The Detroit plan for pitching to Young and Hamilton has been excellent. Shows the need to be able to hit to all fields. The Rangers hitters haven't made the adjustment yet.quote:Originally posted by TPM:
He was awesome, left nothing up (as far as I can tell). There was nothing in the middle if I am reading it correctly.
quote:Originally posted by cabbagedad:quote:Originally posted by Gingerbread Man:
... it appears there are quite a few pitches in the middle of the plate.
Look again at the chart NDD provided from last night for Fister. Break down the strike zone in thirds vertically and horizontally. This will give you the nine box zone that we see on one of the networks. There are roughly 3 pitches that fall in the middle box. I wouldn't consider that "quite a few pitches in the middle of the plate". Particularly for a guy who threw 102 pitches and 70+% were strikes.
Right. And I'm not sure that the 3rds are even at that level. The difference between yard and a fly ball on the track is probably minuscule at that level.
Looks like Fister's curve was breaking about 3' including gravity. Assuming about .5s travel time that means an average down velocity of 6'/s. That means about 12'/s down at the plate. The plate is 17" long but let's assume just to make it easy that taking into account the triangular shape at the back that it is an average of 12" long for most pitches. A curve reaches the plate at about 100'/s so it crosses our 1' length in .01s. 12ft/s * .01s = .12' = 1.4" of movement as it crosses the plate. Up to 2" if it is absolutely down the middle.
Interesting to note that his slider just went straight, but by comparison to his two-seamer it probably looked like it had a nice little wrinkle to it.
Interesting to note that his slider just went straight, but by comparison to his two-seamer it probably looked like it had a nice little wrinkle to it.
quote:Originally posted by CADad:…
Interesting to note that his slider just went straight, but by comparison to his two-seamer it probably looked like it had a nice little wrinkle to it.
That’s the secret! Its not what it looks like on Pitch(f/x), TV, the centerfield camera, the umpire’s perspective, the dugout, and certainly not the stands. Everything depends on what the batter sees, and there’s really no way to simulate that because every batter will see the same exact pitch differently. So what we’re stuck with, is tracking data points and analyzing what took place.
quote:Originally posted by NDD:quote:Originally posted by cabbagedad:quote:Originally posted by Gingerbread Man:
... it appears there are quite a few pitches in the middle of the plate.
Look again at the chart NDD provided from last night for Fister. Break down the strike zone in thirds vertically and horizontally. This will give you the nine box zone that we see on one of the networks. There are roughly 3 pitches that fall in the middle box. I wouldn't consider that "quite a few pitches in the middle of the plate". Particularly for a guy who threw 102 pitches and 70+% were strikes.
Right. And I'm not sure that the 3rds are even at that level. The difference between yard and a fly ball on the track is probably minuscule at that level.
I didn't mean nothing but compared to other outings...BTW, it was me who provided last nights outing, but I forgive you for thinking it was NDD.
I am not taking it personally.
Something interesting that keeps playing over in my mind, I am not sure where I got it from. Most ML pitchers claim that their stuff isn't working about 90% of the time? Does that sound familiar. Even though we think that Haladay had a good game the other night, bet he would admit everything wasn't working...and how could it. It's just not that easyt to repeat ones mechanics over and over perfectly a 102 times!
I as going to assume that most big hits occur due to mistakes, not because a pitcher intentionally throwing a FB through the middle of the plate, maybe to a pitcher, not an Albert Pujols.
That's why I guess pro pitchers DO NOT practice throwing down the middle with their FB!
quote:Originally posted by NDD:The Detroit plan for pitching to Young and Hamilton has been excellent. Shows the need to be able to hit to all fields. The Rangers hitters haven't made the adjustment yet.quote:Originally posted by TPM:
He was awesome, left nothing up (as far as I can tell). There was nothing in the middle if I am reading it correctly.
The flip side to this is look what Cabrera did when they kept pitching him outside. They got him on either a curve or slider (don't remember now) on a K and a one hopper to the pitcher but the third at bat an outside fastball ended up a double on RF line.
Yeah, but Migi is a more consistent oppo hitter during the year as well. He's a great hitter.quote:Originally posted by coach2709:quote:Originally posted by NDD:The Detroit plan for pitching to Young and Hamilton has been excellent. Shows the need to be able to hit to all fields. The Rangers hitters haven't made the adjustment yet.quote:Originally posted by TPM:
He was awesome, left nothing up (as far as I can tell). There was nothing in the middle if I am reading it correctly.
The flip side to this is look what Cabrera did when they kept pitching him outside. They got him on either a curve or slider (don't remember now) on a K and a one hopper to the pitcher but the third at bat an outside fastball ended up a double on RF line.
This has become a full time job
Gallardo walks Holliday, on a 3-0 pitch Berkman swings.
Agressive hitters (think back example of AP on page 2) don't sit and watch, JMO.
Agressive hitters (think back example of AP on page 2) don't sit and watch, JMO.
quote:Originally posted by cabbagedad:quote:Originally posted by Gingerbread Man:
... it appears there are quite a few pitches in the middle of the plate.
Look again at the chart NDD provided from last night for Fister. Break down the strike zone in thirds vertically and horizontally. This will give you the nine box zone that we see on one of the networks. There are roughly 3 pitches that fall in the middle box. I wouldn't consider that "quite a few pitches in the middle of the plate". Particularly for a guy who threw 102 pitches and 70+% were strikes.
