Showing posts with label COLLEGIATE BASEBALL. Show all posts
Showing posts with label COLLEGIATE BASEBALL. Show all posts

Wednesday, March 21, 2018

2018 CBD Top 100 Countdown: 5. Logan Gilbert (Stetson) – College Baseball Daily

2018 CBD Top 100 Countdown: 5. Logan Gilbert (Stetson) – College Baseball Daily
Image result for Logan Gilbert

Mid to upper 90's FB, comes from a school that has produced some real stud pitcher lately in Kluber and deGrom. I'm on board with this one. You may have to wait a year or two for the command to come around, but then lights out. He's not falling to the 2nd round, so you have to be sure his upside is better than the other pitchers in this drafts WYSIWYG, but an intriguing prospect.

from collegebaseballdaily.com
http://www.collegebaseballdaily.com/2018/02/12/2018-cbd-top-100-countdown-5-logan-gilbert-stetson/

2018 CBD Top 100 Countdown: 5. Logan Gilbert (Stetson)

We finally enter the top five of our 2018 CBD Top 100 Countdown with Stetson starting pitcher Logan Gilbert.

Coming out of high school he was just the 75th best prospect in the state of Florida according to Perfect Game, but he's turned himself into a top five player at the collegiate level.

As a freshman in 2016 he posted a 2.74 ERA in 49 innings pitched — 21 games, 5 starts — with 43 strikeouts, 27 walks, 44 hits and a 1.45 WHIP.
That following summer he played in the Cal Ripken League where he had a 1.71 ERA in 26.1 innings pitched with 28 strikeouts, 14 walks, 13 hits and a 1.03 WHIP.

Gilbert really took off as a sophomore for Stetson by going 10-0 with a 2.02 ERA in 89 innings pitched with 107 strikeouts, 26 walks, 65 hits and a 1.02 ERA.

It was really encouraging to see his walk totals come down. He walked one less batter during his sophomore season despite throwing 40 more innings.

After the season he was named the 2017 ASUN Pitcher of the Year.
This past summer he pitched in the Cal Ripkin League again and posted a 1.72 ERA in 31.1 innings pitched with 31 strikeouts, 4 walks, 24 hits and a 0.90 WHIP.

The stuff has always been there for Gilbert, but he's really improved his command in college, which has made the 6-foot-6 righty one of the best pitchers in the country.

He features a fastball that sits in the mid-to-upper 90s, as well as a change-up and curveball that both sit in the low 80s.

It's a very simple delivery for Gilbert as he makes it look so easy on the mound. I think the ceiling is very high for Gilbert at the next level.


Sent from my iPhone

Monday, January 08, 2018

2018 CBD Season Preview and Predictions: Atlantic Sun – College Baseball Daily

College Baseball Daily

Since I am now attending the University of North Florida, let's do some analysis on the 2018 baseball squad. I agree with the analysis here that pitching needs to be, and should be better than last year.

from College Baseball Daily:
2018 CBD Season Preview and Predictions: Atlantic Sun – College Baseball Daily:
North Florida (2017 Record: 33-24, 12-9)
North Florida had a very solid 2017 season finishing with the fourth best record in the conference. But they went two-and-out in the Atlantic Sun Tournament and saw their season cut short.
Lineup:
They lose five of their top six hitters from 2017. Chris Berry is the lone person among those six to return. The second baseman hit .310 with 21 runs scored, 6 doubles, 3 home runs and 32 RBI. Outfielder Wesley Weeks hit .267 last year with 28 runs scored, 10 doubles, 2 home runs, 21 RBI and 11 stolen bases. Catcher Blake Voyles and infielder Mac Wilson are expected to take on bigger roles in 2018.

Pitching:
This team does return its best starting pitcher from last year in Frank German. He posted a 2.43 ERA in 81.1 innings pitched last year with 76 strikeouts. Austin Drury also comes back after posting a 3.03 ERA in 74.1 innings pitched with 61 strikeouts. Cooper Bradford could join the weekend rotation as well after having a 2.79 ERA in 51.2 innings pitched (9 starts) last year with 53 strikeouts. Brad Depperman could get another shot in the rotation after starting eight games last year with a 5.57 ERA in 53.1 innings pitched with 42 strikeouts.

2018 Outlook:
Even though this team loses a lot of production from the lineup, they could have one of the best starting pitching rotations in the conference. They’ll need to add some depth in the bullpen to fill out the pitching staff, but if they find some offense this team could be good again in 2018.
--

The key is how well Depperman adapts to starting. His stats indicate he knows his way around the strike zone, with a K/BB of 5.25. However, he also leads in H/9 among the potential starters at 12.20. If he misses more bats or pitches to weaker contact, he could elevate quickly.

The offense really has to clip coupons to score runs, however they did outscore their opponents 341-245 last year. Their winning percentage last year (.579) outperformed their expected winning percentage per Pythagoreum formula (.516) which indicates that last years squad was a team that was pretty good fundamentally, a "King of Little Things" type of squad that I like to watch.

