Amusing fangraphs piece on him yesterday.
http://www.fangraphs.com/not/a-j-pierzynski-beholds-the-nothing-that-is-not-there/
http://www.fangraphs.com/not/a-j-pierzynski-beholds-the-nothing-that-is-not-there/
Fangraphs on Pierzynski
- Thread starter Snodgrass'Muff
- Start date
The idea of Pierzynski getting inspiration for his batting approach from Wallace Stevens is brilliantly weird.
I leave it as an exercise for the reader to alter the following to produce his own preferred personal parody.
Allow,
Therefore, that in the planetary scene
Your disaffected flagellants, well-stuffed,
Smacking their muzzy bellies in parade,
Proud of such novelties of the sublime,
Such tink and tank and tunk-a-tunk-tunk,
May, merely may, madame, whip from themselves
A jovial hullabaloo among the spheres.
This will make widows wince. But fictive things
Wink as they will. Wink most when widows wince.
Allow,
Therefore, that in the planetary scene
Your disaffected flagellants, well-stuffed,
Smacking their muzzy bellies in parade,
Proud of such novelties of the sublime,
Such tink and tank and tunk-a-tunk-tunk,
May, merely may, madame, whip from themselves
A jovial hullabaloo among the spheres.
This will make widows wince. But fictive things
Wink as they will. Wink most when widows wince.
topps148 said:
:excitedclap:
These are my favorite lines of American poetry, by anybody, ever. If it weren't for Chaucer I wouldn't need the qualifier. Blessings upon you, sir.
That was a fantastic at bat by AJ last night with runners on first and second and no one out, wasn't it? Again against a lefty, perfectly set up to use Ross to hit for him. Again no patience from AJ. I think he might be one of the most inexplicable signings of the Henry era. I just don't understand how this team, with all the payroll flexibility they had for Salty, and prospect depth they had to make a trade for Hannigan if they didn't want a 3 year commitment that Salty got from The Fish, chose this unlikable hacker. He even looks like he's out of shape to me, going through the motions on a final big payday. Blech.
It's only a sample size of two, but I think JF is simply not interested in putting Ross in a game where he is the next day's likely starter. I think in April with a back up catcher with 37-year old legs, this is not indefensible. Especially where the run expectency of fist and second no out is pretty good no matter what. It only looks bad in hindsight because AJP did the one thing you cannot do. And they did get a run, if I remember correctly.Plympton91 said:
Vazquez has a 1.182 OPS in AAA right now!
But seriously, I was okay with the signing because of all that's already been well discussed (short-contract bridge to C.V./B.S., etc.). I've hated watching his ABs so far in this young season, but I'd be hypocritical if I questioned the signing now and not then. However, regretting the signing is a different bird.
But seriously, I was okay with the signing because of all that's already been well discussed (short-contract bridge to C.V./B.S., etc.). I've hated watching his ABs so far in this young season, but I'd be hypocritical if I questioned the signing now and not then. However, regretting the signing is a different bird.
Honestly, I've missed a lot of AJ's PA so far, but at least aesthetically, I do prefer shorter PAs. I mean, I prefer whatever it is that leads to the Red Sox winning, but nice quick PAs are a nice brand of baseball.
AJ is a good contact hitter, and Fenway is really a good place for contact hitters to be with that big LF wall and small foul territory. So long as his contact skills are still intact and his hasn't somehow forgotten how to catch, he should be a decent player.
AJ is a good contact hitter, and Fenway is really a good place for contact hitters to be with that big LF wall and small foul territory. So long as his contact skills are still intact and his hasn't somehow forgotten how to catch, he should be a decent player.
Plympton91 said:
Even the fact Salty wanted a 3 yr deal is not an excuse since he would have able to be moved in a trade after this year. I suppose there is something we may not know about, or maybe they just project AJP to be better for this year. I am holding off judgement for now, way too early for that IMO.
Well, regardless...
