Bumgarner to miss time with minor maladies | Giants Extra

Anytime you mention an injury in the same sentence with Madison Bumgarner, it is anything but a minor matter.  I'm sure he will pitch through it to a degree, but the legend of how some prior baseball legends had careers shortened by what at first were termed minor injuries has to give anyone in Giants Nation pause.

I hope it turns out to be nothing in hindsight and I also hope the Giants do the right thing and tie this guy up with a long-term deal that pays him what he is worth AND what he is earned. No way he should be the FIFTH highest paid starter on the Giants. NO WAY. We're paying two guys on the staf more for what they MIGHT do for the franchise. PAY THE MAN!!

Giants Extra

---

Bumgarner to miss some time with minor maladies in ribcage, left foot; one last Arroyo rocket hit before the cut-down Posted: 13 Mar 2016 11:58 AM PDT Revised version of earlier Bumgarner story, plus notes from the game and roster trim details. -- @stewardsfolly Madison Bumgarner, not only the Giants' best pitcher but also their most durable, is suddenly dealing with a pair of physical maladies that could slow his readiness to be the Opening Day starter on April 4. Bumgarner said Sunday he will miss one or two spring training starts due to tightness in his ribcage as well as neuroma, a nerve irritation between the third and fourth toe joints on the bottom of his left foot that has been bothering him since the off-season. The 26-year-old left-hander, who was supposed to start the Giants' spring game against San Diego but was scratched, revealed he felt a slight tug in on the right side of his ribcage while taking batting practice two days ago. He underwent an MRI exam that revealed no oblique problems, but the club will be exceedingly careful with their ace. As for the foot issue, Bumgarner has been dealing with it for awhile but added that the condition has improved with treatment. He received a cortisone shot on Saturday to relieve the discomfort. "I thought it was just one of those little things that come and go," Bumgarner said. "I thought it would go away, but it didn't." The pitcher said he expects to be fine by Opening Day and said he could have pitched Sunday if it was the regular season. But he wants to get the issues cleared up before resuming his spring game work. "There's no sense in trying to push through two different things like that which could lead to something," he said. "I think I could still pitch, but there's just no sense in it right now. There's plenty of time to get my pitch count up. That's not a big deal." Bumgarner has pitched five innings in two spring outings so far, but had already worked up to 50 pitches by his second mound stint. "He's in great shape and I'm hoping it's just one start, to be honest," said manager Bruce Bochy. "If it's two, then we'll just have to watch his workload early until we build him up." Bumgarner has never been on the disabled list as a Giant and has only missed a few starts since becoming a rotation fixture in 2010, none as the result of injury.

Carter Capps delivery ruled illegal (I told you so)

Sorry boys, we ruled on this last July over here at The Slav's Baseball Blog. 


http://slavieboy.blogspot.com/2015/07/extra-baggs-questionable-delivery-etc.html

Not sure why it's taking all the big-wigs so long. MLB is really falling into a situation where they continue to try to implement so-called "new" rules when the solution is for the umpire to either grow a sack and enforce existing rules or exercise some common sense. Whether it's Matt Holliday's slide into Scutaro, Utley's slide into Tejeda, the Cousins missile launch into Posey, batter taking too much time, pitchers taking too much time, pace of game, bean balls, whatever. 

These want to be nice guys in a job which by its very nature does not lend itself to winning popularity contests or congeniality awards. Make the calls, enforce the rules, pick up pay check, line up for spread. It's not too hard. 

This would be an illegal pitch in girls high school softball and below. They let Jenny Finch get about this far off the slab in college softball, but they were trying to promote the sport and Jenny Finch was eminently promotable, if you know what I mean ;) ;) 

This is almost a hop, skip and a jump for cryin' out loud. 

This was sent to me by an Illinois umpires association assignor just last week.

Lastly, there is a rule interpretation on an illegal pitch by MLB pitcher Carter Capps who had a leap step where his pivot foot leaped forward, he regained ground and pushed off for his delivery 12 inches in front of the rubber.  MLB and the NCAA both made an official ruling this off-season calling that an illegal pitch.  The National Federation had not yet ruled on the move, however, the IHSA Rule Interpreters have.  This is now an illegal pitch in high school baseball in Illinois.  

See a clip of the move: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LycHv4CRHWY.  Make sure you watch the video to its conclusion.

10 Things Every Lifter Should Be Able to Do | T Nation

This is why it kinda sucks to be me. OK, so I love Dan John. And really, how could you not? Pithy sayings like the one above are attributed to you. Fancy resume listed below and decent photo shoot.

Dude looks like the Mike Golic of strength and conditioning, right? So he's probably cool inside the gym and a cool guy to party with as well. So I read his stuff. Including the article listed below.

Dan John

Dan John is an elite-level strength and weightlifting coach. He is also an All-American discus thrower, holds the American record in the Weight Pentathlon, and has competed at the highest levels of Olympic lifting and Highland Games. 

That's when the "my life kinda sucks" part starts. Because by the time I'm done reading the article and doing the appropriate kind of self analysis embedded within, my inner voice kind of sounds like this....

On to the test results: Your results may vary, and I hope to God they do. 

