’ll be getting bigger and stronger, not only will the thinking be he’ll be more durable, but because there are so few small guys given the opportunity at higher levels, the rationale will be that the vast majority of the big strong guys are the ones who don’t break down. And keep in mind that out of 1,000 big guys, it would take 100 bodies to make up 10%, but when there’s only 10 little guys, if only 2 break down, the claim would be they break at twice the rate, and it would be true.
There are a lot more factors, but that’s pretty much the gist of it.