An early look at Pitch f/x for the year

by joker24 on Apr 21, 2008 1:52 PM EDT Comment 13 comments

Figured I'd take a quick look at some of the Cardinals pitchers with the Pitch f/x player cards

I know back regarding Ubaldo Jimenez, consistency of release point wasn't nearly as big an indicator as I thought it would be, but I'm still inclined to think it plays a significant role in command and Wellemeyer has been clearly more consistent with his release point vs. last year. He's also throwing more sliders and fewer changeups (and the changeups he has thrown are actually breaking down more...or rising less technically). Whatever he's doing it's working.

Our favorite pitcher He Hates Me really does have way more velocity though much, much, much to my surprise he's actually getting more vertical "sink" on the ball vs. last year. Didn't see that one coming. I'd probably guess that the slider/curve designations are the result of an updated pitch classifier or something because he threw "curves" last year that had the same characteristics in all 3 categories as the "slider" now...it's still a slurve. I wonder if the velo is a result of relief or mechanics, probably some of both but he's really focusing on keeping that front shoulder closed by my estimation.

Wainwright seems to have tightened up his release point as well and he's getting an extra inch of break on the curve, otherwise he's pretty much the same.

Now for some reeeeeeallllll change year to year: Lohse's curve is an extra 1.71 inches sharper which represents about a 60% improvement on 3.08 inches. He's actually lost some velo off the fastball but he's throwing it way...12%...more. His slider has more break away from right handers while dropping more, probably because he's throwing it nearly 3 mph slower though. He must have completely revamped his changeup because it's breaking in to right handers about 4.5 inches less than last year and it's got more "sink". That's gotta be a different grip or something. And we also see a tighter release point (maybe it's an early in the year thing actually and there just isn't enough "wild ones" to shake up the distribution? cause that's 3/4 more consistent than last year). Again, it's working.

BLooper is throwing a shade harder with some extra lateral life. Changeup is a bit different but general principle he's the same.

Thompson seems to have turned his slider into a curveball, one that has more horizontal movement and more break down though it's slower. His sinker also has way, way more sink to it though he's throwing it 10% less.

Izzy is Izzy though there aren't enough pitches to say anything anyway.

McClellan's slider/curve are pretty filthy according to the movement and he's got 93 to back that up.

One more of interest: Verlander's fastball movement is practically impossible...almost 18 inches on the sinker!!!!!.....by my estimation but it's still not sinking, I'd say he needs to go back to throwing hard though cause he's getting lit.

7 recs | Comment 13 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Excellent post

this is interesting stuff.

Barry Bonds died for your sins.

by JI on Apr 21, 2008 2:02 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

sample size

I do think that the small sample size limits what you can say about the distribution in release point – that is just the nature of distribution – the more samples you take, the more spread you will have. At the end of the season, I suspect that the release points will look very similar between years.

I do like the comparison of the pitch data though. It might be worth looking into individual game performances and comparing movement/pitch selection to the pitchers success. For example – did B Looper’s changeup not change enough yesterday?

by cdb on Apr 21, 2008 3:20 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Yeah obviously I'm thinking that

But Wainwright and Reyes are pretty much the same. Lohse’s I could see just being distribution stuff, but I think Wellemeyer’s is a real change. Plus his sample size is actually about the same from last year (the system wasn’t in all the parks)

With no evidence to the contrary, Colby Rasmus is clutch

by joker24 on Apr 21, 2008 3:59 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

time/fatigue

I also wonder whether season long fatigue could play a role in the smaller distributions. not necesarilly arguing that the wellermeyer distribution is better or worse, but could it be that if you took 4 welly starts from last year and compared them to 4 welly starts this year that the distribution would be the same? I could envision a scenario in which pitchers mechanics will deviate a little more over a 5 month span vs a 3 week span. It isn’t just the number of pitches – but the amount of time over which they were thrown.

That bein said – he has looked great thus far and I am really hoping that he can continue. Looper may end up being the odd man out next time a starter comes off the DL (presumably mulder, but ya just never know…..)

by cdb on Apr 21, 2008 4:44 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

cool stuff

Thanks for posting it.

SUBURBS: Where Americans cut down trees and then name streets after them.

by beanocook on Apr 21, 2008 3:39 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Okay. Does the Cardinals coaching staff look at this?