By my count I see at least 10 pitches that are close enough to be considered down the heart of the plate. I do agree however that he did have an exceptionally good night- his stuff was on for the most part. I went tot he link that TPM provided and searched all of Fister's pitch locations over the course of a season. If we think Fister lives outside the strike zone, think again. He is definately a middle in type of pitcher. His average 4 seam fastball is in the middle of the plate just off middle in, Check this out-
All of Fisters pitches for 2011
quote:Originally posted by NDD:Yeah, but Migi is a more consistent oppo hitter during the year as well. He's a great hitter.quote:Originally posted by coach2709:quote:Originally posted by NDD:The Detroit plan for pitching to Young and Hamilton has been excellent. Shows the need to be able to hit to all fields. The Rangers hitters haven't made the adjustment yet.quote:Originally posted by TPM:
He was awesome, left nothing up (as far as I can tell). There was nothing in the middle if I am reading it correctly.
The flip side to this is look what Cabrera did when they kept pitching him outside. They got him on either a curve or slider (don't remember now) on a K and a one hopper to the pitcher but the third at bat an outside fastball ended up a double on RF line.
That was the point I was trying to make which was not very good as I was trying to type while walking out the door LOL. Have to be able to hit to all fields and when you got a guy who is good at it then you can't stay in one spot. Although he did get out on the curve / slider but it was a fastball he hit down the line. Wonder what the outcome would have been if they stayed with the slider?
quote:Originally posted by Gingerbread Man:quote:Originally posted by cabbagedad:quote:Originally posted by Gingerbread Man:
... it appears there are quite a few pitches in the middle of the plate.
Look again at the chart NDD provided from last night for Fister. Break down the strike zone in thirds vertically and horizontally. This will give you the nine box zone that we see on one of the networks. There are roughly 3 pitches that fall in the middle box. I wouldn't consider that "quite a few pitches in the middle of the plate". Particularly for a guy who threw 102 pitches and 70+% were strikes.
By my count I see at least 10 pitches that are close enough to be considered down the heart of the plate.
I hate to admit this but I measured. Nine equal boxes. Three pitches in the middle box.
quote:If we think Fister lives outside the strike zone, think again.
I don't think we're talking about living OUTSIDE the strike zone. I think we're talking about staying away from the MIDDLE of the strike zone. Huge difference. Remember, a pitcher does have to throw mostly strikes to survive, let alone be successful.
The chart you show for the entire year - if you look closely by pitch type, you will see distinct patterns of up and in or down and away. This shows a pretty solid ability to locate. Of course, over the course of a full year of a starter (thousands of pitches), you are going to have a pitch covering pretty much every part of the zone at some point. Look more closely at the density and pitch type. Also realize that you cannot get an accurate density snapshot with this many pitches without a 3D image. That's where it is helpful to look at game by game.
Stats and GBM - If you randomly polled 20 college pitchers, 20 MILB and 20 MLB pitchers, asking them how important it is to be able to locate pitches, what do you think their answers would be? If you asked them if they were unable to locate pitches with reasonable consistency, what would happen to them, what do you think thier answers would be?
Folks,
Lots of interesting buzz on this topic.(LOCATION)I have a couple thoughts regarding some of the posts.
1. I'm a big believer in "on or out in three." To that end I really believe in throwing a quality out pitch on 0-2 counts. I am not trying to waste a pitch by throwing a "wasted" pitch
( i.e. the 55' breaking ball or the 10' chain link fastball)because that leads to the necessity to throw a 4th pitch(usually intended to be a fine strike) that is so far away from the release point of the 3rd pitch that it is usually ball 2. Now the mind takes over. I have to throw a strike here because I don't want to go to 3&2 & invariably the count goes to 3-2 due to faulty outcome thinking.Now your pitcher is thinking, I can't walk this guy. With that kind of negative thinking, he ends up walking the hitter after starting him 0-2.Now everyone is telling the pitcher how to pitch( Just throw strikes) & the defense has lost focus.Worst case senario if I throw an 0-2 strike & it gets hit I have saved 3 pitches & my defense is ready to make a play because the ball is being put into play.(I am not against strike outs).
2. Someone stated that the rule of 68 does not apply to hard hit balls(line drives & hard hit ground balls) & they are correct in that approximately 57% of hard contact produces hits, but only 10% of fair ball contact is the result of hard contact which is a small % of the total balls that are fairly hit.The rule of 68 includes all contact outs(hard & soft)
3. IMO we fail miserably early in the development process of pitchers, especially in developing pitchers who can stay healthy & posess control & command.The most egregious mistake we make is trying develop thowers into pitchers before they become proficient throwers.(It's about developing an efficient movement pattern before we change the goal to more of one that is target oriented.)Once you have developed a mechanical model that fits that individual pitcher( Lots of standard deviation here.The is no one model that fits everyone. It is very individualized.Look at Lincecum/Osawlt/Halliday etc.)& the individual pitcher has mastered that movement pattern to the point that he can repeat it consistently, he is ready to start the pitch development/location process. Below is a suggested mini progression for developing the ability to hit your target(LOCATE)with the fastball being your most important foundational pitch.
1. Develop the 4 seam fastball down over the middle of the plate.(Mid thigh to just below the knees) Goal 70% strikes for x # of pens/games etc.
2. Develop the 2 seam fastball down over the middle of the plate. Same goals
3. Develop the fastball in & out & down in the zone with 2 & 4 seam fastballs. Goal 65% strikes.
4. Develop the hand high fastball for strikes. Goal 55% strikes
5. Develop the change down over the middle of the plate. Goal 65% strikes.
DO NOT MOVE ON UNTIL YOU HAVE MASTERED EACH LEVEL.For example you must own (not rent) the bottom middle of the strike zone before you move to the outer edges.