You can go a long way playing that type of baseball.

There are some pretty good prospects coming through on the opposition side of the schedule, so I hope to be able to see quite a few games this year.

I wonder which is greater, my 55+ plus or my student discount.

'via Blog this'

Wednesday, December 27, 2017

2018 CBD Top 100 Countdown: 39. Sean Hjelle (Kentucky) – College Baseball Daily


Hjelle would be an intriguing pick for the Giant in the 2nd round.

from College Baseball Daily:
http://www.collegebaseballdaily.com/2017/12/26/2018-cbd-top-100-countdown-39-sean-hjelle-kentucky/

The 6-foot-11, 215 pound right-handed pitcher enters the 2018 season as one of the top pitching prospects in the country.
You can see from the video that is a very tall, lanky right-handed with a cross-body delivery.
His fastball is able to get on hitters quick. I watched him pitched several times in 2017 and he just knows how to get hitters out. I wasn’t as blown away by his stuff as I was hit ability to get hitters our and work deep into games.
We’ll see how he follows up a breakout sophomore season as he tries to move up into the first round of the MLB Draft.





Sent from my iPhone

Monday, June 19, 2017

Rediscovering the Lost Art of Long Toss | Collegiate Baseball




Rediscovering The Lost Art of Long Toss

Source: Collegiate Baseball Magazine | Published: May 1999
By Alan Jaeger

"I'll start playing long toss in January. If I can throw it 200 feet, I try to throw it 300 feet. I don't stop at 120 feet, I throw it as far as I can." - Greg Maddux, Atlanta Braves

Kerry Wood, Matt Morris, Kerry Lightenberg, Alan Benes, Paul Wilson (twice), Jason Dickson, Jeremi Gonzales, Jason Isringhausen, Bill Pulsipher, Ben McDonald, Jeff D'Amico, Jason Bere, Mike Grace, Jeff Wallace, Mike James, Roger Salked , a who's who of extremely promising pitchers struck down by a major arm injury -- and that's just the beginning.

Coincidence? I don't think so.

For every famous case, a la Kerry Wood, there are those lesser known examples where arms are breaking down before they have the opportunity to reach the Big Leagues... to sign a professional contract... to step foot on a college campus... to finish their high school careers.

In your hometowns, you will find the Dan Oppermans and Darren Kerkreits of the world. First round draft picks that you may never hear of. The Drew Pearces (Cal Berkeley) and John Phillips (UCLA) -- promising college pitchers that never got the chance to play pro ball. The Joel Zamudios (Monroe High) and Justin Dunns (St. Francis High), high school pitchers who can only hope that their careers can be preserved.

"Last year (1998), three pitchers from my team all had major arm surgery (two "Tommy Johns," one major shoulder reconstruction) on the same day." - Anonymous Member of a Division I power

The numbers are mounting and the Dr. Frank Jobe's, Dr. Lewis Yocum's, and Dr. James Andrew's of the world are getting busier. As a baseball community, it's time to WAKE UP. There's a serious flaw in our system, a weak link in our development of baseball players' arms, and it's undermining their futures.

Why?

"Without the opportunity to long toss the arm isn't able to gain the strength, length, and endurance it needs. Your arm will eventually reject you." - Seth Etherton, Cincinnati Reds, Former 1st Round Draft Choice

There are many reasons a pitcher's (baseball player's) arm breaks down, why a ligament in the elbow detaches, all or part of the rotator cuff tears, or the shoulder needs to be reconstructed.

These could be the result of poor mechanics, a lack of monitoring [a relief pitcher at a Division 1 program told me that he threw in 14 consecutive games. Later that year he had Tommy John surgery], throwing with pain on a vulnerable arm, throwing too many pitches in one particular outing, throwing too many breaking balls, not enough recovery period time between games, or throwing curves in Little League.

The good news is that most of these problems are obvious and can be corrected.

What really alarms me is a seemingly growing trend that is not so obvious, and perhaps, even more responsible for a deteriorating arm and a career threatening arm injury. And it comes in an era when our levels of instruction and technology are at a all time high. This growing trend is what I refer to as "short toss" (as opposed to "long toss"), a throwing regimen where players are advised not to throw beyond 120 feet.

The 120-Foot Phenomenon 


"You do not clone pitchers. If an individual chooses to long toss, that's fine. You don't give him a distance. Why there's a limit on 120 feet I do not know." - Leo Mazzone, Pitching Coach, Atlanta Braves

When I think in terms of a baseball player's arm being deprived of throwing beyond 120 feet, I immediately feel a tight, tense, short and rigid sensation from my shoulder to the tips of my finger, the opposite kind of qualities I would use to describe a healthy arm or a healthy muscle.

When I think of a healthy arm I think of such characteristics as stretch, loose, length, strength and endurance. Qualities that are hard to attain when we're shortening, rather than, lengthening our arms.

