AFL PitchFX Pt. 1: James Simmons
by danmerqury on Nov 25, 2009 10:12 AM PST
Email
PrintAs you all know, Major League Baseball runs a fall league in Arizona for upper-level minor-league players, appropriately named the Arizona Fall League. The big news this year is that, for the first time, MLB installed PitchFX cameras. This is huge—it’s the first PitchFX look we’ve ever gotten from minor-leaguers. I’m going to crunch the numbers and take a look at the results, hopefully churning out some useful scouting reports in the process. I’ll start with our 2007 first-round draft pick out of UC Riverside, James Simmons (RHP).
Okay, one caveat. MLB didn’t install PitchFX cameras in all of the Arizona stadiums. They unfortunately excluded Phoenix, the park that our A’s representatives call home. They did, however, install them in Surprise and Peoria, home of three of the six AFL teams, allowing the cameras to catch 10 of the 33 games our Phoenix Desert Dogs played. In Simmons’s case, I have data for only two of his appearances, for a total of 7.2 innings. It’s not much, but enough to build a scouting report on.
The problem with the PitchFX data I have is that the cameras caught two very different James Simmonses. The James Simmons that showed up on October 17th throws a 90-mph four-seam fastball, an 86-mph changeup with very little tailing action, and a 79-mph curveball that comes into left-handed batters more than it drops. The James Simmons of October 29th throws an 86-mph fastball that acts like a two-seamer which darts inside to right-handed batters, a 79-mph changeup that tails quite a bit (it matches his two-seamer), and a 67-mph curveball, identical to Simmons the First’s curveball in movement, but slower. Here’s a combined movement chart. These are all from the catcher’s point of view, by the way.
And here’s the same chart, broken down by game to emphasize the difference in movement.
Simmons achieved this big change in movement by lowering his release point by an entire 1.8 feet.
It was reported that James Simmons was testing out a cutter, and the graphs show that. Unfortunately, it seems to have extremely little lateral motion, and he only threw it six times in the games that PitchFX caught.
Of course, there’s always the possibility that the change was caused by imprecise cameras, as the two games were recorded at different parks (10/17 at Surprise, 10/29 at Peoria). Thankfully, another pitcher, A's prospect Sam Demel, pitched alongside Simmons on both occasions. If the difference in movement was an error in detection, Demel’s pitches and release point should have changed as well. They didn’t.
The AFL is a league for trying out new pitches and techniques, and it looks like Simmons used Arizona for that precise purpose. The sample size is obviously far too small to judge whether or not the new release point was effective or not, but it looks like Simmons will have 2010 to decide on a release point, and whether trading his already low velocity for extra movement is worth it.
Odds and Ends:
- I generated a couple other charts if you guys want them. This one is velocity and lateral movement, and this one is velocity and vertical movement.
- I also wanted to try something a little different, so I plotted spin angle vs. spin rate on polar coordinates. After wrestling with Excel for a long time, it turns out that polar graphs are impossible. So I converted the polar coordinates to rectangular coordinates—you're going to have to imagine the rest. The distance from the origin indicates spin rate, and the spin angle is denoted by the placement angle on the graph. Each hash mark on the axes is 1000 revolutions per minute. Oh, and unfortunately, the axes and their scales aren't equal. Thanks, Excel.
- The huge change in release point confused PitchFX as well. It labeled all of the changeups that Simmons threw on the 29th as sliders. I'm not sure where the system got that result from, as that would make his supposed slider come into right-handed batters. An odd screwball, basically. I just relabeled them as changeups.
- Any ideas for future PitchFX analyses are definitely welcomed. I had a lot to say about James Simmons, but I expect to have less material for the other players we sent to Arizona. Any other ideas of what to do with the data would be great.
- Update: Hey, front page. Cool! Thanks, whoever you are.
102 comments
|
10 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Thanks for doing this
Just a note on the data. There’s no way Simmons throws an 86MPH changeup. The only guys who throw their changeup that hard throw “mid-90s on up” fastballs (e.g., Jason Schmidt). So for both readings, that 86MPH has to be a fastball, be it a 2-seamer, 4-seamer, cutter, whatever.
If his fastball is supposed to be somewhere in the 88-91 range, Simmons must throw his changeup in the high 70s, i.e. 79MPH.
So that “86MPH changeup with little tailing action” was probably a failed attempt at a cutter, I’m guessing, maybe one that “backed up” on him, or just a “no movement fastball” due to the arm injury I suspect he has that no one has confirmed.
I like Cindi. A. She never pretends to know more than she does. B. She has unbridled enthusiasm for her "Hotties," and isn't afraid to show it. -IM4Oakgal
Hmm.
The changeups move like changeups do—just like fastballs but with less rise and speed. Is it possible that his changeups just don’t have enough of a speed difference from his fastballs? If they were supposed to be cutters, they failed really hard. Cutters usually end up where those two odd green dots are.
In either case, they look more like changeups when he moved his release point down—which is when PitchFX started calling them sliders, oddly enough.
No, there's no light,
in the darkest of your furthest reaches.
I don't think there's any way he throws a pitch at 86MPH that's supposed to be a changeup
so I’d guess, given the movement, that was just a sinker of some sort. Any pitcher who throws an ordinary velocity fastball will develop a changeup below mid-80s velocity, e.g., 75-79MPH.
I guess I’m saying I don’t know what Simmons did throw there but I know what he didn’t throw. He’s shaping up to be a solid “A” level prospect … if rated on the Enigma scale!
I like Cindi. A. She never pretends to know more than she does. B. She has unbridled enthusiasm for her "Hotties," and isn't afraid to show it. -IM4Oakgal
Now I'm even more intrigued.
I’m starting to think that it’s some form of splitter. Does anyone know if he’s toying with that?
No, there's no light,
in the darkest of your furthest reaches.
Not that I've heard, but that wouldn't be the worst idea
One thing I think we all need to remember is that AFL performance isn’t that important, compared to “progress” — it’s a great place to work on something, like “a splitter” or “going the other way,” and the stats don’t tell the story of the progress or lackthereof.
It would be cool if the team announced what each player was focusing on and we could follow accordingly, but since that doesn’t actually happen we have to look at the AFL season like the Cactus League: Fun for whetting the baseball appetite and pretty meaningless statistically.
