Because:My question: why is Pedroia finding (other than the fact he is awesome) this and not a coach/org person?
Pedroia had recently looked at tape of himself facing lefty pitchers, and video of at-bats against Price came up, Price said.
Could you, you know, post these videos?A 10 yo could tell the difference if you showed him 2 video clips from last year and this year. Of course, maybe because I knew what to look for (just having done it myself). However, I just don't believe this was not noticed by anyone unless nobody was even looking at videos before this.
Yeah, I mean, not to take anything away from Pedroia and he deserves credit for spotting an issue, but why aren't Willis and Farrell watching these videos? I know that they have plenty of other responsibilities other than fixing Price but one would think it would be near the top of the list.I would think with the investment the Sox have in Price, most of the coaching staff should be watching prior video of his pitching. The way Pedroia's "find" on Price occurred seemed like happenstance. A drop in velocity, a lack of control, and those are the two staples that had made Price worth in excess of two hundred million on the open market last winter.
And you're talking about 5 starts out of 223 by those numbers. That's not a sample size that is going to tell you much of anything, except that small sample sizes can give you huge variances. The 6 90+ deg starts don't look so great either. But again, only 6 of them. About half his starts were indoors. We're not talking about nearly enough data to overcome uncertainty.Was wondering this myself. Some guy on Reddit collated Price's career starts by temperature:
https://www.reddit.com/r/redsox/comments/4hk4eh/david_price_stats_by_outside_temperature/
Not sure what the temperatures have looked like this month during his games, but seems like its been a pretty cold month overall. I think he's going to be OK, personally.
Yeah, I mean, not to take anything away from Pedroia and he deserves credit for spotting an issue, but why aren't Willis and Farrell watching these videos? I know that they have plenty of other responsibilities other than fixing Price but one would think it would be near the top of the list.
But this was a group effort that included manager John Farrell and pitching coach Carl Willis and others, like bullpen coach Dana LeVangie and Brian Bannister, the director of pitching analysis and development.
That would explain the loss of velocity. The only question is how long will it take for him to work this back into his delivery consistently.I just reviewed some tape of his out of the wind-up. Same story, not nearly as high of a kick and the hands stay further down. He seems much more upright and not driving off the back leg as well.
It's not hard to check the accuracy of a stadium radar gun.Color me shocked that after 5 days of non stop "oh my God he's lost his fastball" talk, the NESN/Fenway gun has him up a MPH or two...
Is "contact management" a skill independent of K and BB rates? To what extent? How do you measure it and predict it?Color me skeptical whether tonight means he's fixed. Tonight seems consistent with what today's fan graphs article posits -- that his contact management is poor so far this year.
Whether he has control over it or not, there have only been 3 qualified starters with a higher line drive percentage than Price this year. His LD% tonight was 30.8%, which is higher than his 29.1% season rate by a touch. If the velocity really is back up around where it was last year, I'm guessing that rate will come down some, but it's worth keeping an eye on.Is "contact management" a skill independent of K and BB rates? To what extent? How do you measure it and predict it?
I agree. My question's legitimate, not dismissive. It's basically a question of to what extent FIPS theory holds, in different clothes.Whether he has control over it or not, there have only been 3 qualified starters with a higher line drive percentage than Price this year. His LD% tonight was 30.8%, which is higher than his 20.9% season rate by a touch. If the velocity really is back up around where it was last year, I'm guessing that rate will come down some, but it's worth keeping an eye on.
I don't think I would do the full article justice by trying to summarize it in response, but they appear to be generating contact scores deviating from average (both adjusted and context adjusted) for each kind of BIP type. I can't vouch for the methodology but it seems reasonable. Certainly meets the eye test for Price this year -- when batters put the ball in play against Price they are often hitting the type of balls that either cannot be caught for outs or that are hit hard enough that a less than optimally positioned fielder has a relatively lower chance of fielding.Is "contact management" a skill independent of K and BB rates? To what extent? How do you measure it and predict it?