1. Bench your Bodyweight - FAIL, used to be able to handle this one easily.
2. Deadlift double your Bodywieght - FAIL, snap I couldn't do #1, what makes you think...
3. Hold a Two-Minute Plank - FAIL, dang, I can't do things I like for two minutes, what makes you think....I'll try the KB carry some day
4. Sleep with only one pillow - PASS, this one I liked. A lot.
5. Sit on Floor Without Using Hands, Knees, or Shins - FAIL, Fool, are you trying to break my a$$?
6. Balance on One Foot for 10 Seconds - PASS/FAIL My good foot passed, my bad foot failed. I am getting credit for a 0.5 PASS!!
7. Hang for 30 Seconds, Pull-Up - PASS, Barely...
8. Long Jump Your Height - FAIL, Here I thought my lack of height would be an advantage to start and I just ended up almost breaking my a$$ again.
9. 30-Second Bodyweight Squat and Hold - PASS, Barely
10. Farmers Walk Your Bodyweight - PASS, Barely

So 4.5 out of 10. Not bad for an old dude. 

I'm changing the phrase "Life sucks, then you get old" to "Life sucks WHEN you get old" or did Betty Davis kind of say the same thing with her "old age  is no place for sissies" quote? 

Oh well, I still love Dan John. Even if I did almost break my a$$ twice. 

===

from T-Nation.com

https://www.t-nation.com/training/10-things-every-lifter-should-be-able-to-do

10 Things Every Lifter Should Be Able to Do

Take the Tests, Identify Weaknesses, and Get Better

by Dan John | 09/28/15

10-things-every-lifter-should-be-able-to-do

Tags: Powerlifting & Strength Mobility

Focus on what you need to do, not necessarily on what you want to do. That's the secret to strength training success. But how do you know what you need to do? Easy. Make sure you can do everything on the following checklist. Any shortcomings will shine a bright light on your weaknesses, then you can fix them and get better.

1 – Bench Your Bodyweight

Mastering bodyweight on the barbell is the transition between beginner and intermediate. I'm amazed when people who've been training a while still can't bench bodyweight. Seven-foot tall genetic anomalies with crazy levers aside, the bodyweight bench press is something you should be able to do. For many, it's a technical issue. For others it's a problem of variation.

The technical problem: To be strong, the joints need to stack up on each other. Along with understanding tension, this seems to be a lost fact with many lifters. Some people will bench with a grip that would be perfect for a middle school boy – too narrow. Your elbow should be directly under your wrist while benching. It might take a workout or two to adapt, so have someone "eyeball" your elbows and wrists. They should be basically vertical. This little hint always helps people bench more.

The variation problem: Keep an eye on how much "stuff" you're packing into your workouts. Military (overhead) pressing will probably help your bench, but adding inclines, dumbbell presses, flyes and all the extra chest work is often the issue holding you back. Too much is too much, and until you bench at least bodyweight you don't need the extra stuff.

Now, if you can bench bodyweight, can you also front squat and clean bodyweight? If yes, then can you snatch it? See where we're going here? Master bodyweight on the barbell, first and foremost.

2 – Deadlift Double Your Bodyweight

This is a basic test, but some might struggle to do this for years. Grip strength, position, tension control and injuries might all conspire against you here.

Here's the odd thing, most people don't need to deadlift to improve their deadlift. Pull-ups will help with grip, kettlebell swings will help with hip and glute strength, and high-rep squats can teach tension. I've yet to meet a good Olympic lifter that couldn't pull a big deadlift – without any deadlift training. Getting strong in the fundamentals gets you strong in the deadlift.

Powerlifters may disagree, but the great lifter Hugh Cassidy said that only silverbacks can deadlift more than once a week. So, what do you do the rest of the time? Simply put, "work" increases a deadlift. Push a Prowler, farmer walk, squat heavy for high reps, get stronger. Dedicating three to six months of heavy, hard training without deadliftingwill do miracles for your deadlift.

3 – Hold a Two-Minute Plank

I like the push-up position plank (PUPP) as it challenges the shoulders a bit more and makes it nearly impossible to rest the gut on the ground during the test. It doesn't matter what plank you do, but can you fight tension for two minutes?

Dr. Stu McGill has said that if you can't hold a two-minute plank then either you're obese or your ab training is terrible. Let me add a third: you don't understand tension.

Now, you can address this shortcoming by practicing the plank. That's actually a good thing for many people. Learning to crank up the tension is a secret in strength training. Many neophytes simply can't ratchet up the whole body tension needed for maximal lifting.

There's another way, too. Pick up a reasonably heavy kettlebell or dumbbell in one hand and walk with it. This suitcase carry is a walking plank and the load is going to teach the body tension while moving. Most people start with at least 50 pounds, but going much over 100 might not help much. You don't want to wilt like a flower as you walk. Stay tall and strong.

Kettlebell Carry

Suitcase carries are simple to add into any training program. For distance, simply go as far as you can with one arm and return with the other. Today, you'll notice your grip strength. Tomorrow, you'll notice your obliques.

4 – Sleep With Only One Pillow

How many pillows do you need? If you answer more than one, you need mobility and flexibility work, and maybe even a visit to the physical therapist. Having to prop your head so far forward is a sign you could be dealing with some kyphosis – excessive curvature of the spine causing a hunching of the back.

