"Quality AB" at East Cobb

FWIW....Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. For me a quality at bat is not he result but the approach. You can have a quality at bat, and still strike out. Fouling off good pitches and then eveentually striking out could be a quality at bat. Hitting a first pitch single in some siutations could be more luck than approach, and may not always be considered a quality at bat.

IMO a quality at bats begins in the on deck circle/dugout where the player is planning and focusing on what the pitcher is throwing in situations to the other hitters. I realize this is tough to measure. He gets to the plate, and gets his pitch to hit in his situation. That to me is a quality at bat.

actually the player went up to the plate looking for something hard away and took it that way.. first pitch... luck wasn't a factor.

I believe the criteria is any one of the following: 3+ pitches after 2 strikes, 6+ pitches overall, SHB (sac bunt), SHF (sac fly), HD, 2-out RBI.

Does anyone know what HD stands for (besides hi def)?

Congrats on the 2-2 day!

Juggler,

Some of these are really not a function of the batter's approach and shouldn't necessarily denote a "quality AB". To me a sac fly is just a guy trying for a hit that got the ball up and there happened to be a man on third. Same with a two out RBI since that's a function of someone being in scoring position. Does that mean the same AB or hit is not quality if no one is in scoring position or is thrown out at the plate?

quote:

Originally posted by bothsportsdad:
...player went two for two but was given only one quality AB in the box score?...

Why does it matter? He went 2-2. I'll take 2-2 any day over a QAB.

Here is the definition from the gamechanger site:

GameChanger QAB - [(2-strike at-bats ≥ 3 pitches seen) + (at-bats ≥ 6 pitches seen) + (hard hit balls) + (2-out RBI’s) + (sac bunt) + (sac fly)] / (total # of plate appearances) = QAB %

Three Bagger -

quote:

Some of these are really not a function of the batter's approach and shouldn't necessarily denote a "quality AB". To me a sac fly is just a guy trying for a hit that got the ball up and there happened to be a man on third. Same with a two out RBI since that's a function of someone being in scoring position. Does that mean the same AB or hit is not quality if no one is in scoring position or is thrown out at the plate?

I agree with your assessment. I gave Gamechanger's definition, which doesn't account for the guy who beats out a 2-2 infield hit to get the inning started, or the one who watches 2 fat fastballs down the pike, then takes four balls in the dirt. But the coaches, recruiters and scouts know a "quality" hitter when they see one.

do not equte a quality ab with a productive ab

thanks for the comments... and I wouldnt trade a hit for a quality AB notation... just trying to comprehend how a solid hit isnt not a quality AB. His hit was instrumental in us lengthening our lead as he was second up in the inning with a runner on first and his hit down the line in RF enabled the runner to take third. That runner scored. It was not me who was upset... the player went on line, found the box score (I didn't know such a recap even existed) and asked me why. I had no idea so I asked the question here.

This is how the Texas Rangers define a quality at bat. It has to meet one of the following criteria.

* Hit
* Walk
* Sacrifice Bunt
* Sacrifice Fly
* HBP/Catcher Interference
* Move Lead Runner Up w/Out
* Move Lead Runner Up w/Error
* 8 Pitch AB

According to what redbird posted, the gamechanger is not allowing a hit to be called a quality at bat?

Don't confuse ML QAB with HS QAB.

He went 2 for 2, don't worry about it.

quote:

Originally posted by redbird5:


Why does it matter? He went 2-2. I'll take 2-2 any day over a QAB.

Here is the definition from the gamechanger site:

GameChanger QAB - [(2-strike at-bats ≥ 3 pitches seen) + (at-bats ≥ 6 pitches seen) + (hard hit balls) + (2-out RBI’s) + (sac bunt) + (sac fly)] / (total # of plate appearances) = QAB %

Sounds like gamechanger is trying to reinvent the wheel. This formula seems kinda fugazy.

