Stat for pitcher accuracy?

[ChiliIrishHammock24]

Ok, so in the NFL, they have a stat to track the accuracy of a QB. I forget exactly the measurements, but basically they draw an imaginary 2ft by 2ft box on a WR with the center of that box being the numbers on chest. The goal is for the QB to place the pass in that box. That essentially means it was on target and the WR is expected to catch it. I remember this because I am a Rams fan and Marc Bulger used to be the most accurate passer back in like 2006 or 2007.

 

Anyway, my question is if they have a similar stat somewhere in baseball. The stat would be to draw an imaginary box around the glove of a catcher, and see how often the pitcher throws the pitch within that box. Not sure if there is similar stat or not, but it's something that would be interesting to see the numbers on.

[knightni]

The walk usually is a pretty good determining stat.

[ChiliIrishHammock24]

The walk usually is a pretty good determining stat.

 

I was waiting for someone to sarcastically suggest that....

[knightni]

I was waiting for someone to sarcastically suggest that....

 

 

Some parks have QuesTec which sounds like what you mean, but they aren't everywhere.

[SoxAce]

**Patiently waiting for qwerty to give some crazy (yet informal/long read) site to help JoeCoolMan24's needs.**

 

[maggsmaggs]

In all seriousness, BB is probably your best bet (or K/BB ratio). I am sure there is some advanced stat that will give you more precisely who is the most accurate. But if there is such a statistics, I would guess the two aforementioned stats would match very closely. Here are the top BB and K/BB ratio pitchers in baseball this year.

 

 

[chw42]

pitch f/x will tell you the percentage of strikes or balls a pitcher throws and it is taken down for every pitch type.

 

http://pitchfx.texasleaguers.com/pitcher/134321/

 

This database has every pitcher in it. You can also look at hitter's strike zone selections and etc.

Edited July 17, 2010 by chw42

[chw42]

**Patiently waiting for qwerty to give some crazy (yet informal/long read) site to help JoeCoolMan24's needs.**

 

 

I beat him to it.

[qwerty]

I beat him to it.

 

Yes, the only thing missing was a ''crazy yet informal/long read (which no one even bothers reading so i have given up even trying). What i take from that (too long of a read/what they are reading is foreign to them) is people either have extremely short attention spans, or they lack the interest it takes to learn, for it to no longer be foreign to them.

 

Anyway, if you would like to learn some very cool things sometime soon... things i have learned from scouring the deep depths of the internet... make sure to stop by the chat during the mariners series if you can. I'm sure you would end up teaching kalapse and myself a thing or two also, which you undoubtedly would. I say this because you really do have a hang of what your saying. It's a nice change of pace.

 

The offer is out there... it could be fun.

[chw42]

Yes, the only thing missing was a ''crazy yet informal/long read (which no one even bothers reading so i have given up even trying). What i take from that (too long of a read/what they are reading is foreign to them) is people either have extremely short attention spans, or they lack the interest it takes to learn, for it to no longer be foreign to them.

 

Anyway, if you would like to learn some very cool things sometime soon... things i have learned from scouring the deep depths of the internet... make sure to stop by the chat during the mariners series if you can. I'm sure you would end up teaching kalapse and myself a thing or two also, which you undoubtedly would. I say this because you really do have a hang of what your saying. It's a nice change of pace.

 

The offer is out there... it could be fun.

 

Probably can't for the Mariners series, games are too damn late. I might be in there for the first couple of innings, but I have work early the day after in that series. So I can't stay too late.

Edited July 17, 2010 by chw42

[SoxAce]

Yes, the only thing missing was a ''crazy yet informal/long read (which no one even bothers reading so i have given up even trying). What i take from that (too long of a read/what they are reading is foreign to them) is people either have extremely short attention spans, or they lack the interest it takes to learn, for it to no longer be foreign to them.

 

Anyway, if you would like to learn some very cool things sometime soon... things i have learned from scouring the deep depths of the internet... make sure to stop by the chat during the mariners series if you can. I'm sure you would end up teaching kalapse and myself a thing or two also, which you undoubtedly would. I say this because you really do have a hang of what your saying. It's a nice change of pace.

 

The offer is out there... it could be fun.

 

I've read a couple of your things bro in the past and it is very good stuff when people take the time. More or less just kiddin around with ya, but I'm sure most posters just skip over it (I don't read EVERY site you put up, cept the ones I'm curious on myself) BTW, I told you guys chw42 was an underrated poster.

[Kalapse]

What he's getting at is something that I don't think exists but would be a pretty awesome resource if it did. Pitch f/x will tell you how often a pitcher throws a ball in the strike zone but nothing about his ability to hit the catcher's mitt, which is what he's looking for.

[Jordan4life_2007]

I've read a couple of your things bro in the past and it is very good stuff when people take the time. More or less just kiddin around with ya, but I'm sure most posters just skip over it (I don't read EVERY site you put up, cept the ones I'm curious on myself) BTW, I told you guys chw42 was an underrated poster.

 

You should read qwerty's breakdown of why he doesn't think Sergio Santos will be all that good for the long-term. I don't agree with all of it. But it was an excellent analysis. I wish the damn search function worked.

Edited July 17, 2010 by Jordan4life

[SoxAce]

You should read qwerty's breakdown of why he doesn't think Sergio Santos will be all that good for the long-term. I don't agree with all of it. But it was an excellent analysis. I wish the damn search function worked.

