SoxProspects News
|
|
|
|
Legal
Forum Ground Rules
The views expressed by the members of this Forum do not necessarily reflect the views of SoxProspects, LLC.
© 2003-2024 SoxProspects, LLC
|
|
|
|
|
Forum Home | Search | My Profile | Messages | Members | Help |
Welcome Guest. Please Login or Register.
Should the Red Sox sign Josh Hamilton?
|
Post by jmei on Nov 27, 2012 14:27:11 GMT -5
That's just it-- I don't see the high reward in the equation. If you're paying him 4/110, you're paying the free agent market rate for a player who you project to produce 5.5 WAR per year. While Hamilton has produced roughly 5.5 WAR per year over the last three years, I think it's fair to say it's very, very unlikely he'll outproduce 2010-12 in 2013-15 or even come close. You're making the terrible mistake of paying on the basis of past performance as a player enters his mid-30s. There's no surplus value upside but tons of risk.
Also, Hamilton had a huge slump through June and July last year which severely hurt his overall numbers. This was pretty unambiguously caused by pitchers throwing him nothing in the zone while he was unable to stop chasing. While his numbers rebounded some in August and September, it wasn't because he improved his plate discipline (he had his highest strikeout month in September), but rather that more balls started falling for hits and leaving the yard. There are innumerable stories out there from those months describing his inability to lay off bad pitches. That, combined with his statistical profile, gives me no confidence in his ability to learn plate discipline in his mid-30s once he enters his decline phase.
|
|
|
Post by raftsox on Nov 27, 2012 14:37:33 GMT -5
Point is, if him being exploited still means he is mashing both LH and RH pitching (look at his Aug/Sep numbers), and posts 43HR, 128RBI and the 10th best wOBA in the league, fine with me. And even more so, all this means is IF he makes proper adjustments to his approach, he will be the best player on planet MLB, no doubt. At least we can say that he has proven that albeit all the issues and bad approach, he is a very productive player in the Majors (from '10 to '12, he has the sixth best wOBA in the league). If he makes proper adjustments, and utilizes the great support net Boston can offer (from a medical standpoint), we might just get a few more 2010 seasons out of him. I wouldn't bet on him suddenly changing his approach. Additionally, his wOBA is based on great hit and power tools, not a lot of patience. If his bat speed slows down like it easily could into his 30s then he loses that edge. Also, he'll go from a park with a LHH park effect of +11%, to one that's -8%. Since he's a pull hitter, you'd be sapping his power by a fair margin. If I were a betting man, I'd put money on a 10-20% reduction in wOBA in the first year and more each year after that.
|
|
|
Post by leo on Nov 27, 2012 14:50:33 GMT -5
That's just it-- I don't see the high reward in the equation. If you're paying him 4/110, you're paying the free agent market rate for a player who you project to produce 5.5 WAR per year. While Hamilton has produced roughly 5.5 WAR per year over the last three years, I think it's fair to say it's very, very unlikely he'll outproduce 2010-12 in 2013-15 or even come close. You're making the terrible mistake of paying on the basis of past performance as a player enters his mid-30s. There's no surplus value upside but tons of risk. Also, Hamilton had a huge slump through June and July last year which severely hurt his overall numbers. This was pretty unambiguously caused by pitchers throwing him nothing in the zone while he was unable to stop chasing. While his numbers rebounded some in August and September, it wasn't because he improved his plate discipline (he had his highest strikeout month in September), but rather that more falls started falling for hits and leaving the yard. There are innumerable stories out there from those months describing his inability to lay off bad pitches. That, combined with his statistical profile, gives me no confidence in his ability to learn plate discipline in his mid-30s once he enters his decline phase. - I can only repeat, Hamilton never had, and never needed plate discipline up until now. He was simply talented enough to plow through anything a pitcher throws him. - I would argue that changing the approach at the plate is easier done than learning how to hit for ridiculous power, or hit piches out of the zone - I would bet that there are not many players in the history of the Majors, if any, that can produce those numbers with his approach, i.e., hit anything that is thrown their way. That's the best sign of the astronomical talent/upside he possesses - June/July were in large parts due to him getting off of tobacco. He admitted that himself. - I do see a lot of risk, but with 4yrs, the flexibility the Red Sox have, and the need for a solid OF and middle of the order bat, go give it a shot - Age, yes, another concern, and hence only 4yrs. If we get to a point where we don't sign players in their 30's based on their past years performance, we might as well quit FA all together. And there are many examples of players who aged quite well.
