Maeda and Fastballs

[LA Vikes Fan]

20 minutes ago, SkyBlueWaters said:

We're down to Berrios, Maeda, Happ and Ober for starters as it is. Even when we get Pineda back, we're still trotting Ober out there--who gets smacked around like the triple A pitcher he is.

I think it gets hard on the players to go out and get shellacked on a regular basis. Also, if we look too much like a pitching basket case, it might become hard to sign any quality free agents.

I see the points being made about Maeda, in isolation. But in our context, we need innings from starters. He's thrown 56.2 so far, halfway through the season. If we can get the 130-150 IP you mention, I'd think we can leave him in the rotation a bit longer before bringing up more minor leaguers to face major league hitters--before they might be ready for it.

I get that, and even more so if we trade Happ and/or Pineda. I suspect the way things are going that were going to have multiple opportunities to give guys like Ober, Winder, Jax, etc. a chance to get some starts in.  I just question whether Maeda is going to be an every fifth day starter long-term. The Dodgers concluded he was not and used him in kind of a hybrid role. I think that's where the Twins should go but I can see that given our present situation it's probably better to look at that next season rather than this year.

[Number3]

I think the main point should be that there is a big difference between pitching and simply throwing a baseball. Sort of like the difference between hitting a golf ball and playing golf. If you are going to measure a pitcher simply be graphing his spin rate then  you are measuring a golfer simply be how far he can hit a golf ball.

Maybe the saying should be "Spin for show, command/control for dough".

[Brock Beauchamp]

1 hour ago, Number3 said:

I think the main point should be that there is a big difference between pitching and simply throwing a baseball. Sort of like the difference between hitting a golf ball and playing golf. If you are going to measure a pitcher simply be graphing his spin rate then  you are measuring a golfer simply be how far he can hit a golf ball.

Maybe the saying should be "Spin for show, command/control for dough".

No one is saying anything you're arguing. You continue to miss the point and revert to strawman arguments. Is velocity more important than control? Is command more important than movement?

They're all linked together and the best pitchers have a little to a lot of every quality that makes a good pitcher: velocity, control/command, movement, deception.

No one is saying command and control don't matter, we're only saying that spin rate also matters and most MLB front offices (and, based on recent data, most MLB pitchers) agree that spin rate matters. Spin rate is tied to movement, one of the core features that pitchers need to deceive MLB hitters and get them out.

Frankly, I don't even understand why you're bothering to argue this point.

[TheLeviathan]

Curious...Maeda clearly brought the Dodgers' cheating schemes with him.  Are any other Twins being outed as clear cheaters by their spin rates?

[Hosken Bombo Disco]

Can anyone definitely attribute Maeda’s struggles this year to illegal substances, or lack thereof? 

How do Maeda’s spin rates compare year-over-year? 

Does a fastball high in the strike zone with its slightly earlier release point  have more spin than, a fastball low in the zone? For example, Odorizzi worked high in the zone effectively. Can we compare his spin rates high in the zone versus low in the zone? 

What are Michael Pineda’s spin rates and velocity? What are Josh Hader’s?

When does spin rate help, and when does it not?

I appreciate @jorgenswest for his/her spirit of question-asking. 

[Mike Sixel]

6 minutes ago, Hosken Bombo Disco said:

Can anyone definitely attribute Maeda’s struggles this year to illegal substances, or lack thereof? 

How do Maeda’s spin rates compare year-over-year? 

Does a fastball high in the strike zone with its slightly earlier release point  have more spin than, a fastball low in the zone? For example, Odorizzi worked high in the zone effectively. Can we compare his spin rates high in the zone versus low in the zone? 

What are Michael Pineda’s spin rates and velocity? What are Josh Hader’s?

When does spin rate help, and when does it not?

I appreciate @jorgenswest for his/her spirit of question-asking. 

No more or less than we can other team's pitchers, most of which posters here seem sure are cheating......I don't think we know either way.