 

I still remember his find on hitter's protection in the lineup. (and if there really is "protection") Just outstanding stuff. There is a reason I call him "Kalapse BEFORE Kalapse" back in the golden years of ST. One of my personal favorite posters here when he actually does post. Now that I'm done stroking his ego, the guy really needs to loosen up, not be so serious, and crack a smile more often. Kal at least kills posters with kindness when he makes points.

Edited July 17, 2010 by J.Reedfan8

[Kalapse]

You should read qwerty's breakdown of why he doesn't think Sergio Santos will be all that good for the long-term. I don't agree with all of it. But it was an excellent analysis. I wish the damn search function worked.

http://www.soxtalk.com/forums/index.php?s=...t&p=2186708

[Jordan4life_2007]

http://www.soxtalk.com/forums/index.php?s=...t&p=2186708

 

lol. What planet are you from? You're like the human Johnny 5 robot. Thanks though.

[knightni]

lol. What planet are you from? You're like the human Johnny 5 robot. Thanks though.

I was there too, but Kal's quicker.

[qwerty]

What he's getting at is something that I don't think exists but would be a pretty awesome resource if it did. Pitch f/x will tell you how often a pitcher throws a ball in the strike zone but nothing about his ability to hit the catcher's mitt, which is what he's looking for.

 

The glove is such a minimal part of the plate. What does he mean by hit the catchers mitt? Literally zero movement in any direction? That is kinda far fetched. By kinda i mean extremely. An inch or so in any direction? Realistically you would have to think some form of leeway would be needed. Something to factor in... just because a catcher sets up in one place, that does not necessarily mean the pitch was intended to go there. That's especially the case when there are men on base, to try and prevent the batter from an advantage. I would wager that the percentage of times a pitcher hits a catchers mitt without the glove being moved in any direction is in the single digits. Remember i am saying single digits do to the fact zero movement would be involved.

 

I personally don't think very much would be taken out of this particular study due to it being far too strict. Realistic guidelines would have to be set, and all the variables would have to be understood, before someone could even imagine taking this sort of task down. Ridiculous amount of time and dedication wouldn't hurt either.

Edited July 17, 2010 by qwerty

[Balta1701]

The other thing on this...I'd bet that if you really did exact numbers, you'd find that Greg Maddux was one of the least accurate pitchers in history.

 

Because everything he threw was just off the corner.

[Kalapse]

The glove is such a minimal part of the plate. What does he mean by hit the catchers mitt? Literally zero movement in any direction? That is kinda far fetched. By kinda i mean extremely. An inch or so in any direction? Realistically you would have to think some form of leeway would be needed. Something to factor in... just because a catcher sets up in one place, that does not necessarily mean the pitch was intended to go there. That's especially the case when there are men on base, to try and prevent the batter from an advantage. I would wager that the percentage of times a pitcher hits a catchers mitt without the glove being moved in any direction is in the single digits. Remember i am saying single digits do to the fact zero movement would be involved.

 

I personally don't think very much would be taken out of this particular study due to it being far too strict. Realistic guidelines would have to be set, and all the variables would have to be understood, before someone could even imagine taking this sort of task down. Ridiculous amount of time and dedication wouldn't hurt either.

Well of course there would be leeway, hitting the glove without the catcher even flinching is completely unrealistic but the glove gives you a good idea of where the ball was intended to land and knowing how often the pitch ends up in the zone around the glove would be interesting. I'm not sure how much it would tell you about a pitcher's ability to locate a pitch or a catcher's ability to call the proper pitch and location but it would be cool to see none the less.

[qwerty]

I still remember his find on hitter's protection in the lineup. (and if there really is "protection") Just outstanding stuff. There is a reason I call him "Kalapse BEFORE Kalapse" back in the golden years of ST. One of my personal favorite posters here when he actually does post. Now that I'm done stroking his ego, the guy really needs to loosen up, not be so serious, and crack a smile more often. Kal at least kills posters with kindness when he makes points.

 

I'm only ''serious'' when stupidity is involved. When something that is blatantly wrong and harped on until the end of time it's highly irritating. If that makes me look like a grouch, prick, or someone that people dislike, well then so be it. Most people cannot handle criticism, due to ego, i on the other hand welcome it, and like being pointed in the right direction when incorrect. Being a stubborn person just for the sake of it gets people no place fast. Ignorance is no fun, and tells a lot about a person.

[ChiliIrishHammock24]

The glove is such a minimal part of the plate. What does he mean by hit the catchers mitt? Literally zero movement in any direction? That is kinda far fetched. By kinda i mean extremely. An inch or so in any direction? Realistically you would have to think some form of leeway would be needed. Something to factor in... just because a catcher sets up in one place, that does not necessarily mean the pitch was intended to go there. That's especially the case when there are men on base, to try and prevent the batter from an advantage. I would wager that the percentage of times a pitcher hits a catchers mitt without the glove being moved in any direction is in the single digits. Remember i am saying single digits do to the fact zero movement would be involved.

 

I personally don't think very much would be taken out of this particular study due to it being far too strict. Realistic guidelines would have to be set, and all the variables would have to be understood, before someone could even imagine taking this sort of task down. Ridiculous amount of time and dedication wouldn't hurt either.

 

I am saying draw a box around the mitt before the pitch is delivered, and see if the ball lands somewhere within that box. Basically a 10inch by 10inch square or however big a catchers mitt is I guess. I'll further explain this if you dont get it when I get home from work tonight.