|
|
|
Post by pedroelgrande on Nov 28, 2012 12:24:37 GMT -5
If they sign him its gonna take even longer than I thought for this team to get their act together. It would be more of the same stuff we have been seeing from them, signing people just because they need to "make a splash." I thought fans and the Red Sox alike would eat their humble pie and approach this off season with a different perspective but we are not even two months away from the world series and people are already calling for a "splash."
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Nov 28, 2012 13:37:40 GMT -5
- I can only repeat, Hamilton never had, and never needed plate discipline up until now. He was simply talented enough to plow through anything a pitcher throws him. - I would argue that changing the approach at the plate is easier done than learning how to hit for ridiculous power, or hit piches out of the zone - I would bet that there are not many players in the history of the Majors, if any, that can produce those numbers with his approach, i.e., hit anything that is thrown their way. That's the best sign of the astronomical talent/upside he possesses - June/July were in large parts due to him getting off of tobacco. He admitted that himself. I don't think we're using the word upside the same way. Upside means improvement over present performance. It is very unlikely Hamilton will ever repeat his 2010 again. In fact, given his age, it's likely he'll have trouble just repeating his 2012 again. I guess we'll just disagree about the plate discipline point. He's shown zero inclination of it so far even though laying off tough pitches would undoubtedly make him a better hitter and less streaky. Plate discipline is every bit as much of a "tool" as power is-- it takes great visual acuity and incredibly fast decision-making abilities that can't be approximated by just swinging less. I have a tough time projecting that Hamilton will change his approach at the plate once his bat speed slows down. Is it possible? Sure, just very, very unlikely. There aren't very many sluggers who suddenly learned plate discipline in their mid-30s. I'm certainly not going to sign him on the assumption that he'll significantly improve the other facets of his game once he is "forced to" by age or injuries. Finally, this tobacco business is a non-starter. Post hoc rationalizations of slumps rarely hold up as excuses, and even if this one does, it's not exactly a positive sign for a player who has struggled with substance addiction many times over his life.
|
|
|
Post by welovewally on Nov 29, 2012 4:51:45 GMT -5
This current line up needs at least 1 impact bat for the middle of the line up (and that's not Napoli) and Hamilton is the only available free agent that qualifies so, if it is the intention of the Red Sox to compete for a playoff spot in 2013 it would be a good start to sign Hamilton.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Nov 29, 2012 9:35:31 GMT -5
I don't understand this obsession with "impact bats." I'd rather substantially upgrade two positions as opposed to a really big upgrade at one. Hamilton will probably cost more in both AAV and years than a combination of Napoli and Swisher, and I'd rather spread out the injury/underperformance risk.
|
|
|
Post by fenwaythehardway on Nov 29, 2012 9:59:37 GMT -5
I don't understand this obsession with "impact bats." I'd rather substantially upgrade two positions as opposed to a really big upgrade at one. Hamilton will probably cost more in both AAV and years than a combination of Napoli and Swisher, and I'd rather spread out the injury/underperformance risk. Yeah, it's weird. It's like somehow 25 home runs is less than half of 40 home runs.
|
|
|
Post by dcri on Nov 29, 2012 11:11:35 GMT -5
I am one of those advocates of acquiring "impact bats." My use of that term applies to hitters like Ortiz, Manny, etc., guys who can hit any pitcher at any time, particularly at crucial times. The average player can't do this. The average player seldom hits the really good pitchers. They get their hits against the average pitchers. Look how the Sox teams of recent vintage have piled up a lot of runs, but usually against average, or worse, pitching, and have folded against the good pitchers.
Teams without impact hitters, but full of players like Napoli, Gomes, Ross, etc., usually don't win championships unless they have tremendous pitching, or incredible luck. The Ross-type players are needed because no team can have impact bats at every position, but two of them do not replace one impact bat, not even three or four of them.
|
|
|
Post by honkbal on Nov 29, 2012 11:14:45 GMT -5
I am one of those advocates of acquiring "impact bats." My use of that term applies to hitters like Ortiz, Manny, etc., guys who can hit any pitcher at any time, particularly at crucial times. The average player can't do this. The average player seldom hits the really good pitchers. They get their hits against the average pitchers. Look how the Sox teams of recent vintage have piled up a lot of runs, but usually against average, or worse, pitching, and have folded against the good pitchers. Teams without impact hitters, but full of players like Napoli, Gomes, Ross, etc., usually don't win championships unless they have tremendous pitching, or incredible luck. The Ross-type players are needed because no team can have impact bats at every position, but two of them do not replace one impact bat, not even three or four of them. Anything at all to back up what you're claiming?
|
|
|
Post by iakovos11 on Nov 29, 2012 11:19:29 GMT -5
I don't understand this obsession with "impact bats." I'd rather substantially upgrade two positions as opposed to a really big upgrade at one. Hamilton will probably cost more in both AAV and years than a combination of Napoli and Swisher, and I'd rather spread out the injury/underperformance risk. Yeah, it's weird. It's like somehow 25 home runs is less than half of 40 home runs. I think it's not only chicks that dig the long ball. Seriously, what's up with the insistence that we make a splash. It's like we need to make a splash just to make a splash. A splash isn't necessarily going to take this franchise to the next level. Smart baseball decisions, getting better for 2013 (with the possibility of competing for a playoff spot), with the prize being setting up this franchise to compete for division titles like they did from 2003-2010. Myopathy will get us nowhere.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Nov 29, 2012 11:56:30 GMT -5
I am one of those advocates of acquiring "impact bats." My use of that term applies to hitters like Ortiz, Manny, etc., guys who can hit any pitcher at any time, particularly at crucial times. The average player can't do this. The average player seldom hits the really good pitchers. They get their hits against the average pitchers. Look how the Sox teams of recent vintage have piled up a lot of runs, but usually against average, or worse, pitching, and have folded against the good pitchers. Teams without impact hitters, but full of players like Napoli, Gomes, Ross, etc., usually don't win championships unless they have tremendous pitching, or incredible luck. The Ross-type players are needed because no team can have impact bats at every position, but two of them do not replace one impact bat, not even three or four of them. Baseball-Reference has this neat split called vs. power/finesse pitchers. It figures out a player's performance versus power pitches (defined as those in the top third of the league in strikeouts plus walks) as opposed to their performance versus finesse pitchers (those in the bottom third of the league in strikeouts plus walks). This "power pitchers" category is not a perfect proxy to "good pitchers", but it's close enough for our purposes. There's then a tOPS+ stat which tells you how that player performed against that category of pitchers relative to his overall performance, with 100 meaning he hit them about the same as he hits all pitchers, more than 100 meaning he performed better against that split than he did overall, and less than 100 meaning he performed worse against that split than he did overall. The below is the tOPS+ split for some of the players you mentioned in your post, first versus power pitchers and then versus finesse pitchers: David Ortiz: 82/112 Manny Ramirez: 83/110 Josh Hamilton: 84/120 Nick Swisher: 96/108 Mike Napoli: 84/109 The data indicates that your so-called "impact bats" derive as much or more of their overall offensive value from feasting off bad pitchers and struggling (relatively speaking) against good pitchers than my non-impact bats. I'm pretty sure you're just wrong on this one.
|
|
steveofbradenton
Veteran
Watching Spring Training, the FCL, and the Florida State League
Posts: 1,823
|
Post by steveofbradenton on Nov 29, 2012 12:25:27 GMT -5
I am one of those advocates of acquiring "impact bats." My use of that term applies to hitters like Ortiz, Manny, etc., guys who can hit any pitcher at any time, particularly at crucial times. The average player can't do this. The average player seldom hits the really good pitchers. They get their hits against the average pitchers. Look how the Sox teams of recent vintage have piled up a lot of runs, but usually against average, or worse, pitching, and have folded against the good pitchers. Teams without impact hitters, but full of players like Napoli, Gomes, Ross, etc., usually don't win championships unless they have tremendous pitching, or incredible luck. The Ross-type players are needed because no team can have impact bats at every position, but two of them do not replace one impact bat, not even three or four of them. Baseball-Reference has this neat split called vs. power/finesse pitchers. It figures out a player's performance versus power pitches (defined as those in the top third of the league in strikeouts plus walks) as opposed to their performance versus finesse pitchers (those in the bottom third of the league in strikeouts plus walks). This "power pitchers" category is not a perfect proxy to "good pitchers", but it's close enough for our purposes. There's then a tOPS+ stat which tells you how that player performed against that category of pitchers relative to his overall performance, with 100 meaning he hit them about the same as he hits all pitchers, more than 100 meaning he performed better against that split than he did overall, and less than 100 meaning he performed worse against that split than he did overall. The below is the tOPS+ split for some of the players you mentioned in your post, first versus power pitchers and then versus finesse pitchers: David Ortiz: 82/112 Manny Ramirez: 83/110 Josh Hamilton: 84/120 Nick Swisher: 96/108 Mike Napoli: 84/109 The data indicates that your so-called "impact bats" derive as much or more of their overall offensive value from feasting off bad pitchers and struggling (relatively speaking) against good pitchers than my non-impact bats. I'm pretty sure you're just wrong on this one. All the more reason for the Red Sox wanting to get back to hitters that "grind" and see more pitches. The higher the pitch count we get to a more mediocre middle-innings pitcher. jmei's stats above, for me, point out just how important guys like Damon and Youk were for us. Get the starter out in the 6th and go after the lesser pitcher. If we had a line-up who did nothing but see an average of 4 to 5 pitches, we would be sitting pretty! 5 is really high. One thing that does worry me about Hamilton is his insistence on swinging really early (like the 1st pitch) in the count.
|
|
|
Post by iakovos11 on Nov 29, 2012 12:47:31 GMT -5
Nice stat, jmei. Emphasizes a good point, although why anyone would expect a different result is confusing. The "good pitchers" are good for a reason - they limit, more often than not, even the best hitters from doing much damage against them.
|
|
|
Post by remember04 on Nov 29, 2012 14:43:23 GMT -5
I am one of those advocates of acquiring "impact bats." My use of that term applies to hitters like Ortiz, Manny, etc., guys who can hit any pitcher at any time, particularly at crucial times. The average player can't do this. The average player seldom hits the really good pitchers. They get their hits against the average pitchers. Look how the Sox teams of recent vintage have piled up a lot of runs, but usually against average, or worse, pitching, and have folded against the good pitchers. Teams without impact hitters, but full of players like Napoli, Gomes, Ross, etc., usually don't win championships unless they have tremendous pitching, or incredible luck. The Ross-type players are needed because no team can have impact bats at every position, but two of them do not replace one impact bat, not even three or four of them. Baseball-Reference has this neat split called vs. power/finesse pitchers. It figures out a player's performance versus power pitches (defined as those in the top third of the league in strikeouts plus walks) as opposed to their performance versus finesse pitchers (those in the bottom third of the league in strikeouts plus walks). This "power pitchers" category is not a perfect proxy to "good pitchers", but it's close enough for our purposes. There's then a tOPS+ stat which tells you how that player performed against that category of pitchers relative to his overall performance, with 100 meaning he hit them about the same as he hits all pitchers, more than 100 meaning he performed better against that split than he did overall, and less than 100 meaning he performed worse against that split than he did overall. The below is the tOPS+ split for some of the players you mentioned in your post, first versus power pitchers and then versus finesse pitchers: David Ortiz: 82/112 Manny Ramirez: 83/110 Josh Hamilton: 84/120 Nick Swisher: 96/108 Mike Napoli: 84/109 The data indicates that your so-called "impact bats" derive as much or more of their overall offensive value from feasting off bad pitchers and struggling (relatively speaking) against good pitchers than my non-impact bats. I'm pretty sure you're just wrong on this one. Not arguing your point jmei but more asking a related question. Is there a stat that takes say the top third in the league in pitchers and gives the stats for which hitters hit them best? A stat like that could help find a true "impact bat".
