The trouble with "eyeball scouting" is that sometimes you see things but that doesn't mean you can explain them. I'm curious to get the community's take on two especially puzzling major league samples, those turned in by Aaron Cunningham and Eric Patterson, both of whose callups have shared the same phenomena: Swinging through fastballs.
In Cunningham, you have a hitter who has raked at every minor league level and who, as a result, projects to be a pretty good major league hitter. In Patterson, you have a hitter capable of turning AAA into his own "Hey look, I'm Curtis Granderson!"fest. Yet in both, you have players who have not only failed to turn in good major league numbers overall in their cups of coffee (still adding up to small samples, aka "decaf"), but more surprisingly who have looked positively Jack Hannahan in swinging right through fastballs.
Of all things. In the minors, you have plenty of pitchers who can't command their offspeed stuff or throw enough fastballs for strikes. The one thing you generally get, though, is pitchers who can throw a fastball reasonably hard -- so if the thing you can't do as a hitter is make contact with a good single-A fastball, that's going to catch up to you faster than if you can't recognize a major league slider.
So then maybe you argue that major league breaking pitches and changeups are so much better than those of AAA that the Cunninghams and Pattersons are forced to wait longer and can no longer catch up to the good fastball. Yet we know (because they say so and we believe them) that hitters almost all "look fastball and adjust to offspeed pitches."
This is where my lying eyes come in. The stat-savvy part of me knows that Cunningham's track record and age suggest he will in fact hit big league pitching, so then I'm stuck trying to reconcile the scouting report I would have had if I just saw him play but didn't know his age or track record with the one I actually believe: That somehow, for some reason, he will probably come back up at some point soon and start connecting with the same fastballs he missed in earlier stints. Why?
Let me know your thoughts on Cunningham and Patterson, and why sometimes a good hitting prospect can't connect with a basic major league fastball for a while when they actually can. And share your thoughts about other "lying eyes" scouting that confounds your sensibilities. And have a Happy Thanksgiving!
1 recs | 80 comments
I like Cunningham
And I think he needs to be named the starting LFer out of ST unless he does something really stupid to not justify giving it to him. Of course they shouldn’t come out right now and say it, but the organization should keep it to themselves and be prepared to move forward with that scenario.
In a season where we’re not expected to contend we really need to find out what we have in Cunningham, Buck, Patterson, etc… so that by the time we are ready to compete we can field the best team possible without any thoughts of what could have been with several players.
Helloooo 1st - November 25, 2009
Outfield Situation
I think Buck will be traded and Patterson is best utilized in a backup role. With that said, both Hairston and Cunningham can play if Cust is traded because then you’d have Cunningham in the outfield with Davis and Sweeney and Hairston would be the designated hitter.
Rated-R Superstar - November 25, 2009
I think
Hairston is more likely to be traded than Cust
Helloooo 1st - November 25, 2009
Oh and also
I wouldn’t trade Buck now. It would be selling extremely low at this point so unless he’s the end of a package to acquire another player (Granderson?) then I’d hold on to him and try to get some sort of value out of him.
Helloooo 1st - November 25, 2009
Personally, I think Buck's a goner this off-season
Sometimes you just end up selling low (see Gallagher).
Nico - November 25, 2009
Same
The A’s are not able to keep him on the field consistently. That’s just a fact. He’d have more value to a team with a better medical staff.
So he’ll probably be moved for another Corey Wimberly-type long shot.
PaulThomas - November 25, 2009
That would be a pretty bad deal. He should have another option left.
I wouldn’t mind trading him for Augie Ojeda though.
WaddellCanseco - November 26, 2009
Wow
Augie Ojeda is 35 years old?
Who’d have guessed that one? I thought he was like 26.
Not really a fan.
PaulThomas - November 26, 2009
I didn't realize that either. I guess I'll have to concentrate on Brignac.
WaddellCanseco - November 27, 2009
Your "lying eyes" are making judgements based on 133 plate appearances for Cunningham
and 232 for Patterson. Your eyes can’t make any accurate prediction based on that.
NateHST - November 25, 2009
That actually misses the entire point of the post.
Nico - November 25, 2009
Gee, and I thought I was dense.
