Duda redo?

[Ceetar]

Fielders just don't muff a lot of balls. you hit the ball on the ground, it's an out. 76% of the time. you mention a fielder could drop it, that's luck. it doesn't make it a good strategy. it's part of the reason bunting is typically bad, because simply putting the ball in play is not helpful. less and less so, as fielding is better and better.

If you can't hit it hard, better to take the strike than flick it into play hoping it works. Literally 69% of the time a line drive becomes a hit. That's just logical, less time in the air means the fielders cover less ground.

maybe you get a hit occasionally dinking them over fielders. maybe. but how many line drive doubles would you have hit if you'd let the pitch go? or fouled it off?

yes, typically if you hit .300 or better you had a better year than a lot of guys, but you're not a better hitter. that's not predictive of being good, particularly in a predictive sense. You can't go "oh, Alex Presley, Howie Kendrick and Tim Beckham and Johan Camargo are going to be great next year"

Jarrod Dyson, Starling Marte, Ichiro, Adam Engel, Ryan Schimpf, Jose Reyes. Not particularly good players. Those are the soft contact leaders.

People have run tons of statistical analysis and find very little correlation between batting average and run creation. They've also run similar and found that a strikeout doesn't really hurt you much more than an out in play. It's not so much that you shouldn't worry about putting the ball in play if that's your game, but it makes the guys that strike out, but otherwise drive the ball, more valuable than the ones that just put the ball in play but don't strikeout as much.

Of course, there are some diminishing returns stuff going on. Duda struck out 27.5% of the time last year. that's pushing up against too high, at that rate you have to also raise the number of balls that you hit hard when you hit them, something Duda didn't quite do last year. But the .217 BA isn't really indicative of a failing there, his .238 BABIP was way low for his career average, suggesting some decent bad luck. He was still 13% better than an average player, but even halfway back to his career BABIP probably gets him back to the 20-25% better range. He had a career high hard hit rate. He's gonna be fine in 2018.

It's also why there's no way Aaron Judge is repeating his MVP level season next year, despite the Yankees heavily banking on it. 30.7% strikeout rate is craaaazy. And it came with a high BABIP and a high hard hit rate. He almost literally hit everything he did hit incredibly hard, but unless he can maintain that, he's going to trade home runs and doubles for more outs and his OBP will drop. But the Yankees aren't going to tell him to start trying to flick pitches the other way.

[Zvon]

Ceetar wrote: Fielders just don't muff a lot of balls. you hit the ball on the ground, it's an out. 76% of the time. you mention a fielder could drop it, that's luck. it doesn't make it a good strategy. it's part of the reason bunting is typically bad, because simply putting the ball in play is not helpful. less and less so, as fielding is better and better. If you can't hit it hard, better to take the strike than flick it into play hoping it works. Literally 69% of the time a line drive becomes a hit. That's just logical, less time in the air means the fielders cover less ground.

Reaching approximately 25% of the time on errors is substantial at the MLB level. That's a big amount considering these guys are the best who play the game. A manager can do a lot with that extra amount.
An outfield error isn't luck! That's baseball. That's being human. That's part of the game! One of the things that makes this game great. I don't wanna watch perfect robots play.

Most of the time I see it done these days bunting sucks, so I agree w/u there. There are only a few good times to give yourself up.

Of course it's better to take pitches that aren't in your zone as opposed to trying to flick em somewhere. Good hitters don't do that very much at all, unless they are seriously fooled. Part of the game. I'm also sure, like you, that line drives become hits more than any other type of contact (I like that 69% info). But there are other types of hits and they all count.

I'll have to read and address the rest of this later tonight, heading out.

