|
|
Post by AztecBill on Nov 27, 2013 9:23:27 GMT -8
Yeah. Situational hitting is a skill. Why would every hitter be coached at it. If I know there is a runner on third with less than two outs, I'm gonna try to hit a fly ball. Some hitters are better at that than others. I choose to believe there are hitters who can lock in and hit a line drive with runners on and the team needs it most. I just think that some players (typically the better hitters) can do that. Now if a .220 hitter hits .300 with RISP it might be a fluke. But if a .265 hitter consistently hits .300 w RISP I think there's something to it. And if a .280 hitter seems to always hit .200 w/ RISP, I choose to believe there is an extra level of focus. There is a "clutch" factor in all of sports. Every athlete in a team sport will tell you that. It's a gene. A personality trait. It's cliche but some people really do want the responsibility when everything is on the line and some people don't. Good post. Furthermore, I would say situational hitting requires plate discipline and smarts. If you have a man on third and less than two outs, you do want that fly ball or at least a grounder to the right side (if the infield is not in). That doesn't mean you can get that done even the majority of the time, but there is a skill involved for better hitters. I agree, except a player at 3rd with less than two outs does score the majority of the time. |
|
|
|
Post by AztecBill on Nov 27, 2013 9:24:22 GMT -8
My only thought is that there's a difference between predictive statistics and evaluative statistics. RISP tells *what* happened. It doesn't lie about productivity (like pitcher Wins do), but it doesn't *predict* whether a guy will be a better hitter or not. Either way, it's a pretty silly debate to get into IMO. Good players play well. The Padres don't do well because their players haven't been good enough to play well. It has nothing to do with RISP moving forward. Exactly...except the "silly" part. |
|
|
|
Post by Section T(urn Up) on Nov 27, 2013 9:56:17 GMT -8
My only thought is that there's a difference between predictive statistics and evaluative statistics. RISP tells *what* happened. It doesn't lie about productivity (like pitcher Wins do), but it doesn't *predict* whether a guy will be a better hitter or not. Either way, it's a pretty silly debate to get into IMO. Good players play well. The Padres don't do well because their players haven't been good enough to play well. It has nothing to do with RISP moving forward. Exactly...except the "silly" part. At some point it just comes down to how you view the game. I'm not a fan of any baseball team any more and I don't get wrapped up in the dramatic moments enough because I almost see the whole thing as a strat-o-matic game at this point. Scutaro's heroics for my childhood team (the Giants) in 2012, for instance, weren't really "fun" for me to watch because it just seemed like a perfectly possible, yet unlikely outcome. I suppose some people can embrace the variance and still root for their team, but for me it just makes the whole thing a poker tournament that's being played by the GMs. I find that fascinating and still love baseball, but I miss having a team I care about and getting caught up in the narratives that make sports fun. I don't see it as an informed and uninformed thing, and I hope I don't come off that way about it, but to some extent I think it's better to enjoy sport for what it appears to be and not what it is. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 27, 2013 9:59:11 GMT -8
Yeah. Situational hitting is a skill. Why would every hitter be coached at it. If I know there is a runner on third with less than two outs, I'm gonna try to hit a fly ball. Some hitters are better at that than others. I choose to believe there are hitters who can lock in and hit a line drive with runners on and the team needs it most. I just think that some players (typically the better hitters) can do that. Now if a .220 hitter hits .300 with RISP it might be a fluke. But if a .265 hitter consistently hits .300 w RISP I think there's something to it. And if a .280 hitter seems to always hit .200 w/ RISP, I choose to believe there is an extra level of focus. There is a "clutch" factor in all of sports. Every athlete in a team sport will tell you that. It's a gene. A personality trait. It's cliche but some people really do want the responsibility when everything is on the line and some people don't. Statisticians took every players difference between BA and BAwRISP over 30 years of data and ran correlations for players across years. They found no correlation. Players do not have the ability to suddenly hit better with RISP. You can feel that something must be so but statistics proves you wrong. When you look at lifetime numbers the difference between BA and BAwRISP become much closer. The noise of individual seasons is gone. For instance: Tony Gwynn lifetime BA .335 Tony Gwynn lifetime BAwRISP .335 Just because "some people really do want the responsibility" doesn't mean they do any better in those instances. I invite you to find the player who you think is better with RISP. There have been studies in basketball and "clutch" doesn't exist. Supposed "clutch" players are no better during those "clutch" moments. That includes Michael Jordon. For the record, Yahoo Sports and Baseball Almanac have Gwynn at .356 career with RISP (and that is 1,565 at bats). sports.yahoo.com/mlb/players/3006/situational/?season=careerI believe he had an insane 1997 season w/ RISP where he hit like .459. It was much discussed back then. Anyways, I agree with most of what you're saying. Hitting w/ RISP does vary greatly for many ballplayers from year to year, and many good hitters hit about the same in that position as they do in other situations. Basically, good hitters are good hitters in most situations. There are a lot of factors involved. Of course, some hitters (good or average) hit better in situational spots than others do. Tony was one who did. But wow, .459 in 97! Let's take a moment to sit back and admire how great he was! |
|
|
|
Post by AztecBill on Nov 27, 2013 10:16:34 GMT -8
For the record, Yahoo Sports and Baseball Almanac have Gwynn at .356 career with RISP (and that is 1,565 at bats). sports.yahoo.com/mlb/players/3006/situational/?season=careerI believe he had an insane 1997 season w/ RISP where he hit like .459. It was much discussed back then. Anyways, I agree with most of what you're saying. Hitting w/ RISP does vary greatly for many ballplayers from year to year, and many good hitters hit about the same in that position as they do in other situations. Basically, good hitters are good hitters in most situations. There are a lot of factors involved. Of course, some hitters (good or average) hit better in situational spots than others do. Tony was one who did. But wow, .459 in 97! Let's take a moment to sit back and admire how great he was! I trust your source more than mine, so I stand corrected. Interesting that Tony's BA with RISP and 2 outs was below his overall average. If, as you contend, he is a player who just hits better in situational spots, then why is that? A split I like to see is RPIs with bases loaded versus ABs (subtracting BB and HR from RBI total) Tony knocked in 105 of the base runners in 101 AB with bases loaded. I bet there are not too many players that averaged over 1 of the runners scoring with Bases juiced. Knocking in runners with the Bases loaded
Player Chances, Runners Knocked in = average per ABGwynn 101, 105 = 1.04 Bonds 186, 174 = 0.94 Helton 144, 135 = 0.94 Those were two I could think of that might be better. I think with the bases loaded a pitcher must pitch to the batter making great hitters even better. Not because that player is "clutch" but because he is approached differently, by the pitcher. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 27, 2013 11:40:45 GMT -8
That is true, but with two outs a pitcher may approach Tony differently (particularly if 1B is open) then he would if there were 1 out and the pitcher was really triyng to make good pitches. That's not meant to be be concrete, just thinking out loud. Situations vary depending on outs and also score/circumstance. Is the infield in, or back? etc
|
|
|
|
Post by rockshow on Nov 27, 2013 12:59:23 GMT -8
Statisticians took every players difference between BA and BAwRISP over 30 years of data and ran correlations for players across years. They found no correlation. Players do not have the ability to suddenly hit better with RISP. You can feel that something must be so but statistics proves you wrong. When you look at lifetime numbers the difference between BA and BAwRISP become much closer. The noise of individual seasons is gone. For instance: Tony Gwynn lifetime BA .335 Tony Gwynn lifetime BAwRISP .335 Just because "some people really do want the responsibility" doesn't mean they do any better in those instances. I invite you to find the player who you think is better with RISP. There have been studies in basketball and "clutch" doesn't exist. Supposed "clutch" players are no better during those "clutch" moments. That includes Michael Jordon. For the record, Yahoo Sports and Baseball Almanac have Gwynn at .356 career with RISP (and that is 1,565 at bats). sports.yahoo.com/mlb/players/3006/situational/?season=careerI believe he had an insane 1997 season w/ RISP where he hit like .459. It was much discussed back then. Anyways, I agree with most of what you're saying. Hitting w/ RISP does vary greatly for many ballplayers from year to year, and many good hitters hit about the same in that position as they do in other situations. Basically, good hitters are good hitters in most situations. There are a lot of factors involved. Of course, some hitters (good or average) hit better in situational spots than others do. Tony was one who did. But wow, .459 in 97! Let's take a moment to sit back and admire how great he was! Also I know from the top of my head without checking that Tony Gwynn's career BA is .338. And I knew it was better w/ RISP. |
|
|
|
Post by AztecBill on Nov 27, 2013 13:08:08 GMT -8
