3/10 vs A's, 3pm, whitesox.com

[Look at Ray Ray Run]

8 minutes ago, thxfrthmmrs said:

I find it comical you quote sources you do not read through and pretend that is supports your argument and claim to be correct. The article you posted factually does not prove your point that high fastball are easier to barrel up.

"Of course that doesn’t mean higher pitches are better to swing at, high pitches are also known to induce more pop-ups and whiffs on certain types of fastballs (high spin) but for players who have trouble to elevate the ball it can make sense to swing a little less in the lower part of the zone. On the other hand a high whiff or popup rate type of player who has a good launch angle it might make sense to leave the high pitches alone."

Focus on that part of the statement, the paradigm shift is hitters are learning to elevate the low fastballs so they do not have to hit the high fastball, which have known (and statistically proven) to lead to worse outcome.

I honestly think you cant read.

Its either that or you're wilfully ignorant to all of my posts in this thread.

Edited March 11, 2019 by Look at Ray Ray Run

[thxfrthmmrs]

10 minutes ago, Look at Ray Ray Run said:

I honestly think you cant read.

Its either that or you're wilfully ignorant to all of my posts in this thread.

I think it's the opposite. But keep moving the goalpost to defend your point when you missed Parkman's original statement.

[Look at Ray Ray Run]

15 minutes ago, thxfrthmmrs said:

I find it comical you quote sources you do not read through and pretend that is supports your argument and claim to be correct. The article you posted factually does not prove your point that high fastball are easier to barrel up.

"Of course that doesn’t mean higher pitches are better to swing at, high pitches are also known to induce more pop-ups and whiffs on certain types of fastballs (high spin) but for players who have trouble to elevate the ball it can make sense to swing a little less in the lower part of the zone. On the other hand a high whiff or popup rate type of player who has a good launch angle it might make sense to leave the high pitches alone."

Focus on that part of the statement, the paradigm shift is hitters are learning to elevate the low fastballs so they do not have to hit the high fastball, which have known (and statistically proven) to lead to worse outcome.

1. I never said the game hasnt changed a bit - it has. An entire generation of players grew up in an era where the ball was kept down. This has led to players being more prepared for it. This has led to an increase in high fastball effectiveness - something me, myself, has discussed at length in regards to Quintana and now Lambert.

2. Just because players have become better doesnt mean it's easier to hit than a high fastball. In fact, even pitchers who live up in the zone more than others still throw the majority of their stuff down. Home run rates on pitches above the waste far exceed that of their counter (below the waste). 

This conversation has evolved quite a bit and my stance remains the same. Lower balls - fastballs or not - are more difficult to elevate than higher balls.

[Look at Ray Ray Run]

1 minute ago, thxfrthmmrs said:

I think it's the opposite. But keep moving the goalpost to defend your point when you missed Parkman's original statement.

The goal posts lol? So yes, you cant read.

[Look at Ray Ray Run]

3 hours ago, Look at Ray Ray Run said:

Theres a reason pitchers have spent the past two decades living down in the zone and it's not because they like being smacked around.

It is easier to elevate a high pitch than a low one. 

The high fastball is making a comeback though.

My first post in the thread. It's easier to elevate the high pitch than the low one. I have somehow moved the goalposts though. Maybe head to sylvan and work on those reading skills bud.

[Dick Allen]

Just now, Look at Ray Ray Run said:

The goal posts lol? So yes, you cant read.

Here's the post that started it all. 

Either way it's much easier for the hitter to hit and control a high fastball than a low one. The low fastball is either going straight into the ground or straight up hence the reason for the upper cut swing with the low ones.

What was that about not being able to read?

[Look at Ray Ray Run]

2 hours ago, Jack Parkman said:

Physics says this is wrong. It is actually easier to elevate a low pitch than a high one. The launch angle will be higher in a low pitch than a high pitch by default. Ground balls have a negative launch angle. High pitches will have a smaller launch angle because it is harder to square up. Idk if you've ever tried playing baseball before but.....I'm no professional(far from it) but low pitches are far easier to square up than high ones. 

Parkman literally quoted my sentence that said "its easier to elevate a high pitch than a low one" and said that's wrong when in fact, its literally 100% correct. 

Somehow I have moved the goal posts though.

[Look at Ray Ray Run]

3 hours ago, Dick Allen said:

Probably the biggest reason is it rarely is called a strike. Jose Quintana's put away pitch is a 92 MPH high fastball. 

I'm telling you, go to a batting cage which will give you the same MPH every pitch, and see how much easier it is to get around on the lower ones. Gravity helps. 

