Btw there actually is a trend towards working on lowering Ks now.

The probably  most cutting edge of the data driven hitting coaches has worked with the Astros on that and wants to do it now with the cards too

https://theathletic.com/672009/2018/11/23/cardinals-aim-to-improve-contact-rate-in-2019-and-have-innovative-new-hitting-coach-to-lead-movement/

However it is not the old "just put it in play and hit a hard grounder the other way" but the goal is to elevate the ball and still improve contact. If you can improve contact without sacrificing power it is a big win. But you don't sacrifice power for more contact anymore.

On 11/17/2018 at 8:47 AM, dominik-keul@gmx.de said:

Thome is great but his swing views are very old school, in the mlb shows the did swing analysis he demonstrated stuff he totally not did when he played. That is quite common with star players, they often have a different feel than what they actually did. Everyone interpretates cues differently and many greats developed a great swing with the old school cues but many lesser talents take the cues literally and fail big time.

Old school coaching was throwing the same cues at every player and hoping a small percentage becomes really good with the others you just blame the players that they were " not coachable".

Now in good modern training you teach it more literally and try to adapt to the different learning channels (visual, kinesthetic, audio...) to reach more athletes instead of just relying on natural talent.

I love thome but I don't think he has the desire to learn all the technology and biomechanical stuff because what he learned as a kid in the 80s made him a 600 hr guy, he can't really relate to the struggles of lesser talents.

If you take a former player, take a guy like Donaldson or Turner who learned it late in the analytical way but those guys are currently still playing because that analytical modern stuff only became really big the last 5-7 years.

I just want to state I'm not advocating Thome be hitting coach, I just think he is a very interesting character in this organization.  I think his one-on-one coaching has been more in line with restoring confidence in players than technique. 

Davidson was clearly under water and it seemed to be a mental issue. That he has had two years in MLB is awesome for him and was not likely 4 years ago. It's always terrible to watch when a player gets so close before it all falls apart.

On 11/25/2018 at 1:54 AM, dominik-keul@gmx.de said:

Btw there actually is a trend towards working on lowering Ks now.

The probably  most cutting edge of the data driven hitting coaches has worked with the Astros on that and wants to do it now with the cards too

https://theathletic.com/672009/2018/11/23/cardinals-aim-to-improve-contact-rate-in-2019-and-have-innovative-new-hitting-coach-to-lead-movement/

However it is not the old "just put it in play and hit a hard grounder the other way" but the goal is to elevate the ball and still improve contact. If you can improve contact without sacrificing power it is a big win. But you don't sacrifice power for more contact anymore.

It would be really great if the white sox ever tried to get out in front of something instead of consistently straining to be juuuust above average across the board.

4 minutes ago, bmags said:

I just want to state I'm not advocating Thome be hitting coach, I just think he is a very interesting character in this organization.  I think his one-on-one coaching has been more in line with restoring confidence in players than technique. 

Davidson was clearly under water and it seemed to be a mental issue. That he has had two years in MLB is awesome for him and was not likely 4 years ago. It's always terrible to watch when a player gets so close before it all falls apart.

Honestly, the more people that a player has around to talk to, the better as far as I am concerned.  No one coach is going to be able to reach everyone.  They could be saying exactly what needs to change, but not getting through to the player.  Look at Yoan.  Do you honestly think it took someone 5 months to tell him to start swinging at pitches on the fringe of the zone a little more?  No way.

Having a guy like big Jim around can do nothing but help. 

39 minutes ago, bmags said:

It would be really great if the white sox ever tried to get out in front of something instead of consistently straining to be juuuust above average across the board.

Yeah, I wonder why they didn't try some stuff in the rebuild like the rays did with the opener. The six seem to be rather  conservative and only follow trends if they are sure that it will work and others do it already.

1 minute ago, dominik-keul@gmx.de said:

Yeah, I wonder why they didn't try some stuff in the rebuild like the rays did with the opener. The six seem to be rather  conservative and only follow trends if they are sure that it will work and others do it already.

