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.
|
Post by jmei on Feb 11, 2016 11:55:34 GMT -5
I think you're downplaying the selection bias that comes with only counting guys with three or more 50+ IP as a starter seasons. That weeds out a lot of guys who never improved their control or command-- it's tough to stick in the majors with 40 control, and if you haven't improved much after two+ years, there's a good chance you might not get a third year in the rotation. It's easy to say that Owens had the pedigree or upper-levels performance to be comparable to the three+ seasons cohort, but you could say the same thing about guys like Felix Doubront or Michael Bowden, and those guys crashed and burned. Except Doubront did get three seasons (he's a 40 / 40) and Bowden didn't get one. Guys are weeded out for all sorts of reasons other than command. I don't think Doubront did get three seasons of 50+ IP as a starter-- if he did, he's presumably show up in your above analysis, no? He definitely got two seasons, but I think his other seasons have included a lot of relief innings. I should have checked on Bowden-- it still kind of surprises me that he never got a shot as a starter in the majors. I agree that attrition occurs for all sorts of reasons beyond a lack of improvement of control (which, by the way, is different than command), but that's exactly my point-- you're isolating the cohort that has stayed healthy, not seen their stuff decline, not had major home run issues or issues with missing bats, etc. That introduces a pretty significant selection bias. You can't point to this analysis and say there's a 45% chance that Owens develops solid-average-to-better control, because you're only looking at a skewed sample of players that teams thought were good enough to be worth keeping in the majors and in a rotation.
|
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 8,926
|
Post by ericmvan on Feb 11, 2016 12:02:33 GMT -5
Doubront lost about 3 mph off his fastball way earlier than most pitchers would. I would say that's the main reason he crashed. Bowden was only ever decent when his control was excellent. It's a lot easier to stick in the majors with 40 control with great stuff. Doubront didn't have it when he lost velocity and Bowden never had it. If you're implying that Owens has great stuff, I don't think I agree. Yes, he has a great changeup, but there are questions about his fastball (most of the grades I've seen are 50/55s) and he doesn't really have a third pitch. I don't know that his stuff is significantly better than Doubront's or Bowden's. Scouts will downgrade his FB based on command. Where would Owens' FB movement rank among the 467 pitchers in my quick-and-dirty FB effectiveness study (which I did a few years ago and was based on a couple of years of data)?. Second. He has insane FB movement. Which, BTW, scouts can't see very well, and explains a lot about him. Now, combined with his velocity, the combination ranks just 347th (including relievers), but that's assuming that the regression works for the guys on the extremes. And this is of course using his measured velocity, when what really matters is effective velocity, a function of where he actually releases the ball and when the hitter picks it up. At 91.1 mph effective (+2 mph), he ranks 205th. At 92.1, 130th. At 93.1, 77th, and by now it's mostly relievers ahead of him. I think his FB velocity and movement project to be plus. With more movement than any other SP and a good deal of deception, you don't have to throw that hard.
