PDA

View Full Version : Drew Stubbs' Slump



GOYA
06-07-2009, 02:57 AM
Since Gomes was called up Stubbs has hit .216

In his last 10 games he has hit .194

Over his last 10 his strikeout rate is down to 16.7%. Prior to that, it was 24%.

dougdirt
06-07-2009, 11:55 AM
Since Gomes was called up Stubbs has hit .216

In his last 10 games he has hit .194

Over his last 10 his strikeout rate is down to 16.7%. Prior to that, it was 24%.

You are using the wrong formula for K rate.... go with K/PA not K/AB. It ignores walks or sac hits/flies where the player went to the plate and didn't strike out.

Still, Stubbs has a .194 BABIP over his last 11 games with a 13% walk rate and a 15.2% strike out rate. Keep up those latter two rates over a full season and you are going to be a very good batter.

Superdude
06-07-2009, 12:32 PM
You are using the wrong formula for K rate.... go with K/PA not K/AB. It ignores walks or sac hits/flies where the player went to the plate and didn't strike out.

It's not really wrong. It just depends on what you're looking for. Obviously walks are a good thing, but if you're looking to judge a players ability to put the ball in play and hit for a high average, the walks are meaningless statistically. K/PA is going to give the perception that players who walk more make more contact. I'll give you sac flies though. I usually use K/AB+SF(H) and then look at walks separately.

RedsManRick
06-07-2009, 12:47 PM
Especially with a guy hitting for little power, streaks and slumps are unavoidable. We should only get worked up about them if we feel the represent a true change in our understanding of that player's ability.

dougdirt
06-07-2009, 01:39 PM
It's not really wrong. It just depends on what you're looking for. Obviously walks are a good thing, but if you're looking to judge a players ability to put the ball in play and hit for a high average, the walks are meaningless statistically. K/PA is going to give the perception that players who walk more make more contact. I'll give you sac flies though. I usually use K/AB+SF(H) and then look at walks separately.

The walks aren't a meaningless stat because when you are walking, your hits are worth more because you're working with a lower AB total.

fearofpopvol1
06-07-2009, 01:46 PM
It's not really wrong. It just depends on what you're looking for. Obviously walks are a good thing, but if you're looking to judge a players ability to put the ball in play and hit for a high average, the walks are meaningless statistically. K/PA is going to give the perception that players who walk more make more contact. I'll give you sac flies though. I usually use K/AB+SF(H) and then look at walks separately.

I'm much more interested in OBP than I am BA. Walks are every bit as important as hits.

Superdude
06-07-2009, 02:08 PM
The walks aren't a meaningless stat because when you are walking, your hits are worth more because you're working with a lower AB total.

If you have to equal player, but one player walks more than another player, he's just putting fewer balls in play leading to fewer hits. Granted, the hits are worth more, but the rate of hits per at bat isn't going to change. If you ignore homeruns for the sake of a simpler argument, batting average is decided by the amount of times you put the ball in play per at bat (K/AB) and your BABIP.


I'm much more interested in OBP than I am BA. Walks are every bit as important as hits.

I'm definitely not arguing against OBP.

fearofpopvol1
06-07-2009, 02:18 PM
I'm definitely not arguing against OBP.

But it has to be factored into the equation of the slump. If the walk rate went down significantly with the BA, then I would see the concern. But truth be told, it hasn't.

dougdirt
06-07-2009, 02:18 PM
If you have to equal player, but one player walks more than another player, he's just putting fewer balls in play leading to fewer hits. Granted, the hits are worth more, but the rate of hits per at bat isn't going to change. If you ignore homeruns for the sake of a simpler argument, batting average is decided by the amount of times you put the ball in play per at bat (K/AB) and your BABIP.



I'm definitely not arguing against OBP.

If we have two guys with 600 PA and they 'have the same strikeout rate' and we use K/PA to get 20%, then both players have 120 strikeouts. However if we have two guys with 600 AB and they 'have the same strikeout rate' and we used K/AB to get to 20%, but player A has 680 PA and player B has 630, they are certainly making contact at different rates.

Superdude
06-07-2009, 02:32 PM
However if we have two guys with 600 AB and they 'have the same strikeout rate' and we used K/AB to get to 20%, but player A has 680 PA and player B has 630, they are certainly making contact at different rates.

Assuming they both had a BABIP of .300 and didn't hit any homeruns, they both ended the year batting .240. K/PA does reveal that player A was probably more productive, but can't you get a better read on the makeup of a hitter if you take into account K/AB and BB/PA separately instead of cramming them together into one stat?

GOYA
06-07-2009, 02:35 PM
I almost included BB data but since the rate was about the same, I decided to ignore it and concentrate on pitches that Stubbs is swinging at.

This originally started with my idea that Stubbs is trying to hit for more power and has adjusted his swing. I've looked at a small amount of video to try and spot a difference but I haven't yet. The one thing I've noticed, and it's fairly obvious, is that he doesn't generate a lot of bat speed. Most of the videos that I've seen, he hasn't seemed to be able to get a full swing on the ball. He's been fighting pitches off and inside outting a lot of pitches. But with the small amount of video I've watched, I really don't stand firm on any statements about him.

dougdirt
06-07-2009, 02:57 PM
Assuming they both had a BABIP of .300 and didn't hit any homeruns, they both ended the year batting .240. K/PA does reveal that player A was probably more productive, but can't you get a better read on the makeup of a hitter if you take into account K/AB and BB/PA separately instead of cramming them together into one stat?

