White Sox Interactive Forums
Talking Baseball

Welcome
Go Back   White Sox Interactive Forums > Baseball Discussions > Talking Baseball
Home Chat Stats Register Blogs FAQ Calendar Mark Forums Read


Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #16  
Old 08-23-2018, 11:29 AM
asindc asindc is offline
WSI High Priest
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Washington, DC area
Posts: 8,666
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mohoney View Post
To be fair, the .531 average is also making a one-sided assumption. It is assuming that the ball is hit on the ground.
Whether it is hit on the ground or the air to the opposite field, a hit is a hit. If it wasn't a hit, then it is obviously not included in the .531 average.
__________________
"I have the ultimate respect for White Sox fans. They were as miserable as the Cubs and Red Sox fans ever were but always had the good decency to keep it to themselves. And when they finally won the World Series, they celebrated without annoying every other fan in the country." Jim Caple, ESPN (January 12, 2011)


"We have now sunk to a depth at which the restatement of the (bleeding) obvious is the first duty of intelligent men."George Orwell
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 08-23-2018, 11:31 AM
Mohoney Mohoney is offline
WSI High Priest
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Palos Hills, IL
Posts: 9,460
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by asindc
The bolded part of your post is pure speculation, based on the assumption that the only possible result from hitting a pitch to the opposite field is that the batter will reach 1st base and no further. It ignores the fact that some balls hit to the opposite field results in doubles, triples, or even HRs.

What data are you referring to that shows that 1/3 of all balls hit to the pull side in the air result in HRs? That seems like an awfully high ratio.
That .500 average on opposite-field balls deals specifically with grounders. Line drives and fly balls are not factored into that number. There aren’t many grounders that end up going for two bases, which is why I called the proposition a zero chance of getting more than one base.

The fly-ball data is in the article I linked.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Horsemaster Fred
This is the major leagues so get it how you live and let’s fight tomorrow.
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 08-23-2018, 11:36 AM
Mohoney Mohoney is offline
WSI High Priest
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Palos Hills, IL
Posts: 9,460
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by asindc
Whether it is hit on the ground or the air to the opposite field, a hit is a hit. If it wasn't a hit, then it is obviously not included in the .531 average.
No. The article specified ground balls. Basically, the article is saying that .531 of balls hit on the ground the opposite way end up as hits, meaning that .469 of these mythical shift-busting opposite-field grounders still result in outs.
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 08-23-2018, 12:01 PM
asindc asindc is offline
WSI High Priest
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Washington, DC area
Posts: 8,666
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mohoney View Post
No. The article specified ground balls. Basically, the article is saying that .531 of balls hit on the ground the opposite way end up as hits, meaning that .469 of these mythical shift-busting opposite-field grounders still result in outs.
So it does not account for the opposite field flyball hits. I don't understand why they should be discounted. It is similar to discounting BABIP when assuming that any and all strikeouts converted to a ball put in play will also result in an out.
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 08-23-2018, 12:23 PM
Mohoney Mohoney is offline
WSI High Priest
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Palos Hills, IL
Posts: 9,460
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by asindc
So it does not account for the opposite field flyball hits. I don't understand why they should be discounted. It is similar to discounting BABIP when assuming that any and all strikeouts converted to a ball put in play will also result in an out.
An infield shift doesn’t provide any extra opportunity for opposite-field fly-ball hits. Once the ball is hit in the air, the shift is meaningless. Besides that, we are left with a chicken-and-egg situation. Is an opposite-field fly-ball more likely to be produced as a by-product of trying to pull a fly-ball in the air, or is it more likely to be produced by actively trying to inside-out the ball?