When Nico says “lying eyes”, he’s acknowledging that his gut feeling cannot be backed up by data. Get it?
iglew - November 25, 2009
Yes, the whole point is that anyone with eyes
(that is, all humans except Angel Hernandez) can see that Cunningham has swung through a lot of fastballs in the hitting zone. There’s not a great deal of scouting involved there, just the ability to get data from the brain to the optic nerve.
The interesting (to me) question is, if he is going to be a decent hitter over the long haul why is he swinging through so many fastballs that he must have crushed throughout the minors? It’s the “why” that’s interesting.
Nico - November 25, 2009
I'm not really sure that my comment "missed the entire point of the post"
because you’re saying that it’s plainly obvious that a guy like Cunningham has problems hitting fastballs, but you’re making that assertion based on watching him in scattered at-bats during inconsistent playing time.
I have a problem with this because you still have no proof that Cunningham swings and misses at an absurd amount of fastballs because you “saw it with your own eyes.” Daniel Simons, a professor at University of Illinois, made a video of several people passing a few basketballs back and forth over a ~30 second time period. He told his viewers to watch and count how many times a ball was passed. Afterwards, he told them to write down how many times, and whether they would swear to that in court. Then he asked them, “Who saw the gorilla?”
For about a third of the video, there is a gorilla on screen. He walks into the middle of the group, makes a chest pounding type gesture, then walks off the screen. And a very large majority of people that see this video would call somebody completely crazy if, afterwards, they said, “There was a gorilla on the screen for ten seconds.”
So I refer back to my original comment that you are making observations based on a very small amount of data, and unless you have some actual figures that say Cunningham has done poorer against fastballs than other players (which he may well have done), then your eyes aren’t enough for me to even believe that there is a problem.
And iglew, thanks for offering nothing except an unnecessary jab at myself and a defense of somebody that’s perfectly capable of defending themselves.
NateHST - November 26, 2009
In Cunningham's case, it's backed up by some actual data
In his limited time to date, he has been about 2 runs below average per 100 fastballs, while being above average against sliders.
He’s also been below average against curves and changeups, so it’s not clear that fastballs are a particular problem of his, but at the very least the data generally support the notion that he has had problems with fastballs so far.
I’m not sure the gorilla example is apropos, because if you watch the video and look for the gorilla, or even just watch the video without doing anything in particular, it’s absurdly easy to spot. The bizarreness is caused by people’s attention being focused elsewhere, on the basketballs. The problem with observational scouting is usually the opposite (seeing things that aren’t there as opposed to not seeing things that are).
PaulThomas - November 26, 2009
PT, I appreciate this.
I appreciate this because you make a claim and back it up with data, pretty much always. And my mention of the gorilla video is only because I can remember Nico saying that these two players can’t hit fastballs as far back as last year—when you’re assuming he can’t hit fastballs, you’re going to see him swing through fastballs and nothing else.
But yes, I kind of figured Cunningham was pretty bad at hitting all pitches, and I checked it out on Fangraphs before I made that post last night. My problem is just that Nico’s original post basically states, “He can’t hit fastballs; I see it with my own eyes,” and that isn’t helpful.
NateHST - November 26, 2009
Ya, I wasn't buying the premise that fastballs were a particular problem, and
now Paul has shown evidence that Cunningham’s had trouble with a variety of pitches.
WaddellCanseco - November 26, 2009
So now we've moved from
“You’re not allowed to assert anything without sabermetric proof” to “you’re not allowed to assert anything without sabermetric proof even if you acknowledge it’s purely subjective and there’s no data to back it up”.
Great, what a fun blog this is.
Sorry if you see this as another unnecessary “jab” or “defense” of Nico. Personally, I don’t care to think of discussions in military terms.
iglew - November 26, 2009
I think we've solved the mystery --
obviously, Cunningham and Patterson were distracted by the gorilla. Now it all makes sense!
Nico - November 26, 2009
Well if the assertion isn't actually true, then I'd say there's a problem.
That seems to be the case here with Cunningham. Patterson, during his brief major league career, is below average against fastballs, sliders, and curves. These are over 90% of the total pitches he’s faced.
With both guys, it seems they’ve had trouble hitting major league pitching period, possibly because they’ve not had consistent AB.
