rog
New Member
Posts: 3
|
Post by rog on Mar 6, 2018 12:55:50 GMT -5
|
|
rog
New Member
Posts: 3
|
Post by rog on Mar 6, 2018 12:59:06 GMT -5
|
|
rog
New Member
Posts: 3
|
Post by rog on Mar 6, 2018 13:04:14 GMT -5
Kyle Jensen isn't likely to be relevant, but he hit his fifth home run yesterday and is still hitting above .500. Steven Duggar has two homers (I think) since we began this post. Duggar certainly could be relevant.
|
|
rog
New Member
Posts: 3
|
Post by rog on Mar 6, 2018 18:25:00 GMT -5
Here is how the new Phillies hitting coach has learned his hitters:
Before John Mallee ever stepped into a batting cage with a Phillies hitter, he knew him.
He knew his strengths and weaknesses. He knew his tendencies. Mallee knew these things because after the Phillies hired him as their hitting coach in November, he dug deep into the numbers.
"A lot of times through the data you can kind of tell who they are," Mallee said. "What is their behavior? What is their approach? Is he a first-pitch swinger? How often are those pitches in the zone? Is that something we need to make an adjustment on early in the count? What is his production with two strikes? Over 50 percent of your at-bats are going to be with two strikes.
I would think that between watching film and statistically studying a guy's approach, a hitting coach could indeed learn a lot about his hitters before ever seeing them swing a bat live.
Thoughts, Boly and others?
|
|
|
Post by klaiggeb on Mar 6, 2018 22:28:57 GMT -5
Film/video can tell a pitcher a lot.
But it's all a different story when you get on the mound.
Totally different.
That's why I'm not big on numbers.
Between the white lines enter adrenaline, heart, and 'wanna!'
Those things just cannot be measured but they are so very, very huge.
|
|
rog
New Member
Posts: 3
|
Post by rog on Mar 6, 2018 23:19:41 GMT -5
Regarding film, it could be taken from about every angle, so I would think it would be highly revealing with what is being done right and wrong. And measurements can be made that are so exact that I would think flaws could be detected as they developed, rather than afterward. That would allow work to begin before the habit became ingrained. I would think too that they would be studying what CAUSES these minor changes that can greatly affect performance. And studying the clues as the faults are developing. As for the numbers, they show tendencies. They give hitting coaches concrete facts to back things up when the coach says the hitter should be more aggressive in certain counts for instance. Point out just how often a hitter goes outside the strike zone. Point out what might happen if the batter swings at more first pitches. Point out how much a player's average drops off once he reaches two strikes. They show the pitcher the hitters' tendencies, and they show the hitters the pitchers' tendencies. That is how the numbers have allowed the Phillies' new hitting coach to "know" his hitters before he's seen and worked with them. Now, numbers don't measure chemistry. We at least saw a try by ESPN IIRC a couple of years ago. They credited the Giants with the most chemistry and the Dodgers with the least in the NL West. I think they may have credited the Giants with the most of any team in baseball. It is quite true that "between the white lines enter adrenaline, heart, and 'wanna!' That however CAN be measured, since they show up in the player's statistics. If he has more adrenaline, heart and "wanna," he going to perform better, and that will show up in his numbers. How "clutch" players are can even be measured. This information can be interesting to the fans, and informative to players, coaches and GM's. I don't think anyone has found numbers to accurately measure chemistry. And I don't think the effect of "adrenaline, heart and "wanna" can be measured. But whatever the effect of those things is (except as they affect chemistry), it will show up in the numbers. It can't be isolated. But it is captured along with the other factors that go into performance. Because of the numbers revolution in baseball, virtually every team is smarter. But some teams are smarter than others. It's kind of like the guy who can't outrun the cheetah even though he has improved his form and thereby his speed. If he's with another guy (GM?), all he has to do is outrun the other guy. The GM's are getting faster and faster, but the ones who are less fast and/or have less money to spend have a tough time keeping up. The cheetah in the hearts of baseball fans in their city can run very fast. The biggest changes in baseball have been numbers and health. They're even measuring the sleep of some players now. Think about it. A players' hours and travel aren't extremely conducive to speed. The game has change a LOT of the field since teams used to ride the train. Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/4328/buying-selling-steven-duggar-jensen?page=2#ixzz59268KYV2
|
|
rog
New Member
Posts: 3
|
Post by rog on Mar 6, 2018 23:31:37 GMT -5
There are certain players that truly do have clutch ability. We just came across one recently, although I can't remember who he was. I do recall that Edgardo Alfonso was such a player.
And it showed up, too. There are other numbers as well that show clutch performance, but three that illustrate it are hitting with runners on base, with RISP, and with the bases empty. Eduardo's OPS was .845 with RISP, .846 with runners on, and only .729 with the bases empty.
