Hits Allowed

[draven085]

Originally posted by blackamus
Why is it so hard to accept that simple observation of events can provide understanding?

Please attempt the following experiment. Watch every single game that your favorite team plays next season. At the end of the season, please provide me with a list of basic batting statistics, batting average, HRs, BBs. We will then compare these against the actual statistics.

[Henry]

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by blackamus
If it were true that a pitcher only had minimal impact on whether or not batted balls were outs it would also have to be true that a batter has minimal impact on whether or not HIS batted balls become outs or hits.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This is sounding a lot more complicated than it is....

1. Pitcher throws ball with the "intent" of either (a) making the batter miss (b) throwing a strike (c) throwing a pitch the batter makes only partial contact. In that order!

Once the pitch leaves the batter's hand, he has no control over what happens next. The result is "totally" based on the batter's reaction.

It then stands to reason that a the pitcher's "quality" of sorts is dependent on how many pitches he can throw, his velocity, his accuracy, and how he can "mix" them up. This is where the "avoid hits" comes from - not a great rating, but it makes some sense in the above description.

But it remains that once the ball is on it's way - the batter will determine whether the ball is put in play or not.

Think of it this way.... if the determination of a hit versus something else is set at 100% and both the pitcher and batter are "equal" in quality, the pitcher controls 50% of the outcome and the batter controls 50%.

If the picher is Cy Young and the batter is Jimmy Piersol, Young controls maybe 80% of the outcome and Piersol controls 20%.

But - this "outcome" is simply whether the batter makes contact or not (yes or no). If he does make contact, then we go to a 2nd step that determines what kind of contact (based on the batter's abilities). If it is a hit, so be it.

However, if it is NOT then...

1. we already determined he made contact, but it is not a hit based on his capabilities - so now it gets handed over to the fielding (Step 3). In most cases, we will get some kind of out - but in a few cases we may get (1) and error or (2) a "seeing eye hit" due to a lack of range on some fielder....

Do we agre on the concept at least ?

ps: If you were realy going to build a game from the ground up - wouldn't this be a reasonable approach ?

[Zeeter]

Well, it looks like I have a lot of posts to answer at one time, so some of you will have to share.

I've never said that sabrmetrics is an invalid way to define good and bad players. I believe I said that I don't use them to define good and bad players. This does not make me stupid or ignorant. Ignorant is also not a good word. Dinosaurs were ignorant; baseball fans are not. Case in point - I just used a semi-colon in a sentence. Ever see a dinosaur do that?

Seriously, WLight's response is exactly the type of post I am referring to. While I agree that a sabrmetrician probably can tell me more about a player than the casual fan can, do you all need to call us casual fans "ignorant"? Sure, by definition it only means that we are unaware or unenlightened by Sabrmetrics, but let someone call you ignorant about something and see how you like it.

I don't know if spouting these non-standard stats makes sabrmetricians feel smarter, but based on the comments I'm hearing I tend to lean that way. When I go to a Bass Fishing discussion board not unlike this the people are much different. We don't call people ignorant for not using the correct bait for the temperature they are fishing in. We don't call them stupid when the bass they are going after are biting on the recently hatched shad and they are fishing with the wrong color crankbait. We say "nice job" when a guy catches an 18 inch largemouth even though 18 inches isn't really that big. We don't try to discredit a guy who is using a Zebco reel when really only a twelve year old should be using that brand.

If it will help all of your egos for me to say that you know more about statistics than I do then by all means consider it done. But also remember that I continue to believe that most of you feel that your superior statistical knowledge grants you the right to be deconstructive to those who choose to simply look at raw numbers.

Individual Replies:
Dwolfson: I acknowledge that Player B would produce more runs if they switched teams. But they didn't switch teams, so player A was more productive. It's just like the old Hank Aaron and Babe Ruth comparison. Babe had a much higher ab/hr ratio and probably hit more in less time since I don't believe Aaron ever hit fifty or more in a season plus Aaron didn't pitch for a few seasons (although people neglect to point out that Aaron played in the high mound era of the sixties and Ruth played in an era when pitchers had to learn how to pitch with a different ball). No matter how you spin it, Aaron holds the home run record. Was Ruth a better player? Yes. If you adjusted for longevity would Ruth have more homers? Most likely. Would you want Ruth instead of Aaron? Most definitely. Yet Aaron still hit more homers. Change homers to RBI's and that is the only point I am trying to make.

[Crapshoot]

Originally posted by Dwolfson20
1. Why does that have to be true?

2. It wasn't me, but -- fielding percentage is one of the few stats that attempts to quantify plays that someone didn't make. Also, a truly great fielder will get to lots of balls that inferior fielders would have not gotten to, and thus become hits. If the great fielder gets to 200 extra balls, and makes errors on 3 of them, according to fielding percentage, he would be worse than the other fielder. This is why range factor, while still flawed, is a far superior stat.

That's exactly what I was referring to- Derek Jeter looks better than A-rod via fielding percentage because inane scorekeepers think getting a glove on it means it can be an error, while not getting there at all makes it a hit- it has its uses, but is useless without some sort of consideration for range.

[Crapshoot]

Originally posted by blackamus


ps. could the gentleman who said that fielding% is worthless please explain that to me? I'll hold off criticism of that statement until I hear your reasoning.

pps. is there really a need to quote a huge post and then add: "that was a really good post" ?

I answered your first part in the previous post.

As to the second part, I admire when someone can deconstruct an arguement thoroughly- I think it take some skill.


As to your general observational query, it is the flat earth society all over again- study after study, be it baseball or science, has proved that clinical, observational results are not as good predictors as statistical evidence- you don't see everything. Personally, I find more arrogance in the scouts as opposed to the Beanes of the world, who think they see an entire picture in a small snapshot...

[Zeeter]

Furthermore, many of you just flat out think that it is wrong to look at a players RBI numbers or BA numbers and say that he is a good player. Is there something wrong with observing that Jeff Bagwell is a great RBI guy and a good hitter simply by looking at his RBI's and Average over the years?

If a pitcher has seventeen wins in a season then he is a good pitcher. But not according to you guys. If a guy has 35 saves, he's a pretty good closer. But saves are meaningless (I actually lean more toward you guys on this last one, though).

Is there something inherently wrong with looking at Raul Mondesi's average and saying "Y'know, other than 1997 this guy really has not lived up to the potential that we were told of in 1994."?

Do making all of these observations make me "stupid" or "ignorant"?

[draven085]

You are ignorant if you are not aware of better ways of evaluating players. You are stupid if you are aware of them and choose to ignore them.

[Henry]

Originally posted by Zeeter
Would you want Ruth instead of Aaron? Most definitely. Yet Aaron still hit more homers. Change homers to RBI's and that is the only point I am trying to make.

Therein lies the issue.

We all agree Ruth is better, so when we define him and Aaron in the game, his talents and ratings must also be better. If I look at total homers (or RBI's or BA or anything similar), I'm not going to be able to make Ruth better - thus the relationship between Ruth and Aaron isn't realistic - thus the accuracy we're looking for isn't there.

All Sabrmetrics is doing is giving us methods to see those difeerences - and be able to define Ruth BETTER than Aaron so the game results in the same thing as what would be expected.

This isn't a discussion of who knows baseabll better or who is ignorant or not. It's a discussion of being able to "drill down" to a statistical level that finds the "not so easy to find" details of a players characteristics - then allowing us to duplicate him.

From a baseball fan standpoint, I would be thrilled to watch Ruth OR Aaron day to day. But as a historical GM in OOTP, I want to know the equations behind the labels actyually favor Ruth over Aaron.

[Zeeter]

Originally posted by draven085
You are ignorant if you are not aware of better ways of evaluating players. You are stupid if you are aware of them and choose to ignore them.

This guy represents the attitude that you guys are stereotyped with. Is this how you want to be recognized?

