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.
badfishnbc
Veteran
Doing you all a favor and leaving through the gate in right field since 2012.
Posts: 412
|
Post by badfishnbc on Sept 17, 2020 12:07:21 GMT -5
Does anyone throw a screwball anymore? Last guy I remember being a big screwball pitcher was Tug McGraw. I mean, Fernando Valenzuela comes to mind.
|
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 8,925
|
Post by ericmvan on Sept 18, 2020 5:25:00 GMT -5
I think this key point may have been obscured in the course of my detailed analysis. It's possible for guys to be underrated because scouts make all the correct assessments of their tools and skills but are wrong about how to add them up to project performance. That's not their job; that's more on the analytical side.
I just read Ian Cundall's revised scouting report and the only thing I think he missed is that the slider is a potential plus-plus pitch.
And then the summation reads like a non-sequitor to me.
First, the sinker has so much contrast to the 4-seamer that it actually resembles a screwball. I believe it functions as an extra pitch, and it can be used against righties and lefties. In the minors, he's not going to be using the two fastballs smartly, mixing them up in a way to maximize their effectiveness; he's going to be working on commanding them.
I know that he had stretches in the minors were lefties absolutely destroyed him. But it doesn't follow that the only way to be decently effective against them is to develop a good change or splitter. That's the standard way, but it's not the only way. He got lefties out in his debut by throwing the slider inside ... I'll have to look at the data to see if he also used the sinker, but that's another potential tool.
And it strikes me that if you know you can get lefties out with the slider but that developing an off-speed pitch would give you a second weapon, you're going to really try to work on that, rather than just getting them out the other way. So, again, some of the results we saw in the minors were about working on his weaknesses while keeping his strengths in his pocket. This is something only pitchers can do, of course, as they control the game.
|
|
|
Post by patford on Sept 18, 2020 7:12:11 GMT -5
I think this key point may have been obscured in the course of my detailed analysis. It's possible for guys to be underrated because scouts make all the correct assessments of their tools and skills but are wrong about how to add them up to project performance. That's not their job; that's more on the analytical side.
I just read Ian Cundall's revised scouting report and the only thing I think he missed is that the slider is a potential plus-plus pitch.
And then the summation reads like a non-sequitor to me.
First, the sinker has so much contrast to the 4-seamer that it actually resembles a screwball. I believe it functions as an extra pitch, and it can be used against righties and lefties. In the minors, he's not going to be using the two fastballs smartly, mixing them up in a way to maximize their effectiveness; he's going to be working on commanding them.
I know that he had stretches in the minors were lefties absolutely destroyed him. But it doesn't follow that the only way to be decently effective against them is to develop a good change or splitter. That's the standard way, but it's not the only way. He got lefties out in his debut by throwing the slider inside ... I'll have to look at the data to see if he also used the sinker, but that's another potential tool.
And it strikes me that if you know you can get lefties out with the slider but that developing an off-speed pitch would give you a second weapon, you're going to really try to work on that, rather than just getting them out the other way. So, again, some of the results we saw in the minors were about working on his weaknesses while keeping his strengths in his pocket. This is something only pitchers can do, of course, as they control the game.
As I understand it Houck came out of college relying almost entirely on his two seam FB, also called a sinker, and his slider. The Sox asked him to begin throwing a four seam FB. It's not clear if this was part of their plan to get him to add a 4S and so they had him throw it a lot, or if they truly wanted to rebuild him as more or a pure power pitcher. As it turned out his 4S was quite hitable as it does not have much movement and he does not command the pitch very well. On the other hand it seems like the 4S as a third pitch can be effective as seen on his first MLB strikeout where the batter was taken by surprise and seemed impressed. Houck's 3rd K was also on a 4S but I think he may have gotten a bit lucky on that one as the location was poor and the batter looked like he missed because he almost jumped out of his shoes jumping at a meatball. If he can learn to command his 4S at the top of the zone as a 3rd offering I think it can be a very effective out pitch at 95mph even if it is straight.
