ROE

I did not read the thread but I just pulled up the three previous years for my son's HS and they were.

28 in 796 PA

46 in 871 PA

24 in 918 PA

These are very accurate figures. (since I or another very reputable SC did most of the games)

Thanks.

quote:

Originally posted by Doughnutman:
I was reading the last topic about ROE and I was curious if anyone had stats for a typical HS season. How many on average in a year.

What’s running through your mind?

A few things. ROE is such a vague reference. I know we do not need more stats, but ROE can mean many different things to a coach. You can have 2 fielders. Competely differnt styles. One can be technique perfect and never take a chance on an off balnce throw and never dive for a ball. THe other can take a chance to get the guy every time and if the throw beat the runner but was off line the fielder gets an error even though he might make many more put outs over the course of a season. Your team might have more ROE but your defense is actually better because of it.

It would be a tough stat for a coach to use to evaluate his team after the season.

On the offensive side, if you have a fast guy, he SHOULD reach base more often due to ROE due to the fact that he puts a lot more pressure on the infield on a ground ball. Same thing if you have a kid that crushes it. Faster balls are harder to handle. It seems that a player that CAUSES more ROE should be rewarded. Is there any MLB stat that tracks who gets the most ROE in a season and could we correlate that to what kind of hitter he is?

The stat question is because I saw kids with 500 averages last year who had 0 ROE. Scorekeeper might like them a bit more.

quote:

Originally posted by Doughnutman:
On the offensive side, if you have a fast guy, he SHOULD reach base more often due to ROE due to the fact that he puts a lot more pressure on the infield on a ground ball. Same thing if you have a kid that crushes it. Faster balls are harder to handle.

As I've thought about this more, I believe this stat is probably more relevant in lower levels of play for the reasons you state. In 12U, speed can induce a missplay more often than the at the MLB level.

At the MLB level, they should make the plays no matter who is running. On a forced, quick play that results in a missplay due to hurrying because of a fast runner that would've been bang-bang if made with 'slightly' extra-ordinary effort, I'm scoring a hit.

This type of play is the slow roller to SS, who has to charge, hurry and bobbles because the CF is running, but if the C is running he lets it take the extra hop and makes the play easier. In these cases, speed earns the hit. If the SS throws the ball away and the runner ends up at second, I score H-E and so ROE doesn't apply.

The "hard hit" ball doesn't necessarily follow the same logic. If a 200 lb 12U crushes a ball to the SS backhand and he doesn't make the play, I'm probably giving him a hit. If the SS gets out of the way at 12U because of how hard it is hit, I give him a hit. At HS, I have to see it. It's probably scored mid-way between the 12U scoring and MLB scoring.

The 12U is probably more likely to hurry when he doesn't have to and makes an 'E' as a result than the MLB player. This is normalized somewhat if you apply "ordinary effort at the level of play". Ordinary effort at my daughter's 16U club softball games is different than ordinary effort at my son's HS baseball games, which is different than my son's pro scout games, which is different from D1 baseball (which has some very generous scoring), which is different from MLB games.

quote:

Originally posted by Doughnutman:
A few things. ROE is such a vague reference. I know we do not need more stats, but ROE can mean many different things to a coach. You can have 2 fielders. Competely differnt styles. One can be technique perfect and never take a chance on an off balnce throw and never dive for a ball. THe other can take a chance to get the guy every time and if the throw beat the runner but was off line the fielder gets an error even though he might make many more put outs over the course of a season. Your team might have more ROE but your defense is actually better because of it.

So you’re looking at it from the defensive perspective? I thought everyone was mostly looking at them from the offensive perspective. But it’s a good question, and I sure don’t mind discussing it from that perspective.

I think everyone can agree that if there’s a shortage of baseball metrics of any type, its defensive metrics. In the pros there’s a concerted move to WAR, but for HSB WAR is pretty much out of the question. However, there are some other defensive metrics that came about in the last 2 decades that might not be perfect, but in they are not better than the old Fpct, they do give a clearer picture.

