Size of players relative to performance

[Scorekeeper]

On a couple baseball boards, I’ve been in discussions about player performance relative to player size. My reasons for starting the discussions were that I believe in BASEBALL there is a distinct bias FOR players of size regardless of skills, and since that bias begins at the very lowest of levels, it has a definite effect on which players advance to the highest levels of the game.

Since I’m not nearly as familiar with FPSB player morphology as I am with baseball, I thought I’d ask if the same thing takes place in that game, and to what extent.

Thanx

 

[cuzmail]

There is a bias toward larger (mainly taller) girls in fast pitch too. Some discussion lately as to whether it is warranted or not. Seems to be more acute with pitchers.

 

[Comp]

A lot depends on the coach, just look at the variance in the teams at the WCWS. You have some teams that seem to be all larger girls that concentrate on power hitting and you have other teams that have all smaller girls and utilize speed and slapping.

 

[CoogansBluff]

I believe in BASEBALL there is a distinct bias FOR players of size regardless of skills

Want to make sure I understand what you're asking. ...

Are you asking whether size and certain body types might provide an advantage, or are you asking whether players of a certain size and body type tend to be discriminated against unfairly?

 

[SCDad]

From my viewing of player size, I see the size of the player having a distinct slotting on the position she plays on the higher levels.

Shorter, quicker player are slotted up the middle, 2B, SS, CF. Taller players slotted to the outside 1B, 3B, RF, LF.

Pitchers are based on performance usually. The taller pitchers have an advantage (5'9"+), but the shorter pitchers if they perform, can find a place.

Catching is more about quicks. What is their throwing speed, or time, from when they catch the ball, to releasing the ball. How quick are they in small spaces.

In general, the taller player gets an advantage usually because they hit the ball longer. But there are spots for the smaller players too. Mostly because softball defense is quickness oriented, more so than baseball. And on offense, many of the smaller players are slappers and can utilize this aspect more so than baseball.

Having watched my DD play baseball to 12's. Softball is more inclusive for different size players than baseball.

The only type player top level softball shuns is fat (except for pitchers). Typically the top softball players are about 10 pounds overweight, as room for fuel, and weightlifting to muscle. Anything more than 10 lbs+ and the player is seriously limiting her future potential, to the exclusion of most anything else. Speed is just that important in softball at the highest levels.

 

[Scorekeeper]

Want to make sure I understand what you're asking. ...

Are you asking whether size and certain body types might provide an advantage, or are you asking whether players of a certain size and body type tend to be discriminated against unfairly?

Glad you asked!

There’s no doubt in my mind that “size and certain body types” provide an advantage, but I’m trying to find out if any bias because of it is warranted, which boils down to fair/unfair.

The only way I can see to test it is to look at performance, however one wants to define that, relative to nothing but height, weight, or some combination of both. Unfortunately, no one below MB in baseball keep stats by H&W that I know of, and for sure the lower the level the less likely stats are even kept, let alone by H&W.

Using the data from our HSV baseball team from 2007-2013, I ran off some basic stats. Unfortunately, our team doesn’t actually measure and weigh players, so all I did was make my best “guess”, and that’s admittedly filled with errors for a couple reasons.

View attachment size1.pdf

Assuming a H&W is fairly accurate for a “season”, the problems aren’t so bad with players new to the team. Assuming you could get a good H&W, the problems begin when a player plays more than one season, because at any age less than say 18YO, players are gonna grow. So what you end up with is grouping Joey’s stats as a 5’7” Fr playing as a sometimes sub on the V, with his stats as a 6’1” Sr super stud starter. That isn’t really a fair way to combine the numbers because it elevates his early numbers and decreases his later ones. I ASSUME the same thing happens with girls, albeit to a somewhat lesser degree because they don’t tend to grow as tall or heavy.

So the numbers I generated are really nothing more than an example of how to display them, not how to go about getting them. I hope I cleared up your question.

 

[Scorekeeper]

…Having watched my DD play baseball to 12's. Softball is more inclusive for different size players than baseball.

Its almost unbelievable that there are so many in BB who refuse to believe there any bias at all, and tend to see it only that bigger project to better, even when there’s no reason to project anything.

The only type player top level softball shuns is fat (except for pitchers). Typically the top softball players are about 10 pounds overweight, as room for fuel, and weightlifting to muscle. Anything more than 10 lbs+ and the player is seriously limiting her future potential, to the exclusion of most anything else. Speed is just that important in softball at the highest levels.

