Location

quote:

Originally posted by bballman:
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.

FWIW, mlb pitchers and hitters may spend hours watching video of their opponents, so not so sure how important numbers and stats to them really are. I think that you can learn a lot more by observing.
In many ways, you really can't compare amateur to pro, the differences are huge, in fact like us, they probably have no clue, but once players get beyond the HS game, they begin to understand what may be needed to succeed on an entirely different level. JMO.

Sultan,
I think that most of us here are really trying to keep this pretty informative and interesting, why don't you join us?

quote:

Originally posted by TRhit:
do we really need alol these statistics?

Like so many other things in life, one man’s trash is another man’s treasure.

But evidently someone sees value in them. Perhaps the problem is like sitting in a library full of books written in Greek, and all you can do is understand English.

Apology accepted.

Hey folks, I am jumpin back in the ring.

I honestly believe the best pitchers in the world are those who play MLB baseball. But, even at that level, I see where pitchers make the same mistakes that kids in HS make. A pitchers ability to control his stuff is generally what gets him the big leagues, or so we think. Most of it really has to do with a myriad of other factors. The truth of it is that there isn't a lot of difference with hitting locations by a good HS pitcher and a good professional pitcher. Even at the MLB level, the average (I am not speaking of the Maddux phenom) pitcher struggles continually with the location of his stuff. Often what gets them through those routine misses is his other abilities- deception, a great breaking ball or even a blazing fastball all of which can induce outs. Composure also make s big part of it.

I have watched too many MLB games over the years to realize that the pitchers in that league do battle continually with the control over the location of their stuff. Every night I watch the MLB channel and they analyze the pitchers who did good and those who didn't do good. It's a daily thing- a daily routine for those guys to show that the number 1 problem for pitchers who get hit are because of control problems. We give the average MLB pitcher too much credit for being able to control hitting locations. If they really did hit their locations consistantly, they would have nothing to analyze "every night".

Good batters make a living in the big leagues by hitting balls that miss their location. Let's be honest- when most hits happen, especially for extra base hits, it is because pitchers are missing the targeted location of what the catcher wants and has set up for. The same with walks- A batter's ability to draw a walk is almost entirely because the pitcher is having control problems with locating his pitches.

Don't get me wrong, MLB pitchers still are the best with their control over MiLB, college, and HS, but not very much! It is usually something else that makes them great at the MLB level and I believe most of that special stuff is their ability to, as the famous saying goes- "making my balls look like strikes and my strikes look like balls."

Location versus stuff is often how the game at the MLB level is played. Lincecum doesn't have great location, he has great stuff because of his deception of motion and release. Maddux on the other hand wasn't really known for his stuff but rather his ability to locate. Mixing the two together obviously makes what should be the best pitcher possible- someone who has great stuff and can locate that great stuff. But, as we saw with the braves closer, (and many closers at that) Kimbrel, his ability to locat pitches is not what got him to the big show, it was indeed his plus plus breaking ball and plus fastball- his "stuff", and not necessarily his ability to locate that stuff.

I did some interesting work tonight. I flipped back and forth between the two games tonight and kept a pitch chart of sorts. I did a random sampling of what might be the average pitcher (bullpen guys) of playoff teams in the MLB. I based my data off of either hitting their locations or not. My data was according to these guidlines-

Hitting the location: Catcher didn't move glove more than 6 inches from his initial set-up on fastballs and change-ups. On breaking balls I did it off of whether or not it induced a swing and was generally close or didn't induce a swing and was generally way off. Here is what I found-


There were a total of 156 pitches tracked. There were 34 outs recorded during that span for an average of 4.6 pitches per out. There were 7 base hits during that span which worked out to be a base hit for every 22 pitches thrown which meant that for each pitch there was a 4.5% chance of a base hit.

