Hey, what is a good ratio of K's per plate appearance? Thanks
Original Post
Replies sorted oldest to newest
What level are you talking about, and are you talking about a hitter or a pitcher?
OOPS! It just dawned on me what forum this is in! I don’t think anyone can really give a good number for what you’re asking because of all the possible differences in leagues, teams, etc.. But maybe this will help you. The following link shows my school’s numbers for the last 2 spring HSV seasons combined. The school is in Ca, is in the largest school category, has only been playing V ball for 2 years, but has made the playoffs twice, and last year got to the finals.
As you can see, I did the K’s per AB and PA for the hitters, and for pitchers it would of course be batters per K. Hope it helps.
http://infosports.net/scorekeeper/images/4catch.pdf
OOPS! It just dawned on me what forum this is in! I don’t think anyone can really give a good number for what you’re asking because of all the possible differences in leagues, teams, etc.. But maybe this will help you. The following link shows my school’s numbers for the last 2 spring HSV seasons combined. The school is in Ca, is in the largest school category, has only been playing V ball for 2 years, but has made the playoffs twice, and last year got to the finals.
As you can see, I did the K’s per AB and PA for the hitters, and for pitchers it would of course be batters per K. Hope it helps.
http://infosports.net/scorekeeper/images/4catch.pdf
I'd say that levels vary based on position, style of hitter and program. Free swingers who put the ball out of the park get a little more swing and miss tolerance.
A very good contact hitter (typical of MIF and CF) will have K/AB of under 20%. A good contact hitter can still be under 25%.
A corner position power guy with very good contact may be in the 22-25% range, with a good power guy still ranging in to the low 30%.
Boyds World has a pretty good data base of all D1 schools for a number of years. You can look up all stats for teams or individual players.
http://www.boydsworld.com/data/hitters.html
A very good contact hitter (typical of MIF and CF) will have K/AB of under 20%. A good contact hitter can still be under 25%.
A corner position power guy with very good contact may be in the 22-25% range, with a good power guy still ranging in to the low 30%.
Boyds World has a pretty good data base of all D1 schools for a number of years. You can look up all stats for teams or individual players.
http://www.boydsworld.com/data/hitters.html
Actually, strike out totals should be much lower than this. Anything over 20% is not good, that hitter had better be putting up serious power numbers.
In MLB, the average is currently 17/100 ab, and about 15/100 plate appearances. Thirty years ago, the numbers were lower, about 14/100 ab and 12/100 pa.
I coached at the college level and the numbers were roughly the same. A "contact" hitter should strike out no more than 15% of the time. Again, anything over 20% can be a liabilty unless there are power numbers behind it...
In MLB, the average is currently 17/100 ab, and about 15/100 plate appearances. Thirty years ago, the numbers were lower, about 14/100 ab and 12/100 pa.
I coached at the college level and the numbers were roughly the same. A "contact" hitter should strike out no more than 15% of the time. Again, anything over 20% can be a liabilty unless there are power numbers behind it...
Level, you're kidding, right?
I listed Boyd's World as a reference, but I follow hundreds of kids for various reasons.
Go to 2008 and start with the elite hitters. Buster Posey led the nation in hitting and is a freak. He was 11.3%. But, most of the elite hitters are 15-20%. These are the 53 guys who hit above .400. We are talking top draft choices in that group.
The majority of good college hitters in the low to mid .300s are over 20%.
Here's a link to all D1 school web sites. Scroll down and pick schools, and check the stat pages. You'll see something other than what you think.
http://www.ncaa-baseball.com/div1master.htm
I listed Boyd's World as a reference, but I follow hundreds of kids for various reasons.
Go to 2008 and start with the elite hitters. Buster Posey led the nation in hitting and is a freak. He was 11.3%. But, most of the elite hitters are 15-20%. These are the 53 guys who hit above .400. We are talking top draft choices in that group.
The majority of good college hitters in the low to mid .300s are over 20%.
Here's a link to all D1 school web sites. Scroll down and pick schools, and check the stat pages. You'll see something other than what you think.
http://www.ncaa-baseball.com/div1master.htm
For the top hitters in MLB, Level has it about right. Pretty much all the top contact hitters (looking at the lifetime batting average list for currently active players) have K/PA ratios of around 10%.
The exceptions are the power hitters who also hit for average, but they aren't that much higher.
Here are K/PA for the top 8 currently active lifetime BA. The list I am using lists AB, and doesn't have the number of plate appearances, so I just added the number of BB/IBB to the AB's estimate it.