I like Cindi. A. She never pretends to know more than she does. B. She has unbridled enthusiasm for her "Hotties," and isn't afraid to show it. -IM4Oakgal
Or in my view, just annoying and something that should be talked about as little as possible
Difference: I can ignore spring training pretty completely because March Madness takes up all of my sports-watching time.
Linda's in the cold ground, won't see her anymore
Somewhere out on the highway tonight, the drunken engines roar
It's just one of those things, one of those things
-- Al Stewart, "Accident on 3rd St."
In memory of Nick Adenhart and all victims of drunk driving
His change was supposedly the best in the system
According to this article, http://razzball.com/scouting-the-unknown-7-29-09/, his changeup was voted the best in the system by team management. I remember reading a scouting report when he was drafted that called his changeup a “plus” pitch even out of college. An 86 mph changeup would be realistic if he was throwing 88-92 as the article suggests. Perhaps something is causing him to lose velocity on his fastball while maintaining velocity on his changeup. Not sure what would cause that or if that’s even possible though.
Demel charts
Demel’s first 4 outings were rough, then he pitched well for the last 7 outings. Can the charts shed light on that? How about Storey?
I'll see.
Unfortunately, I only have three appearances from Demel: 10/17, 10/29, and 11/19. I’ll definitely compare the three. As for Storey, I have 10/19, 11/2, 11/9, and 11/21. I also have a couple appearances from Justin Friend.
I was also thinking of doing something with the three hitters we sent: Weeks, Brown, and Desme. Not sure if I could pull up anything useful, though. We’ll have to wait for HitFX.
No, there's no light,
in the darkest of your furthest reaches.
Now I don't know what to think
Maybe we should just throw out the whole AFL stint. But that just leaves us with his ugly AAA line from this season— not clear that that really helps any.
Linda's in the cold ground, won't see her anymore
Somewhere out on the highway tonight, the drunken engines roar
It's just one of those things, one of those things
-- Al Stewart, "Accident on 3rd St."
In memory of Nick Adenhart and all victims of drunk driving
Well, if he walks out of Arizona with more movement
He could improve in 2010. But yeah, not really clear that it helps at all. We’ll have to see what the PCL batters think.
No, there's no light,
in the darkest of your furthest reaches.
Ya it's only two games where he was working on a new pitch after a long season.
It probably doesn’t mean much, other than he’s healthy enough that they let him pitch.
It's not the results, it's how you look going about those results -- Tim McCarver
by WaddellCanseco on Nov 25, 2009 5:05 AM PST up reply actions
He still has his 2007-2008 performance.
And his draft/prospect pedigree. Or are we throwing all of that out, as well?
A guy who pitches very well at AA at age 20/21 shouldn’t be thrown away just because he struggles in AAA at age 22.
+1
I think we’re being too hard on James for last season. He showed dominant flashes in AAA (I wish I could remember the date of that 11K performance… And I’d look it up, but my iPhone has very slow Internet in Connecticut) and at age 22 in his first year of AAA, that’s all he needs in my opinion to not be counted as a bust (yet).
My point is: he showed at various times that he does have the ability to pitch well in AAA, he was just wildly inconsistent and bad at other times. Because of his age and lack of experience, I’ll give him next year before I count him as a bust.
"Life is a horizontal fall" -Jean Cocteau
by King Richard on Nov 25, 2009 11:28 AM PST via mobile up reply actions
Yeah, I think this season doesn't write him off
It just makes next season rather crucial for him.
I like Cindi. A. She never pretends to know more than she does. B. She has unbridled enthusiasm for her "Hotties," and isn't afraid to show it. -IM4Oakgal
Feel free to locate within my post the point at which I advocate releasing Simmons...
Linda's in the cold ground, won't see her anymore
Somewhere out on the highway tonight, the drunken engines roar
It's just one of those things, one of those things
-- Al Stewart, "Accident on 3rd St."
In memory of Nick Adenhart and all victims of drunk driving
?
What’s this in response to?
"Life is a horizontal fall" -Jean Cocteau
by King Richard on Nov 25, 2009 1:33 PM PST via mobile up reply actions
ah alright, got it.
it’s hard to tell on these indented threads sometimes…
"Life is a horizontal fall" -Jean Cocteau
by King Richard on Nov 25, 2009 2:03 PM PST up reply actions
Wouldn't it be weird if conversations in a bar were like this?
To reply to someone who wasn’t the last person to speak, you had to go stand in front of them and a bit to the right before commenting?
I like Cindi. A. She never pretends to know more than she does. B. She has unbridled enthusiasm for her "Hotties," and isn't afraid to show it. -IM4Oakgal
(Psst-- this is what the "up" button is great for)
Linda's in the cold ground, won't see her anymore
Somewhere out on the highway tonight, the drunken engines roar
It's just one of those things, one of those things
-- Al Stewart, "Accident on 3rd St."
In memory of Nick Adenhart and all victims of drunk driving
I just got back from a bar and let me tell you,
when you wait 5 minutes to answer something someone says, then yell “up!!!” and start to talk, you get whacked in the kisser.
I like Cindi. A. She never pretends to know more than she does. B. She has unbridled enthusiasm for her "Hotties," and isn't afraid to show it. -IM4Oakgal
Holy Shit!
That is awesome.
"Life is a horizontal fall" -Jean Cocteau
by King Richard on Nov 26, 2009 9:58 AM PST up reply actions
TWSS
"When you get that nice celebration coming in the dugout, and you're getting your ass hammered by guys, there's no better feeling than to have that done." -Matt Stairs
You call yours Simmons too?
At least mine’s named after Lon.
I like Cindi. A. She never pretends to know more than she does. B. She has unbridled enthusiasm for her "Hotties," and isn't afraid to show it. -IM4Oakgal
good work danmerqury
as usual you show why you are such an asset to this community. Rec’ed
As for Simmons, I think high probability low ceiling guys who struggle more than they should are probably one of the worst bets to progress up the food chain though i have no data to support that belief.
"Since other people actually read these threads, though, probably best that your particular brand of wrongness not go completely unchallenged." - PT
There are differing opinions on me. According to Iglew "DFA is PT with a sense of humor. PT is DFA with introspective self-doubt. I like them both" but according to sirbed Im "The Stats Killer"
by designatedforassignment on Nov 24, 2009 11:51 PM PST reply actions
If that's true, what makes them "high probability"?
