Prior 3/22

[SaorsaDaonnan]

I still say there is NO way that the pitch to Khalil Greene was 89.

 

agree 100%. we know Maddux and Hill's velocity and the gun on the broadcast was accurate for them. if what they are saying about the gun is true, than Maddux' fastball is about 82-83.

 

Maybe, maybe not...depends on the physics. Maybe a radar gun is always off by a fixed number---3 MPH too fast, 1 MPH too slow, ect.

 

Remember your old y = mx + b stuff from high school? Well, you're assuming that when a radar gun is badly calibrated, m still equals one. Is that a good assumption? I have no clue. [/i]

[UK1679666180]

Some of you are put too much importance into the radar gun as well as the accuracy of them.

 

They will always be different, if you have 10 stalker guns lined up in a row, about half will be different. If the scouts are sitting close enough to each other they can get an idea of what it was, if they aren't, then it becomes a question.

 

I'd be more concerned of where his velocity is sitting rather than what it reaches as well if he can get his breaking pitch to become a plus pitch again with command and movement. I would include FB life and command into the FB equation as well as velo.

Edited March 23, 2007 by UK

[Mephistopheles]

a gun that the team puts in a fixed place is going to be more accurate than a scouts gun, assuming that they both are calibrated correctly.

 

A team can measure the angle(s) of the gun relative to the flight of the path and make an adjustment based on the reading that the gun gives them. Think intro physics where the movement is one direction and the viewers is looking differently. Gotta love Newton's billion theories he didnt create.

 

Anyways a scout doesn't measure the exact angle he's shooting at, so he could be off some.

 

In this case the gun the team/tv used is probably NOT measured off with the angle included because its a ST park. The one at Wrigley might. I do know the one at Enron is. They have the gun (or used to) at the top of the netting behind home plate and it's off the line from home to the mound by i dunno 20 degrees or so horizontally, and then it is off that same line about say 35 degrees vertically.

 

Again this really means nothing here if they used the same gun. I don't know. Just my 2 cents. Maybe they were the same gun. The TV displayed adjusted values (maybe from the same formula they use to adjust the wrigley one?) and the gun read 86 MPH. I dont know the layout.

 

EDIT: Comparing the readings to guys we know (Maddux and Hill) and making judgements based on that is probably the best thing. The relationship wont be linear, but since the guns are calibrated to detect a wide range of speeds, its likey theyre pretty damn linear on a small interval like (85,95)

[A New Era]

Hey, whether the gun said 93, the scouts gun said 89. That strikeout pitch looked FAST, and REAL GOOD. It danced it's way into Barret's mitt. That can get major leaguer's out. That's all that mattered to me. His pitches in the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th inning had movement, and he had great control. And confidence. That's the most important thing. He was looking like I hadn't seen him look in over a year. .

[Mephistopheles]

uggggh do you really think your eyes can tell the difference of 4 mph, on TV, at an angle that's nearly right behind the object in motion?

 

i dont think so.

[Magnetic Curses]

his arm strength isn't built up yet, it will come. there's physucally wrong with prior, unless his psychological problems are organic.

[Sarcastic]

uggggh do you really think your eyes can tell the difference of 4 mph, on TV, at an angle that's nearly right behind the object in motion?

 

i dont think so.

 

I think his point was that Prior's pitches looked more effective, regardless of their exact velocity, which I think we can agree on.

[Soul]

uggggh do you really think your eyes can tell the difference of 4 mph, on TV, at an angle that's nearly right behind the object in motion?

 

i dont think so.

 

I think his point was that Prior's pitches looked more effective, regardless of their exact velocity, which I think we can agree on.

 

The thing I found most encouraging was that Mark actually pitched more effectively.

 

Beyond that, there seemed to be some mild hope that his fastball was sharper.

[SaorsaDaonnan]

Perhaps we can understand A New Era's post as supporting UK's general line of thinking. UK, if I understand him, advances two points: first, that radar guns aren't reliable enough to be worth worrying over, and, second, that actual fastball velocity (as opposed to measured velocity) is only one of many parameters determinitive of pitcher performance.

 

A New Era's main point seems to be that whatever the actual speed of Prior's fastball, it was lively and really fooling hitters. In saying this, A New Era is clearly agreeing with UK that we should worry about movement just as much as velocity. A New Era then adds that since Prior's command and confidence were much better, our overall assessment of his last outing should be positive.

 

I support this line of thinking and (following common sense) would add that the reports of a much-improved curveball help Prior develop a fuller ability to change speeds and eye level.

