Jump to content

Situational Hitting


33rdst

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 95
  • Created
  • Last Reply
Sometimes situations do not require you to hit the ball hard. They require you to simply put the ball in play. Professional hitters are paid to have productive at bats. They neeed to accomplish what the game dictates.

I agree. There is a time and place for a "productive" out, but 1) it may not arise as frequently as some seem to suggest it arises and 2) it may not be as easy to produce a productive out as many seem to believe it is.

Professional hitters are paid to have productive at bats.

As a simple example, think of Adam Dunn. He makes lots of "unproductive" outs. He also rakes. The value of Dunn's raking plus his outs (both unproductive and productive outs) exceeds the value of most other hitters raking plus their outs (productive and unproductive).

Put another way, raking is far more valuable than a productive out, by a great magnitiude.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You can't view them seperately. By changing what you normally do to increase the chance of a "productive" out, a hitter is reducing the liklihood of a hit or extra base hit. In the long run, is it worth this tradeoff?

There are certainly times where a strategy that attempts to maximize the chances of "productive" is called for.

Of course you can view them seperately. It's what it means to be an effective hitter. Being effective isn't just producing positive offensive stats. It's doing what the team and the situation require. Have you actually played baseball ? Why do you think players get so many props from their team mates on the bench when they have a productiv at bat? Tejada as wll as Fahey gets acknowledged for moving a runner.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let's take a little walk down logical lane here. If a batter is able to hit a sac fly 70% of the time if that's what he's trying to do then it would follow

1. That he can hit a ground ball 70% of the time if he tries to

2. That he can hit a line drive 70% of the time if he tries to

I would say that the vast majority of hitters are trying to hit line drives when they come to the plate. Is that not a safe assumption? Do you really think most hitters are able to hit line drives 70% of the time?

I am done with this conversation. Its very hard to back up with facts.

I do know that line drives are harder to hit than fly balls and grounders, but its hard to put a numerical value on it and I wish I would have never done it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks for stating the obvious.:002_sdrool:

He assumes a major league hitter could hit a sacrifice fly (read: medium - long fly ball) 70% of the time if they wanted to. My point is the most extreme flyball hitters in the league, who are certainly trying to hit long fly balls the majority if not all times they come to the plate, are only able to do so 40% of the time.

I have never suggested these stats are conclusive as to what a major league hitter does at the plate when they have the sole intention of hitting a scarifice fly.

What I am suggesting is that hitting a sacrifice flyball (read: medium - long fly ball) is a difficult thing to do, as evidenced by the fact that the most extreme flyball hitters in the league, who are certainly trying to hit long fly balls when they come to bat and are amongst the best at producing flyballs, can only do so about 40% of the time.

These results seem inconsistent with the idea that the average major league hitter can hit a medium to long fly ball at will almost twice as often. Perhaps this isn't inconsistent to you. If so, why?

Do you believe hitters like Thomas, Giambi and Gomes are trying to do something other than hit the ball hard and far the majority of the time?

If not, what else?

Another related idea to consider: If the average major leaguer could hit a medium to long flyball 70% of the time if they wanted to, and we know on average 11-12% of flyballs are home runs (this is closer to 15-20% for big time power hitters), why aren't the best flyball/power hitters (remember, 70% is supposedly average) in the league hitting flyballs at 80-90%, as more flyballs = more home runs?

You're welcome.

I personally think 70% is a little high. I just think you're using the stats in a misleading way. They may have a minor degree of relevance here, but you're reading far too many assumptions into them. As far as I know, those guys aren't trying to hit fly balls every time up; they could be attempting to hit sharp liners or ground balls through the hole. What you are presenting merely shows whether the batters have a tendency to hit a ground ball or fly ball. That is it. It doesn't address their ability to hit one in the air at will.

And now, I'm going bowling.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok, this is a good point. How often do you think a hitter like Giambi, Thomas or Gomes is not trying to hit a long flyball?