WaddellCanseco - November 26, 2009
Except that you would EXPECT him to have problems
with breaking pitches, or with “above the letters” fastballs, where you would not expect him to have the same problem with fastballs over the plate.
Nico - November 26, 2009
I think I'd expect anyone to have an adjustment period, and I don't see
any reason to believe that what these guys are having is anything other than that. I can easily see why they might struggle against all types of pitching in the majors during that adjustment period. I also have no idea whether these guys are considered “fastball hitters” or have “slider speed” bats. Either type of player has had success in the minors.
WaddellCanseco - November 26, 2009
Eh
You’re getting into “making assumptions without real justification for it” territory again.
Why would you necessarily expect Cunningham to have trouble with breaking pitches? Pitchers do throw breaking pitches in the minors, you know. Sure, many of those pitches suck— but many of the fastballs in the minors suck, too.
PaulThomas - November 26, 2009
I mean that most every hitter struggles more with breaking pitches
My only point here is that swinging through belt high fastballs is distinct from swinging through “sliders low and away” or “fastballs up and in” because the first is a pitch you customarily see hitters hitting while the last two are pitches you customarily see hitters having trouble with.
Nico - November 26, 2009
Surely you are not suggesting that breaking pitches are just better pitches than fastballs
If that was the case, pitchers (who are not entirely without common sense) would throw more breaking balls and fewer fastballs until the values evened out.
Breaking balls have drawbacks, notably that they are harder to throw for called strikes.
PaulThomas - November 26, 2009
Yes. Harder to throw, harder to hit.
But you’re really missing my main, and only point — that fastballs right out over the plate are more hittable than breaking pitches in general (and fastballs on the corners, and fastballs off the plate anywhere).
If “breaking pitches” were replaced by “hanging sliders,” I’d be talking about an easy pitch to hit. So if I saw a hitter, with an excellent minor league track record, come up and swing through hanging slider after hanging slider, I might be perplexed as well.
The whole point of what I keep talking about is not “fastball” but “fastball right in the hitting zone,” and I’m talking about it specifically because you get to the big leagues only if that’s one pitch you can handle.
Nico - November 26, 2009
again
not really “harder to hit”. One could argue that a breaking ball thrown in the middle to upper part of the strike zone is actually quite a bit easier to hit than a fastball in the same location. For one thing, hitters generally have more time to react to breaking pitches, and those left in the zone, especially up, tend to be hammered as a result – hence the “hanging breaking ball” phenomenon. :)
oakballnack - November 27, 2009
NateHST, see elcorata's excellent comment below
for an example of a reply that gets my post — it looks at the “why” in depth, which is what I was going for.
Nico - November 26, 2009
I will agree that
Patterson did look awful with the bat in the games I saw him play.
However, his ‘09 numbers did show some BABIP fuelled promise.
Should he be our starting LF on opening day? Maybe.
I’d enjoy Patterson and Rajai running wild on the basepaths, even if it is only until June. :-)
Daniel777 - November 25, 2009
Patterson's real problem is defense --
he doesn’t play well enough anywhere to justify his hitting, even if he can hold his own.
Nico - November 25, 2009
Yeah he allegedly has the dreaded "spaghetti arm"
UZR/150 liked his tiny sample of LF though if that helps.
(Waits for someone to start a “Replace Cust with Patterson ZOMG kthanxbye” thread)
Daniel777 - November 25, 2009
I think that's why the A's tried him in CF
It was the one position where if somehow he could play it well he might have been useful overall. He couldn’t.
Nico - November 25, 2009
Wow they must have been convinced quickly that he couldn’t do it.
Patterson in CF: 4 games/30 innings
Although Rajai being a dynamo in CF is probably a better reason. :-)
Daniel777 - November 25, 2009
If you had seen those 4 games, you'd understand.
There’s “small sample” and there’s “…yeah that’s not gonna work.”
Nico - November 25, 2009
Alleged has a small arm?
Have you seen him try to make a throw??
Seriously – it’s laughably bad.
bobnothing - November 25, 2009
A "poor man's Johnny Damon," basically.
