|
|
Post by AztecBill on Jun 20, 2012 8:17:51 GMT -8
|
|
|
|
Post by aztecron on Jun 20, 2012 13:36:14 GMT -8
We've had similar discussions on this topic before. I disagree about the " luck" factor. There is a thing called "a clutch hitter" and or "pressure player" but you don't like to use any term you cant quantify. And that's okay. But, don't go around telling people that ball players who hit better with RISP are more likely " luckier" than others as they can't " really" control what they do in that pressure situation more so than other hitters. That's bologna. What they can control better than others is the ability to focus in that pressure situation which allows them to make better contact or more solid contact. Which obviously creates a better opportunity for a hit of some sort to drive in runners in scoring position. I'm going to put four sets of statistics (as I quit trying to shut down your argument by the fourth player I'd looked up) from MLB for 2010 and 2011. You tell me if they're just lucky players? BA with RISP followed by RBI's for that season driven in only when runners are in scoring position. The names will follow after the numbers. 2010: .369/69 .322/79 .343/75 .407/69 2011 .383/74 .388/75 .313/57 .337/83 I guess by your position stated in regards to hitting with runners in scoring position, Joey Votto, Miguel Cabrera, Albert Pujols and Adrian Gonzales don't show a trend of being a pressure hitter. Those are the numbers for all four of them for the last two years. So if I understand your position correctly, Votto, Cabrera, Pujols and Gonzo aren't reallyany better than other hitters, they're just luckier than other hitters? All I can say is you've got to be kidding me, Bill.I could go on and on, Bill. Good hitters, are good hitters. Period. If it was luck more so than skill and the ability to hit in the pressure situation, more average to below average hitters would be driving in 80 - 100 runs a year. But it doesn't happen that way if you go back in time and look at the players whole body of work. You can't be consistently lucky, otherwise it's not called luck. Pressure players are players who can and do play better when the game is on the line. They aren't lucky, they are prepared to handle the pressure of the situation. In Derek Jeters great play in the playoffs against the A's many years ago is an example. The errant throw over the 1B's head was caught by the SS Jeter on the 1B line where he then threw out Jeremy Giambi at the plate. He wasn't in that position by luck, it was preparation that got him there. He didn't freeze in the moment. Derrick Rose while at the University of Memphis had the chance to help win the NCAA Mens Basketball National Championship and missed more than a few important, last minute free throws to end up losing because they couldn't hit there free throws in the last moments of the game. In 2010 Pujols hit .340 with RISP and two outs. It's not an accident that players like him, who are at the top of the game, consistently hit better than others. It's not luck, they're just better than the other players. For whatever reason they can push aside the pressure of the moment and focus on what they need to do to get that or those runners home. If " luck" where involved at all, then any of us here on this board could play the game at that level, cause after all, it's just luck ain't it? |
|
|
|
Post by AztecBill on Jun 20, 2012 14:05:24 GMT -8
We've had similar discussions on this topic before. I disagree about the " luck" factor. There is a thing called "a clutch hitter" and or "pressure player" but you don't like to use any term you cant quantify. And that's okay. But, don't go around telling people that ball players who hit better with RISP are more likely " luckier" than others as they can't " really" control what they do in that pressure situation more so than other hitters. That's bologna. What they can control better than others is the ability to focus in that pressure situation which allows them to make better contact or more solid contact. Which obviously creates a better opportunity for a hit of some sort to drive in runners in scoring position. I'm going to put four sets of statistics (as I quit trying to shut down your argument by the fourth player I'd looked up) from MLB for 2010 and 2011. You tell me if they're just lucky players? BA with RISP followed by RBI's for that season driven in only when runners are in scoring position. The names will follow after the numbers. 2010: .369/69 .322/79 .343/75 .407/69 2011 .383/74 .388/75 .313/57 .337/83 I guess by your position stated in regards to hitting with runners in scoring position, Joey Votto, Miguel Cabrera, Albert Pujols and Adrian Gonzales don't show a trend of being a pressure hitter. Those are the numbers for all four of them for the last two years. So if I understand your position correctly, Votto, Cabrera, Pujols and Gonzo aren't reallyany better than other hitters, they're just luckier than other hitters? All I can say is you've got to be kidding me, Bill.I could go on and on, Bill. Good hitters, are good hitters. Period. If it was luck more so than skill and the ability to hit in the pressure situation, more average to below average hitters would be driving in 80 - 100 runs a year. But it doesn't happen that way if you go back in time and look at the players whole body of work. You can't be consistently lucky, otherwise it's not called luck. Pressure players are players who can and do play better when the game is on the line. They aren't lucky, they are prepared to handle the pressure of the situation. In Derek Jeters great play in the playoffs against the A's many years ago is an example. The errant throw over the 1B's head was caught by the SS Jeter on the 1B line where he then threw out Jeremy Giambi at the plate. He wasn't in that position by luck, it was preparation that got him there. He didn't freeze in the moment. Derrick Rose while at the University of Memphis had the chance to help win the NCAA Mens Basketball National Championship and missed more than a few important, last minute free throws to end up losing because they couldn't hit there free throws in the last moments of the game. In 2010 Pujols hit .340 with RISP and two outs. It's not an accident that players like him, who are at the top of the game, consistently hit better than others. It's not luck, they're just better than the other players. For whatever reason they can push aside the pressure of the moment and focus on what they need to do to get that or those runners home. If " luck" where involved at all, then any of us here on this board could play the game at that level, cause after all, it's just luck ain't it? I don't know how long you worked to get the right players for your 2010 and 2011 numbers, but since it is mostly luck it doesn't take long to kill it. Cabrera is hitting a league best .369 but .299 with RISP, this year. Or are you talking about Miguel? He hit wosre in 2010 and 2009 with RISP. AGon hit .277 in 2009 but .262 with RISP. Pulous hit .357 in 2008 and .339 with RISP. Votto hit .297 but .287 in 2008. Doesn't the fact that the "A"s went from #1 to #30 in one year make you think about this fresh? Doesn't the fact that of the bottom 14 teams in this stat all but 3 turned it positive the next year make you think about this fresh? Doesn't the fact that the Yankees are hitting .213 with RISP this year and hit .273 with RISP last year make you think about this fresh? |
|
|
|
Post by 1611Luginbill on Jun 20, 2012 14:42:32 GMT -8
Will Venable just isn't as lucky as Josh Hamilton.
|
|
|
|
Post by AztecBill on Jun 20, 2012 14:43:59 GMT -8
Instead of just picking some random players (although you probably threw out a bunch that didn't make your point), let's look at the top 10 players in 2011 in BA when RISP. | | 2011 RISP | 2011 BA | 2010 RISP | 2010 BA | 2010 RISP Ability | | Emile Weeks | 0.395 | 0.303 | .163* | .220* | -0.057 | | Victor Martinez | 0.394 | 0.33 | 0.271 | 0.302 | -0.031 | | Miguel Cabrera | 0.388 | 0.344 | 0.322 | 0.328 | -0.006 | | Joey Votto | 0.383 | 0.309 | 0.369 | 0.324 | 0.045 | | Travis Hafner | 0.383 | 0.28 | 0.202 | 0.278 | -0.076 | | Jack Hannahan | 0.377 | 0.25 | .141** | .213** | -0.071 | | Michael Young | 0.377 | 0.338 | 0.262 | 0.284 | -0.022 | | Mike Napoli | 0.372 | 0.32 | 0.182 | 0.238 | -0.056 | | Wilson Valdez | 0.37 | 0.249 | 0.298 | 0.258 | 0.04 | | Jacoby Ellsbury | 0.366 | 0.321 | .301** | .313** | -0.012 | | * Used 2012 | | | | | | | ** Used 2009 | | | | | |
8 out of the 10 hit worse the following year with RISP than their 2010 Batting Average. Random numbers would make us expect something around 50%. 20% is real interesting and makes my point pretty well. NO Correlation. |
|
|
|
Post by AztecBill on Jun 20, 2012 14:47:59 GMT -8
Will Venable just isn't as lucky as Josh Hamilton. I made it very plain it is BA RISP versus BA Overall. To be successful as a wiseass takes a little more time than you seem to be willing to put into this. You picked a very bad example. Josh Hamilton is +.035 with RISP Will Venable is +.037 with RISP That does not mean as aztecron would contend, that Will Venable is a better "pressure hitter". The variance between ones BA and BA with RISP is luck. |
|
|
|
Post by AztecBill on Jun 20, 2012 14:55:14 GMT -8
If " luck" where involved at all, then any of us here on this board could play the game at that level, cause after all, it's just luck ain't it? The luck I am talking about would take your .014 BA overall and make it maybe .016 or .012 with RISP. So no, you wouldn't be able to play at that level. I don't know if you just didn't understand my post or you were caught up in the thrill of your own post and got carried away.
