quote:Originally posted by coach2709:
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.
Good point.
Good point.
Good point.
Don't forget that all that keep bringing in the points about the dead horse are just as guilty also. 
In fact, at this point, all who have contributed to the entire post have taken their club to the horse.
In fact, at this point, all who have contributed to the entire post have taken their club to the horse.
Guys:
68% of all fairly hit balls are outs in the Big Leagues. Pitch to contact. One of the biggest problems in baseball today is that pitchers corner pitch away from contact too frequently.You wold be amazed how many outs you would get by working down over the middle of the plate with more than one speed(7-10 speed spreads)& elevating an occasional 4 seam fastball.
Also as far as a goal for hitting your target with the fastball is concerned, the Inside Edge data base shows that Major League pitchers only hit their target 24% of the time with their fastballs.(catcher does not have to move his glove)
One of the major tennants when establishing goals is that they are realistic & attainable.Also goals are relative to the abilities of the individual.They need to be behaviorable, measurable & short term.
JW
68% of all fairly hit balls are outs in the Big Leagues. Pitch to contact. One of the biggest problems in baseball today is that pitchers corner pitch away from contact too frequently.You wold be amazed how many outs you would get by working down over the middle of the plate with more than one speed(7-10 speed spreads)& elevating an occasional 4 seam fastball.
Also as far as a goal for hitting your target with the fastball is concerned, the Inside Edge data base shows that Major League pitchers only hit their target 24% of the time with their fastballs.(catcher does not have to move his glove)
One of the major tennants when establishing goals is that they are realistic & attainable.Also goals are relative to the abilities of the individual.They need to be behaviorable, measurable & short term.
JW
quote:Originally posted by jerry weinstein:
Guys:
68% of all fairly hit balls are outs in the Big Leagues. Pitch to contact. One of the biggest problems in baseball today is that pitchers corner pitch away from contact too frequently.You wold be amazed how many outs you would get by working down over the middle of the plate with more than one speed(7-10 speed spreads)& elevating an occasional 4 seam fastball.
Also as far as a goal for hitting your target with the fastball is concerned, the Inside Edge data base shows that Major League pitchers only hit their target 24% of the time with their fastballs.(catcher does not have to move his glove)
One of the major tennants when establishing goals is that they are realistic & attainable.Also goals are relative to the abilities of the individual.They need to be behaviorable, measurable & short term.
JW
Thank you, your knowledge on this matter is much appreciated.
quote:Originally posted by Gingerbread Man:
Don't forget that all that keep bringing in the points about the dead horse are just as guilty also.
I will not argue that point one bit. But sometimes it takes someone to state the obvious to create change.
Jerry,
I agree 150,000% with you on your post if we're talking about all levels of pro ball. I think with the new bat regulations college and high school will start coming back towards what you're saying. For the past decade pitchers at the lower levels HAD to nitpick to try and survive due to the hot bats. This made it's way up to the pro levels on it's own. Plus, if you remember back in the early 90's when the strike zone went from outside edge of the batter's box to the middle of the plate it forced pitchers outside more. Remember Eric Gregg's strike zone?
The new bats will help stop the nit picking at the college and high school level......I hope.
Coach,
Interesting reply, never thought about that concept, makes sense.
Interesting reply, never thought about that concept, makes sense.
quote:Originally posted by coach2709:
…
I agree 150,000% with you on your post if we're talking about all levels of pro ball. I think with the new bat regulations college and high school will start coming back towards what you're saying. For the past decade pitchers at the lower levels HAD to nitpick to try and survive due to the hot bats. This made it's way up to the pro levels on it's own. Plus, if you remember back in the early 90's when the strike zone went from outside edge of the batter's box to the middle of the plate it forced pitchers outside more. Remember Eric Gregg's strike zone?
The new bats will help stop the nit picking at the college and high school level......I hope.
Perhaps I misunderstood Jerry’s point, but it sure looked to me like he was saying that while pitchers at ANY level should be always trying to locate a pitch perfectly, the odds of a ML pitcher doing it are only 1 in 4, which means it should be increasingly longer odds the further down in levels one goes. With that in mind, pitchers trying to nitpick to stay away from the bats was really a mistake, based on the other facts that 68% of the balls put in play by the best hitters in the world are outs.
In the end, I suspect that the hot bats had much more of an effect on the game for what damage everyone THOUGHT they would do, and therefore ended up walking or getting behind in counts many more times than necessary, than what they actually did. The old formula of “Keep the ball down and change speeds” has been around for over 100 years for a reason. It’s the best formula for success that there is.
