Around Baseball 2023

[jaysblue]

Unpopular opinion, but this is why I used to be a Wilner supporter. Fielding calls from angry neck breathing causal fans who know next to nothing about baseball is brutal. He could have just gone along with their outdated views - but I think more often than not, he tried to help educate fans by explaining that hitting .240 doesn't mean Varsho is a s***** hitter or that Gausman's 12-10 season doesn't necessarily mean he's underperformed.

 

That said - he often came off as condescending - but most days, the collective IQ of the callers was like -4, so f***'em.

 

Yeah I didn't mind Wilner. His show was entertaining and did enjoy seeing him putting those angry callers in their place.

 

He was condescending at times and even if you were to make a rational argument or point, he would try to still look like he was always correct. He did come off as a Blue Jays apologist at times, which is understandable working on the Fan 590. Otherwise he had a good show and did enjoy tuning in every so often.

[Laika]

Yeah, that old rant from Crash Davis in Bull Durham rings true. over 600 PAs (only like 13 players had more than 600 At bats last season, so just using it as a reference point) , the difference between .250 and .300 is 30 hits if we assume walk rates and the other stuff that dont count as At bats are about the same.

 

.250 avg = 150 hits, 1.08 hits per game assuming all 162 games are played

300 avg = 180 hits, 1.11 hits per game assuming all 162 games are played.

 

Baseball season is 26.3 weeks this year... basically 1 extra hit per week.

 

Doesnt seem to be a huge skill gap does it.

 

But you can apply different kinds of mental gymnastics here.

 

Say some player gets 30 extra hits in a season. Decent odds that at least one of those will be a huge "game winner" type of hit, right?

 

Suddenly you can think of those "30 extra hits" as "one extra win" or even "two extra wins"

 

And in your head it suddenly weighs more. Of course the player who can lead to one or two extra wins is better!

 

We have just done a double mental gymnastics backflip to a WAR analogy.

 

And we haven't even talked about scarcity. AAA is full of guys who can get, say, 100 hits in 450 at bats. But it's HARD to find guys who can get 120 hits in 450 at bats.

 

20% more than 5'10" is 7'0" -->

[Jimcanuck]

i.e., what is the incremental value

[Brownie19]

But you can apply different kinds of mental gymnastics here.

 

Say some player gets 30 extra hits in a season. Decent odds that at least one of those will be a huge "game winner" type of hit, right?

 

Suddenly you can think of those "30 extra hits" as "one extra win" or even "two extra wins"

 

And in your head it suddenly weighs more. Of course the player who can lead to one or two extra wins is better!

 

We have just done a double mental gymnastics backflip to a WAR analogy.

 

And we haven't even talked about scarcity. AAA is full of guys who can get, say, 100 hits in 450 at bats. But it's HARD to find guys who can get 120 hits in 450 at bats.

 

20% more than 5'10" is 7'0" -->

 

I don't equate 1 game winning hit to 'one extra win'. That hit is no more valuable than the hit that scored the first run that game, or the hit/walk that advanced the winning run into scoring position, or the hit with nobody on in the 3rd inning. That hit just happened to occur at the moment that scored the winning run (after a bunch of other valuable things already happened).

 

That said - the gap between a ML career and one that fizzles out in AAA is really small.

[Laika]

I don't equate 1 game winning hit to 'one extra win'. That hit is no more valuable than the hit that scored the first run that game, or the hit/walk that advanced the winning run into scoring position, or the hit with nobody on in the 3rd inning. That hit just happened to occur at the moment that scored the winning run (after a bunch of other valuable things already happened).

 

That said - the gap between a ML career and one that fizzles out in AAA is really small.

 

but you are kind of missing the point

 

here we are just looking for ways to explain to Crash Davis and jaysblue why "just 20 extra hits" over a whole season is actually a big deal

 

you can't use the obvious measurements like linear weights because Crash Davis does not understand any of that

 

you have to use on-the-field analogies that Joe Average Athlete could track

[Brownie19]

but you are kind of missing the point

 

here we are just looking for ways to explain to Crash Davis and jaysblue why "just 20 extra hits" over a whole season is actually a big deal

 

you can't use the obvious measurements like linear weights because Crash Davis does not understand any of that

 

you have to use on-the-field analogies that Joe Average Athlete could track

 

I see. I generally agree with Crash though. The difference between a .300 hitter and a .250 hitter isn't that big. That's another reason why I (we?) no longer put a ton of value in someone's average.

[Laika]

Okay but that's stupid

 

It's like saying the difference between 5'10" and 7'0" (a 20% difference) isn't that significant

 

A player who can hit .300 is so good at getting hits that they can more or less suck farts at everything else on the field and still be good. See e.g. Luis Arraez.

[Dick_Pole]

Two things about my post, a day later:

 

1. I guess I can feel privileged that the only thing that has triggered me lately was arguing online about the relative importance of baseball stats.

2. I'm happy to see the conversation my post has started.

[Dick_Pole]

2005 Cy Young Award. Bartolo colon and his 21 Wins had no right winning. Johan Santana(16 Wins) topped him in every single other stat.