Of greater interest though, of the 156 pitches thrown, only 74 hit the catchers location (6 inch radius) for a percentage of 47% of hitting their location. 53% of all pitches thrown did not hit their location. This is just a small sample but it showed me that as far as pin-point control goes, even the average MLB pitcher can't do it most of the time. Most of the time he misses his location! But, of interest here are these numbers which may prove a thing or two about all this-

Of the 156 pitches thrown, 48 of them found themselves over the vicinity of the middle of the plate (31%). 31 of the 48 were pitches that hit the location the catcher gave. 2 base hits were recorded where the pitcher hit his location down the middle of the plate. That works out to be this interesting number- of the 31 intentional down the middle strikes, batters only recorded base hits at the rate of 6.4% of the time. On the flip side, of all pitches thrown, they have a 4.5% chance of recording a base hit on each pitch thrown. So, the chance of getting a base hit does increase slightly by one thrown over the middle, it doen't mean much difference overall This may seem shocking- here is the stat there- 65% of the pitches thrown down the middle of the plate were thrown to the catchers location! 48 of the 156 total pitches thrown were down the vicinity of the middle of the plate. This means that roughly 1/3 of all the pitches thrown were somehwere in the hitters hit-zone. There were 7 base hits, 5 of them coming off of balls thrown down the middle of the plate. So, of the 48 pitches thrown down the middle of the plate, 5 of them were hit. This roughly works out to be a mark of only 10% of the time balls are thrown down the middle of the plate are they hit for a base hit! On the flip side- only 2% of balls not thrown down the middle of the plate equate into base hits. So clearly one wants to miss of the plate inducing a ball hit into play versus one thrown down the middle.

Of the total outs recorded (34), 20 of them came on the pitch where the pitcher hit his location on that particular pitch. This works out to 58% of the time an out was recorded, it was on a pitch where the pitcher hit his location. This is interesting because it shows that when an out is recorded, the pitcher was 10% better at hitting his location. This may be because the pitcher focuses more deep into counts versus first or second pitch counts to batters.

My conclusions support my overall theory in some ways and miss on other points. I was somewhat amazed that in reality, pitchers can't throw to a location the majority of the time but were still good at inducing a good ratio of inducing more strikes than balls (107/49) and more outs than hits. Batters during this stretch hit only .205 all the while the pitchers were missing their locations just over half the time. During this 156 pitch stretch, I did notice that most of the pitches had "stuff", either deceiving the batter into a foolish swing, or having enough late movement to catch batters off guard. This tells me that pitchers at the MLB level make a living not because they can hit their location the majority of the time but in reality because their pitching induces lots of strikes and outs because they have good moving stuff coupled with the right velocity and deception.

This also reinforces my notion about hitters as well- Of the seven hits recorded during this stretch, 5 of them were mistake pitches that found the middle of the zone. Thus- hitters in the big leagues make a living by hitting mistakes. But it also shows that only 1 out of 10 pitches thrown down the middle actually get hit. To me this means that even though a pitcher can struggle hitting his location the majority of the time, only 10% of balls down the middle actually end up getting hit by pitchers who have "stuff".

quote:

Originally posted by TPM:
FWIW, mlb pitchers and hitters may spend hours watching video of their opponents, so not so sure how important numbers and stats to them really are. I think that you can learn a lot more by observing.

That makes sense, although I think numbers still play somewhat of a part in the process. Look at spray charts for hitters. That is just numbers vizualized. Defenses are set up based on these spray charts. I'm sure there are more examples that my unexperienced mind can't come up with now.

Not disagreeing with you TPM. I think your comment has a lot of validity. I still think numbers come into play. Certainly, more by some teams and personnel than others, but they are there.

GBM, not sure what this means but here's my own statistical analysis. Of the three homeruns given up this summer by Bum, Jr., 100% were middle-in and the catcher set up outside.

quote:

Originally posted by TPM:
Sultan,
I think that most of us here are really trying to keep this pretty informative and interesting, why don't you join us?

I am always here, all knowing, all powerful.

quote:

Originally posted by Gingerbread Man:
…Good batters make a living in the big leagues by hitting balls that miss their location.

How do you or does anyone else know that? That sounds good, and certainly is in Book I, Chapter I, Verse I of baseball dogma, but I’ve yet to see a way it could be proven true.

quote:

Let's be honest- when most hits happen, especially for extra base hits, it is because pitchers are missing the targeted location of what the catcher wants and has set up for. …

Are you sure about that? Again, it sounds good and comes right out of the book, but until someone comes up with a way to not show a pitch in relation to the strike zone, but in relation to where it was intended to be thrown, its gonna be a difficult sell.

