Keith Law

[Terminator]

Can you provide a real life example of a player that fits this profile?

 

There are tons of them. A lot of them are in fact relievers with dominating stuff that they don't have to pinpoint to be effective. I think it's hard to pinpoint because command seems to be more of a scouting type thing that isn't easily translated into stats. I think Baseball Info Solutions is trying to keep track of it now though. I think you guys are too quick to dismiss the two as being different things but I do think that in practice they often correlate to the point that the are indistinguishable for most pitchers. I also agree that Keith Law is full of s*** when he says that top of the line stuff and good control but below average command isn't "starter quality." That's a joke.

 

I've read a few sabre-y articles on this before and if memory serves me right I think Ted Lilly is the poster boy for having s*** command but good control anyway and he did it not even by throwing the ball over the plate but by getting hitters to swing so often at his pitches outside of the zone.

 

Clayton Kershaw is a guy who has/had outstanding stuff, didn't really walk people, but he doesn't have great command either.

 

This article (https://www.baseballprospectus.com/news/article/31022/prospectus-feature-command-and-control/) which tries to prove that guys with good command get extra strike calls much in the way that a good framing catcher can get extra strike calls suggests that Kershaw doesn't have great command. It mentions Luis Perdomo as a guy who throws a lot of strikes but has poor command but I looked and it seems like his walk rate is probably about league average or so.

[TheHurl]

http://www.reactiongifs.com/r/2011/12/Gladiator_Thumb_Down_01.gif

[Laika]

I've read a few sabre-y articles on this before and if memory serves me right I think Ted Lilly is the poster boy for having s*** command but good control anyway and he did it not even by throwing the ball over the plate but by getting hitters to swing so often at his pitches outside of the zone.

 

Clayton Kershaw is a guy who has/had outstanding stuff, didn't really walk people, but he doesn't have great command either.

 

This doesn't make any sense.

 

Some guys have whiff pitches that can get swinging strikes out of the zone at a very high frequency, but that has nothing to do with the control vs. command thing that scouts talk about. They literally say that the ability to put the baseball in the strike zone is different from the ability to put the baseball on the corners, as if it is possible to be bad at one of the two skills but great at the other.

 

I think this is kind of a case of overfitting and I don't really think I could ever be convinced otherwise. Sure, you can find specific historical pitchers where maybe it seems like their results demonstrate some kind of difference between the two things, but basic logic should tell anybody that the distinction is f***ing bunk and any mental model where control and command are different parameters is overly complicated and stupid as s***.

[Terminator]

This doesn't make any sense.

 

Some guys have whiff pitches that can get swinging strikes out of the zone at a very high frequency, but that has nothing to do with the control vs. command thing that scouts talk about. They literally say that the ability to put the baseball in the strike zone is different from the ability to put the baseball on the corners, as if it is possible to be bad at one of the two skills but great at the other.

 

I think this is kind of a case of overfitting and I don't really think I could ever be convinced otherwise. Sure, you can find specific historical pitchers where maybe it seems like their results demonstrate some kind of difference between the two things, but basic logic should tell anybody that the distinction is f***ing bunk and any mental model where control and command are different parameters is overly complicated and stupid as s***.

 

My example was probably s*** but the two things are different. It sounds like you've already made up your mind but I'll try again anyway.

 

Here are the definitions as I understand them, which are just copied from BP. Control is the ability to simply keep the ball within the strike zone, though not necessarily within any particular location of the strike zone. Command is the ability to precisely locate pitches, in or out of the zone, with the goal of keeping each pitch out of the heart of the plate.

 

Where you're wrong IMO is when you say "They literally say that the ability to put the baseball in the strike zone is different from the ability to put the baseball on the corners, as if it is possible to be bad at one of the two skills but great at the other." It's easily possible and quite common but probably only one way and that way is having control and not command. It's hard to provide examples because there aren't really stats for it. Baseball Info Solutions keeps track of command but I don't have access to it.

 

TL;DR. Think of it as control being a good skill to have but command being a better, more specific and encompassing skill. Basic logic (to borrow your term) is that being able to throw the ball over the plate is good and takes some skill, but pinpointing the baseball is kind of hard and takes greater skill.

