Semi-Famous Baseball Geek Looking for Info on OOTP

[OldFatGuy]

Originally Posted by Syd Thrift

Another factor to consider, OFG, is that good pitchers are more likely to get 2-strike counts on their opponents than bad pitchers are. I'm not sure that demonstrating that there is a slightly lower chance to hit HRs on an 0-2 count compared with a 2-0 is necessarily a sign that it's actually easier, everything else taken into account, to hit a HR on the latter count.

A good pitcher with good control, as I posted many posts above. A pitcher with the best stuff in the world but having difficulty finding the strike zone might find himself in plenty of 3-1 counts.

Again, I just want to question the validity of the overall thesis that once a batter puts the ball in play the outcome is random and the specific pitcher doesn't matter, it's the same for any and all pitchers. I disagree ONLY to the extent of control and counts. I do agree hard hit balls are totally random. However, I STILL BELIEVE, pitcher's CAN and DO impact that randomness through control. Pitching ahead in the count, pitching to specific quadrants of the strikezone, and "forcing" weaker contact. And I think DIPS is either arguing against that or not taking into account, OR I'm flat out wrong. And, judging from my track record, if I were betting man, I'd bet on the latter of those three. But before I throw in the towel on my lifelong beliefs, I'd like to see a little more detailed data.

[OldFatGuy]

Sorry, Syd, I see you posted while I was. Again, it makes perfect sense to a certain degree. I mean I really think it's possible, and have said so before, that a guy throwing BP fastballs could throw three perfect innings. And most of that would be the randomness thing.

However, whenever you watch a pitcher in the 7th or 8th inning of a no-no or a perfect game there is one thing you'll notice, an awful lot of those balls aren't hit hard. How many times have you announcers during a real gem of a pitched game talk about "Wow, and there's really only been two or three balls hit hard all night."

This is what I'm talking about. If you can keep hitters off balance, behind in the count, and can pitch to specific locations I believe you can induce weaker contact. And I believe weaker contact has less of a random chance of a hit than a hard hit ball. Thus, the pitcher CAN control that randomness somewhat. That's what I'm trying to say, but perhaps am still not getting it out quite right.

[Syd Thrift]

And again, DIPS has nothing to say about that. Some pitchers give up more homeruns than others do. DIPS agrees with that idea. However, what isn't clear is whether hitters get more line drives compared to pop flies or ground balls on 0-2 counts versus 2-0 counts. I admit that I don't know the answer to that, but looking at the overall numbers on a gestalt level that does not appear to be the case.

ETA: as to your no-hitter analogy, another thing that I see with them is that there are invariably 2 or 3 fantastic defensive plays in every no-no. A fantastic pick by the thirdbaseman, a soft liner that the center fielder has to range across the the outfield to dive for... it seems to me that the difference between a 2-hitter and a no-hitter often comes down to defense.

Also, you've got to realize what the statheads are calling luck... the majority of no-hitters occur early or late in the season. Rarely do they occur in the middle. One reason why this is is because the weather tends to be cooler in April and September than it is from May through August. Cooler air = balls that don't travel as far = lower BABIPs. Also, those are the months where it's most likely that you're going to see replacement-level players in the field. Replacement-level players are often good enough fielders to be in the bigs; it's their hitting that keeps them in AAA. Overall, a pitcher might get a game or two a year in these conditions that is canceled out by a couple super-hot days in August against, say, the Yankees. That doesn't make the scene in late September against the Devil Rays' 40-man roster any less conducive for no-hitter mania.

Finally, realize that we humans are really, really good at picking out patterns, even when those patterns don't exist. By definition, a game where a pitcher manages to not give up any hits is not a normal occurrence. Are no-hitters anomalous to the point that they ought never to occur? I doubt that. Closer to the truth, probably, is the idea that some people just got unlucky one night.

[OldFatGuy]

Originally Posted by Syd Thrift

And again, DIPS has nothing to say about that. Some pitchers give up more homeruns than others do. DIPS agrees with that idea. However, what isn't clear is whether hitters get more line drives compared to pop flies or ground balls on 0-2 counts versus 2-0 counts. I admit that I don't know the answer to that, but looking at the overall numbers on a gestalt level that does not appear to be the case.

OK, but if you consider line drives to be better contact than pop-ups or weak grounders (I do), and if you consider home runs to be the ultimate in good contact (I do), THEN if you can show home runs are less frequent on 0-2 counts than 2-0 counts, couldn't you then draw from that and say that ALL good contact is less frequent????

