Possibly 20-25% of pitchers likely used steroids in that period. 100% of pitchers facing Bonds were pitching to a steroid user.
Mike Trout on pace for greatest season in MLB history
- Thread starter marquee moon
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
Possibly 20-25% of pitchers likely used steroids in that period. 100% of pitchers facing Bonds were pitching to a steroid user.
There is no predictive value of match-up data. If player A goes 8-17 against pitcher X and player B goes 3-17. The next time they face that pitcher, that data is not more predictive than their baseline performance.
Who wants to tell him?
Shorty
Boomer Boy
Small sample size, but those numbers are their baseline performance against pitcher X. Over the course of a career, players hit some pitchers better than others. There is absolutely predictive value in match-up data. It has been a factor in managerial pitching changes forever.
Wakeforest22890
Snowpom
That doesn't mean it's the best metric out there
Not really. The problem is the more ABs you have, the less relevant the data set is because it includes more and more older ABs. To my understanding, there is no AB sample size that provides a predictive value over the player's base skill/performance level. So you should always just play the better hitter.
Shorty
Boomer Boy
I did't say it was. But with a big enough sample size, one hitter's performance against a certain pitcher is a predictive metric.
First of all 17 ABs is not many, when you get a decent number like 25/30+, it is more predictive.
Of course you guys don't believe that "protection" in a line-up exists either.
If this is true, then it should be easy to quantify. Show me the proof.
Shorty
Boomer Boy
This discussion has been all about opinion. You’ve shown no proof that match up data aren’t predictive. You’ve simply said that they aren’t.
deac29
Steve Lepore
- Joined
- Apr 2, 2011
- Messages
- 2,977
- Reaction score
- 414
Read “The Book” by Tom Tango. The beauty of baseball is that there are millions of data points over about 130 years
You've stated theory...not fact..
Five guys versus David Wells
PA AB H 2B 3B HR ▾RBI BB SO BA OBP SLG OPS
Mo Vaughn 76 66 30 0 0 9 18 7 16 .455 .526 .864 1.390
Alex Rodriguez 77 74 25 5 0 8 18 3 15 .338 .364 .730 1.093
Chili Davis 79 74 26 6 0 7 19 5 16 .351 .392 .716 1.109
Albert Belle 63 56 21 6 0 6 11 5 9 .375 .429 .804 1.232
Frank Thomas 71 59 21 6 1 6 15 12 10 .356 .465 .797 1.261
I'm sure the same thing exists about many other hitters vs. pitchers and pitchers who owned hitters.
Last edited:
Shorty
Boomer Boy
I’ve never read Tango’s book, but will do so. One of the things I’ve always loved about baseball is that is has meaningful numbers. The steroid era diluted the degree to which they have meaning, but they are still cool to look at.
This does not prove your argument.
Here's another guy who owned a pitcher- Tommy Hutton vs. Seaver
http://baseballist.blogspot.com/2009/04/hutton-vs-seaver.html
"Now if you didn't see Hutton hit, you don't really know how unlikely this seems to be. Hutton played 12 seasons in the majors, but only had 1,919 plate appearances, which is only 160 a year. That's called hanging on. His OPS was .673, which was bad even by the standards of the 70s. Hutton was an above average hitter in only one of those 12 seasons.
But it's true that Hutton tore up Seaver. First of all, Hutton faced Seaver more than any other pitcher (62 PAs). The next closest was not very close: Rick Reuschel at 42 PAs.
Second, his slash line was 320/435/540 for a 975 OPS. Compare that to 248/339/334 in his "normal" life as a hitter. He had 3 homers against Seaver in 50 ABs, for a 6% home run rate. Hutton only hit 22 homers in 12 years, in 1655 ABs, for a 1% home run rate.
Third, he had 15 RBI against Seaver in those At-Bats, which is 1 RBI for every 3.3 ABs. In his normal hitting life he had 186 RBI (about 15 a year!), which is 1 RBI for every 8.89 ABs."
No matter how many players that I show you who own pitchers or vice versa, you'll always say, "that doesn't prove your argument".
http://baseballist.blogspot.com/2009/04/hutton-vs-seaver.html
"Now if you didn't see Hutton hit, you don't really know how unlikely this seems to be. Hutton played 12 seasons in the majors, but only had 1,919 plate appearances, which is only 160 a year. That's called hanging on. His OPS was .673, which was bad even by the standards of the 70s. Hutton was an above average hitter in only one of those 12 seasons.
But it's true that Hutton tore up Seaver. First of all, Hutton faced Seaver more than any other pitcher (62 PAs). The next closest was not very close: Rick Reuschel at 42 PAs.
Second, his slash line was 320/435/540 for a 975 OPS. Compare that to 248/339/334 in his "normal" life as a hitter. He had 3 homers against Seaver in 50 ABs, for a 6% home run rate. Hutton only hit 22 homers in 12 years, in 1655 ABs, for a 1% home run rate.
Third, he had 15 RBI against Seaver in those At-Bats, which is 1 RBI for every 3.3 ABs. In his normal hitting life he had 186 RBI (about 15 a year!), which is 1 RBI for every 8.89 ABs."
No matter how many players that I show you who own pitchers or vice versa, you'll always say, "that doesn't prove your argument".
Shorty
Boomer Boy
You may have been through this with RJ before. I do not remember those threads and have no desire to research them. But just readining this one, all I see is you telling RJ he’s wrong with nothing to support your opinion.