Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Which trait for a hitter is more "valuable".

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Which trait for a hitter is more "valuable".

    What’s a more valuable trait for a hitter to possess?

    A) To get “BASE HITS” with runners on either 2nd, 3rd, or both, or;

    B) to be able to move the lead runner up, whether by getting a hit, reaching on an error, walking, getting hit by a pitch, reaching on a fielder’s choice, or by defensive interference?
    The pitcher who’s afraid to throw strikes, will soon be standing in the shower with the hitter who's afraid to swing.

  • #2
    Originally posted by scorekeeper View Post
    What’s a more valuable trait for a hitter to possess?

    A) To get “BASE HITS” with runners on either 2nd, 3rd, or both, or;

    B) to be able to move the lead runner up, whether by getting a hit, reaching on an error, walking, getting hit by a pitch, reaching on a fielder’s choice, or by defensive interference?
    I'm not sure what is meant by "valuable". If a runner on first is advanced to second with a bunt and then driven in by a single, the bunt was just as valuable to scoring the run as the hit. But as far as a trait, a player that has the ability to hit with runners in scoring position would be more valuable as they should also be able to regularly put the ball in play and work the count to earn a walk when the goal is to advance the base runner into scoring position.

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by scorekeeper View Post
      What’s a more valuable trait for a hitter to possess?

      A) To get “BASE HITS” with runners on either 2nd, 3rd, or both, or;

      B) to be able to move the lead runner up, whether by getting a hit, reaching on an error, walking, getting hit by a pitch, reaching on a fielder’s choice, or by defensive interference?
      since a single also moves up the runner but doesn't give away an out obviously A) is better. still B) is better than just whiffing-any advancement is good but the best thing is moving runners while not giving away outs.
      I now have my own non commercial blog about training for batspeed and power using my training experience in baseball and track and field.

      Comment


      • #4
        Without some numbers, I don't think there's enough information to answer.

        Even a player whose hits are all singles can be more valuable than a player whose hits are all HRs.

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by ipitch View Post
          Without some numbers, I don't think there's enough information to answer.

          Even a player whose hits are all singles can be more valuable than a player whose hits are all HRs.
          yes. if the singles hitter gets 3 times as many hits he will be more valuable.
          I now have my own non commercial blog about training for batspeed and power using my training experience in baseball and track and field.

          Comment


          • #6
            It's hard to answer without knowing the reason that you're asking. If you're trying to decide between two players for purposes of drafting or setting a starting lineup, than you likely want a guy (type "A") who can get hits, as he's more likely to be able to do the type "B" things as well. A type "B" guy can have his uses, but if he comes up with no one on or with two outs, he's less valuable. Rarely will you get two pure "A" and "B" types competing head to head.
            sigpicIt's not whether you fall -- everyone does -- but how you come out of the fall that counts.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by azmatsfan View Post
              I'm not sure what is meant by "valuable".
              What I meant by “valuable”, was which was most “beneficial” to the team.

              If a runner on first is advanced to second with a bunt and then driven in by a single, the bunt was just as valuable to scoring the run as the hit.
              The thing that’s always bothered me is, its almost always just “assumed” that a base hit with a RISP will always drive in a run, but I think people would be surprised at how many times that doesn’t happen. Also, I think it’s a bit deceiving to give a player who drives in a run from 3rd with a base hit more credit than one who does it by some other means.

              But as far as a trait, a player that has the ability to hit with runners in scoring position would be more valuable as they should also be able to regularly put the ball in play and work the count to earn a walk when the goal is to advance the base runner into scoring position.
              Why do you think they would be more disposed to more regularly put the ball in play or work the count? I don’t know if you’re right about it or not, but I’ve never seen anything shoeing that relation. Have you, or are you using logic to make an educated guess?
              The pitcher who’s afraid to throw strikes, will soon be standing in the shower with the hitter who's afraid to swing.

              Comment


              • #8
                --I'm not sure what you are asking here either. A hit is ALWAYS the best outcome of an at bat. As mentioned earlier some sorts of non-hits are better than others - especially at the lower levels where just putting the ball in play makes good things happen more often than not - but they are never better than hits. The only way B could be better than A is if A seldom walked or moved a runner up by other means when he didn't get a hit while B frequently reached by other means and/or moved the runner up while not getting hits.
                --I would say that if B's OBP is lower than A's there is zero chance he is helping the team more. I would also say there are no such things as strict A and B types. A kid that can hit may not walk but he will put the ball in play on his non-hits. A kid that puts the ball in play weakly (which sounds like what you are going for with B) will still get his hits.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by dominik View Post
                  since a single also moves up the runner but doesn't give away an out obviously A) is better. still B) is better than just whiffing-any advancement is good but the best thing is moving runners while not giving away outs.
                  A walk or hit batter that forces runners over doesn’t give away an out, and neither does a DI or an ROE, and certainly not all FC’s produce outs, but none of those things would improve a batters BARISP.
                  The pitcher who’s afraid to throw strikes, will soon be standing in the shower with the hitter who's afraid to swing.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by ipitch View Post
                    Without some numbers, I don't think there's enough information to answer.

                    Even a player whose hits are all singles can be more valuable than a player whose hits are all HRs.
                    In the words of Sam Kinneson in the movie Back to School, Good answer!