Vlad Janda taught us half a century ago that the tonic muscles – specifically the pecs, biceps, hamstrings, and hip flexors – tighten with age, injury, and illness. So focus flexibility work there first. If you have joint issues, surgery or rehab might be the correct answer to the problem versus "I'll just work around it." If you have massive asymmetries, balancing this out earlier rather than later might be a good way to sleep through the night. Move well, sleep well.

 Training Success

5 – Sit on Floor Without Using Hands, Knees, or Shins

Go from standing to sitting on the floor without any assistance of your hands, knees, or shins, and then get up without putting weight on any other part of your body other than your feet.

This test literally can save your life, and the research bears this out. It gives some insights, statistically, into your life expectancy. (Look up Dr. Araujo at the Clinimex-Exercise Medicine Clinic if you want the details.) It's also very predictive of long-term flexibility, physical strength, and coordination.

This set of tests will give you a full-body safety check. I call them the "hang on to these as long as you can" standards.

Now, if you're younger than 50 and struggle with one of these tests, begin thinking about your long-term health and fitness. Basically, something that's correctable now might not be correctable when you enter the golden years.

6 – Balance on One Foot for 10 Seconds

Stand on one foot for 10 seconds. Failing the stand-on-one-foot assessment might be a sign of a serious problem. For me it was a hip issue.

7 – Hang for 30 Seconds, Pull-Up

Hang from a bar for 30 seconds. Aside from grip strength, the hanging test might highlight some shoulder and spinal issues.

Can you do that easily? Good. Now try this: Hang from the bar for thirty seconds. When the timer rings, do a pull-up. If you can do that, you're not too bad. Now let's ramp it up. Without letting go, drop back down and hang for another thirty seconds and do a second pull-up. For the true crazies, let's see who can do 10 of these 30-second hang pull-ups. Few can. Gripping is the weak point for most lifters.

8 – Long Jump Your Height

Every athletic person should be able to do a standing long jump for as far as they are tall. And besides, if there's a rattlesnake in your path, that jump will clear you from danger. If you can't do it, just start practicing it. That's all most people need to do to get back to this standard and stay there.

9 – 30-Second Bodyweight Squat and Hold

Squat down, hold 30 seconds, and then stand up without using your hands. This gives you a general insight into your lower body health.

10 – Farmers Walk Your Bodyweight

Farmers walk your bodyweight for a few steps. If the zombie apocalypse does happen, the farmers walk test will help you move your stuff. And of course it also shows that you're reasonably strong in a "functional" manner, have decent conditioning, and you're not too fat.

Sent from my iPhone

Evaluating the 2016 Prospects: Introduction and Primer | FanGraphs Baseball

Another great article from FanGraphs. This one combines the best elements of old-school scouting and new-school statistical analysis. Great stuff from beginning to end. 

from FanGraphs.com
http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/evaluating-the-2016-prospects-introduction-and-primer/

Evaluating the 2016 Prospects: Introduction and Primer

We have been working hard to get our team prospect rankings out to you as soon as possible. Starting with the Arizona Diamondbacks, the lists will proceed in alphabetical order by city and team name. As we start rolling out the organizational reports, I wanted to give you some guidelines for understanding my ideas and grades, to avoid confusion over why the grades here differ from other publications, even in cases where we may be saying the same thing. Though this will not be an all-encompassing article of my scouting opinions, it should provide the framework for our conversations on each of the team's prospects.

I want to go through each of the five tools for hitters and the grades for pitchers, and explain basically what I believe are the most important factors going into them. Since some of you may not read this whole blurb, and then ask questions about why a pitcher who throws 95 only got a 50 grade on his fastball, I will admit to one overarching theme: functionality. How functional is that 95 mile-per-hour fastball if it's straight and the pitcher who threw it has no idea where it's going? Similarly, what is the use of an 80 grade for power if the hitter is blind and doesn't also possess echolocation or some other means to hit a baseball?

One other difference for the way I'll be communicating scouting grades to you is the presence of three numbers on each tool instead of just two, at least for the professional players. Here's an example. Consider Rick Vaughn's fastball before he was given his magical spectacles: 35/50/70. The first number is the current grade; it's fast, but he can't locate it, and when it does find the zone, it gets tattooed for a home run by a stereotypically douchy slugger. The second number is the likely future grade; he's still young and not in prison, and he's played by Charlie Sheen (the star of the movie), so you know it will get better. Still, the current state of the pitch makes it unlikely to be crazy effective, so an average future fastball could be the most likely outcome. Or, if you prefer percentiles, call this the 50th percentile projection. The third number is the ceiling grade, or 90th percentile projection, to help demonstrate the volatility and raw potential of a tool. I feel this gives readers a better sense of the possible outcomes a player could achieve, and more information to understand my thoughts on the likelihood of reaching those levels.

