Batter's Box Interactive Magazine

In the the New York Times Magazine, Pat Jordan writes about flamethrowers (registration required) like Bobby Jenks, Steve Dalkowski, Kerry Wood and Billy Wagner, beginning with this observation.

The year 2003 may go down as the year the stat geeks won over organized baseball, converting the evaluation of talent from art into science.

The author, a big fan of scouts and "stuff" who apparently hasn't seen as much of Billy Koch as we have, feels compelled to take one more swipe.

The stat geeks are officially neutral on the importance of the 100-m.p.h. pitch -- whether an out is recorded off a blazing fastball or a fluttering knuckler makes no difference to them. And they are leery of old-school scouts who tend to be overly impressed with rudimentary gifts like velocity, while overlooking the other skills that make a major-league pitcher successful.

Leery? I think it's the other way around. Somebody sounds worried about SABR-rattlers.

Posted by Coach on Sunday, September 14 2003 @ 11:19 AM EDT.

Hard Stuff | 4 comments | Create New Account

The following comments are owned by whomever posted them. This site is not responsible for what they say.

Dave Till - Monday, September 15 2003 @ 08:03 AM EDT (#76344) #

I'm not sure whether I qualify as a stat geek, but I think that the modern stat geek is actually in favour of velocity, up to a point. The latest trend in minor-league pitcher evaluation is to use strikeouts per innings pitched as the metric of future success. If a pitcher can't bring it at over 90 MPH, he will have to hit his spots consistently in order to succeed, and very few young pitchers can do that.

But velocity alone doesn't lead to success - major league pitchers need to put movement on their fastballs. Any quality hitter can dial it up and hit a straight 100 MPH fastball - which, as Coach points out, is why Billy Koch has been struggling.

The question for GM's, scouts, and other talent evaluators becomes: which pitchers can learn to make their fastballs move? Is it an innate ability? My guess is that chance plays a role: pitchers are experimenting all the time in the bullpen, and every now and again somebody finds something that works. I don't think there's any way of predicting which ones will find that vein of gold, so the only reasonable way to develop pitching prospects is to (a) try to accumulate them; (b) try to teach them stuff; (c) hope that enough of them "get it" to fill out a rotation.

Mike Green - Monday, September 15 2003 @ 11:36 AM EDT (#76345) #

The other approach is Oakland's. As explained by pitching coach Rick Peterson in an interview with Baseball Prospectus' Jonah Keri about 6 months ago, the Oakland approach includes:

1. Peterson himself reviews video of all prospective pitching drafts, and has veto power over selection; he checks for delivery impediments to increasing velocity through improved hip rotation (the As were able to assist Tim Hudson in this way, apparently, as well as flaws.

2. a comprehensive biomechanical workup is done through Dr. Andrews' facility in Birmingham, and

3. psychological counselling, including Eastern medititative techniques, are taught to pitching prospects.

I don't know if I buy all of it, but it's hard to argue with the results.

Gitz - Monday, September 15 2003 @ 09:29 PM EDT (#76346) #

I hate to be Peter Gammons or the Washington Post, but an unnamed source tells me that Rick Peterson is not the guru BP and others make him out to be. Take that for what it's worth.

robertdudek - Tuesday, September 16 2003 @ 10:27 AM EDT (#76347) #

Gitz,

What is it worth?

Hard Stuff | 4 comments | Create New Account

The following comments are owned by whomever posted them. This site is not responsible for what they say.