What makes pitchers successful at the HS level?

IMHO, the most effective pitchers in HS throw the most effective pitch in baseball, known as strike one. The superaltive pitchers follow that up with the next best pitch in baseball, known as strike two.

 

Statistically, it translates to your "fewer pitches per out" stat. Fundamentally, it's not falling behind, walking guys or getting rocked on 2-0, 3-1 groved pitches.

 

Just my opinion.

1) I agree with JMoff in terms of throw strikes.  

2) Unless you can overpower hitters with 90+ stuff, the next best ability imo is to change speeds.  In HS if you have 2 pitches you can throw for strikes and they have different speeds, you're going to be successful.  The farther you go up the ladder, the more you'll need a third or fourth pitch, but in HS, 2 good strike pitches translates to success.

Strike one is great but not that simple.  A 1st pitch HR is counted as a strike in Pitch count.   The key is confusing the hitter.   Speed, control, a wrinkle, whatever it takes.    

Unless a high school pitcher has the velocity to smoke the lineup he needs ...

 

Control to get ahead of the hitters

Command to stay away from the middle of the plate

An quality off speed pitch to keep hitters off balance

A short memory to forget any negative results

JMoff,

 

Over the years I’ve proven to myself that that at the HS level the 1^st pitch is definitely a pretty good roadmap to what will take place later on in an at bat. In short, more good things for the pitcher will happen if the 1^st pitch is any kind of strike than if its a ball. And of course it follows that if good things happen when the 1^st pitch is a strike, even more good things would happen if the 2^nd one was as well.

 

So are you saying that if I was to add 1^st pitch strikes and % of batters started with a strike to the metric, it would tell a more meaningful story?

QuadAAAA,

 

Strike percentage is fairly standard and typically somewhere in most modern stat packages, but #2 is something a bit different. Keeping in mind we’re discussing the HS level, how many teams track pitch types and pitch velocities on every pitch? As long as I’ve been around HS ball, I’ve never encountered one personally, and haven’t even heard of one. That’s not to say your theory isn’t true, but rather that as far as I know, there’s no proof one way or the other, even though it certainly makes sense.

 

The other part of that is that there’s a big difference between a pitcher having the ability to throw more than 1 type of pitch for a strike and that ability being exploited in a game. What I’m alluding to is, changing speeds is always far more dependent on the pitches being called rather than the pitcher’s ability to throw them for strikes. FI, if a pitcher has an above average FB and the person calling the pitches believes that velocity trumps all and won’t call other pitches, what’s the pitcher supposed to do?

 

In any case, do you know of any teams that track changing speeds and strikes?

Originally Posted by SDBB:

Strike one is great but not that simple.  A 1st pitch HR is counted as a strike in Pitch count.   The key is confusing the hitter.   Speed, control, a wrinkle, whatever it takes.    

 

And how is that measured?

Outs....

 but for the statisticians   ERA   WHIP  AVG against

 

 

Stats,

Your thread was "what makes pitchers successful at the HS level".  I am just suggesting that throwing strikes and changing speeds will do that.  In terms of tracking those results to turn into conclusive stats, I'll have to leave that to someone with more time than I have. 

 

I've seen kids be very successful with 2 pitches at different speeds....a fastball and then a "slower" pitch- could be a curve, slider, changeup, whatever.  Frankly you could call it fastball and offspeed.  There are teams that track this at the HS level but it is all by hand and sometimes dependent upon dads/teammates so I am sure the data is not 100% accurate. 

 

I agree there are variables impacting what pitch is called; who is calling pitches, the skill of the pitcher, skill of the catcher, game situation, etc...   I don't have an answer on how you would track / account for all this.  Best of luck in your effort to do so.

 

SDBB,

 

I think you give undeserved credit to statisticians. Many I know, as well as myself, tend to shy away from the 3 things you mentioned at the HS level for many reasons. My reason is, not even one of them is close to being objective, and therefore can and will be all over the place. But not outs! Outs are about as objective as you can get, but there’s a few other things in there as well.

QuadAAAA,

 

Well, I don’t believe in “conclusive” stats, but I do believe that you can’t manage what you don’t measure.

 

I honestly have never seen any program at the HS level that does much at all with trying to draw many conclusions from pitch charting. But you are correct in how that data is gathered, and I’m sure its inaccuracy is the main reason more isn’t done. Heck, I’d guess if the data was even 80% accurate a lot could be learned from it, but the trick is getting it into some form a computer can manipulate it, and that’s tough.

 

I think you’ve mistaken my intentions. I never have an never will do anything with charting pitches. If the day ever comes when Pitch and Hit F/X are available at the amateur level, I’ll be the 1^st one to get in there and jump on the bandwagon, but for right now I’ll concentrate on statistics that are pretty easy to generate.