[Ceetar]

Zvon wrote: Ceetar wrote: Fielders just don't muff a lot of balls. you hit the ball on the ground, it's an out. 76% of the time. you mention a fielder could drop it, that's luck. it doesn't make it a good strategy. it's part of the reason bunting is typically bad, because simply putting the ball in play is not helpful. less and less so, as fielding is better and better. If you can't hit it hard, better to take the strike than flick it into play hoping it works. Literally 69% of the time a line drive becomes a hit. That's just logical, less time in the air means the fielders cover less ground. Reaching approximately 25% of the time on errors is substantial at the MLB level. That's a big amount considering these guys are the best who play the game. A manager can do a lot with that extra amount. An outfield error isn't luck! That's baseball. That's being human. That's part of the game! One of the things that makes this game great. I don't wanna watch perfect robots play. Most of the time I see it done these days bunting sucks, so I agree w/u there. There are only a few good times to give yourself up. Of course it's better to take pitches that aren't in your zone as opposed to trying to flick em somewhere. Good hitters don't do that very much at all, unless they are seriously fooled. Part of the game. I'm also sure, like you, that line drives become hits more than any other type of contact (I like that 69% info). But there are other types of hits and they all count. I'll have to read and address the rest of this later tonight, heading out.

of course all the hits count. they're still lucky and not reproducible.

That's not 24% reaching on error, that includes hard hit balls through the holes. 1.6% is the reached on error percentage for last year. ish.

[Guest LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr]

In short, zvon, batting average tells you about what happened. But it tells you a lot less about how the player performed (because of all the statistical noise-- most of it fielding-related-- that Ceetar outlined) As such, it's got less predictive value than other measures (such as line-drive percentage)

[Zvon]

LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr wrote: In short, zvon, batting average tells you about what happened. But it tells you a lot less about how the player performed (because of all the statistical noise-- most of it fielding-related-- that Ceetar outlined) As such, it's got less predictive value than other measures (such as line-drive percentage)

I don't doubt any of that. I'm just saying don't dismiss batting average altogether (to Ceets). I'd like my card backs to include all the new stats, they are very telling. But I'd also like to see the B.A. right there at the end.

[nymr83]

LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr wrote: In short, zvon, batting average tells you about what happened. But it tells you a lot less about how the player performed (because of all the statistical noise-- most of it fielding-related-- that Ceetar outlined) As such, it's got less predictive value than other measures (such as line-drive percentage)

besides not being predictive, batting average tells you less about "what happened" already than OBP does. Batting Average has zero advantage, whether looking backwards or forwards, over OBP.

[ashie62]

My little baseball world lives in AB R H 2B 3B HR SB W L ERA K BB WHIP /SLASH lW.A.R.

Thats my story and I'm stickin to it.

[Zvon]

Ashie62 wrote: My little baseball world lives in AB R H 2B 3B HR SB W L ERA K BB WHIP /SLASH lW.A.R. Thats my story and I'm stickin to it.

lol. And you're an old timer like me. An older timer IIRC.
If you can't sway me no one will.
#unswayed in SJ

[Ceetar]

Zvon wrote: LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr wrote: In short, zvon, batting average tells you about what happened. But it tells you a lot less about how the player performed (because of all the statistical noise-- most of it fielding-related-- that Ceetar outlined) As such, it's got less predictive value than other measures (such as line-drive percentage) I don't doubt any of that. I'm just saying don't dismiss batting average altogether (to Ceets). I'd like my card backs to include all the new stats, they are very telling. But I'd also like to see the B.A. right there at the end.

yes, but the reason you like to see it is because you've always seen it and it feels right and helps you relate modern players to ones you remember.

but it's faulty and fails to really do an adequate job of that. They're fine trivialities. like uniform numbers, or RBI or pitcher wins.

[ashie62]

Zvon wrote: Ashie62 wrote: My little baseball world lives in AB R H 2B 3B HR SB W L ERA K BB WHIP /SLASH W.A.R. Thats my story and I'm stickin to it. lol. And you're an old timer like me. An older timer IIRC. If you can't sway me no one will. #unswayed in SJ

That is the truth and made me laugh. Big Eagles weekend!

[Zvon]

Ceetar wrote: Zvon wrote: LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr wrote: In short, zvon, batting average tells you about what happened. But it tells you a lot less about how the player performed (because of all the statistical noise-- most of it fielding-related-- that Ceetar outlined) As such, it's got less predictive value than other measures (such as line-drive percentage) I don't doubt any of that. I'm just saying don't dismiss batting average altogether (to Ceets). I'd like my card backs to include all the new stats, they are very telling. But I'd also like to see the B.A. right there at the end. yes, but the reason you like to see it is because you've always seen it and it feels right and helps you relate modern players to ones you remember.

That could very well be correct sir!