Batted Ball Profiles And What They Tell Us-- Part 2
by PaulThomas on Dec 27, 2007 3:01 PM PST
Email
PrintAll content from this post has been removed in accordance with my decision to leave Athletics Nation. It is my sad duty to report that I no longer wish to create content for, or share it with, this site as currently run. I cannot, in good conscience, square the site's policies with what I consider to be the bare minimum requirements for free and fair discussion, and I have no wish to engage in unfree and unfair discussion. Goodbye.
46 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
I don't get the hannahan numbers
which are his and whos are the italics? THey aren't him and cust...
Ah, technical glitch
Sorry. The italics are his minor league numbers.
I had a sentence in there explaining this, but it got lost somehow.
This proves my dumb little theory about Ellis.
He's been trying to be a power hitter since his amazing 2nd half of 2005, and it's leading to a lot of lazy fly balls when he doesn't make solid contact.
This can be seen at fangraphs as well, his FB% has gone up signifigantly every year since 2005, and his GB% has gone down nearly the same amount. Line drives were about the same if not slightly lower.
So, yeah, basically I agree with what you said :P
He's not a power hitter, so a lot of those
fly balls are easy outs. He needs to get back to his 2005 swing.
Given the recurring theme of a
"discrepancy (that) can only be explained by QUALITY of flies and grounders, which can't be quantified in sheer numbers..." it seems like the next metric needed is one that actually tracks the parabola of fly balls and the speed of grounders, to show more than just "line drive" vs. "not line drive" - to show who hits how many lazy fly balls vs. low arc fly balls, and how many sharp grounders vs. slow grounders.
I heartily agree
We have radar guns for incoming pitches-- shouldn't we have them for outgoing batted balls?
This actually came up earlier this year, when I saw Eric Chavez hit a line-drive homer that seemingly left the yard at lightning speed-- I was curious as to how fast the ball was traveling on its way out. Turned out it was about 70 MPH-- who knew?
For fly balls, the only real key points are a. where the ball lands, and b. how long it takes to land there. Grounders are slightly more tricky, but the same basic principle applies-- what's the path of the ball, and how long does it take before it's past the fielders?
Really appreciated the work
you put into this. I agree with Mikev about Ellis, and who can possibly figure out Cust. NO way a guy who misses so many pitches can be as effective as he was last year, when he hit it, it was productive.
by china bob on Dec 27, 2007 4:50 PM PST reply actions
Nicely done, again.
And it's good to see a fellow Sagehen writing about BABIP. (I just checked out the link in your signature.).
I was class of '01... what year did you trudge through the Hallowed Halls of Big Bridges for the last time?
2003, here ... Chirp!
Thanks for the time you put into this-
enjoyed the first installment and this one, too.
Looking forward to part 3, and hearing the rationale for the MVPs and LVPs which should be both insightful and intelligently amusing respectively (as is your analysis in general in both diaries thus far.)
by still bills kingdom on Dec 27, 2007 7:29 PM PST reply actions
both installments are really good reads
Just wanted to let you know I appreciate the work you've put into it, addiction or no...
just thinking out loud about the "mystery man" (Crosby): to my fan's eye he's always appeared to have too long a swing, and as everyone has noted, stands way too far from the plate. It's kind of amazing to me that he has not corrected either of those problems after all this time.
about Jack Cust
I certainly understand that the strikeouts and the power go together. He also has a good eye for the strike zone. I still wish, however, that he'd learn to foul off close 2-strike pitches late in the game with runners in scoring position.
Speaking of Crosby
I looked at his 2007 hit chart at the Colesium to see if anything stood out that could explain the mystery. Not counting infield squibs, Crosby had 7 hits (3 Singles, 4 Doubles) to the right of 2nd base. 4 of those hits (including 3 Doubles) were on the RF line which suggests they could have been bloop hits. Assuming that half of those hits on the RF line were indeed bloopers, Crosby managed 5 solid hits to the right of 2nd base in Oakland.