|
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 8,926
|
Post by ericmvan on Feb 11, 2016 12:08:17 GMT -5
Except Doubront did get three seasons (he's a 40 / 40) and Bowden didn't get one. Guys are weeded out for all sorts of reasons other than command. I don't think Doubront did get three seasons of 50+ IP as a starter-- if he did, he's presumably show up in your above analysis, no? He definitely got two seasons, but I think his other seasons have included a lot of relief innings. I should have checked on Bowden-- it still kind of surprises me that he never got a shot as a starter in the majors. I agree that attrition occurs for all sorts of reasons beyond a lack of improvement of control (which, by the way, is different than command), but that's exactly my point-- you're isolating the cohort that has stayed healthy, not seen their stuff decline, not had major home run issues or issues with missing bats, etc. That introduces a pretty significant selection bias. You can't point to this analysis and say there's a 45% chance that Owens develops solid-average-to-better control, because you're only looking at a skewed sample of players that teams thought were good enough to be worth keeping in the majors and in a rotation. Doubront had four such seasons, but starting at age 24, so I didn't list him. I think your last post crossed with mine where I included the attrition rate. You're right that guys age 23 and younger who got at least one 50 IP season as a starter have not developed 50 or better control 45% of the time. It's 44%.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Feb 11, 2016 12:12:27 GMT -5
If you're implying that Owens has great stuff, I don't think I agree. Yes, he has a great changeup, but there are questions about his fastball (most of the grades I've seen are 50/55s) and he doesn't really have a third pitch. I don't know that his stuff is significantly better than Doubront's or Bowden's. Scouts will downgrade his FB based on command. Where would Owens' FB movement rank among the 467 pitchers in my quick-and-dirty FB effectiveness study (which I did a few years ago and was based on a couple of years of data)?. Second. He has insane FB movement. Which, BTW, scouts can't see very well, and explains a lot about him. Now, combined with his velocity, the combination ranks just 347th (including relievers), but that's assuming that the regression works for the guys on the extremes. And this is of course using his measured velocity, when what really matters is effective velocity, a function of where he actually releases the ball and when the hitter picks it up. At 91.1 mph effective (+2 mph), he ranks 205th. At 92.1, 130th. At 93.1, 77th, and by now it's mostly relievers ahead of him. I think his FB velocity and movement project to be plus. With more movement than any other SP and a good deal of deception, you don't have to throw that hard. Of the 186 starting pitchers with 50+ innings pitched last year, Owens ranks third in horizontal movement and 67th in vertical movement, per PITCHf/x. That's good, but, when combined with his fringy velo, I'm not sure it's more than average to above-average. I'm skeptical that you can just add 2-4 mph due to his deception.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Feb 11, 2016 12:20:27 GMT -5
I don't think Doubront did get three seasons of 50+ IP as a starter-- if he did, he's presumably show up in your above analysis, no? He definitely got two seasons, but I think his other seasons have included a lot of relief innings. I should have checked on Bowden-- it still kind of surprises me that he never got a shot as a starter in the majors. I agree that attrition occurs for all sorts of reasons beyond a lack of improvement of control (which, by the way, is different than command), but that's exactly my point-- you're isolating the cohort that has stayed healthy, not seen their stuff decline, not had major home run issues or issues with missing bats, etc. That introduces a pretty significant selection bias. You can't point to this analysis and say there's a 45% chance that Owens develops solid-average-to-better control, because you're only looking at a skewed sample of players that teams thought were good enough to be worth keeping in the majors and in a rotation. Doubront had four such seasons, but starting at age 24, so I didn't list him. I think your last post crossed with mine where I included the attrition rate. You're right that guys age 23 and younger who got at least one 50 IP season as a starter have not developed 50 or better control 45% of the time. It's 44%. To be fair, I said "solid-average-to-better control", which would be a 55, which would be 31% under your revised analysis (and was 45% under the original skewed analysis). I also think using an age 22 to 24 cohort would be better than using 23-and-under to make the tails symmetrical, which I think would drop the percentage a decent amount. But those are nits. I don't disagree that there's a good chance that he develops average control. I think Owens with average control is probably a number three starter, which is only slightly more optimistic than my median projection of him.
