|
Pander posted:1) Who's lance? I've written them up as Lance and Gary every time and then changed them to correspond with the first names of players who embodied their powers. It's out there. It can be un-out there.
|
#
?
May 10, 2014 03:26
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 25, 2024 17:23 |
|
|
Antifreeze Head posted:Or maybe Tony sees a couple pitches just to see if he'll keep shooting them into the stands before the four tossed well outside. Etiquette would dictate giving Rick at least one to hit during some low-leverage situation every game because it would seem rude to cut his chance at history plus every pitcher in the game would at least like to try to be the first guy to not give up a hit. Before that point though, I think I would rather have Tony just because he'd speed up the departure of the opponent's starter. Once they turn into auto-walks, Rick would still get hits in bases empty/force situations as the pitcher could just lob a softie in to end the AB in one pitch, so I guess Tony is more valuable since he wastes 4 pitches every time. But do IBB tosses tire a pitcher out?
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2014 05:48
|
|
|
Let's talk clutchness for a second. Imagine two batters, Alex and Mike. Mike will hit a single every time there are runners in scoring position, but will pop out harmlessly if there's no one on second or third. Alex singles if the bases are empty and pops out if they aren't. Who would you rather have on your team? Two more batters, Jim and John. Jim singles every time if his team is losing the game, he pops out if they aren't. John works the same way, except he hits when his team is winning. (Neither of them hit if the game is tied). Who's better? Pitcher time: Adam and Owen. Owen gives you a quality start every time: 6 ip, 3 runs. Adam pitches to the score, and will leave the game after 6 innings with the game within 1 (1/3rd of the time you're tied, 1/3rd of the time you're up 1 run, 1/3rd of the time you're down a run). Which one should I want on my team?
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2014 00:44
|
|
|
Adrenalist posted:Let's talk clutchness for a second. In order, Alex, because I can bat him leadoff and he has a 162 game hit streak. Not that either are particularly good, you'd have to hit an absolutely massive number of singles to be productive if you can't do anything but hit singles. Second question depends on if I have a good team. Cubs would prefer Jim, someone like the Dodgers would prefer John. Again, nothing but singles still sucks. Owen. Adam is guaranteed a 4.5 era, which is pretty terrible. Owen isn't much better, but he's got a shot at not being absolutely horrific.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2014 01:02
|
|
|
TheFlyingLlama posted:Owen. Adam is guaranteed a 4.5 era, which is pretty terrible. Owen isn't much better, but he's got a shot at not being absolutely horrific. This is interesting because my gut feeling was the total opposite. A pitcher who guarantees you six innings every time out with a 4.50 ERA is drat valuable to a baseball team (as a number 4/5 starter, granted). My intuition can't really gauge what Adam would be like, but I think I'd go for the certainty instead of the possible Adam cluster-gently caress. Edit: I confused the names. Names are hard (To be fair so did Llama). JackssWastedLife fucked around with this message at 02:22 on May 14, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 14, 2014 01:10
|
|
|
JackssWastedLife posted:This is interesting because my gut feeling was the total opposite. A pitcher who guarantees you six innings every time out with a 4.50 ERA is drat valuable to a baseball team (as a number 4/5 starter, granted). My intuition can't really gauge what Owen would be like, but I think I'd go for the certainty instead of the possible Owen cluster-gently caress. The answer to this question clearly ought to depend on your offense. If you expect your offense to score .55 runs per inning or more, you take Owen. If you expect them to score fewer, then Adam will perform better on average. That line is almost 5 runs a game, so almost every team in the current run environment will want Adam. e: Though if you wanted to get real fussy you should break down run scoring by inning.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2014 02:05
|
|
|
JackssWastedLife posted:This is interesting because my gut feeling was the total opposite. A pitcher who guarantees you six innings every time out with a 4.50 ERA is drat valuable to a baseball team (as a number 4/5 starter, granted). My intuition can't really gauge what Owen would be like, but I think I'd go for the certainty instead of the possible Owen cluster-gently caress. Owen's value would depend on how good your offence is. If you're the Rockies and just start him at home or otherwise have a great offence you'll probably win more often than not. If you're the Padres, you're going 3-32 in his starts. With Adam's magic pitch to the score powers, clusterfuck starts are irrelevant. You're getting to the 7th in a 1 run game one way or another so you're going to be .500ish in his starts depending on how good your bullpen is. The gamey use of Adam's power would be to throw him out in Game 1 of every series and IBB 30 straight guys to go down 27-0. Your team will magically come back and score 26-28 runs and the other team's pitching staff is destroyed for the series while Owen cruises into the 7th. e: names fixed. pseudodragon fucked around with this message at 02:32 on May 14, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 14, 2014 02:09
|
|
|
Pretty sure you have the names backwards.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2014 02:16
|
|
|
Mornacale posted:Pretty sure you have the names backwards. Nah it turns out Llama did, which confused me (and down the chain presumably). Oops!