 

At this point it looks like there is a wide consensus that we should be encouraged about Prior's recovery as well as his better numbers. The real question isn't whether Prior is better, but whether A) Prior is likely to keep improving and B) whether he is good enough as he is, Although many of the above posts focus on the disappointment of learning that Prior was only in the high 80s rather than the lower 90s, surely the real reason so many posters remain downbeat is that they're worried that Prior isn't good enough as he is and are worried he won't improve. Since Prior's control and movement seem at least decent right now, it isn't unreasonable for worries to focus on his fastball velocity.

 

If I remember correctly, UK has argued that command and movement are more generally important than velocity among pitchers with major-league stuff. Many of the posters who continue to be pessimistic about Prior's performances may be nervous because they think, contra UK, that good fastball velocity is one of the most important characteristics of a successfull major league pitcher. Another worry focuses on Prior's ability to adapt to a reduced arsenal; for instance, whether he will learn tostop throwing high middle-out fastballs on 2-1 counts. My own view is that UK (again, if I remember his views correctly) is right about pitchers in general, but that Prior will make the adjustments on a much longer timescale than we should be willing to be happy about

 

At least for those of us who believe that good fastball velocity is comparatively important (whether to Prior or to ML pitchers generally), the question of radar guns reintroduces itself, not as a matter of evaluating how well Prior threw yesterday but as a question about whether, as Sulleymon believes, his velocity is continuing to improve. So, whereas the UK / A New Era posts seem to me like last word on how we should feel about yesterday, I believe that Mephistopheles' excellent points about the observation angles of radar guns reenter the picture. At this point I have a question about UK's argument: he is clearly arguing that one radar gun is very different from another and that few of them are very accurate. Is he also arguing that none of them are very precise? If so, the velocity issue may become a lot harder for us to discuss.

 

One more thing:

 

 

there's physucally wrong with prior, unless his psychological problems are organic.

 

Sulley, could you explain what you mean by this? What does "organic" mean in this context?

[David]

his arm strength isn't built up yet, it will come. there's physucally wrong with prior, unless his psychological problems are organic.

 

What?

[UK1679666180]

I believe that Mephistopheles' excellent points about the observation angles of radar guns reenter the picture. At this point I have a question about UK's argument: he is clearly arguing that one radar gun is very different from another and that few of them are very accurate. Is he also arguing that none of them are very precise? If so, the velocity issue may become a lot harder for us to discuss.

 

Overall they're accurate (I have 2 of them one Stalker and one JUGS), but if you have a pitcher throwing 70 pitches and ten guns on him, there's bound to be an odd reading out of the 700 readings. If he's been at 87-89 most of the time and he gets one of the reading at 93, there's not much of a conclusion there from that 93.

 

As far as angles, it doesn't matter much as long as you are within about a 0-15 degree swing. A scout won't run his gun sitting by the on deck circle and are always within accurate range behind home plate.

[Sarcastic]

http://mlb.mlb.com/news/article.jsp?ymd=20070323&content_id=1856259&vkey=spt2007news&fext=.jsp

 

MESA, Ariz. -- Mark Prior passed all the tests the day after his third Cactus League game, and the Cubs right-hander will get another start next Wednesday to see if he is ready for the regular season.

[SaorsaDaonnan]

 

Overall they're accurate (I have 2 of them one Stalker and one JUGS), but if you have a pitcher throwing 70 pitches and ten guns on him, there's bound to be an odd reading out of the 700 readings. If he's been at 87-89 most of the time and he gets one of the reading at 93, there's not much of a conclusion there from that 93.

 

Hm...I'll keep my mouth shut about the angles question, you and Mephistopheles obviously know more about it than I. But I still interested in the accuracy/precision question.

 

In your earlier post, you said that we should be more concerned with average velocity than where Prior topped out. I originally thought you were making a conceptual point about actual velocity: that a couple outlying pitchers aren't going to have much effect on a pitchers' performance, whereas his the velocity he normally throws his fastball at will be much more important (albeit only one of many factors). Now I'm wondering if you meant, instead of that, to tell us that we shouldn't worry about outlyingly high measured velocity because the data is probably unreliable. Of course, these points are not incompatible...did you mean both?

 

Also -and thank you for taking the time to explain this, if you choose to- I want to be sure that I understand what you're saying in the paragraph quoted above. It sounds like you're saying that, datum by datum you can't trust a radar gun, but that if it sees plenty of pitches it will average out to the right answer. In other words, that you shouldn't use a radar gun to say "this pitch was 87 whereas that one was 89," but that it [is] okay to think that a radar gun seeing, say, a hundred of a guy's fastballs, a hundred curves, a hundred changeups, ect, will reliably tell you what his acutual fastball speed is, and what his avg. curveball speed is, ect. Is that right?

