- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Nola
Posted on 5/23/09 at 9:20 am to GOP_Tiger
Posted on 5/23/09 at 9:20 am to GOP_Tiger
quote:
A sacrifice bunt is different in that it is a deliberate act. Counting that against a player would be like counting negative rushing yards against a QB taking a knee at the end of a game. It would distort the statistic.
I disagree. When a player sacrifices, the game is still in doubt. It is an attempt to score runs, not run the clock out on a game that is already won. I'd analogize it closer to spiking the football to stop the clock. Which, honestly, I don't know if it counts as an incompletion.
That said, lousy hitters tend to sacrifice more. It says something about the hitter. Nola has 5 sac hits in 80 PA. The only player close to that rate is Hanover: 4 in 205. Think about it: it's why the pitcher always bunts in the NL. Even good hitters will bunt occassionally, but that will balance out. Players with an extreme number of bunts look like a much better hitter than they really are by deleting sacrifices.
And fielder's choice and errors are still plate appearances. The ssacrifice hit simply evaporates into vapor. He appeared at the plate. It should be a plate appearance. Sure, it's a manager's decision, but a manger's decision usually which comments on the hitter's a bility if it is called for the same hitter over and over.
2
Posted on 5/23/09 at 9:36 am to Baloo
I'm sorry, but this argument is ridiculous, even though it sounds good at first glance.
The basic fact is that a sacrifice bunt is not an attempt to get on base. OBP is designed to measure how often a player gets on base when he is trying to get on base.
No, by your own logic, those players look pretty bad because they have poor batting averages. They already look like the bad hitters they are. Your plan would punish them doubly, counting plate appearances against them when they aren't even trying to get on base. In the case of a sacrifice bunt, the player does not normally have the opportunity to get on base.
The basic fact is that a sacrifice bunt is not an attempt to get on base. OBP is designed to measure how often a player gets on base when he is trying to get on base.
quote:
Players with an extreme number of bunts look like a much better hitter than they really are by deleting sacrifices.
No, by your own logic, those players look pretty bad because they have poor batting averages. They already look like the bad hitters they are. Your plan would punish them doubly, counting plate appearances against them when they aren't even trying to get on base. In the case of a sacrifice bunt, the player does not normally have the opportunity to get on base.
Posted on 5/23/09 at 9:39 am to Baloo
quote:
I disagree. When a player sacrifices, the game is still in doubt. It is an attempt to score runs, not run the clock out on a game that is already won. I'd analogize it closer to spiking the football to stop the clock. Which, honestly, I don't know if it counts as an incompletion.
That said, lousy hitters tend to sacrifice more. It says something about the hitter. Nola has 5 sac hits in 80 PA. The only player close to that rate is Hanover: 4 in 205. Think about it: it's why the pitcher always bunts in the NL. Even good hitters will bunt occassionally, but that will balance out. Players with an extreme number of bunts look like a much better hitter than they really are by deleting sacrifices.
#1, I think it's ridiculous for you to argue against to way OBP is calculated to make a poinn about NOLA. It's only been calculated that way forever.
#2, Your math on this is wrong. The sacrifice bunts do not make a hitter look better than they are. If a player never sacrifices and has an OBP of .350, then sacrifices 10 times in a row, his OBP will be .350. And if Nola never sacrificed his OBP, why would his OBP go down? I would expect that he'd get a hit, BB, or HBP at a VERY similar rate than he does in every other at bat. His OBP would be very similar.
quote:
And fielder's choice and errors are still plate appearances. The ssacrifice hit simply evaporates into vapor. He appeared at the plate. It should be a plate appearance. Sure, it's a manager's decision, but a manger's decision usually which comments on the hitter's a bility if it is called for the same hitter over and over.
Fielders' choice and errors are considered plate appearances but they are not considered in the numerator of the equation even though the player reached base safely. The reason for that is because it goes against what OBP is trying to illustrate...the value of a batter at getting on base. It wouldn't make sense to give credit for errors, or fielders' choice any more than it would make sense to penalize for sacrifice bunts.
I think your stance on Nola is reasonable. I think the reasoning behind your stance is ridiculously poor.
Page 1 of 1
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News