Proof: Averages by Height Since 1901 - Fantasy Baseball Cafe 2014 Fantasy Baseball Cafe
100% Deposit Bonus for Cafe Members!

Return to Baseball Leftovers

Proof: Averages by Height Since 1901

Moderator: Baseball Moderators

Re: Proof: Averages by Height Since 1901

Postby Philomath » Sat Apr 04, 2009 2:24 pm

Tavish wrote:Richie Sexson throws the whole thing off.

:-b Was thinking the same thing!

Oliver Miller affected outliers for big men in basketball in a similar way.
Philomath
College Coach
College Coach

User avatar

Posts: 219
Joined: 10 Jan 2007
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: seeking

Re: Proof: Averages by Height Since 1901

Postby GotowarMissAgnes » Sat Apr 04, 2009 3:16 pm

Sevon wrote:Historically, since 1901, the only player height group to carry a lower batting average than the players over 6'5 are the players under 5'6. BOOM! There it is. Enjoy.

See Chart #1
http://fantasy.sportingnews.com/basebal ... 80902.html


I want to give a shout out to GotowarMissAgnes for finding this article.
Sorry Amazinz, I had to put this to rest once and for all. :-)


I actually cited this study way back in the first few pages of the post, I guess you just never bothered to look closely at it before.

You might just want to go back and review the actual claims you made. For example, you claimed that Wieters faced a tradeoff of hitting 30 HRs and batting .260 or .300 and 15 HRs. The chart clearly shows that the BA change is nowhere near that level of dropoff, even as slugging percentage increases. Further, you claimed that 6'3" was the "sweet spot" and that after that players faced a tradeoff with BA dropping and slugging increasing, while below that slugging dropped and BA rose. Again, the chart shows that's nowhere near close to the truth of the situation.

I've corresponded with the writer before and have dropped him a note to clarify the exact size of the drop beyond 6'6" and whether it is statistically significant. I forgot to ask whether he has broken the chart down to eras, because being 6'6" in 1910 is a very different thing than being 6'6" in 2000.

Of course, the important fact that your claim was applied to Matt Wieters who is 6'5" should not be forgotten. As the chart shows there is NO dropoff in BA at 6'5".
"I don't want to play golf. When I hit a ball, I want someone else to chase it."
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

Re: Proof: Averages by Height Since 1901

Postby Carnac » Sat Apr 04, 2009 5:07 pm

You mean Billy Barty never stood a chance?
Carnac
Major League Manager
Major League Manager

User avatar

Posts: 1397
(Past Year: 71)
Joined: 11 Nov 2003
Home Cafe: Football
Location: Strolling down Penny Lane

Re: Proof: Averages by Height Since 1901

Postby Sevon » Sat Apr 04, 2009 6:40 pm

GotowarMissAgnes wrote:
I actually cited this study way back in the first few pages of the post, I guess you just never bothered to look closely at it before.

You might just want to go back and review the actual claims you made. For example, you claimed that Wieters faced a tradeoff of hitting 30 HRs and batting .260 or .300 and 15 HRs. The chart clearly shows that the BA change is nowhere near that level of dropoff, even as slugging percentage increases. Further, you claimed that 6'3" was the "sweet spot" and that after that players faced a tradeoff with BA dropping and slugging increasing, while below that slugging dropped and BA rose. Again, the chart shows that's nowhere near close to the truth of the situation.

I've corresponded with the writer before and have dropped him a note to clarify the exact size of the drop beyond 6'6" and whether it is statistically significant. I forgot to ask whether he has broken the chart down to eras, because being 6'6" in 1910 is a very different thing than being 6'6" in 2000.

Of course, the important fact that your claim was applied to Matt Wieters who is 6'5" should not be forgotten. As the chart shows there is NO dropoff in BA at 6'5".



I still stand by my prediction (guess) that home run/average slider will apply to Wieters this year. He's only 22 years old. It will be his rookie year. Either he keeps his cool and focuses on BA or he folds under the pressure and starts swinging for the fences. He just may be that special player that everyone wants/expects him to be and proves me completely wrong. Maybe he pulls a Pujols.

Historically, my "sweet spot" claim doesn't hold water. Point conceded. But, most of the power/average guys of the last 10 years seems to trend toward that hypothesis.

I would love to know the numbers behind the study. I doubt it will be a large sample size as you suspect. But, in my mind, that just goes to prove how hard it is for a guy in those height ranges to even make it to the MLB in the first place. It's also possible that athletes in that height range are more drawn/pushed towards Football and Basketball where their height would be more of an advantage. That would be a whole different study though.

And finally to wrap it up. As the chart shows, historically there is indeed a drop off in batting average for players over 6'5. My original hypothesis was that height affected BA as some point. That is the whole reason we are talking about any of this right now.

So, historically speaking, Wieters has just a good of a chance to hit for a high average as most players. He is in fact 6'5. And therefore, the historical dip in BA does not apply. :-b

Everybody wins!
Sevon
College Coach
College Coach

User avatar

Posts: 119
Joined: 12 Mar 2008
Home Cafe: Baseball

Re: Proof: Averages by Height Since 1901

Postby Yoda » Sat Apr 04, 2009 6:58 pm

thedude wrote:
Yoda wrote:How is this proof that players over 6'5" can't hit for average?

Pujols, the best hitter in the game today, is 6'3". He is a better hitter than anyone under 6'



Well one player doesn't make a case for the group as a whole. Especially if that player is not a member of said group.

You cannot look use a guy who is 6'3" to make an argument about people who are 6'5". If you want to use a tall player you should be using Joe Mauer, who is actually 6'5". But again one player doesn't mean anything about the group as a whole.


Yeah but if his claim is that shorter players hit for a better average then how is it that most of the top hitters are over 6'?

You and Sevon can continue to believe that players over 6'5" can't hit for a average. The fact is that there are simply not that many 6'5"+ people in the world. And before I get hit with the stupid stick again, I am out of here.
"Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that." ~George Carlin
Yoda
Hall of Fame Hero
Hall of Fame Hero

User avatar
Fantasy ExpertMock(ing) Drafter
Posts: 21344
Joined: 21 Jan 2005
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: 15th green...

Re: Proof: Averages by Height Since 1901

Postby DaShiz23 » Sat Apr 04, 2009 9:28 pm

Tavish wrote:Richie Sexson throws the whole thing off.

Is Rickie Weeks 6'5"?
Image
DaShiz23
General Manager
General Manager

User avatar
Cafeholic
Posts: 3412
(Past Year: 67)
Joined: 3 Apr 2005
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: Don't call it a comeback.

Re: Proof: Averages by Height Since 1901

Postby Tavish » Sat Apr 04, 2009 9:36 pm

DaShiz23 wrote:
Tavish wrote:Richie Sexson throws the whole thing off.

Is Rickie Weeks 6'5"?

Obviously he is, haven't you seen his batting average?
Image

Bury me a Royal.
Tavish
Mod in Retirement
Mod in Retirement

User avatar
CafeholicFantasy ExpertCafe WriterCafe RankerMock(ing) DrafterEagle EyeCafe SpotterWeb Supporter
Posts: 11070
(Past Year: 26)
Joined: 3 May 2004
Home Cafe: Baseball

Previous

Return to Baseball Leftovers

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 8 guests

Forums Articles & Tips Sleepers Rankings Leagues


Today's Games
Wednesday, Oct. 1
(All times are EST, weather icons show forecast for game time)

San Francisco at Pittsburgh
(8:07 pm)

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