EDIT: Forgot to mention the portion of your earlier post that is the part of the theory I like and for years no would really pay attention to it. Your example of Palmer and the Orioles is a perfect example of how defenses can and do impact pitcher's statistics dramatically. Most casual fans would just look at the earned versus unearned runs, and that is so way too simplified. That Orioles defense was awesome and was one of the primary reasons Jim Palmer is in the Hall of Fame IMHO, and why the DIPS theory has aspects that make such perfect sense it's like "Duh, well yeah." It's just a matter of going to far in the other direction and saying K's, BB's and HRA's allowed are the only thing that matters too. There is a medium somewhere. For me, the FIRST and FOREMOST thing I want in ANY pitcher is control. You give me a pitcher with pinpoint control, and I think you can go from there and make him effective. If he's not overpowering and can't throw K's, maybe he won't be a Hall of Famer, but give me a pitching staff with good control, put a good defense behind them, and I'll go 162 with anyone.

[Syd Thrift]

Originally Posted by OldFatGuy

OK, but if you consider line drives to be better contact than pop-ups or weak grounders (I do), and if you consider home runs to be the ultimate in good contact (I do), THEN if you can show home runs are less frequent on 0-2 counts than 2-0 counts, couldn't you then draw from that and say that ALL good contact is less frequent????

Homeruns are, once again, something that a pitcher can control. Is it the best sort of contact? Sure, maybe. I think that what the community is saying is that outside of that A-level, often-a-homer kind of contact, pitchers don't have a lot of difference in giving up B-level or C-level contact (again, with the exception of one-pitch specialists and guys who have great defenses behind them). I can see how this is hard to understand, but at the same time I can see how this could very easily be fact. The distance between less-than-stellar contact and missing the ball altogether is what, an inch? An inch and a half? It's hard to believe that a pitcher has the ability to make a man miss by half an inch but not an inch and a half.

[RonCo]

Originally Posted by OldFatGuy

Well, then if batter's "don't" make worse contact when behind in the count, I assume the probability of home runs (the ultimate in contact) is the same on 0-2, 1-2, counts as for 2-1, and 3-1 counts???? Sorry, I have dial-up and when I press some sights if takes over 20-30 seconds for me to see something I just close it, and this was the case with the sight you referenced, so I couldn't read it. But, again I'm not arguing because I don't know the stats, just from years of watching it seems to me batters have a higher probabiliy of better contact in hitter's counts, or even counts. Perhaps I am wrong. Did the article compare counts on when home runs are hit????

The article in question is a pdf file and will take a little bit to download and open. It focuses on BABIP in various counts. It isn't the end-all. And it doesn't measure the basic game-theory advantage of being ahead (which is that pitchers can afford to waste pitches and get hitters to swing and miss more often).

It's worth a download. Grab it some night before you go to bed, or set it to run over lunch or something.

[Raidergoo]

Originally Posted by RonCo

It focuses on BABIP in various counts.

We gotta ask Larry Anderson to make a utility to analyze all the counts for every PA over an entire season.

[RchW]

Originally Posted by OldFatGuy

Sorry, Syd, I see you posted while I was. Again, it makes perfect sense to a certain degree. I mean I really think it's possible, and have said so before, that a guy throwing BP fastballs could throw three perfect innings. And most of that would be the randomness thing.

However, whenever you watch a pitcher in the 7th or 8th inning of a no-no or a perfect game there is one thing you'll notice, an awful lot of those balls aren't hit hard. How many times have you announcers during a real gem of a pitched game talk about "Wow, and there's really only been two or three balls hit hard all night."

This is what I'm talking about. If you can keep hitters off balance, behind in the count, and can pitch to specific locations I believe you can induce weaker contact. And I believe weaker contact has less of a random chance of a hit than a hard hit ball. Thus, the pitcher CAN control that randomness somewhat. That's what I'm trying to say, but perhaps am still not getting it out quite right.

But how many times do you see a jam shot or an "excuse me" hit fall in when the batter is overmatched and basically the ball hits the bat. Fielders will always tell you they are the tough ones to get.

OTOH how many times do you see a guy hit a screaming line drive right at someone. In the boxscore it's an out.

I wonder if it is possible that good pitchers somehow avoid contact that causes fielders to misread the ball. If true you may find the counter intuitive result is "good" contact results in more outs.

