Value of hits.

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? 

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. 

I don’t understand what it is you’re trying to prove here. I’ve never once said the ‘eye test’ isn’t an important part of making judgments about players, nor have I ever said one AB, 100, or even 1,000 would be able to give someone the ability to accurately predict what a player would do in the future.

So what’s your point?

A 2x4 swings around and hits you in the head. It hurts. What do you do the next time you see the 2x4 swinging around?

What's the definition of insanity? Playing the same game over and over and expecting a different result.

I don't know why I cant let this go.

My point is performance.  Take away different results.  Batter one hit bloop fly ball that the middle infielder catches.  Batter two smoke a frozen rope to the outfielder caught on the track.  Which batter had a better plate performance? 

Originally Posted by real green:

Performance for you is only based on results of the event.  While I am OK with taking into account other factors that might impact future events. 

Like we communicate to pitchers all the time.  Once the ball leaves your hand, you are no longer in control of the events to follow.

A pitcher can throw a perfect pitch that the hitter can hit out of the park.  The result of that one AB has zero weight on the performance of the pitcher.   

I’m not the one who defines performance. The guy deciding on whose cut, who pitches, who bats, where they bat, who plays in the field, and where they play is the one doing the defining.

How did this get to be a discussion about a pitcher’s performance?

Originally Posted by real green:

I don't know why I cant let this go.

Mebbe you can’t let it go because you’re not sure what it is about what I say that’s bothering you.

My point is performance. 

GREAT! Let’s talk about performance by defining it first.

I say there are two different kinds of performance. One’s RESULT oriented and is pretty black and white. In the case of hitters, it’s measured by numbers that are based on what the player did. BA, OBP, K:BB rate, and any of hundreds of other metrics that measure performance.

The other kind of performance is PROCESS oriented, and is much more difficult to get a handle on because everyone’s idea about how something should be done is slightly different. Those things are much more difficult to measure because they’re so subjective. Things like hustle, mechanics, how hard the ball was hit, or what trajectory the ball was hit on are all process oriented.

If someone is result oriented, they care about is the final number not how that number came about. If someone is process oriented, they care about how the event took place, and ignore the final number. The result oriented guy looking at a golf leaderboard doesn’t need pictures to decide on who won or lost and doesn‘t care how it happened. The process oriented guy doesn’t care who won or lost the tournament, but needs to see how every stroke was taken and form his judgements from that.

Take away different results.  Batter one hit bloop fly ball that the middle infielder catches.  Batter two smoke a frozen rope to the outfielder caught on the track.  Which batter had a better plate performance? 

That’s a process orients perspective.

Both perspectives are useful, and the most successful organizations get the best balance of both.

Here's a perspective, could be right or wrong, doesn't matter to me, just thought I'd throw it out.

Let's take MLB.  For the most part, I think we can all agree that scouts look at tools.  The 6.4 60, the 95 mph fastball, the batter with power who can hit it out, the line drive hitter who can hit to the gaps, etc...  These things are mostly process oriented.  (I know you can argue a 60 time and FB velocity are numbers or stats, but they are not "in game" performance related.)  All these things are part of the "eye test".  All these things can also potentially get you into the MiLB system.  In game results are not necessarily a requirement as long as you have the tools that can translate onto a MLB field.

However, once you get on the field, it is actual results that matter.  If you don't generate results, you won't be around long.  How many guys in MiLB can throw 95?  I don't know, but I would guess there are a lot.  And there are a lot that will never touch a MLB field, because they don't get results.  And if they are given a chance on the MLB field and don't produce, they won't be there very long.

So, I guess what I'm saying is that the "eye test" and all those subjective, process oriented assessments will get you a chance.  But if you don't produce with the actual performance based numbers, your chance will be short lived.  The key is to show those "eye test" skills and then actually put them to use once you hit the field and play in the games.  

Both have their place.  One set to get there, the other to stay there.

Very well put!

Originally Posted by bballman:

…Let's take MLB.  For the most part, I think we can all agree that scouts look at tools.  The 6.4 60, the 95 mph fastball, the batter with power who can hit it out, the line drive hitter who can hit to the gaps, etc...  These things are mostly process oriented.  (I know you can argue a 60 time and FB velocity are numbers or stats, but they are not "in game" performance related.)  All these things are part of the "eye test".  All these things can also potentially get you into the MiLB system.  In game results are not necessarily a requirement as long as you have the tools that can translate onto a MLB field….