Nico - November 25, 2009
More like a starving, homeless, on-the-run-to-avoid-becoming-the-victim-of-cannibalism Congolese Pygmy man's Johnny Damon, I'd say
PaulThomas - November 25, 2009
Yeah, I meant poor in a global recession
See, my rating was “era adjusted.”
Nico - November 25, 2009
oh, so he's the Johnny Damon I can afford?
I like him a little better, now
bobnothing - November 25, 2009
My lying eyes
(which is really more like my lying ears, since my main contact with the game is through radio) really likes Cunningham and doesn’t like Patterson.
Completely arbitrary and unsupportable by data? Yeah, probably, but I’m sticking with it.
Also: Tin Tin!
iglew - November 25, 2009
Don't sell yourself short -- you're probably picking up on the
subtle difference in the sound of the ball off Cunningham’s bat vs. the sound of the ball off Patterson’s bat as you listen to the radio broadcast. Especially when they strike out.
Nico - November 25, 2009
Speaking of selling yourself short,
Rex Hudler and Steve Physioc were fired by the Angels, according to today’s SF Chron…
Physioc said he was “shocked!”
“Shocked! Shocked! To find that gambling….”
One won lost won - November 25, 2009
so was greg papa when the a's didn't keep him
Future Ed - November 25, 2009
Now, if SBNation could just fire Rev Halofan ...
doctorK - November 26, 2009
I really want to see our OF as..
LF Cunningham
CR Sweeney
RF Hariston
with Buck as 4th OFer. Trade Davis while we can. And if someone isnt playing well enough give Doolittle a shot in RF or LF. Not big on Patters on at all. But in 2011 Carter/Desme/Brown could be our OF.
Syphon - November 25, 2009
That's a pretty MEH defensive OF,
as well as a slightly dyslexic one.
Nico - November 25, 2009
Hey... its the best we got IMO.
Syphon - November 25, 2009
Personally, I'd rather run with
Hairston/Cunningham, Davis, Sweeney. Better defensively, element of speed is added to offense.
Nico - November 25, 2009
Really?
Looks like a pretty good defensive OF to me. Hairston’s above average in the corner for his career, Sweeney’s above average in center, and Cunningham should at least be making some progress.
I mean, it’s not Chavez/Gutierrez/Ichiro or something, but few outfields are.
PaulThomas - November 25, 2009
Yeah, I meant compared to putting Davis in CF and Sweeney in RF
Nico - November 25, 2009
I'd rather have Hairston and/or Cunningham hitting than Davis defending
basically.
PaulThomas - November 25, 2009
Even factoring in that my mom might beat you up?
She really likes Rajai (and trust me, she packs a heckuva right hook).
Nico - November 25, 2009
Is that really your mother, or is it you gone a little, uh, Doubtfire?
bobnothing - November 25, 2009
Sorry, can't talk, my breasts are on fire.
Nico - November 25, 2009
You wicked, wicked man
Helloooo 1st - November 25, 2009
I think our outfield:
RF Sweeney
CF Davis
LF Carter
4th Hairston
Eventually
RF Doolittle or Desme
CF Sweeney
LF Carter
StewCrew - November 25, 2009
Well...
part of it may be major league pitchers are better at locating their fastballs. Inside-Outside, Up-Down.
roscoe - November 25, 2009
Could be. I was just surprised how many of the ones Cunningham whiffed through
were in the “belt high over the plate” location. He must have mashed that same fastball for years in the minors, and will probably mash it in the future.
Nico - November 25, 2009
I think it's simply
a matter of Cunningham not feeling comfortable at the big league level. Eric Patterson starting getting around on fastballs once he got a good amount of plate appearances in a row, and I think Cunningham will do the same.
travdog6 - November 26, 2009
It's not the "how fast" of an MLB fastball causing problems,
it is the “when” and the “where” of it.
Any hitter reaching the majors has successfully faced the heat. Had they not been able to hit the 90+ mph fastball in the Minors they would have never been called up. But the pitchers who can light the radar gun with a 95, but still pitch in the minors are there for a reason. Two most common ones are that they either only have a general idea where that fastball is going or that they have no bona fide secondary/tertiary pitch.
