Guess this pitcher's movement rating

[TGH-Adfabre]

Originally Posted by Elendil

Yes, but my scout is really good. Plus, scouting ratings in the majors vary very little. OSA has his movement at 55.

I would look under the hood. I have seen seemingly out of whack scouting results that didn't make sense until true ratings were known.

[NoOne]

can't answer that without basleline info for the league.

e.g. 1hr/9 is terrible in a league that averages .5hr per 9ip

some pitches are more affected by movement than others when it comes to hr/9... i'd bet if you swapped out the CB for a splitter, it'd rise up a bit. maybe... each pitch type can come with a personalized natural hr/9 rate that is then affected by all the other factors, but each pitch starts with a base, excluding all other factors.

[Elendil]

Originally Posted by NoOne

can't answer that without basleline info for the league.

e.g. 1hr/9 is terrible in a league that averages .5hr per 9ip

some pitches are more affected by movement than others when it comes to hr/9... i'd bet if you swapped out the CB for a splitter, it'd rise up a bit. maybe... each pitch type can come with a personalized natural hr/9 rate that is then affected by all the other factors, but each pitch starts with a base, excluding all other factors.

League average is about 1.2 HR/9. So this guy is not *dramatically* better than average, but noticeably so - despite a movement rating that is definitely worse than average.

I'm in Challenge mode, so I can't turn on Commish mode, but I'd be surprised if the issue is scouting error - unless scouting error is systematically greater for pitchers' movement ratings than any other rating, which I'm ready to believe given how much slippage there can be between this particular rating and its associated stat, even over the long run.

[Sharkn20]

Almost nailed it

Almost 1 HR a game is far too much for my liking. Back of the rotation in the best case

Sent from my SM-G960F using Tapatalk

[chriskelly]

that's what I was going to ask....is he a gb or fb pitcher. I'm at the point where i want nothing to do w/ extreme fb pitchers unless their movement is excellent

[NoOne]

Originally Posted by Elendil

League average is about 1.2 HR/9. So this guy is not *dramatically* better than average, but noticeably so - despite a movement rating that is definitely worse than average.

I'm in Challenge mode, so I can't turn on Commish mode, but I'd be surprised if the issue is scouting error - unless scouting error is systematically greater for pitchers' movement ratings than any other rating, which I'm ready to believe given how much slippage there can be between this particular rating and its associated stat, even over the long run.

EDIT: i think i know... he has 3 pitches. he's a near SP based on a couple years of starting, i bet he has 3 pitches. in an RP role, i bet a 3rd pitch helps reduce hr/9.

I'd have guessed ~60 give or a take a few with that baseline. hr/9 is a bit tricky. it's not 1:1 based on movement alone that's for sure, unless it's simply extremely volatile -- not as likely.

yeah if in mlb it's probably spot on, especially with years of experience.

53 could be lucky too. someone in your league hits the 'lottery' as far as a string of overproductive years for an extended period of time.

i'd bet it's more about picth type.

in the past i've said stuff affecsts the movement you see in profile and that is 100% wrong. gb% does though. so, gb% is already included with what you see in profile's "53" as well as affecting stuff, if i recall the note in editor (velo and gb% affect stuff seen/used).

gb and velo are important, but already included in what is used by the game -- profile stuff of each pitch and profile movement -- assumes 100% scouting.

so it really is a "53" and what other factors are possibly relevant? stuff, control, etc.. well, what else beyond that, but not putting a ton of thought into it either.

has to be a combination of those two factors just based on what few relative things are availble to use.

Full disclosure -- i always like a good CB.. high-end, not middling. same with changeup. at some point these go from volatile to amazing pitches to have. i guess that's the same with most pitches, but i think a FB is "better" at 60 than a CB at 60. but a >max cb is better than a >max FB. .. (reference to prefering various ratios of pitches -- i.e. thrown more often). a high end changeup (possibly requires a high end fb) almost guarantees a high K/9 rate.

[Elendil]

Originally Posted by chriskelly

that's what I was going to ask....is he a gb or fb pitcher. I'm at the point where i want nothing to do w/ extreme fb pitchers unless their movement is excellent

He's a flyball pitcher. The nice thing about FB pitchers is that their BABIP is lower, perhaps making up fully for lower GIDP induced.

