Athletics Nation: An SB Nation Community

Navigation: Jump to content areas:


Sports blogs for fans, by fans.
Around SBN: Cal RB Jahvid Best Seriously Injured, Carted Off Field

Do the A's take too many strike threes looking?

Crossposted from my blog because I thought it was interesting enough to merit a Fanpost discussion and also because Athletics Nation comments were one of the inspirations for it.

One phrase I've seen way too often on the A's blogosphere is "How could he take that strike three right down the middle?!" I figured this was just angry fans venting their frustration about a particular pitch, but then it kept appearing again and again until it became almost cliché. If it's one thing in particular that gets under my skin it's clichés, especially ones that have little basis in reality. Why espouse the same thing over and over with almost no factual information to back it up? I mean do these people even have any proof for their ridiculous claims?

Star-divide

Barton Ks Looking.gif Ok, well that's just Matt Cain owning Daric Barton's soul. But one instance of an A's player striking out looking does not make the statement a fact. And in this information age, why should we settle for speculation and heresy when there's oodles of data to use instead?

The information has always been out there, but I haven't seen anyone put it together until now. Here is the MLB Team Strikeout Looking totals, sorted by percentage of strikeouts looking (Kc) out of total strikeouts (K):

Team PA     K       Kc
 Kc%
 Kc of K%
Rockies 6312 1209 364
5.77% 30.11%
Red Sox 6402 1068 309
4.83% 28.93%
Rays 6312 1224 354
5.61% 28.92%
Athletics 6138 1226 345
5.62% 28.14%
Diamondbacks 6156 1287 355
5.77% 27.58%
Pirates 6278 1039 285
4.54% 27.43%
Blue Jays 6191 938 257
4.15% 27.40%
Orioles 6211 990 269
4.33% 27.17%
Braves 6368 1023 273
4.29% 26.69%
Royals 6118 1005 264
4.32% 26.27%
Rangers 6478 1207 314
4.85% 26.01%
Twins 6331 979 253
4.00% 25.84%
Marlins 6206 1371 352
5.67% 25.67%
Dodgers 6194 1032 264
4.26% 25.58%
Nationals 6192 1095 278
4.49% 25.39%
Yankees 6257 1015 256
4.09% 25.22%
Giants 6145 1044 263
4.28% 25.19%
Brewers 6252 1203 302
4.83% 25.10%
Cubs 6384 1186 295
4.62% 24.87%
Phillies 6273 1117 275
4.38% 24.62%
Tigers 6331 1076 263
4.15% 24.44%
Mets 6388 1024 247
3.87% 24.12%
Angels 6155 987 237
3.85% 24.01%
Reds 6188 1125 270
4.36% 24.00%
Indians 6299 1213 287
4.56% 23.66%
Padres 6244 1259 296
4.74% 23.51%
Mariners 6176 890 197
3.19% 22.13%
Cardinals 6370 985 217
3.41% 22.03%
Astros 6051 1051 228
3.77% 21.69%
White Sox 6211 1016 204
3.28% 20.08%


Now I wasn't sure (and still am not) if I should have sorted the chart by Kc% or Kc of K%. Basically what it boils down to is are people complaining about players taking too many strikeouts looking when they should instead be swinging, or are they just upset at the number of strikeouts looking overall? Feel free to let me know what upsets you more in the comments section.

But looking at the data, maybe people are on to something with regards to the A's. They rank 4th in Kc of K%, though their offense was certainly a tad worse than the 3 teams above them. They also rank 4th in Kc%, behind the Rockies, Diamondbacks, and Marlins respectively, with the Rays only percentage points behind Oakland. One thing those teams share in common is that they all feature a core of young position players. This may have an affect on those numbers, such as umpires not as generous on a close call. But for now that's just idle speculation, I'll probably come back to it in a later post.

Back to the A's now. Turn out they struck out looking a lot more than I originally thought, more than a quarter of their total strikeouts were looking. So that led me to figure out who was doing all this staring at strike 3 down the pipe. I had some hunches, as I'm sure most A's fans do, but the name at the top (of the regulars) did surprise me. Here are all the A's who had at least 1 strikeout this season, sorted by Kc of K%:

Player    K
   Kc

Kc of K%







Blanton 1
1

100.00%







Duchscherer 6
4

66.67%







Petit 9
4

44.44%







Pennington 18
7

38.89%







Ellis 65
25

38.46%







Barton 99
35

35.35%







Cust 197
64

32.49%







Davis 34
11

32.35%







Bowen 38
12

31.58%







Baisley 7
2

28.57%







Murphy 38
10

26.32%







Thomas 44
11

25.00%







Denorfia 16
4

25.00%







Sweeney, R 67
16

23.88%







Suzuki 69
16

23.19%







Brown 65
15

23.08%







Conrad 9
2

22.22%







Buck 38
8

21.05%







Patterson 24
5

20.83%







Hannahan 131
27

20.61%







Bankston 15
3

20.00%







Gonzalez 81
16

19.75%







Chavez 18
3

16.67%







Sweeney, M 6
1

16.67%







Crosby 96
15

15.63%







Murton 7
1

14.29%







Cunningham 24
3

12.50%








Obviously some of these are not important, like the pitchers or guys like Brooks Conrad and Mike Sweeney. I just put them all on the chart for sake of completeness. But the first regular to appear on the list was surprisingly not Jack Cust nor Daric Barton, though they're 2 and 3 of course. No, the Athletic who struck out the most looking was Mark Ellis. Let's look at his strikeout looking chart.

Ellis K.jpg If you didn't know beforehand, you could deduce from the chart that Ellis is a RHB from all the strike 3s called just outside the strikezone. Now I don't believe the pitch f/x system is 100% accurate, probably far from it. But with the data we have to work with, it seems that Ellis got a lot of borderline calls against him.

There certainly weren't many "right down the middle strike 3s" that the fans complain about in this picture. Now if you want to see one with a few more dots towards the center, let's look at Jack Cust's chart.



custk.jpg


Well now that's a much more populated chart. Of course, Cust did lead the league with 197 strikeouts, about 50% more than the second closest Athletic. And a lot of these were looking, 64 of them to be exact. And sure there are a lot of diamonds right towards the center of the square, so Cust should rightfully harbor some of the strike 3 looking complaints. Though only with regards to that, because if fan's are complaining about his offensive value in general they need to get a clue because Jack Cust owns, he hits cuadrangulars.

But Cust has also taken a lot of unfair strike 3s. I'm not even talking about the borderline stuff that maybe grazes the black box or is right next to it. According to the pitch fx data, Cust had 15 strike three lookings called again him that was more than an inch off the plate, the majority on the outside of the plate as the picture shows (its from the ump's perspective), since Cust is a LHB. This funny looking strikezone to LHB continues with the third regular on our list, Daric Barton.

Barton k.jpg Barton's 2008 struggles have been well documented, he had enough trouble as it was just making solid contact with the ball when he swung. Apparently the umps felt he should've been swinging more at balls away and outside of the strikezone, because they rang him up 13 times on pitches more than an inch off the plate, some hugely so as the graph depicts. Considering he only had 35 Kc total, 13 is a whopping 37%.

I would hope one instance of incorrect data is that one egregious diamond in the bottom left corner. This particular pitch was a 2-2 74mph curveball from Seattle LHP Ryan Rowland Smith. Hard to believe an ump could miss a lefty curveball that bad, if MLB's video wasn't so poorly organized maybe I could see.



EDIT: I have skills. Turns out it was an error on the gameday operator, it's a poor check-swing.
bartonk.gif
You'll get'em next time kid.

Those were the most significant batters in terms of Kc. The other batters simply didn't have that many strikeouts looking so it's hard to infer as much from their charts. I still thought it would be worthwhile to make them though for regulars that would likely still be around next year, so without further adieu here are the last four:

oakland regs ks.jpgKurt Suzuki looks like he's getting fooled by some offspeed stuff in the middle, with a few high and outside borderline calls. Ryan Sweeney looks like he's getting the same poor left handed treatment as Barton and Cust. Jack Hannahan is too a bit, though it also looks like he's taking way too many two strike pitches up in the zone. Bobby Crosby's Kc are mostly left side of the plate pitches which I can't really call outside since he stands so damn far off the plate. But like I said before, these are all very small sample so it's hard to draw too much, though Sweeney's does look quite significant.

So there you go fans. Yes, the A's may be taking a few too many called strike threes they should be swinging at. And yes, a lot of them are pitches right over the plate, but probably not the amount you might think. It also doesn't help that they aren't getting the proper strikezone called, especially the left handed batters. This is likely a trend throughout MLB though, as this older THT article from John Walsh highlights. That article is outstanding by the way, and I suggest if you have the time to give it a full read.

And if any of you are looking to get more into the statistics/pitch fx area but don't have any data yet, I've included all the data I've used in this article in an Editgrid spreadsheet, so go nuts with it. If you have questions about it feel free to ask below.

Oh and one more bit of self-promotion, Oaktown Awesomer's is now on Facebook, so join our network if you like. And feel free to add me as a friend as well, it gets mighty lonely down here in the basement and internet friends are all I've got.

29 recs  |  Comment 253 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Display:

Excellent post! Thanks...

I am Ray Fosse's infatuations with Clay Wood and high-definition television.

by franks a lot on Jan 29, 2009 10:52 AM PST reply actions   0 recs

This is a great post

So for all those who think Barton and Cust need to be swinging more: Bobby Crosby rarely struck out looking.

by thejd44 on Jan 29, 2009 10:53 AM PST reply actions   0 recs

+1

Fascinating stuff. I wonder if this kind of analysis could be done with umpires?

by EddieVegas_NRAF on Jan 29, 2009 11:00 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Someone put together a chart or BoCro's swinging Ks

Are 99 percent of those little diamonds low and away, or is that my imagination too?