Both these facts greatly and positively affect the comfort level of a hitter. A higher percentage of pitches thrown are clearly off the plate, leading to favorable hitting counts. Also, a higher percentage of those fastballs are right down the pipe, allowing the hitters to get some good swings on them. And finally, lesser quality of off-speed pitches (both so in disguise and in movement), as well as pitchers’ reluctance to throw them in fastball hitting counts allow hitters to truly sit on a fastball.
Moving up the ladder and facing the MLB pitching for the first time, many such hitters will struggle, even with the fastball. The reasons are the aforementioned when and where, namely “when in the count” are they seeing that fastball and “where is that fastball located”.
Looking at the very small sample size of Aaron Cunningham’s Major League data, one can see that he has the problem with both.
When
First of all, regardless of what hitters might publicly say, sitting on a fastball is a very different thing on a, say, 3-1 count or an 0-2 count (there is a reason the AL in 2009 OPS-ed 1.320 on a former and 0.410 on a latter).
If you are a good fastball hitter, you want to get yourself in good fastball hitting counts, namely 2-0 and 3-1, and mash. Out of 140+ PA (one last time, I know it is far too few to define a trend, but it might be indicative of why the struggles occurred) AC put the ball in play on only 9 of such counts. Overall, Cunningham managed to put the ball in play on all counts that favor hitters (1-0, 2-0, 2-1, 3-1 [I am definitely having a hold sign on a struggling rookie once the count reaches 3-0]) exactly one sixth of the time (that means five sixths of the balls he put in play were hit on other counts). AL 2009, on average, did it more than one fifth of the time (that’s about 30% better).
Where
It is also harder to sit on the fastballs, when they are either only coming on the corners, or when you have been fooled by the off-speed pitches. Generally, if you are constantly getting fooled, you will tend to look at the ball longer thus getting prone to swing through fastballs. And Aaron Cunningham was getting fooled constantly.
In 2009 he swung at more than 30% of the pitches outside the strike zone. (Vladimir Guerrero for a career swings at 38% of balls; Jack Cust at 16%). But unlike Guerrero, he was not a free swinger. He let almost 30% of the strikes fly by him without swinging (Guerrero less than 15%), and he actually saw more than a league average number of pitches per PA.
He was just getting fooled a lot, folding against 9-3 and holding against Q-Q too often. Swinging at 30% of bad pitches is generally not a recipe for success in MLB. There are some notable exceptions to that (namely Ichiro, Miguel Cabrera or Pablo Sandoval, but this guys had a higher to much higher rate of contact on such pitches, indicating they were not necessarily fooled, but rather liked a certain pitch, even if out of the strike zone, or were just a pest with two strikes).
Once a hitter realizes he is getting fooled a lot, or said more nicely not getting a good read on the pitches, it will affect his overall performance and confidence level and he will tend to take more time triggering that swing, thus being tardy on the same fastball he was mashing just months ago. A good high profile example is Howie Kendrick, he of .972 MiLB OPS and .762 MLB OPS. For his career he is swinging at 35.6% of MLB balls and only making contact with 54% of them. It affects his overall hitting, as 1.01 run above average over 100 fastballs is nothing for an ueberprospect to write home about.
elcroata - November 26, 2009
Awesome, awesome analysis
Ideas and facts backed by one another in glorious harmony, complex to consider yet easy to comprehend. Thanks, elcroata.
Nico - November 26, 2009
Turn it green!
danmerqury - November 26, 2009
rec'd...
MMunoz33 - November 28, 2009
yeah
very good points
oakballnack - November 27, 2009
Scouting Reports
Scouting Reports in the MLB are so much more accurate than SR’s in AAA. Plus, guys in the MLB are actually trying to get batters out, 100% of the time. In AAA, there are plenty of pitchers working on their stuff, so “getting guys out” isn’t always the most important thing.
MLB pitchers exploit Eric Patterson’s & Aaron Cunningham’s weaknesses. My eyes tell me that Aaron Cunningham will be able to make adjustments more often than Eric Patterson, and will become a better everday Big Leaguer than EP.
Colorado Fan - November 26, 2009
I'm hoping both Cunningham and Patterson make the team as bench players.
CF Davis
1B Barton
LF Hairston
DH Cust
C Suzuki
RF Sweeney
2B Ellis
3B Wallace
SS Pennington
Bench — Powell, Petit, Patterson, Cunningham
I would like to see Cunningham in there against all lefties, either in place of Cust or Sweeney. And of course if Rajai goes back to sucking I’m hoping AC can take over for him entirely.