[TheLeviathan]

It'll be hard to ever prove with 100% accuracy who was guilty, but the timing and data are either the craziest coincidence ever or a pretty damning indictment.

[Hosken Bombo Disco]

36 minutes ago, TheLeviathan said:

It'll be hard to ever prove with 100% accuracy who was guilty, but the timing and data are either the craziest coincidence ever or a pretty damning indictment.

You are not wrong, the timing couldn’t have been worse for Maeda, but his spin rates from 2020 and 2021 look basically the same to me.

https://baseballsavant.mlb.com/savant-player/kenta-maeda-628317?stats=statcast-r-pitching-mlb

(The spin rates are down ever-so-slightly this year, but they were also down in 2020 compared to 2019, and until someone can show me the statistical significance I will assume they are unchanged.)

[jorgenswest]

Nice start from Maeda. Both he and the Twins needed this start.

[Number3]

Brock said in regard to my last post; "Frankly, I don't even understand why you're bothering to argue this point."

I am not really arguing the point, I am saying that it is a useless point to make. Do you think Nolan Ryan cared about spin rate? Do you think Walter Johnson cared about spin rate? How about Tom Glavine, Ron Guidry, Bert Blyleven, Greg Maddox, Bob Gibson. Hey Mr. Pitcher, you had a bad outing last time. We need to work on your spin rate. Just more useless geek trivia that has been sold by the geeks that make all the equipment so that it can even be measured. Maeda's spin rate must have been way up yesterday. My guess is that it wasn't. He just pitched better.

[TheLeviathan]

Spin rate has a demonstrable, mathematical correlation to success.  This is why pitchers were widely cheating to achieve it.  While you can argue against it, it doesn't seem like a wise or well informed thing to do.  I don't typically argue against water being wet, for instance.

[Number3]

My point exactly. There is no need to have graphs and analyze the fact that water is wet. It just is. A pitcher being concerned with spin rate is like me being concerned with whether the water is my shower is wet. No benefit to be gained whatsoever. Just pitch or turn on the faucet.

[TheLeviathan]

2 hours ago, Number3 said:

My point exactly. There is no need to have graphs and analyze the fact that water is wet. It just is. A pitcher being concerned with spin rate is like me being concerned with whether the water is my shower is wet. No benefit to be gained whatsoever. Just pitch or turn on the faucet.

You let that point escape you quite stupendously.

[Number3]

What point? Its 3&2, 2 outs, bottom 9 bases loaded, tying run on 3rd, winning run on second. Pitcher thinks to himself, boy I better have my spin rate up on this pitch. Ever heard of paralysis by analysis?

[Brock Beauchamp]

20 minutes ago, Number3 said:

What point? Its 3&2, 2 outs, bottom 9 bases loaded, tying run on 3rd, winning run on second. Pitcher thinks to himself, boy I better have my spin rate up on this pitch. Ever heard of paralysis by analysis?

You continue to use strawman arguments, stop it.

No one stands on the mound saying "I need extra spin on this pitch". That's absurd. What pitchers actually do is spend offseasons trying to nudge that spin rate up through physical conditioning, altering their grip on the ball, and, yes, sometimes cheating. Why do they do this? Because adding 100rpm to a pitch makes that pitch move more. Making a pitch move more makes it more effective (most of the time, anyway, provided the pitcher can control that movement). The more spin on the pitch, generally, the better and more deceptive said pitch becomes.

Please argue the points we're making honestly or I will remove your ability to post into this thread.

[Number3]

Baseball was invented sometime in the mid 1800s. Considering that the equipment that makes it possible to measure things like spin rate wasn't even available until very recently, it truly is amazing that the game has survived for nearly 2 centuries. Too many people trying to impact the game from off the field very much to the detriment of the game on the field. Just "play ball".

[TheLeviathan]

7 hours ago, Number3 said:

Baseball was invented sometime in the mid 1800s. Considering that the equipment that makes it possible to measure things like spin rate wasn't even available until very recently, it truly is amazing that the game has survived for nearly 2 centuries. Too many people trying to impact the game from off the field very much to the detriment of the game on the field. Just "play ball".