When there is a runner on first and the first baseman is holding him on, hitters will sometimes try to direct their swings towards the hole opened up on the right side. Just from what I've observed, Tejada and Jeter often inside out the ball and shoot groundballs through that hole. As for flyball/power hitters like Giambi and Thomas... I doubt they're trying to do much more than put it out of the park most of the time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Of course you can view them seperately. It's what it means to be an effective hitter. Being effective isn't just producing positive offensive stats. It's doing what the team and the situation require.

My point is the goal is generally to maximize runs scored, although there are instances where the goal is to maximize the liklihood of just one run scoring. I'm not sure who is "requiring" something be done, but my understanding is that what is often "required" is often less than an optimal strategy.

Have you actually played baseball ?

Yes

Why do you think players get so many props from their team mates on the bench when they have a productiv at bat? Tejada as wll as Fahey gets acknowledged for moving a runner.

Because they did something good for their team. I am not denying that, I am merely suggesting that in attempting to maximize the chance of a productive out, a hitter may have, depending on the situation, sacrificed the opportunity to do something even more valuable for their team.

I am also suggesting that in the long run, for most hitters and certainly those of Tejada's quality, the sum of all the value created in maximizing the liklihood of a productive out is less than the total value they would have created had they approached the at bat with their normal approach. Of course the value of a productive out varies based on the situation but in general I believe the concept of a productive out is overrated.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My point is the goal is generally to maximize runs scored, although there are instances where the goal is to maximize the liklihood of just one run scoring. I'm not sure who is "requiring" something be done, but my understanding is that what is often "required" is often less than an optimal strategy.

Yes

Because they did something good for their team. I am not denying that, I am merely suggesting that in attempting to maximize the chance of a productive out, a hitter may have, depending on the situation, sacrificed the opportunity to do something even more valuable for their team.

I am also suggesting that in the long run, for most hitters and certainly those of Tejada's quality, the sum of all the value created in maximizing the liklihood of a productive out is less than the total value they would have created had they approached the at bat with their normal approach. Of course the value of a productive out varies based on the situation but in general I believe the concept of a productive out is overrated.

As someone who has played baseball you know then that a hitters approach actually changes from pitch to pitch. Tejada's chances of producing a hit is much greater when he is ahead in the count. So he may have had a very productive at bat if he moved a runner with an 0-2 count. What makes Tejada a slasher and not necessarily effective hitter in my opinion is that he doesn't seem tyo make these kinds of adjustments during his at bats.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As someone who has played baseball you know then that a hitters approach actually changes from pitch to pitch. Tejada's chances of producing a hit is much greater when he is ahead in the count. So he may have had a very productive at bat if he moved a runner with an 0-2 count. What makes Tejada a slasher and not necessarily effective hitter in my opinion is that he doesn't seem tyo make these kinds of adjustments during his at bats.

I agree with you regarding changing the approach as the count dictates, especially with two strikes link

Tejada is an exceptionally effective hitter because he is so much better than the average hitter in terms of getting on base and hitting for power than any shortcommings he may have regarding situational hitting (the importance of which I believe is overvalued and overstated) are inconseqeuntial.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree with you regarding changing the approach as the count dictates, especially with two strikes link

Tejada is an exceptionally effective hitter because he is so much better than the average hitter in terms of getting on base and hitting for power than any shortcommings he may have regarding situational hitting (the importance of which I believe is overvalued and overstated) are inconseqeuntial.

Inconsequential? Tell that to Bedard.

He is exceptionally effective when compared to the average hitter but how about comparing him to his peers say Ramirez for example. Tejada has about 10% more ab than Manny and has over thirty fewer walks. He has about the same amount of strike outs. While Ramirez is an effective hitter in every sense of the word. Tejada is and exeptionally gifted athelte with great eye hand coordination. As a "hitter". He's a great slasher.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The elephant in the room is that we have several offensive sinkholes in our lineup that are practically incapable of getting on base, not that the ones that do, including our best hitter by a fairly wide margin, don't move a baserunner every time they make an out.

