Ask Us Anything

StupendousMan

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 20, 2005
1,650
> Can we get a quick analysis of Koji's performance last night

Just a quick little text-y answer, so as not to spoil a cool graphic analysis of a larger sample later ...

Fastballs at 86 mph, split-finger change at 78 mph, so an 8-mph difference between the pitches; the same difference as during his glorious 2013, but each pitch is now 4 mph slower. The horizontal movement looks a few inches larger than it did then, but with the tiny sample size from one stadium's system, I wouldn't put much weight on that. The 13 pitches were roughly equally divided between "out of the strike zone high" (fine), "out of the strike zone low" (splitters falling off the table, great) and "sitting near the middle of the plate" (not so great).

Can't argue with the results (3 up, 3 down, 2 via the strikeout), but those pitches down the middle give me a small amount of worry.
 

Idabomb333

Member
SoSH Member
Feb 5, 2007
202
Why did Navarro get to take 1st base on Tulowitski's interference play in the 6th? I get why Tulo was out, but not why the catch gets nullified. If the slower runner by far had been on 1st instead of batting, would it have been advantageous for him to interfere there?
 

ookami7m

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
5,438
Mobile, AL
Why did Navarro get to take 1st base on Tulowitski's interference play in the 6th? I get why Tulo was out, but not why the catch gets nullified. If the slower runner by far had been on 1st instead of batting, would it have been advantageous for him to interfere there?
Came to ask the same thing. Only got to listen in last night as this happened.
 

Cesar Crespo

79
SoSH Member
Dec 22, 2002
21,588
When was the last time a pitcher who qualified for an ERA title had more wins than walks in a season? Is it Saberhagen? Kershaw has 11 wins and 9 walks but will not qualify.
 

uk_sox_fan

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 11, 2006
1,260
London, England
May be an obvious thing that I'm not aware of but I was wondering - is there a set of stats published out there that contextualises rate stats by opposition (i.e. like RPI adjusts W/L% by SOS). It seems like it's the logical extension of OPS+ et al adjusting for league and park effects to essentially take each PA and adjust the outcome up or down by the OPS+ of the batter or OPS+ against (or FIP if you like) of the pitcher. Also worthwhile to use OPS+ and OPS+ against in the L/R handedness of the PA.

You would then be able to look at how different players perform against the leagues best, average and worst opposition (e.g. AB has a OPS+ of 123 but vs the best LHP (those with OPS+ against < 75 vs RHB) his OPS+ is 10)
 

Jnai

is not worried about sex with goats
SoSH Member
Sep 15, 2007
15,666
<null>
Thanks. It sure seems that the higher slot gives his pitches more bite and depth, with less slurvy action.
I realize this post was made two weeks ago, but just to follow up on this, for any individual pitcher (and mostly in aggregate as well), arm slot directly correlates with movement. It's not exactly so cut and dry because what really matters is the orientation of the ball as it comes out of your hand (and that can change because of a number of factors, including body lean, the point in the delivery where you release the ball, etc.)

But, in general, the more over the top you are, the more up-and-down your pitches move, and as you progressively drop your arm slot, your fastball and changeup will gradually shift into pitches with armside tail and fade, and your curve will become more slurvey. Most of the sidearm relievers with wipeout sliders are really throwing curveballs, they're just moving like whiffleball sliders because of arm slot.

The reason this happens is because ball movement is due to the spin axis of the ball, and the spin axis effectively tilts when the arm slot changes.
 

Jnai

is not worried about sex with goats
SoSH Member
Sep 15, 2007
15,666
<null>
May be an obvious thing that I'm not aware of but I was wondering - is there a set of stats published out there that contextualises rate stats by opposition (i.e. like RPI adjusts W/L% by SOS). It seems like it's the logical extension of OPS+ et al adjusting for league and park effects to essentially take each PA and adjust the outcome up or down by the OPS+ of the batter or OPS+ against (or FIP if you like) of the pitcher. Also worthwhile to use OPS+ and OPS+ against in the L/R handedness of the PA.

You would then be able to look at how different players perform against the leagues best, average and worst opposition (e.g. AB has a OPS+ of 123 but vs the best LHP (those with OPS+ against < 75 vs RHB) his OPS+ is 10)
You are essentially asking for DRA, a baseball prospectus creation.
 