|
|
|
Post by patford on Sept 18, 2020 7:18:16 GMT -5
His 6th K had a weird screwball type movement. Was that was the cutter he's added ? FYI, a screwball and a cutter have completely different break. A screwball breaks toward the arm side, like the two-seam in the video. A cutter is like a slider that's thrown harder and with less movement. Thanks. My mistake. I should have said splitter. I now see that was also wrong as the pitch I'm talking about was his two seam FB. Anyhow that particular pitch was nasty.
|
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 8,925
|
Post by ericmvan on Sept 18, 2020 18:10:22 GMT -5
So I just spent a couple of hours deriving a formula to predict slider effectiveness based on every variable I could conceive of.
I'm a little disappointed that nothing super-surprising showed up. There's just two significant factors, slider movement and slider velocity. The movement is total movement; sideways movement versus drop doesn't seem to matter. It's raw movement, not relative; fastball movement doesn't seem to matter.
The cool thing is that 3" of movement is the worst value to have. Below that, less movement is actually better. And why is that? Well, the average movement is 3.65." The brain is wired to pick up slider spin, and then it defaults to the average slider, to some degree. I found the same thing with changeup velocity difference from fastball.
And the low movement sliders approach the mythical gyroball, and they are apparently tough to hit. Max Scherzer's slider is the supreme example, breaking just 1.8 inches. Joe Ross, Patrick Corbin, and Shane Bieber have very good gyroball sliders.
Yeah, I know ... where does Houck's slider rank by this formula? We're comparing his slider to 140 pitchers who threw it at least once per inning, and pitched 200 innings as a starter from 2015 to 2019.
Second to Corey Kluber.
|
|
|
Post by philsbosoxfan on Sept 20, 2020 22:42:56 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by philsbosoxfan on Sept 21, 2020 10:10:03 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by patford on Sept 21, 2020 12:08:44 GMT -5
Houck's slider has always gotten high marks but it is probably time to reappraise his two-seam fastball. It not only has considerable break but it's path (as seen in the video) begins as basically indistinguishable from the slider so the deception factor is high. I'm sort of amazed the Sox ever thought of asking him to begin stressing his four-seam fastball unless the intention was purely developmental.
|
|
|
Post by manfred on Sept 21, 2020 12:42:43 GMT -5
That is really astonishing. One thing this suggests to me is something I’d long believed: Sale could decline gracefully. That is, obviously when he throws 97 he is insane. But if his fastball declines to 90-91, the mix of a moving fastball and nasty slider With strong command can still be highly effective, as Houck is showing.
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Sept 21, 2020 13:51:39 GMT -5
I wouldn't make too much of Houcks lower velocity, we've had a crazy cold spell in Massachusetts the last four days, in Western Mass it's been 50/30 for four days. That's cold even for October around here.
|
|
|
Post by ramireja on Sept 21, 2020 13:56:29 GMT -5
|
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 8,925
|
Post by ericmvan on Sept 21, 2020 14:07:44 GMT -5
Houck's slider has always gotten high marks but it is probably time to reappraise his two-seam fastball. It not only has considerable break but it's path (as seen in the video) begins as basically indistinguishable from the slider so the deception factor is high. I'm sort of amazed the Sox ever thought of asking him to begin stressing his four-seam fastball unless the intention was purely developmental. The four-seamer is to give him a third pitch that tunnels like the other two. As I sort of pointed out earlier, tunneling is brutally effective when a hitter guesses wrong but is rendered moot if he guesses right. So even if you're guessing at random, a third pitch lowers your odds of guessing correctly.
But guys don't guess at random; they make an informed guess, and they do that based on count and pitch sequences. You now have 9 two-pitch sequences instead of 4, and 27 three-pitch sequences instead of 8.
the intention was purely developmental.