Even when a catcher sets up down the middle the odds are still in his favor (the pitcher) that the batter won't get a hit. Watching the game last night, a lot of the Cardinals hits were from pitches outside or on the fringe of the strike zone. There were quite a lot of pitches down the middle that were either mistakes or purpose pitches that turned into outs or swinging strikes.
GBM,
Here is one right down the center, just about right at the catcher's glove. And then...
http://i2.cdn.turner.com/si/20...ert-pujols-ap-t1.jpg
Here is one right down the center, just about right at the catcher's glove. And then...
http://i2.cdn.turner.com/si/20...ert-pujols-ap-t1.jpg
quote:In the end, I suspect that the hot bats had much more of an effect on the game for what damage everyone THOUGHT they would do
Are you seriously saying what I think you're saying? You believe at the high school and college level the BESR bats had no effect on the game other than what people THOUGHT it did? If that's what you're saying then are very wrong. The BESR bats and the ones before them that basically had no regulations set back pitching at the high school and college level due to there being more of a chance of some sort of hit than what you would with a wood bat.
I believe Jerry (and if I'm wrong Jerry please correct me) was speaking of baseball from the profession point of view. I brought up my response from the amateur point of view. Reason is until the metal bats truly perform as wood bats then it is two seperate games. With metal bats the pitchers have to be more fine with their pitches or there is a greater chance of giving up a hit. Pro ball is what he said it should be - throw to contact but if you do that at the high school level and even college level you will get burned more than you would at the pro level due to the hot bats. With the new BBCOR standards I think the overall aspect of pitching to contact will start making it's way back down to the amateur levels as it should.
You really don't think the hot bats affected the amateur game?
I read Jerry's post as saying location is good but don't ruin yourself trying to be perfect. In other words, change speeds and use what you've got that day. Some days you can locate fairly well, some days you try to throw it down the middle and hope it misses in a good location. So Stats I think you misunderstood what Jerry was trying to say, or more likely didn't want to understand.
The only place I'd disagree is wrt to the percentages on balls put in play. That's for all balls put in play. The numbers for line drives tend to be a lot higher. MLB hitters make a living on mistakes over the plate although even they don't always square them up.
Coach 2709,
I think that your ideas apply more at the college level than at the HS level. I've seen kids who were moderately successful vs good HS teams pitching around hitters and then not getting hurt that often when they were forced to throw a fastball down the middle. I've seen the same kids not be remotely competitive at the college level when the hitters do a lot more with those pitches even with the BBCOR bats.
There's no doubt that the hot bats changed the way the college game was played and pitched. It wasn't just perception.
A real eye opener for me back in the stone ages was when I was pitching against some guys who had been released from AA and were trying to catch on with the Angels. I jammed one of them and got him to pop it up. We were playing at what is now UCLA's Jackie Robinson field where the ball really doesn't carry that well. I was more than a bit surprised to see the ball go over the fence.
The only place I'd disagree is wrt to the percentages on balls put in play. That's for all balls put in play. The numbers for line drives tend to be a lot higher. MLB hitters make a living on mistakes over the plate although even they don't always square them up.
Coach 2709,
I think that your ideas apply more at the college level than at the HS level. I've seen kids who were moderately successful vs good HS teams pitching around hitters and then not getting hurt that often when they were forced to throw a fastball down the middle. I've seen the same kids not be remotely competitive at the college level when the hitters do a lot more with those pitches even with the BBCOR bats.
There's no doubt that the hot bats changed the way the college game was played and pitched. It wasn't just perception.
A real eye opener for me back in the stone ages was when I was pitching against some guys who had been released from AA and were trying to catch on with the Angels. I jammed one of them and got him to pop it up. We were playing at what is now UCLA's Jackie Robinson field where the ball really doesn't carry that well. I was more than a bit surprised to see the ball go over the fence.
quote:Originally posted by jerry weinstein:
Guys:
68% of all fairly hit balls are outs in the Big Leagues. Pitch to contact. One of the biggest problems in baseball today is that pitchers corner pitch away from contact too frequently.You wold be amazed how many outs you would get by working down over the middle of the plate with more than one speed(7-10 speed spreads)& elevating an occasional 4 seam fastball.
Also as far as a goal for hitting your target with the fastball is concerned, the Inside Edge data base shows that Major League pitchers only hit their target 24% of the time with their fastballs.(catcher does not have to move his glove)
One of the major tennants when establishing goals is that they are realistic & attainable.Also goals are relative to the abilities of the individual.They need to be behaviorable, measurable & short term.
