Speed impact on pitchers?

[fromthestretch]

what pitcher led the leauge in wild pitches with no one on base last year?

=D>

 

That's fantastic. I can't believe I missed that.

[forbez18]

Okayy....yeaaa....I said it wrong, I am aware that a pitcher can not have a wild pitch with no one on base. However, the ball still gets away sometimes from the catcher when no one is one base, so with out having to spell it out I used wild pitch.

 

Anyways...How many times has the team with the best stats won the World Series. How many times has the best baseball player with the best stats won the World Series. Ohhh yea..I remember Arod and Bonds in the World Series all the time I can't believe I missed it. So I guess...maybe there is a little bit more that go into being successful then counting every stat.

[nilodnayr]

Okayy....yeaaa....I said it wrong, I am aware that a pitcher can not have a wild pitch with no one on base. However, the ball still gets away sometimes from the catcher when no one is one base, so with out having to spell it out I used wild pitch.

 

Anyways...How many times has the team with the best stats won the World Series. How many times has the best baseball player with the best stats won the World Series. Ohhh yea..I remember Arod and Bonds in the World Series all the time I can't believe I missed it. So I guess...maybe there is a little bit more that go into being successful then counting every stat.

 

A)Winning the World Series is a nearly a crapshoot based on the small sample size of the playoffs

B)Baseball is a team sport. Bonds was one player on a 25 man roster. Pretty much 22 of the other players sucked hardcore.

 

Stats do not GO INTO anyting!!! They are measures of outcomes. A "win" is a stat of the # of times a team finishes the game scoring more runs than allowing. Counting stats has nothing to do with being successful, it has to do with accumulating players that ultimately gets you as many wins as possible. If you believe that pitchers are disrupted by basestealers, so be it, but the proof shows otherwise. Just because something goes against common sense and intuitive thought doesnt always mean that its wrong. The key is to evalute the information and actually study it to prove your hypothesis. Sure, a pitcher is thinking about a basestealer when he is on base (unless hes a Padre), and the 2b/SS is shading to cover 2nd, and the catcher is getting in position for a quick release. No one is doubting that. However, you are making a gigantic leap of an assumption that all of those things materialize into an advantage for the batter. If you look at what actually happens you will find that it simply isn't true.

[fromthestretch]

Okayy....yeaaa....I said it wrong, I am aware that a pitcher can not have a wild pitch with no one on base. However, the ball still gets away sometimes from the catcher when no one is one base, so with out having to spell it out I used wild pitch.

 

Anyways...How many times has the team with the best stats won the World Series. How many times has the best baseball player with the best stats won the World Series. Ohhh yea..I remember Arod and Bonds in the World Series all the time I can't believe I missed it. So I guess...maybe there is a little bit more that go into being successful then counting every stat.

 

Playoffs are pretty much a crapshoot. The 2006 Cardinals are a perfect example of that. And I have no idea why you would single out individual players when discussing World Series victories. Bonds didn't lose the 2002 World Series for the Giants. Besides, how did we go from speed having an effect on a pitcher's performance to World Series wins?

 

Yes, there is more to baseball than statistics. Proper scouting and player development can play a big role. However, it would be foolish to dismiss statistical analysis.

[David]

Okayy....yeaaa....I said it wrong, I am aware that a pitcher can not have a wild pitch with no one on base. However, the ball still gets away sometimes from the catcher when no one is one base, so with out having to spell it out I used wild pitch.

 

Anyways...How many times has the team with the best stats won the World Series. How many times has the best baseball player with the best stats won the World Series. Ohhh yea..I remember Arod and Bonds in the World Series all the time I can't believe I missed it. So I guess...maybe there is a little bit more that go into being successful then counting every stat.

 

A)Winning the World Series is a nearly a crapshoot based on the small sample size of the playoffs

B)Baseball is a team sport. Bonds was one player on a 25 man roster. Pretty much 22 of the other players sucked hardcore.

