Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 41 to 60 of 85

Thread: To Post Or Not To Post??

  1. #41
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Mid-Atlantic & Northeast
    Posts
    2,950
    Blog Entries
    1
    Would you consider that a "QAB"? How about the kid, with a runner on second with no outs . . . who works to hit the ball behind the runner and swings at a definite ball off the outside of the plate to poke a weak GB to the 2nd baseman . . . he didn't hit that ball hard, but would you consider that a "QAB"?

    What about the high school kid who leads off the 6th inning of a one run game with the stud opposing pitcher at 100 pitches. He works a 3-2 count, fouls off six pitches then strikes out. I'd say this kid did a good job of getting the stud pitcher to his limit. Chances are the pitcher is going to finish the inning at 120-125 pitches and not pitch the 7th due to the kid's at bat. Or the pitcher is more likely to be fatigued. I'd call it a quality at bat. At the same time running a 3-2 count, fouling off six pitches then striking out with the bases loaded and two outs for the last out of the game would not be a quality at bat. It would only be a good effort.
    Last edited by tg643; 09-20-2010 at 09:23 AM.

  2. #42
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Connecticut
    Posts
    14,229
    Blog Entries
    1
    Quote Originally Posted by skipper5 View Post
    For those of you who strive to be process-oriented coaches--

    Posting the stats conflicts directly with process-oriented coaching (vs. results-oriented).
    Actions speak louder than words.
    Even if your words to your team reinforce process-oriented coaching, your action (posting the stats) betrays your words.
    Coaches who are genuinely process-oriented don't post the stats.
    Skip, at some point the results become more important than the process - which does not suggest the process is unimportant.
    "He who dares to teach, must never cease to learn."
    - John Cotton Dana (1856–1929) - Offered to many by L. Olson - Iowa (Teacher)
    Please read Baseball Fever Policy and Forum FAQ before posting.

  3. #43
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Ca
    Posts
    8,714
    Blog Entries
    1
    Quote Originally Posted by mudvnine View Post
    SK, trying to define a "QAB" would be one of the longest posts in the history of BBF, because there are almost as may "QABs" scenarios as there are potential situations presented to a hitter at any given AB.
    I get it, and I keep saying as much. But I get it not because of all the different scenarios that could be considered a QAB, but because it would be difficult to get two coaches to agree on what exactly a QAB is. I find things like that troubling because often people will hide behind the ability to define it, the fact that they don’t really use it.

    But even so, why is it so difficult to define? To me, this is a lot like the argument for coaches calling pitches. If its something a coach can do, how did he learn it and why can’t he teach it to someone else? How did you learn what a QAB was?

    Most times a "QAB" is simply a coaching tool, to help coach a encourage a player who, although he worked hard, and technically did everything correct at the plate, just didn't get the results he was personally looking for . . . for himself or team.
    What else could it possibly be? If it were any kind of worthwhile measure of anything, I assure you some screwball Saber wonk would have defined it, copywritten it, written a book about it, been on every sports talk show and baseball bulletin board, and spoken of by every manager, player, owner, baseball announcer, and fan, no matter how complex it was.

    What it boils down to, is that it’s like saying “Nice Swing” to someone who just swung and missed, “Nice Pitch” to a pitcher who just had a ball called on a pitch he threw, “Nice Try” to a fielder who dove after a hit ball but missed it, “Good Read” to a runner who moved up on a ball the catcher missed, “Good Eye” to a batter who just took a pitch over his head, or “Not Your Pitch” to a batter who just took a called strike. IOW, its nothing but a verbal reward for an effort, or a way to encourage a player so they don’t get down on themselves.

    What its really doing is giving a reward for something the rules of the game don’t treat as a reward. Some might say it’s a refusal to face failure head on. but then say baseball is a game of failure.

    If you "believe (you) could understand a baseball concept just as good or better than any youth player" . . . than I'm sure you've watched a hitter battle a pitcher with four, five, or more foul balls on difficult pitches . . . making the pitcher throw a seven or eight more pitches than he should have . . . only to eventually, just miss a FB and tip it into the catcher's glove for a "K".

    Would you consider that a "QAB"? How about the kid, with a runner on second with no outs . . . who works to hit the ball behind the runner and swings at a definite ball off the outside of the plate to poke a weak GB to the 2nd baseman . . . he didn't hit that ball hard, but would you consider that a "QAB"?
    Actually, you’re asking the wrong guy. As a scorer, I try not to deal with what I think, but rather what something is, in relation to the scoring rules. To me, the 1st kid struck out and the 2nd grounded out 4-3. Its like golf. You’re not asked to draw a pitcher or write a narrative about how you got a particular score.

    However, since I do track many things that aren’t called for in the baseball scoring rules, but are either things I feel are important or been asked to track for a coach, other things would show up in the metrics I do. FI, since I log every pitch and their sequence, the kid who struck out would definitely show how many pitches took place in the at bat he K’d on, so it would be a piece of cake to see his K’s by the number of pitches, and the sequence if wanted. But why only K’s? If a K on 8 pitches is a QAB, what’s an out where the ball is put in play on 8 pitches, a double QAB? Or how about a hit or a walk on 8 pitches. What are they worth?

    IMHO, all you do when you call a K a QAB, a line drive to the 2nd baseman who dives and grabs it and makes a fabulous throw a QAB, and a perfectly executed line drive the other way in the gap a QAB, is cheapen the hit, cheapen the out in relation to the K, but elevate it to the same level as the hit, and elevate the K, until its equal top both the hit and the out, when it isn’t.

    If you agree that those are a couple examples of "QABs", then I think you can see why defining all of them would be exhaustive at best . . . almost impossible at worst. If you don't agree that those are "QABs", then we're strictly of different opinions and for me to even attempt to define any of them would be pointless.
    As I said above, as a scorer I don’t think that way. As a parent and fan however, I do. However, as you can see, I already took what you defined as a QAB, plus I added the additional definition of other outs that came after at least 7 pitches. So it isn’t that I’m at all adverse to scoring and tracking them, its just that I require them to be defined, and I don’t care how many factors there are. Its my job to figure out how to track them. If I had to do something additional, that’s what I’d do.

    You see, I know it’s a daunting task, but it’s a finite one, and only has to be done once. Of course there can be criteria added or taken away, but its not as though it has to be redefined every single pitch.
    Attached Files Attached Files
    The pitcher who’s afraid to throw strikes, will soon be standing in the shower with the hitter who's afraid to swing.

  4. #44
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    SoCal
    Posts
    7,261
    Quote Originally Posted by tg643 View Post
    Would you consider that a "QAB"? How about the kid, with a runner on second with no outs . . . who works to hit the ball behind the runner and swings at a definite ball off the outside of the plate to poke a weak GB to the 2nd baseman . . . he didn't hit that ball hard, but would you consider that a "QAB"?

    What about the high school kid who leads off the 6th inning of a one run game with the stud opposing pitcher at 100 pitches. He works a 3-2 count, fouls off six pitches then strikes out. I'd say this kid did a good job of getting the stud pitcher to his limit. Chances are the pitcher is going to finish the inning at 120-125 pitches and not pitch the 7th due to the kid's at bat. Or the pitcher is more likely to be fatigued. I'd call it a quality at bat. At the same time running a 3-2 count, fouling off six pitches then striking out with the bases loaded and two outs for the last out of the game would not be a quality at bat. It would only be a good effort.
    Yes, and why I wrote:
    SK, trying to define a "QAB" would be one of the longest posts in the history of BBF, because there are almost as many "QABs" scenarios as there are potential situations presented to a hitter at any given AB.
    I would hope that at the HS level, ALL hitters would be making "a good effort" regardless of the game situation . . .

  5. #45
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Ca
    Posts
    8,714
    Blog Entries
    1
    Quote Originally Posted by Jake Patterson View Post
    Skip, at some point the results become more important than the process - which does not suggest the process is unimportant.
    BOOIIINNNNGGGGG!

