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.
6/29-7/1 Red Sox @ Yankees Series Thread
|
Post by Guidas on Jul 2, 2018 13:02:03 GMT -5
Joe C and Tim N were discussing quite a stat - at the half way point of the season, collectively, there are more Ks than hits. So perhaps the ball - or that is part of it - but also the HR or K mentality of the approach being used so widely. If there was a theme to this year's SABR Convention, it was the disturbing rise in strikeouts (and homers, but since that's the ball, it can be fixed). I'm Chair of the Science and Baseball Committee and we have devoted our last several meetings to discussing ways the game might be changed to reduce strikeouts. Strikeouts rose steadily in MLB along with HRs from 1920 to 1995. At that point, the Ruth Revolution was complete; there was essentially no one left who prioritized making contact, even if relatively softly, over hitting the ball as hard as possible. Strikeouts then were flat through 2007. In the last 11 seasons they've gone up 34%. Your first guess might be that it's increased pitch velocity that is largely driving this. That would be incorrect. It's almost entirely pitch velocity. We happen to have accurate pitch velocity from 2007, when pitch/fx started, and the rise in velo explains 95% of the rise in strikeouts. The Statcast era that you allude to has increased pitches per plate appearance for the first time in a long while, and that explains another 3%. Furthermore, note that there wasn't any change in P/PA until 2016 despite strikeouts steadily rising, and on average it takes 1.5 pitches more to strike out a batter than to get him out via contact (that stat courtesy David Smith's excellent conference presentation). That's just more swings and misses, without any improvement in hardness of contact. The strike zone can be shrunk and standardized. But something else has to be done. We've kicked around a ton of ideas and the one we've settled on is this: Make the ball just a bit heavier. Furthermore (this idea is largely Chuck Hildebrandt's, and the proper physics comes from Alan Nathan), if you place the extra weight just under the cover, you will reduce the spin rate and hence the amount of break on all pitches. It won't mess with hitters at all -- everyone's stuff will just look a little less nasty to them. There are trainers who use heavier baseballs (Kyle Boddy, for one), so we should have some data about the relationship of ball weight to velocity, plus it doesn't seem like making the ball heavier would be an injury risk. Right now the ball must be between 5 and 5 1/4 ounces, and if you made that 5 1/8 to 5 3/8, that's a 2.5% increase in weight, and that would reduce velo by the same amount (give or take any changes in biomechanics, which should be minimal). You could gradually double that over a few more years and probably not mess with pitchers. That would make 95 the new 100, and that's pretty much where we were in Nolan Ryan's day. You'd probably see offense go through the roof, so you could then deaden the ball somewhat and we'd see tons of balls in play.
Our plan is to finish the current discussion online, and them I'll write up a report and we'll try to get some publicity with it. It can't be any formal recommendation from SABR, but it can be advertised as the collective recommendation of the committee members.
Did you consider what the variance would be If they got rid of the plate umpires and went to a standardized K zone that remained the same every pitch and inning? It’s fairly obvious the ball’s been juiced but if batters knew what was and was not considered a strike every pitch it seems it would help the offense and eliminate the nearly 40% of close pitches that are incorrectly called.
|
|
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Jul 2, 2018 13:04:29 GMT -5
I tend to not make many season-wide decisions based on 3 1/3rd innings, but I'm not surprised that most are doing it now. When it comes to Price pitching against the Yankees I wish there was more than a sample size of 4.1 innings this year. If he could actually survive the 4th inning maybe we'd have a larger sample size to evaluate his work against NY. I'm mostly kidding, but his numbers against NY with the Sox are large enough of a sample size to be abysmal. How confident can you really be if you had a key game against NY, particularly in October, and you have to rely on Price? I wouldn't expect him to match zeroes with Severino but he has to be able to keep up with Sabathia. I remember him pitching 1 good game against NY - I think it was last year before he got hurt, but that's it. A lot of awful outings. They have his number unfortunately. Take NY out of the equation and Price has some pretty good numbers. Price against NY kind of reminds me of Yankees pitcher Andy Hawkins against the Red Sox. I remember he had 3 outings against the Sox in 1990 and his ERA was 162, not 1.62, but rather 162.00. He lasted 0.1 of an inning in all three starts. He was brutal. Price isn't to that level of awful, but he's not that far off.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Jul 2, 2018 13:06:59 GMT -5
I tend to not make many season-wide decisions based on 3 1/3rd innings, but I'm not surprised that most are doing it now. When it comes to Price pitching against the Yankees I wish there was more than a sample size of 4.1 innings this year. If he could actually survive the 4th inning maybe we'd have a larger sample size to evaluate his work against NY. I'm mostly kidding, but his numbers against NY with the Sox are large enough of a sample size to be abysmal. How confident can you really be if you had a key game against NY, particularly in October, and you have to rely on Price? I wouldn't expect him to match zeroes with Severino but he has to be able to keep up with Sabathia. I remember him pitching 1 good game against NY - I think it was last year before he got hurt, but that's it. A lot of awful outings. They have his number unfortunately. Take NY out of the equation and Price has some pretty good numbers. Price against NY kind of reminds me of Yankees pitcher Andy Hawkins against the Red Sox. I remember he had 3 outings against the Sox in 1990 and his ERA was 162, not 1.62, but rather 162.00. He lasted 0.1 of an inning in all three starts. He was brutal. Price isn't to that level of awful, but he's not that far off. Well I don't worry about things that can't be controlled. I hope that Price pitches like he's capable of because they aren't going to be putting him in the bullpen because he "can't hack it" against the Yankees. He has (had) an under 4 ERA and is mostly good most of the time. Not $31 million good, but certainly better than anyone they could possibly get to replace him. There's no way that he's a pitcher that gives up 5 home runs out of every 8 fly balls all the time.
