Meh. Dunning-Kruger does much to explain our current political landscape, but I do not believe applies here. You're talking about a highly intelligent man.
If I wanted to drudge up what little I learned in psyche 100 a zillion years ago, I'd lean more toward narcissism, which is what you get if you take stubbornness and feed it 'roids and HGH.
I disagree. We're dealing with a savant. He knows stats.
Actually I think that its just someone with too much time on their hands!
Any of you guys watch Clubhouse Confidential on MLB Network? They are doing something now dealing with the Top 10 in the league at their position. They have something called "The Shredder". Basically, it is a computer model that looks at ALL the sabermetrics and whatever numbers are available on the players. It then decides, based solely on the numbers, who are the top 10 players at a position. Then they have several "baseball guys" who come up with their own list. Their list is basically based on the numbers available AND what their "human" factors are. They will often disagree with the computer models because they know information about a player that the computers cannot possibly take into account.
I think that is what we are really talking about here. Can you make decisions based solely on the numbers, or are there other factors to take into account as well? There are always factors to take into account outside of the numbers and I think that's all anyone is trying to say here. The problem is Stats wants to put EVERYTHING in terms of numbers and use that as the basis for decisions to be made.
I think using velo is a part of the equation, but certainly not everything. I don't think anyone will ever be able to come up with a certain percentage drop in velocity that will determine when every single pitcher will need to be taken out, because there is that "human" factor to be taken into consideration.
These discussions are starting to remind me of the old Marshall discussions with Pronate and Dirtberry. Those of us who have been around a while will remember them. 
Any of you guys watch Clubhouse Confidential on MLB Network? They are doing something now dealing with the Top 10 in the league at their position. They have something called "The Shredder". Basically, it is a computer model that looks at ALL the sabermetrics and whatever numbers are available on the players. It then decides, based solely on the numbers, who are the top 10 players at a position. Then they have several "baseball guys" who come up with their own list. Their list is basically based on the numbers available AND what their "human" factors are. They will often disagree with the computer models because they know information about a player that the computers cannot possibly take into account.
I think that is what we are really talking about here. Can you make decisions based solely on the numbers, or are there other factors to take into account as well? There are always factors to take into account outside of the numbers and I think that's all anyone is trying to say here. The problem is Stats wants to put EVERYTHING in terms of numbers and use that as the basis for decisions to be made.
I think using velo is a part of the equation, but certainly not everything. I don't think anyone will ever be able to come up with a certain percentage drop in velocity that will determine when every single pitcher will need to be taken out, because there is that "human" factor to be taken into consideration.
These discussions are starting to remind me of the old Marshall discussions with Pronate and Dirtberry. Those of us who have been around a while will remember them.
And that says it all for this thread! Golf clap, everyone! Onward and upward as they say!
I was close to digging up my dead horse and club picture as an editorial cartoon.
I don't mind discussing this kind of stuff. I actually like some of what "Stats" believes in. He wants to compile as much information as possible for others to use.
That is what confuses me. If you had all his information and included gun readings on every pitch, wouldn't that just provide more information for others to use? I would think this would be right up "Stats" alley and give him even more numbers to look over.
It sounds like he doesn't use a radar gun and neither does the school he works for. That is fine, lots of schools don't have radar guns. It doesn't mean that radar guns are worthless. I suppose most people think of a radar gun as a tool to see how hard someone can throw. That is true, but there is so much more information it can provide. And in some cases, it can tell us a lot once we have a good history on the pitcher out there on the mound. It can't give us all the answers, but it can provide clues. Maybe that clue is no more than getting a pitcher ready in the bullpen. But baseball is a game of small details and taking advantage of small things. You use everything possible to gain an edge.
As I've said, I'm all for free speech and open dialog on this board... including the Little Devil. The problem No, one of the problems I have though with taking Stats' posts seriously is that he rarely if ever offers any actual data. It's all conjecture and pedantic theoretical arguments. And calling his arguments "theories" is a stretch. In fact, calling his arguments "arguments" is a stretch. The "argument" is usually just him questioning the surface of one long standing baseball axiom or another. I'm not trying to be disrespectful to Stats for the sake of it, just my honest assesment as a long time observer.
In this current example, if you have a baseline of a HS pitcher generally sitting 76-79 with FB all season, and suddenly mid game he is having a hard time touching 70... then a coach uses this data and considers. Has he been pitching a lot of late, bringing on a dead arm? Is he visually fatigued and/or are his mechanics breaking down, causing him to lose velo? Is he also losing command? Is the opposition starting to square him up more often? Any of these items, alone or in combination, could obvioisly lead to readying a reliever or making a change. And any pitching coach worth his salt will be mindful of these sorts of questions and many others in the everyday course of doing his job. Just fundamental stuff.
So if Stats wants to challenge tired old fundamental thinking, then that's a great and useful thing to do. But I've yet to see him do that! He's ostensibly been coaching MS pitchers and "helping the varsity coaches collect data" for as long as I've been coming to this board... Years. So where is some enlightening, real world, first hand HS data? Why all the vague, hair-splitting questions and more questions... How 'bout some answers already! You can't have this many questions and "theories" for this long and not have a few reasonable conclusions to offer. I'm ready to be enlightened!
Asking why the wheels are always round isn't the same thing as aligning the front end of the car.
Originally Posted by PGStaff:
Why can't a person have that experience and also pay attention to the gun readings? Are you saying "less" information is more valuable? If available I would want to know spin rate and shape also. Certain things can't be seen from the dugout. I would want to know as much information as is possible.