How you accomplish the above is very individualized. However at some point I feel that throwing batting practice is extremely beneficial.
JW
Lots of interesting buzz on this topic.(LOCATION)I have a couple thoughts regarding some of the posts.
1. I'm a big believer in "on or out in three." To that end I really believe in throwing a quality out pitch on 0-2 counts. I am not trying to waste a pitch by throwing a "wasted" pitch
( i.e. the 55' breaking ball or the 10' chain link fastball)because that leads to the necessity to throw a 4th pitch(usually intended to be a fine strike) that is so far away from the release point of the 3rd pitch that it is usually ball 2. Now the mind takes over. I have to throw a strike here because I don't want to go to 3&2 & invariably the count goes to 3-2 due to faulty outcome thinking.Now your pitcher is thinking, I can't walk this guy. With that kind of negative thinking, he ends up walking the hitter after starting him 0-2.Now everyone is telling the pitcher how to pitch( Just throw strikes) & the defense has lost focus.Worst case senario if I throw an 0-2 strike & it gets hit I have saved 3 pitches & my defense is ready to make a play because the ball is being put into play.(I am not against strike outs).
2. Someone stated that the rule of 68 does not apply to hard hit balls(line drives & hard hit ground balls) & they are correct in that approximately 57% of hard contact produces hits, but only 10% of fair ball contact is the result of hard contact which is a small % of the total balls that are fairly hit.The rule of 68 includes all contact outs(hard & soft)
3. IMO we fail miserably early in the development process of pitchers, especially in developing pitchers who can stay healthy & posess control & command.The most egregious mistake we make is trying develop thowers into pitchers before they become proficient throwers.(It's about developing an efficient movement pattern before we change the goal to more of one that is target oriented.)Once you have developed a mechanical model that fits that individual pitcher( Lots of standard deviation here.The is no one model that fits everyone. It is very individualized.Look at Lincecum/Osawlt/Halliday etc.)& the individual pitcher has mastered that movement pattern to the point that he can repeat it consistently, he is ready to start the pitch development/location process. Below is a suggested mini progression for developing the ability to hit your target(LOCATE)with the fastball being your most important foundational pitch.
1. Develop the 4 seam fastball down over the middle of the plate.(Mid thigh to just below the knees) Goal 70% strikes for x # of pens/games etc.
2. Develop the 2 seam fastball down over the middle of the plate. Same goals
3. Develop the fastball in & out & down in the zone with 2 & 4 seam fastballs. Goal 65% strikes.
4. Develop the hand high fastball for strikes. Goal 55% strikes
5. Develop the change down over the middle of the plate. Goal 65% strikes.
DO NOT MOVE ON UNTIL YOU HAVE MASTERED EACH LEVEL.For example you must own (not rent) the bottom middle of the strike zone before you move to the outer edges.
How you accomplish the above is very individualized. However at some point I feel that throwing batting practice is extremely beneficial.
JW
Jerry,
Why didn't you state this earlier and save us 11 pages?
Thanks for the good info. One question though... Can you elaborate on having the pitchers throw BP while working on keeping the ball down? I know the hitters will benefit in some ways from seeing a lot of low pitches (what the opposing pitchers will likely try be throwing) but it seems this would mean more balls out of the strike zone and thus a potentially much lengthier BP. I know I probably partially answered my own question. But it seems that the pitchers would come under pressure to throw more strikes, possibly taking them away from the focus down.
And to clarify, what level are you referring to?
Why didn't you state this earlier and save us 11 pages?
Thanks for the good info. One question though... Can you elaborate on having the pitchers throw BP while working on keeping the ball down? I know the hitters will benefit in some ways from seeing a lot of low pitches (what the opposing pitchers will likely try be throwing) but it seems this would mean more balls out of the strike zone and thus a potentially much lengthier BP. I know I probably partially answered my own question. But it seems that the pitchers would come under pressure to throw more strikes, possibly taking them away from the focus down.
And to clarify, what level are you referring to?
quote:Originally posted by cabbagedad:
I don't think we're talking about living OUTSIDE the strike zone. I think we're talking about staying away from the MIDDLE of the strike zone. Huge difference. Remember, a pitcher does have to throw mostly strikes to survive, let alone be successful.
The chart you show for the entire year - if you look closely by pitch type, you will see distinct patterns of up and in or down and away. This shows a pretty solid ability to locate. Of course, over the course of a full year of a starter (thousands of pitches), you are going to have a pitch covering pretty much every part of the zone at some point. Look more closely at the density and pitch type. Also realize that you cannot get an accurate density snapshot with this many pitches without a 3D image. That's where it is helpful to look at game by game.
Stats and GBM - If you randomly polled 20 college pitchers, 20 MILB and 20 MLB pitchers, asking them how important it is to be able to locate pitches, what do you think their answers would be? If you asked them if they were unable to locate pitches with reasonable consistency, what would happen to them, what do you think thier answers would be?
Fister's normal average fastball location is middle-in and up slightly but not too much- about 2-4 inches from the exact center of the plate and about 28 inches high which would be middle to upper thigh. Technically, that is a hitters launch zone. But, let's be honest with ourselves and take a known good pitcher, say- the pitcher in MLB with the lowest ERA- Clayton Kershaw. He also is a middle-in pitcher. His average fastball location is also just a few inches off center and up just slightly. This is the location most hitters look for something to hit. So why is his ERA the lowest in the majors? It's perhaps debateable but if one looks at his location chart I would say it is his ability to pound the strike zone and keep batters off balance not knowing what's coming.
