Does height effect defensive ability?

[BIG17EASY]

Originally Posted by Questdog

Generally, not automatically.....just like men are stronger than women, but not all men are stronger than all women. My point is that each player should be judged on his own merits and not disqualified base on a rigid set of preconceived notions. Yes, taller players generally have an advantage of reach, but even that is not always the case. A 5-4 player with 9-ft arms will have a good reach.....

I think we have to limit ourselves to the segment of the population that has baseball skills. You're well outside those bounds with your examples.

[TuckerDuckson]

Originally Posted by Questdog

Generally, not automatically.....just like men are stronger than women, but not all men are stronger than all women. My point is that each player should be judged on his own merits and not disqualified base on a rigid set of preconceived notions. Yes, taller players generally have an advantage of reach, but even that is not always the case. A 5-4 player with 9-ft arms will have a good reach.....

Most 7' professional basketball players don't have a wingspan exceeding 96", or 8 feet. Having a guy who is 5'4" with a 108" wingspan is nearly impossible. His wingspan would almost be 2 times his hight, its unheard of and an extreme hyperbole.

While I agree on the whole "Judged by merits not preconcieved notions" it is mostly a plain fact that the taller a person (who scientifically will have a larger wingspan than a person nearly a half foot shorter than he) will be better than a shorter person.

The main reason why a first baseman who is 6'5' would be better qualified than a 5'10' guy is he can cover more surface area.

When throwing to a first base you can throw to the 4 quadrants. Which are all limited to his combined reach. Think of a coordinate plane where the edges are the extent of each first baseman's reach. A throw from shortstop you can throw in each of the quadrants, 1 (top right) 2 (top left) 3 (bottom left) and 4 (bottom right) With the orgin being a straight line shot to the chest. How the edges of the "square" are the extent that each man can reach.

This example exemplifies the fact that the taller person (with the larger wingspan) will be able to cover more area in the plane over the guy who is shorter and has less of a wingspan. Now under your non-preconceived notion, a taller person should have an advantage to both the left/right sides, and above. Now say that he is not as agile with a ball thrown in the area where quadrant 3 and 4 meet. So by this logic the smaller person would be able to control the area where 3 and 4 meet better than the taller man due to a decreased wingspan. So over all the taller person has control of 3 of the 4 axis spots, (left, right, and above) since he has a taller wingspan he can cover more ground than the smaller guy, there for he controls quadrants 1, 2 and most of 3 and 4. His only true weakness is the bottom part of the entire coordinate plane, lets say he is worse at quarter of 3 and 4 that is closest to the y axis due to his extended reach (which is a stupid assumption, he can simply bend his arm, having a shorter reach gives a player zero advantage at first base.)

What I'm getting at here is that overall the taller man (who is 6'5") controls around a 3.5 portion of the entire plane, compared to the smaller man (who is again 5'10") who only controls .5 portion of the plane. I as a coach would want a man who can "potentially" 7 times more than a man who is 5'10"

Now you might say that the origin (the straight shot) anyone can make which hell fine, that's why I said potentially, but overall the taller guy has an advantage in more than an overall 3 quarters.

That took forever to type too.

[RchW]

Originally Posted by Questdog

Generally, not automatically.....just like men are stronger than women, but not all men are stronger than all women. My point is that each player should be judged on his own merits and not disqualified base on a rigid set of preconceived notions. Yes, taller players generally have an advantage of reach, but even that is not always the case. A 5-4 player with 9-ft arms will have a good reach.....

Good point. In the first post it was also claimed that a 6'5" SS would be less effective than a 6'0" SS. The answer is, "don't know until we see it".

[Questdog]

Originally Posted by TuckerDuckson

That took forever to type too.

And it is all true, but there is more to playing first than catching throws. In fielding grounds balls, a taller man will be at a disadvantage, generally. A smaller man will also have, again generally, a quicker release on his throws and be generally more agile and able to catch foul balls. That is to say, generally, but not necessarily.....

P.S. If I am known for anything, it is for my extreme hyperbole.....

But as I said, height is a plus at first, just not the be-all and end-all to consider.

[RchW]

Unless the game uses a database of average height/weight/body type tied to position at player creation to replicate how players slot into positions as they develop then it is moot. I don't think the game does that because 6'5" 240 lb "first base" types get ratings at SS and 2B in MLB all the time. In real life such players would be perceived to have negative ratings especially at the MLB level.

If height at 1B and its lack thereof at other positions, cause a known reproducible defensive benefit without some underlying logic and control to limit its predictability, that would be a huge exploit that would ruin the game for me.

[Number4]

Height at 1B DOES however produce a reproductible defensive benefit. The other parts, underlying logic, are represented by infield range and infield error. For a given amount of agility and footwork, represented by infield range, a taller guy will be better at 1B.

How else would you represent that? If you give him extra range because of his height, he'll be unrealistically better at the other infield positions.

And I'd guess on average tall people will be generated with less infield ratings, like probably also fat guys don't get much speed.

However there are still tall people playing SS, Baseball Prospectus | Skewed Left: The Literal Rise of the Shortstops

[ihatenames]

For what it's worth..

Originally Posted by Markus Heinsohn

Player height is a factor at 1B, yes. Weight only factors into the development of a position (i.e. a younger player growing out of the SS position).

Originally Posted by Markus Heinsohn

Yes, defense peaks rather early... you will have to keep an eye on the height/weight of the player. A tall 18-year old SS with poor range to begin with, will likely not get better with age. There will be exceptions of course (may want to keep an eye on the work ethic)

[TuckerDuckson]

Originally Posted by ihatenames

For what it's worth..

This is what I was looking for.

[NoOne]

just to throw two cents into the logical debate about it..

if you compared the area, or volume of space to 6', you'd be surprised by how large the percentage difference gets with just a few inches of heighth. it's the hieghts, the legs, the arm length. if it helps high, it helps low, too. what's an awkward reach for a short person is an awkward reach for a tall person, that stuff mostly remains the same in this context. it's definitely a good thing to have in the game.

could they be more sophisticated about it, sure.. but i forgive them for not keeping a wingspan and inseam data for each player. correlating it to height is fine for me.

i don't know about others, but fatties get contracts with weight limits, LoL. i figure i can take off 10-15lbs a year in a healthy way... the organization pays for a live-in chef and personal trainer, too.