|
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 8,926
|
Post by ericmvan on Feb 11, 2016 13:02:15 GMT -5
Scouts will downgrade his FB based on command. Where would Owens' FB movement rank among the 467 pitchers in my quick-and-dirty FB effectiveness study (which I did a few years ago and was based on a couple of years of data)?. Second. He has insane FB movement. Which, BTW, scouts can't see very well, and explains a lot about him. Now, combined with his velocity, the combination ranks just 347th (including relievers), but that's assuming that the regression works for the guys on the extremes. And this is of course using his measured velocity, when what really matters is effective velocity, a function of where he actually releases the ball and when the hitter picks it up. At 91.1 mph effective (+2 mph), he ranks 205th. At 92.1, 130th. At 93.1, 77th, and by now it's mostly relievers ahead of him. I think his FB velocity and movement project to be plus. With more movement than any other SP and a good deal of deception, you don't have to throw that hard. Of the 186 starting pitchers with 50+ innings pitched last year, Owens ranks third in horizontal movement and 67th in vertical movement, per PITCHf/x. That's good, but, when combined with his fringy velo, I'm not sure it's more than average to above-average. I'm skeptical that you can just add 2-4 mph due to his deception. You're aware that horizontal and vertical movement are inversely correlated, no? I happen to have the 60+ IP data, starters and relievers, from my changeup study. The leader board for total FB movement: 13.64 Tony Watson (Rel) 13.58 Henry Owens 13.58 Drew Smyly 13.57 Adam Conley 13.50 Matt Moore 13.10 Wandy Rodriguez Given the accuracy of the data, he's basically part of a three- or four-way tie for first among SP. All of these guys are LHP, which is interesting. In fact, so are the next 4 guys. The top RHP, Verlander and Steve Geltz, are part of a 4-way tie for 11th. The figures for the added velocity were meant to include possible improvements in measured velo. But the difference in hitter reaction time that's equivalent to a mph of velocity is tiny. It's .03 seconds. 1-2 mph is very credible. BTW, there's a pretty strong empirical difference you see with age 24 and later first-time starters. And since Owens was 22, the symmetrical cohort would be 21 to 23, and there's almost no 20 year-olds in the data (although two developed 55+ and one, Ankiel, washed out, so that would lower the percentages a bit).
|
|
|
Post by tonyc on Feb 11, 2016 13:52:37 GMT -5
Thanks for the data Eric. I too am bullish on Owens. Keith Foulke had unusual control, but in my limited views of Owens I noticed he too had an ability to sometimes hit the upper corners of the zone with fastballs, then the lower ones with change ups low, hopefully a foreshadowing of the increased command which you postulate.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Feb 11, 2016 14:08:22 GMT -5
Good point about horizontal movement and velocity movement being negatively correlated-- I did not know that. You're right that it's very interesting that his apparently elite movement was not pick up much in the scouting reports. That's good to know and affects my evaluation of his fastball.
This might just be an "age X season" classification thing, but Owens was 23 when he made his debut (first MLB start in August 2015; born in July 1992).
|
|
|
Post by telson13 on Feb 11, 2016 15:53:32 GMT -5
Yeah, but jmei's point about selection bias is true. It's the same reason Eric's data set was skewed above-average...because of attrition. I would argue, however, that using the age 23 criterion, there's likely to be substantially less attrition...maybe 50% at most, probably much less, because early graduation to MLB (in spite of control trouble, which is a confounder since it it likewise probably a product of early graduation) suggests a high talent level, organizational confidence, and a greater vested interest with second- and third- chances more likely. Regardless, I stand by my belief that Owens has a reasonable ceiling of a 1a. I'm actually more encouraged about his floor, as well. I'm also curious as the where Lester falls on the initial control continuum and what his cohort looks like. He, like Lee, had a similar minor league career as Owens. So, including the 33% bust rate for guys age 23 and younger (which seems wholly independent of prospect status), there's a 44% chance of developing 50 control and a 31% chance of developing 55. I put a lot of stock in Owens' makeup (as part of the Sox track record with same) and even more in the very strange fact that his changeup control is much better than his FB control, together with the evidence that suggests the latter problem may have a component that has to to do with grip and release. If you want to add the tall LHP factor, be my guest. I'd put his odds at 67% for 50 control, and 50% for 55. Lester's seasons: 35 (at the same age as Owens), 35, 55, 55, 40, 40, 50, 50, 60, 60. He needs one more year like his last two to up his peak from 55 to 60. Once I clean out the handful of false entries, I'll gladly share the spreadsheet with folks. Especially if they want to add data for height and handedness! Eric, I think you and I share very similar views on Owens...I don't think he's a sure bet by any stretch. But given his improvement in the minors, willingness to table his best pitch to work on a new one (SL), and his "intangibles," I think your odds are probably about right. If he does add a cutter (seems a Sox staple), and Price is as good a "2nd coach" as advertised, I think that even with 55 control, and that change, Owens could be a fair 2. Obviously, for him to develop 65 control, the odds are probably a lot more like 5-15% based on your analysis, but would put him in solid 1a territory, particularly with further evolution of his repertoire. Thanks for all of the hard work. I'm really curious to see if the whole height/handedness thing is real or urban legend.