It's not the results, it's how you look going about those results -- Tim McCarver
by WaddellCanseco on Nov 25, 2009 5:03 AM PST up reply actions
I think he means "high probability" first + then "struggle more than they should,"
leads to being stalled since they lack the “high ceiling” or the “good current performance.” Makes sense. For example, Hornbeck could pass him due to pitching well while DLS passes him due to high ceiling, while Simmons kinds of gets stuck in the middle.
I like Cindi. A. She never pretends to know more than she does. B. She has unbridled enthusiasm for her "Hotties," and isn't afraid to show it. -IM4Oakgal
High probability as of the time of being drafted, he means
Linda's in the cold ground, won't see her anymore
Somewhere out on the highway tonight, the drunken engines roar
It's just one of those things, one of those things
-- Al Stewart, "Accident on 3rd St."
In memory of Nick Adenhart and all victims of drunk driving
If at the time of the draft they're known to have a low ceiling, maybe he's saying they're
not really “high probability”. I basically agree with this.
It's not the results, it's how you look going about those results -- Tim McCarver
by WaddellCanseco on Nov 26, 2009 4:01 AM PST up reply actions
That's not what he's saying at all
He’s saying that high-probability-low-ceiling players are expected to dominate the minors and that if they don’t do so consistently, that’s a problem for them in a way that it might not be for a tools player like Tim Beckham.
It’s just a special case of the general principle that the more athletic a guy is, the more slack he will get in terms of performance.
He’s not saying that high-probability-low-ceiling players do not exist, as far as I can tell.
Linda's in the cold ground, won't see her anymore
Somewhere out on the highway tonight, the drunken engines roar
It's just one of those things, one of those things
-- Al Stewart, "Accident on 3rd St."
In memory of Nick Adenhart and all victims of drunk driving
They are prospects that are considered highly likely to reach the major leagues
Simmons was seen when drafted as a safe bet to be a back of the rotation innings eater with very low variability either way.
"Since other people actually read these threads, though, probably best that your particular brand of wrongness not go completely unchallenged." - PT
There are differing opinions on me. According to Iglew "DFA is PT with a sense of humor. PT is DFA with introspective self-doubt. I like them both" but according to sirbed Im "The Stats Killer"
by designatedforassignment on Nov 26, 2009 3:29 PM PST up reply actions
Yes, I heard this innumerable times at that time.
I didn’t buy it then, since to me, “low ceiling” is synonymous with “low talent”. I never understood how “low talent” meant “low risk”.
A guy whose ceiling is “#4 starter” may have a floor of “AAA pitcher”, and in that sense have a lower variability than someone whose floor is “A+ pitcher”, but it’s not a meaningful difference to me. To me, #4 starter is about as bad as you can be without being worthless.
My view of Simmons hasn’t really changed since his drafting, which is that he has a good chance to be Tim Worrell, with an outside chance of being Gil Heredia. It’s not bad, but he never had any business on a Top 100 list.
It's not the results, it's how you look going about those results -- Tim McCarver
by WaddellCanseco on Nov 26, 2009 4:37 PM PST up reply actions
You fundamentally misunderstand the nature of what ceiling and floor mean for pitchers
Because pitchers have very limited control over what happens with balls in play, a pitcher’s ceiling is extremely highly correlated with ability to get swinging strikes, while his floor is extremely highly correlated with his ability to THROW strikes. Both of those skills are forms of pitching talent.
A pitcher with the former and not the latter is a higher-risk, higher-reward proposition. But there is absolutely no inherent reason why he is or should be “better” than the lower-risk, lower-reward counterpart. Where they end up failing in the minors is irrelevant. HOW LIKELY they are to fail in the minors is extremely relevant.
The problem with your evaluations is that you continually assume a replacement level which is a. ridiculously high on an objective evaluation, and b. bears no relationship to the actual behavior of MLB teams.
Linda's in the cold ground, won't see her anymore
Somewhere out on the highway tonight, the drunken engines roar
It's just one of those things, one of those things
-- Al Stewart, "Accident on 3rd St."
In memory of Nick Adenhart and all victims of drunk driving
You got any proof that the "floor" being "extremely highly correlated with
[the] ability to throw strikes" as opposed to getting swinging strikes is true?
It's not the results, it's how you look going about those results -- Tim McCarver
by WaddellCanseco on Nov 27, 2009 7:58 PM PST up reply actions
It's almost a mathematical necessity
There are only three things that raise your ERA from the fielding-independent baseline: walks, home runs and BABIP. If a pitcher walks very few hitters, he has to be absolutely horrible at home runs and/or BABIP (to the extent that it’s controllable, which is not very) to not be a decent pitcher. Not very many pitchers (at least among guys who get anywhere near the majors) are absolutely horrible at home runs and/or BABIP.
Hence, high correlation between strike-throwing and floor.
Linda's in the cold ground, won't see her anymore
Somewhere out on the highway tonight, the drunken engines roar
It's just one of those things, one of those things
-- Al Stewart, "Accident on 3rd St."
In memory of Nick Adenhart and all victims of drunk driving
Let's divide pitchers into 4 quadrants. Let's ignore GB rate for the moment.
I’m going to use K as shorthand for “ability to get swinging strikes”, and BB as shorthand for “ability to throw strikes”
Quadrant 1 – High K, Low BB
Quadrant 2 – High K, High BB
Quadrant 3 – Low K, Low BB
Quadrant 4 – Low K, High BB
Intuitively I would think that Quadrant 1 pitchers > Quadrant 2,3,4 pitchers, and that Quadrant 4 pitchers < Quadrant 1,2,3 pitchers.
You seem to be saying that Quadrant 2 pitchers have a higher ceiling and lower floor than Quadrant 3 pitchers. But I’d like to see some evidence that this is true. Is there any? It’s not intuitively obvious either way.
It's not the results, it's how you look going about those results -- Tim McCarver
by WaddellCanseco on Nov 28, 2009 1:46 PM PST up reply actions
BB should be shorthand for "inability to throw strikes"
It's not the results, it's how you look going about those results -- Tim McCarver
by WaddellCanseco on Nov 28, 2009 1:46 PM PST up reply actions
I'm going to have to get back to you on this one in a few days
when I don’t have a deadline for a 25-page behemoth of a paper on arbitration/unconscionability law staring me in the face.