Stats at the HS level is as good as the volunteer scorekeeper.   Not very.

Doesn't necessarily get much better in college.   So what other stat(s)  are you saying is objective?  what would you recommend? Do you think there is a optimal cookie cutter formula?   I'm interested in your perceptions.   I see you seem to like pitches between events.   

 

You mention outs being objective but not WHIP or AVE against..

WHIP is basically just a measure of outs vs non-outs...  and Ave against is outs vs hits not considering walks (ok and HBPs).  

 

Being an engineer myself,  I can throw a stat or two around, but also know people can manipulate them to make them say almost anything they want. 

 

That said, look at all of the stats being thrown around during draft weekend... 

Some  became real valuable...   while others didn't 

 

 

SDBB,

 

Believe me, as one of those volunteer SKs, I know how bad it can get, but I’ll offer this. One thing that must be understood is, its impossible to compare players from different teams because unlike in pro ball, there’s no one looking over the shoulders of the scorers to make sure they follow the scoring rules, and no central depository for all the numbers. Once that’s understood, no matter how bad the scorer is, as long as s/he is the only scorer and is at least making a veiled attempt at being unbiased, the numbers will be valid for the players on that team. Its not necessarily the accuracy of the numbers that’s important as it is that they be consistent.

 

A good example is having a radar gun that’s 5% slow and you’re looking to line up the kids from fastest to slowest. As long as it’s off the same for everyone, how they compare to each other is still the same, so it makes no difference.

 

Taking into account that there is always an amount of subjectivity because all judgment calls are subjective, and calling pitches not swung at is definitely a judgment call, there are still a number of stats that come under the heading of “objective”. The number of appearances, batters, IPs, outs, BBs, HBPs, runners reaching base safely, runs, HRs, Ks, K looking, balks, pick offs, 1^st pitch strikes, balls, strikes, pitches, ground ball outs, fly ball outs are at least a few “objective stats. Any stat coming from them would be as well, such as strike percentage, 1^st pitch strike percentage, BB:K ratio, and many others. Those are all stats that almost every scorer generates already, so its not like they take some kind of special knowledge or skill.

 

Personally, I don’t recommend any individual stat  as an overall panacea. I look at the numbers every single day and know that in order to get the best answer to any question, one has to look at many different things. If you’re asking what I’d recommend as far as making a judgment about a pitcher’s success, I wouldn’t do that either because my idea of success at the HS level is almost certainly not the same as most others. I suppose when I titled this thread I should have made it “How do you measure a pitcher’s success at the HS level”.

 

There is no “optimal cookie cutter formula” because there aren’t any “optimal cookie cutter” pitchers. They’re all different, so in order to make the “best” evaluation, many things have to be considered.

 

I do like to see things measured in terms of pitches, but also in terms of outs, and/or batters as well. I suppose I lean toward the things that are the most objective.

 

Sorry, but a major factor in WHIP is hits, and anything computed using hits as one of its main components is open to a lot of questions. Its one thing to use it in MLB, but when you try to use it in venues where the scoring is “questionable”, it becomes an “issue”. Avg and/or against is even worse than WHIP because hits are one of only 2 components making it have even more importance.

 

Sure people CAN manipulate numbers, but the trick is to not try to influence anyone other than to simply throw the numbers in front of them and let them interpret them however they choose. You can go to http://www.infosports.com/scor...images/batting13.pdf http://www.infosports.com/scor...mages/pitching13.pdf and http://www.infosports.com/scor...images/defense13.pdf and see the stats I produce for our HS team.

 

There are a couple places where I mention what good or bad number is, but its where that number has been determined by someone else like MLB. Other than that, all I do is present the same data in as many different ways as possible in order to give as many folks something to look at as possible. FI, the father of a pitcher only doesn’t really care about batting stats, but chances are he cares very much about pitching stats, especially if his kid isn’t one of the top pitchers on the team. Because there are so many different ways to look at the same data, how they’re perceived is all on the viewer, not the presenter.

 

You bet there are a lot of stats being thrown around, around draft time. But for pitchers here’s how it works. The stat of greatest importance is the number on the radar gun. If a pitcher can ring up numbers the viewer perceives as “guarantees”, nothing else matters. FI, show me a HS pitcher who gets gunned at 100+ and I guarantee he’s gonna get an offer because the number of players with that ability is so rare. But as they get out of that rarefied air, other things get taken into consideration, and the lower that gun number reads, the more important the other stats become.

 

But I’ll say again that I didn’t start this thread to find out anything about any level after HS. If I wanted to see that I’d have left “ at the HS level” out of the title. I look for ways to give kids encouragement for striving to have success at the level they’re playing, and since I deal almost exclusively with HSV, that’s all I’m interested in. I’d love to come up with a stat to show to pitchers so they could see where they’re lacking so they can try to improve how they’re perceived.

