Strike percentage

[quote=“scorekeeper”]keepitfun

, but its pretty obvious its not reciprocated.[/quote]

At least we do agree on something.

I’m not sure Dave would agree with you either

So now we’ve established that you have no respect for me or my opinions. OK. I can deal with that, but isn’t it just a bit childish to disrespect someone who’s decades older, likely one heck of a lot more educated, and far far more experienced, just because he challenges your opinion?

Are you now saying dave disrespects me too? That may or may not be true, but why don’t you allow him to make that determination, rather than dragging him into something that has your undies bunched.

I try very hard not to call people names, insult their family, or tell them how to live their lives. I try to be respectful, even though at times I’m sure what I say is misinterpreted. Not everyone handles situations the same, and you’ve got to learn to deal with that. I’d apologize if I offended you, but I don’t apologize for challenging anyone, any more than I’d get angry for someone challenging me.

So now we’ve established that you have no respect for me or my opinions. OK. I can deal with that, but isn’t it just a bit childish to disrespect someone who’s decades older, likely one heck of a lot more educated, and far far more experienced, just because he challenges your opinion?

Are you now saying dave disrespects me too? That may or may not be true, but why don’t you allow him to make that determination, rather than dragging him into something that has your undies bunched.

I try very hard not to call people names, insult their family, or tell them how to live their lives. I try to be respectful, even though at times I’m sure what I say is misinterpreted. Not everyone handles situations the same, and you’ve got to learn to deal with that. I’d apologize if I offended you, but I don’t apologize for challenging anyone, any more than I’d get angry for someone challenging me.[/quote]

For some who speaks of nothing but the facts, how do you know how old I am or how educated or experienced I am.
I haven’t called anyone a name or insulted their family either, just tired of your one sided conversations

SK,

While your stat sheet is interesting it doesn’t really tell the story as it only shows hits after a certain situation as a % of total hits. What you really need is a BA after a certain situation.

There is a huge advantage to a hitter who knows or has a reason to believe that a strike is coming, why else would BA be higher in hitters counts.

As far as throwing too many strikes on the surface I agree, more is better provided they are quality strikes. What I disagree is with youth pitchers the ones that generally have stike % above 2/3 generally give up a lot of hits because they throw too many pitches over the fat part of the plate. When they try to hit spots on the corners their strike % goes down. Now if a youth pitcher is throwing on the corners and still has a strike % of 75% then more power to him. I have yet to see one who can consistently do that. The general standard for ML pitchers is 2/3 strikes.

I agree that that stat doesn’t tell the “whole” story, but really no stat by itself does. A huge restriction is the amount of information one can cram into a given space. I could set up the print output to be much larger, but I try to keep my stats “normal” paper size of 11x8 because so few people have printers or paper to handle the larger sizes.

But to tell the truth, even if it a lot of folks had the capability, I doubt there’d be many stats where I’d do it. If I’ve found out nothing else over the last 30 years of generating computer out for users, its that when throwing numbers on a page of paper, there’s a limit as to when it becomes too busy for all but the most crazed of us. :wink:

In that particular case, I’d have to add 7 more columns to add the averages. Then I’d have to add another 7 more columns to show how many times the situation happened. There just isn’t enough room on a standard sheet of paper to do that without cramming everything together, forcing the user to try to pull the numbers he wants from a glom of other numbers.

If I were to do something such as you ask, what I’d do is a totally different stat, that only shows BAs after certain situations. Take a look at this link. It shows hitting totally differently, but it kind of demonstrates what happens when you try to show things from too many perspectives. http://www.infosports.com/scorekeeper/images/4dave2.pdf

While they may all look the same, if you look carefully at the headings of each BATTLE3 page, you see there are hitters shown, pitchers shown, some are for what happens with runners on, no runners on, and combined. Imagine trying to get that all on one page, and it isn’t even broken down by player. :wink:

There are other “issues” about it, but basically it boils down to me trying to answer a question with the stat when I created it, not answer all possible questions. Like all baseball fans and players, for years I’d heard how hitting was “contagious”, and wanted to see if I could prove/disprove it with numbers.

Unfortunately, about all I could prove, was that some players got a higher percentage of hits in an at bat following another hit, while others didn’t. After looking at the numbers, I could see where in order to get a real answer, I’d have to compute the number of opportunities they got to follow 1 hit with another, as well as other factors, but it wasn’t that important to me.

Now if I scored for you and you laid out what it was you wanted, assuming I had the data to do it, I would. But for me, as far as answering the original question, I was satisfied that getting hits being contagious is pretty much a perception rather than a fact. Rather, I suspect it has a lot more to do with putting the ball in play being contagious. :wink:

Well, your question is a fair one, and I’ll do my best to give a reasonable answer. 1st of all, let’s define what a hitter’s count is so we’ll be on the same page. To me a hitter’s count is when it would take the same number or less pitches to walk a batter than it would be to strike him out. plus there is no possibility the batter can strike out. That would be 1-0, 2-0, 3-0, 2-1, or 3-1. All 0-2 and 1-2 counts can be considered pitcher’s counts because he has an additional possibility of getting the batter out. All other counts really give no general advantage to either the hitter or pitcher, however things definitely depend on the hitter’s and pitcher’s abilities.

