Home to First Timing Methods

[default]

And whoever said they have 4 girls under 3.0 on there team are kidding themselves. But again it is all on how they are timed and compared. For each tryout it is going to be different. It just matters how they are timed.

Come time them yourself... my own DD runs an average of 3.1 to 3.3 but has hit 3.00 and she is really slow compaired to our top 4 girls..

I do it just like football. line to line 60ft apart... In football players run anywhere from 4.2 to 4.8 in the 40yd dash, thats 120ft. I will bet you I at 40years old can run 60ft in 3.00sec.

By the way 3 of these 4 girls played college ball this past spring, the 4th girl is only 15yo.

 

[default]

Looking over the times taken at the Stingray Recruiting Camps utilizing the BATS testing system, I'd have to say them Parma girls are drinking something pretty special. Out of a fairly extensive list (looks like over 150 girls), only two girls had sub 3 second times (2.9 and 2.94). Everyone else was over 3 seconds.

 

[default]

Looking over the times taken at the Stingray Recruiting Camps utilizing the BATS testing system, I'd have to say them Parma girls are drinking something pretty special. Out of a fairly extensive list (looks like over 150 girls), only two girls had sub 3 second times (2.9 and 2.94). Everyone else was over 3 seconds.

When you play with 60 minute time limits, ya gotta be fast! :lmao:

 

[default]

I've timed one wildcat myself - 2.7. I started at the sound of the bat on the ball and stopped when her foot hit the bag.

She's an amazing player and I've yet to see her thrown out. A real joy to see play.

 

[default]

Looking over the times taken at the Stingray Recruiting Camps utilizing the BATS testing system, I'd have to say them Parma girls are drinking something pretty special. Out of a fairly extensive list (looks like over 150 girls), only two girls had sub 3 second times (2.9 and 2.94). Everyone else was over 3 seconds.

Not to burst any bubbles,,,,,but maybe the girls that went to the recruiting camp are the ones still trying to get seen. The fast ones are already known and maybe have had offers already, so they did not go to the recruiting camp.....just a thought

 

[default]

I have noticed a lot of times when you use the bunt method for timing. The girl may do the first one with a good bunt but subsequent bunts they are half over the plate while bunting. Trying to get that little extra advantage to make their time better.

 

[default]

There are many camps all over the nation. Keep in mind these are outside not inside which does make a difference on times. Plus they don't use a stop watch( human factor) but use the new beam method. My dd can attest that times really vary camp to camp. Queen of Diamonds and WSU ( both indoor camps) she was at 2.84. Outside not as fast. It all boils down to who and how they are timed.

 

[default]

If it's my dd I start the watch three steps from the bag... is that wrong?

Not wrong, just being a good dad!

 

[default]

Couple of factors that seem to make the NFCA times look slower than we thought they would be. NFCA is truly measuring the player at 60 ft. If you're timing the player from the bunting position it's going to be less than 60 ft since who bunts from the back point of the plate. Another factor is remember they said the clock stops when the player's chest passes the finish line. Most people are stopping the watch when the foot hits the bag. Your foot is always going to be ahead of your chest. So combine those together and you probably account for why the NFCA times don't record many players under 3.0.

Michael P.

 

[default]

If you think about this, you want a time that simulates an average game situation. Starting the watch anytime AFTER the batter starts running (like first step) is NOT a simulated game situation. If you always time from "contact to bag", you'll be accurate. Slappers should be faster, due to the fact that they are in motion at contact, and better technique equals faster times. Hence, effective slappers have a distinct advantage. But if you time from "first step", or just a swing (without ball contact), you are exaggerating their true effective home-to-first time.

 

[default]

Lots of good stuff here. Thanks everyone. Now how about first to second times? Are the girls sliding into the bag or running past it?

 

[default]

I would think using the first step would be preferred becuase it is the same for everyone. Using the ball contact method seems to incorporate too many variables. Also the time is used for more then who gets to first the fastest. How quick a girl will get to fly balls in foul territory or the overall range of the outfielder, not to mention using the time to measure the overall athleticism of a player.

 

[default]

our timing method is based upon threatening to take their phones away forever if they don't get under 3.0. We have 7u's running at 1.9...

 

[default]

our timing method is based upon threatening to take their phones away forever if they don't get under 3.0. We have 7u's running at 1.9...

Now that's funny.

 

[default]

I would think using the first step would be preferred becuase it is the same for everyone. Using the ball contact method seems to incorporate too many variables. Also the time is used for more then who gets to first the fastest. How quick a girl will get to fly balls in foul territory or the overall range of the outfielder, not to mention using the time to measure the overall athleticism of a player.

Yes i agree, the timing should be done as to make all players standing on equal ground. In college and the NFL the measure football players on a track, with no football gear on, and in track shoes. Not game like conditions at all, but equal for all and will give the absolute best results...

again your are looking for : what are the players upper limits / absolute best possible

 

[default]

our timing method is based upon threatening to take their phones away forever if they don't get under 3.0. We have 7u's running at 1.9...

agree thats funny