|
|
|
Post by p23w on Jul 2, 2018 13:07:01 GMT -5
I couldn't have been the only one who was not at all excited when DD signed Price to this ridiculous contract, could I? This guy, even during his best years with the Rays, came up tiny against the Yankees. Big red flag for me there. You weren't. It was a significant overpay.
|
|
|
Post by p23w on Jul 2, 2018 13:29:25 GMT -5
To use a Scherzer to Price comparison is pure folly, The only similarities are their contracts. To suggest that Price go to the bullpen for the playoffs is lunacy. The only way that works is if you are behind and wish to prevent a blowout... this could work against Houston. The hope that Wright can shore up the rotation is legitimate albeit risky. The Sox best chance lies in winning the division and hoping that Paxton takes out Severino. Beyond that the overall health of the playoff rosters will most likely determine the outcome. This team needs some 2013 mojo. A healthy Pedroia could just provide that difference. I wasn't comparing Scherzer to Price. I said the Sox should have signed Scherzer instead of Price a year sooner, especially when they needed the starting pitching at the time. Price's entire postseason career success has come in the bullpen. He's been a disaster when starting games in big moments. Even when he was really good in 2013 (season wise), he was getting bombed. It could also give the bullpen a added arm in the postseason. Price would be way more effective in shorter stints with increased velocity. Prices' post season bullpen "success" has come in games where the Sox were several runs behind... I.E. little or no pressure. This could work against a team with a suspect bullpen. particularly since the addition of JDM. I doubt there will be a suspect bullpen come time for the playoffs. How Price is used for the playoffs will be Cora's decision. If healthy my guess would be that Cora starts Price in the 3 or 4 slot. I just don't like Price in any match up with NY, HSTN, Clev, or Seattle. Heck of a testimonial for the highest paid player on the roster. He is ours, and you win or loose as a team. Here's to hoping the offense is en Fuego come October.
|
|
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Jul 2, 2018 13:56:01 GMT -5
When it comes to Price pitching against the Yankees I wish there was more than a sample size of 4.1 innings this year. If he could actually survive the 4th inning maybe we'd have a larger sample size to evaluate his work against NY. I'm mostly kidding, but his numbers against NY with the Sox are large enough of a sample size to be abysmal. How confident can you really be if you had a key game against NY, particularly in October, and you have to rely on Price? I wouldn't expect him to match zeroes with Severino but he has to be able to keep up with Sabathia. I remember him pitching 1 good game against NY - I think it was last year before he got hurt, but that's it. A lot of awful outings. They have his number unfortunately. Take NY out of the equation and Price has some pretty good numbers. Price against NY kind of reminds me of Yankees pitcher Andy Hawkins against the Red Sox. I remember he had 3 outings against the Sox in 1990 and his ERA was 162, not 1.62, but rather 162.00. He lasted 0.1 of an inning in all three starts. He was brutal. Price isn't to that level of awful, but he's not that far off. Well I don't worry about things that can't be controlled. I hope that Price pitches like he's capable of because they aren't going to be putting him in the bullpen because he "can't hack it" against the Yankees. He has (had) an under 4 ERA and is mostly good most of the time. Not $31 million good, but certainly better than anyone they could possibly get to replace him. There's no way that he's a pitcher that gives up 5 home runs out of every 8 fly balls all the time. His ERA is over 8 against the Yankees over the past 3 years. At what point do you consider it more than random variance? Those fly balls he gave up yesterday weren't pop flies into the first row. They were crushed. If he gets mauled the rest of the time he faces the Yankees this year and they meet up in the post-season and if Wright or Pomeranz are pitching well, I think you'd be crazy not to question if he should be in the 4 man rotation against NY. He already has enough issues starting in the post-season. While I think a lot of it is hogwash, the fact is it becomes a huge story in the media, just like this game was - you'd think it was the 7th game of the ALCS the way it was handled in the media, but with all eyes watching him, he came up small - yet again. Notice there was very little talk about Price in the pen last year and it was hardly scrutinized last season and he pitched brilliantly. I have no idea how much of this is in his head versus how well the Yankees know him or how much is truly random. I suspect it's a bit of each.