|
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 8,926
|
Post by ericmvan on Feb 11, 2016 16:09:51 GMT -5
So, including the 33% bust rate for guys age 23 and younger (which seems wholly independent of prospect status), there's a 44% chance of developing 50 control and a 31% chance of developing 55. I put a lot of stock in Owens' makeup (as part of the Sox track record with same) and even more in the very strange fact that his changeup control is much better than his FB control, together with the evidence that suggests the latter problem may have a component that has to to do with grip and release. If you want to add the tall LHP factor, be my guest. I'd put his odds at 67% for 50 control, and 50% for 55. Lester's seasons: 35 (at the same age as Owens), 35, 55, 55, 40, 40, 50, 50, 60, 60. He needs one more year like his last two to up his peak from 55 to 60. Once I clean out the handful of false entries, I'll gladly share the spreadsheet with folks. Especially if they want to add data for height and handedness! Eric, I think you and I share very similar views on Owens...I don't think he's a sure bet by any stretch. But given his improvement in the minors, willingness to table his best pitch to work on a new one (SL), and his "intangibles," I think your odds are probably about right. If he does add a cutter (seems a Sox staple), and Price is as good a "2nd coach" as advertised, I think that even with 55 control, and that change, Owens could be a fair 2. Obviously, for him to develop 65 control, the odds are probably a lot more like 5-15% based on your analysis, but would put him in solid 1a territory, particularly with further evolution of his repertoire. Thanks for all of the hard work. I'm really curious to see if the whole height/handedness thing is real or urban legend. Is this your sneaky way of volunteering to add that data to the spreadsheet?
|
|
|
Post by telson13 on Feb 11, 2016 16:12:59 GMT -5
If you're implying that Owens has great stuff, I don't think I agree. Yes, he has a great changeup, but there are questions about his fastball (most of the grades I've seen are 50/55s) and he doesn't really have a third pitch. I don't know that his stuff is significantly better than Doubront's or Bowden's. Scouts will downgrade his FB based on command. Where would Owens' FB movement rank among the 467 pitchers in my quick-and-dirty FB effectiveness study (which I did a few years ago and was based on a couple of years of data)?. Second. He has insane FB movement. Which, BTW, scouts can't see very well, and explains a lot about him. Now, combined with his velocity, the combination ranks just 347th (including relievers), but that's assuming that the regression works for the guys on the extremes. And this is of course using his measured velocity, when what really matters is effective velocity, a function of where he actually releases the ball and when the hitter picks it up. At 91.1 mph effective (+2 mph), he ranks 205th. At 92.1, 130th. At 93.1, 77th, and by now it's mostly relievers ahead of him. I think his FB velocity and movement project to be plus. With more movement than any other SP and a good deal of deception, you don't have to throw that hard. I'm surprised by his movement, although from seeing him in person in AA, I get it. The hitters flailed at it way more than you'd think based on velocity. At 6'6", I'm guessing he's about a foot closer to the plate on release than the "average" pitcher, especially since he's got a pretty good stride. Does pitch f/x have that data? I know they used to tabulate it for the AFL.
