Steve McCatty On Strikeouts

[Curve Ball Dave]

Originally Posted by Skipaway

The point is that the control is limited, so it only shows up barely when you try to detect it.

It's not that hard to see why the control is limited actually.

If we set up a stationary bat, how consistently can a pitcher hit certain part of the bat? And then we have to throw in the ability of the batter, and the guess made by the batter on the pitch.

It's not surprising that the pitcher only plays a small part in deciding how a ball is going to be hit. Doesn't it make intuitive sense that hitters control that much more than pitchers?

This is my fundamental disagreement. I contend that pitchers have much more control over how well a ball is hit than you're stating. When you watch a good pitcher in action, while he gets his strike outs, the overwhelming majority of balls are put in play. They do dictate how well balls are hit. It is beyond all reason to watch a game, see a pitcher fool a hitter on an offspeed pitch resulting in the batter lunging for the ball and popping it up, and then say the pitcher had very little control over how well the ball was hit.

Good hitters, the best hitters, rather than make outs on the pitcher's pitch foul them off and live to fight for another pitch and then pounce on the mistakes. Or, even when they are fooled by the pitch are able to either dial it up or wait back so they can still make good contact. We call those hitters Hall Of Famers. They are the elite hitters. But most players don't hit .300. The pitchers get those guys with the pitcher's pitch. There is a quote by Don Drysdale which shows up in OOTP. He said, "There's no way to pitch to a great hitter. If there was they'd all hit .220" So yes, batter skill is of course a factor. But to say pitcher skill is only a very little variable? No way. That's where you lose me. Those pitchers are in the HOF not just because they struck out another batter per 9 or walked one less than an average pitcher. They are there because they induced the outs when they needed them, and at least 2/3s of the time (assuming 1 k per inning which almost no starting pitcher was able to achieve) the ball was put in play. To repeat my earlier statement. they are not in the HOF on luck.

[Skipaway]

Originally Posted by Curve Ball Dave

This is my fundamental disagreement. I contend that pitchers have much more control over how well a ball is hit than you're stating. When you watch a good pitcher in action, while he gets his strike outs, the overwhelming majority of balls are put in play. They do dictate how well balls are hit. It is beyond all reason to watch a game, see a pitcher fool a hitter on an offspeed pitch resulting in the batter lunging for the ball and popping it up, and then say the pitcher had very little control over how well the ball was hit.

Good hitters, the best hitters, rather than make outs on the pitcher's pitch foul them off and live to fight for another pitch and then pounce on the mistakes. Or, even when they are fooled by the pitch are able to either dial it up or wait back so they can still make good contact. We call those hitters Hall Of Famers. They are the elite hitters. But most players don't hit .300. The pitchers get those guys with the pitcher's pitch. There is a quote by Don Drysdale which shows up in OOTP. He said, "There's no way to pitch to a great hitter. If there was they'd all hit .220" So yes, batter skill is of course a factor. But to say pitcher skill is only a very little variable? No way. That's where you lose me. Those pitchers are in the HOF not just because they struck out another batter per 9 or walked one less than an average pitcher. They are there because they induced the outs when they needed them, and at least 2/3s of the time (assuming 1 k per inning which almost no starting pitcher was able to achieve) the ball was put in play. To repeat my earlier statement. they are not in the HOF on luck.

But the whole point is, if this is really significant, wouldn't it be very easy to observe and measure?

Stats are no more than counting the events and summing them up. If good pitchers are much better than bad pitchers at fooling batters, we should see the difference when we record down the events and calculate the rate of things happening in one way or another.

It's a fact that when we sum all these things up, the difference between good and bad pitchers are not big. Meanwhile, other events, including strikeouts and walks, do show significant and consistent differences between different pitchers.

Impacts can't be gauged by what you believe they are. Impacts are what we measured them to be.

[Curve Ball Dave]

Originally Posted by Skipaway

But the whole point is, if this is really significant, wouldn't it be very easy to observe and measure?

Watching a good pitcher have hitters eat of his hand all game is easily observed. It not always easily measured.

Stats are no more than counting the events and summing them up. If good pitchers are much better than bad pitchers at fooling batters, we should see the difference when we record down the events and calculate the rate of things happening in one way or another.

Until someone comes up with a "Batters fooled per nine innings" stat, there is no one good way to measure it. Measuring how much skill a pitcher has is a combination of many things.

It's a fact that when we sum all these things up, the difference between good and bad pitchers are not big. Meanwhile, other events, including strikeouts and walks, do show significant and consistent differences between different pitchers.

A typical game, as I have stated, usually comes down to just a few pitches. Look at it this way: 4 earned runs in 8 innings is a 4.50 ERA which, now that the steriod era is over, is a back of the rotation ERA and mop up work for a releiver. 3 earned runs in those same 8 innings is a solid 3.38 ERA. One run makes a big difference, and that one run very well be the difference between winning and losing. And that one run may have been the difference between fooling the hitter and getting the tapper, or not and giving up the hit.

Understand, differences in performance at the MLB level are very small to begin with. The difference between a .260 and a .280 hitter is two hits every one hundred at bats...about one hit every other week. Differences between "good" and "bad" pitchers are just as small. Over a short time period you may attribute some variances in performance to luck. Over the course of a career it's skill.

Impacts can't be gauged by what you believe they are. Impacts are what we measured them to be.

That's debatable. But let's say you're right. Not all measures are known at this point in time. Not all known measures are perfect.

The trouble is these two pesky facts. That is why smart statisticians know that what they are doing are just producing tools, not answers. And these tools must be used correctly. Observation as a tool is subjective and therefore not perfect. Stats are not perfect measures. Put the two together with that understanding and use the tools correctly and only then will get the answers you're looking for.

[Skipaway]

Originally Posted by Curve Ball Dave

Watching a good pitcher have hitters eat of his hand all game is easily observed. It not always easily measured.

Until someone comes up with a "Batters fooled per nine innings" stat, there is no one good way to measure it. Measuring how much skill a pitcher has is a combination of many things.

If you feel that something happens a lot when you watch it, but after actually counting it, and it doesn't happen much, then it really doesn't happen much.

And there are already good stats better than the number of times batters fooled. If a batter is "fooled", but the ball turns out to be a homerun, than the fooling is pretty pointless. What's meaningful are outs, and we are already measuring outs. BABIP-type of stats are measuring exactly what you are talking about: if a pitcher is good at fooling hitters into ground-outs or fly-outs, the pitcher would have a low BABIP.

And yes, some pitchers have lower BABIPs in the long run, which is probably a demonstration of their skill. It's just that the difference from baseline is never as big as the differences in strikeouts or walks.

[Goody]

Originally Posted by jbergey22

How exactly are they teaching "sabermetrics" to their young talent? As far as I know sabermetrics has never really been a teaching tool but a tool of research. I can see a young player looking at it and saying "hmmm, looks like I might need to take more pitches" or "I need to throw more strikes" but I am not real sure how this is a bad thing. I am thinking the problem with your Mariners is that they dont focus enough on the sabermetric mindset and teams that do like the Oakland A's have surpassed them.

They have them constantly second guessing themselves at the plate based on sabermetric outcomes due to pitch counts. Instead, they just need to go up there and hit. Let the outcomes be just that and do your business how your talent allows you to. Listen to your instincts and evaluate what you think the pitcher will do next and just perform to your talent.

Ichiro, if he spoke English, maybe could have taught that to them before he left. But I hope we get a new hitting coach or a new veteran hitter to mentor these guys. Cause they're just out there listening to sabermetricians right now, its obvious.