No outs, no one on, tied score, top of the 5th.
The batter swings at a mistake right down the middle and lines a shot off the fence so hard he’s not able to make it to 2nd.
Same scenario.
The batter swings at a pitch he’s completely fooled on and hits a swinging bunt the F5 gets to but can’t make the throw in time to get the batter.
Which of the above is more valuable to the team?
Replies sorted oldest to newest
I think it also matters to the the pitchers that threw either pitch, the hitters that hit them, and both teams. The shot to wall would put fear in the pitcher and his teammates and give confidence to the hitters team that they can hit this guy, or we got him right where we want him.
The swinging bunt could give confidence to the pitcher that it was just a lucky play.
Originally Posted by 2020dad:…But for the coach making judgements on players obviously the hard hit ball makes more of an impression.
I agree, but is that necessarily a good thing? 
Originally Posted by 2020dad:…But for the coach making judgements on players obviously the hard hit ball makes more of an impression.
I agree, but is that necessarily a good thing?
Well, it is for the guy that hit it to the wall 
. He might get moved up in the lineup or get more PT if he does it consistently enough
Originally Posted by 2020dad:…But for the coach making judgements on players obviously the hard hit ball makes more of an impression.
I agree, but is that necessarily a good thing?
You're the stats guy. Shouldn't this question answer itself for you then? Which is the result of a repeatable skill that will result over the long run in more things of value and which isn't? Isn't it obvious?
Originally Posted by rynoattack:
I think it also matters to the the pitchers that threw either pitch, the hitters that hit them, and both teams. The shot to wall would put fear in the pitcher and his teammates and give confidence to the hitters team that they can hit this guy, or we got him right where we want him.
The swinging bunt could give confidence to the pitcher that it was just a lucky play.
I know there’s a great deal of dogma on this topic, and I’m certainly not trying to come off as a heretic. But I do wonder how much of that dogma is actually true as opposed to how much of it we believe is true.
I believe how the players see what took place has a great deal to do with the situation. FI, if it was a regular season game in the middle pf the season the players would see it one way, but if it was the WS and the team on defense was down 3 games to 2 they’d see it much differently.
Which dogma are you referring to? Let me guess: The one where people say that the eye test is more important than the statistics in a situation where the sample size is too small for the numbers to be meaningful? Like this one, where the sample size is one plate appearance.
That's got to be it, cause I don't think anyone would argue that statistics are not meaningful in a MLB season where a full-time player is defined as one who has at the very least 502 plate appearances.
Originally Posted by chefmike7777:
Well, it is for the guy that hit it to the wall . He might get moved up in the lineup or get more PT if he does it consistently enough
Well, actually there’s just as much of a chance the guy who hit it to the wall suffers for it if the opposing coach is a reactionary guy who reacts to what happened by changing his entire approach to that hitter, even though he was a sub who’d gotten lucky.
That’s why I was trying to keep the focused on the value to the team other than on how it affected the players individual stats.
Originally Posted by SluggerDad:
You're the stats guy. Shouldn't this question answer itself for you then? Which is the result of a repeatable skill that will result over the long run in more things of value and which isn't? Isn't it obvious?
But I wasn’t talking about whether what took place was repeatable. I was looking at them relative to the value to the team, others are taking it into the world of stats and making guesses about what would happen if one of the two scenarios was repeatable. I wasn’t even thinking about the two scenarios being for 2 different players.
Originally Posted by SluggerDad:
You're the stats guy. Shouldn't this question answer itself for you then? Which is the result of a repeatable skill that will result over the long run in more things of value and which isn't? Isn't it obvious?
But I wasn’t talking about whether what took place was repeatable. I was looking at them relative to the value to the team, others are taking it into the world of stats and making guesses about what would happen if one of the two scenarios was repeatable. I wasn’t even thinking about the two scenarios being for 2 different players.
In terms of value to the team a runner on first is a runner on first. Doesn't matter if he got there by great hit, lucky hit, E, BB, HBP, or teleportation. What's your point?
Originally Posted by JCG:
Which dogma are you referring to? Let me guess: The one where people say that the eye test is more important than the statistics in a situation where the sample size is too small for the numbers to be meaningful? Like this one, where the sample size is one plate appearance.
That's got to be it, cause I don't think anyone would argue that statistics are not meaningful in a MLB season where a full-time player is defined as one who has at the very least 502 plate appearances.
