Tuesday nite TRIVIA ?

[Aquarian Sports Cards]

Originally Posted by tedzan

The key to hitting .400+ is WALKS. Ted Williams lead the AL with 147 Walks in the 1941 season when he hit .406 and in 1957 when he flirted with .400, he had 119 Walks.
These batters nowadays don't have the patience to wait out the pitcher. Therefore, I think Ted's .406 may never be surpassed. As I do not think DiMaggio's 56-game streak
will ever be equaled.



TED Z

T206 Reference
.

Gotta disagree with this assessment Ted. In 1941 Major leaguers walked in 9.2% of their plate appearances. In 2016 the rate was 9.1 % there's some variance of course but no noticeable trend in walks/plate appearance in either direction.

I would argue lack of contact is a much bigger issue. 1941 Major Leaguers K's in 9.1% of their PA's in 2016 it was 21.1%. Advanced stats seem to indicate this is a more successful way to play the game, but I have to wonder. Contact obviously leads to more opportunities for success then no contact. Supposedly the power increase makes up for the contact decrease.

Also FWIW Lajoie had only 24 walks in his .400 season Sisler only walked 46 and 49 times respectively in his .400 seasons Joe Jackson was 56 times, Bill Terry was 57, Harry Heilmann was 73, Hornsby was in the 80's which is healthy, Cobb was right around 100. I don't think this shows that walks are essential to hitting .400.

If we look at their K numbers they definitely support my hypothesis.

[tedzan]

Originally Posted by Aquarian Sports Cards

Gotta disagree with this assessment Ted. .


Also FWIW Lajoie had only 24 walks in his .400 season Sisler only walked 46 and 49 times respectively in his .400 seasons Joe Jackson was 56 times, Bill Terry was 57, Harry Heilmann was 73, Hornsby was in the 80's which is healthy, Cobb was right around 100. I don't think this shows that walks are essential to hitting .400.

Hi Scott
These guys played in an era when you could get 250 Hits; therefore, they didn't need Walks to help boost their BA. However, in the post WWII era getting 250 hits just ain't happening
any more. But, being patient and having a good eye can get you Walks, which of course reduces your official AB number.....which in turn (for a given number of Hits) raises your BA.

You don't have to take my word for it. Here's what George Brett said to a Sportscaster when asked in 1980 (he batted .390) why he fell short of achieving .400: " I didn't get enough
Walks. I needed about dozen more Walks to achieve .400 "


TED Z

T206 Reference
.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by tedzan

Hi Scott
These guys played in an era when you could get 250 Hits; therefore, they didn't need Walks to help boost their BA. However, in the post WWII era getting 250 hits just ain't happening
any more. But, being patient and having a good eye can get you Walks, which of course reduces your official AB number.....which in turn (for a given number of Hits) raises your BA.

You don't have to take my word for it. Here's what George Brett said to a Sportscaster when asked in 1980 (he batted .390) why he fell short of achieving .400: " I didn't get enough
Walks. I needed about dozen more Walks to achieve .400 "


TED Z



T206 Reference
.

Over the course of that season there doubtless were a dozen or more times he swung at ball four and made an out, so he's right.

[Aquarian Sports Cards]

I like a good discussion, so don't think I'm giving you a hard time.

250 hits has only been done 7 times, and 7 of the top 20 all time hit season totals have occurred since 1977. That's pretty much a perfect ratio of 1/3 of the top seasons in 1/3 of modern ball history.

As for Brett, that's great, but it's really anecdotal. Yes technically if he reduced his AB total with a couple handfuls of walks he would've hit .400 it doesn't mean you can employ walks as a strategy to hit .400. Also often times those who excel at something are among the worst at explaining it. It's why guys like Ted Williams are pretty much failures as a managers while guy like Whitey Herzog, Sparky Anderson and Tommy Lasorda are successful. Of course there are exceptions, but generally peaking being a savant doesn't actually mean you're qualified to explain what you do. (And yes I know William's The Science of Hitting is considered a seminal work to this day, but Brett was a disciple of Charlie Lau and Walt Hriniak who couldn't collectively hit their way out of a paper bag.)

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Aquarian Sports Cards

I like a good discussion, so don't think I'm giving you a hard time.

250 hits has only been done 7 times, and 7 of the top 20 all time hit season totals have occurred since 1977. That's pretty much a perfect ratio of 1/3 of the top seasons in 1/3 of modern ball history.

As for Brett, that's great, but it's really anecdotal. Yes technically if he reduced his AB total with a couple handfuls of walks he would've hit .400 it doesn't mean you can employ walks as a strategy to hit .400. Also often times those who excel at something are among the worst at explaining it. It's why guys like Ted Williams are pretty much failures as a managers while guy like Whitey Herzog, Sparky Anderson and Tommy Lasorda are successful. Of course there are exceptions, but generally peaking being a savant doesn't actually mean you're qualified to explain what you do. (And yes I know William's The Science of Hitting is considered a seminal work to this day, but Brett was a disciple of Charlie Lau and Walt Hriniak who couldn't collectively hit their way out of a paper bag.)

I don't think Brett or Ted was suggesting he employ walks as a strategy. As I read it, he was suggesting that if he had been more judicious and walked a few more times instead of making an out on a bad pitch, he would have had a better BA.

[Aquarian Sports Cards]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

I don't think Brett or Ted was suggesting he employ walks as a strategy. As I read it, he was suggesting that if he had been more judicious and walked a few more times instead of making an out on a bad pitch, he would have had a better BA.

Your initial point is interesting. I'd like to see what the Elias Sports bureau could find on it. I bet he didn't make very many outs on potential ball 4's. He did walk at a decent rate and if he's swinging at ball four I'm guessing that pretty often it was his pitch and he hit it well. Even discounting that he only swung at ball 4 if it was a great pitch for him, a dozen such instances where he didn't get a hit, statistically would imply that there were about 20 such instances in total. I don't know that I believe he swung at 20 potential ball 4's in 515 plate appearances.

Also would like to point out he only struck out 22 times the year in question which supports my argument. A low K total doesn't mean you have a high average but if you have a high average in all likelihood your K total is pretty low.

[Peter_Spaeth]

You don't think that once every 8 games he swung at ball 4? I don't have any numbers but it sounds quite plausible to me, even the best hitters get fooled frequently.

[Aquarian Sports Cards]

first he only played 118 games that year if I remember correctly so that takes it to once every 6 games. Then how often did he see a pitch on a three ball count? He walked 58 times (and since I had to look that up I checked he played 117 games that year) how many more 3 ball counts above those 58 do you think he saw in 515 plate appearances? Then how many of those WOULD have been ball four that he swung at? I would posit that with three balls the next pitch is probably a strike more often than other counts which lowers the possible number even more. I honestly don't know, but I meant it about Elias. This is the kind of statistic they excel at. But I still think it'll probably be, to most, a surprisingly small number.

515 PA's
- 58 Walks
_________
457 PA's

How many reached Ball 3?

Statistically speaking a 3 ball count is significantly less common. First of all the at bat has to last at LEAST 3 pitches, and then you need three balls. Plus I don't know how often he would swing away at 3 - 0, so that may impact one of the possible 3 ball counts. But if you throw out logic and just look at statistics there are 12 different possible counts only 3 of which are 3 ball counts, or 25%.

That would indicate he had 114 3 ball counts that didn't result in walks. I gotta imagine it was actually a LOT less than that.

Interesting thought exercise though. Fun stuff.