Kiley gave us a great conversion table last year for understanding scouting grades in an objective (though admittedly estimated) context. I absolutely loved the idea, especially because my brain tends to think more in terms of what statistical production a player's future ability will produce, and then convert it into the more universally used 20-80 scouting scale. Here is my slightly altered version of the same table for hitters, followed by a breakdown of the individual tools:

Scouting Grades in Context: Hitters

Grade	Tool Is Called	Batting Average	HR	ISO	Baserunning Runs	Fielding Runs
80	80	0.320	40	0.300	12	30
75		0.310	35-40	0.275	10	25
70	Plus Plus	0.300	30-35	0.25	8	20
65		0.290	27-30	0.225	6	15
60	Plus	0.280	23-27	0.200	4	10
55	Above Average	0.270	19-22	0.175	2	5
50	Average	0.260	15-18	0.150	0	0
45	Below Average	0.250	12-15	0.125	-2	-5
40		0.240	8-12	0.100	-4	-10
35		0.230	5-8	0.075	-6	-15
30		0.220	3-5	0.05	-8	-20

Remember these are estimates of true talent that we are trying to project multiple years down the road. Please don't hate on me in two years when a player with a 55-grade power hits 25 home runs. First, why be so mean? And second, scouting grades are an attempt to peg true talent. Even if a tool remains static for years, the statistical evidence of the quality of that tool can vary due to league adjustments to the player, hidden injuries, randomness, etc. Think of it like BABIP and UZR, of which you need a few years of data to know anything about where a player really stands.

While this will not be needed much for the team prospect lists, as another general reference, here is Kiley's table that gives an excellent baseline to process what an overall grade means:

Scouting Grades in Context: Overall

Grade	Hitter	Starting Pitcher	Relief Pitcher	WAR
80	Top 1-2	#1 Starter	—-	7
75	Top 2-3	#1	—-	6
70	Top 5	#1/2	—-	5
65	All-Star	#2/3	—-	4
60	Plus	#3	High Closer	3
55	Above Avg	#3/4	Mid Closer	2.5
50	Avg Regular	#4	Low CL/High SU	2
45	Platoon/Util	#5	Low Setup	1.5
40	Bench	Swing/Spot SP	Middle RP	1
35	Emergency Call-Up	Emergency Call-Up	Emergency Call-Up	0
30	*Organizational	*Organizational	*Organizational	-1

With those general points established, let's examine the individual tools more closely.
Hitter Tools
HIT

1. Contact rate
2. Barrel rate
3. Ability to adjust during swing
4. Swing path 
   .
   .
   .
5. Bat speed

You could make a strong case for vision being included on its own, but numbers one and three infer the effects of having good vision to some degree. A quick note about vision for hitters: it has little to do with visual acuity, i.e. 20/20, 20/30, etc. It's true that hitters can benefit from high acuity by picking up spin or slight differences in a pitcher's delivery, but the ability to track a pitch and anticipate its path is much more relevant to a hitter's success.

Contact rate is fairly straightforward, though you have to beware drawing conclusions based on small sample size. In limited looks at players, I'm more concerned with how often a hitter swings through hittable pitches in the zone, while also considering overall strikeout rates and adjusting for quality of competition. Barrel rate is a similar skill, but has some elements of swing mechanics and a higher level of hand-eye coordination to get the sweet spot of the bat to the ball.
Being able to adjust to speeds and locations is a must for projecting a player's hit tool, since no hitter is able to know where every pitch will end up right out of the pitcher's hand. This is mostly a mechanical quality, whether it be a sequential unfurling of the swing to avoid getting overcommitted at the start, or how a hitter maintains his balance on his feet when a pitch does not arrive at the plate in a predictable manner. The visual quality of this skill is about how early out of the pitcher's hand, or even in the pitcher's delivery, a hitter is able to anticipate pitch type, speed and/or location. This shows up most obviously in a hitter's ability to hold back on tough chase pitches and recognize well-executed pitches in the zone without showing urgency in the box or last-minute checked swings.
Swing path simply refers to how deep in the zone the barrel has a chance to hit the ball and how long it stays on the line of the pitch. Since all pitches arrive at the plate on some kind of downward plane, hitters with slight upswings have a higher probability of making contact with a pitch on account of being on the same line as the ball for longer.
Bat speed, in my opinion, is overrated in general. Yes, if you took everyone in the population and put them in the batter's box, there probably is a base speed at which a hitter has to swing in order to have a chance of hitting high-level pitching. Beyond that, I don't see a huge correlation between the speed of the bat and how often a hit is created. I have seen at most a handful of successful amateur or low-level minor league prospects whose lack of bat speed was the reason I thought they wouldn't hit. Even in those cases, there were reasons higher on this list that downgraded them before even considering bat speed. I won't discount its uses entirely, as it makes up for other shortcomings in many situations. However, I feel that it is often a survival mechanism for hitters with inefficient swings or poor natural strength. It also isn't of any use if the hardest hit balls are straight down at the ground or straight up in the air, which by default ranks it lower than bat path in relative importance.

Many swings that appear to be super fast only look that way because the bat has a longer path to get to the ball, or gets disconnected from the body earlier, and then has to be rushed to compensate for a poor start to the swing. On the flip side, some swings that look slow only achieve higher velocities through the contact zone, where the speed is actually useful for driving the ball. In the constraints of evaluating the hit tool, it can also be much more difficult to control a bat that is moving fast in directions other than through the ball, limiting the projectability of a hitter's batting average and ability to lay off late-moving pitches.

