THE BOOK--Playing The Percentages In Baseball

The zone that umps call is about 2.0 feet wide and about 1.7 feet tall, and those dimensions don’t vary much based upon batter height.  (The position of the zone varies with batter height and handedness, but not the size.)

From 2007-2011, the vertical size of the zone changed about 0.3 inches for every four-inch change in the batter height.  I don’t know whether that would hold true for a batter beyond the normal height extremes that we currently see (which is roughly from 5’7” to 6’7").  If it did, the 4-foot batter would see a zone that was 1.55 feet tall instead of 1.7 feet tall.

dinklage is 4’5’’? i always assumed he was shorter. how great is he in Game of Thrones?

He’s fantastic!

Mike: If you look at Dinklage, you can see that his legs are not proportional to his upper body, relative to a typical person.

The height of the strike zone would have to be proportional to the length of a person’s thighs (or whatever it is that is between the knees and his waist).

By the way, good finding from Mike.  This implies that a player is not very proportional (not 1:1 anyway) between his height and the length of his thighs.  Tall guys can be tall because of thighs, shins, and/or torso.

Given Mike’s findings, it seems thighs is the least of the reasons, but the strike zone is the most dependent on the thigh length.

Great stuff!

By the way, good finding from Mike.  This implies that a player is not very proportional (not 1:1 anyway) between his height and the length of his thighs.

I don’t know if it implies that.  The first thing that came to mind for me was that the umpires might be using something other than the batter’s body for the height reference, e.g., perhaps the top of the catcher’s head.

Only if he wears his Game of Thrones outfit. And comes to bat with a series of medieval prostitutes.

I commented on this at FG and won’t rehash my concerns here, but what NBA big man ...

(1) Entered the game to get one rebound or defensive stop, and then ...
(2) Came out of the game on a timeout directly following the rebound/block?

The tall guys in the NBA that are absent of offensive skills still had the potential to influence 1/3 to 1/2 of the games plays. Even without blocking shots, they can alter shots, etc.

Even if an NBA team, had a 8’2 player that they brought in for one play per game (an alley-oop in a tie game late), that would be more influential than someone entering the game for one at bat. I suppose the situation could arise in the 8/9 inning with bases loaded, 2-outs where a walk would be highly valuable. But even then, it’s a difficult situation to envision.

The designated walker. Part of me is bothered that we see “Little People” and this is what we come up with.

I’ll leave it at that.

I find the situation of a key walk where the Leverage Index to be at least 4 to be VERY EASY to envision.

And by definition, an LI of 4 is equivalent to 4 random PA.

Therefore, this one PA that we’re envisioning will be as impactful as a full game at DH.

Indeed, I can probably envision it easier to bring in a designated walker to have more impact than your pinch hitter in the NL.

But, CC, something tells me that this piece of potential fact will not change your mind.  That’s because you are looking at this as politics and not science.

Hey Tango, thanks, by the way, for putting out that research from which I heavily quoted.

I think too many people get hung up on the—as you said—politics of it. Moreover, Fangraphs commentors were rarely inclined to engage the issue directly, it seemed, content to instead whip bad jokes like batteries at a Bruins game.

Oh well, I doubt they were my intended audience anyway. :/

(@CC: I appreciate, by the way, how you are willing to at least debate the issue, even though we do not agree. The next few pieces may be very interesting for you.)

I’m just skeptical that major league pitchers would have much of a problem.  Even if umpires properly scaled down the strike zone for a little person, the pitchers wouldn’t have to worry about throwing a strike down the heart of the plate.  Right now, pitchers mostly throw balls, because they’re aiming to paint the corners.  If all they had to do was throw fastballs down the heart of a strikezone 60% the height of a normal strikezone, I don’t think they’d have much trouble.

I don’t agree with the author that little people are the next generation/next inefficiency to explore.  Because it seems to me that even if the strike zone did perfectly, linearly adjust with a batter’s height, there is probably two local maximums in which one optimizes height, but a big valley in between them.  The shortest successful player in recent days was Eckstein I guess (I believe Pedroia is listed as, and actually is, 5’8").  And he was barely effective over his career.  So I’d say someone around 5’3” or below is probably too small to be an effective hitter, and too big to effectively reduce the strike zone to compensate for that.

So it’s not like teams can gradually start having a shorty specialist on the team, like a LOOGY, and go shorter and shorter over time.  This would have to be a pretty Gaedel-esque size change.  I agree that Selig couldn’t disallow it… but I also think that it would never get to that point since a GM couldn’t try it.

Mike #11 - While a 5’7” Eckstein is a whole lot different than a 4’ walking machine, I would hardly call a ten year career with a 92 wRC+ and 18.9 WAR barely effective.