She isn't crazy, she's just not impressed.

by jillsinmo on Apr 21, 2008 6:50 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Doubt it

Maybe there’s someone out there playing with the data but I’d doubt his input would be too important. They have guys with (accurate) radar guns who have a better eye for this stuff than this system. If Lohse really did transform his changeup, they already know it….if Wellemeyer is repeating his delivery better, they already know it etc. One thing I’ll never underrate is scouts’ ability to read a pitcher’s stuff, it’s really pretty staggering at times. It’s just fun to play with it for us…

With no evidence to the contrary, Colby Rasmus is clutch

by joker24 on Apr 21, 2008 7:27 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Scouts are overrated

I’ll trust a computers opinion of someones stuff over a scouts an day. A human eye cannot judge movement better than a computer. Its that simple.

Scouts can report on things like deception, or control. i.e. is he hitting the target. The computer doesn’t know what the target was, only where the pitch went.

This old school belief in the eye will change in time, the teams that do it first will do well until the other catch up.

by DriverZn on Apr 21, 2008 8:03 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I think there's value

in both scouts and data.

Have you read “Blink” by Malcolm Gladwell? He talks about human split-second decisions. There’s a chapter where sports are discussed. Coaches, pros and scouts have long been able to predict athletic behavior because they are students of the human form. It’s interesting, though of course not verifiable the way data is.

by spants on Apr 21, 2008 8:10 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Trust me on this one

I know this is a leap of faith internet thing, I’m about as saber-friendly as it gets so this is strange even for me, but you have to believe me: I trust a scout’s opinion on “stuff” absolutely. They are seeing things that a computer just isn’t and their estimation of break is more--human—anyway and considering a batter is human that opinion is better IMO e.g. Papelbon’s fastball is universally praised for its “hop” or seeming rise. You aren’t going to quantify that, his break in the z-plane is only slightly more than average right hander there’s nothing in the Pitch f/x data to suggest he has one of the most explosive fastballs in the game. This isn’t even factoring in the inaccuracies of the computers (did Wellemeyer really throw lefthanded a few pitches last year?)

But the best way I can describe it is that the good scouts are just watching a different game. I hate to use this and I’m not trying to be condescending trying to state this factually, but unless you’ve actually sat and talked to these guys for games you just can’t appreciate what exactly they are seeing (assuming they are good, there are bad ones too obviously).

Game strategy I’d leave to the computers, estimating performance to the stats, scouting stuff to the scouts (not that I wouldn’t look at the Pitch F/x stuff too) if I was running things.

With no evidence to the contrary, Colby Rasmus is clutch

by joker24 on Apr 21, 2008 8:43 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Scouts

I think that scouts have gotten run over a bit in this whole SABR-metric age, and in some cases with good reason, but there is a ton of value in what they have to say. They aren’t some shlub sitting in the stands with a beer in one hand, three hot dogs in the other, and a greasy note pad sitting on their enormous belly. They are professionals who watch baseball for a living and look for very very specific things. If a scout says that someone’s fastball has a ton of armside run or is very heavy, chances are that it’s true. I think Pitch F/X is an interesting and valuable system, but its not going to get anything past a good scouting department.

"Your Holiness, I'm Joseph Medwick. I, too, used to be a Cardinal."-Joe Medwick, to Pope Pius XII.

by redbirdnation8206 on Apr 22, 2008 9:10 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Lohse

Interesting stuff. I remember going though the free agent pitchers cards from last year, and thinking one of Lohse’s bright points was his tight release. Looks even better so far this year.

I looked at that and made the assumption he is a polished product. A known quantity. Figured then that if we were to sign him he’d be what he had always been. And figured he was certain to get multiple years to be consistently mediocre and believed we should stay away.

Well I was wrong on many counts. He didn’t get the years, and I am glad to have him for a 1 year deal. He has the nice consistent release still, but his stuff appears to have been worked on and improved. Still quite early, but he has been much better than I had anticipated. I was just glad to get an innings eater for a year. This stuff is gravy.

Just as an aside, I looked at Weavers card last winter too. It was interesting because he relied on his slider quite a bit, but really telegraphs that thing. My impression was that was an obvious thing that shows up and could be worked with. So I thought he had more potential to improve vs. Lohse but also a greater chance of blowing up. Thought Weaver was the one if you wanted to gamble for lightning in a bottle, and Lohse was the one if you wanted a steady eddie innings eater.

Interesting info there – looks like a reasonable explanation for why, so far, Lohse has been so much more productive than historically.

by Merry CRasmus on Apr 22, 2008 2:39 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs