from Amazon
Tuesday, February 23, 2010
Chipper Jones and the first-pitch strike
Excellent article by Jon Sciambi:
Let me tell you about an argument I had with Chipper Jones. Last year, I came across an interesting nugget on Fangraphs while doing pre-game prep: Besides Albert Pujols, Chipper sees the fewest first-pitch strikes in the majors.
Chipper is open-minded when discussing hitting, even when he disagrees, so I decided to present him this information prior to the game. He was really surprised. He didn’t believe the facts, even though the numbers were inarguable. Or, more to the point, he believed in what he knew (and himself) more than my stupid, never-played-the-game facts.
Chipper was so surprised that he went around the clubhouse asking teammates, one by one, if they were surprised. None of them were. Everyone saw it but him, the guy with ostensibly the best view. Chipper has great eyes, obviously, and great belief in those eyes, but those eyes can also occasionally lie to even one of the best hitters in the game.
I went on to ask why he’d swing at so many first pitches when the numbers suggest it’s not a great play. Chipper explained that the first pitch is often the only time he’ll get a “heater” the entire at-bat. “OK,” I say, “but clearly, mathematically, factually, you’re not getting a ton of strikes.” We go round and round for a bit without concession on either side and eventually I go upstairs to broadcast the game.
The kicker in the article is what followed after. Just beautiful. It’s what happens when the subject of an experiment is aware he’s part of an experiment.
Anyway, in his career, Chipper Jones indeed swings at the first pitch often, 33% of the time, (above the league average of 21%, but not close to league-leading). He swings and misses about as often on the first pitch as he does in other counts. He fouls off the first pitch a bit more than often (maybe he’s swinging at bad pitches?). But when he makes contact, he’s great, pretty much exactly where he should be for a hitter of his caliber.
All to say that this is a perfect example of NOT telling Chipper anything. Chipper’s approach on the first pitch is consistent with his approach generally speaking, and so, we should not be telling him to change anything, just because for the average MLBer, you might want to change something. As a general rule, if you are one of the best hitters of your generation, you really don’t need to change your approach. If Chipper needs a saberist on his side, you can count me in to be there.
He goes on to say:
If Ryan Howard is up, I can talk about RBI and why dependent stats don’t evaluate individual performance well; RBI aren’t what reflects Howard’s greatness, his SLG does. I can mention that Howard’s massive RBI totals may be due to the fact that no player has hit with more total men on base than Howard since 1492 (I believe this is a fact but didn’t feel like looking it up). Point is, there are dead people who could knock in 80 runs hitting fourth in that Phillies lineup.
...
If we eliminate the noise of RBI, runs, etc., keep it basic and utilize the slash stats, I believe that, slowly, the desert masses will drink the sand. The BP base must understand: VORP, EqA, WAR, and Robert Parish are not walking through that door. Not for a while. But it can only help if the broadcasters are a team, too—in uniformity (together, I mean, not wearing those blazers) while patiently holding that door open.
I was speaking to someone at ESPN, and I told him that Win Expectancy charts would be the way to go. First, ESPN already does that with poker, and it is absolutely vital that they did. That’s how they get the casual viewer in, to see someone’s chances of winning go from 5% to 90% on one flip. It’s cool, it’s great, and it makes the casual viewer understand just exactly what happened.
For most fans, the win expectancy chart is implied… they know the odds. And watching that Prior/Marlins game in 2003 was very palpable and required practically no graphic. But imagine, at the end of the inning, just as they cut to commerical break, they were to have shown something like this for five seconds:
The viewer’s emotions, there on the screen quantified. The tension rising as the chances of the Cubs winning dropping. There’s really nothing to counter it. There’s nothing to disagree with, since your eyes were actually telling the truth.
So, I agree with Jon, you need to tell the viewer something, and you tell him PART of a SPECIFIC story. WAR, VORP, etc, those won’t cut it. It’s too general and overally-feeling. It gives you no profile, no sense of the player or the situation. It leaves zero impression.
To tell the viewer the idea that Howard drives in just a few more runs than an average hitter given Howard’s runners on base profile? That’s a winner.