Just my crazy.

[Voros McCracken]

Originally Posted by Jestre

Hey Voros, welcome, two quick questions; are you still working for the Red Sox and did you have anything to do with bringing in Hideki Okajima

No and no, I stopped working for the Red Sox in June of 2005.

My record of recommending and not recommending guys was as hit and miss as everybody else, but they were pretty iffy when it came to feedback so I never really knew how much or how little my input mattered when it came to their decisions. I recommended Papelbon in the amateur draft but it wasn't like he was some sort of unknown and they quite likely would have drafted him there regardless of what I said.

As for no-hitters, it's quite obviously not a coincidence that the all-time leader in no hitters is the all-time leader in strikeouts. I did look at HBIP when ahead/behind in the count and there was a mention of it in the mailbag followup on the Prospectus' site:

http://www.baseballprospectus.com/ar...?articleid=890

The conclusion is that the advantage of being ahead in the count may be there, but it's likely not large enough to matter (with the example of Pedro vs. Dan Reichert listed there).

[DougWyatt]

What I can't grasp about DIPS is this. Shouldn't the theory go both ways ? What I mean is, saying a pitcher doesn't control BABIP and that once contact is made, it's random whether or not it's a hit ... shouldn't this apply to hitters as well ?

I mean, if you take 2 guys that strikeout & homer at the same rate ... how (using DIPS) can one be a perenial .300 hitter and one be a perenial .220 hitter ?

[Syd Thrift]

Originally Posted by DougWyatt

What I can't grasp about DIPS is this. Shouldn't the theory go both ways ? What I mean is, saying a pitcher doesn't control BABIP and that once contact is made, it's random whether or not it's a hit ... shouldn't this apply to hitters as well ?

I mean, if you take 2 guys that strikeout & homer at the same rate ... how (using DIPS) can one be a perenial .300 hitter and one be a perenial .220 hitter ?

It's not random with hitters. For one thing, hitters have one skill in particular that can turn groundballs and line drives into base hits that they do have direct control over: speed. Faster players tend to have better BABIPs than slower players do. For similar reasons, younger players tend to have better BABIPs than older ones do. I know that the TangoTiger studies that were used to help map the BABIP skill in this version of the game show a general trend towards starting high and ending low.

Also, BABIP for hitters is very, very noisy as well. It's not quite as pronounced as pitcher DIPS, where a player who finishes in the top 5 in the league one season is nearly as likely to finish in the bottom 5 the next as he is in the top 5 again, but the year-to-year correlations are not anywhere near as strong as, say, batter strikeout rate or walk rate.

Beyond that... hitting is a different skill than pitching is. A vastly different skill, actually, so different that pitchers are very rarely good hitters and vice versa (at least above the high school level). This is an important point to bear in mind. Just because a pitcher on a gestalt level cannot control his BABIP does not mean that a hitter is unable to do so. For a pitcher, all those low-BABIP and high-BABIP guys even themselves out, creating the illusion of near-complete randomness on his part.

[DougWyatt]

Originally Posted by Syd Thrift

For a pitcher, all those low-BABIP and high-BABIP guys even themselves out, creating the illusion of near-complete randomness on his part.

So, hitters BABIP are more consistent - but since a pitcher faces so many batters; the high BABIP guys & the low ones balance out - which has pitchers unable to control this stat. Makes sense.

Still hard to grasp. I guess just from watching games, and seeing a pitcher make a good pitch that forces a weak popup or dribbler to the mound .. it's hard for me to understand that he can't do that consitently - when I KNOW he's capable of doing it sometimes. Fast thinking leads to the assumption that a good pitcher would be able to do it more often, and have more control over his BABIPagainst.

But, from what I've seen .. the theory is backed by numbers. Interesting, and hard to bend my brain around it.

[RonCo]

It's been awhile since I ran numbers on hitters, so my numbers may be off a tad...but when you look at only hitters with a few hundred AB, a batter's BABIP in year one had a predictive value on his BABIP in the following year of roughly .4 or .5, which is a moderate strength (whereas a pitcher's BABIP in year one had correltaion strengths of under well under .1). So, yes, a generic batter appears to have the ability to hit the ball in places they aint, but a generic pitcher has very limited ability to prevent them from doing so.

Again, to me this makes quite a bit of sense. I mean...things like the ability to hit a grounder to the right side of the infield that move runners are obvious examples where hitters can and do exert bat control to put a batted ball into play in specific areas.

