55 replies to this topic

[Hobbes]

All of this baseball talk has really got me going, so I thought I'd throw out a few more discussion points if anyone is interested. These will get further and further from the mainstream...1. Batting average and RBI's do not tell you how good a hitter is.2. Wins and losses do not tell you how good a pitcher is.3. There's no such thing as a clutch hitter. Clutch hitting, yes; clutch hitter, no.4. A team's record in one run games is mostly a matter of luck.5. Before A-Rod came to NY, Derek Jeter was one of the worst defensive SS's in all of baseball.6. Pitchers have no control over batted balls in play. Balls in play means everything except strikeouts, walks, and home runs. Batting average against for balls in play is random and does not reflect on the quality of the pitcher.Baseball fans, discuss or flame...

[Shimmering Wang]

Hobbes said:

All of this baseball talk has really got me going, so I thought I'd throw out a few more discussion points if anyone is interested.  These will get further and further from the mainstream...1.  Batting average and RBI's do not tell you how good a hitter is.2.  Wins and losses do not tell you how good a pitcher is.3.  There's no such thing as a clutch hitter.  Clutch hitting, yes; clutch hitter, no.4.  A team's record in one run games is mostly a matter of luck.5.  Before A-Rod came to NY, Derek Jeter was one of the worst defensive SS's in all of baseball.6.  Pitchers have no control over batted balls in play.  Balls in play means everything except strikeouts, walks, and home runs.  Batting average against for balls in play is random and does not reflect on the quality of the pitcher.Baseball fans, discuss or flame...

1) All things being equal, would you rather have a hitter who is a career .330 hitter averaging 125+ RBI a season or a career .300 hitter who averages 95RBI a season? BA and RBI ABSOLUTELY tell you how good a hitter is. They just don't tell the whole story. They aren't perfect statistical markers. They have a positive correlation with important qualities that DO tell you the full story2) (see above) Wins and losses do tend to align positively with ERA/WHIP/Innings Pitched. 3) I agree, to a DEGREE. Some players are BAD in the clutch. Some players are more unflappable than others. They don't GET BETTER in the clutch, but they don't choke either. 4) Once again, I only partly agree. A team's bullpen has a direct impact on its record in 1-run games, and I'd love to hear you debate this. Managerial decisions are important, too.5) Derek Jeter sucks, and if he played for the Royals he'd never have made an all-star team, and I hate him more than any player in the history of baseball because he sucks.6) Now this one is patently untrue, and you should know better. Pitchers ABSOLUTELY control their own flyball-groundball ratio, which in turn reflects on things like "slugging pct. against" and "double plays induced" etc. You've obviously read Moneyball 10 times... didn't think someone was gonna mention Chad Bradford??DiscussWang

[Shimmering Wang]

Computer's acting up. Double dub dub post, diggity

[SAM_Hard8]

Baseball has sucked since the mid 80's!

[SAM_Hard8]

The designated hitter rule was invented by Adolf Hitler.

[princeof56k]

1. Batting Ave and RBIs are very good indicators of how good a hitter is. I wouldnt say its complete, but it does give you a good idea about the hitter. OPS is probably a better indicator, but not by much.2. I agree on this one. Batting average against is probably the best indicator followed closely by ERA.3. I dont think there's any stat on this, but I would have to agree. Better hitters usually do better in clutch situations. I doubt someone can be a poor overall hitter, but a good clutch hitter. Most of the time good clutch hitter = good hitter.4. Dont agree here. There is luck when a game is close (bad hops and seeing eye grounders), but over time the better team usually comes out on top. What's over blown is the "this is a team that finds a way to win." They find a way to win because they're the better team.5. One of the worst! Well thats not true. He wasnt the best, but he was (and is) a damn good defensive shortstop. Other SS have a lower number of errors, but he makes a lot plays on balls other SSs cant even get to.6. This is kind of true, but not really. Once the ball is hit, yes the pitcher has no control. But the pitcher does have control over what type of ball (ground or fly) is hit. Ground ball pitchers fair better because the infield has a better chance of getting the guy out. Fly ball pitchers fair worse because outfielders have more ground to cover (if the ball even stays in the park).