Rather than asking what dogma I was referring to, you’re trying to put words in my mouth based on what you THINK I was referring to, evidently attempting to show me as some kind of dunderhead.
All I did was ask a freaking question that I’d given some thought to from the perspective of the team. The thought was initiated by someone believing a hard hit ball was a QAB no matter what the outcome while one that wasn’t hit hard couldn’t possibly be a QAB unless the hit drove in a runner from 3rd with less than 2 outs.
I don’t know why or how you assumed the discussion had anything to do with sample size.
Wouldn't BA with Runners in Scoring Position, RBI's runs, total bases be more valued stats than just the pure BA? What about the leadoff hitter's, first pitch of the game, boomer of a one-bounce over the fence ground rule double? Is that double less or more significant than a double with no one on in the middle innings? The beautiful aspect of stats is their readiness for interpretation by a coach or an opponent to assess the impact of the hitting player on the outcome of the game. By themselves, statistics are simply numbers of measurement: only when the full range of statistics is reviewed can a player be truly appreciated or the reverse.
You do realize, I hope, that anyone's history of interactions with people in any situation does have the potential to color future interactions. I'm very willing to read any of your posts with a clean slate, but when you refer yourself as bucking "dogma" it sure seems like the same old same old is coming back for another round.
why do people entertain these kinds of idscussions?? sigh, back to work i guess.
LOL!
why do people entertain these kinds of idscussions?? sigh, back to work i guess.
If you don't like it, don't read it. I find it comical, and I can always use a little comic relief.
I find it funny how I state my answer to the question, and he calls it Dogma! I knew he was trolling. That's what he does. I find it humorous.
Originally Posted by NotThatGuy:
Wouldn't BA with Runners in Scoring Position, RBI's runs, total bases be more valued stats than just the pure BA? What about the leadoff hitter's, first pitch of the game, boomer of a one-bounce over the fence ground rule double? Is that double less or more significant than a double with no one on in the middle innings?
Just about any stat is more valued to me than just pure BA, but BAWRISP is one of those which isn’t. Of course that’s only my opinion.
The beautiful aspect of stats is their readiness for interpretation by a coach or an opponent to assess the impact of the hitting player on the outcome of the game. By themselves, statistics are simply numbers of measurement: only when the full range of statistics is reviewed can a player be truly appreciated or the reverse.
True, at least for those trying to compare players to just their teammates. When trying to prognosticate about what the future will bring, a lot more information has to be available than run-of-the-mill stats.
Originally Posted by JCG:
You do realize, I hope, that anyone's history of interactions with people in any situation does have the potential to color future interactions. I'm very willing to read any of your posts with a clean slate, but when you refer yourself as bucking "dogma" it sure seems like the same old same old is coming back for another round.
Feel free to act and react any way you please, but if you truly want to start off with a “clean slate” you might want to actually quote what I’ve said rather than what you PERCIEVE I’ve said. I never once said I was “bucking dogma”! You may have interpreted what I said that way, but I never said it.
ryno had spoken about what the players in the scenarios I gave would feel, and that’s the dogma I was replying to. Not dogma about stats in any way shape or form, but dogma about what might or could be rattling around in player’s minds. I’m not a big believer that anyone has the ability to read minds and there’s certainly very little proof that I know of making it true, and damn sure not a big fan of making blanket statements about it. That’s the dogma I was referring to.
Look, I understand that for many here I’m a persona non grata for whatever reasons they care to believe. But that’s not on me! Lots of times people have said things about me that weren’t true, and it’s made me angry. But other than those couple of people who got personal and continue to do that, I’ve never let what I thought about someone stop me from participating in something I found interesting. If you or anyone else chooses to act differently, so be it.
Originally Posted by rynoattack:
I think it also matters to the the pitchers that threw either pitch, the hitters that hit them, and both teams. The shot to wall would put fear in the pitcher and his teammates and give confidence to the hitters team that they can hit this guy, or we got him right where we want him.
The swinging bunt could give confidence to the pitcher that it was just a lucky play.
Originally Posted by rynoattack:
I find it funny how I state my answer to the question, and he calls it Dogma! I knew he was trolling. That's what he does. I find it humorous.
Let’s go back and take a look at my response to what you said.
I know there’s a great deal of dogma on this topic, and I’m certainly not trying to come off as a heretic. But I do wonder how much of that dogma is actually true as opposed to how much of it we believe is true.