Of course they can do both, and of course more information is always preferable. But that’s never been an issue with me.
…If statistics are your game, how can you provide a totally accurate picture of a pitcher with no velocity readings. When we chart pitchers we would have more information than you do. So I would say your statistics are far from complete. When velocity, speed differentials, location, shape, etc., on every pitch is available... It tells more about the pitcher rather than having to guess how good the competition is based on the results….
I have no doubt what-so-ever that many people have a lot more information about pitchers than I do, and I never once even implied that velocity wasn’t an important piece of the puzzle. What I’ve ever tried to get across is, all of the information has different uses at different levels.
FI, why put an 11YO on pitch(f/x)? What would be gained? Even at the HS level, what good would it do to have every bit of information MLB does, if there’s no staff around to help analyze and apply it?
...Bottom line... There certainly are indicators that a pitcher is fatigued or needs to be replaced. Most everyone knows what they are, this is nothing new. The radar gun is not the most important indicator. It's simply giving you more information to contemplate.
Usually the velocity coincides with the other indicators. When it does, it's possible the radar gun reading is the first noticeable sign of concern. And sometimes it won't mean much at all. That is where knowing your pitcher becomes most important. And those radar gun readings are very much a part of knowing your pitcher.
Nothing there that I haven’t said or agreed with.
You’ve said:”maybe a few thousand times have I seen amateur pitchers drop as much as 5 mph from one inning to the next. We see it every day in the summer!” I’ve said more than once that that’s something I’ve never seen. I’ve also said we don’t use a gun in our program, so that may explain why I’ve never seen or heard of it. I’ve checked with local coaches who do use a gun and they don’t recall ever seeing it either, so all I’m left with is that what you’re seeing and what I’m seeing are two very different things, and its because of the players you’re looking at as opposed to the ones I see.
That doesn’t make me or you a liar! I just means we have different experiences. I’ll continue to try to find anyone who sees what you do at the rate you see it, but since I don’t do showcases, I seriously doubt I’ll ever see it. You have access to all kinds of data, so maybe you can figger out a way that doesn’t cost you a lot of time and/or $$$, to show the starting pitchers in the games you see and have data on, and for every pitch its sequence(1st, 2nd,3rd, etc), the type of pitch and velocity. I’m trying to get that for ML pitchers, but not having a lot of luck.
I know its been done because the graph in that article shows the sum of all pitchers, but its impossible to pick out any individual game or pitcher. This is only a guess, but I’m thinkin’ if you graphed out all the pitchers you see, the graph isn’t going to have the same “curve” as the one in that article. Further, I’m guessing that if it were possible to graph all HS and college pitchers, the curve wouldn’t be the same either.
Originally Posted by bballman:
…I think that is what we are really talking about here. Can you make decisions based solely on the numbers, or are there other factors to take into account as well? There are always factors to take into account outside of the numbers and I think that's all anyone is trying to say here. The problem is Stats wants to put EVERYTHING in terms of numbers and use that as the basis for decisions to be made. …
NO! NO! NO! I have never said every decision should be based solely on numbers! NEVER! Can you make decision based solely on numbers? Of course! Will they be the best possible decisions? Not very likely. Will they be better using valid data than using guesses, feelings, and perceptions alone? Very likely.
There is no formula that I know of where a velocity drop tells you the pitcher or the game is at risk. All pitchers are different.
a large drop in velocity from one inning to the next or even in the middle of an inning is a reason for concern. That's it! There is no more!
It seems as though this is where we’re talking past each other. Don’t you think I know all pitchers are different? That’s exactly why I have difficulty when you use numbers like 5MPH. I converted that to a percentage in order to use it on other pitchers. IOW, a 5MPH drop to a ML pitcher throwing 90 is not nearly the same as a 5 MPH drop to an 11YO in a LLI game.
5MPH is 5.6% of 90, so that’s the drop you say caused concern. There’s nothing wrong with that because its at least a legitimate guideline. From that I can say a pitcher peaking at 65 who shows a 5.6% drop raises concerns. That’s 3.7MPH. That would mean seeing a 61 peak for that pitcher raises concerns. That’s all! Its that simple! I’m just trying to get you to say what that drop-dead percentage is that should raise a concern in order to have a guideline, because without it, people will make up their own, and that could cause trouble. I’m not trying to trick you, I’m just trying to get some information with which to set up some guidelines.
Stats, this comment, and those like it are what causes me (possibly others) to believe that you rely totally on the numbers. And specific numbers at that. What most have been saying here is that a drop in velocity is a POSSIBLE indicator to a pitcher becoming fatigued or that he will run into trouble. For different pitchers, that number, or even percentage drop will be different. Yet you continue to press for an exact number that you can use. It's really not there because every pitcher is different. The guideline is, if velocity starts to drop, start looking for other signs. If other signs are not there, things may be OK, depending on the pitcher. If other signs are there, it may be time to pull the pitcher. Unfortunately, it is not an exact science based solely on the numbers.
A few times every year, someone comes promotes the philosophy that the way to judge a pitcher’s fatigue is to look at their velocity, and if it drops to some predetermined number or percentage, the hook goes out. Almost every time that method of determining fatigue is mentioned I take issue with it, but the truth is, its an issue that never seems to get resolved.
It only makes sense that any physical activity that’s repeated is going to cause fatigue, and it also makes sense to believe that eventually the ability to keep doing it at the same level will diminish. But I wonder if using velocity of a pitch is a valid way to measure that fatigue. Does anyone know of any studies on the subject?
I guess if you want to go back to your original question, the answer is probably no. It is one factor, but not the only determining factor.