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2014 02:20
|
|
|
JackssWastedLife posted:Nah it turns out Llama did, which confused me (and down the chain presumably). Oops! Yeah, I'm going with the "read the names in the quote" excuse too!
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2014 02:38
|
|
|
pseudodragon posted:Yeah, I'm going with the "read the names in the quote" excuse too! In this day and age, who has time to read things closely?
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2014 02:43
|
|
|
pseudodragon posted:The gamey use of Adam's power would be to throw him out in Game 1 of every series and IBB 30 straight guys to go down 27-0. Your team will magically come back and score 26-28 runs and the other team's pitching staff is destroyed for the series while Owen cruises into the 7th. I'm not sure if this strictly matches the concept of pitching to the score, but I love the idea all the same. Strictly speaking a bench position player should give up the 30 IBBs in the first inning, and then Adam can take over 
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2014 03:19
|
|
|
Reformed Pissboy posted:I'm not sure if this strictly matches the concept of pitching to the score, but I love the idea all the same. Strictly speaking a bench position player should give up the 30 IBBs in the first inning, and then Adam can take over What's the point of having a magic superpower if your not going to abuse the poo poo out of it? Also, I assumed part of the power was a rubber arm that let him go 6 regardless of pitch count without getting hurt.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2014 03:33
|
|
|
Adrenalist posted:Let's talk clutchness for a second. 1. Mike is way more valuable than Alex just by the fact that he'll bring guys in to score while Alex never will. He's basically the perfect pinch hitter while Alex is the perfect lead-off man. Pinch hits usually happen in higher leverage situations ergo I think Mike is going to be more valuable. 2. Jim/John is a bit more interesting. I'd have to go with Jim but to be sure we'd probably need to look at it from a WPA standpoint. 3. If you have a good offense I'd take Adam. Most good offenses should be able to score 4+ runs a game. If you have a terrible offense and play a lot of small ball I'd go with Owen. edit: A question I was pondering: is it possible through something like Baseball Mogul to make these players? I don't even know if Baseball Mogul is still around but any game where you can sim it and force people's underlying stats to these extremes would be interesting to see. axeil fucked around with this message at 15:05 on May 14, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 14, 2014 14:58
|
|
|
axeil posted:1. Mike is way more valuable than Alex just by the fact that he'll bring guys in to score while Alex never will. He's basically the perfect pinch hitter while Alex is the perfect lead-off man. Pinch hits usually happen in higher leverage situations ergo I think Mike is going to be more valuable. quote:2. Jim/John is a bit more interesting. I'd have to go with Jim but to be sure we'd probably need to look at it from a WPA standpoint. quote:3. If you have a good offense I'd take Adam. Most good offenses should be able to score 4+ runs a game. If you have a terrible offense and play a lot of small ball I'd go with Owen. quote:edit: A question I was pondering: is it possible through something like Baseball Mogul to make these players? I don't even know if Baseball Mogul is still around but any game where you can sim it and force people's underlying stats to these extremes would be interesting to see.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2014 15:47
|
|
|