I find it interesting that this whole discussion has assumed that a 4’ ballplayer would be incapable getting any hits. I realize why it would be difficult to imagine, particularly since the talent pool would be so small, but anything above a .000 batting average would have to go a long way towards the plausibility of a 4’ tall hitter.

Is there any chance that a walk machine could hit enought to justify a DH spot? Or for that matter, what are the chances that they would be able to handle catcher? Okay, maybe not catcher, but it seems the most likely of the field positions if it weren’t for the limited wingspan.

I completely understand the strategy part of the idea.

I’m skeptical that MLB pitchers willhave a difficult time throwing 3 cockshots to a hitter that poses no threat with the bat.

If something like this worked in HS, NCAA, I would be even more open to it as a serious situation.

My objections are less political and more human. What type of abuse will the little player take from fans, media, players, etc when the strategy doesn’t work? I can pretty much guarantee that the player that was pulled from the game and the regular pinch hitter are not going to tell him, “Well you tried your best.”

The other perspective is one of starting baseball at age 4 and having professional dreams through college. I didn’t make it as my talent was just short of what’s required. But other guys play a lot of years just trying to sniff the major leagues. Just one sniff. Even to give a September callup spot to a player of such limited purpose is going to lead to them being isolated and ostrasized.

Even if the strategy works out, I fear that it would be far too much along the lines of laughter and entertainment than bonafide strategy.

Had the discussion been framed as, “Wouldnt it be interesting if ....?”, rather than “Little People: The Next Market Inefficiency”, I would likely approach it differently.

I guess I’m sort of a natural protector, which sometimes puts me in some weird situations (like with Latin players and their cost), where I get a lot of “Why do you care anyway? responses. That disposition is great for education, but maybe not in baseball if we’re viewing it as “get a run no matter the cost”, even if it means we send a group of people in front of a crowd in a situation where, at best, they’re entertaining.

It would be a real human being we would be sending to the plate. A son, a father perhaps, someone’s brother, etc.  I guess I just see too much potential for the “Bartman treatment” when it doesn’t work out.

I completely acknowledge that my opinion may not be how others view it. I’m trying not to sound superior, or offend, or make assumptions about others, etc.

I have a tough time seeing where the positives would outweigh the negatives in this situation, but I would love to be wrong about that.

As others have pointed out, little people are not generally just miniture sized adults, but have irregular proportions. So, swinging a bat might not be as reasonable as it sounds.

If one were to find a 4-foot tall person, with strength, coordination, and well, batting skills to where they could foul off pitches and even hit line drives ... Then having a “Mini Edgar” might be a real asset. But that’s probably not going to happen.

I will say that would be very cool if that could/would happen.

There have been some little people compete in powerlifting where short arms are a huge asset if the accompanying musculature is present. I can’t remember his name but a dwarf bench press specialist has put up some amazing numbers in regards to poundage lifted vs. bodyweight. But I believe his body structure is atypical even for dwarf.

I’ll use my 10yo as an example because he’s pretty close to what the ideal “little hitter” would. 4’5 or 4’6, 105 pounds, strong legs, quick bat, great plate discipline. If he were able to catch up to 90mph, he probably could hit one to shallow OF or even line one through the IF, provided both that all 8 defenders were not playing IF and the bat wasn’t knocked right out of his hands.

But this would require him to likely use a 26-27 inch bat, instead of the 30-inch (-10) he uses now. The plate coverage would be minimal, and would require the instructions “only swing middle in, belt high (that’s probably the only pitch they/he would be able to “drive anyway”.)

But there’s the other situation ... in terms of time to 1B, it’s an automatic out, or worse a double play.

From a safety standpoint, any HBP could be serious. It’s one thing for a muscular 5’10 185 pound elite athlete to take it and not be hurt. It’s a completely different situation for someone half that size to get plunked. I have no idea what kind of force could be generated by such a play, but it could easily be bone breaking (arm/leg), but if it hit them in the back, we could reasonably be looking at kidney damage or even stopped breathing.

Even if we eliminate the human/political aspect, there are quite a few serious issues with sending a talented “Hornswaggle” (sp?) to the plate.

----------------------------

Even mentioning names like Eckstein seem a little goofy. He was a good player for some years because he has unreal contact skills and played reasonable defense at a demanding position. But even Eckstein’s skills are not common.

A short (non-dwarf) player has to be better than comparable players of greater height just to get the chance. I believe this was one of Bill James’s points regarding the likes of Wilson, Puckett, Morgan, etc.

--------------------------

Another issue is peer treatment. I had 4 teammates go pro early as juniors. They all hated it and wished they had stayed in college. No one is happier for your failures or roots harder against you then the players that feels he should be playing ahead of you. That’s life in pro ball.

