Batters who just OWN pitchers

[thatpfunk]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
"Do the laws of variance really state that SOMEBODY has to have 22K's in 27 AB's versus Santana?"

uh, yes?

[/ QUOTE ]

Please explain it to me, like I'm a 1 year old.

[/ QUOTE ]

vhawk just did. or you could just read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Variance if its not too complicated.

we're on a poker site, right?

[prohornblower]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
It isn't like this is a small deviation from his normal strikeout rate. I don't think variance alone is to blame for someone striking out in 75% of the PA vs. a pitcher who strikes out 25% of batters faced over a decent sample. Look through Santana's pitcher vs. batter stats. There are only like 4 hitters w/ 10PAs against Santana who have a greater then 50% strikeout rate and all of those are less then 60%.

I could be wrong, but it seems like you are seriously overestimating the factor variance plays in strikeouts.

[/ QUOTE ]

The thing is, this has absolutely nothing to do with the role variance plays in strikeouts. His strikeout rate is what it is, ~25%. I'm not claiming THAT is due to variance. The part that is due to variance is the outliers, the players who strikeout 70-80% of the time and the players who strike out 0-10% of the time.

[/ QUOTE ]

The problem is that you are assigning every hitter the same probability of striking out against Johan (25%). This is not the case. The hitters that strike out 10% of the time against him (over a decent sample size), likely read the ball out of his hand better. The ones who K a ridiculous 80% of the time do so because they cannot decipher his pitches, or are A-ball hitters, who for some reason are in the pros.

Variance is simulating 5 seasons on XBOX and having Abe Wetar hit homerun totals of: 60, 54, 58, 64, 22. Not of Abe Wetar hitting 60, and Juan Pierre hitting 2 in the first season.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
for the people who swear its all varience
if you managed a major league team are you really going to just stick your head up your ass and not actually watch the gams and just chalk up any unusual variation to varience?
what if peralata swung and missed 66 times in a row still variance?

Do you really thing if Peralta faced Santana a million times and neither one ever got any better or worse or made any adjustments that peralta wouldnt get owned?
Maybe he just cant hit that [censored] sick change Johan throws.


As for Tejada vs Moyer:
He has struck out 6 times vs hit in 81 at bats. Moyer is a contact pitcher. With a lot more balls being put in play variance should play a much bigger factor in how someone does than if he were a strikeout pitcher. However not being able to put a ball in play off of someone is a completely different situation. If anything variance is the reason he got those 3 hits of Santana.

[/ QUOTE ]

You are making the same mistake over and over and over again. You are imagining that the situation is, you watch Perralta in BP or something, and you feel that he has some weakness that will be particularly exploitable by a guy like Santana. So, then you go watch him try to hit Santana, for 27 ABs, and sure enough, he strikes out 22 times. This is VERY STRONG evidence that Santana owns Perralta.

But that isn't what happened. What happened was, you took hundreds of hitters, had them all face Santana a bunch of times, and then cherry picked the one who has 22 Ks. This is a very, very different situation.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
It isn't like this is a small deviation from his normal strikeout rate. I don't think variance alone is to blame for someone striking out in 75% of the PA vs. a pitcher who strikes out 25% of batters faced over a decent sample. Look through Santana's pitcher vs. batter stats. There are only like 4 hitters w/ 10PAs against Santana who have a greater then 50% strikeout rate and all of those are less then 60%.

I could be wrong, but it seems like you are seriously overestimating the factor variance plays in strikeouts.

[/ QUOTE ]

The thing is, this has absolutely nothing to do with the role variance plays in strikeouts. His strikeout rate is what it is, ~25%. I'm not claiming THAT is due to variance. The part that is due to variance is the outliers, the players who strikeout 70-80% of the time and the players who strike out 0-10% of the time.

[/ QUOTE ]

The problem is that you are assigning every hitter the same probability of striking out against Johan (25%). This is not the case. The hitters that strike out 10% of the time against him (over a decent sample size), likely read the ball out of his hand better. The ones who K a ridiculous 80% of the time do so because they cannot decipher his pitches, or are A-ball hitters, who for some reason are in the pros.

Variance is simulating 5 seasons on XBOX and having Abe Wetar hit homerun totals of: 60, 54, 58, 64, 22. Not of Abe Wetar hitting 60, and Juan Pierre hitting 2 in the first season.

[/ QUOTE ]

Except I'm not aware of anyone who strikes out against him at a 10
% clip over a decent sample size.

EDIT: But I'm actually not even doing what you are saying. I don't know if everyone strikes out at the same "true rate" or not. They probably don't, although I'd bet there isn't much variation. What I am saying is that, if we ASSUME that they all strike out with the same rate, there will STILL be someone who strikes out 22 times. So, basically, there is no reason to discard our assumption. And since it is a much simpler assumption that Santana pwns everyone than that Perralta has some magic glitch...

See, the Perralta stats are basically being given as evidence that it is IMPOSSIBLE that Santana strikes everyone out the same. Thats what it means to say that "Santana owns X." All I'm trying to show you is that the Perralta stats do nothing of the sort. They do nothing to help reject the idea that Santana owns everyone equally.

[prohornblower]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
for the people who swear its all varience
if you managed a major league team are you really going to just stick your head up your ass and not actually watch the gams and just chalk up any unusual variation to varience?
what if peralata swung and missed 66 times in a row still variance?

