Analysis of an opposite field home run
-
Here’s a short video I made looking at a home run swing by Finest Arenado. I don’t want to offer too much in the way of my thoughts, because I’d very much like to hear some unbiased opinions as regards the accuracy of the feedback offered by the game, the batted ball outcome and any disparity you might see there, so I’m not going to project my opinions in the thread. Thanks in advance for your time.
-
Looking at it quickly I feel like it should've been either fouled behind the first base dugout or a pop up to the catcher. Never would've thought that swing would've been a home run if I didn't see it.
-
@Kovz88 said in Analysis of an opposite field home run:
Looking at it quickly I feel like it should've been either fouled behind the first base dugout or a pop up to the catcher. Never would've thought that swing would've been a home run if I didn't see it.
Well, the bat never actually touched the ball, nonetheless, I was more than a little surprised that all available feedback indicated this was a good timing, good contact swing. There are ranges for the various swing timing windows, from too early all the way through to too late, with the perfect/perfect supposedly being in the middle of that range.
-
@ComebackLogic said in Analysis of an opposite field home run:
@Kovz88 said in Analysis of an opposite field home run:
Looking at it quickly I feel like it should've been either fouled behind the first base dugout or a pop up to the catcher. Never would've thought that swing would've been a home run if I didn't see it.
Well, the bat never actually touched the ball, nonetheless, I was more than a little surprised that all available feedback indicated this was a good timing, good contact swing. There are ranges for the various swing timing windows, from too early all the way through to too late, with the perfect/perfect supposedly being in the middle of that range.
Yah I figured the bat not touching the ball was too obvious to point out but was pretty bad haha. My analysis was on how the timing of the swing looked and where the ball looked like it would've contacted the bat. It looked like it was gonna go right off the top of the bat.
-
@Kovz88 said in Analysis of an opposite field home run:
@ComebackLogic said in Analysis of an opposite field home run:
@Kovz88 said in Analysis of an opposite field home run:
Looking at it quickly I feel like it should've been either fouled behind the first base dugout or a pop up to the catcher. Never would've thought that swing would've been a home run if I didn't see it.
Well, the bat never actually touched the ball, nonetheless, I was more than a little surprised that all available feedback indicated this was a good timing, good contact swing. There are ranges for the various swing timing windows, from too early all the way through to too late, with the perfect/perfect supposedly being in the middle of that range.
Yah I figured the bat not touching the ball was too obvious to point out but was pretty bad haha. My analysis was on how the timing of the swing looked and where the ball looked like it would've contacted the bat. It looked like it was gonna go right off the top of the bat.
Mmm, the no contact threw me off as well. I couldn’t decide if it was good timing had the ball continued it’s flight path until contact or not, but in the grand scheme of things it’s irrelevant as the trajectory of the ball dictates that the swing wasn’t within the range you’d expect to be classed as good, but rather slightly late, even allowing for the pitch being on the outer half of the plate. The PCI rating of 9 doesn’t seem particularly good either, even though the game clearly states it as such. One could argue that on the scale of 0-15 used to rate PCI placement 9 is slightly above average and therefore technically good, but that’s not been my experience of how the game works up until now.
-
The swings are often weird like that in the replays. I think it was great input by the opponent tho.
-
The ball not touching the bat is probably some form of desynch.
In terms of the swing and result, I actually don't see an issue. Pitches on the outer part of the plate require "later" timing to be "good" in the game. To put it in baseball terms, the hitter let the ball travel through the zone before getting the barrel to the ball and driving it to RF. In MLB: The Show terms, they swung later. From an objective point-of-view this doesn't appear to be a bad result and not as bad as some swing outcomes can be in the game.
-
What's hard to quantify is the actual PCI placement. You can't really see it, but the timing of the swing should've definitely produced a hit down the line. What isn't clear from the game and timing perspective is what is the actual timing? The game says the swing time was "good". We don't really know what that means. Is good relative to the pitch type, speed, and location of the pitch? If so, "good" timing of the swing makes sense, although in reality, being just late on a pitch away isn't bad either if you're looking to drive it the other way. With Nolan's power ratings, a HR isn't unthinkable either, even on a change up. I'm throwing the ball not touching the bat out the window since I'm sure that's a synching type of issue. It looked like a really good pitch location, but a better timed swing. Again, we can't actually see the PCI, so we don't really know what those numbers mean. I've had my PCI dead on a ball and it tell me my PCI placement was an 11 or 12. I stopped looking at all that stuff because it's useless info that just frustrates me more.
-
@mitchhammond24 said in Analysis of an opposite field home run:
The swings are often weird like that in the replays. I think it was great input by the opponent tho.