Ichiro: 461/5218 - 8.8%
Helton: 760/6805 - 11.1%
Pujols: 452/4766 - 9.5%
Guerrero: 736/6914 - 10.6
Jeter: 1219/8219 - 14.8% (A whiff machine given modest power)
Garciaparra: 515/5694 - 9.0%
Manny: 1543/8311 - 18.6% (Whiffs a lot, but way more power than Jeter)
Ordonez: 632/5816 - 10.9%
Granted, these are the best hitters in baseball, so I guess it makes sense they wouldn't strike out a ton. But there are 100 guys (all time, not currently active) with career K/AB% of 6% or below.
So, to answer the question what is a "good" K/PA percentage? Looks to me like around 10% is very good, at least in MLB.
The exceptions are the power hitters who also hit for average, but they aren't that much higher.
Here are K/PA for the top 8 currently active lifetime BA. The list I am using lists AB, and doesn't have the number of plate appearances, so I just added the number of BB/IBB to the AB's estimate it.
Ichiro: 461/5218 - 8.8%
Helton: 760/6805 - 11.1%
Pujols: 452/4766 - 9.5%
Guerrero: 736/6914 - 10.6
Jeter: 1219/8219 - 14.8% (A whiff machine given modest power)
Garciaparra: 515/5694 - 9.0%
Manny: 1543/8311 - 18.6% (Whiffs a lot, but way more power than Jeter)
Ordonez: 632/5816 - 10.9%
Granted, these are the best hitters in baseball, so I guess it makes sense they wouldn't strike out a ton. But there are 100 guys (all time, not currently active) with career K/AB% of 6% or below.
So, to answer the question what is a "good" K/PA percentage? Looks to me like around 10% is very good, at least in MLB.
quote:at least in MLB.
..and some are HOF'ers-to-be.
Which isn't relevent to most of our sons when looking for a measuring stick with which to compare their progress.
Again, most of our kids are HS or college.
For the college kids, look at the links and compare.
15% is the very few elite.
But, if you're too lazy to look...I'll concede it's not worth discussing with you.
As a strong contact hitter, I was less than 10% K/PA for a 4A high school in texas. 449 avg.
quote:Originally posted by wayback:quote:at least in MLB.
..and some are HOF'ers-to-be.
Which isn't relevent to most of our sons when looking for a measuring stick with which to compare their progress.
Again, most of our kids are HS or college.
For the college kids, look at the links and compare.
15% is the very few elite.
But, if you're too lazy to look...I'll concede it's not worth discussing with you.
...not understanding the hostility from you...I was away all day, can't be glued to my computer, you know.
The easiest way to understand this is to look at the national average of D1. I couldn't find it (too lazy, you know) , so I pulled up Big East team stats from last year:
AB K K%
West Virginia....... 1921 322 .167
Louisville.......... 2218 358 .161
Cincinnati.......... 2089 353 .168
Notre Dame.......... 1910 289 .151
St. John's.......... 1987 317 .159
USF................. 2009 387 .192
Pittsburgh.......... 1817 365 .201
Connecticut......... 1956 360 .184
Georgetown.......... 1750 363 .207
Rutgers............. 1844 423 .229
Villanova........... 1938 365 .188
Seton Hall.......... 1813 320 .176
...As I had previously stated, not much different from MLB. Teams average around .18 k/Ab, so hitters above these numbers are below-average contact hitters, hitters below are above-average.
So 15% isn't the "very few elite", it's around average.
quote:Originally posted by wayback:
Here's a link to all D1 school web sites. Scroll down and pick schools, and check the stat pages. You'll see something other than what you think.
http://www.ncaa-baseball.com/div1master.htm
I'm heavily versed in sabermetics. Quit condescending.
ACC 19.3%
Big12 19.6%
SEC 20.0%
Pac10 22.0%
To say anything over 20% is not good implies the top college leagues are full of "not good" players/teams.
Using your 10.0% mentioned above, there are 3 hitters inthe ACC in the top 55 under that figure.
SEC has none at 10.0%.
Pac10 has 3 at 10.0%.
Big12 19.6%
SEC 20.0%
Pac10 22.0%
To say anything over 20% is not good implies the top college leagues are full of "not good" players/teams.
Using your 10.0% mentioned above, there are 3 hitters inthe ACC in the top 55 under that figure.
SEC has none at 10.0%.
Pac10 has 3 at 10.0%.
quote:I'm heavily versed in sabermetics. Quit condescending.
lol
Hey wayback, at no point did I state that hitters who strike out a lot are not good hitters. You made that assumption. Believe it or not, there is very little correlation between amount of strike outs and offensive production.