JW
Pitch to contact. I couldn't agree more and will only add my opinion: You'd better play defense when you do. I think poor defense is a major factor in the fear of pitching to contact. Defense is under-rated, under-taught and not as easy as people seem to think.
quote:Originally posted by CADad:
I read Jerry's post as saying location is good but don't ruin yourself trying to be perfect. In other words, change speeds and use what you've got that day. Some days you can locate fairly well, some days you try to throw it down the middle and hope it misses in a good location. So Stats I think you misunderstood what Jerry was trying to say, or more likely didn't want to understand.
The only place I'd disagree is wrt to the percentages on balls put in play. That's for all balls put in play. The numbers for line drives tend to be a lot higher. MLB hitters make a living on mistakes over the plate although even they don't always square them up.
I'm glad you put this because this is basically what I'm agreeing with Jerry on. I just altered from the amateur point of view that due to the hot bats it was a little more difficult to do that.
Maybe what I'm saying isn't making sense but it does in my head and my momma said that was good enough when I was little
quote:Originally posted by coach2709:
Are you seriously saying what I think you're saying? You believe at the high school and college level the BESR bats had no effect on the game other than what people THOUGHT it did? If that's what you're saying then are very wrong. The BESR bats and the ones before them that basically had no regulations set back pitching at the high school and college level due to there being more of a chance of some sort of hit than what you would with a wood bat.
I believe Jerry (and if I'm wrong Jerry please correct me) was speaking of baseball from the profession point of view. I brought up my response from the amateur point of view. Reason is until the metal bats truly perform as wood bats then it is two seperate games. With metal bats the pitchers have to be more fine with their pitches or there is a greater chance of giving up a hit. Pro ball is what he said it should be - throw to contact but if you do that at the high school level and even college level you will get burned more than you would at the pro level due to the hot bats. With the new BBCOR standards I think the overall aspect of pitching to contact will start making it's way back down to the amateur levels as it should.
You really don't think the hot bats affected the amateur game?
Well coach, that was a very nice speech, but the reason you made it was because of taking something I said, so far out of context, it made me laugh.
Here’s what you quoted:
quote:In the end, I suspect that the hot bats had much more of an effect on the game for what damage everyone THOUGHT they would do
Here’s the ENTIRE quote:
quote:In the end, I suspect that the hot bats had much more of an effect on the game for what damage everyone THOUGHT they would do, and therefore ended up walking or getting behind in counts many more times than necessary, than what they actually did.
If you can’t see the difference, I don’t know what to tell you, other than they are not the same thing. You took that and ASSUMED I was trying to say they had absolutely no effect on the game, and therefore proved what an ignorant **** I am.
As for the era before BESR, that was the era my son pitched in HS, and he had quite a distinguished career, so it wasn’t that a pitcher COULDN’T have success against hitters using those bats. But he had to have the stones to try to have any success.
As for your opinion that pitching to a non-wood bat prior to BBCOR somehow required pitchers not to pitch to contact, I respect it, but I completely disagree.
And just to be sure you understand, I not only didn’t say the hot bats didn’t affect the game, I wasn’t trying to imply it in even a minor way. I’m saying that IMO, people thinking like yourself were very much over-reacting to how likely it was that a ball was somehow almost guaranteed to go over the fence or become a base hit because there were SOME players using HOT bats.
I’m sorry you misunderstood what I was trying to say. I’ll gladly take the blame for you not considering the entire statement because I wasn’t clear.
quote:Originally posted by CADad:
I read Jerry's post as saying location is good but don't ruin yourself trying to be perfect. In other words, change speeds and use what you've got that day. Some days you can locate fairly well, some days you try to throw it down the middle and hope it misses in a good location. So Stats I think you misunderstood what Jerry was trying to say, or more likely didn't want to understand.
…
Well CADad, its nice to know you have a better idea about what I think than I do. Now here’s how it works. If Jerry says I misunderstood what he was saying, I’ll believe him. But having watched him coach for many years a City, and having spoken both with him, a couple of his coaches from back then, several players who played for him there, some of whom went on to higher college ball and even a couple who made it to the ML, plus still having booklets from a few camps he put on there at City my son attended, I think the way I interpreted what he said was well in line with what’s he’s advocated for many years. If I made a misinterpretation, its not as though I was calling him a liar, but I’ll apologize just in case that’s what HE thinks I was doing.
quote:Originally posted by infielddad:
GBM,
Here is one right down the center, just about right at the catcher's glove. And then...
http://i2.cdn.turner.com/si/20...ert-pujols-ap-t1.jpg
There ya go!
quote:Originally posted by TPM:
There ya go!
Does that mean you believe that every pitch thrown right down the middle gets blasted, no matter what came before, who the batter is, who the pitcher is, or what the game situation is?
I don’t think you believe that, so don’t get offended. But its kind what it sounds like you’re trying to say, and it doesn’t match what I’ve seen with my own eyes for over 60 years. If it were even close to being true, every player would be hitting about 90% of their BP pitches out of the park, but I haven’t seen anything close to that happen yet.
