Comments on: The Whiffing Machine http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/index.php/the-whiffing-machine/ Daily baseball statistical analysis and commentary Sun, 12 Feb 2012 17:38:57 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: pfavole http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/index.php/the-whiffing-machine/#comment-101970 pfavole Mon, 12 Oct 2009 23:06:00 +0000 http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/?p=9330#comment-101970 This year is particularly disappointing for Halman because he was pretty much across the board better in 2008 at the same level (AA) and obviously a year younger. He was showing progression in K% and BB% during his 08 stint at AA. While he played about half the games at AA in 08 (61 games and 230 ABs in 08 vs 121 games and 260 AB in 09), it's a decent sample size, albeit a little of the small side but he had a decreased K%, increased BB% while still showing strong power and a decent AVG (which was inflated due to a .345 BABIP). It showed good progress but the wheels fell off the bus this year in pretty much every measurable category... This year is particularly disappointing for Halman because he was pretty much across the board better in 2008 at the same level (AA) and obviously a year younger. He was showing progression in K% and BB% during his 08 stint at AA. While he played about half the games at AA in 08 (61 games and 230 ABs in 08 vs 121 games and 260 AB in 09), it’s a decent sample size, albeit a little of the small side but he had a decreased K%, increased BB% while still showing strong power and a decent AVG (which was inflated due to a .345 BABIP). It showed good progress but the wheels fell off the bus this year in pretty much every measurable category…

]]> By: Al Dimond http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/index.php/the-whiffing-machine/#comment-97038 Al Dimond Mon, 14 Sep 2009 21:04:02 +0000 http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/?p=9330#comment-97038 The BABIP thing is why K% is better than K/9. The other thing he mentions, that walks shouldn't be counted towards K%, is, to me, insane (hopefully he's at least using a "balls in play" count that counts home runs, sac flies, etc). The skill of striking out batters is that you have to either put the ball over the plate or, if you don't, at least entice the batter to swing and miss/foul it off. If you can't make this happen three times to a hitter you walk him, hit him, or he puts it in play. The ability to strike batters out and the propensity to walk batters are clearly linked. Similarly, a hitter's ability to lay off a 3-2 curve in the dirt causes him both to walk more often and strike out less. Unless someone can show me that K/AB or TrueK% (they're almost the same thing) are more predictive than K/PA, I don't buy that article for a second. The BABIP thing is why K% is better than K/9. The other thing he mentions, that walks shouldn’t be counted towards K%, is, to me, insane (hopefully he’s at least using a “balls in play” count that counts home runs, sac flies, etc). The skill of striking out batters is that you have to either put the ball over the plate or, if you don’t, at least entice the batter to swing and miss/foul it off. If you can’t make this happen three times to a hitter you walk him, hit him, or he puts it in play. The ability to strike batters out and the propensity to walk batters are clearly linked. Similarly, a hitter’s ability to lay off a 3-2 curve in the dirt causes him both to walk more often and strike out less. Unless someone can show me that K/AB or TrueK% (they’re almost the same thing) are more predictive than K/PA, I don’t buy that article for a second.

]]> By: Toffer Peak http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/index.php/the-whiffing-machine/#comment-97002 Toffer Peak Mon, 14 Sep 2009 18:07:22 +0000 http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/?p=9330#comment-97002 There are two good articles at THT about this issue. http://www.hardballtimes.com/main/fantasy/article/the-great-strikeout-debate/ http://www.hardballtimes.com/main/fantasy/article/the-great-strikeout-debate-part-ii/ It's not quite as clear as you make it out to be due to differences in BABIP and other issues. There are two good articles at THT about this issue.

http://www.hardballtimes.com/main/fantasy/article/the-great-strikeout-debate/
http://www.hardballtimes.com/main/fantasy/article/the-great-strikeout-debate-part-ii/

It’s not quite as clear as you make it out to be due to differences in BABIP and other issues.

]]> By: Bill http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/index.php/the-whiffing-machine/#comment-96974 Bill Mon, 14 Sep 2009 16:53:25 +0000 http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/?p=9330#comment-96974 There were reports well before a deal was actually made that the Mariners were talking with the Pirates and Halman was a player being discussed. If this deal was the eventual Jack Wilson/Ian Snell for Jeff Clement/Ronnie Cedeno/pitching prospects deal, then I wounder which side decided to back off on Halman and go with Clement. There were reports well before a deal was actually made that the Mariners were talking with the Pirates and Halman was a player being discussed. If this deal was the eventual Jack Wilson/Ian Snell for Jeff Clement/Ronnie Cedeno/pitching prospects deal, then I wounder which side decided to back off on Halman and go with Clement.

