Sorry for the poor attempt at humor… Just trying to have some fun and lighten things up a bit. My mistake! I’ve learned my lesson.
Seriously, I would like to know what is so important regarding who is right or wrong regarding this topic? Is there some potentially harmful information or opinions being released?
Think about this... There has never been a pitcher, (even the greatest Batting practice pitchers) who can throw every pitch down the middle. Anyone want to argue that point?
quote:Originally posted by Prime9:quote:You cannot defend walks.
No, but in most instances, its far better than an extra base hit!
That's extreme optimism and in reality- just bad philosophy. In most instances, throwing strikes is far better than walking- that's the correct language. Sure, you have your instances where you have 1st base open with a power hitter up to bat and so an intentional pass isn't a bad thing, even perhaps pitching him with balls that hopefully he will chase and walking him isn't so bad. But, that is not "most instances". For the majority of instances, the last option for a pitcher is to walk the batter. In order to not walk the batter, he must throw pitches that induce strikes or induce a ball put into play.
I am not sure exactly what the odds are, but i am betting that batters who get walked are far more likely to end up scoring than batters who don't get walked.
quote:Originally posted by PGStaff:
Sorry for the poor attempt at humor… Just trying to have some fun and lighten things up a bit. My mistake! I’ve learned my lesson.
Seriously, I would like to know what is so important regarding who is right or wrong regarding this topic? Is there some potentially harmful information or opinions being released?
Think about this... There has never been a pitcher, (even the greatest Batting practice pitchers) who can throw every pitch down the middle. Anyone want to argue that point?
I actually am enjoying the sideshowing of the boxing match scenerio.
This all got me to thinking the past few days about something-
I wonder what the actual percentage is of all balls thrown in the big leagues that end up down the middle of the plate (not necessarily of where the catcher was set up) that do not get hit into a base hit? I watch a lot of baseball and see a lot of pitches that end up right over the heart of the strike zone that are either fouled off or taken for a strike or being hit into an out. I see a lot of base hits on the other hand where the pitch was not right down the middle. I am betting that the percentage would probably be less than 10-20%. Also, what is the actual percentage of a pitcher to hit a location right down the middle or any location exactly? I am guessing that even in the big leagues it is less than 50-60% of the time. If we combine these two stats or percentages, what would be the odds of a batter hitting a pitch where the catcher sets up for the fastball right down the middle?
I ask this also in light that on our HS team we have a pitcher who just throws fastballs and can get wild sometimes. He gets a lot of movement from a Randy Johnson type of delivery and arm slot. The catcher almost always gives him a target right down the middle even though it seldom goes right down the middle. We do this because it gives him the best target for getting the pitch somehwere in or near the strike zone- the batter meanwhile, still has to try to hit it, put it into play, and then score in front of 9 defensive players on the field.
quote:Originally posted by Stats4Gnats:quote:Originally posted by Prime9:
No, but in most instances, its far better than an extra base hit!
Really? How many XBHs have scored compared to the number of free passes? I don’t know the answer, do you?
And how many XBHs have been snatched away by a good fielding play? Once a player is walked or hit, there’s no fielding play in the world good enough to put him out before he touches 1st base.
The fact that an extra base hit equates to more than one base, how can you logically say it's NOT better than a base on balls. The reasoning of being snatched away by a fielder is inane! It's a hit- not a hard-hit ball! If your reasoning is that there might be an out recorded- well, another inane thought.
Guess what? Plenty of professional catchers line up down the middle for the same reason- guys have movement and lack command. It's not so they will throw down the middle.
quote:Originally posted by Gingerbread Man:quote:Originally posted by PGStaff:
Sorry for the poor attempt at humor… Just trying to have some fun and lighten things up a bit. My mistake! I’ve learned my lesson.
Seriously, I would like to know what is so important regarding who is right or wrong regarding this topic? Is there some potentially harmful information or opinions being released?
Think about this... There has never been a pitcher, (even the greatest Batting practice pitchers) who can throw every pitch down the middle. Anyone want to argue that point?
I actually am enjoying the sideshowing of the boxing match scenerio.
This all got me to thinking the past few days about something-
I wonder what the actual percentage is of all balls thrown in the big leagues that end up down the middle of the plate (not necessarily of where the catcher was set up) that do not get hit into a base hit? I watch a lot of baseball and see a lot of pitches that end up right over the heart of the strike zone that are either fouled off or taken for a strike or being hit into an out. I see a lot of base hits on the other hand where the pitch was not right down the middle. I am betting that the percentage would probably be less than 10-20%. Also, what is the actual percentage of a pitcher to hit a location right down the middle or any location exactly? I am guessing that even in the big leagues it is less than 50-60% of the time. If we combine these two stats or percentages, what would be the odds of a batter hitting a pitch where the catcher sets up for the fastball right down the middle?
I ask this also in light that on our HS team we have a pitcher who just throws fastballs and can get wild sometimes. He gets a lot of movement from a Randy Johnson type of delivery and arm slot. The catcher almost always gives him a target right down the middle even though it seldom goes right down the middle. We do this because it gives him the best target for getting the pitch somehwere in or near the strike zone- the batter meanwhile, still has to try to hit it, put it into play, and then score in front of 9 defensive players on the field.
quote:Originally posted by PGStaff:
Sorry for the poor attempt at humor… Just trying to have some fun and lighten things up a bit. My mistake! I’ve learned my lesson.