For the record, Yahoo Sports and Baseball Almanac have Gwynn at .356 career with RISP (and that is 1,565 at bats). sports.yahoo.com/mlb/players/3006/situational/?season=careerI believe he had an insane 1997 season w/ RISP where he hit like .459. It was much discussed back then. Anyways, I agree with most of what you're saying. Hitting w/ RISP does vary greatly for many ballplayers from year to year, and many good hitters hit about the same in that position as they do in other situations. Basically, good hitters are good hitters in most situations. There are a lot of factors involved. Of course, some hitters (good or average) hit better in situational spots than others do. Tony was one who did. But wow, .459 in 97! Let's take a moment to sit back and admire how great he was! Also I know from the top of my head without checking that Tony Gwynn's career BA is .338. And I knew it was better w/ RISP. Some years it was higher and some years it was lower. It is not a skill but random chance difference as can be seen by looking at 2 out and RISP where his batting average was less than otherwise. |
|
|
|
Post by rockshow on Nov 27, 2013 15:24:43 GMT -8
No offense AztecBill, seriously, but based on your posts, I would think you've never played sports. It's like completely ignoring the mental, psychological aspects of sports. Which 100% exist no matter what stats say.
|
|
|
|
Post by AztecBill on Dec 2, 2013 14:09:24 GMT -8
No offense AztecBill, seriously, but based on your posts, I would think you've never played sports. It's like completely ignoring the mental, psychological aspects of sports. Which 100% exist no matter what stats say. There is so much weeding out by the time a player gets to the major leagues that players who need something extra to do better don't make the cut. You have to be consistent every at bat in all circumstances. Players who don't get into the right frame of mind unless some special situation happens, are left in the dust of the minors or worse. Stats are really plain in showing that hitting better with RISP is not a skill. If you think it is find that player who does it consistently and lets talk. Freedie Freeman of Atlanta hit .319 last year and .443 with RISP. But the year before he hit .259 overall and .219 with RISP. Look how players hit on Tuesdays and you will find a similar distribution. That doesn't prove that some players have a skill of hitting better on Tuesdays. |
|
|
|
Post by AztecBill on Dec 4, 2013 8:47:38 GMT -8
Will Venable is what he is. He has value as a 4th OF, but if he's your every day guy you're probably going to have some issues. I like him just fine as a ballplayer, but let's call a spade a spade. He is a 31 year old with a career .753 OPS who just had his best season. At his age, it's not as if he just hit his prime and we can expect an upward trend. Could he be better next season? Sure, but I doubt it. He was abysmal with RISP (.204 with a .528 OPS) and even worse with RISP and 2 outs (.172 and .486 OPS). His 2.9 WAR was slightly better than his 2012 number of 2.4. RISP? His 3 year BA with RISP is above his 3 year overall BA. His actual BA is a much better predictor of what his BA with RISP will be than his prior BA with RISP. In fact, players correlations of RISP-BA from year to year is under .1. For all intents that is ZERO. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 4, 2013 9:02:03 GMT -8
Will Venable is what he is. He has value as a 4th OF, but if he's your every day guy you're probably going to have some issues. I like him just fine as a ballplayer, but let's call a spade a spade. He is a 31 year old with a career .753 OPS who just had his best season. At his age, it's not as if he just hit his prime and we can expect an upward trend. Could he be better next season? Sure, but I doubt it. He was abysmal with RISP (.204 with a .528 OPS) and even worse with RISP and 2 outs (.172 and .486 OPS). His 2.9 WAR was slightly better than his 2012 number of 2.4. RISP? His 3 year BA with RISP is above his 3 year overall BA. His actual BA is a much better predictor of what his BA with RISP will be than his prior BA with RISP. In fact, players correlations of RISP-BA from year to year is under .1. For all intents that is ZERO. As I said before, my post was a discussion on last years stats. I said "WAS" abysmal in 2012. You're simply putting too much stock on that. We've already had this conversation, and yes I do believe in "situational hitting" (which doesn't hold itself to just RISP) being important. I'm not certain why you chose to re-quote that post of mine from two weeks ago, after we have been there, done that. Bored today, Bill? You retired? |
|
|
|
Post by AztecBill on Dec 4, 2013 9:05:42 GMT -8
RISP? His 3 year BA with RISP is above his 3 year overall BA. His actual BA is a much better predictor of what his BA with RISP will be than his prior BA with RISP. In fact, players correlations of RISP-BA from year to year is under .1. For all intents that is ZERO. As I said before, my post was a discussion on last years stats. I said "WAS" abysmal in 2012. You're simply putting too much stock on that. We've already had this conversation, and yes I do believe in "situational hitting" (which doesn't hold itself to just RISP) being important. I'm not certain why you chose to re-quote that post of mine from two weeks ago, after we have been there, done that. Bored today, Bill? You retired? Just didn't want to leave that ridiculous stat unchallenged in this thread. Quoting RISP stats is like quoting Thursday stats - interesting but not really pertinent to the discussion.