But on the other hand, I seriously doubt that any pitcher throws any pitch in the exact location he intended, so I suppose in a way what you’re saying is true.

There’s just way too many factors taking place in an extremely small window of time to make such broad statements and have them be valid. It would be different if pitches that were where they were generally intended to be thrown weren’t hit very often, and that pitches that weren’t where they were intended to be thrown were hit at a high rate. But the truth is, pitches very often work when they miss the target completely, and very often don’t work when for all intents and purposes are thrown precisely where intended.

You’re trying to force this into black and white, but its shot past shades of gray, right into full blown 3-D, HD, living color on the I-Max screen.

GBM,

I’m glad to see someone else shares my belief that the accuracy of pitchers is much more myth than truth. Unfortunately, your method isn’t very sound. Unless you’ve got one super kind of TV I’ve never heard of, its virtually impossible to tell where a pitch was when it was hit. I like to see you use the 6” though. That mean a pitcher’s target is at least 27”. To me that’s a good size for a “spot”. The pinpoint accuracy that some attribute to pitchers is absurd though.

Keep thinkin’!

quote:

Originally posted by Stats4Gnats:
GBM,

I’m glad to see someone else shares my belief that the accuracy of pitchers is much more myth than truth. Unfortunately, your method isn’t very sound. Unless you’ve got one super kind of TV I’ve never heard of, its virtually impossible to tell where a pitch was when it was hit. I like to see you use the 6” though. That mean a pitcher’s target is at least 27”. To me that’s a good size for a “spot”. The pinpoint accuracy that some attribute to pitchers is absurd though.

Keep thinkin’!

I have long known that pitchers hitting their spots most of the time was somewhat mythical. Last night was the first time I actually made my own charts and watched and analyzed every pitch. My son, who also pitches helped me out. I am going to expand it a little more tonight and keep a few different stats besides my first ones. One would certainly have to track every pitch over the course of several years though to really see a trend though and to be honest- that is way out of anything I would ever want to do.

My method of seeing where a pitch would have been when hit is watching the catchers glove catch the ghost ball. The reason i go witha 6 inch spot is that it represnts the amount of movement in the wrist generally without moving the arm. Although, I did allow for more arm motion if it moved in the plane of the movement of the ball because I know a lot of catchers and pitchers use the target as an initial spot to throw at, not necessarily where it ends up.

quote:

Originally posted by Gingerbread Man:
I have long known that pitchers hitting their spots most of the time was somewhat mythical. Last night was the first time I actually made my own charts and watched and analyzed every pitch. My son, who also pitches helped me out. I am going to expand it a little more tonight and keep a few different stats besides my first ones. One would certainly have to track every pitch over the course of several years though to really see a trend though and to be honest- that is way out of anything I would ever want to do.

My method of seeing where a pitch would have been when hit is watching the catchers glove catch the ghost ball. The reason i go witha 6 inch spot is that it represnts the amount of movement in the wrist generally without moving the arm. Although, I did allow for more arm motion if it moved in the plane of the movement of the ball because I know a lot of catchers and pitchers use the target as an initial spot to throw at, not necessarily where it ends up.

The trouble with charting pitches, even on TV, is that is so difficult to get a true perspective of whare the ball is in relation to everything. But at least by using the glove, you’re using what’s described as the target 99% of the time.

You wouldn’t believe how many adult beverages I’ve won over the years by betting on pretty much what you’re doing. Its like taking candy from a baby because most people only THINK they know what’s happening. Another bet I used to love to make, was how many times a catcher would have to move his glove more than 2’ to catch a pitch. We videotaped a game in Az at the Jr Olys where a kid who was eventually to make it to the ML, made his C do that 37 times in an 84 pitch outing, and we didn’t count pitches put in play! His father couldn’t believe it, even though we counted them twice, and in slo mo.

Its like I keep trying to get people to understand, perception is not the same as reality.

Kind of freaky but, I tracked 200 pitches tonight during the Brewers vs. D-backs and came up with the same exact location percentage as i did last night- Pitchers hitting their location only 47% of the time. Pretty strange!

During that stretch there were 19 base hits. 15 of those base hits happened from a missed location- a mistake.

This topic grew suddenly quiet, perhaps the absurbity of the act of charting pitches when provided with a pitch tracker was a bit over the top.

