+- CSNbbs (https://csnbbs.com)
+-- Forum: Active Boards (/forum-769.html)
+--- Forum: AACbbs (/forum-460.html)
+---- Forum: Members (/forum-401.html)
+----- Forum: Rice (/forum-444.html)
+----- Thread: The higher the BB/K ration is for a batter, the better the hitter, right? (/thread-644179.html)
Pages: 1 2
The higher the BB/K ration is for a batter, the better the hitter, right? - 13thOwl - 08-14-2013 04:09 PM
From time to time the two tribes meet and talk about hitting. One likes to point to BB/K as an indicator of a fine hitter. The other likes to have their hitters swing away with controlled aggression - strikeouts be damned.
So Player A is hitting:
AVG AB R H 2b 3b HR RBI SLG BB SO
.261 226 48 59 10 0 9 41 .425 44 4
Payer B is hitting
AVG AB R H 2b 3b HR RBI SLG BB SO
.335 176 39 59 16 4 7 40 .591 15 46
So Player A BB/K was 11/1 with Player B at a little over 1/3.
Give me player B all day.
RE: The higher the BB/K ration is for a batter, the better the hitter, right? - waltgreenberg - 08-14-2013 04:18 PM
I agree with you on this one. IMO, BB:K is a much more important measure for a pitcher than hitter. So long as a batter's OBP is approaching .400+ (which necessarily means he walks at a solid pace), I'm less concerned with the strikeouts (provided, of course, they don't come with guys in scoring position and less than two outs, when the batter simply MUST find a way to put the ball in play).
RE: The higher the BB/K ration is for a batter, the better the hitter, right? - georgewebb - 08-14-2013 04:34 PM
Wouldn't you want to look at each guys batting average on balls in play? I mean, if player A's BABIP is lower than his career average, then you can figure that his current BA (over 200 at bats) is deflated, and will improve over a large sample size. Similarly, if player B's BABIP is unusually high, his BA is probably inflated and will regress to his mean. And if in fact their BA's converge over time, the guy who walks more and puts the ball in play more would be the more valuable player.
RE: The higher the BB/K ration is for a batter, the better the hitter, right? - waltgreenberg - 08-14-2013 04:41 PM
(08-14-2013 04:34 PM)georgewebb Wrote: Wouldn't you want to look at each guys batting average on balls in play? I mean, if player A's BABIP is lower than his career average, then you can figure that his current BA (over 200 at bats) is deflated, and will improve over a large sample size. Similarly, if player B's BABIP is unusually high, his BA is probably inflated and will regress to his mean. And if in fact their BA's converge over time, the guy who walks more and puts the ball in play more would be the more valuable player.
As others have pointed out, OBP and OPS are the most important stats for hitters. A guy can have a low AVG and high OBP (due to frequent walks)-- ala Leon Byrd for us last year, and still be a very valuable contributor. Strikeout frequency becomes an issue only if OBP and OPS are relatively low. Someone who does not have much pop and, consequently, has a relatively low OPS, should not be striking out at a high rate (as Stainback did this Summer in the Cape).
RE: The higher the BB/K ration is for a batter, the better the hitter, right? - mrbig - 08-14-2013 07:04 PM
Player A had 270 plate appearances, made 167 outs, reached base 103 times (.381 OBP with a .235 BABIP), and had a .425 ISO (96 total bases in 226 AB's).
Player B had 191 plate appearances, made 117 outs, reached base 74 times (.387 OBP with .423 BABIP), and had a .659 ISO (116 total bases in 176 at-bats).
Assuming these guys are playing at the same level of baseball, that difference in BABIP is nearly impossible to explain away as skill, particularly since both players are obviously pretty good. If you wanted to assume that their BABIP's should be closer, say around .300 for Player A and .330 for Player B (giving Player B some benefit of the doubt), that would dramatically reduce the gap in their ISO and give Player A a significant boost in OBP. At that point you could have a fair discussion about whether Player B's extra power (in the form of triples and homers) outweigh the fact that he is getting out at a much higher rate.
RE: The higher the BB/K ration is for a batter, the better the hitter, right? - 13thOwl - 08-14-2013 07:21 PM
As many of you have guessed...Player A is 2013 Rice Rat and Player B is 2013 Pioneer League Rat.