 

 

 

[/i]is

[UK1679666180]

I value where a pitcher sits with his velocity moreso than where he can bring it once in awhile to get a hitter out in a key situation.

 

If Prior throws 70 pitches (55 fastballs), his range probably was 85-91 with 5 probably 90-91 and 5 probably 85-86, with the other 45 87-89. That 87-89 is more important than either side of the spectrum, espec. if he did get 1 or 2 at 93. This is also more important for a starter than a reliever, who's exerting more energy than a starter conserving his for a 110 pitch performance,

 

You can trust a radar gun, but if the reading looks odd compared to what he has previously done, it probably is. If Prior had one at 93 and he was sitting 86-87 with maybe one or two more at 90, I think the 93 would be off.

 

In general, many get too caught up with the gun. I'd rather focus on his deception, life, and command of his FB rather than velo as well as the command and break of his curve.

[wade]

I value where a pitcher sits with his velocity moreso than where he can bring it once in awhile to get a hitter out in a key situation.

 

If Prior throws 70 pitches (55 fastballs), his range probably was 85-91 with 5 probably 90-91 and 5 probably 85-86, with the other 45 87-89. That 87-89 is more important than either side of the spectrum, espec. if he did get 1 or 2 at 93. This is also more important for a starter than a reliever, who's exerting more energy than a starter conserving his for a 110 pitch performance,

 

You can trust a radar gun, but if the reading looks odd compared to what he has previously done, it probably is. If Prior had one at 93 and he was sitting 86-87 with maybe one or two more at 90, I think the 93 would be off.

 

In general, many get too caught up with the gun. I'd rather focus on his deception, life, and command of his FB rather than velo as well as the command and break of his curve.

 

But, in the case of a guy like Prior, coming back from injury as he is, isn't it useful to see if he gets back velocity that he routinely showed when he was healthy?

 

Don't get me wrong, I watched his entire outing yesterday and like a lot of what I saw. But when the gun was showing 91 repeatedly I did get more excited because I thought maybe it was showing health and more of a willingness to air it out.

[Guest]

In general, many get too caught up with the gun. I'd rather focus on his deception, life, and command of his FB rather than velo as well as the command and break of his curve.

Yes and no.

 

How many really elite pitchers in MLB sit at 87-89 mph these days? Not very many. Deception, movement and placement are as important as velocity, but it is wrong to downplay the significance of raw speed. The faster the pitch, the more margin for error the pitcher has on everything else.

[RichHillIsABeast]

In general, many get too caught up with the gun. I'd rather focus on his deception, life, and command of his FB rather than velo as well as the command and break of his curve.

Yes and no.

 

How many really elite pitchers in MLB sit at 87-89 mph these days? Not very many. Deception, movement and placement are as important as velocity, but it is wrong to downplay the significance of raw speed. The faster the pitch, the more margin for error the pitcher has on everything else.

 

Well, he's not competing for the 1st spot in the rotation. He'll get there velocity-wise. If his movement is there (k'ed Greene on a FB and made a couple other look dumb on curves) he'll be serviceable and work his way up from there.

[Guest]

In general, many get too caught up with the gun. I'd rather focus on his deception, life, and command of his FB rather than velo as well as the command and break of his curve.

Yes and no.

 

How many really elite pitchers in MLB sit at 87-89 mph these days? Not very many. Deception, movement and placement are as important as velocity, but it is wrong to downplay the significance of raw speed. The faster the pitch, the more margin for error the pitcher has on everything else.

 

Well, he's not competing for the 1st spot in the rotation. He'll get there velocity-wise. If his movement is there (k'ed Greene on a FB and made a couple other look dumb on curves) he'll be serviceable and work his way up from there.

I'm not really talking about the specifics of Prior's case with UK as much as the general argument that too much attention is paid to the speed readings.

 

---------

 

As a quick aside, does it annoy anyone else who has studied physics that the gun readings are called velocity? Velocity is a measurement of speed and direction. Gun readings are just a measurement of speed, not velocity.

 

sorry, geek rant complete. :)

[Mephistopheles]

I believe that Mephistopheles' excellent points about the observation angles of radar guns reenter the picture. At this point I have a question about UK's argument: he is clearly arguing that one radar gun is very different from another and that few of them are very accurate. Is he also arguing that none of them are very precise? If so, the velocity issue may become a lot harder for us to discuss.

