Small Ball

[Mario-Rijo]

Traditionalists like BB's (and the like) kept seperate because it muddies the picture of a guys ability to get on base when forced to put the ball in play. I know sabermetrics fans view that as a foolish exercise although I'm not quite sure as to the full reason why.

Because it's not true. Sabermetric "fans" view BA as measuring a subset of OBP.

What part are you saying isn't true? Please expound on this if you would. And what's with the parentheses did I do something offensive?

But it isn't true that "hitting for avg is not a repeatable skill." I don't think I've ever heard anyone say that. If hitting for avg wasn't a repeatable skill, BA would fluctuate wildly from year to year.

I agree it would fluctuate wildly. Maybe I misunderstood but I do recall someone making that argument, or at least that is what I thought they were arguing. It's not something I would have just made up, probably couldn't have made it up.

[Mario-Rijo]

But I'd ask the question, what's the point of the stat? What does it tell us? What question does it answer?

Batting average tells us how often a guy got a hit of the times when he came the plate, didn't walk, and didn't make a run-scoring out. But many people interpret that as a very good answer for the question "How good of a hitter is this guy?" or "How likely is this guy to get a hit right now". In reality doesn't answer either of those questions all that well. And particularly regarding the latter of those questions, is that something we should care about? (as a fan watching the game, maybe. as an analyst looking at run production, probably not)

Basically too me BA is a baseline to start a comparison of players. It's not an end all be all obviously but it serves a purpose. It's why Albert Pujols is regarded as one of the best ever and Pat Burrell is just a borderline All-Star type. They both have great eyes at the plate and they both have good power but only one repeatedly and consistently dominates the game. I wouldn't say Pujols has much if any edge in Discipline or Power but he consistenly hits for a higher avg which sets him way apart. It's because he can consistenly hit where he squares. So too me avg tells me at what level a batter can strike a ball where he squares. Not completely or definitively but what other stat can as come close specifically to that talent to telling me that story? If you have one I'm all ears!

[Ron Madden]

But don't you want a suttle differnece between a walk and a hit?

As a fan one of the most frustrating things to watch in a game is a player walk with a runner on third and then see the next player ground into an inning ending double play. When you watch as many games as I do the common occurances don't leave a mark.

I've watched a few games myself and I'd say the player that drew the walk did his job, the player that hit into the double play didn't.

[RedsManRick]

Basically too me BA is a baseline to start a comparison of players. It's not an end all be all obviously but it serves a purpose. It's why Albert Pujols is regarded as one of the best ever and Pat Burrell is just a borderline All-Star type. They both have great eyes at the plate and they both have good power but only one repeatedly and consistently dominates the game. I wouldn't say Pujols has much if any edge in Discipline or Power but he consistenly hits for a higher avg which sets him way apart. It's because he can consistenly hit where he squares. So too me avg tells me at what level a batter can strike a ball where he squares. Not completely or definitively but what other stat can as come close specifically to that talent to telling me that story? If you have one I'm all ears!

Albert Pujols: .334/.425/.624
Pat Burrell: .257/.367/.485
Adam Dunn: .247/.381/.518
Tony Gwynn: .338/.388/.459
Craig Counsell: .255/.343/.344

If batting average is your starting point, your opening belief would be that Tony Gwynn is the best hitter and Adam Dunn the worst. You've equated overall hitting ability with "striking a ball where he squares". I'm not sure why your starting point would be on just one component of hitting. Unless you go on to look at OBP and SLG, you'd think Gwynn was a more productive hitter than Pujols and Burrell more productive than Dunn. You wouldn't know that Pujols was massively more productive than Gwynn. You'd think that Craig Counsell was a better hitter than Adam Dunn. Your starting point is misleading because it only identifies a narrow component of hitting.

It's like evaluating fielders by looking at fielding percentage. Sure, it has some use, but it doesn't make sense as the baseline for analysis. If you start by looking at OPS, you get an accurate picture of how productive these guys are as hitters. Now, you might be interested in how specifically they create that production. Do they get lots of singles? Take lots of walks? Hit lots of homers? And at the point, AVG can be useful. But as a starting point? It's less than optimal.

[nate]

What part are you saying isn't true? Please expound on this if you would. And what's with the parentheses did I do something offensive?

No, I just can't speak for all of the sabermetric "fans," only myself.

For me it's simple:

out avoidance and acquiring bases > just hitting the ball

A nice byproduct of out avoidance is that it forces the other pitcher to throw more pitches. Thus getting into the bullpen earlier.

Unless Dusty Baker is the manager!

I agree it would fluctuate wildly. Maybe I misunderstood but I do recall someone making that argument, or at least that is what I thought they were arguing. It's not something I would have just made up, probably couldn't have made it up.

Dunno.

[bucksfan2]

The game's own rules should prevent us looking at a BB in that situation as being anything resembling a failure. A Strike is a pitch a player can be expected to hit. A Ball is a pitch a player cannot be expected to hit. That's why properly identifying the latter moves the Hitter closer toward not making an Out while the former moves him closer. The reason Ball 4 moves the runner to 1B is that it's assumed that the Hitter was not given an appropriate opportunity to hit the ball into play, the Hitter is moved to 1B as a penalty to the opposition, and we move on to the next Hitter.