[NoOne]

Originally Posted by Elendil

He's a flyball pitcher. The nice thing about FB pitchers is that their BABIP is lower, perhaps making up fully for lower GIDP induced.

i think a high movement in editor with a flyball gb% is a good thing for sure. it can go too far, though. in game, maybe 42-50% as low as i'd go? i still prefer neutral and slightl GB favor or better.

when you look up data on FB vs ground vs liners .. the FB is the best result -- worst slugging, worst average, worst obp.

i would wager it's a slim area to exist in ... i.e. a simply +1 or -1 to GB% may have cause a precipitous drop in results.

with that said, a good gb% is more consistent, even if it technically has a worse slash overall.

i think relying on FB guys to have a good year is risky, but the ceiling is also higher. (within reason.. to low gb% is likely impossible to overcome. i also believe that a GB% that's too high is harmful. it's a curve and the peak performance is not a the extremes.

[sreem]

The most amazing thing I think is that he still expects to be in the starting rotation despite the fact that he hasn't started a game in over 5 years!

[NoOne]

that can sometimes change... i think a big portion is how you use them the first few years of their career. (ignoring talent changes to keep it simple)

i've seen some really good 3-pitch pitchers state in profile nothing about wanting to be an SP... not all but some, seemingly if you start off mlb career as rp and you don't move them around for a few years. (it happens. i just don't look into causes too closely)

you can get a really cheap extension too, if you play them as RP for a fw years then switch to SP. i often see cy young-quality types that went through this progression sign for as low as 10-12m a year. a 'best' pitching in league for 10-15m/year extension, no problem! (25-30m would be a typical contract in my league financial environment for a top tier SP that isn't too old.)

if they hit FA with an SP's tool belt, they will almost certainly switch to SP, even though stil listed as RP in FA list. i don't think these contracts are affected by what i mentioned above, but extensions are definitely influenced by initial roles of the player. (limited to players that offer a club-friendly demand during extensions -- if they are greedy they'll ask for a lot no matter what)

[ThePretender]

Originally Posted by NoOne

when you look up data on FB vs ground vs liners .. the FB is the best result -- worst slugging, worst average, worst obp.

You're going to have to show me the data on that. BA is lower for flyballs, but ISO/slugging is much, much higher on flyballs. I'm sure there's more recent articles than this one, but you can see a massive difference in isolated power between GB (.020) and FB (.378).

And logically, it makes sense too - how is a groundball ever going to lead to more XBH than a flyball? Ground balls are usually singles, occasionally doubles if they're down the line, and possibly a triple. You're not getting groundballs turned into home runs with any frequency. Whereas with flyballs it's usually an XBH, or a HR.

If you want to argue FB are a better outcome, go for it, but you shouldn't be arguing that FB lead to lower slugging. That's not right at all. The tradeoff is fewer hits allowed, but those hits are usually going for XBH. You're giving up a higher ISO on FB than you are on LD, but LD are more valuable because they go for a hit significantly more often.

As far as OOTP is concerned I'd much rather have GB pitchers because generally FB pitchers have low movement, and movement is incredibly important for a pitcher.

[Elendil]

Originally Posted by sreem

The most amazing thing I think is that he still expects to be in the starting rotation despite the fact that he hasn't started a game in over 5 years!

Heh. Yeah... He's got 3 pitches, but 2 are great and 1 is mediocre. Plus, he's a lefty, so he's quite valuable in the bullpen. As you can see, he's much better as a reliever than he was as a starter.

[NoOne]

elendil -- i mean the 3pitches helps an RP... not as much as a third pitch helps an SP (ratings nor results, but still part of equation).

add a 3rd pitch that isn't 'red' or near-red color-code and it likely helps. a few years ago they beefed up how that third pitch helps, you can find the patchnotes somewhere. before that i avoided them like the plague. now, they are great even if a little under max scale stuff. (hq comparison only)

--------------

https://www.fangraphs.com/tht/ground...s-best-friend/

that shows a higher slugging for it... that wasn't the site i remember, though... more likely a faulty memory... similar ba/obp to gb's, though. worse BA.

feast or famine is best way to describe FBs. liners are the absolute devil. i think it comes down to perception/uniform definition too... base it on angle of launch etc. no idea how they chose to distinguish between a hard hit liner and a fly ball. i don't even think ootp differentiates between fb and liner? maybe just gb and everythign else lumped together?

what i reference are 80-90% easy outs.. the biggest reason the worst fielders are in the corner outfield positions.