I don’t have an issue with the outcome, Arenado is entitled to go with that pitch, but after the game, the analysis showed PCI placement as a 9. I honestly can’t define that as great input personally, if it’s accurate, which is kind of what I’m asking for opinions on.
The feedback makes no sense in the context of the batted ball outcome, unless as @theu715 and @thepapadell suggested, by design, the game now adjusts for pitch speed, location and break when considering what should be deemed good or bad timing for each individual swing. You’d think that would be ground breaking and revolutionise hitting completely, but it’s still not really working in my opinion. Plus SDS don’t tell us what they’re trying to show in such instances, so we’re generally unsure if it’s just a random occurrence or a small part of a greater design.
I’m sure I could post another thread that would contradict this line of thought as the game is just so inconsistent overall.
-
@ComebackLogic said in Analysis of an opposite field home run:
@mitchhammond24 said in Analysis of an opposite field home run:
The swings are often weird like that in the replays. I think it was great input by the opponent tho.
I don’t have an issue with the outcome, Arenado is entitled to go with that pitch, but after the game, the analysis showed PCI placement as a 9. I honestly can’t define that as great input personally, if it’s accurate, which is kind of what I’m asking for opinions on.
The feedback makes no sense in the context of the batted ball outcome, unless as @theu715 and @thepapadell suggested, by design, the game now adjusts for pitch speed, location and break when considering what should be deemed good or bad timing for each individual swing. You’d think that would be ground breaking and revolutionise hitting completely, but it’s still not really working in my opinion. Plus SDS don’t tell us what they’re trying to show in such instances, so we’re generally unsure if it’s just a random occurrence or a small part of a greater design.
I’m sure I could post another thread that would contradict this line of thought as the game is just so inconsistent overall.
Ohh yeah I didn’t see that part. A 9 shouldn’t be hit out, but I wish they’d just show opponent’s pci. I’ve had pci placements that I don’t think I could’ve squared up any better register as 12s and 13s, so idrk how accurate that is.
-
@ComebackLogic said in Analysis of an opposite field home run:
@mitchhammond24 said in Analysis of an opposite field home run:
The swings are often weird like that in the replays. I think it was great input by the opponent tho.
I don’t have an issue with the outcome, Arenado is entitled to go with that pitch, but after the game, the analysis showed PCI placement as a 9. I honestly can’t define that as great input personally, if it’s accurate, which is kind of what I’m asking for opinions on.
The feedback makes no sense in the context of the batted ball outcome, unless as @theu715 and @thepapadell suggested, by design, the game now adjusts for pitch speed, location and break when considering what should be deemed good or bad timing for each individual swing. You’d think that would be ground breaking and revolutionise hitting completely, but it’s still not really working in my opinion. Plus SDS don’t tell us what they’re trying to show in such instances, so we’re generally unsure if it’s just a random occurrence or a small part of a greater design.
I’m sure I could post another thread that would contradict this line of thought as the game is just so inconsistent overall.
In one of their updates/patch-note drops this year, they did specify something about pitch type and location being a big factor in hit result.
If you look at this example specifically, you had Chapman pitching. He throws very hard so it's not out of the question that your opponent could have been late. I guess you would have the context for where their bat speed was before that pitch. But if your opponent was swinging late, then a change-up on the outer half would have sped their bat up considerably and with a hitter like Arenado, a good swing in that instance would (hopefully) produce a hit and most likely an XBH.
-
@thepapadell said in Analysis of an opposite field home run:
@ComebackLogic said in Analysis of an opposite field home run:
@mitchhammond24 said in Analysis of an opposite field home run:
The swings are often weird like that in the replays. I think it was great input by the opponent tho.
I don’t have an issue with the outcome, Arenado is entitled to go with that pitch, but after the game, the analysis showed PCI placement as a 9. I honestly can’t define that as great input personally, if it’s accurate, which is kind of what I’m asking for opinions on.
The feedback makes no sense in the context of the batted ball outcome, unless as @theu715 and @thepapadell suggested, by design, the game now adjusts for pitch speed, location and break when considering what should be deemed good or bad timing for each individual swing. You’d think that would be ground breaking and revolutionise hitting completely, but it’s still not really working in my opinion. Plus SDS don’t tell us what they’re trying to show in such instances, so we’re generally unsure if it’s just a random occurrence or a small part of a greater design.
I’m sure I could post another thread that would contradict this line of thought as the game is just so inconsistent overall.
In one of their updates/patch-note drops this year, they did specify something about pitch type and location being a big factor in hit result.
