Why all the angst?

[Rocketech1]

Love it as a stat. Hate it when its used as a replacement for a stat like OPS. To me QABs have several faults, the main one being they often reward failure. I don’t mind doing things to help players realize there are many forms of success, but they should never be confused with the measurement of performance.



I always take wanting to roll over the lineup as a given, late game or not.

You bring up some good points about QAB. I went back and looked at QAB for DD's teams over the past couple of years and while there certainly is a correlation between the players that have a high QAB% and a high BA, OBP, etc., I would only use QAB% to confirm what you already know that most of the best hitters will also have above average QAB as compared to the team average. This is why in my opinion you need to look at all of the hitting stats, and the "eye test" to properly evaluate players performance.

There are also many factors that cannot accurately be measured by stats alone such as coachability, softball IQ, aggressiveness, confidence, improvement in swing mechanics, leadership, performing under pressure, attitude, defensive qualities, coming back from an injury, etc. that all factor into line-ups and playing time in general.

I'm all for transparency with the players and parents, but the bottom-line is determining where the players should be in the line-up and what their positions on defense should be is a complex decision making process, and stats are only one part of the the larger equation.

 

[SoAZDad]

You bring up some good points about QAB. I went back and looked at QAB for DD's teams over the past couple of years and while there certainly is a correlation between the players that have a high QAB% and a high BA, OBP, etc., I would only use QAB% to confirm what you already know that most of the best hitters will also have above average QAB as compared to the team average. This is why in my opinion you need to look at all of the hitting stats, and the "eye test" to properly evaluate players performance.

As a SK, I agree entirely. While the strictly objective stats (e.g., runs, BB, HP) are truth, SK bias and error sometimes tweak the more subjective stats (hits, ROE, etc.). I provide all the stats to HC and AC, but when asked by either, I only offer suggestions or recommendations based on objective stats. For example, if they ask which pitchers to use, I recommend the pitchers who give up the fewest runs per IP.

There are also many factors that cannot accurately be measured by stats alone such as coachability, softball IQ, aggressiveness, confidence, improvement in swing mechanics, leadership, performing under pressure, attitude, defensive qualities, coming back from an injury, etc. that all factor into line-ups and playing time in general.

I'm all for transparency with the players and parents, but the bottom-line is determining where the players should be in the line-up and what their positions on defense should be is a complex decision making process, and stats are only one part of the the larger equation.

I also agree with your list of intangibles playing a very important part in the lineup and batting order on any given day.

 

[Scorekeeper]

If you were putting together a batting order based on OPS how would you do it. Straight down the line highest to lowest? Curious to try to use it more as a tool. Does it punish single hitters unfairly?

WHEW! You’re putting me on the spot. Not because I don’t want to do it, but because I’ve learned there are many other things that need to be factored into putting together a lineup.

Over the years I’ve tried setting lineups using several different metrics. Please see the link.

http://www.infosports.com/scorekeeper/images/lineup1.pdf

Those are real numbers for real HSV baseball players, using their totals for play from 2007 to 2013. If you look at the top of each page you’ll see how the lineup was made, and the last criteria is that I inverted the top 3 players in each list. The reason I did that was that after many many years of playing, watching, and listening to many people talk about baseball, the consensus seem to be that the best hitter are generally put in the #3 BPos. So, when you look at any of the pages, keep in mind that the player who scored the best in the page’s criteria was in the #3 spot in the order.

As you can see, I used OPS to generate the 2nd page, and added other things to it on the others, to see how those lineups would look.

Just so you can get a better picture, here’s a little sumpthin’ I produce that few others do.

http://www.infosports.com/scorekeeper/images/runprod5.pdf

Its how all the hitters in those years did, based on the position in the batting order. IOW, only PAs by players in the leadoff spot come under #1. I do several reports by BPos because I find it interesting to see what’s really happened as opposed to what’s expected to happen.

As you can easily see, the highest OPS is as would be expected, the #3 spot, the next highest #1, then it drops to #4, then #2, #7, #5, #6, #8, and finally # 9. That pretty much proves our HC has been picking the best hitters as far as OPS goes, over the years. Now I don’t know if he’s done that by using nothing but his intuition or the stats, but for sure he’s figgered out how to do it.

I hope I didn’t over-answer. I was just trying to answer as best I can.

 

[Scorekeeper]

Honestly, in your example, I would still give the hitter a QAB - maybe my definition of a QAB is a little different than yours.

That’s another reason I’m not a big QAB fan. I’d be a lot more comfortable if there were a common definition like there is for BP or OBP.

If she hits the ball hard, I am happy. Sometimes that hard hit will find a hole. Sometimes it will be hit straight at someone.

