See my edit above...you glossed over "beginning". His link did not say 12 yr olds have gone through puberty.
OT-Parisi Speed School
- Thread starter RU5781
- Start date
See my edit above...you glossed over "beginning". His link did not say 12 yr olds have gone through puberty.
Surprised his dad didn't say 90
Based on this thread, once in a lifetime arms like Nolan Ryan are a dime a dozen these days…in just NJ no less.
His dad owns a training facility. He's the guy Hudson was quoting when he said certain people were f'ing crazy.
See what? This kid and his brother are two of the top players in NJ if not the region. I don't believe in can't miss at age 12 but if these kids stay healthy they are about as can't miss as you can find in a normal NJ town. By can't miss I'm not talking about a career in MLB either. Im talking free college type stuff. Did I mention they have three relatives who played at some level of pro baseball?
Can't miss? Let's see some names?
If he can throw in the 70s, other kids can throw in the 60s.
The fact that you and huddy keep denying it show that you are terrible trolls, or have no idea what 12yos can be doing.
This is complete BS, I know exactly what it's like to face an 80 mph pitch from little league distance.
I'm not concerned with the physics of it, I'm concerned with how fast I have to react to hit it, and what it looks like to me
Zap, I can't understand why anyone would be arguing with you on this subject. Of course, anyone can find an outliner kid or an article that seems to back them up but besides your experience, this **** is just common sense.and let's say for example that a 70 mph pitch from little league distance only equates to 95 vs 104 mph- who gives a rats ***, the kids at age 12 and under, aint hitting it without incredible luck.
Lets talk baseball- I have two choices, a scientist or the Berra family. The answer is duuuuhhh
It seems so obvious, but is it really?
In the golf world with the invention of trackman (using science) and shot link data analysis using statisticians, we have learned that many of the truisms held dear by the all-time greats were wrong. Things like launch angle, spin, loft, ball technology, etc have refuted much of what was tried and true 50 years ago. Add to that data analysis that shows adages like laying up to a full club is better than going for it and leaving 30 yards has been proven totally false.
So who am I going to listen too? Greats like Nicklaus, Palmer, Player, etc who were the all-time greats or some science geek with a trackman and statistician who has never played golf with his shot link data? If you said Nicklaus, you would be wrong. The science guys have proved what is actually the real optimum conditions for distance and accuracy and also the strategies for lowest scores.
It's a completely different sport now. Completely different. Today's athletes run circles around athletes from 60 years ago.
I'd say it's a combination of the two. I love all the science stuff they do on espn with athletes. That being said, all the science in the world ain't helping you hit 100mph fastball. There are things to be learned from someone who has.
I didn't read this entire thread but what a lot of the upper middle class white parents don't realize, is you can put your kid in all the training you want. You can't "train" athleticism. Either your kid has fluid hips, or they don't. They can either change direction, or they can't. You might help them reach their peak skill level quicker and they might look like a little all-star at 9 or 11 because you have them in a training regime like they're in college but that will quickly change as other kids actually grow up and develop in HS. IMO it's a waste of time and money to be sending little kids to speed and weight training at such a young age. Start it in 7th-8th grade, let them be kids for a little bit.
This thread is pretty epic. If we could field a team made p of all your children, it would be the #1 ranked team in the country.
In all seriousness, the OP's son sounds like my younger brother back in the day. At 6, he hit something like 32 HR and didn't strike out once. He was one the best hitters and pitchers through age 13 (numerous no hitters in little league). He played up with kids who were 2 years older on probably the greatest AAU team I've ever seen (something like. 46-6 record over two years). My brother very seldom pitched on that team and that team ended up having like 6 kids who went D1, 2 kids who went pro, and one kid who became an MLB all star.
None of those kids, including my brother had private training. They'd just all go play wiffle ball or sandlot games. And my brother, who looked like the second coming of Mike trout, became just an above average player with these guys.
He eventually got burned out and stopped playing in high school because he just wasn't into it anymore and never really got over a chipped elbow he got in a game.
In all seriousness, the OP's son sounds like my younger brother back in the day. At 6, he hit something like 32 HR and didn't strike out once. He was one the best hitters and pitchers through age 13 (numerous no hitters in little league). He played up with kids who were 2 years older on probably the greatest AAU team I've ever seen (something like. 46-6 record over two years). My brother very seldom pitched on that team and that team ended up having like 6 kids who went D1, 2 kids who went pro, and one kid who became an MLB all star.
None of those kids, including my brother had private training. They'd just all go play wiffle ball or sandlot games. And my brother, who looked like the second coming of Mike trout, became just an above average player with these guys.
He eventually got burned out and stopped playing in high school because he just wasn't into it anymore and never really got over a chipped elbow he got in a game.
skoolie hits it dead on ...Nice job skoolie. Reminded me of a conversation I had with Kevin when he was a little ticked at some guys who were trying to say he got where he was because he was taller or bigger and he was lucky to be born with those genes.He pointed on that there are a lot of guys his size, that are good athletes, fast, strong, etc...but that every elite athlete has something that sets them apart, balance? fluid hips as you say, ankle bend or just something in the brain that reacts and or picks up on things just a little fast. And then, with all that, none of it does you any good without just playing the game over and over again. Also agree with Zap that you need to play other sports too. And then yes, science is another tool to use in order to get better. It is all a blend but doubtful elite training at 6 will make a kid any better of a 20 yo playing the game then if all he did was play wiffle ball all summer long.
But having good DNA to start with sure doesn't hurt.
It's Battlebots with live specimens
When I was 16, the Phillies came to town to give "tryouts" for kids 16-21. It was basically a PR stunt. They gave you 5 pitches to hit off a machine, a timed 40 yard dash, and fielding drills in infield & outfield. I hit all 5 pitches, and ran maybe a 6.0. They only wanted people who could run a 4.5 40, or whatever their standard was. Maybe 5 kids of the hundreds that came out moved on to the field drills.
My impression was, it didn't matter what kind of skills you had, if you didn't have lightning fast speed, you weren't making the majors.
By any chance is his name ouchmyelbow?
Well... if you want to bring this science/data vs expert opinion thing back to baseball.. I give you "money ball" as an example on the side of data analysis.