The window

[Rog]

The game is never going to be reduced to numbers. But is numbers that are helping front offices, managers and now even players understand the game better. Those who ignore the numbers are being passed by.

[klaiggeb]

I don't ignore them, Rog.

Far from it.

I just don't place the overwhelming decisions I would make based mostly upon numbers.

Too many intangibles that get ignored when the game, or any game, is reduced to simply what the numbers say.


No way to prove it, but I'd take my eyes and field a team that would be a team you field with saber metrics, 8 times out of 10.

Why?

Can't measure heart.

Can't measure determination.

Can't measure 'wanna.'

boly

[Rog]

No way to prove it, but I'd take my eyes and field a team that would be a team you field with saber metrics, 8 times out of 10.

Why?

Can't measure heart.

Can't measure determination.

Can't measure 'wanna.'


Rog -- What one can measure though are hits, total bases, runs and outs. If heart, determination and "wanna" were what won games, players would be a whole lot less athletic.

Let's take the best Giants team of the five seasons in which they won three World Championships. If the two teams played 100 games, do you honestly think the best Giants team would beat a team of the best 25 players more times than the All-Star team would win?

If there were much chance of that, they could play two All-Star games instead of one. They could have the winningest National League team play the American League All-Stars one night and the winningest American League team play the National League All-Stars the next.

Don't you think most seasons the All-Star teams would finish 2-0?

Here is what might make for an intriguing challenge. Have the defending World Champions play a AAA All-Star team. I would take the World Champions, but if the All-Star team used its pitchers an inning or two at a time, I think the odds would get close. Depending on which pitcher the World Champions used, of course. But to balance things out and not make the teams have to play five games so the All-Stars faced each of the five starters from the World Champions, why not have the World Champs use their #2, #3 or #4 starter -- preferably #3, the middle starter.

I know you hate basketball, but it's more of team game than baseball (which isn't to say baseball isn't a team game). The Warriors might be able to beat an All-Star team that wasn't used to playing together. I think I'd still probably take the All-Star team, but I can see that one as being closer.

I'm not saying the defending World Series winner wouldn't EVER beat an All-Star team, but I don't think they would win a very high percentage of the time.

Let's take:

Kershaw
Jansen
Kimbrel
and a few others

Posey

Goldschmidt

Altuve

Seager

Arenado

Trout

Harper

Judge

And have them play the Chicago Cubs (or the Astros or Dodgers or any other team). Think we can predict the winner many more times than not?




Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/3941/window?page=2#ixzz4lRn3FPMq

[klaiggeb]

Rog, I don't need to look at ANY numbers to know that those guys you mentioned are all outstanding.

I just watch them play.

The numbers, to me, are nice, but they are the window dressing, not the window.

boly

[Rog]

Rog, I don't need to look at ANY numbers to know that those guys you mentioned are all outstanding.


Rog -- Then pick your team. You know, the one that is going to win eight out of 10. Pick your eight starters, and then fill out the 25-man roster as you see fit.

I see no reason you can't come up with as good a team as I, but remember I'll be using both my eyes and my head.

[Rog]

I agree that the game isn't going to be reduced to numbers (with a significant exception I'll mention below), but nor is it going to be reduced to "not numbers" either.

Here is the exception I'm going to mention. Two of them, actually. Number of runs scored and number of wins.

[klaiggeb]

Is that what you were doing?

Picking your team?

I wasn't talking 'paper' teams, I was talking 'real life teams.'

As if you and I had a free reign and were GMS who could pick AND GET anyone we'd want.

Paper teams don't show any of the things I've referenced: Heart, wanna and determination.

Which is precisely why I said "no way to prove it."

boly

[klaiggeb]

I also wasn't talking current major leaguers, Rog.

I was talking about drafting and getting players... PERIOD.

Any level.

You give me my three, and you take your sabermeterics and I'll win 8 of 10 hands down.

But again, no way to prove it.

boly

[Rog]

Is that what you were doing?

Picking your team?

I wasn't talking 'paper' teams, I was talking 'real life teams.'


Rog -- I misunderstood. When you said "No way to prove it, but I'd take my eyes and field a team that would be a team you field with saber metrics, 8 times out of 10," I thought you meant PICKING the players on the teams we would field.

How about we do this then? You pick with your eyes the team you think will have the best record the rest of the season, and I'll use my eyes and sabermetrics (mostly the latter, really, since I don't really get to see the teams aside from the Giants very much) to pick mine. Let's see how they do.

Not exactly scientific, but it could be fun. Maybe others would like to join in.

By the way, this is REALLY hard to pick,, since as we are seeing with the Giants this season, players have a HUGE range of performance they might play with in a given period.

