Add new comment

1) I use's B-Ref's proxy not as an attempt to make a foolproof case, but as an example that backs up a scouting-based opinion.  My initial reaction to Langerhans was not based on B-Ref's power split...it was based on actually watching Langerhans hit and observing that most of his"power" early in his stint either came on sliders over the plate that he pulled or fastballs that he was late on and happened to get opposite field results with.  After ten games or so with Langerhans starting, the common reaction over at MarinerCentral was "is it me or has Langerhans not gotten any of his doubles to right field?" (to which I responded that he actually had hooked a sinker or slider, I do not recall which) down the right field line in his first game against the Yankees, BTW).  That has continued to be true throughout his stint in Seattle...most of his extra base hits have been doubles to the wall in left or HRs pulled on sliders, two of which won games for the Mariners  I've been in sabermetrics for 9 years now...I am well aware of how B-Ref's splits work, but thanks for assuming I was an idiot and talking down to me like a 4 year old.  Awesome.
2) ASlthough the B-Ref power/finesse split doesn't identify velocity exactly, if you look at the pitchers who
are classified as power pitches, you will find that their average fastball
velocity is higher than the pitchers in the finesse group.  It's a eak but not an
incorrect proxy to use in the absence of hit F/X data.  Hittracker measures
only home runs...it's not going to help us identify a slider speed bat the way
you claim.
3) Yes, if I had access to the full pitch F/X database, I would approach the
question of whether Langerhans had trouble with high velocity pitchers very
much the way you described...checking to see if he did worse against harder
fastballs than softer ones, but I don't at the moment and none of my online
references make that kind of data available as of yet.  What I do have is my
own powers of observation and two halfway decent proxies which back up
said observations.  Your case seems to be "if it si not 100% proven, the
observation has no merit" followed by "in 100 at bats this year, the data
doesn't appear to back up your assertion, even though the career data does"
When you have somet kind of substantive evidence that runs counter to the
two proxies presented here, let me know.  Right now, your only data-driven
argument is based on a tiny sample that could easily be very misleading.