Posted by bad_luck on 5/15/2014 12:42:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 5/15/2014 12:32:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 5/15/2014 12:15:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 5/15/2014 12:09:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 5/15/2014 11:37:00 AM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 5/15/2014 9:21:00 AM (view original):
I think we can agree that "all outs are equal, so it doesn't matter how they're made" is a pretty dumb statement.

All outs aren't perfectly equal, as we see with the run matrix. 75% of the time, all outs are exactly the same. 6% of the time, a productive out nets you a slight gain in run scoring. 19% of the time, an out in play is either neutral or a complete disaster.

If you understand baseball, you know that hitters don't get to pick and choose when and how they make their outs. Guys who avoid strikeouts and make a lot of outs in play also hit into a lot of double plays.

We can also look at it on the team level and see that there is absolutely zero correlation between run scoring and strikeout totals.

Hitters also don't get to pick and choose what happens when they put a ball in play.  BABIP says they get a hit around 30% of time time.  Actually, a little higher than that, since BABIP inexplicably excludes HR's.  Add another roughly 2% of the time, there will be an error. 

So let's say 33% of the time, something positive happens offensively when a ball is put in play.

What percentage of the time does something positive happen offensively when a batter strikes out?

You seem to be arguing on the premise that if a hitter KNOWS that putting a ball in play will result in an out, he might as well just strikeout, since an out on a BIP with a runner on first could be "a complete disaster".  Unless Nostradamus, Jean Dixon or the Amazing Kreskin is in your lineup, that's probably not a good premise to base an argument on.

BABIP inexplicably excludes HR's

Hey genius, home runs aren't "in play."


You seem to be arguing on the premise that if a hitter KNOWS that putting a ball in play will result in an out, he might as well just strikeout, 

Nope, I'm saying that once that ball in play becomes an out, it wasn't any better than a strikeout. Obviously, hitters should try to hit the ball and hits are better than outs.

Inside the park HRs are certainly "in play".  Genius.

And I'll contend that the definition of BABIP is fundamentally flawed by excluding home runs.  It's supposed to represent the result of an AB when the batter does not strikeout, sac bunt, walk, or get HBP.  In other words, what happens when he hits the ball.  It's retarded that HRs are excluded from the definition, because HRs are certainly one of the products of hitting the ball.

Haha. Obviously you were talking about inside the park home runs in your overview of hit frequencies. Since, you know, they happen so often.

You can contend that, biz, but you're wrong. BABIP measures hits on balls in play. Home runs aren't in play.

Try taking your head out of your *** for once.  If that's possible.

Taking the definition of "ball in play" out of the equation, what is the purpose of BABIP.?  What is it supposed to measure?

Posted by bad_luck on 5/15/2014 1:02:00 PM (view original):

Posted by The Taint on 5/15/2014 12:59:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 5/15/2014 12:52:00 PM (view original):

Posted by The Taint on 5/15/2014 12:51:00 PM (view original):
Maybe teams should start using the sacrifice hit more then

Bunting?

Yes, depending on the situation of course. You don't want Joey Votro bunting with men on first and second

That makes no sense whatsoever. Other than the pitcher, you don't want players sac bunting. I understand the "you didn't get a hit but at least you moved the runner" mindset. There you tried to get a hit and this is the next best thing. Completely giving up on a chance to hit? Foolishness.

But the percentages of your graph show otherwise. They show you score more often when you have runners on second and third with one out than runners on first and second with no outs. I thought that the object of the game was to score runs. Again it's all situation driven. If it's bottom of the ninth and it's a tie game why wouldn't you bunt your runners over when you have a greater chance to score?

How about this:

1) Hitters should hit the ball the way they normally would, knowing that a strikeout is just another out, except in situations where it's really not (those exist), and a double play isn't a real possibility. 

2) With 2 strikes, recognize the importance of expanding the strike zone and knowing that the pitcher will be throwing balls that may be more difficult to hit, so to increase your chances of hitting the ball, shorten your swing a little bit.

