S. Castro's hitting and his walks

[Uman85]

**** sabermetrics.

 

[Rice Cube]

One problem with interpreting data is that you're best basestealers have often been the lead off hitters over the years. They're followed by 3 and 4 hitters which are often power hitters and they're not typically people who can bunt. Why does this matter? It matters because the people who are getting on base the most frequently are often followed by the best hitters on the team which, simultaneously are the worst bunters.

You have to understand things like this in order to see ways that there are flaws in interpreting data.

It's a double-edged sword there. Because the prototypical leadoff guy is often a slap-hitting speedster who might not draw a lot of walks, they don't actually get on base as much as you think (let's say OBP .340 or less unless their name is Rickey Henderson). The guys behind them who might have to hit with the bases empty and will get on base anyway because they're good at baseball :lol: It's also not directly comparable because to be productive, you almost NEVER want your best hitters to bunt, which doesn't make them bad bunters by default, just infrequent ones.

When you go further down in the order though, once you get to your 7 and 8 hitters who start to suck again, then you'd probably want them to bunt. But I don't think any manager or analyst in their right mind would ever think bunting with Albert Pujols was efficient.

 

[nwfisch]

Conversely, no one is claiming that using Pujols to bunt is a "smart move."

However to say that a pitcher should bunt with a runner on 1st only 50% of the time is irrelevant.

In-game situations dictate when bunting should be used.

 

[Rice Cube]

Conversely, no one is claiming that using Pujols to bunt is a "smart move."

However to say that a pitcher should bunt with a runner on 1st only 50% of the time is irrelevant.

In-game situations dictate when bunting should be used.

The runner on first situation depends on how good the pitcher is at batting and also how many outs there are. If there's no outs, go for it. If there's one out, try to put the ball in play and maybe something awesome will happen. Man in scoring position with two out usually means he's stranded.

 

[nwfisch]

The runner on first situation depends on how good the pitcher is at batting and also how many outs there are. If there's no outs, go for it. If there's one out, try to put the ball in play and maybe something awesome will happen. Man in scoring position with two out usually means he's stranded.

That's what I'm saying. Play in baseball games depend on the game and situation.

I really hope a manager doesn't sit in the dugout and use formulas to decide how to approach the game.

 

[Lex L.]

It's a double-edged sword there. Because the prototypical leadoff guy is often a slap-hitting speedster who might not draw a lot of walks, they don't actually get on base as much as you think (let's say OBP .340 or less unless their name is Rickey Henderson). The guys behind them who might have to hit with the bases empty and will get on base anyway because they're good at baseball :lol: It's also not directly comparable because to be productive, you almost NEVER want your best hitters to bunt, which doesn't make them bad bunters by default, just infrequent ones.

When you go further down in the order though, once you get to your 7 and 8 hitters who start to suck again, then you'd probably want them to bunt. But I don't think any manager or analyst in their right mind would ever think bunting with Albert Pujols was efficient.

At no point was I saying the 3 and 4 hitters should be bunting. But you really need to stop addressing this as if all things are equal. The game has gone through phases. During the steroid era, there was a greater emphasis on relying on power to knock in runs. During this era, there was less speed in the game and also there were fewer and fewer people who were actually good bunters. There still aren't many good bunters.

And your comment about Rickey Henderson was a joke but it was on point. Because during the 80s, it wasn't just Ricky Henderson. You also had guys like Vince Coleman, Willie Wilson, and Tim Raines. There hasnt really been anyone like that since...not with that kind of speed. But at the same time, you also didnt have as many guys who were super strong like you did during the steroid era. All of this changes the equation and how you should look at why the game has been played the way it has.

BTW, one thing that should also be looked at is speed and the role it plays on defense. If someone is a simple-minded twit, they might just look at scoring output of the steroid era compared to the era before and conclude that the way the game was/is played during the steroid era correlates to more runs. But what's getting missed in this is that speed also translates to better defense usually and this contributes to scoring fewer runs.

 

[Rice Cube]

That's what I'm saying. Play in baseball games depend on the game and situation.

I really hope a manager doesn't sit in the dugout and use formulas to decide how to approach the game.

Actually, a manager should use data to approach the game. That's why they play matchups, keep track of pitch counts, employ defensive shifts, etc. Any extra help they can get will give them an edge. And that edge could be what you need to win a game. I don't think you should ever shun additional information and knowledge, but you should use that information right.

 

[nwfisch]

Actually, a manager should use data to approach the game. That's why they play matchups, keep track of pitch counts, employ defensive shifts, etc. Any extra help they can get will give them an edge. And that edge could be what you need to win a game. I don't think you should ever shun additional information and knowledge, but you should use that information right.

There's some things managers would rather do like not have a left handed batter face a LHP.

