Something I've Never Understood About Pitching Ratings

[MrWideFrame]

For RPs, stuff only takes into account the pitcher's two best pitches.

[Rizon]

Originally Posted by Rizon

Maybe the Velocity is dragging it down from a 6 to a 5? Since Stuff includes Velocity.

Eh, I think 91-93 on a 2-8 scale comes out to 5.8.

[PSUColonel]

Another observation...how can a player have such a great curveball and slider, yet very pedestrian movement

[jpeters1734]

Originally Posted by PSUColonel

Another observation...how can a player have such a great curveball and slider, yet very pedestrian movement

i don't get it. but i think the game is poor at representing all the different types of pitchers. The movement is just a modifier that affects HRs, i believe. perhaps a guy like that has a tendency to hang his slider, but is very good with it otherwise

[RchW]

It's a good thing IMO that some players have strange combinations of ratings and that others perform well above and/or well below expectations. I can't think of anything more boring than having a crystal ball on expected performance.

[RchW]

Originally Posted by PSUColonel

Another observation...how can a player have such a great curveball and slider, yet very pedestrian movement

Because he doesn't throw strikes. The scrap heap is full of those guys.

[jpeters1734]

Originally Posted by RchW

It's a good thing IMO that some players have strange combinations of ratings and that others perform well above and/or well below expectations. I can't think of anything more boring than having a crystal ball on expected performance.

No I definitely don't want that

[ThePretender]

Originally Posted by RchW

One name from real life. Marco Estrada.

When he was traded to Toronto, people were laughing. They were saying he was a HR machine at the Dome. Best changeup in MLB and he developed a cutter this year that just adds confusion to his below 90 mph fastball.

Not great stuff but 3 very good pitches that batters can't square up.

I think he has the lowest BA against and probably a very low BABIP this year

Just because a guy isn't throwing mid 90s doesn't mean his stuff isn't good. He's successful because he induces a ton of IFFB, which might as well be as effective/easy an out as a K. That's why, like Chris Young, he can maintain a lower BABIP (around 250 is probably true talent, but he's sub 200 right now). He is elite when it comes to contact management and inducing weak contact, which is why he gets so many IFFB, and why he can maintain a low BABIP.

So yes, Estrada has good stuff. You don't need a mid 90s fastball to be considered good stuff.

[PSUColonel]

Originally Posted by RchW

It's a good thing IMO that some players have strange combinations of ratings and that others perform well above and/or well below expectations. I can't think of anything more boring than having a crystal ball on expected performance.

Very true...but scouted ratings and actual performance are different. You could say this guy is good, but doesn't play well or vice versa.

What I am saying is the scout should at least agree with himself at the very least.

[RchW]

Originally Posted by ThePretender

Just because a guy isn't throwing mid 90s doesn't mean his stuff isn't good. He's successful because he induces a ton of IFFB, which might as well be as effective/easy an out as a K. That's why, like Chris Young, he can maintain a lower BABIP (around 250 is probably true talent, but he's sub 200 right now).

But yes, Estrada has good stuff.

We have a difference of opinion defining terms here.

Thor has good (great) stuff. Arrieta has very good stuff. Sanchez if you watched last night has good stuff. Miggy said he didn't need a changeup. Estrada does not have anything near as good stuff but has success with how he uses good pitches and location to disrupt hitter timing. The others simply overpower hitters with late life even when they know what's coming.

[PSUColonel]

Here is the same player with the "ratings relative" box unchecked. I am convinced ratings relative is less realistic. With this feature disabled, it seems the scouts just give an honest opinion on a player (as they should be) without weighting other players in the league. The result to me, appears to be more realistic opinions and more players with average ratings. Most players' skills sets are avg in the MLB (almost 70 percent)

[ThePretender]

Originally Posted by RchW

We have a difference of opinion defining terms here.

Thor has good (great) stuff. Arrieta has very good stuff. Sanchez if you watched last night has good stuff. Miggy said he didn't need a changeup. Estrada does not have anything near as good stuff but has success with how he uses good pitches and location to disrupt hitter timing. The others simply overpower hitters with late life even when they know what's coming.

You're mistaking stuff with velocity. You even admitted Estrada has, in your words, "the best changeup in MLB". That already implies he has fantastic stuff, and an elite pitch. You don't need to have high end velocity to have great stuff. It helps, and visually it cools to see the high velocity, but you can have lower velocity and still have plus stuff.

He doesn't just use "good pitches and location" to disrupt timing. His fastball has arguably the most spin in all of baseball which is what he uses to get all those IFFB.

Contact management is a skill. You can't induce weak contact just by timing and location. You need to have quality stuff, and Estrada certainly has it. There's a reason Estrada has a 250 career BABIP, and is one of the leaders in IFFB - because his stuff is good, great even, and he's excellent at inducing weak contact.

Sanchez and Estrada both have fantastic stuff, the difference is one throws in the mid 90s and one throws in the low 90s. Just because Estrada has lesser velocity doesn't mean he doesn't have plus stuff.

[RchW]

Originally Posted by ThePretender

You're mistaking stuff with velocity. You even admitted Estrada has, in your words, "the best changeup in MLB". That already implies he has fantastic stuff, and an elite pitch. You don't need to have high end velocity to have great stuff. It helps, and visually it cools to see the high velocity, but you can have lower velocity and still have plus stuff.

He doesn't just use "good pitches and location" to disrupt timing. His fastball has arguably the most spin in all of baseball which is what he uses to get all those IFFB.