The question was; what is a good rate of k's per pa. You offered stats that were off. I corrected them. The original question did not ask how many time elite hitters strike out, or bad hitters. If the national average is, say .185. then hitters that strike out more than that are below average CONTACT hitters. You made the assumption that I stated that good hitters don't strike out more than .20. Striking out more than .20 simply means that the batter stikes out more than average.
Look at those conference team stats again. Good offensive teams and bad offensive teams strike out at roughly the same rate. We can reason then that striking out has very little effect on offensive production. So good hitters can strike out at a .25 rate. Again, the original question was simply; what is a good rate of k's/pa? A hitter with a .25 can be all-american, but he does not have a good k/ab ratio.
And you were condescending. It sounds silly when you tell someone with every Bill James abstact to 'look further into the stats, you'll see something different'.
The question was; what is a good rate of k's per pa. You offered stats that were off. I corrected them. The original question did not ask how many time elite hitters strike out, or bad hitters. If the national average is, say .185. then hitters that strike out more than that are below average CONTACT hitters. You made the assumption that I stated that good hitters don't strike out more than .20. Striking out more than .20 simply means that the batter stikes out more than average.
Look at those conference team stats again. Good offensive teams and bad offensive teams strike out at roughly the same rate. We can reason then that striking out has very little effect on offensive production. So good hitters can strike out at a .25 rate. Again, the original question was simply; what is a good rate of k's/pa? A hitter with a .25 can be all-american, but he does not have a good k/ab ratio.
And you were condescending. It sounds silly when you tell someone with every Bill James abstact to 'look further into the stats, you'll see something different'.
quote:Actually, strike out totals should be much lower than this. Anything over 20% is not good
quote:A "contact" hitter should strike out no more than 15% of the time.
quote:Looks to me like around 10% is very good
ACC: players with 100+ AB's:
Miami: under 10%=0, 10-15%=1, 15-20%=6, 20-25%=2, 25-30%=2
UNC: under 10%=2, 10-15%=2, 15-20%=3, 20-25%=2
FSU: under 10%=0, 10-15%=3, 15-20%=4, 20-25%=2, 25-30%=1
The biggest group between 15-20%. These are players on three of the top teams in the country with kids who get drafted in the top rounds. By your standard, only 8 of the 30 are good contact hitters. I'm saying they ALL are good contact hitters. Every one of them! Or they'd be playing in the Big East. lol
.quote:You offered stats that were off. I corrected them.
No, you offered your opinion.
quote:Originally posted by wayback:
A very good contact hitter (typical of MIF and CF) will have K/AB of under 20%. A good contact hitter can still be under 25%.
http://www.boydsworld.com/data/hitters.html
These stats are what you offered. They can not be considered correct. They were off.
Let's grade the ratios:
Under 10%: elite
10-15%: very good
15-20%: average
20-25%: below average
above 25%: poor
Good "contact" hitters can not be in the 20-25% range, they are over the average. They can still be good hitters, but not good contact hitters. Once again, we are rating the ability to strike out alone, not the hitter's overall effiency. Jack Cust is an productive MLB hitter and strikes out at more than a 40% rate.
Over 100 AB's:
Georgia: under 10%=0, 10-15%=2, 15-20%=5, 20-25%=1, 25-30%=1
LSU: under 10%=0, 10-15%=3, 15-20%=3, 20-25%=3, 25-30%=1
U Florida: under 10%=0, 10-15%=3, 15-20%=2, 20-25%=2, 25-30%=1.
I'll agree with that (the portion of elite being thrown out there by me). That elite term was an overreaction to you calling 20% a liability. No way is that correct either.
annnnd, the college ranks are loaded with very good hitters with K/ratio's over 20% who are drafted in the first 15 rounds. I follow many more than I should probably spend time on. That is where I set my sights and base my comparisons. Bill James stuff may be very good (I've never read it, but obviously don't live under a rock to have never heard of it), but I'm looking at what kids get drafted and what the hitting portion of their tool-set looks like.
20%-25% is draftable. Good enough for me to say it's not a liability.
Georgia: under 10%=0, 10-15%=2, 15-20%=5, 20-25%=1, 25-30%=1
LSU: under 10%=0, 10-15%=3, 15-20%=3, 20-25%=3, 25-30%=1
U Florida: under 10%=0, 10-15%=3, 15-20%=2, 20-25%=2, 25-30%=1.
quote:These stats are what you offered. They can not be considered correct. They were off.
Let's grade the ratios:
Under 10%: elite
10-15%: very good
15-20%: average
20-25%: below average
above 25%: poor
I'll agree with that (the portion of elite being thrown out there by me). That elite term was an overreaction to you calling 20% a liability. No way is that correct either.
annnnd, the college ranks are loaded with very good hitters with K/ratio's over 20% who are drafted in the first 15 rounds. I follow many more than I should probably spend time on. That is where I set my sights and base my comparisons. Bill James stuff may be very good (I've never read it, but obviously don't live under a rock to have never heard of it), but I'm looking at what kids get drafted and what the hitting portion of their tool-set looks like.
20%-25% is draftable. Good enough for me to say it's not a liability.
quote:Hey, what is a good ratio of K's per plate appearance?
And, that is the question. I guess the interpretation lies in "good".
quote:Good "contact" hitters can not be in the 20-25% range, they are over the average.
Who says over the average is not good? Where is the line for good or not good?
Good enough for what? To me: draftable. If they are draftable, they are good.
Wayback, Jr plays in the SoCon.
Using the Conference's top hitter : .438 batting average with 25% K/ratio. Drafted.
Good contact hitter?
Using the Conference's top hitter : .438 batting average with 25% K/ratio. Drafted.
Good contact hitter?
quote:Originally posted by wayback:
[QUOTE]
Who says over the average is not good? Where is the line for good or not good?
Good enough for what? To me: draftable. If they are draftable, they are good.
Of course they are good. But they are not good at making contact. They would be below average at this one specific skill. And, as I have stated many times, the ability to make contact has very little bearing on offensive production.
There are a million kids who are productive and strike out alot. I named one, Jack Cust.
You interpreted the questions as: How often do elite hitters strike out? And perhaps; can elite hitters strike out a alot?
I interpreted the question as: What are the average strike out rates for batters, regardless of the hitter's quality?
I'd relate the correlation to be about as strong as an NBA players free throw percentage. Good players can have poor percentages (Shaq). Below average players can have great percentages. There is not a strong correlation between the player's value and the perecentage, the percentage is simply one of the dozens of stats that you weigh when you conclude overall value.
Also, Elon (conference Champions # 7 in country in scoring):
under 10%=0, 10-15%=2, 15-20%=2, 20-25%=6, 25-30%=1
Coll of Charleston (led nation in scoring):
under 10%-0, 10-15%=0, 15-20%=5, 20-25%= 3, 25-30%=1
Elon had seven hitters over .300 including one over .400.
CoC led the nation in scoring with nine average/below average contact hitters, who managed to all hit over .300 despite what you label them.
under 10%=0, 10-15%=2, 15-20%=2, 20-25%=6, 25-30%=1
Coll of Charleston (led nation in scoring):
under 10%-0, 10-15%=0, 15-20%=5, 20-25%= 3, 25-30%=1
Elon had seven hitters over .300 including one over .400.
CoC led the nation in scoring with nine average/below average contact hitters, who managed to all hit over .300 despite what you label them.
Again, using the Conference's top hitter :
.438 batting average with 25% K/ratio. Drafted.
Good contact hitter?
.438 batting average with 25% K/ratio. Drafted.
Good contact hitter?
quote:Originally posted by wayback:
Again, using the Conference's top hitter :
.438 batting average with 25% K/ratio. Drafted.
Good contact hitter?
Can you read? How many times have I made this point?
Good hitter? Yes. Good contact hitter? No, he strikes out more than average. End of story. Please stop posting examples of good hitters who strike out a lot...
If the question is "what is a good K/AB percentage," then it stands to reason that we would look at the distribution of percentages, and decide at which point on that distribution we would define as "good."
It seems to me to make no sense to call a higher than average K/AB percentage "good."
Apply the question to velocity for a pitcher. "What is a good velocity for a D1 college pitcher?"
Would it make sense to say the average is 86, the top is 100, so a "good" velocity for a D1 pitcher is 85?
I don't think so. Nor does this mean that a D1 pitcher who throws 85 is not a good pitcher.
It seems to me to make no sense to call a higher than average K/AB percentage "good."
Apply the question to velocity for a pitcher. "What is a good velocity for a D1 college pitcher?"
Would it make sense to say the average is 86, the top is 100, so a "good" velocity for a D1 pitcher is 85?
I don't think so. Nor does this mean that a D1 pitcher who throws 85 is not a good pitcher.
Its really nice to see people looking at the many different metrics that are floating around, but I’m really amazed to see anyone try to correlate K/AB with BA. I can see K/AB with OBP or OPS, but not BA.
quote:Can you read?
Yes. That's a little condescending of you to come out with that. In fact, you were also pretty pompous to say you are "well versed in sabermetrics" and "have every Bill James abstract".
quote:How many times have I made this point
You haven't made a point yet. You've tried to put everything into nice tidy boxes. It isn't that simple. You are attempting to convert better-than-average, average and worse-than-average to good and not-good. The line is not a defined line because of other factors. It is a blurry line.
A .438 hitter (6th best in D1) is a good contact hitter. You cannot hit .438 without making good consistent contact. Yet, his K-ratio is higher than average. Either one of those as a stand-alone stat paint a picture. Together, they contradict. Hence the blurry line.
Too many .300 and .400 hitters (cannot get there without being good contact hitter) who have 20% k-ratios. So, it is your attempt to translate average (better or worse) to good/not-good that doesn't work.
Oh, BTW, his OBP (.557) is 2nd best in D1 and his OPS (1.392) is also 2nd best in D1, along with being 13th best in BB's. Not bad for a below average contact hitter and a liability in the lineup.
Nice post Rob, and a good analogy. 
quote:Nice post Rob, and a good analogy.
You're making my point. The pitcher's velocity is measured in one, and only one way. MPH!
Are we defining a good contact hitter by how much he makes contact (and reaches base safely), or by how much he swings and misses?
Because they are not mutually exclusive.
Pitchers velocity is. What if his fastball was 95 one outing, and 85 the next? That's the only way that anology translates to a hitter who can make contact one at-bat then swing and miss the next.
Levels example of Jack Cust is not relevent. He does not fit the contradiction profile. He is a .239 career hitter (.383 OBP) and he strikes out a lot. Clearly not a contact hitter.
Back to the conference leader: Sixth in BA, 2nd in OBP, 2nd in OPS is a very good contact hitter (even though his K-ratio is 25%).
quote:Originally posted by wayback:
Oh, BTW, his OBP (.557) is 2nd best in D1 and his OPS (1.392) is also 2nd best in D1, along with being 13th best in BB's. Not bad for a below average contact hitter and a liability in the lineup.
What are you reading that would make you think that I grade this hitter as a liabilty? Every single one of my posts have conceded the opposite.
Let's make this point one more time...I am stating that there is very little correlation between strike-out perecentage and productivity. Repeat...I am stating that there is very little correlation betweeen k % and productivity. Repeat...
...Therefore, I understand thoroughly that hitters can have high strike out perecentages and be productive. I have not made any implications that such hitters would be liabilties. You are incorrectly inferring this somehow.
However, let's define contact hitters as hitters who make contact more than average...85% of the time. So this hitter you are referring to would not be considered a contact hitter, regardless of the quality of the contact he made. I have always heard the term "contact hitter" applied to someone who does not strike often, regardless of productivity. Luis Castillo is a contact hitter...
Wayback:
you appear to be hung up on the queston of "contact hitter."
We can argue about what that is (although it seems pretty reasonable to assume that means a batter who strikes out less than average) but that wasn't what the original post asked.
It asked what a "good K/PA" percentage was. It seems pretty reasonable that an above average strikeout ratio is not a "good" K/PA percentage.
Would you agree with that?
you appear to be hung up on the queston of "contact hitter."
We can argue about what that is (although it seems pretty reasonable to assume that means a batter who strikes out less than average) but that wasn't what the original post asked.
It asked what a "good K/PA" percentage was. It seems pretty reasonable that an above average strikeout ratio is not a "good" K/PA percentage.
Would you agree with that?
I think our difference lies in definition of good.
I see your definition of good as being a translation of statistical averages (better/worse) to judgementally good (better/worse) based on an arbitrary line somewhere around average (or as Level says "somewhere around 85%"). The problem I have with that is the stat is not judged in a vacuum.
The isolated stat allows you to organize from better to worse. But, it doesn't define "good" until you draw a line and say everything to this side is good, and everything to that side is not good. Based on the number being mentioned, that definition of good is contrary to the practical application of what I see on teams (teams not in a fantasy league). Because there are too many "not good" contact hitters hitting in the "good" contact slots.
I accept saying a player is above average, average, or below average statistically speaking. That is a simple statistical determination. But, good is in the eye of the beholder.
I define good as being within the acceptance and tolerance levels of those who are in a position to judge (coaches who make out the lineup card and scouts/GMs/teams that draft players). Because, if the player is judged as "not good", he moves down the lineup and eventually to the bench.
"Good" is subjective, and dependent on other factors. To me, if he is still in the early part of the lineup, to those who make the decisions, he is good. Now, if production enters into that decision, then that's real world application, and why I said it may vary by type of hitter, and maybe even team philosphy. The more production, the more the tolerance. His K-ratio is acceptable for what he brings to the table...therefore, it is good.
So, "good" can be worse-than-average because it is within acceptable limits as defined by those who make out the lineup card and/or draft players. "Not-good" ends up not playing. Isn't that the ultimate deciding factor?
I took the question to mean what is good, meaning good to stay in the lineup (in other words, if the asker is concerned that his son's K-ratio is too high and may ultimately get him moved down or out of the lineup, then the acceptable level may vary based on other criteria).
Using my son's team as an example. The leadoff hitter (.310/.408/.871) also had a K-ratio of 21.6%. Your definition says he is not a good contact hitter because he was worse-than-average (isolating the stat). Yet, he remained the leadoff hitter on a top-40 D1 team, and was drafted as a junior. So, he was within the acceptable/tolerable limits of those who judge. And, ultimately, that makes it good/acceptable.
So, when the question was asked "What is a good K/AB ratio?". I guess the next question should have been "As determined by who and for the purpose of what?". That may have saved a lot of bandwidth.
I see your definition of good as being a translation of statistical averages (better/worse) to judgementally good (better/worse) based on an arbitrary line somewhere around average (or as Level says "somewhere around 85%"). The problem I have with that is the stat is not judged in a vacuum.
The isolated stat allows you to organize from better to worse. But, it doesn't define "good" until you draw a line and say everything to this side is good, and everything to that side is not good. Based on the number being mentioned, that definition of good is contrary to the practical application of what I see on teams (teams not in a fantasy league). Because there are too many "not good" contact hitters hitting in the "good" contact slots.
I accept saying a player is above average, average, or below average statistically speaking. That is a simple statistical determination. But, good is in the eye of the beholder.
I define good as being within the acceptance and tolerance levels of those who are in a position to judge (coaches who make out the lineup card and scouts/GMs/teams that draft players). Because, if the player is judged as "not good", he moves down the lineup and eventually to the bench.
"Good" is subjective, and dependent on other factors. To me, if he is still in the early part of the lineup, to those who make the decisions, he is good. Now, if production enters into that decision, then that's real world application, and why I said it may vary by type of hitter, and maybe even team philosphy. The more production, the more the tolerance. His K-ratio is acceptable for what he brings to the table...therefore, it is good.
So, "good" can be worse-than-average because it is within acceptable limits as defined by those who make out the lineup card and/or draft players. "Not-good" ends up not playing. Isn't that the ultimate deciding factor?
I took the question to mean what is good, meaning good to stay in the lineup (in other words, if the asker is concerned that his son's K-ratio is too high and may ultimately get him moved down or out of the lineup, then the acceptable level may vary based on other criteria).
Using my son's team as an example. The leadoff hitter (.310/.408/.871) also had a K-ratio of 21.6%. Your definition says he is not a good contact hitter because he was worse-than-average (isolating the stat). Yet, he remained the leadoff hitter on a top-40 D1 team, and was drafted as a junior. So, he was within the acceptable/tolerable limits of those who judge. And, ultimately, that makes it good/acceptable.
So, when the question was asked "What is a good K/AB ratio?". I guess the next question should have been "As determined by who and for the purpose of what?". That may have saved a lot of bandwidth.
I think what wayback is saying, is strike out ratio is not that important for everyone. The important numbers are OBP, OPS, and Slugging %. How you make an out is not as important as when you make an out. If you are striking out with a runner at third with less than 2 outs, it's a bad thing. But say you are a big slow guy with a runner on first with less than 2 outs. Do you really want someone to just get a bat on the ball? I'll take a strike out in that situation everytime over a double play.
Another situation would be a tie game and you are a guy with HR power, I would rather you swing with your best swing instead of just trying to make contact.
Another situation would be a tie game and you are a guy with HR power, I would rather you swing with your best swing instead of just trying to make contact.
quote:I define good as being within the acceptance and tolerance levels of those who are in a position to judge (coaches who make out the lineup card and scouts/GMs/teams that draft players). Because, if the player is judged as "not good", he moves down the lineup and eventually to the bench.
Jeez, wayback you sure seem to want to make something quite simple into something very complicated.
So is Ryan Howard a good contact hitter? He bats in the early part of the lineup.
powertoallfields: I agree that this is what wayback is saying, and I agree totally with the point, but it still is completely irrelevant to the question at hand.
Back to the pitching analogy: velocity may not be the most important pitching stat for everyone. Does that mean that every pitcher in the lineup has "good" velocity?
I really don't know what the hangup here is. Seems like some reluctance to use a value judgement term "good" in the place of and objective term "above average" or "below average."
Well, someone asks what a "good" pitching velocity is, I am not going to lecture them on the meaning of the word "good." I am going to answer the question he is asking.
quote:Well, someone asks what a "good" pitching velocity is, I am not going to lecture them on the meaning of the word "good." I am going to answer the question he is asking.
I believe the question in the beginning is the real problem. Not specific enough if he is trying to figure out how many times HE should be striking out. We didn't have enough information to answer the question in the best way.
The same concept can be taken with your Pitching analogy. If you are a knuckleballer or other off speed Pitcher, velocity means nothing. If you ask, what is a good velocity for a fastball Pitcher, you will get a different answer.
Apples to Apples!
Hitting is about scoring runs and Pitching is about getting people out, getting hung up on other numbers is kind of a waste of time, IMO.
quote:Originally posted by powertoallfields:The important numbers are OBP, OPS, and Slugging %….
Isn’t OPS OBP+SLGP?
quote:Originally posted by powertoallfields:
…Hitting is about scoring runs and Pitching is about getting people out, getting hung up on other numbers is kind of a waste of time, IMO.
If that’s all there is to hitting, why aren’t all hitters judged on Runs Scored? And if pitching is only about getting people out, why aren’t all pitchers judged simply the number of outs they can record in a game?
No matter how much anyone tries to simplify hitting and pitching, there are just too many factors involved to allow it to be simple.
quote:If that’s all there is to hitting, why aren’t all hitters judged on Runs Scored?
Different hitters have different jobs in a batting order, that was my point. To score runs people need to do THEIR job in the right situations. There needs to be balance in a line-up, if that wasn't true then Albert Pujols would be a lead-off hitter.
And if pitching is only about getting people out, why aren’t all pitchers judged simply the number of outs they can record in a game?
Pitchers ARE judged by how many outs they can record, but also when. A closer's job is usually to get 3 outs, sometimes just 1. Starters have a job, middle relievers have a job. Ask any Major league Manager what the Pitchers job is and he will say "to get the hitter out". Just like any job, the better you do your job...the longer you get paid to do it.
quote:Jeez, wayback you sure seem to want to make something quite simple into something very complicated.
Or... you want to make everything fit into nice tidy boxes with labels. It doesn't work that way. Every hitter is different. Their "good" is different from another's "good" because of variables. Is a "good" for Rod Carew the same as a "good" for, say, Harmen Killebrew?
quote:So is Ryan Howard a good contact hitter? He bats in the early part of the lineup.
Are you saying an MLB all-star isn't a good contact hitter? By which standard? Yours? Let me tell you, the closer your son gets to draft age, the more you see the "good" in every MLB player. There are no bums (although the guy next to me at the last night's game suggested otherwise...lol...nut job!). Are RH's coaches wrong in saying his contact is "good" given all the variables?
Again, "not-good" is on the bench (or sent packing), so they all are good to a degree.
There are less than a handfull of "not-good" on each good D1 team.
If you think otherwise....
...you'll see that next year when your son arrives on campus.
Good luck.
So your point all this time was that MLB and D1 ballplayers are good?
OK then. I am hereby enlightened.
OK then. I am hereby enlightened.
No, Kremer. You're not enlightened, just smug.
Reminds me of a Charles Barkley interview I heard years ago. He talked about fans and their knack of calling out players. Essentially, he said a pro-player's worst day is significantly better than any fan-in-the-stand's best day. He was right.
So, there you sit with your stats-for-dummies book judging who is good and who is not-good. I suggest you put the textbooks and scorebooks away.
Here's some help Kremer, in the MLB, they are all good. Some perform better than average, some perform around average, and some perform worse then average. MLB average. A level the majority of our kids will never sniff, and we have some pretty good kids on this website. See?
---------------------------------------
The problem I have is your useless definition of good. You organize the entire database in order of best to worst. Draw a line and say everything to this side is good and everything to that side is not-good. It is completely arbitrary and has no bearing on a single decision within the game. The problem is the isolation of the stat renders it meaningless. How do we know that? Because those who are "not good" (by your standard) are highly regarded in the best league in the world. But, then there's always fantasy leagues. You've got a head start there.
Now, my definition has functionality, meaning and is verifiable. The ratio is weighed against the player's complete body of work. Therefore, it's definition is unique to them because that player's production variables are unique and intertwined. Using your example of Ryan Howard, his K-ratio is good within the context of his production. It is below MLB average, but acceptable to those in judgement of him. How do we know that? Because he stays in the order. Now, at some point, if his K-ratio increased to a point of intolerance and they removed him from the lineup because of that, then and only then would it be "not-good".
The discussion only continues because you don't understand that the isolated stat has no use outside of fantasy leagues and stat-geek discussions. Again, how do we know that? Because players with your definition of "not-good" continue to play (because the stat only has meaning when weighed against that player's other production).
---------------------------------------
Not-good hitters in the MLB or high level D1 were good hitters at some level to make the move up. Not-good hitters definitely don't make it to the MLB or high level D1 teams and stick around.
Maybe they become Blue Devils. lol
Reminds me of a Charles Barkley interview I heard years ago. He talked about fans and their knack of calling out players. Essentially, he said a pro-player's worst day is significantly better than any fan-in-the-stand's best day. He was right.
So, there you sit with your stats-for-dummies book judging who is good and who is not-good. I suggest you put the textbooks and scorebooks away.
Here's some help Kremer, in the MLB, they are all good. Some perform better than average, some perform around average, and some perform worse then average. MLB average. A level the majority of our kids will never sniff, and we have some pretty good kids on this website. See?
---------------------------------------
The problem I have is your useless definition of good. You organize the entire database in order of best to worst. Draw a line and say everything to this side is good and everything to that side is not-good. It is completely arbitrary and has no bearing on a single decision within the game. The problem is the isolation of the stat renders it meaningless. How do we know that? Because those who are "not good" (by your standard) are highly regarded in the best league in the world. But, then there's always fantasy leagues. You've got a head start there.
Now, my definition has functionality, meaning and is verifiable. The ratio is weighed against the player's complete body of work. Therefore, it's definition is unique to them because that player's production variables are unique and intertwined. Using your example of Ryan Howard, his K-ratio is good within the context of his production. It is below MLB average, but acceptable to those in judgement of him. How do we know that? Because he stays in the order. Now, at some point, if his K-ratio increased to a point of intolerance and they removed him from the lineup because of that, then and only then would it be "not-good".
The discussion only continues because you don't understand that the isolated stat has no use outside of fantasy leagues and stat-geek discussions. Again, how do we know that? Because players with your definition of "not-good" continue to play (because the stat only has meaning when weighed against that player's other production).
---------------------------------------
Not-good hitters in the MLB or high level D1 were good hitters at some level to make the move up. Not-good hitters definitely don't make it to the MLB or high level D1 teams and stick around.
Maybe they become Blue Devils. lol
You, my friend, are a piece of work. Can you point to anything I wrote anywhere that suggested that I said anything about who was good and who was not good?
You repeat the same idiotic point time and again that nobody anywhere could possibly disagrees with, then try to claim that we are disagreeing.
Neither Level nor I said anything about who is and who is not a good hitter based on K percentage. In fact we both readily acknowledged that some hitters with higher K percentages are very valuable and productive hitters.
The more we acknowledge that point, the angrier you get, claiming we are sitting in judgement of hitting ability!
Ryan Howard is a great hitter. Ryan Howard is NOT a good "contact hitter." Ryan Howard does not have a "good" K percentage. Any coach in the Majors would happily have Ryan Howard in his lineup.
But what is the use. We have made this point about nine ways to Sunday, and you want to continue to make the brilliant rejoinder that MLB players are good hitters.
Thanks again. I'll keep in mind that the best players in the world are actually good.
You repeat the same idiotic point time and again that nobody anywhere could possibly disagrees with, then try to claim that we are disagreeing.
Neither Level nor I said anything about who is and who is not a good hitter based on K percentage. In fact we both readily acknowledged that some hitters with higher K percentages are very valuable and productive hitters.
The more we acknowledge that point, the angrier you get, claiming we are sitting in judgement of hitting ability!
Ryan Howard is a great hitter. Ryan Howard is NOT a good "contact hitter." Ryan Howard does not have a "good" K percentage. Any coach in the Majors would happily have Ryan Howard in his lineup.
But what is the use. We have made this point about nine ways to Sunday, and you want to continue to make the brilliant rejoinder that MLB players are good hitters.
Thanks again. I'll keep in mind that the best players in the world are actually good.