I think the player resentment (even if hidden) would be unbearable. I don’t think they’d be treated like Joe C of Kid Rock fame.

Hopefully, my comments are not overkill.

CC #11:  Not overkill at all, for me at least.  I appreciate the amount of thought you put it into your response, and your perspective as a former college player. 
Thank you for sharing.  Definitely adds to the discussion and new food for thought.

In other threads we looked at the percentage of strikes when 3-0 on a pitcher and I think it was around 70%.  That seems to be the max when a pitcher is trying to throw one down the middle with no threat of a hit.  And that is with a normal strike zone. I would expect 50 or 60% with a greatly reduced zone.

With a 60% strike percentage, a batter taking all the way walks 18% of the time.  At a 50% strike rate, he walks 50% of the time.  55% and he walks 26% of the time.

You probably need a 50% strike rate or less…

It would be a real human being we would be sending to the plate. A son, a father perhaps, someone’s brother, etc. 

Change to daughter and mother and sister, and we have proof positive that CircleChange is either a hypocrite or he’s never ever been to a strip joint!

***

MGL: the ball rate on 3-0 (where we know the average take is 92%!) is 35-38% I believe.

If someone wants to look, can you give us the ball rate on
: 3-0
and batter-as-pitcher
and bases empty
and blowout (either team up or down by 5)

Thanks…

Further to Tango/17: and if you can limit it to fastballs only, that would be even better.

That’s probably the best definition I can come up with in terms of a pitcher intending to simply groove one right down the middle (or come mighty close to it).

If you further want, change the pitcher-as-batter (I had it reversed!) parameter to “pitcher-as-batter with a career wOBA of under .150”.

Another consideration is the issue of rhythm. In my limited experience as a sandlot pitching, I have found it incredibly difficult to pitch against lefties after going weeks against only rights.

The pitcher’s muscle memory is all aligned to pitch to certain little rectangle. A dramatic shift in that target, plus a completely different image at standing at the plate, and the pitcher would have a tough time reaching that 50% strike ratio.

Ok, so make it only righty pitcher against righty batter, which would be even more reason for the batter to take.

And if you want, make the previous batter also a righty.

Any other parameter to introduce where we can get the scenario in a baseball game where the pitcher is most likely to groove one in?

Been to a strip joint twice. Once on my 18th B-Day and for my Bachelor party. Not a big fan (Who’d of guessed it?). But some of my opinions are probably hypocritical. I wouldn’t claim otherwise.

----------------------------

As for strike throwing ... my guess, based on my experience, is that essentially all MLB pitchers are “strike throwers” in bullpen sessions. I keep track of such thing for HS bullpen sessions where our guys hit their spots 80+% of the time with reduced intensity. The intensity is akin to “shooting free throws”. When we crank it up to game intensity, the percent drops.

If a major league pitcher is allowed to throw at a lesser intensity, their strike percent likely goes way up.

However, there might be some that find it a challenge due to the abnormal situation ... like throwing out for an IBB.

For our 10yo, I have a strict rule that they have to throw at least 50% strikes before I’ll pitch them in a game. I’ll give anyone a shot provided they meet the criteria. I have yet to have anyone that’s practiced at it, fail to meet it. The problem there is slow speed strikes are hittable for most hitters.

The point is that if just throwing strikes is the situation (no fear of the hitter actually hitting), then the vast majority of pitchers can adjust.

There will be times that the strategy will work, as I can attest that sometimes the damn ball just doesn’t go where you tell it. The question would then be whether they could draw enough walks to make it worthwhile, and Im not sure we have data to analyze.

Another aspect is umpires expanding to zone just to make a point. As we all know, some umpires view themselves as the protectors of the game’s integrity.

I just saw MGL’s data on pitcher’s on 3-0. I accept those numbers as reasonable.

The lone difference might be that the pitcher was probably not trying to “groove” all of the pitches to the opposing pitcher, either trying to still hit specific spots, or trying to get the pitcher as batter to hit a good pitch. If the goal is just to throw a strike down the middle of the plate, the % might be greater. Just throwing 3 cockshots to the opposing pitcher is not a great strategy because in those situations the pitcher as batter could still hurt you. If pitchers had a “gentlemen’s agreement to “never swing”, we might see a whole lot of 3-pitch K’s.  The number of time that a pitcher could throw 3 strikes before they threw 4 balls is probably slanted highly toward the pitcher in those situations.

We also don’t know whateffect the mentality of “oh crap, if I walk this dude I’ll never hear the end of it” might have on the pitcher.

Umpires would likely find it tough as well, but would probably give the pitcher the benefit of the doubt.