                    And that’s exactly why I don’t see BARISP as being a very informative metric. I know a lot of folks swear by it, but for me personally, it really doesn’t float my boat.
                    The pitcher who’s afraid to throw strikes, will soon be standing in the shower with the hitter who's afraid to swing.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      --BARISP isn't really a skill. Whether a runner is on 2nd or 3rd when you come up has nothing to do with the batter. His job is to get the hit either way. Actually his job is easier with the guy on third (at least with less than 2 outs) since he can be successfull even with an out.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by Ursa Major View Post
                        It's hard to answer without knowing the reason that you're asking. If you're trying to decide between two players for purposes of drafting or setting a starting lineup, than you likely want a guy (type "A") who can get hits, as he's more likely to be able to do the type "B" things as well. A type "B" guy can have his uses, but if he comes up with no one on or with two outs, he's less valuable. Rarely will you get two pure "A" and "B" types competing head to head.
                        I’ll give you this much of an answer, I never worry about drafting or giving out ‘ships.

                        Now setting a lineup is something more in line with what I was thinking, but it was even more basic than that. I’m thinking about what players I want to even consider for the lineup without worrying about what spot they occupy.

                        I’m not understanding why you believe the type “A”, as you call him, guy is any more likely to get hits. All a good BARISP means is, he happened to get hits when runners were in scoring position. Its very likely a type “B” guy, as you call him, gets more hits, but just doesn’t happen to get them when there’s a runner on 2nd or 3rd. Plus, it wouldn’t be at all unusual for the numbers to get skewered because the guy happened to get a bunch of swinging bunt or duck fart hits that never drove in a run, but the other guys is smashing the ball all over the place but since there’s no runner in scoring position, what he does is ignored.

                        Let me 1st say I didn’t describe them as “A” and “B” types. You did. I described traits that a hitter could have neither, either, or both. I see those two things as a way to measure performance and thus compare players. IOW, I’m looking at using BARISP to compare players as opposed to their ability to move a runner up a base when given the opportunity, represented by dividing the number of successes byt the number of opportunities. That makes them both “averages” or “percentages”.

                        I have to be honest and say I’ve already added both metrics to my scoring program so I can look at them as the batters come up. And while I’ve done both metrics for a long time and always considered BARISP the least useful of the two metrics, until I saw them side by side during a game, I didn’t realize how different they really were.

                        Here’s an example. Let’s say there’s a runner on 2nd. I look at the BARISP and see .275 but the MRU average and see .423. I feel a lot better with that batter than I would with one where the BARISP were .300 and the MRUA is only .315. I guess I’m saying that for myself, I’d rather put my trust in a batter who’d show me the greatest propensity to move runners up, no matter where they were.

                        I suppose it’s a throwback to how worthless I thing BA is because it depends total on a safe hit.
                        The pitcher who’s afraid to throw strikes, will soon be standing in the shower with the hitter who's afraid to swing.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by leecemark View Post
                          --I'm not sure what you are asking here either. A hit is ALWAYS the best outcome of an at bat. As mentioned earlier some sorts of non-hits are better than others - especially at the lower levels where just putting the ball in play makes good things happen more often than not - but they are never better than hits. The only way B could be better than A is if A seldom walked or moved a runner up by other means when he didn't get a hit while B frequently reached by other means and/or moved the runner up while not getting hits.
                          Well, I’ll admit a hit is more often than the best outcome of an at bat, but its not “ALWAYS” the best outcome.

                          Does it really matter what level it is? FI, if a batter reaches 2nd on an error, when is it better to get a single?

                          You say “the only way B could be better” as though it were very rare for those exceptions to happen. I haven’t found them to be rare at all, but then again, I haven’t actually sat down and studied what really takes place, and don’t know that anyone has.

                          --I would say that if B's OBP is lower than A's there is zero chance he is helping the team more. I would also say there are no such things as strict A and B types. A kid that can hit may not walk but he will put the ball in play on his non-hits. A kid that puts the ball in play weakly (which sounds like what you are going for with B) will still get his hits.
                          I never said there were “types”. That was UM. Actually, what I’m “going for” is just the opposite. People go crazy trying to track QABs, and they’re just as likely to produce nothing as something. I’m just really changing the definition of a QAB. Its not a big deal, but I find it interesting to think a bit outside the box.
                          The pitcher who’s afraid to throw strikes, will soon be standing in the shower with the hitter who's afraid to swing.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by leecemark View Post
                            --BARISP isn't really a skill. Whether a runner is on 2nd or 3rd when you come up has nothing to do with the batter. His job is to get the hit either way. Actually his job is easier with the guy on third (at least with less than 2 outs) since he can be successfull even with an out.
                            And that pretty much is why I don’t like BARISP. Is his JOB to get the hit, or to move the runner up or score him? If it’s the bottom of the 9th in the 7th game of the WS and the home team is down by a run, do you think the a ML manger gives a darn how the team scores 2 runs to win the game? I don’t, and that’s why I don’t see the batter’s JOB as being to get hits. Get on yes, which is why OBP has become so much more important than BA. It gives credit to receiving walks or getting hit. All I’m doing is taking it to another level to include other way to reach base safely. ‘)
                            The pitcher who’s afraid to throw strikes, will soon be standing in the shower with the hitter who's afraid to swing.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by scorekeeper View Post
                              What’s a more valuable trait for a hitter to possess?

                              A) To get “BASE HITS” with runners on either 2nd, 3rd, or both, or;

                              B) to be able to move the lead runner up, whether by getting a hit, reaching on an error, walking, getting hit by a pitch, reaching on a fielder’s choice, or by defensive interference?
                              Well, in the case of B), reaching on an error, HBP, defensive interference all do not really require a lot of skill.

                              I'd say that A) is more valuable.

                              Comment

                              Ad Widget

                              Collapse
                              Working...
                              X