Linda's in the cold ground, won't see her anymore
Somewhere out on the highway tonight, the drunken engines roar
It's just one of those things, one of those things
-- Al Stewart, "Accident on 3rd St."
In memory of Nick Adenhart and all victims of drunk driving
Good luck!
It's not the results, it's how you look going about those results -- Tim McCarver
by WaddellCanseco on Nov 29, 2009 4:59 AM PST up reply actions
Explanation:
FIP, without park effects, is calculated as follows:
( 13*HR + 3*BB – 2*K ) / IP + 3.20
So, walks and homeruns raise it, strikeouts lower it, we knew this.
Here’s how this makes sense:
If you are excellent at limiting homeruns and walks (a strikethrower), you can be a very good pitcher, but the absolute best you can be without strikeouts (obviously an untenable extreme, but for this example useful) is a 3.20 FIP.
With strikeouts, as long as your K/BB ratio is better than 3/2, you have the POTENTIAL of making your FIP lower than 3.20.
Now clearly a pitcher with a 3.20 FIP would be incredibly good, but we’re not counting for any homeruns or anything besides extremes, so that’s not really the point. The point is that there is a baseline for how good a pitcher can be based solely on LIMITING abilities, such as being a groundball pitcher and a strikethrower, whereas a High K pitcher has the ability to move past that baseline.
That’s why Ks affect ceiling and BBs affect floor.
"Life is a horizontal fall" -Jean Cocteau
by King Richard on Nov 29, 2009 9:44 AM PST up reply actions 1 recs
Using that formula for 2 nine inning pitchers
Pitcher A — 0.9 HR, 9 K, 5 BB
Pitcher B — 0.9 HR, 3 K, 1 BB
Both end up with a 4.17 FIP. Are you saying Pitcher A has a greater variance in expected success than PItcher B? If so, why?
Have there been studies analyzing this?
It's not the results, it's how you look going about those results -- Tim McCarver
by WaddellCanseco on Nov 29, 2009 7:43 PM PST up reply actions
Makes sense to me that Pitcher A would have more variance
Guys like Gio, who BB and K a ton are less predictable from start to start than guys like Steve Traschel. Why he just popped into my mind, I have no idea, but I’m quite scared right now.
I like Cindi. A. She never pretends to know more than she does. B. She has unbridled enthusiasm for her "Hotties," and isn't afraid to show it. -IM4Oakgal
Or you might think that Pitcher B has a lot less margin
for error, and if he lost just a little off his stuff he’d be toast. I think it’s an empirical question with no obvious answer before looking at data.
It's not the results, it's how you look going about those results -- Tim McCarver
by WaddellCanseco on Nov 29, 2009 8:58 PM PST up reply actions
OK I quickly looked up the pitchers that BB-Pro says
are the “flakiest”, ie. have the greatest variance in Support-Neutral Value Added Relative to Replacement (which I guess means how good they were) from start to start.
Of the 130 pitchers with at least 100 IP in 2009, I looked at the 25 most consistent, and the 25 flakiest.
The 25 most consistent had:
K/9 – 6.3, BB/9 – 3.3, HR/9 – 1.0
The 25 flakiest had:
K/9 – 6.9, BB/9 – 2.9, HR/9 – 0.95
So the most consistent pitchers were just worse, with worse stuff and worse control. The 3 most consistent were Jason Karstens, Jason Berken and Randy Wolf. The 3 least consistent were Bronson Arroyo, Cliff Lee, and Ervin Santana.
Among A’s starters:
7th most consistent — Braden
90 – Cahill
105 – Anderson
Basically we can conclude that the results are inconclusive.
It's not the results, it's how you look going about those results -- Tim McCarver
by WaddellCanseco on Nov 30, 2009 4:47 AM PST up reply actions
This is why low ceiling = low risk:
It’s not that the two are synonymous. It’s that either one implies the other
Roughly speaking, the value of a prospect is his ceiling times the chance of him reaching it. Or to put it another way, his ceiling divided by the risk of him not reaching it.
If a guy is high-ceiling and low-risk, he is super awesome and will be one of the first ones drafted. If a guy is low-ceiling and high-risk, he’s not very good and won’t get drafted until the later rounds.
If a guy is drafted late in the first round, his value somewhere in between, which might be high-ceiling high-risk, or low-ceiling low-risk, or medium-ceiling medium risk, all of which come out to roughly the same net value.
Now we know that Simmons was drafted late in the 1st round. Unless it was just a stupid pick, you know he’s going to have some sort of moderate value. If you know he is low-ceiling, you can conclude he must also be low-risk, or else he wouldn’t have been drafted that high. If you know he is low-risk, you can conclude he must also be low-ceiling, or else he wouldn’t have been drafted that low.
In the case of Simmons, he actually was considered low-ceiling low-risk at the time of the pick. More importantly, he was considered to be relatively close to ready, and I think that is why his bad season is of more concern that it would be if he were perceived as further away.
"Go ahead and overachieve, you scrappy Brett-Favre-colored walk-takers." —Rev Halofan
Eh, in Simmons's case,
I’d argue that there is evidence to suggest that it was a dumb pick at the time.
"We were shit, pathetic," Guillen growled early in spring training. "We hit too many home runs."
by lenscrafters on Nov 27, 2009 12:26 PM PST up reply actions
Hmm
I don’t recall any real criticism of it by the draftigentsia at the time. There was plenty of bitching about it from fans, but fans always want to see the team pick the high-ceiling athlete, especially if he’s very far away from the majors so they can wishcast extensively about what he’s sure to accomplish.
Or are you alluding to Rick Porcello? That’s a different animal entirely…
Linda's in the cold ground, won't see her anymore
Somewhere out on the highway tonight, the drunken engines roar
It's just one of those things, one of those things
-- Al Stewart, "Accident on 3rd St."
In memory of Nick Adenhart and all victims of drunk driving
Well, I never really understood what the "draftigentsia" saw in Simmons.
