MLB, Cardinals, Devin Patreon discussed on Effectively Wild: A FanGraphs Baseball Podcast

Automatic TRANSCRIPT

That are like, yeah, we'll just develop velocity in everybody. We can just develop below if we need it and you have works that are just really keen on strike throwing even if it comes with lower below. So there are different modes of successful pitching, even as we see league wide trends. And just you just got to be willing to say, that didn't work. Let's do a different thing, you know? And I think you're right that the common thread among all of the organizations that I think of as being particularly adept at pitching dev is a willingness to sort of meet the player where they are, and that doesn't mean that they don't try to improve different aspects of the player's game, but that they are not so committed to saying, you know, we have to all we have an approach. There's a way. And if you don't do that way, you might not have any use to us, you know, they look at a player and say, can we maximize the skill set you have and that might mean developing another pitch or changing a grip or helping you develop velocity, but they're willing to kind of work with a guy. And I think those are the works that tend to be able to navigate the changing trends that we see across the game, right? They're the ones that are the best positioned when they're bright. They're bright young analysts goes and works for somebody else because that happens too. I guess it can get you into trouble if you have a lot of success with a certain philosophy because then you could get complacent or you could say, this is working really well for us. So why would we go away from it? And then under your nose, the game changes in some way and maybe you miss out on the pitch design revolution and maybe your old strategy that was working so well isn't serving you so well anymore. So it is said if you're not constantly just kind of looking out for the new thing and evaluating new trends and where the game is going, then you could get caught flat footed, you could almost be a victim of your own success because you're like, hey, this is working great where the Cardinals, again. I'm not saying the cardinals are not investing in those things and doing those things as well. But I wouldn't say that they've necessarily been among the trailblazers at the Vanguard and I guess you can sort of understand why because they've been quite successful. So there aren't a lot of teams like the rays who seemingly are just constantly looking for what the next thing will be or inventing the next thing and maybe that's a product of the personnel they have in place. Maybe it's a product of their ownership spending constraints just kind of forcing the front office to always constantly be on the lookout or maybe that just becomes like your organizational ethos. That's our thing. We're always looking for the next thing, even if we find something that seems to be working, we're not going to just commit ourselves to that long term. Yeah, and if you wait long enough, the trend will just come back around. Probably. Yeah. Right, exactly. Yeah, I mean, there's been a bit of a sinker sensor resurgence lately, right after that pitch seemed to be on the outs and, hey, then suddenly the ball is dead again. And maybe you can bring back those pitches. So you never know. You never know. All right. Here's a question from Devin Patreon supporter in episode 1838 near the end there is a brief discussion of replay review signals in MLB and Japan and elsewhere. It was suggested that managers look to other signals for requesting a review if over the ear headphones become disconnected from the original act of review. This made me think of the save icon, a floppy disk that people born after 1995 may have never seen or used. Yet the disc remains a universal symbol that seems to be well understood. That made me wonder, are there other baseball symbols or language that are now divorced from their original usage in a similar way? And I think there are a lot of examples of that just in tech in other walks of life. I mean, just the fact that, I guess, you know, picking up with the save icon being a floppy disk. The phone icon is generally like an old over the ear kind of like folded up to your ear and that is not what most people's phones look like anymore, but we know what the phone icon looks like and you and I were old enough that we grew up with actual phones that looks like that, but not everyone. So I think there's a term for that, I believe. I think it's called a skeuomorph. If that's not the term, it should be. Because what a great word to get to say. It is true. Skew a morph. Yeah, I'm just a reading from the wiki here. It's a derivative object that retains ornamental design cues or attributes from structures that were necessary in the original, skew amorphous are typically used to make something new, feel familiar in an effort to speed understanding and acclimation. So for example, if you have electric lights like an electric chandelier that has like candle shaped bulbs or light fixtures, that kind of thing, they don't have to look like that. They still look like that. So they used to look like that. Yeah, they're a lot of the wiki mentions pottery embellished with imitation rivets, reminiscent of similar pots made of metal or a software calendar that imitates the appearance of binding on a paper desk calendar, right? Like if you look at your calendar on your phone, it might be an image of an actual paper calendar. The kind that you use still, I guess you use a notebook right now. What is this? Yeah. As a planner, I think it is different. It is, it is sort of in the same family, but it is a unique species of thing. I don't remember how biology works, but I think that's right. So I don't know if the word skeuomorph only applies to visible things or physical objects and whether you would use a different word for a word, but or for terminology, but I think there are a ton of these in baseball and I'm sure that our listeners, their minds are teaming with examples here. I was just thinking of a couple like shortstop. Yeah. Why do we call that the shortstop? Historically, I guess, shortstops tended to be short, but that is no longer the case. And I don't think that is why they were called short. Why are they called shortstop? No one really knows and remembers I'm reading from an MLB dot com piece here. Shortstop is such an everyday part of the game that you might never have stopped to think about what the heck it actually means according to MLB official historian John thorn, the position was created by Doc Adams, a member of the knickerbocker baseball club, one of the game's founding fathers in the owner of a heck of a beard. At the time, baseball wasn't a 9 man game, the only things required to field a team were a pitcher, a catcher and a defender at each base with a surplus players being placed in the outfield. This created some fielding issues however, the earliest baseballs were handmade and very light, and it was nearly impossible to throw them any significant distance, like, say, from the outfield to the infield. So atoms had an idea, position of Fielder in the short field, or shallow outfield, to help get the ball back into the infield more quickly and efficiently. It was like a relay man since most throws from the outfield came toward third base or home plate, and most batters pulled the ball, it only made sense for him to stand on the left side of the diamond as baseballs became harder they were capable of being hit and thrown farther, allowing the new shortstop to move into the infield. So we say short stop, no one remembers that that's the case, or even thinks about why we say shortstop necessarily. So that would be an example..

Coming up next