Kershaw's pitch locations
Let's look at one more example- the AL lowest ERA pitcher- Justin Verlander. His fastball average location is almost down the center. H ehas a big cluster of pitches in a the hitters ideal hitting location. So why don't they tee off of him? Perhaps it's his great velocity coupled with his great offspeed stuff. Note here his most common pitch- his 4 seam fastball location-
Verlander's 4 seam location
Now look at his next most frequent pitch, the Change-up -
Verlander's Change-up location
Now look at the next most frequent pitch, his curveball-
Verlander's curveball location
From what I can tell just by looking at the data, he likes to challenge batters with his fastball in a location where the batter wants to swing out of his shoes. Then he likes to challenge them with offspeed stuff that starts at that same fat fastball plane down the gut but then moves either down and in or down and out of the zone. What's interesting though is that Verlander likes to throw his fastball somewhere around the heart of the plate and challenge batters to try to hit it. His fastball draws a swing 50% of the time, a strike nearly 70% of the time and yet is only put into play 18% of the time. I would say that is what makes him so effective- challenge batters with the fastball, not being afraid of living around the center of the strike zone, and see what batters can do with it.
I admit that when I first started looking at all this pitch/fx data that I would find a trend with the better pitchers throwing to cluster spots on the corners with their fastballs. To my amazement I actually found the opposite, on average, that good pitchers throw fastball clusters somewhere in the heart of the zone and then work off the plate with the offspeed stuff but keeping it on the same plane initially as the fastball.. Now I am not sure if this clustering of fastballs not finding corners is on purpose or just a lack of general control but I am betting that for the most part it is just a general lack of control on a consistant basis because I do know that the majority of time the catcher does set up the fastball on a corner or edge of the strike zone.
Wow GBM, glad to see that you are finally using pitchf/x.
JMO, but you are using examples of the elite pitchers that not only have repeatable mechanics but (as in the case of Verlander) high velo. Yes, you can throw a 99-100 FB past the hitter. But keep in mind that most likely there will be some he will pitch to like that and some he won't. That's most likely why a pitcher like Fister, who probably lives more in the zone than out didn't place it there the other night, Rangers a dangerous hitting team and this is the playoffs, situation changes, yo MUST win every game. What it does show is absolutely great pitching on his part, something that doesn't happen often for most pitcher.
Jerry thanks for the information and about not moving on until you own that particular location. You are right and it has been evident here in many dicussions, don't treat your young players as young players and master as you grow and mature. Much of what you stated is in line from what many people (who are not in the game professionally) advocate, the FB being the most important foundational pitch (another beat the dead horse issue).
JMO, but you are using examples of the elite pitchers that not only have repeatable mechanics but (as in the case of Verlander) high velo. Yes, you can throw a 99-100 FB past the hitter. But keep in mind that most likely there will be some he will pitch to like that and some he won't. That's most likely why a pitcher like Fister, who probably lives more in the zone than out didn't place it there the other night, Rangers a dangerous hitting team and this is the playoffs, situation changes, yo MUST win every game. What it does show is absolutely great pitching on his part, something that doesn't happen often for most pitcher.
Jerry thanks for the information and about not moving on until you own that particular location. You are right and it has been evident here in many dicussions, don't treat your young players as young players and master as you grow and mature. Much of what you stated is in line from what many people (who are not in the game professionally) advocate, the FB being the most important foundational pitch (another beat the dead horse issue).
cabbagedad and TPM,
Your continued efforts, along with JW, coach 2709 and NDD have now turned this into a very good thread, IMO. GBM's last post provides good data to analyze. As is the norm, I disagree with where he goes with it since he seems to remain focused on one conclusion: the need to salvage his opinions and "establish" everyone will agree that GBM is right.
If one wants to compare pitchf/x for Fister, Verlander and Kershaw, one sees they all command the strike zone.
One also sees the reason for their success. IMO, that success isn't commanding the center of the plate.
If we want to use and compare these 3, we able to see what Fister does is unique to him, Verlander's is unique to him and Kershaw's is unique to him, but all do something quite similar to what Jerry noted in his first post.
Fister is unique, with these 3 pitchers, because he is commanding the zone with his 2 seam fastball and its movement, and changing speeds, with the ability to command his off speed and 2 seam. cabbagedad, without taking the measurements, I think NDD and your summary of the location is more than adequate. Build in more than 1/2 of those are 2 seam with movement, and changing speeds and one begins to see the reasons for his recent success. Looking at his data closely for the 10/11 outing, it also appears he only had one, possibly 2, 4 seam FB's near the center of the hitting zone. pitchf/x shows real command of the 4 seam to the margins of the zone, up/down and near the corners. To me, pitchf/x really does show Fister commanding his 4 seam within the context of a game and his other pitches/movement and changing speeds.
Kershaw commands the zone with 93-94 mph, is a lefty with lefty movement and then can command the zone with other pitchers nearly 20mph lower in velocity.
Verlander also is able to command the zone, with spectacular velocity, with more than one pitch and upwards of 10mph change in velocity.
As we also saw in the playoffs, Verlander's velocity increases as the game progresses. He is up to 98-99 as the game gets to the 7th/8th inning so his other pitches are then 15 or so mph different.
What the stats won't show if the likelihood that each pitcher is also successful because each pitch is delivered with the repeatable mechanics and what the stats do seem to show is the ball is coming from a repeatable release point for each pitch.
As Jerry emphasizes, the ability to command multiple pitches AND change speeds, with repeatable mechanics can be the key. The better velocity or the better the ability to change speeds, the more likelihood a pitcher can use more of the strike zone.