He was pretty much a one pitch pitcher, who may or may not develop breaking pitches (and two years later, dammerqury’s graphs show that he still hasn’t managed to develop anything useful). His only positive was “fastball command”, using a fastball that barely touched 90 in college (and of course, you’re well aware that pitchers generally lose velocity as they ascend through the minors. Simmons obviously hasn’t been an exception to this rule). And I know this is retrospective, but Simmons now has evidently even lost his command. Even though 07 was a weak draft class, I still saw no reason why Simmons was a first round talent. To me, Simmons wasn’t a low risk, low reward kind of a guy at the time he was drafted. Because of all those question marks, he was actually a high risk, low reward type of pitcher, pretty much the worst type of pitcher you could draft.
Regarding Porcello, even though he was a high school pitcher, I’d argue that Porcello was actually lower risk than Simmons at the time. Porcello had a far better arsenal than Simmons, had good command, and had much better upside. Even Porcello’s projected contractual demands at the time was chump change compared to the potential value he adds to a team (and as a matter of fact, Porcello’s performance this year already was worth more than the life of his contract).
There’s risks and money issues involved in drafting BPA of course. But in the Simmons/Porcello case, the worse player (Simmons) was riskier. As for the money issues, well I personally think that the A’s should be outspending everyone else on the draft and pretty much always drafting the BPA. But that’s another discussion entirely.
"We were shit, pathetic," Guillen growled early in spring training. "We hit too many home runs."
by lenscrafters on Nov 28, 2009 1:31 PM PST up reply actions
To me the worse player is always riskier
I don’t recall anyone saying Simmons was not worse than Porcello at the time. It was all about bonus demands.
It's not the results, it's how you look going about those results -- Tim McCarver
by WaddellCanseco on Nov 28, 2009 1:52 PM PST up reply actions
Everyone knew that Porcello was a better pick.
It was all about going over-slot with the bonus. Not just the money, either, but the whole politics of going against the Commissioner on the issue. In 2007 there was still some hope that the league could keep the lid on over-slot bonuses, and no one wanted to be blamed for letting it get out of control. (Well, no one but Detroit, as it turned out.)
"Go ahead and overachieve, you scrappy Brett-Favre-colored walk-takers." —Rev Halofan
Basically, when in doubt pick the guy
whose name vaguely resembles a mushroom.
I like Cindi. A. She never pretends to know more than she does. B. She has unbridled enthusiasm for her "Hotties," and isn't afraid to show it. -IM4Oakgal
If that was the criterion,
Evan Button would have been picked much higher than the 22nd round.
Linda's in the cold ground, won't see her anymore
Somewhere out on the highway tonight, the drunken engines roar
It's just one of those things, one of those things
-- Al Stewart, "Accident on 3rd St."
In memory of Nick Adenhart and all victims of drunk driving
In 07, there's evidence to suggest that the system was already out of control.
Detroit didn’t have to worry about being blamed for going over-slot; nearly half of the players in the first round got over-slot bonuses.
"We were shit, pathetic," Guillen growled early in spring training. "We hit too many home runs."
by lenscrafters on Nov 28, 2009 7:20 PM PST up reply actions
I see 2007 as the year when it cracked.
Plenty of warning signs before then, of course. I still say there were political considerations in 2007. And with the stadium situation, Lew had that much more reason to stay cozy with Bud.
Think of it this way: If the same draft had happened in 2008, would Porcello have lasted till #27? No way. Things changed after 2007.
"Go ahead and overachieve, you scrappy Brett-Favre-colored walk-takers." —Rev Halofan
Look, I agree that spending money on the draft is smarter than spending money elsewhere
and judging by their complete 180 on the over-slot bonus issue since 2007, it appears that the A’s have also come to this position.
That being said, budgeting implicates team ownership in a way that proper spending of said budget does not. Could the A’s have done better in the Moneyball draft if Schott et al hadn’t been penny-wise-pound-foolish, parsimonious idiots? Probably. Was that Billy Beane’s fault? Eh, probably not.
I think your evaluation of Simmons is seriously off.
He was pretty much a one pitch pitcher, who may or may not develop breaking pitches
He had, and has, a good changeup.
His only positive was "fastball command", using a fastball that barely touched 90 in college
Not sure what the scare quotes are for. Are you implying that fastball command doesn’t exist, or just that he didn’t actually have it at the time? (Either one of those seems incredibly iffy to me.)
you’re well aware that pitchers generally lose velocity as they ascend through the minors
This is literally the first time in my life that I have ever seen someone assert this as a general rule. So no, I am not “well aware” of it. So far as I’m aware, the causes of lost velocity are a. getting hurt, b. getting old, c. mechanical failure.
It may be that the exaggerated REPORTS of velocity tail off as guys ascend through the minors (and they become harder and harder to maintain seriously in the face of TV radar guns, etc), but that’s an entirely different issue.
Linda's in the cold ground, won't see her anymore
Somewhere out on the highway tonight, the drunken engines roar
It's just one of those things, one of those things
-- Al Stewart, "Accident on 3rd St."
In memory of Nick Adenhart and all victims of drunk driving
Regarding Simmons's stuff
From what I’ve found, I’ve actually read conflicting reports on his changeup. Whereas his initial minor league baseball scouting reports grades his changeup as “average to plus”, other reports peg it as not very effective. Plus, you can see from dammerqury’s graphs that there’s barely any separation between it and his fastball in terms of velocity.
So Simmons has a mid to high eighties fastball, a changeup that may or may not be good, little else, and command that apparently abandoned him this year. I don’t see how my evaluation from before was seriously off. I still don’t see anything inspiring about Simmons.
The quotation marks around “fastball command” don’t have any hidden meaning. I’m sure Simmons had that (when he was drafted at least). I mean the guy needed something in his favor in order to have been considered an early round talent.
As for velocity declines regarding pitchers, you’re right, I’m confusing overzealous initial scouting reports with actual decline. Simmons may have been a mid to high 80s pitcher in college, same as he is today, but a sketchy report or an inaccurate radar gun may have inflated readings. Eh, prospecteers in general tend to overrate a prospect’s abilities anyways.
"We were shit, pathetic," Guillen growled early in spring training. "We hit too many home runs."
by lenscrafters on Nov 28, 2009 6:30 PM PST up reply actions
My impression of Simmons at the time of the draft
was that stuff-wise he was about “Blanton sans the big curve.” The A’s are probably hoping for him to become Blanton with a curve, which would be Blanton, which would be great. (Though my current understanding is that Simmons comes up a couple MPH short of Blanton on his fastball.)