]]> By: Al Dimond http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/index.php/the-whiffing-machine/#comment-96973 Al Dimond Mon, 14 Sep 2009 16:51:56 +0000 http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/?p=9330#comment-96973 I agree with this. I think the reason they endure is that it gives people some idea of how many strikeouts they'd expect in an average appearance. It's misleading of course, for the reasons you point out. I would also like to mention that Fangraphs (and other sites) has K% as K/AB and BB% as BB/PA. They really should have the same denominator. And it shouldn't be AB; AB was invented as a denominator for BA, and it's really pretty useless for most other things (except maybe SLG). Why should walks and sac flies not be counted towards K%? Why should a batter that walks slightly more than he strikes out have a higher K% than BB%? I agree with this. I think the reason they endure is that it gives people some idea of how many strikeouts they’d expect in an average appearance. It’s misleading of course, for the reasons you point out.

I would also like to mention that Fangraphs (and other sites) has K% as K/AB and BB% as BB/PA. They really should have the same denominator. And it shouldn’t be AB; AB was invented as a denominator for BA, and it’s really pretty useless for most other things (except maybe SLG). Why should walks and sac flies not be counted towards K%? Why should a batter that walks slightly more than he strikes out have a higher K% than BB%?

]]> By: James http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/index.php/the-whiffing-machine/#comment-96967 James Mon, 14 Sep 2009 16:28:59 +0000 http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/?p=9330#comment-96967 This is something I've been thinking about for a while, but have never really put into words until I saw this post. There is something fundamentally flawed about per IP or per 9 IP rate stats. Think about the K/9 stat for example. K/9 is tantamount to K/out; as in, somebody who has a 9.0 K/9 gets .333 K/out. This is obviously because IP relies solely on outs recorded. Why should a K rate rely on outs? It should rely on batters faced. An extreme example: if Jon Lester has a 3-strikeout, 1-2-3 inning, he has a 1 K/out ratio for that inning (27 K/9), and a 1 K/batter faced ratio; if Jonathan Sanchez has a 3-strikeout, 3BB, 3H, 5 ER inning, he also has a 1 K/out ratio for that inning (27 K/9), but a .333 K/batter faced ratio. The K/batter faced ratio is much, much more telling of a) both a pitcher's proficiency and efficiency, and b) much more importantly, how often he strikes dudes out. These stats are (somewhat) widely used for hitters (K% and BB%); why not for pitchers? It's pretty intuitive. This is something I’ve been thinking about for a while, but have never really put into words until I saw this post.

There is something fundamentally flawed about per IP or per 9 IP rate stats. Think about the K/9 stat for example. K/9 is tantamount to K/out; as in, somebody who has a 9.0 K/9 gets .333 K/out. This is obviously because IP relies solely on outs recorded. Why should a K rate rely on outs? It should rely on batters faced. An extreme example: if Jon Lester has a 3-strikeout, 1-2-3 inning, he has a 1 K/out ratio for that inning (27 K/9), and a 1 K/batter faced ratio; if Jonathan Sanchez has a 3-strikeout, 3BB, 3H, 5 ER inning, he also has a 1 K/out ratio for that inning (27 K/9), but a .333 K/batter faced ratio. The K/batter faced ratio is much, much more telling of a) both a pitcher’s proficiency and efficiency, and b) much more importantly, how often he strikes dudes out.

These stats are (somewhat) widely used for hitters (K% and BB%); why not for pitchers? It’s pretty intuitive.

]]> By: RockiesMagicNumber http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/index.php/the-whiffing-machine/#comment-96956 RockiesMagicNumber Mon, 14 Sep 2009 16:03:45 +0000 http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/?p=9330#comment-96956 So he's Clint Barmes? So he’s Clint Barmes?

]]> By: Joe R http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/index.php/the-whiffing-machine/#comment-96935 Joe R Mon, 14 Sep 2009 12:41:52 +0000 http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/?p=9330#comment-96935 .278 OBP in AA for a #1 prospect? No thanks. This is like the AA version of Chris Davis. .278 OBP in AA for a #1 prospect? No thanks. This is like the AA version of Chris Davis.

]]>