I find this data very suspicious. A guy that throws in the mid 90's and, by all accounts I've read, gets good reports on his curve should have much higher spin rates.
Official Offseason Thread
- Thread starter Hudson2
- Start date
I find this data very suspicious. A guy that throws in the mid 90's and, by all accounts I've read, gets good reports on his curve should have much higher spin rates.
chop2chip
Well-known member
This isn’t a subject I have ventured far into...
Would it stand to reason that Anderson producing elite results despite poor spin rates mean he could be a prime candidate to ascend if he can refine his mechanics to tap into higher spin rates? Houston seems to gravitate towards this sort of pitcher.
Perhaps this course of reasoning is how you get another team to overpay for him in a trade. Either way, I don’t support the notion that we should trade Anderson just because his spin rate is low.
I do too, but it’s the only data we have.
I’ve cross checked these values on past lists with real MLB statcast data for prospects after they were promoted, and the values are accurate to within 100-200 RPM.
This is why Anderson is the single prospect I most want to see get a shot at the MLB level so I can see real data for myself. Data for Literally 1-2 breaking balls would be enough to tell us if the 1700 value is reasonable.
MadduxFanII
Swallowed by Mark Bowman
I assume there won't be any spring training Statcast data?
Average spin rates for all MLB sliders and curves in 2019:
https://baseballsavant.mlb.com/stat...aunch_speed&sort_order=desc&min_pas=0#results
A value of 1700 would be among the position players who pitched a little. It is hard to overstate how bad it is.
https://baseballsavant.mlb.com/stat...aunch_speed&sort_order=desc&min_pas=0#results
A value of 1700 would be among the position players who pitched a little. It is hard to overstate how bad it is.
BeanieAntics
Arbitration Eligible
Eyeballing it is probably the worst possible way to judge a breaking ball, but given the ridiculously low spin rates reported on Anderson I decided to watch some videos to see if there was anything noticeably bad about his curveball. I found this video where he throws 3-4 and they all looked fine for the most part. Nothing special, but enough bite to be an average MLB pitch. But like I said, I was just eyeballing it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1h7Qrn6Cats
There are a few other videos you can find too. I'm still worried that the reports may be accurate though.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1h7Qrn6Cats
There are a few other videos you can find too. I'm still worried that the reports may be accurate though.
i don't see how it's possible that his curve has as much spin as a position player's. that makes so little sense and it's very hard to believe.
BeanieAntics
Arbitration Eligible
Here's a pretty good look at all three of his pitches in slow motion, if anyone can infer anything out of this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tgygzB4auuw
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tgygzB4auuw
Does it make more sense than the alternative?
FG is only wrong about Anderson’s spin rate?
I’m skeptical too, but until we have actual data I can’t very well call that 1700 value wrong.
I mean he throws a circle change, which (if it's really good) could certainly have the appearance of a curve/slider.
Go find video of the breaking ball thrown by Pedro Baez. I’m going to guess it looks fine on video too.
I seriously doubt any of us can grade a breaking ball from 30-50 based on video.
Huh? Changes break arm side. Anderson performs better vs LHH, suggesting he has a good change.
Just kinda have to think that if there really was a concern about those spin rates on Anderson's breaking ball being right that someone would have mentioned it somewhere other than that one chat - it's not like that's something you'd be able to keep secret these days.
Also pretty tough to believe AA doesn't have the necessary money to sign Donaldson - if the Dodgers and Rangers aren't going beyond three years, you'd have to think he'd be a Gnat or Twin by now if that were the case.
If there actually is a chance that they're running up against payroll concerns, does a Waters/Wright or Anderson/filler package get you Marte and Archer? Obviously doesn't solve 3B, but allows you to keep Pache, most of the arms, the draft pick you pick up if Donaldson leaves, and you buy a year to continue hoping on Riley. Maybe even pivot to a deal for Seager centered around Riley. I'd think AA would have to sit down with Acuna and make sure he would handle being moved behind Freeman the right way (like Donaldson), but that would make for a really strong lineup and rotation.