If you look at this example specifically, you had Chapman pitching. He throws very hard so it's not out of the question that your opponent could have been late. I guess you would have the context for where their bat speed was before that pitch. But if your opponent was swinging late, then a change-up on the outer half would have sped their bat up considerably and with a hitter like Arenado, a good swing in that instance would (hopefully) produce a hit and most likely an XBH.
He was early swinging most of the game, I started Darvish and he was cruising with a 5-1 lead until the previous inning, when it got out of hand and ended up tied at 5-5. I pulled Darvish for a PH and brought in Chapman to face Griffey, Arenado and Soto. He eventually struck out with Griffey on a slider breaking down and away. That was the first pitch of the next AB to Arenado, I was looking to throw the change up down and away and hopefully steal a strike or induce a rollover. My input wasn’t great, releasing the ball early, which left it higher than intended and Arenado promptly dumped it out.
-
@ComebackLogic said in Analysis of an opposite field home run:
@thepapadell said in Analysis of an opposite field home run:
@ComebackLogic said in Analysis of an opposite field home run:
@mitchhammond24 said in Analysis of an opposite field home run:
The swings are often weird like that in the replays. I think it was great input by the opponent tho.
I don’t have an issue with the outcome, Arenado is entitled to go with that pitch, but after the game, the analysis showed PCI placement as a 9. I honestly can’t define that as great input personally, if it’s accurate, which is kind of what I’m asking for opinions on.
The feedback makes no sense in the context of the batted ball outcome, unless as @theu715 and @thepapadell suggested, by design, the game now adjusts for pitch speed, location and break when considering what should be deemed good or bad timing for each individual swing. You’d think that would be ground breaking and revolutionise hitting completely, but it’s still not really working in my opinion. Plus SDS don’t tell us what they’re trying to show in such instances, so we’re generally unsure if it’s just a random occurrence or a small part of a greater design.
I’m sure I could post another thread that would contradict this line of thought as the game is just so inconsistent overall.
In one of their updates/patch-note drops this year, they did specify something about pitch type and location being a big factor in hit result.
If you look at this example specifically, you had Chapman pitching. He throws very hard so it's not out of the question that your opponent could have been late. I guess you would have the context for where their bat speed was before that pitch. But if your opponent was swinging late, then a change-up on the outer half would have sped their bat up considerably and with a hitter like Arenado, a good swing in that instance would (hopefully) produce a hit and most likely an XBH.
He was early swinging most of the game, I started Darvish and he was cruising with a 5-1 lead until the previous inning, when it got out of hand and ended up tied at 5-5. I pulled Darvish for a PH and brought in Chapman to face Griffey, Arenado and Soto. He eventually struck out with Griffey on a slider breaking down and away. That was the first pitch of the next AB to Arenado, I was looking to throw the change up down and away and hopefully steal a strike or induce a rollover. My input wasn’t great, releasing the ball early, which left it higher than intended and Arenado promptly dumped it out.
I find these discussions fascinating because we don't know how the game actually works.
If your input wasn't optimal, which obviously left the pitch up, then whatever that factored into the outcome was surely buoyed by their timing on the swing. I guess we could try to go deep in analyzing Darvish's speeds versus Chapman but a breakdown of each and every swing wouldn't amount to much.
It's also possible that your opponent simply ran into one. If you missed your input and the pitch was left in a hittable position, even someone struggling with timing all game could pop one out at a moment's notice.
-
I hate the PCI of 9 rating but I thought he put a good swing on the ball. Outer half of the plate, hit it slightly on the late side of good. I had no problem with it until I saw the “9”. Like @mitchhammond24 said, I’ve had what it seemed like perfectly placed PCI’s that went nowhere and PCI’s that didn’t even touch the ball hit out for a tank. Who knows?
-
@ComebackLogic said in Analysis of an opposite field home run:
@mitchhammond24 said in Analysis of an opposite field home run:
The swings are often weird like that in the replays. I think it was great input by the opponent tho.
I don’t have an issue with the outcome, Arenado is entitled to go with that pitch, but after the game, the analysis showed PCI placement as a 9. I honestly can’t define that as great input personally, if it’s accurate, which is kind of what I’m asking for opinions on.
The feedback makes no sense in the context of the batted ball outcome, unless as @theu715 and @thepapadell suggested, by design, the game now adjusts for pitch speed, location and break when considering what should be deemed good or bad timing for each individual swing. You’d think that would be ground breaking and revolutionise hitting completely, but it’s still not really working in my opinion. Plus SDS don’t tell us what they’re trying to show in such instances, so we’re generally unsure if it’s just a random occurrence or a small part of a greater design.
I’m sure I could post another thread that would contradict this line of thought as the game is just so inconsistent overall.