As cabbagedad notes, if one takes 20 college pitchers, Milb pitchers and MLB pitchers, each would likely tell us something similar. The less command on multiple pitches, less velocity and the inability to change speeds, the more a pitcher will be hurt and less successful than the 3 under discussion, if they are tying to live in the center of the strike zone, either intentionally or because they cannot command better.
Turned around, if one asked 20 good college, Milb and MLB hitters, they would tell you the ability to change speeds, command pitches, using repeatable and similar arm action makes the difference in pitchers they "know" they can hit and those who take away their confidence.
Your continued efforts, along with JW, coach 2709 and NDD have now turned this into a very good thread, IMO. GBM's last post provides good data to analyze. As is the norm, I disagree with where he goes with it since he seems to remain focused on one conclusion: the need to salvage his opinions and "establish" everyone will agree that GBM is right.
If one wants to compare pitchf/x for Fister, Verlander and Kershaw, one sees they all command the strike zone.
One also sees the reason for their success. IMO, that success isn't commanding the center of the plate.
If we want to use and compare these 3, we able to see what Fister does is unique to him, Verlander's is unique to him and Kershaw's is unique to him, but all do something quite similar to what Jerry noted in his first post.
Fister is unique, with these 3 pitchers, because he is commanding the zone with his 2 seam fastball and its movement, and changing speeds, with the ability to command his off speed and 2 seam. cabbagedad, without taking the measurements, I think NDD and your summary of the location is more than adequate. Build in more than 1/2 of those are 2 seam with movement, and changing speeds and one begins to see the reasons for his recent success. Looking at his data closely for the 10/11 outing, it also appears he only had one, possibly 2, 4 seam FB's near the center of the hitting zone. pitchf/x shows real command of the 4 seam to the margins of the zone, up/down and near the corners. To me, pitchf/x really does show Fister commanding his 4 seam within the context of a game and his other pitches/movement and changing speeds.
Kershaw commands the zone with 93-94 mph, is a lefty with lefty movement and then can command the zone with other pitchers nearly 20mph lower in velocity.
Verlander also is able to command the zone, with spectacular velocity, with more than one pitch and upwards of 10mph change in velocity.
As we also saw in the playoffs, Verlander's velocity increases as the game progresses. He is up to 98-99 as the game gets to the 7th/8th inning so his other pitches are then 15 or so mph different.
What the stats won't show if the likelihood that each pitcher is also successful because each pitch is delivered with the repeatable mechanics and what the stats do seem to show is the ball is coming from a repeatable release point for each pitch.
As Jerry emphasizes, the ability to command multiple pitches AND change speeds, with repeatable mechanics can be the key. The better velocity or the better the ability to change speeds, the more likelihood a pitcher can use more of the strike zone.
As cabbagedad notes, if one takes 20 college pitchers, Milb pitchers and MLB pitchers, each would likely tell us something similar. The less command on multiple pitches, less velocity and the inability to change speeds, the more a pitcher will be hurt and less successful than the 3 under discussion, if they are tying to live in the center of the strike zone, either intentionally or because they cannot command better.
Turned around, if one asked 20 good college, Milb and MLB hitters, they would tell you the ability to change speeds, command pitches, using repeatable and similar arm action makes the difference in pitchers they "know" they can hit and those who take away their confidence.
is it not true that location means nothing without movement?
To TR's point, just because a pitch shows up on on some chart in the middle does not mean it started there....
quote:Originally posted by BOF:
To TR's point, just because a pitch shows up on on some chart in the middle does not mean it started there....
BOF, like Fister's 2 seamer,perhaps?
quote:3. IMO we fail miserably early in the development process of pitchers, especially in developing pitchers who can stay healthy & posess control & command.The most egregious mistake we make is trying develop thowers into pitchers before they become proficient throwers.(It's about developing an efficient movement pattern before we change the goal to more of one that is target oriented.)Once you have developed a mechanical model that fits that individual pitcher( Lots of standard deviation here.The is no one model that fits everyone. It is very individualized.Look at Lincecum/Osawlt/Halliday etc.)& the individual pitcher has mastered that movement pattern to the point that he can repeat it consistently, he is ready to start the pitch development/location process. Below is a suggested mini progression for developing the ability to hit your target(LOCATE)with the fastball being your most important foundational pitch.
1. Develop the 4 seam fastball down over the middle of the plate.(Mid thigh to just below the knees) Goal 70% strikes for x # of pens/games etc.
2. Develop the 2 seam fastball down over the middle of the plate. Same goals
3. Develop the fastball in & out & down in the zone with 2 & 4 seam fastballs. Goal 65% strikes.
4. Develop the hand high fastball for strikes. Goal 55% strikes
5. Develop the change down over the middle of the plate. Goal 65% strikes.
DO NOT MOVE ON UNTIL YOU HAVE MASTERED EACH LEVEL.For example you must own (not rent) the bottom middle of the strike zone before you move to the outer edges.
I think everyone involved in this thread should read the above comments from Jerry Weinstein closely.
Jerry, This is very good stuff. I think it always helps when someone with your credentials enters the discussion.
The trend I saw showing up with the few good pitchers on the pitch/fx, and watching them pitch live on TV showed me one thing in particular- they didn't necessarily have pin-point control missing a lot of locations, but had good enough stuff (movement, velocity, etc) around the target that it made them successful. Getting back to the original intent of this thread, and what we were discussing a short eternity ago, on average, even the better pitchers in the game miss their location a lot more than we think and survive more on their stuff.
