Archive for the “pitch fx” Category

Hey gang. This is piece one in a series from my co-pilot at PAH9, Steve Sommer. You can also read up on some of Steve’s other work at his old blog at StL Sports Scene.  You can also follow him on twitter @Steve_Sommer.

With the introduction of pitch f/x data at various AFL locations, the prospect geek has at his/her disposal data that can be used to answer questions like

• What does Prospect A’s stuff look like?
• How does Prospect B get by on limited stuff?
• Who does Prospect C resemble?

This post will investigate those, and similar types of questions for Mike Parisi.

Let’s start out with a simple summary table of his stuff and a table of MLB/AFL averages for comparison.

The MLB/AFL table contains physical data (movement and velocity) based on a Harry Pavlidis post at BtB and results data (Whiff and Slgcon) based on AFL data. Whiff is the number of swings and misses divided by the number of swings and Slgcon is TB on balls in play/ball in play. A couple things from the table jump out at me immediately

• Parisi is at or below average in getting swings and misses when compared to his AFL counterparts, but has managed to keep his Slgcon down.
• His fastball is a tick below average.
• He has no pitches that have movement that stands out. Most are right around average.

I’ll tackle the 2nd point first, and then address the 1st and 3rd at the same time. With regards to his fastball being below average in velocity, I’d like to point out that not all 90 mph fastballs are created equal. Take Parisi and Scott Gorgen (the subject of a futute post). Both average a shade over 90 mph, but their distributions of velocities differ as the following chart illustrates

Gorgen never really gets above average, but Parisi can touch 93. Clearly velocity alone doesn’t mean anything, but it is nice to know that Parisi has some in the tank if need be.

Now on to the other two points. Parisi is having some success this AFL season, but all signs point to is not being because of over powering stuff (low whiff, not much movement, etc.). One potential explanation is that he’s following Dave Duncan’s philosophy. Let’s see if the data supports that case.

First a table showing his batted ball profile by pitch

So yes, Parisi is having success with the ground ball, especially with his fastball. His GB rate of 60% is much better than the AFL average for fastballs (~45%). How then, without seemingly great downward movement, is Parisi generating so many GBs? The answer is in the following location chart

When Parisi keeps the ball down, his AFL opposition pounded it into the ground. It seems as though Parisi’s strategy is in line with organizational thought (or at least TLR, DD thought). Keep the ball down, don’t worry about missing bats, and generate ground balls. With that being said, I’d think that Parisi might have a good shot at replacing Brad Thompson in a swingman/mop-up role.

Next up (assuming the FR guys don’t kick me out after this first attempt) is a look at the other starter the Cards sent to the AFL, the aforementioned Scott Gorgen.

Mitch Boggs, yes, our Mitch Boggs struck out 9 batters in 6 innings pitched the other night against the unflappable Natina!s. LaRussa called his outing “fantastic” and it looks like for the time being Boggs has cemented his role as the Cardinals’ 5th starter.

We all wondered where this “wipeout slider” of Boggs went last year, having read this scouting report from Baseball America:

Boggs still can reach the mid-90s with his four-seam fastball, but his low-90s two-seamer with sink and bore is his ticket to quicker innings. He has ditched his curveball and developed a wipeout slider that ranks as one of the best in the system. Few Cardinals pitching prospects have been as consistent or durable.

That wipeout slider seemed to go AWOL when he was called up previously, and we know aside from a game or two, Boggs was less than stellar in his debut. I compiled all of Boggs starts and came up with this movement graph —

(Forgive me if the legends don’t match, I made the other graph about a month ago).

The other night?

That is a good slider. The average slider moves 2.2 inches, horizontally and vertically. Unless Washington’s Pitch F/X cameras are totally wacky, Boggs’ slider is generating 5-11 inches of vertical movement at a given time. That is pretty fantastic. I’d have to investigate more if it is a case of a wonky camera in DC, but Boggs got 8 swinging strikes in 27 sliders thrown. (30%), so I’d like to think what we see is what we’re getting. Pitch f/x confused many of his sliders last year as a curveballs, but what we are seeing different from last year to this (at least for one start) is less downward break. The slider is less slurvy. Those other sliders you are seeing that have more “rise”  and less vertical movement on his first graph are misclassified as well. That would be his cutter.

Looking at this graph, we can also judge Boggs’ sinker. An average one has about 7.6 inches of horizontal break and 4.7 inches of vertical “rise”. Knowing that, we can differentiate his four-seamer from his two-seamer. The two-seamer is the red blobs more on the left and it has about average movement.

As for Boggs’ changeup, it’s definitely a “straight” change. Very little horizontal movement at all. Usually the pitch breaks in on a right-hander more. Considering how much he throws the sinker and how little movement he gets on his change, I wonder if the pitch isn’t easily picked up.

One more thing I found interesting is that Boggs’ throws his slider from a higher arm angle release point than the rest of his pitches.

I don’t know if the .5-1 inch difference would be detectable by hitters or not, but it is sort of interesting.

The season is very young, but Boggs has a strikeout rate of 9 per inning with a K/BB ratio of 3.75. Whodathunk? With an improved slider and a simplified repertoire, Boggs is looking better than ever. 90-95 MPH heat, decent sink, great slider and fringy change. Not a bad arsenal for a starter.  He’s always been a mystery as to how few bats he misses, but that is changing so far this year:

It’s also worth mentioning 4/5ths of his K’s have been swinging strikeouts. We’ll see if he can keep this up, but I’d say I’m more enthused about Boggs’ than ever before.

To say the least, P.J. Walters has been a controversial prospect around these parts. Views range Walters being the next great control pitcher to a soft-tosser with only a trick pitch that helped him dominate the lower minors and nothing more. We found a lot more about P.J. on Friday when he was thrown into the fire against the Cubs. While he struggled early, he settled in and made a pretty nice argument for his prospect status and beyond that, a full-time big league job.

Recently I have added pitch f/x graphing to my blogging repertoire and had planned on doing a breakdown on Walters, but I’m still rather green when it comes to the subject. So rather than hearing from me I brought in the heavy guns and asked pitch f/x guru Harry Pavlidis to help us take a closer look Walters. You probably know Harry from Beyond the Boxscore, THT and…ahem…Cubs f/x. Don’t worry, he’s not here to kick us while we’re down after a couple of gut-wrenching losses. Take it away, Harry —

Read the rest of this entry »