It doesn't seem to follow that a pitcher would have some level of control over making a batter swing and miss at the ball, but have no level of control over making the batter strike the ball poorly. "Contact management", as a thing, probably has to be attached on a string to K rate (or maybe more precisely O/Z-Contact %), but it has to exist. As for measuring and predicting, well, come at me in 2025 I guess.Is "contact management" a skill independent of K and BB rates? To what extent? How do you measure it and predict it?
I agree, the question is to what extent there is a contact management skill that's not correlated strongly to K rate (as Price's K rate remains high). Clicking through they have some discussion about it in the links for AL contact from 2014, but those offer only a hand-waivy "line drive rate isn't strongly correlated from year to year but other BIP types are" without showing the work. Still searching...It doesn't seem to follow that a pitcher would have some level of control over making a batter swing and miss at the ball, but have no level of control over making the batter strike the ball poorly. "Contact management", as a thing, probably has to be attached on a string to K rate (or maybe more precisely O/Z-Contact %), but it has to exist. As for measuring and predicting, well, come at me in 2025 I guess.
Nobody in the history of the game, long term, ever had a K/BB ratio as good as Price's with a BABIP/LD%/(etc.) as poor as his has been. If you can find someone who had a 5:1 K:BB with an ERA+ less than 100 over at least a ~5 year career, knock yourself out (adjust for era norms too if you wish).The money part of the hypothesis seems to be that good contact managers have a "go-to frequency skill" that induces ground balls or pop ups. If that's true, you could imagine at least theoretically a type of strike out pitcher -- one who lives in the strike zone -- who gets misses by mixing a plus fastball with a deceptive change but who does not induce vertical plane weak contact because he does not feature good sinking action or whose high pitches are easier to identify as fastballs.
Well, since only one player has ever had a career K/BB ratio of over 5 with at least 1,000 IP (the immortal Tommy Bond), I'd say you need to reset your standards. And before you arbitrarily drop it to 4:1, there are only 6 more players at that level and 2 of them are still active and have a good chance to knock it down below that level (the list is Schilling, Bumgarner, Pedro, Mariano, Dan Haren and Jordan Zimmermann).Nobody in the history of the game, long term, ever had a K/BB ratio as good as Price's with a BABIP/LD%/(etc.) as poor as his has been. If you can find someone who had a 5:1 K:BB with an ERA+ less than 100 over at least a ~5 year career, knock yourself out (adjust for era norms too if you wish).
Now, if you instead mean to say that this might be a lingering issue for him, then I am more in agreement. But almost certainly a lot of the BIP events for him are unsustainable given that high K:BB ratio, and we should definitely expect a downward regression in his ERA.
Not sure if that is a nitpicky dig at me, or a dig at DDB, but I guess you missed the part where I said you can adjust for era (vs. ERA) norms. Since Price is around 4:1 for his career (but over 5:1 for his prime-last 4 [inclusive] seasons), and even if I thus decide to drop it down to 4 or 3:1, the broader point remains even if I failed to cover every possible conceivable angle to your satisfaction.Well, since only one player has ever had a career K/BB ratio of over 5 with at least 1,000 IP (the immortal Tommy Bond), I'd say you need to reset your standards. And before you arbitrarily drop it to 4:1, there are only 6 more players at that level and 2 of them are still active and have a good chance to knock it down below that level (the list is Schilling, Bumgarner, Pedro, Mariano, Dan Haren and Jordan Zimmermann).
Hardball times had an article on it recently. It suggested some news ways to look at the issue but didn't come to any conclusions. http://www.hardballtimes.com/can-pitchers-prevent-solid-contact/The money part of the hypothesis seems to be that good contact managers have a "go-to frequency skill" that induces ground balls or pop ups. If that's true, you could imagine at least theoretically a type of strike out pitcher -- one who lives in the strike zone -- who gets misses by mixing a plus fastball with a deceptive change but who does not induce vertical plane weak contact because he does not feature good sinking action or whose high pitches are easier to identify as fastballs.
