Jack Parkman

I love sports that are a giant physics problem. I have gravitated toward baseball, hockey and golf because there are a lot of aspects to physics. This is actually chemistry related, but humid air is less dense than dry air. because: N2= ~28g molar mass O2: ~32g molar mass H2O: 18g molar mass which explains why the ball goes further on humid days. The only things that will affect it are humidity and altitude.

They have handheld ones like the cops. They just point it to a different spot. (right in front of the mound vs. in front of home plate)

Yeah, I know it happened in 2010. 2007 was roughly the first year on that graph.

I don't always get my point across immediately. Sometimes it takes discussion to actually get me to convey the point I was always trying to make. I'm not the best with communication in any form when it is instantaneous. I have to really sit and think about it a lot of the time. As I've become more comfortable on this forum, I haven't taken the time to do that as much. That is why it looks like I'm all over the place to you guys. In my early days on this forum, I used to let what I posted sit for an hour or two except in the gamethreads, to make sure I was conveying exactly the point I was intending to convey.

My argument is that the comparison, let's say pre 2007 and post 2007 are two different data sets. If Juan Guzman was throwing 93 mph in 1993 (hypothetically) we have no idea what he was throwing at his release point. This is the plain and simple definition of moving the goalposts.

Not trying to do that, thanks for telling me. I had no idea. That's autism for ya.

I aced calculus and differential equations in college. I can do a derivative or integral in my head. Gabriel's horn was one of the coolest things in Calculus to me. an infinite surface area but a definite volume.

I remember when MLB used Pitch f/x on gameday they used to show the velocity at both the pitcher's release and at home plate. I remember seeing once how the velocity would drop about 2-3 mph depending on the speed of the pitch. The slower the release velocity, the more the pitch would slow at home plate. a 93 mph fastball at release was around a 90 mph fastball at the plate, a 96 mph fastball at release was just under 94 mph at the plate.

They changed the reference point in which they measure pitch velocity. They're not actually throwing harder. If pitchers were actually throwing harder on average, I don't think that hitters would be as good as they were in the past.

This table is the basis for wOBA, btw. I think it is superior to OBP. I was going to create a post about it.

Contradicted. Yes. That was a later edit, that I missed to put quotes around "throwing harder" and fix the first sentence. I forgot to do that.

Yeah, the more variables you have the lower the R^2 for all of them.

Not always, the soft looping LD can end up resulting in extra bases where a frozen rope that doesn't clear the fence can end up as a single.

Just watching baseball over the past 25 years I can already see the difference. Yes, pitchers are " throwing harder" but this is why: Also, did you know that they changed the spot in which they measure pitch velocity since then? Back before like 2010 they used to measure in front of home plate. Now the measure it right after the pitcher releases the baseball. I know that it's only 60.5 ft, but drag matters. A 95 mph fastball right out of the pitcher's hand is around 91-92 mph when it reaches the plate. Pitchers aren't throwing harder, it just looks like they are because they changed the point of reference. It is why guys who used to throw 92 mph could strike out as many people as they did. They are only creating an illusion that pitchers are throwing harder than ever before. They're not.

No, I actually took a graduate level statistics course. You?

Very true.

It depends on what your definition of a single and a double is. My definitions: Strikeout: Never make the Majors Groundout: <0.5 WAR Single: 0.5-2.5 WAR annually Double : 2.5-4 WAR annually Triple: 4-5.5 WAR annually HR: 5.5+ WAR

No it doesn't. Players before the 90s would go out of their way to strike out as little as possible. I'm sure 30% of hitters had a K% of less than 10% in the 50s and 60s.

It doesn't reach the level of statistical significance unless you have an r^2 of over 0.5, so none of those have a correlation that is anything close to having any meaning at all.

The post that you quoted is what I was trying to get at by "straight math." In order to strike out at an incredibly low rate, it is extremely likely that the hitter is sacrificing walks and getting deep into counts in order to achieve that. It would take an incredibly rare and special player to have THAT EYE and THAT CONTACT TOOL. You're talking about the best pure hitters of all time. Tony Gwynn, Pete Rose, etc.

Let's put it in baseball terms: You try to hit a single. You might hit a double every once in a while. HRs and triples are rare, you just happen to run into them. You swing for the fences. You might strike out more often, but you're going to hit a hell of a lot more XBH than you otherwise would being content with the single. The safe pick is always the wrong pick. Did we not learn anything from the Sox draft philosophy from the late 2000s?

This is hilarious. If that is the case, then what is the fucking point? If all of these things have a low correlation with BABIP, then where is the actual skill in baseball? This suggests that the outcome of a batted ball in play is 100% luck and nothing else.

There is one thing that makes a high BABIP sustainable: Exit Velocity. If you drive the ball with authority, you're able to maintain higher BABIPs. If you don't you're not. Since power and driving the ball is one of Madrigal's weaknesses, then idk what your objection is. It isn't like Madrigal is going to hit a ton of HRs.

Not necessarily. The combination of K+BB might result in a higher OBP than having a ridiculously low K% but also a ridiculously low BB% Usually in order to have a ridiculously low K%, a ridiculously low BB% is a requirement. There are some rare players that can still go deep into counts and not strike out, but realistically in order to strike out as few times as Madrigal does, he's putting the ball in play (a lot) before he gets to two strikes. Therefore, you have to weigh the risk/reward of putting the ball in play vs. taking walks. Any schmo can strike out a low amount if you're swinging at crap just to put the ball in play. Taking a walk deep in a count is a skill. I don't understand what people don't understand here. Everything I've said makes sense.

Because in order to strike out at a ridiculously low rate you're not getting into deep counts.