Is a ball down the middle more likely to be hit hard than the exact same pitch in a different location? You betcha! But that’s far from a guarantee. In fact, if you watch the AL game tonight, I’m gonna guess you’ll see some balls right down the middle, that end up being nothing but very long outs with the CF fence at 420’.
Back in the days when there were several ML parks with fences over 460’, it wasn’t uncommon at all to pipe a pitch. There are very few players who can yank a ball over 450’, so why not do what you can to have them hit the ball in the air to CF?
I don’t think GBM was trying to say to throw every pitch down the middle, any more than you’re trying to say every ball down the middle get launched into another zip code, but for some reason, it seems to come out that there’s fighting to make everyone believe that’s what the other guy is saying.
Now if a pitcher had the ability to do it, should he paint black or have batters swinging at pitches in the dirt every time? Sure. But his chances of doing it are nil.
Stats,
You just got done trashing CADad and IMO you just turned around did the same thing.
Go back page 2 and read the post that GBM made about Albert.
You just got done trashing CADad and IMO you just turned around did the same thing.
Go back page 2 and read the post that GBM made about Albert.
Stats,
I don't know for certain what Jerry was thinking. I could be wrong. It happens often enough. I stated my opinion as to what he was trying to say as it seemed fairly straightforward.
I don't have a better idea what you're thinking than you do. I simply think you are wrong.
I don't know for certain what Jerry was thinking. I could be wrong. It happens often enough. I stated my opinion as to what he was trying to say as it seemed fairly straightforward.
I don't have a better idea what you're thinking than you do. I simply think you are wrong.
Ok maybe I need to clarify what I mean by "hot bats". I'm not saying the illegal ones where they doctor the bat to increase performance. I'm talking about the legal bats under BESR and the composite bats that turned them into rocket launchers. Looking back I can see where using the term hot bats could be misconstrued.
As for the quote the bats before BBCOR did affect the way a lot of pitchers approached most hitters. No I'm not trying to say ALL pitchers threw differently to ALL hitters and if you took it that way then I think you're looking to stir some trouble. The guy we had that just graduated that was drafted who throws in the mid 90's with pretty good control for a high school stud had a few homeruns hit off him from BESR bats on pitches in good locations that never would have left the infield with a wood bat and probably a BBOCR bat. Obviously his velocity is what allowed it to be launched over the fence but the live bats allowed the hitter to put the ball in play.
A normal high school pitcher might not provide the velocity on that same pitch to get it out of the park but it could end up in the gap or over the OF heads or even to an OF for an out.
Here's the difference - my guy who had the homerun hit off his 92 MPH fastball in a good location will throw to the same spot at 95 and blow him away. The normal pitcher who had his 87 MPH fastball hit hard doesn't have it in the tank to blow the ball by the hitter with the same location. Now he's got to change location (or feel he has to) in order to get a better outcome on the pitch.
All that with the normal pitcher could POSSIBLY lead to more walks from nibbling. That is a fact and I've seen it happen to my pitchers and other pitchers my teams have competed against. So it's not that people thought the live bats caused more nibbling on the outer edge - it is a fact and I've seen it happen many times. It can be fixed and you just get them a bullpen to start the process there. It might not be one pitch that causes them to nibble but several good pitches that get hit hard.
I'm a big believer in pitching to contact but sometimes with the BESR bats it would lead to more hard hit balls than if you were pitching to wood bats.
So to restate no me and all these other people were NOT over-reacting at all. I possibly did create this misunderstanding by using the term "hot bat" when I don't mean illegal bats.
As for the quote the bats before BBCOR did affect the way a lot of pitchers approached most hitters. No I'm not trying to say ALL pitchers threw differently to ALL hitters and if you took it that way then I think you're looking to stir some trouble. The guy we had that just graduated that was drafted who throws in the mid 90's with pretty good control for a high school stud had a few homeruns hit off him from BESR bats on pitches in good locations that never would have left the infield with a wood bat and probably a BBOCR bat. Obviously his velocity is what allowed it to be launched over the fence but the live bats allowed the hitter to put the ball in play.
A normal high school pitcher might not provide the velocity on that same pitch to get it out of the park but it could end up in the gap or over the OF heads or even to an OF for an out.
Here's the difference - my guy who had the homerun hit off his 92 MPH fastball in a good location will throw to the same spot at 95 and blow him away. The normal pitcher who had his 87 MPH fastball hit hard doesn't have it in the tank to blow the ball by the hitter with the same location. Now he's got to change location (or feel he has to) in order to get a better outcome on the pitch.
