Rob Neyer Duped By Lazy PITCHf/x Analysis

by Harry Pavlidis on Jun 12, 2009 12:55 AM EDT

Sorry folks, Wang's arm angle didn't shift horizontally one or two feet due to mechanical changes. From a foot injury.

But Baseball Daily Digest makes that claim based on two starts from two seasons

Wang’s release point has drastically changed from 2008-2009

According to the Pitchf/x data, Wang's velocity is fine, but his mechanics are not, as his release point last night was dramatically different than it was in April 2008

They should explain this, Wang's horizontal release point, in order, every pitch in the database.

So, did he shift a foot or so from start to start, or does the data vary by park/start for say, some other reason? I can cherry pick two starts from this stream of noise and say he's golden and fine with no mechanical changes.But that would be lazy.

Instead, I remind the well meaning people who like to use the PITCHf/x data to study Wang's release and movement: If you're going to publish data and "conclusions" take the time to understand what you're working with. Doing otherwise is irresponsible.

Tweet Comment 17 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

say word.

and too bad we have new yankee stadium now, so we cant compare to last year. maybe we could check some other parks (fenway,camden) where he pitched this year and last. presuming they didnt change anything.

by someguy132 on Jun 12, 2009 1:01 AM EDT reply actions

It looks to me ...

and this is subject to change … that the new park has been set to match what they that was right for the old park, which is still wrong.

Grain of salt not included, but recommended and sold separately. But when I looked at his movement in a graph a week or so ago (I’ll find it) it looked like it was still off “to the left”.

by Harry Pavlidis on Jun 12, 2009 1:04 AM EDT up reply actions

here's the link

http://www.beyondtheboxscore.com/2009/5/30/893513/graph-of-the-day-wangs-spin

by Harry Pavlidis on Jun 12, 2009 1:07 AM EDT up reply actions

Thank you, Harry

As PITCHf/x becomes more mainstream, I guess we’re going to see more and more shoddy analysis with it, just like we do with every other statistic kept about baseball. But it has a mystique about it such that people don’t question what someone says if they invoke [deep voice] PITCHf/x [/deep voice] as their reasoning. I guess that’s because PITCHf/x still seems inaccessible to the common fan, which is a shame, what with sites like BrooksBaseball out there. Anyhoo, that’s not to dog on Matthew for his analysis as much as it is to lament…well, I don’t know…would you kids just get off my lawn!

by Mike Fast on Jun 12, 2009 1:08 AM EDT reply actions

And it's unfortunate that Matthew ends up the "subject" and "lazy" is strong

Too strong, but intentionally so. I wanted to finally ring the bell loud and clear, since the point hasn’t been getting across.

It started elsewhere, RAB I think, and I was comment #1,345,216 so I think it was missed, but that guy worked his tail off to analyze Wang’s release and spin and everything. He never realized what he was actually measuring and reporting on. Lazy isn’t fair, since there is obviously effort there. But Matthew tricked himself by picking two starts (always dangerous) and assuming the data was reliable.

I really encourage folks to make the extra effort PITCHf/x currently requires, it’s always worthwhile.

by Harry Pavlidis on Jun 12, 2009 1:13 AM EDT up reply actions

Have you finished that park effects PITCHf/x primer yet?

I’m dying for this. I can identify differences but I have no idea what to do about it.

Brandon McCarthy: Scap Load Failure - TexasLeaguers.com

by NoNameOnCard on Jun 12, 2009 1:41 AM EDT up reply actions

No, but me thinks I should accelerate that project

Not just because you’re dying, though. Partially.

by Harry Pavlidis on Jun 12, 2009 1:46 AM EDT up reply actions

If my imminent death makes the PITCHf/x world a better place...

I’m more than happy to risk my life!

Brandon McCarthy: Scap Load Failure - TexasLeaguers.com

by NoNameOnCard on Jun 12, 2009 1:54 AM EDT up reply actions

At a minimum, maybe it would be good to post which parks we need to be careful of...

in its own article rather than in a comment.

This way it’s nice and easy to reference.

by Dan Turkenkopf on Jun 12, 2009 7:45 AM EDT up reply actions

Great idea.

And even if we can’t label “good park/bad park”, an article that serves as a general warning about using certain raw pitch f/x data to make conclusions would be quite helpful to everyone not as knowledegable about pitch f/x data as Harry.

Beyond the Boxscore // Calling BJ Upton lazy is lazy.

by Sky Kalkman on Jun 12, 2009 4:08 PM EDT up reply actions