Bob Geren and Ken Macha both enjoy jai lai.

by CarGon's Jock on Jan 29, 2009 3:19 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Fantastic work

I happen to blame the umps for every strike 3 called against the A’s.

(this is front-page material IMO)

I'm here to talk about the past.

by 67MARQUEZ on Jan 29, 2009 11:00 AM PST reply actions   1 recs

-1 (+1)

"There's never enough time to do all the nothing you want" -Bill Watterson

by nevermoor on Jan 29, 2009 11:33 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

A fantastic read, "awesome"!

The one thing that sticks out in my mind from watching Cust, specifically, is the amount of “first pitch strikes” that were around or right down the middle. I’m not sure if there is a graph study/chart somewhere that may have that kind of information available, but if there is I would love to see/read it.

Cust seemed to fall behind in the count frequently on pitches that were very hittable last year, thus making him an easy victim for a strikeout, especiallly on bad breaking pitches.

Interesting, though, that Crosby had so few K3’s looking. Great job again, mate!

"God made Majnun love Layla so much that just her dog would cause confusion in him."

The Many Wines-Rumi

by mrod on Jan 29, 2009 11:02 AM PST reply actions   0 recs

which didn't stop him...

from having the highest slugging % in sport once he did swing at first pitch fastballs. See Hardball Times on this.

by windyfelix on Jan 29, 2009 11:06 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

thankx for the tip wf.

I’ll check it out for sure. Your point about Cust swinging at first pitches was what I was thinking in m my head in regards to him looking at too many first pitch strikes.

"God made Majnun love Layla so much that just her dog would cause confusion in him."

The Many Wines-Rumi

by mrod on Jan 29, 2009 11:13 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

I've done a first pitch chart with Barton before,

Nothing too elaborate, red’s are taken pitches, blues are swings:

I do love me some Jack Cust analysis though so I’ll look to do one on him in a little bit.

Can't get enough of the Oakland A's? Visit Oaktown Awesomer's

by iamawesomer on Jan 29, 2009 11:15 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

OK wait

Whose vantage point is this chart from? For that matter, whose vantage point are any of these charts from?

Many years from now, when his name's recalled
Everyone will say, "He should have passed the ball"
-- Al Stewart, "Football Hero"

by PaulThomas on Jan 29, 2009 1:49 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Good question

I think it’s the view from behind the plate. That’s consistent with the commentary here about Ellis, the second video of Barton, and also with the observation, that I think was in a THT article, that most umpires have wider strike zones on the outside part of the plate, especially (for some reason) to LHBs. But the rest of this article seems premised on it being the other way around. I think it needs an edit.

Thanks for tomorrow 'cause I've had enough

by andeux on Jan 29, 2009 1:58 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

barton = LHB

“Apparently the umps felt he should’ve been swinging more at balls inside yet out of the strikezone”

the left side is inside for barton from the pitcher’s perspective.

A's v Giants "is kind of like the difference between going to see the Ramones and going to see the Bee Gees. A's fans will go see the Ramones." -BB 07/27/05

by xbhaskarx on Jan 29, 2009 2:00 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

hmm...

i’m starting to think iamawesomer is mixed up about this.

A's v Giants "is kind of like the difference between going to see the Ramones and going to see the Bee Gees. A's fans will go see the Ramones." -BB 07/27/05

by xbhaskarx on Jan 29, 2009 2:02 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Jesus but MLB needs an electronic strike zone.

I mean, this is embarrassingly awful officiating.

Many years from now, when his name's recalled
Everyone will say, "He should have passed the ball"
-- Al Stewart, "Football Hero"

by PaulThomas on Jan 29, 2009 11:09 AM PST reply actions   1 recs

One way or the other -- robots, or trained monkeys

I want either better accuracy or better entertainment value.

A B -3X = Swedish girls like chocolate @('.')@

by monkeyball on Jan 29, 2009 11:11 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

How about once per season, a player can hit an umpire with a bat on a bad call

Here’s the catch: They HAVE to be right, or they’re banned from baseball forever and are subject to all legal recourse. But if they’re right, we get to see violence! Wooooo violence!

It’s like every game, every pitch, every at bat would have the added tension of “will this player use his one free shot now?”

by thejd44 on Jan 29, 2009 11:24 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

I think I love you.

Oh wait, you still haven’t posted in the GUBA yet.

F*ck off. :D

by mikev on Jan 29, 2009 11:30 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

How about robots who judge the balls/strikes

and monkeys who report them?

In search of a new signature. Say something funny and you may see your comment here!

by DMOAS on Jan 29, 2009 2:16 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Odd

That wasn’t my reaction at all

"There's never enough time to do all the nothing you want" -Bill Watterson

by nevermoor on Jan 29, 2009 11:35 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Doesn't look that bad to me

Lots of called strikes a little to the inside of that box, but that seemed to go on for everyone, which isn’t such a big deal.

With stout hearts, and with enthusiasm for the contest, let us go forward to victory. ----Hero Defector Montgomery

by mikeA on Jan 29, 2009 11:53 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

sure, but humans should always be replaced if possible.

A's v Giants "is kind of like the difference between going to see the Ramones and going to see the Bee Gees. A's fans will go see the Ramones." -BB 07/27/05

by xbhaskarx on Jan 29, 2009 12:04 PM PST up reply actions   1 recs

... by robots or trained monkeys

A B -3X = Swedish girls like chocolate @('.')@

by monkeyball on Jan 29, 2009 12:33 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

I prefer robots. Monkeys are highly overrated. In fact I can't stand them.

They’re like humans but then even worse.

It's not the results, it's how you look going about those results -- Tim McCarver

by WaddellCanseco on Jan 29, 2009 1:24 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

how's about some animatronics?

best of both worlds!

when did we stop using adverbs proper?

by alea iacta est on Jan 29, 2009 2:49 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

can we not just steal them

from that creationist natural history museum in South Carolina?

man, do i want to visit that place. i love me some dinosaur animatronics

when did we stop using adverbs proper?

by alea iacta est on Jan 29, 2009 5:18 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Nothing against my neighbors to the south

but why the hell is the creationist natural history museum in SC?

The nuts and bolts of gameplay are apocalyptic failures, but the awfulness doesn’t stop there. Managing games is utterly pointless. [Feb 2009, p.85]

by A'sfaninNC on Jan 30, 2009 6:06 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

sorry, yes

i was incorrect in locating it

when did we stop using adverbs proper?

by alea iacta est on Jan 30, 2009 7:32 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

please accept my

anthrapologies

when did we stop using adverbs proper?

by alea iacta est on Jan 30, 2009 7:35 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

I'm not a fan of automation

But I would like to see a large part of umpire salary be based upon accuracy of balls and strikes. For example, instead of paying an MLB ump $150,000, pay him $100,000 plus $60,000 x percentage of correct calls. Occasional blown calls are part of the game, but the idea that the umps have no incentive except pride to get them right it pretty ridiculous.

by MrIncognito on Jan 29, 2009 1:25 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

There really aren't (m)any *bad* ones

I read an article recently analyzing Angel Hernandez (I think is the right name) and concluding he was much better than the common criticism.

"There's never enough time to do all the nothing you want" -Bill Watterson

by nevermoor on Jan 29, 2009 7:51 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Really? I was under the impression that he IS that bad

Of course, Leslie Nielson is worse, so I guess it’s all relative.

I like Cindi. A. She never pretends to know more than she does. B. She has unbridled enthusiasm for her "Hotties," and isn't afraid to show it. -IM4Oakgal

by Nico on Jan 29, 2009 8:04 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

I was too

I think the article was linked from AN or Neyer, but I don’t remember which and can’t find it.

It was a pretty persuasive article using pitch f/x data.

"There's never enough time to do all the nothing you want" -Bill Watterson

by nevermoor on Jan 29, 2009 8:06 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Here it is.

Miscellaneous thoughts: I really dislike the way outside pitches are given by some umps and not others. What’s the reason for giving them at all.

There is also a big difference in the effect of some bad calls. One way an ump can completely affect a game is to call 2 or 3 pitches that are clearly strikes as balls early in the first inning, particularly with a young pitcher. Its the equivalent of giving a free baserunner or two, running up the pitch count and letting the 3-4- 5 hitters get pitches that are over the middle of the plate as the pitcher needs to get strikes. A review of the quality of umpiring can show that he is excellent at calling balls and strikes if he does it well after that.

I’ve also seen an umpire make a ridiculous strike 3 call that kills a rally or otherwise radically affects the outcome of the game. The argument against anyone who would complain is the old “there are always bad calls” or that the ump has done an otherwise excellent job.

by Lovejoy on Jan 30, 2009 8:50 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Is it possible to (semi-reliably) measure the impact of bad ball/strike calls on game outcomes? Has anyone attempted this?

Are lots more runs scored in games with wider strike zones, and vice versa? I know we all take that for granted, but I wonder if it is actually true, writ-large.

by 74mk on Jan 30, 2009 9:06 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

It would be the reverse (more runs in games w/narrower zones)

I’m not aware of a specific study— it’s going to be very difficult to measure under the parameters you’ve set out, because that requires defining a “wide zone game” vis a vis a “narrow zone game”.

I think a better approach might be to try to measure the average run value of a given “bad strike” (negative, of course) or “bad ball” (positive), figure out which umpires give more of either, and then come up with an an average run effect of having a given umpire for a certain game. That run effect might be modified if he gives more generous calls on one side of the plate, to one handedness of pitcher, or to one handedness of batter.

Many years from now, when his name's recalled
Everyone will say, "He should have passed the ball"
-- Al Stewart, "Football Hero"

by PaulThomas on Jan 30, 2009 9:55 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

“It would be the reverse”

Right. Duh. I think my fingers and my brain stopped communicating like three weeks ago.

“that requires defining a ‘wide zone game’ vis a vis a ‘narrow zone game’”

Sure, but since we can measure the “bad balls” and “bad strikes”, I imagine it wouldn’t be impossible to develop reasonable thresholds to separate out wide zone, narrow zone, and normal zone games.

“average run effect of having a given umpire for a certain game”

Do you suspect this is substantial? My intuition is that it is not as large as we think, but who knows.

I want some smart people to tackle this ASAP.

by 74mk on Jan 30, 2009 10:19 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Sure, but since we can measure the "bad balls" and "bad strikes", I imagine it wouldn’t be impossible to develop reasonable thresholds to separate out wide zone, narrow zone, and normal zone games.

The problem I foresee is that you may end up with a situation where you’re either a. defining 90% of games as “normal zone” games, thus destroying the predictive effect of the study, or b. drawing extremely narrow and arbitrary lines between “wide zone” and “normal zone” games that don’t comport with a normal understanding of the term.

Also, what do you do when an umpire just sucks? I.e. he’s making wide strike and narrow ball calls in the same game.

Many years from now, when his name's recalled
Everyone will say, "He should have passed the ball"
-- Al Stewart, "Football Hero"

by PaulThomas on Jan 30, 2009 10:50 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Watching tennis

(Aussie Open going on now) really brings that home. When they challenge a point (3 incorrect per set) the hawkeye system is really fast and effective. It is awesome.

Of course, it is a lot easier when there is an actual line on the ground for the ball to hit or miss, as opposed to a 3-D zone. I’m just sayin, it sure is nice to have.

by sslinger on Jan 29, 2009 3:50 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Pretty silly that people think it can't be done

I’ve written about this on several occasions, and invariably people think there would be some blinking light on the scoreboard, or no human being behind the plate, or that it would somehow take some sort of “flavor” out of the game. As mentioned in the post about tennis, it’s all about getting the call correct.
The fact that the human eye normally reviews action, and inputs to the brain, at around 20-30 frames a second means that human judgment will be poorer by a factor of 10x to 1000x compared to the functioning accuracy of a machine. And consider the ump who gets whacked a couple of times during an AB by foul balls. I’d like to see the “before” and “after” chart of that ump’s calls.

 And all that has to happen on the field, is for a buzzer on the ump’s person, ….heck, make it a headset, and the ump would get the signal to brain faster than the optic nerve… to “buzz”, and the ump then calls a strike. No buzz, it’s a ball, or watch for a check swing. For the “purists”, remember that baseball used to be called, even at the MLB level, a hundred years ago, with ONE UMPIRE! How many bad calls with that “crew”?? And wearing glasses was “un-manly”.

Since it is so VASTLY SIMPLE to correct this deficiency in the game, I don’t know why the MLBPA doesn’t campaign for it. Players, both pitchers and batters, could hone their abilities at hitting and pitching to the maximum of their abilities, instead of honing their diplomacy with umpires skills.

Officially awaiting the 2009 season.

by One won lost won on Jan 29, 2009 4:37 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Either that or just use a challenge system

Allow a team to challenge calls until they get 2 wrong, something along those lines.

by MrIncognito on Jan 29, 2009 7:57 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Keeerrriiiiiiiist!

In general, the pace of baseball just suits me fine, but “challenges” would be the worst possible addition to game strategy.

Football, it makes sense. Not every ref can be exactly where he gets the best view, and things happen that can’t be seen (e.g. ball is never in full possession of the receiver, but it looks that it is to every one on the field.)

In baseball, there is one home plate umpire, the whole game, and it’s his job to see every pitch. So he calls an inside pitch in the third inning…do you challenge? If you challenge too much, you lose, then the ump has it in for you, then he doesn’t give your pitcher anything borderline, and he does it with impunity because you’re out of challenges! The umpiring in baseball too personal for challenges. And then arguing because you didn’t challenge, and questions from the press, “Why didn’t you challenge, when it was obvious that..” aaaaaahhh.

No, not in baseball.

Just do it electronically, and call it right 100% of the time. What’s not right with 100% correct?

Do we tolerate airline service that only crashes one-percent of the time? They get it “done right” 99% of the flights, and that’s okay??

Officially awaiting the 2009 season.

by One won lost won on Jan 30, 2009 10:11 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

It's not the inaccuracy I like

It’s what would happen to the game if the strike zone was called strictly by the book. As it stands, umpires as a whole call a somewhat different zone.

The game would change completely overnight and I, for one, would not enjoy the ensuing chaos.

"There's never enough time to do all the nothing you want" -Bill Watterson

by nevermoor on Jan 30, 2009 11:08 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

The "chaos" would take about three weeks to adjust to

after which everything would again be normal.

Many years from now, when his name's recalled
Everyone will say, "He should have passed the ball"
-- Al Stewart, "Football Hero"

by PaulThomas on Jan 31, 2009 8:55 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

See, I completely disagree with that

I think there’d be some pretty fundamental changes in the way certain pitches (especially breaking balls) are called.

But maybe you’re right. Perhaps the “eye” these guys spend their entire life perfecting can be completely changed in three weeks. I just hope we don’t have to find out.

"There's never enough time to do all the nothing you want" -Bill Watterson

by nevermoor on Jan 31, 2009 10:54 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Wait a minute

A guy that knows his strike zone, spent a lifetime perfecting, and he get Eric Gregg and everything he knows is out the window. Or, a batter gets some new umpire who insists on lining up wrong on certain pitches. Ex-catcher Ray Fosse has mentioned on several occasions how he would have to tell the ump to look for certain pitches in certain spots, before the game!! Otherwise, strikes would be called balls because of the angle of the view taken by the ump.

I for one am tired with the Tom Glavine-type veterans who get the calls because they’ve been around, and the same for certain veteran batters. Whether it’s the rookie closer who loses the 3-2 battle because the ump was in the wrong position for a certain type of pitch, or a Daric Barton getting rung up on an inside pitch that should be ball four, I simply think they should not favor status over accuracy.

Since ball and strike call accuracy is generally regarded as 95% or better in the current situation, why would there be “chaos” with ten-fifteen pitches out of 240 changed?? Perhaps you are thinking of enforcing the “higher strike” which no one consistently calls? When they do call it, everyone starts barking, so the umps seldom do it.

MLB players have to adjust to umps every game…why would it take even three weeks? I’d say two-three games, maybe two-three hours, and every batter would really know =exactly= what his strike zone was. Pitchers have to adjust every batter anyway, so I don’t see them affected at all.

Officially awaiting the 2009 season.

by One won lost won on Feb 1, 2009 11:26 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

"Perhaps you are thinking of enforcing the "higher strike" which no one consistently calls?"

That’s exactly what I’m talking about. If you set up a computer system it has to be 100% by the books because nothing else would be logical. The book is very different from what is actually called.

"There's never enough time to do all the nothing you want" -Bill Watterson

by nevermoor on Feb 3, 2009 6:20 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

On the other hand...

If you go by the book, it gives you a chance to amend the book to suit your goals.

If the average ERA is 2.00 after a year calling pitches by the book, you just change the high strike rule.

by MrIncognito on Feb 4, 2009 10:28 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

What's the deal with check-swings?

In the update, we find that check-swings are considered K-looking, as opposed to swings and misses?
That’s just a bit odd.

by MobiusKlein on Jan 30, 2009 10:04 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

The two videos of Barton striking out over and over

make me laugh and want to set myself on fire at the same time.

by EddieVegas_NRAF on Jan 29, 2009 11:15 AM PST reply actions   0 recs

reminds me of my 14th birthday

I'm here to talk about the past.

by 67MARQUEZ on Jan 29, 2009 11:21 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Now THAT is funny

Ryan Sweeney: I probably irrationally embraced him before you did.

by Joey C. on Jan 29, 2009 3:04 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

The top one just shows what a good pitch can do to a hitter

He could’ve swung at that, but there’s not a chance he was hitting it anyway.

by thejd44 on Jan 29, 2009 11:24 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

+1 that was friggin unhittable

The ONLY hope there is that the ump blows the call and says it’s not a strike.

by mikev on Jan 29, 2009 11:30 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

unhittable?

it was just a fastball on the outside corner. now cain is a good pitcher, but that had more to do with barton freezing up than it did with the cain fastball.

"True fact: In a global thermonuclear war, the only human who would survive would be David Eckstein" -PT

by travdog6 on Jan 29, 2009 2:44 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

It was a 2-seamer that moved away from him.

He swings at that pitch and one of 2 things happen -

  • Rolls over and dribbles a 48 hopper to the right side of the infield
  • Barely touches the ball and hits a little flare to the third baseman.

by mikev on Jan 29, 2009 2:49 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

it was a good pitch

with good movement. and if daric barton swings those two things happen. but if a good lefthanded hitter swings, he could possibly take the ball the other way for a basehit, foul it off, etc. i just dont think it was “unhittable”

"True fact: In a global thermonuclear war, the only human who would survive would be David Eckstein" -PT

by travdog6 on Jan 29, 2009 3:09 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

It was hittable

But he was sitting on an off-speed pitch. Somone get that man into the video room!

Bob Geren and Ken Macha both enjoy jai lai.

by CarGon's Jock on Jan 29, 2009 3:24 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

But

That 2-seamer was thrown for a strike meaning that it is a hittable pitch as opposed to a 2-seamer that starts in the zone and moves out that a lot of guys swing and either miss or do nothing with. The fact that it ended up on the outside of the strike zone means that a competent, opposite field hitter could take it the other way.