What you did by taking 4 batters as an example to disprove a well researched theory (not by me but others) is called anecdotal evidence. It is very bad form. |
|
|
|
Post by aztecron on Jun 20, 2012 15:21:15 GMT -8
Instead of just picking some random players (although you probably threw out a bunch that didn't make your point), let's look at the top 10 players in 2011 in BA when RISP. | | 2011 RISP | 2011 BA | 2010 RISP | 2010 BA | 2010 RISP Ability | | Emile Weeks | 0.395 | 0.303 | .163* | .220* | -0.057 | | Victor Martinez | 0.394 | 0.33 | 0.271 | 0.302 | -0.031 | | Miguel Cabrera | 0.388 | 0.344 | 0.322 | 0.328 | -0.006 | | Joey Votto | 0.383 | 0.309 | 0.369 | 0.324 | 0.045 | | Travis Hafner | 0.383 | 0.28 | 0.202 | 0.278 | -0.076 | | Jack Hannahan | 0.377 | 0.25 | .141** | .213** | -0.071 | | Michael Young | 0.377 | 0.338 | 0.262 | 0.284 | -0.022 | | Mike Napoli | 0.372 | 0.32 | 0.182 | 0.238 | -0.056 | | Wilson Valdez | 0.37 | 0.249 | 0.298 | 0.258 | 0.04 | | Jacoby Ellsbury | 0.366 | 0.321 | .301** | .313** | -0.012 | | * Used 2012 | | | | | | | ** Used 2009 | | | | | |
8 out of the 10 hit worse the following year with RISP than their 2010 Batting Average. Random numbers would make us expect something around 50%. 20% is real interesting and makes my point pretty well. NO Correlation. My point is those guys do it year in and year out, more than others. They're consistent in their production. I could go on with my list. The fact that Jemile Weeks and the like have shown a sharp upgrade or downgrade from one year to the next means, Jemile Weeks might be lucky more so one year then the next. I can show numerous, and by that I mean a large number of ball players who are successful more so than the average player, and it isn't due to luck. Your point is average to below average players can get lucky every now and then. But you try to imply all ball players are in that category. I'm saying, and I've already proven it, that the good ball players who show a history of production with RISP are not lucky, but good. Those players don't keep showing up in the top 10-40 of average with RISP year after year because they're lucky. |
|
|
|
Post by AztecBill on Jun 20, 2012 15:24:13 GMT -8
Instead of just picking some random players (although you probably threw out a bunch that didn't make your point), let's look at the top 10 players in 2011 in BA when RISP. | | 2011 RISP | 2011 BA | 2010 RISP | 2010 BA | 2010 RISP Ability | | Emile Weeks | 0.395 | 0.303 | .163* | .220* | -0.057 | | Victor Martinez | 0.394 | 0.33 | 0.271 | 0.302 | -0.031 | | Miguel Cabrera | 0.388 | 0.344 | 0.322 | 0.328 | -0.006 | | Joey Votto | 0.383 | 0.309 | 0.369 | 0.324 | 0.045 | | Travis Hafner | 0.383 | 0.28 | 0.202 | 0.278 | -0.076 | | Jack Hannahan | 0.377 | 0.25 | .141** | .213** | -0.071 | | Michael Young | 0.377 | 0.338 | 0.262 | 0.284 | -0.022 | | Mike Napoli | 0.372 | 0.32 | 0.182 | 0.238 | -0.056 | | Wilson Valdez | 0.37 | 0.249 | 0.298 | 0.258 | 0.04 | | Jacoby Ellsbury | 0.366 | 0.321 | .301** | .313** | -0.012 | | * Used 2012 | | | | | | | ** Used 2009 | | | | | |
