Objective Hitting and Pitching numbers

I like it. I think that would be a pretty helpful bit of info for a coach. Regardless of HOW a particular player gets on base, it's good to know that in a pinch, "Timmy" is gonna find a way to get on every 2.5 plate appearances. Which is better than "chris" who only gets on every 2.75 or whatever. And if you've got those 2 guys available in the ninth, you know which one has been getting it done one way or another.

The same can be said for the pitching numbers.

quote:

Originally posted by alabama_lowlife:
I like it. I think that would be a pretty helpful bit of info for a coach. Regardless of HOW a particular player gets on base, it's good to know that in a pinch, "Timmy" is gonna find a way to get on every 2.5 plate appearances. Which is better than "chris" who only gets on every 2.75 or whatever. And if you've got those 2 guys available in the ninth, you know which one has been getting it done one way or another.

The same can be said for the pitching numbers.

You’re correct. That would be a pretty simple way to make some managing choices, but in all honesty, I was thinking beyond that. Every season the coaches get together, each with a list of his players and their stats, and then have a knock down, drag out free-for-all, where each tries to get his players picked for all-league honors.

Of course, most use the standard set of stats most people are used to, centered mostly on BA, OBP, RBI’s, TB’s, SB’s, FPct, ERA, W’s/L’s, K’s, Opponent’s BA & OPB.

Trouble is, out of all of those, only RBI’s and K’s are objective, and then its likely many RBI’s are mis-scored by scorers who don’t fully understand the scoring rules. Using only objective stats would eliminate most arguing about poor or “homer” scoring, and give some much needed validity to HS numbers.

That same paradigm could be use for pitching all-city and area-code players, and would certainly give a much clearer pitcher of players being actively recruited.

I keep all the stats and do my best to make sure all of the boys on our team are compared equally (with the possible exception of my own, who doesn't get as many benefits).

Bottom line, coach looks at their swing and contact and picks his lineup. Never looks at anything else. For pitchers, its how does the ball break 12-6 and can you throw strikes. End of story.

To answer your question, good stats and very beneficial for a coach who coaches that way. We have a nine hole hitter who rarely gets hits, but his speed is blinding and he's always on base. Lot's of times because the infield, during a routine play, figures out it isn't routine. Instead of 6-3, it's E-6 with a runner on second, who steals third and scores on a wild pitch that only gets 5' away. His stats stink and I'm always getting the question, "What is that kid hitting?" but then I tell them, "I don't know, but he's leading the team in runs scored" and they shut up.

I invented a stat for club ball called Quality At Bat (QAB). To get credit for a QAB, you got on base by any means other than a FC or you advanced a runner by any means. You QABA was QAB/PA.

After two years of careful study it didn't reveal anything meaningful.

My other observation would be, after less than 100 ABs, stats don't mean much. They are only slightly more significant after 200 ABs. Give a guy 300 samples and you're starting to get some real statistics.

It simply doesn't happen in HS. You don't get a larger enough sample size so you're always trying to rationalize. Pitcher's get to face a bunch more hitters, so you can get better averages.

Let the scouts decide who can hit / pitch at next level.

Stats, I love the number break down, but as I've told you, I'm a stat nerd. I teach Math. But a lot of people and coaches just don't get a rush from it.

I agree with JM about the low number of AB's in HS and Starts for pitchers. Coaches have told me that they really don't care about the stats, that they have the best nine on the field regardless of what the stats say. I hear parents gripe about that hot shot first baseman that has gone 1-12 over the last three games and their kid should get a shot. Those parents aren't at practice everyday or in the cages watching how players swing. Coaches will make their line up on the potential of the players. Some days it works and some it doesn't.

quote:

Originally posted by JMoff:
I keep all the stats and do my best to make sure all of the boys on our team are compared equally (with the possible exception of my own, who doesn't get as many benefits).

Bottom line, coach looks at their swing and contact and picks his lineup. Never looks at anything else. For pitchers, its how does the ball break 12-6 and can you throw strikes. End of story.

To answer your question, good stats and very beneficial for a coach who coaches that way. We have a nine hole hitter who rarely gets hits, but his speed is blinding and he's always on base. Lot's of times because the infield, during a routine play, figures out it isn't routine. Instead of 6-3, it's E-6 with a runner on second, who steals third and scores on a wild pitch that only gets 5' away. His stats stink and I'm always getting the question, "What is that kid hitting?" but then I tell them, "I don't know, but he's leading the team in runs scored" and they shut up.

Sorry to break up your post, but you have a couple different and important things going on, and I don’t want to get them confused.

