I think there is another aspect too in the recent years in that teams don’t just let games get away from starting pitchers any more. Price in game 2 was a good example. In the regular season he doesn’t get pulled in the second inning and probably gets through 5-6 innings giving up 3-4 runs. Not a great start but not a disaster either. It seems teams used to punt games a lot more often than they do now.I honestly believe that a lot of the drop off for playoff aces can be attributed to physical wear. Especially for the guys who make a living throwing very hard. Just speculation on my part, however.
This. I remember that not too long ago it was more-or-less a given that Josh Beckett would give up a run or two in the first inning, then settle down and pitch well into the seventh.I think there is another aspect too in the recent years in that teams don’t just let games get away from starting pitchers any more. Price in game 2 was a good example. In the regular season he doesn’t get pulled in the second inning and probably gets through 5-6 innings giving up 3-4 runs. Not a great start but not a disaster either. It seems teams used to punt games a lot more often than they do now.
Yeah in the 2007 run he went scoreless in his DS start, but gave up a run in the first inning of both game 1 and 5 in the ALCS, and a run in the second inning of game 1 of the WS.This. I remember that not too long ago it was more-or-less a given that Josh Beckett would give up a run or two in the first inning, then settle down and pitch well into the seventh.
It’s wishful thinking that he “probably” not only gets Aaron Judge out with two runners on in the 2nd, but also gets through the Yankees’ lineup for the next 3-4 innings allowing 0 or 1 run based on the way he was pitching and how he’d pitched against the Yankees during the year.I think there is another aspect too in the recent years in that teams don’t just let games get away from starting pitchers any more. Price in game 2 was a good example. In the regular season he doesn’t get pulled in the second inning and probably gets through 5-6 innings giviny. Not a great start but not a disaster either. It seems teams used to punt games a lot more often than they do now.
On the flip side, there are a couple post-season outings on Price's resume where he would have benefited from an earlier hook, at least in terms of how he's viewed. 2015 ALCS Game 2 for the Jays against the Royals. He got through the first 6 innings giving up nothing. With the way playoff games are managed now, even at only 66 pitches, he might have been done at that point. Or at the very least, he starts the seventh on a very short leash. He started the seventh allowing three straight singles, scoring one run. Today, he's done right there at ~75 pitches and leaves with a 3-1 lead hoping the pen can hold it. Instead, he stayed on to face four more batters (RBI groundout, RBI single, K, RBI double) and leaves trailing 5-3.I think there is another aspect too in the recent years in that teams don’t just let games get away from starting pitchers any more. Price in game 2 was a good example. In the regular season he doesn’t get pulled in the second inning and probably gets through 5-6 innings giving up 3-4 runs. Not a great start but not a disaster either. It seems teams used to punt games a lot more often than they do now.
No, the Sox agreed to the big contract with the expectation that Price would be an ace both during the regular season and the playoffs. He is the third highest paid player, but was 24th in terms of ERA for starting pitchers during the 2018 regular season. That, combined with apparent lack of confidence when pitching in the post season, has resulted in him being a huge disappointment.The Boston press is cranked up to blame David Price for the loss of today's game, with frequent references to the size of his contract ($217 million) and an implication that he didn't deserve it or has failed to perform up to expectations after signing it. I hope that Price does well tonight and the Red Sox win the game. I have to say, though, that it's totally unfair to blame Price and his agent for his contract. The Red Sox signed it too, and they should have realized that they were vastly overpaying. Here's why.
My book, Baseball Greatness, evaluates players based on wins above average. I don't need to bore you with the details of how I computed it--it's mainly based on data in baseball-reference.com, but with some modifications--but the point is, it's a measurement independent of the league, park, and team the player plays for--including the team's fielding ability. If a pitcher earns 1 WAA in a year, that means the team could be expected to win one more game with him than they would with an average pitcher pitching his innings. There are other such measurements for pitchers and I'm confident that they would show pretty much the same thing. What do they show about David Price?
After a very brief period in the minors, Price in 2010 earned 2.7 WAA for Tampa Bay, which is a strong performance--a star performance. In 2011, however, he slipped 0.8 WAA--essentially average. In 2012, aged 26, he had a monster year: 4.6 WAA. 4 WAA is my definition of a superstar season and in a typical year there are only 2-3 pitchers in each league who post a mark that high. In 2013, however, Price fell to 0.7 WAA, about average again. He became a significant, although not overwhelming asset, in 2014, which he split between Tampa and Detroit (total 2.2 WAA). 2015 was the walk year of his contract. Once again he split the season, this time between Detroit and Toronto, and he emerged with an excellent 3.4 WAA, the second best season of his career.
