|
Post by James Dunne on Dec 23, 2014 15:57:51 GMT -5
Middlebrooks isn't a very cerebral hitter in my opinion. I'm not sure if anyone else feels that this is a fair assessment, but it's why I don't have much faith in him ever being consistent. I disagree. There's a huge difference between plate approach and pitch recognition. It's unfair that hitters who are able to identify the strike zone are labeled as smarter. Though the visual cortex is part of the cerebrum so I guess you are technically correct.
|
|
|
Post by sarasoxer on Dec 23, 2014 16:03:59 GMT -5
Middlebrooks isn't a very cerebral hitter in my opinion. I'm not sure if anyone else feels that this is a fair assessment, but it's why I don't have much faith in him ever being consistent. I disagree. There's a huge difference between plate approach and pitch recognition. It's unfair that hitters who are able to identify the strike zone are labeled as smarter. Though the visual cortex is part of the cerebrum so I guess you are technically correct. Hmm not sure where you came out here. The amazing thing is that WMB kept going downhill AND was totally devoid of power. The few balls I saw him apparently hit hard last year died on the track....no light-tower power on display.
|
|
nomar
Veteran
Posts: 10,815
Member is Online
|
Post by nomar on Dec 23, 2014 16:15:14 GMT -5
Middlebrooks isn't a very cerebral hitter in my opinion. I'm not sure if anyone else feels that this is a fair assessment, but it's why I don't have much faith in him ever being consistent. I disagree. There's a huge difference between plate approach and pitch recognition. It's unfair that hitters who are able to identify the strike zone are labeled as smarter. Though the visual cortex is part of the cerebrum so I guess you are technically correct. Both his approach and recognition are below average though, no?
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Dec 23, 2014 16:17:44 GMT -5
Very few hitters who have a bad approach at the major league level are guys who have the ability to recognize when pitches are outside of the zone but just refuse to stop swinging at them. You have to give these guys more credit-- they're not idiots who just don't realize that swinging at balls in the dirt is a bad idea. They're guys who can't read the spin/trajectory of pitches well enough to lay off the bad ones and swing at the good ones. The fact that they're guess hitters doesn't mean they're stubborn or not cerebral, it means they lack the otherworldly visual acuity and mental processing ability necessary to have plus pitch recognition. (And as I've said, the same is true for pitchers with bad control-- it's not that they don't want to throw strikes, it's that they can't.)
|
|
nomar
Veteran
Posts: 10,815
Member is Online
|
Post by nomar on Dec 23, 2014 16:30:59 GMT -5
Yeah, may have been too harsh. I still have a hard time believing in him between these problems and his durability. I hope he does do well, but even if he does, I think consistency (year to year) will remain an issue. I think it was time to go separate ways.
|
|
|
Post by fenwaythehardway on Dec 23, 2014 16:34:32 GMT -5
I don't think that "approach" is something a batter actually has all that much choice in. They can be selective (or not selective) about the pitches they're looking to hit, but no one chooses to swing at a slider low and away. It's mostly question of visual recognition, reflexes, bat speed/control, and plate coverage.
|
|
|
Post by sarasoxer on Dec 23, 2014 18:02:16 GMT -5
This was a matter I inquired about on this site at least once but there was never any input given. It may be that people here just don't know. But what I remember is similar to what you reported...that is that he tried contact lenses and/or glasses but for whatever reason(s) did not continue. I can't imagine it was a vanity thing with glasses especially given the potential benefit. I do know that contact lenses dry out when one is outside and that degrades vision. I wear contacts. Indoors I have 20-10 or 20-15 vision. Once outside and while playing golf with breezes and staring at a shot or a distant target I see much less well. If WMB is nearsighted, perhaps your suggestion of surgery is the best solution of all. While I think at this point the trade benefits us, I sure hate to give up on the guy that was such a stud upon arrival. He was never a great fielder though and I did not see that improving much due to a perceived lack of athleticism.
|
|
|
Post by Steve Henley on Dec 23, 2014 18:14:59 GMT -5
This was a matter I inquired about on this site at least once but there was never any input given. It may be that people here just don't know. But what I remember is similar to what you reported...that is that he tried contact lenses and/or glasses but for whatever reason(s) did not continue. I can't imagine it was a vanity thing with glasses especially given the potential benefit. I do know that contact lenses dry out when one is outside and that degrades vision. I wear contacts. Indoors I have 20-10 or 20-15 vision. Once outside and while playing golf with breezes and staring at a shot or a distant target I see much less well. If WMB is nearsighted, perhaps your suggestion of surgery is the best solution of all. While I think at this point the trade benefits us, I sure hate to give up on the guy that was such a stud upon arrival. He was never a great fielder though and I did not see that improving much due to a perceived lack of athleticism. He didn't like wearing contacts during games and he refuses to get LASIK surgery. It was been reported/speculated that the Red Sox were none too pleased with it.