RE: The higher the BB/K ration is for a batter, the better the hitter, right? - mrbig - 08-14-2013 08:15 PM
(08-14-2013 07:21 PM)13thOwl Wrote: As many of you have guessed...Player A is 2013 Rice Rat and Player B is 2013 Pioneer League Rat.
Except that you accidentally gave 2013 Rice Rat 4 SO instead of 44!
RE: The higher the BB/K ration is for a batter, the better the hitter, right? - 13thOwl - 08-15-2013 06:49 AM
(08-14-2013 08:15 PM)mrbig Wrote:(08-14-2013 07:21 PM)13thOwl Wrote: As many of you have guessed...Player A is 2013 Rice Rat and Player B is 2013 Pioneer League Rat.
Except that you accidentally gave 2013 Rice Rat 4 SO instead of 44!
You are correct sir! Big time typo changing the ratio to 1 to 1.
RE: The higher the BB/K ration is for a batter, the better the hitter, right? - Owl 69/70/75 - 08-15-2013 08:21 AM
(08-15-2013 06:49 AM)13thOwl Wrote:(08-14-2013 08:15 PM)mrbig Wrote:You are correct sir! Big time typo changing the ratio to 1 to 1.(08-14-2013 07:21 PM)13thOwl Wrote: As many of you have guessed...Player A is 2013 Rice Rat and Player B is 2013 Pioneer League Rat.Except that you accidentally gave 2013 Rice Rat 4 SO instead of 44!
With that correction, Player A's BABIP goes to just below .300, which is normal. The outlier is Player B's BABIP, which unfortunately suggests that the .335 is unsustainable, and that .261 is a much better indicator.
And ISO is .164 for A and .156 for B, so power has remained pretty steady. Mrbig, I think your ISO calculation is actually SLG, and you might want to recheck your numbers. I think the SLG number in the OP is correct.
RE: The higher the BB/K ration is for a batter, the better the hitter, right? - mrbig - 08-15-2013 09:48 AM
(08-15-2013 08:21 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote: And ISO is .164 for A and .156 for B, so power has remained pretty steady. Mrbig, I think your ISO calculation is actually SLG, and you might want to recheck your numbers. I think the SLG number in the OP is correct.
Yep, sorry about that. ISO is much better than SLG too because it is BABIP independent. Was thinking those ISO's sounded ridiculous but didn't really have time at that moment to mull over why!
RE: The higher the BB/K ration is for a batter, the better the hitter, right? - JOwl - 08-15-2013 10:45 AM
Sorry, completely OT:
I just came here to comment on the "ration" typo in the subject.
I've noticed it's a typo I make frequently -- adding an "n" to words that end in "io", particularly to words that end in "tio". Even when I absolutely mean to type or write "ratio", it sometimes comes out as "ration".
For grins, you can see how many "Horation Alger" references out there on the internet: link to google search
It fascinates me. Seems like a very specific linguistic or psychological phenomenon -- anyone know if there's a name for it?
RE: The higher the BB/K ration is for a batter, the better the hitter, right? - grol - 08-15-2013 11:03 AM
It seems to be a typing reflex, not something that you do when writing. There are several that I find myself repeating, but hadn't noticed the one you point out.
(08-15-2013 10:45 AM)JOwl Wrote: Sorry, completely OT:
I just came here to comment on the "ration" typo in the subject.
I've noticed it's a typo I make frequently -- adding an "n" to words that end in "io", particularly to words that end in "tio". Even when I absolutely mean to type or write "ratio", it sometimes comes out as "ration".
For grins, you can see how many "Horation Alger" references out there on the internet: link to google search
It fascinates me. Seems like a very specific linguistic or psychological phenomenon -- anyone know if there's a name for it?
RE: The higher the BB/K ration is for a batter, the better the hitter, right? - 13thOwl - 08-15-2013 11:07 AM
(08-15-2013 10:45 AM)JOwl Wrote: Sorry, completely OT:
I just came here to comment on the "ration" typo in the subject.
I've noticed it's a typo I make frequently -- adding an "n" to words that end in "io", particularly to words that end in "tio". Even when I absolutely mean to type or write "ratio", it sometimes comes out as "ration".
For grins, you can see how many "Horation Alger" references out there on the internet: link to google search
It fascinates me. Seems like a very specific linguistic or psychological phenomenon -- anyone know if there's a name for it?