 

And I am not offended about it because it wasn't an egregious decision. Maybe voters didn't want to give Santana the award because he had won it the year before? I know it sounds ridiculous out of context. But then compare him to Clemens and Maddux. The guys who won back-to-backs at a similarly young age. Maybe voters didn't want to put Santana in that category yet? Compare Santana's seasons to Clemens and Maddux's first two Cy Young seasons and they are a step down.

 

Then we can extend the idea further to Clemens' 1988 season. Even though he put up a WAR that should at least put him up for contention against Viola and Gubicza, he finished 6th in voting. Finishing behind even inferior teammate Bruce Hurst. Voters clearly said "yeah, we aren't giving you three in a row. That would make you possibly the greatest pitcher of all time and we aren't comfortable admitting that just yet and we have other viable candidates".

 

Had Santana won in 2005, he'd have won three in a row which would normally have cemented a HOF career. I think most people would agree that he falls just short of HOF status. He makes more sense having Saberhagen and Lincecum as peers rather than Maddux, Clemens or Johnson. So maybe voter instincts were right all along?

[Carlos Danger]

Okay but that's stupid

 

It's like saying the difference between 5'10" and 7'0" (a 20% difference) isn't that significant

 

A player who can hit .300 is so good at getting hits that they can more or less suck farts at everything else on the field and still be good. See e.g. Luis Arraez.

 

Then if you have two players on the team that hit near .300 vs .250 that is 60 additional hits. In a game where pitching staffs sometimes give up under 5 hits in a game. Sixty is a lot of hits.. Maybe that one hit turns into a stolen base, or the next guy walks and pushes a guy to third and then he scores on a pass ball etc, etc... Extrapolation in baseball is a big deal.

[jerb]

 

MLB

@MLB

 

New on-field rules are coming in 2023, and we have answers for your questions: https://atmlb.com/MYlh2D

[Terminator]

Also, is there really a big difference between a .300 hitter vs. someone who hits .240-.250? It's like an extra 5 or so hits per month/per 100AB.

 

Obviously, you want that .250 hitter contributing in other areas like getting on-base at a high clip, hit for power, good baserunner, good defensively etc.

 

There's a HUGE difference. The player hitting .250 is already starting off with 50 points less on his OBP (that in itself is a massive deal) and 50 points less in SLG.

 

The .250 hitter is going to need to walk significantly more and also hit for more power to make up the difference.

[Brownie19]

Okay but that's stupid

 

It's like saying the difference between 5'10" and 7'0" (a 20% difference) isn't that significant

 

A player who can hit .300 is so good at getting hits that they can more or less suck farts at everything else on the field and still be good. See e.g. Luis Arraez.

 

Sorry, I don't get the comparison to height at all. And there are plenty of examples of batters who hit .300 and were below average hitters (per wRC+). But - my point was simply the difference between a .300 hitter and a .250 hitter (which could also be the difference between a ML career and a AAAA player) doesn't feel like it's very big when you break it down to 1 more hit per week - especially given the amount of factors/luck/randomness involved in BABIP.

 

Of course what you do with your hits plays a huge factor. If your extra hit per week is always a HR, then obviously you're a stud. If you're David Eckstein - then meh, whatever.

[Terminator]

It's pretty hard to be a bad player if you hit .300.

 

Luis Arraez has a great hit tool and an average walk rate. He has no pop, is slow and can't run the bases and is a horrendous fielder (even at 1B). But he's still a damn good player all bc he can hit .300.

[Terminator]

Tony Gwynn played over half of his career as 30-something year old lardass with no pop and he's a Hall of Famer because he could hit for a high batting average.

[Brownie19]

It's pretty hard to be a bad player if you hit .300.

 

Luis Arraez has a great hit tool, a barely above average walk rate and then has no pop, is slow and can't run the bases and is a horrendous fielder (even at 1B) but is still a damn good player. All bc he can hit .300.

 

Ichiro is a career .311 hitter, yet was only 4% above the league average. Dante Bichette showed us for years that you can hit .300, while being a pretty bad player. From 1997 to 2001, he hit .306 with a 101 wRC+ and a total WAR of 1.6 over the 5 year span.

[Grant77]

Ichiro is a career .311 hitter, yet was only 4% above the league average. Dante Bichette showed us for years that you can hit .300, while being a pretty bad player. From 1997 to 2001, he hit .306 with a 101 wRC+ and a total WAR of 1.6 over the 5 year span.

 

Let's not overlook the -84 defensive runs in that calculation. It had a far bigger impact on his WAR than his batting average.

[jaysblue]

There's a HUGE difference. The player hitting .250 is already starting off with 50 points less on his OBP (that in itself is a massive deal) and 50 points less in SLG.

 

The .250 hitter is going to need to walk significantly more and also hit for more power to make up the difference.

 

Yeah obviously that .250 hitter is going to have to have a higher BB% and/or hit for more power.

 

Like Jose Bautista in 2010 hit .260 whereas Robinson Cano hit .319 and had 50 more hits. At the end of the day, Bautista posted 6.5 WAR and Cano 6.4 WAR, so not much of a difference. That .250 hitter obviously needs to contribute in a lot of other ways like power, high OBP, strong defense etc.

