|
|
Post by klaiggeb on Aug 28, 2016 20:19:55 GMT -5
In all my years playing, coaching and watching the game, I have never, EVER seen one guy hit more crushed baseballs into leather than Joe Panik.
And I'm being serious!
If he had even 1/3 of those hammered outs, as hits, he'd already be up to .260!
Every single game it's the same thing;
WHACK!
Out.
WHACK!
Out.
It's ticking me off, and I can only imagine how Joe feels.
I've said this before, I'll say it again; it never, EVER evens out.
Never!
boly
|
|
sfgdood
Long time member 
stats geeks never played the game...that's why they don't get it and never will
Posts: 90
|
Post by sfgdood on Aug 28, 2016 21:58:15 GMT -5
Today it was WHACK! Out of the park. WHACK! Out of the park.
|
|
|
|
Post by klaiggeb on Aug 29, 2016 14:55:51 GMT -5
What about his 2 line drive outs, Randy?
He's done a ton of that since May.
boly
|
|
|
|
Post by Rog on Aug 30, 2016 10:51:49 GMT -5
Joe's line drive percentage is down from 23% his first two years to 19% this year. His hard-hit ball percentage is down one percent.
Joe's career mark of .602 on line drives is nearly 100 points below the league average, and his .500 rate this year is quite low.
As the game evolves with more pronounced shifts and over-shifts, more hard-hit balls are turning into outs, and more softy-hit balls are turning into hits. Joe does continue to spread the ball around, but he's hitting more fly balls and fewer line drives this season. His fly balls rate has increased from 27% in nhis rookie season to 38% this year. Fly balls are less likely to become hits than ground balls and particularly line drives.
Joe's lower average and his greater power per hit reflect this. It appears fewer of Joe's line drives are avoiding gloves, and he's hitting more balls in the air. Both lead toward a lower batting average.
|
|
|
|
Post by klaiggeb on Aug 30, 2016 12:35:08 GMT -5
A couple of things, Rog, that the numbers don't show.
Those numbers you've come up with are so terribly misleading, I don't even know where to begin.
#1 Line drives DON'T reflect hard hit balls.
A player can hit it off the fists, or the end of the bat, and it might be a line drive, but certainly NOT a hard it one.
#2 Are flyballs and line drives in the same catagory? I'm guessing they are.
# 3 I stand by my statement. All I have to do is watch the game and SEE how many shots he hits that find leather.
boly
|
|
|
|
Post by Islandboagie on Aug 30, 2016 14:11:54 GMT -5
I think Panik's lower line drive rate is reflective of his slow start to the season, and his slow start coming off his concussion, no less, no more. Outside of those two periods, Panik has been our best hitter whether he's hitting the ball hard and finding gloves or not.
|
|
|
|
Post by Rog on Sept 1, 2016 11:34:09 GMT -5
Rog -- I wasn't making editorial comments regarding Joe as much as sharing information. The only editorial comments I made were that Joe's lower batting average and higher power reflect that fly balls are less likely to become base hits and more likely to become extra base hits than line drives and ground balls. That statement is actually a fact. And that fewer of Joe's line drives are avoiding gloves, which is also a fact.
|
|
|
|
Post by Rog on Sept 1, 2016 11:36:22 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by klaiggeb on Sept 1, 2016 12:29:57 GMT -5
Did you catch Tuesday game?
4 hard hit balls... one hit.
I know you love your numbers, Rog, but I KNOW what I see.
boly
|
|
|
|
Post by Rog on Sept 2, 2016 19:40:43 GMT -5
I don't think we disagree about Tuesday's game, Boly, and if you're talking the recent past, you're probably right. But from your broad opening post, I thought you were talking about the full season. And if that is the case, the only fact that supports your thesis is that a low percentage of Joe's line drives have gone for hits.
That says he may be snake bit. But he's hit fewer line drives, and that usually means a lower average. He's hit more fly balls, which usually means a lower average but more power. And that's just what he's done -- hit for a lower average with more power when he does get hits.
Joe has hit worse on line drives than his career average, but he's hit BETTER on fly balls and ground balls.
Here is what bugs me. You say you know what you see. But can you remember Joe's at bats back nearer the beginning of the season?
Joe's stats aren't definitive in this case. His Batting Average on Balls In Play is way down, but there is also evidence he isn't hitting the ball in a manner in which it shouldn't be down. Fewer line drives and more fly balls usually mean a lower BABIP.
I think the "weakness" of the numbers are that they don't paint a clear enough picture. Some facts back up your position, while others don't. I think the weakness of your position may be that it's hard to remember what happened early, which means his recent performance likely dominates your opinion.
I don't think you should take the numbers as a criticism of your position. As I mentioned, they're ambiguous. But I do fear that you don't give them enough credence. The numbers are facts. In this case they don't prove or disprove your position. But in taking that position, I would think that you would to increase your decision base by exploring them to the fullest.
My concern is your point that the numbers are "so terribly misleading." Your comment about fly balls being lumped in with line drives indicates you weren't totally understanding these "terribly misleading" numbers. That the numbers themselves don't paint a clear picture either way makes it hard for them to be "terribly misleading."
When I present numbers it can be to refute a point. But it can also be to shed greater light on it. Either way, I think the numbers deserve better understanding and consideration. They're facts, one should give them more consideration than "I know what I see."
One point that I feel is important. If I make a point and have nothing to back it up beyond my own perception, while you have a different viewpoint and do back it up with facts, should one think my viewpoint is more valuable than yours and thus my point is better?
If someone or something points toward my viewpoint's being wrong, I try to study my point of view. Oft times I change that point of view. But "I know what I see" should be supported by something else, shouldn't it? If I can't support my opinion by anything other than that, I'm saying my view of something is better than not only someone else's, but better than someone else's PLUS the facts that back up that person's viewpoint. I'm not usually that egotistical.
I respect your opinion a lot, Boly. Just like I respect you as a person. But I want to see something backing it up more than "I know what I see." If someone disagrees, that's saying you don't give a lot of value to what the other person "sees." And if the other person has facts to back up his position, that's REALLY saying you don't give a lot of value to what the other person sees.
By the way, I have usually thought that Joe didn't have the best of luck when he hits the ball. And his BABIP this season is down a LOT (only .259 this season vs. .308 career). .259 is about 40 points below the league average, as well. But when a batter hits more fly balls, his BABIP will usually go down.
I think you're right that Joe could easily be hitting .260. If I were to guess, I would probably go higher than that. He's also hit some pretty weak balls though. One positive is that despite the lower average, his power has gone up and his strikeouts haven't. His walk rate is also up.
All in all, Joe has probably performed better this season than his numbers indicate -- and I think I believe his performance has been at LEAST as good as you consider it.
In summary, I think you're right. But I hope you respect the work I went to feel confident in agreeing with you -- and recognize that that work can be just as accurate and important when I don't. Good observation IMO -- and I've checked it out as closely as I can.
|
|
