Goal for hitters and pitchers

Going to stick my toe in on this one.

Some of this is common sense.  Successful pitchers give up less hits, base runners and ultimately runs.  All of that implies fewer pitches.  If the average batter gets 3-5 pitches per trip the difference between 4 batters per inning and 6 batters will be reflected in the pitches per inning.

There all kinds of pitching stats that would get you to the same conclusion, OPP OBP, OPP BA, Earned Runs, HITS/IP, BR/IP, OPP SLG % will all paint the picture of if a pitcher is getting people out and not giving up runs. 

PPI then is a proxy stat.  Few batters faced = fewer pitches thrown and what you get is an efficient and effective pitcher. 

For hitters the reverse is true.  A good BB/K ration will indicate a batter with a good eye for the zone.  Put that together with a High OBP & SLG and you have a strong offensive player.

In the end the BB/K ratio might be as good a place to start the analysis of any pitcher or hitter.  If that number is in favor of the player being analyzed I am sure his value/success will generally be good. 

Stats, here is a question for you.  You jus got a head baseball job, and a great statistician gave you every stat imaginable on you returning varsity players.  What are the first 3 stats you will look at from a pitchers stand point and the first 3 from a hitting standpoint?

IE ... You're asking a person who has never coached.

i know RJM, I would still like to hear his opinion.

Ohhh...ohhh....ohhh...can I answer?  This looks like a fun game.

Originally Posted by Golfman25:

Really? 

Yes, really. What kind of strategy is it to not throw strikes to any batter with runners on base? If they don’t swing what do you have? More runners!

The statement was that you're going to pitch the #9 hitter differently with the bases empty than you are the #3 hitter, especially with runners on.  How that's not obvious I don't know, but...

Typically, you're going to attack the #9 hitter with the bases empty with fairly no doubt strikes, at least until he proves he can drive a good fastball with authority.

The #3 hitter, especially with runners on, you're obviously going to have to be more careful.  That generally doesn't mean not throwing strikes (there are relatively few instances where you want your pitcher to actively avoid throwing a strike) since you've got the #4 on deck, but you're probably going to try to avoid challenging him directly with a fastball down the pipe, which you might do pretty regularly to weaker hitters with the bases empty.

Originally Posted by cabbagedad:

…But don't go overboard to the point where you are bogged down by numbers, not taking care of the primary business at hand, not seeing what is happening in front of you or recalling what you have seen in the same situation in the past and don't confuse the heck out of the players with excessive number crunching.  …

You sure seem to be making the same mistake you accuse me of. How is simply looking at numbers “going overboard” and “not taking care of the primary business at hand”? You’re making the leap that anyone who spends more time than you do looking at the numbers, is neglecting whatever it is you consider primary business. Why can’t different people spend different amounts of time doing different things.

How is it confusing to the players to use numbers? If they don’t get it, it’s because you don’t take the time to explain it.

And I know this is a point which we disagree but it usually doesn't take several spreadsheets to identify that a player is a pure pull hitter or is a base stealing threat or has a weak arm or slow release or can't hit a curve, etc., etc.

Well, to start with, I don’t use spreadsheets and never have. And, I don’t bother using the numbers to identify a pure pull hitter or is a base stealing threat or has a weak arm or slow release or can't hit a curve, etc., etc. I use them to confirm or refute what the perceptions alone are saying.

Look, if you never make mistakes in judgment and have nothing more to learn, good on ya. I’m fallible tough, and everyone I’ve met in this life so far is fallible as well. I’ll leave it at that.

Originally Posted by JCG:

As for Stats - you know it would be interesting to know how you would go about being head coach of a HS team if you had the opportunity.  Exactly what metrics would you use and how would you use them to help your players develop and help your team win games?

That’s simple. I would look at every metric I could to confirm or refute what my perceptions were, and to help me identify what to work on with individuals to minimize wasted time. But then again you have to understand, I have metrics on HS players few others have, because I’ve spent a lot of years trying to answer questions and prove things right or wrong.

Lol, yes Luvbaseball you can be included as well.

Originally Posted by cabbagedad:

Actually, Stats, I reviewed both docs you attached in this thread and they indicate that Old School is right on with the numbers he states. 

The spreadsheet with just the P stats from your HS team shows that each successful pitcher averaged just over 15 PPI.  The other spreadsheet that shows several games over the last few years shows that the team with lowest PPI almost always wins and that if your PPI gets up over 17, 18, your offense better be scoring some big runs to win.  Most often, the winning team had 16 or fewer PPI or they won in a blowout.  Not sure what you are basing your argument on.  What is your take from your numbers?

Again, I do not use spreadsheets, but be that as it may, you sayingeach successful pitcher averaged just over 15 PPI intrigues me. You see, in our program, I don’t recall any regular starter as being Unsuccessful. I’d like to know what you base success on, given the information I provided.

Right now I have to take my mom to a Dr. appointment, but when I come back I see if I can’t get a bit more precise with those PPI numbers, because I didn’t come to the same conclusion you did.

Sorry, but that answer is so general as to be meaningless.  Let me try a different way:

You're a high school head coach.  Using all the metrics at your disposal, what sorts of goals and expectations would you set for each player and for the team?  What would be your team's practice plan for your first week?  How would the second and third week vary from that?  As games start, what approach will you be coaching for your hitters?  What kind of throwing regimen will your pitchers go through, and what will their approach be in their first game?   

You've mentioned many times that you keep score for  a very successful program in a very competitive league.  How will your use of metrics allow you to surpass the programs previous successes and dominate that league?

I agree Stats' reply was quite general, and I was waiting for a real intelligent response; especially since he dissects every reply that others make.  The question posed asked what were the 3 particular stats that you would look at first?  Sometimes I think he talks just to hear himself talk, or to run people around in circles. 

When the OP was made, I knew we were headed down a rabbit hole, but I find it interesting to watch much the same way that most people rubber neck when driving by a train wreck...

How about the pitch that looks like a strike but isn't?  The one the umpire calls just off the edge.  Or the curveball in the dirt that gets the kid swinging.  A walk may do less damage than an extra base hit.   It's called being smart. 

Agree strongly.  Being smart is a good thing when playing baseball.  In the OP Stats said "If you believe a pitcher’s goal should be to get rid of a batter in 3 pitches or less.." But nobody with even a rudimentary understanding of the game believes that is the pitcher's goal, do they? The pitcher's goal is to retire the batters (and any runners).  There are complexities, but that's the gist of it.   So if the pitcher has an 0-2 count on the opponent's #3 hitter,  trying to retire that hitter with just one more pitch would not be a good goal, nor would it be smart.  In fact, anything in the zone at that point is flat out stupid.  FB low and away, FB up and in, CB in the dirt - take your pick. But do not throw that kid a strike. That's called a mistake, and that's what good hitters down 0-2 are hoping to see.

i enjoy baseball talk and how stats refect game results - the poster stats just gives me a headache!!

OK, I see we've returned to the point where you completely twist what is being said, so probably time for me to hop on out of here.

I sure as heck didn't say "simply looking at numbers" is going overboard.  In fact, the sentence I wrote immediately in front of what you quoted acknowledges the value of statistical info and new technology. I also did not say anything resembling the notion that anyone who spends more time than I do looking at numbers is negligent.  I merely suggested that a coach must find balance in time management of his tasks and using all the info and tools available out there.  Oh, and, sorry I called your document a spreadsheet.  Geez, I guess I am fallible.  I would have never thought...

There actually is some good dialog in the thread that addresses your OP quite well.  Just wish you would, for once, show capability of hearing the answers to the questions you pose.

Out. 

In that case here are three I like on both sides:

Pitchers:  WHIP, BB/K, LOB% - Rough idea of batters per inning, control, and can he bear down and get out of trouble. 

Hitters:  OPS, PA/SO, RISP - Give me a picture of contact, power and hitting in the clutch when runs can be scored.

I can't wait to find out about all of the holes in theory!!

I think this has the potential to be a pretty interesting topic.  I am sure there are a lot of ideas on how to determine how effective players are beyond the eye test.  I am curious to see what folks think.

Hitters: Runs created, execution rate, RISP

Executions rate = Sac Bunt, Hit & Runs, R3 scored less than 2

Pitcher: LOM, BB/K, FPSO%

FPSO= how often was an out recorded when a first pitch strike was thrown

Well folks, I certainly apologize for taking so long to get the numbers, but I finally got them this morning. I had the computer look at every one of the 239 games and compare the pitching staffs pitches per inning and pitches per batter for each game, computing them to 4 decimals.

Then each game had to meet 1 of the 10 conditions you see on the report. The game you see where both teams had the same PBI was a real anomaly, but it happened. Both teams sent up the same number of batters and threw the same number of pitches.

As you can see, the most common condition was the winning team had fewer pitches per inning at 78% of the time. So as would seem to be logical, the fewer pitches per inning, the higher chances of winning the game. But as you can also see, pitches per inning and pitches per batter doesn’t always mean the same thing.

Interesting exercise that proves once more that while there are certain thing that indicate a win, nothing is for sure other than scoring more runs than the other team.

This is a perfect indication of the pointlessness of having these discussions with you.

There's no reason to have the false precision of 4 decimal places.

No one has argued that PPI and P/BFP are the same thing.

No one has argued that throwing fewer pitches than the other guy is the same thing as winning.

Everyone already knew that throwing fewer pitches than the other guy would lead to more wins.

Everyone already knows that scoring more runs than the other guy means you can't lose.

Though at least in that final case it's decidedly ironic that you'd be the one to post that particular sentiment.

Originally Posted by JCG:

Sorry, but that answer is so general as to be meaningless.  Let me try a different way:

You're a high school head coach.  Using all the metrics at your disposal, what sorts of goals and expectations would you set for each player and for the team?  What would be your team's practice plan for your first week?  How would the second and third week vary from that?  As games start, what approach will you be coaching for your hitters?  What kind of throwing regimen will your pitchers go through, and what will their approach be in their first game?   

You've mentioned many times that you keep score for  a very successful program in a very competitive league.  How will your use of metrics allow you to surpass the programs previous successes and dominate that league?

How can I be specific when the question is such a general one? You want me to state specifically what I’d do in an unknown situation, with unknown players, and that’s little more than trying to trip me up on something that can’t be answered correctly.

I really don’t understand all the animosity. I’ve never once in all the years I’ve been around the game said stats should be used exclusively to do everything, as you and other seem to be trying to say. All I’ve ever done is say the numbers should be used to measure what’s taken place, rather than to depend only on memory or “gut” feelings.

As for the questions you ask, I can’t say because I have absolutely no idea about how anyone would be performing. Evidently, unlike you, I prefer to measure before I open up my mouth and say what I’d do. Sort of like, measure twice, cut once.

Originally Posted by rynoattack:

I agree Stats' reply was quite general, and I was waiting for a real intelligent response; especially since he dissects every reply that others make.  The question posed asked what were the 3 particular stats that you would look at first?  Sometimes I think he talks just to hear himself talk, or to run people around in circles. 

When the OP was made, I knew we were headed down a rabbit hole, but I find it interesting to watch much the same way that most people rubber neck when driving by a train wreck...

It doesn’t make any difference what question was asked. There are few people who have available what I have for metrics, and I can assure you I wouldn’t be looking much at the same old tired slash stats that are typical in amateur baseball. Also, how does one look at stats that aren’t there? You have to make some initial decisions, then measure to see what happened, then make adjustments form there.

I keep repeating the same thing over and over, but somehow it doesn’t seem many either understand or want to understand it. I never use the numbers to predict what will take place, but rather to measure what has already taken place. Why does that frighten so many people?

He must work for the government doing studies telling us if we eat too much we'll get fat.  

Originally Posted by Golfman25:

How about the pitch that looks like a strike but isn't?  The one the umpire calls just off the edge.  Or the curveball in the dirt that gets the kid swinging.  A walk may do less damage than an extra base hit.   It's called being smart. 

If you have the quality of pitchers who can do that on demand, good on ya. In my experience, nibbling at the edges causes a lot more problems than not.

These two statements are incompatible. If you're making adjustments, based on what you measured, you're implicitly making predictions about what will happen.

Never mind that measuring just what happened for it's own sake is largely pointless, and basically no one who quotes baseball stats for any purpose does so solely as a record of what occurred without getting into why or value or whatever other arguments about the numbers.

Originally Posted by JCG:

Agree strongly.  Being smart is a good thing when playing baseball.  In the OP Stats said "If you believe a pitcher’s goal should be to get rid of a batter in 3 pitches or less.." But nobody with even a rudimentary understanding of the game believes that is the pitcher's goal, do they? …

Maybe that’s the problem. I’ve discussed the same thing with ML pitchers, coaches, and managers, and to a man they all said the same thing. They’d love to be able to get rid of hitters in 3 pitches or less. Of course that isn’t every ML pitcher, coach, or manager, but it does seem to make your above statement seem questionable. I’d love to see you call Dusty Baker, Don Sutton, or Bob Welch stupid to their face.

But now I think its time for me to quit this discussion. Its gotten to the point where name calling has taken over, and that isn't productive.

The goal is to get people out.  Although it would be nice to do so in 3 pitches, that is probably not a realistic goal.  Earlier you mentioned that having pitchers that can nibble at the corners at the high school level is not very likely, and that more harm than good would most likely come from that.  I would say it is not very likely that you can average 3 pitches per batter consistently. If you have a dominant pitcher, they are most likely going to have a lot of strikeouts which will certainly average more than 3 pitches per batter.

Stats,

  I would still like to hear what you consider top 3 stats for pitchers and hitters.

I realize that it's exceedingly difficult for you to understand this sort of distinction, but loving to get a hitter out with 3 pitches or less is not at all synonymous with having that as your goal. But my bad. I should know better than to respond to one of your posts.

Actually my question was quite specific, so  your reply is a cop-out. You have the numbers over many years in your league. At the very least you should be able to identify trends and tendencies to help you determine how much work was indicated for such things as bunt defense, bunt offense, pitcher's fielding practice, first-and-third plays, situational hitting, etc.   Ah, well, my mistake for thinking you'd engage in a substantive discussion of a baseball topic.  You're ever more interested in tilting at imaginary windmills and arguing with folks over assertions that they have never made.  Whatever...  Enjoy!

You must not have a lot of experience then because throwing batting practice down the middle leads to disaster. 

Heck, at the upper levels, throwing 98mph down the middle leads to disaster:

With all due respect JCG, you definitely should know better by now than to fan the flames of yet another of Stats' bonfires of strawman arguments and incompetent assertions. It's not your first rodeo, my friend! The sole purpose is, as always, generating yet another fleeting platform to showcase his faux statistical acumen... at length. On the bright side, perhaps it helps fill his day. Unfortunately, it also fills the General Items forum of the old Baseball website... When the OP clearly belongs in the Scorekeeping/Statistics forum... Thus sparing us all.  But then, Stats knows this very well... And no one much pays attention to him anymore in that forum. So he's happy to pollute the site in general... anything to suck a few more uninitiated posters down the rabbit hole. (And no offense intended JCG... I've made the same trip more times than I care to remember.)

This is exactly why I like Stats' Posts.  It brings comedy to the Forum, and others add good insight too. It takes all types to make a message board meaningful, entertaining, valuable, etc.  Stats definitely helps to make it interesting.