SoxProspects News
|
|
|
|
Legal
Forum Ground Rules
The views expressed by the members of this Forum do not necessarily reflect the views of SoxProspects, LLC.
© 2003-2024 SoxProspects, LLC
|
|
|
|
|
Forum Home | Search | My Profile | Messages | Members | Help |
Welcome Guest. Please Login or Register.
8/29-9/1 Red Sox @ Rays Series Thread
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 8,881
|
Post by ericmvan on Sept 1, 2014 8:10:26 GMT -5
Thanks for supplying more evidence to my assertion that human beings are incapable of judging FB movement by eye (we can do armside run to some degree, but can't do rise at all). Movement on an average MLB four-seamer is about 9.2" +/- 1.8. Rubby this year, 10.9", a bit up from his career 10.7". Doesn't having a lot of "rise" per PitchF/X mean exactly the same thing as saying the fastball is "flat", as "rise" is just "not falling"? If you want to prove that the human eye can't tell the difference in movement, you have to provide calibration first, since as far as I understand it the PitchF/X zero point is kinda arbitrary. The pitch/fx zero point is anything but arbitrary. It's what the ball would have done if it had no spin along the axis running parallel to the ground and perpendicular to the flight of the ball, i.e., the axis running from pitcher's left to right. Downspin around that axis, which you get on a curveball and rare sliders, cause the ball to fall relative to the neutral flight. Backspin, which you get on every other pitch, but most of all with a four-seamer, causes the ball to rise relative to the spinless path. It was long believed that the brain factors out gravity when watching the flight of a pitched ball and sees rise and fall relative to it. But pitch/fx data has shown that that's at best a simplification. In my experience (I don't know who else is talking about this), there's simply no correlation between perceived and actual fastball movement. We see a "rising fastball" if guys swing under pitches. Period. When Daniel Bard got hit hard during his first three games in MLB (1 SO, 6 hits to his first 19 batters), there were widespread reports or complaints that his fastball was straight. Despite his FB velocity (averaging 97.2), he was going to be a bust! In fact, Bard was getting 12.2" of fastball movement in those games (10.9" of rise), which is terrific. From July 1 to August 1, Bard faced 43 batters and fanned 22 without walking or hitting anyone, giving up 3 singles and a double. He did that with 11.0" of FB movement (10.1" of rise, at an average 98.0). But now the same observers who had decreed his fastball straight (when it was moving 10% more) were raving about its life. Why? Because players were swinging under it, so it looked like it was rising. This is just one example. I've been checking a whole lot of descriptions of FB movement over the years, and I've found them to be essentially fiction. Ditto with missing descriptions. Google stories on Hideki Okajima's success and they talk about his deceptive delivery and pinpoint control. That he got 12.5" of movement on his FB (in 2007-8) is never mentioned. Batters swing under fastballs for many reasons, but the chief one, it seems to me, is because they're well-located. What we perceive of as fastball "movement" is mostly command. Guidas calling Rubby's FB "flat" was obviously a complaint about it not having a lot of movement.
|
|
|
Post by ancientsoxfogey on Sept 1, 2014 8:23:17 GMT -5
60-76 teams think 2 great starts make up for a dozen crappy ones. I'm hoping he finishes great and Theo still has the hots for him. Can't count on him. 2012 all over for Clay. Sucked when it counted. Good finish. Maybe a low pressure market is best for him. Taking your Theo and low-pressure comments in conjunction (which you may not have meant), I suspect that if the Cubs ever rose into serious contention for a world championship - which they might with the exceptional young talent they seem to have coming to fruition - with their fans, and with the Theo-broke-the-Sox-curse-now-he-breaks-the-Cubs' storyline, Chicago would be anything but a low-pressure situation.
|
|
|
Post by DesignatedForAssignment on Sept 1, 2014 9:16:52 GMT -5
Wright and Ranaudo makes 27. A Catcher and Hembree would make 29, which is about right for now.
The Globe: Today, Sox "will add righthander Steven Wright. Other roster additions will come later in the week.
A third catcher, probably Dan Butler, will be added along with extra pitchers.
Wright has appeared in one game for the Sox this season, allowing one run over four innings on Aug. 17 against Houston. He was 5-5 with a 3.41 ERA in 15 starts for Pawtucket.
