OBPlover wrote:Yes, but hitting the ball hard or "quality of contact" is much, much more important than the "amount" of contact. That is why, except for extreme examples of K% (like an Adam Dunn) K% is pretty useless for predicting batting average. You keep saying that but I don't see the data to back it up.
This on the other hand shows pretty considerable correlation.
What kind of data are you looking for? is what I said, not simply common sense? Is the only difference between Miguel Cabrera and Adam Dunn as hitters due to strikeout rate? Can Adam Dunn stop swinging for the fences, cut his striekout and move his average up 100 points? Do hitters not have some contorl over their BABIP?
Anyways, Please remove the outliers, top 10% and bottom 10% of K rates and replot.
I used the past 4 years worth of data (all players with at least 1500 total PA over the past 4 seasons) and got an R-squared of about 0.25 which is very significant. Using the same group of players and correlating to BABIP, r-squared was about 0.01 so obviously that's not significant at all and shows no correlation. This is of course very intuitive; nobody should be shocked. I can't understand why anybody would try to argue that point.
There's also the issue of selection bias. Only the very best hitters can survive in the majors with a 25+ K%. So if a mediocre player with a career 15% starts to tumble down to 25%+, he won't magically get a huge boost in power comparable to guys like Dunn/Stanton/Reynolds. Sure the power could uptick a bit, but chances are they don't naturally have the same game power as guys that made it to the bigs with that approach. Look at Brandon Inge. The guy was a decent hitter when he was at 15-21%. He could OPS about 750 and he was alright. Then he jumped up to 25%+ in 2007 and he was toast ever since. Drew Stubbs is another one. He doesn't have nearly enough power to maintain a 30% K-rate so he probably won't last much longer as an MLB regular if he can't make more contact.
Skin Blues wrote:I used the past 4 years worth of data (all players with at least 1500 total PA over the past 4 seasons) and got an R-squared of about 0.25 which is very significant. Using the same group of players and correlating to BABIP, r-squared was about 0.01 so obviously that's not significant at all and shows no correlation. This is of course very intuitive; nobody should be shocked. I can't understand why anybody would try to argue that point.
There's also the issue of selection bias. Only the very best hitters can survive in the majors with a 25+ K%. So if a mediocre player with a career 15% starts to tumble down to 25%+, he won't magically get a huge boost in power comparable to guys like Dunn/Stanton/Reynolds. Sure the power could uptick a bit, but chances are they don't naturally have the same game power as guys that made it to the bigs with that approach. Look at Brandon Inge. The guy was a decent hitter when he was at 15-21%. He could OPS about 750 and he was alright. Then he jumped up to 25%+ in 2007 and he was toast ever since. Drew Stubbs is another one. He doesn't have nearly enough power to maintain a 30% K-rate so he probably won't last much longer as an MLB regular if he can't make more contact.
That's exactly right, though high K%, High OPS players can and do exist. It is pretty rare to have low batting average/low K players. Low batting averages mean the player is already on the tightrope but combined with his low K rate, chances are he's not mashing home runs or any othe rextra base hit. Therefore, the high K, Low average players dominate the data. They should be removed form the analysis. You wouldn't take a hitter with a history of 30% K rates unless your league was OBP/SLG categorie, and the players you are comparing will usually fall in the 15%-25% k rate range where it's much harder to gaige the success of the hitter.
The K rates of 24% and over are really the only thing I concern myself with when looking at that stat....so I don't really care about those in the 15-20% range. If, in fantasy, I'm trying to judge if a guy will have a better average from year to year, I'll take a look at that K rate...if he's over 24-25% then I'm not banking on any improvement there. Similarly if he's a guy with a below 5-6% BB rate then I know he's not usually having good ABs and that effects the way I'm expecting his average to rebound, etc
That's about as far as I take the K rate importance.
J35J wrote:The K rates of 24% and over are really the only thing I concern myself with when looking at that stat....so I don't really care about those in the 15-20% range. If, in fantasy, I'm trying to judge if a guy will have a better average from year to year, I'll take a look at that K rate...if he's over 24-25% then I'm not banking on any improvement there. Similarly if he's a guy with a below 5-6% BB rate then I know he's not usually having good ABs and that effects the way I'm expecting his average to rebound, etc
That's about as far as I take the K rate importance.
Yeah I'd agree with that. What are you arguing for?
Padsin05 wrote:I am hitting .270 with 29 hrs, 65 runs scored and 92 rbis
Mark Texieria will be drafted for me every year for the rest of my life his line is .255 23 hrs, 65 runs, 82 rbis
I was likely undrafted or went at least 20 rounds later
without looking up stats Who am I?
I'm guessing Adam laRoche.
But I don't think Laroche will stay underrated forever, esp if the Nats succeed in the playoffs. I also think TEX has already lost a lot of street cred. after this year.
J35J wrote:The K rates of 24% and over are really the only thing I concern myself with when looking at that stat....so I don't really care about those in the 15-20% range. If, in fantasy, I'm trying to judge if a guy will have a better average from year to year, I'll take a look at that K rate...if he's over 24-25% then I'm not banking on any improvement there. Similarly if he's a guy with a below 5-6% BB rate then I know he's not usually having good ABs and that effects the way I'm expecting his average to rebound, etc
That's about as far as I take the K rate importance.
Yeah I'd agree with that. What are you arguing for?
Padsin05 wrote:I am hitting .270 with 29 hrs, 65 runs scored and 92 rbis
Mark Texieria will be drafted for me every year for the rest of my life his line is .255 23 hrs, 65 runs, 82 rbis
I was likely undrafted or went at least 20 rounds later
without looking up stats Who am I?
I'm guessing Adam laRoche.
But I don't think Laroche will stay underrated forever, esp if the Nats succeed in the playoffs. I also think TEX has already lost a lot of street cred. after this year.
Tex has but I still bet someone takes him in the 5th-6th, while Laroche probably still is a 15th+
Cafe Home
Fantasy Football
Fantasy Basketball
Fantasy Hockey
by 