This skill is represented in OOTP by the BABIP rating ( which teams with AvoidK and Power to create the "Contact" pseudo-rating).

[RonCo]

Originally Posted by DougWyatt

Still hard to grasp. I guess just from watching games, and seeing a pitcher make a good pitch that forces a weak popup or dribbler to the mound .. it's hard for me to understand that he can't do that consitently - when I KNOW he's capable of doing it sometimes. Fast thinking leads to the assumption that a good pitcher would be able to do it more often, and have more control over his BABIPagainst.

The numbers show that some pitchers have the ability to control infield pop-ups, though I think the influence is weak. Like I said above, if you say pitchers have zero influence on anything but K/BF, BB/BF, and HR/BF you're in the right ballpark. There are a few wrinkles, though...specifically around LD/GB/FB results. What this means to me is that while BABIP is still likely random for most to all pitchers, that randomness may be (is probably) focused on slightly different means for different types of pitchers.

[OldFatGuy]

Ok, now two different posts above say the same thing. A pitcher can control HRA. Two different posts from two different people. Now, again, is you assume that a home run is the utlimate in making contact, or hitting the sweet spot (I do) AND if you agree a hard hit ball has a higher random chance of being a hit than a weak hit ball (I do but I'm beginning to think THAT'S where we're parting ways here), THEN how can you suggest in one sentence the pitcher CAN control HR/BF (the ultimate in contact), yet have "zero influence" on the type of contact the other balls in play are hit with?? THIS is what I can't get my head around.

[CBL-Commish]

Originally Posted by OldFatGuy

Ok, now two different posts above say the same thing. A pitcher can control HRA. Two different posts from two different people. Now, again, is you assume that a home run is the utlimate in making contact, or hitting the sweet spot (I do) AND if you agree a hard hit ball has a higher random chance of being a hit than a weak hit ball (I do but I'm beginning to think THAT'S where we're parting ways here), THEN how can you suggest in one sentence the pitcher CAN control HR/BF (the ultimate in contact), yet have "zero influence" on the type of contact the other balls in play are hit with?? THIS is what I can't get my head around.

Pitchers do have control over their GB/FB ratios. Give up more FBs and you'll give up more homers.

[Voros McCracken]

Originally Posted by OldFatGuy

Ok, now two different posts above say the same thing. A pitcher can control HRA. Two different posts from two different people. Now, again, is you assume that a home run is the utlimate in making contact, or hitting the sweet spot (I do) AND if you agree a hard hit ball has a higher random chance of being a hit than a weak hit ball (I do but I'm beginning to think THAT'S where we're parting ways here), THEN how can you suggest in one sentence the pitcher CAN control HR/BF (the ultimate in contact), yet have "zero influence" on the type of contact the other balls in play are hit with?? THIS is what I can't get my head around.

Because you're missing (albeit not by a lot) what type of ball a home run really is. Without outfield fences, many many many home runs are outs. A home run shares much more in common with a fly ball in play than it does with the other two types of hits in play, and as we know flyballs are the least likely of the three to fall in for hits.

I can't remember the study exactly nor do I remember a link, but one study suggested that most of a pitcher's home run rate can be explained by his overall fly ball rate. More fly balls = less hits = more doubles and triples = more home runs. So when you see a pitcher with a high home run total over time, you can assume he gives up lots of flyballs, and from there you can assume that keeps his hits per balls in play lower. Correlation studies tend to confirm this as there seems to be a small inverse correlation between home run rate and hits per balls in play for pitchers.

What Tango's studies suggest is that LD% is the big motivator for hits per balls in play numbers, and for this most pitchers are darn near close to equal over time. There does seem to be differences between hitters in this stat.

[mikev]

So Voros, you looking at any online leagues or getting into the game yet?

(Feeble attempt at getting back into OOTP talk :P)

[Viva Los Expos]

Originally Posted by OldFatGuy

Did the article compare counts on when home runs are hit????

Not really; most of the article analyzes AVG. However, footnote 5 states "[o]ne real effect that shows up in SLG by count is the fact that batters average more bases per hit with fewer strikes and more balls. . . ."

[OldFatGuy]

Originally Posted by Viva Los Expos

Not really; most of the article analyzes AVG. However, footnote 5 states "[o]ne real effect that shows up in SLG by count is the fact that batters average more bases per hit with fewer strikes and more balls. . . ."

Which by implication suggests better contact.