|
|
Post by Judge Smails on May 22, 2022 17:22:53 GMT -8
here’s why total pitch counts are stupid. College teams have a lot bigger rosters than MLB teams. You can throw 5-6 guys a game and still have enough arms to go the next day. Big disagree. Pitch counts are HUGE in college ball. At this level, those huge rosters with 5 or 6 arms are mostly chumps once you get past the starters and first couple of quality pen guys. A big part of winning college baseball games is getting to the pen as soon as you can. Casey was a big believer in this, and coached his hitters to go deep into the count for precisely this reason. For years I've watched OSU batters take that first pitch strike right down the middle. At first it was maddening, but over the years I've seen how much easier it is to score runs after you chase the starter... Really? Definitely not the case in the post season. Yes, individual pitch count matters, especially with the starter, but total pitch count makes no sense. Casey taught taking pitches to get the starter out. That is a way different stat than total pitch count. |
|
|
|
Post by rgeorge on May 22, 2022 17:40:55 GMT -8
here’s why total pitch counts are stupid. College teams have a lot bigger rosters than MLB teams. You can throw 5-6 guys a game and still have enough arms to go the next day. Big disagree. Pitch counts are HUGE in college ball. At this level, those huge rosters with 5 or 6 arms are mostly chumps once you get past the starters and first couple of quality pen guys. A big part of winning college baseball games is getting to the pen as soon as you can. Casey was a big believer in this, and coached his hitters to go deep into the count for precisely this reason. For years I've watched OSU batters take that first pitch strike right down the middle. At first it was maddening, but over the years I've seen how much easier it is to score runs after you chase the starter... Lol... individual pitch count is indeed important. NOT total team pitch count. PC and PB were both pitch count guys in terms of an individual. Team totals mean nothing in terms of winning or losing. |
|
|
|
Post by irimi on May 22, 2022 20:04:40 GMT -8
Big disagree. Pitch counts are HUGE in college ball. At this level, those huge rosters with 5 or 6 arms are mostly chumps once you get past the starters and first couple of quality pen guys. A big part of winning college baseball games is getting to the pen as soon as you can. Casey was a big believer in this, and coached his hitters to go deep into the count for precisely this reason. For years I've watched OSU batters take that first pitch strike right down the middle. At first it was maddening, but over the years I've seen how much easier it is to score runs after you chase the starter... Lol... individual pitch count is indeed important. NOT total team pitch count. PC and PB were both pitch count guys in terms of an individual. Team totals mean nothing in terms of winning or losing. Why do you think so? Have you seen lots of data on this to make an informed decision or are you speaking from your gut? I ask because I have not seen total pitch count data as a stat, so I can’t say with your surety that it matters or not. My gut says it might not be an indicator of success, but my brain says that a team throwing fewer pitches is probably going to win the game. And I think you might be able to see trends and sort of “mileage” for a team’s bullpen over the course of a year. So do you have evidence that it is worthless data, or is it just not data that you are used to? |
|
|
|
Post by irimi on May 22, 2022 20:06:06 GMT -8
Big disagree. Pitch counts are HUGE in college ball. At this level, those huge rosters with 5 or 6 arms are mostly chumps once you get past the starters and first couple of quality pen guys. A big part of winning college baseball games is getting to the pen as soon as you can. Casey was a big believer in this, and coached his hitters to go deep into the count for precisely this reason. For years I've watched OSU batters take that first pitch strike right down the middle. At first it was maddening, but over the years I've seen how much easier it is to score runs after you chase the starter... Really? Definitely not the case in the post season. Yes, individual pitch count matters, especially with the starter, but total pitch count makes no sense. Casey taught taking pitches to get the starter out. That is a way different stat than total pitch count. Different = senseless? |
|
|
|
Post by nuclearbeaver on May 22, 2022 20:32:20 GMT -8
Really? Definitely not the case in the post season. Yes, individual pitch count matters, especially with the starter, but total pitch count makes no sense. Casey taught taking pitches to get the starter out. That is a way different stat than total pitch count. Different = senseless? It makes sense Irimi, you get the starter out with pitch count but none of the other pitchers matter? You get long relievers out by looking real mean and showing dance moves. |
|
|
|
Post by rgeorge on May 22, 2022 22:52:11 GMT -8