I’ve made Range Factors an available metric to whomever wants to look at it. If you look at the attachment, its fairly easy to see that a good FPct doesn’t necessarily mean a good RF. The thing is, during the season, how many coaches would take the time to see what it means?

http://www.infosports.com/scorekeeper/images/rf4.pdf

quote:

It would be a tough stat for a coach to use to evaluate his team after the season.

But the trick isn’t just looking at a season’s numbers. The trick is to look at the numbers in relation to the numbers for as many years as possible.

quote:

On the offensive side, if you have a fast guy, he SHOULD reach base more often due to ROE due to the fact that he puts a lot more pressure on the infield on a ground ball. Same thing if you have a kid that crushes it. Faster balls are harder to handle. It seems that a player that CAUSES more ROE should be rewarded. Is there any MLB stat that tracks who gets the most ROE in a season and could we correlate that to what kind of hitter he is?

ne14bb found the numbers. Look here.

http://hsbaseballweb.com/eve/f...1064671/m/8507052516

But the thing is, finding it for ML players doesn’t really do anything for the lower level coaches. Each level is different enough that in order to do proper analysis, you have to use the numbers from that level, not from MLB. That’s one of the major problems with any kind of stat analysis. ML play is not he same as lower level play.

quote:

The stat question is because I saw kids with 500 averages last year who had 0 ROE. Scorekeeper might like them a bit more.

What you’re doing is pointing out that its not unheard of for there being some poor scorekeeping, or even some purposeful cheating, and that is a problem. I deal with it by including not only the traditional computation of most stats, but also with ROEs included just as though they were a hit. The history of the teams I score for is, there just aren’t enough ROEs to make a huge difference in BA or OBP.

We had one player who was a 4 year starter, but he only reached 11 times in 4 years, in 254 PA’s. If I was wrong on every one of those, his average would have only been 43 points higher. I’m just sayin’ that even with the worst of scorekeeping and the height of cheating, ROEs alone isn’t gonna make all that much difference, at least at the HS level.

Stats, Just took a quick look at your stuff. WOW! It is going to take a few days for me to wade through it. Thanks. Have you ever seen the movie, "A Beautiful Mind."? Not saying your crazy, but that is some mind boggling stats. I will get back to you later when I am not at work.

quote:

Originally posted by Doughnutman:
Stats, Just took a quick look at your stuff. WOW! It is going to take a few days for me to wade through it. Thanks. Have you ever seen the movie, "A Beautiful Mind."? Not saying your crazy, but that is some mind boggling stats. I will get back to you later when I am not at work.

Thanx for the compliment.

If you’ve never looked at it, go to http://infosports.com/scorekeeper/ and in the left column look at the links under Final 2011 Stats and Combined Stats.

But before you do that, I warn you that many of them will be difficult to come to grips with. Not that you’re not bright enough to understand them, but rather its very difficult to see what’s going on when the numbers are for players you’ve never seen and know nothing about. When that happens, its just a whole lot of numbers.

Also, its not as though I sat down one day 15 years ago and developed those metrics, and they’ve been the same ever since. There definitely are some that are that old or older, but I’m adding new ones, modifying old ones, and deleting some of them all the time. Heck, just today I added a new one. Rather than look at Clint Hurdle’s Productive At bats for our players individually, like I’ve done for a long time, I broke it down by bating position. When I did that, I got a bit of a surprise, and that’s why I love looking at this stuff. Until you actually look at the numbers, you really don’t know.

Stats, I've looked at your stuff as well, but I didn't necessarily understand all of it. Some of the nomenclature I found confusing. I meant to PM you and ask more questions, but I never got to it.

Some other random comments.

The more I think about it, publishing BOTH the "times reached base by any means" along with the more traditional OBP would normalize HS stats if everyone did it. It would get rid of the .500 hitters with no ROE and I'd be all for that, especially when picking all district/state teams. A much more honest computation. It'd take a generation to get everyone to agree though.

