Mike Trout Topic

burnsy483
Posts: 6848 (0)
Veteran
1 1 26
Prospect
Posted by tecwrg on 3/3/2015 11:20:00 AM (view original):
Posted by MikeT23 on 3/3/2015 11:15:00 AM (view original):
I don't think pitching is better.  Usage is different and, quite honestly, hitters are worse.    When free-swinging 'roid monsters made contact, the ball went further.   So, with the likelihood of a struck ball clearing the fence, it made sense to worry less about swinging and missing.   Now hitters simply aren't generating the same bat speed.   Struck balls don't travel as fast or as far.  It now makes sense to put more balls in play.

Hitters will adjust and start making more contact.

Truth is, a guy like Trout probably shouldn't.   He still has the power to put balls in the seats.   It's the guy that went from 22 to 10 that needs to change his approach.
Exactly.

Pitching isn't better.  It's just different.
Well, if it's different in a way where you'e more productive per inning, and throw less innings, that's still being a better pitcher for each atbat. Would lead to more Ks overall.
3/3/2015 11:26 AM
MikeT23
Posts: 58012 (0)
Hall of Famer
87 1 47 1 189
Prospect

I guess I should re-phrase.   The approach is different(much like the hitter's).   I don't think pitchers are physically better today than they were 15-20 years ago. 

3/3/2015 11:28 AM
burnsy483
Posts: 6848 (0)
Veteran
1 1 26
Prospect
As in, when you take the hard throwing starter with a 4 ERA and make him a relief pitcher, he'd have a 3 ERA and get more strikeouts. Instead of being a relief pitcher, he's a 6 inning starter, so the Ks still go up. That does make sense.
3/3/2015 11:30 AM
bad_luck
Posts: 21761 (0)
Hall of Famer
48 1 10
Prospect
Posted by tecwrg on 3/3/2015 10:07:00 AM (view original):
Season IP Runs Ks R/9 K/9 Corr - 2014
1990 37,563.7 17,919 23,853 4.29 5.72 -0.20
1991 37,769.7 18,127 24,390 4.32 5.81 -0.31
1992 37,829.7 17,341 23,538 4.13 5.60 -0.43
1993 40,507.0 20,864 26,310 4.64 5.85 -0.75
1994 28,586.3 15,752 19,766 4.96 6.22 -0.86
1995 36,032.0 19,554 25,425 4.88 6.35 -0.86
1996 40,560.7 22,831 29,308 5.07 6.50 -0.86
1997 40,454.0 21,604 29,937 4.81 6.66 -0.85
1998 43,434.7 23,297 31,893 4.83 6.61 -0.85
1999 43,211.3 24,691 31,119 5.14 6.48 -0.85
2000 43,244.3 24,971 31,356 5.20 6.53 -0.85
2001 43,287.3 23,199 32,404 4.82 6.74 -0.88
2002 43,269.0 22,408 31,394 4.66 6.53 -0.89
2003 43,335.3 22,978 30,801 4.77 6.40 -0.89
2004 43,394.0 23,376 31,828 4.85 6.60 -0.89
2005 43,232.3 22,325 30,644 4.65 6.38 -0.88
2006 43,258.0 23,599 31,655 4.91 6.59 -0.94
2007 43,425.7 23,322 32,189 4.83 6.67 -0.92
2008 43,357.7 22,585 32,884 4.69 6.83 -0.89
2008 43,272.0 22,419 33,591 4.66 6.99 -0.83
2010 43,305.3 21,308 34,306 4.43 7.13 -0.74
2011 43,527.3 20,808 34,488 4.30 7.13 -0.58
2012 43,355.3 21,017 36,426 4.36 7.56 -0.79
2013 43,653.3 20,255 36,710 4.18 7.57 -1.00
2014 43,613.7 19,761 37,441 4.08 7.73  
I don't know exactly what you did here, but this doesn't look right. You wouldn't see 25 different coefficients. You should see one.

Like this:

R to OBP (shortened to only 15 lines, actual data is 582 lines)

R OBP        
633 0.307        
705 0.311     R OBP
634 0.316   R 1  
612 0.317   OBP 0.7675 1
723 0.323        
660 0.31        
669 0.317        
757 0.331        
651 0.314        
715 0.324        
629 0.309        
773 0.322        
729 0.32        
634 0.3        


The correlation of team OBP to team R from 1990 to today is strong, with a coefficient of 0.77.
3/3/2015 12:03 PM (edited)
bad_luck
Posts: 21761 (0)
Hall of Famer
48 1 10
Prospect
For team strikeouts to team runs scored (again shortened to 15 lines, actual 582)

R SO          
633 1133          
705 1285       R SO
634 1337     R 1  
612 1124     SO -0.00592 1
723 1151          
660 1362          
669 1189          
757 1144          
651 985          
715 1329          
629 1442          
773 1266          
729 1104          
634 1232          

No correlation.
3/3/2015 11:42 AM
tecwrg
Posts: 18995 (0)
Hall of Famer
4 1 152 32 129
Prospect
The coefficients are for each season through 2014.  So the first line is 1990-2014, the second is 1991-2014, etc.