I'm not sure who started it or where it came from, but it seems that in recent years this 120 foot theory has taken root at every stage of the development of baseball players. It seems to have become the rule rather than the exception.

"Actually, I realize that throwing 300 feet isn't such a bad idea...in fact I used to do it myself, but the manual says to stay at 120 feet, so you must stick by it" - Head of player development for a Major League Organization to his first round pick after player pleaded with him to do a long toss program in the off-season

The idea originally behind the "short toss" was that if you keep a player at 120 feet, he'll throw the ball on a line. This theoretically will serve two purposes: 1. The player will be able to keep his shoulders level (avoid "dipping") 2. The release point will stay in similar place because there is minimal change in the arc of the ball

Some even suggest that this "short toss" will save the players' arms by reducing the amount of throws they make.

"You make a living throwing a baseball so we encourage them to throw as often as possible." - Leo Mazzone

Mechanical reasons aside, there are two other major contributing factors to the evolution of the 120-foot throw: 1. Timed throwing 2. The influence of Major League Organizations

Timed throwing occurs because coaches are often pressed for practice time and pitchers have to be at a certain station by a specific time. But, may I ask, how do you time throwing? After all, isn't the amount of time that you need to throw a personal thing? Should your arm become a casualty because the bell rings or you need to go out and shag?

Off-season training programs given out by certain Major League Organizations have contributed to the short toss phenomenon by specifically stating not to throw beyond 120 feet in the off-season (which then tends to carry over into Spring Training). They do this in order to insure that pitchers have a structured throwing program in January/February and that they come to camp under the same homogenous throwing program. But how can one regimen be good for all players? Players are unique, players have different needs. Many need a lot of time or a lot of distance to get properly conditioned.

The reality is that not throwing beyond 120 feet just so you can keep the ball on a line prevents the arm from getting stretched out, loosened up, and opened up to it's potential. It deprives the arm and muscles of much needed length, extension and stimulation. It inhibits the growth of the arm by placing boundaries and limits on the arm. And for what reason? Because coaches value keeping the ball on the line. Because coaches have a packed practice plan and Major League Organizations have to keep everyone at a distance. But what could possibly be more important than the health and longevity of a pitcher's arm?

The arguments against long tossing are that the back shoulder dips a little and the release point is slightly altered. Before we go any further, let's take a look at these two misconceptions.

Pulling Down: Reinforcing A Lower Release Point 

"The pull down phase of the long toss has actually solidified my release point on all three of my pitches, especially my curve ball." - Barry Zito, 2002 Cy Young Winner

When a player throws beyond 120 feet, granted, there does comes a point where his front shoulder must lift slightly and the release point is slightly altered. This must be done in order to get the much desired stretch and distance that the arm needs to build length, strength, endurance and health. It is unavoidable.

But the irony is that the same slight adjustments that are created by the lifting of the front shoulder and the altering of the release point are actually regained and reinforced at a lower release point as the player works his way back in from the desired distance (pull down phase). This is because when you begin to take a 250-300 foot throw into 150, 120, 90 and eventually 60 feet, the release point must get lower. This occurs because the pitcher must learn not to decelerate the arm as he gets closer and closer to his partner. In other words, he must take the arm action of his maximum throw that day (i.e. 250 feet) and pull it down into 60 feet.

A 300 foot throw at 60 feet (without decelerating the arm) will force pitchers to finish through their release point on a downward plane without trying to throw hard. Concentration skills are developed because the pitcher must learn to pick a very low focal point to pull down through (i.e. his partner's shoe), otherwise the ball will end up going a long way over his partner's head. There is no way around it.

A number of additional benefits take place when a 300 foot throw is correctly compressed into a 60 foot throw:

1. The arm can generate natural arm speed and strength because the arm is throwing through a stretch. 2. The player must learn how to lower, and ultimately accelerate, through his release point. 3. The mind must learn how to concentrate and finish through a specific focal point (accuracy). 4. The looseness and power of an arm that's been properly stretched out into a shorter throw (60 feet) takes sound mechanics, balance, rhythm and concentration, which translates into further reinforcement for a pitcher in a game situation.

"I think long toss is a great way to build your arm up, to get in shape to throw off the mound." - Greg Maddux

So the pull down phase actually helps to reinforce a lot of the same principles that are critical for a pitcher on the mound: loose arm action, maximizing arm speed and strength through a properly stretched out arm, acceleration (finish) through a lower release point, maintaining concentration, balance and composure. A far cry from the criticisms of those who discount throwing distance.

The trade-off is simple. Promote health, length, strength, acceleration, and endurance by long tossing. Promote a shorter arm, tighter muscles, minimal endurance and vulnerability to arm injuries by throwing short distances.

Realizing Your Potential 

Put a four-foot snake in a five-foot cage and its expansion is limited. Put that same snake in a twenty-five foot cage and an opportunity of growth presents itself.