Seriously, I would like to know what is so important regarding who is right or wrong regarding this topic? Is there some potentially harmful information or opinions being released?
Think about this... There has never been a pitcher, (even the greatest Batting practice pitchers) who can throw every pitch down the middle. Anyone want to argue that point?
I thought it was funny, and did lighten up the thread, so no apologies needed. I posted on the first page when the discussion was centered around bullpens. I chose to be a spectator in this Fight after it was apparent that things were heating up and it would come down to a draw.
So, this discussion/debate/fight has been dominated by 3-0 pitch location. How about location when you're ahead in the count? Nobody has mentioned the fact that Papelbon grooved a 1-2 pitch down the middle to give up the game winning hit, and I believe that Dan Johnson of the Rays was in the hole 1-2 when he stayed back on a changeup that was left up in the zone and deposited in the RF seats to tie the game Wednesday night? I'm going to lunch...just something to think about?
I'm right there with you bsbl247. I was the first to respond to this post and have sat back with amazement at what has wound up happening with it. I will say it has brought on a certain degree of entertainment. No appologies necessary PG.
I will say this. I'm not different than most on here. Dad of a pitcher. I also pay close attention to what happens in MLB games I watch. My observation is that a VERY high percentage of the pitches that are hit hard by batters are pitches that have been left over the middle of the plate and are up in the zone (ie. mistakes). And when I say up in the zone, I am talking maybe 4 inches above the knees. Hitters are rediculously good in MLB, so they will hit good, pitcher's pitches as well and you just have to tip your hat. But most of the time, the hardest hits are on "mistakes". I live outside of Atlanta, so I follow the Braves. Tim Hudson has generally pitched very well this year. A couple of times he hasn't, he has gotten shelled in those outings. Hudson has a ton of tail on his fastball. When he got shelled, his fastball was tailing right back to the heart of the plate and above the knees. That is trouble.
I will say that there probably are times that you want your catcher to set up down the middle. However, that is so that a pitcher having control problems has a better chance of getting the ball over the plate. I don't believe it is because the catcher or the pitcher wants the ball to travel right down the middle of the plate, belt high. Then you are looking at 4 runs instead of 1. Even if a catcher sets up down the middle, I'm sure he would prefer that the pitch comes in at knee level. Bring it in 3 or 4 inches over that and the ball will likely get hammered.
So, in terms of this thread and what it has turned into, a catcher (McCann) may set up down the middle at times, but that does not necessarily mean that he wants the pitch to BE right down the middle. To use the argument that MLB pitchers want to throw the ball "right down the pipe" because that is where the catcher is set up really doesn't hold water. A struggling pitcher will simply have more room for error if he is targeting down the middle. I think when a guy is struggling, he will shoot for down the middle and hope it doesn't go there.
I will say this. I'm not different than most on here. Dad of a pitcher. I also pay close attention to what happens in MLB games I watch. My observation is that a VERY high percentage of the pitches that are hit hard by batters are pitches that have been left over the middle of the plate and are up in the zone (ie. mistakes). And when I say up in the zone, I am talking maybe 4 inches above the knees. Hitters are rediculously good in MLB, so they will hit good, pitcher's pitches as well and you just have to tip your hat. But most of the time, the hardest hits are on "mistakes". I live outside of Atlanta, so I follow the Braves. Tim Hudson has generally pitched very well this year. A couple of times he hasn't, he has gotten shelled in those outings. Hudson has a ton of tail on his fastball. When he got shelled, his fastball was tailing right back to the heart of the plate and above the knees. That is trouble.
I will say that there probably are times that you want your catcher to set up down the middle. However, that is so that a pitcher having control problems has a better chance of getting the ball over the plate. I don't believe it is because the catcher or the pitcher wants the ball to travel right down the middle of the plate, belt high. Then you are looking at 4 runs instead of 1. Even if a catcher sets up down the middle, I'm sure he would prefer that the pitch comes in at knee level. Bring it in 3 or 4 inches over that and the ball will likely get hammered.
So, in terms of this thread and what it has turned into, a catcher (McCann) may set up down the middle at times, but that does not necessarily mean that he wants the pitch to BE right down the middle. To use the argument that MLB pitchers want to throw the ball "right down the pipe" because that is where the catcher is set up really doesn't hold water. A struggling pitcher will simply have more room for error if he is targeting down the middle. I think when a guy is struggling, he will shoot for down the middle and hope it doesn't go there.
quote:Originally posted by bballman:
I'm right there with you bsbl247. I was the first to respond to this post and have sat back with amazement at what has wound up happening with it. I will say it has brought on a certain degree of entertainment. No appologies necessary PG.
I will say this. I'm not different than most on here. Dad of a pitcher. I also pay close attention to what happens in MLB games I watch. My observation is that a VERY high percentage of the pitches that are hit hard by batters are pitches that have been left over the middle of the plate and are up in the zone (ie. mistakes). And when I say up in the zone, I am talking maybe 4 inches above the knees. Hitters are rediculously good in MLB, so they will hit good, pitcher's pitches as well and you just have to tip your hat. But most of the time, the hardest hits are on "mistakes". I live outside of Atlanta, so I follow the Braves. Tim Hudson has generally pitched very well this year. A couple of times he hasn't, he has gotten shelled in those outings. Hudson has a ton of tail on his fastball. When he got shelled, his fastball was tailing right back to the heart of the plate and above the knees. That is trouble.