You're right, the "9" isn't good, but like I mentioned I don't trust any of the stuff because I've seen my PCI location be perfect and not get a 15, so either what I see in game is wrong or what I see in the detailed analysis is wrong. Either way, the biggest issue is a lack of clarity from the devs on what things we're seeing really mean.
That brings up the same point about the in game batter analysis. What does good, late, perfect, etc., really mean? Is it based on the location of the pitch, type of pitch (fastball/curve/slider), which would take into account the break and speed of the pitch, or is it all of the above? IRL if I'm trying to go oppo on a pitch over the middle or outside I'm wanting to be a little late. You can still drive the ball well if you're strong enough and even if you're not, you can still slap a ball that splits defenders, finds a gap, or slices into foul territory for extra bases. In the same way, you can definitely be a little early to pull a ball over the middle of the plate and probably should be a little early.
These are the things this game misses with our current hitting engine we're given. We simply are told the best result says "perfect" and from there it's a crazy drop off into the unknown realm of "good". There has to be more variance to the analysis and more hit variety to account for that variance. Essentially we have this beautiful, high level game, that is playing more like Ken Griffey Jr. baseball on the SNES with all the randomness we get. Either make input matter or remove features like analog pitching and zone hitting that shows the users great input not counting. Just leave it with directional hitting and pulse pitching. At least then we actually KNOW there is randomness to my input based off the virtual players' ratings.
Sorry, that was so long.
-
@Hikes83 said in Analysis of an opposite field home run:
I hate the PCI of 9 rating but I thought he put a good swing on the ball. Outer half of the plate, hit it slightly on the late side of good. I had no problem with it until I saw the “9”. Like @mitchhammond32 said, I’m had what it seemed like perfectly placed PCI’s that went nowhere and PCI’s that didn’t even touch the ball hit out for a tank. Who knows?
Not me! I’m not ragging on the game or bitching about the home run, it was inconsequential in the bigger picture as I ultimately lost 11-5. I’m trying to understand what is going on when we play the game and part of that is listening to other opinions, even those that may differ from my own.
-
I'm with you! I'd just like to have a clear explanation of what I should actually be trying to do so I can actually get better.
-
Well the way I see it, if the pitch is inside/outside, you get rewarded swinging early/late respectively.
The opposite is also true where you get penalized for swinging late/early on inside/outside respectively.
Don’t get me wrong, it’s not always the case, I’ve seen plenty of early/rolled over HR’s pulled to the batters side by an outside slider. Those [censored] me off to no end but it doesn’t happen consistently so I shake my head in disgust and move on
-
@theu715 said in Analysis of an opposite field home run:
I'm with you! I'd just like to have a clear explanation of what I should actually be trying to do so I can actually get better.
Hmm, I found and read the in game handbook. It did offer more insight into the various features at work in the game, but a lot of things are still not clearly explained in detail, or are deliberately ambiguous in their description.
Some real gems in there though, if you’ve not had the chance to skim it. For example, did you know that “pitching accuracy is 2 steps more accurate in rookie and 1 step less accurate in legend, where 1 step is the difference between the most accurate pitcher and the average pitcher.” No? Well what the f-, huh? It’s all in the strategy guide!
“Perfect timing is slightly early for pitches down the middle, early for pitches inside and slightly late for pitches on the outside.”
There’s that answer then.
“As always, swing timing affects your final PCI location, with late + inside or early + outside having an even greater effect”
Right, well that doesn’t define the effect, but it tells us the game is factoring it in some major way. Which it seems had a direct influence on the Arenado homer on the outside half of the plate.
“97% of perfect contact will be fair, with the other 3% being just barely foul, due to wind, ball spin or the stadium (foul pole distance)”
That makes no sense really. Particularly when also shown perfect timing.
-
“To combat inflated offense, certain hitting mechanics are slightly harder in DD games and certain penalties for mistakes are also higher. Most of these result in making it slightly harder to put the ball in play (fouls and misses), with flexible hitting and waiting for a better pitch being key. As another example, even though Babe Ruth can hit occasional home runs while jammed, in DD the jammed penalty ramps up slightly faster and these kind of opposite field home runs should be less frequent than normal. Similar rules exist for chasing pitches out of the strike zone etc.”
-
What the hell is a “jammed penalty” and where do I find that explanation?!?
-
Once I’ve incurred a penalty for being jammed or chasing pitches out of the zone, how do I become unpenalized? When do I lose this invisible black mark against my name? Or is that not how it works? Where can I find this explanation?
This your RNG right here. Unexplained invisible penalties that nerf you based on strange factors like trying to hit too many jammed home runs with Babe Ruth.
-