JimBoSox9

will you be my friend?
SoSH Member
Nov 1, 2005
16,631
Mid-surburbia
What are the statistical odds, at this moment, that the Red Sox will be playing a home ALCS Game 7 on Saturday, October 22nd? I get that it's low, but is it 10% or 5% or 1% low?
 

Doooweeeey!

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
1,466
Baltimore via Brimfield
But, in general, the more over the top you are, the more up-and-down your pitches move, and as you progressively drop your arm slot, your fastball and changeup will gradually shift into pitches with armside tail and fade, and your curve will become more slurvey. Most of the sidearm relievers with wipeout sliders are really throwing curveballs, they're just moving like whiffleball sliders because of arm slot.

The reason this happens is because ball movement is due to the spin axis of the ball, and the spin axis effectively tilts when the arm slot changes.
Great explanation Jnai, thanks.
If I may extend the thought experiment, is it therefore a safe thing to say that vertical movement suppresses batter success (pick your metric) better than horizontal?
To me this seems true, but perhaps I need enlightening. If true, what's at work? Do batters see horizontal movement better? Or is it simply a correlation with the common orientation of the strike zone (a rectangle with the long side vertical), where batters have more strike zone to cover? I'm certain there is excellent work out there on this subject and it would be a worthy dive into the physics for a deeper explanation. Is there consensus on vertical vs. horizontal plane efficacy for pitchers?
 

PapaSox

lurker
Dec 26, 2015
230
MA
I was having an interesting debate on the use of a 6-man rotation as seen in Japan and was wondering why it would not work here in the states. Is there any real supportive information as to why it is better to use 5-man rotation?
 

Sampo Gida

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 7, 2010
5,044
A 6 man rotation probably only makes sense if your best starters (top 2-3 SP'ers) could pitch 1-2 innings longer per start, and this means increasing pitch counts. Or if a team doesnt really have any best starters but just a big collection of back end of the rotation arms.

I actually think some teams may be more likely to go back to a 4 man rotation and shorten SP'ers outings to compensate for the extra starts, but only a team with a great bullpen would consider this. This eliminates the 5th SP'er which for most teams is basically a replacement level pitcher (average team actually uses 8-10 SP'ers throughout the year, and for many that 5th spot is a revolving door). This would give more innings to the bullpen, which isn't much of a problem with an additional man in the pen, along with the AAA-MLB shuttle many teams use. The games changed, many teams best pitchers, or most effective pitchers are actually in the pen.

Of course, with concerns for pitchers health, teams are reluctant to ask pitchers to throw too many pitches (extend IP/GS), or make more starts on shorter rest. There simply is not enough medical evidence to alleviate players concerns. I doubt there will be any significant changes to current usage unless rosters are expanded
 

JimBoSox9

will you be my friend?
SoSH Member
Nov 1, 2005
16,631
Mid-surburbia
I actually advocate for 8-man rotations operating in 2-man pairs throwing 4 innings each, but even I'll admit that's pretty far off the map.
 

PapaSox

lurker
Dec 26, 2015
230
MA
It sounds as if conventional wisdom still has viability. However, it was good to see some really interesting thinking on the subject. I was thinking of it as it applies to the current rotation and how it was used in 2015 a bit with some success. It would allow arms to get more rest, allow for possible longer outings and hide some weaker options. Having Price and Porcello be able to go 8 more often, allowing Wright, EdRod and Pomeranz to pitch fewer innings and giving Buchholz a look every 6 game seemed a potential option. I really liked the idea of 4 starters and "bullpenning". This would allow for greater use of strong arms in the pen to pitch more innings and be able to come in when needed rather than keeping them "caged up" until late innings. The 8-man rotation I think would make entrenched baseball peoples heads explode. However, it is an interesting twist. Having an Opener rather than a starter would be interesting.
 

dhappy42

Straw Man
Oct 27, 2013
14,199
Michigan
100 pitches.

Seems like a random, big round number.

Is there any reason why MLB teams chose 100 as the "threshold" number of pitches for starters? You'd think it'd be different for every pitcher.
 