Is this a coincidence? They had him develop a 4-seamer with very little movement. It turns out that the effectiveness of a 2-seamer in combo with a 4-seamer is based on the difference between the two (I'm pretty sure; I hope to do a complete analysis of FB effectiveness before his final start), and he has as big a difference as any SP in MLB.
There is also the distinct possibility that the worst possible movement for a 4-seamer to have is not the least movement, but average movement. This is the case with sliders (and with changeup velocity relative to FB). In which case, an unusually straight 4-seamer would be more effective than just an average one, so the straight fastball that seems to be a weakness would actually be a strength two ways.
So, yeah, I think they knew exactly what they were doing as they developed him. And Houck has a chance to be the future poster child for guys who were underrated as prospects because people looked at the results, which were unimpressive only because he was trying to learn new things rather than get guys out.
He seems to have great makeup. He knew just what to do when he didn't have his good velo.
Man, I just remembered that I did a whole study of where top-of-rotation starters come from, in terms of prospect ratingss. I actually meant to post it here and forgot!
OK, so not only were Jacob de Grom, Shane Bieber, Patrick Corbin, Mike Clevinger, Luis Castillo, and Corey Kluber never top 100 prospects, their top ratings within their organization were ... I never finished that! Because all of my BA Prospect Handbooks are in my office, which has become my housemate's bedroom. But she's away right now. Damn, I had other things to do today, but this should be quick!
|
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 8,925
|
Post by ericmvan on Sept 21, 2020 15:17:23 GMT -5
Man, I just remembered that I did a whole study of where top-of-rotation starters come from, in terms of prospect ratings. I actually meant to post it here and forgot! OK, so not only were Jacob de Grom, Shane Bieber, Patrick Corbin, Mike Clevinger, Luis Castillo, and Corey Kluber never top 100 prospects, their top ratings within their organization were ... I never finished that! Because all of my BA Prospect Handbooks are in my office, which has become my housemate's bedroom. But she's away right now. Damn, I had other things to do today, but this should be quick!
DeGrom was the #11 prospect in the #26 ranked system (hereafter 11/26), two spots behind Domingo Tapia, then 10/10, one spot ahead of Cesar Puello. "He has the ceiling of a #4 starter or better."
Bieber was 5/21, a "potential mid-rotation starter."
Corbin was 9/4, "projects as a #4 starter."
Clevinger was 7/17, but they were so surprised by his move up from 22/23 that they didn't say anything about his projection--just that he would go back and prove it was for real.
Castillo was 2/29 (in his first year as a top-30 guy), a "potential mid-rotation starter."
Kluber finished his ml career on the Indians post-30 depth chart. The only year he was ever ranked was the year before, when he was 26/7 and "could be a back of the rotation starter."
Counting late bloomers Lance Lynn and Charlie Morton, 7 of the top 16 pitchers by projected 2020 WAR were never top 100 prospects. The odd thing is that only 2 of the next 31 (Dinelson Lamet and Matthew Boyd) were. Not sure what to make of that.
|
|
|
Post by patford on Sept 21, 2020 15:29:21 GMT -5
One plus, I think, with Houck's slider, two-seam combo is both look to be difficult to hit even when a hitter has guessed right. With the slider it's the, "you need a longer bat syndrome" to right handed hitters and left handers getting jammed. Similar to Sale's slider I think in many cases the best bet is to take the pitch and hope it's a ball if a batter has guessed it's coming. The two-seam looks to be even more difficult to hit because it tunnels like the slider but has a late short break which is pretty sharp as opposed to the slider which just keeps running. As Eric mentioned the four seam looks like it can be effective particularly as a third or fourth pitch. It looks very hitable as it tops out at 96 (rarely higher, often lower) and has little movement but as we saw with his first MLB strikeout when it surprises a batter they can be left late and shaking their head. Houck is an interesting problem for scouting reports because if you appraise his FB it's hard to talk about the 4S and 2S in the same category. The 4S by itself is not a plus pitch at all. The 2S (sss) looks to be a very, very good pitch.