I always heard good things about Simmons’ changeup, though, and don’t believe the pitches coming in mid-80s have anything to do with the changeup, which I’m sure Simmons throws around 79MPH.
I like Cindi. A. She never pretends to know more than she does. B. She has unbridled enthusiasm for her "Hotties," and isn't afraid to show it. -IM4Oakgal
Eh, personally I was always iffy on the Blanton/Simmons comparisons
Blanton’s fastball in college was low to mid 90s (if you believe those reports) but the important thing was that along with the curve, he also had an effective slider and changeup. Blanton was a legitimate four pitch pitcher while Simmons (if you believe in his changeup) has two effective pitches at best. And two years later, he apparently still hasn’t developed quality breaking pitches. I would love for Simmons to become a league average starter like Blanton but since he measures up so poorly in comparison to Blanton’s repertoire, I find it hard to imagine him even reaching that standard.
Sidenote: I’ve always found Mike Leake to be a good example of someone who could be a Blanton.
"We were shit, pathetic," Guillen growled early in spring training. "We hit too many home runs."
by lenscrafters on Nov 28, 2009 6:59 PM PST up reply actions
Anyone who is compared to Tim Hudson
always gets my vote.
I like Cindi. A. She never pretends to know more than she does. B. She has unbridled enthusiasm for her "Hotties," and isn't afraid to show it. -IM4Oakgal
Gio Gonzalez is shorter than Tim Hudson.
"Go ahead and overachieve, you scrappy Brett-Favre-colored walk-takers." —Rev Halofan
Gio for Cy Young!!!
I like Cindi. A. She never pretends to know more than she does. B. She has unbridled enthusiasm for her "Hotties," and isn't afraid to show it. -IM4Oakgal
Crazy (or is it?) prediction:
If Gio Gonzalez lowers his BB/9 to ~2.50 in 2010, then the A’s will contend for the West.
"We were shit, pathetic," Guillen growled early in spring training. "We hit too many home runs."
by lenscrafters on Nov 28, 2009 8:14 PM PST up reply actions
But not the same prediction vis a vis Cahill?
I like Cindi. A. She never pretends to know more than she does. B. She has unbridled enthusiasm for her "Hotties," and isn't afraid to show it. -IM4Oakgal
Well right now, Cahill actually has far more things to work on than Gio.
Assuming all else the same, if Cahill lowers his BB/9 to 2.50 he essentially becomes 2009 Rick Porcello (league average). If Gio lowers his BB/9 to 2.50, he becomes a legitimate ace.
Two aces (Anderson + Gio) + Braden + crappy offense = 2009 Giants? Yes, my logic is sketchy.
"We were shit, pathetic," Guillen growled early in spring training. "We hit too many home runs."
by lenscrafters on Nov 28, 2009 8:37 PM PST up reply actions
Better comparison for what Simmons is TRYING to do
would be Kevin Slowey.
Linda's in the cold ground, won't see her anymore
Somewhere out on the highway tonight, the drunken engines roar
It's just one of those things, one of those things
-- Al Stewart, "Accident on 3rd St."
In memory of Nick Adenhart and all victims of drunk driving
I would love for Simmons to become Slowey...
but Slowey has insane control and had dominated in the minors. Slowey’s worst BB/9 in the minors was a 2.0 in AA (sample size of 9 starts) and for his minor league career, he has a BB/9 of 1.3 (1.4 in the majors). Simmons’s best was 2.1 in 08 and his average in the minors so far is 2.7. That’s a pretty big difference.
"We were shit, pathetic," Guillen growled early in spring training. "We hit too many home runs."
by lenscrafters on Nov 29, 2009 12:48 PM PST up reply actions
k
Now look at their college numbers, since that’s what’s relevant (to the extent that any statistic is “relevant”) when drafting players.
No real difference.
Linda's in the cold ground, won't see her anymore
Somewhere out on the highway tonight, the drunken engines roar
It's just one of those things, one of those things
-- Al Stewart, "Accident on 3rd St."
In memory of Nick Adenhart and all victims of drunk driving
...
So Simmons should have been drafted in a later round like Slowey was? If so, then I agree.
"We were shit, pathetic," Guillen growled early in spring training. "We hit too many home runs."
by lenscrafters on Nov 29, 2009 1:37 PM PST up reply actions
By that logic,
a hitter who matched Albert Pujols’ profile coming out of junior college should be drafted in the 11th round.
The Twins were successful when they drafted Kevin Slowey. That has (or should have, at least) the effect of incrementing upward the perceived probability of success for players who closely match his amateur-ball profile, resulting in them being picked higher than he was. If Simmons turns out to be a bust, obviously that will decrement that same probability downward…
Linda's in the cold ground, won't see her anymore
Somewhere out on the highway tonight, the drunken engines roar
It's just one of those things, one of those things
-- Al Stewart, "Accident on 3rd St."
In memory of Nick Adenhart and all victims of drunk driving
The interesting thing about the recent crop of young Twins pitchers (Swarzak, Duensing, Blackburn, Slowey, Baker)
is that they all seem to fit a similar mold (great control, average stuff, not that many Ks) and they all seemed to show some dominance in the minors. The A’s probably noticed the dominance of those Twins pitchers and tried to get their own pitcher that matched the Twins archetype (Simmons).
However, the one thing I noticed is that the Twins had them all start in the lower levels on the minors. For whatever reason, this seems to have aided their development. The A’s, of course, started Simmons in AA immediately. I’m wondering if this caused some consequences for Simmons (forgoing development of secondary pitches to throw only his best pitches, fastball/change). Kinda similar to Cahill in the majors this year.
"We were shit, pathetic," Guillen growled early in spring training. "We hit too many home runs."
by lenscrafters on Nov 29, 2009 2:19 PM PST up reply actions
Could be
I generally find myself confused by the rate at which the A’s rush prospects. Then again, it does seem to work out OK for them, so maybe it’s a case of “can’t make an omelette without breaking eggs”? Or in this case, Simmonses.
Linda's in the cold ground, won't see her anymore
Somewhere out on the highway tonight, the drunken engines roar
It's just one of those things, one of those things
-- Al Stewart, "Accident on 3rd St."
In memory of Nick Adenhart and all victims of drunk driving
Oh, one other thing
The graph is measuring movement, not velocity. Having changeups and fastballs that overlap on movement is a good thing (makes it much more difficult to identify which one has been thrown based on flight path out of the pitcher’s hand).