A year ago I'm pretty sure you would have chosen the Giants though. You were saying they were the best team in SF Giants history. Sadly, your eyes failed you on THAT one. Don't know which team I would have picked without going backward to do so, and that might prejudice me, but I definitely would have chosen another team. As it was, I was telling you I had a high probability on the likelihood that they WEREN'T the best SF Giants team.

[Rog]

I mentioned this before, Boly, but the advantage I would have in this is that I would be using BOTH my eyes and my head, and you would be using only one of them. MLB itself has come to the realization in the past decade or more that using both is better.

[klaiggeb]

I agree, you would.

But based upon our conversations, you put more weight to the numbers than I do. A lot more.

And that, IMHO, would be your Achilles heal; you don't give enough weight to the 3 points I watch for.

boly

[Rog]

Not that they all aren't important, but you take heart, determination and wanna, and I'll take talent. I have friends with heart, determination and wanna, and I don't think I could win a game with them -- let alone a World Championship.

Not that heart, determination and wanna aren't important to help develop talent, but I'll take a team filled with guys like Manny Ramirez and Barry Bonds over any active team I can think of.

Think back to Jim Ray Hart. I don't think he had a lot of heart, determination and wanna -- but he was a darn good player who helped the Giants a lot more than lesser players with more heart, determination and wanna. I think Pablo Sandoval was a little short in the H,D & W, but he was a pretty good player for the Giants and was a significant cog in their 2012 World Championship.

[Rog]

But based upon our conversations, you put more weight to the numbers than I do. A lot more.

And that, IMHO, would be your Achilles heal; you don't give enough weight to the 3 points I watch for.


Rog -- I have a feeling I put a lot more weight on the things I see than you put on the numbers. The numbers don't say it all, but neither do "not the numbers."

Let's not forget that the final score and the standings have the occasional number in them.

Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/3941/window?page=2#ixzz4lWdxr6wh

[klaiggeb]

No way we can ever prove my statement, Rog, but there is legitimate history behind mine.

In my 20+ years coaching at the High School level, I rarely, as in NEVER, had the best talent when competing in the Southern Section playoffs of the CIF.

But in those 20+ years with not much more than determination, wanna and heart, those teams got to the quarter finals 4 times, semi-finals twice, and finals, once.

We beat teams with much more talent who, IF we were using sabermetrics, would have blown us off the planet...on paper.

But the games aren't played on paper, and that's where heart, determination and 'wanna,' come in to play.

Now there is simply no way ANYONE could understand just what those teams managed to do if you didn't see them in action; if you didn't SEE how much better the teams were that we beat.

Now high school baseball is NOT the show, but the principles are the same and the challenge no different.

In little league, to a 12 year old, a 60 mph fastball looks unhittable.

But in high school?

Meat.

In high school an 80 mph straight fastball looks unhittable.

In college?

Meat.

Everything changes proportionately at every level, and because of that, my logic based upon my history is sound.

boly

[Rog]

I'm not in any way saying you weren't a good coach, Boly. In fact, I would be very surprised if you weren't. But your excellent principles likely make a whole lot more difference in high school ball than in MLB.

Kind of like sabermetrics don't apply quite the same way in high school as they do in the big leagues.

About the only think you posted that I would disagree with -- and certainly not violently -- is that an 80 mph straight fastball in high school is certainly good, but it's far from unhittable. I've seen guys hit 90 mph fastballs in high school, although it's far from an easy task, and mostly the really good hitters are going to be the only ones to hit it.

I'm sure we remember Mark Davis. After the Giants traded him to the Padres, he won the Cy Young Award in 1989. In high school Mark pitched a two-hitter one day. I played softball with the guy who got both hits. He wasn't even the best player on our softball team.

[klaiggeb]

Rog, in most high school, not the big, 3000+ student high schools, 80 MPH fastballs are rare.

I mean REALLY RARE.

We had a kid named Chris, pitched for me back int he late 80s at Villanova Prep.

Threw so hard the Dodger's came out to scout him.

I was SURE he was touching 85 on the gun...

But I stood there next to the scout.

Best he came up with was a 75 mph heater.



Same thing at Oak Park High School.

Kid named Jeff.

Threw harder than Chris.

Didn't hit 80.


Now you can ALWAYS find exceptions.

But they are EXCEPTIONS, not the rule.


Thus for a high school kid to SEE and 80+ heater is rare, hitting it, even rarer.

boly

[Islandboagie]

That may have been the velocity back then, but now..80 mph is pretty common in the 17-18 year old range.

[klaiggeb]

Fine.