Ron Kulpa calls no balls
We here knew indeed
The need to mull is lackin
Pierzynski, mmwwwif, flatulent, swings at evrything --
A fictive one may have landed, may, at feet
tho fangraphs charts no such novelties --
Boston will win tho he is sent packin
Sublime, this whole sum of its parts.
And thrice lame, wif. wif. wif,
meek he yet amazed from eight hole
So calm ur muted wanly tut
AJ, dewd, y u k u k u k.
topps148 said:
Ron Kulpa calls no balls
We here knew indeed
The need to mull is lackin
Pierzynski, mmwwwif, flatulent, swings at evrything --
A fictive one may have landed, may, at feet
tho fangraphs charts no such novelties --
Boston will win tho he is sent packin
Sublime, this whole sum of its parts.
And thrice lame, wif. wif. wif,
meek he yet amazed from eight hole
So calm ur muted wanly tut
AJ, dewd, y u k u k u k.
alwyn96 said:
Why do you prefer them from the Red Sox? I can understand shorter PAs from the opponent as it saves wear and tear on the pitching staff and gets the Sox back to bat faster, but I love watching 8-9 pitch grind at bats from our team...
ookami7m said:
I think in general a 2:30 hour game, with lots of hits and defensive plays is more interesting than a 3:45 hour game with lots of walks, foul balls, and called strikeouts. I mean, I get why it is important to run up pitch counts and work walks and such, and I want the Red Sox to do that. It's why I can't stand the AJ signing. But I just can't imagine that its as widely appealing across baseball's potential fan base, particularly to a casual fan, or to a 12-year-old fan with a 9:30 bedtime.
I also wonder whether, as more and more teams give up the old ways and become disciples of pitch counts and walks (simplification for shorthand reference), if that just becomes a new worse equilibrium. Once "everyone's doing it" then there's no competitive advantage anymore, and you end up with the same expected win loss percentage and longer, less action-packed games. Of course, one way to resolve the problem is to have umpires call the strike zone from top to bottom and left to right, which would raise the cost of "patience" and make swings earlier in the count relatively less expensive.
Andrew said:
I think there's more fun action on balls in play. Guys are running around, stuff is happening, there's more opportunity to see an awesome athletic play. A bunch of thrown pitches can certainly be interesting, but in general I think there's more exciting stuff happening when the ball is hit. Long pitch sequences tend to involve a lot of standing around waiting for stuff to happen.
This is just a personal aesthetic preference, of course. I get that running up pitch counts and stuff may help score runs and I want the Red Sox to score as many runs as possible, but I just don't find that approach as interesting to watch. If I'm watching the Red Sox, I want them to do everything to win, but if I'm just watching a baseball game I don't have a rooting interest in, then contact-oriented baseball just seems more fun to me. Ideally, the Red Sox would all hit .360 and score 1000 runs, but I understand that's unlikely to happen.
I don't know what's best for the sport of baseball. I guess it's what's best for the average fan and the 12 year old with a bed time. But I love long at bats, and long games too.
I love the Red Sox winning, long at-bats help them win, complete this syllogism.
Watching long at-bats is much more fun on MLBtv, where I can watch pitch movement and command and compare them to the data. Watching modern baseball from the stands is tedious, except when the company is good.
Watching long at-bats is much more fun on MLBtv, where I can watch pitch movement and command and compare them to the data. Watching modern baseball from the stands is tedious, except when the company is good.
Andrew said:
Is there a specific "fan" you are referring to? Because no one in this thread is saying anything even remotely like that.
Hell, I'm sitting here making excuses for why a player whose approach probably isn't helping the team win is actually still fun to watch. We all love baseball here. It's ok to think some parts of the game are more interesting than others. I happen to like contact. Maybe you adore pitchers who take as much time as possible between pitches. That's your weird prerogative, I guess, but I think there's room for everyone to like different things about baseball. Call me crazy.