 

Its easy to say they should throw 1^st pitch strikes, but that’s not proof of anything unless they’re shown why they should throw 1^st pitch strikes. Here’s a small example.

http://www.infosports.com/scor...per/images/ktabb.pdf

 

If someone can’t figure out that there’s a better chance of something good happening if the 1^st pitch is a strike rather than a ball, they have to either not be looking very hard or not understand what’s good or bad for a pitcher.

Stat4Gnats

Let's take this to a dialog.

Is that your way of saying you don't care to continue the conversation? I thought that's what we were doing.

It means I believe our conversation will soon get boring to others...  Plus its easier to argue with you just to argue...

SDBB,

 

I’m sure it got boring to some others as soon as I made the OP. I understand that a lot of folks just don’t deal well with trying to analyze stats. Its not that they’re stupid or even only ignorant. Its just that it takes a lot of time, and that’s even if data to work with is available. Without having data available to work with, its really a difficult task, and most people aren’t willing to even try. I’m lucky in that I have lots of data at my fingertips to plow through, where most people don’t even have the most basic numbers available to them.

 

It just came to me that you might be talking about a “dialog” as in private conversation. Is that true? I haven’t done that since HSBBW converted to the new format. It used to be called Private Messaging”. I wouldn’t know how to start a “dialog” or how to tell if I was getting any messages that way.

I'll say this Stats, if you say that the calling of pitches not swung at is considered subjective, then those stats that I underlined and bolded can not be considered objective because the pitcher is at the mercy of the umpire calling balls and strikes.  I'm not saying any of these numbers can't be valid and used, just pointing out that you cannot have an objective stat based on a subjective premise.  Even the batters reached safely stat isn't really objective by your definition because of the subjectivity of the SK.

Not trying to be argumentative, just pointing out a flaw in your logic I see in the above statement.

Bballman,

 

The point I was trying to make is, every call is really subjective to some degree, but only on the part of the umpire. In GENERAL, umpires are trained one Hell of a lot better than scorekeepers, and certainly more than most players, fans, and even most coaches, but once the call of a pitch is made by an umpire, it is no longer SUBJECTIVE for the scorer. It has become an objective thing and can’t be altered once the next pitch is delivered.

 

To take the stance that if something in the game has any subjectivity involved in it in any way, means there is nothing objective because everything requires some kind of judgment call. But just so you don’t think I realize that umpires CAN make mistakes of judgment about pitches not swung at, I’ve been an advocate of having technology call them for a long time now. But, the game is what it is. When an umpire makes a call, that call is recorded forever because the scorer’s job isn’t to judge the umpire, only to record the events.

 

But I am interested in how you feel batters reached safely is a judgment call by the SK. I can make that determination without ever seeing a game because a scorer NEVER makes a safe/out call. Only the umpires can do that. Even using only MaxPreps data I can do it. Add hits, BBs, HBPs, ROEs, ROFcs, and CIs and you have batters reached safely. Where’s the judgment on the part of the scorer? If the batter reaches 1^st base safely, its true, if not, its false.(OOPS! MaxPreps doesn't yet allow CIs to be marked. I've pointed out their PA computations are wrong because of it and they tell me they'll try to have it available for next baseball season.)

 

I didn’t for a second think you were being argumentative. If my explanation doesn’t suffice, so be it. One of the big problems people have with stats is they think scorers make one heck of a lot more judgment calls than they do, but that’s seldom the case. To be sure there are some, but not as many as people think. Most things are pretty black and white.

I would say that batters reached safely can be subjective in terms of what you were saying about SKs (bad SKs in particular).  I understand the batter is either safe or out, but how that was determined in the case of a possible error can be subjective.  A biased SK can make a lot of hits out of errors.  I also see many, many more hits given in MLB that would more than likely be given errors on the lower levels.  Hope that makes sense.

 

And I would agree with you that a strike is a strike and a ball is a ball in terms of SKs.  However, as you know, many umps call their strike zones differently.  Maybe I should say, they interpret the strike zone differently or their eye sees it differently.  I think you get my point.  One umpire calling a game may have what some see as a "tight" strike zone, while in the next game with a different pitcher and different umpire, the strike zone may be labeled as "big".  Therefore two pitchers throwing a pitch in the same location may get two different results or calls from the umpire.  Somewhat subjective.  However, I think over the course of the season, things will even out.  What I mean by that is that the chances are that a particular pitcher will more than likely face an ump with a "tight" strike zone as well as an ump with a "big" strike zone and one that has a zone that everyone thinks is good.  So, things will generally even out over the course of a season. 

