from Amazon
Tuesday, September 18, 2007
Fundamental Pitch Count
How to refine pitch counts? This is what I think:
and the following comment was put in Mike Pagliarulo‘s blog:
I am a huge Bill James proponent, but I definitely appreciate what I think is the basic motivation behind FPC (or Fundamental Pitch Count, if acronyms are a no-no).
The way I approach the pitch counts is to tag each pitch on a scale from 0 to 2, in terms of “stress”. Seeing that I am not a scout, I would give out a flat 0.4 for a knuckler, 0.8 for a fastball, 1.6 for a curveball, etc. Perhaps for a Randy Johnson, a fastball would only be 0.7, and for Wakefield (when he throws one) would be a 0.9. The basic idea here is that there’s as much stress in throwing 120 fastballs as there is in throwing 60 curve balls. Whether I’m right in the actual numbers, I have little idea. But, that’s the basic framework.
What it sounds like what pags and MOB are doing is something more refined, and looking at each pitch one at a time, looking at their mechanics for each pitch. If this is their approach, then I applaud them, and would appreciate seeing something written about it, prior to it being defended (or ripped upon).
If it’s not their approach, then a bit more info would be appreciated.