POWER

1. Bat strength
2. Swing path
3. Bat speed

Here is where my grades will probably differ the most from other scouts/analysts, since my focus is on how applicable a hitter's power will be rather than how far he could hit it if everything lined up perfectly. Numbers one and two are close enough to be 1a and 1b. Bat strength is simply a way of expressing how much force the body is able to create behind the barrel. This can come from brute strength in one or multiple parts of the body, or from efficient sequencing, or both.

A good swing path is underappreciated in power projection. In batting practice, pitches are predictable, and hitters who swing down or across the ball can still muster enough juice to hit balls over the wall. Having a swing path that matches the flight of the pitch, or more appropriate to power production, the flight of the desired batted ball makes it more likely a hitter will be able to tap into his raw power in game situations. Otherwise, he better have an amazing ability to hit below the center of the ball regularly, and with enough force to make up for the non-flush collision of the bat and ball.

Bat speed can also be a big part of power projection, but more as an adjunct. You can swing a bat extremely fast, but if there's not enough momentum transferred to the ball it still won't carry like you would hope. Remember from physics class, collisions deal with the products of mass and speed transferring to another mass. Mass in this case comes from both the weight of the bat and the strength forced on the bat by the hitter.

RUN

1. Stolen base skill
2. Ability to take extra bases
3. Raw speed

This is another category that may get some raised eyebrows when reading my reports.

The order of this list is a bit misleading, since when seeing any player for the first time, I will still turn to stopwatch times. I prefer using stolen base attempts or home-to-first sprints rather than 60-yard-dashes for grading, since running 180 feet in a straight line is so out of place with what happens on a baseball field. I put raw speed third because I see many players with average or better speed that are never able to use it offensively, such that it almost becomes useless in actuality. Give me a guy who can read a pitcher or a count for a good opportunity to steal, or read balls in the dirt, or know when a hit puts an outfielder in a tough position to cut down his attempt to take another base. Raw speed can give you a ceiling, but the intelligence threshold of using this tool is high enough that it is not sufficient in estimating the value of that player's running abilities.

Running speed is also given a lot of credit for beating out infield hits, turning doubles into triples and elevating power numbers, or fielding range. Because of that, you can't ignore the effect it has on the other tools and discount it entirely. I just like the discussion about a player's speed to be a bit more nuanced, since it's a more interesting though difficult assessment.

FIELD

1. Staying grounded
2. Softness and quickness of the glove hand
3. Rhythm
4. First step efficiency
5. Raw speed

The best fielders use the ground effectively to stay balanced, make a quick first step, and redirect momentum. Putting yourself in a good position to anticipate the next move with the ball fits under this category as well. Players who strand straight up and don't get into their legs when reacting to a ground ball or a throw from a teammate have less of a chance reacting well to bad hops or errant throws. The ability to have soft hands is imperative for any good fielder to deal with hard-hit balls or awkward throws from other players. The smoothness of the glove itself could even be more important than how the fielder positions himself, as it can make up for a lack of athleticism in a lot of plays.

As an off-shoot of positioning, staying in constant movement with the feet and body helps to time hops on ground balls, get momentum into throws on fly balls, and keep the body from locking up when the ball darts a different direction. Raw speed is certainly a factor in how many balls a fielder can reach, but effective range is more what we will be discussing with these grades.
For catchers, the fielding grade is weighted and assessed differently:

1. Receiving/framing
2. Blocking
3. Game management

I hate the term framing; it denotes the catcher actively doing something while catching the ball, when the best "framers" look like they do very little and make things look smooth. On the receiving side of the position, I look for quiet movements without a lot of body motion while catching borderline pitches. Anticipation of the ball's destination instead of reaction is key. The softness of the hands is vital, and I put high grades on catchers who make every pitch's break and location look like they were completely intentional. Blocking is about more than just getting a body on balls, and quick reactions to pitches in the dirt are a good start. More importantly, though, the best backstop is one who stays sufficiently relaxed such that the ball won't bounce far from him. You want the ball to look like it gets deadened by the catcher's body, not bounced off a brick wall.

Game management is a little more of a feel determination. Pitch-calling is less of a concern for evaluating prospects, especially since the wealth of information pitchers and catchers get in advance reports makes this more about execution at the major league level. I look more at body language when the pitcher misses a target, or after a misplay in the field. Calling timeout to talk to a pitcher at the right time, even when it doesn't work out, is another way to evaluate this part of a catcher's game. It may not be borne out in the numbers, but the catcher's biggest impact is how well he can help the pitcher's performance. Estimates of the effect of receiving show how much this can swing a game in a team's favor, and I strongly believe the psychological effect of a battery mate to be a difference-maker.

THROW

1. Release time
2. Body control
3. Arm strength

The first two qualities are interrelated, and certainly tie into those listed in the fielding section above. I see a bigger spread in the time that elapses between a catch and subsequent release than I see in arm strength, even among major league fielders. I think more fielders separate themselves from their peers in that way than just basing a throwing grade on pure arm strength. More often than not, I'll note the raw arm strength grade and explain why the overall grade goes up or down accordingly, and again, it comes down to functionality. Having a hose does no good if an infielder has to take three or four steps to get rid of a ball on a slow roller. The same thing goes for an outfielder on a tag-up play. Being able to catch a ball in a difficult spot and still be able to make a throw with a quick release tells me more about the impact he can make with his arm than the radar gun does.

