Author Topic: Nationals trade for ... Derek Norris  (Read 3876 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline whytev

  • Posts: 8768
Re: Nationals trade for ... Derek Norris
« Reply #50: December 03, 2016, 02:44:54 PM »
Here is a link to a Fagerstrom article from last March, before the 2016 season.

http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/the-troubling-derek-norris-trend/

Looking at 2016, there was a spike in the K% (23.5% -> 30.3%) without a big increase in the BB% (6.3% -> 7.9%). Most of that came from a deterioration in his K% and BB% v. RHP.

                        RHP                LHP
                    BB%  K%     BB%     K%
2015          5.7     22.9       8.2    25.4
2016          7.1    33.7       9.6    22.2
Career       8.5     26.8     10.3    20.8

It looks like the in-the-strike zone% dropped back to pre-2015 levels (Fagerstrom's tip off that there was a no fear problem) and his swing rates on strikes and balls stayed roughly the same (slight increase in swings at strikes - 63.7% -> 66.7%) but he had a drop in his contact rates resutling in 4.5% more whiffs (Contact % 89.2% -> 85.6%). 

Just looking at his Fangraphs page (source of all data above), it looks like he became more swing happy and less disciplined when he went from Oakland to SD.  My guess is the Nats figure that playing in a more neutral park might let him see that he doesn't have to be aggressive to be rewarded on his swings.  I'll guess that the plan is that, at a minimum, use him primarily v. LHP as a catcher and as a PH, maybe against lefty starters to get them out of games, and hope he can get back to his Oakland plate discipline.

Either he sucks now, or he's an organisational change away from going back to how he was in Oakland purely due to philosophy.  I'll wait and see.

Offline JCA-CrystalCity

  • Global Moderator
  • ****
  • Posts: 23943
  • Platoon - not just a movie, a baseball obsession
Re: Nationals trade for ... Derek Norris
« Reply #51: December 04, 2016, 12:16:33 PM »
I propose an alternate solution.  Put him and Espinosa in a room with two batting cages.  Get a crew of minor leaguers who throw very hard (but don't need much else) to throw them high fastballs continuously.  Use the resulting wind current to spin a turbine.
wait, is there some way to get coal into this?  there's got to be jobs for coal and not just this alternative energy crud. 

Offline Elvir Ovcina

  • Posts: 1810
Re: Nationals trade for ... Derek Norris
« Reply #52: December 04, 2016, 06:27:13 PM »
wait, is there some way to get coal into this?  there's got to be jobs for coal and not just this alternative energy crud.

How about using a pitching machine, which runs off the electricity grid (and therefore off coal)?  Sure, it would make more sense to just use the wind power to run the pitching machine in a nice closed system, but  we want JOBS JOBS JOBS, not sense.  Alternatively, just have the pitchers chuck lumps of coal at them.  It's not like they'll hit them.  And if they do, it still doesn't matter; it would just be an application of the famous lesson of the famous film "Dodgeball": "If you can dodge a wrench, you can dodge a ball."

Offline JCA-CrystalCity

  • Global Moderator
  • ****
  • Posts: 23943
  • Platoon - not just a movie, a baseball obsession
Re: Nationals trade for ... Derek Norris
« Reply #53: December 04, 2016, 08:11:37 PM »
I propose an alternate solution.  Put him and Espinosa in a room with two batting cages.  Get a crew of minor leaguers who throw very hard (but don't need much else) to throw them high fastballs continuously.  Use the resulting wind current to spin a turbine.
Maybe the answer is AJ.  Get him to throw fastballs to Espinosa and Norris.  Movable object v. resistible force.