I'm saying I don't want a manager sitting in the dugout calculating whether or not his team should bunt.

Using the information also means not using it in absolute terms, that this always what a team should do regardless of situation.

 

[Rice Cube]

At no point was I saying the 3 and 4 hitters should be bunting. But you really need to stop addressing this as if all things are equal. The game has gone through phases. During the steroid era, there was a greater emphasis on relying on power to knock in runs. During this era, there was less speed in the game and also there were fewer and fewer people who were actually good bunters. There still aren't many good bunters.

And your comment about Rickey Henderson was a joke but it was on point. Because during the 80s, it wasn't just Ricky Henderson. You also had guys like Vince Coleman, Willie Wilson, and Tim Raines. There hasnt really been anyone like that since...not with that kind of speed. But at the same time, you also didnt have as many guys who were super strong like you did during the steroid era. All of this changes the equation and how you should look at why the game has been played the way it has.

BTW, one thing that should also be looked at is speed and the role it plays on defense. If someone is a simple-minded twit, they might just look at scoring output of the steroid era compared to the era before and conclude that the way the game was/is played during the steroid era correlates to more runs. But what's getting missed in this is that speed also translates to better defense usually and this contributes to scoring fewer runs.

Good points. Methinks speed will translate to better range for sure, but actually recording the out is something different. But since we're talking about speed, a potential bunter with speed is probably more likely to get on base by infield hit or error and thus change the way the opposition plays defense.

 

[Rice Cube]

There's some things managers would rather do like not have a left handed batter face a LHP.

I'm saying I don't want a manager sitting in the dugout calculating whether or not his team should bunt.

Using the information also means not using it in absolute terms, that this always what a team should do regardless of situation.

They're doing it out of habit and they don't know any better. That's different than saying it's the right strategy.

 

[Lex L.]

Good points. Methinks speed will translate to better range for sure, but actually recording the out is something different. But since we're talking about speed, a potential bunter with speed is probably more likely to get on base by infield hit or error and thus change the way the opposition plays defense.

Speed also leads to the 3 and 4 hitters getting more fastballs. If you never run, the likelihood of speed on the bases ensuring the 3-5 hitters seeing more fastballs is diminished. It leads to more errors by the opponent. Balls in the gap suddenly become easy catches.

 

[Lex L.]

There's some things managers would rather do like not have a left handed batter face a LHP.

I'm saying I don't want a manager sitting in the dugout calculating whether or not his team should bunt.

Using the information also means not using it in absolute terms, that this always what a team should do regardless of situation.

Some of the data is skewed though. When a hitter is 0-8 against a certain pitcher, does that mean the hitter really struggles against the pitcher OR does that mean he faced that pitcher a couple of times during a slump? Managers shouldn't be stathead robots. It's their job to make the necessary interpretations that sometimes fly in the face of data.

 

[Rice Cube]

Some of the data is skewed though. When a hitter is 0-8 against a certain pitcher, does that mean the hitter really struggles against the pitcher OR does that mean he faced that pitcher a couple of times during a slump? Managers shouldn't be stathead robots. It's their job to make the necessary interpretations that sometimes fly in the face of data.

Statheads also realize that sample size is very important when interpreting this type of data

 

[DewsSox79]

No doubt. I never said that there should be no bunting. I just said it's not the smart thing to do. There are of course situations where it can come in handy.


I care about netting the most runs, because runs turn into wins. And that's your goal. To win. Not bunting gives you a better chance at winning, although there are some exceptions.

Bunting shouldn't be dismissed. It's just very rare that bunting is actual the smart move.

What?!?!?! jesus christ.

 

[X]

Is CO serious here, or just trying to ruffle feathers?

 

[Rice Cube]

Is CO serious here, or just trying to ruffle feathers?

I think he's serious. He sort of has a point with respect to run expectancy, but might be overstepping the point a lot.

 

[nwfisch]

I think he's serious. He sort of has a point with respect to run expectancy, but might be overstepping the point a lot.

The bolded happened a lot more earlier in the site's history.

 

[Lex L.]

Statheads also realize that sample size is very important when interpreting this type of data

Actually, isn't the number of instances to achieve the highest degree of statistical validity kind of low?

 

[Rice Cube]

Actually, isn't the number of instances to achieve the highest degree of statistical validity kind of low?

Depends on what we're talking about. The FanGraphs saber library (yeah yeah) has some guidelines as to how many plate appearances and innings need to be accrued before you can consider certain skills statistically significant.

 

[Lex L.]

Depends on what we're talking about. The FanGraphs saber library (yeah yeah) has some guidelines as to how many plate appearances and innings need to be accrued before you can consider certain skills statistically significant.

Sorry, but Im talking about stastically valid sample sizes that lead to 97.5% (or whatever it is) validity. Im not talking about this made up world that Bill James created.