    Its kinda strange that so many people claim to be so officious about the rules, but when pressed we find out that its only rules they feel important they get officious about. FI, every baseball rulebook defines the height and slope of a pitcher’s mound, but how many times has a mound been questioned by either the umpires or a coach? Nah. It ain’t important. Besides, it’s the same for both team’s pitchers.

    The same thing happens with the stats. Every rule book I know of, other than LLI , and then they have a special handout for it, has the equivalent to a rule 10 in it. But it isn’t important to a lot of people, who I suppose feel they are bigger than the game, so they get to choose which rules are important and which aren’t.

    Of course there’s nothing I know of in the rule book that says those statistics have to be made public or even given to the players, but why bother to keep track of anything if it isn’t going to be looked at? To tell the truth, after all the years I’ve “discussed” this topic, what it boils down to is that there are coaches who take the time to find someone who will do a good job scoring and generating stats, or do it themselves, and in general those are the same coaches who will make the stats available.

    Others feel they don’t need no “stinking numbers” to do a great job coaching, so they allow anyone to keep the book, and don’t bother much about it at all. Its all a mindset. Some feel its important, and some don’t. But what’s funny is, the one’s who think its important don’t generally put down those who don’t. They just do their thing, and don’t worry about it. But for some strange reason, those who don’t think very highly of either stats or the practice of making them public, tend to tell stories about how the stats corrupt players and somehow turn them into something undesirable.
    The pitcher who’s afraid to throw strikes, will soon be standing in the shower with the hitter who's afraid to swing.

  6. #46
    Quote Originally Posted by scorekeeper View Post
    But for some strange reason, those who don’t think very highly of either stats or the practice of making them public, tend to tell stories about how the stats corrupt players and somehow turn them into something undesirable.
    There's nothing strange about it.
    Some of us believe--from having coached for a number of years--that posting stats makes players more self-conscious--in several ways.

    1. Self-conscious in terms of "thinking" when they're hitting, fielding, or pitching-- instead of staying on the instinctive side of the brain

    2. Self-conscious in terms of not "living in the moment" and having a short memory

    3. Self-conscious in terms of playing for the name on the back of the jersey instead of the name on the front

    My viewpoint applies especially to short seasons of, say, 25-30 games. Small sample sizes intensify the negative aspects of posting stats.

    Bottom line: IMO, your players play better and you win more games if you don't post stats.
    Last edited by skipper5; 09-20-2010 at 10:56 AM.
    Skip

  7. #47
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    SoCal
    Posts
    7,261
    Quote Originally Posted by scorekeeper View Post
    But what’s funny is, the one’s who think its important don’t generally put down those who don’t. They just do their thing, and don’t worry about it. But for some strange reason, those who don’t think very highly of either stats or the practice of making them public, tend to tell stories about how the stats corrupt players and somehow turn them into something undesirable.
    What's funny . . . is that there's only one guy here who feels he's able to demand quantitative definitions of others personal perceptions of the game, yet will toss out his negative unsupported perception of others willy-nilly.

    Your personal "observations/opinions" of coaches are no more accurate or factual, than those same coaches "observations/opinions" of the game and/or their players . . . yet you still make these threads personal, when the rest of us are simply sharing our experiences/observations/opinions of the actual play of game, and our players.

    It's getting quite old . . .

  8. #48
    Quote Originally Posted by Jake Patterson View Post
    Skip, at some point the results become more important than the process - which does not suggest the process is unimportant.
    Jake,
    In my own experience, I haven't found that an extremely process-oriented approach costs a team games in the win column.
    To the contrary, in my coaching career, I've achieved great success in terms of winning many more games than losing; I believe my disproportionate success is because of process-oriented coaching; not in spite of it.
    Last edited by skipper5; 09-20-2010 at 11:09 AM.
    Skip

  9. #49
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    SoCal
    Posts
    7,261
    Quote Originally Posted by scorekeeper View Post
    I get it, and I keep saying as much. But I get it not because of all the different scenarios that could be considered a QAB, but because it would be difficult to get two coaches to agree on what exactly a QAB is. I find things like that troubling because often people will hide behind the ability to define it, the fact that they don’t really use it.