8 out of the 10 hit worse the following year with RISP than their 2010 Batting Average. Random numbers would make us expect something around 50%. 20% is real interesting and makes my point pretty well. NO Correlation. My point is those guys do it year in and year out, more than others. They're consistent in their production. I could go on with my list. The fact that Jemile Weeks and the like have shown a sharp upgrade or downgrade from one year to the next means, Jemile Weeks might be lucky more so one year then the next. I can show numerous, and by that I mean a large number of ball players who are successful more so than the average player, and it isn't due to luck. Your point is average to below average players can get lucky every now and then. But you try to imply all ball players are in that category. I'm saying, and I've already proven it, that the good ball players who show a history of production with RISP are not lucky, but good. Those players don't keep showing up in the top 10-40 of average with RISP year after year because they're lucky. If it is luck, what you expect to see with the numbers?
Those players keep showing up in the top 10-40 year after year because they are also in the top 10 year after year in BA. Remember I am only talking about the difference between BA with RISP versus Overall BA. Each of the 4 examples you gave had a season within the past 4 years where they hit worse with Runners in scoring position than they did overall. |
|
|
|
Post by aztecron on Jun 20, 2012 15:30:27 GMT -8
Will Venable just isn't as lucky as Josh Hamilton. I made it very plain it is BA RISP versus BA Overall. To be successful as a wiseass takes a little more time than you seem to be willing to put into this. You picked a very bad example. Josh Hamilton is +.035 with RISP Will Venable is +.037 with RISP That does not mean as aztecron would contend, that Will Venable is a better "pressure hitter". The variance between ones BA and BA with RISP is luck. You miss interpret what I say. My contention is that those who appear in the upper echelon of average w/RISP in a continuum are there for a reason and it isn't luck. Those who appear sporadically are in there due to luck. It is you who look for the anomaly (Weeks) as your standard, while I look for the consistency (Votto etc.) as the standard to rebute. Your numbers don't show any standard which you use to support your "luck" position. While my numbers show consistency which refute your "luck" position. Here is my eyeball test. You have the option to choose between Jemile Weeks or Joey Votto, bottom of the ninth runner on second, one out. Who do you pick? While it will take you time run your analysis on whether it's a left handed pitcher or righty, what time of day it is, what time both hitters got to sleep last night, yada, yada, yada. I'm choosing Joey Votto. Period. Debate that.  You can't, you'd look foolish. Go with your "luck" analysis. As for me, I'm looking at a standard of consistency in those situations and that's how I'd manage. |
|
|
|
Post by aztecron on Jun 20, 2012 15:32:32 GMT -8
If " luck" where involved at all, then any of us here on this board could play the game at that level, cause after all, it's just luck ain't it? The luck I am talking about would take your .014 BA overall and make it maybe .016 or .012 with RISP. So no, you wouldn't be able to play at that level. I don't know if you just didn't understand my post or you were caught up in the thrill of your own post and got carried away.
