CURED
In unison, everybody, doing your best Bryan Price:
Silva has been working all year to figure out why his sinker isn't working the way he'd like. It isn't sinking much. That's a big reason why he needed 100 pitches to get through five innings against the Tigers last Thursday.
It turns out, Silva made a between-starts mechanical adjustment. Pitching coach Mel Stottlemyre, an ex-sinkerballer himself, felt Silva was squeezing the ball too hard. So, instead of holding his hands up near his chest as he began his windup -- which Silva felt caused his arms to press together and his fingers to grip the ball tighter -- he held them at waist level tonight.
Photographic evidence of this striking transformation:
One little adjustment and Silva goes from five runs in five innings to two runs in eight. Remarkable! This hand position thing sounds like the real deal. Stottlemyre sure does know what he's doing.
So just what kind of difference did Silva's shiny new sinker make, anyway? With 25 non-bunted balls in play tonight, it's probably pretty safe to assume that he was generating a bunch more groundballs than before. After all, that's what a sinker's supposed to do, right? Let's have us a look see:
| GB | FB | LD | |
| First 18 Starts | 45% | 35% | 20% |
| Tonight | 36% | 32% | 32% |
Buhh. Maybe we're getting some extra noise in here from his changeup and slider. How about we isolate the balls Oakland put in play against his sinker?
| GB | FB | LD | |
| Tonight | 14% | 50% | 36% |
Well that doesn't make any sense at all. It's almost as if...it's almost as if his sinker was actually worse tonight than it had been before. Save us, PITCHf/x. In your infinite wisdom, at least show us that Silva's sinker did indeed have more sink tonight, and that the A's just so happened to put it in the air. Let's do a movement comparison between tonight and Silva's 100-pitch/5-inning start against the Tigers last week, the start over which Silva's so embarrassed:
| pfx_x | pfx_z | |
| 7/3 | -9.5 | 5.8 |
| 7/8 | -9.3 | 6.6 |
Wait. So you mean to tell me that Silva's sinker actually had 0.8 inches less vertical drop than it did against Detroit? Impossible! Getting more sink is why he made the whole change in the first place! Something fishy is going on. Something fishy is going on, and I don't like it one bit.
-----
...I'll stop playing around and get to the point. Carlos Silva may have made a little mechanical adjustment, but that isn't why he just threw eight solid innings of two-run baseball. Carlos Silva just threw eight solid innings of two-run baseball because the A's can't hit. Not because of some improved sinker. Because the A's have a bad offense that runs into trouble when it faces a guy that throws a lot of strikes. Simple as that. It's the exact same thing we're hearing about Jarrod Washburn right now. Washburn will tell you he's built off a little change he's made since taking the advice of his collegiate pitching coach, but really, he's just been facing bad lineups. Pitchers don't like to hear that sort of thing, though (as you can imagine), so they point to something they did a little differently as being the reason behind any success. Correlation and causation and all that. If a pitcher makes a minor tweak (which they do all the time anyway) and then goes out and throws a heck of a game, he'll credit the tweak, even if it wasn't responsible for the success in the least. It's up to us to pick out what's real and what's just a fairy tale.
You want to know the truth? Silva's sinker has had a little more drop recently than it used to. His season average pfx_z is 8.3 (the same as last year, incidentally, even though he only now feels he isn't getting enough sink), but again, today he was at 6.6. So in that regard, he's right, there is a difference. However, he was at 5.8 a week ago against the Tigers and sucked hard, so what do we make of that? How do we reconcile these two data points?
(1) The hand position didn't do anything. Silva only lowered his hands today and his sinker sank less than it did against Detroit.
(2) Therefore what's going on is either (A) nothing, or (B) due to some other change he made earlier. Baker quotes Silva as saying that he and Stottlemyre have "been trying so many things" over the weeks, so I guess it's possible they did something before the Detroit game to give his sinker more drop, something people don't want to talk about because the Detroit game was bad.
(3) Pitchers don't talk about mechanical adjustments when they fail. Silva's sinker clearly dropped more against Detroit than it did on average before, but because he sucked, he didn't say a word. Reported mechanical adjustments are therefore selective for success. You don't read too many stories about guys making changes and not making any progress, and when you're only getting one side of the whole thing, it kind of negates its usefulness. Discussing how Silva's theoretical little changes may or may not have made a difference tonight does us no good if we don't also discuss how it may or may not have made a difference last week, but seldom can we ever know when a pitcher made a change that didn't work, so what's the point?
Remember how Silva was supposed to throw a splitter this year to combat tough lefties? Yeah. Safe to say I'm getting pretty sick of these things. They sound good on the surface, but there's so little actual substance in there that it's almost impossible to separate the wheat from the chaff, and...and now I see that Dave just put up a post about the same freaking thing. Uh. Son of a bitch...
9 recs |
41 comments
Comments
Great Post, Jeff
That’s why I read this blog. It’s just too bad that we don’t have good things to comment on. Instead, we just call out our own players and coaches on their bullshit.
Some people cut themselves. I root for the Mariners.
by ColbyInBoston on
Jul 9, 2008 3:11 AM PDT
reply
actions
0 recs
Is this like the personal catcher experiment?
Where M’s management won’t get it when results don’t line up to their expectations but they’ll “keep on truckin’” anyway?
by Frosty Raptor on
Jul 9, 2008 3:18 AM PDT
reply
actions
0 recs
That reminds me of this.
Link.
I reject your reality and substitute my own!
Also, I'm always down for some online Grand Theft Auto IV or Rock Band. Gamertag: Phildopip
by Phildopip on
Jul 9, 2008 7:32 AM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
The next GM...