Well K/AB doesn't give you a true picture of a players contact skills. K/PA does a much better job at telling us that.

GOYA
06-07-2009, 03:26 PM
To me it seems counter-intuitive to include PAs when the batter keeps the bat on his shoulder to judge his contact skills. Sacrifices might be considered but I don't have access to sac stats other than for the season. He has so few that they are negligible.

Can we agree that even though Stubbs is slumping, he is striking out less?

Superdude
06-07-2009, 04:38 PM
To me it seems counter-intuitive to include PAs when the batter keeps the bat on his shoulder to judge his contact skills.

This basically sums up my point without all the hypothetical stat situations. K/PA says that a walk is just as good as a hit when it comes to judging contact skills. The ability to let the pitcher walk you is a huge part of being a good hitter, but it has nothing to do with hitting the ball.

HokieRed
06-07-2009, 08:32 PM
I'm much more interested in OBP than I am BA. Walks are every bit as important as hits.

Walks would only be "every bit as important as hits" if the hits were all singles. Walks are important; they're not as important as hits. OBP is important, more important than BA, but not as important as OPS.

fearofpopvol1
06-08-2009, 11:42 AM
Walks would only be "every bit as important as hits" if the hits were all singles. Walks are important; they're not as important as hits. OBP is important, more important than BA, but not as important as OPS.

Stubbs likely isn't going to be a huge OPS kind of guy. I mean, he could develop into it, but typically, he hasn't been. Thus, I'm more interested in his OBP than his slugging. So I would disagree that OPS is the more important thing to look at when it comes to Stubbs.

M2
06-08-2009, 12:08 PM
It wouldn't surprise me if Stubbs slumps for a while. He was in high A at this time last year and now he's got a better class of pitcher adjusting to him. The key for him is whether he can adjust back in the second half of the season (or sooner, but he deserves the space to struggle, even struggle mightily, for a month or two).

Kingspoint
06-08-2009, 02:28 PM
What slump?

Yesterday: Double, Two Singles, Stolen Base, Two Runs Scored.
Game Before that: Two At-Bats that produced RBI's.
Game Before that: Hitless, but nobody's perfect.
Game Before that: Double, Single, Run Scored.
Game Before that: HomeRun, Stolen Base.
Game Before that: Two Singles, Run Scored.
Game Before that: Two Walks in 4 PA's, .500 OBP.
Game Before that: Hitless, but nobody's perfect.
Game Before that: Two Walks, Stolen Base, .400 OBP.
Game Before that: Two Walks, Stolen Base, .500 OBP.

Have I mentioned his Defense?

Get off the Average thing. Average means nothing.

What one does with his AB's is all that matters, and it could be disected further, but this is enough to show you that there has not been any slump by Stubbs.

Fohgetaboutit.

GOYA
06-08-2009, 02:49 PM
His batting slump. His 29 out of 37 ABs over his last 10 games that he made an out. That slump.

I didn't say he wasn't contributing.

dougdirt
06-08-2009, 03:09 PM
His batting slump. His 29 out of 37 ABs over his last 10 games that he made an out. That slump.

I didn't say he wasn't contributing.

Well I think it was more of a definition of the word slump isssue. While Stubbs may be hitting .216 over those last 10 games, its not really a 'he looks terrible at the plate' slump. Its a 'he cant buy a hit' slump with 7 strikeouts and 6 walks over his last 10 games. A lot of people are past the batting average thing, but whenever we hear about guys and slumps its still the first thing that is brought up.

Mario-Rijo
06-08-2009, 03:17 PM
Well I think it was more of a definition of the word slump isssue. While Stubbs may be hitting .216 over those last 10 games, its not really a 'he looks terrible at the plate' slump. Its a 'he cant buy a hit' slump with 7 strikeouts and 6 walks over his last 10 games. A lot of people are past the batting average thing, but whenever we hear about guys and slumps its still the first thing that is brought up.

As it should be a part of the equation. If you cannot prove to the opposition that you can hit at the next level, you won't be seeing nearly enough balls to be productive enough offensively. Not stating he will have that problem definitively but if he will have a problem that would likely be it. And even if your BA is good in AAA doesn't mean it won't take a major tumble what with far better overall defense at the next level. Having read the recent Stubbs piece from BP though I think he is doing what he can, and is on the right track. I just wonder if it will be enough.

dougdirt
06-08-2009, 03:33 PM
As it should be a part of the equation. If you cannot prove to the opposition that you can hit at the next level, you won't be seeing nearly enough balls to be productive enough offensively. Not stating he will have that problem definitively but if he will have a problem that would likely be it. And even if your BA is good in AAA doesn't mean it won't take a major tumble what with far better overall defense at the next level. Having read the recent Stubbs piece from BP though I think he is doing what he can, and is on the right track. I just wonder if it will be enough.

If his walk and strikeout rates stay the same (11% and 19%) and his power hovers in the .150-.170 isoP range, he should be good to go with a normal BABIP (say .315 because of his wheels).