Good?

Posted by The Taint on 5/15/2014 12:57:00 PM (view original):
I just realized that graph is old data also. Strikeout rates are going up considerably since 2010. You have anything that's a little more current?

Don't think it matters much. K's have only gone up from an average of 1,143 per team in 2010 to 1,223 per team in 2013. Less than one every other game.

Posted by The Taint on 5/15/2014 1:08:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 5/15/2014 1:02:00 PM (view original):

Posted by The Taint on 5/15/2014 12:59:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 5/15/2014 12:52:00 PM (view original):

Posted by The Taint on 5/15/2014 12:51:00 PM (view original):
Maybe teams should start using the sacrifice hit more then

Bunting?

Yes, depending on the situation of course. You don't want Joey Votro bunting with men on first and second

That makes no sense whatsoever. Other than the pitcher, you don't want players sac bunting. I understand the "you didn't get a hit but at least you moved the runner" mindset. There you tried to get a hit and this is the next best thing. Completely giving up on a chance to hit? Foolishness.

But the percentages of your graph show otherwise. They show you score more often when you have runners on second and third with one out than runners on first and second with no outs. I thought that the object of the game was to score runs. Again it's all situation driven. If it's bottom of the ninth and it's a tie game why wouldn't you bunt your runners over when you have a greater chance to score?

You increase your chances of scoring just one run in those scenarios but you reduce the runs you score on average. You're almost always trying to maximize run scoring, not play for just one run. Obviously, the strategy is different if you are playing for just one run.

tec - BABIP is basically designed to measure how lucky you are.  If you have a BABIP of .400, it's likely you've been getting lucky the balls you're hitting aren't being fielded by the defense.  If you incorporate home runs, you sort of defeat the purpose, since someone like Miggy will have a much higher BABIP than someone like Brett Gardner.

Yes, like I said, situation driven. Not all outs are created equal.

Posted by tecwrg on 5/15/2014 1:02:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 5/15/2014 12:42:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 5/15/2014 12:32:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 5/15/2014 12:15:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 5/15/2014 12:09:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 5/15/2014 11:37:00 AM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 5/15/2014 9:21:00 AM (view original):
I think we can agree that "all outs are equal, so it doesn't matter how they're made" is a pretty dumb statement.

All outs aren't perfectly equal, as we see with the run matrix. 75% of the time, all outs are exactly the same. 6% of the time, a productive out nets you a slight gain in run scoring. 19% of the time, an out in play is either neutral or a complete disaster.

If you understand baseball, you know that hitters don't get to pick and choose when and how they make their outs. Guys who avoid strikeouts and make a lot of outs in play also hit into a lot of double plays.

We can also look at it on the team level and see that there is absolutely zero correlation between run scoring and strikeout totals.

Hitters also don't get to pick and choose what happens when they put a ball in play.  BABIP says they get a hit around 30% of time time.  Actually, a little higher than that, since BABIP inexplicably excludes HR's.  Add another roughly 2% of the time, there will be an error. 

So let's say 33% of the time, something positive happens offensively when a ball is put in play.

What percentage of the time does something positive happen offensively when a batter strikes out?

You seem to be arguing on the premise that if a hitter KNOWS that putting a ball in play will result in an out, he might as well just strikeout, since an out on a BIP with a runner on first could be "a complete disaster".  Unless Nostradamus, Jean Dixon or the Amazing Kreskin is in your lineup, that's probably not a good premise to base an argument on.

BABIP inexplicably excludes HR's

Hey genius, home runs aren't "in play."


You seem to be arguing on the premise that if a hitter KNOWS that putting a ball in play will result in an out, he might as well just strikeout, 

Nope, I'm saying that once that ball in play becomes an out, it wasn't any better than a strikeout. Obviously, hitters should try to hit the ball and hits are better than outs.