Using the ol' Mark 1 Eyeball I'd say Crosby had a 2:1 groundout ratio of balls hit to the left of 2nd base vs. the right side. Which isn't bad, I'd say Ellis was closer to 3:1. There seems to be a lack of long fly outs, most of his fly outs land about 300' from home plate. That's going to be true of most hitters of course, but both Stewart and Ellis appear to have more warning track drives.
What I think this means is that while Crosby does "use the whole field" he did not hit to the opposite field with any authority. When he hit to the right side it was almost certain to be an out. That was not the case in 2005 or even in 2006.
My memory of Crosby this year
is that he spent the 1st month or so of the season trying to hit like Kendall.
Remember all the discussions we had here about Crosby "changing his approach"? For the first month or so he really did change -- he choked up on the bat, crowded the plate a little bit, and tried to hit the ball the other way.
And the results were pretty putrid -- exactly as you described, lots of weak grounders to 2nd. One of his 2B during that period was actually a hard grounder just inside the 1B line.
Then, one game, he seemed to revert to his old style, homered (and possibly doubled to LF in the same game), and went back to his accustomed pattern of crappy non-production.
I'd bet that some of his weird LD/FB/GB stats are due to his deliberately changing styles part-way into the season.
In season change... all around suckiness
Crosby can fail in multiple ways.
He is indeed a versatile "five-tool sucker"
But due to what Nick observes, I think Crosby is one of the few hitters who can HR, and you go "Oh crap."
The pitcher poops himself when Crosby gets a hit
So yeah, that turn o' phrase seems apt.
I remember that game
he also went against his fiance's wishes and shaved his head. I guess the reversion to his old approach went along with the razor.
I think if we went back to the AN archives ...
... we'd probably see a lot of "Oh, crap -- this HR means he's gonna start swinging out of his shoes again" posts.
Ya know, when I read the first title...
...my first thought was "Oh, great... more meaningless crap stats for people to 'ooh and aah' over.", and it has proven to be anything but. These are infinitely informative and fascinating, IMHO. You had me sold before I finished reading the first thread.
I think these numbers are very telling. Especially Chavez and Cust jumped out at me and seemed to confirm alot of what I thought about both of them.
As far as Cust and strikeouts, is it possible that people put too much unnecessary onus on strikeouts? I mean, K or fly-out, what does it really matter? It's still an out, and the difference that matters is what happens and how often you do hit safely. In some respects, if the law of averages says you'll never hit every time and you have to make outs fairly regularly, at least a K (usually) has the advantage of not being a momentum-crushing double-play.
And this one's just me, but a K is still less infuriating to watch than a weak infield pop-up. Those make me want to pull my hair out.
Thanks, man
The kind words are always appreciated.
Strikeouts-- they're a funky thing. They're kind of a leading indicator of a bad batting average, because the more of them you have, the better your BABIP has to be to maintain the same average. But part of the purpose of this project was to dig a little deeper and try to isolate, or at least explore, some of the other causal factors behind batting average. Popups are one that doesn't get talked about a whole lot-- and unusually for balls in play, getting guys to pop up IS a repeatable skill for pitchers. (Watching Jonathan Papelbon makes this pretty obvious.)
This is blogging at it's finest...
very informative look at stats from a different perspectives. I've been waiting for you to post a diary for a while, instead of ramblings about other trivial stuff. Well worth it and look forward to the next installment.
Good Thread, Paul
I like the term "thread" instead of "diary" because I consider a "diary" as piece of fiction...er, I mean, a piece of narrative writing intended to be read only by the original solo writer, and no one else.
A "thread" weaves and winds its way around, just as the staggered look of AN writing looks.
Anywhoo, I wondered what your stance on an "electronic strike zone" would be, Paul? That thought came to mind when you mentioned Hanahan and "take it to the bank". Some players really know their strike zone. Mike Piazza described Jack Cust's ability to discern the zone as "phenomenal".
