Lincecum's Velocity Up

I would have made this an image, but I wasn't sure if I had the format right, and you can't preview Fanshots.

Anyway, his velocity was way up in his last start. I know he was doing great before it, but it's good to see the velocity back up, as it seemed his FB had lost effectiveness.

over 2 years ago MonkeyChow 14 comments 0 recs |

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

I haven’t caught the Giants lately, but was his last start at home or away? You really need to only look at home starts by PFX to get accurate velocity readings. You remove some of the stadium bias that way.

Bay City Ball

by xanthan on May 26, 2009 7:24 AM PDT reply actions

Well it was on the road against the Padres, IIRC, but his second start was also in Petco, and the velocity is up since then.

Proud father of Barry Zito. As long as he keeps throwing strikes, that is.

by MonkeyChow on May 26, 2009 8:23 AM PDT up reply actions

So that makes sense to look at game-to-game changes in velocity. But shouldn’t we really be looking at whether his average velocity on the season is up or down, to eliminate random effects in single games? Then in that case, wouldn’t we remove stadium bias by averaging over many stadiums (assuming stadiums biases are randomly distributed), or maybe even averaging the away games (since there may be a change in the AT&T gun)?

by FPTV on May 26, 2009 7:58 AM PDT reply actions

woops.

should’ve been a reply to xanthan specifically.

by FPTV on May 26, 2009 7:58 AM PDT up reply actions

interesting that his fastballs, as a whole, seem to be within a tighter range this year.

Psycho killer, qu'est-ce que c'est?

by shikantaza on May 26, 2009 10:34 AM PDT reply actions

They might just be getting better at identifying pitches.

I doubt Lincecum threw as many 86/87 MPH fastballs as the graphs of 2007 and 2008 suggest.

VAE PVTO DEVS FIO

by Bhaakon on May 26, 2009 11:38 AM PDT up reply actions

true

I remember seeing lots of changeups last year that the gun listed as 87 mph (maybe jacked up a little, but still)

Less arm, more talk. Raisingcain is a GAMER.
Adopted Giant: Henry Sosa

by raisingcain on May 26, 2009 3:12 PM PDT up reply actions

So, as an Engineer

Who specializes currently in data acquisition and just general measurement I would be extremely skeptical of comparing results from one game to another too closely.

I really don’t think I would trust these setups to anymore than +- 2 mph.

In other words, if his FB measures 94 in one stadium and 92 in another, I wouldn’t think twice about it.

McC's Outstanding Newcomer '08.

by FairweatherFan on May 26, 2009 3:21 PM PDT reply actions

What about the same stadium? Or would it also change game to game.

Proud father of Barry Zito. As long as he keeps throwing strikes, that is.

by MonkeyChow on May 26, 2009 3:27 PM PDT up reply actions

Even same stadium, game to game

I wouldn’t expect the repeatability to be that great.

I mean really when you think about it, 1 mph is ~ 1% of full scale for a radar gun setup to measure pitches. +- 1% accuracy on the consumer – grade instrument itself is pretty good.

Then you have to factor in everything else. Temperature, humidity, altitude etc – all factors that could result in a different velocity on a pitch even with the exact same motion/force being applied. Density of the air will have a significant effect on velocity. It’s well documented for batted balls… the exact same principals apply for thrown balls.

In my opinion, It’s entirely reasonable to have a pitcher throw the EXACT same pitch in two different circumstances and have the measured velocity vary as much as 3 mph. Maybe even more.

So, just like everything else in life, You really need a large sample that is filled with presumptively random variation to get any kind of idea towards trends.

Lincecum pitching 94 one start and 92 the next does not constitute such a sample. Perhaps Lincecum pitching 94 one season and 92 the next might, but I’m not sure. One would really have to look at the variation with a known constant – force device (like some sort of calibrated pitching machine) to figure that out.

I find it amusing when people get up at arms because pitcher X has “lost” or “gained” 1 mph on his fastball from one start to the next – because it’s highly likely not true.

McC's Outstanding Newcomer '08.

by FairweatherFan on May 26, 2009 4:03 PM PDT up reply actions

FWIW

People here at work are subject to the same thing – it’s called false precision.

We have machinery that is supposed to operate within certain limits. If the alarm temperature is 350 degrees, other engineers will sign off / ok stuff operating at 349 all day long.

But as soon as it flips to 350 it’s a goddamn fire drill shut it all down oh god the sky is falling.

What they fail to appreciate is that the instrument used to measure the temperature (say, a thermocouple) is only accurate to +-2.5%, and when the gauge said 349, the real temperature was just as likely 356 as it was 342.

But people see “349” on a gauge, and they assume that to be 100% infallible, just like sports fans do when they see “94 mph” up on the stadium gun or on pitch fx.

No instrument is perfect, and most are fairly imperfect.

McC's Outstanding Newcomer '08.

by FairweatherFan on May 26, 2009 4:10 PM PDT up reply actions

Considering this

It’s kind of surprising how consistent Lincecum’s velocity has been this year (up until his last start, anyway).

VAE PVTO DEVS FIO

by Bhaakon on May 26, 2009 3:51 PM PDT up reply actions

Aside from all the different stadium/radar gun stuff mentioned above, I would point out that even last year there was some variation from start to start, velocity-wise. So even if he has lost 2-3 mph on his fastball, that would put him consistently at 92 instead of 95 and occasionally having a start where he throws 95 instead of 97 (like last season). I’m more interested in seeing how he does in his next few starts.

Less arm, more talk. Raisingcain is a GAMER.
Adopted Giant: Henry Sosa

by raisingcain on May 26, 2009 4:58 PM PDT reply actions