Here's a good article:

Defining the "Quality At Bat"

quote:

Originally posted by TRhit:
do not equte a quality ab with a productive sb

Boy is that a quote for the ages!!!!!

I’ve seen so many people get all caught up in this QAB thing as though it’s a batting average, when its nothing even close. All it is, is coaches trying to find an easy way to quantify their hitters because they know the simple metrics like BA and OBP leave a lot to be desired because they don’t tell the whole story. So what they do is try to find a way to make Bill who hit 4 hard shots that got caught, equal to Joe who got 2 scratch hits, drove in a run and scored twice.

But the thing is, while the way Bill hit the ball may be some indication that he’s about to explode offensively, that doesn’t diminish the fact the Joe was much more productive that game. The name of the game isn’t look good and make an out, its I don’t care how you look as long as you don’t make an out, or if you do, as long as you improve the team’s chances of winning.

Just a couple comments.

Any stat that appears to put a kid who strikes out 3 out of 4 times but does it on 8 or 9 piches ahead of a kid that drops one in and runs one down the line regularly on 2 or 3 pitches is a crazy stat.

Also, I take issue with the negative characterization of the quality of a sac fly. Many players adjust their plan at the plate when they are power hitters and know there is a guy in scoring position with less than two outs. This is even more true in a wood bat tourney where these guys know they are less likely to hit it out but feel confident they can hit it deep enough to score a fast runner from third.

Great discussion of this stat.

While I would use a different scale for QAB than the one listed...it's purpose is to take the outcomes out and focus on the process...and yes, the guys who lines out 4 times is more likely to have future success than the guy who hits to bleeders over the 2B head...although it's great that he did that and it may very well have helped his team win, hitting the ball hard is a better way to produce over the long haul...how exactly is one able to re-create the other?

It's not to diminish what the 2 bleeders did...it's meant to lend perspective to what the other guy did...what that being said, a hit is ALWAYS a QAB in every version of a QAB chart that i've ever seen used (15-20 different ones)

I really think the whole formula is to pad a players upside. Just because he hit 4 screaming liners that were caught or had 3 K's but it took 9-11 pitches to do so does not show me any production ............did he advance runners, drive in runs....NO.

Isn't the short of it to score one more run than the other team! Yes I agree it is just a measuring stick but to much emphasis is being put on these types of stats. True production is getting on base, moving runners, scoring runs. JMHO

We preach being goal oriented, opposed to result oriented. This is why QAB's are worth more to me than batting averages. Plus, in HS baseball there's a large gap between a team's #1 and #4.

As stated by others, 2-2 is a good day, regardless of QAB's.

quote:

Originally posted by YesReally:
Any stat that appears to put a kid who strikes out 3 out of 4 times but does it on 8 or 9 piches ahead of a kid that drops one in and runs one down the line regularly on 2 or 3 pitches is a crazy stat.

Only if a coach is actually dumb enough to put a non-hitting high-QAB hitter ahead of a high production hitter. I think a smart coach only looks at QAB to help decide whether to keep a struggling 7,8,9 hitter in the line-up for one more game...see if he's about to break out.

quote:

Many players adjust their plan at the plate when they are power hitters and know there is a guy in scoring position with less than two outs.

TOTALLY agree with this statement, though.

quote:

Originally posted by bsballfan:… a hit is ALWAYS a QAB in every version of a QAB chart that i've ever seen used (15-20 different ones)

And therein is the primary fallacy of a QAB. You’ve seen or used 15-20 different ones, and I’m sure there’s at least another 100 or more out there. When there is no agreement as to what something means, its useless for anything other than for 1 specific coach to judge his players, which is all it should be used for in any event.

Over the last 15 years or so, I’ve tried at least 20 times to program a QAB into my stat program. When someone says they have the perfect QAB I get them to start defining it and I start programming it. Usually they look a lot like that thing from Gamechanger at 1st, but every single time, sooner or later something subjective sneaks into the equation, and things go straight to HE double hockeysticks. The result is, I’ve never yet been able to come up with a satisfactory definition that can be programmed.

Quality is in the eye of the beholder. I coached showcase softball before gettting into coaching travel baseball. The star player popped up with the coach of her top college choice watching. I asked the coach to stay for another at bat. He said he had to check out another player but would be back to talk to her. What he saw was battling to foul off several pitches before popping up. He saw solid swing mechanics. He saw bat speed. He saw her smoke down the line (hustle) on a pop up. The statistical result was not important.

quote:

Originally posted by Stats4Gnats:

quote:

Originally posted by bsballfan:… a hit is ALWAYS a QAB in every version of a QAB chart that i've ever seen used (15-20 different ones)

And therein is the primary fallacy of a QAB. You’ve seen or used 15-20 different ones, and I’m sure there’s at least another 100 or more out there. When there is no agreement as to what something means, its useless for anything other than for 1 specific coach to judge his players, which is all it should be used for in any event.

Over the last 15 years or so, I’ve tried at least 20 times to program a QAB into my stat program. When someone says they have the perfect QAB I get them to start defining it and I start programming it. Usually they look a lot like that thing from Gamechanger at 1st, but every single time, sooner or later something subjective sneaks into the equation, and things go straight to HE double hockeysticks. The result is, I’ve never yet been able to come up with a satisfactory definition that can be programmed.

This is the best one i've seen...be interested to see how it works on your stat program.....

Hit

Hard Hit Ball (actually have criteria, but still somewhat subjective)

BB

HBP

Advance a Runner with 0 outs

Well Placed Bunt (most subjective of the group)

RBI

8 Pitch AB

It is very hard to find a universal "QAB" formula,
but as long as you use the same yardstick to every player on a team,
you will get a realtive scale of the things you are trying to measure.

The actual events you reward could be adjusted from time to time or coach to coach.



Here's the formula I use:

Quality At-Bat Points:

Hard Hit Ball 1
Extra Base Hit 1
Ball in Play 1
Reach Base Safely (any way) 1
Reach via BB / HBP / INT 1
Advance Runner / Sac / RBI 1
6+ Pitch AB 1

Called 3rd Strike -1
Ground into Double Play -1


A single Plate Appearence could concievably produce up to 6 QAB points, or as little as -1.

The QAB points are divided by Plate Appearances to produce the QAB/PA index.



...and some of the rationale:


The hitter is rewarded for outcomes which help the team,
**AND** for good ABs which lead to outs, and dinged for outcomes which hurt the team.


No extra point for each hit, as these will be rewarded with at least 2 points anyway...
(After some tinkering I decided I liked it better adding an extra point for reaching via BB/HBP/Int,
so as to give those more reward than reaching on Error or Fielder's Choice.)


You can easily compute this using just the data already on the scoresheet,
as long as you notate the Hard-Hit-Balls.
(The only "subjective" component, but pretty easy to determine.
Most coaches and scorers know a hard-hit ball when they see one...)


In youth ball, over our last short season, the scale ranged from 1.231 to 2.583, with a team average of 2.12

I just like the idea of being process oriented...if a guy hits a bases loaded line drive at the ss, he did his part (presumably got a good pitch to hit) and hit the ball on the screws...game is too hard when you get caught up in whether or not they had a guys standing there or not...worry about getting a good pitch to hit and hitting it hard, do that enough and you'll have a great year.

FWIW.. I talked with a PG rep on the last day. The hit must be in the subjective eye of the person inputting the info into the computer a hard hit ball. He said it must be a hard hit ground ball or a line drive. As I originally mentioned, it wasnt a duck snort but obviously not a hard enough hit to get the QAB designation. Which brings up the scenario.. suppose you have a speedy guy who has the drag bunt as part of their arsenal. Can he ever drag bunt for a hit and get a QAB?