Snodgrass'Muff

oppresses WARmongers
SoSH Member
Mar 11, 2008
27,644
Roanoke, VA
100 pitches.

Seems like a random, big round number.

Is there any reason why MLB teams chose 100 as the "threshold" number of pitches for starters? You'd think it'd be different for every pitcher.
I don't think there's much evidence that teams use 100 pitches as any kind of steadfast rule. Instead, the average for pitches thrown in an outing just happens to be around 100. The Red Sox, for example, look at difficult innings as an indicator that a pitcher needs to be pulled. They track how many jams a pitcher gets into, and use that to gauge fatigue. They monitor velocity, command, etc.

100 pitches is probably more just a simplification of a very complex process that the media and the fans lean on.
 

Cesar Crespo

79
SoSH Member
Dec 22, 2002
21,588
Is current W-L record at the all star break more of an accurate predictor than pythag theory going forward for the rest of that season?
 

AB in DC

OG Football Writing
SoSH Member
Jul 10, 2002
10,597
Springfield, VA
What's the fewest number of batters faced by a pitcher throwing at least 120 pitches in a game?
(Pomeranz 123 pitches / 22 batters tonight.)
 

charlieoscar

Member
Sep 28, 2014
1,339
Is current W-L record at the all star break more of an accurate predictor than pythag theory going forward for the rest of that season?
This is not a full-blown study but I looked at data from 2000 through 2009 (that I had handy) and found that for all of that data the correlation coefficient for the winning percentages at the All Star break was 0.8611918 while that for the Pythagorean Formula (with an exponent of 1.83) was only 0.8050966 with respect to the final winning percentage. I suspect that if this were done on a year-by-year basis one might find variance (and perhaps also by team).
 

tims4wins

PN23's replacement
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
31,832
Hingham, MA
What is DIP% as it relates to pitching? Saw the stat on ESPN's site, but wasn't quite clear on its meaning. For context, Texas has the highest in the AL at 118.37%; MFY are 2nd at 106.35%; Sox are 13th at 91.83%; Cleveland is last at 90.10%.

Would I take this to mean that the pitching success of Texas and the MFY has been heavily fielding dependent, whereas the success of the Sox and Cleveland is more due to good pitching? If that is true - does that mean the Sox and Cleveland pitching is more "sustainable" and less "fluky" - i.e., would we expect a regression from the high DIP% teams?
 

Margeo

lurker
Oct 4, 2014
1
On the ESPN site the DIP% metric is DIPS/ERA. Not sure how DIPS is exactly calculated but it seems to be awfully close to FIP. (There is a small difference between the DIPS on the ESPN site and FIP on fangraphs).

In theorie if you believe Defence independent metrics every team should regress back to a DIP% of 100%. This is of course not always reality because of various reasons. The 2016 Cubs are one of the best examples with a historical low BABIP.
 

uk_sox_fan

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 11, 2006
1,260
London, England
Is there a comprehensive study of what effect overshifts have on BABIP? I'd be especially interested in the effect on BABIP for groundballs (BAGBIP?)
 

charlieoscar

Member
Sep 28, 2014
1,339
And speaking of over-shifting, how much has this changed the typical number of chances for infield positions? I think you have to keep in mind that when it started coming in vogue, it was only used against certain batters/types of batters and that not all teams bought into it immediately. Even today I'm not sure all clubs employ it the same way.

Let's say, hypothetically, that a third baseman gets more chances because of over-shifting than he did when standard defensive positioning was the norm. If you look at his career stats to see how his fielding is progressing (up or down), you might not get the same impression as you would from contemporary whose team took up over-shifting earlier or later.

Are any of the advanced fielding stats taking this into consideration?
 

Idabomb333

Member
SoSH Member
Feb 5, 2007
202
How often does the 3 inning part of the rule for saves apply? Abad getting a save after entering the game at 15-1 ought to be extremely unusual, right? I know it isn't the record for the largest score difference with a save, but I'm kind of surprised that freak occurrence doesn't seem to warrant a story on redsox.com or the daily emails I get from mlb.com.
 