I believe how the players see what took place has a great deal to do with the situation. FI, if it was a regular season game in the middle pf the season the players would see it one way, but if it was the WS and the team on defense was down 3 games to 2 they’d see it much differently.
I questioned how much of what you’d said was really true(dogma), then noted that I believe how the players view things depends a great deal on the situation. Would you argue that what you said was 100% true all the time and that how the players perceive the situation has nothing at all to do with how they react to it?
In any case, I’m glad I provide you with humor.
Originally Posted by rynoattack:
I think it also matters to the the pitchers that threw either pitch, the hitters that hit them, and both teams. The shot to wall would put fear in the pitcher and his teammates and give confidence to the hitters team that they can hit this guy, or we got him right where we want him.
The swinging bunt could give confidence to the pitcher that it was just a lucky play.
Originally Posted by rynoattack:
I find it funny how I state my answer to the question, and he calls it Dogma! I knew he was trolling. That's what he does. I find it humorous.
Let’s go back and take a look at my response to what you said.
I know there’s a great deal of dogma on this topic, and I’m certainly not trying to come off as a heretic. But I do wonder how much of that dogma is actually true as opposed to how much of it we believe is true.
I believe how the players see what took place has a great deal to do with the situation. FI, if it was a regular season game in the middle pf the season the players would see it one way, but if it was the WS and the team on defense was down 3 games to 2 they’d see it much differently.
I questioned how much of what you’d said was really true(dogma), then noted that I believe how the players view things depends a great deal on the situation. Would you argue that what you said was 100% true all the time and that how the players perceive the situation has nothing at all to do with how they react to it?
In any case, I’m glad I provide you with humor.
You posted a question that was relatively simple, and has no factual right or wrong answer. There is absolutely no way to definitively quantify which is more valuable. There are so many variables, and I mentioned some of them.
I believe this is just another one of your "stats only matter", not the perceptions of how they came about.
I do find your posts humorous, and I enjoy reading them...
Just about any stat is more valued to me than just pure BA, but BAWRISP is one of those which isn’t.
Interesting...I find BAWRISP to be very important.
Originally Posted by rynoattack:
You posted a question that was relatively simple, and has no factual right or wrong answer. There is absolutely no way to definitively quantify which is more valuable. There are so many variables, and I mentioned some of them.
You are correct about there being so many variables there is no viable way to say one is more valuable than the other which is exactly why I posted the question. A poster on another board said he looked at “QAB percentage” to get information about his players. I wanted to see what it would look like for our team so I asked him to give his QAB definition in order to try it. Here’s his definition.
Quality At Bats can have various definitions. Generally I say:
There are 8 ways that we can have a quality at-bat.
Executing a hit/run – SAC bunt/Sac-Drag/Squeeze
Executing a bunt for a hit
Taking a walk, getting hit by a pitch or a catchers interference
Moving a runner from 1st Base to 2nd Base or from 2nd base to 3rd base
Driving in a run from 3rd base with less than 2 outs
Any RBI (Sac fly, 2 out RBI, etc.)
All hard hit balls on the line or on the ground (NOTE: All base hits are not QAB’s, Ex. Bloop hits – We want HARD contact)
8 pitch at-bats
To me a player hitting a hard grounder for an out would getting a positive credit, but a player getting a bloop hit wouldn’t be getting jack is a system out of kilter, so I asked the question to see how many others had the same view as him.
I believe this is just another one of your "stats only matter", not the perceptions of how they came about.
Like I said, believe what you want, but stats had nothing to do with my question.
Since you said it, please point out anywhere I’ve said "stats only matter". Don’t bother looking because I’ve never said it! You and others PERCIEVE what I say as that stats are all that matters and nothing else does, implying I think coaches are dullards, because I have the temerity not to believe exactly the way you do.
I do find your posts humorous, and I enjoy reading them...
Great!
Originally Posted by rynoattack:
Interesting...I find BAWRISP to be very important.
Why? Seriously. What do you find about BAWRISP that makes it “very important”? Not important or interesting, but very important.
I may regret getting into this discussion, but here goes.
As far as the OP goes, I think both of the scenarios mentioned are just as valuable to the team. Because both produce a runner on 1st. Bottom line, that's all that really matters. We can debate the psychological effects of either hit, but different players respond differently, so you really can't make a blanket statement about those effects.