|
|
|
Post by dcri on Nov 29, 2012 14:59:06 GMT -5
I am one of those advocates of acquiring "impact bats." My use of that term applies to hitters like Ortiz, Manny, etc., guys who can hit any pitcher at any time, particularly at crucial times. The average player can't do this. The average player seldom hits the really good pitchers. They get their hits against the average pitchers. Look how the Sox teams of recent vintage have piled up a lot of runs, but usually against average, or worse, pitching, and have folded against the good pitchers. Teams without impact hitters, but full of players like Napoli, Gomes, Ross, etc., usually don't win championships unless they have tremendous pitching, or incredible luck. The Ross-type players are needed because no team can have impact bats at every position, but two of them do not replace one impact bat, not even three or four of them. Baseball-Reference has this neat split called vs. power/finesse pitchers. It figures out a player's performance versus power pitches (defined as those in the top third of the league in strikeouts plus walks) as opposed to their performance versus finesse pitchers (those in the bottom third of the league in strikeouts plus walks). This "power pitchers" category is not a perfect proxy to "good pitchers", but it's close enough for our purposes. There's then a tOPS+ stat which tells you how that player performed against that category of pitchers relative to his overall performance, with 100 meaning he hit them about the same as he hits all pitchers, more than 100 meaning he performed better against that split than he did overall, and less than 100 meaning he performed worse against that split than he did overall. The below is the tOPS+ split for some of the players you mentioned in your post, first versus power pitchers and then versus finesse pitchers: David Ortiz: 82/112 Manny Ramirez: 83/110 Josh Hamilton: 84/120 Nick Swisher: 96/108 Mike Napoli: 84/109 The data indicates that your so-called "impact bats" derive as much or more of their overall offensive value from feasting off bad pitchers and struggling (relatively speaking) against good pitchers than my non-impact bats. I'm pretty sure you're just wrong on this one. There's something very deceptive about those stats, assuming I understand them correctly. If the standard is just the speed of the pitches thrown then it is meaningless.Even the strikeout ratio is deceptive. There are a lot of really bad pitchers who can throw very hard. There also are some Hall of Fame pitchers who never threw really hard. Greg Maddux was one of the best pitchers of all time and he almost never exceeded 91 or 92 MPH, as I recall. There have been many great pitchers whose strikeout-walk ratios were not great. I think these stats are ridiculous. These stats would indicate that Napoli and Swisher are Hall of Fame candidates. Do you believe that? I really don't understand this debate. I think I am arguing the obvious.
|
|
|
Post by beasleyrockah on Nov 29, 2012 15:04:42 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Oregon Norm on Nov 29, 2012 15:35:53 GMT -5
If we're going to wave around magic impact bats, we have to ignore San Francisco's WS victories don't we? They tailored the team to the park, emphasizing good pitching and on-base skills. That seems to have served them well. Now the Sox play in Fenway, a ballpark that does reward the quick strike. That said, I'd rather see them emphasize pitching, and defense to go along with the offense they put together. I think people may be underestimating what the hitting will look like if they do get Napoli and Swisher. Combine them with Pedroia, Ortiz, and Middlebrooks, and Ellsbury would only have to return to his pre-breakout days for this to be a fairly potent scoring machine. That doesn't even take into account Saltalavarnway or Gomva.