[kers2]

As a Dodger fan I am inclined to hate the Moneyball approach, so I hate Hobbes too

[KowboyKoop]

Hobbes said:

All of this baseball talk has really got me going, so I thought I'd throw out a few more discussion points if anyone is interested.  These will get further and further from the mainstream...1.  Batting average and RBI's do not tell you how good a hitter is.2.  Wins and losses do not tell you how good a pitcher is.3.  There's no such thing as a clutch hitter.  Clutch hitting, yes; clutch hitter, no.4.  A team's record in one run games is mostly a matter of luck.5.  Before A-Rod came to NY, Derek Jeter was one of the worst defensive SS's in all of baseball.6.  Pitchers have no control over batted balls in play.  Balls in play means everything except strikeouts, walks, and home runs.  Batting average against for balls in play is random and does not reflect on the quality of the pitcher.Baseball fans, discuss or flame...

I'll give you some thoughts on these, without too long of a discussion.1. They don't tell the whole story, no. But avg. is a DECENT indicator. RBI's however, not really. More of a matter of how good the rest of the lineup around you is/how often they get on base. 2. 100% agree3. 95% agree....there's something to be said for a player who is more calm in pressure situations and thus, does "better" in big-time situations, but that applies to all aspects of the game and doesn't make a hitter a "clutch" hitter, but it can be said that some players tend to do better in clutch situations b/c of their mental toughness/mindset. But no, not really such a thing as a "clutch hitter."4. I can't say I agree with this...I mean, pitchers protecting a 1-run lead and hitters coming through in clutch situations....I wouldn't call that luck. Is there luck involved??? Yes, definitely. Mostly luck?? No. Nothing "lucky" about having a lights out closer coming in and protecting a one-run lead, and other stuff involved in winning close games.5. 100% agree. 6. hmmm, not sure about this one. I mean, a pitcher can make a really good pitch that throws a hitter off-balance and causes him to ground weakly to 2B, or the pitcher can throw a pitch that doesn't fool the batter at all and it can get crushed in the gap...so I'd say that he can control how hard a ball is hit, which would mean that BA on balls in play could be controlled somewhat and can thus be somewhat of a reflection of the quality of pitcher.

[Hobbes]

Shimmering Wang said:

1) All things being equal, would you rather have a hitter who is a career .330 hitter averaging 125+ RBI a season or a career .300 hitter who averages 95RBI a season?  BA and RBI ABSOLUTELY tell you how good a hitter is.  They just don't tell the whole story.  They aren't perfect statistical markers.  They have a positive correlation with important qualities that DO tell you the full storyThe problem here is the "all things being equal" qualifier.  I would rather have the .300 hitter with 95 RBI's if he's a better hitter.  Think about an extreme case:  Player A comes up to bat everytime with the bases loaded and hits .300 and piles up a huge amount of RBI's.  Player B comes up to bat everytime with the bases empty and hits .400 and gets almost no RBI's.  How are RBI's indicative of talent?  The point is that RBI's are largely a product of opportunity.  If you hit in a lineup with a lot of guys getting on base ahead of you, you will have more opportunities for RBI's.Again, all things being equal, of course a .330 hitter is better than a .300 hitter.  However, if the .300 hitter also walks 100 times and hits 50 home runs, while the .330 hitter never walks and hits a lot of singles, the .300 hitter is vastly more valuable than the .330 hitter.  In baseball, outs are the most important thing to a team.  The player with the higher on-base percentage makes less outs, which makes him more valuable.Of course, if you have a guy with 180 RBI's, he would have to have hit for a high average and for some power, because no team creates so many opportunities where you can get 180 without hitting well.  But, you have to look deeper if you're comparing a guy with 100 to a guy with 80; RBI's just don't tell you enough to make any real judgments.2) (see above)  Wins and losses do tend to align positively with ERA/WHIP/Innings Pitched.  Wins and losses probably align more with run support.  Just look at Roger Clemens last year.  At one point (I don't remember where he finished) he was the league leader in ERA and WHIP, but his team never scored, so his record wasn't good.  You can't win games if your offense doesn't score any runs.3) I agree, to a DEGREE.  Some players are BAD in the clutch.  Some players are more unflappable than others.  They don't GET BETTER in the clutch, but they don't choke either.  If this were true, you would see some consistency from year to year in clutch hitting, but you don't.  Clutch hitting is generally defined as close games, late inning situations.  If you pick a random player and look at his stats in clutch situations, you will see they vary wildly from year to year.  If you look at their stats over a large sample (many years), you will see that they correspond very closely to their overall stats.  4) Once again, I only partly agree.  A team's bullpen has a direct impact on its record in 1-run games, and I'd love to hear you debate this.  Managerial decisions are important, too.I said mostly luck because of this.  A team's bullpen is the most important, controllable aspect in a team's performance in one-run games.  However, the correlation between one-run records and good bullpens isn't all that strong.  Good bullpen teams do perform better than bad bullpen teams, but the difference is on average only one or two wins per season.5) Derek Jeter sucks, and if he played for the Royals he'd never have made an all-star team, and I hate him more than any player in the history of baseball because he sucks.Derek Jeter is a very good hitter and the presence of A-Rod has made him a better fielder.6) Now this one is patently untrue, and you should know better.  Pitchers ABSOLUTELY control their own flyball-groundball ratio, which in turn reflects on things like "slugging pct. against" and "double plays induced" etc.  You've obviously read Moneyball 10 times... didn't think someone was gonna mention Chad Bradford??Yes, pitchers control FB/GB ratios, but this does not impact batting average on balls in play (BABIP).  Ground ball pitchers are generally more effective than fly ball pitchers because they reduce home runs.  Remember, I said pitchers have control over the number of home runs they allow; this is done by giving up more ground balls than fly balls.  However, the randomness of BABIP applies to both fly ball pitchers and ground ball pitchers.And I only read Moneyball once.  I enjoyed it, but it didn't really present any groundbreaking theories.  It just put a lot of stuff that people don't think about into the mainstream.DiscussWang

[MDXS]

Hobbes said:

All of this baseball talk has really got me going, so I thought I'd throw out a few more discussion points if anyone is interested.  These will get further and further from the mainstream...1.  Batting average and RBI's do not tell you how good a hitter is.2.  Wins and losses do not tell you how good a pitcher is.3.  There's no such thing as a clutch hitter.  Clutch hitting, yes; clutch hitter, no.4.  A team's record in one run games is mostly a matter of luck.5.  Before A-Rod came to NY, Derek Jeter was one of the worst defensive SS's in all of baseball.6.  Pitchers have no control over batted balls in play.  Balls in play means everything except strikeouts, walks, and home runs.  Batting average against for balls in play is random and does not reflect on the quality of the pitcher.Baseball fans, discuss or flame...

Before I read anything else that is written...thanks. Nice to see some baseball fans with sense. I hope Portland gets that baseball team soon.

[ol'number7]

7. The Metrodome in Minneapolis is the absolute worst stadium in all of baseball to watch a game.

[KowboyKoop]

Hobbes, you have a very skewed outlook on baseball. Flat out.

[MDXS]

Does anyone have insider? There was a great article by Neyer a couple years back illustrating just how awful a shortstop Jeter was. The phrase "four of the ten worse seasons" sticks out. I don't remember if that was just for the decade or what, but it'd be nice if someone could dig some of those tidbits up.

[KowboyKoop]

SAM_Hard8 said:

Baseball has sucked since the mid 80's!

You must be referring to when the Royals won it all in'85. I agree, baseball hasn't been QUITE as good since then...seriously though, you have sucked since the mid-80s. Baseball is the best sport in America. Flat out. And yes, that includes football...baseball OWNS!