What you did by taking 4 batters as an example to disprove a well researched theory (not by me but others) is called anecdotal evidence. It is very bad form. Nope. What I did was stop after reviewing a multitude of years and players, and decided to keep it short. But, as reflected by your post above, you didn't get it. That's okay, I didn't expect you to. |
|
|
|
Post by AztecBill on Jun 20, 2012 15:38:32 GMT -8
I made it very plain it is BA RISP versus BA Overall. To be successful as a wiseass takes a little more time than you seem to be willing to put into this. You picked a very bad example. Josh Hamilton is +.035 with RISP Will Venable is +.037 with RISP That does not mean as aztecron would contend, that Will Venable is a better "pressure hitter". The variance between ones BA and BA with RISP is luck. You miss interpret what I say. My contention is that those who appear in the upper echelon of average w/RISP in a continuum are there for a reason and it isn't luck. Those who appear sporadically are in there due to luck. It is you who look for the anomaly (Weeks) as your standard, while I look for the consistency (Votto etc.) as the standard to rebute. Your numbers don't show any standard which you use to support your "luck" position. While my numbers show consistency which refute your "luck" position. Here is my eyeball test. You have the option to choose between Jemile Weeks or Joey Votto, bottom of the ninth runner on second, one out. Who do you pick? While it will take you time run your analysis on whether it's a left handed pitcher or righty, what time of day it is, what time both hitters got to sleep last night, yada, yada, yada. I'm choosing Joey Votto. Period. Debate that. You can't, you'd look foolish. Go with your "luck" analysis. As for me, I'm looking at a standard of consistency in those situations and that's how I'd manage. I would take the player with the better overall BA, of course. I would only take the player with the better BA with RISP, if I believed that number vis a vis overall BA was NOT luck. I thought we were having a disagreement, now I am thinking you don't understand my overall premise. |
|
|
|
Post by AztecBill on Jun 20, 2012 15:40:02 GMT -8
If it is totally luck, than 25% of the players in baseball should be positive for 2 years on a row, and 1 out of 8 should positive for 3 years in a row, and 1 in 16 should be positive for 4 years in a row.
That is why doing this player by player is a waste of time. Statisticians did it for 80 years of baseball data and concluded it was luck.
Even your example of Joey Votto fails because his BA RISP was lower than his overall BA just a few years ago. As I stated before 1 out of 16 players should have 4 years of positive data. He is one of those. You jumped on Weeks and ignored a bunch of very good hitters who had huge RISP BA differences but were negative the following year.
|
|
|
|
Post by aztecron on Jun 20, 2012 15:54:14 GMT -8
Unbelievable, Bill. I can take three or four of those guys who you use and show old age or injuries as there down fall, not luck. But you can't run number on age as not all ball players age the same. Nor injuries as some are prone to injury while others aren't.
Sometimes you have to look at the player on the field to study, not just the numbers from ESPN. The numbers can't tell you if there is a knee injury, or someone just had lasik, or someone just got old and lost some reflex.
You look at numbers, I look at numbers and the player on the field. You can tell a lot from looking at both the numbers and the player on the field and coming to a conclusion.
Difference of opinion in how we look at baseball, I guess.
|
|
|
|
Post by AztecBill on Jun 20, 2012 16:15:06 GMT -8
Unbelievable, Bill. I can take three or four of those guys who you use and show old age or injuries as there down fall, not luck. But you can't run number on age as not all ball players age the same. Nor injuries as some are prone to injury while others aren't. Sometimes you have to look at the player on the field to study, not just the numbers from ESPN. The numbers can't tell you if there is a knee injury, or someone just had lasik, or someone just got old and lost some reflex. You look at numbers, I look at numbers and the player on the field. You can tell a lot from looking at both the numbers and the player on the field and coming to a conclusion. Difference of opinion in how we look at baseball, I guess. A knee injury will effect his overall batting average as well as his RISP BA. Old age will effect his overall batting as well as his RISP BA. In fact, I would expect even more of a positive spilt in those situations if it wasn't just luck, since they could muster up enough to be good every once in a while. But a healthly young player should be able to be his best always. You look at players but see what you want. If you think a player is better with RISP but the data shows he is worse, which do you believe? |
|
|
|
Post by AztecBill on Jun 22, 2012 13:02:54 GMT -8
|
|
|
|
Post by AztecBill on Jun 26, 2012 7:07:19 GMT -8
Right on que, the Padres have been hitting .362 with RISP since this thread started.
17-47 = .362
Luck.
The key is hitting well overall so you get a lot of RISP opportunities and have a better chance to succeed when you do.
|
|
You can't, you'd look foolish.