BA by number of pitches

schwammi:

 

I know about that QAB stat in GC, and to me it belongs right in the same garbage can as the scads of other QAB definitions I’ve seen. It’s a great stat to talk about, but IMHO its pretty worthless as far as being a metric that has any meaning other than unless you’re looking for hitters who see more pitches.

 

But there’s a reason I feel that way. For ML hitters, and what management wants out of them, seeing a lot of pitches is a very favorable trait. But what makes a ML hitter/team successful is not always something that’s desirable at development levels, which is what all amateur ball is.

 

I’ve looked at it in various ways through the years, and here’s what I’ve seen in a nutshell. First and foremost, all hitters are different. The style of some tend to favor aggressiveness, and the style of others tend to favor passiveness. Here’s about as simple a metric as I do that shows how across the board it is for HSV players. While I realize it doesn’t represent ALL HSV players, it does show how varied they are.

 

http://www.infosports.com/scor.../images/batstuff.pdf

 

There’s a lot of factors going into why a player should or shouldn’t be aggressive, but I know our best hitters have tended to be on the aggressive side.

 

Can I show patterns? I’m sure I can, but what is it you’d like to see? Give me something to try to show and I’ll give it a shot.

I'm not familiar with the program and therefore this may seem like a completely naive question. Does it ONLY count 6 pitch ABs as QABs?

 

I'm pretty sure if you hit a HR on the first pitch of an AB its a QAB, for example...

Originally Posted by J H:

I'm not familiar with the program and therefore this may seem like a completely naive question. Does it ONLY count 6 pitch ABs as QABs?

 

I'm pretty sure if you hit a HR on the first pitch of an AB its a QAB, for example...

 

This is what was on their web site.

 

QAB's are calculated using the formula below: 

 

GameChanger QAB - [(2-strike at-bats ≥ 3 pitches seen) + (at-bats ≥ 6 pitches seen) + (hard hit balls) + (2-out RBI’s) + (sac bunt) + (sac fly)] / (total # of plate appearances) = QAB %

 

That’s just one of many different criteria I’ve seen used for a QAB.

 

A HR on the 1^st pitch would get only 1 point for a hard hit ball and thus wouldn’t have as much value as a 2 out HR with a 2 strike count that was a 7 pitch at bat.

 

The main trouble I have with QABs is that there’s no standard definition. But as long as you don’t try to compare players from different teams, I suppose they can have some value as a tool to make the hitters feel good.

So if I hit a two strike, two out, seventh pitch, grand slam in my only at bat, my QAB % would be 600%

Originally Posted by JMoff:

So if I hit a two strike, two out, seventh pitch, grand slam in my only at bat, my QAB % would be 600%

 

Evidently!

 

I don’t think most people understand what a QAB is or what its used for. And that causes a lot of confusion.

 

The only use I can see for a QAB is to keep players who don’t deal well with failure from getting depressed. IOW, its an attempt to make a silk purse out of a sow’s ear. It’s a device people have come up with to somehow make a kid who makes an out feel good about himself, much like when someone yells “Good swing” when a player misses, or “Wasn’t your pitch” when they take a called strike.

 

Not to pick on GameChanger, but frankly some of the things they give “extra credit” sure seem silly to me. FI, why is a 2 out RBI more valuable than any other RBI? Heck, for that matter, why is a 2 out RBI any more valuable than a run scoring because of an error made on a 2 out ball in play where a runner scores? And why is a hard hit ball that produces an out better than even a Duck Fart hit?

 

I’ve always got the feeling QABs were a way the people unhappy with the scoring rules to force scorers to draw pitctures of every play!

stats4Gnats.....I was not trying to start a QAB debate, although the problem with GC is that not every coach that measures QAB uses the same criteria.  GC is fairly arbritrary and therefore probably not as relevant although our HSV coach did look at it.  You could certainly justify a more precise and rewarding calculation.

 

I was simply curious about the outcomes by pitch, so I was envisioning a fairly simple spreadsheet/report where the leftmost column is the pitch where the ball was put in play, and then columns for BB, Hits, AB, BA, and maybe OBP.

 

So row 1 would show guys who put the ball in play on the 1st pitch (you can't walk on one pitch unless HBP) and the equivalent BA and OBP.  The next row shows the guys who put the ball in play on the 2nd pitch.  My sense is that anything after maybe 9 pitches should go in the final "other" row.

 

I am a big fan of Steve Springer and his approach.  I often ask my son if he "hit the best pitch he saw in an at bat"?  Too often, he takes FB down the middle on 0-0 and later finds himself chasing a curveball.  I point out that he took the BEST pitch he saw and we end up in a debate on the merits of taking a pitch.  Drives me nuts.   So, that along with the QAB discussion got me to wondering if there is any correlation or pattern to early/agressive  vs patient hitters, hence, the request for BA by pitch.

Well schwammi,

 

It certainly looks like you have something in mind you’d like to see if you can back up with some kind of proof. I like that kind of thinking!

 

I don’t know that seeing any such REAL correlation is possible using the data I have, in the manner you described, but I’ll see what I can do. Unfortunately, I have to get cracking on yesterday’s game stats and newsletter, so I’m afraid you’re gonna have to wait until later on today.

 

And BTW, I agree with your assessment of not only GC’s QABs, but QABs in general. They’re OK, but they’re so varied in definition and use, to me they’re not a good metric for doing much of anything other than throwing a player a bone.

Never tracked BA by total pitches faced but did have a team that struck out way more than it should have.  So I started looking at what they were doing at 2 strike counts and the information was staggering.  I forget the exact numbers but it was something like a .125 BA, .175 OBP and K'd nearly 50% of the time. 

 

When they were up in the count the BA rose to near .400 and OBP closer to .500. 

 

Had a talk with Head Coach who started to talk about early count fastball strikes and getting good swings at them.  Things improved but this was really a bad group of 2 strike hitters so deep counts tended to work against us.  

luv,

 

I sure understand the concern with 2 strikes, but there’s a huge reason for lower numbers like those you listed, and it skews the numbers tremendously. Unlike counts where there are less than 2 strikes, one additional negative thing can happen, just like in all 3 ball counts and additional positive thing can happen. For 2 strikes its of course striking out, and for 3 balls it’s a walk.

 

If you want to get something realistic to look at, look at what happens when there’s any count and what it would be if there were 2 strikes and the next pitch was a called or missed strike. My guess is the numbers would get a lot closer together.

 

Then too, looking at the results in relation to REAL counts rather than umpire’s counts will change them a lot as well. FI, on any 2 strike count where there’s a foul, the AB isn’t over so it shouldn’t be counted as a negative.

OK, schwam, Got some time to mess around.

 

But before I go off starting something new, I thought you might want to look at something I’ve been doing for more than 10 years now. Although it doesn’t EXACTLY match what you said, I think it might be close, so if you could take a look and get back to me I’d appreciate it.

 

http://www.infosports.com/scor...r/images/battle3.pdf

 

I don’t know squat about Steve Springer, but like everyone else, I do have an opinion about taking pitches. Having messed around with this stuff for some time now, I’ve gotten very careful about labeling someone a “PATIENT” or “AGGRESSIVE hitter.

 

The reason for that is not being able to tell if the patience was because the batter thought he couldn’t drive the pitch or if the pitch was simply not in the strike zone. I don’t know what data anyone could use to make that kind of determination.

well, that is what I was looking for and confirmed what I expected.  My thesis was that the deeper into the AB you got the more it favored the pitcher, although I expected more of a bell curve where the trend went back in the batter's favor but that is not true from this data.  If I did the math properly you get:

<colgroup><col span="2" width="64" /></colgroup>

Pitch	BA
1st	0.397
2nd	0.380
3rd	0.312
4th	0.245
5th	0.236
6th	0.216
7th	0.258
8th	0.227
9th	0.188
>9	0.200

 

So, the deeper you go, the more it favors the pitcher.  My sense is that this happens based on the tendency of a HSV pitcher to lead-off with FB and throw more off-speed stuff later in the count, but that would take ALOT more analysis to prove that.

 

As for Steve Springer, go listen to the archive of his interview on HSBASEBALLWEB.  He totally denounces BA as a meaningless stat and focuses on "crushing" the ball.  In his mind, if you hit 4 rockets in 4 AB's you are successful.  Alot of what he says makes sense when you listen to him.

 

As I mentioned, I talk with my son all the time about what he did with the BEST pitch that he saw in the at bat.   Usually it is a FB that the pitcher left up or over the middle of the plate.  I know there is a correlation between success on that pitch and missing it which leaves you hitting the pitcher's pitch.

 

Now, there is no direct correlation between the data above and my theory about hitting the best pitch, but I think I can use this data to show him that taking an 0-0 FB right down the middle is simply putting him at a disadvantage.

 

One more thing...I wonder how GC would react to awarding a QAB when the difference in BA between a ball put in play on the 1st pitch and the 7th pitch is more than 150 points?  

 

Stats -- your opinion?

 

BTW...simply awesome that you have compiled information at the level that you could help answer my question.  More than impressive!

part II - I don't like to label kids, especially since patience can be as much a factor of a pitcher who cannot find the plate.  Conversely, a player who consistently puts the ball in play on the first 2-3 pitches can be labelled aggressive.

 

I tend to study positive and negative counts and adjust accordingly.  Few teams are successful if they are constantly hitting in a negative count.  Conversely, if our pitchers get ahead early and can work in negative counts, we tend to have success.

 

Now, for the record, my son is a VERY patient hitter.  He routinely leads the team in walks and usually was in the top 3 in QAB from GC because of seeing alot of pitches.  He routinely takes until he gets a strike and works the pitcher deep into the count.  It's a good thing he can hit an off-speed pitch.  I personally think he takes too many pitches, and in particular too many good pitches (and sometimes he takes the BEST pitch).  On the other hand, he is a career HSV .394 hitter, so how can I argue with him?

You better watch out! You’re thesis is heresy!!!!!

 

I have to make sure you understand that data represents OUR batters. Here’s our hitters and the 2^nd page is opponent hitters.

 

http://www.infosports.com/scor...images/battle3ba.pdf

 

I sure wish I could verify your feeling that HSV pitchers tend to throw 1^st pitch FBs, but alas I can’t since I don’t chart pitches.

 

I agree with him that BA is definitely not the BEST stat, but its far from meaningless. One just has to be careful about how stats using hits in their formulae are used. The way you portray Springer, I get the feeling he’s a QAB kinda guy, and to me that can be as bad as being a BA guy.

 

As with your feeling about HSV pitcher tendencies, I wish I could verify your feelings about the BEST pitch, but I can’t because as far as I know, there’s no such thing because every batter’s best pitch is something different.

 

My best GUESS is, the data would be more meaningful to your situation if it were broken down differently. FI, looking at ABs where the 1^st pitch was a called strike. My guess is, you might make a better case using the following. It pretty much shows what are the most likely outcomes given the 1^st pitch being a strike or a ball.

 

http://www.infosports.com/scor...per/images/ktabb.pdf

 

 

I can’t comment on what GC would do with anything. Remember, it wasn’t designed as an in depth program to analyze specific things such as we’re discussing.  

 

Don’t be too impressed, really. Its nothing anyone couldn’t do if they decided to devote the time it takes to do it. Its really simple.

 

PART II

 

I have to admit, I don’t have a big problem with your definition of an aggressive batter.

 

I also agree with your analysis about negative counts. I think its one of the “truisms” in baseball that’s as much intuitive as it is in fact.

 

A lot of what makes a hitter “successful” has to do with very fundamental things, most basic one being able to determine whether a pitch is a ball or a strike. Something much more subtle but IMHO what separates GOOD hitters from GREAT hitters, is being able to determine whether a pitch can be hit solidly.

The numbers listed shouldn't surprise anyone.  It takes at least 2 pitches before the hitter has 2 strikes. With 2 strikes you have an additional way to make an out and it happens frequently. After 3 pitches there is a better chance the hitter has 2 strikes, even better after 4 pitches or 5 pitches. A obviously anything over 5 pitches you have 2 strikes. I can't strike out on two pitches.

 

I once posted the numbers based on counts. It was based on an entire MLB season.  The highest BAs came in the counts you would expect i.e. 2-0, 3-1. After all, any hitter would choose the third pitch if the count were 2-0.  

Regarding GC and QAB. There are certain guidelines that determine QAB. However, the scout or scorekeeper has the option to determine a QAB 

PG,

 

Do you mean they have the option to set the criteria or to generate a QAB?

 

Hopefully no one will take this as my saying QABs are useless, but rather as trying to find out what they’re used for or putting them in proper perspective.

 

What would a coach use them for? Using GC as an example, would a high QAB% be used instead of say OBP to determine a player’s BPOS?

 

To me, QABs are an attempt to keep batters from “pressing”, and for that I suppose it’s a lot better to do that than to just give lip service by saying something like “Way to hit the ball hard”. It seems as though the player who got the duck fart bloop hit, the swinging bunt hit, and reached on an error wasn’t as valuable to the team as the player who hit 3 balls hard but right at someone and got put out, or the player who K’d 3 times but it took 21 pitches to do it.

Stats - Your report on BA by pitch is very interesting.  The OBP shows the bell curve I expected where your chances of getting on base significantly increase in the later stages of the AB.  Now, that is not rocket science because of the opportunity to walk.  I just was not expecting such a drastic drop-off in the BA as you went deeper in the count.  My sense was that the BA would increase as well due to a tendency of pitchers to go back to FB to try to either avoid a walk or to agressively go after the batter.  I then assumed more FB would lead to a better BA (who is a good curveball hitter?), but it appears that it may not be the case.  So, very interesting observation although certainly not enough analysis to re-write the coaching books.

 

As for the BEST pitch, that is case by case and batter by batter.  As much as I would like to further my theory, I can't imaging scoring a game electronically and after each AB trying to figure out which pitch was the best pitch to hit.  Ain't no way.

 

PG - I have always shared two charts with my teams.  (1) the Ted Williams chart on BA by location and (2) the BA by count, hence the focus on positive and negative counts.  Both are great tools for teaching the game.  

 

Stats - thanks for compiling this.  You are a true gentleman not to mention a student of the  numbers behind the game.  

 

Our people have the ability to award a QAB just as they have the ability to score an error or hit.  They also have the ability to take away a QAB based on their opinion. A 7 pitch AB isn't always a quality AB. You can get to the 6th pitch without taking the bat off your shoulder. Then hit a pitch down the middle for a weak foul ball and take strike 3 down the middle on the 7th pitch.  That is not a quality AB in anyone's mind.

 

i'm not sure how this works on most GC programs.  Ours is set up as a scouting tool and made specifically for us.  I don't think it is available yet because it is still in the development stage.

PG,

 

Its pretty obvious you guys understand what I find so troublesome about QABs in general. But here’s the problem. Most folks wouldn’t take the time to make that adjustment, even if they had the capability. The hear QAB, see a definition, and off they go, blindly allowing the criteria to drive the result, rather than making a judgment call, much like a hit or an error. IOW, there has to be some element of knowledge mixed in, otherwise the result really doesn’t mean much.

 

You hit on one of the things about QABs that I believe is a major reason for the K being seen so much in the game now. That situation you laid out to 99.99% of all GC users, or anyone else who uses QABs for that matter, changes a K from something bad to be avoided, to something that can be considered a GOOD thing.