[Brownie19]

Let's not overlook the -84 defensive runs in that calculation. It had a far bigger impact on his WAR than his batting average.

 

Do you want a .306, 101 wRC+ hitter who can't play defense or run the bases in your lineup daily simply because he's hitting .306?

[jaysblue]

Sorry, I don't get the comparison to height at all. And there are plenty of examples of batters who hit .300 and were below average hitters (per wRC+). But - my point was simply the difference between a .300 hitter and a .250 hitter (which could also be the difference between a ML career and a AAAA player) doesn't feel like it's very big when you break it down to 1 more hit per week - especially given the amount of factors/luck/randomness involved in BABIP.

 

Of course what you do with your hits plays a huge factor. If your extra hit per week is always a HR, then obviously you're a stud. If you're David Eckstein - then meh, whatever.

 

Yeah obviously more hits the better but like you said, depends on what type of hits they are. If they're only singles, meh. If they're HR's or doubles, different story. Someone like David Eckstein can hit .290-.300 but can be meh in a lot of other categories.

 

You can even see studs, where they vary from season to season. One season they could .300 and then the next .260ish. Look at Jose Bautista as an example. In the end, he still provided excellent OBP skills, power numbers, so his batting average whether he hit .300 or .250 didn't make such a huge difference at the end of the day.

[Terminator]

Ichiro is a career .311 hitter, yet was only 4% above the league average. Dante Bichette showed us for years that you can hit .300, while being a pretty bad player. From 1997 to 2001, he hit .306 with a 101 wRC+ and a total WAR of 1.6 over the 5 year span.

 

Bichette played in Coors Field in the height of the steroid era. He also made 13 errors in the OF and was terrible out there.

 

Ichiro hit .311 with zero pop whatsoever, never walked and was still an above average hitter all because of his batting average. I think he proves my point.

[Spanky__99]

 

A player who can hit .300 is so good at getting hits that they can more or less suck farts at everything else on the field and still be good. See e.g. Luis Arraez.

 

Arraez has lots of value in plate discipline, dude's an on base machine.

[Dick_Pole]

So...like...why are we pretending an extra hit a week is no big deal? The cosmic microwave background had variances so minute that scientists are amazed at how uniform the universe was in its early days. Yet those teeny tiny variances led to all the galaxies and super clusters of galaxies and massive voids we see in the universe right now. A hit a week is a huge freaking difference and laika's example of a 5'10 dude versus a 7'0 dude is totally and completely apt. The variance in per inning rate of hits for Ty Cobb versus JP Arencibia is close to zero. Are we saying that those two players are basically the same now too?

[Grant77]

Do you want a .306, 101 wRC+ hitter who can't play defense or run the bases in your lineup daily simply because he's hitting .306?

 

I would probably take him over a guy who hits .240 with a 101 wRC+ and historically bad defense.

[Laika]

So...like...why are we pretending an extra hit a week is no big deal? The cosmic microwave background had variances so minute that scientists are amazed at how uniform the universe was in its early days. Yet those teeny tiny variances led to all the galaxies and super clusters of galaxies and massive voids we see in the universe right now. A hit a week is a huge freaking difference and laika's example of a 5'10 dude versus a 7'0 dude is totally and completely apt. The variance in per inning rate of hits for Ty Cobb versus JP Arencibia is close to zero. Are we saying that those two players are basically the same now too?

 

It's an interesting thought problem.

 

It shows how easy it is for people to get fooled by numbers. Most people aren't great at thinking about things in, like, an economically and statistically wholesome way, with weight given to the constraints of the system (scarcity) and what the underlying statistical distribution might look like.

 

You just give people the absolute difference or absolute number, and for most people contextualizing it properly is difficult and they fall short.

 

You see similar problems in health media and public health discourse where the gen pop just struggles on the numbers. And/or the media knows they struggle on the numbers so they take advantage of that.

[Laika]

Arraez has lots of value in plate discipline, dude's an on base machine.

 

But is OBP is mostly AVG driven. His walk rates are just average.

[Brownie19]

I would probably take him over a guy who hits .240 with a 101 wRC+ and historically bad defense.

 

How about this obvious thought Grant - neither player should be in your starting lineup. End of story.

[wilko]

It's pretty hard to be a bad player if you hit .300.

 

Luis Arraez has a great hit tool and an average walk rate. He has no pop, is slow and can't run the bases and is a horrendous fielder (even at 1B). But he's still a damn good player all bc he can hit .300.

 

I'd take an entire team of Luis Arraez's.

[Brownie19]

I'd take an entire team of Luis Arraez's.

 

I'm not sure the pitching staff would enjoy this.

[Grant77]

How about this obvious thought Grant - neither player should be in your starting lineup. End of story.

 

Fair enough. I just thought that using WAR for an extreme outlier in defense and park factor was a poor example if you are trying to trash batting average as a useful metric.

 

Someone like the aforementioned Ichiro or Michael Young would make a better case in my opinion.