 

Stats do not GO INTO anyting!!! They are measures of outcomes. A "win" is a stat of the # of times a team finishes the game scoring more runs than allowing. Counting stats has nothing to do with being successful, it has to do with accumulating players that ultimately gets you as many wins as possible. If you believe that pitchers are disrupted by basestealers, so be it, but the proof shows otherwise. Just because something goes against common sense and intuitive thought doesnt always mean that its wrong. The key is to evalute the information and actually study it to prove your hypothesis. Sure, a pitcher is thinking about a basestealer when he is on base (unless hes a Padre), and the 2b/SS is shading to cover 2nd, and the catcher is getting in position for a quick release. No one is doubting that. However, you are making a gigantic leap of an assumption that all of those things materialize into an advantage for the batter. If you look at what actually happens you will find that it simply isn't true.

 

I actually typed this all out and then realized that you had already posted it, so I deleted it.

[illiniguy]

Okayy....yeaaa....I said it wrong, I am aware that a pitcher can not have a wild pitch with no one on base. However, the ball still gets away sometimes from the catcher when no one is one base, so with out having to spell it out I used wild pitch.

 

Anyways...How many times has the team with the best stats won the World Series. How many times has the best baseball player with the best stats won the World Series. Ohhh yea..I remember Arod and Bonds in the World Series all the time I can't believe I missed it. So I guess...maybe there is a little bit more that go into being successful then counting every stat.

 

Playoffs are pretty much a crapshoot. The 2006 Cardinals are a perfect example of that. And I have no idea why you would single out individual players when discussing World Series victories. Bonds didn't lose the 2002 World Series for the Giants. Besides, how did we go from speed having an effect on a pitcher's performance to World Series wins?

 

Yes, there is more to baseball than statistics. Proper scouting and player development can play a big role. However, it would be foolish to dismiss statistical analysis.

Bonds may not have lost it on his own, but when he batted that ball around in the outfield like a big cat, he sure did help blow it. Oh and their manager was crap.

[forbez18]

I never said to throw out stats completely and if you look at my original post, I actually said that they can tell a lot, specially in baseball.

 

However, they do not tell the entire story. There is not a stat for how a pitcher changes his approach when a base stealler is on base compared to what he would have done. There probrally is a stat for what the next hitter does with a base stealer on base, but it can not be possible to show what would have happened if the base runner was not there. When Rich Hill is pitching and he gets someone on base you can see how it changes his approach. He has to change his delivery, and (I know I can't prove it) but Rich Hill in the past was a pitcher who would mentally break down over time. There may be pitchers who can ignore a base stealer, but there are a lot that concentrate on them way to much. To say that there is no possitive impact (or that the negatives outweigh the positive) because there is a stat that says one thnk does not prove your point.

[nilodnayr]

I never said to throw out stats completely and if you look at my original post, I actually said that they can tell a lot, specially in baseball.

 

However, they do not tell the entire story. There is not a stat for how a pitcher changes his approach when a base stealler is on base compared to what he would have done. There probrally is a stat for what the next hitter does with a base stealer on base, but it can not be possible to show what would have happened if the base runner was not there. When Rich Hill is pitching and he gets someone on base you can see how it changes his approach. He has to change his delivery, and (I know I can't prove it) but Rich Hill in the past was a pitcher who would mentally break down over time. There may be pitchers who can ignore a base stealer, but there are a lot that concentrate on them way to much. To say that there is no possitive impact (or that the negatives outweigh the positive) because there is a stat that says one thnk does not prove your point.

 

Have you read the article that was posted in this thread?

[Transmogrified Tiger]

If you can't measure the impact, does it matter?

[nilodnayr]

If you can't measure the impact, does it matter?

 

It matters, I care about the psyche of pitchers and the dirt in the catchers box. I mean if pitchers have to constantly look over their shoulder at first base then in 60 years they are going to have major neck problems. Major. Not to mention the pychiatrist bills. And if catchers have to adjust their feet to get ready to throw out a runner, well hell, then there will be chaos in the catchers box. Dirt will be moving this way and that, it will be pure madness.