 

Overall they're accurate (I have 2 of them one Stalker and one JUGS), but if you have a pitcher throwing 70 pitches and ten guns on him, there's bound to be an odd reading out of the 700 readings. If he's been at 87-89 most of the time and he gets one of the reading at 93, there's not much of a conclusion there from that 93.

 

As far as angles, it doesn't matter much as long as you are within about a 0-15 degree swing. A scout won't run his gun sitting by the on deck circle and are always within accurate range behind home plate.

 

if my math is right, then being over 15 degrees either way is going to produce a reading that's 3-4 MPH off. I'd say that's fairly significant. 15 degrees is going to be about 20-25 feet off the ray pointing out from the mound through home plate. I did it at 40 feet behind the catchers mound, which is probably how far back the backstop is in a minor league park.

 

As a quick aside, does it annoy anyone else who has studied physics that the gun readings are called velocity? Velocity is a measurement of speed and direction. Gun readings are just a measurement of speed, not velocity.

 

it's my understanding that they measure speed in the direction the gun is pointed at. So it really is a velocity.

Edited March 24, 2007 by Mephistopheles

[RichHillIsABeast]

In general, many get too caught up with the gun. I'd rather focus on his deception, life, and command of his FB rather than velo as well as the command and break of his curve.

Yes and no.

 

How many really elite pitchers in MLB sit at 87-89 mph these days? Not very many. Deception, movement and placement are as important as velocity, but it is wrong to downplay the significance of raw speed. The faster the pitch, the more margin for error the pitcher has on everything else.

 

Well, he's not competing for the 1st spot in the rotation. He'll get there velocity-wise. If his movement is there (k'ed Greene on a FB and made a couple other look dumb on curves) he'll be serviceable and work his way up from there.

I'm not really talking about the specifics of Prior's case with UK as much as the general argument that too much attention is paid to the speed readings.

 

---------

 

As a quick aside, does it annoy anyone else who has studied physics that the gun readings are called velocity? Velocity is a measurement of speed and direction. Gun readings are just a measurement of speed, not velocity.

 

sorry, geek rant complete. :)

 

Prior never really blew people away. He just had a smooth delivery with late movement coupled with good offspeed stuff and ridiculous control.

 

aside: velocity is just speed and direction. what direction is the ball usually going? it's not to first base or the OF. direction is usually a relative constant when a pitcher is hurling the ball.

[A New Era]

In general, many get too caught up with the gun. I'd rather focus on his deception, life, and command of his FB rather than velo as well as the command and break of his curve.

Yes and no.

 

How many really elite pitchers in MLB sit at 87-89 mph these days? Not very many. Deception, movement and placement are as important as velocity, but it is wrong to downplay the significance of raw speed. The faster the pitch, the more margin for error the pitcher has on everything else.

 

Well, he's not competing for the 1st spot in the rotation. He'll get there velocity-wise. If his movement is there (k'ed Greene on a FB and made a couple other look dumb on curves) he'll be serviceable and work his way up from there.

I'm not really talking about the specifics of Prior's case with UK as much as the general argument that too much attention is paid to the speed readings.

 

---------

 

As a quick aside, does it annoy anyone else who has studied physics that the gun readings are called velocity? Velocity is a measurement of speed and direction. Gun readings are just a measurement of speed, not velocity.

 

sorry, geek rant complete. :)

 

Well, the balls are GOING toward the plate. Right?

[Laura]

The Hardball Times on speed guns & hard throwers.

[UK1679666180]

But, in the case of a guy like Prior, coming back from injury as he is, isn't it useful to see if he gets back velocity that he routinely showed when he was healthy?

 

Sure, it's always a good thing to have the same velocity as before, it makes his curve that much more effective as well as the increased deception from throwing an easy 95 MPH as Prior did.

 

How many really elite pitchers in MLB sit at 87-89 mph these days? Not very many. Deception, movement and placement are as important as velocity, but it is wrong to downplay the significance of raw speed. The faster the pitch, the more margin for error the pitcher has on everything else.

 

It's important to have velo for the reasons you just mentioned, it just seems that everyone is caught up with how hard he throws. The Cubs in press releases after his outings do seem to mention how well/bad he locates his pitches. If his curve doesn't improve from what I watched earlier this Spring, then he could throw 95 again and get lit up.

 

if my math is right, then being over 15 degrees either way is going to produce a reading that's 3-4 MPH off. I'd say that's fairly significant. 15 degrees is going to be about 20-25 feet off the ray pointing out from the mound through home plate. I did it at 40 feet behind the catchers mound, which is probably how far back the backstop is in a minor league park.

 

I was trying to remember my manual's reading on approp. angles for the gun to be effective, it gives the various degrees and likely MPH differences the further out you go.