Righthanders Heath Hembree, Anthony Ranaudo, and Brandon Workman are good candidates for promotion, along with lefty Edwin Escobar. Ranaudo (3-0, 4.50) could start against the Yankees this week."
www.bostonglobe.com/sports/2014/08/31/dustin-pedroia-sits-out-won-play-monday-either/BdHwWlkBs4siXBW5SYOnuK/story.html
EDIT: I thought there was a prohibition against Wright pitching indoors.
|
|
|
Post by Guidas on Sept 1, 2014 9:47:37 GMT -5
Doesn't having a lot of "rise" per PitchF/X mean exactly the same thing as saying the fastball is "flat", as "rise" is just "not falling"? If you want to prove that the human eye can't tell the difference in movement, you have to provide calibration first, since as far as I understand it the PitchF/X zero point is kinda arbitrary. The pitch/fx zero point is anything but arbitrary. It's what the ball would have done if it had no spin along the axis running parallel to the ground and perpendicular to the flight of the ball, i.e., the axis running from pitcher's left to right. Downspin around that axis, which you get on a curveball and rare sliders, cause the ball to fall relative to the neutral flight. Backspin, which you get on every other pitch, but most of all with a four-seamer, causes the ball to rise relative to the spinless path. It was long believed that the brain factors out gravity when watching the flight of a pitched ball and sees rise and fall relative to it. But pitch/fx data has shown that that's at best a simplification. In my experience (I don't know who else is talking about this), there's simply no correlation between perceived and actual fastball movement. We see a "rising fastball" if guys swing under pitches. Period. When Daniel Bard got hit hard during his first three games in MLB (1 SO, 6 hits to his first 19 batters), there were widespread reports or complaints that his fastball was straight. Despite his FB velocity (averaging 97.2), he was going to be a bust! In fact, Bard was getting 12.2" of fastball movement in those games (10.9" of rise), which is terrific. From July 1 to August 1, Bard faced 43 batters and fanned 22 without walking or hitting anyone, giving up 3 singles and a double. He did that with 11.0" of FB movement (10.1" of rise, at an average 98.0). But now the same observers who had decreed his fastball straight (when it was moving 10% more) were raving about its life. Why? Because players were swinging under it, so it looked like it was rising. This is just one example. I've been checking a whole lot of descriptions of FB movement over the years, and I've found them to be essentially fiction. Ditto with missing descriptions. Google stories on Hideki Okajima's success and they talk about his deceptive delivery and pinpoint control. That he got 12.5" of movement on his FB (in 2007-8) is never mentioned. Batters swing under fastballs for many reasons, but the chief one, it seems to me, is because they're well-located. What we perceive of as fastball "movement" is mostly command. Guidas calling Rubby's FB "flat" was obviously a complaint about it not having a lot of movement.True that. When I saw him in AAA from behind the plate the FB seemed to come in on a single plane with no wiggle or break in the end. Seems like a pitch that, despite it's velo, a professional hitter can wait on. That a said, I am a firm believer in the high strike, especially on the inner third of the plate and think Rubby could be effective with the FB pitching up around the letters (as well as low and away). Of course, pitching up in the zone comes with it hazards, but up and in is very hard to get around on in general; at 96-98 it's damn near impossible except for a selective few in MLB. Of course, this comes with the usual caveats of "don't live there" and "change eye level," as well as mixing up his pitches. It's called "pitching" rather than "throwing" for a reason.
|
|
|
Post by redsox4242 on Sept 1, 2014 9:58:42 GMT -5
I have liked the way we have played over the past week, We have been hitting very well, pitching has been consistent for the most part. Alex Wilson and Tommy Layne have been pleasant surprises out of the bullpen, that has been encouraging to see. Winning 3 out of 4 @ Tampa Bay would be huge for our confidence as a team. Go RED SOX!!
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Sept 1, 2014 11:24:16 GMT -5
Norm, you are probably a nice guy, but you are a revisionist. . You were touting Bradley and Xander, along with saying the Sox's hitting problems were hitting int bad luck but you now have changed change course and cannot admit that you wee wrong. . You also did not refute my sloppy analysis. Sorry, can't take you seriously. I'm on the record that next year is also a bridge year. There is no possible way that we can do what is necessary (be patient with the kids) and also rely on them for our performance. If they tear it up, we can go far. But we can't count on it and we shouldn't trade them and we shouldn't block them with long contract free agents. So the only options are short term contract free agents, which usually aren't very good or by letting the kids sink or swim. Sorry that you expect to win the WS every year at any price, but it really was the best thing going into 2014 and probably the best thing for 2015 and 2016 if you care about more than one season at a time.
|
|
|
Post by redsox4242 on Sept 1, 2014 11:31:31 GMT -5
Betts is leading off, looks like i got my wish!
