They say good pitching always beats good hitting... - Fantasy Baseball Cafe 2015 Fantasy Baseball Cafe
100% Deposit Bonus for Cafe Members!

Return to Baseball Leftovers

They say good pitching always beats good hitting...

Moderator: Baseball Moderators

Postby EugeneStyles » Sun Mar 19, 2006 11:34 am

Dan Charette wrote: In the abstract of the pitcher against the batter without looking at the end result . Just 1 on 1 if the pitcher makes his pitches, he'll get the batters out most of the time.


Of course he'll get the batters out most of the time. The best hitters only have a .330 average. They get out 2/3rds of the time. Even the worst pitcher will get betters out most of the time.

I think the answer is on the first page of this thread:
nuggets wrote:Pujols fared poorly versus Sheets and Pettite at thier best. Aside from potentially lesser piching due to injury, it appears the better pitchers in the league can keep Pujols under a .900 OPS. I'd say that's the best pitching beating the best hitting.


Under a .900 OPS?!? That's what you call good pitching beating good hitting? There were something like 50 hitters with more than a .900 OPS last year, and it's closer to 25 when you discount guys with less than 400 at-bats. Even if his actual OPS was closer to .800, that's still an above-average hitter.

But, if you took a team of Pujolses, what would Santana's ERA against *them* be? There's probably a good way to estimate that, but I'm sure it would be at least 5.0. (Feel free to do the math.)

I forget, was the point that good pitching always beats good hitting, or that good pitching slightly reduces the effectiveness of good hitting?
(taps little picture of a microphone)... is this thing on?
EugeneStyles
Major League Manager
Major League Manager

User avatar
CafeholicFantasy ExpertCafe RankerMock(ing) DrafterEagle EyeCafe Musketeer
Posts: 1750
Joined: 7 Apr 2002
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: in the hole

Postby AcidRock23 » Sun Mar 19, 2006 11:46 am

EugeneStyles wrote: But, if you took a team of Pujolses, what would Santana's ERA against *them* be? There's probably a good way to estimate that, but I'm sure it would be at least 5.0. (Feel free to do the math.)



The first thing I thought of at that was 'C eligibility for Big Al!!'!! :-D
AcidRock23
General Manager
General Manager

User avatar
CafeholicCafe WriterEagle Eye
Posts: 4170
Joined: 8 Mar 2004
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: Champaign, IL

Postby GotowarMissAgnes » Sun Mar 19, 2006 11:51 am

AcidRock23 wrote:
GotowarMissAgnes wrote:If pitching is 75% or more of the game and always beats good hitting, why don't teams spend 75% or more of their payroll on pitching?



The 2005 BP had a chart in the Phillies section that showed the fraction of opening day payroll spent on pitching for all teams in 2004 w/ the Rangers leading at 61.9%, Dodgers at 55.9%, Braves at 52.7% and Phillies at 49.2%. These 'big spenders' were countered by the Royals at 26.5%, Padres at 25.2, Tigers at 22.9% and Rockies at 13.1%. The Phillies were labelled as 'one of the worst offenders' at overspending on pitching. World series contenders Boston and St. Louis were at 45.1% and 43.6%, respectively. And, the teams that made it to the series the following year, Houston and Chicago AL, were at 35.4% and 39.1% as they began positioning themselves for it perhaps?

Right next to the first table is a graph showing season over season runs scored per game and season over season runs allowed per game since 1946, which shows that runs scored are more closely spaced from which they are able to infer that pitching is less consistent and would thus from an investment perspective be less valuable given the volitility of the returns on those investments.


I had forgotten about that analysis, but it is pretty interesting. I'm not sure what your spin on this is, but I don't see it adding any support to the "pitching is 75%" or "good pitching always beats good hitting" side of the debate. If that were true, teams sure don't seem to be putting their money behind that statement, when they only spend 40% of payroll dollars on average on pitching.
GotowarMissAgnes
Hall of Fame Hero
Hall of Fame Hero

User avatar
Fantasy Expert
Posts: 5516
Joined: 12 Dec 2003
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: Happy Valley

Postby AcidRock23 » Sun Mar 19, 2006 12:04 pm

GotowarMissAgnes wrote:
I had forgotten about that analysis, but it is pretty interesting. I'm not sure what your spin on this is, but I don't see it adding any support to the "pitching is 75%" or "good pitching always beats good hitting" side of the debate. If that were true, teams sure don't seem to be putting their money behind that statement, when they only spend 40% of payroll dollars on average on pitching.


Yup, the average was 40.7% of %% going to pitching. Then again one might also add that good pitching is a bit scarcer b/c of the volatility of pitching stats in the long term? Perhaps one might say good pitching is better to have than good hitting, simply b/c it is scarcer? Jeez, look at the White Sox, win the World Series and dealing for Vazquez instead of resting on their laurels. Unlike their NL counterparts who deal w/ injuries to Prior and Wood by thinking about rushing Guzman up to fill in 'until Prior and Wood come back' :~( :~( :~(
AcidRock23
General Manager
General Manager

User avatar
CafeholicCafe WriterEagle Eye
Posts: 4170
Joined: 8 Mar 2004
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: Champaign, IL

Postby modestninja » Sun Mar 19, 2006 12:07 pm

I think all it says is that more money doesn't necessarily get you better pitching which is pretty obvious. I mean there are plenty of good young pitchers in their arbitration years making well below the MLB average salary who skew this number way down (and vice versa when you have signings of guys like Milton, Ho Park, etc...)

I think the salary discussion doesn't add anything to the overall discussion of good hitting vs. good pitching.
modestninja
Softball Supervisor
Softball Supervisor


Posts: 50
Joined: 21 Feb 2006
Home Cafe: Baseball

Postby modestninja » Sun Mar 19, 2006 12:17 pm

TheYanks04 wrote:This thread was supposed to be about BAD pitching and hitting... not a discussion of stathead drivvel from the Boston tool Bill James and others who claim that their computer models are great and that as such among other things you don't need Urbina to close when you have Alan Embree.


The so called stathead drivvel (I don't know how someone can play fantasy baseball and not like statistics (in the mathematical sense) at least a little) doesn't predict the future it only tells them the general trends that make them more likely to succeed...
modestninja
Softball Supervisor
Softball Supervisor


Posts: 50
Joined: 21 Feb 2006
Home Cafe: Baseball

Previous

Return to Baseball Leftovers

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 12 guests

Forums Articles & Tips Sleepers Rankings Leagues


  • Fantasy Baseball
  • Article Submissions
  • Privacy Statement
  • Site Survey 
  • Contact