I looked at the list of "8 ways to quantify a QAB". 7 of the 8 are quantifiable. The one that is subjective is "All hard hit balls on the line or on the ground (NOTE: All base hits are not QAB’s, Ex. Bloop hits – We want HARD contact)". I don't like this one for several reasons. One is there is too much gray area between say a fly ball to the outfield in determining whether it is a line drive or a routine fly ball that just falls in the right spot. Same thing with ground balls. Too subjective to determine "hard hit" vs. "softly hit". Here's the other reason I don't like it. Say a batter has 2 strikes on him and he gets a "pitcher's pitch". Low outside breaking ball moving away from him. The batter is protecting the plate and reaches out to make contact and bloops the ball into the opposite field. That is not a hard hit ball, but I would probably classify that as a quality at bat. I would say that because the batter did a very good job protecting the plate with two strikes and getting a ball in play on a good pitch. As a pitcher's dad, I hate it. But it is a situation where you just have to tip your hat to the batter for getting the bat on a good pitch.
Some may disagree with me, but that's how I see it.
...
To me a player hitting a hard grounder for an out would getting a positive credit, but a player getting a bloop hit wouldn’t be getting jack is a system out of kilter, so I asked the question to see how many others had the same view as him.
...
I have the same view as him. Most coaches I know who track QAB are doing so to measure the quality of the individual's effort to successfully execute what they are trying to do, not whether the end result may have accidentally helped the team. A hitter is either trying to hit the ball hard or trying to execute a given play (bunt, hit-and-run, etc.). Most bloop hits are accidents and would not be considered quality AB's when compared to what they were trying to do. We are measuring ability to execute, not good fortune. As the season progresses, given the choice between two hitters with similar slash lines but knowing one has several bloop hits and the other has consistently hit the ball hard, it becomes clear what your best choice is (all other things being relatively equal.
...
To me a player hitting a hard grounder for an out would getting a positive credit, but a player getting a bloop hit wouldn’t be getting jack is a system out of kilter, so I asked the question to see how many others had the same view as him.
...
I have the same view as him. Most coaches I know who track QAB are doing so to measure the quality of the individual's effort to successfully execute what they are trying to do, not whether the end result may have accidentally helped the team. A hitter is either trying to hit the ball hard or trying to execute a given play (bunt, hit-and-run, etc.). Most bloop hits are accidents and would not be considered quality AB's when compared to what they were trying to do. We are measuring ability to execute, not good fortune. As the season progresses, given the choice between two hitters with similar slash lines but knowing one has several bloop hits and the other has consistently hit the ball hard, it becomes clear what your best choice is (all other things being relatively equal.
Winner winner chicken dinner. Judging the quality of a hitter has very little to do with the outcome of the AB. Take away every player on the field except the batter and pitcher. What would you look for to determine the hitters ability to help a team????
Originally Posted by bballman:
As far as the OP goes, I think both of the scenarios mentioned are just as valuable to the team. Because both produce a runner on 1st. Bottom line, that's all that really matters. We can debate the psychological effects of either hit, but different players respond differently, so you really can't make a blanket statement about those effects.
I looked at the list of "8 ways to quantify a QAB". 7 of the 8 are quantifiable. The one that is subjective is "All hard hit balls on the line or on the ground (NOTE: All base hits are not QAB’s, Ex. Bloop hits – We want HARD contact)". I don't like this one for several reasons. One is there is too much gray area between say a fly ball to the outfield in determining whether it is a line drive or a routine fly ball that just falls in the right spot. Same thing with ground balls. Too subjective to determine "hard hit" vs. "softly hit". Here's the other reason I don't like it. Say a batter has 2 strikes on him and he gets a "pitcher's pitch". Low outside breaking ball moving away from him. The batter is protecting the plate and reaches out to make contact and bloops the ball into the opposite field. That is not a hard hit ball, but I would probably classify that as a quality at bat. I would say that because the batter did a very good job protecting the plate with two strikes and getting a ball in play on a good pitch. As a pitcher's dad, I hate it. But it is a situation where you just have to tip your hat to the batter for getting the bat on a good pitch.
Some may disagree with me, but that's how I see it.
The problem I had wasn’t with whether or not that one about hitting the ball hard was or wasn’t a QAB as much as how it was being used. Saying a player who hit 2 hard balls but never got on or moved a runner had a “better” performance than one who got a bloop hit, an infield hit, and moved over a runner doesn’t ring as being true to me.
You’re right about the ball blooped on a pitcher’s pitch and it was one I hadn’t even considered. I’m a pitcher’s dad too and can remember seeing oppo duck farts dropping in or swinging bunts beaten out and having to bite my tongue.