Inside the park HRs are certainly "in play".  Genius.

And I'll contend that the definition of BABIP is fundamentally flawed by excluding home runs.  It's supposed to represent the result of an AB when the batter does not strikeout, sac bunt, walk, or get HBP.  In other words, what happens when he hits the ball.  It's retarded that HRs are excluded from the definition, because HRs are certainly one of the products of hitting the ball.

Haha. Obviously you were talking about inside the park home runs in your overview of hit frequencies. Since, you know, they happen so often.

You can contend that, biz, but you're wrong. BABIP measures hits on balls in play. Home runs aren't in play.

Try taking your head out of your *** for once.  If that's possible.

Taking the definition of "ball in play" out of the equation, what is the purpose of BABIP.?  What is it supposed to measure?

 The percentage of the balls that you hit that  could have been fielded but weren't. Home runs can't be fielded.

Posted by The Taint on 5/15/2014 1:16:00 PM (view original):
Yes, like I said, situation driven. Not all outs are created equal.

Um...ok. I don't think anyone ever argued that in a tie game in the bottom of the 12th with a runner on second that a K was no worse than a ground ball to first. Individual situations are just that. Individual situations. Tec's complaining about all players in general, regardless of the situation, striking out too much. It's dumb. Argue that they make outs too often but K's are just another out.

It's like if I said "all players are grounding out too often" and then pointed to a couple situations where a ground ball is an absolute heart breaker. It wouldn't be smart to argue that players should alter their approaches to avoid ground balls based on those few situations. Ground balls are just another type of out. No worse than others.

Posted by burnsy483 on 5/15/2014 1:15:00 PM (view original):
tec - BABIP is basically designed to measure how lucky you are.  If you have a BABIP of .400, it's likely you've been getting lucky the balls you're hitting aren't being fielded by the defense.  If you incorporate home runs, you sort of defeat the purpose, since someone like Miggy will have a much higher BABIP than someone like Brett Gardner.

OK.

Allow me to introduce a new stat: BAWBHTFB (batting average when batter hits the ******* ball).  Which would be BAPIP plus home runs.

OK. BABIP was developed for basically the purpose I described.  Don't get angry at stats just because you don't understand their purpose.

Posted by tecwrg on 5/15/2014 1:37:00 PM (view original):

Posted by burnsy483 on 5/15/2014 1:15:00 PM (view original):
tec - BABIP is basically designed to measure how lucky you are.  If you have a BABIP of .400, it's likely you've been getting lucky the balls you're hitting aren't being fielded by the defense.  If you incorporate home runs, you sort of defeat the purpose, since someone like Miggy will have a much higher BABIP than someone like Brett Gardner.

OK.

Allow me to introduce a new stat: BAWBHTFB (batting average when batter hits the ******* ball).  Which would be BAPIP plus home runs.

You know what Adam Dunn's career BAWBHTFB is? .363

Damn he was good.

Posted by burnsy483 on 5/15/2014 1:42:00 PM (view original):
OK. BABIP was developed for basically the purpose I described.  Don't get angry at stats just because you don't understand their purpose.

buuuuuurn

Posted by bad_luck on 5/15/2014 1:42:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 5/15/2014 1:37:00 PM (view original):

Posted by burnsy483 on 5/15/2014 1:15:00 PM (view original):
tec - BABIP is basically designed to measure how lucky you are.  If you have a BABIP of .400, it's likely you've been getting lucky the balls you're hitting aren't being fielded by the defense.  If you incorporate home runs, you sort of defeat the purpose, since someone like Miggy will have a much higher BABIP than someone like Brett Gardner.

OK.

Allow me to introduce a new stat: BAWBHTFB (batting average when batter hits the ******* ball).  Which would be BAPIP plus home runs.

You know what Adam Dunn's career BAWBHTFB is? .363

Tony Gwynn's BAWBHTFB is only .355.

Dimaggio is only at .345.

Seems like a good stat.