I've heard several scouts say the only HS stats they trust for pitchers are IP, K's and BB's. For hitters its AB's, HR's, K's and to a lesser extent BB's. Everyting else is just too random.

The dad of the four year starter who's OBP was 11-254 must be rich.

I wonder about the sample size in a typical (~30 game) HS season. Is it big enough to draw significant conclusions? Do you include out of season games? I don't because the difference in opponent talent can be significant, which clouds things. Obviously, the .500 hitter is better than the 11-254 kid, but is the .425 hitter better than the .450 hitter? I don't think you have enough data to tell. I've seen really good hitters who have moved to the next level and been successful have a slump for a couple of weeks that statistically "blew" their HS season (for example .500 guy becomes a .420 guy). Over a larger sample size (like a MLB season) and that is normalized out.

quote:

Originally posted by JMoff:
Stats, I've looked at your stuff as well, but I didn't necessarily understand all of it. Some of the nomenclature I found confusing. I meant to PM you and ask more questions, but I never got to it.

Please don’t keep criticism good or bad to yourself! Everything I do is self-edited, and therefore not always as clear as it could be. But if no one says anything, I’ll never know because all of it is clear to my scrambled brain.

quote:

The more I think about it, publishing BOTH the "times reached base by any means" along with the more traditional OBP would normalize HS stats if everyone did it. It would get rid of the .500 hitters with no ROE and I'd be all for that, especially when picking all district/state teams. A much more honest computation. It'd take a generation to get everyone to agree though.

That’s exactly why I started doing it many years ago. I’ve never had a problem letting people see the effects of the scorer, because I know how little it really affects things, if the scorer is trying to do a good job and not purposely cheating.

quote:

I've heard several scouts say the only HS stats they trust for pitchers are IP, K's and BB's. For hitters its AB's, HR's, K's and to a lesser extent BB's. Everyting else is just too random.

Yeah, I hear similar things all the time myself, and I understand where they’re coming from. That’s why a few years back I came up with Objective stats for both pitchers and hitters. See http://www.infosports.com/scorekeeper/images/obj.pdf

I know its pretty rudimentary, but the fact is, there aren’t a lot of baseball numbers that are objective. What’s amazing is how many people, and that includes scouts, argue that just because those things are objective, it doesn’t mean they can be depended on. I think some of it is that “not invented here” enters the picture.

quote:

The dad of the four year starter who's OBP was 11-254 must be rich.

????

quote:

I wonder about the sample size in a typical (~30 game) HS season. Is it big enough to draw significant conclusions? Do you include out of season games? I don't because the difference in opponent talent can be significant, which clouds things. Obviously, the .500 hitter is better than the 11-254 kid, but is the .425 hitter better than the .450 hitter? I don't think you have enough data to tell. I've seen really good hitters who have moved to the next level and been successful have a slump for a couple of weeks that statistically "blew" their HS season (for example .500 guy becomes a .420 guy). Over a larger sample size (like a MLB season) and that is normalized out.

I can’t tell you how many times I’ve been down the “sample size” road. 1st of all, what’s trying to be determined makes a lot of difference in how valid the conclusions have to be, but in general here’s what happens. No matter what kind of player decisions a coach is trying to make, s/he’s doing it based on something. In the case of a HS coach, even before a game is played, there’s likely gonna be several returning players. Is s/he gonna simply dismiss what’s taken place before? Not likely, so right off the bat the number of samples for each player is different.

FI, our team has 2 players who are Srs, but have been starters on the V for 2 years already. For the kid that’s a hitter, there’s 270 PAs in the books to look back on, and for the pitcher there’s 101 innings in the books. And chances are, we’re not going to have anyone start who didn’t play to some degree in the past. So its not as though there’s no history. Its not my problem that coaches don’t always take history into account, but it is definitely a problem in that it causes issues of trust in the numbers.