I was going to post a bunch of analogies about technology and improved understanding of the world and how that leads to great efficiency and knowledge.  Maybe not necessarily to a better world, but a better knowledge of it.  Essentially an is/ought question which is commonly argued fallaciously.  

But then I thought.....will you even bother to take some time to think about it?  Or will you just very purposely keep getting lost in the weeds?  I'll try though. Suffice to say: you can feel however you want about the understanding of spin and other advanced metrics and the aesthetics of that.  That changes nothing about how baseball players are recognizing that more spin yields better results.  Better results make them more money.  So they will seek out more spin whether it makes you feel warm and squishy or not.  Whether players in 1882 appreciated it or not is irrelevant.  It is what it is.  Arguing it's not a thing, when it quite evidently is....is foolish and strange.

[Aerodeliria]

The odds of Maeken doing something illegal on the mound are astronomically low. I would NEVER believe this unless there was definitive proof, which I would guess would be an apology by Maeda. He would likely retire at that point. This would be such a shameful thing in Japan that he probably wouldn't even be able to pitch here once he returned. 

(For a comparison, we had the number one badminton player in the world who participated in some legal gambling (I think horse racing or boat racing), but because he is a professional athlete, this was considered reprehensible behavior. He had to apologize to the nation and remove himself from competition for two years, even though technically, he had done nothing wrong, but his image was tarnished.)

I'd focus more on the injury aspect or the change in the ball or some other factor, using a spitter would be at the bottom of my list.

[Number3]

Per Leviathian...." Arguing it's not a thing, when it quite evidently is....is foolish and strange. ....."

Usually when people delve into personal insults during a discussion it means they are very defensive or have a personal investment in the side they are taking. I never said that the laws of physics don't apply to baseball which you have apparently read into my posts. I am saying that geeks sitting in front of computers creating graphs do nothing for the game and are partially responsible for another thread regarding the demise of the game's popularity. If it makes you happy, I will say "uncle". Have fun playing the game on your computer.

[Brock Beauchamp]

3 hours ago, Number3 said:

I never said that the laws of physics don't apply to baseball which you have apparently read into my posts. I am saying that geeks sitting in front of computers creating graphs do nothing for the game and are partially responsible for another thread regarding the demise of the game's popularity. If it makes you happy, I will say "uncle". Have fun playing the game on your computer.

Whether something is “good for the game” and whether something is “effective” are two completely different conversations, though. No one is arguing the former while, in this thread, you have repeatedly argued against the latter.

And the latter is demonstrably true, whether you think it’s ruining the game or not.

PS. If you want to discuss whether analytics are “good for the game”, I suspect you’d see a fair amount of agreement from the likes of Levi and myself… but that’s not what this thread is about. 

[TheLeviathan]

10 hours ago, Brock Beauchamp said:

Whether something is “good for the game” and whether something is “effective” are two completely different conversations, though. No one is arguing the former while, in this thread, you have repeatedly argued against the latter.

And the latter is demonstrably true, whether you think it’s ruining the game or not.

PS. If you want to discuss whether analytics are “good for the game”, I suspect you’d see a fair amount of agreement from the likes of Levi and myself… but that’s not what this thread is about. 

Correct.  I absolutely see the demonstrably negative effects on the on-field product based on enhanced analytics.  But that does nothing.....nothing!....to diminish their accuracy or effectiveness in practice.

It's simply a demonstrable fact that any pitcher wanting to keep his job and get paid (see: Gerrit Cole) needs to care about spin rate.  They need not care about your feelings about what it does to the game.  It is what it is.  But what you're arguing @Number3is not what other people are saying.  We're talking about how the emphasis on spin rate was altering pitcher performance by way of cheating.  And it simply was, that's a fact.  You can feel the game is being hurt by analytics, but no one is remotely on that subject. You seem to be repeatedly confusing that.