Yes, each pitcher does have their trends of where they pitch and what makes them good. Lincecum for example works high to low, strikes out a lot of guys, but also walks a lot of guys also. Lowe had a horrible season for the Braves yet his trend showed a general command of the lower part of the zone. It's just too bad that he missed his location enough that it it gave him the bragging rights to having the most losses in a season this year. Look at the best closer this year, Valverde and his trend shows , two pitches which look very similar yet with drastic differences as they approach close to home plate. But he doesn't have pin-point control nor excellent velocity by closer standards. Yes, he has deception and excellent movement on his pitches.
My point is that whereas good pitchers do have their general trends of location, they get away with a lot of missed locations but survive regardless because their stuff keeps batters from getting a good read and squaring their stuff up consistantly. I thus tend to believe that good pitchers are the ones who generally have good stuff and not so much their ability to have pin-point control.
Yes, each pitcher does have their trends of where they pitch and what makes them good. Lincecum for example works high to low, strikes out a lot of guys, but also walks a lot of guys also. Lowe had a horrible season for the Braves yet his trend showed a general command of the lower part of the zone. It's just too bad that he missed his location enough that it it gave him the bragging rights to having the most losses in a season this year. Look at the best closer this year, Valverde and his trend shows , two pitches which look very similar yet with drastic differences as they approach close to home plate. But he doesn't have pin-point control nor excellent velocity by closer standards. Yes, he has deception and excellent movement on his pitches.
My point is that whereas good pitchers do have their general trends of location, they get away with a lot of missed locations but survive regardless because their stuff keeps batters from getting a good read and squaring their stuff up consistantly. I thus tend to believe that good pitchers are the ones who generally have good stuff and not so much their ability to have pin-point control.
quote:Originally posted by Gingerbread Man:
Getting back to the original intent of this thread, and what we were discussing a short eternity ago, on average, even the better pitchers in the game miss their location a lot more than we think and survive more on their stuff.
No, actually the original intent of the thread was the OP asking for advice regarding bullpen goals for hitting locations for, I believe, a HS team (sorry OP, at least JW addressed that pretty well). You're right though, it probably is all about stuff. Ever since the top guys started going to the Gyro ball, location doesn't mean a thing.
Although I really respect and admire Jerry, I really think everyone’s missing the most important thing about what he submitted for thought.
While I’m sure doing things in the order he suggests works very well, it may be that changing the order a bit for different pitchers would prove to be more successful. But that should go without saying, since I think everyone knows all players are not clones of one another and therefore won’t react the same way to the same stimuli.
I think what’s being missed is, the underlying premise of not rushing from one phase of the process to the next, but waiting until a specific degree of proficiency is reached. And it isn’t just in pitching, its the same in all aspects of the game. Everyone’s in a rush to become the next player on the cover of SI, and who’s name is on everyone’s lips who has even a passing interest in the game.
What happens is, once people actually begin a program like that with specific measurements taking place, most are quite surprised to find out how poorly their wunderkinds actually do, and then how long it takes to master any one step. They often become antsy as Johnny is doing better and making faster progress than their boy, and rather than just remaining patient and allowing the process of building on a solid foundation to take place, they try to make changes or cut corners to keep up or get ahead.
But that’s not how it works! Players progress at different rates, and that’s just the way it is! It’s the underlying principle as to why a team environment is not the best one for individual improvement. Its also why I maintain that its always best to keep as many players playing as long as possible to give them the opportunity to develop.
While I’m sure doing things in the order he suggests works very well, it may be that changing the order a bit for different pitchers would prove to be more successful. But that should go without saying, since I think everyone knows all players are not clones of one another and therefore won’t react the same way to the same stimuli.
I think what’s being missed is, the underlying premise of not rushing from one phase of the process to the next, but waiting until a specific degree of proficiency is reached. And it isn’t just in pitching, its the same in all aspects of the game. Everyone’s in a rush to become the next player on the cover of SI, and who’s name is on everyone’s lips who has even a passing interest in the game.
What happens is, once people actually begin a program like that with specific measurements taking place, most are quite surprised to find out how poorly their wunderkinds actually do, and then how long it takes to master any one step. They often become antsy as Johnny is doing better and making faster progress than their boy, and rather than just remaining patient and allowing the process of building on a solid foundation to take place, they try to make changes or cut corners to keep up or get ahead.
But that’s not how it works! Players progress at different rates, and that’s just the way it is! It’s the underlying principle as to why a team environment is not the best one for individual improvement. Its also why I maintain that its always best to keep as many players playing as long as possible to give them the opportunity to develop.
Anybody notice that according to the Verlander data, one out of all those four seamers he threw actually rose.
quote:I think what’s being missed is, the underlying premise of not rushing from one phase of the process to the next, but waiting until a specific degree of proficiency is reached.
Stats,
Why do you think that point is being missed?
Jerry put in all in caps so it wouldn't be missed and PGStaff reiterated/supported the views, including the proficiency aspects, at each step, all in caps!
To my knowledge, there is only one poster in this thread at the age/baseball development who could benefit from JW's suggestions on mastering the fastball in the sequential ways JW took the time to supply.
We both know that from his time at Sac JC to college and now to Milb, JW is recognized as one of the best in developing pitchers.
The one parent who could listen, read and absorb invaluable information is too wrapped into gyro balls, and pouring a FB down the middle to Pujols with 3-0 count and now MLB pitchers don't have command that he is missing a guidance from the best.
But, I could be missing your point?
GBM,
That's why the scouts go for stuff before they go for location. If your stuff is good enough all you need is control. If your stuff is average then you need location. By definition, most pitchers at the MLB level are going to be around average relative to MLB so most pitchers need to develop pretty good location.