|
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 8,925
|
Post by ericmvan on Sept 21, 2020 21:07:32 GMT -5
One plus, I think, with Houck's slider, two-seam combo is both look to be difficult to hit even when a hitter has guessed right. With the slider it's the, "you need a longer bat syndrome" to right handed hitters and left handers getting jammed. Similar to Sale's slider I think in many cases the best bet is to take the pitch and hope it's a ball if a batter has guessed it's coming. The two-seam looks to be even more difficult to hit because it tunnels like the slider but has a late short break which is pretty sharp as opposed to the slider which just keeps running. As Eric mentioned the four seam looks like it can be effective particularly as a third or fourth pitch. It looks very hitable as it tops out at 96 (rarely higher, often lower) and has little movement but as we saw with his first MLB strikeout when it surprises a batter they can be left late and shaking their head. Houck is an interesting problem for scouting reports because if you appraise his FB it's hard to talk about the 4S and 2S in the same category. The 4S by itself is not a plus pitch at all. The 2S (sss) looks to be a very, very good pitch. For years both the average MLB FB velocity and the strikeout rate rose steadily. Then the velo finally peaked a few years ago ... but the K rate kept on going up.
Why was that? Because the FB% started declining. That decline explained the continued rise in K's so well that I've back-burnered the question of whether the "launch angle revolution" in hitting is a factor in the continued rise in K rates. There's just nothing left for it to explain.
Why is this relevant here? Because what's actually happening is that teams are getting smarter about pitch use. The decline in FB% is just a symptom of their examining the science of pitch sequencing, both tunneling and through game theory.
What this means is that how your pitch repertoire interacts with itself is now a major component to pitching success, one that MLB teams work on during development. And scouts don't know any of that. As you point out, they can only look at Houck's 4S in isolation. They don't know that it makes his sinker, already a good pitch, that much more effective.
|
|
|
Post by philsbosoxfan on Sept 21, 2020 21:34:20 GMT -5
Just a thought. If high or low movement of 4 seamer are both better than average movement, that would suggest a reaction pattern from the batter. If that's the case, it would seem that the more experienced a batter is, the more likely that's ingrained. Or not, LOL.
|
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 8,925
|
Post by ericmvan on Sept 22, 2020 0:35:09 GMT -5
Just a thought. If high or low movement of 4 seamer are both better than average movement, that would suggest a reaction pattern from the batter. If that's the case, it would seem that the more experienced a batter is, the more likely that's ingrained. Or not, LOL. That's a really interesting idea. But they are also experiencing the range of pitch movement, and could learn that.
What this means, I think, is that we may be able to get some insight on aging curves by hypothesizing differences between players. There's the first ascending curve where you learn to identify basic spin, and then the second where you learn to differentiate among different versions of the pitch from different pitchers.
You can measure how quickly a hitter adapts to a pitch by a pitcher much better now than before, using Statcast data instead of results. And that adaptation has both an in-game curve and a career curve. I know I've come across at least one case of a hitter who struggled with an ace early in his career but learned to hit him really well.
Devers seems to have a really fast learning curve, by which I mean instant. I'm sure you can recall him being fooled on a pitch, the pitcher throwing it again, and him smoking it.