Why should a player be forced to modify his superior ability to see the ball as it truly fits his strike zone because of the vagaries of individual umpiring methods and biases? As I have suggested, an electronic strike zone does not eliminate the man behind the plate. The ump would have a buzzer in his pocket, and if it buzzes, it's a strike. Foul tips, bat through the zone, catcher's interference, all those and everything else works the same as usual. Once a player knows his "zone", he could refine his game and batting. Some players would probably have BAvg.'s go up 40 points, IMO. I think this would be great for the game.
by One won lost won on Dec 29, 2007 8:29 PM PST reply actions
Why should foul tips be left to chance?
Why should a bad call at first base prolong an inning that should rightfully be over? Steals of second base, trapped fly balls...
...If you really want to improve the umpiring, fire Angel Hernandez, hire Helen Keller in his place, and go from there.
Those calls can't be made by a computer
The only "solution" there is instant replay, which isn't worth the effort. An electronic zone would not slow down the game.
And yes, I'm absolutely in favor of it. I've griped about umpires calling screwy zones (and the patent idiocy of the "at least he's consistent" line, which never fails to be tossed out there by someone) on more than one game thread. There was one game in particular, against the Angels, which just enraged me. The A's had something like 5 batters called out on balls that game and lost a couple of other at-bats to weak swings at balls which the players knew were going to be called strikes. That game converted me to the electronic zone camp.
OT: Did you (speaking nonspecifically here) know that Helen Keller was a Communist? (This was pre-Stalin, mind, when it looked like the Russian Revolution might actually work out well.) It's been completely written out of the standard history textbooks. Because, you know, we couldn't possibly have an American hero turn out to be a Communist, could we? Think of what it might do to the impressionable minds of the children!
[/sarcasm]
More on topic: Part 3 of this was supposed to go up Friday, but I came down with a rather nasty cold and haven't had the energy to finish editing it. It'll go up tomorrow or Monday.
Helen Keller
I think it's more accurate to call her a socialist. She was an outspoken supporter of Debs and was a member of both the Socialist Party and the IWW, so her socialist credentials are uncontestable.
As a communist, I think it's less clear. She was never a member of the Communist Party. She did survive well into the 1950s, so you can't say it's all pre-Stalin. Any idea of her as a communist has to be deduced from her various statements of sympathy. My impression of that is that it's the usual overzealous investigation, rumor-mongering and persecution by the likes of Hoover and McCarthy, the same as you saw with other celebrities who voiced progressive ideas (eg, Einstein, Chaplin).
I'm open to evidence if you've got any, but I don't think she was a communist.
How would the system judge height?
Whichever definition MLB chooses -- knees to armpits, knees to mid-chest, knees to waist -- the height of the strike zone would change every AB. In fact, given the changes some players make in their stances, it could even change during an AB.
I understand how you could have a system that would detect a pitch over the plate. But how would the system know where the ball was in relation to the hitter's knees, torso, and shoulders?
The ump could have a laser
with which he outlined the "strike-zone rectangle" for the machine before each pitch - the ump would then close his eyes so he could really concentrate on hearing foul tips and wouldn't be distracted by trying to see balls and strikes. IT'S BRILLIANT!
In that case
Decent point
Two possibilities: either have hitters measured for their strike zone before the season and then program that into the computer graphic, or just have the electronic zone work the "horizontal" axis (pocket buzzer goes off if the pitch is over the plate) and have the HP umpire just pay attention to the height of the ball. It would still be an enormous improvement that way.
Measuring for the whole season
wouldn't work, I think. Guys change their stances, sometimes from AB to AB. There'd have to be a system that actually detected the top and bottom of the batter's K zone before each pitch.
It wouldn't work to put something on/in the uniform, since the uniform moves around. I imagine they'd actually have to stick sensors on the each player, or "sight" the zone remotely before each pitch, which would introduce a lot of inaccuracy based on the operator's skill and judgment.
I agree that it's easier to just judge getting the ball over the plate, although it would be expensive and possibly involve altering the ball itself so that it could be detected. A successful system would improve things. But it wouldn't do much for a pitcher like Zito who constantly has problems getting his curve called for a strike.