So I choose not to spend my time looking at sabrmetrics, therefore I am stupid. In other words, you are smarter than me because you look at these statistics.

Ok. If your intent was to feel better about yourself by calling someone else stupid, then I pity you.

[draven085]

Originally posted by Zeeter
This guy represents the attitude that you guys are stereotyped with. Is this how you want to be recognized?

So I choose not to spend my time looking at sabrmetrics, therefore I am stupid. In other words, you are smarter than me because you look at these statistics.

Ok. If your intent was to feel better about yourself by calling someone else stupid, then I pity you.

You asked a question and I answered it.

Throughout this thread you've said that you realize Sabermetrics provide a better way of evaluating a player, yet you choose not to use them. How else are people supposed to react to that??

[Henry]

Originally posted by Zeeter
Furthermore, many of you just flat out think that it is wrong to look at a players RBI numbers or BA numbers and say that he is a good player. Is there something wrong with observing that Jeff Bagwell is a great RBI guy and a good hitter simply by looking at his RBI's and Average over the years?

In a way, yes. Put Bagwell on one of the Cleveland Indains teams of the 60s and he would only be a footnote - becasue he wouldn't have have all those RBIs.

That's the issue, "circumstances" help define the player in the newspapers. Bagwell is Bagwell - and I want him to be the same player whether he plays for Cleveland or New York. The only way to do that is to ignore things like RBIs and rate him on his ability to hit, draw walks, etc. (OPS as an example).

[Zeeter]

Originally posted by Henry


We all agree Ruth is better, so when we define him and Aaron in the game, his talents and ratings must also be better. If I look at total homers (or RBI's or BA or anything similar), I'm not going to be able to make Ruth better - thus the relationship between Ruth and Aaron isn't realistic - thus the accuracy we're looking for isn't there.

First, thank you for the reasonable tone to your posts. I have tried to do the same, but have failed in most attempts.

What you are saying is slightly different than the point I was trying to make, however I will answer your point. We've agreed then that by looking at basic stats, Aaron is better, but by looking at more detailed stats, Ruth is better. I made that determination based only on observation and without any sabrmetrics, unless you count reading somewhere a long time ago that Ruth had a better ratio than Aaron is a sabremetric study. I can also just look at the two player's at bats and make that determination without any math that I learned after gradeschool.

My point is that just because we (casual fans) look at raw numbers doesn't mean that we do not have the ability to make good determinations on whether or not a player is good.

[Crapshoot]

Originally posted by Zeeter
This guy represents the attitude that you guys are stereotyped with. Is this how you want to be recognized?

So I choose not to spend my time looking at sabrmetrics, therefore I am stupid. In other words, you are smarter than me because you look at these statistics.

Ok. If your intent was to feel better about yourself by calling someone else stupid, then I pity you.

Willfully ignoring factual evidence because you don;t like it, and then arguing its not true makes anyone stupid in my book- nothing personal.

[Zeeter]

Originally posted by Aadik
Willfully ignoring factual evidence because you don;t like it, and then arguing its not true makes anyone stupid in my book- nothing personal.

And calling someone stupid because they don't share the same philosophy as you is beligerent in my book - nothing personal.

[dougaiton]

I think the bottom line is as far as playing OOTP is concerned, people who are not interested in sabermetric studies do not have to worry – you could still judge a playe on RBIs and average if you wanted to. The ‘avoiding hits’ debate as I see it is centered on changing how OOTP works so that these stats are ‘reached’ (or generated) in the proper way (hence my rather useless posts about knuckleballers). I don't think anybody would argue that OPS is a magic bullet, but if you are designing a game to simulate baseball (and hsitorically predict how good players are) then it is a better way of judging worth. As you said, you don't have to go that deep if you want to, when it comes to FA by all means sign Joe Carter - you may well prove to be right. But this strand is/was about OOTP, and how it can better represent the way that baseball actually works. There are a lot of people who believe that if OOTP concentrates more on OPS and such-like, the game will function better. Batting average, RBIs and HR will still be there too, but the game will function more like real-life baseball does.