I will say that there probably are times that you want your catcher to set up down the middle. However, that is so that a pitcher having control problems has a better chance of getting the ball over the plate. I don't believe it is because the catcher or the pitcher wants the ball to travel right down the middle of the plate, belt high. Then you are looking at 4 runs instead of 1. Even if a catcher sets up down the middle, I'm sure he would prefer that the pitch comes in at knee level. Bring it in 3 or 4 inches over that and the ball will likely get hammered.
So, in terms of this thread and what it has turned into, a catcher (McCann) may set up down the middle at times, but that does not necessarily mean that he wants the pitch to BE right down the middle. To use the argument that MLB pitchers want to throw the ball "right down the pipe" because that is where the catcher is set up really doesn't hold water. A struggling pitcher will simply have more room for error if he is targeting down the middle. I think when a guy is struggling, he will shoot for down the middle and hope it doesn't go there.
I vote we all agree with this post and call it good
Do I get any part of the purse for starting the thread? Thanks for the advice. The cool thing about this site is you can start a thread for a specific reason and sometimes it takes on a life of its own and creates and answers new questions.
Bum rush??? The corner men are going crazy. Both fighters are punch-drunk.
Looks like they couldn't go the distance.
Who gets the belt?
The boxing commission may have to make a ruling.
Stand by, folks. You may have just witnessed the greatest fight of all time.
Looks like they couldn't go the distance.
Who gets the belt?
The boxing commission may have to make a ruling.
Stand by, folks. You may have just witnessed the greatest fight of all time.
If a pitcher could throw 87% strikes, then there are no randomly generated walks. This even assumes the hitter not swinging.If interested I'll show you the math.
A bullpen is a bad place to measure strike % if they are working on their game. They may be working on timing, rhythm, grips, etc. I would expect less strikes in practice.
A long time ago the Yankees were preparing for a game and there was a hitter on the other team they couldn't get out in previous games. Yogi told the pitcher just to throw it down the middle and don't waste pitch count on him. He popped the first pitch out to second.
A pitcher would be foolish not to try to throw some pitches down the middle. Your examples of avoiding the middle are to power hitters. If you have a hitter who has little power and a high swing contact ratio, I think live in the middle especially early in the count.
Only 7 to 8% of plate appearances result in a walk in MLB. 33% of all hits in the majors are extra base hits. I would think a lot of these are middle or up in the zone. All pitchers miss, they all have a tendency of where they miss. Even in high school those who miss up in the strike zone don't tend to last. Those who miss low last longer.
The power hitters walk more than those with little power because a pitcher should avoid the middle, middle pitch to them. Once a power hitter learns to walk, they are very dangerous. You would have to go to the middle against the other hitters or you will lose.
The middle pitch to a low power high contact hitter results in low pitch count. Low pitch keeps the starter out longer.
A bullpen is a bad place to measure strike % if they are working on their game. They may be working on timing, rhythm, grips, etc. I would expect less strikes in practice.
A long time ago the Yankees were preparing for a game and there was a hitter on the other team they couldn't get out in previous games. Yogi told the pitcher just to throw it down the middle and don't waste pitch count on him. He popped the first pitch out to second.
A pitcher would be foolish not to try to throw some pitches down the middle. Your examples of avoiding the middle are to power hitters. If you have a hitter who has little power and a high swing contact ratio, I think live in the middle especially early in the count.
Only 7 to 8% of plate appearances result in a walk in MLB. 33% of all hits in the majors are extra base hits. I would think a lot of these are middle or up in the zone. All pitchers miss, they all have a tendency of where they miss. Even in high school those who miss up in the strike zone don't tend to last. Those who miss low last longer.
The power hitters walk more than those with little power because a pitcher should avoid the middle, middle pitch to them. Once a power hitter learns to walk, they are very dangerous. You would have to go to the middle against the other hitters or you will lose.
The middle pitch to a low power high contact hitter results in low pitch count. Low pitch keeps the starter out longer.
That is not the question in this case. The correct question is:quote:Originally posted by Gingerbread Man:quote:Originally posted by Prime9:quote:You cannot defend walks.
No, but in most instances, its far better than an extra base hit!
That's extreme optimism and in reality- just bad philosophy. In most instances, throwing strikes is far better than walking- that's the correct language. Sure, you have your instances where you have 1st base open with a power hitter up to bat and so an intentional pass isn't a bad thing, even perhaps pitching him with balls that hopefully he will chase and walking him isn't so bad. But, that is not "most instances". For the majority of instances, the last option for a pitcher is to walk the batter. In order to not walk the batter, he must throw pitches that induce strikes or induce a ball put into play.
I am not sure exactly what the odds are, but i am betting that batters who get walked are far more likely to end up scoring than batters who don't get walked.
Are batters that get walked far more likely to score than those who hit extra base hits?
And the answer will not be surface-simple. For example, if the pitcher walks two in a row is he having control issues? Does he groove one to the 3rd hitter to keep from walking yet another one? Does that bring in the runs.
I hate walks from my pitchers. When I was younger I was known for pulling a pitcher that walked a lead off hitter in the 1st. But grooving one and giving up a double with two on doesn't really give me a chance to go talk to him or pull him before we are down two does it.