Catcher pop times are judged in a similar fashion. You will see a higher grade from me on a catcher who can consistently be 2.00-2.05 seconds to second base than one who throws a 1.90 on a good feed but a 2.15 with a bounce on a running pitch to the glove side. It's rarely that cut-and-dry, but I think you can see where I'm coming from.

Pitching Tools
FASTBALL

1. Command
2. Velocity
3. Movement

Similar to how fielders exhibit a wider spread in release time than arm strength, I believe command is the biggest differentiator between fastballs that end up above the average or below. I wish we had access to minor league velocity averages by level to really test this observation, but a scout once told me that he thought the average velocity in A-ball was higher than in the majors. I have come to agree with him on an empirical basis; at worst, I would say they are dead even. Though the average fastball velocity in the big leagues has only crept up slightly in the last decade, it is the staggeringly higher number of those guys who can command it to both sides of the plate that is truly astonishing. While there is an obvious correlation between velocity and fastball effectiveness, nearly every prospect throws hard enough for at least one scout to be excited about him. I imagine we will have some fun discussions about the hypothetical pitcher who throws 95 but only an average future fastball grade. Let's embrace the nuance.

Movement includes alterations from the norm in every direction. Some sink, cut or run their fastballs, or, my favorite, seem to make them rise. All of these have different effects on the batter's viewpoint, and all can be utilized to miss the barrel if the movement is drastic or sneaky enough. Yet another way for us to add some fun to forecasting a simple fastball.

OFF-SPEED

1. Intent
2. Command
3. Movement
4. Velocity

You could substitute feel, arm action or deception in for intent and we are saying basically the same thing. The idea with any off-speed pitch is to disrupt the hitter's timing or anticipation of its end point. Making it look like a fastball is more than half the battle. I feel like command is the second most important factor in an off-speed pitch's viability, since even a loopy curve or change-up thrown for a strike down and away (just for example) is very difficult to hit. I remember a couple years ago an interesting series of articles in the Community Blog by Thomas Karakolis on this very subject.

Effective movement to me has more to do with how late it seems to change trajectory. Pitching coaches describe this as controlling the first ten feet of ball flight, or pitch tunneling. Another good test is to see how much the ball moves when it's left in the middle of the plate or up in the zone. If you still see good movement on a mistake location, you know you have something there.

Velocity on off-speed pitches is usually just a descriptive tool to me, though there is something to be said for having pitches that don't overlap in velocities to give hitters one more thing to which they need to adjust. I don't really buy into the rule about changeups needing a certain separation from the fastball unless they have no movement whatsoever.

MAKEUP

This will not be a grade found in the reports I write, though I will comment occasionally on an anecdote or a team's opinion of a player's makeup. I am a firm believer in makeup being the biggest factor in determining a prospect's probability of reaching or exceeding his ceiling, but I'm not comfortable saying I have anything solid to hang my hat on in this department. It's hard to be confident even in a feeling you get talking to directly to a prospect, as Eno Sarris and I discussed recently. People are very good at fooling themselves and others around them about their motivations, or work ethic. One guy's intelligence is another guy's "paralysis by analysis." One player's confidence is another player's inability to utilize help from coaches or relate to teammates.

I will say I do appreciate how a player carries himself on the field in a given situation. I think there's something to a guy looking like he knows he's going to make a play on the next ball that comes to him, even in the middle of botching a couple plays in a row. How he walks back to the dugout after his third strikeout of the day, or whether he can at least act like he has a short memory when he gets back out on defense the next inning. Things like that will not make a player jump a full grade in my book, but may persuade me to skew a bit higher or lower on his upside.

---

This piece went longer than I hoped when I set out, but I hope you learned something, or at least will enjoy the prospect reports more because of it. I'll keep saying it: I love talking baseball and really encourage you all to be active in discussing players and grades. I have already had a lot of fun going out to evaluate players in preparation for this year of prospecting, and I want to make sure it's a positive experience for everyone who is interested in this type of content. Expect the Diamondbacks rankings tomorrow.

Sent from my iPhone

The great myths of projective accuracy | BaseballHQ.com

There is no crystal ball.
There is no crystal ball.
There is no crystal ball.

Great article, a real blast from the past. It provides a little bit of much needed perspective.


from BaseballHQ.com:
The great myths of projective accuracy | BaseballHQ.com

				The great myths of projective accuracy | BaseballHQ.com by Ron Shandler January 2009 Ashley-Perry Statistical Axiom #3: Skill in manipulating numbers is a talent, not evidence of divine guidance.
				View on www.baseballhq.com	Preview by Yahoo

Ashley-Perry Statistical Axioms:

1. Numbers are tools, not rules.
2. Numbers are symbols for things; the number and the thing are not the same.
3. Skill in manipulating numbers is a talent, not evidence of divine guidance.
4. Like other occult techniques of divination, the statistical method has a private jargon deliberately contrived to obscure its methods from nonpractitioners.
5. The product of an arithmetical computation is the answer to an equation; it is not the solution to a problem.
6. Arithmetical proofs of theorems that do not have arithmetical bases prove nothing.