"Their batters are patient to the point that it's annoying." -Ryan Franklin

by Helloooo 1st on Jan 29, 2009 5:53 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

That's not to say it wasn't a great pitch though

"Their batters are patient to the point that it's annoying." -Ryan Franklin

by Helloooo 1st on Jan 29, 2009 5:54 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Except the movement was late and sharp, so pretty much unhittable

Cain is fairly dirty

"Not in your wildest alcoholic nightmare would you ever imagine such events unfolding!" Bill King

by Buck Turgidson on Jan 29, 2009 7:35 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

I don't dispute that it was a nice pitch

I just dispute the notion that it was unhittable. Hard to hit, yes. But quite possible to at the very least foul it off the other way and live to see another pitch. Barton was fooled, plain and simple.

"Their batters are patient to the point that it's annoying." -Ryan Franklin

by Helloooo 1st on Jan 30, 2009 2:31 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

great stuff

somebody front page it please.

A's v Giants "is kind of like the difference between going to see the Ramones and going to see the Bee Gees. A's fans will go see the Ramones." -BB 07/27/05

by xbhaskarx on Jan 29, 2009 11:34 AM PST reply actions   0 recs

+1

Awww… Unicorn's optimistic. And a cheeseball. That’s cute. ~Whiteshoes40

by #14fan on Jan 29, 2009 11:52 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Good, good stuff

Can you help me out with something this year? Ive noticed a tendency by some rookies who take a lot of pitches to dramatically decrease thier K-Rate with higher walks and more production in thier second year. Look at Hanley Ramirez from rookie year to second year. Is it an improvement in skils? If so, do they k looking less, and swing more, or feel more comfortable on 0-2 counts. Do umpires just give them more leeway? This’d be interesting to study, using Barton as a case study.

"Sometimes Joe (morgan) doesn't like facts to get in the way of his opinions."- billy beane
"That was a great pick...if this was 2002" Me, to guy who selected Barry Zito in a fantasy draft
www.27ClubPeak.blogspot.com

by harendaman365 on Jan 29, 2009 12:22 PM PST reply actions   0 recs

Very cool

You ARE awesomer!

I have stuff to do today but between this and 67Marquez’s frontpager I’m not getting anything done.

...when you let other people tell you what success is, you already have no chance of ever finding it. - Doug Glanville

by JLeverenz on Jan 29, 2009 12:46 PM PST reply actions   0 recs

Pictures

Are those graphs with all the blue diamonds from the pitcher’s or hitter’s point of view?

"Dispatch knuckleheadedness with Bond-like aplomb." –74mk

by iglew on Jan 29, 2009 1:05 PM PST reply actions   0 recs

Pitchers...

He indicated in there that most of Cust’s K’s looking were inside.

Bring back Hammer.

by OaktownPower on Jan 29, 2009 1:17 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Great stuff...

My question though is how pitch fx has that Rowland-Smith pitch where they have it. They have it way low and inside….which from the video that pitch clearly is not. Makes me wonder how accurate the rest of their diamonds are.

Bring back Hammer.

by OaktownPower on Jan 29, 2009 1:16 PM PST reply actions   0 recs

Ah, unless it is from the umpire's angle...

But then the commentary on Cust’s K’s being inside wouldn’t work. It has ot be that way looking at the Rowland-Smith video though.

Bring back Hammer.

by OaktownPower on Jan 29, 2009 1:21 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

You're right, I got it backwards.

Thanks for the help, I’ll fix it in a bit.

Can't get enough of the Oakland A's? Visit Oaktown Awesomer's

by iamawesomer on Jan 29, 2009 2:41 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Remember, it's where the ball crosses the plate, not where the catcher catches it

When I scored a test game for STATS, the pitches I was off on the most were these breaking balls.

by thejd44 on Jan 29, 2009 2:16 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Yea, it makes sense now when flipped sides of the plate

I thought it was from pitcher’s view after reading it. It looks about right now on the video.

Bring back Hammer.

by OaktownPower on Jan 29, 2009 3:03 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

This is a spectacularly good post.

And I’m mostly vexed at the lack of runs, not the strickouts.

It's not the results, it's how you look going about those results -- Tim McCarver

by WaddellCanseco on Jan 29, 2009 1:26 PM PST reply actions   1 recs

But... but...

Think of the butterflies.

"There's never enough time to do all the nothing you want" -Bill Watterson

by nevermoor on Jan 29, 2009 7:54 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

I can't. I'm too nervous.

I like Cindi. A. She never pretends to know more than she does. B. She has unbridled enthusiasm for her "Hotties," and isn't afraid to show it. -IM4Oakgal

by Nico on Jan 29, 2009 8:04 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Well

if you strickout, they die.

"There's never enough time to do all the nothing you want" -Bill Watterson

by nevermoor on Jan 29, 2009 8:07 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

another question

how many of those pitches are breaking balls? Wasn’t there a AN discussion about Cust not swinging at breaking balls because he knows he can’t hit them?

You have to include smiley faces - Poppy
;- ) :- ) :-O : -> : -] : -}

by micdog2001 on Jan 29, 2009 1:28 PM PST reply actions   0 recs

Any way this can be permanently linked to the front page?

This season, during the game threads, when the “OMG, TOO MANY STICKOUTS!!!” people show up, I would like to give them somewhere positive to go, instead of the some other place I might be inclined to direct them.

"However, at Elias, I think they keep track of the amount of sunflower seeds spit in a dugout each night." - Brad Ziegler, 8/7/08

by doctorK on Jan 29, 2009 1:36 PM PST reply actions   0 recs

Hell, for example

Many years from now, when his name's recalled
Everyone will say, "He should have passed the ball"
-- Al Stewart, "Football Hero"

by PaulThomas on Jan 29, 2009 1:51 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Ah, the good old days.

I remember when I was new to the Web — some time in the late 1990s, I think — there was a website whose URL was some permutation of “hell” and it had a picture of flames (I don’t think they were animated in those days), so you could punctuate your post with something like, “If that’s what you believe you need to go to [link]this website[/link].”

If it’s still around, I’ve lost track of where.

"Dispatch knuckleheadedness with Bond-like aplomb." –74mk

by iglew on Jan 29, 2009 2:06 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Great work

Me gusta.

Ryan Sweeney: I probably irrationally embraced him before you did.

by Joey C. on Jan 29, 2009 3:07 PM PST reply actions   0 recs

Great Stuff

I have been saying for years that the A’s are way too patient at the plate. They watch too many hittable pitches. Cut it down a little, that is all we ask. That is my biggest bitch with Cust.

by Trainman on Jan 29, 2009 3:12 PM PST reply actions   0 recs

And what do you say now that you've basically been proven wrong?

Many years from now, when his name's recalled
Everyone will say, "He should have passed the ball"
-- Al Stewart, "Football Hero"

by PaulThomas on Jan 29, 2009 3:48 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

How on earth does any of this prove him wrong?

I don’t agree with the point behind trainman’s whining, but this stuff proves nothing of the sort.

With stout hearts, and with enthusiasm for the contest, let us go forward to victory. ----Hero Defector Montgomery

by mikeA on Jan 29, 2009 5:53 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Yeah

The stats show that we were #4 in the league and while you may argue that the umps have a lot to do with it, I will then argue that the other 26 teams had to deal with the same stuff too and fared better. It apparent that our 2-strike approach was lacking last year so lets hope that it went out the door with Van Burkleo.

"Their batters are patient to the point that it's annoying." -Ryan Franklin

by Helloooo 1st on Jan 29, 2009 5:56 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

But

our three worst hitters among the regulars were Crosby, Hannahan, and Gonzalez, and they were all at the other end of the scale, with a higher percentage than league average of their strikeouts coming from swinging.

That doesn’t prove anything, but it strongly suggests that “too patient” isn’t really the problem, except perhaps for Carton.

Thanks for tomorrow 'cause I've had enough

by andeux on Jan 29, 2009 6:25 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

er, Barton

Thanks for tomorrow 'cause I've had enough

by andeux on Jan 29, 2009 6:26 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Please forgive andeux.

He can’t say the letter “b”. Otherwise, he’s really quite crilliant.

I like Cindi. A. She never pretends to know more than she does. B. She has unbridled enthusiasm for her "Hotties," and isn't afraid to show it. -IM4Oakgal

by Nico on Jan 29, 2009 8:06 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

What a silly bunt.

"All your baserunner are belong to Greg Smith" ~ walk off bunt

by Philip Christy on Jan 30, 2009 11:14 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Exactly

Good hitters strike out looking more often, because they can actually hit a baseball when they choose to. Bad hitters strike out swinging a lot because they can’t make contact.

Many years from now, when his name's recalled
Everyone will say, "He should have passed the ball"
-- Al Stewart, "Football Hero"

by PaulThomas on Jan 29, 2009 6:32 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

That's specious reasoning.

You can’t infer that good jitters strike out looking more from the fact that bad hitters strike out swinging more. It’s also entirely possible that bad hitters aren’t good at connecting with any kind of pitch

"PECOTA can pretty much kiss my ass."-Nico

by jeepers on Jan 29, 2009 8:05 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

In which case, Crosby is a bad hitter

and Cust is a good hitter, because when he connects he demolishes the ball

by mikev on Jan 29, 2009 8:15 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Crosby is a bad hitter and Cust is a good hitter?

