Thread: Exit Velocity?
View Single Post
Old 03-25-2019, 04:18 PM   #140
NoOne
Hall Of Famer
 
NoOne's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 7,167
Quote:
Originally Posted by Curve Ball Dave View Post
I appreciate the rest of your post and what you wrote was correct. I stopped at this particular spot because I have to correct something. It's not a matter of like or dislike. It's a matter of seeing the efficacy of the stat. I have said more than once that EV can be used as a tool within a broader context to augment other observations. What I don't like is the oohing and aaying over it without any critical thinking as if we've discovered something that will really help us learn brand new things about players that we didn't already know.



Which is another way of stating what I just wrote above.

The perception is that I'm some old fool who rejects any new ways of looking at things as if no critical thought (or actual knowledge of the game and quantitative analysis) at all goes into my opinions. But next time I see a ball fly 430' out of a park I'll still sleep without knowing what the actual exit velocity was.
"My original question was never answered: What does it tell us that we didn't already know? "

it tells us way more than a human eye can over the long-term. just as you can't tell the difference between a large gap in BA in any 1 PA or even many with your eye, just as you cannot tell if someone consistently barrels up the ball relative to another player with the human eye -- similar #'s and differntiation between players over time (ie. suitable sample to have any confidence). exit velo will directly correlate to the consistency of which a player transfers swing newons to the ball. i think they call it a hard hit rate? i hear that one alot... that's got to be any ball >Xmph is considered hard hit, right? (rhetorical, i'm not looking it up, lol)

pointing out some silly argument "for it" isn't relevant. ignore those people. i do even when they are on my side of a debate. in fact, i will gladly point out they are wrong even if it causes a negative perception to my side of the argument. truth and logic is all that matters. their conclusions are whimsical at best and more likely just ignorant on the topic, in general.

you went on to say it tells us nothing more than what we can observe with our eyes, and that is simply not true. it's never about 1 hit that goes 400feet or 550 feet. (although peak power + knowledge of distribution is really good info). so, i am not misrepresenting you at all. you've changed your tune a bit in this reply, or i missed the one sentence in a much larger bulk of your writing in this thread -- but, still....

this type of data is meant to be used in bulk. the 1-event nonsense is for spectator's instant gratification, like looking at a radar reading. (i will admit in single-serving use, though, the radar gun is more useful in the moment... you can clearly see a pitcher getting tired over time, so it's not a perfect parrallel.)

p.s.

you aren't an old codger, lol... i can't tell how old you are from these conversation. i do think you argued irrationally, if you believe the things you said in a portion of the quoted reply at top. nearly every reason you state was a misrepresentation of how the data can be used or some extreme context that isn't relevant to how it should be used.

i don't think you are dumb, either. you can find numerous threads where i engage in a logical fallacy... and i am wrong in that moment, too. not dumb.. just wrong. the one sentence notwithstanding where you say it's useful with other stuff.. i must have missed that part, my bad, but the bulk is not congruent with that sentiment at all.

i am wrong about something every single day of my life... just how it goes.
NoOne is offline   Reply With Quote