It was at that point that the Red Sox signed him. Now there's nothing very unusual about this career pattern for a pitcher. An awful lot of pitchers have made long and profitable careers out of one spectacular season early in their careers. Apparently they hurt themselves during those great seasons and are never that good again--but in today's world it's not uncommon for teams to bet $100 million or more that they will do it again. That's what the Red Sox did.
For the Red Sox, Price has earned 1.2 WAA in 2016, 1.3 WAA in 2017, and 2.6 WAA this year. That was second on the team behind Chris Sale (an outstanding 4.7 WAA.) My point is that in the context of his career there is nothing at all surprising about what David Price has done for the Red Sox since they signed him and there is no reason at all to suspect that he would ever do significantly better.
There is something else that has distorted the market for pitchers. The great pitchers of generation X--Maddux, Randy Johnson, Glavine, Pedro, Clemens, and others--sustained performance of 4 WAA or more for much longer periods than the greatest pitchers of any other generation. That's why teams like the Yankees, Astros, and Diamondbacks could and did buy pennants and world championships by signing those pitchers. How these pitchers managed to do it is too obvious to mention. Clayton Kershaw and Max Scherzer have sustained peak performance for at least 4 years, but they are very exceptional. The chances that a pitcher who has had a great season will replicate it have dropped, massively, during the last 10 years or so.
There is no reason to view Price's performance in Boston as anomalous or a great disappointment. He continues to pitch some very good games and I hope he can pitch one tonight.
Chris Sale, by the way, has exceeded 4 WAA for the last two seasons--but he has hurt himself doing so, both times.
David Kaiser
Mild disappointment, maybe. Of course, Price is 33 and 3 years into a contract where you expect to get better value in the front end. The next 4 years could make it a huge disappointment if his performance drops and that's probably the most likely outcome. Maybe we get lucky and he has a late career resurgence like Verlander or at the very least, doesn't drop off.No, the Sox agreed to the big contract with the expectation that Price would be an ace both during the regular season and the playoffs. He is the third highest paid player, but was 24th in terms of ERA for starting pitchers during the 2018 regular season. That, combined with apparent lack of confidence when pitching in the post season, has resulted in him being a huge disappointment.
Comparing salary to rank in any given statistic is foolish considering how many players are severely underpaid for the production they give their teams. Salary is not determined by merit. If it was, the AL ERA leader would be the highest paid in the league, rather than someone who barely makes above league minimum.No, the Sox agreed to the big contract with the expectation that Price would be an ace both during the regular season and the playoffs. He is the third highest paid player, but was 24th in terms of ERA for starting pitchers during the 2018 regular season. That, combined with apparent lack of confidence when pitching in the post season, has resulted in him being a huge disappointment.
I was overly harsh when I described him as being a huge dissapointment and will upgrade him to "a dissapointment". But the Red Sox did not offer him such a big contact with the expectation he would continue to pitch poorly in the post season. They were already a playoff level team so that would make no sense.My point was that the expectation that Price would be an ace and dominant in post season was not justified by his record. It gave the expectation that he would be a somewhat above average starting pitcher but not the kind of guy who makes the difference between winning the pennant, or not. That's exactly what he has been for most of the last three years. I don't think that was worth $216 million even if he can do it for a couple of more years--but that's the Red Sox' fault for paying it.
David Price was an absolute ace stud when the Sox signed him. There was every reason to expect him to be tremendous here, at least for the first half of his contract.My point was that the expectation that Price would be an ace and dominant in post season was not justified by his record. It gave the expectation that he would be a somewhat above average starting pitcher but not the kind of guy who makes the difference between winning the pennant, or not. That's exactly what he has been for most of the last three years. I don't think that was worth $216 million even if he can do it for a couple of more years--but that's the Red Sox' fault for paying it.
Do you think Price and his agent knocked on the Sox door and said: "Price will be a somewhat above average starting pitcher but not the kind of guy who makes the difference between winning the pennant?"My point was that the expectation that Price would be an ace and dominant in post season was not justified by his record. It gave the expectation that he would be a somewhat above average starting pitcher but not the kind of guy who makes the difference between winning the pennant, or not. That's exactly what he has been for most of the last three years. I don't think that was worth $216 million even if he can do it for a couple of more years--but that's the Red Sox' fault for paying it.
Setting aside Price’s past performance, which was unquestionably dominant, my intuition is that this is how the aging curve works. I think you start seeing earlier wear, more bad outings, etc. rather than just a consistent decline in performance across the board.Price has shown he's fully capable of stretches of dominance - this year, at his age. If Price can't consistently deliver his best, or close to his best, absent injury, it seems that some of the problem is Price's to own and to fix.