|
|
|
Post by pedrofanforever45 on Jul 2, 2018 14:34:24 GMT -5
I wasn't comparing Scherzer to Price. I said the Sox should have signed Scherzer instead of Price a year sooner, especially when they needed the starting pitching at the time. Price's entire postseason career success has come in the bullpen. He's been a disaster when starting games in big moments. Even when he was really good in 2013 (season wise), he was getting bombed. It could also give the bullpen a added arm in the postseason. Price would be way more effective in shorter stints with increased velocity. Prices' post season bullpen "success" has come in games where the Sox were several runs behind... I.E. little or no pressure. This could work against a team with a suspect bullpen. That's not true. Price pitched in the only win the Sox had in Game 3 of the ALDS against the Astros last year. I like the idea of Price in the bullpen against any team in the playoffs. It's not a bad thing to add as many quality arms in the bullpen ad you can come playoff time anyways.
|
|
|
Post by pedrofanforever45 on Jul 2, 2018 17:00:40 GMT -5
I wonder if this is a big enough sample size for everyone here. This is frightening.
|
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 8,962
|
Post by ericmvan on Jul 3, 2018 0:40:11 GMT -5
If there was a theme to this year's SABR Convention, it was the disturbing rise in strikeouts (and homers, but since that's the ball, it can be fixed). I'm Chair of the Science and Baseball Committee and we have devoted our last several meetings to discussing ways the game might be changed to reduce strikeouts. Strikeouts rose steadily in MLB along with HRs from 1920 to 1995. At that point, the Ruth Revolution was complete; there was essentially no one left who prioritized making contact, even if relatively softly, over hitting the ball as hard as possible. Strikeouts then were flat through 2007. In the last 11 seasons they've gone up 34%. Your first guess might be that it's increased pitch velocity that is largely driving this. That would be incorrect. It's almost entirely pitch velocity. We happen to have accurate pitch velocity from 2007, when pitch/fx started, and the rise in velo explains 95% of the rise in strikeouts. The Statcast era that you allude to has increased pitches per plate appearance for the first time in a long while, and that explains another 3%. Furthermore, note that there wasn't any change in P/PA until 2016 despite strikeouts steadily rising, and on average it takes 1.5 pitches more to strike out a batter than to get him out via contact (that stat courtesy David Smith's excellent conference presentation). That's just more swings and misses, without any improvement in hardness of contact. The strike zone can be shrunk and standardized. But something else has to be done. We've kicked around a ton of ideas and the one we've settled on is this: Make the ball just a bit heavier. Furthermore (this idea is largely Chuck Hildebrandt's, and the proper physics comes from Alan Nathan), if you place the extra weight just under the cover, you will reduce the spin rate and hence the amount of break on all pitches. It won't mess with hitters at all -- everyone's stuff will just look a little less nasty to them. There are trainers who use heavier baseballs (Kyle Boddy, for one), so we should have some data about the relationship of ball weight to velocity, plus it doesn't seem like making the ball heavier would be an injury risk. Right now the ball must be between 5 and 5 1/4 ounces, and if you made that 5 1/8 to 5 3/8, that's a 2.5% increase in weight, and that would reduce velo by the same amount (give or take any changes in biomechanics, which should be minimal). You could gradually double that over a few more years and probably not mess with pitchers. That would make 95 the new 100, and that's pretty much where we were in Nolan Ryan's day. You'd probably see offense go through the roof, so you could then deaden the ball somewhat and we'd see tons of balls in play.
Our plan is to finish the current discussion online, and them I'll write up a report and we'll try to get some publicity with it. It can't be any formal recommendation from SABR, but it can be advertised as the collective recommendation of the committee members.
Did you consider what the variance would be If they got rid of the plate umpires and went to a standardized K zone that remained the same every pitch and inning? It’s fairly obvious the ball’s been juiced but if batters knew what was and was not considered a strike every pitch it seems it would help the offense and eliminate the nearly 40% of close pitches that are incorrectly called. I have no idea how many of the committee members will agree, but the first part of what I plan to write up will be as strong an argument as I can make for automating the strike zone (following a bit about how any fair strike zone needs to be constructed). It includes an argument that's it's fair to include catcher's glove movement to resolve borderline pitches and that, therefore, the art of pitch framing (or at least receiving the ball correctly) will not be removed from the game. I think that removes the only argument against it.
BTW, as I mentioned in another post, the ball is not juiced. It has less drag than previously and hence carriers further when hit with the same exit velocity. All the obvious reasons why the ball might have less drag have been eliminated: the balls are not smoother, the seams are not lower, the ball is not heavier (and juiced a bit to compensate). It happens in domes, too, so it's not the atmosphere.
So they are now looking at less obvious ones, like the mud that umps apply to make the ball less slippery, and reports that the threads may have been made thicker (without, however, changing the height of the seams, and it's unclear why this would reduce drag anyway).
|
|
|