Another one I honestly didn’t understand was why moving a runner from 1st to 2nd or 2nd to 3rd was a QAB, but moving a runner from 1st to 3rd, 2nd to the plate, or even 3rd to the plate wasn’t.
Originally Posted by cabbagedad:
I have the same view as him. Most coaches I know who track QAB are doing so to measure the quality of the individual's effort to successfully execute what they are trying to do, not whether the end result may have accidentally helped the team. A hitter is either trying to hit the ball hard or trying to execute a given play (bunt, hit-and-run, etc.). Most bloop hits are accidents and would not be considered quality AB's when compared to what they were trying to do. We are measuring ability to execute, not good fortune. As the season progresses, given the choice between two hitters with similar slash lines but knowing one has several bloop hits and the other has consistently hit the ball hard, it becomes clear what your best choice is (all other things being relatively equal.
I guess if that’s how it was presented and some of the things on the list that were the result of providence like reaching by getting hit or CI weren’t counted as being positives, I wouldn’t have as much of a problem with it. Of course I’d like to know why driving in a run from 3rd with less than 2 outs is a good thing where driving it in from 3rd with outs isn’t. Seems backwards to me.
It’s not the QAB that bothers me as much as how it’s defined is. That’s why I like Clint Hurdle’s “Positive Plate Appearances” (also called productive at-bats) as opposed to “Quality At Bats” where everything is defined, can be objectively considered, and there are team goals about it. http://www.post-gazette.com/sp...stories/201405090041
This post has kind of diverged from an opinion on which hit listed was better for the team in a particular situation to talking about QAB's specifically.
Stats, I'm asking because I don't know. Is there an actual stat for QABs? If so, what are the actual criteria? I know you listed that one coach's criteria, but is there an official definition of a QAB? Has MLB defined a QAB for their records?
I know in at least one of the online scoring programs, they list players with QABs. I don't remember which one and I don't know what criteria they use, but I do know it is listed. For some reason I think it had to do with how many pitches a batter was in the box for, but like I said, I'm not really sure.
I'd be interested to know.
Originally Posted by real green:
Winner winner chicken dinner. Judging the quality of a hitter has very little to do with the outcome of the AB. Take away every player on the field except the batter and pitcher. What would you look for to determine the hitters ability to help a team????
For me, if the At Bat was productive, the team was helped. It’s just that I choose to use Clint Hurdle’s definition for what that is rather than some home-made definition that requires subjective determination of some things. It’s simple to understand and can be computed using objective data points.
Originally Posted by real green:
Winner winner chicken dinner. Judging the quality of a hitter has very little to do with the outcome of the AB. Take away every player on the field except the batter and pitcher. What would you look for to determine the hitters ability to help a team????
For me, if the At Bat was productive, the team was helped. It’s just that I choose to use Clint Hurdle’s definition for what that is rather than some home-made definition that requires subjective determination of some things. It’s simple to understand and can be computed using objective data points.
How would you rate a group of hitters if it was just a pitcher and hitter on the field taking BP? What value would you give a full swing bunt or a dead duck just outside of the infield grass? What value would you give a hot grounder or a screamer line drive?
Originally Posted by bballman:
Stats, I'm asking because I don't know. Is there an actual stat for QABs? If so, what are the actual criteria? I know you listed that one coach's criteria, but is there an official definition of a QAB? Has MLB defined a QAB for their records?
I know in at least one of the online scoring programs, they list players with QABs. I don't remember which one and I don't know what criteria they use, but I do know it is listed. For some reason I think it had to do with how many pitches a batter was in the box for, but like I said, I'm not really sure.
I'd be interested to know.
As far as I know, Hurdle’s the only one in MLB who does one, but he’s been pretty successful for a long time and has at least done some research on it.
http://m.mlb.com/news/article/2543200/
According to Hurdle, there are 8 ways you can have a positive at bat:
Hit
Walk
Sac bunt
Sac fly
HBP/Catcher’s Interference
Move lead runner up w/an out
Move lead runner up w/an error
8 pitch AB
That’s the basic definition I use. I also include ROEs.
Even though it’s a TEAM metric, I do a metric on it for individual players to get PAs per Point.
Originally Posted by real green:
How would you rate a group of hitters if it was just a pitcher and hitter on the field taking BP? What value would you give a full swing bunt or a dead duck just outside of the infield grass? What value would you give a hot grounder or a screamer line drive?