I don’t include out of season games. Not because I wouldn’t love to add that data to the database, but because if I don’t score games for our HS team, no one does. I score some fall ball games, but to me those aren’t even games because the rules are played with loose and often. Completely understand too, because the entire fall ball season is devoted to development, not to winning.

The summer games are something totally different though. Unlike the regular HS season, players come and go because of vacations, playing with other teams, camps, and I don’t know what else. If I was scoring those games or was given the data from them, I’d gladly put into my overall database. The reason is, I mark all of my records with the venue. FI, I can break out regular season games, post season games, and league games. It wouldn’t take 1 minute to add another venue like summer or tournament games. After that I have the ability to break everything down, using the venue to include or eliminate the different kinds of games.

So, its possible for me to have JV data, Fr data, off season data, or even little league and college data if I so choose. But if I did it, I’d be the only one in the world, so why bother. But if that was done, you can see how any fears of small sample sizes would be almost eliminated. And you can also see that since I look at the data from the past as well as the present, why I don’t buy into the small sample size argument. Again, its not my problem people don’t track data that way, its theirs if they choose to do it.

With so many people going to electronic scoring and stat generation, I think its going to become more and more common to see people doing what I have the ability to do, and people will start to use that data differently than they do now.

Stats, as usual we're in pretty good agreement.

My comment about the rich dad suggested a reason he stayed in the lineup with a 12 Sigma OBP. With a DH available for any player in the lineup, I think the coach could find SOMEONE to hit for that kid.

quote:

Originally posted by JMoff:
Stats, as usual we're in pretty good agreement.

Great minds …

quote:

My comment about the rich dad suggested a reason he stayed in the lineup with a 12 Sigma OBP. With a DH available for any player in the lineup, I think the coach could find SOMEONE to hit for that kid.

Please don’t feel insulted that I’m not making a connection here. I’m not only old, I post several metrics almost every day, and can’t keep track of them without a little help.

Would you please put the link to the report here, and the player’s name you’re talking about? Thanx.

Our coach uses the DH like most HS coaches, seldom the same from game to game. Last season was really weird because of the way things worked out. Unlike in past years where we had a lot of depth, all 3 of our “horses” were also starters in the field. So, most games had the pitcher hitting and the either the Fr 3b being DHd for, or the weak hitting So at 2nd who got promoted in the middle of the season because of an injury.

But like I indicated, a lot had to do with the depth of the club, rather than the quality of the pitchers’ ability to hit. In earlier years when we had an excess of good bats sitting on the bench, it was pretty unusual for any pitcher to hit when he was pitching, no matter how good a hitter he was.

quote:

We had one player who was a 4 year starter, but he only reached 11 times in 4 years, in 254 PA’s. If I was wrong on every one of those, his average would have only been 43 points higher. I’m just sayin’ that even with the worst of scorekeeping and the height of cheating, ROEs alone isn’t gonna make all that much difference, at least at the HS level.

I probably miss-read your comment. On another review you meant ROE 11 times in 4 years. I read only reached base 11 times in 4 years (by any means). Sorry for the confusion.

quote:

Originally posted by JMoff:
I probably miss-read your comment. On another review you meant ROE 11 times in 4 years. I read only reached base 11 times in 4 years (by any means). Sorry for the confusion.

JEEZ! I never noticed that. I can see why you got confused.

Rather than post another link, I’ll just give you his numbers.

PA-267, AB-214, Hits-65, ROE-11, BA-.304

65/214=.304
(65+11)/214=.355

I apologize for a mistake in the arithmetic before. I tried to use a pencil and paper. LOL!

But of course the whole point is, its very unusual for all the times a player ROEs to be mis-scored and counted as hits, that a BA will go up much more than 500 points or so. What’s more likely is, there are people who count BBs and HBPs as hits. In this kids case it would be 33, and that would jack his BA up to .458 without the ROEs.

When dealing with hundreds of thousands of people all trying to do the same thing with no quality control, there are going to be all kinds of things happening. Its inevitable.