Edit: This seems to be the most recent deep dive on contact management my google skills allowed.
http://www.crawfishboxes.com/2014/9/15/6143809/sabermetrics-looking-for-weak-contact
I am in the same boat. I found him, actually better than Schilling, albeit for an inning. He was low key, concise and meshed with the other announcers. I like that he pointed out the tilt, etc, was applicable to kids pitching not just MLB, simplifying the analysis rather than making it sound overly complex.Big Rog makes a great point about the tilt that Price had last night that he didn't have in the previous start, the video shows it pretty clearly.
I still hate Clemens, but he had some useful insight there.
Pretty much anytime he's shown up in a booth and talked baseball he's been great. It's fucking annoying.I am in the same boat. I found him, actually better than Schilling, albeit for an inning. He was low key, concise and meshed with the other announcers. I like that he pointed out the tilt, etc, was applicable to kids pitching not just MLB, simplifying the analysis rather than making it sound overly complex.
Agreed. I have heard him on radio a few times the last few years with Joe and whomever, and I have to admit that he does come off well, both analytically and personally. He's a gracious guest and when he talks baseball its detailed and coherent without being condescending. Last night wasn't much different.Pretty much anytime he's shown up in a booth and talked baseball he's been great. It's fucking annoying.
Yeah. I kind of wouldn't hate Rog in the booth fulltime. A "rule of thumb" I learned was that the ones who worked hardest to learn & execute - the Schilling types - are better at explaining/teaching than natural talents. It's striking that Clemens was able to break it down so nicely if this is true.Pretty much anytime he's shown up in a booth and talked baseball he's been great. It's fucking annoying.
Dan Duquette did not drive Roger Clemens out of town. Dan Duquette looked at a pitcher who was 33 and who, while still pitching effectively, wasn't the same pitcher he was when he became a team icon. Dan Duquette offered him a lifetime contract. Clemens didn't bother to read it, went off to Canada, and started taking steroids.Yeah. I kind of wouldn't hate Rog in the booth fulltime. A "rule of thumb" I learned was that the ones who worked hardest to learn & execute - the Schilling types - are better at explaining/teaching than natural talents. It's striking that Clemens was able to break it down so nicely if this is true.
Now I'm also pissed again at Duquette for driving him out of town while simultaneously loving him even more for Pedro (Duke never made things easy on us, did he)...
Are you suggesting that Clemens is a exception to the rule of thumb rather than an example? Roger worked hard - he was punching barrels of rice in an era when the vast majority of pitchers were still spending the offseason figuring out how to duck their spring training laps. It's funny you term the workers 'Schilling types', since Schilling specifically credits Clemens' advice on conditioning and work as the key turning point in his 1997-1998 career leap.Yeah. I kind of wouldn't hate Rog in the booth fulltime. A "rule of thumb" I learned was that the ones who worked hardest to learn & execute - the Schilling types - are better at explaining/teaching than natural talents. It's striking that Clemens was able to break it down so nicely if this is true.
You're right. Poor phrasing of poor thoughts.Are you suggesting that Clemens is a exception to the rule of thumb rather than an example? Roger worked hard - he was punching barrels of rice in an era when the vast majority of pitchers were still spending the offseason figuring out how to duck their spring training laps. It's funny you term the workers 'Schilling types', since Schilling specifically credits Clemens' advice on conditioning and work as the key turning point in his 1997-1998 career leap.
Opt-Out fans have at it ..Then word came out that David Price did not want a player option, but rather that Dave Dombrowski insisted on including one. The future, it turns out, can be a real know-it-all.
So what happened here? More importantly, why would a team insist on including a player opt-out? In theory, a contract with a player opt-out (as opposed to the same contract without a player opt-out) can only benefit the player. If the player can receive more on the open market than they can by not opting out, then the player will opt out; if not, then the player will not opt out. When put this way, this can only benefit the player. Maybe this is what Commissioner Rob Manfred was thinking about when he said, “The logic of the [player] opt-out clauses for the club escapes me.”
Dave Dombrowski and the Red Sox front office do not seem like people that do things without regard for logic, so let us take some hacks at guessing the logic behind requiring a player opt-out in David Price’s contract (or really, any contract).