 

Hope that all makes sense.

Dialog...   See button upper right corner.  

 

And as others have pointed out.  Your view point of the stats is from a scorekeepers perspective.  (IE items a scorekeeper has no judgment in... if Umpire says its a strike its a strike...)   Yet your question was about the evaluation of a Player, trying to use "pitcher’s numbers" as a tool.     But almost every stat has it's outliers.   IE the called strike that traveled above the opposite batter's box.   Foul ball that actually kicked up chalk.  etc etc that is all a part of an umpires subjection.  I'd say PA are pretty objective beyond that... ? 

 

Then as any statistician knows you really need 1500 samples to get to a 3% certainty the result is typical.  Most HS pitchers will be south of  300-350 BF in a season.   A MLB vet on the other hand may reach up to 1000 a season and have several seasons of consistent data.      

 

Finally, stats depend a whole lot on the opponents.   Tough opposing pitcher is terrible on most offensive stats.  Those 3 and 4 hitters are much harder on pitching stats than the 8-9.   

 

These are just a few reasons Stats aren't the entire story in evaluating players. They are a tool.   Like a bat is a tool, the end result is more about who's using it,  than the length and weight.   Plus each person uses it a little bit differently.   

 

That's probably why scouts still have jobs.  If it was all about stats anyone with a laptop could find the next decade's stars...  

 

 

 

>>what pitchers can do to make themselves more valuable, even if they never plays one day after HS graduation.>>

 Have Fun.  Support the team.   Become a solid citizen. (I see another topic possibility)  Learn thru instruction and mostly trial and error what gets batters out. 

 

 

bballman,

 

Please don’t take this as an insult! Evidently you don’t understand what a SK’s job is. S/he doesn’t make ANY safe/out calls. If a batter reaches base, he’s safe, period. In terms of batters reached, no matter how he reached, he still reached. That’s what makes batter reached safely objective. SK watches an at bat. If at the end of the at bat the batter has reached 1^st safely, that’s all there is to it. Its flatly a yes/no proposition. Its only when you start trying to break out the reasons he reached that the SK’s judgment enters into it.

 

As for umpires having different “zones”, again, to the SK it makes absolutely no difference. What he’s recording is what took place. To me and as far as I know most SK’s, it doesn’t matter who’s behind the plate because no matter if it’s the best or worst ump in the world, when he calls a pitch not sung at, that’s the way its gonna be forever. Certainly I don’t worry about how the numbers break out for the players, and I seriously doubt many SKs do. That’s for the data moles to do.

 

FI, I do several batting stats that demonstrate what I’m talking about. Let’s take BA for example. There’s a team BA that’s all the hits divided by all the ABs. But for many people that doesn’t give enough detail, so I also do an individual BA. But even that doesn’t answer everyone’s questions, so I also do a BA by BPOs where the BA is computed only for ABs that took place in a certain BPos. But there may still be someone who wants to know more about it, so I also break out each BPos by individuals. Its all the exact same data, just sorted and grouped differently, and it could continue on from that too.

 

FI, it could be broken out by ABs against RHPs, by ABs WRO, night games, or any of a million different things and their combinations, including by plate umpire. But they would still all be using the exact same data. So the only thing that really matters, is the level of precision one looks at the data with, not the data itself. The only difference between a LL statistician and a ML statistician is the depth of precision they can go to, not the scorer.

 

 

 

I understand what a SKs job is.  And part of his job is to determine errors/hits.  That's what makes some of these stats subjective.  You just can't have an objective result with a subjective premise.

 

 You pretty much acknowledge that fact in this statement.

 

 

I agree with what SDBB is saying here.  You can use stats for a lot of things, but the meaning of those stats needs to take into consideration the context of those stats.  And that includes all judgment calls as well as competition faced.

 

And as you yourself have said Stats, SK judgment does come into play - particularly concerning hits vs. errors.  And although strike/ball calls ARE black and white to a SK, they are not black and white in terms of the context of the stats being gathered and interpreted.  You could even say that hits, without the possibility of an error being called into play, are subjective.  That could depend a lot on the defense a pitcher has behind him.  With a bad defense, many balls could be considered hits that a good defense would have gotten to, but the bad defense didn't.  Example, a novice outfielder taking a bad line to a fly ball.  No error, definite hit, but a good outfielder would have taken the correct line and made the play.

 

I know some of this does not affect how the SK does his job.  The above situation is clearly a hit and that is how the SK records it.  However, in interpreting meaning to the stats presented, it does have meaning.  That's all I'm saying.

 

Like I said, I understand the SKs role.  I've done it before.  Not as much or as fervently as you, but I can score a game and understand the role and function of a SK.