[Spanky__99]

It's actually hilarious how triggering Klaw is on this board. I can't tell if you trigger everyone more or he does. Everybody get's prospects wrong.

 

I think it's more of how condescending he is, I don't mind reading his evaluations, this one's a bit of a head-scratcher, though.

[BlueRocky]

I think you guys are reading way too much into Keith Law’s thoughtless comment that maybe took 2 seconds to think about and probably mistaken Thornton for Reid-Foley because he literally has watched 5 minutes of Blue Jays baseball all season.

[Terminator]

I think you guys are reading way too much into Keith Law’s thoughtless comment that maybe took 2 seconds to think about and probably mistaken Thornton for Reid-Foley because he literally has watched 5 minutes of Blue Jays baseball all season.

 

If he confused Thornton with SRF then his comment actually makes some sense. He seemed to make several comments about it though like he meant what he was saying.

[King]

I think you guys are reading way too much into Keith Law’s thoughtless comment that maybe took 2 seconds to think about and probably mistaken Thornton for Reid-Foley because he literally has watched 5 minutes of Blue Jays baseball all season.

 

very wrong

[Laika]

TL;DR. Think of it as control being a good skill to have but command being a better, more specific and encompassing skill. Basic logic (to borrow your term) is that being able to throw the ball over the plate is good and takes some skill, but pinpointing the baseball is kind of hard and takes greater skill.

 

So you agree that they are different degrees of the exact same skill. Good.

 

Being able to hit a baseball at 110 mph is good. Being able to hit a baseball at 118mph is harder and takes a greater amount of the same skill.

 

Being able to throw 95mph is good. Being able to throw 101mph is harder and takes a greater amount of the same skill.

Edited April 12, 2019 by Laika

[King]

The fact that we even talk about control is kind of stupid. Every professional pitcher has "control" (ability to throw a strike when he wants to). You don't get to this level without being able to throw a strike. And if he doesn't, his command is probably a 20.

[Olerud363]

This doesn't make any sense.

 

Some guys have whiff pitches that can get swinging strikes out of the zone at a very high frequency, but that has nothing to do with the control vs. command thing that scouts talk about. They literally say that the ability to put the baseball in the strike zone is different from the ability to put the baseball on the corners, as if it is possible to be bad at one of the two skills but great at the other.

 

I think this is kind of a case of overfitting and I don't really think I could ever be convinced otherwise. Sure, you can find specific historical pitchers where maybe it seems like their results demonstrate some kind of difference between the two things, but basic logic should tell anybody that the distinction is f***ing bunk and any mental model where control and command are different parameters is overly complicated and stupid as s***.

 

Over the years I think we've had two truly smart guys post, Nox and Laika. Occasionally they are a little annoying, overconfident, and condescending, but true smart guys always are, as those techniques are useful to get free stuff (ie climb the corporate ladder), and if you're truly smart, you never say no to free stuff. Still always fun to see the smart guys turn it on and call out ********.

[Slade]

The fact that we even talk about control is kind of stupid. Every professional pitcher has "control" (ability to throw a strike when he wants to). You don't get to this level without being able to throw a strike. And if he doesn't, his command is probably a 20.

 

SRF got here.

[Omar]

My example was probably s*** but the two things are different. It sounds like you've already made up your mind but I'll try again anyway.

 

Here are the definitions as I understand them, which are just copied from BP. Control is the ability to simply keep the ball within the strike zone, though not necessarily within any particular location of the strike zone. Command is the ability to precisely locate pitches, in or out of the zone, with the goal of keeping each pitch out of the heart of the plate.

 

Where you're wrong IMO is when you say "They literally say that the ability to put the baseball in the strike zone is different from the ability to put the baseball on the corners, as if it is possible to be bad at one of the two skills but great at the other." It's easily possible and quite common but probably only one way and that way is having control and not command. It's hard to provide examples because there aren't really stats for it. Baseball Info Solutions keeps track of command but I don't have access to it.

 

TL;DR. Think of it as control being a good skill to have but command being a better, more specific and encompassing skill. Basic logic (to borrow your term) is that being able to throw the ball over the plate is good and takes some skill, but pinpointing the baseball is kind of hard and takes greater skill.

 

I think your definition of command is wrong.

 

Contol is is directly related to a pitchers ability to locate his pitches within the zone.

