Look at Ray Ray Run

Coop copying me. Unreal.

Last spring: Adam Engle hit 380 with an 1100 OPS Matt Davidson hit 330 with a 1000 OPS Skole hit 311 with a 950 OPS Chris Volstad threw 14 innings and gave up 0 runs Bruce Rondon threw 5 innings and walked 1 guy Giolito threw 17 innings with a 2 ERA and 17ks. You get where this is going

Today tells us nothing about what nova will do in 2019.

People are moving nova to the pen because of a spring training game. Jeeze.

How anyone can read this post, and then the data I have posted, and think the above position is correct i will never ever know.

A higher percentage of high fastballs are hit for home runs than low fastballs. There are more low fastballs thrown so there are more home runs on those. Here is more data for you and an article you can read. Despite the league CHANGING as I said and guys becoming more low ball hitters than in the past, high pitches still allow for better production for hitters. For a long time, the strategy for facing a slugger was clear. “The best way to limit slugging percentage was to throw down and away and off the plate,” said former MLB catcher and current Chicago Cubs coach John Baker. Baker played from 2008 to 2014, at a time when the bottom was falling out of the strike zone and offense was dropping with it. In 2013, 36.5 percent of throws crossed the plate less than two feet off the ground, and hitters racked up a slash line of just .210/.295/.298 against those pitches. Meanwhile, hitters did considerably better against pitches more than three feet above the plate: .210/.351/.348. Then the league adjusted. More recently, “the guys that are the best guys in the world right now all seem to have this [Mike] Trout-type low-ball swing,” Baker said. Nowadays, the same low pitches that once got hitters out are getting slugged at a rate 20 points higher than in 2013 (.212/.301/.321). While production high in the zone is still decent (.203/.351/.362), the gap between the two types of pitches has closed significantly. 1 It seems as though a wave of young players entered the league with their swings geared to combat the knee-high strike, and that trend reduced the pitch’s effectiveness https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/pitchers-are-slowly-adapting-to-the-home-run-spike/ So yes, while people have become better low ball hitters, it's still better to live down than up. The nice thing about this article is that 538 discusses the rising strike zone too - the low strike hasnt even called like before so pitchers have been forced to put the ball more up in the zone making it more hittable. So yes, the gap has closed (I said this) but living up in the zone is still a good bit more dangerous than living down in the zone.

As the points have been disproven the argument has evolved into something entirely different than the original.

Where did I say it's easier to square one up? And no, you have shown me nothing to refute the two points I've made in this thread. Easier to elevate a high pitch - fact. High pitches have higher EV - fact.

Well dick, I quoted this post made by you to start the conversation so I have no idea why you're quoting a post I never responded too and stating I moved the goal posts. Maybe you can tell me to go to the batting cage again to prove a point.

Parkman literally quoted my sentence that said "its easier to elevate a high pitch than a low one" and said that's wrong when in fact, its literally 100% correct. Somehow I have moved the goal posts though.

My first post in the thread. It's easier to elevate the high pitch than the low one. I have somehow moved the goalposts though. Maybe head to sylvan and work on those reading skills bud.

The goal posts lol? So yes, you cant read.

1. I never said the game hasnt changed a bit - it has. An entire generation of players grew up in an era where the ball was kept down. This has led to players being more prepared for it. This has led to an increase in high fastball effectiveness - something me, myself, has discussed at length in regards to Quintana and now Lambert. 2. Just because players have become better doesnt mean it's easier to hit than a high fastball. In fact, even pitchers who live up in the zone more than others still throw the majority of their stuff down. Home run rates on pitches above the waste far exceed that of their counter (below the waste). This conversation has evolved quite a bit and my stance remains the same. Lower balls - fastballs or not - are more difficult to elevate than higher balls.

I honestly think you cant read. Its either that or you're wilfully ignorant to all of my posts in this thread.

Even pitchers that aren't throwing the ball low as often still throw the majority if pitches LOW in the zone. No one said anything about one pitch. Its location based and once again everything i have said is factually and statistically accurate.

Lol. The most effective pitch in 2016-2017 was a sinker thrown by zach Britton. Because he kept the pitch down. But that does not matter. Having someone tell me what pitchers are easier to hit is a good time though. Maybe someone else can tell me to hit the batting cage- because apparently my 18 years of baseball playing wasn't enough for me to draw conclusions. No one is saying oooo man I hope he throws me a low slider instead of a high fastball. In fact, off speed rates have gone up significantly league wide because they're harder to hit than fastballs.

Holy shit. I'm gonna shoot myself in the head. It debunks nothing. The entire premise of this discussion was they claimed it's easier to elevate a low pitch than a high one (wrong) and that exit velocity on high pitches is lower than low pitches (wrong.) Yet here you are quoting some nonsense. I literally already proved my point with actual data and outcomes. Facts. sorry if that bothers you.

As the chart shows Parkman. Average exit velocity: Low - 86.6 Middle - 86.8 High - 87 Pitches high in the zone not only have higher launch angles, but they also have higher exit velocity. I'm sure Parkman will say "no" and deny the facts though.

Yes, some pitchers have been good with them because an entire generation of hitters failed to see them frequently. As I said, all data has shown that low balls lead to lower BAA and fewer runs (hence why pitchers live DOWN in the zone in todays game and run scoring has dipped to levels that we haven't seen in the modern game). That doesn't mean that no one can be successful up in the zone. You are pointing to individual examples - I am pointing to the entirety of data for the entire league.

LOL no, it's literally not. I have posted a link already showing average LA of pitches based on placement of the zone - that showed that I was correct. I am presenting you the scientific reason for why it happens, and you deny that. Now you are talking launch angle + exit velocity when the point you claimed was it's easier to elevate a low pitch than a high one. Your other point isn't true either, ftr.

Let's put it this way before I give up on this explanation. You hit balls into the ground because you get on top of them - you hit them in the air because you get under them. It is WAY easier to get under a high pitch than a low when. The lower something is to the ground, the harder it is to get under it. That's basic stuff.

Doeant matter if it's a lazy pop up. Jesus christ. Its elevated. That's my point. Misses on balls low are grounders - misses on pitches high are pop ups. Because its easier and more likely to elevate high pitches than low. You said something that is factually wrong. No point in discussing it further.

Or.. play the game? You are mistaking velocity being less challenging low in the zone with the pitch being easier to hit. Pitches live down in the zone because it's harder to hit. It's one of the reasons trout is so dominant because be destroys low pitches in a low ball era.

Where did I claim players have a level swing? Pal, idk what to tell you. You are scientifically and statistically wrong here. I'm not going off baseball jargon.