    But even so, why is it so difficult to define? To me, this is a lot like the argument for coaches calling pitches. If its something a coach can do, how did he learn it and why can’t he teach it to someone else? How did you learn what a QAB was?
    We learn it by coaching and teaching the game over many years . . . making decisions and then interpreting their results (some positive and some negative) on a subjective level, while stats on report the objective part of the game.

    You NEVER felt that your son had a "great" game, even though the stats or final score didn't confirm it?

    I have absolutely no doubt that when given various AB scenarios and the results of the hitter, two coaches with the same years of experience and coaching level would be 95% or more in agreement or defining what is a "QAB" or not, when two SKers of the same experience would simply be lost . . . based on their respective subjective versus objective view of the game and not anything personal.

    Quote Originally Posted by scorekeeper View Post
    What else could it possibly be? If it were any kind of worthwhile measure of anything, I assure you some screwball Saber wonk would have defined it, copywritten it, written a book about it, been on every sports talk show and baseball bulletin board, and spoken of by every manager, player, owner, baseball announcer, and fan, no matter how complex it was.
    Most SKers don't know what's "worthwhile" in the game unless it's confirmed to them in Rule 10, and thus are SKers instead of players or coaches . . . or if they do, cannot put the "subjective" into the written word.

    Quote Originally Posted by scorekeeper View Post
    What it boils down to, is that it’s like saying “Nice Swing” to someone who just swung and missed, “Nice Pitch” to a pitcher who just had a ball called on a pitch he threw, “Nice Try” to a fielder who dove after a hit ball but missed it, “Good Read” to a runner who moved up on a ball the catcher missed, “Good Eye” to a batter who just took a pitch over his head, or “Not Your Pitch” to a batter who just took a called strike. IOW, its nothing but a verbal reward for an effort, or a way to encourage a player so they don’t get down on themselves.

    What its really doing is giving a reward for something the rules of the game don’t treat as a reward. Some might say it’s a refusal to face failure head on. but then say baseball is a game of failure.
    It would appear that way to those who search a scorebook for answers versus observing the actual goings on and player dynamics happening on the field.

    Quote Originally Posted by scorekeeper View Post
    Actually, you’re asking the wrong guy. As a scorer, I try not to deal with what I think, but rather what something is, in relation to the scoring rules. To me, the 1st kid struck out and the 2nd grounded out 4-3. Its like golf. You’re not asked to draw a pitcher or write a narrative about how you got a particular score.
    And why you're unable to assess the true VALUE of both of those situations in the big scheme of the the TEAM game.

    Quote Originally Posted by scorekeeper View Post
    However, since I do track many things that aren’t called for in the baseball scoring rules, but are either things I feel are important or been asked to track for a coach, other things would show up in the metrics I do. FI, since I log every pitch and their sequence, the kid who struck out would definitely show how many pitches took place in the at bat he K’d on, so it would be a piece of cake to see his K’s by the number of pitches, and the sequence if wanted. But why only K’s? If a K on 8 pitches is a QAB, what’s an out where the ball is put in play on 8 pitches, a double QAB? Or how about a hit or a walk on 8 pitches. What are they worth?
    Depends on the situation . . . you seem to not want to understand the major determining factor of a "QAB".

    Stats are for individuals . . . "QABs" relate to the players' contributions to team play.

    Quote Originally Posted by scorekeeper View Post
    IMHO, all you do when you call a K a QAB, a line drive to the 2nd baseman who dives and grabs it and makes a fabulous throw a QAB, and a perfectly executed line drive the other way in the gap a QAB, is cheapen the hit, cheapen the out in relation to the K, but elevate it to the same level as the hit, and elevate the K, until its equal top both the hit and the out, when it isn’t.
    Maybe not to the individual, but it may be of equal importance to the team in the overall outcome of the game.