Do you really thing if Peralta faced Santana a million times and neither one ever got any better or worse or made any adjustments that peralta wouldnt get owned?
Maybe he just cant hit that [censored] sick change Johan throws.


As for Tejada vs Moyer:
He has struck out 6 times vs hit in 81 at bats. Moyer is a contact pitcher. With a lot more balls being put in play variance should play a much bigger factor in how someone does than if he were a strikeout pitcher. However not being able to put a ball in play off of someone is a completely different situation. If anything variance is the reason he got those 3 hits of Santana.

[/ QUOTE ]

You are making the same mistake over and over and over again. You are imagining that the situation is, you watch Perralta in BP or something, and you feel that he has some weakness that will be particularly exploitable by a guy like Santana. So, then you go watch him try to hit Santana, for 27 ABs, and sure enough, he strikes out 22 times. This is VERY STRONG evidence that Santana owns Perralta.

But that isn't what happened. What happened was, you took hundreds of hitters, had them all face Santana a bunch of times, and then cherry picked the one who has 22 Ks. This is a very, very different situation.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, but you haven't been able to prove that Santana DOES NOT own Peralta. Some say he owns him, some say he doesn't. The difference is that there is actual data suggesting he does own him. So that is more likely the case.

Unless you have some proof as to why Peralta owns Santana? lol.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
for the people who swear its all varience
if you managed a major league team are you really going to just stick your head up your ass and not actually watch the gams and just chalk up any unusual variation to varience?
what if peralata swung and missed 66 times in a row still variance?

Do you really thing if Peralta faced Santana a million times and neither one ever got any better or worse or made any adjustments that peralta wouldnt get owned?
Maybe he just cant hit that [censored] sick change Johan throws.


As for Tejada vs Moyer:
He has struck out 6 times vs hit in 81 at bats. Moyer is a contact pitcher. With a lot more balls being put in play variance should play a much bigger factor in how someone does than if he were a strikeout pitcher. However not being able to put a ball in play off of someone is a completely different situation. If anything variance is the reason he got those 3 hits of Santana.

[/ QUOTE ]

You are making the same mistake over and over and over again. You are imagining that the situation is, you watch Perralta in BP or something, and you feel that he has some weakness that will be particularly exploitable by a guy like Santana. So, then you go watch him try to hit Santana, for 27 ABs, and sure enough, he strikes out 22 times. This is VERY STRONG evidence that Santana owns Perralta.

But that isn't what happened. What happened was, you took hundreds of hitters, had them all face Santana a bunch of times, and then cherry picked the one who has 22 Ks. This is a very, very different situation.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, but you haven't been able to prove that Santana DOES NOT own Peralta. Some say he owns him, some say he doesn't. The difference is that there is actual data suggesting he does own him. So that is more likely the case.

Unless you have some proof as to why Peralta owns Santana? lol.

[/ QUOTE ]

Read my edit on my previous post, I anticipated this pretty well. You just got to the exact crux of the problem. Perralta's stats ARE NOT evidence that Santana owns him. Thats the whole problem.

[prohornblower]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
for the people who swear its all varience
if you managed a major league team are you really going to just stick your head up your ass and not actually watch the gams and just chalk up any unusual variation to varience?
what if peralata swung and missed 66 times in a row still variance?

Do you really thing if Peralta faced Santana a million times and neither one ever got any better or worse or made any adjustments that peralta wouldnt get owned?
Maybe he just cant hit that [censored] sick change Johan throws.


As for Tejada vs Moyer:
He has struck out 6 times vs hit in 81 at bats. Moyer is a contact pitcher. With a lot more balls being put in play variance should play a much bigger factor in how someone does than if he were a strikeout pitcher. However not being able to put a ball in play off of someone is a completely different situation. If anything variance is the reason he got those 3 hits of Santana.

[/ QUOTE ]

you watch Perralta in BP or something, and you feel that he has some weakness that will be particularly exploitable by a guy like Santana. So, then you go watch him try to hit Santana, for 27 ABs, and sure enough, he strikes out 22 times. This is VERY STRONG evidence that Santana owns Perralta.


[/ QUOTE ]

So let me get this right, it would only be proof if, first, some fat scout sitting in the stands made a half-assed observation and brought it to someones attention? Wow.

But if nobody assumes beforehand that a hitter can't hit a pitcher, then no pitcher can own a hitter?

[mo42nyy]

arod 2 times 19 abs

victor martinez 5 times in 44 abs

[mo42nyy]

vhawk-
man on 3rd 1 out down by 1 in the bottom of the ninth inning of game 7 of the alcs and youre manging the indians
You let peralta hit against santana if you have a similar hitter on the bench who has never faced Santana before?

[prohornblower]

Also, styles make at-bats. Much like boxing. It's not like playing cards, where the "style" of the hand doesn't matter. The cards themselves have finite value, but the player playing them adds the "style", which can dominate another opponent. When AA loses all-in pre-flop to KK, it is "variance", not poor play. When AA loses to a draw at showdown in a non-all-in pot, it isn't "variance", but "poor play" or poor style by the player.

Much like how Joe Frazier beat Muhammad Ali, then George Foreman knocked Frazier down 6 times in 2 rounds and made him look like a complete fool, only to end up looking like a fool against Ali (who called Frazier the best opponent he had). Anyone who doesn't think Frazier got made to look like a fool by Foreman is either blind or retarded. And that only took a sample-size of one.

Styles and ability make at-bats. Not static probabilities like in poker.