Pander posted:I don't think so, no. Hitting better while ahead or behind is just not a thing. You can make a guy a SUPER SINGLES HITTER by blasting contact to 100 and lowering power as low as it goes, but generally nah. That's a hell of a shame  Simming out one of these guys in an Excel spreadsheet is way less intriguing than plopping them on a team and seeing how it affects them during a season.edit: I was talking with a friend about the "fouls off every pitch" guy and he brought up a really good point. Assuming the manager/pitcher don't know about his superpower, which guy gets tired first: the pitcher or the batter? Fouling off 60+ pitches is more swings of the bat than most players get in a weekend, much less a single AB. poo poo, let's make it interesting and say that he can strike out if he gets tired enough. axeil fucked around with this message at 16:14 on May 14, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 14, 2014 15:54
|
|
|
JackssWastedLife posted:Nah it turns out Llama did, which confused me (and down the chain presumably). Oops! Whoops. My bad.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2014 16:45
|
|
|
axeil posted:edit: I was talking with a friend about the "fouls off every pitch" guy and he brought up a really good point. Assuming the manager/pitcher don't know about his superpower, which guy gets tired first: the pitcher or the batter? Fouling off 60+ pitches is more swings of the bat than most players get in a weekend, much less a single AB. poo poo, let's make it interesting and say that he can strike out if he gets tired enough. I'm guessing it's less of a strain on the body to swing, or at least I can say that cricketers can stand in for that many or more swings in a game. That said, they don't have to do it 5/6/7 days a week for 26 weeks at a time.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2014 22:59
|
|
|
axeil posted:1. Mike is way more valuable than Alex just by the fact that he'll bring guys in to score while Alex never will. He's basically the perfect pinch hitter while Alex is the perfect lead-off man. Pinch hits usually happen in higher leverage situations ergo I think Mike is going to be more valuable. Except for that the fact that you are guaranteed to have your lead-off hitter having at least one guaranteed hit a game in a position where getting on base is really important (ahead of your good hitters) and batting with RISP should be less important (especially in the NL). Meanwhile Mike Pinch Hit is risky to introduce early on since he's worth up to 2 free outs (in 2 out nobody on situations, the hitter in front of him can be intentionally walked if you think it's likely that he's not going to be replaced) and might involve using him to pinch hit for Mike Trout, your catcher, or your starting pitcher in the NL, all of which have high opportunity costs. The general strategy might be to have Mike Pinch Hit in for only one AB and then replace him again, which means you are having your bench players seeing a lot more ABs. Fielding is also an issue, you can deal with Alex being a 1B/DH a lot easier than Mike.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2014 23:30
|
|
|
Soviet Space Dog posted:Except for that the fact that you are guaranteed to have your lead-off hitter having at least one guaranteed hit a game in a position where getting on base is really important (ahead of your good hitters) and batting with RISP should be less important (especially in the NL). Meanwhile Mike Pinch Hit is risky to introduce early on since he's worth up to 2 free outs (in 2 out nobody on situations, the hitter in front of him can be intentionally walked if you think it's likely that he's not going to be replaced) and might involve using him to pinch hit for Mike Trout, your catcher, or your starting pitcher in the NL, all of which have high opportunity costs. The general strategy might be to have Mike Pinch Hit in for only one AB and then replace him again, which means you are having your bench players seeing a lot more ABs. Fielding is also an issue, you can deal with Alex being a 1B/DH a lot easier than Mike. I think you're overstating the value of having a guaranteed bases empty steal to start the game. It's good but it can't be worth more than a high-leverage guaranteed single, can it? Runner on second or third is a run in the bank, even with 2 outs.
