Pitch f/x Asdrubal Cabrera rung up

[johnnyg08]

Peter Gammons made a very idiot post about why umpires eject players...I can't tell what it was referenced to...but I'm thinking it maybe had to do w/ A. Cabrera of the Nationals.  

[johnnyg08]

Nevermind.  But I still want the f/x from the National game when it comes up.  I know the site, I just don't know how to pull up an individual at bat.

 

I think it's the Bottom of the 10th when Cabrera from the Nationals was dumped.

[Richvee]

Asinine comment  by Gammons. Seems completely unlike him.. .

 

It's Affeldt vs Cabrera. Brooksbaseball will have it up soon after the game..if it ever ends! I think they both got the top of the zone. 

[Richvee]

Looks like they were high.....

http://www.brooksbaseball.net/pfxVB/pfx.php?s_type=3&sp_type=1&year=2014&month=10&day=4&pitchSel=346793&game=gid_2014_10_04_sfnmlb_wasmlb_1/&prevGame=gid_2014_10_04_sfnmlb_wasmlb_1/&pnf=&prevDate=104&batterX=70

[johnnyg08]

Thank you for posting this.  

[Richvee]

Not a problem. I was just as curious to see it. Strike 2 missed. Strike 3 maybe just grazed the upper edge of the zone. But after getting called strike 2, Cabrera's got to be swinging at pitch 6. 

[umpstu]

Not a problem. I was just as curious to see it. Strike 2 missed. Strike 3 maybe just grazed the upper edge of the zone. But after getting called strike 2, Cabrera's got to be swinging at pitch 6. 

Replay on MLB.COM shows strike two being a correct call.

[umpstu]

http://www.thescore.com/mlb/news/596044

[johnnyg08]

 

Not a problem. I was just as curious to see it. Strike 2 missed. Strike 3 maybe just grazed the upper edge of the zone. But after getting called strike 2, Cabrera's got to be swinging at pitch 6. 

Replay on MLB.COM shows strike two being a correct call.

 

 

 

Others will confirm but I think the charts that are posted are more accurate than the MLB.com ones.  I am not 100% on that though.

[Lindsay]

Strike two is within upper MOE, so it truly is "borderline" (e.g., the call is not incorrect). pz 3.464 with MOE 3.46, lack of significant digits with regards to the top of the strike zone make it impossible to declare whether that call is correct or not. px is .549, which is well within the strike zone.

 

Strike three is clearly within the strike zone, what with pz of 3.315 and the top of the zone at 3.34 and px of -.014 which is over the heart of home plate.

 

The Brooks charts are accurate and use the exact same data as the MLB Gameday graphs—the data points are smaller which gives the perception of greater accuracy (the MLB Gameday plots have a larger dot in an attempt to simulate the circumference of a baseball).

 

The problem with the Brooks charts, however, is that they are not normalized: Look at the Brooks charts' vertical axes—see how the y-values are all in feet? Across Brooks, all strike zones are drawn the same...but batter heights are variable. Ergo, a non-normalized chart cannot be used to determine Quality of Correctness pertaining to the vertical location of a pitch (basis for UEFL's Miller Rule).

 

Types of plots...

Non-normlized (Brooks): y-axis in feet. These plots are true to physical distance. No stretch factor. Accordingly, the strike zone depicted is a "league average" strike zone and, accordingly, is not accurate to the individual batter. "Taller stances" are improperly balled by the chart on the upper bound of the zone while "shorter stances" are improperly balled by the chart on the lower bound (and vice versa for improper strikes). Useful for scouting pitchers, not umpires.

Normalized (MLB Gameday): y-axis in normalized units. These plots are not true to physical distance. There is stretch. Accordingly, the strike zone runs from -1.0 normalized units to +1.0 normalized units. A pitch with a normalized height outside of |1.0| is a ball; within is a strike, all else equal.

 

Conversion: Convert a pz value to a normalized unit by multiplying the pz value by the norm_ht factor.

 

Image of Strike 2:

[johnnyg08]

Strike two is within upper MOE, so it truly is "borderline" (e.g., the call is not incorrect). pz 3.464 with MOE 3.46, lack of significant digits with regards to the top of the strike zone make it impossible to declare whether that call is correct or not. px is .549, which is well within the strike zone.

 

Strike three is clearly within the strike zone, what with pz of 3.315 and the top of the zone at 3.34 and px of -.014 which is over the heart of home plate.

 

The Brooks charts are accurate and use the exact same data as the MLB Gameday graphs—the data points are smaller which gives the perception of greater accuracy (the MLB Gameday plots have a larger dot in an attempt to simulate the circumference of a baseball).

 

The problem with the Brooks charts, however, is that they are not normalized: Look at the Brooks charts' vertical axes—see how the y-values are all in feet? Across Brooks, all strike zones are drawn the same...but batter heights are variable. Ergo, a non-normalized chart cannot be used to determine Quality of Correctness pertaining to the vertical location of a pitch (basis for UEFL's Miller Rule).

 

Types of plots...

Non-normlized (Brooks): y-axis in feet. These plots are true to physical distance. No stretch factor. Accordingly, the strike zone depicted is a "league average" strike zone and, accordingly, is not accurate to the individual batter. "Taller stances" are improperly balled by the chart on the upper bound of the zone while "shorter stances" are improperly balled by the chart on the lower bound (and vice versa for improper strikes). Useful for scouting pitchers, not umpires.

Normalized (MLB Gameday): y-axis in normalized units. These plots are not true to physical distance. There is stretch. Accordingly, the strike zone runs from -1.0 normalized units to +1.0 normalized units. A pitch with a normalized height outside of |1.0| is a ball; within is a strike, all else equal.

 

Conversion: Convert a pz value to a normalized unit by multiplying the pz value by the norm_ht factor.

 

Image of Strike 2:

 

thanks Gil