Was wondering if you did the same excercise last night in the matchup game between Carp and Doc and what was your observation of the % of location hit or not?

+

quote:

a bit over the top

Indeed.

quote:

Originally posted by TPM:
This topic grew suddenly quiet, perhaps the absurbity of the act of charting pitches when provided with a pitch tracker was a bit over the top.

Did it grow quiet because what he was doing was absurd, or that people didn’t know what to do when faced with actual numbers, absurd or not? Even though I find fault with the accuracy of what he was doing, I have no problem at all believing that his numbers were a lot closer than what most folks want to believe, because I’ve come up with similar numbers myself.

quote:

Was wondering if you did the same excercise last night in the matchup game between Carp and Doc and what was your observation of the % of location hit or not?

I don’t chart anything, but I did score that game. Here’s a couple of things you may find interesting if not important.

Carpenter threw back to back strikes in at bat 22 times, Halladay 46 times.
Carpenter threw back to back balls in at bat 7 times, Halladay 12 times.
Carpenter threw back to back to back strikes in at bat 3 times, Halladay 18 times.
Carpenter threw back to back to back balls in at bat 1 time, Halladay twice.
Carpenter went 0-2 4 times, Halladay 7 times.
Carpenter went to 3 balls 3 times, Halladay 2 times.
Carpenter went 0-2 4 times, Halladay 7 times.
Carpenter threw 8 pitches in the dirt, none for strikes, Halladay did it 7 times and 2 were strikes.
The highest percentage of pitches Carpenter in relation to a single count type, were 34.9%, and they were strikes when the count was even. Halladay was the same, but his percentage was 30.2%.

He had been charting pitches, and what percentage ended up where the catcher set up and which didn't.

That's what I was inquiring about, not what you did. Sorry if that makes you feel left out, but my inquiry was not directed to you.

quote:

Originally posted by TPM:
This topic grew suddenly quiet, perhaps the absurbity of the act of charting pitches when provided with a pitch tracker was a bit over the top.

Was wondering if you did the same excercise last night in the matchup game between Carp and Doc and what was your observation of the % of location hit or not?

The absurdity of charting pitches? You can't be serious. Even big league team personal chart pitches...unbelievable.

It's quite obvious that the majority of people assume that the "average" MLB pitcher hits his location the majority of the time. My small sampling proved otherwise. I am swayed to believe that the average MLB pitcher can hit a spot in a general location such as "keeping it down" or "keeping it outside", etc, the majority of the time, but heck- even HS kids can do that. I don't buy into the zone getting tighter and tighter from rookie ball on up the system until you get to the majors. The strike zone, according to the rule books is the same for HS all the way up to the big leagues. There may be more inconsistancies at the lower levels, but the zone doesn't get smaller and smaller as one goes up the todem pole. That is another misconception.

TPM- This topic has grown quiet, in my opinion, largely because of a mass denigration of opinions that has occurred. After a while it is kind of a waste of time continually trying to prove your point when you know it won't get through someone's head. I assume that's why one will find that most of the people that began posting in this thread have now carefully shied away from it.

Stats- I'd like to piggyback on what you posted a bit. I normally like statistical analyses and what they do for the game. Your numbers, which I don't doubt are correct, shows consistencies that would cause an assumption that the result of the game was vastly different than what it was in reality. I am just curious as to how you would use these numbers in order to assist in analyzing a game performance. As I said, I appreciate you putting them together, and I may be naive in my questioning, but I am wondering how those numbers in particular are relative to the actual result.

Oh and for future reference TPM, I've learned that ignoring posts by a particular user certainly lightens the load of things you are trying to defend on the site. This particular thread is a great example of a place where I did not take that action soon enough.

quote:

The absurdity of charting pitches? You can't be serious. Even big league team personal chart pitches...unbelievable.

Yes, at home while watching a game is a bit different than big league team personel charting their pitchers pitches, would you agree?
I am under the assumption that they also chart what they threw not what the catcher set up (which is what you claimed to have done).

So did you do it or not and if so what was your conclusion of those two pitchers?