You can see that it "locks in" at around 1994 and barely budges until the last couple of seasons, where you're dealing with fewer data points.

3/3/2015 11:43 AM
bad_luck
Posts: 21761 (0)
Hall of Famer
48 1 10
Prospect
You did it wrong.

Even using your method of looking at entire seasons, there isn't a correlation:

Season IP Runs Ks R/9 K/9        
1990 37,563.70 17,919 23,853 4.29 5.72     R/9 K/9
1991 37,769.70 18,127 24,390 4.32 5.81   R/9 1  
1992 37,829.70 17,341 23,538 4.13 5.6   K/9 -0.20525 1
1993 40,507.00 20,864 26,310 4.64 5.85        
1994 28,586.30 15,752 19,766 4.96 6.22        
1995 36,032.00 19,554 25,425 4.88 6.35        
1996 40,560.70 22,831 29,308 5.07 6.5        
1997 40,454.00 21,604 29,937 4.81 6.66        
1998 43,434.70 23,297 31,893 4.83 6.61        
1999 43,211.30 24,691 31,119 5.14 6.48        
2000 43,244.30 24,971 31,356 5.2 6.53        
2001 43,287.30 23,199 32,404 4.82 6.74        
2002 43,269.00 22,408 31,394 4.66 6.53        
2003 43,335.30 22,978 30,801 4.77 6.4        
2004 43,394.00 23,376 31,828 4.85 6.6        
2005 43,232.30 22,325 30,644 4.65 6.38        
2006 43,258.00 23,599 31,655 4.91 6.59        
2007 43,425.70 23,322 32,189 4.83 6.67        
2008 43,357.70 22,585 32,884 4.69 6.83        
2008 43,272.00 22,419 33,591 4.66 6.99        
2010 43,305.30 21,308 34,306 4.43 7.13        
2011 43,527.30 20,808 34,488 4.3 7.13        
2012 43,355.30 21,017 36,426 4.36 7.56        
2013 43,653.30 20,255 36,710 4.18 7.57        
2014 43,613.70 19,761 37,441 4.08 7.73        
3/3/2015 11:46 AM
tecwrg
Posts: 18995 (0)
Hall of Famer
4 1 152 32 129
Prospect
Posted by bad_luck on 3/3/2015 11:46:00 AM (view original):
You did it wrong.

Even using your method of looking at entire seasons, there isn't a correlation:

Season IP Runs Ks R/9 K/9        
1990 37,563.70 17,919 23,853 4.29 5.72     R/9 K/9
1991 37,769.70 18,127 24,390 4.32 5.81   R/9 1  
1992 37,829.70 17,341 23,538 4.13 5.6   K/9 -0.20525 1
1993 40,507.00 20,864 26,310 4.64 5.85        
1994 28,586.30 15,752 19,766 4.96 6.22        
1995 36,032.00 19,554 25,425 4.88 6.35        
1996 40,560.70 22,831 29,308 5.07 6.5        
1997 40,454.00 21,604 29,937 4.81 6.66        
1998 43,434.70 23,297 31,893 4.83 6.61        
1999 43,211.30 24,691 31,119 5.14 6.48        
2000 43,244.30 24,971 31,356 5.2 6.53        
2001 43,287.30 23,199 32,404 4.82 6.74        
2002 43,269.00 22,408 31,394 4.66 6.53        
2003 43,335.30 22,978 30,801 4.77 6.4        
2004 43,394.00 23,376 31,828 4.85 6.6        
2005 43,232.30 22,325 30,644 4.65 6.38        
2006 43,258.00 23,599 31,655 4.91 6.59        
2007 43,425.70 23,322 32,189 4.83 6.67        
2008 43,357.70 22,585 32,884 4.69 6.83        
2008 43,272.00 22,419 33,591 4.66 6.99        
2010 43,305.30 21,308 34,306 4.43 7.13        
2011 43,527.30 20,808 34,488 4.3 7.13        
2012 43,355.30 21,017 36,426 4.36 7.56        
2013 43,653.30 20,255 36,710 4.18 7.57        
2014 43,613.70 19,761 37,441 4.08 7.73        
Looks like you're doing the correlation from 1990-2014, because you're matching the 1990 number that I had.

Try doing it from 1994 (or any later year) through 2014.