7 MPH separation between the two is more than enough to fool a hitter assuming you do the other stuff right (i.e. don’t tip the pitch somehow or noticeably slow your arm down for the changeup). 4 is a little iffy, but either way we’re talking about two one-game samples.
Linda's in the cold ground, won't see her anymore
Somewhere out on the highway tonight, the drunken engines roar
It's just one of those things, one of those things
-- Al Stewart, "Accident on 3rd St."
In memory of Nick Adenhart and all victims of drunk driving
Yeah, I know what the graphs are measuring.
7 MPH separation between the two is more than enough to fool a hitter assuming you do the other stuff right (i.e. don’t tip the pitch somehow or noticeably slow your arm down for the changeup). 4 is a little iffy, but either way we’re talking about two one-game samples.
I’m not basing my evaluation of how effective Simmons’s changeup is strictly on those two AFL starts. Simmons’s abysmal results this year reflect pretty well on how effective his changeup is at fooling advanced hitters, and if he’s “[doing] the other stuff right”.
"We were shit, pathetic," Guillen growled early in spring training. "We hit too many home runs."
by lenscrafters on Nov 29, 2009 12:54 PM PST up reply actions
Your argment assumes the accuracy of the conventional wisdom -- ie that
because Simmons was a low talent guy, and he was drafted high, he therefore must be low risk because he’s close to his peak. I’m saying that isn’t true.
I’m saying that proximity to peak is fine in looking for a fill-in for the current year. IOW if you want to fill your 3B hole with Mark DeRosa for a year, and you know you’re getting a serviceable player at his peak, it could be a good move.
It’s not fine in identifying top prospects. The idea that 1st round draft choices should be used to pick guys who you hope are going to give you average production for 3 years is wrongheaded. You want to identify players that you can see becoming the core of a championship team — ie 4+ WAR players. You’d have to drink a lot of tequila and squint really hard to see Simmons as that type of player. There’s nothing wrong with getting the future Tim Worrell or Gil Heredia. They were useful at their peak. You don’t draft them in the first round though.
It's not the results, it's how you look going about those results -- Tim McCarver
by WaddellCanseco on Nov 27, 2009 8:06 PM PST up reply actions
Well, maybe you don't.
But that’s what Billy did in 2007.
Look, I’m not trying to defend the pick. I was just trying to explain it. I think I misread your post above. Where you said “I never understood” I took that to mean you’d want to understand, but now I think you just meant that rhetorically as a way of saying “I think that was stupid”.
And as of now, it’s looking like maybe you were right.
"Go ahead and overachieve, you scrappy Brett-Favre-colored walk-takers." —Rev Halofan
Eh
What high-ceiling athletes were available at the time? Wendell Fairley? That’s sure looking like a terrific pick right now…
Second-guessing draft picks in hindsight is a stupid exercise.
Linda's in the cold ground, won't see her anymore
Somewhere out on the highway tonight, the drunken engines roar
It's just one of those things, one of those things
-- Al Stewart, "Accident on 3rd St."
In memory of Nick Adenhart and all victims of drunk driving
When I conceded he might have been right.
I meant he might have been right in retrospect. I agree with you that the pick seems fine at the time.
"Go ahead and overachieve, you scrappy Brett-Favre-colored walk-takers." —Rev Halofan
Porcello
It's not the results, it's how you look going about those results -- Tim McCarver
by WaddellCanseco on Nov 28, 2009 1:48 PM PST up reply actions
Ugh
Complaining about the A’s draft budget belongs separate from discussions about drafting strategy. After all this time do we still need to conflate the two?
Yes, Porcello was a better prospect than Simmons.
No, the A’s did not have the room in their budget to sign Porcello.
This argument is dead, I think it’s time to leave it alone.
You know what's really ironic
Porcello seems to have turned into exactly the kind of pitcher the A’s thought they were getting with Simmons— an average innings-eater who puts a lot of balls in play, avoids walking too many hitters, but doesn’t dominate a game.
If the reports on Porcello at the time had actually been accurate, instead of “Next Josh Beckett ZOMG Awesome!!1”, how many fewer people would have been advocating drafting him?
Linda's in the cold ground, won't see her anymore
Somewhere out on the highway tonight, the drunken engines roar
It's just one of those things, one of those things
-- Al Stewart, "Accident on 3rd St."
In memory of Nick Adenhart and all victims of drunk driving
It's also ironic that a high school pitcher like Porcello reached the majors earlier than a polished, college pitcher like Simmons (who everyone expected to reach the majors quickly)
I’m also not sure why you expect a 20 year old pitcher with impressive upside to continue pitching like an average innings eater. And if people knew that Porcello would’ve managed a league average season at age 20 after being rushed and spending only a year in the minors, they would be more willing to draft him.
"We were shit, pathetic," Guillen growled early in spring training. "We hit too many home runs."
by lenscrafters on Nov 28, 2009 6:37 PM PST up reply actions
I don't believe Porcello HAS impressive upside
I think he has pretty bleh upside, to be honest. His raw stuff is probably worse than Vin Mazzaro’s. He does not really have the ability to strike out hitters.
I suppose he could reach Derek Lowe status at some point, but something like Carlos Silva is probably more likely.
Linda's in the cold ground, won't see her anymore
Somewhere out on the highway tonight, the drunken engines roar
It's just one of those things, one of those things
-- Al Stewart, "Accident on 3rd St."
In memory of Nick Adenhart and all victims of drunk driving
He still has time to add velocity, but yeah, he hasn't
exactly been Dwight Gooden at the same age.
It's not the results, it's how you look going about those results -- Tim McCarver
by WaddellCanseco on Nov 29, 2009 5:02 AM PST up reply actions
I mean, don't get me wrong
It’s not that Carlos Silva is bad (he provided some good value for the Twins before getting that head-scratcher of a contract from Bill Bavasi— about $30M in surplus value for his pre-FA career), just that it’s like getting a Volvo when you expected a Lambourghini.
Linda's in the cold ground, won't see her anymore
Somewhere out on the highway tonight, the drunken engines roar
It's just one of those things, one of those things
-- Al Stewart, "Accident on 3rd St."