|
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 8,926
|
Post by ericmvan on Feb 11, 2016 16:14:08 GMT -5
Good point about horizontal movement and velocity movement being negatively correlated-- I did not know that. You're right that it's very interesting that his apparently elite movement was not pick up much in the scouting reports. That's good to know and affects my evaluation of his fastball. This might just be an "age X season" classification thing, but Owens was 23 when he made his debut (first MLB start in August 2015; born in July 1992). Yeah, it's his age 22 as of 7/1/15. I've argued that July births should be classified with the previous year's cohort because they usually got an extra year of amateur experience (lots of leagues used to use 8/1 as a cutoff), and that it's actually years of coached experience that are important rather than age per se. But those kids are also the youngest and get the least attention from coaches, so the truth is probably mid-way. In this case, we don't see any difference between the age 22 and 23 y/o's, so it's moot.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Feb 11, 2016 16:24:26 GMT -5
Good point about horizontal movement and velocity movement being negatively correlated-- I did not know that. You're right that it's very interesting that his apparently elite movement was not pick up much in the scouting reports. That's good to know and affects my evaluation of his fastball. This might just be an "age X season" classification thing, but Owens was 23 when he made his debut (first MLB start in August 2015; born in July 1992). Yeah, it's his age 22 as of 7/1/15. I've argued that July births should be classified with the previous year's cohort because they usually got an extra year of amateur experience (lots of leagues used to use 8/1 as a cutoff), and that it's actually years of coached experience that are important rather than age per se. But those kids are also the youngest and get the least attention from coaches, so the truth is probably mid-way. In this case, we don't see any difference between the age 22 and 23 y/o's, so it's moot. My concern is not 22 versus 23, but the fact that his appropriate cohort is probably closer to 24 (which has not been included in your analysis, and I suspect has a lower success rate) than 21 (which is included and has a higher success rate). But you have to draw the cutoff somewhere, so it's fine.
|
|
|
Post by telson13 on Feb 11, 2016 16:31:03 GMT -5
Eric, I think you and I share very similar views on Owens...I don't think he's a sure bet by any stretch. But given his improvement in the minors, willingness to table his best pitch to work on a new one (SL), and his "intangibles," I think your odds are probably about right. If he does add a cutter (seems a Sox staple), and Price is as good a "2nd coach" as advertised, I think that even with 55 control, and that change, Owens could be a fair 2. Obviously, for him to develop 65 control, the odds are probably a lot more like 5-15% based on your analysis, but would put him in solid 1a territory, particularly with further evolution of his repertoire. Thanks for all of the hard work. I'm really curious to see if the whole height/handedness thing is real or urban legend. Is this your sneaky way of volunteering to add that data to the spreadsheet? Hahaha! I'm not sure you want me anywhere near the spreadsheet. As long as I can do it on a Mac. My non-Apple OS forays have been mixed-result endeavors for sure.
|
|
|
Post by telson13 on Feb 11, 2016 16:51:39 GMT -5
Yeah, it's his age 22 as of 7/1/15. I've argued that July births should be classified with the previous year's cohort because they usually got an extra year of amateur experience (lots of leagues used to use 8/1 as a cutoff), and that it's actually years of coached experience that are important rather than age per se. But those kids are also the youngest and get the least attention from coaches, so the truth is probably mid-way. In this case, we don't see any difference between the age 22 and 23 y/o's, so it's moot. My concern is not 22 versus 23, but the fact that his appropriate cohort is probably closer to 24 (which has not been included in your analysis, and I suspect has a lower success rate) than 21 (which is included and has a higher success rate). But you have to draw the cutoff somewhere, so it's fine. I do think this is an interesting point: 21-y/o major-league pitchers are almost assuredly extremely talented. They're also rare. The 24-y/o cohort is much, much larger...and less talented. Owens kind of sits right on the 22-23 cusp; he was still very young, but not so young as to fit in the hyper-talented group. Not lost in all of this, for me, is how well this speaks to Rodriguez's chances of being a top-of-the-rotation starter. He's not so far off as is, but he graduated younger and has slightly better overall stuff, with a FB/SL/CH that're 70 (for a LH)/50/55, while Owens is probably 50/50/70, taking a slight hit for less command. According to fangraphs' pitch values, Owens's SL is an above-average pitch, but I'm not sure that's not just SSS.
|
|
|
Post by ray88h66 on Feb 11, 2016 19:21:21 GMT -5
Every time I decide to stop reading eric's posts do to the tude, he posts stuff like he's done in this thread, and I read on.