Contact management is a skill. You can't induce weak contact just by timing and location. You need to have quality stuff, and Estrada certainly has it. There's a reason Estrada has a 250 career BABIP, and is one of the leaders in IFFB - because his stuff is good, great even, and he's excellent at inducing weak contact.

Sanchez and Estrada both have fantastic stuff, the difference is one throws in the mid 90s and one throws in the low 90s. Just because Estrada has lesser velocity doesn't mean he doesn't have plus stuff.

Well I can only tell you Estrada himself said today on the radio that he doesn't have nearly the stuff that Sanchez does. I'll take his opinion as gospel especially since I agree with his analysis.

[Matt Arnold]

Originally Posted by PSUColonel

Here is the same player with the "ratings relative" box unchecked. I am convinced ratings relative is less realistic. With this feature disabled, it seems the scouts just give an honest opinion on a player (as they should be) without weighting other players in the league. The result to me, appears to be more realistic opinions and more players with average ratings. Most players' skills sets are avg in the MLB (almost 70 percent)

That's how the relative ratings work. It essentially means that based on raw talent, the average reliever in your league has a stuff rating of 6.

[ThePretender]

Originally Posted by RchW

Well I can only tell you Estrada himself said today on the radio that he doesn't have nearly the stuff that Sanchez does. I'll take his opinion as gospel especially since I agree with his analysis.

Saying that Sanchez has better stuff doesn't mean that Estrada's stuff isn't excellent as well. You're arguing that Estrada's stuff isn't very good, not that Estrada's stuff isn't as good as Sanchez.

That's like saying Clayton Kershaw has better stuff than Sanchez, therefore Sanchez's stuff sucks.

Again, you're mistaking velocity for stuff. You can have plus stuff without plus velocity.

[RchW]

Originally Posted by ThePretender

Saying that Sanchez has better stuff doesn't mean that Estrada's stuff isn't excellent as well. You're arguing that Estrada's stuff isn't very good, not that Estrada's stuff isn't as good as Sanchez.

That's like saying Clayton Kershaw has better stuff than Sanchez, therefore Sanchez's stuff sucks.

Again, you're mistaking velocity for stuff. You can have plus stuff without plus velocity.

Is this a discussion or are you speaking for me too.

I'm not mistaking velocity for anything although it is a big component of above average stuff.

[Matt Arnold]

Well, the jamming of all pitching talent into 3 ratings will cause things to get confusing.

Generally speaking, when the public talks about a pitcher's "stuff", they're basically talking about how overpowering they are, and how much they can dominate and strikeout opponents. That's not really a 1 to 1 relationship with our stuff rating, since all of the limiting contact, beating xBABIP, higher popup rate, etc... talent is rolled into it for us. It probably should be in a different rating on its own, so that you could have a guy like Estrada with essentially mediocre "Stuff", but would have an excellent "Limit Contact Skill" or whatever you want to call it, that would show up in his ability to generate more popups than normal and generally give weaker contact, even though his "movement" rate would be somewhat low as he does give up HRs.

[ThePretender]

That's just what I'm saying though - it's obviously not mediocre stuff, and it is overpowering. It's not overpowering by velocity, which is the argument RchW is making. But a pitcher can be overpowering without velocity, and Estrada shows that.

If a hitter is constantly popping up or a pitcher is consistently able to induce weak contact, then he is still overpowering the hitter, as they are struggling with their stuff. People have this belief that stuff = velocity, but the reality is stuff can be quite overpowering even at a lower level of velocity.

If his stuff wasn't overpowering, he wouldn't be able to both strike guys out and induce historically weak contact. Among qualifying SPs since 1980, Estrada has the 6th best BABIP, with a .002 difference between 6th and fourth. It's also not a coincidence that all of the guys around Estrada in the low BABIP group have significantly stronger ERAs than FIP, and all are sub 4 ERA pitchers.

Estrada is overpowering hitters, just not in the traditional sense. Some people falsely believe that only high velocity and high Ks are what is overpowering, because hitters swing and miss. But what is equally important, and based on this discussion quite underrated, is the ability to induce weak contact. An IFFB is just as good as a K, and a pop up of this nature is occurring because the pitcher overpowers the hitter. Using the same 1980-2016 period, Estrada ranks 7th among SP with 600+ innings with a 13.6% IFFB.

At some point, Estrada's BABIP will regress, likely to his career 250 mark. I'm obviously not naive enough to believe he can sustain this over multiple seasons. That being said, I do think that stuff (not OOTP stuff) is more than velocity, and is the ability either to get hitters to swing and miss, or to overpower them and induce weak contact, or a combination of both.

[Phantom9in]

One name, great to elite stuff, lowish velocity=Greg Maddux

[BIG17EASY]

Originally Posted by ThePretender

That's just what I'm saying though - it's obviously not mediocre stuff, and it is overpowering. It's not overpowering by velocity, which is the argument RchW is making. But a pitcher can be overpowering without velocity, and Estrada shows that.

I think your use of the term "overpowering" is different than most people's. Most people (myself included) considering overpowering to be velocity-related. In other words, throwing a fastball by a guy regardless of location. Or Noah Syndergaard's 90 MPH slider.

But, a pitcher can be dominant without being overpowering, which is what you're describing with Estrada. Nobody ever called Greg Maddux overpowering, but what he did was downright dominant for years.

So I think the disagreement you're having is centered on the use of the word overpowering. I'm not saying anyone's right or wrong, only what the general opinion of that term is.