My experience from working with pitchers is that if they can throw in the low to mid 80's they can easily build up to throwing a baseball 250 feet. If they throw from the mid to high 80's, they can build up to 250 to 300 feet. Pitchers who throw in the high 80's to low 90's should be able to build up to 300 feet without any problem. If we use 300 feet as a model for the potential distance a college or professional pitcher can throw, than a 120 foot throw equates to 40 % of that pitcher's potential distance.

That means his arm is only stretching to 40% of its capability. Now forgive me if I'm having a hard time with this, but how can it make any sense to suppress the arm's need to expand? I mean, why do we stretch before we play any sport? Isn't it to enhance our performance, to give us agility and flexibility, to avoid injury? So then why is it okay to stretch our arm to only 40% of its need? Would a sprinter only stretch 40% of his hamstrings before running a 100-meter race? Would a hockey goalie stretch only 40% of his groin before a game? Would a golfer enter a long drive contest after stretching just 40% of his back?

"If you don't stretch your arm out, you are more susceptible to an injury. I know that from experience." - Rudy Seanez, Boston Red Sox

The point is that a pitcher who throws a baseball 80 to 100 miles an hour without properly stretching his arm puts himself in jeopardy. It may not be obvious because 120 feet is just far enough to feel like a stretch, but it is not a real stretch. It is not the kind of stretch that the arm truly needs to open up, lengthen out and establish a base.

"Organizations, coaches, etc. discourage pitchers from throwing or put so many limitations on them as to what they can do because they feel that they will get blamed if there is a breakdown." - Leo Mazzone

Can you tell I'm frustrated? Wouldn't you be if you put a pitcher into a training program to stretch, strengthen and condition his arm, only to watch his arm regress because he's been put in a throwing program that does not allow him to exceed 120 feet? Or worse, to watch him spend a year and a half rehabilitating his arm after a major arm surgery because he wasn't given the proper time or distance that is necessary to keep his arm healthy.

I haven't seen the throwing program at every High School, Junior College and four year College. I haven't seen every Major League's off season throwing manual. But I have seen enough and heard enough over the past several years to be alarmed. If we don't make an adjustment soon, we are going to continue to see this growing trend of major arm injuries. In other words, shattered dreams and broken hearts.

"Long Toss is a very important part of conditioning and training for everyone." - Dr. Lewis Yocum, Kerlan-Jobe Orthopedic Clinic

For those coaches who subscribe to distance throwing, to some form of long toss, I can only say that you are doing your best to insure that your players are optimizing their arms and staying healthy. For those of you who have subscribed to the theory of the 120 foot toss or timed throwing, I hope that you will take this article to heart and reevaluate your throwing program.

We are, after all, all dedicated to the same thing: the well-being and success of our players.

Note: I would sincerely like to thank Atlanta Braves Pitching Coach Leo Mazzone and his pitching staff and all of those players who have contributed to this article and cause. - Alan Jaeger

Thursday, March 19, 2015

7 Charts that Show the State of Youth Sports in the US and Why it Matters | The Aspen Institute




The declining participation numbers are the most disturbing chart in this article, IMO. More important than Wins and Losses to a youth sports coaches record should be the number of kids who return to the sport in the following years versus drop-outs (See: Why Johnny Hates Sports). Your retention rate should matter more than your W-L percentage.

from Aspen Idea Blog:
7 Charts that Show the State of Youth Sports in the US and Why it Matters | The Aspen Institute:





7 Charts that Show the State of Youth Sports in the US and Why it Matters



In the words of US Olympic Committee member Anita DeFrantz, “Sport is a birthright.” From combatting the growing obesity epidemic to promoting camaraderie and confidence, sport plays a pivotal role in helping kids become healthy on all levels —physical, social, emotional, and cognitive. 
Unfortunately, the number of kids participating in sports is decreasing. According to the Sports & Fitness Industry Association (SFIA), the number of kids that played a team sport on a regular basis decreased from 44.5 percent in 2008 to 40 percent in 2013. To reverse this continuing trend and to make youth sport a national imperative, Project Play at the Aspen Institute aims to make sport more accessible and engaging to all youth across the country. Below is an infographic overview of how we can change the current state of sports. 
The Current Sports Problem
In the time period from 2008 to 2013, sports participation and fitness have significantly dropped. Nearly 3 million fewer children have played basketball, soccer, track and field, baseball, football, and softball, and less than 1 in 3 children between the ages of 6-12 participated in a high-calorie-burning sport or fitness activity three times a week, according to SFIA data.
Household income is one major indicator of sports participation. In urban or poorer areas, schools often provide fewer sports options and opportunities for their students than suburban or more affluent areas. Additionally, youth from homes in the lowest income bracket ($25,000 or less) are at least half as likely to participate in sports such as football, lacrosse, and swimming than youth from wealthier households ($100,000 or greater). Simply put, families that can afford more can allow their kids to play more.
With the decrease in sports participation, the current public health status of the US is likely to become more precarious. Lack of activity is closely linked to obesity, and today obesity is one of the biggest problems plaguing the US. Currently, the US is the country with the highest number of obese youth among 15 of its peer countries. For children ages 5 to 17, nearly 40 percent of girls and 35 percent of boys are obese.
Sports participation will certainly combat the growing obesity epidemic, but youth sports also provide a number of other important benefits. In a study done by University of Illinois researcher Dr. Chuck Hillman, physical activity was shown to activate the brain: After children went on a 20-minute walk, MRI scans of their brains showed the highest amount of neuro-electric activity (shown in red below). 
Research has also shown that sports provide compounding benefits for active children. When children enter sports at an early age, they experience many lifelong benefits: they are one-tenth as likely to become obese, 15 percent more likely to go to college, and they are more likely to be productive adults than children who do not play sports.

