Cedric Mullins’ defense of late

[Jammer7]

5 hours ago, RZNJ said:

Some nice catches but it seems on anything hit at him his first step is always back.  He's no Paul Blair on shallow fly balls.  That was a great catch laying out for the ball in the alley against the Sox.  I'm happy with his defense but my two criticisms would be the shallow fly and he does seem a bit tentative when he gets close to the wall sometimes.  He's great going alley to alley.

OF’s are taught to take a step back. Always easier to transition back in to the infield. The ball over your head is extra bases. In front of you is a single. The ball at you is the most difficult read they have. 

[Frobby]

I wish I knew where to find catch probability numbers and the other data cited by Petriello in his Twitter post on Mullins.   Statcast publishes those nice recaps of exit velocity, xBA etc., but I’d love to have access to the defensive side of the equation.  

[RZNJ]

5 minutes ago, Jammer7 said:

OF’s are taught to take a step back. Always easier to transition back in to the infield. The ball over your head is extra bases. In front of you is a single. The ball at you is the most difficult read they have. 

I agree on the second part.   It's easier to come in than to go back and a single isn't as bad as an extra base hit.   I've never heard of any outfielder being taught to take a step back on contact.   If you can read the ball off the bat (not that it's easy) you go in if that's the read.   Taking a step back is going to cost you .5 second (just guessing).    The CF who reads the ball off the bat doesn't need to take that step back.   Taking a step back is just a guess that the ball is going over your head or in Mullin's case just not being able to read the ball correctly.

[Jammer7]

1 minute ago, RZNJ said:

I agree on the second part.   It's easier to come in than to go back and a single isn't as bad as an extra base hit.   I've never heard of any outfielder being taught to take a step back on contact.   If you can read the ball off the bat (not that it's easy) you go in if that's the read.   Taking a step back is going to cost you .5 second (just guessing).    The CF who reads the ball off the bat doesn't need to take that step back.   Taking a step back is just a guess that the ball is going over your head or in Mullin's case just not being able to read the ball correctly.

Yeah, I understand what you’re saying. But the ball at an OF is very hard to get a depth read. Ask any high level OF, it’s true. The sound of the bat and the intensity of the swing can fool the player. What someone pointed out was that he was better going sideways. I have not seen the OAA for other CF’s, but I would bet that most are better side to side than forward/back. He struggled with a few catches this year that I thought he would have had in 2021. Not sure if maybe the collisions with the wall have him just a bit gun shy.

[Frobby]

2 hours ago, RZNJ said:

I agree that there are times you need to dive but it's way overdone.   Last night the kid centerfielder on the other team made what looked like a great catch when he reached out a the last moment to catch Rustchman's drive into RCF but he should have made the catch easier.   He was cruising to the ball instead of running full speed in then got fooled a little bit and had to reach out.  Looks great but it wasn't.

Most of these diving catches would be made if the outfielder actually stayed on their feet and ran "through the ball".    A foot first slide will actually get you to the ball slower than just running and making the knee high/shoestring catch.    Most headfirst slides are also slower than just to continue running.   Sprinters sometimes lean at the end of the race but you'd have to execute a perfect dive to actually get to point A faster than to just continue running.   Just my opinion.  I'm not an expert on physics but I have a pretty good idea.

Well, I agree with this too.  A lot of dives and slides probably aren’t necessary.  I think slides are often used because it’s an easier catch from down low compared to reaching down, if you know how to manage your slide.  

[Jammer7]

33 minutes ago, Frobby said:

Well, I agree with this too.  A lot of dives and slides probably aren’t necessary.  I think slides are often used because it’s an easier catch from down low compared to reaching down, if you know how to manage your slide.  

Yep, keeping their head behind the ball makes the catch easier.

I never saw Paul Blair in his prime. But I have seen Griffey, Buxton, Edmonds, Trout, Kenny Lofton, Otis Nixon, Kirby Puckett, Bernie Williams, Eric Davis, Grady Sizemore, etc…Hard to compare players from different eras. The balls were different, the bats, the lights, and the players today are jacked. I would love to know the exit velocities of the balls then and now.

I don’t think Mullins is a gold glove guy. Maybe in the class of a Bumbry? We are lucky to have him, don’t get me wrong. OTOH, I would not be saddened to see him moved in the right deal. 

[DrungoHazewood]

15 hours ago, NCRaven said:

I mentioned money earlier.  The money in sports today also induces young people to enter sports when they may well have opted for other pursuits that paid better back in the early years of professional sports.  For much of the 1900's even college sports, particularly football and basketball, were considered more prestigious than the pros.