I have a reason for asking.

there is that term assumption once again

quote:

Originally posted by TRhit:
there is that tewrm suumpyion one again

Say what?

quote:

Originally posted by J H:
Oh and for future reference TPM, I've learned that ignoring posts by a particular user certainly lightens the load of things you are trying to defend on the site. This particular thread is a great example of a place where I did not take that action soon enough.

Yeah I should take some of my own advice but I just am kind of wondering if GBM did the same thing last night in an epic game of 2 vet pitchers and what was his outcome and his conclusion as compared to the other pitchers.


Other points made today by the charter are not even worth debating and I am not going there either.

quote:

Originally posted by J H:
…Stats- I'd like to piggyback on what you posted a bit. I normally like statistical analyses and what they do for the game. Your numbers, which I don't doubt are correct, shows consistencies that would cause an assumption that the result of the game was vastly different than what it was in reality. I am just curious as to how you would use these numbers in order to assist in analyzing a game performance.

Pretty good questions here. I will answer them honestly, and hope that’s adequate.

A lot of times I produce metrics that don’t so much prove a player’s performance was either good or bad, but that its just not possible to use what was done as an indicator of success or failure. FI, while I think everyone would agree that a high 1st pitch strike percentage was better than a low one, for reasons of a pitcher getting ahead in the count generally being a good thing, there’s nothing to prove that a pitcher who’s FPS is lower than the other guy isn’t going to have as much or more success.

The reason is, the two things don’t necessarily go together, but can only “indicate” a trend. In the numbers for those 2 guys in that particular game, most “anomalies” can be explained by on guy throwing so many fewer pitcher than the other. That’s why its necessary to look at so many other things to get a better picture.

One of the ancillary reasons I decided to update my program to score the game, was that I could get many more things I was producing after the fact, while they were actually going on. For years I would tally many things as the game was going on, like pitch counts or number of 3 ball counts, but there’s only so many things one can tally and compute while trying to score a game. There’s no way I could keep a continuing tally and get the percentages for the number of balls, called, fouled, missed, and BIP strikes on even an inning basis, let alone as each pitch took place. Well, suddenly I can do that, and it opens up a lot of new thinking for me.

So, right at this moment in time, I don’t know what a lot of those numbers will do as far as game analysis or player performance, because I’ve only had access to them in this form for less than a few months. I put things in and take things out as I see they might have some use, or see that for sure they don’t. In fact, I’m seriously adding another type of strike by splitting swings and misses into two different categories.

I’ve seen at the ML level, the number of swings and misses on all pitches is almost always below 10% for a game. But, I’ve also noticed that of all those misses, it seems to be about as likely there is an “abbreviated” swing or checked swings, as there is a full swing and a miss. I don’t know if that’s significant, but it shows me there’s a difference in that the batter is fooled as opposed to him simply not getting the bat to the correct place to make contact.

quote:

As I said, I appreciate you putting them together, and I may be naive in my questioning, but I am wondering how those numbers in particular are relative to the actual result.

And that’s the reason I like to look at the numbers. I don’t know there’s any relation to the actual result, but as I said, looking at these numbers in real time is so new to me, I really haven’t had a lot of opportunity to come to many conclusions.

Its just another lurch forward of progress. There’s some kind of new information found, and it takes a while to figure out what it means or how to use it. There’s a similar kind of thing going on at the lower levels of the sport with data. With the advent of so many ways to produce stats, right now a lot of people are blown away by metrics they’ve never heard of before, but folks like myself have been using for years and treat as commonplace. Those folks are inundated with data in all kinds of forms, and will need a while to sort through it all and learn to pick out the things that they feel are useful. The same thing is happening with me.

There are so many new things available to me now, I really don’t’ know where to begin. I’m like a kid in a candy store. And the best part is, I didn’t have to “put anything together”. All I did was copy the numbers off the monitor. I wrote the compute code to generate them over a decade ago, and have had those numbers at my fingertips all those years. But, they were always numbers from the past, and mixed in as an aggregate. Its quite different seeing them pitch by pitch and trying to draw conclusions.

So there ya have it.

quote:

Originally posted by TPM:
Yeah I should take some of my own advice but I just am kind of wondering if GBM did the same thing last night in an epic game of 2 vet pitchers and what was his outcome and his conclusion as compared to the other pitchers. …

Why are you wondering?

