2023 Prospects

[Bellhorn04]

Control: hitting the strike zone

Command: hitting the mitt

 

I think that is the general gist.

 

But isn't the general objective to hit the mitt?

 

If he misses the mitt and throws it over the heart of the plate and it gets hit 500 feet, does the pitcher still get credited with "control"?

[mvp 78]

But isn't the general objective to hit the mitt?

 

If he misses the mitt and throws it over the heart of the plate and it gets hit 500 feet, does the pitcher still get credited with "control"?

 

Yes! If he throws every pitch over the strike zone but misses the target, the pitcher gets credit for control.

[moonslav59]

What follows is a post where moon tries to convince me that I can never admit to being wrong.

 

You have said every one of your posts are perfect.

[5GoldGlovesOF,75]

But isn't the general objective to hit the mitt?

 

If he misses the mitt and throws it over the heart of the plate and it gets hit 500 feet, does the pitcher still get credited with "control"?

 

Not necessarily -- often, splitters, curves and change-ups are thrown by design to hit the dirt. If a guy leaves one up or hangs one, and gets taken deep, that's a lack of command.

 

Schilling's goal was to make batters take strikes in the zone, and swing at pitches out of the zone.

 

A lot of it has to do with delivery and deception...

[mvp 78]

And just like that, the perfect post predicted the rise of the moon.

[notin]

But isn't the general objective to hit the mitt?

 

If he misses the mitt and throws it over the heart of the plate and it gets hit 500 feet, does the pitcher still get credited with "control"?

 

But a pitcher has control if an attempt to throw a low inside pitch hits the high outside part of the strike zone. Control is hitting the zone; command is hitting the part of the zone you’re supposed to…

[Dipre]

But a pitcher has control if an attempt to throw a low inside pitch hits the high outside part of the strike zone. Control is hitting the zone; command is hitting the part of the zone you’re supposed to…

 

This is correct.

[moonslav59]

But a pitcher has control if an attempt to throw a low inside pitch hits the high outside part of the strike zone. Control is hitting the zone; command is hitting the part of the zone you’re supposed to…

 

I get the distinction, but I think a guy who misses his target by the length of the long diagonal of the K zone, often should not be labelled as having more "control" than one who misses by a half inch out of the K-Zone and 1 inch from the target.

 

I realize "control" has a different connotation in baseball, but maybe a different word should be used. Missing by a couple feet or more does not look like control, to me.

[Dipre]

I get the distinction, but I think a guy who misses his target by the length of the long diagonal of the K zone, often should not be labelled as having more "control" than one who misses by a half inch out of the K-Zone and 1 inch from the target.

 

I realize "control" has a different connotation in baseball, but maybe a different word should be used. Missing by a couple feet or more does not look like control, to me.

 

The connotation is fine Moon. What are you going on about?

[Bellhorn04]

The distinction is a totally arbitrary and made-up one, but that's fine...

[Dipre]

The distinction is a totally arbitrary and made-up one, but that's fine...

 

But it's one that's been used for decades, and also one that makes sense.

 

Control: Ability to throw strikes.

Command: Ability for those strikes to hit the area of the strike zone the pitcher and catcher want them to hit.

 

There have been a lot of examples of pitchers with good command but no control (The Zambranos, especially Victor, with what the broadcasters referred to as effectively wild), and control but no command (See: Kyle Farnsworth, Joel Zumaya, or most of the early aught flamethrowers).

[moonslav59]

The connotation is fine Moon. What are you going on about?

 

I said, I get it.

 

I just think the word choice was wrong, but it's not worth trying to change it, now.

[Bellhorn04]

But it's one that's been used for decades, and also one that makes sense.

 

Control: Ability to throw strikes.

Command: Ability for those strikes to hit the area of the strike zone the pitcher and catcher want them to hit.

 

There have been a lot of examples of pitchers with good command but no control (The Zambranos, especially Victor, with what the broadcasters referred to as effectively wild), and control but no command (See: Kyle Farnsworth, Joel Zumaya, or most of the early aught flamethrowers).

 

This is what I don't get. How can you have command without having control?

[moonslav59]

Bell's gonna love this hypothetical:

 

Pitcher A aims for the middle of the plate, no matter where his catcher wants him to throw. He misses the target every time, but is off by just enough that almost all his pitches are near the edge of the K zone but are in the strike zone. (He's maybe 8-12+ inches off target every pitch.) We say he has great control but poor command, as he significantly misses the mitt almost every time.

 

Pitcher B aims for the target set by the catcher's mitt and misses within an inch or two almost every time, but often to side that makes him miss the K zone. He misses the K zone more than pitchers A, and we say he has bad control, because of all the out-of-K zone pitches he throws, but he has good command, because he is almost always within an inch or two of the intended target.

 

I get the distinction and connotations attached to each word, but it rubs me the wrong way to say pitcher A has better control of his pitches.

 

[notin]

This is what I don't get. How can you have command without having control?

 

I don’t get that either.

 

I can see having control but no command, but not the other way around…

[Dipre]

But it does happen. Some guys are super wild, and barely throw strikes, but when they do, it's picture perfect. Go watch a couple of the few good starts Victor Zambrano had in 2004, and you'll see exactly what I mean. Dude's all over the place in the same AB, but the strikes he does throw are usually in the corners, and low in the strike zone, as if he was painting. Pure insanity.