I think the error occurs for me more often when I am using an iPad.
RE: The higher the BB/K ration is for a batter, the better the hitter, right? - JSA - 08-15-2013 11:51 AM
(08-15-2013 11:07 AM)13thOwl Wrote:(08-15-2013 10:45 AM)JOwl Wrote: Sorry, completely OT:
I just came here to comment on the "ration" typo in the subject.
I've noticed it's a typo I make frequently -- adding an "n" to words that end in "io", particularly to words that end in "tio". Even when I absolutely mean to type or write "ratio", it sometimes comes out as "ration".
For grins, you can see how many "Horation Alger" references out there on the internet: link to google search
It fascinates me. Seems like a very specific linguistic or psychological phenomenon -- anyone know if there's a name for it?
I think the error occurs for me more often when I am using an iPad.
Poor Horatio
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4eI689Qxaao
RE: The higher the BB/K ration is for a batter, the better the hitter, right? - chrisc - 08-15-2013 01:06 PM
(08-15-2013 11:03 AM)grol Wrote: It seems to be a typing reflex, not something that you do when writing. There are several that I find myself repeating, but hadn't noticed the one you point out.
(08-15-2013 10:45 AM)JOwl Wrote: Sorry, completely OT:
I just came here to comment on the "ration" typo in the subject.
I've noticed it's a typo I make frequently -- adding an "n" to words that end in "io", particularly to words that end in "tio". Even when I absolutely mean to type or write "ratio", it sometimes comes out as "ration".
For grins, you can see how many "Horation Alger" references out there on the internet: link to google search
It fascinates me. Seems like a very specific linguistic or psychological phenomenon -- anyone know if there's a name for it?
I work with several guys named Doug, and accidentally mistype their names as "Dough" at least 50% of the time. Very frustrating, because (as with "ration") spell-checker is not helpful.
RE: The higher the BB/K ration is for a batter, the better the hitter, right? - Owl 69/70/75 - 08-15-2013 01:27 PM
I use the iPhone to post a lot (like now) and it has this nasty habit of deciding what I meant and changing it. So I am constantly going back and retreading iPhone posts to see what my phone thinks I meant.
RE: The higher the BB/K ration is for a batter, the better the hitter, right? - Houston Owl - 08-15-2013 01:57 PM
Completely OT...but in 1941, Joe Dimaggio's stats were as follows: 622 PA; 541 AB; 76 BB; 193 hits; 125 RBI; 30 HR and...13 Ks.
RE: The higher the BB/K ration is for a batter, the better the hitter, right? - mrbig - 08-15-2013 02:15 PM
(08-15-2013 01:57 PM)Houston Owl Wrote: Completely OT...but in 1941, Joe Dimaggio's stats were as follows: 622 PA; 541 AB; 76 BB; 193 hits; 125 RBI; 30 HR and...13 Ks.
That is fine and dandy, but I'd take Ted Williams circa 1941 over Dimaggio: 606 PA; 456 AB; 147 BB; 185 hits; 129 RBI; 37 HR and...27 Ks.
Two of the best years ever, but in 18 fewer PA's, Williams reached base 63 more times! Of course, while Williams had 7 more HR, Dimaggio had 10 more doubles and 8 more triples.
RE: The higher the BB/K ration is for a batter, the better the hitter, right? - RiceDoc - 08-15-2013 02:33 PM
(08-15-2013 01:06 PM)chrisc Wrote: I work with several guys named Doug, and accidentally mistype their names as "Dough" at least 50% of the time. Very frustrating, because (as with "ration") spell-checker is not helpful.
I have to watch out for "Doe snot".
RE: The higher the BB/K ration is for a batter, the better the hitter, right? - georgewebb - 08-15-2013 04:27 PM
(08-15-2013 10:45 AM)JOwl Wrote: I just came here to comment on the "ration" typo in the subject.
I've noticed it's a typo I make frequently -- adding an "n" to words that end in "io", particularly to words that end in "tio".
Absolutely true for me as well: very hard for the fingers to type "tio" and not also type "n". I have other "auto-complete" reflexes, but this one is probably the stickiest.
(08-15-2013 11:03 AM)grol Wrote: It seems to be a typing reflex, not something that you do when writing.
I even do it when I am writing!