I missed the last page of this thread. I thought it was a different thread. I guess you are right - no valid reason at all to re-post in this thread. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 4, 2013 9:14:36 GMT -8
As I said before, my post was a discussion on last years stats. I said "WAS" abysmal in 2012. You're simply putting too much stock on that. We've already had this conversation, and yes I do believe in "situational hitting" (which doesn't hold itself to just RISP) being important. I'm not certain why you chose to re-quote that post of mine from two weeks ago, after we have been there, done that. Bored today, Bill? You retired? Just didn't want to leave that ridiculous stat unchallenged in this thread. Quoting RISP stats is like quoting Thursday stats - interesting but not really pertinent to the discussion.
I missed the last page of this thread. I thought it was a different thread. I guess you are right - no valid reason at all to re-post in this thread. And as I have provided with links above, there are people in the game of Major League Baseball who would disagree with you. If you believe production w/ RISP and situational hitting is as fortuitous and random chance as trying your luck at the roulette table, I can't help you. Of course the stats vary annually. So does batting average, OBP, OPS, etc. That's baseball. Tony Gwynn hit 20 points higher w/ RISP for his entire career. Does Venable being poor w/ RISP in 2012 mean that he is poor in general in that situation? No, and I didn't say that. The fact of the matter is, you have YOUR opinion and more often than not....it's not accurate NOR supported. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 4, 2013 9:16:42 GMT -8
The problem when talking baseball with Bill is that he doesn't just try to come off like he knows the game, he tries to come off as if he is an expert in statistics and sabermetrics. The problem is, he doesn't know how to properly analyze and interpret the statistics, and often comes off looking rather ignorant on the topic. His huge bias towards Padres ownership/front office doesn't help.
Thanks for the comedic relief, Billy.
|
|
|
|
Post by AztecBill on Dec 4, 2013 9:32:16 GMT -8
The problem when talking baseball with Bill is that he doesn't just try to come off like he knows the game, he tries to come off as if he is an expert in statistics and sabermetrics. The problem is, he doesn't know how to properly analyze and interpret the statistics, and often comes off looking rather ignorant on the topic. His huge bias towards Padres ownership/front office doesn't help. Thanks for the comedic relief, Billy. Boy, don't tell the people I work for, they are paying a lot of money for something I don't know how to do. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 4, 2013 10:05:14 GMT -8
The problem when talking baseball with Bill is that he doesn't just try to come off like he knows the game, he tries to come off as if he is an expert in statistics and sabermetrics. The problem is, he doesn't know how to properly analyze and interpret the statistics, and often comes off looking rather ignorant on the topic. His huge bias towards Padres ownership/front office doesn't help. Thanks for the comedic relief, Billy. Boy, don't tell the people I work for, they are paying a lot of money for something I don't know how to do. It wouldn't be the first time, but cheers to that. "Salud, Don Corleone". |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 4, 2013 17:00:55 GMT -8
Bill is both well spoken (er, written) and I presume he is quite intelligent, John. I get that impression.
I just question how he evaluates baseball statistics and the game itself. That being said, nobody ever said I was the next Bill James and I know what I do not know.
It's all good.
|
|