Nothing is as simple as it is being made to sound. And that's because baseball is as much art as it is science.
CJ Wilson pitched the worse game of his career yesterday. What happened? Why did Wash leave him in? Where did the runs come from?
quote:Originally posted by CDP:
The fact that an extra base hit equates to more than one base, how can you logically say it's NOT better than a base on balls. The reasoning of being snatched away by a fielder is inane! It's a hit- not a hard-hit ball! If your reasoning is that there might be an out recorded- well, another inane thought.
Is 1 XBH better than 1 BB or HBP? Yes, in the sense that its not only worth 2 bases, but if there were runners on, they will likely move up too. But, any ball put in play that doesn’t go out of the park can be turned into an out, and many times its only a matter of feet or inches that allows it to be one thing or another, but that’s never true for a B or HBP.
The reasoning may be inane to you, but that doesn’t make it faulty.
Most people understand that a hit has a hefty component of luck in it. That’s not true for free passes because there’s no chance what-so-ever to put that batter out. What’s so hard to understand about that? They’re called FREE PASSES because the offense isn’t made to do any work, and the defense can only watch the runners trot to 1st. IOW, 100% of ball 4’s allow the batter to reach 1st safely. What percentage of balls in play allow the batter to do the same?
quote:I am not sure exactly what the odds are, but i am betting that batters who get walked are far more likely to end up scoring than batters who don't get walked.
Interesting thought. But then are you suggesting that, for example, a lead off base runner is statistically more likely to score if he reached base via a walk than a base hit?
Back to the situation that led to much of this debate.
The bases were not loaded for Hunter Pence. There were runners at 1B and 2B, the tying run had just scored from 3B on a sac fly. Pence is a very good hitter. The next hitter is the weakest hitter (excluding pitcher) on the Phillies roster. Not really a power factor and hitting under .200 for the Phillies. After Pence walked to load the bases the inning ended on a weak foul pop out.
In the above situation, you could throw a 3-0 fastball down the middle and maybe Pence won't swing, foul it off, or will hit it at someone. If he doesn't swing, or fouls one off, the count goes to 3-1 with same weak hitter on deck.
In this situation, you would have to think Pence has the green light at 3-0. In fact, I don't think the Braves wanted to throw any pitch in any count down the middle to Pence in that situation... The winning run on 2B with 2 outs with a very good hitter at the plate and the weakest hitter up next.
Even if Kimbrel had perfect control at the time, he would have not wanted Pence to beat him. He would have tried to pitch around him (get him to chase) in that situation.
That said... Catchers set up right down the middle a lot! Pretty much every catcher with every pitcher.
And BTW the Phillies catcher just sat up on the outside for a great pitcher (Halladay). The pitch missed and Berkman hit it out on the inner half. As good as Halladay is, watch how often the catcher will set up right down the middle. Also notice how often Halladay throws it somewhere else.
Not to start another argument, but of course there are situations where pitchers will want to throw strikes, even if they are down the middle. Especially when they are down in the count. Everyone knows there are situations where the walk and the extra base hit, even a homerun are equal. I would be glad to give examples, if it's needed.
Someone early on mentioned that everything is based on the situation. Very true... but I guess that was just too simple.
This thread didn't seem like anything worth name calling or arguing about. Guess that's why I attempted and "failed" at trying to add a little humor.
The bases were not loaded for Hunter Pence. There were runners at 1B and 2B, the tying run had just scored from 3B on a sac fly. Pence is a very good hitter. The next hitter is the weakest hitter (excluding pitcher) on the Phillies roster. Not really a power factor and hitting under .200 for the Phillies. After Pence walked to load the bases the inning ended on a weak foul pop out.
In the above situation, you could throw a 3-0 fastball down the middle and maybe Pence won't swing, foul it off, or will hit it at someone. If he doesn't swing, or fouls one off, the count goes to 3-1 with same weak hitter on deck.
In this situation, you would have to think Pence has the green light at 3-0. In fact, I don't think the Braves wanted to throw any pitch in any count down the middle to Pence in that situation... The winning run on 2B with 2 outs with a very good hitter at the plate and the weakest hitter up next.
Even if Kimbrel had perfect control at the time, he would have not wanted Pence to beat him. He would have tried to pitch around him (get him to chase) in that situation.
That said... Catchers set up right down the middle a lot! Pretty much every catcher with every pitcher.
And BTW the Phillies catcher just sat up on the outside for a great pitcher (Halladay). The pitch missed and Berkman hit it out on the inner half. As good as Halladay is, watch how often the catcher will set up right down the middle. Also notice how often Halladay throws it somewhere else.
Not to start another argument, but of course there are situations where pitchers will want to throw strikes, even if they are down the middle. Especially when they are down in the count. Everyone knows there are situations where the walk and the extra base hit, even a homerun are equal. I would be glad to give examples, if it's needed.
Someone early on mentioned that everything is based on the situation. Very true... but I guess that was just too simple.
This thread didn't seem like anything worth name calling or arguing about. Guess that's why I attempted and "failed" at trying to add a little humor.
quote:CJ Wilson pitched the worse game of his career yesterday. What happened? Why did Wash leave him in? Where did the runs come from?
Extra base hits are always problematic for a pitcher. Walks are only a problem when followed by extra base hits!