All baseball stats are not really stats, in the way that they have no controlled variables and many are based on value judgements by third parties (balls and strikes for example). They are interpretations, and Markus has to select the most accurate interpretations for use in the game. It doesn't matter if we use them or not.

EDIT: The typos that caused the sentences to make even less sense!

[Gastric ReFlux]

The question isn't what stats OOTP5 focuses on; the question is how are they generated.

Some seem to feel that changing the engine like this is somehow going to destroy the players like Joe Carter and such. But it won't. If it models how major league baseball creates opportunities for guys like Joe Carter, OOTP will have its Joe Carters. There'll be guys who win 17 games with high ERAs because they too will get the luck of their team scoring plenty of runs.

[dougaiton]

Don't you just hate it when someone posts exactly what you meant to say but clearer and shorter?

I agree with Gastric ReFlux.

[Crapshoot]

Originally posted by Zeeter
And calling someone stupid because they don't share the same philosophy as you is beligerent in my book - nothing personal.

Im not calling anyone stupid for not sharing my philosophy- Im doing it because they are ignoring facts- do you not see the difference here ? This isn't a matter of opinion about whether sabremetrics are better- we all (even you) agree they are. Given this, if you ignore them as evaluation tools and argue with BA andRBI, what exactly am I supposed to think ?

[Zeeter]

Originally posted by Aadik
Im not calling anyone stupid for not sharing my philosophy- Im doing it because they are ignoring facts- do you not see the difference here ? This isn't a matter of opinion about whether sabremetrics are better- we all (even you) agree they are. Given this, if you ignore them as evaluation tools and argue with BA andRBI, what exactly am I supposed to think ?

You're suposed to think "Hey, according to him, so-and-so is a good player because he got 110 RBI's. According to my data, though, he only got them because the batters in front of him were good. This does not necessarily make him stupid even though he knows of sabrmetrics but chooses not to use them. It only means that he does not enjoy taking the time to thoroughly evaluate a player due to the fact that he may have more important things to do with his life, yet he continues to enjoy discussing baseball on a more fundamental level and for the most part can make fairly good evaluations and if he were getting paid to do this he'd probably go into a bit more detail."

[Crapshoot]

Originally posted by Zeeter
You're suposed to think "Hey, according to him, so-and-so is a good player because he got 110 RBI's. According to my data, though, he only got them because the batters in front of him were good. This does not necessarily make him stupid even though he knows of sabrmetrics but chooses not to use them. It only means that he does not enjoy taking the time to thoroughly evaluate a player due to the fact that he may have more important things to do with his life, yet he continues to enjoy discussing baseball on a more fundamental level and for the most part can make fairly good evaluations and if he were getting paid to do this he'd probably go into a bit more detail."

that's fine- but when he/she is telling me that Tino Martinez is great because he has lots of RBI's, or arguing with me, or calling talk radio and bitching about Tino leaving because he was a veteran RBI man, he is being stupid- I really don't see the confusion here.

Lets try this again: The definition of stupid is as follows-

1. Slow to learn or understand; obtuse.
2. Tending to make poor decisions or careless mistakes.
3. Marked by a lack of intelligence or care; foolish or careless: a stupid mistake.
4. Dazed, stunned, or stupefied.
5. Pointless; worthless: a stupid job

4 and 5 don't apply here, but 1, 2,3 and are valid- there is a lack of caring and a slowness of understanding- poor decisions are being made due to carelessness and stubborness. I see no insult here- its factual.

And I don't buy the for the most part, can make fairly good observations line- most fans seem to think that a Tino or a Jeter has a winning attitude, or that Bonds doesnt come through in the clutch, or that clutch hitters really exist- all this comes across as stupidity to me. Im not saying they are going to be stupid or idiotic forever or casting aspersions on their intelligence, but pointing that their evaluation tools are stupid. I fail to see what the problem here is.