Sorry SDBB,

 

I didn’t notice a post you made. I’ll try the dialog button later on.

 

I assume you mean the OP as being a “question”. If so, please read it again closely. I said nothing about trying to evaluate players in any sense other than finding something in their performance that they could improve on in order to become more valuable to their team. That has absolutely no relevance to whether the umpire’s call is correct because it makes no difference. Once that call is made, its lives forever as a fact and has to be dealt with as such.

 

I get the “small sample” argument and comparing ML and HS all the time, and I see it here again. When applied to HSBB, both things cause a lot of problems because they don’t relate on a 1 to 1 basis. !,500 samples aren’t needed to compare two players. Only 1 is. More samples only  make the numbers more predictive, but that’s not what I’m trying to do.

 

I’ve seen the “opponent” argument over and over again as well, and it too goes into file 13 for this discussion as opponents have no relevance to the strike zone or an out. The definition of neither changes. Of course a great opponent makes things more difficult, but that too means nothing unless what you’re looking for has relevance to it. If you’re trying to figure out which pitcher to throw, you’re looking for one thing. If you’re looking to find out where your performance is lacking, that’s something quite different.

 

This is only a guess, but IMHO the number of teams that have data on its players they not only CAN break down by quality of opponent, but actually do, is less than 1 in 1,000. Heck, I’ve been trying to classify data by opponent and have yet to come up with a reasonable way to do it given the environment.

 

You’ve never heard me even suggest that stats are the ENTIRE store for player evaluation, so any characterization of it is ridiculous. I was trying to be very specific in what I was looking to do, and that was definitely NOT using the numbers to try to project a player’s chances to succeed at a higher level. I leave that to those who consider themselves experts.

 

But no matter how small the sample or how good the opposition, comparing players on a team where the scoring has been consistent is valid, and certainly much more valid than depending on someone who’s dependent on their perception to make any evaluation.

 

Scouts still have jobs in large part because the data isn’t there to work with. The more data, the easier the job. Where can a scout go to in order to have access to the kind of stats that are available at the ML/MiL level? No place! Its just not something available. But, what’s available today at the HS level compared to even a decade ago is amazing, and compared to pre-personal computer days is a completely different world. And I’m guessing that what will be available in the next couple of decades will amaze even whackos like myself.

 

Yes, scouts will always have a job, but that job like most others has to change with what’s available. But again, that has nothing to do with trying to identify what some schnook kid at Podunk High can do to improve his chances of becoming a more valuable asset to his team. Some kids will just believe what someone they feel is in a position of authority and expertise and try to match what they do to what they’re told, but some need to be shown in black and white.

 

My son was one of those hardheads who refused to accept baseball rhetoric intended to “improve” him without at least some semblance of proof. Things such as saying “Throw 1^st pitch strikes” don’t have a lot of meaning to kid like him. But showing him how 1^st pitch strike relate to what takes place is pretty simple to understand, even for a knothead like him.

I understand what a SKs job is.  And part of his job is to determine errors/hits.  That's what makes some of these stats subjective.  You just can't have an objective result with a subjective premise.

 

You’re mixing up stats and how they were described. A scorer’s hit/error judgment has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not the batter reached 1^st safely. Yes, hit/error is a subjective thing but reaching base isn’t.

 

You pretty much acknowledge that fact in this statement.

 

All I acknowledged in that statement was that scorers at lower levels are no different than coaches, players, umpires, or even fields at lower levels.

 

I agree with what SDBB is saying here.  You can use stats for a lot of things, but the meaning of those stats needs to take into consideration the context of those stats.  And that includes all judgment calls as well as competition faced.

 

Heck, in general I agree with him too. But I wasn’t trying to make a statement about scorers, umpires, players, rules, or anything else.

 

And as you yourself have said Stats, SK judgment does come into play - particularly concerning hits vs. errors.  And although strike/ball calls ARE black and white to a SK, they are not black and white in terms of the context of the stats being gathered and interpreted.  You could even say that hits, without the possibility of an error being called into play, are subjective.  That could depend a lot on the defense a pitcher has behind him.  With a bad defense, many balls could be considered hits that a good defense would have gotten to, but the bad defense didn't.  Example, a novice outfielder taking a bad line to a fly ball.  No error, definite hit, but a good outfielder would have taken the correct line and made the play.

 

I really don’t know why you keep going back to hit/error judgments when I’ve repeatedly said that hasn’t got a dawgone thing to do with what I was talking about.

 

I know some of this does not affect how the SK does his job.  The above situation is clearly a hit and that is how the SK records it.  However, in interpreting meaning to the stats presented, it does have meaning.  That's all I'm saying.