|
|
cdj
Veteran
Posts: 14,020
|
Post by cdj on Sept 22, 2020 1:20:29 GMT -5
One plus, I think, with Houck's slider, two-seam combo is both look to be difficult to hit even when a hitter has guessed right. With the slider it's the, "you need a longer bat syndrome" to right handed hitters and left handers getting jammed. Similar to Sale's slider I think in many cases the best bet is to take the pitch and hope it's a ball if a batter has guessed it's coming. The two-seam looks to be even more difficult to hit because it tunnels like the slider but has a late short break which is pretty sharp as opposed to the slider which just keeps running. As Eric mentioned the four seam looks like it can be effective particularly as a third or fourth pitch. It looks very hitable as it tops out at 96 (rarely higher, often lower) and has little movement but as we saw with his first MLB strikeout when it surprises a batter they can be left late and shaking their head. Houck is an interesting problem for scouting reports because if you appraise his FB it's hard to talk about the 4S and 2S in the same category. The 4S by itself is not a plus pitch at all. The 2S (sss) looks to be a very, very good pitch. For years both the average MLB FB velocity and the strikeout rate rose steadily. Then the velo finally peaked a few years ago ... but the K rate kept on going up.
Why was that? Because the FB% started declining. That decline explained the continued rise in K's so well that I've back-burnered the question of whether the "launch angle revolution" in hitting is a factor in the continued rise in K rates. There's just nothing left for it to explain.
Why is this relevant here? Because what's actually happening is that teams are getting smarter about pitch use. The decline in FB% is just a symptom of their examining the science of pitch sequencing, both tunneling and through game theory.
What this means is that how your pitch repertoire interacts with itself is now a major component to pitching success, one that MLB teams work on during development. And scouts don't know any of that. As you point out, they can only look at Houck's 4S in isolation. They don't know that it makes his sinker, already a good pitch, that much more effective.
Truly fascinating stuff. I feel a lot smarter right now and I enjoy reading your posts at 230 AM. Makes me feel like I’m getting better while others sleep. He’s starting to give me hope we could develop an entirely homegrown SP this decade. If he can keep that slider in on lefties like he’s been able to do and he can use that 4S up in the zone to enhance the 2S the splitter development could be gravy. May not be 100% necessary for him to develop it after all. Imagine if the split does come along though.....look out league
|
|
mobaz
Veteran
Posts: 2,770
|
Post by mobaz on Sept 22, 2020 7:16:22 GMT -5
Jason Mastrodonato of the Herald, whom I normally like, is harping on the Sox for keeping Houck down for so long, saying it proves they weren't even trying to win because of all the other spaghetti they threw at the rotation. I don't see it. I think Houck's struggles against lefties were real (didn't we see some really big hits off him in SimCity?) and making sure he had a confident approach to lefties was going to be the only way he could be successful as a starter. If they rushed him and lefties ate him up, I'd really worry that either he or the team would get into the mindset he couldn't start.
Also, loving seeing his early success! Keep it up!
|
|
|
Post by patford on Sept 22, 2020 8:13:59 GMT -5
Jason Mastrodonato of the Herald, whom I normally like, is harping on the Sox for keeping Houck down for so long, saying it proves they weren't even trying to win because of all the other spaghetti they threw at the rotation. I don't see it. I think Houck's struggles against lefties were real (didn't we see some really big hits off him in SimCity?) and making sure he had a confident approach to lefties was going to be the only way he could be successful as a starter. If they rushed him and lefties ate him up, I'd really worry that either he or the team would get into the mindset he couldn't start. Also, loving seeing his early success! Keep it up! Just another attention seeker casting clickbait. Two months ago most people thought he was likely not much more than a middle reliever because of the well documented trouble he had with left handed hitters. Since he was signed his performance in the minors had been decent but underwhelming. Baseball America had him ranked #13 in the Red Sox low rated system.