 

Command is is directly related to a pitchers ability to manipulate ball movement/spin. I.e. Action on a pitch. It is independent of location.

 

My .02

[Deadpool]

I think your definition of command is wrong.

 

Contol is is directly related to a pitchers ability to locate his pitches within the zone.

 

Command is is directly related to a pitchers ability to manipulate ball movement/spin. I.e. Action on a pitch. It is independent of location.

 

My .02

 

I don't think anyone in the industry considers "command" to have anything to do with spin or movement.

[Omar]

I don't think anyone in the industry considers "command" to have anything to do with spin or movement.

 

“’Command’, to me, means that the pitcher can reliably make the pitch break the way it is supposed to break; the curve doesn’t hang, the fastball doesn’t straighten out. The slider doesn’t stray where it doesn’t belong. ‘Control’ means that the pitcher can put the pitch where he wants it.”

 

Bill James

Neyers-James Guide to Pitching

[Omar]

“’Command’, to me, means that the pitcher can reliably make the pitch break the way it is supposed to break; the curve doesn’t hang, the fastball doesn’t straighten out. The slider doesn’t stray where it doesn’t belong. ‘Control’ means that the pitcher can put the pitch where he wants it.”

 

Bill James

Neyers-James Guide to Pitching

 

From 60ft6in.com:

CONTROL: ‘Control’ is the ability of a pitcher to locate his pitches. There are different levels of ‘control’. A pitcher may have poor ‘control’, like Bobby Parnell, which leads to a high walk rate. Or, there are excellent ‘control’ pitchers like Roy Halladay and Cliff Lee, who seem to dot the catcher’s mitt with every pitch. Then, of course, there is everyone else fitting somewhere in between.

COMMAND: ‘Command’ is the ability of the pitcher to make the ball move the way it is intended to move. For example, when a pitcher has good ‘command’, his curveball will always curve, his slider won’t “hang” and his 2-seamer will sink. ‘Command’ refers to the action of the pitch. There are different levels of ‘command’.

[Laika]

“’Command’, to me, means that the pitcher can reliably make the pitch break the way it is supposed to break; the curve doesn’t hang, the fastball doesn’t straighten out. The slider doesn’t stray where it doesn’t belong. ‘Control’ means that the pitcher can put the pitch where he wants it.”

 

Bill James

Neyers-James Guide to Pitching

 

This is obviously a more sensible distinction, but it isn't industry standard by any means.

 

https://www.baseballprospectus.com/news/article/31022/prospectus-feature-command-and-control/

 

It's cool to break this stuff down.

I think we, being everybody in baseball or who talks about baseball, should all agree that control should specifically mean the pitcher's ability to put the pitch where he wants.

I think for each pitch, it would also be possible to judge the pitcher's command of that pitch by your / Bill James' definition.

40 grade "command" could mean that the pitch is inconsistent in shape. 50 grade could mean it is generally consistent but the pitcher will miss occasionally with the execution of that pitch, ex. hang a slider. It's not so much that the pitcher is missing location, it's that he is missing the execution on the pitch. Stroman could throw the cutter generally where he wants to but if it doesn't cut, he has misfired in a command sense. 80 grade "command" could be - the pitcher has such an adept command of the pitch that he can manipulate the pitch's characteristics like spin/movement/velocity etc. in an elite, rarely seen way.

 

This all makes way more sense to me than the stupid control vs. command distinction that is the status quo.

[Terminator]

So you agree that they are different degrees of the exact same skill. Good.

 

Being able to hit a baseball at 110 mph is good. Being able to hit a baseball at 118mph is harder and takes a greater amount of the same skill.

 

Being able to throw 95mph is good. Being able to throw 101mph is harder and takes a greater amount of the same skill.

 

Ok now I think I can get somewhere. Those examples aren't equivocal. It's just velocity and better velocity for the latter. Command and control are defined terms of art within the industry. A term of art is "a word or phrase that has a precise, specialized meaning within a particular field or profession." In real life, the definition of command includes the word control. "The ability to use or control something." But in baseball the terms have set definitions that like 90% of people agree with. Sometimes one term of art is sufficient to describe the events, sometimes the other term of art is more apt, even though both terms have some overlap.