FWIW, I agree with your post. I also think your point above is very important. Those things you mentioned and many others the scouts use to come up with an overall “grade”, like Ht, Wt, attitude, hustle, or whatever are very important to their process. While some are black and white like ht, wt, or FB velocity, some of the others get pretty subjective. I think the thing that separates the teams is how well they manage to get the subjective stuff nailed as accurately as possible and use that plus the objective stuff to come to conclusions.

I thought about height and weight after I posted earlier.  Like FB velocity and 60 times, they are quantifiable, however, they are still subjective in terms of performance and durability as well.  Some teams put much more weight on them than others.  While studies have shown that height and weight have no bearing on injury potential, clubs still tend to think that the bigger guys are more durable.  Not necessarily true, but a subjective assessment put on a measurable value.  The bigger guys will get the benefit of the doubt, but it doesn't necessarily translate into on field performance.

Originally Posted by bballman:

I thought about height and weight after I posted earlier.  Like FB velocity and 60 times, they are quantifiable, however, they are still subjective in terms of performance and durability as well.  Some teams put much more weight on them than others.  While studies have shown that height and weight have no bearing on injury potential, clubs still tend to think that the bigger guys are more durable.  Not necessarily true, but a subjective assessment put on a measurable value.  The bigger guys will get the benefit of the doubt, but it doesn't necessarily translate into on field performance.

They are subjective only because everyone has different interpretations of the value of them or the organization has different needs. FI, if a ML team is looking for a 2^nd baseman, a pitcher who throws 97 or an outfielder that can run a 6.5 60 don’t have the same value they might otherwise have.

Your example about height and weight is a great example of perception vs. reality. Those things can and do change and reality will eventually win out, but it takes a great deal of time. Either everyone who believes it’s true has to have their mind changed, or time will eventually replace the ignorance with more enlightened thinking. Trouble is, it could and does take decades because the past has so much influence on the present.

Originally Posted by Stats4Gnats:

Why? Seriously. What do you find about BAWRISP that makes it “very important”? Not important or interesting, but very important.  

ryno, did I miss your answer to the above post I made or did you decide not to post one?

It pretty simple really.  I want guys who are "Clutch".  Guys who are not scared of being "The Guy" when the pressure comes.  I want guys who can drive in runs!  If they have a high BA when guys are on base, they are going to drive in more runs.  Many guys can get hits when the bases are empty, and when the pressure is not on.  Give me a guy with a good BA with guys in scoring position any day!

Baseball is the ultimate probabilities game.  Guys that throw 95 should be hit hard less than guys that throw 91 and again down to 88.  Movement and location are factors but velocity is a difference maker.

Power at the plate, consistent hard contact is another.  Guys that square it up 4 or 5 times in 10 trips vs. the guy who does it 3 times will have better numbers over hundreds of at bats. 

All of that thinking is what drives the SabreMetric approach over the traditional approach to valuing players. For example in 1995 there was RBI and perhaps BARISP.  Both tell a story and there is some value to them.  But tell me BARISP when my team is tied or behind and then further split it before and after the 7th inning.  Now I have some meat to chew on.

There are guys out there that are great at taking a 3-1 lead to 5-1 with a bases loaded hit in the 3rd.  But maybe not so much down 4-2 with full sacks in the 8th.

One of my favorite players of all time Keith Hernandez played in two Game 7's in the World Series.  In both games in the 6th inning with his team down by at least two runs he delivered bases loaded base hits to drive in two runs and change the games around and led to championships.  Not many guys do that once in a career much less twice.

Originally Posted by rynoattack:

It pretty simple really.  I want guys who are "Clutch".  Guys who are not scared of being "The Guy" when the pressure comes.  I want guys who can drive in runs!  If they have a high BA when guys are on base, they are going to drive in more runs.  Many guys can get hits when the bases are empty, and when the pressure is not on.  Give me a guy with a good BA with guys in scoring position any day!

I understand what you BELIEVE, but the numbers geeks have been proved over and over again that there just isn’t any reliable “clutch” number. However, rather than try to change your mind with my own words, I’ll leave it to some others who have said it much better than I ever could.

http://www.fangraphs.com/library/misc/clutch/

http://www.sbnation.com/2013/7...ting-myth-statistics

http://www.baseballprospectus....e.php?articleid=2656

http://research.sabr.org/journ...clutch-hitters-exist

http://bleacherreport.com/arti...d-why-we-buy-into-it