+

/ how many hints do people need that they are obsessed?

Stats- Fair enough. I don't want my post to come off as an attack because of the nature of this thread in the past. I was just simply curious, and wasn't attacking in any way. I respect what you do and although I have my skepticism about the success of the results, I'm sure that comes with the territory. You could be just another stats-obsessed idiot, or you could be the next Bill James. I'm certainly not one to make that determination, but I do believe that if you feel that the stats you keep can help the game then you should absolutely stick by it.

quote:

Originally posted by J H:
Stats- Fair enough. I don't want my post to come off as an attack because of the nature of this thread in the past. I was just simply curious, and wasn't attacking in any way. I respect what you do and although I have my skepticism about the success of the results, I'm sure that comes with the territory. You could be just another stats-obsessed idiot, or you could be the next Bill James. I'm certainly not one to make that determination, but I do believe that if you feel that the stats you keep can help the game then you should absolutely stick by it.

I didn’t take it as being derogatory in any manner. You asked a couple of what I thought were very good questions, and ones that I’ve asked myself, and I tried to answer them as honestly as I could.

I don’t know that I’ve ever really worried about stats in a success/failure kind of way. I see them more in a fact/fiction way. It really rubs people the wrong way to have their beliefs challenged, and its unfortunate that folks who plow throw numbers have a tendency to do that. But its not done maliciously, at least in my case it isn’t, but more to have folks look a little deeper than what they see on the surface.

Some time back when linear weights were first beginning to be used in baseball, and people heard that the chances of a runner scoring from 1st with no outs was better than from second with 1 out, a lot of heads exploded all over the baseball world. A lot of people saw it as advocating never to bunt or steal a base because an out was more valuable than an extra base, but that wasn’t what anyone was doing.

All they did was present facts, and those facts showed the truth. How anyone wanted to use that information was entirely up to them. Unfortunately, some went way overboard, and some refused to even consider it. Well, over time, a lot of understanding has crept into the conversation, and I think the game is much better for it.

That’s all I try to do. I don’t advocate anyone change their minds just because I say so or even if the numbers say so, but I do expect to be given the opportunity to make a case and have thinking people consider it. The trouble is, this stuff isn’t like a light switch where when it gets thrown, suddenly all answers become intuitively obvious to the casual observer. True knowledge more often than not takes a lot of work on someone’s part, and a lot of time to become accepted. My hobby is trying to find that knowledge. If I don’t, at least I didn’t just accept something someone else said, and if I do, great. Maybe that little piece of knowledge may help someone down the road.

If this was the first thread I read on this forum, I doubt I would come back. It wouldn't seem worth it. I don't recall being exposed to such silly name calling and childish personal attacks since I got out of 6th grade. I mean, not just one post or poster but several.

Maybe we should open up a Personal Attack thread so the folks who feel so inclined can toss barbs at each other, and not impede the learning process for those who are trying to help their kids.

Just as we have Golden Threads, we should have Lead Threads, and I would nominate this one for that designation.

quote:

Originally posted by TPM:

quote:

The absurdity of charting pitches? You can't be serious. Even big league team personal chart pitches...unbelievable.

Yes, at home while watching a game is a bit different than big league team personel charting their pitchers pitches, would you agree?
I am under the assumption that they also chart what they threw not what the catcher set up (which is what you claimed to have done).

So did you do it or not and if so what was your conclusion of those two pitchers?

I have a reason for asking.

I am not sure what game you are referring to but I purposely switched from game to game randomly between innings to get more of an "average" of a typical "average" type of MLB pitcher. I did it also again last night with the Tigers and Rangers playing and found the rsults to be strikingly similar- pitchers can't pin up their spots within 6 inches the majority of th etime, that % being just under 50%. With breaking balls I take into consideration what the pitcher and catcher are trying to achieve and thus go more in favor or more leniant in hitting a spot if it gets the desired result. For instance- if a catcher is wanting a breaking ball low and away and instead it went low and inside I would generally still say he hit his spot, especially if induced a swing.

There were innings I charted where the pitcher was hitting his spot 70-80% of the time, but the next inning those numbers would flip-flop and be only like 20-30% of the time.

Of special consideration, I am not speaking of the few elite MLB pitchers who do have pinpoint control. I am speaking along the lines of what % the average MLB pitcher throws.

