Pablo Lopez is Better than His ERA

17 hours ago, Ted Wiedmann said:

Forgive me if I misunderstand you, 

But I think you answered your own question. If the ERA were high and there is lots of hard contact being allowed, that would make sense. However, Lopez is both striking out lots of hitters and also not allowing much hard contact but still holds a high ERA. The conclusion is then Lopez must be allowing runs on soft contact, which is not a sustainable way to score runs offensively. Therefore if Lopez continues to disallow hard contact, the amount of runs he allows decreases. 

To your Buxton example, if he were to have half the hard contact rate he does but still a high batting average, I would say unless he starts hitting the ball harder it is likely his batting average decreases. 

Have no fear; I am misunderstood every day.  It is what has made me so eloquent.  😌

As for a Buxton, hard contact really means nothing if the metrics tells the opposition where to play the hitter.  You can knock the stuffing out of the ball if they are playing where you hit it.  If you play the whole field, and use the speed you have (if any) you can get by with virtually any contact and it will fall or roll where someone isn't enough of the time to succeed.  Yes, that will not give you the power stats you might want, but it is better than what we are seeing out of some of these guys.

As for pitching, the same could be said.  Why does a pitcher try so hard for strike outs?  Because when the ball is put in play it may be put where there isn't someone there to catch it.  Or they will flub it.  Or throw it away, etc.  Contact, hard or soft, is a possible hit, or at least base runner.  Now, if the defense is playing the batters correctly, contact should also be right at them, or close enough.  So contact, in and of itself, is not bad; it is only bad in the pitcher's mind.  

The speed off of the bat means absolutely nothing to me.  Using the whole field, and making the defense work harder than striking out a third of the time is the most important aspect of hitting.  And pitchers should embrace contact.  If they put the pitch where they want it, the batter will more than likely hit it where they want it.  And someone will be there, or close enough.  Strike outs pile on pitch counts, and when teams are married to pitch counts it limits the innings a starter can go, and taxes the bullpens.  I hope any of that made sense.  🥴

19 hours ago, Ted Wiedmann said:

What would you consider underlying metrics and what is invalid about them? 

What would you call it when the “expected outcomes” continuously fail to materialize?  What metrics?  Whatever metrics that are predicting these mythical “expected outcomes “. 

1 hour ago, Ted Wiedmann said:

I think I get what you're saying, and if I do then we found our point of disagreement.

I don't think many hitters have control over the direction of a batted ball, just making contact is difficult enough as it is.  There are a select few in history that had/have the ability, but I believe for the most part it is random. I also think this has also gotten more difficult with the continuing development of pitching. If batted ball direction is random, then hit the snot out of it and hope for the best.

On the flip side, I believe for a pitcher a strikeout is the best possible outcome for an at-bat, therefore pitchers should maximize their best possible outcomes. With each out being so precious, I think pitchers should be uncomfortable leaving outs up to chance. 

Two different ways of thinking. 

That's all anyone can ask for.  Thanks.  

19 hours ago, Ted Wiedmann said:

By definition expected outcomes that fail to materialize are outliers. While sporadic, they do happen from time to time. 

You're also calling math and physics mythical in this statement. 

Um, no. I’m calling the underlying metrics suspect. When you say, “Successful players have this, this and this in common”, but then when other players share those traits and aren’t successful, it begs the question as to whether the original hypothesis is valid. The last three years are not a small sample size. Hardly small enough to be labeled an “outlier”. 

11 hours ago, Ted Wiedmann said:

If your're referring to players I'm not really sure what your're referring to either. Outside of Max Kepler, who has the largest wOBA/xwOBA difference over the last three years and that can still be explained fairly easily, who has underperformed based on batted ball and plate discipline data?

On the pitching side I think the misses in the recent years have not been due to incorrect data, I would attribute them mostly to emphasizing the wrong characteristics in pitchers. But the data shows that their process of thinking was wrong. 

I think the team coming to the wrong conclusion based on the data is different than the data being invalid, and I think that might be what your're saying. I could be misinterpreting. 

Fair point. I may be giving them too much credit. It is true that I assumed that the  wunderkids were interpreting the data correctly.   I do not know for a fact that they were. I assumed when they batted Kepler cleanup 56 times last year that they were following some metric that informed them it was a good idea. Maybe not?  I also assumed that when they instruct the entire lineup to stand at the plate and swing like Stevie Wonder with a light saber that some metric was informing that instruction. Maybe not?