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2014 01:42
|
|
|
Pander posted:I think you're overstating the value of having a guaranteed bases empty steal to start the game. It's good but it can't be worth more than a high-leverage guaranteed single, can it? Runner on second or third is a run in the bank, even with 2 outs. It's a guaranteed bases empty steal PLUS the guaranteed bases empty steal whenever he comes up to bat with the bases empty, which is the most likely situation for a lead off hitter. Meanwhile your pinch hitter only performs in a situation where somebody else had to do the "low leverage" thing of getting on base to begin with. You also ignoring that once people figure out how your pinch hitter performs, they just intentionally walk him if 1st base is open.
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2014 05:36
|
|
|
I think that guy would be a lot more useful than a pinch hitter, though. Bat him third and your manager gets to fulfill his wettest small-ball dreams. Every time your leadoff hitter winds up on first base, he either steals or your #2 guy bunts him over. Get a dude who's fast to bat #2 so that he can steal his way into scoring position whenever he reaches first himself. So now Mike faces the following scenarios probably 3/4 of the time: a guy in scoring position, where he gets an IBB or an RBI every time; or 2 out nobody on, where the automatic out doesn't hurt you much. Of course, the other guy is going to put up a .500/.500/.500 line from the leadoff spot, so I don't know if Mike is the better option, but relegating him to pinch hitter is a waste. The real answer is to get one and then trade for the other before their GM realizes their real value, find a fast guy who can bunt, and score 1000 runs through the power of smallball.
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2014 10:38
|
|
|
Mornacale posted:I think that guy would be a lot more useful than a pinch hitter, though. Bat him third and your manager gets to fulfill his wettest small-ball dreams. Every time your leadoff hitter winds up on first base, he either steals or your #2 guy bunts him over. Get a dude who's fast to bat #2 so that he can steal his way into scoring position whenever he reaches first himself. So now Mike faces the following scenarios probably 3/4 of the time: a guy in scoring position, where he gets an IBB or an RBI every time; or 2 out nobody on, where the automatic out doesn't hurt you much. Of course, the other guy is going to put up a .500/.500/.500 line from the leadoff spot, so I don't know if Mike is the better option, but relegating him to pinch hitter is a waste. Using 1993-2010 from http://www.tangotiger.net/re24.html: The probability a batter bats with nobody on is 54% The probability a batter bats with somebody on first is 20% Total is 74%, i.e. percentage with a RISP is 26%. This means Mike as a starter is batting 0.260/0.260/0.260. This is a wOBA of around 0.230. Last season, he would have been the lowest qualified player by wOBA. It possibly underrates him due to the situations he gets hits in (actually its optimal for the other team to walk him in every situation he could get a hit in, but then again baseball managers never intentionally walk people even when it is a bad idea). Alex, including the guaranteed leadoff hit is going to be batting at around 0.600/0.600/0.600. This is a wOBA of around 0.414 (I'm treating his hits as walks to deal with the low leverage), which would have 3rd best last season by wOBA. If I treated his hits as singles in wOBA, it would be 0.534. Babe Ruth had a wOBA of 0.513. Maybe wOBA isn't the best metric to use. Let's look at Tangotiger's run expectancy table. Going from 0 out nobody on to 0 out 1B is an increase in run expectancy of ~0.4 (0.941 - 0.544). Alex as a leadoff hitter gives that every game, guaranteed. Then he adds value for every time he will face with 0 out (which is the most likely situation). Mike gets used as a pinch hitter (I hope you still don't think Mike is at all useable as a starter), players on 2B and 3B, no out. Run expectancy? 2.050. Now, if the other team isn't dumb, they walk him. New run expectancy of bases loaded? 2.390. That's an increase of 0.34. Mike is worth up to one run, when the bases are loaded as a pinch hitter as an intentional walk. That's it. It's useful, but Alex is probably one of the top 5 offensive players in the league. Or the most valuable offensive player of all time. I dunno.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2014 11:13
|
|
|