As I said previously, while I am a stat nut and believe they can and will help a coach who understands them and is willing to use them for managing his team, I generate metric after metric to do that, and really don’t need another one. My thoughts here were not of comparing players on a team by the manager who is intimately familiar with them, but rather for comparing players the managers don’t see very often, but have to choose from for certain awards or commendations. FI, all-city, all-league, etc..

After having the benefit of many many different stats and being able to evaluate them for several years now, here lately we’ve found that one of the most helpful ways to evaluate what’s going on, is by looking at various metrics first by batting positions as a whole, i.e, 1 thru 9 with all of the at bats for each one separated by BPOS.

That gives a pretty unbiased look at what’s actually taking place. Once the big picture is understood, breaking each position down by the players who hit or fielded that position make it very easy to pick out the ones causing problems or giving lots of help.

quote:

I invented a stat for club ball called Quality At Bat (QAB). To get credit for a QAB, you got on base by any means other than a FC or you advanced a runner by any means. You QABA was QAB/PA.

After two years of careful study it didn't reveal anything meaningful.

I doubt you’d be surprised to hear that you aren’t the only “inventor” and user of QABs. I’ve had literally dozens of coaches tell me their version of a QAB because I wanted to program it in my program, but most versions have at least one or two things that might make a QAB that are totally subjective, and as you know, a computer only deals in 1’s an 0’s.

I am intrigued by your definition because its so simple. I’ve found over the years, that simple metrics are usually the best because there’s so little “wiggle room”. Allow me to pick at your definition in the hope of making it “better”, and possibly making it give meaning.

First of all, when you put qualifiers on what may or may not be a positive thing, such as getting on base, but not by a FC, you’ve built in a problem. It doesn’t happen a lot, but it happens enough that it should be accounted for, where a player safely 1st on an FC, but still moves a runner other than himself.

Now I didn’t see you’re entire definition, but it seems to me a player would get a “point” for a base hit, and another point if that hit moved a runner, giving it in essence twice the value. The same thing could be said for an ROE, or a walk or HBP that forced a runner on 1st to 2nd. But an FC wouldn’t get that same double dip, even if the FC didn’t produce an out and drove in a run. Something wrong there.

Here’s a suggestion. Forget whether or not the bat gets on, and concentrate on what he’s caused to happen.

More than 15 years ago, I came up with the MRU(Moved Runner Up) metric. One reason I did it was because I think BARISP is an absolutely horrible metric, but mainly because I wanted a way to show how the hitters were moving runners, which is what a hitter’s job really is.

If you’re interested in what it looks like, you can go to page 64 of http://www.infosports.com/scor...images/batting11.pdf That’s our team this season after 18 games.

But whichever one you use, you’ll be able to see that its pretty simple to spot the players getting the job done, and the high BA or BARISP definitely doesn’t equate to doing the best job of moving runners.

If you’d like to see an example of what I was talking about, about looking at some metrics by BPOS, go to page 77, and you’ll be able to see it broken down by player on page 78.

It looks to me as though you just made it too complicated, and by doing that made it very difficult to see any trends.

quote:

My other observation would be, after less than 100 ABs, stats don't mean much. They are only slightly more significant after 200 ABs. Give a guy 300 samples and you're starting to get some real statistics.

It simply doesn't happen in HS. You don't get a larger enough sample size so you're always trying to rationalize. Pitcher's get to face a bunch more hitters, so you can get better averages.

Well, I’d say that it depended on what one was trying to use those stats for, as to how much they meant. Trying to determine who would be able to hit in the ML by using only one HS season of numbers would indeed be a silly and wasted effort. However, a coach trying to determine who best to put in the lineup, where to put him in that lineup, and where to play him is something else again.

As long as one compares apples to apples, and the book is kept with a good degree of consistency, fairness, and adherence to the rules, the numbers are what they are. Now if you try to measure one team’s players with another’s, then there could easily be a problem. But as long as the same scorer is used, the numbers are perfectly valid. Would I count on them to make long term decisions? Heck no! But for the short term, they work very nicely.

It doesn’t happen in one season, but that’s why I do the numbers not by just one season, but I combine them as well. And its also why I use the combined data when I try to analyze something, not the seasonal stuff.

quote:

Let the scouts decide who can hit / pitch at next level.

I’ve never said anything different! All I’ve done is present a way to give them more information. There’s a boy pitching at the AF academy right now who was recruited very hard, not because he was striking out lots of hitters or had a low ERA, but because his GBO:FBO ratio was so high. At around 5,000’ above sea level, the last thing you want to do as a coach is stick pitchers on the bump who throw lots of fly balls.

As I said, all I’m trying to do is present data that as objective as possible, and in doing that its very possible some 5’ nothing kid that would otherwise not even be given a glance purely because of his physical stature might at least get a look. Funny thing about stats. Unless you put on them what the players physical traits are, actual analysis has to be done.

quote:

Originally posted by OK Heat:
Stats, I love the number break down, but as I've told you, I'm a stat nerd. I teach Math. But a lot of people and coaches just don't get a rush from it.

I agree with JM about the low number of AB's in HS and Starts for pitchers. Coaches have told me that they really don't care about the stats, that they have the best nine on the field regardless of what the stats say. I hear parents gripe about that hot shot first baseman that has gone 1-12 over the last three games and their kid should get a shot. Those parents aren't at practice everyday or in the cages watching how players swing. Coaches will make their line up on the potential of the players. Some days it works and some it doesn't.

True. Definitely not all coaches see value in stats, but its hilarious to me how they can say that, but then say they put the best players on the field, then when you ask them how they do that, they tell you about how this player hits the ball hard all the time, or that player throws nothing but strikes. Then when you look at the actual numbers, it becomes very apparent that what they’re really doing is using stats themselves, but those states are based on perceptions more often than not.

Just because coaches say they have the best 9 on the field doesn’t make it so. Its their responsibility though, and that’s enough to make it their call. I don’t have a problem with that at all. Where I have a problem is when a coach can’t or won’t say how he makes that determination because it makes it impossible for the lower echelon players to improve themselves. IOW, there’s no “beating” out a player ahead of you.

quote:

Just because coaches say they have the best 9 on the field doesn’t make it so. Its their responsibility though, and that’s enough to make it their call. I don’t have a problem with that at all. Where I have a problem is when a coach can’t or won’t say how he makes that determination because it makes it impossible for the lower echelon players to improve themselves. IOW, there’s no “beating” out a player ahead of you.

Ok now you're opening up a new can of worms. Yes, coaches will say they play their best 9. Of course this is his opinion as the head coach, and all coaches I have dealt with say they know not everyone will agree with them, but it's his decision.

Now the worms, The players start making their impressions on the coaches the minute they try out for the first season of summer ball before 9th grade. Many coaches decide right then and there, if they have a player. I feel they start projecting starters, and basically rank the players on a depth chart. Big kids are always favorites. Small kids, even with skills, are often descriminated against. Legacys are often favored, especially if big bro was a star. And then there are the Squeeky wheel parents. I know it shouldn't work, but it seems that when some parents meet with the coach and complain, it works for them. Not saying it always works, but sometimes it does.

Like I said, I truly love all the numbers and how they are broken down, but quite honestly, unless the coach teaches upper level math, I think he would be a bit intimidated by your stat sheets and certainly wouldn't want to admit he didn't understand it. I really can't imagine a HS coach pulling out a big spreadsheet and picking a pinch hitter based on the stats. Our HS season is around 40 games, 22 conference/non conference games are all that's allowed and then 3 tourneys. IMO it would take 2/3 of the season to really see any kind of real trend.

The sad fact is, coaches have their favorites and they have kids they just don't believe in. And like you ended your post, those players in the lower half of the depth chart really have no chance of beating out other players ahead of them. I believe this is why you see players move for their junior or senior years to a new school for a fresh opportunity.

I completely agree with the idea that hs stats are not a good sample for statistics. Any hitter at any level can fall into a slump of 10-20 at bats. In hs that could be anywhere from 20-25% of that players at bats. That alone can destroy a players batting average. Another stat that I think should be implemented somewhere but is opinionative is hard hit balls. It's crazy to see how many people hit the **** out of the ball but get out

quote:

Originally posted by OK Heat:
Ok now you're opening up a new can of worms. Yes, coaches will say they play their best 9. Of course this is his opinion as the head coach, and all coaches I have dealt with say they know not everyone will agree with them, but it's his decision.

Totally agree!

quote:

Now the worms, The players start making their impressions on the coaches the minute they try out for the first season of summer ball before 9th grade. Many coaches decide right then and there, if they have a player. I feel they start projecting starters, and basically rank the players on a depth chart. Big kids are always favorites. Small kids, even with skills, are often descriminated against. Legacys are often favored, especially if big bro was a star. And then there are the Squeeky wheel parents. I know it shouldn't work, but it seems that when some parents meet with the coach and complain, it works for them. Not saying it always works, but sometimes it does.

That was a very insightful paragraph, and one all REAL baseball people know in their heart is true, but won’t say it out loud in public, and for sure not where they’d be quoted for print.