3/3/2015 11:50 AM
bad_luck
Posts: 21761 (0)
Hall of Famer
48 1 10
Prospect
R/G compared to SO/G since 1994 by individual team seasons (shortened from 556 lines):

R/G SO/G        
3.91 6.993827     R/G SO/G
4.35 7.932099   R/G 1  
3.91 8.253086   SO/G -0.36475 1
3.78 6.938272        
4.46 7.104938        
4.07 8.407407        
4.13 7.339506        
4.67 7.061728        
4.02 6.080247        
4.41 8.203704        
3.88 8.901235        
4.77 7.814815        
4.5 6.814815        
3.91 7.604938        
3.93 7.17284        
4.1 7.685185        


That's not strong enough to draw any sort of conclusion. Compare that to OBP to R/G since 1994:

OBP R/G          
0.307 3.91     OBP R/G  
0.311 4.35   OBP 1    
0.316 3.91   R/G 0.914943 1  
0.317 3.78          
0.323 4.46          
0.31 4.07          
0.317 4.13          
0.331 4.67          
0.314 4.02          
0.324 4.41          
0.309 3.88          
0.322 4.77          
0.32 4.5          
0.3 3.91          
0.314 3.93          
0.311 4.1          


3/3/2015 12:01 PM
bad_luck
Posts: 21761 (0)
Hall of Famer
48 1 10
Prospect
Runs are down because hitters are making more outs. Yes, a lot of those outs are strikeouts, but swapping groundouts/flyouts/popouts for some of those strikeouts wouldn't increase run scoring.

An out is an out.
3/3/2015 12:05 PM
burnsy483
Posts: 6848 (0)
Veteran
1 1 26
Prospect
Obviously OBP is a huge deal. There's SOMETHING to it, even if it's not very strong. I don't think it's a coincidence.

I bet if you compared wins to strikeouts, you find very little correlation. It seems to be a league-wide deal year-to-year, so the wins wouldn't show.


3/3/2015 12:06 PM
bad_luck
Posts: 21761 (0)
Hall of Famer
48 1 10
Prospect
Posted by burnsy483 on 3/3/2015 12:06:00 PM (view original):
Obviously OBP is a huge deal. There's SOMETHING to it, even if it's not very strong. I don't think it's a coincidence.

I bet if you compared wins to strikeouts, you find very little correlation. It seems to be a league-wide deal year-to-year, so the wins wouldn't show.


Like I said, outs as a percentage of plate appearances are going up. A lot of those outs are strikeouts so there is a slight negative correlation (-0.3). But swapping those strikeouts for other types of outs isn't going to do anything. Which is why an out is an out.

If tec wants to argue that reducing strikeouts would lead to more balls in play, which would lead to more hits, which would lead to more runs, I'd buy it. Power may go down, BABIP may go down, but maybe more runs are scored. I don't know.

But that is beside the point. Once those balls in play become outs, they are no better than strikeouts.

3/3/2015 12:19 PM
burnsy483
Posts: 6848 (0)
Veteran
1 1 26
Prospect
Yes, that was the original point. Outs are still outs over the course of a season, regardless of what kind of out they are.
3/3/2015 12:27 PM
tecwrg
Posts: 18995 (0)
Hall of Famer
4 1 152 32 129
Prospect
Posted by bad_luck on 3/3/2015 12:01:00 PM (view original):
R/G compared to SO/G since 1994 by individual team seasons (shortened from 556 lines):

R/G SO/G        
3.91 6.993827     R/G SO/G
4.35 7.932099   R/G 1  
3.91 8.253086   SO/G -0.36475 1
3.78 6.938272        
4.46 7.104938        
4.07 8.407407        
4.13 7.339506        
4.67 7.061728        
4.02 6.080247        
4.41 8.203704        
3.88 8.901235        
4.77 7.814815        
4.5 6.814815        
3.91 7.604938        
3.93 7.17284        
4.1 7.685185        


That's not strong enough to draw any sort of conclusion. Compare that to OBP to R/G since 1994:

OBP R/G          
0.307 3.91     OBP R/G  
0.311 4.35   OBP 1    
0.316 3.91   R/G 0.914943 1  
0.317 3.78          
0.323 4.46          
0.31 4.07          
0.317 4.13          
0.331 4.67          
0.314 4.02          
0.324 4.41          
0.309 3.88          
0.322 4.77          
0.32 4.5          
0.3 3.91          
0.314 3.93          
0.311 4.1          


Why did you change from the numbers I provided to a completely different set of numbers?

Didn't like the answer you were getting?

I call bullshit because I have no idea what numbers you are using or where you got them from.

I got mine from baseball-reference.com.

3/3/2015 12:33 PM
bad_luck
Posts: 21761 (0)
Hall of Famer
48 1 10
Prospect
I got the numbers from baseball reference, too. I went team by team and pulled the data into a spreadsheet. Here is an example. That's the Orioles page. I put it into a excel file and moved down to the next team on the list. Then the next. Etc.

Once they were in, I had to add a SO/G column, but that was simple. 1920 on is a little over 2000 team seasons. 1884 on is almost 2500.

I switched from your numbers because using only 20 data points is dumb. We can look at 1994-today team by team and have well over 500 data points to draw a conclusion.
3/3/2015 12:39 PM
◂ Prev 1...27|28|29|30|31...65 Next ▸
Mike Trout Topic
△Top△Bottom

Search Criteria

Terms of Use Customer Support Privacy Statement

© 1999-2024 WhatIfSports.com, Inc. All rights reserved. WhatIfSports is a trademark of WhatIfSports.com, Inc. SimLeague, SimMatchup and iSimNow are trademarks or registered trademarks of Electronic Arts, Inc. Used under license. The names of actual companies and products mentioned herein may be the trademarks of their respective owners.