Yeah that was like a 95 mph fastball on the inside corner if I recall. I think Chisenhall hadn't hit a homer off a left-handed pitcher's fastball on the inside corner all year but, well, there you go.That's a great visual on the heat map. If I recall correctly, he also gave up a 3 run HR to Lonnie Chisenhall in 2016 ALDS on a pitch in his cold zone too. While Price definitely hasn't pitched well, it seems he is really snake-bit too in the playoffs.
I remember seeing that home run in real time and thinking "that was a good pitch, nothing you can do." And the chart really confirms that. It was probably the perfect location in terms of being a strike he was likely to swing at, but unlikely to do much with. Unfortunately, the unlikely happened. Snakebit indeed.So here's where the pitch was located in Gonzalez' heat map:
On a 3-2 pitch, that's a pretty damned good pitch. Gonzalez crushed it, of course. But it was a pitch that I'm sure that they were just fine with the velocity (92-93) and location (in the strike zone on a 3-2 pitch, but in one of Gonzalez' weakest areas).
So you want the "analytical" folks to put aside the analytics and just judge him on how he looks? To put him in a subjective box ("1A vs 3rd/4th starter) based on subjective criteria, because why? The analytics don't fit the narrative, so therefore set the analytics aside?I posted something to this effect in the game thread but this is a great discussion of it: if all of you who have much more of an analytical handle on Price watched him pitch the last two outings, but there was not name on the jersey, would you think he's a #1a or something close to it? Because when I see him pitch I see a guy who is not quite a power pitcher, doesn't have great command, and has "show me" third and fourth pitches. Maybe a 3-4th starter on a contending team in today's MLB where you have so many good pitchers.
This isn't a knock on him - he is what he is and is getting older - but the perception is so out of touch with what you see when he pitches, and it clouds everything.
I got yelled at by a yahoo in the game thread for daring to suggest that it was a good pitch. LolI remember seeing that home run in real time and thinking "that was a good pitch, nothing you can do." And the chart really confirms that. It was probably the perfect location in terms of being a strike he was likely to swing at, but unlikely to do much with. Unfortunately, the unlikely happened. Snakebit indeed.
Yes! That's exactly it. This doesn't have to be connected to a particular narrative, either. If you went to a park to watch a random high school baseball game, you would make observations about the players' abilities based on your experience with baseball. These observations would have some validity despite being an "opinion". Not everything is an "analytics vs. observation" debate waiting to happen.So you want the "analytical" folks to put aside the analytics and just judge him on how he looks?
Chris Sale is an even better pitcher - would you just rely on past performance when observing Game 1 in real time? Would you ignore what you are seeing in real-time - loss of command, velocity down, clearly laboring, possibly with a stomach ailment? Probably not. And this doesn't mean Chris Sale sucks.The numbers say he's still a damn good pitcher
You must be referring to another post in this thread since nobody was talking about how "he makes one feel".Watching him pitch a couple games and forming opinions about how he makes one feel while watching doesn't change that.
Good catch re the Fangraph’s heat map. I knew the percentages were pitches seen, but still assumed up and in fastball on the inside top corner was a good pitch.Sooo....about the heat map. I just went to FG and there's a wee problem: the heat map posted above shows percentages of pitches seen. So what it says is not that Gonzalez isn't good at hitting pitches there, but that pitchers rarely pitch him there. And as it turns out, there's a reason for that.
Here's Gonzalez' heat map for RAA/100p vs. LHP (the interface does allow you to filter by pitcher hand):
View attachment 23942
So, not such a good location after all.
Watching the video, it looks like the catcher was setting up way inside and Price missed over the plate.So, not such a good location after all.
The pitch Sanchez, IIRC, was a dot on the low, outside corner, aka the perfect strike against almost every batter. That Sanchez turned it into a HR is a credit to him. That he *pulled* it is amazing.So, in a case like the one above, is that on Price, or Vazquez? I mean it seemed pretty clear that is where the pitch was intended to go, and he put it in the "right" spot.
I also felt like the pitch he made to Sanchez last week that was hit out was a good pitch, but I don't know how to grab the data used above to prove it. I just remember thinking it was a low, outside pitch, that he somehow pulled the ball over the monster.
Looks to me like he's setting up on the inside corner. On a 3-2 count I doubt they intentionally set up way inside on a fastball.Watching the video, it looks like the catcher was setting up way inside and Price missed over the plate.