 

For example, BP theorizes that a pitcher who can hit his spots (like Bartolo Colon) can get two extra strikes per 100 pitches because he gets "rewarded" by the ump for hitting his target. That reward doesn't exist for a pitcher who can simply keep the ball within the strike zone. So if you ignore the industry terms of art, you are losing a small nuance and could be slightly incorrect when describing certain events.

[Laika]

Ok now I think I can get somewhere. Those examples aren't equivocal. It's just velocity and better velocity for the latter. Command and control are defined terms of art within the industry. A term of art is "a word or phrase that has a precise, specialized meaning within a particular field or profession." In real life, the definition of command includes the word control. "The ability to use or control something." But in baseball the terms have set definitions that like 90% of people agree with. Sometimes one term of art is sufficient to describe the events, sometimes the other term of art is more apt, even though both terms have some overlap.

 

For example, BP theorizes that a pitcher who can hit his spots (like Bartolo Colon) can get two extra strikes per 100 pitches because he gets "rewarded" by the ump for hitting his target. That reward doesn't exist for a pitcher who can simply keep the ball within the strike zone. So if you ignore the industry terms of art, you are losing a small nuance and could be slightly incorrect when describing certain events.

 

I don't agree at all. I would posit:

 

1) the terms of art are confused and should be abandoned

2) a pitcher with elite control getting more strike calls isn't any different than, say, a pitcher with more velocity getting more swinging strikes. It does not follow that we need to differentiate normal control from elite control as being different skills entirely.

[Omar]

This is obviously a more sensible distinction, but it isn't industry standard by any means.

 

https://www.baseballprospectus.com/news/article/31022/prospectus-feature-command-and-control/

 

It's cool to break this stuff down.

I think we, being everybody in baseball or who talks about baseball, should all agree that control should specifically mean the pitcher's ability to put the pitch where he wants.

I think for each pitch, it would also be possible to judge the pitcher's command of that pitch by your / Bill James' definition.

40 grade "command" could mean that the pitch is inconsistent in shape. 50 grade could mean it is generally consistent but the pitcher will miss occasionally with the execution of that pitch, ex. hang a slider. It's not so much that the pitcher is missing location, it's that he is missing the execution on the pitch. Stroman could throw the cutter generally where he wants to but if it doesn't cut, he has misfired in a command sense. 80 grade "command" could be - the pitcher has such an adept command of the pitch that he can manipulate the pitch's characteristics like spin/movement/velocity etc. in an elite, rarely seen way.

 

This all makes way more sense to me than the stupid control vs. command distinction that is the status quo.

 

Not sure what industry standard specifically mean or that it can be agreed upon but to claim no one in the industry considers command to be related to movement/action is simply untrue. In fact I think most in the industry would defer to what I posted.

 

As for the rest, I agree with your post.

[Jimcanuck]

When I start to fall asleep while working I come to BJMB. This is not helping today.

[Laika]

Not sure what industry standard specifically mean or that it can be agreed upon but to claim no one in the industry considers command to be related to movement/action is simply untrue. In fact I think most in the industry would defer to what I posted.

 

Well I don't work in the industry so I'm not an insider, but if you peruse almost anything in the Saber community what I posted is the accepted distinction. Bill James seems to have it figured out, as you posted, but he's possibly not really a core part of the "industry" anymore.

 

Who knows if MLB orgs even care about this stuff though. I'm basically just referencing how the things are talked about on BP, Fangraphs, etc.

[Terminator]

I don't agree at all. I would posit:

 

1) the terms of art are confused and should be abandoned

2) a pitcher with elite control getting more strike calls isn't any different than, say, a pitcher with more velocity getting more swinging strikes. It does not follow that we need to differentiate normal control from elite control as being different skills entirely.

 

#1 could be right but they aren't going to be abandoned. Also, I think some (not necessarily you) are too hung up on the real world words which can be ignored because they are terms of art. If they called it "avoid walks" and "pinpoint" it would create less confusion.