My conclusions thus show that the average pitcher at the MLB level can't hit their spots more than 50% of the time. I am not suggesting in any way that MLB pitchers do a poor job at hitting their location versus any other league below them, I am merely suggesting the results show that they miss more than we think they do- we tend to give them credit for having pin-point control when in reality, they just plain don't. They survive (the average MLB pitchers)and excell generally because of their stuff and not really any kind of pinpoint control.

We could argue a lot of issues on this board and never really get anywhere until we can start to really analyze the facts. I think it can be reasonbly accepted that pitchers regularly do miss their locations in games- especially big games. Pitchers have good outings and bad outings. Hitters usually hit mistakes for their batting average. If pitchers and catchers were precise enough in hitting their locations according to their homework, there would be tons more of perfect games and no-hitters. the reason they are rare is because of one simple fact- On average, pitchers just can't hit their location or have their best stuff on a consistant basis.

More often than we think, pitches really do find themselves over the heart of the plate and yet batters still have a hard time hitting grooved balls down the gut. If that weren't true, then the average MLB batter would have averages in the .500-.750 range or higher. Catchers also set up more down the middle than we tend to believe, especially when pitchers get behind and get in trouble. We tend to assume that nothing should ever be thrown down the middle when in fact a very high percentage of pitches actually do end up down the middle. I can't quite remember who it was that was recently at bat and they struck out on three different pitches that all found themselves down the general heart of the plate. Sure, the pitcher missed his spots on two of them, but the result in this case was just the same. Of note however is the praise all the commentators gave him and his control. Another batter was up and hit a ball that didn't really miss it's location and the commentators were quick to jump in on his "control issues" and such. I tend to think that we as viewers, coaches, team-mates, tec do the sam ething- we want to find some fault and exaggerate it when the chips aren't going your way and on the other hand when luck does fall in place, we tend to overlook the otherwise apparent obvious facts that is the reality of average baseball.

We recently had a game where the catcher, on every pitch was setting up a high target throughout the whole game. But because the pitcher was breezing through the innings, the coaches never really noticed or cared. The pitcher was of course frustrated with the lack of catcher experience. Then, in another game the batters are teeing off the pitcher and suddenly everyone is critiquing exactly where the catcher is or is not setting up. This is a common phenomenon of the mind and how it works-

When we see a pitcher throw shut-out we automatically register things in our mind such as "wow, he had great control of his location", only remembering the good points and forgetting the bad ones.

Those are the facts- let's analyze that- why pitches do find the heart of the strike zone more often than we think, why catchers really do set up more in the middle of the strike zone than we think, why batters really aren't as good as we think at hitting balls down the middle of the plate. I think our minds, on their own natural faults, tend to forget certain aspects and only pick up on others.

I am not sure I really get all of this, where a pitcher hits his "spot" has to do with where he actually releases the ball.

I mean you can watch the catcher set up where ever he does, if the pitcher can't release it properly he is not going to locate, is he?

I just think that you are making too much out of a concept that really isn't that difficult for most to understand.

+

Release point is difficult for sure. Our head coach is always saying how if our pitcher can just hit his spot with the breaking ball he will get so and so out. Of course, our pitchers seldom hit the glove in this "spot" as the coach wants. But, if it gets the job done intended, the coach has nothing but praise and if he misses he gets frustrated. Pretty much at any level, no pitcher is going to locate his breaking ball with pin-point control the majority of the time, even at the MLB level. However, they often times can manage to get the job done regardless of missing their spot. This general rule applies with HS ball with good pitchers also.

How often do we see a first pitch hung curveball that the batter doesn't swing on, not only at the HS level but also the MLB level? It happens quite often. Pitchers miss their location and yet it doesn't hurt them, it ends up helping them quite often.

And where did I put my picture of a dead horse with a bunch of people with clubs????????

quote:

Originally posted by coach2709:
And where did I put my picture of a dead horse with a bunch of people with clubs????????

Some of the posters on here have this amazing ability to resurrect this dead horse. We have killed the thing about 4 times only to see it raised from the dead every time.

And those who reply to those who ressurect the dead are just as guilty. I guess the dead horse wasn't all that high and mighty.