[moonslav59]

This is what I don't get. How can you have command without having control?

 

Let's say the catcher puts his mitt right on the edge of the K zone, but close enough that the ump will call a strike 99% of the time, if you hit the mitt every time.

 

Pitcher A misses the mitt by 1/2 inch, but to the K zone side. Pitcher B misses the mitt by 1/2 inch, but to the out of zone size.

 

In theory, Pitcher A has great control and good to great command.

Pitcher B has horrible control but good to great command, as he misses the mitt by the same amount as pitcher A.

 

Is this correct?

 

It just seems off to me, for some reason, although I get the definitions applied by people who analyze pitchers.

[Dipre]

Let's say the catcher puts his mitt right on the edge of the K zone, but close enough that the ump will call a strike 99% of the time, if you hit the mitt every time.

 

Pitcher A misses the mitt by 1/2 inch, but to the K zone side. Pitcher B misses the mitt by 1/2 inch, but to the out of zone size.

 

In theory, Pitcher A has great control and good to great command.

Pitcher B has horrible control but good to great command, as he misses the mitt by the same amount as pitcher A.

 

Is this correct?

 

It just seems off to me, for some reason, although I get the definitions applied by people who analyze pitchers.

 

Can't quantify it on a single pitch.

[moonslav59]

I don’t get that either.

 

I can see having control but no command, but not the other way around…

 

I guess if you come very close to the target set by your catcher, but always to the non K-zone side. You have "command," because you just barely miss the target, but poor control, because it's often outside the K zone.

[moonslav59]

Can't quantify it on a single pitch.

 

I'm saying what if this happens 90% of the time?

 

Catchers rarely set the target right down the middle.

[Dipre]

Player A throws 65% of his pitches in the strike zone, but about half of those end up in the wheelhouse area of the zone. That player has good control, but not good command.

Player B throws 65% of his pitches in the strike zone, but about 15% of those end up in the wheelhouse area of the zone. That player has good command and control.

Player C throws 48% of his pitches in the strike zone, but about 15% of those end up in the wheelhouse area of the zone. That player has good command but not good control.

 

This oversimplifies things, as a lot of pitches are thrown out of the zone on purpose, but you get the gist of it.

[5GoldGlovesOF,75]

Player A throws 65% of his pitches in the strike zone, but about half of those end up in the wheelhouse area of the zone. That player has good control, but not good command.

Player B throws 65% of his pitches in the strike zone, but about 15% of those end up in the wheelhouse area of the zone. That player has good command and control.

Player C throws 48% of his pitches in the strike zone, but about 15% of those end up in the wheelhouse area of the zone. That player has good command but not good control.

 

This oversimplifies things, as a lot of pitches are thrown out of the zone on purpose, but you get the gist of it.

 

Not bad -- Player C is harder to hit, but not as reliable than A or B?

 

Here's a chart from a new MLB.com article about Monty... not sure their formula (but it does show that Burnes is still a good option):

 

Pitchers with highest in-zone run value in 2023

Regular and postseason combined

 

Gerrit Cole: +65 runs prevented

Blake Snell: +56 runs prevented

Sonny Gray: +53 runs prevented

Zac Gallen: +49 runs prevented

Kodai Senga: +49 runs prevented

Kyle Bradish: +48 runs prevented

Cristian Javier: +46 runs prevented

Corbin Burnes: +45 runs prevented

Zack Wheeler: +44 runs prevented

Jordan Montgomery: +43 runs prevented

[moonslav59]

Player A throws 65% of his pitches in the strike zone, but about half of those end up in the wheelhouse area of the zone. That player has good control, but not good command.

Player B throws 65% of his pitches in the strike zone, but about 15% of those end up in the wheelhouse area of the zone. That player has good command and control.

Player C throws 48% of his pitches in the strike zone, but about 15% of those end up in the wheelhouse area of the zone. That player has good command but not good control.

 

This oversimplifies things, as a lot of pitches are thrown out of the zone on purpose, but you get the gist of it.

 

We understand the set definitions of the terms used.

 

I'm just saying, it goes against intuition to look at my examples of picther A & B and say the guy who misses the mitt by a wide margin, almost every time has "better control" than I guy who misses the mitt by 1/2 inch almost every time, but always to the non K-zone side has "poor control."

 

The word control has long-standing connotations to it from other uses of the word.

 

I'm fine with using two terms to distinguish between two different areas of pitcher analyzation, but it just seems counterintuitive to me to say pitcher A had better control than pitcher B, because more of his way off the mitt pitches end up being stikes.

 

I'm not trying to start an argument or lobby for a change in terms, but it's hard for me to think a guy who misses the mitt by as much as "A" does to say he has great control.

[mvp 78]

Command is a myth. It's just whether a pitcher is clutch or not.

[Dipre]

Command is a myth. It's just whether a pitcher is clutch or not.

 

Aces.

[moonslav59]

Command is a myth. It's just whether a pitcher is clutch or not.

 

Post of the week.

[moonslav59]

I’m thinking following the farm might be more interesting, fun and satisfying than the big club.