This goes against everything I’ve been saying for the past. I’m sure it will thrill Matt to no end:
Are long at-bats more productive than short ones?
It seems obvious. Work the count. Make the pitcher labor. Foul off those two-strike pitches. As you go deeper in the count, it’s going to work in the batter’s favor.
Or does it?
The numbers beg to differ. Here are the major league averages for long and short at-bats (Short defined as three pitches or less, long as four pitches or more):
Avg On-Base Slugging OPS
Short At-Bats .301 .317 .467 .784
Long At-Bats .223 .352 .348 .700Surprisingly, the OPS for short at-bats is significantly higher than long at-bats. What’s clear is that there is an advantage to hitters when they put one of the first three pitches in play. They hit almost 80 points higher and slug over 100 points higher.
There are two things that work in favor of hitters who work the count for longer at-bats. OPS is a great stat but not perfect. One of it’s imperfections is that it undervalues on-base percentage. Hence, the 84 point difference suggested is really less. The second element is hard to measure. There is certainly value to making pitchers work harder (i.e. throw more pitches) over the course of the game that is not measured here.
What about the really short and long at-bats (one-pitch ABs and ABs with seven or more pitches)?
Avg On-Base Slugging OPS
One and done .344 .349 .543 .892
Seven-up (7+) .230 .406 .372 .778In both cases, hitters get better. Hitters, in general, are more selective on that first pitch and look for something in their wheelhouse as the pitcher tries to get ahead in the count. Nevertheless, it also pays off to really work deep into the count.
This is a new profile that we just added to Bill James Online. For more in-depth information (including short and long at-bat performance for every player going back to 2002), check out www.billjamesonline.com . It’s a subscription service, $3/month.
Turistas movies The Incredible Hulk ipod “Used with permission from John Dewan’s Stat of the Week™, www.statoftheweek.com.”
It would be interesting how it breaks down between batters who vary what pitch they swing at and batters who consistently swing early and batters who consistently work the count.
I would think that a selective batter who usually works the count swinging at an early pitch will likely have success since it is probably a hittable pitch (that’s why he’s swinging at it).
Hope that made sense.
See, and all of you think I speak out of my butt. Tsk, tsk.
I think Dewan’s analysis is somewhat faulty.
First, it would make more sense to compare pitch by pitch, not arbitrary numbers.
Second, it doesn’t make much sense to factor in OBP in short at-bats, being that the only way that they can reach base is by a HBP.
Third, I have never really thought that a batter that sees more pitches would necessarily have a better chance of a hit in that at-bat. But that doesn’t diminish the value of seeing more pitches and extending the pitcher. I would like to see an analysis that looked at the impact that long at-bats had on innings and games.
I’m lost on how the only way a short at bat leads to OBP is a HBP.
What he means is that in a 3-pitch AB, you can’t possibly walk, so it’s hardly worth including OBP. The contrasting situation will always produce a better OBP.
What I like about the Cubs team we have this year is it’s a nice mix of guys who consistently work the count (Soto), guys who like to swing away (Soriano), and everything in between. It gives us the effect of making a pitcher work, but also gives us our chances to bust games wide open, which has often been the case.
I’m lost on how the only way a short at bat leads to OBP is a HBP.
In at-bats less than four pitches, you have three main ways to reach base – a hit, a hbp, or an error.
In other words, any difference in BA and OBP would come solely from a HBP, which makes OBP a pretty worthless stat in those situations.
Ah, now it makes sense. The coffee hadn’t set in yet.
It seems to me that the Cubs, unlike any other year, have worked the count to simply get other teams starting pitchers out of the way earlier to get to bullpens where they have often brutalized them. If they can’t get to the starter, then they simply work him out of the game by running up his pitch counts. We have, however, on a few occasions noticed the Cubs struggle when the other teams starter throws lots of strikes and keeps his pitch count low. Fortunately, there aren’t many opposing pitchers who can do this.
Thus, they may suffer lower avg.early but later on they kill the bullpen on low pitch AB’s(and win).
And the W is all that matters.
3.1% of ’07 ML PA’s were by pitchers.
’07 pitchers had a BA of 0.146
All ’07 batters BA 0.268
Don’t know the outs per PA (> 4 pitches)/(= or < 4 pitches) ratio
Do pitchers regularly get a foul or a ball call?
The pitcher may be neutral but it also may effect the BA as much as 10 points and a much larger impact upon SLG.
The 8th hitter in the NL got 96 fewer BB than the 7th hitter despite having a 0.012 point lower BA. Does the low avg 8th hitter see more pitches simply because the near auto-out bats next?
A potential treasure of the long PA is the BB. By its very nature it is in itself a reason for going deep into the count.
Any time the there is 2 strikes in the AL, the BA suffers: less than 0.200 for 0, 1 and 2 balls and 0.235 for a full count.
However, any time the there is 3 balls in the count the OBP goes way up. Even for a full count it is 0.471