Lol... individual pitch count is indeed important. NOT total team pitch count. PC and PB were both pitch count guys in terms of an individual. Team totals mean nothing in terms of winning or losing. Why do you think so? Have you seen lots of data on this to make an informed decision or are you speaking from your gut? I ask because I have not seen total pitch count data as a stat, so I can’t say with your surety that it matters or not. My gut says it might not be an indicator of success, but my brain says that a team throwing fewer pitches is probably going to win the game. And I think you might be able to see trends and sort of “mileage” for a team’s bullpen over the course of a year. So do you have evidence that it is worthless data, or is it just not data that you are used to? There actually is no data that I've ever seen about team pitch counts. The total only exists because individual counts are kept. Pitch counts for a team are meaningless, but high counts are typically because of walks and teams patient at the plate. OSU has won and lost games with higher and lower pitch counts than an its opponents. Just as every team has. Plus a lot of pitch count totals are not significantly different between teams when talking 130-180+ pitches per game. The was easy way to think of it is correlation (is there a possible relationship? How strong?)? Versus is there a causation... does A directly lead to B? In the case of individual pitch counts there are studies that show a strong correlation that high pitch counts lead to a less effective pitcher. But, still A doesn't always cause B. Some pitchers tend to get stronger as an exception. But, the correlation is there. As for "team" pitch counts each individual pitcher is a different data set. Compiled they are meaningless as wins aren't determined by pitch counts and visa versa. So one seems to be related to the other, but it doesn't cause the other to happen. If all that makes sense? |
|
|
|
Post by rgeorge on May 22, 2022 23:07:26 GMT -8
It makes sense Irimi, you get the starter out with pitch count but none of the other pitchers matter? You get long relievers out by looking real mean and showing dance moves. Again... gaslighting. What does getting relievers, long or otherwise, out of a game have to do with total team pitch count? Completely separate situation and not what you do during games. You keep a team total, not by individual to see when that pitcher might fade. You realize the 4th pitcher of a game could conceivably throw 27 pitches in one inning and strike out the side (remember foul balls). Terrible pitch count, adds to team total, but 0 runs. So, again another example of a so called childish heckle type post. You know the type you so whined about. You don't get picked on because of your sense of humor or nerdness. Just as before you bring it on yourself and then cry victim. Jeez dude... |
|
|
|
Post by irimi on May 23, 2022 5:01:21 GMT -8
Why do you think so? Have you seen lots of data on this to make an informed decision or are you speaking from your gut? I ask because I have not seen total pitch count data as a stat, so I can’t say with your surety that it matters or not. My gut says it might not be an indicator of success, but my brain says that a team throwing fewer pitches is probably going to win the game. And I think you might be able to see trends and sort of “mileage” for a team’s bullpen over the course of a year. So do you have evidence that it is worthless data, or is it just not data that you are used to? The total only exists because individual counts are kept. Pitch counts for a team are meaningless, but high counts are typically because of walks and teams patient at the plate. OSU has won and lost games with higher and lower pitch counts than an its opponents. Just as every team has. Plus a lot of pitch count totals are not significantly different between teams when talking 130-180+ pitches per game. The was easy way to think of it is correlation (is there a possible relationship? How strong?)? Versus is there a causation... does A directly lead to B? In the case of individual pitch counts there are studies that show a strong correlation that high pitch counts lead to a less effective pitcher. But, still A doesn't always cause B. Some pitchers tend to get stronger as an exception. But, the correlation is there. As for "team" pitch counts each individual pitcher is a different data set. Compiled they are meaningless as wins aren't determined by pitch counts and visa versa. So one seems to be related to the other, but it doesn't cause the other to happen. If all that makes sense? You should’ve stopped there. There’s been a lot of talk on the board about LOB stat and whether it matters. And surely you know that getting batters to strikeout is not always an indicator of a win. For that matter, I know the Beavs have won games with fewer hits than their opponents. Are those stats irrelevant? Or are just unable/unwilling to find an application for the team pitch count stat? |
|
|
|
Post by nuclearbeaver on May 23, 2022 6:01:55 GMT -8
There really just is no significant public studies or studies in any of the journals I have access to. Makes sense as the data gathering/analysis is too large a task for a laymen and the only organizations who would pay for the research are likely to keep it internal. Im going to record team pitch counts for each of the supers and see if there’s anything of note in a smaller data set that would be worth exploring in a large one. Once the data is there it’s pretty easy to analyze for various factors but it’s a real PIA to go back and record different data. Please hit me up with ideas you think are worth analyzing and I’ll make sure to get relevant data on the supers. Here’s my list.
1) team total pitch count vs win.
2) team total pitch count affect in game result by series game #.
3) team pitch count, weighted by average PC of used pitchers, vs win.
4) team pitching efficiency vs win.
5) #4 weighted the same as #3 but with efficiency.
6) series score vs pitch count.