What I do know is that the difference in home run frequency is 32.7% for pulled fly balls vs. 3.8% for fly balls the opposite way. That suggests to me that making hard contact the opposite way is so difficult that it makes the endeavor not worth pursuing on a regular basis, especially when the pitcher is pitching inside in tandem with an infield shift.
Reply With Quote
  #21  
Old 08-23-2018, 01:33 PM
WhiteSox5187 WhiteSox5187 is offline
Winner 2016 WSI Preseason Prediction Contest
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Southside
Posts: 15,791
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mohoney View Post
If a guy can inside-out an inside fastball well enough to hit it with authority down the opposite field line for a double, the odds are strong that he won’t be getting shifted against too often.
It's not that it has to be hit that hard, if the entire left side of the infield is open and the left fielder is where he'd normally be playing and the hitter pokes the ball to the third base side just past the dirt of the infield, it's going to take awhile for a fielder to get to that ball. I think I have seen Anthony Rizzo beat the shift a few times and manage to leg out a double. Now, a guy like Jim Thome when he was with the Sox probably wouldn't be able to beat that out though.

In another post though, you pointed out that this is just ground balls, so you're probably right that a ground ball is unlikely to result in a double. I'd be curious to see the batting average for line drives or even dying quails (which I guess would be a flyball?) that beat the shift.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mohoney View Post
No. The article specified ground balls. Basically, the article is saying that .531 of balls hit on the ground the opposite way end up as hits, meaning that .469 of these mythical shift-busting opposite-field grounders still result in outs.
The average BABIP is about .300, right? So that means that about .700 of the balls put in play (not accounting for home runs) result in an out, correct? In this instance, a batter that can put the ball in play on the ground against the shift more will more likely than not get a hit. Is there any other type of contact, other than a home run, that is more likely to result in a hit than beating the shift?

If the entire concept of offensive baseball is to avoid outs (which I don't necessarily agree with), isn't beating the shift the way to go then?
__________________

Go Sox!!!
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 08-23-2018, 01:49 PM
Mohoney Mohoney is offline
WSI High Priest
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Palos Hills, IL
Posts: 9,460
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by WhiteSox5187
If the entire concept of offensive baseball is to avoid outs (which I don't necessarily agree with), isn't beating the shift the way to go then?
The primary concept is creating runs. Avoiding outs is one part of that concept. Another part is generating as many total bases as possible out of those non-outs. The fact that bunt attempts against infield shifts have seen a significant uptick this year—at a 76% success rate, by the way—suggests that there very well may be a tipping point where the extra trips to first base outweigh the negation of extra-base power. I don’t know what those numbers would look like, though.
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 08-23-2018, 06:21 PM
mzh mzh is offline
WSI Church Elder
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Chicago
Posts: 3,254
Default

Here's another way to think about it. The collective slugging percentage of every player who has 150 or more ABs against the shift this year is .387. Assuming the vast majority of those ground balls are singles, that .531 average means that hitting the ball on the ground the other way is about 150 points of slugging more effective than maintaining a normal approach.

That's a big gap, but problem with it is the two samples are not equal. The .387 slugging of shifted batters is all-inclusive, whereas that .531 average only includes successfully executed ground balls the other way. Saying that players hit .500 on oppo grounders against the shift means nothing more than saying that league batting average on balls hit 100 MPH is also .500. What matters is how easy or difficult it is to actually make that result happen with enough frequency to make one worth more than the other. If you were to somehow measure what the batting average was on all at bats in which the batter was trying to hit a grounder the other way, including unsuccessful attempts, it would certainly be a whole lot lower than .531. Who knows if it would be enough to close that 150 point gap, but I'd bet it would be close enough that the benefit of a higher batting average would be negated by removing the possibility of an extra base hit. So if that's the case, what's the point, really?

There's also the fact that hitters have a higher average against the shift than against a standard alignment, so make what you will of that
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 08-23-2018, 09:32 PM
Mohoney Mohoney is offline
WSI High Priest
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Palos Hills, IL
Posts: 9,460
Default

Exactly. We have no way of knowing a hitter’s intent. We really have no choice but to assume that success rates stay roughly the same even after accounting for intent.

It’s either that, or we need to assume that the players and coaches at the game’s highest level are all a bunch of idiots and are willingly refusing to take extra bases when they are being offered. That is not an assumption I am willing to make.
Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



Forum Jump




All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:11 AM.




Design by: Michelle

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Site-specific editorial/photos Copyright ©2001 - 2008 White Sox Interactive. All rights reserved.