 

Your example in #2 isn't equivocal. A swinging strike is almost always objective but for the situations when there is a check swing. Good command works like good Catcher framing in that it is subjective in the way it goads the ump into giving out borderline calls. The ump subjectively rewards the pitcher for hitting his target. Simply being elite at keeping the ball within the zone, without the innate ability to pinpoint the baseball, doesn't get you the "extra" subjective strike calls. The best example of this is Bartolo Colon and Clayton Kershaw. Colon had probably the best command in the game and it got him 2 extra strike calls per game. Kershaw walked even less people than Colon on average but his command wasn't as good so he was pretty average when it came to umps rewarding the extra strike. But if you abandon the terms of art, stop differentiating the two and just use the word control like you are suggesting, how would you explain that?

[Terminator]

When I start to fall asleep while working I come to BJMB. This is not helping today.

 

Go back to your Mother Jones articles then.

[Terminator]

The fact that we even talk about control is kind of stupid. Every professional pitcher has "control" (ability to throw a strike when he wants to). You don't get to this level without being able to throw a strike. And if he doesn't, his command is probably a 20.

 

I don't know if that's necessarily true. Some guys really can't do that. Or at least there are varying degrees to which guys can do that.

[Boxcar]

When I start to fall asleep while working I come to BJMB. This is not helping today.

 

I thought you'd just google clips of Rachel Maddow

[Deadpool]

#1 could be right but they aren't going to be abandoned. Also, I think some (not necessarily you) are too hung up on the real world words which can be ignored because they are terms of art. If they called it "avoid walks" and "pinpoint" it would create less confusion.

 

Your example in #2 isn't equivocal. A swinging strike is almost always objective but for the situations when there is a check swing. Good command works like good Catcher framing in that it is subjective in the way it goads the ump into giving out borderline calls. The ump subjectively rewards the pitcher for hitting his target. Simply being elite at keeping the ball within the zone, without the innate ability to pinpoint the baseball, doesn't get you the "extra" subjective strike calls. The best example of this is Bartolo Colon and Clayton Kershaw. Colon had probably the best command in the game and it got him 2 extra strike calls per game. Kershaw walked even less people than Colon on average but his command wasn't as good so he was pretty average when it came to umps rewarding the extra strike. But if you abandon the terms of art, stop differentiating the two and just use the word control like you are suggesting, how would you explain that?

 

If pitching were darts, control is being able to routinely hit the board, command is being able to routinely hit trip 20. Really, though, someone who can hit trip 20s routinely is just someone who's VERY good at routinely hitting the board.

 

Same skill, but one is better at it than the other.

[Laika]

#1 could be right but they aren't going to be abandoned. Also, I think some (not necessarily you) are too hung up on the real world words which can be ignored because they are terms of art. If they called it "avoid walks" and "pinpoint" it would create less confusion.

 

Your example in #2 isn't equivocal. A swinging strike is almost always objective but for the situations when there is a check swing. Good command works like good Catcher framing in that it is subjective in the way it goads the ump into giving out borderline calls. The ump subjectively rewards the pitcher for hitting his target. Simply being elite at keeping the ball within the zone, without the innate ability to pinpoint the baseball, doesn't get you the "extra" subjective strike calls. The best example of this is Bartolo Colon and Clayton Kershaw. Colon had probably the best command in the game and it got him 2 extra strike calls per game. Kershaw walked even less people than Colon on average but his command wasn't as good so he was pretty average when it came to umps rewarding the extra strike. But if you abandon the terms of art, stop differentiating the two and just use the word control like you are suggesting, how would you explain that?

 

It's incredibly easy.

 

Old Bartolo did not have great stuff so he needed elite control to be successful. A by-product of elite control is that the umps give you brownie points.

 

Kershaw does not need elite control to be successful. He can throw his elite stuff in and around the zone without elite control and he will still avoid walks and be very successful. He doesn't get brownie points from the umps because he doesn't have elite control.

 

You can tell that your version of command and control are not actually distinct skills because it is categorically impossible to find a pitcher with good command and poor control. They would not exist. The Universe would fold in on itself if there was some pitcher out there who had pinpoint "command" around the zone but was below average at simply throwing strikes at will.

[Ray]

Oliver: You touted Trent Thornton as a potentially dominant reliever pre-season. Have you seen enough to think he can sustain success as a starter?

 

Eric A Longenhagen: no

[Slade]

Oliver: You touted Trent Thornton as a potentially dominant reliever pre-season. Have you seen enough to think he can sustain success as a starter?

 

Eric A Longenhagen: no

 

Yea cause it's only been two starts, what a dumb question.