[quote=“buwhite”]Ok, here is your entire comment:
Which says that in your research you have found that "All pitchers would have a lower percentage some more than others.
So again i disagree with you that “All” pitchers have a lower percentage, maybe “All” of a small group of pitchers but I don’t believe your sample is large enough or your methods accurate enough to blanketly make accurate statements like that. It’s only pitchers in your study.
I have said in a previous post that I agree that there can be situations in which using a stand in batter can definately help if it’s available, but why not then agree that proper mechanics will dictate throwing strikes to a much higher degree than just having a target…that’s all I was saying.[/quote]
I have to admit that I’m impress bu. I don’t thing kif was purposely misrepresenting what he saw, but I think he didn’t explain it the way he wanted to. And all you saw was much the same as what I saw. I’m goin’ out on a limb here, and if I’m wrong, I sure hope kif corrects me.
What I took from that statement, is that either he was calling balls and strikes himself, or had someone else doing it during practices, and that he did it prior to the kids seeing the “dummy” to get a baseline, then did it with the “dummy” and compared the two. Or, he calculated the pitchers’ strike percentages in games before they practiced with the “dummy” then again after, and compared those results. Either way is acceptable, but in order to get results that would stand up to scrutiny, a bit more has to be done.
On its face, it sounds as though he only checked once. FI, 3 pitchers had a strike percentage of say 40%. Then they practiced with a “dummy”, and their percentages all improved. 1 went to 44%, 1 to 46%, and 1 to 48%. That would account for some improving more than others.
But, to assume that same thing would happen every time is ludicrous, so sooner or later the percentages would have to get worse, at least to some degree. Like everything else pitchers do, some days are better than others, which is why using averages is important, and the more data points, the more accurate the average. What I’m saying is, its one thing to gather data, but another to gather it so that it can le looked at in a meaningful way.
But all that aside, my suspicion is, there was something taking place that wasn’t even considered. For MOST pitchers, 9YO is pretty much the beginning of pitching careers. Something that must be kept in mind is, whenever someone starts something new, especially something that takes a lot of coordination and body movements, the very worst performances will almost always be the earliest ones where there isn’t much if any experience to draw on.
What that means is, there will be great leaps of skill taking place because there’s so much to learn, then gradually those leaps forward will becomes smaller and smaller, until as a highly skilled pitcher, it might take months to make progress on something. So, its quite reasonable to me that 9YO’s would find their accuracy improving each time they pitch. Assuming that paradigm is true, it would follow that all 9YO pitchers would improve to some degree whether they used a “dummy” or not. That would mean to measure the true improvement the “dummy” was responsible for, the difference between the normal improvement and the improvement from the “dummy” would have to be measured. Confused yet?
Let me put it this way. A pitcher throw strikes at a 50% rate. Then he practices with the “dummy”, and the next time he pitches, his percentage increases to 60%. But, 5% of that improvement was because that’s just how things work. People get better at them the more the do them. So, rather than a 10% improvement attributable to the “dummy”, it would only be 5%.
But to tell the truth, I don’t know who would take the time to do that kind of study on a 9YO, unless they were trying to justify something like a “dummy”.