Well dick, I quoted this post made by you to start the conversation so I have no idea why you're quoting a post I never responded too and stating I moved the goal posts. 

Maybe you can tell me to go to the batting cage again to prove a point.

Edited March 11, 2019 by Look at Ray Ray Run

[thxfrthmmrs]

3 minutes ago, Look at Ray Ray Run said:

My first post in the thread. It's easier to elevate the high pitch than the low one. I have somehow moved the goalposts though. Maybe head to sylvan and work on those reading skills bud.

What you're missing is what you said simply does not support your argument. You posted only average launch angle on pitches and their location, but what about their contact % on high vs. low fastballs? To say it's easier to "square up on a high fastballs", you must show batters today have better results hitting the high fastball vs low ones, which I have shown you the opposite is correct.

[Look at Ray Ray Run]

6 minutes ago, thxfrthmmrs said:

What you're missing is what you said simply does not support your argument. You posted only average launch angle on pitches and their location, but what about their contact % on high vs. low fastballs? To say it's easier to "square up on a high fastballs", you must show batters today have better results hitting the high fastball vs low ones, which I have shown you the opposite is correct.

Where did I say it's easier to square one up? 

And no, you have shown me nothing to refute the two points I've made in this thread. 

Easier to elevate a high pitch - fact.

High pitches have higher EV - fact.

[thxfrthmmrs]

3 hours ago, Look at Ray Ray Run said:

No. I'm not sure why people think hitters take dramatic upper cut swings that lead to dropping the barrel head down on the ball. Even people who are fly ball oriented don't like continually dropping the barrel down on the ball. You prefer to drive through the ball - not sweep it. 

The high fastball is easier to square up - hence why it's thrown less. 

You're all over the place with your posts, and muddying the line between elevating a pitch (launch angle) vs. squaring up. They're not one of the same. I will also pretty you weren't talking about fastballs only in your posts.

[thxfrthmmrs]

Just now, Look at Ray Ray Run said:

Where did I say it's easier to square one up? 

And no, you have shown me nothing to refute the two points I've made in this thread. 

Easier to elevate a high pitch - fact.

High pitches have higher EV - fact.

Glad you asked, see one post above.

[thxfrthmmrs]

My last post on this topic, but it's becoming apparent you're missing the point and using your stats incorrectly.

To summarize what you said:

1) High pitches are easier to elevate - true, but this means nothing in isolation, easier to elevate does not suggest better results

2) High fastballs are easier to square up - false

Since you're a statistical person, I think you'd also see the fallacy of using the numbers you pointed to here: https://community.fangraphs.com/effect-of-pitch-selection-on-launch-angle-and-exit-velocity/

The up and in (good) pitches are one of the worst pitches for hitters to hit (as suggested by the EV you linked to). The up and away (mistake) pitches produced the best results (by measurement of EV and LA). But let's also consider that for those mistake pitches go a long way and has much higher exit velocity, henced average EV are skewed, but that doesn't mean they are happening more frequently (because the results are more favorable for the pitcher) compared to a low pitch. If you want to have a good leg to stand on, use batting average, wOBA, or xwOBA that weights each event the same. So to have a blanket statement that high fastballs are easier to hit (as Parkman and Dick Allen were debating you on had you read their posts carefully) or easier to square up, you're stats falls short of proving your point by a 90 degree launch angle.

Edited March 11, 2019 by thxfrthmmrs

[ptatc]

49 minutes ago, Dick Allen said:

Here's the post that started it all. 

Either way it's much easier for the hitter to hit and control a high fastball than a low one. The low fastball is either going straight into the ground or straight up hence the reason for the upper cut swing with the low ones.

What was that about not being able to read?

Actually it started well before that. That was in response to earlier posts.

[Look at Ray Ray Run]

2 hours ago, ptatc said:

Actually it started well before that. That was in response to earlier posts.

As the points have been disproven the argument has evolved into something entirely different than the original.

[Look at Ray Ray Run]

2 hours ago, thxfrthmmrs said:

My last post on this topic, but it's becoming apparent you're missing the point and using your stats incorrectly.

To summarize what you said:

1) High pitches are easier to elevate - true, but this means nothing in isolation, easier to elevate does not suggest better results

2) High fastballs are easier to square up - false

Since you're a statistical person, I think you'd also see the fallacy of using the numbers you pointed to here: https://community.fangraphs.com/effect-of-pitch-selection-on-launch-angle-and-exit-velocity/

The up and in (good) pitches are one of the worst pitches for hitters to hit (as suggested by the EV you linked to). The up and away (mistake) pitches produced the best results (by measurement of EV and LA). But let's also consider that for those mistake pitches go a long way and has much higher exit velocity, henced average EV are skewed, but that doesn't mean they are happening more frequently (because the results are more favorable for the pitcher) compared to a low pitch. If you want to have a good leg to stand on, use batting average, wOBA, or xwOBA that weights each event the same. So to have a blanket statement that high fastballs are easier to hit (as Parkman and Dick Allen were debating you on had you read their posts carefully) or easier to square up, you're stats falls short of proving your point by a 90 degree launch angle.

