Slugging % is the most overrated offensive stat?

[brettac1]

Pretty much throw the ball, catch the ball, hit the ball.

 

and be tough, once someone figures out just exactly what that is. I think the Brewers have been mentally tough in about 48.7% of their games so far, well below the "toughness rate" of the Cardinals, 64%. Talent doesn't figure into these numbers, it's all about toughness.

[rluzinski]

and be tough, once someone figures out just exactly what that is. I think the Brewers have been mentally tough in about 48.7% of their games so far, well below the "toughness rate" of the Cardinals, 64%. Talent doesn't figure into these numbers, it's all about toughness.

 

O so true. All the intengibles are tangible, insofar as they are 100% coorelated with winning. Just for once can someone show me a mentally tough team, that tries really hard and has great chemestry but doesn't have the physical tools to win many games? Good luck.

[bjamesw22]

So you're saying there is no mental part to baseball?

 

No having a plan at the plate? No knowing where to throw the ball if it is hit to you? No knowing how to slide at home with a play at the plate? No knowing where you need to hit the ball to move runners over? Nothing like that? And those things have no effect on the game?

 

No, you can't measure them, but you can't dismiss their importance in the game.

[brettac1]

And those things have no effect on the game?

 

Sure they do, just not in a provable/meaningful/significant kind of way.

[bjamesw22]

Sure they do, just not in a provable/meaningful/significant kind of way.

 

Since you're basically asking me to prove that it does make a difference in the game how about you prove to me that it doesn't.

[rluzinski]

No having a plan at the plate? No knowing where to throw the ball if it is hit to you? No knowing how to slide at home with a play at the plate? No knowing where you need to hit the ball to move runners over? Nothing like that? And those things have no effect on the game?

 

I was talking more about mental toughness / good effort / chemestry / knowing how to win stuff. Hey, I said it makes up 5% of the game!

[brettac1]

Since you're basically asking me to prove that it does make a difference in the game how about you prove to me that it doesn't.

 

I'm not the one with the hypothesis to prove here, you are. I'm saying that it doesn't exist because there is no evidence of it's existence.

[bjamesw22]

I'm not the one with the hypothesis to prove here, you are.

 

It's not a hypothesis, it is common sense.

[brettac1]

How so? If it is common sense, you would think there would be something behind it that proves it - this would make it "common".

[huntsvillefan]

I've nothing against stats and while I agree that OPS (or OXS) predicts runs you'll score very closely, I'm not aware of any similar stats that predict how many runs you'll allow, with any accuracy. Have I missed something significant or do we ignore D and pitching because it isn't provable?

[endaround]

There are a great deal done with pitching stats. K rate, walk rate and HR rate are teh big three that allow you to project pitching the best. Defense is another matter.

[brettac1]

I would say DIPS (basically like end said) has done a lot in terms of projecting/evaluating pitchers. Defense is definitely a work in progress, I usually use Baseball Prospectus' metrics out of personal preference. Something will hopefully come along soon that gives a better evaluation of defense than the frequently faulty human eye.

[rluzinski]

Have I missed something significant or do we ignore D and pitching because it isn't provable?

 

There has been alot of work done on pitching and defense lately and alot more to BE done. The biggest problem is trying to seperate defense and pitching. DIPS tries to do that and succeeds... sorta http://forum.brewerfan.net/images/smilies/smile.gif

[huntsvillefan]

I don't disagree that there are some interesting things out there,. But I thought that Bret's premise was that it only mattered if you could prove it. DIPS and the various defensive stas are nowhere near anything that could be called 'proof', and don't correlate with runs allowed even remotely. (except when they actually use them as part of the formula)

So do we say that D & Pitching don't make a difference just because we haven't a formula that ties them in with runs scored?

[bjamesw22]

huntsvillefan,

 

I wouldn't even try to figure out the logic if I were you. Or you'll spend a lot of wasted time spinning your wheels trying to talk to people with their ears plugged.

[brettac1]

huntville's contention was a valid one, considering there are stats that quantify pitching and defensive ability. There are, however, no stats to back up your argument, bjames. You're trying to latch onto a poster, in huntsvillefan, that is trying to figure things out logically.

[bjamesw22]

This from RoCo:

 

Richie Sexson stands out to me as a guy who certainly improved his plate discipline over his career.

 

In his first five FULL seasons, his walk totals were........

 

34

59

60

70

and 98 walks.

 

That certainly smacks of improvement to me.

 

I don't think he got THAT much better just because. He practiced and got better. It didn't just magically happen.

 

Same way as BP improves hitting, or long toss improves velocity, or doing sprints improves speed, that doing plate discipline drills improves ability also.

[DuWayne Steurer]

I don't think he got THAT much better just because. He practiced and got better. It didn't just magically happen.

 

You're confirming my point. A lot of people say that plate discipline, batting eye, whatever, just *is*. That the numbers generated by those attributes are pretty much set in stone. Richie's a case that shows the opposite.

 

HOWEVER he did it, he improved his ability to take walks, and in doing so, increased his overall value as an offensive contributor.

[rluzinski]

As usual, one example doesn't prove anything. I haven't even read a study about this subject, but I can GUARANTEE you they didn't claim that no one ever could EVER improve their walk rate. It's a generality; most players exhibit the skill of walking early in their career. Most players don't dramatically improve upon that ability.

 

Again, I've never seen a study on this topic, so I don't even know how strong this "skill" is or how hard it is for a player to improve it. All I know is no one said that it's impossible to find a single example where it didn't hold true.

[bjamesw22]

Yes I was confirming your point. I was trying to make the same point before but was told that since I didn't have "proof" that it couldn't happen. I was just re-posting your thougths. I stopped because there was no sense in arguing my point when the other person isn't being rational.

 

I could list many other players other than Sexson that have improved their walk rates without the aid of IBB. But why? To prove a point that is already true because someone wants to be difficult? Not worth my time.

[DuWayne Steurer]

I didn't claim it was or wasn't impossible, I only said "some people claim........."

 

Sexson was a quick example that came to mind.

 

I'm sure more often than not, most batters tend to stay static in that regard. I'm not going to do the research, because I'm not interested THAT much to do the footwork. http://forum.brewerfan.net/images/smilies/wink.gif

 

Point being, if I found one, I'm sure I could find more. Of course, there's always exceptions to the rule. The only thing I'm trying to say is it CAN happen that a batter over his career can improve his plate discipline.

[Dollarbill13]

I'm confused as to what this thread is even about, at this point. In response to bjames' comment about the mental factor playing a big part of the game (having a plan at the plate, etc.), I would say that this is obviously true. However, shouldn't players who go to the plate with a good plan have this mental aspect included in their OPS due to hitting better?