All that with the normal pitcher could POSSIBLY lead to more walks from nibbling. That is a fact and I've seen it happen to my pitchers and other pitchers my teams have competed against. So it's not that people thought the live bats caused more nibbling on the outer edge - it is a fact and I've seen it happen many times. It can be fixed and you just get them a bullpen to start the process there. It might not be one pitch that causes them to nibble but several good pitches that get hit hard.
I'm a big believer in pitching to contact but sometimes with the BESR bats it would lead to more hard hit balls than if you were pitching to wood bats.
So to restate no me and all these other people were NOT over-reacting at all. I possibly did create this misunderstanding by using the term "hot bat" when I don't mean illegal bats.
Coach,
I got what you were trying to say in relation to what JW referred to as far as pitchers pitching away from contact too frequently. I like how he said about goals too, making them realistic and attainable and relative to the individual.
Speaking of individual, DK was a pitch to contact pitcher/FB and I could definetly see a change in that when he went to college for fear of the rocket launcher if he made a mistake. This perhaps being why (as you mentioned) why many pitchers don't pitch to contact as they should.
Maybe Jerry could expand on that a bit.
I got what you were trying to say in relation to what JW referred to as far as pitchers pitching away from contact too frequently. I like how he said about goals too, making them realistic and attainable and relative to the individual.
Speaking of individual, DK was a pitch to contact pitcher/FB and I could definetly see a change in that when he went to college for fear of the rocket launcher if he made a mistake. This perhaps being why (as you mentioned) why many pitchers don't pitch to contact as they should.
Maybe Jerry could expand on that a bit.
quote:Originally posted by NDD:
I think poor defense is a major factor in the fear of pitching to contact. Defense is under-rated, under-taught and not as easy as people seem to think.
I agree.
My two cents regarding location at the different levels...
HS - We generally try to do what Jerry says in games, depending on the pitcher's abilities. We usually work down around the knees and side to side while mixing pitches. We occasionally run a FB up to keep from showing too much of a pattern and to keep the hitter's sight lines up. If a guy has a good FB and breaking ball and can mix an occasional CU, but does not have very good control, we will be more concerned with just throwing strikes and mixing. Of course, with 0-2, we generally want something well out of the zone unless the hitter is totally overmatched on a given pitch. That being said, we certainly try to improve that pitcher's control during pens by giving specific targets using the idea of the nine box configuration that you see with Pitch Tracker. No reason to ask for middle middle. With some of the boys, this is quite aspirational, but that's still what we work toward.
MLB - It is my observation that MOST pitchers rely on locating for success and do so pretty darn well. Did you see Fister pounding the inside all night? Also, the vast majority of MLB games I watch, the pitch locations have patterns and they are around the fringe of the zone, not down the middle at all, regardless of where the glove is set up.
I do buy the whole 50% thing but there is a reason. There are many instances where a pitcher will miss a target on purpose. 0-2, a pitcher may want to bounce a CB that starts in the zone. He doesn't hit the glove but it is where he wants it. Also ahead in the count, he may want to catch black but be careful to miss out of the zone if he misses. Again, this is a partially intentional miss. And sometimes, the catcher will give one target but know the pitcher is going elsewhere to keep the hitters, baserunners and bench players honest/guessing. And yes, of course, occasionally one just gets away. So, while he may only hit the glove 50% of the time, he is succeeding in hitting his location more often.
Regarding middle of the plate, I think there are a few instances where he may go there. Perhaps starting a hitter off with a breaking ball (with proper scouting reports) knowing he'll only swing FB early in the count. Or there may be a leadoff who doesn't swing first pitch. But you sure don't try to throw a FB down the middle in a predictable FB count.
Regarding hitters' success with mistakes, I think that goes back to the count and the predictability of the pitch. Hitters may fail to hit safely with mistakes 67% of the time (or whatever that number was) but they have much higher success when they get the pitch type they are looking for and the pitch is in thier zone (mistake). If a pitcher hangs a curve but the hitter was looking FB, the pitcher is much more likely to get away with that mistake.
I do grant that there are some pitchers that are power pitchers or big movement guys who are less fine with their location but these are more the exception IMO.
HS - We generally try to do what Jerry says in games, depending on the pitcher's abilities. We usually work down around the knees and side to side while mixing pitches. We occasionally run a FB up to keep from showing too much of a pattern and to keep the hitter's sight lines up. If a guy has a good FB and breaking ball and can mix an occasional CU, but does not have very good control, we will be more concerned with just throwing strikes and mixing. Of course, with 0-2, we generally want something well out of the zone unless the hitter is totally overmatched on a given pitch. That being said, we certainly try to improve that pitcher's control during pens by giving specific targets using the idea of the nine box configuration that you see with Pitch Tracker. No reason to ask for middle middle. With some of the boys, this is quite aspirational, but that's still what we work toward.