The great myths of projective accuracy

by Ron Shandler
January 2009

Ashley-Perry Statistical Axiom #3: Skill in manipulating numbers is a talent, not evidence of divine guidance.

Ashley-Perry Statistical Axiom #5: The product of an arithmetical computation is the answer to an equation; it is not the solution to a problem.

Merkin's Maxim: When in doubt, predict that the present trend will continue.

The quest continues for the most accurate baseball forecasting system.

I've been publishing player projections for more than two decades. During that time, I have been made privy to the work of many fine analysts and many fine forecasting systems. But through all their fine efforts at attempting to predict the future, there have been certain constants. The core of every system has been comprised of pretty much the same elements:

• Players will perform within the framework of their past history and/or trends.
• Their skills will develop and decline according to age.
• Their statistics will be shaped by health, expected role and environment.

These are the elements that keep all projections within a range of believability. This is what prevents us from predicting a 40-HR season for Wily Tavares or 40 stolen bases for Adam Dunn. However, within this range of believability is a great black hole where precision seems to disappear. Yes, we know that Alex Rodriguez is a leading power hitter, but whether he is going to hit 40 HRs, or 45, or 35, or even 50, is a mystery.

You see, while all these systems are built upon the same basic elements, they are constrained by the same limitations. We are all still trying to project...

• a bunch of human beings
• each with their own individual skill sets
• each with their own individual rates of growth and decline
• each with different abilities to resist and recover from injury
• each limited to opportunities determined by other people
• and each generating a group of statistics largely affected by tons of external noise.

As much as we acknowledge these limitations intuitively, we continue to resist them because the game is so darned measurable. The problem is that we do have some success at predicting the future and that limited success whets our desire, luring us into believing that a better, more accurate system awaits just beyond the next revelation. So we work feverishly to try to find the missing link to success, creating vast, complex models that track obscure relationships, and attempt to bring us ever closer to perfection. But for many of us fine analysts, all that work only takes us deeper and deeper into the abyss.

Why? Because perfection is impossible and nobody seems to have a real clear vision of what success is.

....

Selection of the study methodology: Even if a comparative analysis includes all relevant test subjects and somehow finds a study variable that makes sense, there is still a concern about how the study is conducted. Does it use a recognized, statistically valid methodology for validating or discounting variances? Or does it use a faulty system like the ranking methodology used by Elias to determine Type A, B or C free agents? Such a system -- which ironically is the basis for Rotisserie scoring -- distorts the truth because it can magnify tiny differences in the numbers and minimize huge variances.

As such, unless the study uses a proven methodology, it cannot be completely objective.

And bias immediately enters into the picture. You simply cannot trust the results.

The only legitimate, objective analysis that can filter out the biases is one that is conducted by an independent third party. But the challenge of conducting such a study is finding a level playing field that all participants can agree on. Given that different touts have different goals for their numbers, that playing field might not exist. And even if one should be found, there will undoubtedly be some participants reluctant to run the risk of finishing last, which could skew the results as well.

Other challenges to assessing projections

Ashley-Perry Statistical Axiom #4: Like other occult techniques of divination, the statistical method has a private jargon deliberately contrived to obscure its methods from non-practitioners.

As users of player projections, and in a hurry to make decisions, we want answers, and quickly. We want to find a trusted source, let them do all the heavy lifting, and then partake of the fruits of their labor. The truth is, the greater the perceived weight of that lifting, the greater the perceived credibility of the source. Only the small percentage of users who speak in that "private jargon" can validate the true credibility. The rest of us have to go on the faith that the existence of experts proficient in these 'occult techniques' is proof enough.

Well, so what? That's why we rely on experts in the first place, isn't it? What is the real problem here?

Complexity for complexity's sake

One of the growing themes that I've been writing about the past few years is the embracing of imprecision in our analyses. This seems counter-intuitive given the growth in our knowledge. But, the game is played by human beings affected by random, external variables; the thought that we can create complex systems to accurately measure these unpredictable creatures is really what is counter-intuitive.

And so, what ends up happening in this world of growing complexity and precision is that we obsess over hundredths of percentage points and treat minute variances as absolute gospel. To wit...

It has been shown that a simplistic forecasting system that averages the last few seasons with minor adjustments for age is nearly as good as any advanced system. The simple system is called "Marcel" (named after the monkey on the TV show Friends) because any chimp with an Excel spreadsheet can do it. The truth is, if 70% accuracy is the best that we can reasonably expect, Marcel alone gets us to about 65%. All of our advanced systems are fighting for occupation of that last 5%.

Still, those conducting comparative analyses will crow about one system beating another 68% to 67%. This is a level of precision that can often be rendered moot across the entire player pool by a handful of wind-blown home runs and a few seeing-eye singles. Still, there has to be a "winner," right?

But we forget such "hard" baseball facts such as:

• The difference between a .250 hitter and a .300 hitter is fewer than 5 hits per month.
• A true .290 hitter can bat .254 one year and .326 the next and still be within a statistically valid range for .290.
• A pitcher allowing 5 runs in 2 innings will see a different ERA impact than one allowing 8 runs in 5 innings, even though, for all intents and purposes, both got rocked.