Solutions to Building Athletes for Life
To increase sports participation, Project Play outlines eight strategies so that children from all backgrounds are able and eager to get into the game. Read the report to learn more about these possible solutions. 
RELATED CONTENT:
A New Vision, Platform for Youth Sports in America
'via Blog this'

I just did my baseball and softball re-certification for umpiring HS sports and in addition to the concussion protocols, there is now a section on arm injuries. This is now a focus because some of the numbers the IHSA cited were truly alarming:

  • 45% of pitchers under 12 years old experience chronic elbow pain
  • UCL reconstruction ie: Tommy John surgeries have increased over 700% in the last decade for adolescent pitchers. 
Those are stunning numbers. They also offered some worthwhile recommendations to turn the tide. 
  • pitchers should have somewhere between 2-4 months off from pitching competition, and I would add to that, preferably playing another sport in order to prevent mental burnout.
  • Less than 100 inning pitched per year. ( note: and to me, 100 IP seems like a lot )
  • Pitchers should play any other position except catcher. ( coaches may be reluctant to implement that since they want a solid arm behind the plate to combat steals )
Some of the commentary I hear on the radio or read in periodicals is simply abysmal as well, so I feel for concerned parents trying to sift through some of the garbage and get good information for their kids. 

Collegiate Baseball has been running a series of articles from a coach who links the rise in Tommy John surgeries to the beginning of the PED era, even going so far as to pinpoint 1994 as the exact year that both problems began to run in the wrong direction across the baseball landscape. IMO, a 
stunning misunderstanding of  cause and effect, correlation and causality.

Hey, why not? I look at the chart below, I see a rise in TJ surgeries beginning around 1994 and I say to myself, "Hey self, isn't that about the time the steroid era began in baseball?" Then I grabs me my pocket calculator, I put 2 and 2 together and I come up with 5. However, I do continue to stand behind my observation that every time the rooster crows, the sun rises. Therefore, the rooster caused the sun to rise.  



I thought the consensus and prevailing explanation was that pitchers were not partaking of the juice, so to speak, therefore they were being cheated by hitters who were. I can tell you from being involved in strength training and conditioning somewhat that pitchers were reluctant to weight train, which leads to them being less likely to have a need for muscle building or weight training, The balls only five ounce for crying out loud. Therefore, weight training most likely would have little or no causal effect on the rise in Tommy John injuries. Especially among adolescents and pre-adolescents where weight training would almost have no effect. And yet we see a rise in surgeries migrating to the lower ages.

"We confuse coincidence with correlation and correlation with causality". Can I get an amen on that?
When we confuse coincidence with correlation and correlation with causality we end up with spurious correlations or relationships just as sure as when we assume we make and a$$ out of 
ourselves. Here it's just good comedy, in the sports arena it's tragedy. 

Odd Couple - "My Strife in Court" (Assume Scene)



Again, I sympathize with parents. There are a lot of pseudo-experts out there and the stakes are high: your children's health and well-being or a chance at a college scholarship? So lets not do that A$$UME stuff  anymore, OK?

This stuff is too important to keep screwing up.
    1. Spurious correlation is often a result of a third factor that is not apparent at the time of examination. Spurious comes from the Latin word spurious, which means illegitimate or false.
    In statistics, a spurious relationship (not to be confused with spurious correlation) is a mathematical relationship in which two events or variables have no direct causal connection, yet it may be wrongly inferred that they do, due to either coincidence or the presence of a certain third, unseen factor (referred to as a "common response variable," "confounding factor," or "lurking variable"). Suppose there is found to be a correlation between A and B. Aside from coincidence, there are three possible relationships:
    Where A is present, B is observed. (A causes B.)
    Where B is present, A is observed. (B causes A.)
    OR
    Where C is present, both A and B are observed. (C causes both A and B.)