I don't understand why it would be "expensive"
etc.
People are doing it right now with a very high degree of accuracy. The only thing is, the info's not actually being used by the umpires.
Maybe the ump measures the height,
the machine measures the width, and in the case of a tie, a committee convenes using "volume" to offer a tie-breaking vote on whether the pitch was a ball or strike. IT'S BRILLIANT!
See below ...
http://athleticsnation.com/comments/...
And so it does change
A computer can do it several ways. First way, players (if the MLBPA sez) could all agree to have a "stance" picture taken before every...game, month, season, whatever. That would be their "official vertical strike zone". Then, if you stood upright, jumped to bunt, fell over... no matter, your vertical zone applies. Another way is to compare the ball to the position of the knee and armpit (or whatever the "top" is) as the ball crosses the plate...impossible for a human ump, but easy for a computer with processing power. But, players may be unhappy if they "rise" from their crouch as the ball is pitched, pitchers, because they lose the low outside corner, and hitters because they get a high inside "strike" impossible to hit.
I favor the "portrait" or "official vertical set" to be done prior to each 2-game, 3-game etc series. For both teams, pitchers and catchers could go over each player's zone, instead of each umpire's zone. If you just ate, skip the next sentence.
Eric Gregg's strike zone, just consider the memory.
I think it would add a lot to the game as played not to mention analysis of the game.
by One won lost won on Dec 30, 2007 1:51 PM PST up reply actions
current computer processing power
It may be too expensive to set up for Little League, but not for College, Minors, and Major Leagues.
You'll notice the TV networks have no problem putting the ball on the screen exactly (vertical x horizontal x 60 feet six inches) where it crosses the plate, not even to mention MLB.COM online ball coordinates, speed, etc., all very fast.
Micro seconds. Faster than a human "eyeball to brain to mouth" sequence.
by One won lost won on Dec 30, 2007 2:00 PM PST up reply actions
Change in stances shouldn't matter ...
"The Strike Zone shall be determined from the batter's stance as the batter is prepared to swing at a pitched ball."
Even if a batter starts in a more or less crouched position, when he goes to swing, he will almost invariably return to a more natural height.
I suspect the best solution would to just have all batters be measured at the beginning of spring training and to just create a standard formula based on that.
A lot of expensive solutions
to a problem that has a relatively easy fix. How about monitoring and measuring an umpires performance. If he is making errors in judgment beyond a set standard, demote him to AAA until he has refined his craft and corrected his deficiencies. Seems reasonable to me and Sandy Alderson. Not so much to the umpire union.
By best solution ...
I mean best, assuming we want to go to a computerized system. I'm not necessarily in favor of such a change.
I'd prefer to simply change the definition
of the strike zone to something which is constant for a given player. The current system is nonsensical on face, since it implies that if the hitter were to "hit" crouched down with his knees against his chest, the pitcher could never throw a strike.
Just make the location of the zone a function of the player's height.
Any umpire ...
should be willing to assume that a player cannot really "swing at a pitched ball" in any meaningful way, while in a full crouch and their strike zone should reflect that.
I'd say that the differences in height distribution (longer legs v longer torsos) would have more of an impact on a players' strike zone than any variation in their crouch as they are truly prepared to swing -- which is to say, the current definition, applied with the assumption that a player cannot swing while crouched, would give a more consistently fair strike zone than one based purely on height.
I think you're confusing "fair" and "equitable"
The current strike zone might well be more optimal to certain hitters than a height-based zone-- but it's (unless the technology is badly broken) far less fair, in the sense of "providing a level, constant and well-understood rule of play."
Personally, I'll sacrifice "optimal" for "fair" every day of the week and twice on Sunday. If it causes offense to decline a little, it's a price I'll gladly pay.
The rule -- not the system.
I'm not arguing for or against having computers call the strike zone -- I'm arguing for the rule, being based on the knees to letters (or whatever) not simply a mathematical function of each player's height.
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2012 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