IOW, on a 3-2 count, a pitcher who has command of 3 different pitches against a hitter who is pretty much only a FB hitter has a huge advantage, while a good hitter against a pitcher who only has command over 1 pitch would have an advantage.

So what you have is situations where its more likely a batter will swing because there’s no consequence if he misses. Then you have the pitchers. As much as people would like to believe they can all hit a gnat in the gnuts, many many have to resort to the pitch they command “best” in critical situations, which is more likely than not a FB, which also happens to be the easiest pitch there is to hit.

The result of all that is, while there is a reason to guess its likely a pitch will be a strike, there’s no reason at all to believe that’s the main reason BAs are higher in hitter’s counts. Here’s an excellent article about this subject. http://faculty.engr.utexas.edu/bickel/Papers/AVG_by_Count.pdf

Well, my guess is, quality strikes or not, generally speaking more is better, with quality strikes being much better.

I honestly can’t speak with any expertise at all about what youth pitchers do or don’t do because there’s so little data. Personally, I’ve seldom heard of a youth pitcher throwing 66% strikes over a very long period of time, and for those I have, I haven’t seen the accompanying data with it, like counts, that can be used to sort the issue out. I’m guessing that with the movement to electronic scoring, more data be available in the future.

As to whether or not they throw more “fat” pitches, I’m not sure that’s really much of a factor. It would be if all hitters were of a high caliber, but in youth ball, many hitters can’t hit a ball very well if its on a tee, let alone when someone throws it at them. .) But I see your reasoning, and given all things were equal, I’d agree.

And you’re correct that when pitchers start “nibbling”, and I don’t just mean youth pitchers, strike %ages go down. What the real consequences are, is that there are more counts favorable to hitters, even though there might be fewer good pitches to hit.

Do you have a reference or a link for that ML standard? I’d really appreciate seeing it. I think its true, but I’ve never found it backed up by a study or numbers other than really general things for small groups of pitchers.

Great discussion!

Here is one link to strike % statistics for major leaguers.

http://www.efastball.com/baseball/pitching/pitching-strike-to-ball-ratio/

I’ve seen that one before, and it kind of shows how close pitchers really are can give people the wrong idea about what the numbers are really saying. You said:

They said:

In general terms, both of those things say much the same thing. After all you saying 2/3rds or 66% is very close to them saying roughly 2:1 or roughly 66%. But when talking about performance variations, its not like there are a few pitchers who never throw a strike and a few who throw nothing but, so there’s a standard bell curve covering all 100 different percentages.

Instead, the curve covers a much smaller range of percentages, with each level reducing that range from the very 1st kid pitch up to the ML. FI, at the very lowest level, I’m gonna guess the worst pitcher is around 33% and the best 70%. At the HS level I’m gonna guess the worst is maybe 50% and the best 70%. And going by the number in the link, the top ML pitcher is at or close to 70%, and I’m gonna guess the bottom limit is pretty close to 55%.

What those numbers seem to be showing is, there’s pretty much an upper limit of about 70% at any level, for whatever reasons. But, that lower limit changes a lot. The reason for that is, the percentage of “weak” pitchers slowly diminishes as the levels get higher, but the upper limit for the good pitchers stays pretty much the same. What you end up with is at the ML level you end up with supposedly the very best 300-400 pitchers in the entire world, and even they can’t exceed the 70% number.:wink:

But at the same time when you look very closely at the numbers in that link, they say the average ML pitcher throws 62% strikes, yet you say the general standard is 66%. Now you get into semantics and word meanings. Average means taking everyone into consideration, but general standard can mean anything. In your case, using the numbers, general standard seems to mean the top end of the better ML pitchers, which is a pretty high standard.

But even at that, look at what separates an “average” ML pitcher from a much better than average ML pitcher. 4 lousy percent! But here’s the thing to keep in mind. There’s all kids of different success, no matter what the strike percentages. A great example is, Carpenter has a lower ERA than Verlander, although Verlander throws a higher percentage of strikes. Before you scratch you head wondering how that happens, its actually pretty easy.

While Carpenter certainly gets his share of K’s, he’s certainly not on the same level with Verlander, and more K’s generally means more pitches that are strikes. So, a high K pitcher may well have a better strike percentage than a pitcher who throws more to contact. But that’s only one of many different possibilities.

The whole thing comes down to the two of us saying pretty much the same thing, but with slightly different perspectives. You’re like most people and talk very generally, using numbers that have enough precision for general conversation. But being a number’s guy, I tend to look for a lot more precision, and when I point out that difference, there are some people who take it as me calling them a liar, when that’s not at all true.

I know all the talk of numbers rubs some people the wrong way, but I think its really the only way to see things as they really are. Thanx for a great discussion!