A higher percentage of high fastballs are hit for home runs than low fastballs. There are more low fastballs thrown so there are more home runs on those. 

Here is more data for you and an article you can read. Despite the league CHANGING as I said and guys becoming more low ball hitters than in the past, high pitches still allow for better production for hitters.

For a long time, the strategy for facing a slugger was clear. “The best way to limit slugging percentage was to throw down and away and off the plate,” said former MLB catcher and current Chicago Cubs coach John Baker. Baker played from 2008 to 2014, at a time when the bottom was falling out of the strike zone and offense was dropping with it. In 2013, 36.5 percent of throws crossed the plate less than two feet off the ground, and hitters racked up a slash line of just .210/.295/.298 against those pitches. Meanwhile, hitters did considerably better against pitches more than three feet above the plate: .210/.351/.348.

Then the league adjusted. More recently, “the guys that are the best guys in the world right now all seem to have this [Mike] Trout-type low-ball swing,” Baker said. Nowadays, the same low pitches that once got hitters out are getting slugged at a rate 20 points higher than in 2013 (.212/.301/.321). While production high in the zone is still decent (.203/.351/.362), the gap between the two types of pitches has closed significantly. 1 It seems as though a wave of young players entered the league with their swings geared to combat the knee-high strike, and that trend reduced the pitch’s effectiveness

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/pitchers-are-slowly-adapting-to-the-home-run-spike/

So yes, while people have become better low ball hitters, it's still better to live down than up. The nice thing about this article is that 538 discusses the rising strike zone too - the low strike hasnt even called like before so pitchers have been forced to put the ball more up in the zone making it more hittable. So yes, the gap has closed (I said this) but living up in the zone is still a good bit more dangerous than living down in the zone.

Edited March 11, 2019 by Look at Ray Ray Run

[Look at Ray Ray Run]

18 hours ago, Jack Parkman said:

No it isn't. It is easier to hit a ball harder on a ball middle to low than in the upper part of the zone. When a pitcher hangs a breaking ball in the upper part of the zone, it is harder to make solid contact with it. I will disagree and continue until the end of time that pitchers get shelled less often when they pitch at the top of the zone vs at the bottom. I wish I could do batted ball data, but of the pitches that get hit really hard, I'd bet that more that were hit hard were heart-lower than upper. It is hard to even hit a hanging breaking ball at the top of the zone. The reason I believe this is because it is harder to get good wood at the top of the zone. A hitter will either be underneath, on top, or miss completely the majority of the time. When a hitter does get decent wood on a ball. I want to know what percentage of HRs come at the upper 3rd of the zone. I don't think it is high and I think that far more HRs come at the lower part of the zone than in the upper part, just because of launch angle. It is just much harder to time a high pitch than a low one to get good wood on it. 

How anyone can read this post, and then the data I have posted, and think the above position is correct i will never ever know.

[Jack Parkman]

17 minutes ago, Look at Ray Ray Run said:

How anyone can read this post, and then the data I have posted, and think the above position is correct i will never ever know.

Look at what happened to Nova, a sinkerballer, today and tell me it is a good idea to work low in the zone in today's game again. Just tell me. 

If what you were saying is true, Ivan Nova and Dylan Covey shouldn't suck, but they do, because hitters hit low pitches hard. You must be looking at some old data or something. 

Edited March 11, 2019 by Jack Parkman

[BackDoorBreach]

Wow, just had to Next the last 3 pages without reading anything.

And to throw my hat into the ring, high heat is 100% more difficult to make contact on than low.  Dropping the bat head vs elevating your hands to make contact is faster.  Idk how this is even being debated. 

[pcq]

56 minutes ago, BackDoorBreach said:

Wow, just had to Next the last 3 pages without reading anything.

And to throw my hat into the ring, high heat is 100% more difficult to make contact on than low.  Dropping the bat head vs elevating your hands to make contact is faster.  Idk how this is even being debated. 

Generally true I always thought but the toughest pitch to hit is the one you are not expecting. 

[caulfield12]

3 minutes ago, pcq said:

Generally true I always thought but the toughest pitch to hit is the one you are not expecting. 

Or the Takatsu 67 mph slurve....