Betts CF Holt 2B Cespedes LF Napoli DH Craig 1B Nava RF Middlebrooks 3B Bogaerts SS Vazquez C
|
|
|
Post by charliezink16 on Sept 1, 2014 11:32:47 GMT -5
Mookie Betts, CF Brock Holt, 2B Yoenis Cespedes, LF Mike Napoli, DH Allen Craig, 1B Daniel Nava, RF Will Middlebrooks, 3B Xander Bogaerts, SS Christian Vazquez, C Rubby De La Rosa, RHP (4-5, 3.85 ERA)
MOOKIE
|
|
|
Post by redsox4242 on Sept 1, 2014 12:13:36 GMT -5
Mookies first at bat as a leadoff in the MLB, works the count to 3-2 and makes Smyly throw 8 pitches.
|
|
|
Post by mgoetze on Sept 1, 2014 12:16:09 GMT -5
Just imagine how good Holt could be without the lefty strike.
|
|
|
Post by redsox4242 on Sept 1, 2014 12:20:57 GMT -5
Nice play by Mookie on the ball hit to center, Mookie took the perfect route and made the catch!
|
|
|
Post by redsox4242 on Sept 1, 2014 12:25:47 GMT -5
Rubby strikes out Joyce with the Changeup, good to see! Rubby threw 95-96 consistently during the 1st inning.
|
|
TearsIn04
Veteran
Everybody knows Nelson de la Rosa, but who is Karim Garcia?
Posts: 2,810
|
Post by TearsIn04 on Sept 1, 2014 12:26:26 GMT -5
Looking for some K's from Rubby today. He doesn't seem to get many for a guy with excellent velocity. To me, he's the most important of the young SPs we're trying out. Webster isn't nearly ready and Renaudo's peripheral numbers are pretty bad. I see Workman as a reliever. But Rubby could be a big piece of the 2015 rotation.
|
|
|
Post by redsox4242 on Sept 1, 2014 12:52:09 GMT -5
Vazquez works a walk down in the count, love it! i love Vazquez potential with the bat. And Mookie with an RBI double! the kids are getting it done!! MOOKIE!!!
|
|
|
Post by Guidas on Sept 1, 2014 12:53:23 GMT -5
Mooooooookie!
|
|
|
Post by gregblossersbelly on Sept 1, 2014 12:58:50 GMT -5
Mookie is just going to be too damn good to trade.
|
|
|
Post by redsox4242 on Sept 1, 2014 12:59:40 GMT -5
Nasty 96 MPH Fastball on the outside corner to strikeout Kiermaier. Rubby!
|
|
|
Post by Guidas on Sept 1, 2014 13:01:10 GMT -5
So far I count 5 swing and miss by the Rays. This is one off-putting part about De La Rosa. You'd think a guy who lives in the mid to high 90s with the FB and has that dancing change-up and a good slider would have guys up there just waving at the ball more frequently.
|
|
|
Post by redsox4242 on Sept 1, 2014 13:17:14 GMT -5
NAPOLI! HR!
|
|
|
Post by redsox4242 on Sept 1, 2014 13:32:49 GMT -5
DFA Middlebrooks please.
Thanks.
|
|
TearsIn04
Veteran
Everybody knows Nelson de la Rosa, but who is Karim Garcia?
Posts: 2,810
|
Post by TearsIn04 on Sept 1, 2014 13:34:47 GMT -5
Well that was pretty stupid.
|
|
TearsIn04
Veteran
Everybody knows Nelson de la Rosa, but who is Karim Garcia?
Posts: 2,810
|
Post by TearsIn04 on Sept 1, 2014 13:35:48 GMT -5
DFA Middlebrooks please. Thanks. Not happening. He has options left, I think.
|
|
|
Post by redsox4242 on Sept 1, 2014 13:37:00 GMT -5
Well that was pretty stupid. Indeed.
|
|
|
Post by redsox4242 on Sept 1, 2014 14:11:33 GMT -5
Rubbys Line:
5.1, 6 hits, 3 ER, 0 BBs, 4 K's. Solid outing for Rubby, got some swing and misses today. Could of went longer but De La Rosa is on an innings limit. NO WALKS, very encouraging given he had walked 2 or more in 5 consecutive starts.
|
|
|
Post by redsox4242 on Sept 1, 2014 14:26:41 GMT -5
Tazawa is in, lets see how the he pitches given the amount of rest he has had.
|
|
|