Pitch progression is about 10 posts up.Looks to me like he's setting up on the inside corner. On a 3-2 count I doubt they intentionally set up way inside on a fastball.
I can't remember the pitch progression (and that may have played into strategy) but if Price is being told to throw a 3-2 fastball into Marwin's hottest zone then that's mostly on the catcher (and the coaching staff). Price seems to have executed the pitch perfectly, but it looks like a dumb pitch to call.
Pretty sure that pitch wasn’t even a strike.The pitch Sanchez, IIRC, was a dot on the low, outside corner, aka the perfect strike against almost every batter. That Sanchez turned it into a HR is a credit to him. That he *pulled* it is amazing.
I can believe that the pitch was supposed to be lower. It doesn't look to me like it was supposed to be off the plate. Hit the glove and that's a pitch (from a left handed arm angle) right on the inside corner.Pitch progression is about 10 posts up.
Vazquez's glove is down by and almost near the batter's knee. There's an article posted elsewhere (ALCS thread?) that the Red Sox aren't afraid to walk batters so long as the pitch doesn't go into their "hot zones". Price definitely missed up and over the plate.
Sooo....about the heat map. I just went to FG and there's a wee problem: the heat map posted above shows percentages of pitches seen. So what it says is not that Gonzalez isn't good at hitting pitches there, but that pitchers rarely pitch him there. And as it turns out, there's a reason for that.
Here's Gonzalez' heat map for RAA/100p vs. LHP (the interface does allow you to filter by pitcher hand):
View attachment 23942
So, not such a good location after all.
Ok yeah so I misread the heat map. Good catch indeed. But now based on dhappy42's link, it would seem that the pitch was in the .118 section of the heat map. Looks like the better location would have been down and in.Good catch re the Fangraph’s heat map. I knew the percentages were pitches seen, but still assumed up and in fastball on the inside top corner was a good pitch.
Re the heat map you show, I don’t understand it. It shows Marwin “dead red” on inside pitches, high and low on balls outside of the zone. That seems odd to me. As does his apparent relative inability to hit pitches thrown middle-out.
Edit: Here’s Marwin’s Heatmap for slugging:
https://www.fangraphs.com/zonegrid.aspx?playerid=5497&position=SS&ss=&se=&hand=&count=&pitch=&season=&data=&blur=0&grid=10&view=&type=5
That's vs. all, BTW. But even if you choose vs. L, the value of that zone depends on the smoothing level you choose, and I'll admit I'm in over my head at that point. If you choose no smoothing, the slugging value for that high-inside zone is a .000 -- but right next to it, just a little further out over the plate, is a .625. If you choose 1 radius smoothing, the values become .250/.396, with 2 radius smoothing, .250/.320 -- and rather confusingly, those zones are marked as red even though those are piss-poor slugging percentages.Good catch re the Fangraph’s heat map. I knew the percentages were pitches seen, but still assumed up and in fastball on the inside top corner was a good pitch.
Re the heat map you show, I don’t understand it. It shows Marwin “dead red” on inside pitches, high and low on balls outside of the zone. That seems odd to me. As does his apparent relative inability to hit pitches thrown middle-out.
Edit: Here’s Marwin’s Heatmap for slugging:
https://www.fangraphs.com/zonegrid.aspx?playerid=5497&position=SS&ss=&se=&hand=&count=&pitch=&season=&data=&blur=0&grid=10&view=&type=5
You guys are reading too much into one pitch. A hitter can get their pitch and still hit a grounder or foul it back. You'll see pop ups even in the all-star home run derby.That's vs. all, BTW. But even if you choose vs. L, the value of that zone depends on the smoothing level you choose, and I'll admit I'm in over my head at that point. If you choose no smoothing, the slugging value for that high-inside zone is a .000 -- but right next to it, just a little further out over the plate, is a .625. If you choose 1 radius smoothing, the values become .250/.396, with 2 radius smoothing, .250/.320 -- and rather confusingly, those zones are marked as red even though those are piss-poor slugging percentages.
Based on that no-smoothing version, it looks like that's a good place to pitch Gonzalez if it's far enough in -- but danger lurks very close by.
I think I see where you are coming from, but this is methodologically unsound. In effect, if team pursues the "analytics vs. observation" debate this way, there is a reasonable probability that that team's judgment will be poorer than if they didn't look at analytics altogether, because the analytics would be pro-cyclical to tendencies in judgment rather than a check, so someone might win the lottery, but it's a two-tail lottery and winning might suck.Yes! That's exactly it. This doesn't have to be connected to a particular narrative, either. If you went to a park to watch a random high school baseball game, you would make observations about the players' abilities based on your experience with baseball. These observations would have some validity despite being an "opinion". Not everything is an "analytics vs. observation" debate waiting to happen.
