The Hardball Times:Hit ‘em where they ain’t—if you can
1
|
The Hardball Times found this 5/15/2008 on www.hardballtimes.com [flag] |
Tags:
MLB
Comments (11)
-
-
walshj58 It'd be interesting to look at the location of pitches swung at with 2-strike counts compared to counts with fewer than 2 strikes. It seems reasonable to expect more foul balls on the extra (2-strike) swings, but the data (as you said) don't really support it.
Regarding the decline of place-hitting over time: are the two things you mentioned (lighter bats, less choking up) a cause of reduced place hitting ability or a consequence of it? Maybe there's just less emphasis put on the ability to place hit, hence batters hold the bat lower on the handle?
-
-
Chris Jaffe Interesting Cobb quote - just last night I read a quote from him where he said the exact opposite. From Game of Inches: "never try to place a hit. In the first place, you can't do it, and it is not a good idea, anyway. Very few batters ever successsfully acquired the art. I never try to place hit. I have tried simply to meet the ball solidly and let the hits find holes for themselvs."
-
walshj58 That is interesting. Cobb was a complicated dude.
-
-
notsellingjeans Is the average velocity of a MLB pitch different than it was in Cobb's era, John? I don't know the research on that but I'm guessing you've read it. If pitchers throw harder today, it would make sense that it's harder to place hit.
Anyone can place-hit in a casual game of pepper. The more velocity and movement added to the pitch, the more difficult it gets. Once we control for batter skill, I wouldn't be surprised if place-hitting ability follows a projectible curve from 60 to 70/80/90/100 mph: greater velocity/movement = more difficult to place hit.
So if pitchers throw with greater velocity and movement than they did in Cobb's era, I'd consider that a partial explanation.
-
walshj58 Actually, the issue of how fast the old-timers threw is a pretty interesting one. You'd expect, based on the evolution of records in swimming, track & field, etc, that pitchers throw harder today. But I do remember that Bill James wrote (where ?) that due to the big windups the old-timers took, they probably threw as hard as today's pitchers. I'm doubtful, but, hey, it's Bill James.
In any case, I think the main issue is that in the dead-ball era, there just wasn't much incentive to swing from the heels. The ball was mushy, fences were like 400-500 feet from home plate (literally) and in many cases, it made sense to try to punch the ball between the fielders rather than blast it over their heads. If you read some of the old-time literature, you find player after player who was just trying to find a hole somewhere.
-
-
pizzacutter John, I did a little bit of work on "productive outs" a while ago and found that there was a little bit skill, but that there wasn't much to it. Do these stats reproduce from year to year.
Also, thanks for the link love on the foul ball series.
-
walshj58 Hey Russell,
I don't know about the y-t-y correlations. That's something for a rainy day (or a day of writer's block).
-
-
notsellingjeans John,
Thanks for consistently providing entertaining and informative reading, and for graciously continuing the dialogue in the comments section. Another great piece.
-
walshj58 thanks, Jacob, for the kind words.
-
-
bdavis931 I found this piece very interesting. Great work!
A few questions came to mind after reading it. Did you factor in game situation in the analysis? I would assume that there are game situations (such as down by 3 or more runs late in the game) in which you wouldn't help your team that much by trading an out to advance a runner one base (for example a sac fly or hit to right side). And there are situations where these events help your team tremendously (such as tie games or down by 1 run).
Can you isolate those game situations where these events are the most advantageous? I wonder if the effect would be more dramatic, and therefore you would see a greater difference in ability to hit to right side or to successfully hit a sac fly.
Links (1)
Place Hitting
Published 5/15/2008 by Tangotiger (tangotiger@yahoo.com) at THE BOOK--Playing The Percentages In Baseball
I haven’t even read Walsh’s piece, but I’m excited to. BRB.
Concerning your conclusion ("frankly, I'm not surprised...") about the 2-strike fouls- it's not that batters have the incredible bat control to be intentionally hitting foul balls with 2 strikes (ignoring Ichiro, maybe), but that as you said, they are forced to swing at pitches which they otherwise wouldn't have spent a swing on. If you were to look at A) the pitches which the batter thinks he can hit hard and B) the pitches that he is swinging at for some other reason, such as having 2 strikes, I'm sure that the latter would produce a lot more foul balls (now we just need that brain f/x data). Swinging at the iffy 2 strike pitches gives a lesser chance of success, i.e. a greater chance of non-success, in which fouls are included. Now that sounds all well and good, but as you showed, it isn't true. I've named my objection to your explanation, but I can't think of another one.
Also- I imagine that the historical decline in place-hitting has to do with the increased popularity of lighter bats, and the decreased popularity of choking up on the bat.