DJnVa

Dorito Dawg
SoSH Member
Dec 16, 2010
49,073
How often does the 3 inning part of the rule for saves apply? Abad getting a save after entering the game at 15-1 ought to be extremely unusual, right? I know it isn't the record for the largest score difference with a save, but I'm kind of surprised that freak occurrence doesn't seem to warrant a story on redsox.com or the daily emails I get from mlb.com.
It's not all that rare.

If I've done my search right at bref, there's been 18 of them so far this year.
 

z-factor

lurker
Dec 30, 2010
9
On the most recent Joe Posnanski podcast, they dropped in a drive-by comment (and I’m paraphrasing), “Fenway Park has now become a pure pitchers park. It suppresses offense. This is one of the reasons why the Red Sox hitting is so down this year – all their numbers are better on the road.” They imply that the new buildings have shifted the wind currents.

Here are my questions:
1) What are the historical numbers and trends? How much (and when) did we see this change in annual park factors? Is it really that dramatic?
2) Is there any evidence that this is caused by the new construction around Fenway?

(Sorry if this is elemental. I’m a long time lurker here who truly appreciates this site. I just don’t have the acumen to contribute regularly or know the right sources for data.)
 

Red(s)HawksFan

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 23, 2009
17,557
Maine
Per Baseball Reference, Fenway's park factors have been dropping (signalling a more pitcher friendly environment), but they haven't reached the lows from 2013 when the team was demonstrably stronger offensively.

2013 - Batting 100, Pitching 98
2014 - Batting 104, Pitching 105
2015 - Batting 109, Pitching 109
2016 - Batting 108, Pitching 106
2017 - Batting 102, Pitching 101

I don't think Fenway is 100% to blame for the Red Sox lack of power this year.
 

Snodgrass'Muff

oppresses WARmongers
SoSH Member
Mar 11, 2008
27,644
Roanoke, VA
Per Baseball Reference, Fenway's park factors have been dropping (signalling a more pitcher friendly environment), but they haven't reached the lows from 2013 when the team was demonstrably stronger offensively.

2013 - Batting 100, Pitching 98
2014 - Batting 104, Pitching 105
2015 - Batting 109, Pitching 109
2016 - Batting 108, Pitching 106
2017 - Batting 102, Pitching 101

I don't think Fenway is 100% to blame for the Red Sox lack of power this year.
Some of it is random luck. They hit 22 more home runs on the road, for example, which is going to SKU the park toward the negative for HR. Some of it is probably just that the Sox weren't a great offense and simply didn't have any steady power hitters for the full season. If you look at the last two seasons for XBH for example...

2016 HR: 1.065
2017 HR: 0.824

2016 2B: 1.424
2017 2B: 1.156

2016 3B: 1.667
2017 3B: 0.750

The park itself didn't change, obviously. Environmentally, maybe it was cooler or wetter than 2016 which led to less nights where the ball carried as well? More wind blowing in?

Comparing months in 2016 and 2017 is actually kind of interesting.

April: 5.2 degrees warmer high temp daily average, 3.97 degrees warmer low temp daily average.
May: 3.97 degrees colder high temp daily average, 0.56 degrees colder low temp daily average.
June: 1.53 degrees warmer high temp daily average, 0.55 degrees warmer low temp daily average.
July: 4.67 degrees colder high temp daily average, 2.47 degrees colder low temp daily average.
August: 5.16 degrees colder high temp daily average, 3.66 degrees colder low temp daily average.
September: 0.10 degrees colder high temp daily average, 0.64 degrees colder low temp daily average.

It also rained slightly more in every month except May and August.

So the weather may have had a bit of an impact. Plus they lost David Ortiz, which I'm sure didn't help with the power numbers overall. :)

Edit: I pulled daily temp and percip from here and dropped it into a spread sheet for each month. Got a sum of each column, divided by days and used those figures above. It was quick and dirty, but it's not a perfect look since the Sox weren't in Boston every night, obviously.
 

beautokyo

lurker
Jun 5, 2008
88
Tokyo, Japan
Sorry to open an old thread but I've been digging around here and can't find what I want. I don't live in Mass (or the States for that matter) and am on a limited budget but I want to watch (or at least listen) to the games but not through MLB.com as they ripped me off for 2 years running. Is there a USTREAM account that is openly shared and someone here just wants to be a pal and let me know?