Andrew said:
This is always my tongue in cheek reaction to this discussion too. I just don't understand the sensibility. I love baseball. I love being at the park. I'm never in a rush to get home. I want to keep being there. I want them to keep selling beer. Obviously, it has limits -- a 17 inning game with little happening can get tedious. But I remember last year I went to Fenway and it was a pitching duel with the Tigers and it was over in like 2:30 and I felt cheated. $145 for field box and I want more than a 2:30 rental!
NFL games and NBA games that are extended by excessive time outs and commercials are very different to me. Baseball, even when it's played slowly with throws over to first and hitters backing out of the box has with it a certain rhythm and pace. And I never mind games that take long because the Sox are seeing a lot of pitches. It's not just the result of a pitch that is exciting -- it's the anticipation as the delivery is being made. Every pitch is a possibility.
Edit: Ambiguity
alwyn96 said:
The huge pull for having shorter games. I can understand wanting to eliminate things that aren't part of the game and waste time, but the number of pitches in an at-bat aren't one of those things. Throwing over to first, or holding the ball for a few extra beats to disrupt a runner aren't one of those things. And Buster Olney was even pushing changing it so regulation games are only 7-innings.
Not having a clock makes it fun to me. Like DDB just said, every pitch has so much potential in it. And the game allows for that. It's what is beautiful about the game.
I just don't get it. Like I said, if you're a fan of baseball why do you want there to be less of it during a game?
We don't want less baseball, we just don't want the dramatic tension of the game to be drained out of it by all the time wasting. Working a good AB isn't a problem, but all the stalling between pitches by both pitcher and batter is.
Andrew said:
Well, I don't get you either. Who said anything about a clock? We're at loggerheads! Perhaps we'll have to agree to disagree here.
Like I said, I like contact. There's even more potential for stuff to happen there! Not even potential, stuff is actually happening! Why would you want less stuff to happen? Are batted balls too exciting?
Smiling Joe Hesketh said:
Yeah, I agree with this. I have no problems with quality AB and whatnot, and I'm not proposing any sweeping game changes. More pitches does tend to equal more stalling, unfortunately. I don't remember anyone saying it was a real treat to watch Dice-K nibble through 110 pitches in 5 innings. I'm not even saying a lot of pitches is a problem. I just like contact better. Maybe it's a holdover from my days as an infielder with problems focusing on the game.
Figure in some of the push to shorten games is an attempt to make it so young children have an opportunity to actually watch the end of the game. Hard to hook the next generation of fans when the vast majority of them end after bedtime on a schoolnight.
More pitches does mean that every readjustment of the gloves, jock, etc comes into play more often.
But that's what the rules for 12 seconds between pitches and no leaving the box after pitches with no swing and no men on base should come into play and help keep the game time more managable.
But that's what the rules for 12 seconds between pitches and no leaving the box after pitches with no swing and no men on base should come into play and help keep the game time more managable.
Andrew said:
Andrew said:
I agree. 2:30 hours is a little short, and the idea of making games only 7 innings is so bad that one wonders if Olney needs a career change. But the opposite side of that is the 4:15 that it's going to take the Red Sox and Yankees to play 9 innings tonight, which is ridiculous. And only some of that will be because of Girardi having every infielder retie their shoelaces in some inning while he makes up for not getting a relief pitcher ready in time.
Smiling Joe Hesketh said:
I would also add that there's a time and a place for the tempo to slow. The "stalling" that's so annoying in the third inning of an early May Tuesday night game against a non-divisional rival is completely appropriate in the ninth inning of a playoff clincher with the score tied and men in scoring position. I'd be almost disappointed to have the players going briskly about their business in that situation. The pauses allow time for the tension to bloom. So to me pacing in a baseball game is kind of an art.
Andrew said:
Come on---you know what they're talking about. Stepping out of the batter's box between every pitch isn't baseball. Pitchers taking forever between pitches isn't baseball.
We all want the same 9 innings and 27 outs. We don't want more time for Harold Reynolds to speak.
DrewDawg said:
I think you have whom Andrew is addressing reversed--he's confounded by the people who prefer hits and "action" in ways that would seem to devalue a great battle between a pitcher and batter that may take many pitches.