You would think by now that we could say unequivocally what causes what. But the question of cause, which has haunted science and philosophy from their earliest days, still dogs our heels for numerous reasons. Humans are evolutionarily predisposed to see patterns and psychologically inclined to gather information that supports pre-existing views, a trait known as confirmation bias. We confuse coincidence with correlation and correlation with causality.
For A to cause B, we tend to say that, at a minimum, A must precede B, the two must covary (vary together), and no competing explanation can better explain the covariance of A and B. Taken alone, however, these three requirements cannot prove cause; they are, as philosophers say, necessary but not sufficient. In any case, not everyone agrees with them.
Speaking of philosophers, David Hume argued that causation doesn't exist in any provable sense. Karl Popper and the Falsificationists maintained that we cannot prove a relationship, only disprove it, which explains why statistical analyses do not try to prove a correlation; instead, they pull a double negative and disprove that the data are uncorrelated, a process known as rejecting the null hypothesis.
With such considerations in mind, scientists must carefully design and control their experiments to weed out bias, circular reasoning, self-fulfilling prophecies and hidden variables. They must respect the requirements and limitations of the methods used, draw from representative samples where possible, and not overstate their results.

Ready to read about 10 instances where that wasn't so easy?
Merriam-Webster defines them each as:
  • Correlation: a relation existing between phenomena or things or between mathematical or statistical variables which tend to vary, be associated, or occur together in a way not expected on the basis of chance alone.
  • Causation: the act or process of causing.
  • Coincidence: the occurrence of events that happen at the same time by accident but seem to have some connection.
The difference then is that correlation doesn't make the claim that one event causes the other, just that they occur together statistically in a way that wouldn't be expected based on random chance. One can view this as similar to consistent coincidence.
Causation, on the other hand, claims that two or more events are tied together directly. And coincidence, as we are all likely aware, occurs when two events happen at the same time but aren't at all related.
Let's put this into real-world examples.
  • Correlation: If you eat three square meals every day promptly at 8 a.m., 12:30 p.m., and 6 p.m., there will be a sizable period of time twice per year where your dinner time will correlate to the sun setting. An outside observer for this fixed duration may easily claim that like Pavlov's dog, your hunger for dinner is caused by the setting of the sun. Obviously this isn't true, but for this period the two events correlate.
  • Causation: If you're walking down the street, texting all the way and walk face-first into a lamp post, you will get a bruise. While obviously texting doesn't cause facial bruises (though in this instance there is a correlation), the event of striking one's face against a hard object is the direct cause of the bruise. Thus, this is an example of causation.
  • Coincidence: If you're sitting in a coffee shop and say hello to your friend and at exact the same time someone's phone rings, this is a coincidence. The mere sound of your voice doesn't inspire the ringing of phones and statistically one wouldn't expect the event to occur together outside of random chance.
It's very important to understand and remember the difference between the three and to question data based on an understanding of this difference. In fact, below I've included a link to an article on "spurious correlation" (which the meal-time situation noted above is an example of), but for now these definitions will work well.



Thursday, March 05, 2015

DI committee changes to flat-seamed baseballs for 2015 championship | NCAA.com

Raised Seam Flat Seam Baseballs

Sport Science: NCAA BaseballMLB HD 


















http://youtu.be/hYDDaFK_z4Y


According to a survey by the American Baseball Coaches Association:
The coaches were also asked questions pertaining to game excitement and home runs. Seventy-two percent thought the game needed more excitement and 69 percent believe Division I college baseball needs more home runs.
“Even the coaches of programs that have traditionally strong pitching were in favor of going to the flat-seamed baseball.”
Let that last one sink in for a moment - EVEN THE COACHES OF PROGRAMS THAT HAVE TRADITIONALLY STRONG PITCHING understand that CHICKS DIG THE LONG BALL!!!

So, we can conclude that as far as baseball goes, long-term
Offense = Excitement = Higher Ratings
Defense = Boring = Lower Ratings 
We can also conclude that small changes to the ball can produce pretty significant results. Now the NCAA is doing this as a planned process to produce more excitement to the game. I don't know why it's such a leap to speculate that MLB didn't do much the same and just implemented it surreptitiously.  They didn't want to admit that they even needed a fix. At least the NCAA took a hard look at their product and publicly admitted they were making the change so that both pitchers and hitters could make the appropriate adjustments.

  • The ball will travel farther, 
  • Pitches can expect a slicker feel to the ball and initially the"feel" pitches, curves and sliders, will react differently. 
  • The recent changes to bats due to the BBCOR standards penalized fly balls and rewarded grounders more. That dynamic will shift back. 
And this is what TPTB want. Game Over!!!

from NCAA.com
DI committee changes to flat-seamed baseballs for 2015 championship | NCAA.com:
DI committee changes to flat-seamed baseballs for 2015 championship
Greg Johnson | NCAA.com
Last Updated - Jan 10, 2014 15:28 EST  
The Division I Baseball Committee will move to the use of a flat-seamed baseball for its championship, starting with the 2015 Division I tournament.

Currently, raised-seamed baseballs are used in the Division I Baseball Championship.