I lost count of the number of 3-1 counts. And then the catcher set up in the middle and voila!quote:Originally posted by Prime9:quote:CJ Wilson pitched the worse game of his career yesterday. What happened? Why did Wash leave him in? Where did the runs come from?
Extra base hits are always problematic for a pitcher. Walks are only a problem when followed by extra base hits!
quote:Originally posted by NDD:
I lost count of the number of 3-1 counts. And then the catcher set up in the middle and voila!
My program doesn’t track 3-1 counts during the game, but it does track 3 ball counts, as well as 0-2 counts. It also track quite a few other things people have seldom seen before, and I can tell you this, that game was pretty ugly in a lot of ways. Not only that, what the numbers showed as the game was going on, was very often a far cry from what the announcers were saying.
Time to pick up the Detroit/NY game!
quote:Originally posted by Prime9:quote:I am not sure exactly what the odds are, but i am betting that batters who get walked are far more likely to end up scoring than batters who don't get walked.
Interesting thought. But then are you suggesting that, for example, a lead off base runner is statistically more likely to score if he reached base via a walk than a base hit?
Suppose you had iny of these counts- a 3-0, 3-1 or a 3-2 count, the batter has better odds of scoring if he gets walked versus either striking out, or putting the ball into play in this situation. We give batters way too much credit at the cost of giving up walks that in up coming around to score more often than we think. It's a type of mentality and approach we often overlook I guess. A pitcher who gets in this count situation is thus better off throwing strikes and challenging the batter rather than giving in and walking him. A base on balls is in essence- a perfect hit- it means the same thing- it puts a runner on that is thus that much closer to getting home and scoring.
Looks like the commission restarted the bout.
quote:Originally posted by Gingerbread Man:
Suppose you had iny of these counts- a 3-0, 3-1 or a 3-2 count, the batter has better odds of scoring if he gets walked versus either striking out, or putting the ball into play in this situation. We give batters way too much credit at the cost of giving up walks that in up coming around to score more often than we think. It's a type of mentality and approach we often overlook I guess. A pitcher who gets in this count situation is thus better off throwing strikes and challenging the batter rather than giving in and walking him. A base on balls is in essence- a perfect hit- it means the same thing- it puts a runner on that is thus that much closer to getting home and scoring.
In the 5 years of our local HS team’s existence, we’ve gotten 816 free passes and 366 have scored. That’s a rate of almost 45%. In that same period of time, we’ve gotten 1,205 hits and 582 have scored. That’s a shade over 48%. That shows a player getting at hit is about 3% more likely to score than a player who walks, but of the 1,080 runs we’ve scored, almost 34% reached base by a free pass.
Meanwhile, out pitchers have given up 831 hits, and 322 of them have scored for a percentage of almost 39%. Our pitchers have given up 552 free passes and 153 have scored for a percentage of a smidge under 28%. Of the 554 runs we’ve given up, just under 28% came from the batter reaching on a free pass. Who do you think was more successful, us or our opponents?
Of course the optimum thing a pitcher can do is ether strike out every hitter, or have them foul out. That way there’s almost no chance of them reaching base safely. Putting the ball in play gives players a chance to reach, but it isn’t a sure bet. But if a pitcher walks or hits a batter, it’s a guaranteed runner on 1st.
There's a high degree of correlation between high- strikeout pitchers and high-walk pitchers. This is not necessarily a control issue but rather the pitcher working the corners and using different pitches out of the zone attempting to get misses.
In fact, in sabermetrics, this correlation is the statistic "PFR", or power-finesse ratio.
Pitchers with high PFR numbers, the theory goes, have a higher degree of control over the outcome of the game.
In fact, in sabermetrics, this correlation is the statistic "PFR", or power-finesse ratio.
Pitchers with high PFR numbers, the theory goes, have a higher degree of control over the outcome of the game.
quote:Originally posted by Bum:
There's a high degree of correlation between high- strikeout pitchers and high-walk pitchers. This is not necessarily a control issue but rather the pitcher working the corners and using different pitches out of the zone attempting to get misses.
In fact, in sabermetrics, this correlation is the statistic "PFR", or power-finesse ratio. [/QUOTE]
Actually, there’s an algorithm used to compute whether a pitcher is a power or a finesse pitcher. If a pitcher WALKs or Ks 28% or more of the batters he faces, he’s considered to be a power pitcher. If he WALKs or Ks less than 24%, he’s considered a finesse pitcher.
Since a pitcher can be considered a power pitcher without ever getting a K, my guess is, the realization is that pitcher who throw hard are also wilder.
quote:Pitchers with high PFR numbers, the theory goes, have a higher degree of control over the outcome of the game.
I’ve never heard of a theory like that. Could you provide a link so I could read up on it?
Here is a succint definition of the power finesse ratio:
Definition of Power Finesse Ratio
Keep in mind when looking at the pitchers the link is dated from 2008.
Now Stats, let me remind you of something. "Theories" are just that. You can either believe it or not. If you choose not to believe it, good for you. But that doesn't mean you're right. Some don't believe in the theory of evolution, but I certainly wouldn't want to challenge their belief system.
Before you issue continual challenges I suggest you disclose exactly what role you play for your team and at what level. Are you a h.s. coach? College coach? Former player? Dad of a player? Just trying to understand where you're coming from.
Me, I'm just the dad of a player who would not dare challenge your apparent masterful insight into the mechanics of the game.