That is true, although I think that MLB has been well-paid and prestigious enough that it's been nearly 100 years since players would even occasionally do something else.  As early as the 1880s baseball players were paid, on average, several times an average laborer's wage.  And the last time players would sometimes pick other leagues like the IL or the PCL was probably the 1920s.  Although the PCL did have that brief period in the 50s where they tried to go independent with an open classification, but even then the vast majority of the best players were in the majors.

Football was probably 50 years behind baseball, basketball even further.  My grandmother had a set of 1948 World Book Encyclopedias, and the football section focused more on college than the pros.

[DrungoHazewood]

13 hours ago, Jammer7 said:

I would love to know the exit velocities of the balls then and now.

If you believe some of the (mostly anecdotal) reports of exceptionally long home runs from Ruth, Mantle, Josh Gibson, etc at least some exit velocities had to be FAR higher than today.  It's physics, if you believe that Ruth once hit a 690 foot homer it had to have left the bat at 140 mph or something.  Which is why I take all those stories with several dump trucks full of salt.

My guess is that the average exit velocity 75 or 100+ years ago was much lower than today.  Willie Keeler's average exit velocity was probably like 68 mph.

[Jammer7]

1 hour ago, DrungoHazewood said:

If you believe some of the (mostly anecdotal) reports of exceptionally long home runs from Ruth, Mantle, Josh Gibson, etc at least some exit velocities had to be FAR higher than today.  It's physics, if you believe that Ruth once hit a 690 foot homer it had to have left the bat at 140 mph or something.  Which is why I take all those stories with several dump trucks full of salt.

My guess is that the average exit velocity 75 or 100+ years ago was much lower than today.  Willie Keeler's average exit velocity was probably like 68 mph.

Yeah, it’s all anecdotal. Obviously we’ll never know. Based on the ball construction, the consistency of their construction today vs. then, pitch velocity and player strength, I suspect today the ball travels at much greater velocity. Then again, the bats the players swung years ago were likely a much harder wood and were generally heavier. The fences were much further back 100 years ago as well. I honestly don’t know what to think. 

The earliest discussion of what amounts to the term “launch angle,” that I am aware, was attributed to Ted Williams. It was likely around before him, but I am not the historian that you are.

I am not taking anything away from the greatness of the players before the modern era. They were/are deservedly celebrated. But some of the old guys saying the players were better in their era, I hear that in many walks of life. I try not to be that guy in the occupational world that I live in. However, I suppose it is the natural order of things.

[bericbnauff]

Nice play coming in on one last night:

https://www.mlb.com/gameday/orioles-vs-mariners/2022/06/28/662186#game_state=final,lock_state=final,game_tab=videos,game=662186

[DrungoHazewood]

On 6/29/2022 at 8:53 AM, Jammer7 said:

Yeah, it’s all anecdotal. Obviously we’ll never know. Based on the ball construction, the consistency of their construction today vs. then, pitch velocity and player strength, I suspect today the ball travels at much greater velocity. Then again, the bats the players swung years ago were likely a much harder wood and were generally heavier. The fences were much further back 100 years ago as well. I honestly don’t know what to think. 

The earliest discussion of what amounts to the term “launch angle,” that I am aware, was attributed to Ted Williams. It was likely around before him, but I am not the historian that you are.

I am not taking anything away from the greatness of the players before the modern era. They were/are deservedly celebrated. But some of the old guys saying the players were better in their era, I hear that in many walks of life. I try not to be that guy in the occupational world that I live in. However, I suppose it is the natural order of things.

Bats of the past were often heavier, but I don't think they were any harder. Roger Maris once participated in an experiment where he took batting practice with a number of bats of different weights, and there was hardly any difference in how far he could hit the ball.  F=ma.  If the mass of the bat is larger it makes the bat harder to accelerate, and it appears that there is little or no advantage (in terms of batted ball distances) to swinging a 40+ ounce bat.

Alan Nathan has a trajectory calculator spreadsheet on his site.  Playing around with that it's difficult to see how anyone ever hit a ball 550, 600 or more feet.  Statcast tells us that the hardest hit ball out of thousands so far in 2022 went 119 mph off the bat.  The longest I can get out of a 119 mph ball at sea level is 560 feet, and that's with optimal launch angle, 105 degree temperature, and a 25 mph tailwind. At 80 degrees Fahrenheit with a 5 mph tailwind and 119 mph exit velocity we're under 500' distance.  Statcast says the longest HR hit in 2022 is 496'. 

The only way oldtimers hit 550+ foot homers would be:

1) Some of the balls were much livelier and/or had far less drag.