Ding ding ding...

Here is where the white sox would counter:

- College relief pitching scouting

- International slot money trades

There is also some weird stuff where our changeup usage has been super high at points, hard to know cause there and sox wouldn't say.

https://theathletic.com/681387/2018/12/07/sarris-the-next-moneyball-is-already-happening-all-around-us-in-the-wild-west-of-player-development/

Great article by Eno Sarris on the changes and money being spent on coaching and player development. Worth the read!!!!!

Article about lisle if you are a subscriber 

https://theathletic.com/701875/2018/12/09/the-internets-most-followed-hitting-coach-is-now-working-for-the-white-sox-and-hes-eager-to-prove-himself/

 

I was going to play devil's advocate in favor of the low-OPS guy, on the basis that he could be better if he were a high-OBP guy (a la Madrigal, if he managed to walk more) and the other was a big power but sucky at everything else type (a la Davidson), but it wasn't that powerful in the end. I created a .700 OPS guy who had 1x homerun and walked enough to have an OBP of .365 and an .800 OPS guy who hit 35 bombs and didn't walk much so his OBP was .317. All to make a point that a guy who can get on base a ton is good for the sluggers behind him, but I'd probably still take the 35 bombs over a .048 higher OBP. So, meh.

Anyways, even though that failed, I created an Excel spreadsheet that I wanted to share. All you have to do is plug in the numbers for each type of hit, as well as walks and strikeouts, and it gives you calculated BAs, OBPs, SLGs, OPSs, and BABIPs. I was just goofing around at first, but I'm going to keep this piece for future use.

Player Comp.xlsx

51 minutes ago, The Sir said:

I was going to play devil's advocate in favor of the low-OPS guy, on the basis that he could be better if he were a high-OBP guy (a la Madrigal, if he managed to walk more) and the other was a big power but sucky at everything else type (a la Davidson), but it wasn't that powerful in the end. I created a .700 OPS guy who had 1x homerun and walked enough to have an OBP of .365 and an .800 OPS guy who hit 35 bombs and didn't walk much so his OBP was .317. All to make a point that a guy who can get on base a ton is good for the sluggers behind him, but I'd probably still take the 35 bombs over a .048 higher OBP. So, meh.

 Anyways, even though that failed, I created an Excel spreadsheet that I wanted to share. All you have to do is plug in the numbers for each type of hit, as well as walks and strikeouts, and it gives you calculated BAs, OBPs, SLGs, OPSs, and BABIPs. I was just goofing around at first, but I'm going to keep this piece for future use.

Player Comp.xlsx

Very interesting, thanks for sharing. I honestly might prefer the Madrigal-esque guy in that scenario purely due to the substantial OBP difference. but not sure

8 hours ago, Jose Abreu said:

Very interesting, thanks for sharing. I honestly might prefer the Madrigal-esque guy in that scenario purely due to the substantial OBP difference. but not sure

Yeah, I'm not sure myself. Because OBP for Player A was higher than SLG, I was beginning to wonder if this player even existed. The past few years suggest not, although Mauer/Freese/Markakis came close various times (I thought of Juan Pierre but he never did it), but a FanGraphs article from 2008 showed that he does, most notably in the form of Luis Castillo, Ozzie Smith, and Willie Randolph. So this guy used to be out there.

I think the better point is that each player has its use. I want Player A leading off or maybe in the 2 slot, but Player B can hit 4th (or, on a team that isn't the 2013-2018 White Sox and actually wants to score lots of runs...7th). It's dumb to pose it as one or the other because these two players aren't quite job competition for each other.

Lisle just got name dropped on the MLB Statcast podcast. It was quick but they just said how Daniel Descalso worked with him to rebuild his swing and then set career highs in slugging, on base, and homeruns while dropping his groundball rate to a career low.