Jump to content

What does batting around mean?


BohKnowsBmore

What is "batting around?"  

111 members have voted

  1. 1. What is "batting around?"

    • Nine batters
      39
    • Ten or more batters
      72


Recommended Posts

If the inning ends with the 9th guy up, then you haven't batted around because you haven't come back to the original point. Just like a circle is complete when your pencil is at the exact same point as it was when you started, batting around is completed when the exact same batter who started the inning is up again.

Except a lineup is discrete, not continuous like the circumference of a circle.

I don't know which is correct. I'm not sure anybody really does, unless they know where it originated from. It seems more likely to me that the intention was for the answer to be 9, though the literal definition of the term would indicate 10. Who knows?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 119
  • Created
  • Last Reply
You don't start with 9. You start with 1. Batter number 1. The first batter of the inning. If the inning ends with the 9th batter, then there's a gap from 9 to 1.

If you use this example, the length of the AB would be from one number to another. Therefore, if the 9th guy makes an out, the hand would be resting at 1 afterwards. Thus completing one full rotation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Around has a circular reference. When you complete one circumference of a circle from a point on the circle back to the same point, you have gone "around" the circle. You do not have to pass the point. 9 is the answer

But the circle is not complete with 9 hitters, as we did not get back to the leadoff man. There is a small hole in the circle.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you use this example, the length of the AB would be from one number to another. Therefore, if the 9th guy makes an out, the hand would be resting at 1 afterwards. Thus completing one full rotation.

The hand wouldn't be resting there until the team bats in the next inning. Therefore they didn't bat around unless the guy that batted first in the inning, bats for a second time in the inning.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The hand wouldn't be resting there until the team bats in the next inning. Therefore they didn't bat around unless the guy that batted first in the inning, bats for a second time in the inning.

But as soon as the batter comes up a 2nd time, there's an overlap. So there shouldn't be a hole if he doesn't come up again. Theoretically, it should be complete since there should be no gap between the end of the 9th AB and the start of the 10th.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But as soon as the batter comes up a 2nd time, there's an overlap. So there shouldn't be a hole if he doesn't come up again. Theoretically, it should be complete since there should be no gap between the end of the 9th AB and the start of the 10th.

Of course, you could argue that the circle is measured in time, not AB's. Thus, the time it takes to finish the next half-inning could be a hole.

Great...now I'm arguing with myself.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

LOL this is silly.. batting around is only when the leadoff hitter of the inning comes up to hit for the second time in the same inning. If that does not happen then they did not technically "bat around"; if nine players end up batting they just bat through the entire order.

I've always interpreted "batting around" to mean "batting through the entire order." So nine would do the trick.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But as soon as the batter comes up a 2nd time, there's an overlap. So there shouldn't be a hole if he doesn't come up again. Theoretically, it should be complete since there should be no gap between the end of the 9th AB and the start of the 10th.

Huh? Look use a clock, (and I know a baseball lineup only has 9 but it's the same difference) you start at 12 noon (1st batter of inning) and get to 11 pm (11th batter of inning) and 11 pm makes the 3rd out. Has the clock gone all the way around to 12 am or is it still at 11 pm, until the next time up?

Or use my walk around the block example. If you leave the house and walk around your neighborhood, have you made it all the way back around if you end up next door instead of your house (where you started from)?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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




  • Posts

    • Hi Puck- From a marketing standpoint the Orioles will eventually reach a relative saturation point which I agree is around 2.5m then it's about leveraging money from the fan experience-winning being a chief component of that.   
    • I doubt it.   wavetrapper joined about 10 days before OOO was banned.   He might have some similar views but seems better at claiming some unique expertise or superiority.   
    • Yes, it's possible.   But we don't know the extent to which the "old school" stuff is still taught.   I wouldn't assume it is ignored or underemphasized.   But, perhaps it is.   Nobody was asking that question last year or the first 2.5 months of this season, though.   I doubt the approach was any different when we were playing .650 ball than it is now.
    • Sports Guy- Isn't attendance becoming more of a  legacy statistic similar to Avg v. OPS?  It's a very different era than 1965 when there were few suites or "premium" seating and hardly any amenities beyond a beer and hot dog.  Today a seat and it's attachment rate are not comparable between say NY and KC-and we've seen the leverage of corporate sponsorship with TRP.  In the Warehouse I would think growing attachment rate and corporate partners would at some point have comparable priority as a revenue driver.  Seat sales account only ~20% of revenue and shrinking,  The revenue tilt is upgrading fans/corps. to a premium seat at an average of 4X the price.   Although this slide is from '22 it details the discrepancy between teams that can leverage premium seating and suites.  Playoff revenue is also likely in this slide which benefits teams like Houston. There is no real way I have found to judge revenue other than Forbes-just food for thought.  
    • The Mountcastle injury hasn't felt like a huge deal since we have a similarly-performing O'Hearn to slot into the same position.  But I think the lineup misses him. He is better than Eloy, Rivera, and the other guys his ABs are getting distributed to. And better defensively than O'Hearn.
    • There could be some interesting stuff to talk about here, or individual cases where what you're saying is true, but I think the short answer is no. Analytics are going to be more accurate overall than the old-school axioms-- the axioms that are provably true are probably still coached.   On point 1 we definitely have some players struggling to make adjustments and some of that may be that they're coached to hunt barrels at the expense of contact. The O's are built to maximize power and you can see that in their results (1st in SLG but 9th in AVG). Maybe a different approach could help some guys break out of a slump more easily, but it's hard to know because there are always struggling players no matter the coaching approach. Were the the Showalter O's missing old-school wisdom when they let Adam Jones continue whiffing on low and away sliders?  Point 2 I probably buy the least because pitching analytics across MLB have been so generally effective in helping players maximize their game. Probably there are ways the O's could be using their data better. Not every decision and result will be perfect. But analytics is golden for pitchers.  On point 3, is there any reason to think the O's are generally weak on defensive fundamentals compared to most teams? Gunnar had his recent error binge but that's all I can think of and that seemed more like a personal thing to me. 
  • Popular Contributors

×
×
  • Create New...