I love this heat map stuff, but I’m happy with my eyeball opinion that Price’s pitch to Gonzalez — a 93mph fastball, up an in, just inside the top inside corner, was a “good pitch,” not a “mistake,” even though it was belted over the Monster. Good hitters hit good pitches sometimes. Same for Sanchez’s HR. That was an even better pitch, imo.That's vs. all, BTW. But even if you choose vs. L, the value of that zone depends on the smoothing level you choose, and I'll admit I'm in over my head at that point. If you choose no smoothing, the slugging value for that high-inside zone is a .000 -- but right next to it, just a little further out over the plate, is a .625. If you choose 1 radius smoothing, the values become .250/.396, with 2 radius smoothing, .250/.320 -- and rather confusingly, those zones are marked as red even though those are piss-poor slugging percentages.
Based on that no-smoothing version, it looks like that's a good place to pitch Gonzalez if it's far enough in -- but danger lurks very close by.
To that point, we have seen many times in this postseason opposing pitchers throw 93-96 mph fastballs middle-middle to JD and Betts and Bogaerts and the result has been groundouts, popups, and foul balls. On any one particular pitch, yeah, we can see a bad pitch still result in an out, and a good pitch still hammered. Pitchers play the percentages really, but even that comes in context. The situation, the count, the location, the velocity, the movement....it all comes into play.I love this heat map stuff, but I’m happy with my eyeball opinion that Price’s pitch to Gonzalez — a 93mph fastball, up an in, just inside the top inside corner, was a “good pitch,” not a “mistake,” even though it was belted over the Monster. Good hitters hit good pitches sometimes. Same for Sanchez’s HR. That was an even better pitch, imo.
Whether or not it's a good pitch on its own, he had already gone to it a few times. He got Gonzalez to foul off a similar pitch in the 2nd, and he struck out Gurriel in the 1st with a 92 MPH fastball up and in (tailing back over the plate).I remember seeing that home run in real time and thinking "that was a good pitch, nothing you can do." And the chart really confirms that. It was probably the perfect location in terms of being a strike he was likely to swing at, but unlikely to do much with. Unfortunately, the unlikely happened. Snakebit indeed.
In real time I thought it was a good enough pitch and some really good hitting. The way he seemed to pull back and got the barrel of bat on the ball and not hook it foul suggested he guessed right.Whether or not it's a good pitch on its own, he had already gone to it a few times. He got Gonzalez to foul off a similar pitch in the 2nd, and he struck out Gurriel in the 1st with a 92 MPH fastball up and in (tailing back over the plate).
I remember thinking the pitch to Gurriel was nasty, and it was because it froze him. But it's possible Gonzalez was looking for it, which would make it...not a good pitch.
This is just good work--thanks. It helps to have the puzzle we're trying to solve stated correctly!Sooo....about the heat map. I just went to FG and there's a wee problem: the heat map posted above shows percentages of pitches seen. So what it says is not that Gonzalez isn't good at hitting pitches there, but that pitchers rarely pitch him there. And as it turns out, there's a reason for that.
Here's Gonzalez' heat map for RAA/100p vs. LHP (the interface does allow you to filter by pitcher hand):
View attachment 23942
So, not such a good location after all.
That would be the scenario with the front-door cutter to a LHH, but with a front-door cutter to a RHH, it's kind of the opposite: if it breaks enough, it's a ball that's very difficult to hit, if it doesn't, it's a hittable strike.Speier said that Price is working on that pitch that looks like it's coming right at the belt buckle and then breaks to catch the inside corner, right? Well, what if the "plan" is that if it hits, it's a killer strike, but if it misses, it just doesn't break enough so it's a ball. So that probability is that it's a safe pitch even if he misses... but there is still the small probability that it will miss the other less likely way, e.g. break too much which is obviously less likely (good problem to have tho).
On the other hand, the fact that Gonzalez missed the same pitch in the 2nd and he struck out Gurriel with it might make it a good pitch to throw again. Go with what works. Until it doesn’t. Baseball.Whether or not it's a good pitch on its own, he had already gone to it a few times. He got Gonzalez to foul off a similar pitch in the 2nd, and he struck out Gurriel in the 1st with a 92 MPH fastball up and in (tailing back over the plate).
I remember thinking the pitch to Gurriel was nasty, and it was because it froze him. But it's possible Gonzalez was looking for it, which would make it...not a good pitch.