Gall's Law: A complex system that works is invariably found to have evolved from a simple system that works.

Occam's Razor: When you have two competing theories which make exactly the same predictions, the one that is simpler is preferred.

Those systems that try to impress us with their complexity as proof of their credibility may be no better than a room full of monkeys with spreadsheets. At minimum, they generate projections that are 'close enough' for our player evaluation purposes and yield draft results that are virtually indistinguishable from any simian-driven system.

Married to the model

It's one thing if the model has a name like Christie Brinkley, but quite another if a tout is so betrothed to his forecasting model that "it" becomes more important than the projections.

Whenever I hear a tout write, "Well, the model spit out these numbers, but I think it's being overly optimistic," I cringe. Well then, change the numbers! The mindset is that you have to cling to the model, for better or for worse, in order to legitimize it. The only way to change the numbers is to change the model.

On occasion, I will take a look at one of my projections and admit that I think it's wrong. Then I change the numbers. Because, in the end, is the goal to have the best model or to have the best projections?

The comfort zone

Given the variability in player performance, a "real world" forecast should not yield black or white results. Some touts accomplish this by providing forecast ranges, others by providing decile levels. But most end up committing to a single stat line to describe their expectations for the coming year.

In October, reality will be black or white. In March, it's all shades of grey. But it's far easier for fantasy leaguers to draft their teams from blacks and whites, so touts have to commit. Grey is out, even when a projection carries great uncertainty.

One of the best examples from March 2008 was Andruw Jones. This was a hitter coming off a 26-HR, .222 BA season after having gone 41-.262 and 51-.263 in the two years prior. The questions on everyone's mind... Was 2007 an aberration? Would he bounce back? If so, how far would he bounce back?

....

The Hedge

The hedge is used to formally straddle the fence rather than commit to anything, and typically takes place in the player commentary. In that aspect, the hedge might be a good thing because it embraces the "greys."

However, some touts use the commentary as a hedge against the numbers they've committed to, and in doing so, can negatively impact your ability to assess a projection.

...

Andruw Jones actually batted .158 with three home runs in 209 AB in 2008. While nobody came even remotely close to this, the least optimistic projection holds the most fantasy relevance. As noted in the Baseball Forecaster:

"The best projections are often the ones that are just far enough away from the field of expectation to alter decision-making. In other words, it doesn't matter if I project Player X to bat .320 and he only bats .295; it matters that I projected .320 and everyone else projected .280.

"Or, perhaps we should evaluate projections based upon their intrinsic value. For instance, coming into 2008, would it have been more important for me to tell you that Adam Dunn was going to hit 40 HRs or that Juan Pierre would only get 290 at bats? By season's end, the Dunn projection would have been dead-on accurate, but the Pierre projection — even though it was off by 85 AB — would have been far more valuable."

...

Finding relevance

Berkeley's 17th Law: A great many problems do not have accurate answers, but do have approximate answers, from which sensible decisions can be made.

Maybe I'm a bit exasperated by this obsession with prognosticating accuracy because the Baseball Forecaster/HQ projections system is more prone to stray from the norm - by design - and thus potentially fare worse in any comparative analysis. The HQ system is not a computer that just spits out numbers. We don't spend our waking hours tinkering with algorithms so that we can minimize all the mean squared errors. Our model only spits out an objective baseline and then the process becomes hands-on and highly subjective.

From the Projections Notes page at BaseballHQ.com:

"Skills performance baselines are created for every player beginning each fall. The process starts as a 5-year statistical trend analysis and includes all relevant performance data, including major league equivalent minor league stats. The output from this process is a first-pass projection.

"Our computer model then generates a series of flags, highlighting relevant BPI data, such as high workload for pitchers, contact rate and PX levels trending in tandem, xERAs far apart from real ERAs, etc. These flags are examined for every player and subjective adjustments are made to all the baseline projections based on a series of "rules" that have been developed over time."

The end result of this system is not just a set of inert numbers. As mentioned earlier, the commentary that accompanies the numbers is just as vital a part of the "projection," if not more so. Think of it this way... The numbers provide a foundation for our expectations, the "play-by-play," if you will. The commentary, driven by all the BPIs and component skills analysis, provides the "color." Both, in tandem, create the complete picture.

Admittedly, a system with subjective elements tends to give classic sabermetricians fits. But that's okay because, at the end of the day we're still dealing with...

• a bunch of human beings
• each with their own individual skill sets
• each with their own individual rates of growth and decline
• each with different abilities to resist and recover from injury
• each limited to opportunities determined by other people
• and each generating a group of statistics largely affected by tons of external noise.

Now here's the kicker... In the end, my primary goal is not accuracy. My goal is to shape the draft day behavior of fantasy leaguers. For certain players with marked BPI levels or trends, we often publish projections that are not designed to reflect a "most likely case" but rather a "strong enough case to influence your decision-making." Sometimes there are reasons to stray beyond the comfort zone.

.....

Baseball Variation of Harvard Law: Under the most rigorously observed conditions of skill, age, environment, statistical rules and other variables, a ballplayer will perform as he damn well pleases.