    Quote Originally Posted by scorekeeper View Post
    As I said above, as a scorer I don’t think that way. As a parent and fan however, I do. However, as you can see, I already took what you defined as a QAB, plus I added the additional definition of other outs that came after at least 7 pitches. So it isn’t that I’m at all adverse to scoring and tracking them, its just that I require them to be defined, and I don’t care how many factors there are. Its my job to figure out how to track them. If I had to do something additional, that’s what I’d do.

    You see, I know it’s a daunting task, but it’s a finite one, and only has to be done once. Of course there can be criteria added or taken away, but its not as though it has to be redefined every single pitch.
    You did nothing but make a useless chart of numbers . . .

    As "tg" correctly identified, the same AB progression for one AB, may be said to be of "quality" given the scenario; when the other, given a different scenario would not.

    Sorry about the abstract thinking and that not everything in baseball is not black and white . . . but that's the intrigue and lore of the game. If it wasn't, everyone with a computer would be a successful MLB manager, and we know that's just not the case.

    We all talk about and have seen the "instinctive" players . . . do you believe that that doesn't hold true for coaches also . . . or since no one can define "instinctive", other than when SCJ Potter Stewart once said, "I know what it is when the see it" . . . there's no such thing as an "instinctive" player and/or coach?

  10. #50
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    SoCal
    Posts
    7,261
    Quote Originally Posted by Jake Patterson View Post
    Skip, at some point the results become more important than the process - which does not suggest the process is unimportant.
    The only problem is, that we as coaches we can ONLY teach/coach the "process" . . . we're unable to teach/coach the "results".

    The "results" (good or bad), are only an indicator of how well the players were able to apply what they learned, or to what level they were able to apply the "process" that they were taught, given their physical abilities.

  11. #51
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Mid-Atlantic & Northeast
    Posts
    2,950
    Blog Entries
    1
    The statistical results in a short season may be very skewed by hitting a few line drives right at fielders or be subbed for and sitting out against Wesuck High where the player would have had at least two hits if not three or four.

    My daughter (softball) always hated playing Wesuck High because the competition was terrible and she would get subbed out after batting twice in the first inning or at least after two innings. The game was a mercy all eight times over four years. One year her batting average started slowly by hitting ropes right at second, first and right. The coach made it up to her by letting her get five at bats against Wesuck High. She went 5-5. It certainly changed her stats. It didn't change how she was swinging the bat.

  12. #52
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Mid-Atlantic & Northeast
    Posts
    2,950
    Blog Entries
    1
    Quote Originally Posted by mudvnine View Post
    What's funny . . . is that there's only one guy here who feels he's able to demand quantitative definitions of others personal perceptions of the game, yet will toss out his negative unsupported perception of others willy-nilly.

    Your personal "observations/opinions" of coaches are no more accurate or factual, than those same coaches "observations/opinions" of the game and/or their players . . . yet you still make these threads personal, when the rest of us are simply sharing our experiences/observations/opinions of the actual play of game, and our players.

    It's getting quite old . . .
    I've been around SK on boards for eight years. Without his stats the game would have no need for him. He refuses to believe in a short season a coach can visualize how his players are succeeding or not succeeding. I'll buy into stats big time at the MLB level where stats have a very small plus/minus factor range of error. But not in a fifteen to thirty game season.
    Last edited by tg643; 09-20-2010 at 12:58 PM.

  13. #53
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Ca
    Posts
    8,714
    Blog Entries
    1
    Quote Originally Posted by skipper5 View Post
    … Bottom line: IMO, your players play better and you win more games if you don't post stats.
    Just goes to show ya the difference between us. I don’t give a flip about winning and losing. I just want the players to love the game and stay in it as long as possible.

    But I would love to know how you’ve come to that conclusion. Since you don’t believe in posting stats, how do you know how a team would perform if you did? And if they did perform worse, and you did come to the conclusion it was because the stats were posted, wouldn’t you feel at all like a failure for not being able to instill in them a team spirit, enough to at least help them overcome playing for that name on the back rather than on the front of the jersey?