Groundbreaking! :-)

I like Cindi. A. She never pretends to know more than she does. B. She has unbridled enthusiasm for her "Hotties," and isn't afraid to show it. -IM4Oakgal

by Nico on Jan 29, 2009 8:16 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Is Carton a good jitter?

A B -3X = Swedish girls like chocolate @('.')@

by monkeyball on Jan 30, 2009 9:54 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

What it does help prove

is my theory that our 2-strike approach was bad. Swinging or not it shows that they just weren’t capable of functioning with two strikes.

"Their batters are patient to the point that it's annoying." -Ryan Franklin

by Helloooo 1st on Jan 29, 2009 6:37 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

The difference is, I'd guess, Cust has 2 strikes a lot when he has 3 balls

Crosby has 2 strikes when he’s not nearly as close to walking.

by thejd44 on Jan 29, 2009 7:59 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Ha ha ha ha

Cust has 3 balls.

{snerk}

I like Cindi. A. She never pretends to know more than she does. B. She has unbridled enthusiasm for her "Hotties," and isn't afraid to show it. -IM4Oakgal

by Nico on Jan 29, 2009 8:07 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

He might want see a specialist about that

The nuts and bolts of gameplay are apocalyptic failures, but the awfulness doesn’t stop there. Managing games is utterly pointless. [Feb 2009, p.85]

by A'sfaninNC on Jan 30, 2009 6:09 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

looks like someone's gone cold turkey

A B -3X = Swedish girls like chocolate @('.')@

by monkeyball on Jan 30, 2009 9:32 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

question for iamawesomer

why not be an author/manager on AN instead of your own blog? Not that I am against small businesses, but while I really enjoy your analysis I usually only end up at your blog through BtB or here, seems like there is room in the rotation….

I miss Chad God

by ChadGod on Jan 29, 2009 3:17 PM PST reply actions   0 recs

Good stuff.

It isn’t at all surprising that most called strike threes are pitches either right on the black or just off the plate. I’d bet even money the pitch distributions look the same for any team. It’s definitely a black eye for the A’s offense, though, and an indictment of their approach with two strikes. You don’t have the luxury of taking those pitches when you have two strikes, and there’s nothing at all good about being near the top of the league in percentage of Ks that are looking.

Of the top 10 run scoring teams in MLB last year, only one (the Red Sox) had a top 10 percentage of K’s looking. Chances are, if a high percentage of your Ks are looking, your offense isn’t very good.

"PECOTA can pretty much kiss my ass."-Nico

by jeepers on Jan 29, 2009 4:58 PM PST reply actions   0 recs

Apropos of nothing, but I just discovered you owe me ten bucks

See here.

I had utterly forgotten about it… I just stumbled onto it while doing a search through my post history for the word “chone.”

Many years from now, when his name's recalled
Everyone will say, "He should have passed the ball"
-- Al Stewart, "Football Hero"

by PaulThomas on Jan 29, 2009 6:36 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

that bet goes well with jeepers's sig

With stout hearts, and with enthusiasm for the contest, let us go forward to victory. ----Hero Defector Montgomery

by mikeA on Jan 29, 2009 7:08 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

lolz

"Not in your wildest alcoholic nightmare would you ever imagine such events unfolding!" Bill King

by Buck Turgidson on Jan 29, 2009 7:52 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Sure do.

Please forward remittance information. My email address is in my profile.

"PECOTA can pretty much kiss my ass."-Nico

by jeepers on Jan 29, 2009 8:06 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Disagree

Teams with a more patient approach are bound to k looking more often. There is no evidence that any of those k lookings would have turned into something better had there been a swing. There is no way to measure how a patient approach is beneficial during subsequent at bats. For example, for Cust to see a starters out pitch may help him during his next at bat regarding his (Cust’s) approach or adjustment.

I don’t think we can say that the A’s two strike approach was the problem last season. There were lots of problems.

"Not in your wildest alcoholic nightmare would you ever imagine such events unfolding!" Bill King

by Buck Turgidson on Jan 29, 2009 8:05 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

There is no reason to have the same approach with two strikes

As you would in a different count.

"PECOTA can pretty much kiss my ass."-Nico

by jeepers on Jan 29, 2009 8:08 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

I'm not suggesting one should, nor do I think the A's in practice

"Not in your wildest alcoholic nightmare would you ever imagine such events unfolding!" Bill King

by Buck Turgidson on Jan 29, 2009 8:09 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Of course there is

Because consistency in approach is more likely to be successful. I think that’s a very good reason.

Why do something different when what you do works pretty well?

by thejd44 on Jan 30, 2009 1:15 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

I'd be curious to see how teams compare in walks and K's

And in particular strikeout and walk results on 3-2 counts. I would guess just off the top of my head that teams that strikeout looking a lot will also be near the top of drawing a walk on a 3-2 count, so if you employ a strategy of swinging more on two strike counts, it will likely also cut down on walks drawn on 3-2 counts. Is the trade off worth it? That would be an interesting question to answer.

...when you let other people tell you what success is, you already have no chance of ever finding it. - Doug Glanville

by JLeverenz on Jan 30, 2009 10:23 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

not one A’s batter walked with less than a three ball count.

by Future Ed on Jan 30, 2009 1:47 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Beat you to it.

A B -3X = Swedish girls like chocolate @('.')@

by monkeyball on Jan 30, 2009 1:54 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

dammit

My inability to preview and mouseover negates beating you to the joke.

A B -3X = Swedish girls like chocolate @('.')@

by monkeyball on Jan 30, 2009 1:55 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Neato post

Cust in particular is frustrating to watch due to the called 3rd’s….the numbers confirmed my frustration. I’m ok with his approach and striking out alot, but there is little excuse for so many called 3rd K’s. Need to change the approach a tad with two strikes Jack!

Gas to Chicago- $23.87 A's/White Sox Tix- $28 Watching the A's whipping the Sox in July 05'- Priceless

by WiscoFan on Jan 29, 2009 5:03 PM PST reply actions   0 recs

No, he doesn't.

First of all, “changing approach” is not something that can just be done. Changing one’s swing entirely is a pretty dramatic thing. I don’t think most players do this.

And if he swings at more pitches he will A) still strike out a lot because he misses a lot of pitches he swings at B) walk a lot less, because he’ll be swinging at those close ones (that are sometimes called strikes) and, likely, C) when he does make contact he’ll be making outs anyway because it won’t be good, solid contact.

by thejd44 on Jan 29, 2009 8:00 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

I always find the "you just can't change your approach" argument ironic

Because it always comes from the stat thumpers, and it’s such an utterly non-statistical argument. I know I changed my approach with two strikes in what little baseball I played. It was really easy, and half the time, the goal of it was to work a walk (I walked a lot).

"PECOTA can pretty much kiss my ass."-Nico

by jeepers on Jan 29, 2009 8:13 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

I changed my approach when I was striking out a lot ...

… and I ended up getting a lot of slap hits.

A B -3X = Swedish girls like chocolate @('.')@

by monkeyball on Jan 30, 2009 9:58 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

It *can* be done

I’d say most players, alot at the least, change their approach with two strikes. I know I did it playing competitively, albeit only through HS. Unless your approach/ability is Pujols/Manny esque where you are simply a dominant hitter no matter the situation and have a great eye too. Cust doesn’t quite fit that mold. Taking called 3rd strikes as often as he does can be improved, its not just “oh well thats just how he is”.

Gas to Chicago- $23.87 A's/White Sox Tix- $28 Watching the A's whipping the Sox in July 05'- Priceless

by WiscoFan on Jan 29, 2009 8:35 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

It's just that with some hitters, the benefits outweigh the costs

whereas with others the costs outweigh the benefits. Cust may be an example of the latter – and I believe he is because the good things, i.e., his walks and power (in the form of getting into hitter’s counts), often come as a result of not swinging often – even with two strikes.

I like Cindi. A. She never pretends to know more than she does. B. She has unbridled enthusiasm for her "Hotties," and isn't afraid to show it. -IM4Oakgal

by Nico on Jan 29, 2009 8:38 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

But think of all the times Cust took a two strike ball

and all the good things that happened after that.

Actually, you can’t think of that because our brains are not at sorting through events in that fashion, so that’s why we use statistics.

by MrIncognito on Jan 29, 2009 8:02 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

If its close, protect

I realize Cust won’t become Tony Gwynn Sr. with two strikes but it would help himself to adjust. Unless of course he is just fooled that much and is a guess hitter. Not much worse than being out on a called third, besides a double play I suppose.

Gas to Chicago- $23.87 A's/White Sox Tix- $28 Watching the A's whipping the Sox in July 05'- Priceless

by WiscoFan on Jan 29, 2009 8:37 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Here's what I wonder -

if umpires routinely expand the outside corner a hair, and if the hitter knows this fact and also knows the strike zone really well, should he take a lot of called third strikes and be “right” or should he swing at a lot of slightly off-the-plate pitches and be “wrong”?

It’s kind of like leaving your car unlocked and saying “Nobody should steal my stuff” – yes, true, but…?

I like Cindi. A. She never pretends to know more than she does. B. She has unbridled enthusiasm for her "Hotties," and isn't afraid to show it. -IM4Oakgal

by Nico on Jan 29, 2009 8:40 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

It's always a question of whether the results of a typical swing outweigh the results of a typical take

and, despite what the strickoutophobes would have you believe, the benefits of taking a pitch (even in an 0-2 count) are a. distinctly non-zero and b. certainly do not justify an approach of “swinging at everything that’s even close to the zone.”

Many years from now, when his name's recalled
Everyone will say, "He should have passed the ball"
-- Al Stewart, "Football Hero"

by PaulThomas on Jan 29, 2009 9:44 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Don't...

…leave it up to the umpire to help decide your fate. Just sitting there taking a called third is bad, not much is more frustrating. There are times when you can/should be aggressive/defensive at the plate.

I wonder how many of his K’s looking are on a full count.

Gas to Chicago- $23.87 A's/White Sox Tix- $28 Watching the A's whipping the Sox in July 05'- Priceless

by WiscoFan on Jan 30, 2009 3:04 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Why NOT leave it up to the umpire,

if the umpire is more likely to give you a favorable result than swinging is?

Many years from now, when his name's recalled
Everyone will say, "He should have passed the ball"
-- Al Stewart, "Football Hero"

by PaulThomas on Jan 30, 2009 5:46 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

because we live in a non stochastic society

and psychologically, it seems better to people to try to control their fate by action, even though it is by non-action, and putting the outcome in the (seemingly random) judgement of others, that we may improve out lot.

not saying it’s right, just how people seem to think.

when did we stop using adverbs proper?

by alea iacta est on Jan 30, 2009 7:48 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

My lack of response to this is speaking volumes

I like Cindi. A. She never pretends to know more than she does. B. She has unbridled enthusiasm for her "Hotties," and isn't afraid to show it. -IM4Oakgal

by Nico on Jan 30, 2009 8:15 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

What do you think is the likely result of swinging at a two strike pitch off the plate?

I’m thinking strike three swinging.

You’re presenting this as a false dichotomy. A strikeout looking isn’t any worse than a strikeout swinging or an infield fly, and is better than the double play.

Striking out is bad. There’s no argument there, How bad it is and what the benefit of not swinging at a close but off the plate ball is not that clear. There would be ways or making an argument that he should swing more, but this isn’t one of them.

by MrIncognito on Jan 30, 2009 6:55 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Some guys seem fairly adept at fouling off pitches.

by Lovejoy on Jan 30, 2009 9:01 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Is Cust good at fouling pitches?

No. There’s no point in wishing he was someone else.

by MrIncognito on Jan 30, 2009 9:13 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Sorry, I didn’t mean to suggest that he was. It was more thinking out loud at the idea of swinging at borderline pitches, thats all. Some guys do it and they don’t look like they’re trying to get a hit or even put the ball in play.

by Lovejoy on Jan 30, 2009 9:17 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

But then they tend not to get base hits swinging that way.

It's not the results, it's how you look going about those results -- Tim McCarver

by WaddellCanseco on Jan 30, 2009 11:53 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Not with those swings, but they can either walk or get a pitch to hit.

by Lovejoy on Jan 30, 2009 4:32 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

To clarify:

I agree that it is much better to foul off a two strike pitch than strike out. Some players have the skill set to do that, but it just doesn’t apply to the player being debated here.

by MrIncognito on Jan 31, 2009 6:57 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

I think

I’d like to see his BABIP plus foul balls with two strikes vs K’s looking with two strikes, or something like that. At least putting it in play generally can’t hurt more than a strikeout unless its a DP of course.

Gas to Chicago- $23.87 A's/White Sox Tix- $28 Watching the A's whipping the Sox in July 05'- Priceless

by WiscoFan on Jan 30, 2009 3:11 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

False dichotomy

It’s not “putting it in play” vs. “K looking,” it’s “swinging” vs. “not swinging.”

If you define it so as to exclude the favorable outcomes of one decision and the unfavorable outcomes of the other, it looks like your argument holds water. Unfortunately, that’s logical hogwash.

Many years from now, when his name's recalled
Everyone will say, "He should have passed the ball"
-- Al Stewart, "Football Hero"

by PaulThomas on Jan 30, 2009 5:48 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

I don't think I explained it well enough

What are the probabilities of him swinging with two strikes either way vs taking the pitch. Maybe thats more clear.

Its a good point that hes not the type or has the ability to change much even with two strikes. I think alot of that has to do with him being a guess type hitter, IMO. Watching a strike three called as a borderline pitch, fine….but right down the pipe and very much hittable is still frustrating to watch regardless.

Gas to Chicago- $23.87 A's/White Sox Tix- $28 Watching the A's whipping the Sox in July 05'- Priceless

by WiscoFan on Jan 31, 2009 9:42 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

You underestimate Trainman's impact on the game

I like Cindi. A. She never pretends to know more than she does. B. She has unbridled enthusiasm for her "Hotties," and isn't afraid to show it. -IM4Oakgal

by Nico on Feb 1, 2009 1:41 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

If he swung maybe it would have an impact ;)

Still won’t make my eyes hurt every time seeing a called third thats very much over the plate.

Gas to Chicago- $23.87 A's/White Sox Tix- $28 Watching the A's whipping the Sox in July 05'- Priceless

by WiscoFan on Feb 1, 2009 2:34 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

I would would have a great impact on the game if

I was able to do what I wanted to do with no fear of reprisal from law enforcement. Lets just say that there would be less strikeouts

PS: this is a joke

by Trainman on Feb 2, 2009 4:46 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Exactly!

Of course a K looking is aesthetically more frustrating. But it doesn’t mean it’s actually hurting the team (more than swinging).

Or, more precisely, looking at close pitches in a 3-2 count is usually better than swinging, regardless of the entertainment value.

by thejd44 on Feb 3, 2009 1:54 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Jack Cust

gets on base just as much as tony gwynn did.

by Future Ed on Jan 30, 2009 2:05 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Not my point

The point is on strikeouts and his approach or lackthereof with two strikes. I have a feeling Gwynn’s strikeout looking rate wasn’t too high, but I haven’t verified. Their career OPS+ are almost the same, although I’d have to say Gwynn has him beat defensively by a good amount.

Gas to Chicago- $23.87 A's/White Sox Tix- $28 Watching the A's whipping the Sox in July 05'- Priceless

by WiscoFan on Jan 30, 2009 3:14 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Given their respective reputations

i.e. that Gwynn is considered an all-time great and Jack Cust was acquired in a cash trade after playing 10 seasons in the minors, the fact that they’re only separated by defense is a pretty shocking indictment of baseball’s ability to recognize actual hitting talent.

Many years from now, when his name's recalled
Everyone will say, "He should have passed the ball"
-- Al Stewart, "Football Hero"

by PaulThomas on Jan 30, 2009 5:52 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

It's only an indictment if you assume

that he was just as good all those years when he was bouncing around the minor leagues. For several of those years we have evidence that he was not. For the last couple, it’s not clear either way.

Various teams took flyers on Cust over the years. It’s entirely possible that he was so-so for a long time and then finally got good at 28, and the A’s were the lucky ones who happened to grab him just then.

"Dispatch knuckleheadedness with Bond-like aplomb." –74mk

by iglew on Jan 30, 2009 7:52 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

We really don't have that evidence for "several years"

He never got more than 84 PA in a season until he came to the A’s. Oh, and in that season he had a 129 OPS+ in those 84 PA.

by thejd44 on Feb 3, 2009 1:57 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Ahh

Gwynn has him on hitting talent I’d say, Cust makes up for it with his on base ability, if we are to split hairs.

Gas to Chicago- $23.87 A's/White Sox Tix- $28 Watching the A's whipping the Sox in July 05'- Priceless

by WiscoFan on Jan 31, 2009 9:39 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Why must we split hairs?

Look at a player’s overall offensive ability.

by thejd44 on Feb 3, 2009 1:58 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

*His general approach I'm ok with, not the two strike approach he has

Gas to Chicago- $23.87 A's/White Sox Tix- $28 Watching the A's whipping the Sox in July 05'- Priceless

by WiscoFan on Jan 29, 2009 5:04 PM PST reply actions   0 recs

More

Here’s where the ten worst teams in terms of highest percentage of Ks looking finished in runs scored (out of 30 teams):

Rockies 18th
Red Sox 3rd
Rays 13th
Athletics 26th
Diamondbacks 20th
Pirates 19th
Blue Jays 21st
Orioles 11th
Braves 16th
Royals 24th

7 of the 10 are in the bottom half of the league, 3 in the bottom 10.

"PECOTA can pretty much kiss my ass."-Nico

by jeepers on Jan 29, 2009 5:12 PM PST reply actions   0 recs

I thought only good hitters struck out looking.

"PECOTA can pretty much kiss my ass."-Nico

by jeepers on Jan 29, 2009 8:09 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

I'm an extremely bad hitter

but even I can strike out looking.

"Dispatch knuckleheadedness with Bond-like aplomb." –74mk

by iglew on Jan 30, 2009 12:16 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

I've noticed that bad hitters aren't very good when they're hitting with two strikes.

I like Cindi. A. She never pretends to know more than she does. B. She has unbridled enthusiasm for her "Hotties," and isn't afraid to show it. -IM4Oakgal

by Nico on Jan 29, 2009 8:09 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

So

about a third of the teams on this list are in the bottom third of runs scored?

Thanks for tomorrow 'cause I've had enough

by andeux on Jan 30, 2009 10:13 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Yes, but's that's just correlation, not causation

A B -3X = Swedish girls like chocolate @('.')@

by monkeyball on Jan 30, 2009 10:16 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Yes, you can view the data any way you want to, if you're inclined to justify looking at strike three at all costs.

There are nearly zero good offenses on that list.

"PECOTA can pretty much kiss my ass."-Nico

by jeepers on Jan 30, 2009 9:01 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

"nearly zero"

The data simply does not say what you seem to think it does.

Thanks for tomorrow 'cause I've had enough

by andeux on Jan 31, 2009 12:17 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

The data simply do not say …

A B -3X = Swedish girls like chocolate @('.')@

by monkeyball on Feb 1, 2009 12:28 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Monkeyball, your foreign plural agenda

are annoying.

"Dispatch knuckleheadedness with Bond-like aplomb." –74mk

by iglew on Feb 3, 2009 6:42 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Screw yous!

I like Cindi. A. She never pretends to know more than she does. B. She has unbridled enthusiasm for her "Hotties," and isn't afraid to show it. -IM4Oakgal

by Nico on Feb 3, 2009 9:32 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

nicely done

… But there’s only one item on that list.

A B -3X = Swedish girls like chocolate @('.')@

by monkeyball on Feb 4, 2009 8:17 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Are you missing the point?

If there’s only one item, it’s an agendum. Which is about as meaningful as a datum (ie, not).

"Dispatch knuckleheadedness with Bond-like aplomb." –74mk

by iglew on Feb 4, 2009 9:39 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

There's one good offense that struck out looking a lot.

Sounds like an outlier to me.

"PECOTA can pretty much kiss my ass."-Nico

by jeepers on Feb 2, 2009 3:51 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

It's a nice post, but....

“Strike threes”? I agree that “strikes three”, while correct, is pedantic and uncolloquial, but what about “third strikes”?

by Englishmajor on Jan 29, 2009 5:37 PM PST reply actions   0 recs

Ask not for whom the ump calls, he calls strike three

A B -3X = Swedish girls like chocolate @('.')@

by monkeyball on Jan 29, 2009 5:50 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

I'd like two whoppers junior please

"There's never enough time to do all the nothing you want" -Bill Watterson

by nevermoor on Jan 29, 2009 7:57 PM PST up reply actions   1 recs

I cried

The monster at the end of this blog.

by grover on Jan 30, 2009 12:50 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

... said one of the two attorneys general

A B -3X = Swedish girls like chocolate @('.')@

by monkeyball on Jan 30, 2009 10:00 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

"Strikes three" is no more correct than "RsBI"

“Strike three,” in this scenario, effectively is one word. Just as an acronym in RBI becomes a word in itself.

by thejd44 on Jan 29, 2009 8:03 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

yes

With stout hearts, and with enthusiasm for the contest, let us go forward to victory. ----Hero Defector Montgomery

by mikeA on Jan 29, 2009 8:08 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Is it prounounced "ER-bee"?

As in, “My tea is too herby”?

I like Cindi. A. She never pretends to know more than she does. B. She has unbridled enthusiasm for her "Hotties," and isn't afraid to show it. -IM4Oakgal

by Nico on Jan 29, 2009 8:10 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Aw, you're back.

That’s nice. I missed you.

"You have to score to win"~Rickey Henderson

by lynnzgal on Jan 29, 2009 9:49 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Hence EM's suggestion: third strikes

"Dispatch knuckleheadedness with Bond-like aplomb." –74mk

by iglew on Jan 30, 2009 12:17 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

great post, my biggest pet peeve

had a feeling custy would look like that. wonder what giambi looks like

by KCB58 on Jan 29, 2009 9:02 PM PST reply actions   0 recs

You were awesomer today

Not that you haven’t done a full day’s work thus far, but I’ve got a question re: Cust. The called strikes he’s taking down the middle, are those from curveballs?

The monster at the end of this blog.

by grover on Jan 29, 2009 10:45 PM PST reply actions   0 recs

Let me go grab my spreadsheet quickly

I’ll call “down the middle” the 50% of the strikezone if we divided it into quarters.

Cust’s Kc pitch distribution (by pitch fx, which isn’t perfect btw but the confidence intervals are pretty high for most of these pitches) in this “half” of the plate:

2 Changeups
5 Curveballs
9 fastballs
7 sliders

Actually one of the curveballs he saw was a 3-2 one which sounds sick awesome. Actually its the pitch in the middle of the plate right on the black line at the top of the strikezone. A quick elias id search tells me it was Ricky Nolasco, what a balla.

Can't get enough of the Oakland A's? Visit Oaktown Awesomer's

by iamawesomer on Jan 29, 2009 11:14 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

How about if you cut it down vertically as well (middle 50%)?

It looks like there are a lot of top / bottom triangles on the chart…

"There's never enough time to do all the nothing you want" -Bill Watterson

by nevermoor on Jan 30, 2009 12:10 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Thanks

The monster at the end of this blog.

by grover on Jan 30, 2009 1:11 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

an interesting corollary to this analysis

would be to overlay the balls that get called on two stricks. there will always be a margin of error from the umpires on close pitches. but – if i get a pitch around the strick zone, are the umpires more likely to make an error and call a ball on what should be a strick, or are they more likely to do the reverse.

if (number of correctly called balls + stricks called as balls) > (correctly called stricks + balls called as stricks), then yeah – i can live with hitters striking out looking. and that’s not even taking into account that a swing at a ball is nothing like a guarantee of success, etc etc.

when did we stop using adverbs proper?

by alea iacta est on Jan 29, 2009 11:44 PM PST reply actions   0 recs

He used it so many times I feel it must be

Also considering his idea is excellent I think the strick humor correlates very heavily.

Can't get enough of the Oakland A's? Visit Oaktown Awesomer's For further statistical analysis, Beyond the Box Score

by iamawesomer on Jan 30, 2009 1:18 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

it is a joke

i feel, if you’re going to do something, see it through.

i understand how you might be confused at this, as presumably none of my other posts invoke the idea ‘laugh really hard’

when did we stop using adverbs proper?

by alea iacta est on Jan 30, 2009 2:10 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Wait - are you backing Mychael Urban's approach to humor?

I like Cindi. A. She never pretends to know more than she does. B. She has unbridled enthusiasm for her "Hotties," and isn't afraid to show it. -IM4Oakgal

by Nico on Jan 30, 2009 6:40 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

um, yes

i mean, sorta.

in theory, yes – at a certain time, his jokes will take on a certain meta humour aspect.

or, it’s possible – and you’ll like this – i was drunk when i wrote the above post. or is that what you mean by the Urban approach?

so many levels!

when did we stop using adverbs proper?

by alea iacta est on Jan 30, 2009 7:34 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Why would I like that you're drunk

when you clearly haven’t shared any with me?

I like Cindi. A. She never pretends to know more than she does. B. She has unbridled enthusiasm for her "Hotties," and isn't afraid to show it. -IM4Oakgal

by Nico on Jan 30, 2009 8:16 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

it was more a reference

to Urban pretending to be drunk. whereas i was.

as for not sharing any? didn’t you get the invite? it must have been, er, lost in the internets. or something.

when did we stop using adverbs proper?

by alea iacta est on Jan 30, 2009 9:19 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Interpolation analysis

This doesn’t concern me too much because A), Our high OBP approach(lots of pitches), B), the Rays and Sox are good company, C), Better players will have a relatively high OBP, while not striking out as much.
When T-Long-swing hit .240 in ’02, Wash told him, paraphrase:“Shit bro, one more hit per week and your average and OBP would add .045 points.” AAAA players can have plate discipline and hit .240. One extra hit per week and they would be good major-leaguers. Our team this year is more experienced and flat out better. We hopefully will keep the same Kc/K ratio, while boosting our team BA and OBP by .040.

by greenpaddedgloves on Jan 30, 2009 8:41 AM PST reply actions   0 recs

Our high OBP approach resulted in a ... low OBP

I agree with the approach; the problem isn’t a poor approach, but poor hitters implementing it.

Same as with the endless lineup permutation argument—no matter how you slice it, or whether you layer it between the lettuce and tomato or between the cheese and the bread, a shit sandwich is still a shit sandwich.

A B -3X = Swedish girls like chocolate @('.')@

by monkeyball on Jan 30, 2009 10:03 AM PST up reply actions   1 recs

Rec'd

I’m convinced, from an hour or so of dicking around with the plate discipline stats at fangraphs, that the A’s problem is almost entirely a matter of having hitters who simply do not make contact with strikes. Personally, I think that the hysteria above (re: “striking out looking is the worst thing you can do other than a DP,” etc) is totally misplaced. In reality, the single worst thing you can do is to swing and miss at a lot at pitches in the strike zone— because you’re screwed either way if you do that a lot.

I have a fanpost in the pipeline on this topic, though lord knows if I’ll ever get around to it.

Many years from now, when his name's recalled
Everyone will say, "He should have passed the ball"
-- Al Stewart, "Football Hero"

by PaulThomas on Jan 30, 2009 11:01 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

+1

looking forward to that.

Save Rajai Davis

by oakinboston on Jan 30, 2009 12:13 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

ditto

A B -3X = Swedish girls like chocolate @('.')@

by monkeyball on Jan 30, 2009 12:16 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

So we can criticize Beane for bad players, but not bad player "types"

And since many of these bad players are only in there because of injuries, I’m not sure how much we can criticize Beane for that, either.

I still have faith in this organization.

by thejd44 on Jan 30, 2009 1:07 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Oh, we can criticize Beane for bad player types

The rotating crappy-slappy-leftfielder of the year type, anyway.

A B -3X = Swedish girls like chocolate @('.')@

by monkeyball on Jan 30, 2009 1:10 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Right

If Jack Hannahan made contact on 5% more of his swings, he would probably be one of those good-but-undervalued guys like Mark Ellis, because he has enough secondary skills (plus-plus plate discipline, fringe-average power, plus defense) to make up for what would still be a pretty mediocre batting average.

There’s nothing wrong with getting Hannahan-like players, they just have to be better than the actual Jack Hannahan.

Many years from now, when his name's recalled
Everyone will say, "He should have passed the ball"
-- Al Stewart, "Football Hero"

by PaulThomas on Jan 30, 2009 5:57 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

You know what I like?

“Jack Hannahan” type players who actually hit like Mike Schmidt.

