<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:itunes="http://www.itunes.com/dtds/podcast-1.0.dtd"
xmlns:rawvoice="http://www.rawvoice.com/rawvoiceRssModule/"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Pitch Location &amp; Groundballs</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/index.php/pitch-location-and-groundballs/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/index.php/pitch-location-and-groundballs/</link>
	<description>Daily baseball statistical analysis and commentary</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Mon, 13 Feb 2012 00:21:02 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: missionhockey21</title>
		<link>http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/index.php/pitch-location-and-groundballs/#comment-4098</link>
		<dc:creator>missionhockey21</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 08 Nov 2006 20:23:03 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/index.php/pitch-location-and-groundballs/#comment-4098</guid>
		<description>I would tend to agree with your last statement. If inducing the groundball was as simple as targeting specific locations, then baseball would be a much simpler game to figure out as a pitcher. A pitcher with the kind of godly GB/FB that Webb shows also shows through his charts (and just any viewing of him actually pitching), that he can break the taboo often times with getting away with a pitch higher in the zone for various factors be it more knowledge of the hitter he&#039;s facing, pitch selection plus pitch location, velocity, etc to more often see a bouncer or a roller than the average pitcher.

With these being two very good pitchers, I wonder if there is anymore of a visible impact for pitchers of a lower success rate. Such as Mark Mulder who is peripherals aren&#039;t near as good as Wood&#039;s for his last successful year in 2005 where he posted a GB/FB close to 2.80 IIRC. Obviously he isn&#039;t on the same level as Wood in his ability to induce the grounder (especially since that was quite a spike from his career average), but there is a difference of talent there and I wonder if it would be more apparent for him.

Either way, interesting article David.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I would tend to agree with your last statement. If inducing the groundball was as simple as targeting specific locations, then baseball would be a much simpler game to figure out as a pitcher. A pitcher with the kind of godly GB/FB that Webb shows also shows through his charts (and just any viewing of him actually pitching), that he can break the taboo often times with getting away with a pitch higher in the zone for various factors be it more knowledge of the hitter he&#8217;s facing, pitch selection plus pitch location, velocity, etc to more often see a bouncer or a roller than the average pitcher.</p>
<p>With these being two very good pitchers, I wonder if there is anymore of a visible impact for pitchers of a lower success rate. Such as Mark Mulder who is peripherals aren&#8217;t near as good as Wood&#8217;s for his last successful year in 2005 where he posted a GB/FB close to 2.80 IIRC. Obviously he isn&#8217;t on the same level as Wood in his ability to induce the grounder (especially since that was quite a spike from his career average), but there is a difference of talent there and I wonder if it would be more apparent for him.</p>
<p>Either way, interesting article David.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