I don’t rate one hitter or a group of hitters taking BP because I don’t watch BPs or any team practices other than pre-game routines. It’s not my job. I score games and generate stats based on what happened in those games. That doesn’t mean I couldn’t or wouldn’t develop something for the coach if he asked, and which I have done in various different forms.
If the coach came to me and wanted some way to rate the hitters in BP, I’d find out what it was he wanted to know and how he wanted it presented. Then I’d give him a “work sheet” he could put the information on, he’d fill it out, I’d transfer it into the computer, and present it to him whenever he pleased. But the thing is, I wouldn’t be the one defining anything or making the determination about what something was. It would on the coach to do that because that’s his job.
Originally Posted by real green:
How would you rate a group of hitters if it was just a pitcher and hitter on the field taking BP? What value would you give a full swing bunt or a dead duck just outside of the infield grass? What value would you give a hot grounder or a screamer line drive?
I don’t rate one hitter or a group of hitters taking BP because I don’t watch BPs or any team practices other than pre-game routines. It’s not my job. I score games and generate stats based on what happened in those games. That doesn’t mean I couldn’t or wouldn’t develop something for the coach if he asked, and which I have done in various different forms.
If the coach came to me and wanted some way to rate the hitters in BP, I’d find out what it was he wanted to know and how he wanted it presented. Then I’d give him a “work sheet” he could put the information on, he’d fill it out, I’d transfer it into the computer, and present it to him whenever he pleased. But the thing is, I wouldn’t be the one defining anything or making the determination about what something was. It would on the coach to do that because that’s his job.
What if you were the coach?
Originally Posted by real green:
How would you rate a group of hitters if it was just a pitcher and hitter on the field taking BP? What value would you give a full swing bunt or a dead duck just outside of the infield grass? What value would you give a hot grounder or a screamer line drive?
I don’t rate one hitter or a group of hitters taking BP because I don’t watch BPs or any team practices other than pre-game routines. It’s not my job. I score games and generate stats based on what happened in those games. That doesn’t mean I couldn’t or wouldn’t develop something for the coach if he asked, and which I have done in various different forms.
If the coach came to me and wanted some way to rate the hitters in BP, I’d find out what it was he wanted to know and how he wanted it presented. Then I’d give him a “work sheet” he could put the information on, he’d fill it out, I’d transfer it into the computer, and present it to him whenever he pleased. But the thing is, I wouldn’t be the one defining anything or making the determination about what something was. It would on the coach to do that because that’s his job.
SK, can you go to a game without any prior knowledge to the players and have a high level of confidence to whom are the teams top three hitters by the end of the game?
Originally Posted by real green:
How would you rate a group of hitters if it was just a pitcher and hitter on the field taking BP? What value would you give a full swing bunt or a dead duck just outside of the infield grass? What value would you give a hot grounder or a screamer line drive?
I don’t rate one hitter or a group of hitters taking BP because I don’t watch BPs or any team practices other than pre-game routines. It’s not my job. I score games and generate stats based on what happened in those games. That doesn’t mean I couldn’t or wouldn’t develop something for the coach if he asked, and which I have done in various different forms.
If the coach came to me and wanted some way to rate the hitters in BP, I’d find out what it was he wanted to know and how he wanted it presented. Then I’d give him a “work sheet” he could put the information on, he’d fill it out, I’d transfer it into the computer, and present it to him whenever he pleased. But the thing is, I wouldn’t be the one defining anything or making the determination about what something was. It would on the coach to do that because that’s his job.
SK, can you go to a game without any prior knowledge to the players and have a high level of confidence to whom are the teams top three hitters?
The eye test is a BIG part of this equation. I would bet that most experienced coaches could watch 100 hitters take one live game AB and pick a team of 12 that any combination of the remaining 88 could not beat.
Even if all 100 hitters AB resulted in a full swing bunt. The outcome of one AB can not determine the skill set of the batter.
Originally Posted by real green:
What if you were the coach?
But I’m not a coach and don’t want to be one.
You are a coach so what is it you want? What would your criteria be for rating BP? What value would you give a full swing bunt or a dead duck just outside of the infield grass or a hot grounder or a screamer line drive?
Originally Posted by real green:
SK, can you go to a game without any prior knowledge to the players and have a high level of confidence to whom are the teams top three hitters by the end of the game?
No. I have extremely high confidence that I can tell which 3 hitters performed the best in that game though.