 

What’s difficult to understand is, not everyone views the numbers the same way you do. There are all kinds of perspectives, and mine is obviously not the same  as yours.

 

Like I said, I understand the SKs role.  I've done it before.  Not as much or as fervently as you, but I can score a game and understand the role and function of a SK.

 

I don’t mean this as an insult, but to me its painfully obvious you think you understand, but you really don’t. You’re like many other who confuse what the scorer does, with what the umpires, statisticians, and coaches do. An umpire controls the conduct of the game and is the authority who makes the decisions about each and every pitch and play. A scorer is simply a human camera who records the action. A statistician takes what was recorded and presents it. Coaches and others take what’s presented and draw conclusions from it. Hopefully everyone does the best they can, and that unfortunately isn’t not total objectivity and perfection.

We're either looking at two different things here or just coming at this from two different perspectives. Yes, the SKs job is to record data, other than making hit/error decisions. That is true. I just think when you go beyond that and begin to use stats to make judgements about a player's ability or effectiveness, the way that those cold hard facts you are talking about were determined are an important factor in the decision makers determination about that player.

My son is a D2 pitcher. If he came home in the summer and pitched in a local 18u rec league, he would probably have a 0 ERA and an untold number of Ks. The conditions under which those stats were acquired would have a lot to do with how he was evaluated.  Him pitching in the Cape League would yield a whole different set of statistics.

So, the stats are the stats. Yes. What are the variables that contributed to those stats when you go to interpret them for evaluation purposes is a whole different ball game.

Beyond that, we are just going to have to agree that we are at an impasse.

For some reason, in many of your posts, you keep trying to hammer this message that baseball people can't properly evaluate a player based on seeing them play (sans stats - based on perception).  Your son must have been wronged in a terrible way back in the day for you to hang on to this premise but you couldn't be more wrong.

I could go on to list countless examples, but I've learned that any reasonable debate with you is futile.

 

cabbagedad,

 

You’re correct. I honestly do believe players can’t be CORRECTLY evaluated without the use of statistics, but what you don’t understand is, you don’t have the same definition of statistics that I do. You and many others don’t realize that virtually everything is a statistic! You think that back in 1890 because there weren’t computers and Sabermaticians who calculated all the things we commonly see now, stats weren’t being used for evaluation purposes and you’re so far off base its ridiculous.

 

How did even the oldest timers know that player “A” was a threat to steal, could hit a high pitch, or threw a curve on 0-2 counts? They knew it because there was some record of it, whether it was stored on a computer hard drive or in Joe the clubhouse boy’s memory. Its all a form of recording what’s taken place, and for me, I’d much rather depend on something recorded correctly and able to be looked at time after time with confidence, than someone’s “recollection” or “perception” of what transpired.

 

You simply don’t see things as statistical items the way I do. FI, a player being 6’4” is a stat. If he’s 17 YO it’s a stat. If his father was a pro ballplayer it’s a stat. If he strikes out once every 4 at bats it’s a stat. If he uses a 34” bat it’s a stat. IOW, everything come down to information and how its analyzed.

 

The reason you see any reasonable debate with me as being futile, is because whether or not you want to admit it, you think the same way I do, in that more information is necessary to make a SOUND decision than just seeing a player play.

Originally Posted by bballman:

We're either looking at two different things here or just coming at this from two different perspectives. Yes, the SKs job is to record data, other than making hit/error decisions. That is true. I just think when you go beyond that and begin to use stats to make judgements about a player's ability or effectiveness, the way that those cold hard facts you are talking about were determined are an important factor in the decision makers determination about that player.

 

What you seem to be saying that making perfect judgments about players isn’t possible without enough factors being taken into consideration, and I agree. The trouble is, unless one is talking about the ML/Mil level where so many different things are tracked, doing what you want is an impossible task.

 

My son is a D2 pitcher. If he came home in the summer and pitched in a local 18u rec league, he would probably have a 0 ERA and an untold number of Ks. The conditions under which those stats were acquired would have a lot to do with how he was evaluated.  Him pitching in the Cape League would yield a whole different set of statistics.

I think the chances your son would have the kind of success you envision is pretty remote. I’m not saying he wouldn’t fare better facing weaker competition, but to expect he’d totally blow everyone away is a bit extreme. That’s the same kind of reasoning that says if a pitcher would throw every pitch at batting practice speed to a ML lineup, every batter would hit a HR or get an XBH every AB. It sounds logical, but it just doesn’t happen that way in reality.

 

So, the stats are the stats. Yes. What are the variables that contributed to those stats when you go to interpret them for evaluation purposes is a whole different ball game.

Those variables only make a difference when something specific is being looked for, and when there’s little or no difference between players. FI, take something very simple. Let’s say you believe a batter who has the best BA should bat 3^rd.