2) The players were far stronger.

3) The home runs were not measured to the point of impact, or likely point of impact without stands, but to where they stopped rolling.  Mantle's famous 565' shot at Griffith Stadium probably was under 500' on the fly then rolled the rest of the way. Put Judge or Stanton in a big open field and they could hit a ball that rolls 600' or more*.

I think 1) is possible.  That quality control was very poor in the past and some balls were quite lively.  2) is simply not true. 3) Is very likely.

Circling back to the original point, I think it's theoretically possible that the occasional ball in 1960 was hit as hard or harder than the hardest balls today. But that the average exit velocity was quite a bit lower.

* When I was a teenager we used to play baseball in the street in front of my house.  There was a bit of a hill to one side of my house, and on the other side the street sloped gradually down past about 5-6 houses. Another kid, Keith, was a pretty good high school player. One time he hit a moon shot that got to the top of the hill, then rolled all the way down the other side.  If each yard was about 150' wide his homer went over 800'.  Probably the longest homer I've ever seen.

[Jammer7]

7 hours ago, DrungoHazewood said:

Bats of the past were often heavier, but I don't think they were any harder. Roger Maris once participated in an experiment where he took batting practice with a number of bats of different weights, and there was hardly any difference in how far he could hit the ball.  F=ma.  If the mass of the bat is larger it makes the bat harder to accelerate, and it appears that there is little or no advantage (in terms of batted ball distances) to swinging a 40+ ounce bat.

Alan Nathan has a trajectory calculator spreadsheet on his site.  Playing around with that it's difficult to see how anyone ever hit a ball 550, 600 or more feet.  Statcast tells us that the hardest hit ball out of thousands so far in 2022 went 119 mph off the bat.  The longest I can get out of a 119 mph ball at sea level is 560 feet, and that's with optimal launch angle, 105 degree temperature, and a 25 mph tailwind. At 80 degrees Fahrenheit with a 5 mph tailwind and 119 mph exit velocity we're under 500' distance.  Statcast says the longest HR hit in 2002 is 496'. 

The only way oldtimers hit 550+ foot homers would be:

1) Some of the balls were much livelier and/or had far less drag.

2) The players were far stronger.

3) The home runs were not measured to the point of impact, or likely point of impact without stands, but to where they stopped rolling.  Mantle's famous 565' shot at Griffith Stadium probably was under 500' on the fly then rolled the rest of the way. Put Judge or Stanton in a big open field and they could hit a ball that rolls 600' or more*.

I think 1) is possible.  That quality control was very poor in the past and some balls were quite lively.  2) is simply not true. 3) Is very likely.

Circling back to the original point, I think it's theoretically possible that the occasional ball in 1960 was hit as hard or harder than the hardest balls today. But that the average exit velocity was quite a bit lower.

* When I was a teenager we used to play baseball in the street in front of my house.  There was a bit of a hill to one side of my house, and on the other side the street sloped gradually down past about 5-6 houses. Another kid, Keith, was a pretty good high school player. One time he hit a moon shot that got to the top of the hill, then rolled all the way down the other side.  If each yard was about 150' wide his homer went over 800'.  Probably the longest homer I've ever seen.

A very good read. Thanks for that!

[justD]

On 6/28/2022 at 11:32 AM, Just Regular said:

I think I've heard Blair at a Fanfest give a quote like he doesn't believe you can be a great CF unless you play shallow…

What I’ve heard attributed to him and perhaps heard him say myself is that if you’re a good outfielder you don’t have to dive for a ball.  All about positioning, getting a good jump off the bat, speed to get you to the ball without having to make a flashy leap to grab it. 

I think about that often when watching the “Capitol One Premier Plays” I love so much. 

[Frobby]

Two more outstanding plays tonight from Mullins.   He’s putting on a clinic out there.  

[Yossarian]

On 6/28/2022 at 2:10 PM, Jammer7 said:

Yep, keeping their head behind the ball makes the catch easier.

I never saw Paul Blair in his prime. But I have seen Griffey, Buxton, Edmonds, Trout, Kenny Lofton, Otis Nixon, Kirby Puckett, Bernie Williams, Eric Davis, Grady Sizemore, etc…Hard to compare players from different eras. The balls were different, the bats, the lights, and the players today are jacked. I would love to know the exit velocities of the balls then and now.

I don’t think Mullins is a gold glove guy. Maybe in the class of a Bumbry? We are lucky to have him, don’t get me wrong. OTOH, I would not be saddened to see him moved in the right deal. 

You forgot Torii Hunter