    Sorry skip, trying to blame a poor team spirit on whether or not stats get posted sounds like a huge rationale of someone who feels the need to justify their actions.
    The pitcher who’s afraid to throw strikes, will soon be standing in the shower with the hitter who's afraid to swing.

  14. #54
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Southeast
    Posts
    7,600
    ummm... I wanted to win. Winning is fun.

  15. #55
    The bottom line when a coach evaluates a player: "Are they knockin' in more than they're lettin' in."

    A kid batting .400 goes 2 for 4 and immediately gets the scorebook on the bus so he can start figuring out his ba. Kid is in hog heaven. Problem is, the kid has 9 passed balls, gives up 8 sb's and the team loses 4-3. But the kid thinks he's all-district.

    This was a kid on my hs team. Coach finally moved him from c to dh and-bingo- we start winning.

  16. #56

    Productivity

    Rating
    0 Batter swings and misses;takes a called third strike.
    1 Foul ball
    2 Pop fly
    3 Routine fly ball
    4 Ground ball, hump back line drive
    5 Hard grounder, deep fly ball
    6 Line drive or home run

  17. #57

    How good a player is

    Offense

    rbi 3
    bh 1 (each base)
    Reach
    base error/hbp 1
    run 1
    steal 1
    sac 2
    advance
    runnerto3rd 1
    heads up
    baserunning 1
    gw hit 4

    Defense

    dp assist 1
    pickoff assist 1
    c throws out r 1
    great play 2
    of assist 2

    Pitching

    Victory 6
    No er 6
    1 er 5
    No more than
    3 er 4
    K 1
    Fewer than 12
    p in inn. 1
    No bb in inn 1
    CG 6
    Save 6

    Negative Points

    Called third s -2
    Missed Signal -9
    Error -2
    PB -2
    WP -2
    Swinging K -1
    BB (P) -1
    Walk 1st b
    in inn -3
    HBP -1
    Give up more
    than 4 er -1
    Fail to slide -3
    Picked off -3
    Picked off 3rd -6
    General
    Mental
    Mistake -2

    Total ?????

  18. #58
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Ca
    Posts
    8,714
    Blog Entries
    1
    Quote Originally Posted by songtitle View Post
    ummm... I wanted to win. Winning is fun.
    Of course it is for the participants. But the less “skin” one has in the game, the less winning means, and the more just enjoyment of the game and how it works has to do with it. Sometimes you folks forget that I have literally no skin in the games I score these days, other than the team I score for happens to be the closest HS to my house.

    Of course after 5 years watching the same team and the same two coaches run it, I’d prefer it win rather than an opponent, but that’s it. I’m there purely because I love the game, its intricacies, and trying to figure out why things happen as they do.
    The pitcher who’s afraid to throw strikes, will soon be standing in the shower with the hitter who's afraid to swing.

  19. #59
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Ca
    Posts
    8,714
    Blog Entries
    1
    Quote Originally Posted by omg View Post
    The bottom line when a coach evaluates a player: "Are they knockin' in more than they're lettin' in."

    A kid batting .400 goes 2 for 4 and immediately gets the scorebook on the bus so he can start figuring out his ba. Kid is in hog heaven. Problem is, the kid has 9 passed balls, gives up 8 sb's and the team loses 4-3. But the kid thinks he's all-district.

    This was a kid on my hs team. Coach finally moved him from c to dh and-bingo- we start winning.
    And what have I ever said that differs in any way? All I say is, when that judgment is made, I’ve found perceptions don’t always match the facts in truth or degree.
    The pitcher who’s afraid to throw strikes, will soon be standing in the shower with the hitter who's afraid to swing.

  20. #60
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Mid-Atlantic & Northeast
    Posts
    2,950
    Blog Entries
    1
    Hi guys! I'm the scorekeeper at La Mancha High.


Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •