Question For Coaches

7/8 hole hitters get a lot more good fastballs to hit than 3/4 hole hitters do. Maybe the coach had them down there to get them more fastballs.

Never seen a stat book from any team I've ever coached so I probably can't help you much.

Fastballs is probably your answer.

I am sure the coach has a reason, and if you never coached, maybe you should just let him do it.

He is a paid professional, at least if he still can keep his job when state budget hammers everyone not assoicated with football.

quote:

Originally posted by Ken Guthrie:
Never seen a stat book from any team I've ever coached so I probably can't help you much.

Scary this still exists and also confirms the worst fears of parents.

quote:

Originally posted by The Big Hurt:

quote:

Originally posted by Ken Guthrie:
Never seen a stat book from any team I've ever coached so I probably can't help you much.

Scary this still exists and also confirms the worst fears of parents.

Why? Stats are the most overrated and manipulated parts of the game. You can take virtually any stat and create any argument you want. If you know baseball then you know who's getting it done. You don't need stats to make out a lineup and since I don't discuss playing time with parents then I don't have to defend anything to them.

quote:

Originally posted by coach2709:

quote:

Originally posted by The Big Hurt:

quote:

Originally posted by Ken Guthrie:
Never seen a stat book from any team I've ever coached so I probably can't help you much.

Scary this still exists and also confirms the worst fears of parents.

Why? Stats are the most overrated and manipulated parts of the game. You can take virtually any stat and create any argument you want. If you know baseball then you know who's getting it done. You don't need stats to make out a lineup and since I don't discuss playing time with parents then I don't have to defend anything to them.

Coaches should never discuss playing time with parents, agreed.

Not paying attention to stats means you're not paying attention to information. The kid who goes 6 for 19 with 6 walks is told that he's not aggressive enough at the plate although his OBP is a very healthy .480.

True, if you have this year's Yankee line-up, who cares about stats?

A monkey could pick names out of a hat every day (moving to his bucket the rest of the day) and that team would score 850-900 runs over 162 games.

Teams that are not stacked with talent need to find more efficient ways to produce offense. If you're a coach that's been blessed with an inordinate amount of talent, your job is easy and stats aren't as important.

How is a coach not caring to see any stats when he manages a team different than a pilot not wanting to use instruments when he flys? Sure you can fly by sight, but what harm comes from more information?

quote:

Originally posted by longhorns87:
Fastballs is probably your answer.

I am sure the coach has a reason, and if you never coached, maybe you should just let him do it.

He is a paid professional, at least if he still can keep his job when state budget hammers everyone not assoicated with football.

Good point. Coaching staffs at some schools I know of are being cut by 2-3 guys.

Stats don't reflect those screaming line drives that find gloves that turn a great at bat into a 0 - 1.

Stats don't reflect that 3 - 4 day against a team who is not very good and an average team would have made the plays to turn that into an 0 - 4 day.

Stats don't accurately reflect that guy who pinch hits and has 4 or 5 hits got those against weaker pitchers. Against better pitchers he would struggle.

Take a young pitcher who has very little experience against an average team. He has all the talent in the world but he leaves the game giving up 4 runs in 5 innings - did he have a good day or not? If those runs were screamers and the defense didn't have much of a chance then it wasn't a good day. But what if he got into jams and worked his way out or had to overcome errors by the defense. I would say for a young pitcher (well any for that matter) he had a good day.

I know you guys aren't saying make all decisions based on stats and I do look at stats but not that closely. In my experience when I do look at the stats it really doesn't confirm or go against what I've seen. You got to know the game in order to be able to make decisions but stats really shouldn't go that much into them.

Pilots that use instruments don't fly blindly by instruments...they use them as a tool. I find it interesting when coaches don't want to use the tools available to them. Using them together with their judgment is wise.

The pilot analogy doesn't work. If the instruments say you're 1000 feet off the ground then you're 1000 feet off the ground. Those instruments are (or hopefully are) 100% perfect. You can fly a plane on instruments alone and be pretty much safe but if you only use stats to fill out a lineup card you can't guarantee success.

I'm not saying discard stats completely but they really aren't all that important either.

Not 100%...but my point is instruments tell you different things, and no one can be used by itself. They have to be used together with judgment. But it would be a mistake to ignore them. You and I agree coach2709.

Well we took the scenic route but I guess we did come to a consensus

It looks like the consensus has been reached. But to just point out a semantic thing, those coaches that say they don't utilize stats are just fooling themselves. While they may not be looking at empirical numbers on a spreadsheet, they are in fact making a statistical evaluation in their own minds. A coach doesn't need to see that a hitter successfully SAC bunts 5% of the time to realize that he's not going to count on that batter in crunch time to execute a SAC bunt.

Simple question...

Player 1 goes 1-3 in a game...

-1 line drive up the midde
-1 deep fly ball to left field for an out
-1 ground out to second with a runner on 2nd no outs
-1 base on balls

Player 2 goes 3-3 in the same game...

-1 squiber past the pitcher on 2-0 count that SS can't make the throw in time.
-1 ground ball through 3b and SS hole
-1 flare over the 2b's head w/ infield in.

let's not even talk about the score of the game or the qaulity of pitcher on the mound per hitter.

Who do you want hitting in the 3 hole with tying run on third last inning w/ no outs?

Player 1

quote:

Originally posted by funneldrill:
Player 1

But he's only hitting .333 compared to player #2 who is hitting .1000???

If you aren't using your tools as a coach you need to be fired. Please rethink your choice. You could be a parents worst fear.

As presented, I don't care eitherway. Runner on third and no outs, both players have put the ball in play. So it's likely they will again and score the runner. It would be a different story if one or the other was prone to strikeouts.

quote:

Originally posted by Clemson896:
As presented, I don't care eitherway. Runner on third and no outs, both players have put the ball in play. So it's likely they will again and score the runner. It would be a different story if one or the other was prone to strikeouts.

So ball in play = success ????

A coaches worst fear.

It very well may....if the lone objective is to get the runner at third to score.....

If you take pass balls, wild pitches, and 3 consecutive walks off the table....a ball in play is the only way the runner scores.....

I'm not sure I understand your sarcasm..."ball in play = success?"....how many games are won without putting the ball in play and forcing the defense to make a play?

quote:

Originally posted by Ken Guthrie:
Simple question...

Player 1 goes 1-3 in a game...

-1 line drive up the midde
-1 deep fly ball to left field for an out
-1 ground out to second with a runner on 2nd no outs
-1 base on balls

Player 2 goes 3-3 in the same game...

-1 squiber past the pitcher on 2-0 count that SS can't make the throw in time.
-1 ground ball through 3b and SS hole
-1 flare over the 2b's head w/ infield in.

let's not even talk about the score of the game or the qaulity of pitcher on the mound per hitter.

Who do you want hitting in the 3 hole with tying run on third last inning w/ no outs?

KG- Didn't you just use stats (information) to make your point. Yes.... stats sometimes lie but a majority of the time they give good, reliable information. Over the long haul stats become much more accurate and helpful.

This really doesn't seem hard to understand. You guys are kidding yourselves if you don't think a coach who works every day in practice and stands at third for each AB of games doesn't know his hitters. What they can hit and what they can't, what situations they are good in and not so good in. Sure stats are what they are but any good coach doesn't need stats to fill out a lineup card. (In fact a couple very good ones just spoke)

quote:

How is a coach not caring to see any stats when he manages a team different than a pilot not wanting to use instruments when he flys?

How about this one, used car salesman is trying to sell you a car that has low miles and is in good shape interior and exterior for book value. You start the car and you can hear noises and black smoke is coming out of the exhaust. What do you believe, the stats or your eyes and ears?

I believe the mechanic

quote:

Originally posted by LionPop:
This really doesn't seem hard to understand. You guys are kidding yourselves if you don't think a coach who works every day in practice and stands at third for each AB of games doesn't know his hitters. What they can hit and what they can't, what situations they are good in and not so good in. Sure stats are what they are but any good coach doesn't need stats to fill out a lineup card. (In fact a couple very good ones just spoke)

I think there is a misunderstanding of what stats are. The coach that "knows" his players is simply using stats (probabilities) calculated in an informal manner (not on paper or a spreadsheet) to make his decisions. Anyone that says baseball is not about stats/probability is simply in denial. Coaches are ultimately judged on wins vs. losses (a statistic) and players move from one level to the next based almost entirely on stats. Albert Pujols isn't wanting to be paid the most in the MLB because he's a "nice guy" and does great community work. It's because he has one of, if not the best, stat sheets of anyone in baseball for the last 10 years.

Anyone comparing MLB stats and probabilities to HS numbers might as well group horses with cows.

The difference is about 130 games in a season and roughly 450+ at bats.

And let's not even compare a career.

When Big Poppy was hitting a buck twenty going into May last year, I didnt see him slip to the 9 hole.

Last summer I was fortunate enough to fill out a line up card for the second best 18u summer team in the country including Canada and Puerto Rico.

I can't tell you our season record or any stat from any player.

I can tell you that I caught 8 rainbows and 1 brown on the San Jaun though.

This is such a circular argument on this message board because it is a HS message board. My point is the stats each of you are going off of do not have nearly the sample size for a true determination for future success.

By the time the sample size starts to grow, the environment around these players in which the sample size was taken changes - players graduate, season is over, etc.

As seasons get longer and the sample size grows within a season or even career, choices tend to get clearer. Anyone who thinks advanced metrics isn't how the game is ran at higher levels is extremely naive.

As for HS, it is usually somewhat easy to use the eye test to see who is going to have future success because the disparity of talent is great. The higher the level the less disparity in talent. In MiLB eyeballing throughout your organization will lead to organizational doom because you would be eyeballing hundreds of seemingly similar people until you dig further.

Also, specific stats can tell a coach what will happen in the future. 'Luck' is probably one of the more overlooks aspects of the game. Last year in Barry Zito's first 7 starts he was 5-1 with a sub 2 ERA - those numbers don't mean anything though. Batters were hitting something like 180 points lower than the league average on ball batted in play. He was basically getting lucky. That number would eventually regress back to the mean and ball put in play would not be caught. I made some money off a good friend who played with him at USC - I bet that he wouldn't have a sub 4 ERA for the year.

Numbers can tell you a lot but you need a lot of data. You also need similar players.

quote:

Originally posted by RLB:
This is such a circular argument on this message board because it is a HS message board. My point is the stats each of you are going off of do not have nearly the sample size for a true determination for future success.

By the time the sample size starts to grow, the environment around these players in which the sample size was taken changes - players graduate, season is over, etc.

As seasons get longer and the sample size grows within a season or even career, choices tend to get clearer. Anyone who thinks advanced metrics isn't how the game is ran at higher levels is extremely naive.

As for HS, it is usually somewhat easy to use the eye test to see who is going to have future success because the disparity of talent is great. The higher the level the less disparity in talent. In MiLB eyeballing throughout your organization will lead to organizational doom because you would be eyeballing hundreds of seemingly similar people until you dig further.

Also, specific stats can tell a coach what will happen in the future. 'Luck' is probably one of the more overlooks aspects of the game. Last year in Barry Zito's first 7 starts he was 5-1 with a sub 2 ERA - those numbers don't mean anything though. Batters were hitting something like 180 points lower than the league average on ball batted in play. He was basically getting lucky. That number would eventually regress back to the mean and ball put in play would not be caught. I made some money off a good friend who played with him at USC - I bet that he wouldn't have a sub 4 ERA for the year.

Numbers can tell you a lot but you need a lot of data. You also need similar players.

So 2 district games a week isn't enough?

I got one for you. Coach does not use batting average, or his eyes to set the line up. He uses a system of P's (productive AB). In his world a slow dribbler back to the pitcher that is booted or overthrown at first is productive. A 375 ft rocket to the center fielder that is caught is not. If this happens to the same two players several times the guy hitting dribblers getting lucky plays while the kid hitting rockets sets. Who would you rather have? I'll take the kid hitting the ball hard every time.

quote:

Originally posted by Ken Guthrie:

So 2 district games a week isn't enough?

I said it was a circular argument and it is in HS. One could cherry pick if motivated enough. I liked your player 1/player 2 example, it is this mixture of eye test and eventual evening out of the numbers that will settle in HS ball. In your example, player 1 will eventually get the long fly out in the gap or out of the park, regardless, the guy who is squaring the ball more often will eventually have better numbers.

To answer the question, yes, but player 2 in your example could very well be hitting within range of player 1 or better than the majority of his team (lets assume player 2 really not as good as many of the others on his team, how my gosh drama on the HS message boards!).

There are teams that play a weak non-district schedule and in those tournaments, even the good teams get some younger guys or bubble guys innings to see where they fit on the team. Maybe player 2 feast on 78 mph poorly located fastballs? Then 3 weeks into district, 6 games, ~20 at bats...not a lot when you consider that MLB organizations use 500 at bat sample sizes when looking at players regarding trades, movement within etc. Player 2 goes 3-3 in the first district game per your example and has one other similar 3-3 game. If player 2 was leader in stats going into district, then 6 games into it is hitting .300 in district - those numbers aren’t going to have taken a drastic enough of a change to merit change based purely on numbers.

...but those are hollow numbers. In district he only hits in 2 of the 6 games, he is unproductive in every other game and in those 2 games he was rather lucky.

So, coach lets him play another week and for this crazy little hypothetical lets say he has a couple more 0-3’s and looks very poor. Now the decision is made with 6 games left. I will go back to my answer, yes, but not really - the decision is a little late by now.

I don’t think it matters though because it is pretty easy to fill out a high school lineup, it just isn’t easy to fill one out that makes everyone in the stands happy.

quote:

Originally posted by throw'n bb's:
I got one for you. Coach does not use batting average, or his eyes to set the line up. He uses a system of P's (productive AB). In his world a slow dribbler back to the pitcher that is booted or overthrown at first is productive. A 375 ft rocket to the center fielder that is caught is not. If this happens to the same two players several times the guy hitting dribblers getting lucky plays while the kid hitting rockets sets. Who would you rather have? I'll take the kid hitting the ball hard every time.

This is tough because statistics aren't subjective. This stat is very difficult to be consistent with, not every ball hit is a scorching shot to the CF caught or a dribbler to the pitcher, there are many borderline decisions to be made.

Funny, I just saw this while reading an article on Tim Collins (sub 6' pitcher for the Royals).

“The game’s the ultimate evaluator,” Moore said. “The stats can say one thing, the scouting judgment can say another. But you look at what he’d accomplished at each level, everything was terrific.”

quote:

Originally posted by NuffSaid:
Funny, I just saw this while reading an article on Tim Collins (sub 6' pitcher for the Royals).

“The game’s the ultimate evaluator,” Moore said. “The stats can say one thing, the scouting judgment can say another. But you look at what he’d accomplished at each level, everything was terrific.”

Tim Collins was a guy that was throwing 84 but dominating in HS, signed with a Rhode Island CC and this is where stats and projectability played a huge role here - they took a flyer on him and he signed a FA contract, no money and went to camp.

He was pretty good his first year (though he didn't pitch much), I mean he is a good pitcher. He added something like 15 pounds of muscle that 1st year or something and has added 40 total I believe since signing. He jumped to 90-92 right away and is now mid to upper.

Tim Collins is all about stats. He has moved rapidly because to move quickly they look at two 2 stats SO/9 and SO/BB and his are off the charts:

SO/9 - 13.3
SO/BB - 3.43

The kid dominates. He is also a poster boy for the way the Blue Jays are turning their organizational mindset around.

*EDIT*

Stats should be used for information, not THE deciding factor.

I'm surprised nobody has mentioned the difference between guys who get hollow stats (sub-standard pitchers in non-critical situations) vs the guy who delivers when it matters and against a tough pitcher.

How about the guys who usually only play in blowouts against inferior opponents. How do you compare them against the regular guy who's sitting on the bench when the other guys are down to meat pitchers?

You just can't make a like for like comparison if the situations are different. Way too many things in play to trivialize a managers decision as simply a direct function of batting average. So many ways to play his cards and none are right in every situation.

Is the mgr trying to put them in situations where they succeed? Is he trying to lift the hitters around them? Is he playing a hunch? Is he trying to put the surrounding players in spots where he gets more out of them? Etc. Etc.