Also pretty tough to believe AA doesn't have the necessary money to sign Donaldson - if the Dodgers and Rangers aren't going beyond three years, you'd have to think he'd be a Gnat or Twin by now if that were the case.
If there actually is a chance that they're running up against payroll concerns, does a Waters/Wright or Anderson/filler package get you Marte and Archer? Obviously doesn't solve 3B, but allows you to keep Pache, most of the arms, the draft pick you pick up if Donaldson leaves, and you buy a year to continue hoping on Riley. Maybe even pivot to a deal for Seager centered around Riley. I'd think AA would have to sit down with Acuna and make sure he would handle being moved behind Freeman the right way (like Donaldson), but that would make for a really strong lineup and rotation.
You're the one continually suggesting AA look for suckers - where's your great fleece job?
Just when we were all having a nice intelligent discussion, the boomer comes in and drops his typical dumb bomb.
Thanks for ruining the discussion.
How about Camargo for Lindor? Derrrhheerrpp. I’ve heard Camargo is a 3 win player if only given a chance!! Derrrpppp. He has a strong arm so must be a good defensive SS. Deeerrrrhhhherrrrrrrpppp!!
Last edited:
Yes he does have a good change, which is sort of what I'm getting at. Ian throws a circle change which has a similar release to a curve (twisting of the wrist) and also can at times have a 12-6 type of movement (James Shields is known to have a "sinking change"). I don't know how they many times they reviewed his pitches (or even the process on how they do it), but is it possible they simply thought they were reviewing his curve when they were actually reviewing his circle change?
Last edited:
Shields change has 7.8” of arm side run. His curve has 5.3” of glove side run. His rarely thrown a slider has 4.9” of glove side run. Whoever called it a “sinking change” had no idea what they were talking about. All changes “sink” compared to the fastball. His change has very typical movement.
Changes break arm side, even circle changes. No change I’ve analyzed is thrown with a “twisting of the wrist” to give it glove side spin. The whole point of a circle change, and all changes, is to let it come off the weaker fingers or a weaker grip to decrease the velocity.
I find it hard to believe any pitch grading system, even the eye test, is consistently confusing a change with a breaking ball.
Last edited:
striker42
Well-known member
I've read a couple places where scouts have placed Anderson's change ahead of his curve. The curve being more loopy than sharp. That's consistent with low spin rates. You can have a curveball with movement with a low spin rate. It's just not the sharp movement that's going to fool a major league hitter.
Anderson might be a pitcher that needs to develop another pitch if he wants to take advantage of his fastball/change combo. Like Fried did with the slider.
Anderson might be a pitcher that needs to develop another pitch if he wants to take advantage of his fastball/change combo. Like Fried did with the slider.
Pitched baseballs move due to magus force created by velocity, spin rate, and orientation of the spin axis. Dr Nathan has written many papers detailing this.
A huge spin rate that’s spinning on the wrong axis will have less movement than a lesser spin rate on a more efficient axis...this is known as spin efficiency. It is possible Anderson has a pitch with 1700 RPM at nearly 100% spin efficiency to produce a useable pitch.
There is no such thing as “late break”, “sharp break”, or “loopy break”. There is only magus force consistently acting on a pitch from the moment it leaves the hand, and causing movement away from its initial trajectory. All tracking data shows all pitches moving smoothly and consistent with constant forces applied to them.
A huge spin rate that’s spinning on the wrong axis will have less movement than a lesser spin rate on a more efficient axis...this is known as spin efficiency. It is possible Anderson has a pitch with 1700 RPM at nearly 100% spin efficiency to produce a useable pitch.
There is no such thing as “late break”, “sharp break”, or “loopy break”. There is only magus force consistently acting on a pitch from the moment it leaves the hand, and causing movement away from its initial trajectory. All tracking data shows all pitches moving smoothly and consistent with constant forces applied to them.