But for me to bow to my master, I need some credentials.
Definition of Power Finesse Ratio
Keep in mind when looking at the pitchers the link is dated from 2008.
Now Stats, let me remind you of something. "Theories" are just that. You can either believe it or not. If you choose not to believe it, good for you. But that doesn't mean you're right. Some don't believe in the theory of evolution, but I certainly wouldn't want to challenge their belief system.
Before you issue continual challenges I suggest you disclose exactly what role you play for your team and at what level. Are you a h.s. coach? College coach? Former player? Dad of a player? Just trying to understand where you're coming from.
Me, I'm just the dad of a player who would not dare challenge your apparent masterful insight into the mechanics of the game.
But for me to bow to my master, I need some credentials.
quote:Originally posted by Bum:
Here is a succint definition of the power finesse ratio:
Definition of Power Finesse Ratio
Keep in mind when looking at the pitchers the link is dated from 2008.
Using a 4 year old article from a fantasy source to support a position is ok, but a little weak.
quote:Now Stats, let me remind you of something. "Theories" are just that. You can either believe it or not. If you choose not to believe it, good for you. But that doesn't mean you're right. Some don't believe in the theory of evolution, but I certainly wouldn't want to challenge their belief system.
You’re getting defensive not because I said that theory was BS, but because I only asked to see it. Evidently it comes from that article, and its become what you believe. It sounds good on its face, but seeing only 20 ML pitchers out of the thousands who have pitched, doesn’t make for a sound theory to me.
quote:Before you issue continual challenges I suggest you disclose exactly what role you play for your team and at what level. Are you a h.s. coach? College coach? Former player? Dad of a player? Just trying to understand where you're coming from.
Why? Judge me on what I say and ask, or don’t judge me at all. What is it that I’ve said that is a blatant lie.
quote:Me, I'm just the dad of a player who would not dare challenge your apparent masterful insight into the mechanics of the game.
But for me to bow to my master, I need some credentials.
You don’t need to be condescending. It comes across as childish and churlish. Look, you have a choice here. You can ignore challenges to whatever it is you’ve chosen to say in a forum like this, or you can present arguments to support yourself. But to stick out your tongue and issue veiled insults is silly.
So what is it I’ve said that has your panties in a bunch? Is it that I said power pitchers are wilder than finesse pitchers? Or maybe its that I actually have numbers to check to see if I can check some of the things people say. Or could it be that I say walks and hit batters are a very bad thing from a pitcher’s perspective?
quote:Originally posted by Stats4Gnats:
So what is it I’ve said that has your panties in a bunch?
Well you're going to need Dependz, because I detect one load of BS coming out of you.
quote:Originally posted by Bum:
Well you're going to need Dependz, because I detect one load of BS coming out of you.
You act a lot like a little child on the playground who just got embarrassed by something someone said, and now is hollering “Liar, Liar, pants on fire!”
Man up and be specific. If you think I’m lying about something, please say what it is, give some supporting evidence to refute it, and give me a chance to respond. I’ll repeat these 3 in case you’ve forgotten, or please list anything else.
Is it that I said power pitchers are wilder than finesse pitchers? Or maybe its that I actually have numbers to check to see if I can check some of the things people say. Or could it be that I say walks and hit batters are a very bad thing from a pitcher’s perspective?
Getting back from WWBI (World War Baseball I) to the original post by IEBSBL as far as how he is charting his pitchers bullpens. I just got back from visiting my son this weekend and glanced over his throwing program and bullpen charts and this is how they have their early bullpen charting organized.
They break their pitchers into groups and usually two throw together and one charts for the other one. They each throw three particular pitches in a row IE; glove side FB, arm side FB, CU, etc and then switch. They have pitch types up the left column, and little boxes horizontal across the page with a slant line drawn between to determine if they “hit their spots or not + was it a quality pitch”. When they are throwing their bull pen, they shade the upper square if “yes” and lower square if “no”. This gives them a single piece of paper that they can glance at to see which pitch they need to work on, or if there is a trend that develops over the long term.
Over time what happens is they get little triangles that are shaded going left to right across the paper on each pitch type, so the player gets a visual idea on what he needs to be working on (and coach can pick up and quickly see). Trends are easily identified without having to calculate % or mess around too much. It looks like a easy simple program that could be implemented without getting too complicated. It pairs up pitchers that they will switch around as the fall season goes on and they each talk about what works for him so there is also this cross pollination between the pitchers on how they are successful with specific pitches.
There is a bit of subjectivity still, for example: my son was saying that although he had some lower squares shaded vs his new throwing partner last week, he was able to hit his corners better than the other pitcher, so his “yes” pitches were on the black more and even though in theory he was missing off the plate on some of his FB, he has been happy with his outings since he was hitting tighter groupings on the edges. He felt that even though his partner had a better looking sheet, his grouping was tighter and were on the corners more.
Just an example on how another college program is charting and the subjectivity involved. FWIW.
Y’all can get back to round 7 if you wish.
They break their pitchers into groups and usually two throw together and one charts for the other one. They each throw three particular pitches in a row IE; glove side FB, arm side FB, CU, etc and then switch. They have pitch types up the left column, and little boxes horizontal across the page with a slant line drawn between to determine if they “hit their spots or not + was it a quality pitch”. When they are throwing their bull pen, they shade the upper square if “yes” and lower square if “no”. This gives them a single piece of paper that they can glance at to see which pitch they need to work on, or if there is a trend that develops over the long term.