|
|
|
Post by mredsox89 on Dec 23, 2014 18:36:48 GMT -5
This was a matter I inquired about on this site at least once but there was never any input given. It may be that people here just don't know. But what I remember is similar to what you reported...that is that he tried contact lenses and/or glasses but for whatever reason(s) did not continue. I can't imagine it was a vanity thing with glasses especially given the potential benefit. I do know that contact lenses dry out when one is outside and that degrades vision. I wear contacts. Indoors I have 20-10 or 20-15 vision. Once outside and while playing golf with breezes and staring at a shot or a distant target I see much less well. If WMB is nearsighted, perhaps your suggestion of surgery is the best solution of all. While I think at this point the trade benefits us, I sure hate to give up on the guy that was such a stud upon arrival. He was never a great fielder though and I did not see that improving much due to a perceived lack of athleticism. He didn't like wearing contacts during games and he refuses to get LASIK surgery. It was been reported/speculated that the Red Sox were none too pleased with it. Which is crazy given how quick/easy it has become, and obviously cost isn't a factor for him. I got it done in October 2013, and was at the ALCS at Fenway the next night with nearly 20/20 vision after having been at 20/150 36 hours prior. One of the best decisions I've ever made, and though it was pretty freaky for about 20 minutes during the procedure, I'd recommend it to anyone who qualifies and can afford it. They've learned a ton about it in even just the last 5-10 years and have a much better idea on who to reject based on pre procedure testing and likely complications. I'd be pretty ticked off to if I were the Sox and he refused to have the surgery or even wear contacts, and then refuse to go to winter ball. I mean I guess I can understand a baseball player not wanting to change their vision if things are going well, but pitch recognition seems to be one of his biggest problems, so how much harm could it do?
|
|
|
Post by raftsox on Dec 23, 2014 20:24:44 GMT -5
I'm of the opinion that "framing" is waaaaay overrated. Yes, it's a skill that can potentially steal some strikes, but there are too many factors in play that aren't accurately accounted for. Some of them are: pitcher and batter handedness, day/night games, which umpire is calling balls and strikes, game situation (ie, blowout or close?), pitch count, pitch type and movement, pitch sequencing, batter swing frequency, etc. All of these effect the perception of balls and strikes at least as much as catcher framing skills. Please expand on why the way BP's methodology accounts for batter handedness, which umpire is behind the plate and pitch count is not accurate. Once you're done with that we can start discussing whether the other factors you mentioned are actually relevant. Because I don't read BP I don't know anything about their methodology. And frankly if you don't think things like pitch type and movement are important in ball/strike calls then you don't understand baseball.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Dec 23, 2014 21:22:31 GMT -5
Because I don't read BP I don't know anything about their methodology. "I don't know how it works, but it's wrong!"
|
|
|
Post by mgoetze on Dec 24, 2014 5:31:57 GMT -5
And frankly if you don't think things like pitch type and movement are important in ball/strike calls then you don't understand baseball. I didn't say that, I'm simply pointing out that you've made so many uninformed claims at once that it's pointless to try and discuss them all at the same time. If you're convinced of everything you said you should be happy to discuss the points in any order. If you'd like to pare down your list of claims instead, that's fine too - but while you're at it please also make it clearer how you think that e.g. pitch type needs to be accounted for and why the fact that various pitch types are thrown make framing "overrated". Or did you just want to spout your opinion and not plan on engaging in any sort of discussion of it? In that case may I recommend that you start a blog instead of joining a discussion forum.
|
|
|
Post by chavopepe2 on Dec 24, 2014 7:01:19 GMT -5
I'm excited about the current push to measure pitch framing. Like defense several years ago, it is an important part of a players value that isn't properly taken into account because it is left to the eye test to determine its effect on a players value.
With that said, like with defensive metrics I would expect several changes and refinements in the coming years. I'm not convinced we have the formula down yet. And I'm definitely not convinced that the magnitude of pitching framing relative to hitting or defense is being properly weighted.
I do think were at least at a point where we can tell who is strong and who is weak and be able to some extent measure the relative difference.
I'm excited to see where it goes in the coming years.
|
|
|
Post by raftsox on Dec 24, 2014 8:00:05 GMT -5
And frankly if you don't think things like pitch type and movement are important in ball/strike calls then you don't understand baseball. I didn't say that, I'm simply pointing out that you've made so many uninformed claims at once that it's pointless to try and discuss them all at the same time. If you're convinced of everything you said you should be happy to discuss the points in any order. If you'd like to pare down your list of claims instead, that's fine too - but while you're at it please also make it clearer how you think that e.g. pitch type needs to be accounted for and why the fact that various pitch types are thrown make framing "overrated". Or did you just want to spout your opinion and not plan on engaging in any sort of discussion of it? In that case may I recommend that you start a blog instead of joining a discussion forum. Interesting how you're so hell bent on attacking. How can you not think pitch type and movement aren't important? I don't see a rational argument for them being unimportant. Pitch sequence matters because you can alter the appearance of of the strike zone to the umpire. For example: climbing the ladder on a batter. Game situation is a well known effect, but I'll explain it anyways. If the game is a blowout the zone expands. There have been papers written on this. In the opposite game situation where it's close and leverage is high the zone becomes tighter as each pitch is scrutinized more. I'm of the opinion that pitch framing, akin to defensive metrics, is in its infancy. There is good work being performed, but the total value is currently incorrect. I'm glad you're buying everything without thinking for yourself though.
|
|
|
Post by mgoetze on Dec 24, 2014 8:15:14 GMT -5
Interesting how you're so hell bent on strawman arguments that even when I point out I didn't say something you try to shove it right back into my mouth.