What angers me isn’t that they do it because I’ve know that’s what goes on for the last 50 years! What grinds my gears is when I hear some coach pile on the clichés about how every player on his team has can move up simply by beating out the guy ahead of him, or if one watches, he can see how lopsided the opportunities are for the “favorites”.

quote:

Like I said, I truly love all the numbers and how they are broken down, but quite honestly, unless the coach teaches upper level math, I think he would be a bit intimidated by your stat sheets and certainly wouldn't want to admit he didn't understand it. I really can't imagine a HS coach pulling out a big spreadsheet and picking a pinch hitter based on the stats. Our HS season is around 40 games, 22 conference/non conference games are all that's allowed and then 3 tourneys. IMO it would take 2/3 of the season to really see any kind of real trend.

Intimidated, very likely, but to be honest, I’ve found that that’s not true because they don’t understand the math. The reason is, coaches aren’t know for having deep thoughts about why something happens or doesn’t happen on a baseball field. Most know it does because they hang around long enough to see a lot of things happen repeatedly, and most others know it does because they’ve heard the Gospel according to the sages for so long, they just accept it.

That by no means is intended as a knock on coaches! Actually it’s a compliment because I know when anyone takes the time to actually look at the numbers I generate, they don’t have much problem understanding them. So it isn’t the math, but rather the mass of numbers I think is intimidating. Its daunting to many people to find out that there’s more to the baseball numbers than the few things listed in the papers.

FI, to those of us who spend the majority of our baseball time on amateur baseball and enjoy the numbers, we know the things that man so much to ML players, don’t’ really mean dinky do to the lower levels, and the lower the level, the less they mean.

As far as the relatively few games played, as I’ve said many times, all it means is the resulting numbers can’t be counted on with the same degree of confidence as when more data points are used. FI, a player batting .475 after a season of 100 ABs, will probably do pretty well the next season. However, if someone were going to bet on it, they’d be much more likely to place a higher bet if the BA were based on 600 ABs rather than 100.

So it doesn’t mean the numbers aren’t any good for anything, just that they can’t be counted on as much as if there were more data points.

quote:

The sad fact is, coaches have their favorites and they have kids they just don't believe in. And like you ended your post, those players in the lower half of the depth chart really have no chance of beating out other players ahead of them. I believe this is why you see players move for their junior or senior years to a new school for a fresh opportunity.

I can’t say how much I agree with you, and what’s even more sad is that there are so many kids who’ve bought into the hype and keep trying, but can’t figure out why what they’re being told isn’t what’s happening. And what’s even worse is, that’s precisely what drives most of the parents considered PITA’s, absolutely crazy!

I’m one of those funny dudes who was brought up to believe telling the truth, even though someone may be hurt by it, is the quickest and best means to an end. If a kid really doesn’t have a chance to better his lot on a team, tell him right up front, and let him make the decision about how to proceed. Don’t keep stringing him along on false hope for his dad’s check, or to have someone to shag balls or do the field maintenance.

quote:

Originally posted by junior5:
I completely agree with the idea that hs stats are not a good sample for statistics. Any hitter at any level can fall into a slump of 10-20 at bats. In hs that could be anywhere from 20-25% of that players at bats. That alone can destroy a players batting average. Another stat that I think should be implemented somewhere but is opinionative is hard hit balls. It's crazy to see how many people hit the **** out of the ball but get out

The trouble isn’t the low number of data points, it’s the low number of recorded data points in one place. If all of a player’s games were kept in a database, things would be a heck of a lot different. For example, let’s say you’re a 14YO getting ready to start his HS career.

There’s normally summer ball that year, and that can be anywhere from 20-50 games. Then there’s fall ball with the HS team, and that’s usually 10-20 games. Now you go to the Fr season and its usually 30 games or so, and the whole thing beings again, and lasts until that player graduates.

So what you have is usually 50-100 games a year, and that could easily be over 1,000 ABs by the time they graduate. To me that’s a significant number of data points.

What you’re talking about is Quality At bats, but as you said, they’re so subjective they can’t even be defined, and worse, vary from person to person. The fact is, a hard hit ball is definitely impressive, but it has no value unless it produces something more than a loud noise. Who do you want on your team? A kid who hits the ball hard 50% of the time he puts the ball in play, but never produces a run, or a kid who hits nubbers and bloopers but driven in runs and is always on base?

I know it’s a hard pill to swallow, but in the world of baseball stats, what QABs are, is someone’s attempt to draw pictures on the scorecard. They definitely mean something to a manager, but in the huge world of baseball stats, they have absolutely no meaning at all. There’s no such thing as a Hard Hit ball average, and even if there was one, no one would be impressed.

It’s a great example of something which has meaning and value, but not outside the dugout. But, there are other ways to measure things like that, or even better things that have value but aren’t standard metrics.