In memory of Nick Adenhart and all victims of drunk driving
Shrug
I’m well aware of Porcello’s issues w/r/t striking out hitters. But I also won’t bet that a 20 year old with his pedigree is going to be only as good as Carlos Silva for his career. And if he becomes Derek Lowe, well, that makes not drafting him seem like even more of a foolish decision.
"We were shit, pathetic," Guillen growled early in spring training. "We hit too many home runs."
by lenscrafters on Nov 29, 2009 1:03 PM PST up reply actions
When I said "I never understood", I meant "it seemed stupid at the
time and no one has been able to convince me since then that it wasn’t", but I’m willing to be convinced if someone can offer evidence".
It's not the results, it's how you look going about those results -- Tim McCarver
by WaddellCanseco on Nov 28, 2009 1:53 PM PST up reply actions
Well, how about we all just hope that
the one who convinces you is James Simmons.
"Go ahead and overachieve, you scrappy Brett-Favre-colored walk-takers." —Rev Halofan
I'd be thrilled.
It's not the results, it's how you look going about those results -- Tim McCarver
by WaddellCanseco on Nov 29, 2009 5:02 AM PST up reply actions
Nice effort
And, naturally, recommended.
This reminds me of Matt McCarthy and his book (Odd man out, a truly entertaining read, especially as it covers many of the current Angels). There he goes on about how a pitching coach suggesting you change your arm slot is the penultimate stage prior to being released. The ultimate one is becoming a submariner.
I do have a question about PitchFX data. What is the movement relative to? Is the trajectory first calculated and projected on a few initial snapshots of the ball position? If so, how many and which ones?
I am also rather skeptical of any ball rising a foot, but this might be due to the fact that I don’t know how this movement is calculated. So, I’d appreciate the insight.
Have a glove you could spare for a good cause? If so please let me know
PitchFX uses two (or maybe three?) cameras to capture as many frames as possible of the ballflight.
I’m not sure how many frames it gets. The cameras watch a point 50 feet from the plate (10-ish feet from the mound). From this, they can calculate a million variables about the pitch flight.
Movement is all relative to a spinless, but still gravity-affected, ball. A 90-mph fastball will take 0.45-ish seconds to reach the plate, so a spinless ball will fall about 38 inches due to gravity. Simmons’s fastball has 8-10 inches of “rise”, but a better way to put it is that his fastball counter-acts gravity by 8-10 inches. It still falls, but it falls less than it would otherwise, if that makes any sense.
No, there's no light,
in the darkest of your furthest reaches.
Yes, that actually makes a lot of sense
Thanks
Have a glove you could spare for a good cause? If so please let me know
A question about 'spin angle'
What exactly do you mean by this?
To define terms I’m about to use – x and y are sideways and up and down in the horizontal plane, and z is at a normal to that, in the direction of rubber to plate.
the ‘pole’ of the ball is the imaginary line around which it is rotating. I’m assuming, at the moment, that the ‘wobble’ is insignificant.
Anyway ‘spin angle’. Is this the angle between the pole vector and the xyz axis? or is it the angle between the pole vector and ‘direction of travel’ vector.
If it’s the first, you might be able to express it in a three dimensional matrix. Also, I’m not sure what you’re showing in this graph – is one meant to infer a corrolation between rate of spin and deviation from an axis?
Super interesting post, btw. Thanks for taking the time to put it all together!
I suspect that you think tilting at windmills means something other than what it does
Wait --
“x and y are sideways and up and down”? You sound just like my Geometry teacher!!! Is this Mr. Haskins? (And do you know that we call you “Mr Has-been” behind your back"?)
-Cindi
I like Cindi. A. She never pretends to know more than she does. B. She has unbridled enthusiasm for her "Hotties," and isn't afraid to show it. -IM4Oakgal
ha, it was a bit handwavey
I suspect that you think tilting at windmills means something other than what it does
I believe what PitchFX calls "spin_dir"
is the angle between the pole vector and the positive x-axis (positive from the catcher’s point of view). Simmons’s fastballs were in the 200-240 degree range, for example. In the completely probable chance of this not making any sense, here’s a picture.
To match the movement chart, I changed the angle on my graph to correspond with the red arrow on that picture, instead of the gray pole vector. Of course, when I did that, the chart came out basically identical to the regular movement chart (rotated a bit because of, I think, the release point angle), so it was kind of pointless anyway.
No, there's no light,
in the darkest of your furthest reaches.
I'm confused. I think I need a "Men's Restroom" sign to orient me.
I like Cindi. A. She never pretends to know more than she does. B. She has unbridled enthusiasm for her "Hotties," and isn't afraid to show it. -IM4Oakgal
The dashed gray arrow represents
the trough urinal. The arrow indicates the direction of flow within the trough.
"Go ahead and overachieve, you scrappy Brett-Favre-colored walk-takers." —Rev Halofan
Now I get it!
Thanks for explaining pitching mechanics.
I like Cindi. A. She never pretends to know more than she does. B. She has unbridled enthusiasm for her "Hotties," and isn't afraid to show it. -IM4Oakgal
No no, I think it's interesting;
So, you take the ‘North’ of the polar axis using the right hand grip rule.
Seems to me that this data isn’t useful so much as a snapshot, but more as, say, a diagnostic tool. If you know that something has changed about a pitcher and the flight of his delivery, then this might be an interesting thing to look at for differences.
I’m going to look at your graphs a bit more now.
Also, good use of Paint. It is the best.
Hm, I wonder if one could use this, given the data of the approx density of the air in Denver in comparison to say, Oakland, when considering amount of dip / curve etc a rotational velocity of omega(1) causes, to make a rough calculation of the drag co-efficient of a baseball.
I’m just thinking out loud here, not requesting you do that. If I were a Science teacher, I’d set it as a task for my students. But I’m not.
I suspect that you think tilting at windmills means something other than what it does
Heh, thanks.
I was afraid my explanation was still too bizarre.
As far as that air density thing, it’d be interesting, for sure. It’d take pretty extensive calculations, though.
No, there's no light,
in the darkest of your furthest reaches.
Yeah... the air density is only used to calculate the co-efficient
drag being proportional to the density of a medium through which an object is moving.
When I sober up on the weekend, maybe I’ll do some calculations. Most likely not, though. Not sure whether the outcome would be anything other than purely academic.
I suspect that you think tilting at windmills means something other than what it does
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2012 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