I understand that, but sometimes a poorly hit ball will find a hole too. Its just that I understand what QAB’s should be used for, and it isn’t performance. As long as its not used to do that, I’m good with it.

However, with a runner on third and less than two outs, I would much prefer seeing a soft grounder to second base (or hard hit grounder in your example), then someone getting a called third strike.

DITTO! But here’s a problem. Many QAB formulae give credit for forcing the pitcher to throw a high number of pitches, no matter what the outcome. So let’s say it’s the same situation and the batter forced the pitcher to throw 8 pitches then struck out looking on the 9th. There be a positive QAB situation compared to the batter who hit the hard grounder. I’m sorry, but to me there’s never a situation where a K looking is ever as productive to the team as putting a ball in play.

Again, I am sure this changes based on age and experience. I consider 12u and 14u to be instructional. Being a statistics major in college, I fully understand that stats can be very cold at times. I try to soften them a bit by attempting to find positives where I can.

I don’t try to necessarily find positives, but I do try to make them as meaningful as I can. FI, there’s a big difference in listing the Player’s names with nothing but a BA, and including walks, ROEs, HBPs, ROFCs, and CIs to give the bat some context.

I run into a lot of trouble with people because I say the numbers are what they are, given the validity of the data regardless of the sample size because math doesn’t lie. The player who gets the most hits in relation to the number of at bats will have the highest batting average, period. Here’s where the disconnect comes. Trying to prognosticate using small sample sizes is dangerous, but as long as the data is valid, its still better than guesses based on perceptions or memories. Would you agree?

 

[newsoftballdad]

Wow, thanks SK! I need to print that stuff out and really look at it when I can concentrate. Great stuff

 

[FP26]

Scorekeeper - I do agree with most of what you are saying. You make an excellent point in stating that they are better used than perceptions or memories. But there are several reasons that I use statistics and I will use different statistics in different cirumstances. Here are some examples:

Players - My job is to "build them up" not "break them down". When I speak with players I like using something such as QAB. I am not showing them the actual numbers but explain the importance of QAB. And I do agree that putting a ball in play is the goal. Here are two real examples from our fall tournaments.
1) My DD comes up to bat with the bases loaded. She drills a line drive directly at the third baseman. The third baseman literally ducks but sticks her glove up in the air. Somehow she managed to catch the ball. Not the result we wanted but I had nothing but positive comments for DD after that at bat.
2) Our #8 hitter is facing a very good pitcher. She manages to foul off several tough pitches, but eventually strikes out after a 12 pitch at bat. I realize a strike out does not help the team, but I am sorry. I was proud of our player for this at bat and told her so afterwards. She is the #8 hitter for a reason, but this at bat showed me some progress on her part.

Parents - Very few of our parents ever bring up stats. But when one does, I try to give them the accurate stats in a positive way. For example, we had a player that had a high strike out rate (bad). But, when she does manage to get on base, she tends to score. By comparing the number of times she reached base with the number of times she scored, I determined that her "scoring percentage" for lack of a better term, was the highest on the team. I used this point to stress to the parent that we need to find ways to get her on base. So, while I am giving the parent accurate information, I don't want to give them the impression that Suzy s**ks. Note: I do realize there are other factors involved in scoring, but she is the fastest player on the team and is a very smart base runner. Just need to get here there...

Coaches - We will utilize a combination of these stats, other stats, memories, eye tests, etc. to base our decisions on batting order, pitching rotation, etc QAB is just a small part of that overall equation.

 

[Scorekeeper]

Scorekeeper - I do agree with most of what you are saying. You make an excellent point in stating that they are better used than perceptions or memories. But there are several reasons that I use statistics and I will use different statistics in different cirumstances. Here are some examples:

Players - My job is to "build them up" not "break them down". When I speak with players I like using something such as QAB. I am not showing them the actual numbers but explain the importance of QAB. And I do agree that putting a ball in play is the goal. Here are two real examples from our fall tournaments.
1) My DD comes up to bat with the bases loaded. She drills a line drive directly at the third baseman. The third baseman literally ducks but sticks her glove up in the air. Somehow she managed to catch the ball. Not the result we wanted but I had nothing but positive comments for DD after that at bat.
2) Our #8 hitter is facing a very good pitcher. She manages to foul off several tough pitches, but eventually strikes out after a 12 pitch at bat. I realize a strike out does not help the team, but I am sorry. I was proud of our player for this at bat and told her so afterwards. She is the #8 hitter for a reason, but this at bat showed me some progress on her part.