Over time what happens is they get little triangles that are shaded going left to right across the paper on each pitch type, so the player gets a visual idea on what he needs to be working on (and coach can pick up and quickly see). Trends are easily identified without having to calculate % or mess around too much. It looks like a easy simple program that could be implemented without getting too complicated. It pairs up pitchers that they will switch around as the fall season goes on and they each talk about what works for him so there is also this cross pollination between the pitchers on how they are successful with specific pitches.
There is a bit of subjectivity still, for example: my son was saying that although he had some lower squares shaded vs his new throwing partner last week, he was able to hit his corners better than the other pitcher, so his “yes” pitches were on the black more and even though in theory he was missing off the plate on some of his FB, he has been happy with his outings since he was hitting tighter groupings on the edges. He felt that even though his partner had a better looking sheet, his grouping was tighter and were on the corners more.
Just an example on how another college program is charting and the subjectivity involved. FWIW.
Y’all can get back to round 7 if you wish.
Wow. It's a tag team bout!
Just sticking my head out of the foxhole for a moment - but verlander just threw 2 cbs right down the middle to ARod who didn't even twitch. Now, verlander may have missed his spot or maybe not. I think that there are general rules (e.g., don't groove a ball down the middle); exceptions to the general rule (e.g., throw a ball down the middle if you can fool the batter; or if you want to get an out on a sacrifice); exceptions to the exceptions, etc.
I think it shows that baseball is a thinking man's game; a game of constant adjustments; a game that is much "faster" then the non-baseball fan could ever imagine. A game which presents lots of cliches (e.g., he really grooved that pitch) for every occasion (e.g., he blew that high cheese right past him) all of which prove any point a fan wants to make.
I think the bottom line for a pitcher is throw whatever and wherever you need to get the batter out.
I think it shows that baseball is a thinking man's game; a game of constant adjustments; a game that is much "faster" then the non-baseball fan could ever imagine. A game which presents lots of cliches (e.g., he really grooved that pitch) for every occasion (e.g., he blew that high cheese right past him) all of which prove any point a fan wants to make.
I think the bottom line for a pitcher is throw whatever and wherever you need to get the batter out.
goosegg,
I watched that A-Rod AB and took note of the pitch sequence. I believe the first breaking ball was at 87MPH and he followed that up with an 88MPH bender. So he had Rodriguez 0-2 and comes in with 100MPH cheese that just misses low and inside...#13 was probably looking for another upper 80's bender, but instead, he got a 97-98MPH FB at the knees on the inside corner for a called strike three....Yes, those first two breaking balls were over the heart of the plate, but they certainly weren't grooved...Verlander is Nasty!
I watched that A-Rod AB and took note of the pitch sequence. I believe the first breaking ball was at 87MPH and he followed that up with an 88MPH bender. So he had Rodriguez 0-2 and comes in with 100MPH cheese that just misses low and inside...#13 was probably looking for another upper 80's bender, but instead, he got a 97-98MPH FB at the knees on the inside corner for a called strike three....Yes, those first two breaking balls were over the heart of the plate, but they certainly weren't grooved...Verlander is Nasty!
....now the next AB that A-Rod had versus Verlander matches this thread perfectly. The Right Hander fell behind 3-0. Pitch number four to A-Rod that AB was 100MPH Cheese, he took it. Again at 3-1, the pitch was 100MPH, and Rodriguez took it for strike two. Next pitch breaking ball? Nope...he throws a 3-2 101MPH FB that A-Rod just missed, and fouled it straight back. A-Rod appeared to have his timing down, so why not throw a bender? Heck No, he comes back with more 100MPH Gas that misses upstairs for ball four.
The moral of this story? If you can throw 100MPH after 110+ pitches in the 8th inning, then you don't need to worry about hitting your spots quite as much as your everyday normal pitcher....emphasis on quite as much!
The moral of this story? If you can throw 100MPH after 110+ pitches in the 8th inning, then you don't need to worry about hitting your spots quite as much as your everyday normal pitcher....emphasis on quite as much!
Bsbl247, you hit the nail on the head. That is why all these statistics drawn at the h.s. level are meaningless.
How many h.s. hitters can hit a 90 mph fastball? Truth is, not many. The need to locate is meaningless for a hard thrower in h.s. Bum, Jr. was pretty much striking everyone out in h.s. but at the next level it takes more than that.
Unless you throw 95 in college you need to locate and have offspeed pitches. Those that are high-percentage strike guys better be ground ball pitchers and those that are high strikeout guys better have three pitches and/or a dominate fastball, know how to work out of the zone, and work around walks. Because the walks will come when you're working around bats.
Thus the correlation between strikeouts and walks.
These guys running stats at the h.s. level don't get that because they're working with average h.s. pitchers and balls in play, not thoroughbeds who don't let balls go into play.
How many h.s. hitters can hit a 90 mph fastball? Truth is, not many. The need to locate is meaningless for a hard thrower in h.s. Bum, Jr. was pretty much striking everyone out in h.s. but at the next level it takes more than that.
Unless you throw 95 in college you need to locate and have offspeed pitches. Those that are high-percentage strike guys better be ground ball pitchers and those that are high strikeout guys better have three pitches and/or a dominate fastball, know how to work out of the zone, and work around walks. Because the walks will come when you're working around bats.
