Look at Ray Ray Run

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.

Pal, I dont know what to tell you. Launch angles on low balls are significantly lower than those on high pitches. It's basic physics. That's why sinker ballers who get a lot of grounders don't throw pitches up in the zone. You are greatly misunderstanding the terminology of dropping the barrel. If your bat is coming to the ball with the barrel pointing nearly 45 degrees towards the ground, you're not going to have much success. The way you are describing dropping the barrel would coincide with dropping ones back shoulder which no hitter wants.

It baffles me how anyone would think low balls have a higher launch angle than high balls. Here's an article stating how that is wrong. https://community.fangraphs.com/effect-of-pitch-selection-on-launch-angle-and-exit-velocity/ It is basic math - the higher the pitch the higher the exit angle. Low balls are harder to lift.

No. Physics doesn't say this is wrong. My goodness. And no, low pitches are not easier to square up. A miss on a high pitch will lead to a pop up - a miss on a low pitch will lead to a grounder. Higher pitches induce more fly balls and pop ups. I played college baseball.

No. I'm not sure why people think hitters take dramatic upper cut swings that lead to dropping the barrel head down on the ball. Even people who are fly ball oriented don't like continually dropping the barrel down on the ball. You prefer to drive through the ball - not sweep it. The high fastball is easier to square up - hence why it's thrown less.

Theres a reason pitchers have spent the past two decades living down in the zone and it's not because they like being smacked around. It is easier to elevate a high pitch than a low one. The high fastball is making a comeback though.

Launch angle wasnt "created." It has always existed.

The funny thing is rutschman is having an amazing year too. Witt would still be my pick. Kid has a lot of Corey Seager in him but he's an even better athlete. I'd take rutsch second but catchers just wear down so fast usually. Let's relax on Vaughn being best in 20 years. Its early.

Yes. They are 26. Harper could average about 5 war a year the next 5 years (until he's 31) and hed have the same career WAR as Mike Cameron. Both guys have a lot to prove and do before you can call them 1st ballot hall of famers. Harper has 180 career homers. Could both become it? Sure but it's less likely that they arent both 1st ballot hofers than it is that they are.

No established mlb starter is going to sign somewhere to be used as a long reliever on days where the match ups suit him. That implies not having a set day you pitch and it greatly reduces your potential statistical output reducing your future earnings. Reread the post I quoted. I am not saying the opener can never be used. I'm saying you're not creating a 13 man team of arms all doing this every day.

Reread the post I responded too. It was in relation to using it everyday I thought.

Sure, so no one good for an extended period of time. Unless arbitration changes, the union and agents will be furious and won't stand for it. Teams that do that will see pitchers not wanting to play or pitch there. If the Rays would have done this with Blake Snell last year they would have gotten chewed up by everyone.