People are conflating the different reasons that make a game go lone, I think. It's entirely possible to want to speed up the time between events while still valuing other aspects of the game that may slow it down.
Reverend said:
Apologies if I had the wrong person quoted, but this part above is my point. If a pitcher can't throw strikes and a team is working the count and making that guy throw lots of pitches, I have no problem. That's not a problem with the game, that's a problem with the pitcher.
Time between pitches is more my issue. Couple that with a strike zone that's the size of a postage stamp (again, I have no issues with players using this to their advantage) and sometimes the games drag.
Enforce the "shot clock" and call strikes from the bottom of the knees to the midpoint between shoulders and belt.
KiltedFool said:
Night games are actually finishing earlier now (on average) than they in the 1980s--they used to be somewhat shorter, but they also started at 7:30PM.
KiltedFool said:
I'm only 33 and many games ended after my bedtime when I was a kid but that didn't deter my fandom... I've always found this excuse to be a bit flimsy at best. Agree 100% above with the time between pitches (batters stepping out, etc) is the bigger problem than working counts.
Just for s&g, I looked at all of the Red Sox home games for April 1988, since that was the first season I could find (in my lifetime) that had start times listed on the box score. The first time they started later than 1:22pm was on April 29, their 11th home game, which started at 7:35. Their first ten games started at 1:22 (Opening Day, presumably late for introductions), 1:05, or 12:40 pm (Patriots Day).
Guessing they didn't do that for the benefit of the fans so much as the benefit of the players so they were playing during the warmest part of the day. Game times have never really been about being kid friendly, at least not with intent. They just worked out that way.
Guessing they didn't do that for the benefit of the fans so much as the benefit of the players so they were playing during the warmest part of the day. Game times have never really been about being kid friendly, at least not with intent. They just worked out that way.
NESN was a premium channel in those days, so there weren't as many viewers. Ad revenue wasn't as big a factor as today.
I know, it's pollyanna, but really, the problem with length of games is the 2.5-3 minutes between innings for commercials. Really, cut a minute out that, reduce revenue, drop salaries 10% and I'm good. The relentless commercial assault between innings and in game is what really irritates me. I love the Sox working the count, and don't mind a stroll out of the batter's box every now and again. But waiting an eternity between innings to see one more Jordan's ad, well, that I can do without.
Here is the best post I could find with data for all teams over the past 40 years:Homar said:
http://blog.revolutionanalytics.com/2010/08/baseball-games-getting-longer.html
It seems likely that the continuous rise from the 1970s to the mid-1990s can be mainly attributed to two factors: more runs scored (meaning more pitches, more at bats, more throws to first, etc.) and more commercial breaks, as teams moved from having some games broadcast (or only on premium networks such as NESN in the 1990s) to every game being on TV.
ishmael said:
In theory, then, as we grow deeper into a lower run-scoring environment, gametimes shopuld stabilize or shrink. Instead, though, the bottom-line folks will seize that as an opportnity to sell more ads within the same viewing window ("lets go to 3 minutes betweeen half innings and the games will still end at the same time.)
Savin Hillbilly said:
I agree. There were lots of times when watching Papelbon take 35 minutes to close out a tense game really drew me in and greatly enhanced the game experience for me. Other times my enjoyment had a note of "JUST THROW THE BALL!"
Just because the numbers are so outrageous, here are AJ's first 28 PA on the Red Sox.
.321/.321/.321/.642 (BA/OBP/SLG/OPS). 7Ks, O BBs, 0 XBH
More interestingly....
AJ Pierzynski
Overall swing percentage: 73.9% (career avg. 58.8%)
Swing percentage at balls outside the strike zone: 67.6% (career avg. 38.7%)
2nd highest in all of baseball in 2014 (min 20 PA)
Overall swing percentage: 63.7% (Ian Desmond)
Swing percentage at balls outside the strike zone: 52.1% (Jonathan Schoop)
Red Sox team average (which would be lower without AJ)
Overall swing percentage: 42.5%
Swing percentage at balls outside the strike zone: 25.4%
What is going on with this guy? Tiny sample to be sure, but he's blowing away even the biggest hackers in the rest of the league in a similarly tiny sample. And he is swinging way more often than even he typically does. It's hard to imagine a major league player swinging at 67.6% of pitches that are balls. Has he given up? Has he gone blind?
