Comments on: The Count of Counting Counts http://joeposnanski.com/JoeBlog/2009/04/21/the-count-of-counting-counts/ Curiously Long Posts Fri, 19 Mar 2010 11:43:37 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2 hourly 1 By: Hoosierbluesman http://joeposnanski.com/JoeBlog/2009/04/21/the-count-of-counting-counts/#comment-58911 Hoosierbluesman Thu, 30 Apr 2009 15:10:20 +0000 http://joeposnanski.com/JoeBlog/2009/04/21/the-count-of-counting-counts/#comment-58911 I'd love to see some numbers on how *pitchers* perform on varying counts. In particular, I would love to see how other relievers stack up against Carlos Marmol after being behind 3-0 or 3-1. I've seen him get more strikeouts after starting out with three balls than any pitcher EVER. I’d love to see some numbers on how *pitchers* perform on varying counts. In particular, I would love to see how other relievers stack up against Carlos Marmol after being behind 3-0 or 3-1. I’ve seen him get more strikeouts after starting out with three balls than any pitcher EVER.

]]> By: Jim the knuckleball http://joeposnanski.com/JoeBlog/2009/04/21/the-count-of-counting-counts/#comment-58568 Jim the knuckleball Tue, 28 Apr 2009 06:14:14 +0000 http://joeposnanski.com/JoeBlog/2009/04/21/the-count-of-counting-counts/#comment-58568 Everyone should consult Stephen Jay Gould's "Full House: The Spread of Excellence from Plato to Darwin"; here's a link: http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_ss_gw?url=search-alias%3Dstripbooks&field-keywords=Full+House%3A+The+Spread+of+Excellence+from+Plato+to+Darwin&x=&y= He talks about the lucky grad students who examined batting averages, etc., instead of logging paleozoic fossils. His love of baseball shines through. Everyone should consult Stephen Jay Gould’s “Full House: The Spread of Excellence from Plato to Darwin”; here’s a link:
http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_ss_gw?url=search-alias%3Dstripbooks&field-keywords=Full+House%3A+The+Spread+of+Excellence+from+Plato+to+Darwin&x=&y=

He talks about the lucky grad students who examined batting averages, etc., instead of logging paleozoic fossils. His love of baseball shines through.

]]> By: Simply Fred http://joeposnanski.com/JoeBlog/2009/04/21/the-count-of-counting-counts/#comment-58313 Simply Fred Fri, 24 Apr 2009 16:13:50 +0000 http://joeposnanski.com/JoeBlog/2009/04/21/the-count-of-counting-counts/#comment-58313 Much said about the 3-0 steal, but I think the main reason for such a high percentage was missed. Caught stealing is diminished because potential caught stealers are "saved" by the base on balls. Great article. Will make my day at the yard even more fun! Much said about the 3-0 steal, but I think the main reason for such a high percentage was missed. Caught stealing is diminished because potential caught stealers are “saved” by the base on balls.

Great article. Will make my day at the yard even more fun!

]]> By: Richard Aronson http://joeposnanski.com/JoeBlog/2009/04/21/the-count-of-counting-counts/#comment-58280 Richard Aronson Fri, 24 Apr 2009 05:54:47 +0000 http://joeposnanski.com/JoeBlog/2009/04/21/the-count-of-counting-counts/#comment-58280 On a 3-0 count, all balls lead to walks. All strikes and fouls lead to some other count. And as we've seen, hitters in general tend to mash when they swing 3-0 AND put it in play. In the last nine days, Soria has not pitched at all. Jonathan Broxton has two five out saves. Any idea whether I think Hillman or Torre is the better manager? On a 3-0 count, all balls lead to walks. All strikes and fouls lead to some other count. And as we’ve seen, hitters in general tend to mash when they swing 3-0 AND put it in play.

In the last nine days, Soria has not pitched at all. Jonathan Broxton has two five out saves. Any idea whether I think Hillman or Torre is the better manager?

]]> By: Bucky http://joeposnanski.com/JoeBlog/2009/04/21/the-count-of-counting-counts/#comment-58174 Bucky Thu, 23 Apr 2009 07:02:02 +0000 http://joeposnanski.com/JoeBlog/2009/04/21/the-count-of-counting-counts/#comment-58174 Years ago, Tom Boswell ran an article in which he defended Kirby Puckett (one of my faves) and his prediliction to swinging away on the first pitch. But Joe's breakdown is clear and interesting--another in a string of line drives. Years ago, Tom Boswell ran an article in which he defended Kirby Puckett (one of my faves) and his prediliction to swinging away on the first pitch.

But Joe’s breakdown is clear and interesting–another in a string of line drives.

]]> By: ajnrules http://joeposnanski.com/JoeBlog/2009/04/21/the-count-of-counting-counts/#comment-58115 ajnrules Wed, 22 Apr 2009 22:15:51 +0000 http://joeposnanski.com/JoeBlog/2009/04/21/the-count-of-counting-counts/#comment-58115 I've read so much material praising the strategy of taking the first pitch that I'm quite surprised 1 out of 8 plate appearances have their action pitches on the first pitch. That's the sort of goodness you learn when you read Joe Posnanski. :p I’ve read so much material praising the strategy of taking the first pitch that I’m quite surprised 1 out of 8 plate appearances have their action pitches on the first pitch. That’s the sort of goodness you learn when you read Joe Posnanski. :p

]]> By: McKingford http://joeposnanski.com/JoeBlog/2009/04/21/the-count-of-counting-counts/#comment-58109 McKingford Wed, 22 Apr 2009 21:35:09 +0000 http://joeposnanski.com/JoeBlog/2009/04/21/the-count-of-counting-counts/#comment-58109 Sorry to follow up on my last point, but I was a bit rushed... The data Joe presents really is interesting. I just don't think it necessarily supports the conclusion Joe comes to - ie. that players with 2 strikes swing defensively (I'm not saying they *don't*, just that this data can't be the basis for that conclusion). Joe's conclusion would be correct if the data here was confined to action plays where the ball is in play. But with this data, 2 strike action plays can be either a strikeout (a not improbable outcome) or a ball in play. Any action play with less than 2 strikes, by definition, excludes strikeouts - so we would expect much better outcomes (and thus higher Avg/obp/Slg). Similarly, any action play with 3 balls includes the possibility of a walk (just as any action play with less than 3 balls excludes the chance of a walk). As someone suggested earlier, it would be interesting to contrast this data with the outcome of plate appearances for each particular count. That is, the outcome of all plate appearances with an 0-1 count is likely different than the data presented here which is limited to 0-1 count plate appearances that end on the 0-1 pitch. Sorry to follow up on my last point, but I was a bit rushed…

The data Joe presents really is interesting. I just don’t think it necessarily supports the conclusion Joe comes to – ie. that players with 2 strikes swing defensively (I’m not saying they *don’t*, just that this data can’t be the basis for that conclusion). Joe’s conclusion would be correct if the data here was confined to action plays where the ball is in play. But with this data, 2 strike action plays can be either a strikeout (a not improbable outcome) or a ball in play. Any action play with less than 2 strikes, by definition, excludes strikeouts – so we would expect much better outcomes (and thus higher Avg/obp/Slg).

Similarly, any action play with 3 balls includes the possibility of a walk (just as any action play with less than 3 balls excludes the chance of a walk).

As someone suggested earlier, it would be interesting to contrast this data with the outcome of plate appearances for each particular count. That is, the outcome of all plate appearances with an 0-1 count is likely different than the data presented here which is limited to 0-1 count plate appearances that end on the 0-1 pitch.

]]> By: Marco http://joeposnanski.com/JoeBlog/2009/04/21/the-count-of-counting-counts/#comment-58103 Marco Wed, 22 Apr 2009 21:03:41 +0000 http://joeposnanski.com/JoeBlog/2009/04/21/the-count-of-counting-counts/#comment-58103 Jimbo has had 16 HR on 3-0 counts, now go see how many of A-Rod's 553 homers have come on a 3-0 count. Jimbo has had 16 HR on 3-0 counts, now go see how many of A-Rod’s 553 homers have come on a 3-0 count.

]]> By: Don http://joeposnanski.com/JoeBlog/2009/04/21/the-count-of-counting-counts/#comment-58100 Don Wed, 22 Apr 2009 20:04:39 +0000 http://joeposnanski.com/JoeBlog/2009/04/21/the-count-of-counting-counts/#comment-58100 McKingford said: "I would guess that a not-insignificant number of first pitch swings result in foul balls or missed swings (and thus no ball in play), and which therefore result in an 0-1 count." I think you've been watching Vernon Wells, where he either watches a first pitch strike sail right through his wheelhouse, or he fouls off something that was heading a foot high and two feet wide. McKingford said:
“I would guess that a not-insignificant number of first pitch swings result in foul balls or missed swings (and thus no ball in play), and which therefore result in an 0-1 count.”

I think you’ve been watching Vernon Wells, where he either watches a first pitch strike sail right through his wheelhouse, or he fouls off something that was heading a foot high and two feet wide.

]]> By: Rutbag http://joeposnanski.com/JoeBlog/2009/04/21/the-count-of-counting-counts/#comment-58098 Rutbag Wed, 22 Apr 2009 19:30:00 +0000 http://joeposnanski.com/JoeBlog/2009/04/21/the-count-of-counting-counts/#comment-58098 I had a feeling something was amiss as I was reading this that I was going to try to put my finger on and then put into words. McKingford (#41) has, more or less, given it voice already but it makes me wonder what a better way to analyze the problem would be. If we look at Joe's analysis, we get the results of first pitch swings for action plays and we all know the results of first pitch swings for non-action plays is an 0-1 count. We know the possible outcomes for not swinging - the 0-1 count, a 1-0 count, a HBP. What we need to know is the percentages of these different scenarios. What percent of the time is a first pitch swing resulting in an action play and what percent of the time is it resulting in an 0-1 count? What is the breakdown for not swinging? If your first pitch swing results in an 0-1 count 50% (an arbitrary number) of the time, swinging at the first pitch has an immediate positive outcome only 17% of the time. The other 83% of the time, you're in worse shape (even if only marginally so, to start). You give yourself no chance to get to those juicy 2-0 and 3-0 counts and limit your chances of seeing the mighty 3-1 count, taking away a lot of your future advantage. If you can quantify the chances of not only an action play but the chances of each of the counts that can result from swinging or not swinging, you can sort of follow all the outcomes and branches and make a much more precise calculation of the value of swinging at a first pitch strike, laying off a first pitch strike or the decision to swing or lay off any particular count. Even this analysis ignores things like the advantages to be gained in working a pitch count and that the numbers, as given above, may be as good as they are due to the current first pitch selectivity. If you just want to look at numbers, though, ignoring non-action outcomes and the eventual action plays that result in future counts render these numbers, especially in early counts, meaningless. I had a feeling something was amiss as I was reading this that I was going to try to put my finger on and then put into words. McKingford (#41) has, more or less, given it voice already but it makes me wonder what a better way to analyze the problem would be.

If we look at Joe’s analysis, we get the results of first pitch swings for action plays and we all know the results of first pitch swings for non-action plays is an 0-1 count. We know the possible outcomes for not swinging – the 0-1 count, a 1-0 count, a HBP.

What we need to know is the percentages of these different scenarios. What percent of the time is a first pitch swing resulting in an action play and what percent of the time is it resulting in an 0-1 count? What is the breakdown for not swinging?

If your first pitch swing results in an 0-1 count 50% (an arbitrary number) of the time, swinging at the first pitch has an immediate positive outcome only 17% of the time. The other 83% of the time, you’re in worse shape (even if only marginally so, to start). You give yourself no chance to get to those juicy 2-0 and 3-0 counts and limit your chances of seeing the mighty 3-1 count, taking away a lot of your future advantage.

If you can quantify the chances of not only an action play but the chances of each of the counts that can result from swinging or not swinging, you can sort of follow all the outcomes and branches and make a much more precise calculation of the value of swinging at a first pitch strike, laying off a first pitch strike or the decision to swing or lay off any particular count.

Even this analysis ignores things like the advantages to be gained in working a pitch count and that the numbers, as given above, may be as good as they are due to the current first pitch selectivity.

If you just want to look at numbers, though, ignoring non-action outcomes and the eventual action plays that result in future counts render these numbers, especially in early counts, meaningless.

]]>