7) Series result vs team pitching efficiency
|
|
|
|
Post by zeroposter on May 23, 2022 9:08:56 GMT -8
Nuke, appreciate your Beav enthusiasm, but this is off the wall. Total pitch count means zip. You might even find a strong correlation to wins with your analysis. It still means zip.
|
|
|
|
Post by nuclearbeaver on May 23, 2022 10:24:10 GMT -8
Nuke, appreciate your Beav enthusiasm, but this is off the wall. Total pitch count means zip. You might even find a strong correlation to wins with your analysis. It still means zip. Until someone does something to prove it then it’s just opinion. It’s an interesting question and I’m not hurting anyone exploring it for my own fun. Some people are interested in the results if you aren’t that’s cool too. I’m not trying to redefine baseball it’s just an interesting question. |
|
|
|
Post by rgeorge on May 23, 2022 11:52:04 GMT -8
Nuke, appreciate your Beav enthusiasm, but this is off the wall. Total pitch count means zip. You might even find a strong correlation to wins with your analysis. It still means zip. Until someone does something to prove it then it’s just opinion. It’s an interesting question and I’m not hurting anyone exploring it for my own fun. Some people are interested in the results if you aren’t that’s cool too. I’m not trying to redefine baseball it’s just an interesting question. Actually even the limited data set of OSU games in 2022 has proven there is no causation... pitch counts do not cause wins or losses. There maybe a tiny weak negative correlation (lower pitch count increases chance to win), but a correlation does not mean causation and the "supposed" BS in NE would know that. And, you've never presented ANY results, just made an initial claim. Nuke you keep changing the target as you never poised it as an interesting question/opinion. |
|
|
|
Post by nuclearbeaver on May 23, 2022 13:11:18 GMT -8
Until someone does something to prove it then it’s just opinion. It’s an interesting question and I’m not hurting anyone exploring it for my own fun. Some people are interested in the results if you aren’t that’s cool too. I’m not trying to redefine baseball it’s just an interesting question. Actually even the limited data set of OSU games in 2022 has proven there is no causation... pitch counts do not cause wins or losses. There maybe a tiny weak negative correlation (lower pitch count increases chance to win), but a correlation does not mean causation and the "supposed" BS in NE would know that. And, you've never presented ANY results, just made an initial claim. Nuke you keep changing the target as you never poised it as an interesting question/opinion. George this has literally nothing to do with you. You aren't doing the work to gather data. You aren't offering up anything to analyze. You apparently don't want anyone else to do it either. You want me to present results before the games even happened? I don't have a time machine boss. I know a lot about statistics like causation and correlation are not the only issue at play. There are grades to both. Causation is almost always a fallacious claim in the first place as you are likely filtering out data to get a result you want or narrowing your scope to pointlessness. Almost nothing in life or data is in isolation, there are many causes and many correlations to any complex system. The title of this whole thread is "Pitch Count?". Thats a question. You ask questions when you don't know answers. I asked questions. You and Judge are claiming to know when you have no proof and have done no work. My scope of the inquiry is to see IF IT MATTERS and HOW IT MATTERS IF IT DOES. See those are not claims at all, they are questions. To find the answer you ASK people or do the work to find an answer. Then you share the answers and see if people see flaws in the analysis/data/process and what else can be found. See thats what I am up to, you are still just here being an asshole. |
|
|
|
Post by rgeorge on May 23, 2022 13:44:53 GMT -8
Actually even the limited data set of OSU games in 2022 has proven there is no causation... pitch counts do not cause wins or losses. There maybe a tiny weak negative correlation (lower pitch count increases chance to win), but a correlation does not mean causation and the "supposed" BS in NE would know that. And, you've never presented ANY results, just made an initial claim. Nuke you keep changing the target as you never poised it as an interesting question/opinion. George this has literally nothing to do with you. You aren't doing the work to gather data. You aren't offering up anything to analyze. You apparently don't want anyone else to do it either. You want me to present results before the games even happened? I don't have a time machine boss. I know a lot about statistics like causation and correlation are not the only issue at play. There are grades to both. Causation is almost always a fallacious claim in the first place as you are likely filtering out data to get a result you want or narrowing your scope to pointlessness. Almost nothing in life or data is in isolation, there are many causes and many correlations to any complex system. The title of this whole thread is "Pitch Count?". Thats a question. You ask questions when you don't know answers. I asked questions. You and Judge are claiming to know when you have no proof and have done no work. My scope of the inquiry is to see IF IT MATTERS and HOW IT MATTERS IF IT DOES. See those are not claims at all, they are questions. To find the answer you ASK people or do the work to find an answer. Then you share the answers and see if people see flaws in the analysis/data/process and what else can be found. See thats what I am up to, you are still just here being an asshole. First... thanks for the "block"... again sort of nullifies your whiner thread about being bullied and you have no part, or wonder the why?? Actual calling out BS has to do with everyone. The above highlights show really how much BS you spew. I actually did look through the games played and pointed out that OSU has won and lost games with a lower and higher pitch counts. IF you really had a BS in NE you'd know stuff like a correlation is the study of TWO variables at a time and how one may or may not effects the other. Not many