Comments on: Sabermetrics Debunk Traditional Baseball Strategy http://www.skepticalmonkey.com/other-claims-in-question/sabermetrics-debunks-traditional-baseball-strategy/ A journal that shows you why not to believe everything you're told. Updated weekly. Thu, 16 Oct 2008 01:48:05 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.5.1 By: Steve http://www.skepticalmonkey.com/other-claims-in-question/sabermetrics-debunks-traditional-baseball-strategy/#comment-53 Steve Sat, 16 Feb 2008 16:08:13 +0000 http://www.skepticalmonkey.com/why-do-people-believe/sabermetrics-debunks-traditional-baseball-strategy/#comment-53 Very interesting view on baseball logic Very interesting view on baseball logic

]]> By: Ted http://www.skepticalmonkey.com/other-claims-in-question/sabermetrics-debunks-traditional-baseball-strategy/#comment-47 Ted Fri, 15 Feb 2008 22:52:35 +0000 http://www.skepticalmonkey.com/why-do-people-believe/sabermetrics-debunks-traditional-baseball-strategy/#comment-47 Co-worker of mine offered this via instant message: <blockquote>A note on pitchers batting and sabermetrics ... the teams that have most aggressively embraced sabermetric approaches have been in the AL where the pitcher doesn't bat ... it's viewed more as a certainty than as a risk that a pitcher will not safely reach base</blockquote> Co-worker of mine offered this via instant message:

A note on pitchers batting and sabermetrics … the teams that have most aggressively embraced sabermetric approaches have been in the AL where the pitcher doesn’t bat … it’s viewed more as a certainty than as a risk that a pitcher will not safely reach base

]]> By: Ted Goas http://www.skepticalmonkey.com/other-claims-in-question/sabermetrics-debunks-traditional-baseball-strategy/#comment-46 Ted Goas Fri, 15 Feb 2008 22:26:06 +0000 http://www.skepticalmonkey.com/why-do-people-believe/sabermetrics-debunks-traditional-baseball-strategy/#comment-46 Zac, you raise a good point. Logically, it makes sense to avoid allowing pitchers to cause the team damage when batting. These stats were taken across several years of games, including all teams and players. If we narrowed this sample down to, say, just the seventh, eighth and ninth batters, those numbers might be significantly different. This aside, you may be introducing somewhat of a new topic in your comment above. The purpose of a sacrifice bunt that I described is to advance a runner already on base. I think you’re talking about sacrificing to defend this runner (protecting him from getting out). When a batter sacrifices himself, the manager is conceding that he can’t defend him from an out. So why not advance a runner in the process, right? But sabermetrics might tell you to let the batter swing away anyway. He may strike out or hit into a double play, but when he does get a hit, the positives outweigh the negatives. But again, this metric refers to long-term results involving all players. Thanks for the input! I’d be interested to hear more... Zac, you raise a good point. Logically, it makes sense to avoid allowing pitchers to cause the team damage when batting. These stats were taken across several years of games, including all teams and players. If we narrowed this sample down to, say, just the seventh, eighth and ninth batters, those numbers might be significantly different.

This aside, you may be introducing somewhat of a new topic in your comment above. The purpose of a sacrifice bunt that I described is to advance a runner already on base. I think you’re talking about sacrificing to defend this runner (protecting him from getting out).

When a batter sacrifices himself, the manager is conceding that he can’t defend him from an out. So why not advance a runner in the process, right? But sabermetrics might tell you to let the batter swing away anyway. He may strike out or hit into a double play, but when he does get a hit, the positives outweigh the negatives.

But again, this metric refers to long-term results involving all players. Thanks for the input! I’d be interested to hear more…

]]> By: Zac http://www.skepticalmonkey.com/other-claims-in-question/sabermetrics-debunks-traditional-baseball-strategy/#comment-44 Zac Fri, 15 Feb 2008 19:31:50 +0000 http://www.skepticalmonkey.com/why-do-people-believe/sabermetrics-debunks-traditional-baseball-strategy/#comment-44 As to the sacrifice bunt, one of the primary reasons it's employed is to stay out of a double play. Weak hitters (notably pitchers) have a propensity for doubling up a runner at first. While it may be true that "a runner on first with no outs gives the batting team an average of .95 runs per inning," I'm guessing a team with two outs and no one on base has a considerably lower chance to score runs that inning. Most pitchers bat well under .200 in a season (most actually hit around .100 - .130), and 90 percent of their outs are either Ks or ground outs. A strikeout with a runner on first yields no benefit. A ground out with a runner on first has a high probability of turning into two outs. Under those circumstances, isn't it better to bunt? As to the sacrifice bunt, one of the primary reasons it’s employed is to stay out of a double play. Weak hitters (notably pitchers) have a propensity for doubling up a runner at first. While it may be true that “a runner on first with no outs gives the batting team an average of .95 runs per inning,” I’m guessing a team with two outs and no one on base has a considerably lower chance to score runs that inning. Most pitchers bat well under .200 in a season (most actually hit around .100 - .130), and 90 percent of their outs are either Ks or ground outs. A strikeout with a runner on first yields no benefit. A ground out with a runner on first has a high probability of turning into two outs. Under those circumstances, isn’t it better to bunt?

]]>