|
|
|
Post by honkbal on Nov 29, 2012 16:07:01 GMT -5
There's something very deceptive about those stats, assuming I understand them correctly. If the standard is just the speed of the pitches thrown then it is meaningless.Even the strikeout ratio is deceptive. There are a lot of really bad pitchers who can throw very hard. There also are some Hall of Fame pitchers who never threw really hard. Greg Maddux was one of the best pitchers of all time and he almost never exceeded 91 or 92 MPH, as I recall. There have been many great pitchers whose strikeout-walk ratios were not great. I think these stats are ridiculous. These stats would indicate that Napoli and Swisher are Hall of Fame candidates. Do you believe that?
I really don't understand this debate. I think I am arguing the obvious. Only if you're assuming that your premise--"impact" hitters hit good pitching, merely good hitters do the majority of their damage against bad pitching--is true. The stat isn't showing that Nick Swisher is secretly a hall of fame quality bat, it's just showing that he hits power pitching nearly as well as he hits finesse pitching and that some very good hitters do the majority of their damage off of finesse pitchers and struggle, relatively speaking, against power pitchers. As far as the argument about power pitchers not being a good proxy for the best pitchers because Greg Maddux! Daniel Bard! Nobody's saying there aren't exceptions to the rule, but if you don't think having a power pitching skill set correlates strongly with good pitching than (insert Abe Alvarez joke here). And I am absolutely sure there are numbers to back that up.
|
|
|
Post by lasershow07 on Nov 29, 2012 16:19:24 GMT -5
This conclusion doesn't logically follow from the evidence. According to this study, Hamilton has hit 12% better than league average against "good pitching" (as measured by OPS against) and 40% better than league average against "bad pitching." By virtue of the fact that it's more difficult to hit good pitching than bad pitching, it's also more difficult to hit better than league average against good pitching than bad pitching. The guy goes on to say Jeter is an example of a guy who hits good pitching well because he hits them 19% better than league average but only hits bad pitching 5% better than league average. All this shows is that Jeter didn't hit bad pitching particularly well. This looks as a graph on TV when it pops up for 10 seconds, but it really doesn't make any sense.
|
|
|
Post by dcri on Nov 29, 2012 16:32:48 GMT -5
There's something very deceptive about those stats, assuming I understand them correctly. If the standard is just the speed of the pitches thrown then it is meaningless.Even the strikeout ratio is deceptive. There are a lot of really bad pitchers who can throw very hard. There also are some Hall of Fame pitchers who never threw really hard. Greg Maddux was one of the best pitchers of all time and he almost never exceeded 91 or 92 MPH, as I recall. There have been many great pitchers whose strikeout-walk ratios were not great. I think these stats are ridiculous. These stats would indicate that Napoli and Swisher are Hall of Fame candidates. Do you believe that?
I really don't understand this debate. I think I am arguing the obvious. Only if you're assuming that your premise--"impact" hitters hit good pitching, merely good hitters do the majority of their damage against bad pitching--is true. The stat isn't showing that Nick Swisher is secretly a hall of fame quality bat, it's just showing that he hits power pitching nearly as well as he hits finesse pitching and that some very good hitters do the majority of their damage off of finesse pitchers and struggle, relatively speaking, against power pitchers. As far as the argument about power pitchers not being a good proxy for the best pitchers because Greg Maddux! Daniel Bard! Nobody's saying there aren't exceptions to the rule, but if you don't think having a power pitching skill set correlates strongly with good pitching than (insert Abe Alvarez joke here). And I am absolutely sure there are numbers to back that up. My bad. After writing that post I went out and walked our dog in the cold wind that's blowing out of the Columbia Gorge here in Portland. It cleared my mind and I realized that I had misinterpreted and misapplied the stats. Here are the OPS the five players would have for their careers based on that Baseballreference model of performance against the bottom third of pitchers and the top third. (And BTW. I stand by my argument that this is not a valid division of pitching quality). Player Top 3rd OPS Bottom 3rd OPS Ramirez .827 1.096 Ortiz .761 1.039 Hamilton .767 1.096 Swisher .794 .894 Napoli .724 .940 Incidentally, I am not opposed to signing Swisher/and/or Napoli. I think either would be a good addition and an improvement. I would have preferred Napoli to Gomes, if Swisher were signed. However, neither is the middle of the order bat the Sox really need. But Oregonnorm is correct. They must improve the pitching or none of these moves will do much good. edited to fix titles on columns above
|
|
|
Post by fenwaythehardway on Nov 29, 2012 16:35:26 GMT -5
Really not surprising when you consider his approach at the plate.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 29, 2012 17:07:07 GMT -5
he did hit a lot of homers, but his strikeouts went from 93 in 2011 to 162 in 2012. it is clear that for the second half of the year, he was swinging for the fences. i'm also not sure if the sox want a power hitting lefty, with ortiz in the lineup and the deep right field wall. they want a power hitting righty, that will feast on the monster. yet still, i would not unload the farm system for stanton. no way. i'd hang on to top prospects such as xander, barnes, jbj, rubby, webster, brentz, cecchini, owens, britton, workman, and others. brentz can be that power hitting righty that the sox want, and he is no more than a year away.
id sign hamilton but with his drug and injury history, for three years and around 70 million, with a club option for a fourth year. it is too much of a risk to give the 7 yrs, 175 mill that he is looking for.
|
|
|
Post by beasleyrockah on Nov 29, 2012 17:38:40 GMT -5
This conclusion doesn't logically follow from the evidence. According to this study, Hamilton has hit 12% better than league average against "good pitching" (as measured by OPS against) and 40% better than league average against "bad pitching." By virtue of the fact that it's more difficult to hit good pitching than bad pitching, it's also more difficult to hit better than league average against good pitching than bad pitching.The guy goes on to say Jeter is an example of a guy who hits good pitching well because he hits them 19% better than league average but only hits bad pitching 5% better than league average. All this shows is that Jeter didn't hit bad pitching particularly well. This looks as a graph on TV when it pops up for 10 seconds, but it really doesn't make any sense. You are missing the point, I think. The conversation in this forum has revolved around "elite hitters" hitting any type of pitching (elite, average, below average) fairly consistently, while the good/mid-tier hitters feast on the average/below average guys and struggle mightily against the elite pitchers. Since Hamilton has been the talking point, he is the natural test case. He is an example of an elite hitter who produces far more against the bottom third while being just another guy against the elite pitchers...not just in a vacuum where it's obvious that you'll produce better against inferior competition, but scaled to the rest of the MLB against the same competition. The common talking point around here is the mid-tier guys are more reliant on crushing bad pitching than elite guys when you scale the overall production. Hamilton's total production is more heavily based on feasting against the bottom third than the average hitter. The narrative being discussed is that elite hitters can hit anyone and the Napoli's and Swisher's can't, which is why you need elite guys to win in October. The average MLB hitter has a difference of ~180 OPS pts between facing bottom third pitching and the league's best. Hamilton has an OPS difference of ~250 pts in the same categories. This means his production is more reliant on producing far better than average against the bottom third than far better than the average against the elite guys. He's marginally above average against the elite guys and elite against the poor pitchers, which is the opposite of the narrative here. I don't think this study is perfect and I don't think Hamilton represents every elite hitter, I just find the narrative in this thread is too simplistic and all-encompassing. Hitting has everything to do with the individual hitter/pitcher matchups, every elite/mid-tier player is not created equal. EDIT: I think you got caught by my intentionally hyperbolic comment after the video link. To clarify, Hamilton has hit elite pitching, just slightly above league average. He has absolutely feasted on bottom third production, which is the main source of his elite production, not his marginal superiority against the elite guys.
|
|
|
Post by jioh on Nov 29, 2012 18:05:01 GMT -5
[.... EDIT: I think you got caught by my intentionally hyperbolic comment after the video link. ... And the difference between intentional hyperbole and saying things that are just wrong is.......?
|
|
|