Which one would be chosen?

General Pitching Topics
#1

I was wondering if scouts preferred it if a guy had an easy delivery (think mariano rivera or Daniel Bard). Would they chose him over a guy who has more of a max-effort delivery?

Like lets say that this is the situation
Pitcher 1: sits in low 80s, has an effortless delivery, makes it look easy.
Pitcher 2: sits in upper 80s, has max delivery, is trying to throw the crap out of the ball.

Lets say that they both have similar stats, control, and quality of offspeed pitches. Neither has never had an arm injury. thats one scenario.

Now the second one:
1: sits in low 80s, effortless, good control (can hit corners) on fastball and can get offspeed over in fastball counts. Knows how to pitch
2: sits in upper 80s, max effort, can throw strikes with fastball (however, can’t hit corners), can’t really get offspeed stuff over. Survives because he has good velocity.

#2

If I were a scout, or a manager, or whatever, I would take Pitcher #1 any time. You mentioned Mariano Rivera—but he doesn’t exactly fit your description. He throws in the low-to-mid-90s, but when he’s really on he’ll hit 97 with that cutter. But he does make it look easy; he has this fluid motion, effortless, could almost put you to sleep with it—and then the cutter explodes under the batter’s hands or in his face, and the poor bat splits in two or even three pieces!
Pitcher #2 seems to be trying too hard. Sure, he’s got the speed—you’ve seen those guys who throw in the high 90s—but I would wonder about his control. You say he can’t hit the corners? Bad sign. That’s the kind of pitcher batters drool over; nice juicy fast balls right down the pipe or middle in. I remember, in the old days, pitchers like Vic Raschi—a true power pitcher with an overpowering fast ball and an even more murderous slider—who threw in the high 90s but could hit the corners (one year he led the AL in strikeouts!). If your #2 can’t seem to do that he’s in for a lot of trouble.
So, all things considered, I’ll take Rivera any time. 8) :slight_smile:

#3

well the obvious choice would be the first pitcher. however many scouts criteria is different when scouting pitchers, so a scout may want the guy with the most potential or the guy who has proven himself already… it just depends.

#4

I agree. I think a majority of scouts would take a guy throwing 87-88 over a guy throwing 81-82, especially if they have the same stuff. They aren’t going to care so much whether you have a fluid motion.

#5

I agree. I think a majority of scouts would take a guy throwing 87-88 over a guy throwing 81-82, especially if they have the same stuff. They aren’t going to care so much whether you have a fluid motion.[/quote]

This ^^^

When it all comes down to it, in the scouting world, theres one cardinal rule-

Velocity > EVERYTHING

Mechanics, offspeed, location, just the general art of pitching, can all be taught or learned.

A raw upper 80’s or low 90’s fastball, thats just natural.

#6

In the scouting world there are a lot of things that go into the process of look, evaluate, pass on.

The road of appraising a man’s current and future potential is purely based on the amount of time and money it’s going to take to bring said player up to par with talent already in place - and that is NOT the decision of one man or woman.

A series of look-sees, opinions, telephone calls, data collections and meetings of various people, and even some video or film will be hashed over and over. The playing environment that’s currently in place and the talent pool of, say, two or three years from now is also considered. In short - what’s available and what do we need for the foreseeable future, who’s leaving, who’s got the attitude of “I’m out of here”, who’s injury prone and high maintenance. And don’t forget the college game - who’s graduating, who’s transferring, who’s going pro, is also in there.

When it all comes down to it, in the scouting world, theres one cardinal rule- Velocity > EVERYTHING. Mechanics, offspeed, location, just the general art of pitching, can all be taught or learned.

In some scouting circles this has worth, but to be on the side of caution, I would hesitate on leaving that statement as-is.

Blinding velocity does seem to have its attractions, but along with blinding velocity comes other things like:

At what cost has this player achieved this?
What’s his durability been like?
Where did he get his training to achieve this velocity? Amateur, professional, self taught?
What’s his personal care habits like to address his post appearance?
Does he rely on velocity and velocity alone?
What’s it gonna take in time and money to correct … anything?

I included that last item in bold letters for a reason. However, before I state my reasons, please don’t think that I being rude or impersonal to anyone who has hopes to making it into the college or professional ranks.

The scouting profession is no different from any other job. It’s a job. It’s a way to earn money, pay bills, EAT. And the job isn’t offered to just anybody. A scout has to have a worth to his/her eye for talent, collecting a ton of information, then passing that info along. Then somewhere, a chain of decision makers collects all this data and makes comparisons from other scouts and independents. Money and job security are at the heart of every decision that’s made - how much time to bring this guy around? What’s the cost ($)? Do we even have the people to bring this guy around? Is this guy trainable? Do we even need a guy that’s going to draw time, personnel and money? And most importantly - how efficient and cost productive are the scouts and their bosses going to viewed by business managers and owners of the organization/institution.

Yes, there’s a lot to be said for velocity and blinding speed. It’s just one of the indicators of ability and longevity in this sport/business. It’s not thee holy grail that people make it out to be.

Coach B.