Edit: Tejada's not an "effective" hitter because he's not as good as Manny Ramirez? Come on, you can't be serious. And your stats are off. Manny has struck out 88 times this year, Tejada has struck out 52 times. That's in 29 more plate appearances.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The elephant in the room is that we have several offensive sinkholes in our lineup that are practically incapable of getting on base, not that the ones that do, including our best hitter by a fairly wide margin, don't move a baserunner every time they make an out.

Edit: Tejada's not an "effective" hitter because he's not as good as Manny Ramirez? Come on, you can't be serious.

Sure I'm serious weren't we discussing trading Tejada for Ramirez most of the off season.

Tejada is a great hitter. I don't think he gets as much out of his abs as he could. Look at his BB/SO ratio.

The conversation here is about situational hitting. I've either watched or listened to 95% of the innings played this year. While Tejda is clearly the most productive player on this team and around baseball, I'm critical of what I have observed to be too many unproductive ABs. He could be more productive for the O's.

Oh and I would have traded him in a heart beat for Santanna, Aybar and Kotchman

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm aware what the conversation is about, I just think that the notion that situational hitting on this team is a real problem is silly. Yes, it's nice when you make an out and a baserunner advances, but making a "productive out" is not a repeatable skill, and teams that do succed at productive outmaking at a way above-average rate see marginal gains in the standings.

Tejada could be more productive, sure, (and so could every single hitter in baseball) but I really can't see measuring a hitter by how many runners advance one base when he makes an out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


  • Posts

    • Still a lot of things to shake out this year that IMO affects this decision.   1. Is Silent J the heir apparent to RF? 2. Is Beavers taking the next step and showing as a viable starting OF? 3. Is Fabian taking the next step to be a legit 4th OF who can play all 3 positions?   I will be very surprised if Taters is on the team next year. Honestly I think that if he is it will be due to failure of the young guys to show out. Good thing for us is we have enough of them that I don’t think that will happen.
    • He said after the game that he has five pitches, and if any three of them are working on a given night, he can mix them up enough to get batters out.  
    • He’s had quite the turnaround vs. LHP on this road trip.  Hopefully it continues all year!
    • Gunnar's definitely looking like the MVP of the Orioles and looks like priority #1 to me to get an extension. Burnes age works against him, because the O's maybe don't want to go longer than 5-6 years at most, but I could be wrong there. The Witt extension kind of set the parameters of what Gunnar will probably want at minimum. 2025 25 Kansas City Royals $8,111,111     2026 26 Kansas City Royals $14,111,111     2027 27 Kansas City Royals $20,111,111     2028 28 Kansas City Royals $31,111,111     2029 29 Kansas City Royals $36,111,111     2030 30 Kansas City Royals $36,111,111     2031 31 Kansas City Royals *$35,000,000   $35M Player Option 2032 32 Kansas City Royals *$35,000,000   $35M Player Option 2033 33 Kansas City Royals *$35,000,000   $35M Player Option 2034 34 Kansas City Royals *$35,000,000   $35M Player Option 2035 35 Kansas City Royals *$33,000,000   $33M Team Option 2036 36 Kansas City Royals *$28,000,000   $28M Team Option 2037 37 Kansas City Royals *$28,000,000   $28M Team
    • It is probably thin because of the short career lifespan is for those positions, which is why there is no way Mullins should be extended.
    • Gunnar Henderson's splits through first 97 ABs of the season:   Home -- .326 / .385 / .630 Away -- .294 / .362 / .667 Vs. LH -- .324 / .395 / .622 Vs. RH -- .300 / .358 / .667
    • I don't think the point was to trash Holliday but to question the reliability of the metric. I share the question about Holliday's OAA. He hasn't been bad but I can't think of a single plus play and OAA thinks he is the best defender on the team.
  • Popular Contributors

×
×
  • Create New...