|
|
|
Post by Oregon Norm on Feb 11, 2016 22:12:09 GMT -5
I did a simple version of the pitcher-length analysis a while back, for a range of pitch speeds and length assumptions. I'll post that when I have a minute. It needs to be considered. Two pitches with very different velocities can take exactly the same time to travel to the plate. If we think that matters to batters, then it's not trivial and needs to be part of the picture.
|
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 8,926
|
Post by ericmvan on Feb 11, 2016 23:34:11 GMT -5
So, I've isolated out just the rookies. The reliever conversions don't seem to be relevant. And it turns out that, except for the guys who debuted with 20 or (possibly) 25 control, there seems to be no relationship at all between debut control and washout rate: 1st N WO% 20 21 57% 25 17 47% 30 31 39% 35 71 41% 40 99 48% 45 133 39% 50 157 45% 55 126 40% 60 84 43% 65 36 44% 70 17 41% 75 2 0%
There is, however, precisely the very strong relationship between debut age and washout rate that you would expect, even to it leveling off at age 26: Age # WO% 19/20 17 12% 21 62 26% 22 140 27% 23 161 40% 24 157 47% 25 107 52% 26 70 59% 27 34 65% 28 19 53% 29 13 69% 30-35 14 64%
Now, for the ages 21 to 25 guys who do not wash out, if you lump the small samples of 20, 25, and 30 debuts together, you get this chance of developing 50 control depending on your debut control: 1st N 50c% <=30 57 41% 35 65 46% 40 79 64% 45 108 75% 50 123 88% 55 95 93% 60 66 95% 65+ 34 100%
You can see that it really helps to start with 40 (and Owens is rounded down from 42, BTW), and that there's a fairly linear relationship from 40 to 50. This puts a guy like Owens at .75 * .64 = 48% chance of developing 50 control. I'll put the rates for 55 control alongside, for comparison: 1st N 50c% 55c% <=30 57 41% 22% 35 65 46% 31% 40 79 64% 40% 45 108 75% 51% 50 123 88% 52% 55 95 93% 76% 60 66 95% 76% 65+ 34 100% 100%
Here you see a quite linear relationship through 45; 50 isn't any better, and then you see the expected bump from debuting at 55 or better. So guys like Owens develop 55 control 30% of the time (75% * 40%). I won't repeat my reasons why I think he's likelier than average to achieve both goals.
|
|
|
Post by telson13 on Feb 11, 2016 23:42:22 GMT -5
Norm, this was a good read: grantland.com/the-triangle/2015-mlb-actual-versus-perceived-velocity-statcast-pitcher-data-carter-capps/I was mildly surprised by the low correlation of height and perceived velocity (0.25), and for some reason I couldn't find Owens. Actually, Porcello, Price, Rodriguez, and Kelly all have slightly **less** perceived than actual velocity (short strides). Eric, do you have any data on spin rates correlating with swing-and-miss for fastballs? I know we've mentioned this in other threads, but I didn't know if you're aware of any solid evidence. Owens's scouting-perceived "deception" would fit his movement and maybe a slightly higher perceived velocity. This old BA post on AFL Trackman data talks a little about spin. FWIW, I remember someone mentioning Espinoza having spin rates of 2600-2700 on his four-seam, which would've led the AFL the year these data were collected, by a *large* margin. www.baseballamerica.com/minors/afl-trackman-leaderboards/
|
|
gerry
Veteran
Enter your message here...
Posts: 1,665
|
Post by gerry on Feb 12, 2016 3:12:40 GMT -5
Every time I decide to stop reading eric's posts do to the tude, he posts stuff like he's done in this thread, and I read on. When I read Eric's posts I feel like I'm back in grad. school, soaking up the pearls of a wise prof who not only knows alot and presents it well, but does so because he has been there. Eric also takes the cake for getting serious conversation going among the rest of the cognicenti on this board.