Thus the correlation between strikeouts and walks.
These guys running stats at the h.s. level don't get that because they're working with average h.s. pitchers and balls in play, not thoroughbeds who don't let balls go into play.
quote:Originally posted by Bum:
Unless you throw 95 in college you need to locate and have offspeed pitches. Those that are high-percentage strike guys better be ground ball pitchers and those that are high strikeout guys better have three pitches and/or a dominate fastball, know how to work out of the zone, and work around walks. Because the walks will come when you're working around bats.
I agree with you Bum. Watching that game last night, it is truly amazing how those pitchers lived at the edges of the strike zone. Almost no pitches grooved down the middle. At least not fastballs. Not a ton of hitters are going to swing at a CB with less than 2 strikes, unless it's a hanger or unless they are fooled. They are generally looking for the fastball. A CB down the middle with no K's is usually pretty safe. However, even that wasn't done a whole lot.
When Verlander gave up 2 in the 7th, he had runners on 1st & 2nd, 3-2 count and threw one down the middle. It was the only pitch down the middle and the batter hit a 2 run double. I think it was a mistake he left over, but I couldn't be sure. Point is, it really is amazing how those guys live on the edge of the K zone.
I also noticed how important it is to hit your spot. I saw many times where the pitcher would throw one out of the zone and get the strike called when he hit the catcher's glove. Then miss his spot, in the strike zone, and it was called a ball because the catcher had to reach for it. These guys are good.
When Verlander gave up 2 in the 7th, he had runners on 1st & 2nd, 3-2 count and threw one down the middle. It was the only pitch down the middle and the batter hit a 2 run double. I think it was a mistake he left over, but I couldn't be sure. Point is, it really is amazing how those guys live on the edge of the K zone.
I also noticed how important it is to hit your spot. I saw many times where the pitcher would throw one out of the zone and get the strike called when he hit the catcher's glove. Then miss his spot, in the strike zone, and it was called a ball because the catcher had to reach for it. These guys are good.
Well, I’ve been thinking about losing my composure and making a post that was really beneath me, or at least my opinion of myself. With that in mind, even though I feel very passionately that I’m on the correct side of this discussion, I’m removing my last post, and I offer my apologies to Bum.
do we really need alol these statistics?
quote:Originally posted by bballman:
I agree with you Bum. Watching that game last night, it is truly amazing how those pitchers lived at the edges of the strike zone. Almost no pitches grooved down the middle. At least not fastballs. Not a ton of hitters are going to swing at a CB with less than 2 strikes, unless it's a hanger or unless they are fooled. They are generally looking for the fastball. A CB down the middle with no K's is usually pretty safe. However, even that wasn't done a whole lot.
When Verlander gave up 2 in the 7th, he had runners on 1st & 2nd, 3-2 count and threw one down the middle. It was the only pitch down the middle and the batter hit a 2 run double. I think it was a mistake he left over, but I couldn't be sure. Point is, it really is amazing how those guys live on the edge of the K zone.
I also noticed how important it is to hit your spot. I saw many times where the pitcher would throw one out of the zone and get the strike called when he hit the catcher's glove. Then miss his spot, in the strike zone, and it was called a ball because the catcher had to reach for it. These guys are good.
That was a mistake made by Verlander, it happens.
The whole idea is to live on the inside (just) or the outside (just) of the zone.
The zone actually can be expanded by the pitcher, so that is why they need to show consistancy, which is really what it is all about. So that is why sometimes it looks like it wasn't a strike but it was given to the pitcher. In milb, first inning or two can be a battle for the zone, though some umpires don't buy into it unless the pitcher is consistant in the spot. What is tough is that for every level you move up (HS to college to pro and within pro the levels) the zone is smaller, so it's hard to measure a pitcher, I guess that is why they have all of those stats (like PFR), win losses, ERA just isn't enough these days. BTW, DK is a low PFR guy, due to being a groundball pitcher, even if what BOF posted was 4 years old, it was correct.
My son's agent is Verlander's, he explained once why he is so special. He approaches a game the SAME every time, whether it be a home game, away game, championship game that's why he is so consistant at what he does. He practices what they call sameness. It is NOT easy to do, but those pitchers that consistantly strive for that, do well. Of course having a FB hit 101 doesn't hurt.
BTW, when I texted Mike to tell him that he is the man (Verlander), his response was (along with reminding me about sameness) that all numbers are different and confusing so most of it should be ignored.
That might give you an idea how really important all of it is (not).
Baseball is a game of numbers and stats, that's why they are important, but that doesn't mean that they mean that much to the player.
To answer TR's question, I suppose that they are needed for record's sake.
Stats,
Good idea about removing that post.
+ 
TPM, I agree, you can pretty much make numbers look any way you want. However, on many batters, I noticed that they were pitched in a very specific way. Some guys were pitched almost exclusively inside, some almost exclusively outside. That strategy came from numbers and tendencies. So, the numbers can be useful in some ways in determining how to pitch a batter, or what to look for out of a pitcher.
One thing they all had in common was, the pitchers lived on the edges of the strike zone.
Once again, I will say - these guys are good.
One thing they all had in common was, the pitchers lived on the edges of the strike zone.
Once again, I will say - these guys are good.