The best pitchers could get even better by developing better location .... but only if it doesn't detract from their stuff. I think that is the lesson Verlander has put into play over the last couple years by focusing more on velocity. However, there are probably only one or two starters who can do what Verlander does for an entire game. Closers tend to put it in practice on a regular basis. There are a lot of good closers who come in and throw as hard as they can with control while sacrificing location. It seems to be a good trade for them. It doesn't seem to be a good trade for the vast majority of starters.
That's why the scouts go for stuff before they go for location. If your stuff is good enough all you need is control. If your stuff is average then you need location. By definition, most pitchers at the MLB level are going to be around average relative to MLB so most pitchers need to develop pretty good location.
The best pitchers could get even better by developing better location .... but only if it doesn't detract from their stuff. I think that is the lesson Verlander has put into play over the last couple years by focusing more on velocity. However, there are probably only one or two starters who can do what Verlander does for an entire game. Closers tend to put it in practice on a regular basis. There are a lot of good closers who come in and throw as hard as they can with control while sacrificing location. It seems to be a good trade for them. It doesn't seem to be a good trade for the vast majority of starters.
quote:Originally posted by cabbagedad:quote:Originally posted by Gingerbread Man:
Getting back to the original intent of this thread, and what we were discussing a short eternity ago, on average, even the better pitchers in the game miss their location a lot more than we think and survive more on their stuff.
No, actually the original intent of the thread was the OP asking for advice regarding bullpen goals for hitting locations for, I believe, a HS team (sorry OP, at least JW addressed that pretty well). You're right though, it probably is all about stuff. Ever since the top guys started going to the Gyro ball, location doesn't mean a thing.
Let me honestly ask- Do you enjoy taking jabs? You are very childish!
quote:Originally posted by infielddad:quote:I think what’s being missed is, the underlying premise of not rushing from one phase of the process to the next, but waiting until a specific degree of proficiency is reached.
Stats,
Why do you think that point is being missed?
Jerry put in all in caps so it wouldn't be missed and PGStaff reiterated/supported the views, including the proficiency aspects, at each step, all in caps!
To my knowledge, there is only one poster in this thread at the age/baseball development who could benefit from JW's suggestions on mastering the fastball in the sequential ways JW took the time to supply.
We both know that from his time at Sac JC to college and now to Milb, JW is recognized as one of the best in developing pitchers.
The one parent who could listen, read and absorb invaluable information is too wrapped into gyro balls, and pouring a FB down the middle to Pujols with 3-0 count and now MLB pitchers don't have command that he is missing a guidance from the best.
But, I could be missing your point?
I will be kind in disregarding your snide remarks pointed my direction.
I think that anybody who looks at the data and watches the pitching from game to game will agree that pitchers can't place pitches nearly as often as we tend to give them credit for. The pitch/fx clearly shows that when it comes to the fastball, the best in the game don't place their pitches on the corners into clusters but rather a main general cluster generating from the middle of the strike zone. The patterns clearly show that whereas most of their pitches aren't in the exact center of the plate, there are a substancial amount that are in the general area around the heart of the plate- what hitters look for. More than likely, this means they lack the general ability to place their fastball with pin-point control. I presume that many of the pitches over the heart of the plate are mistake pitches while a few of them are probably intentional.
If one were to go to the pitch/fx site and do research they will find that pitchers tend to throw towards the middle of the plate on an 0-0 count. If they get behind- 2-0,3-0,3-1, they tend to throw more around the heart of the plate. When they get ahead they tend to throw anywhere but the heart of the plate. Anyone who watches professional basbeall at any level will notice that pattern right away. More often than not, in a 3-0 count, a catcher is going to call fastball down the middle. It's just how the game works, plain and simple.
quote:Originally posted by TRhit:
is it not true that location means nothing without movement?
This is true. Most if not all MLB starters have pitches that move and move a lot. I tend to think this is partly why they have a harder time placing them with pin-point accuracy- they are moving all over.
quote:Originally posted by Gingerbread Man:quote:Originally posted by cabbagedad:quote:Originally posted by Gingerbread Man:
Getting back to the original intent of this thread, and what we were discussing a short eternity ago, on average, even the better pitchers in the game miss their location a lot more than we think and survive more on their stuff.
No, actually the original intent of the thread was the OP asking for advice regarding bullpen goals for hitting locations for, I believe, a HS team (sorry OP, at least JW addressed that pretty well). You're right though, it probably is all about stuff. Ever since the top guys started going to the Gyro ball, location doesn't mean a thing.
Let me honestly ask- Do you enjoy taking jabs? You are very childish!
Sorry, just checking to see if you were actually listening to anyone else's posts. I thought it was interesting that you actually thought the original intent of the thread was, instead, just YOUR first thought which was only remotely related to the OP.
At some point, some of us get frustrated that you seem to regularly ignore good information put in front of you. I'm guilty for trying to resort to humor, sorry.
Maybe I am childish. I'm hoping to hang on to some of that for another 20-30 years.
An interesting quote from ESPN Baseball today regarding the NL game this afternoon...
"The right-hander retired the first 10 batters he faced, but he yielded five sixth-inning runs.
"What it boiled it down to, I missed with two changeups all night and both ended up with homers," said Lohse, who went 6-1 with a 3.23 ERA in his final 10 regular-season starts."