MLB - It is my observation that MOST pitchers rely on locating for success and do so pretty darn well. Did you see Fister pounding the inside all night? Also, the vast majority of MLB games I watch, the pitch locations have patterns and they are around the fringe of the zone, not down the middle at all, regardless of where the glove is set up.
I do buy the whole 50% thing but there is a reason. There are many instances where a pitcher will miss a target on purpose. 0-2, a pitcher may want to bounce a CB that starts in the zone. He doesn't hit the glove but it is where he wants it. Also ahead in the count, he may want to catch black but be careful to miss out of the zone if he misses. Again, this is a partially intentional miss. And sometimes, the catcher will give one target but know the pitcher is going elsewhere to keep the hitters, baserunners and bench players honest/guessing. And yes, of course, occasionally one just gets away. So, while he may only hit the glove 50% of the time, he is succeeding in hitting his location more often.
Regarding middle of the plate, I think there are a few instances where he may go there. Perhaps starting a hitter off with a breaking ball (with proper scouting reports) knowing he'll only swing FB early in the count. Or there may be a leadoff who doesn't swing first pitch. But you sure don't try to throw a FB down the middle in a predictable FB count.
Regarding hitters' success with mistakes, I think that goes back to the count and the predictability of the pitch. Hitters may fail to hit safely with mistakes 67% of the time (or whatever that number was) but they have much higher success when they get the pitch type they are looking for and the pitch is in thier zone (mistake). If a pitcher hangs a curve but the hitter was looking FB, the pitcher is much more likely to get away with that mistake.
I do grant that there are some pitchers that are power pitchers or big movement guys who are less fine with their location but these are more the exception IMO.
Just wanted to clarify one point about Pujols. Pujols is very goos at hitting- perhaps the best in the business- he is gonna hit balls outa the park that other guys pop up to the second baseman. As for pitchers blazing a pitch down the middle, it happens in the big leagues more often than we tend to give credit for, and even then it usually doesn't amount to a base hit, most of the time. The pitcher thus has the advantage with getting away with either a well placed pitch finding the middle of the plate or misplacing one that finds the same result. My point about Pujols was that he is often looking for something to clobber that is anywhere close to his ginormous crush zone.
In no way do I advocate throwing a lot of pitches down the middle, I am just stating, as the evidence seems to clearly point, it's ok and even good practice in certain situations to call a pitch down the middle and thus- WHY I ADVOCATE, throwing bullpens where the pitcher and catcher work on throwing a small percentage of throws down the middle. The odds are clearly in the pitchers favor, from one pitch to the next, that even an errant pitch down the general middle location will not be hit for a base hit.
We tend to think that MLB pitchers throw well placed pitches, with somewhat pin-point control all around the strike zone and not much in the strike zone. I guess if we were to clone Maddux, that may be the case. the reality though is that far more pitches than we think- be it purpose or mistake, end up in the strike zone and in the batters hit zone.
Speaking of contact pitching, in order for that to happen, a higher percentage of pitches thus must be thrown in the strike zone. this being the case, contact pitchers are going to end up throwing a higher percentage of pitches around or in the heart of the plate. But, because they have "stuff", the batters will struggle making good square contact even when that pitch ends up right down the middle occasionally.
In no way do I advocate throwing a lot of pitches down the middle, I am just stating, as the evidence seems to clearly point, it's ok and even good practice in certain situations to call a pitch down the middle and thus- WHY I ADVOCATE, throwing bullpens where the pitcher and catcher work on throwing a small percentage of throws down the middle. The odds are clearly in the pitchers favor, from one pitch to the next, that even an errant pitch down the general middle location will not be hit for a base hit.
We tend to think that MLB pitchers throw well placed pitches, with somewhat pin-point control all around the strike zone and not much in the strike zone. I guess if we were to clone Maddux, that may be the case. the reality though is that far more pitches than we think- be it purpose or mistake, end up in the strike zone and in the batters hit zone.
Speaking of contact pitching, in order for that to happen, a higher percentage of pitches thus must be thrown in the strike zone. this being the case, contact pitchers are going to end up throwing a higher percentage of pitches around or in the heart of the plate. But, because they have "stuff", the batters will struggle making good square contact even when that pitch ends up right down the middle occasionally.
Here's the "tight" grouping you get from Fister against a righty. As expected for a RHP he tends to be up a bit more when he's inside to a righty. He also leaves a lot of pitches middle to middle in. This is pitching to contact and very good location with the actual locations centered around the target but not actually hitting it as often as not.