If 80 is the norm, then change my original post from 80 to 85.

sheesh.

What difference does it make.

My point is STILL the same; at each level, "gas" is all about perspective.

boly

[donk33]

Jul 3, 2017 14:50:35 GMT -5 klaiggeb said:

Fine.

If 80 is the norm, then change my original post from 80 to 85.

sheesh.

What difference does it make.

My point is STILL the same; at each level, "gas" is all about perspective.

boly

dk...the major league teams started to measure pitch velocity a new way...,they aim the gun at the release point. It used to be that they aimed the glove towards home plate....I heard that it pumps the readings up between 3 and 5 mph....,that is why we now have the old 88 mph guys throwing over 90 mph...anything to con the public...also, remember when you watch the homer derby at the all-star game, they confessed that the balls are juiced...... but I think the regular  balls are full   of rabbit so maybe they might use regular game balls....

[Rog]

I was thinking of a specific high school pitcher I umpired and later got to know personally. He threw 80 mph back around 1995 and was a very successful high school pitcher. But I don't think he even pitched college ball. Maybe JC.

When I umpired a high school pitcher who threw 90 mph, that ball was coming pretty darn quickly. I umpired very few who threw 90 mph -- fewer than the number of pitchers who went on to the minor leagues -- but there were a few of them. Very few, but a few.

Here's something I found odd. As an umpire I lined up with the inside corner and the top of the strike zone. That meant the high, inside pitch was coming right between my eyes. When I umpired younger players, it was impossible for me to avoid blinking. When I umpired the really fast pitchers, I seemingly didn't have time to blink. One would have thought that I would have blinked most facing the fastest pitchers, but in fact it was the opposite.

Very few old 88 mph guys are now throwing 90. I've seen examples of where pitchers are throwing clearly harder than previously, but that is by far the exception.

I just looked up Jeff Samardzija. He fell from 95 to 93 between 2008 and 2010, but jumped back up to 95 mph in 2011 and 2012. Beginning with 2013, he's been between 94.2 and 94.5 each season. That's clearly above average.

The pitching arm is a degenerating asset, and almost all arms slow down over time. Pitchers have to come up with new pitches, improve their control and command, and/or become more savvy in order to keep their level of pitching up. Very few do.

If one looks at the average fastball speeds batters face, there has been a fairly consistent increase as the years have gone by. For instance, the average fastball Buster Posey faced in his rookie season was 91.3 mph. This season and last the average heater he has faced has been 92.7.

Brandon Belt faced 91.7 as a rookie in 2011 and has faced 92.9 this season.

[Rog]

Speaking of Belt, we have shown before how the talk about how he hasn't adjusted is just that -- talk. I just noticed that in 2014 Brandon swung and missed 13.8% of the pitches he faced. This season that is down to 10.5% despite the obvious hole he has high and tight. In 2014 he swung at 32.7% of pitches outside the strike zone. This year that is down to 22.3%.

Few noticed that Brandon went from 21.2% balls hit to the opposite field in 2014 to 30.4% this season, so I guess it's little surprise that few have noticed that he has fallen back to 22.7% this season. Whether his pulling the ball more this season has contributed to his clear increase in home runs I don't know.

Remember, the key for Brandon is to bunt for hits (preferably with no one out), to hit ground balls and line drives to left field, and to hit fly balls to right.

Want to know why Brandon's batting average is so low this season? It's easy to say strikeouts, but in reality, Brandon hasn't struck out any more often than last season -- and LESS than in all but one other season. What is killing him in the over-shift. He's batting an abysmal .132 on ground balls. As a comparison, Buster Posey -- who is tougher to defend on the infield -- is hitting nearly twice as high at .261.

Bunts, ground balls and line drives to the opposite field, and fly balls to right.

Like most hitters, Brandon is hitting best when he pulls the ball, next best when he hits it to center, and worst when he hits it the opposite way. Even though the over-shift hurts him when the pulls the ball, Brandon is flat-out hitting it harder when he pulls -- once again, as is the case with almost all hitters.

Except for left field, Brandon needs to get the ball in the air more often. He's got pretty good power from left-center to right field.

For those who don't think how fast a pitcher pitches matters, Belt is the same as almost all batters -- best against finesse pitchers, next-best against average power/finesse pitchers, and worst against power pitchers.

On average, relief pitchers throw the hardest, not having to pace themselves. That's why relievers have lower ERA's on average than starters, even though the relievers aren't generally as good as the starters.

Some day we may see "long" pitchers throwing much shorter stints. It's already headed strongly in that direction in the postseason.

I'll try to remember in another thread to post about how I think pitchers should be used.