correlations when you speak of pitch count vs winning. You not only toss out BS you then try to obfuscate to hide you have no idea what you are talking about... total team pitch count has an effect on wins and then the beauty... Wheeler makes OSU's offense better vs other teams' aces. Those are the two made up/false ideas you wanted to repeatedly support. No one really cares if you post numbers, but both opinions you posited were blatantly false. -analysis of data doesn't leave out data unless you're one with a confirmation bias and chose to do so. And, you're again gaslighting; -there is not "grades" to correlation or causation; -correlations do not have causes; -causation is exactly the assertion you made. And causation is in no way a false if done correctly; -we do know... in games ALREADY played OSU and opponents have won and lost games with pitch counts higher and lower. And many totals have an statistically insignificant difference; -your claims of pitch count started long before this thread; Here's a old school elementary science quote for you... about 5th grade level: "Why Correlation is not causation? Correlation tests for a relationship between two variables. However, seeing two variables moving together does not necessarily mean we know whether one variable causes the other to occur. This is why we commonly say “correlation does not imply causation. How do you prove causation? To establish causality you need to show three things–that X came before Y, that the observed relationship between X and Y didn't happen by chance alone, and that there is nothing else that accounts for the X -> Y relationship." Maybe I'm being an ass, but to callout a poser and hypocrite is well worth it. I have a sort of disability too, I don't suffer fools well, especially those that keep digging to prove just how much so. I'd get your $$ back on that degree. |
|
|
|
Post by wilkyisdashiznit on May 23, 2022 14:40:09 GMT -8
George this has literally nothing to do with you. You aren't doing the work to gather data. You aren't offering up anything to analyze. You apparently don't want anyone else to do it either. You want me to present results before the games even happened? I don't have a time machine boss. I know a lot about statistics like causation and correlation are not the only issue at play. There are grades to both. Causation is almost always a fallacious claim in the first place as you are likely filtering out data to get a result you want or narrowing your scope to pointlessness. Almost nothing in life or data is in isolation, there are many causes and many correlations to any complex system. The title of this whole thread is "Pitch Count?". Thats a question. You ask questions when you don't know answers. I asked questions. You and Judge are claiming to know when you have no proof and have done no work. My scope of the inquiry is to see IF IT MATTERS and HOW IT MATTERS IF IT DOES. See those are not claims at all, they are questions. To find the answer you ASK people or do the work to find an answer. Then you share the answers and see if people see flaws in the analysis/data/process and what else can be found. See thats what I am up to, you are still just here being an asshole. First... thanks for the "block"... again sort of nullifies your whiner thread about being bullied and you have no part, or wonder the why?? Actual calling out BS has to do with everyone. The above highlights show really how much BS you spew. I actually did look through the games played and pointed out that OSU has won and lost games with a lower and higher pitch counts. IF you really had a BS in NE you'd know stuff like a correlation is the study of TWO variables at a time and how one may or may not effects the other. Not many correlations when you speak of pitch count vs winning. You not only toss out BS you then try to obfuscate to hide you have no idea what you are talking about... total team pitch count has an effect on wins and then the beauty... Wheeler makes OSU's offense better vs other teams' aces. Those are the two made up/false ideas you wanted to repeatedly support. No one really cares if you post numbers, but both opinions you posited were blatantly false. -analysis of data doesn't leave out data unless you're one with a confirmation bias and chose to do so. And, you're again gaslighting; -there is not "grades" to correlation or causation; -correlations do not have causes; -causation is exactly the assertion you made. And causation is in no way a false if done correctly; -we do know... in games ALREADY played OSU and opponents have won and lost games with pitch counts higher and lower. And many totals have an statistically insignificant difference; -your claims of pitch count started long before this thread; Here's a old school elementary science quote for you... about 5th grade level: "Why Correlation is not causation? Correlation tests for a relationship between two variables. However, seeing two variables moving together does not necessarily mean we know whether one variable causes the other to occur. This is why we commonly say “correlation does not imply causation. How do you prove causation? To establish causality you need to show three things–that X came before Y, that the observed relationship between X and Y didn't happen by chance alone, and that there is nothing else that accounts for the X -> Y relationship." Maybe I'm being an ass, but to callout a poser and hypocrite is well worth it. I have a sort of disability too, I don't suffer fools well, especially those that keep digging to prove just how much so. I'd get your $$ back on that degree. Nuclear seems like a well-informed individual. I am curious as to his question. I have not heard anything about what he is asking about, and no one is really answering other than to say that the question is stupid. I would tend to agree that pitch count is usually focused on individual pitchers rather than teams, but it seems like a well thought-out and intelligent question that does not have a readily apparent answer to me. Respectfully, I would love it, if this forum could be a place, where people can ask questions that they are curious about without people calling their education into question. Just my two cents, and it may not even be worth that. |
|