 

You eliminate the players who have been determined to be pitchers only, the players who obviously have so many flaws they aren’t eligible for consideration, and the players you figure haven’t proven themselves yet for whatever reasons. When you run the numbers you see the top 2 players both have the same BA, and that’s a problem. How do you make the determination which is superior, and there’s where your question comes into play.

 

Keeping it simple again, let’s say we already know the team we’re gonna play will pitch the hardest thrower in the area. That gives us a way to make the decision a little easier, assuming we have the data. If we had accurate information about every pitcher we’ve ever played, all we’d have to do is pull the data generated when playing hard throwing pitchers, something valid to do but not very likely at the HS level.

 

So what’s an alternative? It depends. Maybe you want to risk using the Righty/Lefty theory and you know the pitcher you’ll be facing is a lefty. Again, you pull the data against only LHPs and look again. But again, that’s an unlikely data point at the HS level, so you look for something your team actually does have data for. Unfortunately, at the HS level the breadth and depth of data is pretty narrow and shallow, and that’s what makes people leery about using stats. But even though those narrow questions can’t be answered, assuming the original premise of wanting to bat the hitter 3^rd with the highest BA is a sound one, what’s better? Choosing one of the two hitters you have general data on, or choosing the player you THINK has the highest BA?

 

Beyond that, we are just going to have to agree that we are at an impasse.

 

I don’t think we’re at an impasse at all. In fact, I think you think a lot more like I do than you realize.

Stats, first of all, of course the example with my son is extreme.  My whole point with that is that, obviously, his numbers would be much better pitching in a local rec league than pitching somewhere like the Cape League.  I don't see how you can deny that - and I don't think you are denying it.  So, if that is true, then the context of the stats DO matter.  You cannot simply look at the stats and make a determination about a players ability.  You really need to look at other factors. 

 

The only exception to this is MLB because all players are pretty much playing against similar competition under similar circumstances.  Even with this in mind, MLB looks at the stats for players playing in Colorado differently.  They take into context the lighter air and realize that a high pitchers ERA is not entirely accurate because of where he pitches.  Or a hitters HR numbers aren't really accurate because of how much farther the ball travels.  Yes, a pitcher's ERA is a cold hard fact, but the context of where he obtained that ERA is important - even in the MLB.  I have even heard HOF discussions about a Rockies player.  I forget who the player is now, but analysts have said that even though his HR numbers probably qualify him to get into the Hall, he played most or all of his career in Colorado, so the numbers aren't really what they seem.

 

When you get down to the HS level, it is even more skewed because of the level of competition.  I know when my son played HS, they usually saved him for the toughest teams they faced.  Like top 10 in the state teams, while they used lesser pitchers to face teams that obviously were not as good.  The numbers would be the numbers, yes, but to say that the lesser pitcher is better than my son because his numbers were better would not be accurate because of the competition each faced.

 

I hear what you are saying, that if there were a way to quantify level of competition, or level of defense playing behind a pitcher, or quality of umpire and their strike zone, or any of an untold number of variables, then stats could be used to evaluate a player.  However, I just don't think that is possible, especially at the lower levels such as HS or even college.  Because of that, the human element in terms of a scout watching a player and making a decision based on their experience and their opinion of the tools that player has, will be just as important, if not more so than just the stats.

 

Use the stats, by all means.  But put them in context and use them as one tool to help make an evaluative decision.  I don't think it's one or the other, all or none.

Originally Posted by bballman:

Stats, first of all, of course the example with my son is extreme.  My whole point with that is that, obviously, his numbers would be much better pitching in a local rec league than pitching somewhere like the Cape League.  I don't see how you can deny that - and I don't think you are denying it.  So, if that is true, then the context of the stats DO matter.  You cannot simply look at the stats and make a determination about a players ability.  You really need to look at other factors. 

 

I’ve never said anything different! But I believe a lot can be determined without having to mine the data at the deepest levels. FI, in the OP all I was trying to do was identify a common trait of HS pitchers that have success. Of course I take only considering the pitchers on the team I score for as a given. IOW, I don’t try to compare individual players on our team to individual players on other teams.

 

The only exception to this is MLB because all players are pretty much playing against similar competition under similar circumstances.  Even with this in mind, MLB looks at the stats for players playing in Colorado differently.  They take into context the lighter air and realize that a high pitchers ERA is not entirely accurate because of where he pitches.  Or a hitters HR numbers aren't really accurate because of how much farther the ball travels.  Yes, a pitcher's ERA is a cold hard fact, but the context of where he obtained that ERA is important - even in the MLB.  I have even heard HOF discussions about a Rockies player.  I forget who the player is now, but analysts have said that even though his HR numbers probably qualify him to get into the Hall, he played most or all of his career in Colorado, so the numbers aren't really what they seem.