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Dec 24, 2014 8:24:44 GMT -5
I'm pretty sure the issue is that the way you worded "Please expand on why the way BP's methodology accounts for batter handedness, which umpire is behind the plate and pitch count is not accurate." and the rest of that post is easy to read incorrectly. Took me a few times.
Anyway, I'm pretty sure you guys are agreeing on a lot of things here if you want to take two seconds, stop being unnecessarily snarky with one another, and get back to square one.
|
|
|
Post by mgoetze on Dec 24, 2014 8:43:59 GMT -5
I'm sorry, English is not my first language. I shall endeavour to articulate myself more clearly in the future.
|
|
|
Post by sarasoxer on Dec 24, 2014 11:24:34 GMT -5
I'm excited about the current push to measure pitch framing. Like defense several years ago, it is an important part of a players value that isn't properly taken into account because it is left to the eye test to determine its effect on a players value. With that said, like with defensive metrics I would expect several changes and refinements in the coming years. I'm not convinced we have the formula down yet. And I'm definitely not convinced that the magnitude of pitching framing relative to hitting or defense is being properly weighted. I do think were at least at a point where we can tell who is strong and who is weak and be able to some extent measure the relative difference. I'm excited to see where it goes in the coming years. Someday (soon) the stats books will look like the IRS code. We still have Univac don't we...to crunch and cross-reference and factor the algorithms?
|
|
|
Post by 111soxfan111 on Dec 24, 2014 11:54:16 GMT -5
Hmm, maybe there should be a framing thread. As far as the original topic of the thread goes, this is a great trade. It's a bummer we had to sell so low on WMB but Hanigan is a fine return and is exactly what we needed. Cheap enough to be easily traded if we don't need him next year and still under contract in 2016 if Swihart isn't ready yet. He won't bring a lot of value with the bat but can get on base at a decent clip and he's actually a good catcher. I love Ross but this is a clear upgrade as far as I'm concerned.
|
|
|
Post by down225 on Dec 24, 2014 12:15:17 GMT -5
Hmm, maybe there should be a framing thread. As far as the original topic of the thread goes, this is a great trade. It's a bummer we had to sell so low on WMB but Hanigan is a fine return and is exactly what we needed. Cheap enough to be easily traded if we don't need him next year and still under contract in 2016 if Swihart isn't ready yet. He won't bring a lot of value with the bat but can get on base at a decent clip and he's actually a good catcher. I love Ross but this is a clear upgrade as far as I'm concerned. Totally agree, especially the bolded part.
|
|
|
Post by pedroelgrande on Dec 24, 2014 12:41:40 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by mgoetze on Dec 24, 2014 12:57:30 GMT -5
Someday (soon) the stats books will look like the IRS code. We still have Univac don't we...to crunch and cross-reference and factor the algorithms? You can go out and buy a $10 pocket calculator that has more computing power than UNIVAC.
|
|
|
Post by sarasoxer on Dec 24, 2014 13:02:59 GMT -5
Someday (soon) the stats books will look like the IRS code. We still have Univac don't we...to crunch and cross-reference and factor the algorithms? You can go out and buy a $10 pocket calculator that has more computing power than UNIVAC. Nah....$5 ought to do it. I was kidding.
|
|
|
Post by tonyc on Dec 24, 2014 14:30:13 GMT -5
Django,
I am in the medical field and also have a bunch of eye history- retinal detachements. An alternative to Lasik, depending upon certain factors may be cataract surgery, which would replace the lens in your eye. Eventually eyes develope cataracts over time and this may need to be done. One downside is that unlike the natural eye, the lens has a primary focal ability, near or far. Quite often one eye is down to focus on each. There is a new lens which can be multifocal, but experimental at this stage, and not for people with astigmatism. The end result for me was a correction from 20/300 unaided, to close to 20/20. I do not recommend those quick mall clinics, but a major clinic or hospital, best of luck.
|
|
|
Post by ryantoworkman on Dec 24, 2014 14:43:20 GMT -5
TonyC, I can't thank you enough for your words there. After a life with 20-10/20-15 vision I've developed Cataracts in my mid 50s and now can't read the television from 8 feet away. I was about to undergo Cataract surgery and was unaware of the lens issue. Perhaps I'll reopen the discussion with my doc to see what the timeline is for multi-focal lenses to move beyond experimental.
|
|