...is gonna spend most of their time cleaning this kind of crap thinking out of the organization….
by rtang on
Jul 9, 2008 7:13 AM PDT
reply
actions
0 recs
... if said GM isn't more of the same
But I’ll give them a chance to come correct and pick the right person.
by Gomez on
Jul 9, 2008 8:22 AM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
I dunno, I think this sort of thing is endemic of pitchers in general
we just have enough mediocre/bad ones that we always get to hear about their tinkering.
by Jeff on
Jul 9, 2008 8:42 AM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Quick PF/x question
why does a lower Z represent more drop? How does it work (what axis is the Z value in relation to?)
by seattlebruin on
Jul 9, 2008 8:15 AM PDT
reply
actions
0 recs
Release point?
I reject your reality and substitute my own!
Also, I'm always down for some online Grand Theft Auto IV or Rock Band. Gamertag: Phildopip
by Phildopip on
Jul 9, 2008 8:31 AM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Wouldn't that make a larger number better though?
Like (z_release – z_final) = z_drop?
by seattlebruin on
Jul 9, 2008 8:34 AM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
pfx_z = vertical axis
It measures the vertical deviation of a given pitch from that expected of a pitch with no spin. Instead of going into all the physics, though, it’s easier to just say that a lower number implies more break. Fastballs are usually around 10-12, sinkers around 6-10, changeups around 4-8, sliders around 0-4, and curves below zero.
by Jeff on
Jul 9, 2008 8:47 AM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
I'm still confused, but I'll take your word on the results and look it up later
by seattlebruin on
Jul 9, 2008 8:50 AM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
A few things:
pfx_z = 1/2 * (z-acceleration – gravity) * time^2
by Jeff on
Jul 9, 2008 8:56 AM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Thanks
I am now considering switching my allegiance to the Jeff dictatorship or the J/M/G ticket
by seattlebruin on
Jul 9, 2008 9:03 AM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Heh, I always thought that it was measuring the difference between release point and final
rather than the effect of spin on the baseball regardless of gravity. Makes much more sense now.
by seattlebruin on
Jul 9, 2008 9:41 AM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
I should've had a snappy photoshop
to go with this.
by marc w on
Jul 9, 2008 11:38 AM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Hey Jeff (or anyone)
Where do you get GB/FB/LD rates for a specific game?
by tait644 on
Jul 9, 2008 9:14 AM PDT
reply
actions
0 recs
I use fangraph's game log data and work out the rates myself.
by BrianL on
Jul 9, 2008 9:19 AM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Those bastards over at USSM are always stealing your credit
by Last Fan Of Jose Lopez on
Jul 9, 2008 10:20 AM PDT
reply
actions
0 recs
Blog Docket #X50397Z2E-0709082B
Date: July 9th, 2008
Proceedings: Dave Cameron & Jeff Sullivan wrote similar articles on the inaccuracies in Geoff Baker’s attempted analysis of Carlos Silva’s “success” on July 8, 2008.
Notes:Further evidence towards the theory that Jeff Sullivan and Dave Cameron share a brain. Still looking for the third Stygian Witch. Possible sighting under several pseudonyms at DRaysBay and AthleticsNation. Reports of sightings at HalosHeaven completely ruled out.
My layout.spellcheckDefault goes to 11
by PositivePaul on
Jul 9, 2008 11:04 AM PDT
reply
actions
2 recs
Motion to suppress the PitchF/X data.
It’s black voodoo magic and doesn’t take into account the intangibles of the game.
by BrianL on
Jul 9, 2008 11:16 AM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Motion Denied
Insufficient grit and hustle in your argument.
My layout.spellcheckDefault goes to 11
by PositivePaul on
Jul 9, 2008 11:23 AM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Looking at SIlva's career stats
the difference between his reputation and the kind of pitcher he actually is is quite striking. I knew he wasn’t as good as advertised coming into the year, but he’s not anywhere near the kind of pitcher he’s supposed to be.
by acblue on
Jul 9, 2008 12:33 PM PDT
reply
actions
0 recs
He hasn't even been that much of a groundballer for quite a few years
45% GB rate since 2006. The league average is 44%.
by Jeff on
Jul 9, 2008 12:41 PM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
That's mainly what I was talking about.
His control/walk rate was the other part of it. He has a reputation as an extreme groundball pitcher that never ever walks anyone, and it’s just not true, and it hasn’t been for a while now.
by acblue on
Jul 9, 2008 1:11 PM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
He does throw a lot of strikes
but he clearly peaked in 2005,. and at this point he’s merely above average. The reason he doesn’t walk too many guys is that it’s entirely too easy to put the ball in play early in the count.
by Jeff on
Jul 9, 2008 1:28 PM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
That's more what I meant, I suppose.
He has an above-average walk rate, but because of his freakish 2005, he still has a reputation as vintage Maddux as far as walking people is concerned. I should be used to this sort of thing by now, but it’s still annoying.
by acblue on
Jul 9, 2008 1:52 PM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Here's a graph I made
of Silva’s last 14 starts that gameday has data for. It shows vertical break for every pitch gameday identified as a fastball:

by maalox on
Jul 9, 2008 12:35 PM PDT
reply
actions
6 recs
So what you're saying is that there's no real pattern at all to the sink on his fastball
nice work btw. Rec’d
by seattlebruin on
Jul 9, 2008 12:37 PM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
This must be Coach's alter ego...no doubt.
I fucking hate you Mariners
by kentroyals5 on
Jul 9, 2008 12:39 PM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
What are you using to measure break?
It doesn’t appear to be pfx_z or break length.
by Jeff on
Jul 9, 2008 12:43 PM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs











