Originally Posted by bballman:
Stats, I hear what you are saying, but even with data on what happened on every pitch on every 3-2 count, that does not take into consideration whether that pitch was a 50/50 pitch or a pitch right down the middle belt high. Until that can be quantified, you can't tell the effectiveness of taking or swinging at a borderline (50/50) pitch. We can theorize about it, but you can't back up a theory using data without knowing whether every single 3-2 pitch was a 50/50 pitch vs. a definite ball or a definite strike.
It is true that the data on all 3-2 pitches does not in itself lead to any perfectly valid conclusions, but it does whittle the data down to something a bit more manageable than every pitch on every count. That means whatever conclusions are made are that much more valid. It’s a start, and it would be more valid than just theorizing with absolutely no proof other than memory of what was thought to have taken place.
I do have my own personal thoughts as to whether the entire thought about taking a 50-50 pitch on a 3-2 count is valid, but I’m not trying to convince anyone that what I think is true. I’m more than willing to let it be tested, but no one seems to want to do that. Rather than do what’s difficult and try to gather useful data, everyone seems to be willing to just theorize.
Here’s what I perceive we’re talking about. An event that happens on approximately 3-4% of all pitches in the game. A pitch on a 3-2 count. Then we also put more restrictions on it in that we’re only talking about 3-2 counts for batters that lead off an inning. I don’t have a clue on what percentage of all pitches that would be, but it wouldn’t be very large seeing as its only some percentage of the 3-4%. Then we’re talking about an event interior to that event, whether the pitch is in whatever the 50-50 zone is that no one can seem to define in such a way that the definition would be generally accepted.
I know this isn’t a large sample, but it is a sample. Of 14,621 at bats. 3,130 were leading off an inning. Of those, 420 ended on a 3-2 count, and they’re the only ones whose OBP might be improved by not swinging. Accepting that pitchers at all levels throw about 60% strikes, that would mean 168 would reach base on a walk if they didn’t swing. Of those 420, 52 got base hits, 164 walked, and 3 were hit by a pitch. So 219 reached doing nothing different, but 168 MIGHT reach employing the strategy of simply not swinging for any reason.
Yes, I could get more precision if I only considered the 50-50 pitches, but to me all that would do is reduce the improvement, if any, to such a negligible amount, I question whether it would be worth the trouble to get every hitter to add that strategy to their batting plan, not whether or not the plan has merit.
I love the mental exercise and the discussion, but I’d really like someone out there who has the numbers to even consider, to let us know what their numbers show. That’s why I thought PG would have them, since his organization gets to see scads more games than I do. I wasn’t saying the idea didn’t have merit. I just wanted to try to quantify what that merit would be.