|
|
|
Post by cologneredsox on Feb 12, 2016 6:50:08 GMT -5
Every time I decide to stop reading eric's posts do to the tude, he posts stuff like he's done in this thread, and I read on. When I read Eric's posts I feel like I'm back in grad. school, soaking up the pearls of a wise prof who not only knows alot and presents it well, but does so because he has been there. Eric also takes the cake for getting serious conversation going among the rest of the cognicenti on this board. With all the skepticism he's confronted with most of the time it's sure refreshing an a big treasure that he never grows tired of supplying all his hard work and sharing it with us. I get that he's not allways right with his prognosis but it sure is not common to get prognosis with that much data as a fundament. The thing about Owens fastball movement is clompetly new to me and I'm sucking in all info I get about the guy for 3+ years now...
|
|
|
Post by telson13 on Feb 12, 2016 11:25:24 GMT -5
Every time I decide to stop reading eric's posts do to the tude, he posts stuff like he's done in this thread, and I read on. When I read Eric's posts I feel like I'm back in grad. school, soaking up the pearls of a wise prof who not only knows alot and presents it well, but does so because he has been there. Eric also takes the cake for getting serious conversation going among the rest of the cognicenti on this board. Your graduate school experience sounds a lot more compelling than mine was. Or, at least your reminiscence does hahaha! Agreed 100% though. It's more fun postulating and prognosticating and poring over data (or, even better, how to mine it) than just arguing about why Farrell stinks or not, or whether the Sox should drop nine figures on "X."
|
|
|
Post by telson13 on Feb 12, 2016 11:34:10 GMT -5
|
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 8,926
|
Post by ericmvan on Feb 12, 2016 13:21:19 GMT -5
Thanks for the praise, guys.
I just found a bug in the wash-out rate analysis that caused the data to be slightly off (and it also inflated the N of the developing-control tables, but not the percentages). The original post has been edited. The washout rate for 40 guys has actually been 27%, not 25%.
The revised data also suggests that a better comp cohort for Owens' developing control might be the age 21 to 23 guys rather than 21 to 25. However, the difference to me looks like noise. The 40s go down from 64% to 62%, but everyone else goes up a tick, and the overall rate goes from 77% to 78%. The sample sizes are considerably smaller (total N=363 instead of 627) and an obvious bit of randomness shows up in the 55 control probabilities, where the 55s have a 93% chance but the 60s just a 78%. So I think the original 21 to 25 group is the one to use; any difference in results for the 24 and 25 guys is smaller than the gain in accuracy from the increased sample size. So the original 64% chance is still the one to use.
The revised washout rate reduces the baseline expectation for 50 control from 48% to 47%. Someone alert the media!
Now, there are 794 pitchers in this study. There's no website I know that will produce a table that lists pitcher heights, so they need to be looked up manually (or via Visual Basic for Excel code, which I haven't messed with for years), and while you're doing that, you may as well get handedness, too, even though you can grab that (with quite a bit of effort) from B-Ref. It takes about 20 seconds or a bit less to look up a name and type in the handedness and height into an Excel spreadsheet (if you put that in one window and a browser with B-Ref in another, and cut and paste names from Excel to the B-Ref search box).
It's about 4 1/2 hours of work. I'm not up to that, but if we could split it up, it might be doable. It's half an hour each for 10 guys. If you're willing to help, post in the thread in the off-topic forum!
|
|
|
Post by Oregon Norm on Feb 12, 2016 16:08:49 GMT -5
Thanks for that. It was useful for getting the max and min release points down. This is, of course, a spreadsheet and that max and min are wired up to change all these numbers. I could also modify the function that computes the distance if needed. Available on demand. I colored coded it to give an idea of pitches which take approximately the same amount of time to reach the batter. Similar colors mean similar times. Lots of assumptions in here that might change the overall time-to-the-plate, but I doubt they'd affect the matrix very much (in physics, air friction is assumed to be a linear function). Down the left side is the velocity at release, and across the top the release point. That's Peralta's way over on the left, and Capps' all the way on the right. Example a release point of 54 feet for a 91 MPH pitch has about the same arrival time as a 95 MPH pitch from 56.2 feet (click to enlarge). Next... we need to bug the SoxProspects field staff, to get a bead on Owens' release point! Time to ask the guy for a show and tell (and measure?).
|
|
|