Committee members made the decision to change to a flat-seamed baseball after research conducted this fall by the Washington State University Sport Science Laboratory showed that flat-seamed baseballs launched out of a pitching machine at averages of 95 mph, a 25-degree angle and a 1,400 rpm spin rate traveled around 387 feet compared to raised-seamed baseballs that went 367 feet.

On the NCAA’s behalf, the Washington State University lab evaluates and certifies baseball bats used in NCAA competition for compliance with bat performance standards.

In the flat-, raised-seamed baseball research, the speed and angles used in the testing were chosen because they are the conditions when typical home runs occur in Division I baseball competition.

Due to variables (individual bat speed, wind direction, whether the ball is stuck on the bat’s “sweet spot,” etc.) that can impact the distance a baseball can travel, not every trajectory hit with a flat-seamed ball will travel exactly 20 feet farther than a raised-seamed ball, but a 20-foot average difference is an approximate representation of what can be expected.

The NCAA’s official supplier of championship baseballs, Rawlings, also conducted testing of the flat-seam balls in its own research lab.  That research was consistent with the findings in the WSU lab.

“We anticipate that this will moderately increase scoring but not take it back to the days where we were dealing with outrageous scores that looked more like football scores,” said Dennis Farrell, who is the committee chair and the commissioner of the Big West Conference. “We want to get the game back to what is a reasonable amount of scoring and defense.”

While the distance the baseball travels is increased due to less drag on the baseball, the health of and safety of the players will not be compromised. The core of the ball and the bat-exit speed will not change.

“We are always sensitive to student-athlete safety issues,” Farrell said. “According to the data we were presented with, those concerns are alleviated. The rationale behind making this change is hoping it will allow certain balls hit at certain trajectories to carry farther.”

Committee members were spurred to look at the research after becoming concerned with diminishing offensive numbers in the Division I Baseball Championship, particularly at the Men’s College World Series site in Omaha.

In the 2013 MCWS, there were only three home runs hit in TD Ameritrade Park Omaha, which opened in 2011. The first year of the new home of the MCWS also marked the year that the bat standards changed to make metal bats perform more like wood bats.

The bat standards were designed to protect pitchers and fielders from increasing bat-exit speeds and to bring balance to the game that was trending heavily toward the offense.

In 2011, there were nine home runs in the MCWS, and in the second year in the park, 10 homers were hit. By contrast in the last year at Rosenblatt Stadium in 2010, 32 homers left the park. Similarly, across all of Division I regular season baseball, offensive performance – batting averages, runs scored and home runs – has been on the decline in recent years.

The difference in the height of the seams between the two baseballs is small. The flatter-seamed ball has a seam height of .031 inches compared to .048 inches for a raised-seam ball. This flatter seam height is consistent with the balls used in minor league baseball, yet still higher than what is used in major league baseball.

The flat-seamed baseball may make it more difficult for pitchers to throw breaking pitches, but college baseball coaches feel their pitchers will be able to adjust over time.

A survey conducted by the American Baseball Coaches Association showed 87 percent of the respondents wanted to change to the flat-seamed baseball. Around 80 percent of the nearly 300 Division I baseball coaches responded to the survey.

The coaches were also asked questions pertaining to game excitement and home runs. Seventy-two percent thought the game needed more excitement and 69 percent believe Division I college baseball needs more home runs.

“The numbers from the survey means the coaches are making a strong statement,” Farrell said. “Even the coaches of programs that have traditionally strong pitching were in favor of going to the flat-seamed baseball.”
'via Blog this'

==

P.S. - Early season results from CheckSwing.com:



from College Baseball Daily:

FROM NCAA.COM
INDIANAPOLIS – The NCAA media coordination and statistics staff released today statistical trends for NCAA Division I Baseball comparing 2014 with 2015 through the first three weeks of the season.
The trends compared the use of the raised seamed baseball that was used by institutions in 2014 to the flat-seamed baseball used in 2015. The biggest statistical change from 2014 to 2015 is an increase in home runs that is up more than 40 percent from 0.33 per game in 2014 to 0.47 per game in 2015. Additional home runs have not led to more total runs. As of March 1, runs scored in a game are up only four percent, and the batting average went from .263 in 2014 to .264 in 2015. This season, strikeouts have risen from 6.81 per nine innings in 2014 to 7.66 per nine innings in 2015.
Weather has also impacted schedules more this year than last year.  On average, each team has played about one fewer game than the same point last year as weather has caused 252 fewer games played in 2015 compared to the same time last year. The complete trends report is below.
2015 NCAA DIVISION I BASEBALL EARLY SEASON TRENDS
Through March 2, 2014Through March 1, 2015Final 2014
TEAMS296295296
Avg. Number of Games Played Per Team9.728.9054.8
BATTING
Batting Average.263.264.270
Runs Per Game5.075.295.08
Home Runs Per Game0.330.470.39 *
Slugging Percentage.352.368.364
Stolen Bases Per Game1.081.091.02
Sacrifice Hits Per Game0.710.640.76
Sacrifice Flies Per Game0.390.360.40
Percentage of RBIs from Sac Flies8.79%7.65%8.74%
PITCHING
Earned-Run Average4.064.364.22
Strikeouts Per Nine Innings6.817.666.48
Shutouts1921561034
Pct. of D1 shutouts per D1 games pitched6.67%5.94%6.37%
FIELDING
Fielding Percentage.964.962.966 **
Averages are per game and per team. | * — Record low for full season. | ** — Record high for full season.
Notes:
• As of March 2, 2014, there were two teams that had not played any games (Brown, Central Conn. State). The 0 games for those teams is calculated in average games per team.
• As of March 1, 2015, there are five teams that have not played any games at this point (Central Conn. State, Fairfield, Massachusetts, NYIT, and Yale). The 0 games for those teams is calculated in average games per team.
• March 1, 2015, statistics also do not include three games involving Alabama A&M and Mississippi Valley which were not reported until well after the deadline. Those numbers are not calculated into the averages.
• Statistics do not include six reclassifying members.