If this keeps up, we will all be anxiously awaiting the Christian Vazquez/Blake Swihart era even more than we thought.
.321/.321/.321/.642 (BA/OBP/SLG/OPS). 7Ks, O BBs, 0 XBH
More interestingly....
AJ Pierzynski
Overall swing percentage: 73.9% (career avg. 58.8%)
Swing percentage at balls outside the strike zone: 67.6% (career avg. 38.7%)
2nd highest in all of baseball in 2014 (min 20 PA)
Overall swing percentage: 63.7% (Ian Desmond)
Swing percentage at balls outside the strike zone: 52.1% (Jonathan Schoop)
Red Sox team average (which would be lower without AJ)
Overall swing percentage: 42.5%
Swing percentage at balls outside the strike zone: 25.4%
What is going on with this guy? Tiny sample to be sure, but he's blowing away even the biggest hackers in the rest of the league in a similarly tiny sample. And he is swinging way more often than even he typically does. It's hard to imagine a major league player swinging at 67.6% of pitches that are balls. Has he given up? Has he gone blind?
If this keeps up, we will all be anxiously awaiting the Christian Vazquez/Blake Swihart era even more than we thought.
radsoxfan said:
... but for s&g:
Christian Vazquez in 24 AAA PA: 0.250/0.250/0.375/0.625, 4Ks, 0 BBs, 3 XBH
Blake Swihart in 20 AA PA: 0.368/0.400/0.526/0.926, 2Ks, 1BBs, 2 XBH
radsoxfan said:
AJ's swing % (63.8%) and O-swing % (55.6%) are still "tops" in the league.
BMac did a piece on why AJ is AJ a while back - http://www.providencejournal.com/sports/content/20140321-why-a.j.-pierzynski-almost-never-walks.ece - and the conceit, at least according to AJ, is “The reason I get in trouble where other people don’t is that when I swing, I usually hit the ball,” he said. “I put bad pitches in play. Other guys get fooled and they swing and miss or foul them off, and I’ll put them in play for a ground-ball out.”
If that were true, I would think his contact rate would be tops in the league (it isn't, it's 75.7%) and his swinging strike rate would be low (it's actually high at 14.1%, which is sandwiched around Justin Upton at 13.9%, Soriano at 14.3%, and Ryan Howard at 14.7%).
Maybe the real issue is that he just can't identify the strike zone very well? Maybe he needs glasses?
wade boggs chicken dinner said:
Given the high number of pitches he boxed around or didn't catch cleanly behind the plate last night, i am starting to wonder about this.
Interesting piece here... http://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/the-most-disciplined-mlb-batters/
Based on correctly swinging at strikes and incorrectly swinging at balls, AJ Pierzynski's 2013 was the least disciplined season since 2002.
Based on correctly swinging at strikes and incorrectly swinging at balls, AJ Pierzynski's 2013 was the least disciplined season since 2002.
Great article. Not surprising results re: AJP
Interesting that Nomar and Vlad both had seasons near the top of the "good decision" list. I guess when you swing at almost 100% of strikes, you end up making a lot of good decisions overall.
Also odd that the top 20 seasons were all from 2002-2004, and all the top 20 worst were all 2009-2013.
Interesting that Nomar and Vlad both had seasons near the top of the "good decision" list. I guess when you swing at almost 100% of strikes, you end up making a lot of good decisions overall.
Also odd that the top 20 seasons were all from 2002-2004, and all the top 20 worst were all 2009-2013.
radsoxfan said:
Isn't one of the as yet not certified by the FDA statements about HGH that it improves eyesight?
http://www.hgh.com.mx/eyesight.html