Effect of the Bats in NCAA Play

BTW, Florida State deserved to lose just for wearing those ugly uniforms.

Agree. Those are hideous.

biggerpapi,

I don’t know what kind of interpretation you’re looking for, but FWIW, here’s my thoughts.

The new bats were intended to reduce the distance a ball would travel, so it makes perfect sense that the number of HRs would drop. How much they would drop was a number no one could know though, for several reasons.

Assume the AVERAGE new bat will only produce 95% of the distance an AVERAGE old one would, given all things were equal other than the bats. That would mean a 325’ would go 309’, a 350’ ball would only go 332’, and a 400’ would only go 380’, So if the ball was hit in a park with those dimensions, and the ball was only go over the fence by 20’ or so. obviously it wouldn’t make it out using the new bats. So the 1st thing those numbers tell me is, the majority of HRs went over the fence by less than 20’.

You’ve also got a couple of other mitigating factors. Today’s players are GENERALLY taught and encouraged to hit line drives from gap to gap. With the lower trajectory, balls hit at the same velocity won’t carry the same distance, so its likely the better hitters who hit the most balls that could go out, will lose the most distance.

If the amateur baseball using those bats really wants to get more HRs, they can do it if they choose to, by changing the hitting philosophy. If hitters were taught to try to pull the ball more, modify their swings a bit, and alter their pitch selection, they could definitely hit more HRs, but at what cost?

Another factor is, college coaches all over the country knew this was coming for at least 2 years, and most of them very likely made slight changes in the kind of hitters they would be recruiting. Those 1st players recruited to play more of a small ball game would be Sophs this year, so the profile of the hitters on the team would of course be changed some.

Here’s something no one seems to have figured out. The number of sac bunts is up dramatically this season. Every time a sac bunt is put in play, there’s absolutely no chance the ball will go over the fence. And even in those at bats where there’s no bunt put into play, if there were attempts to do it before 2 strikes, those are pitches wasted as far as being a possible HR goes. So all in all, the number of opportunities for hitting HRs has been reduced by some amount.

Another factor is pitching and hitting philosophies. I’m using Vanderbilt’s numbers because I know they’ve gone deep into the season the last 2 years.

Last year they had 2320 ABs and 63 Hrs, and their opponents had 2281 and 48, this year it was 2139 and 47, and 2009 and 28 respectively.

So when you add it all up, in 2009 there were 111 HRs in 4601 ABs, or 1 HR ever 41.5 ABs. This year it would be 75 HRs in 4148 ABs, or 1 HR every 55 ABs. That’s a significant number, but let’s look at it a bit more closely.

The number of Ks, BBs, and HBPs and SB attempts last season was 923 for Vandy and 904 for its opponents. This season it was 767 and 819 respectively. When you subtract those things from the ABs you get 4601-1827=2774 in 2009, and 4148-1586=2562. Now when you look at the HRs per AB it comes out to 1 every 25 in 2009 and 1 every 34.2 this season.

That’s how people get so bumfuzzled by the numbers when they don’t look at them closely. Believe me there’s a big difference in 1 HR per 41.5 vs 1 every 55, and 1 every 25 vs 1 every 34.2!

There are definitely other things at work other than the bats, but ya know what? What’s really the big wahoo? For all the crying and whining from college coaches and players about how popular the college game was, so why tinker with it, I sure haven’t heard anything about the popularity of college game taking a swan dive. And I suspect that once some of those whiners and criers actually think about it, they’ll make subtle changes in the players they recruit and hitting philosophies they encourage, and things will slowly readjust themselves.

quote:

Originally posted by Stats4Gnats:

That’s how people get so bumfuzzled by the numbers when they don’t look at them closely. Believe me there’s a big difference in 1 HR per 41.5 vs 1 every 55, and 1 every 25 vs 1 every 34.2!

Stats,
These two ratios are almost identical (1 or 2% difference). How is there a big difference?

quote:

Originally posted by cabbagedad:
Stats,
These two ratios are almost identical (1 or 2% difference). How is there a big difference?

Never said they weren’t! But you have to realize that you’re looking at numbers where 1% is very significant difference. Look at a number like strike percentage. Since almost all decent pitchers throw in a range of 58-66%, a 1% is quite a bit, even though it’s a small number.

Many baseball metrics are like that, but people don’t realize it. Me, I’d be extremely happy to have my team hit HRs at a 1% better rate, have my pitchers, ERAs be a1% better than the other team’s, or have my team’s BA 1% better than the other teams. 1% more in BA is 10 points. To me that’s dang significant.

Home runs per game down 44%,

Batting averages down 7.5 %

Runs per game down 20%.

If those are the stats for the D1 teams in the aggregate, thats a pretty significant drop.

One wonders how many home-run-hitters are now long- out-makers.

quote:

Originally posted by Stats4Gnats:

quote:

Originally posted by cabbagedad:
Stats,
These two ratios are almost identical (1 or 2% difference). How is there a big difference?

Never said they weren’t! But you have to realize that you’re looking at numbers where 1% is very significant difference. Look at a number like strike percentage. Since almost all decent pitchers throw in a range of 58-66%, a 1% is quite a bit, even though it’s a small number.

Many baseball metrics are like that, but people don’t realize it. Me, I’d be extremely happy to have my team hit HRs at a 1% better rate, have my pitchers, ERAs be a1% better than the other team’s, or have my team’s BA 1% better than the other teams. 1% more in BA is 10 points. To me that’s dang significant.

Sorry, I know this is not really worth arguing but...
Huh???
58% vs 59% strikes is not significant - one strike more out of every 100 pitches.
Saying you want 1% more of whatever than the other team is apples and oranges. A real comparison is 1% more of your own. 1% more of a typical HS team HR's for a season, whether it be 10 or 15, doesn't change at all. 1% more of a typical batting avg (say .300) is only .303. Most HS players don't even get 100 AB's in a season so it's not even one hit. For your 10 point difference, you'd have to assume batting 1.000 - not feasible. And 1% better ERA (say 3.25) is only 3.28. All insignificant, IMO. Yeah, yeah, but that one hit...

quote:

The new bats were intended to reduce the distance a ball would travel....

The intention was that the speed at which the ball left the bat would not only be predictable but comparable to a wood bat. While a reduction in home runs was a predictable event, it was intended that the imbalance between offensive and defensive performance would be adjusted to ensure a more natural balance. Home runs are a part of that but a reduction of runs scored due to the reduction of successful offensive attempts as a result of the reduction of batted ball speed was also intended.

quote:

How much they would drop was a number no one could know though, for several reasons.

The Baseball Research Panel, researchers and scientists from NCAA universities developed the testing protocols and possessed the scientific capability to understand very closely the impact this would have on offensive numbers.

The NCAA gets blasted for all the hypocritical inconsistent application of rules and regulations and rightly so, but in the case of BBCOR bats...they did their homework and they did it right.

Unfortunately, the only way to ensure that the statistical analysis is meaningful is to test all the bats that are producing these numbers because they are subject to tampering and modification. Wood, the material that is trying to be replicated is available and affordable. The NCAA needs to ask itself......now why not wood?

20% drop in runs and 7.5% drop in batting average are very significant drops. But overall it makes for a better college game.

Lies, da mn lies, and statistics.......

Look at the play on the field.