You still chose one of the least valuable situations for Mike. I think WPA would be better than RE to judge Mike's value in high-leverage situations. It seems like one of the odd situations where the 'clutch factor' has value despite being intangible. I mean, go with a different example, say bases loaded, down by a run, 9th inning, and 2 outs. The opposing manager won't walk him and willingly give up a lead. The odds of losing for Mike's team without Mike are still likely in the neighborhood of 60% I'd imagine, and now it's swung to 100% chance of victory. Obviously it's not fair to counter one example where Mike is useless with the single most useful useful position for Mike to exist for. But it highlights that it's not as simple as it seems. By the numbers alone Alex is absolutely more vlauable, but I think getting in a runner or two, gauranteed, can help a team win more games in the long run than putting a runner on first 1-4 times a game. Also, I'd like to note that since, as you've demonstrated, Mike's such a bad hitter outside of RISP situations, other managers wouldn't walk him. Would you IBB a guy with the worst wOBA in the majors just because runners are on? I think you've postulated Alex's value fairly well. You can just take every #1 hitter in basbeall, determine the situations that player has batted in, and thus derive a league-wide average for Alex. But Mike's value is gonna be nearly impossible, because it'd rely on hunting down every high-leverage situation where he'd make the ideal pinch hitter. Essentially, every bases loaded situation would be a good time to bring him in and hope for more RISP down the line for his spot.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2014 15:51
|
|
|
The realest hit to Mike's value is that he is automatically out if there are no runners in scoring position. Since we've established he'd be one of the worst everyday players ever, and that his true use would be off the bench, even the high leverage situations you inserted him into would need to be balanced against all the times you then had to switch him back out for your second bench guy. It's great and cool for the times that he would be useful, but he'd be little more than a secret weapon. When you consider that Alex is likely to be a .600 hitter while playing every day, and that you could reliably pull him a lot of the time that you knew he was up to make an out (thus raising his average further) there is no universe where there are enough "clutch" situations to make Mike anything but a footnote to what Alex would do.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2014 17:38
|
|
|
fair enough. Best answer: have them both. Replace Alex with Mike as applicable.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2014 17:52
|
|
|
Having Alex on your roster would guarantee you'd never be the victim of a no hitter, so Tampa would want him regardless of who is actually better. Personally, I'd rather go with Alex because he's useful in every game regardless of what the opponent does while Mike is, under an optimal opponent strategy, only useful if the bases are loaded. I'm not sure what the average number of plate appearances is for a leadoff hitter with nobody on base, but I consider Shin Soo-Choo to be just about as much as anyone could want from a leadoff guy, so I looked at his 2013 numbers. Of his 712 PA's from last year, 483 of them were with nobody on with 291 of those coming with zero out, 84 with one away and 65 times with two men down. There were 229 times he was up with runners on at least one base and 110 of those times he was up with men on and two out. Appling Choo's numbers to Alex, he would have 483 hits (including a 162 game hit streak) and he'd finish with a .678 avg. If he scored the league average of 43% with none out, 29% with one out and 14% with two out, he'd account for 158 runs though the season. And that number could possibly go higher as he'd probably score better than league average considering he always has the 2/3/4 hitters coming up compared to the general figure which includes weaker hitters coming after the first base runner getting on board. And while it isn't ideal that Alex will never get a hit with anyone on, he will also never ground into a double play so his at bat (by proxy of Choo's numbers) would only end the inning in 110 times through the whole season. That makes him better than 2009 Albert Pujols who accounted for the last out 129 times and even 2002 Barry Bonds who was the last out 112 times. And that 110 number could possibly go lower if his manager were to sub him out in late game situations when it would be preferable to have even someone crappy like J.P. Arencibia come up to bat.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2014 17:52
|
|
|