[Hobbes]

princeof56k said:

1.  Batting Ave and RBIs are very good indicators of how good a hitter is.  I wouldnt say its complete, but it does give you a good idea about the hitter.  OPS is probably a better indicator, but not by much.2.  I agree on this one.  Batting average against is probably the best indicator followed closely by ERA.Runs allowed and WHIP are probably the best indicators.  I was in the process of posting when you posted this, so to reiterate, pitchers have no control over batting average on balls in play.  They can keep the batting average against down by striking out a lot of guys and not giving up many home runs, but the rest is out of their control.3.  I dont think there's any stat on this, but I would have to agree.  Better hitters usually do better in clutch situations.  I doubt someone can be a poor overall hitter, but a good clutch hitter.  Most of the time good clutch hitter = good hitter.4.  Dont agree here.  There is luck when a game is close (bad hops and seeing eye grounders), but over time the better team usually comes out on top.  What's over blown is the "this is a team that finds a way to win."  They find a way to win because they're the better team.Better teams win more games, but not necessarily the close ones.  And I completely agree on the "finds a way to win" angle; that is ludicrous.5.  One of the worst!  Well thats not true.  He wasnt the best, but he was (and is) a damn good defensive shortstop.  Other SS have a lower number of errors, but he makes a lot plays on balls other SSs cant even get to.Errors aren't really a good way of judging a fielder.  Range is much more important and Jeter is really bad at going to his left.  His defensive strengths are the balls in the hole and the short pop ups to the OF.  This is how A-Rod made him a better fielder.  With A-Rod's range, Jeter could play more up the middle, allowing him to get to more balls there, while still able to make the plays in the hole that A-Rod can't get to.  At least, that's one theory on why he's been better since A-Rod.6.  This is kind of true, but not really.  Once the ball is hit, yes the pitcher has no control.  But the pitcher does have control over what type of ball (ground or fly) is hit.  Ground ball pitchers fair better because the infield has a better chance of getting the guy out.  Fly ball pitchers fair worse because outfielders have more ground to cover (if the ball even stays in the park).Ground ball pitchers do better because they control the home run, not the other kinds of hits.

[Hobbes]

kers2 said:

As a Dodger fan I am inclined to hate the Moneyball approach, so I hate Hobbes too

I'm a Dodgers fan and I hate what they did to DePodesta...

[Hobbes]

KowboyKoop said:

6. hmmm, not sure about this one. I mean, a pitcher can make a really good pitch that throws a hitter off-balance and causes him to ground weakly to 2B, or the pitcher can throw a pitch that doesn't fool the batter at all and it can get crushed in the gap...so I'd say that he can control how hard a ball is hit, which would mean that BA on balls in play could be controlled somewhat and can thus be somewhat of a reflection of the quality of pitcher.

This is probably the one that makes the least intuitive sense. I mean, you go to a game and watch a crappy pitcher get lit up with hard hit balls all over the place, then you watch a stud pitcher produce a bunch of weak grounders and pop ups. So how can it be that a pitcher has no control over that? The fact remains that there is no consistency year to year on BABIP. You can look at a pitcher's numbers like K rate, BB rate, HR's allowed, etc., and from one year to the next they can be very similar, but the BABIP can be wildly different. It doesn't seem right, but it is. As a side note, which does seem intuitive, there is some correlation for knuckleball pitchers. It is slight, but moreso than "regular" pitchers.

[Hobbes]

KowboyKoop said:

Hobbes, you have a very skewed outlook on baseball. Flat out.

I admit that it doesn't follow the mainstream view...

[KowboyKoop]

Hobbes said:

KowboyKoop said:

Hobbes, you have a very skewed outlook on baseball. Flat out.

I admit that it doesn't follow the mainstream view...

it also follows a very illogical and incorrect view.........

[Hobbes]

KowboyKoop said:

Hobbes said:

KowboyKoop said:

Hobbes, you have a very skewed outlook on baseball. Flat out.

I admit that it doesn't follow the mainstream view...

it also follows a very illogical and incorrect view.........

Can you prove I'm wrong?