Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Math Says Walks & Homers - Not Singles - Are Correlated with Wins

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Math Says Walks & Homers - Not Singles - Are Correlated with Wins

    This has been obvious to many of us for some time.

    But now the math proves it.

    Hitting lots of singles does not lead to more wins. Period.

    Talking walks - the result of good plate discipline - is correlated with more wins.

    Hitting home runs is correlated with more wins.
    The White Sox have been hitting the long ball at a much higher rate recently. The data shows just why that is so important in today's game.

  • #2
    Could you please forward this to Frank Menechino?

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by longtimefan View Post
      Could you please forward this to Frank Menechino?
      Address Unknown (soon)
      Ah, you can't beat fun at the old ball park.

      Comment


      • #4
        I was wondering why a single wouldn't be as good as a walk as the old adage has always been a walk is as good as a hit. I then read the article and it makes so much sense when it comes to the White Sox, they have no plate discipline as they refuse to work counts and take walks which would make the opposing pitcher work harder. Why our hitting coach hasn't addressed this issue is one of the great mysteries of this season.
        Last edited by LITTLE NELL; 09-07-2022, 12:33 PM.
        Now coming up to bat for the White Sox is the Mighty Mite, Nelson Fox.

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by LITTLE NELL View Post
          I was wondering why a single wouldn't be as good as a walk as the old adage has always been a walk is as good as a hit. I then read the article and it makes so much sense when it comes to the White Sox, they have no plate discipline as they refuse to work counts and take walks which would make the opposing pitcher work harder. Why our hitting coach hasn't addressed this issue is one of the great mysteries of this season.


          Because that isn't his philosophy. He wants hitters to be aggressive and put the ball in play and this team does a good job of that.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by Kobo View Post
            [/B]

            Because that isn't his philosophy. He wants hitters to be aggressive and put the ball in play and this team does a good job of that.
            It's producing a lot of hits and a high BA but it's not producing enough wins and as others have mentioned it doesn't work in our ballpark.
            Last edited by LITTLE NELL; 09-07-2022, 01:25 PM.
            Now coming up to bat for the White Sox is the Mighty Mite, Nelson Fox.

            Comment


            • #7
              You can hit a lot of singles and win... if you have enough team speed. The Cardinals hit very few HR's in their 1980's heyday, but they stole a lot of bases, hit and ran, 1st to 3rd-ed a lot of runners, etc.

              And if there is something we really don't have, it's team speed. You can manufacture a lot of runs with speed, especially if you can force some errors out of the defense rushing throws.
              I want my $2

              I wasn't in the last can. I was in the first can. You started at the wrong end. - Tosh

              If you don't know where you're going, any road will take you there. - GH 1943-2001

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by Zakath View Post
                You can hit a lot of singles and win... if you have enough team speed. The Cardinals hit very few HR's in their 1980's heyday, but they stole a lot of bases, hit and ran, 1st to 3rd-ed a lot of runners, etc.

                And if there is something we really don't have, it's team speed. You can manufacture a lot of runs with speed, especially if you can force some errors out of the defense rushing throws.
                First, yes, you’re right, that how the 1980s Cardinals won. In addition to finishing last in the NL in homers but leading the NL in steals, the 1982 Cardinals were #2 in batting average and #2 in walks, and thus #1 in team OBP. They were also #1 in triples and #4 in doubles.

                That style of baseball worked for the 1980s Cardinals because they played home games in one of the cookie cutter multipurpose stadiums with Astroturf, which allowed more ground balls to zip between infielders. Also, from 1977 through 1996, Busch II’s power alleys were 386 and center field was 414, making it especially difficult to hit home runs.

                The lesson here is that the 1980s Cardinals optimized their lineup and playing style for maximum advantage in their home stadium (as well as similar NL stadiums in Cincinnati, Pittsburgh, Philadelphia, and Montreal).

                Studies show Guaranteed Rate Field suppresses all forms of hits except home runs. The Sox have constructed a roster of hitters with power to take advantage of this (when healthy, and somewhat compromised, as there isn’t enough LH power really to take advantage of prevailing NW winds), but Frank Menechino teaches a hitting approach suited for Busch Stadium between 1977 and 1996.
                Last edited by Frater Perdurabo; 09-07-2022, 03:44 PM.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by Frater Perdurabo View Post

                  First, yes, you’re right, that how the 1980s Cardinals won. In addition to finishing last in the NL in homers but leading the NL in steals, the 1982 Cardinals were #2 in batting average and #2 in walks, and thus #1 in team OBP. They were also #1 in triples and #4 in doubles.

                  That style of baseball worked for the 1980s Cardinals because they played home games in one of the cookie cutter multipurpose stadiums with Astroturf, which allowed more ground balls to zip between infielders. Also, from 1977 through 1996, Busch II’s power alleys were 386 and center field was 414, making it especially difficult to hit home runs.

                  The lesson here is that the 1980s Cardinals optimized their lineup and playing style for maximum advantage in their home stadium (as well as similar NL stadiums in Cincinnati, Pittsburgh, Philadelphia, and Montreal).
                  I agree with all of this. The Cardinals built their team for that park, and that era, and it took them to 3 World Series in 6 years. But they were an example of a team that could single and double you to death, and that's how they won. You can do it today... if you have the park, and the team for it. We really have neither, today's result notwithstanding (only one HR).

                  I want my $2

                  I wasn't in the last can. I was in the first can. You started at the wrong end. - Tosh

                  If you don't know where you're going, any road will take you there. - GH 1943-2001

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by Zakath View Post
                    I agree with all of this. The Cardinals built their team for that park, and that era, and it took them to 3 World Series in 6 years. But they were an example of a team that could single and double you to death, and that's how they won. You can do it today... if you have the park, and the team for it. We really have neither, today's result notwithstanding (only one HR).
                    And when you think about roster construction, Hahn actually acquired hitters who could most take advantage of our home park quirks. It’s just that injuries have ravaged most of our key contributors this year and last, and our hitting coach has successfully implemented precisely the wrong approach for our home park.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Can I just say that three of my favorite things in this world are:
                      1. Baseball
                      2. Data Wrangling
                      3. Scatter Plots
                      Combining all three in one article? Pure heaven.

                      I would like to know how they came up with the P Value: I find it striking that a single is so much less valuable than a HR.
                      I'd love to see the same analysis on a extra base hits that's not a HR


                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by soxfanatlanta View Post
                        Can I just say that three of my favorite things in this world are:
                        1. Baseball
                        2. Data Wrangling
                        3. Scatter Plots
                        Combining all three in one article? Pure heaven.

                        I would like to know how they came up with the P Value: I find it striking that a single is so much less valuable than a HR.
                        I'd love to see the same analysis on a extra base hits that's not a HR

                        The p-value comes from the linear regression that they run. It doesn't represent at all the relative value of the single vs. the HR, so you shouldn't interpret it like that. p-value interpretation is messy, but it literally is interpreted as the probability of observing a coefficient as extreme as the one we got, if the true relationship was 0 (no association).

                        I have a few issues with the analysis that the author ran, most notably that he should have used runs as the outcome, not wins. Wins are affected are affected by pitching/defense, which have nothing to do with singles and HRs (in other words, pitching/defense are potential confounders that he is ignoring). But I re-ran his analysis with runs as the outcome and got the same result.

                        If I have a few minutes later tonight I can run the analysis you suggest.

                        Comment

                        Working...
                        X