I disagree completely with you here. A called strike is due to a predetermined strike zone. There are many strikes that are very difficult to impossible to hit. A cutter that starts in on the hands and catches the inside corner of the plate is a great pitch. While a hanging curve ball that stays up in zone is a pitch that can be punished by a hitter. Often times the key hit in a game is on a ball that shouldn't be put in play.

[westofyou]

Often times the key hit in a game is on a ball that shouldn't be put in play.

And often it's not, often it's an out, more often.

[lollipopcurve]

There are many strikes that are very difficult to impossible to hit. A cutter that starts in on the hands and catches the inside corner of the plate is a great pitch. While a hanging curve ball that stays up in zone is a pitch that can be punished by a hitter.

True. The difference between control and command is meaningful.

[Emin3mShady07]

I disagree completely with you here. A called strike is due to a predetermined strike zone. There are many strikes that are very difficult to impossible to hit. A cutter that starts in on the hands and catches the inside corner of the plate is a great pitch. While a hanging curve ball that stays up in zone is a pitch that can be punished by a hitter. Often times the key hit in a game is on a ball that shouldn't be put in play.

I think the pitches that get damaged the most are when hitter gets wild IN the strike zone. If he hangs a breaking ball but it is at the batter's eyes, the batter is not going to swing, but if he leaves it at the belt buckle, the ball might be going a long way. Also other pitches like 2 seamers and cutters can creep over the plate and in to the strikezone and the same type of thing can happen as the breaking ball.

[blumj]

No, I just can't speak for all of the sabermetric "fans," only myself.

For me it's simple:

out avoidance and acquiring bases > just hitting the ball

A nice byproduct of out avoidance is that it forces the other pitcher to throw more pitches. Thus getting into the bullpen earlier.

Unless Dusty Baker is the manager!



Dunno.

It's almost impossible to convince people of the existence of team offensive strategy in baseball if they haven't seen it work for themselves. Heck, even the Twins, who tend to win often because their pitchers almost never walk anyone, don't appear to realize that they'd win even more if their offense took more walks.

[Far East]

Is their any merit at all to what Dusty said about Taveras' as leadoff man? I mean the part about "... A lot of people talk about his on-base percentage. I like to think in terms of him getting into scoring position... A guy who had whatever he had, 30-doubles and double-digits in triples and 60 stolen bases. He’s in scoring position a whole bunch of times."

Obviously Dusty is ignoring the fact that Tavaras can't steal first base -- in fact, gets to first base relatively rarely by any means whatsoever.

I'm in favor of his being on the bench, or if he must play then batting ninth, but is there any value at all in Willy's single-digit triples, double digit 2 base hits, and mucho stolen bases to justify his batting lead-off, despite the poor OBP?

An interesting comparison might be between Tavaras and Hairston's OBP, triples, doubles, and SB.

[RollyInRaleigh]

I've watched a few games myself and I'd say the player that drew the walk did his job, the player that hit into the double play didn't.

I'd say the pitcher is really the guy who did his job, pitching around a hitter that had a chance to beat him in favor of pitching to a hitter that he had a much better chance to beat.

Do you guys ever think there is a time, with runners on base, that a better hitter might take a chance on swinging at a close pitch, rather than taking a walk, to avoid letting a hitter with little or no chance of hitting a particular pitcher, come to the plate?

[Ltlabner]

Do you guys ever think there is a time, with runners on base, that a better hitter might take a chance on swinging at a close pitch, rather than taking a walk, to avoid letting a hitter with little or no chance of hitting a particular pitcher, come to the plate?

Sure the player likely would.

Whether they should is another matter.

[wheels]

Is their any merit at all to what Dusty said about Taveras' as leadoff man? I mean the part about "... A lot of people talk about his on-base percentage. I like to think in terms of him getting into scoring position... A guy who had whatever he had, 30-doubles and double-digits in triples and 60 stolen bases. He’s in scoring position a whole bunch of times."

Obviously Dusty is ignoring the fact that Tavaras can't steal first base -- in fact, gets to first base relatively rarely by any means whatsoever.

I'm in favor of his being on the bench, or if he must play then batting ninth, but is there any value at all in Willy's single-digit triples, double digit 2 base hits, and mucho stolen bases to justify his batting lead-off, despite the poor OBP?

An interesting comparison might be between Tavaras and Hairston's OBP, triples, doubles, and SB.

Dusty talks about Taveras and his doubles. Did Willy ever have thirty doubles, let alone reach souble digits in triples? Is he talking about career numbers?

I can't see him with 40 XBH in a season. It would be pretty ridiculous to predict that.

Edit: Willy's never had more than 19 doubles and 5 triples in any season.

Dusty is out of his ever loving mind.

[TRF]

Dusty talks about Taveras and his doubles. Did Willy ever have thirty doubles, let alone reach souble digits in triples? Is he talking about career numbers?

I can't see him with 40 XBH in a season. It would be pretty ridiculous to predict that.

Yet that's what the man said, so either he is ignorant of Taveras actual ability, or he is delusional.

I'm really not happy with either answer. What I am really wondering is why NO ONE in the local media has called him out on that statement. Not one person. Seriously, none of them have access to stats?