Jump to content

Control and Command -- K/BB Ratio


AZRon

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Hallas said:

What's the difference between control and command?

Pitch movement and spin rate are almost the same thing.

There are also a lot of difficult-to-quantify things here.  Such as ability to sell a changeup.  But I would probably go with velo followed by control/command (they sort of seem like the same thing.)

I too am a bit dubious that the distinction between control and command is a quantifiable thing you can use to differentiate pitchers...even to separate the immortal from the elite. A test would be to see if pitchers in a non game situation , but going all out as if it was, can consistently throw their best stuff to a specific tiny spot. But we don't have the luxury of an experiment, just lots of complex in game situations.  I am dubious that even Schilling in his prime could hit a spot on command with his best "stuff" and do that over 7 innings, let alone a whole season.  It seems more likely to me that if you ask prime Schilling to throw a low and away fastball he did it more or less (most innings on most starts for a stretch of years)...unlike lots and lots of other pitchers. On the other side, are there really pitchers that can't consistently hit a spot but can throw strikes? As the article seems to point out the K/BB ratio seems to measure a whole bunch of unrelated things....like how many balls Maddox got the umpire to call strikes for him.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Can_of_corn said:

And how much harder is the "average fastball" today over say 30 years ago?

I don't think it matters much, although it has increased. Velocity is nice, but if it's straight, or poorly located... wham! it's outta here... unless it's outside of course, and then it's a walk.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, linedrive said:

I don't think it matters much, although it has increased. Velocity is nice, but if it's straight, or poorly located... wham! it's outta here... unless it's outside of course, and then it's a walk.

I'm guessing about four mph because it matter a huge amount.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, Can_of_corn said:

I'm guessing about four mph because it matter a huge amount.

From 2007 to now it's up 2.1 mph, from 91.1 to 93.2.  Not really sure about 4 mph but I would venture to guess at least that much, and possibly another 1 mph.

IIRC 88-89 was considered slow in 1989.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Chavez Ravine said:

I too am a bit dubious that the distinction between control and command is a quantifiable thing you can use to differentiate pitchers.

Are you saying the distinction doesn’t exist, or you can’t measure it?   I think you could argue that there is a spectrum between being wild, having control and having command.   In that sense, command and control are not really distinct qualities, one is just a stronger form of the other.    

Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, Frobby said:

Are you saying the distinction doesn’t exist, or you can’t measure it?   I think you could argue that there is a spectrum between being wild, having control and having command.   In that sense, command and control are not really distinct qualities, one is just a stronger form of the other.    

Sort of both. I agree that there is a spectrum. At the MLB level (plus down a level or two) it seems like everyone is trying to throw to a particular spot. Among that pool, the distinction between throwing your 97 MPH fastball down the pipe vs. spotting it on the corner (or floating a lackadaisical slider through the meat of the zone vs. catching the bottom of the zone as it dives to the dirt) is a fine one. It is fine partly because the ability to spot elite stuff is so ephemeral....from year to year, game to game, and even from inning to inning. When all you have to work with is long-term observational data it gets very difficult to distinguish fine shades of meaning. Meaning such as the pitcher meant to spot that slider so it just caught the lower left corner as opposed to they where just hoping to throw the slider for a strike, but hopefully not a really good one. Plus on top of everything is all the other stuff. Like whatever stuff makes Chris Davis stare at a 93 MPH fastball that floats through the meat of the plate.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Posts

    • I would hope no one would believe that.
    • What are you talking about? John Means has always had good results when he's on the mound.  He's a good pitcher. And people thought Mullins was better than he was not because the team was bad, but because he had a standout, elite season where he clubbed 30 home runs and got on base at a .360 clip, production he has not come close to replicating since.
    • He should be throwing a CG against these guys.
    • Do you strongly believe that we can succeed in the postseason for multiple rounds with this bullpen “as is”?
    • I don’t think it was ever reasonable to believe that any singular (non-elite reliever) could replace Bautista. IMO he almost served the role of really TWO effective relievers because of how many times he pitched more than one inning. Thus we needed two very good relievers added to make up for his singular spot because he’s that good. I don’t want to get into a Miller discussion as the topic has been well covered previously.  No I have not been much of a believer in Perez since 2022. Coloumbe however has been excellent other than a recent rough patch, so no issues there. Kimbrel is extremely unreliable IMO (despite a few recent outings of success). I shudder to think of trying to close out a deciding road postseason game in the Bronx with him on the mound. I get the creeps just thinking about that notion. I don’t have much faith in a healthy effective Wells pitching consistently out of the pen at this point. You may be correct in that we may be stuck for now as trade options may not be available. With that being the case (barring some Yankee injuries) we are likely to continue to lose ground to them in the standings. Now it’s not the end of the world if we end up a wild card. However, the front office is going to have to deviate from its long held approach of holding/hedging/hoarding mostly all organizational talent. We are going to have to pull the trigger on a true talent adding trade or two this season. Because IMO as good as we are, we are not good enough to win it all as is. The bullpen is just too bereft of top end talent.
    • Heasley isn’t a part of our bullpen.  He was just a fresh arm call up because of the Means IL.  Here’s a situation where options are so valuable. We lose a guy like Baumann because he’s out of options and rotate a guy like Heasley in.  Overall though, our bullpen doesn’t scare anyone. Other teams got out guys throwing 98 plus. Like the Phillies. It’s demoralizing.  We could really use a shot in the arm by making an early trade for Tanner Scott or Michael Kopech.  But we will option Heasley today. Bryan Baker has had some success. Tate could be that guy. McDermott is intriguing too.  My prediction is that we evaluate our in house options before making a trade. But we need a “scary” arm. These arms are regular season arms. 
    • I’d like for tonight to be the night Burnes gives us 7 IP.
  • Popular Contributors

×
×
  • Create New...