Here is just one example of a good pitcher (arguably the best this year), Kershaw and what he does in 3-0 counts all season long. It happened to him 37 times. All of those times he threw his fastball and a majority of them ended up over the heart of the plate.-
Kershaw location in 3-0 counts
The trend from this data suggests that Kershaw likes to go over the heart of the plate when he is behind and not so much when he is ahead. I am sure there are some mistake pitches in all that data, but we have to remember that he was known this season for his exceptional command of the strike zone. Just something to think about.
Compare that data with this - the opposite, say an 0-2 count and throwing the fastball. Happened 83 times-
Kershaw location with fastball in 0-2 count
Even in 2-0 counts he relied on his fastball 115 times out of a total 120 times. Even in that count his location tends to be over the heart of the plate-
Kershaw location in 2-0 counts
In 3-1 counts it is even more so towards the heart of the plate. Kershaw was in this situation 62 times, 60 of those he threw a fastball, most of which were over the heart of the plate-
Kershaw location in 3-1 counts
Kershaw location in 3-0 counts
The trend from this data suggests that Kershaw likes to go over the heart of the plate when he is behind and not so much when he is ahead. I am sure there are some mistake pitches in all that data, but we have to remember that he was known this season for his exceptional command of the strike zone. Just something to think about.
Compare that data with this - the opposite, say an 0-2 count and throwing the fastball. Happened 83 times-
Kershaw location with fastball in 0-2 count
Even in 2-0 counts he relied on his fastball 115 times out of a total 120 times. Even in that count his location tends to be over the heart of the plate-
Kershaw location in 2-0 counts
In 3-1 counts it is even more so towards the heart of the plate. Kershaw was in this situation 62 times, 60 of those he threw a fastball, most of which were over the heart of the plate-
Kershaw location in 3-1 counts
infielddad,
I know Jerry gets it, and I certainly assume PG gets it as well, but I really don’t think people in general get it, or if they do, when they put it into practice, what I said happens, usually does. If people in general got it, and if for sure all coaches got it, it wouldn’t be such an uncommon thing.
Your feeling that there’s only one person who could benefit from what Jerry said sorta tells me that I’m correct. From what I’ve seen, every pitcher could stand starting at the very beginning and having himself assessed, not just one person out of everyone who posts here. And as usual, I see a disconnect because people try to compare all levels with the best the ML has to offer, and that’s just bizarre to me.
So, perhaps you and I just aren’t on the same exact wavelength, but its ok because I think we both understand Jerry’s point.
I know Jerry gets it, and I certainly assume PG gets it as well, but I really don’t think people in general get it, or if they do, when they put it into practice, what I said happens, usually does. If people in general got it, and if for sure all coaches got it, it wouldn’t be such an uncommon thing.
Your feeling that there’s only one person who could benefit from what Jerry said sorta tells me that I’m correct. From what I’ve seen, every pitcher could stand starting at the very beginning and having himself assessed, not just one person out of everyone who posts here. And as usual, I see a disconnect because people try to compare all levels with the best the ML has to offer, and that’s just bizarre to me.
So, perhaps you and I just aren’t on the same exact wavelength, but its ok because I think we both understand Jerry’s point.
quote:And as usual, I see a disconnect because people try to compare all levels with the best the ML has to offer, and that’s just bizarre to me.
Stats, that comment has been repeated over, and over, and over on this site in the last few months by many, many experienced posters. One poster likes to float, or maybe "troll" the concept there isn't much difference between HS, college, Milb and MLB.
It isn't just bizarre to you. It is just bizarre.
"Your feeling that there’s only one person who could benefit from what Jerry said sorta tells me that I’m correct."
This isn't my feeling at all.
I specifically said there is only one person posting "in this thread," to my knowledge, who has a HS age pitcher and could really benefit from JW's information. My view is there are tons of younger parents and parents of HS and younger age pitchers who could benefit from JW's wisdom. Most importantly, there are many, many who already have, as you know and as PGStaff noted.
Most of us in this thread have son's who are long past HS.
Like most, I don't coach any more. JW is preaching to the choir for those of us who really won't benefit, that was my point/feeling.
cabbagedad coaches. He clearly got the importance of the JW information and process. He responded accordingly.
I posted this morning my feeling that JW, cabbagedad, TPM, NDD, CADad and some others had exchanged information which was pretty darn interesting and thought provoking.
Geez, that was only a few short hours ago.
See the one pitch above the line? I'm probably misinterpreting it but that would seem to say that Verlander literally threw a rising fastball. There are enough pitches close to that to make it seem like it isn't a bad data point.
Verlander has a rising FB.
I'm guessing that this compares the movement relative to the initial trajectory so the ball wouldn't physically be rising as it crosses the plate unless it was well up out of the strike zone since Verlander releases his fastball over 6' above the ground.
Personally I would consider a pitch that rose relative to it's original trajectory a true rising fastball.
Personally I would consider a pitch that rose relative to it's original trajectory a true rising fastball.
My understanding is that it's something that just happens, not intentional (the rise).
quote:Originally posted by infielddad:
One poster likes to float, or maybe "troll" the concept there isn't much difference between HS, college, Milb and MLB.
It isn't just bizarre to you. It is just bizarre.
Not quite sure who you are referring to here but i would just like to state that Players below the MLB level aren't really that much different than the MLB players besides the fact that the MLB players are generally better and more consistant. For instance, in HS we teach kids to throw the same pitches as MLB pitchers, they have the same strike zone, the same distances in the field and the general approach is played the exact same way. Strategy isn't any different either in general.
In fact, at camps and other tryouts, etc, professional players, including current MLB players, teach the kids the same methods they themselves use at that level. We don't teach kids methods other than what it takes to go to the highest level of play- that is always the goal.
