Size of players relative to performance

[humpty]

Cuz in general wouldn't the late 2000s be more advanced than the 2001s they are playing against?

 

[Strike3dad]

For club ball at a very young age being born close to Jan 1 is a tremendous mental and physical advantage(on the whole)over a girl born late in the same birth year,thats a no brainer.They are little girls/young women and thats an entire year of developmental separation.After 1st year 14 is really when you start to see big movement and the playing field even out.Now depending on skill set 14u-18 gold are viable options.

However in the big picture you are really only concerned, comparing and competing against girls in your own graduating class nation wide..

If you truely want to end the size of the player arguement pull up a few d1 or the rosters from the pro leauge and see that the majority of the players are 5,10" and under.

Thats the beauty of fastpitch its truely not " the size of the dog in the fight,its the size of the fight in the dog"and there is plenty of room at the table for all you just need to find your seat.

 

[EP Dad]

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

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.

First two posts of the thread and both exactly right. My daughter is a late bloomer and smaller than most girls her age and the discrimination she has received from coaches and travel ball teams because of it is off the charts.

 

[JJsqueeze]

There is a definite bias- I have two daughters- one very tall for her age, one shortish for her age with an oct bday. Smaller one is a far better player when I compare their development at the same age. But taller
One is viewed much differently. One thing about smaller
Girls though is that they will stand out as exceptional once someone sees what they can do. Since there is a preconceived notion of weakness or whatever, it sticks in people's mind when they see that big hit or hard throw.

 

[Vertigo]

In TB, my dd plays on an 11U 2002 team where all of the girls have been 11 for several months now except for her. She just turned 11. Some of these girls will be turning 12 in the first few months of 2014. In LL, however, she will play Majors this year where several of these girls will be turning 13 in 2014; and several look like young women as opposed to girls.

 

[Vertigo]

It's interesting to think that when I played youth softball, they had one age division that consisted of grades 4th-8th (age range 9-14). It was definitely intimidating at age 9 getting up against a pitcher who was 14.

 

[RetiredCoach]

My daughters are both pitchers and averaged size. I remember their last year of rec ball when the parents of
the taller girls thought their daughters should be pitchers. My oldest daughter started the game and struck
just about everyone out. Then the tallest girl on the team pitched and walked just about everyone. They my
younger daughter, at the time about a foot shorter than the tall girl, came in and struck out the side. It was
hard to contain myself in front of the other parents.

No doubt, height is something. A taller girl will, on average, hit the ball harder, throw the ball faster, and pitch
faster. Important phrase: "On average". There are so many skills that make up a softball player besides height.
My daughters are very coordinated and for some reason can get a lot of whip on the ball. In terms of speed they
are certainly in the upper 10-20%.

 

[cuzmail]

Cuz in general wouldn't the late 2000s be more advanced than the 2001s they are playing against?

You would think so or at least in theory. You could say that the late 2000 players stand to have a better chance at an advantage. In the real world there are too many factors that relate back to the player to accurately judge. Things such as mental maturity, physical maturity, coaching, ..etc. These girls are second year 12U and first year 14U so you probably understand.

Maybe later in life they can be compared apples to apples.

 

[CoogansBluff]

Complaints of size bias remind me of those about daddy ball.

It's easy to find people who claim their daughters have been victimized, but almost impossible to find anyone who believes they participate in these biases, or that their daughters were on the other end and profited from these biases.

Not saying they don't exist. Not sure what my point is. I just don't know what to think when someone posts that their daughter was undervalued. I'll take their word for it for sake of discussion, but nobody really knows what's going on because the other side of the argument is not presented.

 

[MNDad]

Can you say what team that is? D1, D2, D3, Juco?.... This will make a difference. IMO, The higher up the food chain the more selective the coaches are.

It's D1. I glanced through other schools too and most had several girls 5'4" and under. Size is an attribute coaches look at, but it's far from the determining factor. I just don't see any truth to the notion that colleges won't look at smaller girls and especially that taller girls have it handed to them wothout earning it.