|
|
|
Post by patford on Sept 22, 2020 8:35:27 GMT -5
One plus, I think, with Houck's slider, two-seam combo is both look to be difficult to hit even when a hitter has guessed right. With the slider it's the, "you need a longer bat syndrome" to right handed hitters and left handers getting jammed. Similar to Sale's slider I think in many cases the best bet is to take the pitch and hope it's a ball if a batter has guessed it's coming. The two-seam looks to be even more difficult to hit because it tunnels like the slider but has a late short break which is pretty sharp as opposed to the slider which just keeps running. As Eric mentioned the four seam looks like it can be effective particularly as a third or fourth pitch. It looks very hitable as it tops out at 96 (rarely higher, often lower) and has little movement but as we saw with his first MLB strikeout when it surprises a batter they can be left late and shaking their head. Houck is an interesting problem for scouting reports because if you appraise his FB it's hard to talk about the 4S and 2S in the same category. The 4S by itself is not a plus pitch at all. The 2S (sss) looks to be a very, very good pitch. For years both the average MLB FB velocity and the strikeout rate rose steadily. Then the velo finally peaked a few years ago ... but the K rate kept on going up.
Why was that? Because the FB% started declining. That decline explained the continued rise in K's so well that I've back-burnered the question of whether the "launch angle revolution" in hitting is a factor in the continued rise in K rates. There's just nothing left for it to explain.
Why is this relevant here? Because what's actually happening is that teams are getting smarter about pitch use. The decline in FB% is just a symptom of their examining the science of pitch sequencing, both tunneling and through game theory.
What this means is that how your pitch repertoire interacts with itself is now a major component to pitching success, one that MLB teams work on during development. And scouts don't know any of that. As you point out, they can only look at Houck's 4S in isolation. They don't know that it makes his sinker, already a good pitch, that much more effective.
Scouting a pitch in isolation rather than looking at possible development is an interesting topic. Reminds me that going back three or four years Mata was seen as a guy who just didn't walk anyone and then all of a sudden his walk rate ballooned and people were anxious. The thing is that there were stories at that time which indicated the Sox were getting Mata to add a pitch (I can't recall if it was a slider or 2S) and had him throwing his "worst pitch" a lot. So his performance suffered (similar to Houck and the 4S) but his development was pushed ahead of game performance. I guess there is always a possibility of a pitchers confidence being shaken or the pitcher being stubborn and resisting. On the other hand if a pitcher is willing to go away from his strengths and work through learning a new pitch I would think that is a sign of strong character.
|
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 8,925
|
Post by ericmvan on Sept 22, 2020 9:09:28 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by philsbosoxfan on Sept 22, 2020 11:09:33 GMT -5
Just a thought. If high or low movement of 4 seamer are both better than average movement, that would suggest a reaction pattern from the batter. If that's the case, it would seem that the more experienced a batter is, the more likely that's ingrained. Or not, LOL. That's a really interesting idea. But they are also experiencing the range of pitch movement, and could learn that. What this means, I think, is that we may be able to get some insight on aging curves by hypothesizing differences between players. There's the first ascending curve where you learn to identify basic spin, and then the second where you learn to differentiate among different versions of the pitch from different pitchers. You can measure how quickly a hitter adapts to a pitch by a pitcher much better now than before, using Statcast data instead of results. And that adaptation has both an in-game curve and a career curve. I know I've come across at least one case of a hitter who struggled with an ace early in his career but learned to hit him really well. Devers seems to have a really fast learning curve, by which I mean instant. I'm sure you can recall him being fooled on a pitch, the pitcher throwing it again, and him smoking it.
Assuming there is some sort of bell curve around the median FB movement plots, wouldn't that depend on where the movement is relative to the bell curve ? As you get further out on either side, the instances of a batter seeing that are rarer and rarer.
|
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 8,925
|
Post by ericmvan on Sept 23, 2020 16:01:55 GMT -5
That's a really interesting idea. But they are also experiencing the range of pitch movement, and could learn that. What this means, I think, is that we may be able to get some insight on aging curves by hypothesizing differences between players. There's the first ascending curve where you learn to identify basic spin, and then the second where you learn to differentiate among different versions of the pitch from different pitchers. You can measure how quickly a hitter adapts to a pitch by a pitcher much better now than before, using Statcast data instead of results. And that adaptation has both an in-game curve and a career curve. I know I've come across at least one case of a hitter who struggled with an ace early in his career but learned to hit him really well. Devers seems to have a really fast learning curve, by which I mean instant. I'm sure you can recall him being fooled on a pitch, the pitcher throwing it again, and him smoking it.