Antifreeze Head posted:And while it isn't ideal that Alex will never get a hit with anyone on, he will also never ground into a double play so his at bat (by proxy of Choo's numbers) would only end the inning in 110 times through the whole season. That makes him better than 2009 Albert Pujols who accounted for the last out 129 times and even 2002 Barry Bonds who was the last out 112 times. And that 110 number could possibly go lower if his manager were to sub him out in late game situations when it would be preferable to have even someone crappy like J.P. Arencibia come up to bat. I can wrap my head around superpowered hypothetical statistical anomalies but any universe where it's preferable for J.P. Arencibia to bat is just a bridge too far, sorry man.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2014 20:17
|
|
|
Going back to the Owen and Adam bit, another factor is your team's bullpen. If you have a good bullpen, then Adam is probbly more valuable than if you have a bad one, because with a worst case scenario of being down one with three innings left, it means if you can scratch across one or two runs against the other team's bullpen you have a much better chance than if Owen left the game with a two or three run deficit.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2014 20:29
|
|
|
HAL9100 posted:Since we've established he'd be one of the worst everyday players ever This isn't established at all. The whole point is that you have to structure your lineup in such a way to maximize his appearances in high-value situations, and to minimize the value of the situations in which he will make outs. Taking a general average of all ABs is only useful here as a baseline which would get adjusted upward, in my opinion significantly. But even if we posit a .260/.260/.260 hitter, we're talking about a player who averages about an RBI a game. You value him as Tony Pena Jr and I'll happily plug 162 RBI into my lineup for the league min.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2014 22:50
|
|
|
Mornacale posted:This isn't established at all. The whole point is that you have to structure your lineup in such a way to maximize his appearances in high-value situations, and to minimize the value of the situations in which he will make outs. Taking a general average of all ABs is only useful here as a baseline which would get adjusted upward, in my opinion significantly. But even if we posit a .260/.260/.260 hitter, we're talking about a player who averages about an RBI a game. You value him as Tony Pena Jr and I'll happily plug 162 RBI into my lineup for the league min. I'll concede that point for the pinch hitter caveat, but if he plays every day he'll make an out every time he leads off an inning, he'll make an out 3 out of 4 times he comes to bat, and he'll end an inning/rally in 3/4 of the situations he bats with two outs. These occur pretty often, and some of them are especially damaging in the context of WPA. If he had an actual lineup spot, he couldn't be called upon when the bases were actually loaded, so you would have to rely on the mere humans in front of him to actually get on base regularly, and high walk-rates wouldn't really cut it so you would need three players that were well-above average offensively in one particular area (doubles) in order to increase his usefulness at all. I could get more granular here, but unless I'm missing something I just can't see any way to make the numbers say he's valuable as a starter.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2014 23:06
|
|
|
HAL9100 posted:I'll concede that point for the pinch hitter caveat, but if he plays every day he'll make an out every time he leads off an inning, he'll make an out 3 out of 4 times he comes to bat, and he'll end an inning/rally in 3/4 of the situations he bats with two outs. These occur pretty often, and some of them are especially damaging in the context of WPA. If he had an actual lineup spot, he couldn't be called upon when the bases were actually loaded, so you would have to rely on the mere humans in front of him to actually get on base regularly, and high walk-rates wouldn't really cut it so you would need three players that were well-above average offensively in one particular area (doubles) in order to increase his usefulness at all. I could get more granular here, but unless I'm missing something I just can't see any way to make the numbers say he's valuable as a starter. Did you read my original post? Have a leadoff hitter who's good at getting on base, a #2 hitter who is very fast and can bunt, bat Mike #3. I predict that if he stays healthy he breaks the single-season RBI record, and I think your leadoff guy has a shot at Billy Hamilton's Runs mark. Since you don't care too much if your #1 guy has any power, your #2 guy doesn't have to be a good hitter, and your #3 hitter seems like a pinch hitter, you're taking assets that would otherwise be low-value and turning them into like 2 runs a game.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2014 23:24
|
|
|