WaddellCanseco - November 26, 2009
you mean Punninghan
Future Ed - November 26, 2009
You think Cust will be around next year?
you don’t forsee them shopping him around? There aren’t a ton of 30 HR type guys on the free agent market. I could see Cust getting some play.
oakballnack - November 27, 2009
This was assuming no trades or FA signings. I'm in favor of those.
WaddellCanseco - November 27, 2009
Not a bad lineup, it just sucks to see T. Buck still in triple AAA ,
since there is no trades or FA signings…
Maybe there is some (releases) though??
MMunoz33 - November 28, 2009
I just like anyone whose name begins with two A's
Aside from AA Gill, mind. he can go do something unnatural on it
bobnothing - November 26, 2009
You'd like AA then
And yes, you can consider this an intervention.
Nico - November 26, 2009
Ha, if that was you driving the cab I was in at 3am last night, I apologise for the state I was in
It’s fair to say, today, I got shakes, they’re multiplying
bobnothing - November 27, 2009
And I apologize for not wearing any pants.
Nico - November 27, 2009
That's fine - I hope you get good use out of mine!
bobnothing - November 27, 2009
I think one flaw
in the case you’re presenting, Nico, is that you are assuming that since a guy like Cunningham “raked at every minor league level” that he will “be a pretty good major league hitter.” History shows us that that isn’t necessarily the case. There have been plenty players who have excelled with the bat in the minors and failed to produce in the majors (see: Adam Piatt.) I also agree with some of the above points about sample size. We’ve also seen plenty of guys (alla Barton) come up and clobber fastballs at first, only to fail to make the necessary adjustments needed to sustain their success. I don’t think that one’s immediate ability to hit a fast ball in the majors necessarily dictates future success (though it’s something you’d like to see) because it can be an oversimplification of the bigger picture (i.e. much better pitchers getting ahead in the count with quality breaking pitches, pitching backwards – something guys don’t often see in the minors.) Your concerns about these guys are valid though, and it will be interesting to see how the A’s move forward with them, especially considering a relatively crowded OF in both the majors and upper minors, with guys like Desme and Brown potentially on the way in the next few years.
Also, didn’t Patterson hit pretty well for the last 6 weeks or so of the season?
oakballnack - November 27, 2009
Yeah, my assessment of Cunningham as likely to be a pretty good major league hitter
comes from his projections and scouting reports, not just from “can hit minor league pitching.”
Nico - November 27, 2009
my point is
there are very few scouts that will say “he will be a good major league hitter” – scouts know better than to make projections like that. I get your point, I just don’t think you can ever assume a guy is going to hit well, especially right off the bat, with limited playing time, based off their minor league track record (both scouting and statistical). And, I guarantee you that for every scouting report that mentioned Cunningham as a potential every day player, you could find one that categorized him as a future 4th OFer/orginizational type player. BTW, even if Cunningham doesn’t pan out, we still got a great deal in the Haren trade. Granted, Haren will probably win a Cy Young or two in the next 5 years, but it was still a good trade for the A’s – especially if Carter lives up to his potential in the majors.
oakballnack - November 27, 2009
I should qualify that statement
when I said “I just don’t think you can ever assume a guy is going to hit well” I should have said, with the exception of a very select handful of uber-prospects; guys like Joe Mauer, Vlad Guererro, Nomar Garciaparra, Pujols, Matt Weiters etc. I think it’s safe to say Cunninham wasn’t one of those types of prospects.
oakballnack - November 27, 2009
rec'd!!!
Great Post Nico…
I think that the time has come for the two to either sink or swim and if they fail, the A’s should hand them the triple AAA assignment (if they have options) or let them move on and give em the walking papers.
The question is how long of a leash should they get? A season??? Until the All-Star break?
Maybe Buck, Patterson, and Cunningham develop into studs and give the A’s (Bailey-like performances) and we can turn the losing season tide and watch the Geren-era go positive for once!!!!
Go A’s
MMunoz33 - November 28, 2009
You must Login with your SB Nation account and be a member of Athletics Nation to post a comment.