Here's Max Scherzer. It looks like he's mostly throwing down the middle or middle in and being effectively wild.
Here's Mariano Rivera. He is one of the few pitchers who does actually manage to avoid the middle of the plate. He's got a simple formula, it works and he sticks to it.
Different strokes for different folks.
CAdad those depict where the pitch crossed the plate?
They're from the Pitch/FX section of fangraphs.com. If I had to guess I'd say the front of the plate but I don't know what part of the plate they use for this. There's very little difference between the front and back of the plate as far as location even with an extremely hard breaking curve only moving up to 4 inches as it goes from the front to back of the plate. A fastball might sink an inch or two at the most across the plate and would tail far, far less. A pitcher throwing across his body as much as Weaver, and nobody else comes close to him, might get somewhere close to an inch of difference horizontally from front to back. These are quick, back of the envelope calculations. I think I did more detailed calculations somewhere else on here in the past. The curve assumption is 6' of total drop so it would have to hit the plate to get that much drop as it crosses the plate. Anything else is going to be dropping much more slowly and a curve that ends up in the strike zone will be moving a lot less as it crosses the plate. BTW, if one were to take into account the triangular shape of the back part of the plate then the movement in almost every case as the ball crosses the plate would be less.
Understood and thanks.
From some reason the term "net effect" is running through my mind...
From some reason the term "net effect" is running through my mind...
quote:Originally posted by CADad:
They're from the Pitch/FX section of fangraphs.com. If I had to guess I'd say the front of the plate but I don't know what part of the plate they use for this. There's very little difference between the front and back of the plate as far as location even with an extremely hard breaking curve only moving up to 4 inches as it goes from the front to back of the plate. A fastball might sink an inch or two at the most across the plate and would tail far, far less. A pitcher throwing across his body as much as Weaver, and nobody else comes close to him, might get somewhere close to an inch of difference horizontally from front to back. These are quick, back of the envelope calculations. I think I did more detailed calculations somewhere else on here in the past. The curve assumption is 6' of total drop so it would have to hit the plate to get that much drop as it crosses the plate. Anything else is going to be dropping much more slowly and a curve that ends up in the strike zone will be moving a lot less as it crosses the plate.
I am assuming it's taken at the plate, as the height would be the correct distance it would cross the plate?
Good stuff CADad. I am assuming that most of these pitches ended up very close to where intended. That's what makes them better than most.
BTW, here's Fister's game from last night, appears to me that he was really trying hard to stay out of the zone, not something you would normally do in a regular game,JMO.
http://pitchfx.texasleaguers.c...11&to=10%2F11%2F2011
Also here's Marcum vs Pujols from Monday.
http://pitchfx.texasleaguers.c...11&to=10%2F10%2F2011
Look at Fister "Pitch Location By Type" Perhaps the difference between "down the middle" and "not" is different to them and us.quote:Originally posted by TPM:quote:Originally posted by CADad:
They're from the Pitch/FX section of fangraphs.com. If I had to guess I'd say the front of the plate but I don't know what part of the plate they use for this. There's very little difference between the front and back of the plate as far as location even with an extremely hard breaking curve only moving up to 4 inches as it goes from the front to back of the plate. A fastball might sink an inch or two at the most across the plate and would tail far, far less. A pitcher throwing across his body as much as Weaver, and nobody else comes close to him, might get somewhere close to an inch of difference horizontally from front to back. These are quick, back of the envelope calculations. I think I did more detailed calculations somewhere else on here in the past. The curve assumption is 6' of total drop so it would have to hit the plate to get that much drop as it crosses the plate. Anything else is going to be dropping much more slowly and a curve that ends up in the strike zone will be moving a lot less as it crosses the plate.
I am assuming it's taken at the plate, as the height would be the correct distance it would cross the plate?
Good stuff CADad. I am assuming that most of these pitches ended up very close to where intended. That's what makes them better than most.
BTW, here's Fister's game from last night, appears to me that he was really trying hard to stay out of the zone, not something you would normally do in a regular game,JMO.
http://pitchfx.texasleaguers.c...11&to=10%2F11%2F2011
Also here's Marcum vs Pujols from Monday.
http://pitchfx.texasleaguers.c...11&to=10%2F10%2F2011
Fister pitched a great game last night. And I am THE Rangers fan.
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 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.
Perhaps we are both reading it differently but it appears there are quite a few pitches in the middle of the plate. What do you mean by he left nothing up? As far as I can tell, there were plenty of pitches left "up". As I remember, especially in the first inning, almost everything was left up.
quote:Originally posted by TPM:
Stats,
You just got done trashing CADad and IMO you just turned around did the same thing.