IMHO, that’s exactly what QABs should be used for. But that’s not where I have a problem. There are a lot of people who use the QABs in place of other metrics that are intended to measure performance without worrying about whether or not those measurements are positive. Things like K:BB ratio, BABIP, Batters per K, WHIP don’t care whether the observer feels good or bad about them. They’re only intended to measure performance.

Parents - Very few of our parents ever bring up stats. But when one does, I try to give them the accurate stats in a positive way. For example, we had a player that had a high strike out rate (bad). But, when she does manage to get on base, she tends to score. By comparing the number of times she reached base with the number of times she scored, I determined that her "scoring percentage" for lack of a better term, was the highest on the team. I used this point to stress to the parent that we need to find ways to get her on base. So, while I am giving the parent accurate information, I don't want to give them the impression that Suzy s**ks. Note: I do realize there are other factors involved in scoring, but she is the fastest player on the team and is a very smart base runner. Just need to get here there...

WOW! That’s pretty much why I produce so many different metrics. And to use real numbers in the conversation has a lot more “power” than if you’d say the same things without them.

Coaches - We will utilize a combination of these stats, other stats, memories, eye tests, etc. to base our decisions on batting order, pitching rotation, etc QAB is just a small part of that overall equation.

As any metric should be. All I can say is I applaud your common sense approach in using as many tools available as possible.

 

[FP26]

Scorekeeper - I believe we are pretty much on the same page. I don't currently keep track of as many metrics, but after reading some of your posts, I am planning to add a few. Several parents on our team refer to me as the "numbers geek", so I may as well live up to it, right?

 

[Scorekeeper]

You bring up some good points about QAB. I went back and looked at QAB for DD's teams over the past couple of years and while there certainly is a correlation between the players that have a high QAB% and a high BA, OBP, etc., I would only use QAB% to confirm what you already know that most of the best hitters will also have above average QAB as compared to the team average. This is why in my opinion you need to look at all of the hitting stats, and the "eye test" to properly evaluate players performance.

That’s something I’ve always said, but because I happen to like the numbers and often talk about them, many people believe I advocate using the number to exclusion of all else. Its too bad that happens with many others as well, because what you said there only makes good sense.

There are also many factors that cannot accurately be measured by stats alone such as coachability, softball IQ, aggressiveness, confidence, improvement in swing mechanics, leadership, performing under pressure, attitude, defensive qualities, coming back from an injury, etc. that all factor into line-ups and playing time in general.

Well, here’s where what I think will often cause people to think I’m advocating stats above all else, but its not at all. First of all, in order to understand what I’m talking about, its important to know my definition of a “stat”. I’ve long lived by the saying, “What you can measure, you can manage”. So, if I find some way to measure, let’s say “coachability”, there’s a good chance I can manage it.

Let’s say that like many coaches, I come up with some kind of player evaluation form, and on that form someplace there’s a box for “Coachability” and its to be measured by a number from 1 to 5, with a 5 being very coachable and a 1 being very difficult to deal with. If I have the coaches all fill out this form once a week, and enter that number into some kind of database, I’ll be able to easily identify problem players, and watch how they progress.

If I make an executive decision and say if a player is averaging 3 or below I’m going to make sure to have a discussion with that player and his parents to see if we can identify where we can help the player improve, I’ve given myself a way to manage the situation. Of course it might be that the same thing could be done without any evaluation sheet, but this way its built into the system and there’s a batter chance it won’t fall through the cracks.

So, while those things you mentioned can’t accurately be measured by performance numbers, they can still be measured, and those number in conjunction with the performance numbers give a much better picture of what’s going on.

I'm all for transparency with the players and parents, but the bottom-line is determining where the players should be in the line-up and what their positions on defense should be is a complex decision making process, and stats are only one part of the the larger equation.

Agree 100%! But the important thing you recognize that many don’t, is that the stats are definitely a part of the picture. To me its like the difference between looking at a 13” black and white old style TV, and one of those new 75” buggers that costs $4-5K. It’s the same picture, but there’s a lot more that can be seen.

 

[Scorekeeper]

As a SK, I agree entirely. While the strictly objective stats (e.g., runs, BB, HP) are truth, SK bias and error sometimes tweak the more subjective stats (hits, ROE, etc.). I provide all the stats to HC and AC, but when asked by either, I only offer suggestions or recommendations based on objective stats. For example, if they ask which pitchers to use, I recommend the pitchers who give up the fewest runs per IP. …

SoAZDad,

I’m assuming that’s your statement.

If I didn’t know better, I’d think I wrote that myself! Luckily, I’m seldom asked so its not much of an issue.

What I do better than make suggestions about which player might be better or worse at something, is to try to provide the most accurate metrics I can that take in as many factors as I can, and let them speak for themselves.