Assuming there is some sort of bell curve around the median FB movement plots, wouldn't that depend on where the movement is relative to the bell curve ? As you get further out on either side, the instances of a batter seeing that are rarer and rarer. The brain would develop an unconscious algorithm where observed velo and spin -> projected movement -> change in swing. It's complicated by the fact that sliders have different spin axes as well as spin rates. But still, the brain learns to see spin, add velo, and calculates where the ball ends up. It's possible that a slider with a very strange combo of spin axis and rate would fool the system and need to be learned individually, but I think that in general the brain learns to predict slider movement collectively, by the predictable translation of spin and velo to movement.
So the learning curve here is actually learning the spin and velo of a given pitcher so that seeing his slider triggers the correct algorithmic response. You are training the input to the neural network, not the whole network itself. You do hear hitters say "X's whatever-pitch is really tough to pick up."
With a low-level enough measure of result (swing quality), you could determine the adaptation trend for every combination of pitcher, pitch, and hitter. You could get crazy-good insights from that.
The last step would be to do DNA analysis of the gifted hitters. The bit they left out of Gatacca was where Dads could tell the genetic engineers, "I want my boy to be able to hit the slider."
One unexpected consequence, if all this is true, that changing movement on your pitches is just as important as changing speeds. And we do see guys who consciously throw a given pitch with different movements.
I do know that changing movement makes it significantly harder to command a pitch. Dice-K started with a very distinct cutter, slider, curve, and after he got hurt. his breaking balls stopped grouping that way and became a huge mess of different spins. According to my theory, that would make them tougher to hit ... but what actually happened was that he lost his ability to command them at the same time he stopped spinning them consistently.
|
|
|
Post by philsbosoxfan on Sept 23, 2020 20:01:25 GMT -5
Assuming there is some sort of bell curve around the median FB movement plots, wouldn't that depend on where the movement is relative to the bell curve ? As you get further out on either side, the instances of a batter seeing that are rarer and rarer. The brain would develop an unconscious algorithm where observed velo and spin -> projected movement -> change in swing. It's complicated by the fact that sliders have different spin axes as well as spin rates. But still, the brain learns to see spin, add velo, and calculates where the ball ends up. It's possible that a slider with a very strange combo of spin axis and rate would fool the system and need to be learned individually, but I think that in general the brain learns to predict slider movement collectively, by the predictable translation of spin and velo to movement. So the learning curve here is actually learning the spin and velo of a given pitcher so that seeing his slider triggers the correct algorithmic response. You are training the input to the neural network, not the whole network itself. You do hear hitters say "X's whatever-pitch is really tough to pick up."
With a low-level enough measure of result (swing quality), you could determine the adaptation trend for every combination of pitcher, pitch, and hitter. You could get crazy-good insights from that.
The last step would be to do DNA analysis of the gifted hitters. The bit they left out of Gatacca was where Dads could tell the genetic engineers, "I want my boy to be able to hit the slider." One unexpected consequence, if all this is true, that changing movement on your pitches is just as important as changing speeds. And we do see guys who consciously throw a given pitch with different movements.
I do know that changing movement makes it significantly harder to command a pitch. Dice-K started with a very distinct cutter, slider, curve, and after he got hurt. his breaking balls stopped grouping that way and became a huge mess of different spins. According to my theory, that would make them tougher to hit ... but what actually happened was that he lost his ability to command them at the same time he stopped spinning them consistently. Then it would follow that the brain algorithm would be highly dependent on the shape of the bell. Taken to extremes, if a batter saw 1000 pitches, 1 had plus movement, 998 had average movement and 1 had minus movement, the algorithm would be significantly different than if the distribution was 300 plus movement, 400 average movement & 300 minus movement.
|
|
|