One of the first players who put effort into extracting value from analytics, Bannister went on at length about how much debate there is on the subject around baseball. The former Royals pitcher struggled to find a consistent role in the majors, and was asked about the decision-making process for moving a pitching prospect from the rotation to the bullpen.
absintheofmalaise said:It looks like Dombrowski has been a bit busy.
He left to join Theo a couple of weeks ago.the1andonly3003 said:any info on where Jared Porter is going?
absintheofmalaise said:Brian Bannister is now the Director of Pitching Analysis and Development, a newly created position. He had joined the team earleir this year in their scouting department. In case you don't remember, Bannister used analytics to see which pitches were the most effective when he pitched for the Royals. He is also a proponent of doing more in the minor league system to develop players.
Let me give the fans and young pitchers out there one example of a way that I try to improve my performance, this time with regards to BABIP.
Question to myself: Does a hitter have the same BABIP in a 2-1 count that he does in an 0-2, 1-2, or 2-2 count? How does his batting average and OBP/SLG/OPS differ when he has two strikes on him vs zero or one strike?
These are the type of questions that I will come up with and employ in my starts to see if I can improve my outings. For example, here are my career numbers in the counts mentioned above:
2-1: .380 (19/50)
1-2: .196 (20/102)
2-2: .171 (18/105)
0-2: .057 (3/53)
It is obvious that hitters, even at the Major League level, do not perform as well when the count is in the pitcher’s favor, and vice-versa. This is because with two strikes, a hitter HAS to swing at a pitch in the strike zone or he is out, and he must also make a split-second decision on whether a borderline pitch is a strike or not, reducing his ability to put a good swing on the ball. What this does is take away a hitter’s choice. If I throw a curveball with two strikes, the hitter has to swing if the pitch is in the strike zone, whether he is good at hitting a curveball or not. He also does not have a choice on location. We are all familiar with Ted Williams’ famous strike zone averages at the Baseball Hall of Fame. It is well-known that a pitch knee-high on the outside corner will not have the same batting average or OBP/SLG/OPS as one waist-high right down the middle. Here is a comparison of the batting averages and slugging percentage on my fastball vs. my curveball:
Fastball: .246/.404
Curveball: .184/.265
The important thing to note is that, with two strikes, if I throw a curveball for a strike, the hitter has to swing at it (and I like those numbers). How does a pitcher use this to his advantage? By throwing strikes and keeping the advantage on his side as often as possible. It seems like such a simple solution, yet so much more emphasis is placed on "stuff" nowadays and this is often not reinforced. When a pitcher who has great "stuff" employs this line of thinking, his numbers will improve to an even greater degree.
So, to finally answer the question about BABIP, if we look at the numbers above, how can a Major League pitcher try and beat the .300 BABIP average? By pitching in 0-2, 1-2, & 2-2 counts more often than the historical averages of pitchers in the Major League
They perform something akin to QC on other scouts work.alwyn96 said:Wow, fascinating. Bannister indeed seems like he was one of the first pitchers to really talk publicly about using pitch f/x data to help him pitch. I forgot he was already in the organization. That's cool.
Remind me what crosscheckers do again? They're like the guys who do like a second scouting report on an interesting unsigned player?
absintheofmalaise said:The first time Bannister spoke at the Seminar, he discussed how MLB teams were dropping the ball in regards to the amount of coaching that the players in the minor league systems receive. Most teams only have the manager, a pitching coach and a hitting coach and the amount of time they can spend with the players is limited. It sounds like the Sox are going to try and address this situation, with the pitchers at least.
75cent bleacher seat said:
I often wonder how much coaching players receive in the minors. Ideally shouldn't every player been taught the fundamentals/ situational play by the time they reach AAA ball and once there the primary goal is to further develop skill sets? Why would time spent with players be limited? Wish I knew more about Bannister's view and others that agree with him.
edit: grammar
And then throw in up to three times as many games as these guys have ever played before. Long bus rides. The physical and mental grind of the long season. Learning how to become a professional. For some, being away from home for an extended period of time for the first time and for some, being in a foreign country for the first time where most don't speak Spanish.alwyn96 said:
In terms of limited time, just looking at a day in the life of a minor league baseball player, there's basically an hour or two (if you're lucky) of batting practice, with probably one guy going at a time. There's since there's only one hitting coach and probably 13 guys, that's not a ton of time for a hitting coach to really work with any one guy on something. Between working out/weights, arriving at the field, stretching/warm-up, defensive drills, running, and reviewing stuff for the the game, and actually playing a game, fitting in one-on-one instruction with players can be tricky. And as someone who often works with 18-21 year old men I can also tell you that they're not always the most on-task group of people.
Mugsy's Walk-Off Bunt said:Can we assume this'll put to rest, at least somewhat, the perception that DD isn't all that into analytics or am I getting something wrong?
johnnywayback said:
At the very least, it can put to rest my worries that Dombrowski's hiring signaled a purge of our very talented front office. I was less than enthused at the time, but it seems like Dombrowski's kept a lot of that talent (Eddie Romero, Bannister, Quattlebaum) while making some smart changes where Cherington hadn't (Hanley at 1B, most notably).
alwyn96 said:
I doubt it'll be a "purge", but my guess is we're going to continue to see more front office reshuffling through the fall. In baseball new management almost always brings in people that they're comfortable with, and who know the kind of information Dombrowski will be looking for and how to present it to him.
So far, it seems like the scouting/minor league guys have been doing a pretty good job, and those are the guys who mostly seem to be sticking around. However, if people think part of the problem with Cherington's FO was MLB talent evaluation, then I would think that that team and the process by which that those decisions are made will probably be in for some changes.
Well it probably is a far cry from taking over the Tigers, or the marlins, or the expos. The teams that DD has taken over in the past either didn't exist, was a miniscule market, or had not had a winning season in a decade (this guy was the GM for six/seven years before DD fired him six days into the job). In every situation, the team improved with DD at the helm.joe dokes said:
No doubt he'll bring in new/"his own" guys. But rather than completely cleaning house just for the sake of it, he seems to be much more fine tuned than that. Hopefuly "reshuffling" takes into account "putting quality personnel in different roles" as much as it does getting rid of people. This has to be a far cry from taking over the Tigers.