Prospectus Matchups: V... (11/02)
0 comments have been left for this article. BP Comment Quick Links
| Home | Unfiltered | Articles | Newsletter | Statistics | Fantasy | Events | Radio | Glossary | Search |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
November 3, 2004 Is Patience a Virtue?Looking Into a Core PremiseAs it usually is, the strike zone was at the center of quite a few discussions during the recently completed trouncing billed as the World Series. Mark Bellhorn's tendency to strike out and walk prodigiously, as well as the entire Red Sox team's reluctance to swing and miss in the World Series, were discussed near and far. This got me thinking about who the game's best and worst hitters are when it comes to choosing when to swing and when to spectate, and how that translates to their performance, particularly power numbers. Even if you had never seen baseball before, you could infer from the multitude of replays and even the superfluous dirt-cam introduced in the World Series this year that an at-bat is a complex series of events that requires lengthy analysis. Or you can divide it into two separate events: decision and result. From the batter's perspective, the decision is simple: swing or do not swing (there is no try). Once that choice is made, the batter can additionally influence the outcome if he chooses to swing, or he transfers the decision to the umpire if he does not. In order to determine if the decision was "good" or not, we must evaluate both the choice and the effectiveness of that choice. For example, if the batter chooses not to swing, that choice can be deemed "correct" if the pitch is called a ball or "incorrect" if it's a strike. (Though many of you may debate that in light of some of the recent strike zone interpretations by our friendly umpiring crews.) Once the batter has decided to swing, the results become more varied and therefore more difficult to evaluate. Before we evaluate the effectiveness of each choice, let's take a look at who tends to make which choice. For all charts, pitchouts and intentional balls will be excluded because, unless the batter is Roy Hobbs, there's no choice involved in those situations. Here are the leaders in both the percentage of pitches swung at and taken in 2004: Player Take Swing ------------------------------------ Todd Zeile 66.8 33.2 Chris Snyder 65.8 34.2 D'Angelo Jimenez 64.9 35.1 Frank Menechino 64.5 35.5 Luis Castillo 64.3 35.7 Jason Kendall 64.3 35.7 John Olerud 64.2 35.8 Bobby Abreu 63.9 36.1 Nick Punto 63.9 36.1 Barry Bonds 63.8 36.2 Player Take Swing ------------------------------------ Vladimir Guerrero 39.7 60.3 A.J. Pierzynski 40.2 59.8 Jesse Garcia 41.9 58.1 Johnny Estrada 42.1 57.9 Todd Greene 42.7 57.3 Dmitri Young 43.1 56.9 Jose Molina 44.0 56.0 Rey Sanchez 44.2 55.8 Bengie Molina 44.4 55.6 Jose Vizcaino 44.6 55.2 Looking at these two groups of players, it appears at first glance that the decision whether or not to swing has virtually nothing to do with overall performance, especially considering that the likely NL MVP is among the top 10 in pitches taken and the likely AL MVP is at the extreme opposite end. There are both good and bad players on both lists, though perhaps a few more reputable ones in the "take a pitch" group. For now, we can assume that both approaches at the plate are equally viable. Instead, let's try to evaluate the results of the choice rather than the choice itself. First, how do our hacktastic friends fare when they swing so liberally? We can break up the results of a swing into three to four categories: miss, foul, in play, and hit: Player Miss Foul In Play Hit in Play ------------------------------------------------------------ Vladimir Guerrero 17.0 39.9 43.1 37.7 A.J. Pierzynski 13.5 37.4 49.2 28.5 Jesse Garcia 17.7 33.3 49.0 29.0 Johnny Estrada 14.5 45.2 40.3 36.2 Todd Greene 31.9 29.7 38.4 34.8 Dmitri Young 21.2 40.4 38.5 32.9 Jose Molina 33.3 28.6 38.1 33.4 Rey Sanchez 10.1 36.6 53.3 26.5 Bengie Molina 14.7 39.0 46.3 30.2 Jose Vizcaino 12.4 38.2 49.4 30.1
|