contact rating Topic

prezuiwf
Posts: 315 (0)
All Star
15 3 27
Prospect
Posted by zbrent716 on 6/28/2010 7:42:00 PM (view original):
Posted by prezuiwf on 6/28/2010 7:37:00 PM (view original):
I can almost guarantee that contact directly affects batting average. That's why a guy like Orval Yeats can be successful-- no power whatsoever, but he makes solid contact and has the speed necessary to leg out grounders, and thus he's got a .288 career average and decently low strikeout numbers despite only a 47 batting eye. I am sure a guy with the power to hit a fly ball every once in a while would see less of a reliance on speed to get him hits, but the principle still stands.
He's got a .288 career average, but seems (based on career games/PA) to be part of a platoon (which is how I'd use him too) so that 80+ vs RH probably helps him out a lot, too.
He is indeed part of a platoon, which undoubtedly helps. And yes, his unique combination of ratings (contact, split, speed, bunt) seems to be such that a decrease in any one of them could hurt his production. But that said, are there any among you who would ever use this player if he were exactly the same but had, say, a 30 contact rating?
6/28/2010 9:12 PM
zbrent716
Posts: 1970 (0)
Hall of Famer
90 1 58 77
Prospect
Not at DH/1B/Corner OF. I've used worse as CF/SS where I've concentrated on the plus defense.
6/28/2010 9:18 PM
prezuiwf
Posts: 315 (0)
All Star
15 3 27
Prospect
Hmm, just found some interesting case studies that seem to make it appear as if contact and split are more dependent on each other than I thought. Check out this guy I just found in Uecker: J.P. Diaz. Very similar contact player to Yeats in many ways. 93 contact rating, 100 speed, and he's even got a 93 bunt rating. His biggest difference (besides the existence of a decent amount of power) is that his splits are only 62/65, not nearly as high as Yeats'. The result? A .263 batting average in 1,305 ML at-bats.

Now, look at F.P. Palmer. 98 speed, splits of 94/91, and an 82 bunt rating. However, his contact rating is only 22. The result? .254 batting average in 1,487 ML at-bats.
6/28/2010 9:22 PM
prezuiwf
Posts: 315 (0)
All Star
15 3 27
Prospect
Posted by zbrent716 on 6/28/2010 9:18:00 PM (view original):
Not at DH/1B/Corner OF. I've used worse as CF/SS where I've concentrated on the plus defense.
Fair enough. I use Aramis Aybar in a non-platoon role at SS, and despite hitting .241/.261/.389 for his ML career so far, I can't help but think that lefty split of 82 has saved me from far worse numbers.
6/28/2010 9:24 PM
wafairb
Posts: 36 (0)
Hall of Famer
1 1 19 69
Prospect
I use contact along with speed and power.
 
All other ratings being equal.....

I expect a guy with high contact and high speed to get on more than a guy with same contact but lower speed rating. 
Just as I would expect a guy with high contact and high power would hit more home runs than a guy with same contact but lower power rating. 

So even though all the other ratings are the same the guy with the higher speed/power should have a higher batting average....thats my theory.
 
6/28/2010 10:03 PM
Save_Mr_X
Posts: 146 (0)
Hall of Famer
37 1 9 12 56
Prospect
Posted by FishNasty on 6/28/2010 5:13:00 PM (view original):
Ummmm, no.  From what I know, it is not only strikeouts, but balls put into play.  Someone that puts a ball into play 100 more times in a year, is bound to have at LEAST 10-30 more hits. 
that about nailed it...it effects percentage of balls in play that turn into hits...this is where the big years come from...guys who make great contact have a year where a large amount of balls drop in for hits...you dont even get the chance with low contact players...
6/28/2010 10:11 PM
antonsirius
Posts: 2567 (0)
Hall of Famer
167 135 9 20
Prospect
Posted by prezuiwf on 6/28/2010 9:22:00 PM (view original):
Hmm, just found some interesting case studies that seem to make it appear as if contact and split are more dependent on each other than I thought. Check out this guy I just found in Uecker: J.P. Diaz. Very similar contact player to Yeats in many ways. 93 contact rating, 100 speed, and he's even got a 93 bunt rating. His biggest difference (besides the existence of a decent amount of power) is that his splits are only 62/65, not nearly as high as Yeats'. The result? A .263 batting average in 1,305 ML at-bats.

Now, look at F.P. Palmer. 98 speed, splits of 94/91, and an 82 bunt rating. However, his contact rating is only 22. The result? .254 batting average in 1,487 ML at-bats.
On the other hand, there's Peter Richard. Only a 16 Contact and a 39 Eye, but 96 vRH (used mostly in a platoon). Hit .310 last season with a pitcher's park (OKC) as his home stadium, and .282 in 1100+ AB for his big league career.

Of course, he strikes out once every 3.87 ABs... I've never bothered figuring out his BABIP but it's got to be ridiculous.
6/28/2010 10:26 PM
jimmystick
Posts: 827 (0)
Hall of Famer
88
Prospect
I'm still on the fence.  The players I have that I'm questioning don't have enough ML PAs to really be worthwhile examples.  But what the hell, I'll throw one of them out here anyway.  Meet Miguel Lee.  In his rookie season he platooned, and with batting ratings of 89/95/2/70/40 why wouldn't you platoon this guy vs Righties?  He really disappointed, hitting only .217 on the season, and actually only hit .216 in 259 ABs vs Righties.  Again, I already mentioned that the players I've examined don't have enough PA to satisfy the sample size critics, but I do have quite a few more players besides Lee that I can throw out here.  Some are low contact who struck out a lot but otherwise hit the ball well, and some are like Lee, high contact who didn't hit for a very high BA at all.  All this has me questioning: What does the contact rating actually do?  And I think it is possible that the only thing it controls is strikeout frequency and nothing else......
6/28/2010 10:49 PM
jimmystick
Posts: 827 (0)
Hall of Famer
88
Prospect
Posted by FishNasty on 6/28/2010 5:51:00 PM (view original):
Ahhh, good points.  I don't know what I was thinking.  He WILL get more hits than the other guy, but not necc. a higher average.  However, for the most part, wouldn't you rather have a guy put a ball into play than strike out?  I appreciate where this conversation is leading and would like to hear other thoughts as well.  Good questions.
There are many baseball gurus and sabermetricians who don't care about strikeout rates.  Those people view a strikeout as just another out.  Afterall, what difference does it make if the batter pops up, flies out to the warning track, or strikes out.  The end result is the same: an out.  There are exceptions of course, like the flyout to the warning track will score a runner on third base with less than 2 outs.  But a groundball to the second baseman can also result in a double play with a runner on first base.  In some scenarios it is actually BETTER to strikeout rather than put the ball in play.  For a really slow runner, you'd just assume he strikeout with a runner on first rather than put the ball in play and risk a double play.
6/28/2010 10:56 PM
FishNasty
Posts: 409 (0)
Hall of Famer
143 1 30 25
Prospect
I understand your points, but assuming (I know dangerous) that most ab's happen with no one on base, why wouldn't you prefer a ball be put into play?  Chance for so many things, error, player losing ball in sun, ball hitting a bird, I mean ANYTHING could happen.  If you strikeout, NOTHING.

I will of course concede you would rather strikout than GIDP if those are the 2 options given.  But I have no idea why anyone would argure overall that a k is better than a chance at anything else.
6/29/2010 12:56 AM
FishNasty
Posts: 409 (0)
Hall of Famer
143 1 30 25
Prospect

**Not argue a k is better, but equal to something else

6/29/2010 12:58 AM
antonsirius
Posts: 2567 (0)
Hall of Famer
167 135 9 20
Prospect
Posted by jimmystick on 6/28/2010 10:56:00 PM:
There are many baseball gurus and sabermetricians who don't care about strikeout rates.
Err, no. There's difference between viewing an out in the context of run production (which is what you describe) and viewing it in the context of what it means for a player's skill set and ability, where K rates tend to matter a great deal.
6/29/2010 1:04 AM
prezuiwf
Posts: 315 (0)
All Star
15 3 27
Prospect
Posted by jimmystick on 6/28/2010 10:56:00 PM (view original):
Posted by FishNasty on 6/28/2010 5:51:00 PM (view original):
Ahhh, good points.  I don't know what I was thinking.  He WILL get more hits than the other guy, but not necc. a higher average.  However, for the most part, wouldn't you rather have a guy put a ball into play than strike out?  I appreciate where this conversation is leading and would like to hear other thoughts as well.  Good questions.
There are many baseball gurus and sabermetricians who don't care about strikeout rates.  Those people view a strikeout as just another out.  Afterall, what difference does it make if the batter pops up, flies out to the warning track, or strikes out.  The end result is the same: an out.  There are exceptions of course, like the flyout to the warning track will score a runner on third base with less than 2 outs.  But a groundball to the second baseman can also result in a double play with a runner on first base.  In some scenarios it is actually BETTER to strikeout rather than put the ball in play.  For a really slow runner, you'd just assume he strikeout with a runner on first rather than put the ball in play and risk a double play.
Actually, that's not really true. Sabermetricians do view strikeout rates as being important when evaluating future hitter performance. Since batting average is determined by a whole host of factors once balls have been put into play, guys who put more balls into play have a much greater chance of improving their batting averages in the future by virtue of the fact that if they keep hitting balls into play, eventually they'll have seasons where more of them fall in for hits. So if there are two guys with totally equal skill sets but one of them strikes out 100 times a year and another guy 30, the guy with 30 will have a significantly higher batting average over the course of his career due to luck alone.
6/29/2010 9:18 AM
jimmystick
Posts: 827 (0)
Hall of Famer
88
Prospect
I meant it in context of run production, as antonsirius pointed out.  

"So if there are two guys with totally equal skill sets but one of them strikes out 100 times a year and another guy 30, the guy with 30 will have a significantly higher batting average over the course of his career due to luck alone."

This quote is what I'm trying to find out though.  In real life, this is obvious.  But is the luck factor incorporated into the game?  Does higher contact rating guarentee a higher BA for the purposes of the game engine?
6/29/2010 9:32 AM
This post has a rating of , which is below the default threshold.
Show
◂ Prev 1234 Next ▸
contact rating Topic
△Top△Bottom

Search Criteria

Terms of Use Customer Support Privacy Statement

© 1999-2026 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.