When I first started the discussion, I was thinking more in terms of beginning levels than levels where there could be some monetary reasons for the bias, such as a professional contract or scholarship. Just as an example, looking at the lowest level of LLI for either baseball or softball, who really cares if a kid is tall, short, fat, or skinny? To me, the entire purpose is to teach the game to the kids, hoping to develop in them the love of the game and the desire to get better.

It would be different if kids didn’t begin playing ball until they were both physically and mentally mature, but there’s a looooong way from 7 or 8 until anything close to maturity. I’ve always believed that keeping as many in the game for a long as possible is the only way to give them a real chance to “blossom” of “fail”. But if kids are “shunned” before they even have the chance to lose a few pounds of baby fat or gain enough strength to be able to compete on a fairly level plain, to me all that’s happened is lots of players with potential are tossed out with the bathwater.

 

[Scorekeeper]

There is a bias toward larger (mainly taller) girls in fast pitch too. Some discussion lately as to whether it is warranted or not. Seems to be more acute with pitchers.

That’s basically what I’m interested in. How can performance be measured in such a way as to help prove/disprove how warranted it is? I’m assuming FPSB is like BB in that few if any keep stats by size, and that’s the only way I know how to show relativity.

 

[SCDad]

Good luck with your endeavor.

When the growth spurts happen between girls and boys are different.

For example, the taller girls usually get their growth spurt around 12 to 14 years old. It is not uncommon for a young female athlete who is growing at a rate of 1/4" a month to experience a slight drop off in performance when compared with a girl the same age who is not growing.

In the short term, during a growth spurt, a shorter player may appear to be a better player. However, once the taller player fully adjusts to her larger size, at 15 or 16 years old, she will suddenly become a better player than the shorter player.

It is common for a great, great young short player, with all the associated hype, then become only a standard good player when older as the taller players eclipse the smaller players in athletic ability.

It is still about how athletic the player becomes. As coaches will always say, you cannot teach size, speed, and athleticism. Though improvement can always be make on the margins, the bigger, more athletic player, most always gains the advantage in both measured, and real, performance when they reach adulthood.

It happened to me (male) when I was young. In 6th grade I was the best athlete in the area. I did not grow, the other boys did. By high school, the same players who I whooped when young, could now whoop me in just about every athletic pursuit. To deny it is futile.

As far as the fat thing, that is a subject unto itself. I often hear a 10 year-old player/parent try to justify that they are not fat. They compare their bodies to full grown college players and using this comparison, they probably are not fat. But they are in denial, because for a 10 year, they truly are fat. And only get fatter because they do not change their eating habits. By high school they are washed out because of it.

 

[Scorekeeper]

Good luck with your endeavor.

When the growth spurts happen between girls and boys are different.

For example, the taller girls usually get their growth spurt around 12 to 14 years old. It is not uncommon for a young female athlete who is growing at a rate of 1/4" a month to experience a slight drop off in performance when compared with a girl the same age who is not growing.

Now that’s interesting! Where did you get that information. I’ve always been very general about growth spurts because I believe them to be a weird combination of nature and nurture that really can’t be pigeonholed very accurately. But I’d love to be able to say with some certainty that a boy’s growth spurt come within a certain 2 year period.

In the short term, during a growth spurt, a shorter player may appear to be a better player. However, once the taller player fully adjusts to her larger size, at 15 or 16 years old, she will suddenly become a better player than the shorter player.

Actually, if measured by performance and the shorter player has performed superiorly, for that time she/he was the superior player.

It is common for a great, great young short player, with all the associated hype, then become only a standard good player when older as the taller players eclipse the smaller players in athletic ability.

True. It is also not uncommon for a young tall player to go from stud to dud and get passed by the smaller players.

It is still about how athletic the player becomes. As coaches will always say, you cannot teach size, speed, and athleticism. Though improvement can always be make on the margins, the bigger, more athletic player, most always gains the advantage in both measured, and real, performance when they reach adulthood.

I’ll agree in theory, but since there’s no way to measure total athleticism, what coaches say doesn’t always make a great deal of sense.

It happened to me (male) when I was young. In 6th grade I was the best athlete in the area. I did not grow, the other boys did. By high school, the same players who I whooped when young, could now whoop me in just about every athletic pursuit. To deny it is futile. …

I don’t deny it happens, but I do deny it’s a given.