[imb]

hey guys i know i cant prove it but

[fromthestretch]

I never said to throw out stats completely and if you look at my original post, I actually said that they can tell a lot, specially in baseball.

 

However, they do not tell the entire story. There is not a stat for how a pitcher changes his approach when a base stealler is on base compared to what he would have done. There probrally is a stat for what the next hitter does with a base stealer on base, but it can not be possible to show what would have happened if the base runner was not there. When Rich Hill is pitching and he gets someone on base you can see how it changes his approach. He has to change his delivery, and (I know I can't prove it) but Rich Hill in the past was a pitcher who would mentally break down over time. There may be pitchers who can ignore a base stealer, but there are a lot that concentrate on them way to much. To say that there is no possitive impact (or that the negatives outweigh the positive) because there is a stat that says one thnk does not prove your point.

 

Considering the level of competition in MLB, I would wager that not a lot of pitchers concentrate on runners to the point where it negatively impacts their ability to deliver an effective pitch. We're not talking about a bunch of high school pitchers here. These are guys who have pitched a ton of innings with guys on base. As pitchers progress, most learn how to deal with it. I'm not saying that every single major league pitcher deals with it well. But those that don't are probably in an extreme minority.

 

A pitcher can keep a runner honest without losing focus on the hitter. If you're throwing over to first, that's where your focus should be. If you're delivering to the plate, that's where your focus should be. You can still give the runner a look before you deliver the pitch, but you can do that without taking away focus on the pitch you're about to throw.

 

You're making major league pitchers out to seem weak-minded. It's not like these guys have never pitched with a guy on base.

[forbez18]

I actually did read the article and I thought it was a very good piece. I also am able to think for myself, and realize that there were things missing. He goes to talk about the walk rate and how it is higher with out a base stealer on base. Well..that makes sense, because pitchers are forced to pitch differently, and ofcourse (he does not say) but would not walk a batter intentionally. He also does not mention the catcher and pass balls, or throwing errors made by the catcher or pitcher. He takes a statistic for basestealers and all baserunners and compares the two, when he should have taken basestealers to all baserunner minus basestealers if you wanted to find out the difference. He also doesn't talk about how the batter after does not hit HR's as much...well that would also make sense because as a battery typically the #2 hitter on the team, their job is to typically bunt or move the ball to the right side of the field. It is not their job to try and hit it out of the park. The only real statistic that if he could figure out (because I know I can't) would be is are more runs scored typically when teams get their best basestealler on compared to when they dont, and then some how justify the conclusion with the team still having the same amount of baserunners on just with out their best basestealler.

[forbez18]

I never said to throw out stats completely and if you look at my original post, I actually said that they can tell a lot, specially in baseball.

 

However, they do not tell the entire story. There is not a stat for how a pitcher changes his approach when a base stealler is on base compared to what he would have done. There probrally is a stat for what the next hitter does with a base stealer on base, but it can not be possible to show what would have happened if the base runner was not there. When Rich Hill is pitching and he gets someone on base you can see how it changes his approach. He has to change his delivery, and (I know I can't prove it) but Rich Hill in the past was a pitcher who would mentally break down over time. There may be pitchers who can ignore a base stealer, but there are a lot that concentrate on them way to much. To say that there is no possitive impact (or that the negatives outweigh the positive) because there is a stat that says one thnk does not prove your point.

 

Considering the level of competition in MLB, I would wager that not a lot of pitchers concentrate on runners to the point where it negatively impacts their ability to deliver an effective pitch. We're not talking about a bunch of high school pitchers here. These are guys who have pitched a ton of innings with guys on base. As pitchers progress, most learn how to deal with it. I'm not saying that every single major league pitcher deals with it well. But those that don't are probably in an extreme minority.