 

Tru dat, but that’s getting way out of the intention of what I was looking for.

 

When you get down to the HS level, it is even more skewed because of the level of competition.  I know when my son played HS, they usually saved him for the toughest teams they faced.  Like top 10 in the state teams, while they used lesser pitchers to face teams that obviously were not as good.  The numbers would be the numbers, yes, but to say that the lesser pitcher is better than my son because his numbers were better would not be accurate because of the competition each faced.

 

My son was used similarly, although if he was only used against teams in the top 10 in the state, he’d never have pitched a game because we never played one of those teams. But in the end, the best pitchers a team has will always pitch against the best teams they play. That’s part of the game because it gives you the best statistical chance to win.

 

I hear what you are saying, that if there were a way to quantify level of competition, or level of defense playing behind a pitcher, or quality of umpire and their strike zone, or any of an untold number of variables, then stats could be used to evaluate a player.  However, I just don't think that is possible, especially at the lower levels such as HS or even college.  Because of that, the human element in terms of a scout watching a player and making a decision based on their experience and their opinion of the tools that player has, will be just as important, if not more so than just the stats.

 

Here again you’ve slipped into something far beyond the scope of what I was trying to get at. In fact, I was very careful to try to eliminate that kind of thing from the discussion but obviously wasn’t at all successful.

 

Use the stats, by all means.  But put them in context and use them as one tool to help make an evaluative decision.  I don't think it's one or the other, all or none.

 

So you don’t think looking at the numbers without knowing the context of everything can be used to see what makes pitchers at the HS level “successful”? Now there’s something we can really debate if its true.

 

Of course a lot depends on one’s definition of “success”, but even if success is only measured in terms of getting opportunities to pitch, i.e. IPs or in the case of the report I listed, outs or batters pitched to, its pretty easy to see that the youngsters on the 1^st page of the report will have to cut down on the walks and hit batters if they want to pitch in our program at the Varsity level.

 

That’s all I was trying to show. I want to give them a target to shoot for that is more than just words coming from a DVD, a book, or a coach. I’m showing them what their performance level is, and that historically they have to be able to perform at this other level in this area or they ain’t gonna get a lot of chances to pitch in games.

 

Well, actually my target isn’t the players directly. It’s the players, but through the parents, because until they get a firm understanding about what’s valued in our program, they’re not gonna be very happy campers. I already hear some parents giving indications that they think Jr can make the V next season because they’ve been so dominant on the 54/80 field in travel/tournament ball, their private coach says they have the skills to pitch at the V level, or some guy at a tournament said something glowing about the kid.

 

Well, I got news for them. Our HVC takes a dim view of pitchers who give up a walk more often than every 30 pitches, and the sooner they understand that, the sooner they can have the kid start working on what its gonna take to have the opportunity for success.

OP Question - What makes pitchers successful at the High School level?

 

... Throwing strikes. 

I'll agree with that at any level of baseball.  There is nothing you can do to defend walks. 

Originally Posted by bballman:

Originally Posted by bballdad2016:

OP Question - What makes pitchers successful at the High School level?

 

... Throwing strikes. 

I'll agree with that at any level of baseball.  There is nothing you can do to defend walks. 

 

See, we really do agree! Now we can move on to another question.

 

Assume you’re a coach and having a typical 1 on 1 with one of your pitchers in a pen. You’re working on whatever and there’s a typical dialog going on where you’re attempting to impart some of that vast knowledge on to your “student”, and he’s asking questions trying to understand what it is you’re trying to get across.

 

You’ve noticed he’s been missing his targets in games and without thinking you throw out one of the most standard baseball pitching clichés there is. “You’ve got to throw more strikes!”

 

His retort is, “I hear that all the time coach, but no one has ever been able to prove to me why.”  

 

Of course being the coach you can always fall back on the ol’ “I’ve been around forever …” or “You’ve got trust me …” claptrap, but do you have some kind of statistic that you can use to point out why?

 

If stats are truly a tool, why can’t they be a teaching tool as well as a tool to aid the coach making decisions?

Man if it were only that easy to throw first pitch strikes, every pitcher would be doing it!

Stats from pitching coach at son's college:

 

hitters BA with 0-2 count: .118

hitters BA with 2-0 count: .386

 

I didn't read this entire thread, but I'm sure these type of stats are consistent at most schools and levels. 

Originally Posted by twotex:

Stats from pitching coach at son's college:

 

hitters BA with 0-2 count: .118

hitters BA with 2-0 count: .386

 

I didn't read this entire thread, but I'm sure these type of stats are consistent at most schools and levels. 

 

They are, but what’s the point?