I like Cindi. A. She never pretends to know more than she does. B. She has unbridled enthusiasm for her "Hotties," and isn't afraid to show it. -IM4Oakgal

by Nico on Jan 30, 2009 6:41 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

which is why I support the giant douche

"Dispatch knuckleheadedness with Bond-like aplomb." –74mk

by iglew on Jan 30, 2009 11:06 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Yes, apparently you do.

(Though shouldn’t the joke have been, “why I support the giant enema”?)

A B -3X = Swedish girls like chocolate @('.')@

by monkeyball on Jan 30, 2009 11:15 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Very nice! Great subject and well presented.

Not surprisingly, the Red Sox, Rays, and A’s were also the teams that swung at the fewest pitches outside of the strike zone—with Cust and Barton ranking second and 4th in the league, respectively.

Speaking of Cust, I was just noticing his splits in full counts.

In his career, Cust has had 317 of his 1274 PA reach a full count. That’s 25% of his PA, which is twice the MLB average from 2008 (12.5%).

Here’s how those 317 PA have broken down:
144 BB (none intentional)
101 K
48 in-play outs
8 singles
7 doubles
7 HR
2 SF

That means 77.3% of the time that Cust reaches a full count, he’s either walking or striking out. The league average is 53.4%.

His batting line in full counts is .129/.524/.292, while the league batting line is .227/.468/.372.

The most interesting part to me was Cust’s .231 BABIP with a full count. That’s his worst BABIP by far in any count, and it’s well below his .329 overall mark. To me, this suggests that he’s swinging at pitches in full counts that he normally would let pass by. Cust usually only swings at pitches he thinks he can crush, which results in either a whiff or solid contact. In full counts, he seems to be swinging at tougher pitches and making weaker contact than usual. Or maybe he’s choking up taking less powerful swings. One might think this is true of everyone in full counts, but the league as a whole had a better BABIP in full counts (.305) than overall (.300).

Whatever it is, Cust doesn’t seem to do any damage once the count is full. He’s walking or making an out.

by Danny on Jan 30, 2009 10:15 AM PST reply actions   0 recs

what's league-average BABIP trend with a full count?

I think you’d have to judge Cust’s dip against that.

A B -3X = Swedish girls like chocolate @('.')@

by monkeyball on Jan 30, 2009 10:18 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

...
One might think this is true of everyone in full counts, but the league as a whole had a better BABIP in full counts (.305) than overall (.300).

by Danny on Jan 30, 2009 10:22 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

duh

{calls optometrist}

A B -3X = Swedish girls like chocolate @('.')@

by monkeyball on Jan 30, 2009 10:25 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Given that we're only talking about 65 balls in play, it's very possible that the variance from Cust's normal BABIP

is wholly or largely a matter of luck.

Many years from now, when his name's recalled
Everyone will say, "He should have passed the ball"
-- Al Stewart, "Football Hero"

by PaulThomas on Jan 30, 2009 11:07 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

True

Though it’s also the lack of dingers.

by Danny on Jan 30, 2009 11:30 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

So what you're saying is that it's possible Cust IS changing his approach

And, clearly, it’s not working that well.

Although a .524 OBP in a full count is pretty sweet. He’s OPSing .800+, way heavy on the side that matters most (OBP). More evidence that Cust is better than people think.

by thejd44 on Jan 30, 2009 1:05 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Interesting stuff on the league numbers

I thought the ISO-OBP with the bases loaded was ridiculous at first (hello pitchers, a walk = a run) but then I realized there is probably some heavily correlation between pitchers being in a 3-2 count to begin with, like lacking control, and walking a guy with the bases loaded.

What is the total number of league PA by the way for that bases full batting line, if you have it handy?

Can't get enough of the Oakland A's? Visit Oaktown Awesomer's For further statistical analysis, Beyond the Box Score

by iamawesomer on Jan 30, 2009 1:21 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

asdkjfadsjfkadsf

Can't get enough of the Oakland A's? Visit Oaktown Awesomer's For further statistical analysis, Beyond the Box Score

by iamawesomer on Jan 30, 2009 1:35 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

are you my optometrist?

A B -3X = Swedish girls like chocolate @('.')@

by monkeyball on Jan 30, 2009 1:41 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

He's over there.

I like Cindi. A. She never pretends to know more than she does. B. She has unbridled enthusiasm for her "Hotties," and isn't afraid to show it. -IM4Oakgal

by Nico on Jan 30, 2009 6:41 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Those two ladies wearing dresses?

A B -3X = Swedish girls like chocolate @('.')@

by monkeyball on Jan 30, 2009 9:44 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

I think you're misreading that

There’s nothing about the bases being loaded in there, and I don’t even know where one would find count + base state data.

With stout hearts, and with enthusiasm for the contest, let us go forward to victory. ----Hero Defector Montgomery

by mikeA on Jan 30, 2009 1:33 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Man I've gotten worse and worse as the comments went on

Yeah you’re right. Though I think count + base state data would be useful, and I actually know I could get the league totals (for last season at least), I don’t think I have the skills/time to program it right now, maybe later.

Can't get enough of the Oakland A's? Visit Oaktown Awesomer's For further statistical analysis, Beyond the Box Score

by iamawesomer on Jan 30, 2009 1:37 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

...
One might think this is true of everyone in full counts, but the league as a whole had a better BABIP in full counts (.305) than overall (.300).

by Danny on Jan 30, 2009 10:21 AM PST reply actions   0 recs

I may have to call monkeyball's optometrist

I believe I have Dan Johnson disease. Or maybe I’m just pulling a Loaiza, I can’t remember.

"Loyal? I'm the most loyal player money can buy." - Don Sutton

by vignette17 on Jan 30, 2009 11:21 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Great post

I am not an A’s fan but this is the best posting by a fan that I have read in a long time. Interesting read and well thought out.

"When a true genius appears in the world, you may know him by this sign, that the dunces are all in confederacy against him."
-Jonathan Swift

by King Billy Royal on Jan 30, 2009 7:23 PM PST reply actions   0 recs

How can someone not be an A's fan?

Very odd.

I like Cindi. A. She never pretends to know more than she does. B. She has unbridled enthusiasm for her "Hotties," and isn't afraid to show it. -IM4Oakgal

by Nico on Jan 30, 2009 7:28 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

well, if you're born with the name Royal

then i guess you don’t get much of a chance about who you support.

the London Monarchs, presumably.

as i am lead to believe, i am the only person to not use my real name on the internets. it’s all coming up Damian. i mean. damn

when did we stop using adverbs proper?

by alea iacta est on Jan 30, 2009 7:44 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Or the Sacramento Kings

I think maybe there’s a baseball team whose name has something to do with royalty, too.

"Dispatch knuckleheadedness with Bond-like aplomb." –74mk

by iglew on Jan 30, 2009 7:55 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Just wondering

Why do some people infer that criticism of striking out looking too often is “hysteria” or some kind of latent indictment of Jack Cust? It really isn’t. Striking out looking is one of many bad things you can do as a hitter, and if you’re a freak like Jack Cust, you’re allowed to break rules.

"PECOTA can pretty much kiss my ass."-Nico

by jeepers on Jan 30, 2009 9:06 PM PST reply actions   0 recs

Complaining about K’s looking: Jack Cust hatred :: Complaining about antidepressants: Scientology

Many years from now, when his name's recalled
Everyone will say, "He should have passed the ball"
-- Al Stewart, "Football Hero"

by PaulThomas on Jan 30, 2009 9:32 PM PST up reply actions   1 recs

Rec'd

Please most more things about the silliness of Scientology.

by thejd44 on Feb 3, 2009 2:01 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

What a Difference

Compare the difference between Sweeney’s third strike looking to cust’s. On Sweeney’s for the most part on the outside and he thinks it is on the outer half of the plate, but for cust it looks like they are getting all over the zone. Not a very good sign

by LFbleachers on Jan 31, 2009 9:37 AM PST reply actions   0 recs

Good point

Its the ones right down the middle that are frustrating or painful to watch. A borderline pitch I can live with. When its pretty much dead on, you’re being fooled.

Gas to Chicago- $23.87 A's/White Sox Tix- $28 Watching the A's whipping the Sox in July 05'- Priceless

by WiscoFan on Jan 31, 2009 9:45 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

and yet

of those two Cust is the much better hitter. Go figure.

Thanks for tomorrow 'cause I've had enough

by andeux on Jan 31, 2009 12:21 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Those are probably breaking balls more often than not

Is anybody convinced he would’ve hit it anyway? Seems like Cust usually just looks fastball because he knows if he’s getting the breaking ball it’s a K anyway.

by thejd44 on Feb 3, 2009 2:02 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Comments For This Post Are Closed


User Tools

Welcome to the SB Nation blog about Oakland Athletics.

Community Guidelines ANcillary Terms
Start posting about the Athletics »

Join SB Nation and dive into communities focused on all your favorite teams.

FanPosts

Community blog posts and discussion.

Recommended FanPosts

Ph3spec_small
Having fun with Pythagoras, or, who got lucky during 2009
Dsc00764_small
DLD - 11/07/2009 - How to Keep Yourself Occupied in the Off-Season
527918550406_0_bg_small
2010 Off-Season Blueprint
Depaulbluedemons_small
Community Prospect List #15
Super_grover_small
2010 Offseason Primer

Recent FanPosts

Bill_king_small
AFL Rising Stars Showcase Tonight on MLBN @ 5PM
Me_at_att_park_small
Greener Grass, Episode 4: The Biggest Off Season (Potential) Decision Doesn't Involve Free Agents
Oaklandathletics_small
Hardy to Minnesota. What's with the early offseason trades?
Tyler_at_maya_school_small