 

A pitcher can keep a runner honest without losing focus on the hitter. If you're throwing over to first, that's where your focus should be. If you're delivering to the plate, that's where your focus should be. You can still give the runner a look before you deliver the pitch, but you can do that without taking away focus on the pitch you're about to throw.

 

You're making major league pitchers out to seem weak-minded. It's not like these guys have never pitched with a guy on base.

 

I am not making these pitchers anything more then what they are. They are extremely talented athletes that have amazing ability. However, that does not make them super human. If you are focusing on one thing (locating your pitches) and then have to try and focus on a multiple of things (where your deffense is positioned, how far the the base runner off the base, make sure the ball is not in the dirt, make sure not to walk this batter and set up a huge inning, this runner could be the winning run on first, or a multiple of other things) the focus of a pitcher can be distracted sometimes.

[fromthestretch]

 

I am not making these pitchers anything more then what they are. They are extremely talented athletes that have amazing ability. However, that does not make them super human. If you are focusing on one thing (locating your pitches) and then have to try and focus on a multiple of things (where your deffense is positioned, how far the the base runner off the base, make sure the ball is not in the dirt, make sure not to walk this batter and set up a huge inning, this runner could be the winning run on first, or a multiple of other things) the focus of a pitcher can be distracted sometimes.

 

And again, when you realize that in 99.99% of these situations, the hitter can do far more damage to you than a runner, it's not that hard to focus on the hitter. You don't have to be "super human" to deal with that.

 

As you said, these are extremely talented athletes that have amazing ability. They are playing at the highest level of competition. This is what they do for a living, and they get paid handsomely for it. Asking them to be able to focus with a fast runner on base is not asking a lot of them.

[Rob]

I am not making these pitchers anything more then what they are. They are extremely talented athletes that have amazing ability. However, that does not make them super human. If you are focusing on one thing (locating your pitches) and then have to try and focus on a multiple of things (where your deffense is positioned, how far the the base runner off the base, make sure the ball is not in the dirt, make sure not to walk this batter and set up a huge inning, this runner could be the winning run on first, or a multiple of other things) the focus of a pitcher can be distracted sometimes.

 

And how about that hitter? He's sitting there at the plate, watching the pitcher throw to first base over and over and over again. He gets impatient, and he flails away at junk. Or maybe he's preoccupied with making sure that runner gets a good jump, and so he takes a strike or two when it looks like the runner is going.

 

At the end of the day, the distraction to the hitter is approximately equal to the distraction of the pitcher and the displacement of the defense.

 

Nobody is arguing that it doesn't affect these players. The argument is that the outcome is not affected.

[Guest]

Okayy....yeaaa....I said it wrong, I am aware that a pitcher can not have a wild pitch with no one on base. However, the ball still gets away sometimes from the catcher when no one is one base, so with out having to spell it out I used wild pitch.

 

Anyways...How many times has the team with the best stats won the World Series. How many times has the best baseball player with the best stats won the World Series. Ohhh yea..I remember Arod and Bonds in the World Series all the time I can't believe I missed it. So I guess...maybe there is a little bit more that go into being successful then counting every stat.

 

Playoffs are pretty much a crapshoot. The 2006 Cardinals are a perfect example of that. And I have no idea why you would single out individual players when discussing World Series victories. Bonds didn't lose the 2002 World Series for the Giants. Besides, how did we go from speed having an effect on a pitcher's performance to World Series wins?

 

Yes, there is more to baseball than statistics. Proper scouting and player development can play a big role. However, it would be foolish to dismiss statistical analysis.

Bonds may not have lost it on his own, but when he batted that ball around in the outfield like a big cat, he sure did help blow it. Oh and their manager was crap.

 

And if Bonds wouldn't have hit .471/.700/1.294/1.994 for the series - yes, that's right, Bonds had a 1.994 OPS in the World Series - the Giants wouldn't have lasted long enough for Bonds to muff that ball in the outfield in Game 6.