Giants Top Minor League Prospects

  • 1. Joey Bart 6-2, 215 C Power arm and a power bat, playing a premium defensive position. Good catch and throw skills.
  • 2. Heliot Ramos 6-2, 185 OF Potential high-ceiling player the Giants have been looking for. Great bat speed, early returns were impressive.
  • 3. Chris Shaw 6-3. 230 1B Lefty power bat, limited defensively to 1B, Matt Adams comp?
  • 4. Tyler Beede 6-4, 215 RHP from Vanderbilt projects as top of the rotation starter when he works out his command/control issues. When he misses, he misses by a bunch.
  • 5. Stephen Duggar 6-1, 170 CF Another toolsy, under-achieving OF in the Gary Brown mold, hoping for better results.
  • 6. Sandro Fabian 6-0, 180 OF Dominican signee from 2014, shows some pop in his bat. Below average arm and lack of speed should push him towards LF.
  • 7. Aramis Garcia 6-2, 220 C from Florida INTL projects as a good bat behind the dish with enough defensive skill to play there long-term
  • 8. Heath Quinn 6-2, 190 OF Strong hitter, makes contact with improving approach at the plate. Returns from hamate bone injury.
  • 9. Garrett Williams 6-1, 205 LHP Former Oklahoma standout, Giants prototype, low-ceiling, high-floor prospect.
  • 10. Shaun Anderson 6-4, 225 RHP Large frame, 3.36 K/BB rate. Can start or relieve
  • 11. Jacob Gonzalez 6-3, 190 3B Good pedigree, impressive bat for HS prospect.
  • 12. Seth Corry 6-2 195 LHP Highly regard HS pick. Was mentioned as possible chip in high profile trades.
  • 13. C.J. Hinojosa 5-10, 175 SS Scrappy IF prospect in the mold of Kelby Tomlinson, just gets it done.
  • 14. Garett Cave 6-4, 200 RHP He misses a lot of bats and at times, the plate. 13 K/9 an 5 B/9. Wild thing.

2019 MLB Draft - Top HS Draft Prospects

  • 1. Bobby Witt, Jr. 6-1,185 SS Colleyville Heritage HS (TX) Oklahoma commit. Outstanding defensive SS who can hit. 6.4 speed in 60 yd. Touched 97 on mound. Son of former major leaguer. Five tool potential.
  • 2. Riley Greene 6-2, 190 OF Haggerty HS (FL) Florida commit.Best HS hitting prospect. LH bat with good eye, plate discipline and developing power.
  • 3. C.J. Abrams 6-2, 180 SS Blessed Trinity HS (GA) High-ceiling athlete. 70 speed with plus arm. Hitting needs to develop as he matures. Alabama commit.
  • 4. Reece Hinds 6-4, 210 SS Niceville HS (FL) Power bat, committed to LSU. Plus arm, solid enough bat to move to 3B down the road. 98MPH arm.
  • 5. Daniel Espino 6-3, 200 RHP Georgia Premier Academy (GA) LSU commit. Touches 98 on FB with wipe out SL.

2019 MLB Draft - Top College Draft Prospects

  • 1. Adley Rutschman C Oregon State Plus defender with great arm. Excellent receiver plus a switch hitter with some pop in the bat.
  • 2. Shea Langliers C Baylor Excelent throw and catch skills with good pop time. Quick bat, uses all fields approach with some pop.
  • 3. Zack Thompson 6-2 LHP Kentucky Missed time with an elbow issue. FB up to 95 with plenty of secondary stuff.
  • 4. Matt Wallner 6-5 OF Southern Miss Run producing bat plus mid to upper 90's FB closer. Power bat from the left side, athletic for size.
  • 5. Nick Lodolo LHP TCU Tall LHP, 95MPH FB and solid breaking stuff.