Thanks.
 

uk_sox_fan

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 11, 2006
1,260
London, England
This stems from a bar conversation (not quite a bet) that we couldn't resolve.

Situation: tie game with one out in the b9, runners on 1st and 3rd. Batter hits a deep fly ball to left which is caught before the track and runner on third tags and scampers home, beating the throw by a good five feet. The catcher then notices the other runner celebrating halfway between 1st and 2nd and throws over to 1st, claiming that by doubling him off, the force negates the run and the inning is over. I think this isn't a force type out but that timing matters and the run still counts, am I right?
 

trs

Well-Known Member
Silver Supporter
SoSH Member
Aug 19, 2010
225
Madrid
This stems from a bar conversation (not quite a bet) that we couldn't resolve.

Situation: tie game with one out in the b9, runners on 1st and 3rd. Batter hits a deep fly ball to left which is caught before the track and runner on third tags and scampers home, beating the throw by a good five feet. The catcher then notices the other runner celebrating halfway between 1st and 2nd and throws over to 1st, claiming that by doubling him off, the force negates the run and the inning is over. I think this isn't a force type out but that timing matters and the run still counts, am I right?
Not considering myself an expert, but would this not be similar in appealing a runner that left too early? If that's the case, you're right, it's a time play as you say and that the run should count...
 

timlinin8th

Member
SoSH Member
Jun 6, 2009
1,521
The catcher then notices the other runner celebrating halfway between 1st and 2nd and throws over to 1st, claiming that by doubling him off, the force negates the run and the inning is over. I think this isn't a force type out but that timing matters and the run still counts, am I right?
As soon as the run crosses the plate, he’s safe regardless of a baseunner being thrown out afterwards. Other baserunner put-outs are all timing plays as those guys are running on their own discretion. The only runner that can eliminate the guy at home being safe would be the batter-runner (who if it was two outs and a groundball they have to be safe for the run to count, but in a one out situation and he was already put out on the flyball, the guy on third tagging up to advance again is a baserunner running on their discretion),
 
Last edited:

Cuzittt

Bouncing with Anger
Dope
Nov 20, 2001
20,301
Sinister Funkhouse #17
From the rule book [General comment on 5.08]
--
When a runner misses a base and a fielder holds the ball on a missed base, or on the base originally occupied by
the runner if a fly ball is caught, and appeals for the umpire’s decision, the runner is out when the umpire sus-
tains the appeal; all runners may score if possible, except that with two out the runner is out at the moment he
misses the bag, if an appeal is sustained as applied to the following runners.
APPROVED RULING: One out, Jones on third, Smith on first, and Brown flies out to right field. Two outs. Jones
tags up and scores after the catch. Smith attempted to return to first but the right fielder’s throw beat him to the
base. Three outs. But Jones scored before the throw to catch Smith reached first base, hence Jones’ run counts.
It was not a force play.
--

That is the big issue and thus makes it different from Merkle's Boner
 

jon abbey

Shanghai Warrior
Dope
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
64,730
Yeah, this is the same as when you have runners on first and third with two outs and try a double steal, hoping that the guy on third can score before the runner between first and second is tagged out.
 

DJnVa

Dorito Dawg
SoSH Member
Dec 16, 2010
49,073
Yeah, this is the same as when you have runners on first and third with two outs and try a double steal, hoping that the guy on third can score before the runner between first and second is tagged out.
Well it’s different because in that case the runner must be tagged out.

In case in question he doesn’t have to be tagged but it’s confusing in sense that he’s forced out but not a force play because he didn’t have to run.
 

Cuzittt

Bouncing with Anger
Dope
Nov 20, 2001
20,301
Sinister Funkhouse #17
He was forced to run (to second). Until the ball was caught. At which point it's no longer a force issue but a timing issue as he has to return to first.

An interesting variant of this is if the fielder traps the ball... but the runner going to second does the same thing and the batter never completes his run to first (as both thought the ball was caught).

Then there are force plays (at second for the runner and at first for the batter) which, if completed, would negate the run.