pitching effectiveness

Can you give us more information than that? Who sent you that score?

 

How “effective” a pitcher is, is much the same as how “successful” they are or how well they “perform, and depends entirely on how individual defines it. It could mean the number of pitches it takes to get rid of batters, the batters OPS against him, how many runners he allows, how many runs he gives up, or any of about a million other measurements.

 

If you believe in Bill James, check this out. http://www.billjamesonline.com/stats21/

 

the son was pitching in the chicago metro league this summer and at the end of the year he sent his stats.i never heard of pitching effectiveness and wondered what wonderful equation was used to get this new fangled measurement of pitching success.ther are two categories the first is GO which he rated a 31.the second is AD..I believe or its AO..a very blurry copy,,anyway the score there is 20.I also have some stats like innings pitched balls/strikes.hits era ball strike ratio etc etc..but just wondering if there was a set formula?

I think AO is "air outs" as in fly balls. GO are ground outs. 

 

Im sure someone will correct me if I am wrong.

Originally Posted by Goosegg:

I think AO is "air outs" as in fly balls. GO are ground outs. 

 

Im sure someone will correct me if I am wrong.

 

I think you’re right on, although I see that as typically Ground Ball to Fly Ball ratio.

I’ve never seen either of those expressed as a number like 31 or 20. This is only a guess, but I’m thinkin’ those numbers are a pitcher’s rank among all pitchers in that category. IOW, of all the pitchers in that league, the boy was 31 in ground outs and 20^th in air outs.

 

wogdoggy,

 

Which Chicago Metro League is it? I looked and there are different leagues under that heading. Try to get the exact name and age group.

 

If I can find their stats, there’s a good chance I can answer your question.

I don't think it's a rating, but rather a raw number. 31 groundouts and 20 flyball outs. Gamechanger, for example keeps these stats. There is probably also a GO/AO percentage in the stats package somewhere.

Actually, these may be GC stats. I think effeciency is one of the three GC pitchers stat catagories.

its the chicagoarea metro league a college player summer league  he played for the wheaton white sox..i believe the you may be right about fly outs versus ground outs

 

we have 27 inninings pitched 109 batters faced 137 balls,278 strikes ball /strike ratio.049,PIT??415..runs6..Er 5.era 1.30 k,26 hits 23 BB 7.k/bb3.71.also K/GI 6.74        .bb/gi1.81  wondering if all these stats make up a pitching effectiveness NUMBER or the categories will show his pitching effectiveness.when i first saw GO/AO percentage I didn't think of ground outs..i thought it was a pitching effectiveness" rating or formula..thanks for the help..i'll look into it on gamechanger

 

Maybe it's this:

 

http://www.beyondtheboxscore.c...bill-james-tom-tango

 

http://www.hometeamsonline.com...p;s=baseball&t=c

 

 

http://www.aaabatournament.com/

 

he also closed for the aaaba tournament.

 

These are typical pitching stats.

GO/AO is not a formula or where the pitcher fell in relation to others but actually stats.  He threw 31 ground outs and 20 fly outs.

Out of how many outs he made, stats should show how many were strikes, ground outs and fly outs (also called AO). It also tells what type of pitcher he is. Does he get more outs for strike outs or more for ground outs, fly outs. This can give an idea of how effective a pitcher was for a season.

Just remember, more strike outs, more pitches thrown.

 

BTW, if he pitched 27 innings and faced 109, that means the average batters faced per inning was about 4.3.  Total pitches thrown divided by how many batters he faced is a little less than 4 pitches thrown per batter.

Sounds pretty effective to me.

 

 

I was thinking the same thing...

I am assuming that GO/AO was a season total.  Usually that stat is shown per game.

season total..thanks guys now i get it  ground outs and "air" outs..the stat that impressed me the most was 137 balls against 109 batters.thanks for help.

Its hard to understand ball calls unless you are there.  As long as his walks are minimal its all good.

actually the stats he sent me ONLY included the pitchers on his team..he pretty much led in all categories so I dont believe the 31 /20 number is based off other pitchers,,it is an actual stat for the year out of the 109 batters faced add 26 strike outs 23 hits 7 walks and two hbp and your close to 109....thanks .

Originally Posted by wogdoggy:

…it is an actual stat for the year out of the 109 batters faced add 26 strike outs 23 hits 7 walks and two hbp and your close to 109....thanks .

 

I don’t generate that exact report, but isn’t it better to see that rather than just the same tired old pitcher’s stats? Not that the old stats didn’t say anything. The new ones just tell a lot more about a pitcher.

What "new" stats are you referring to  mr.stats?

All, every, stat tells us something about how a player performed during his season or game against the level he played at.

 

However, it doesn't tell us how successful that player might be in four or five years at a much higher level.

 

Some stats are more revealing than others, especially at the amatuer level.  For example high school pitchers that are exceptionally talented (Draft types) will almost always have high strike out numbers.  When that combines with low BB numbers it stands out even more.   There are exceptions, and throwing to contact can be a good thing at any level.  But the best pitchers in high school are so dominant that contact just doesn't happen as much.  It's not unusual to see the very best averaging around two strike outs an inning.

so when we hear about someone with very high strike out numbers, we check him out. 

 

BTW, I love statistics.  The more the better.  

Good post PG, I like stats too.

 

What I dont like is when someone starts to make stats more complicated than they have to be. These stats were end of season, what they should look like for amateurs who play competitive ball.  They are not new.

 

 

 

Careful PG, you treading mighty close to a very sore subject.

 

I like what you said about every stat providing information. I think where a lot of problems with them come, is because its seldom people look at them for the same reason. Another disconnect comes because not all people have access to the same stats. FI, you have access to lots of stuff I don’t because you’re looking for a different reason. Likewise, I look at lots of stuff you don’t for the same reason. Then there are those who don’t have access to a lot of stuff either of us has, so only having access to minimum stats, they can’t understand why we feel the way we do about what we look at.

 

All I can say is, the use of numbers is growing every year, and I think it makes the game better because it makes it more difficult to succeed.

 

Why would you tell PG he is treading close to a sore subject.

He presented his explanation well, without making it too complicated for the OP

 

Its you that complicates the subject.

I think PG is saying something we all know and has been discussed previously and that is draft or college spots are not driven by numbers.  Coaches and scouts look at the physical tools and try to look inside chests and heads to evaluate players.

 

From what I can see the time statistics really mean the most in the business of baseball is when it comes time to get paid.  They are the measure of performance for one player against others of his peer group which drives the next contract.  When the numbers go then so does the player.

Originally Posted by luv baseball:

…From what I can see the time statistics really mean the most in the business of baseball is when it comes time to get paid.  They are the measure of performance for one player against others of his peer group which drives the next contract.  When the numbers go then so does the player.

 

I take it that since no amateur gets paid, you believe statistics have absolutely no value what-so-ever in amateur ball.

He said "really mean the most", not "have absolutely no value what-so-ever".  You should read more carefully.  And who wouldn't agree with this statement?

Nice post smitty. 
TY

       
       

He also said "in the business of baseball". Doesn't sound like he's even talking about amateur baseball at all.

TY bballman as well for pointing that out too.

Reading and understanding the way a post is intended wouldn't fit the agenda.

Originally Posted by bballman:

He said "really mean the most", not "have absolutely no value what-so-ever".  You should read more carefully.  And who wouldn't agree with this statement?

 

I did read it very carefully, several times. That’s why I ended up putting a after what I said.

 

I was kidding! Joking! Yanking his chain!

 

How is it you didn’t see a picture, or is it that you think I’m incapable of doing anything but attacking someone for no good reason?

 

And for the record, I think there are a lot of people who wouldn’t agree with that statement. But so what? Is disagreement no longer allowed here?

 

Gosh. Lighten up a little bit.

Uhhhh......  I think you misquoted me. No big deal, but you picked and chose your edit wrong. Maybe that's why there's so much disconnect between you and other people here Stats. Point may apply, but I didn't make the statement you quoted me as making.

Originally Posted by bballman:

Uhhhh......  I think you misquoted me. No big deal, but you picked and chose your edit wrong. Maybe that's why there's so much disconnect between you and other people here Stats. Point may apply, but I didn't make the statement you quoted me as making.

 

I wholeheartedly apologize. It was Smitty28 who said that.

 

I make no excuse because misquoting someone is a terrible thing to do. I can only say that I’m glad it doesn’t happen more with the format this site uses to quote.

 

The reason I quote the way I do is to try to be as exact as I can be when I respond to something. This time I took what was said in your post rather than the original quote because I didn’t notice it.

 

Again, I apologize, and I do appreciate your noting that the point I was making might have merit.

No problem. We all make mistakes.

I think the OP got the answer he was looking for.
Give it up stats.
And get a day job.

I personally put restock in WHIP than any other pitching stat.  If your WHIP is low, your other numbers are likely to be very good.