Go back page 2 and read the post that GBM made about Albert.
While in general I rather enjoy your posts, when you get your dander up, you often allow hyperbole to run a bit wild. Just how did I “TRASH” CADad? And how did I “TRASH” you? All I did was choose not to agree with either you or GBM. I don’t care what he said about Albert. I was addressing the back and forth between the two of you, and not trying to be insulting to either, but point out you both have made some good points, but neither are 100% correct.
quote:Originally posted by CADad:
Stats,
I don't know for certain what Jerry was thinking. I could be wrong. It happens often enough. I stated my opinion as to what he was trying to say as it seemed fairly straightforward.
I don't have a better idea what you're thinking than you do. I simply think you are wrong.
Fine. Nothing wrong with an honest difference of opinion, is there?
quote:Originally posted by coach2709:
As for the quote the bats before BBCOR did affect the way a lot of pitchers approached most hitters. No I'm not trying to say ALL pitchers threw differently to ALL hitters and if you took it that way then I think you're looking to stir some trouble. The guy we had that just graduated that was drafted who throws in the mid 90's with pretty good control for a high school stud had a few homeruns hit off him from BESR bats on pitches in good locations that never would have left the infield with a wood bat and probably a BBOCR bat. Obviously his velocity is what allowed it to be launched over the fence but the live bats allowed the hitter to put the ball in play.
I didn’t take it that way because I know better. But, there’s no telling how someone else may have taken it because there was no explanation.
Do you really believe that if the kids hitting those pitches would have been using any bat, those balls wouldn’t have left the infield? If that’s not using a bit of hyperbole to make something sound much more important that it is, please tell me how much further you think the hottest of the hot bats, even if it was rolled and shaved, would hit a ball than if it was hit by wood.
Of course I’m assuming the fences where they were hit were at least 300’ here, but in order for a ball to only go roughly 130’ as opposed to 300’, the bat would have to be amazingly more potent than anything I’ve ever seen or heard.
quote:A normal high school pitcher might not provide the velocity on that same pitch to get it out of the park but it could end up in the gap or over the OF heads or even to an OF for an out.
Yeah, and it might just have enough velocity to reach an OFr in the air too.
quote:Here's the difference - my guy who had the homerun hit off his 92 MPH fastball in a good location will throw to the same spot at 95 and blow him away. The normal pitcher who had his 87 MPH fastball hit hard doesn't have it in the tank to blow the ball by the hitter with the same location. Now he's got to change location (or feel he has to) in order to get a better outcome on the pitch.
If you truly believe that, I’m fine with it.
quote:All that with the normal pitcher could POSSIBLY lead to more walks from nibbling. That is a fact and I've seen it happen to my pitchers and other pitchers my teams have competed against. So it's not that people thought the live bats caused more nibbling on the outer edge - it is a fact and I've seen it happen many times. It can be fixed and you just get them a bullpen to start the process there. It might not be one pitch that causes them to nibble but several good pitches that get hit hard.
Again, you seem to have thought it all through and have all the answers, and I’m fine with it.
quote:I'm a big believer in pitching to contact but sometimes with the BESR bats it would lead to more hard hit balls than if you were pitching to wood bats.
Now that is something I can and do totally believe in because the BESR bats were designed to perform better.
quote:So to restate no me and all these other people were NOT over-reacting at all. I possibly did create this misunderstanding by using the term "hot bat" when I don't mean illegal bats.
Fine.
As Dave Garroway use to say when he closed his show, “PEACE”
quote:Originally posted by cabbagedad:
…I do buy the whole 50% thing but there is a reason. There are many instances where a pitcher will miss a target on purpose. …
Please define “many” so I have a frame of reference.
quote:So, while he may only hit the glove 50% of the time, he is succeeding in hitting his location more often.
What would you say the actual percentage is?
quote:Regarding hitters' success with mistakes, I think that goes back to the count and the predictability of the pitch. Hitters may fail to hit safely with mistakes 67% of the time (or whatever that number was) but they have much higher success when they get the pitch type they are looking for and the pitch is in thier zone (mistake). If a pitcher hangs a curve but the hitter was looking FB, the pitcher is much more likely to get away with that mistake.
That sounds good in theory, but how would one measure it to find out how true it is?
quote:I do grant that there are some pitchers that are power pitchers or big movement guys who are less fine with their location but these are more the exception IMO.
Hmmm. I tend to believe just the opposite is true, where probably the to 3 starters on a given team are much more likely to have good location control, but on a ML team, that leaves 8 or 9 other pitchers, and even on a HS team its not unusual to have 6-10 pitchers getting innings. If they were truly all that accurate, I suspect the pitching in HS would be one heck of a lot better than it is.
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.