Bengie Molina was another. Bengie's OPS was .745 with runners on, .752 with RISP and just .692 with the bases empty.
Again, chemistry can't be measured. But a player's "makeup" on the field tends to show up in his numbers.
And regarding the effect of manufacturing runs, I've mentioned this before, but IIRC the Giants led the majors in manufactured runs last season. The reason they were at or near the bottom in total runs was primarily because they were so far behind the league in home runs.
Part of that was AT&T. But a lot of it was the hitters themselves as well.
I don't think we would have expected the Giants to fare well in manufactured runs, but they certainly did. Our perceptions and/or memory can be wrong, but the numbers are facts. And if one say that WHEN a team manufactures its runs is what is important, that too can be measured.
Earl Weaver might have been onto something. Of course, the defense on the left side of his infield helped a lot as well. As well as having, wasn't it four 20-game winners one season?
|
|
|
Post by Islandboagie on Mar 7, 2018 11:17:28 GMT -5
Bengie was good in the clutch, but even better with two strikes.
And no matter how many times you repeat it, the perception from people on this board is fairly spot on, with a few exceptions of bias.
|
|
rog
New Member
Posts: 3
|
Post by rog on Mar 8, 2018 7:11:27 GMT -5
Almost no hitter is good with two strikes. Bengie's OPS with two strikes was less than .600.
In some ways, Joey Votto is today's best hitter. His OPS with two strikes this past season was nearly 200 points higher than Bengie's career mark.
The best two-strike hitters are those with contact skills. That's a lot more important with two strikes than with one or particularly none.
Seeing how poor they are with two strikes should teach most hitters to be more aggressive.
A parallel that brings back the memory of Allen stems from his saying that basketball players can't hit the mid-range jumper. What we are finding is that unless the shot clock is winding down in low single digits, players for the most part shouldn't even be SHOOTING mid-range jumpers.
If teams want to score more, they should try for more three-pointers, where the reward is 50% higher, or shots in the paint, where percentages are higher. What makes a guy like Steph Curry great is that he is so good shooting three-pointers that defenders have to jump out at him. That then allows him to drive past them on occasion in order to get into the paint.
The parallel in baseball is that the reward for power, like making three-pointers, is greater. A homer is worth, what, maybe three singles? And then if a player can hit homers, pitchers become afraid of him, they tend to walk him, putting him on base for other hitters to drive in. Remember, well over half the time, a walk is as good as a single.
So hitters, swing for the fences and remember, a walk is usually as good as a (most) hits.
Swing for the fences, but don't let the pitcher get two strikes on you. That is the challenge for today's hitter, who faces better stuff overall than hitters before him.
|
|
|
Post by Islandboagie on Mar 8, 2018 14:52:40 GMT -5
Rog- Almost no hitter is good with two strikes. Bengie's OPS with two strikes was less than .600.
In some ways, Joey Votto is today's best hitter. His OPS with two strikes this past season was nearly 200 points higher than Bengie's career mark.
Boagie- I meant Bengie's success with two strikes in clutch situations. Is there a way to find that number?
I agree that almost no hitter is very successful with two strikes.
And of course Votto will have better numbers than Bengie Molina, that doesn't make Bengie a poor two strike hitter.
Let's compare Belt and Molina with two strikes:
Belt .163 avg Molina (as a Giant) .232 avg
Molina with two strikes also drove in runs at a much higher % than Belt has. Molina drove in a run every 7.3 at bats, Belt 12.3 at bats.
But again, I was talking about Molina's success in clutch situations with two strikes. As I recall, he was very good at shortening his swing and putting the ball in play.
|
|
rog
New Member
Posts: 3
|
Post by rog on Mar 8, 2018 15:20:23 GMT -5
I meant Bengie's success with two strikes in clutch situations. Is there a way to find that number?
Rog -- Now I understand you, but I don't know where to find it.
Teams usually have more information available than we do, and if not, the have a staff that can find it or calculate it. As long as the raw information is available.
For instance, if we had the time we could go back and calculate how Brandon Belt fared in clutch two-strike situations (as long as we define clutch). We can't do that with Willie Mays, since I'm pretty sure the count information isn't available.
As for Bengie's success with two strikes in clutch situations, he was probably pretty good compared to his success with two strikes without runners on base or in scoring position.
There are, of course, several areas that can be used to measure "clutch." Bengie had a .718 career OPS. Late & close it was .726. Within two runs, it was .728. In high leverage situations it was .780. The last seems to have been the situation in which Bengie was at his best.
|
|
rog
New Member
Posts: 3
|
Post by rog on Mar 8, 2018 15:28:39 GMT -5
Driving in a run every 7.3 at bats at Bengie would give a player about 70 RBI's in 500 at bats. With two strikes, that's darn good RBI performance.
|
|