Pitching "Sense"

[mankle]

Here's a thought. As of now, batting and baserunning intangibles are represented in the ratings for batting eye, K's and Baserunning instincts.

This type of "intangible" is not represented for pitching AT ALL! As far as I could tell from the manual, each of the 3 pitching ratings has a direct result on the results that a pitcher has. However they pitching is about more than those 3 characteristics... it's also about a pitcher's feel for the game and understanding of how to set up hitters. I suggest that this phenomenon be represented by a "pitching sense" rating. While a pitcher like Greg Maddux had both outstanding control and movement on his pitches, his stuff was average at best. What made him a Hall of Famer was his intelligence. It's also what hinders prospects who have (to quote Bull Durham) a "million dollar arm, but a 5 cent head."

I would also suggest that catchers get a "game calling" rating, which would affect how well their pitcher does in games that they catch. Again, right now, the defensive ratings for "Catcher ability" and "Catcher arm" don't represent this.

According to the manual, Catcher rating "isn't truly a distinct rating. It is more of a composite number based on a combination of the player's defensive skills (arm, error, range) and his experience at the position."

However, a big part of both the development and the usefulness of a catcher is their ability to call a game.

[RchW]

What evidence do you have of the catchers influence on SP? Is it equal? for example does a catcher positively influence a Halladay type pitcher the same as a Fausto Carmona type.

How would you account for the approximate 10-15 teams that call games from the bench?

I'm not saying there is no evidence of catching influence but better minds than you and I have not been able to quantify it. Based on that I'd prefer that it not be in the game.

I think on the pitcher side you could just as seriously add a "gets more strikes called" rating. During many years watching Maddux I used to laugh at the 24" strike zone he had. I defy anyone who watched Halladay pitch in Toronto on Saturday past to tell me with a straight face that the strike zone was the same for both teams.

This is not intended to be confrontational. I'm concerned about adding too many unmeasurable attributes to the game.

[mankle]

Originally Posted by RchW

What evidence do you have of the catchers influence on SP? Is it equal? for example does a catcher positively influence a Halladay type pitcher the same as a Fausto Carmona type.

How would you account for the approximate 10-15 teams that call games from the bench?

I'm not saying there is no evidence of catching influence but better minds than you and I have not been able to quantify it. Based on that I'd prefer that it not be in the game.

I think on the pitcher side you could just as seriously add a "gets more strikes called" rating. During many years watching Maddux I used to laugh at the 24" strike zone he had. I defy anyone who watched Halladay pitch in Toronto on Saturday past to tell me with a straight face that the strike zone was the same for both teams.

This is not intended to be confrontational. I'm concerned about adding too many unmeasurable attributes to the game.

Are you being confrontational? I thought the whole point of these forums is to put ideas and thoughts out there for discussion. Clearly not everyone has to share my opinion. Now, if you were being confrontational on a field that I was umpiring . . . well. . . .that's another story!

As far as the catching goes, yes, I understand that it's difficult to quantify, and probably even harder to balance once it's been figured out how to quantify.

As far as pitching sense goes, I feel that, it would be very satisfying to know that a pitcher with a good head (Shawn Marcum, for example) can make way more out of his talent than others. This, I'm sure, could be quantified. Perhaps it would be complex to actually do, but if it could be a subtle, yet perceptible part of pitchers' performance, I feel that it would be a very satisfying part of the pitching game. I do think that this would be easier than having a game calling rating.

Yes, I watched the Halladay game in Toronto, and my reaction (as a fan, and as an umpire) in the second inning was, "I hope there aren't two different strike zones all game."

I know that all of these intangibles are difficult to model well, but to me, they are part of what makes baseball great. I think the game designers have done a fantastic job, and think that it's great (yet frustrating) that players can win 20 games with a 3.00 ERA one year, then struggle to win 10 with an ERA approaching 5.00 the next.

[RchW]

Thanks for the reply. Glad to know you're not one of the new sensitive types. I usually don't care but for some reason last night I did. I'll respond to your post later. Have to get back to work.... ...

[BabyMauer]

I would think that would be incorporated in the stats already. If a pitcher is 'smart' and knows the game well, his Stuff will be better. The rating for their pitches isn't just how well they throw it, but how well they place it. To place it well, you have to know the game and the batter.

This would apply for 'enlarged' strike zones as well

I personally like having quantifiable ratings. Stuff = strikeouts, Control = walks, Movement = Contact

What would Pitching sense equal other than a modifier of these things?

[polydamas]

I think good catchers help young pitchers develop, but I'm not sure how much effect they really have.

I do think their should be another rating for pitchers. Maybe it could be worded differently. Like pitcher's smarts or something lol.

As a former pitcher (not professional by any stretch) I wasn't always the fastest pitcher in the league, but I knew how to make the most out of the pitches I had.

If you notice that a batter can't hit your slider, you might use that as your "out pitch".

I don't really know how to describe it, but I'm a firm believer in pitcher intelligence.