Mornacale posted:Did you read my original post? Have a leadoff hitter who's good at getting on base, a #2 hitter who is very fast and can bunt, bat Mike #3. I predict that if he stays healthy he breaks the single-season RBI record, and I think your leadoff guy has a shot at Billy Hamilton's Runs mark. Since you don't care too much if your #1 guy has any power, your #2 guy doesn't have to be a good hitter, and your #3 hitter seems like a pinch hitter, you're taking assets that would otherwise be low-value and turning them into like 2 runs a game. So all you need is a leadoff hitter with over 0.500 OBA. Easy! Any plan that has step 1, get people into RISP (this is the easy bit) is a horrible plan since that's the hard bit. Edit: If Mike was "single with people on base" instead of RISP then he would be roughly as valuable as Adam. Soviet Space Dog fucked around with this message at 23:36 on May 16, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 16, 2014 23:32
|
|
|
Here's one I've been kicking around: Percy craves the spotlight, the big moment, the times when his at-bats are most important. As such, any time he comes up with men on base he will put the ball in play and that ball will always be a hit. If there is one man on, Percy will hit a single. If there are two men on, Percy will hit a double. If the bases are loaded, Percy will hit a triple. However, because of his dependence on the adrenaline of pressure situations, every time he comes up with nobody on base he will strikeout. Percy will never hit a home run, and Percy will never draw a walk. Chester, on the other hand, hates pressure. He repeatedly fails to make contact when any men are on base in front of him. As such, any swings he takes with runners on base will be strikes, as he is incapable of making contact when it counts. However, Chester's plate discipline in men-on-base situations is average, and he will always draw a league-average number of walks-per-PA over the course of a season in such a scenario. But when the pressure is off, and the bases are empty, Chester is truly at his best - in these situations, Chester will never ever fail to hit a home run. Assuming both players have average speed (once they're actually on the basepaths), play average defense at the same position, and neither player can be hit by a pitch or intentionally walked, which player will be more valuable?
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2014 14:41
|
|
|
Buane posted:Here's one I've been kicking around: They sound interesting enough, and I'm going to run some numbers if I get a break in my day, but I'm fairly sure that Chester would hit over 200 home runs along with like 60 walks; that'll be tough to beat.
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2014 14:54
|
|
|
Dr. Tommy John posted:They sound interesting enough, and I'm going to run some numbers if I get a break in my day, but I'm fairly sure that Chester would hit over 200 home runs along with like 60 walks; that'll be tough to beat. Well going by SSD's percentages earlier he'd hit a lot more then 200 if you batted him leadoff.
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2014 15:04
|
|
|
Change his "always hits homers" to "always hits doubles" maybe? Hitting a guaranteed 162 homers is drat near impossible to beat.
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2014 16:04
|
|
|
I looked up last year's league splits to see how common each situation was. Now, this is obviously going to vary a lot due to batting order position and team strength, but it should give a general idea. Bases empty: 56.6% One runner on base, on second or third: 11.2% Two runners on base: 11.8% Bases loaded: 2.3% So even if we're just looking at RBI, Percy is probably not going to get enough opportunities to match Chester.
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2014 16:21
|
|
|
Chester also isn't Mr. Unclutch here either since he'd clearly end some games with solo shots. Maybe if Chester doesn't hit dingers if the score is within 1 run or tied, it would make things closer to even. Still I suspect that Percy would still be behind even if you did that.
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2014 16:29
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 25, 2024 17:23 |
|
|
Like I said, Chester has to hit doubles instead of homers. Homers are waaaaaaaay too valuable. If Percy has, say, 600 AB, and you assume a single with a runner on 2nd or 3rd scores 1 and a double with runners on scores 2 (speedy runners!) and obviously a bases loaded triple scores 3... Singles score: 67.2 runs a year Doubles score: 141.6 runs a year Triples score: 41.4 runs a year Total: ~250 RBI a year for Percy, with some of the better assumptions in place (doubles scoring runner from first). Chester, if he hits homers, has AT LEAST 162 RBI, and more likely somewhere in the neighborhood of 350-450. If he hits doubles? Then he has zero RBI. But the increase in runs he would provide would certainly be something.
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2014 16:34
|
|