This post about Brian Bannister and his use of PITCH f/x started making me rethink the reasons for the recently decline in offense. As a frame of reference, the following table shows major league runs per game over the last 25 years.
| Season | Runs Per Game |
|---|---|
| 1986 | 8.8 |
| 1987 | 9.4 |
| 1988 | 8.3 |
| 1989 | 8.3 |
| 1990 | 8.5 |
| 1991 | 8.6 |
| 1992 | 8.2 |
| 1993 | 9.2 |
| 1994 | 9.8 |
| 1995 | 9.7 |
| 1996 | 10.1 |
| 1997 | 9.5 |
| 1998 | 9.6 |
| 1999 | 10.2 |
| 2000 | 10.3 |
| 2001 | 9.5 |
| 2002 | 9.2 |
| 2003 | 9.5 |
| 2004 | 9.6 |
| 2005 | 9.2 |
| 2006 | 9.7 |
| 2007 | 9.6 |
| 2008 | 9.3 |
| 2009 | 9.2 |
| 2010 | 8.9 |
During the shift from scoring in the low to mid eights to the high nines, most of the changes in the game favored the batter. New ballparks tended to favor home runs. Expansion of both leagues and team pitching staffs meant more replacement pitchers were getting innings in the big leagues. (Two expansion teams added 22 pitchers. Going from 10 to 11 man pitching staffs added another 26.) Ball manufacturing became more consistent (and at the high end of tightness, I believe). The advantage of weight training became apparent, aided in many cases by PEDs. The strike zone became smaller, first by convention, then by rule. All of these changes helped batters.
Since the introduction of PITCH f/x in 2007, runs per game went down every year. Notice that testing for PEDs didn’t do that much, scoring bouncing around in a 0.5 run range from 2001 through 2007 (testing starting in 2004). PITCH f/x provides much more information to the pitcher than the batter:
- It allows him to study his release point in great detail.
- It allows him to see how much his pitches are really moving, both horizontally and vertically.
- It allows him to see what kind of movements fool batters.
- It’s by far the best tool for examining hot and cold zones for hitters.
- As Bannister points out, it allows a pitcher to experiment during a game with new pitches and see the results.
Before PITCH f/x, hurlers needed to rely on the eyes of their coach or catcher to pick up flaws in their release point. Now they can study data, comparing good outings to bad ones to see precisely where their release point was. When scouting batters, the pitcher not only knows where in the strike zone this batter is weak, but the combination of pitches and location.
I’m not sure how much this technology helps batters. As long as the pitcher mixes up his patterns, it’s tough for the batter to know what’s coming. The iPod video probably helps more in this regard, since hitting is more pattern recognition. If pitchers use specific release points for different types of pitches, then it could help the batter recognize what’s coming.
Better information is following to the pitcher right now, information that can be used to fix flaws and attack batter weak points. We’ll see if the trend continues, but it may be that information technology does more to curb offense than limiting drug use.
This is very very intriguing. Next step, can you show which pitchers have improved since ’07, that might be a result of pitch/fx checking? Maybe that’s a dumb question, but I think this should be something we could see in the pitch/fx if we went game by game for any pitcher… some would show no trend but others would show a trend starting from a good start?
Not really buying the pitch f/x hypothesis.
It should help hitters just as much as pitchers. Seeing the pitchers approach and how they mix up their different pitches, especially for pitchers hitters have not seen much of has to help hitters.
Both have had access to game videos for years in any event, and there is advance scouting which collects similar information from the tapes on hitters hot and cold spots.
Kevin Millar made a comment the other day on NESN where he said the Orioles hitters had no idea Clay Buchholz had a changeup in 2007 when he pitched a no hitter against them. Obviously, advance scouting failed, since any fan who followed prospects knew Clay had a great changeup, and pitch f/x would not have helped since it was Clays first start. But lets say for example it was his 4th start or so, pitch f/x would have told Orioles hitters today what advanced scouting missed. That Clay had a changeup that he used anytime, and had good command of it.
Pitchers always have the advantage in matchups where the hitter has not seen much of them, so I would think hitters can get as much benefit if not more from pitch f/x since more knowledge helps them more given their disadvantage.
The pitcher is not pitching to a batter, he is just executing his pitches based on his and the coaching staffs game plan, and pitch f/x may help in developing that plan. It is the batter who must hit the pitchers pitch, and knowing what pitches a pitcher has and how he tends to use them has to help him as much as those who develop the plan against him.
As it is, most big hits and bad innings are on pitchers mistakes- a pitchers lack of execution due to command issues inside and outside the zone, or throwing hanging curve balls. Pitch f/x can not help a pitcher execute his pitches. Knowing what to do is great, actually doing it is something else.
I see stuff like Phil Hughes throwing Big Papi a 91 mph cutter inside as opposed to a 95 mph FB inside, and wondering why Papi, who at the time was having trouble getting around on good fastballs got around on it for a HR. Where was pitch f/x on that pitch selection. I watch the Yankees pitch to Red Sox hitters and wonder aloud who does their scouting. They might be helped by pitch f/x since their scouting must be awful.
The biggest culprit on the decline in offense IMHO may be the expanded strike zone I see this year. I don’t see enough games to say this with any certainty though. Surprised the pitch f/x experts don’t study this.
Lets face it, 3 perfect games in 1/3 of a season (yes, I am counting Mr G’s perfect game), and dramatic decline in HR in the AL from 2009 to 2010. Like someone flipped a switch just like in the early 90’s when the switch was flipped to boost HR’s.
I also don’t rule out the ball having a role. The balls per a 2000-2001 study by MLB were being made right smack in the middle of the spec. Manufacturing tolerances based on technology improvements allow balls to be made within close tolerances. You can tweak the ball X% on either side of the spec and get +/-10 ft difference in ball travel in the 400 ft test, and still be well within specs.
Nobody can prove it is or is not happening since MLB monopoly has complete control over any testing being done and the information is not publicly available. But the absence of evidence is not disproof.