Cheap Home Run Article - Hardball Times

by jasomack on Feb 25, 2008 6:10 PM PST Comment 10 comments

I thought it was interesting, so you should to.

http://www.hardballtimes.com/main/article/homer-tracker/

Basically the article is talking about http://www.hittrackeronline.com/ a site that tracks home runs, and what players/teams hit a lot of balls that barely cleared the fences. The Giants were the top team on the list, percentage-wise.

Good news: Aaron Rowand didn't hit many "cheap" home runs (6 of 27). Maybe he maintains more of his power than we expect this year.

Bad news: Most of Randy Winn's (10 of 14) were of the "cheap" variety. I already wasn't excited about his years 34 and 35.

This FanPost is reader-generated, and it does not necessarily reflect the views of McCovey Chronicles. If the author uses filler to achieve the minimum word requirement, a moderator may edit the FanPost for his or her own amusement.

0 recs | Comment 10 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Re: Cheap Home Run Article - Hardball Times

I was surprised to see David Ortiz so high on the list of both "Just Enough" and "Lucky"...

Noonan. Nooooonan!

by Giant Fan in Singapore on Feb 25, 2008 10:30 PM PST reply actions 0 recs

Re: Cheap Home Run Article - Hardball Times

I really feel like they should be factoring park effects into these. For instance, I'm not that surprised that Philadelphia hitters were among the best in this rating (i.e. they didn't hit many cheap homers) because they play in a bandbox. But I guess it doesn't really matter since their heavy hitters will have the same luxury this year (except for Rowand of course... goddamnit).

Idolizing Robb Nen since 2002...

by Smoke on the Water on Feb 25, 2008 10:36 PM PST reply actions 0 recs

One problem I see is that he does not

really seem to be taking into account park. He makes a cursory mention of park in the article, bu t then goes on without taking into account park.

For example,

"Player Cheap Total %
Brandon Phillips 14 30 46.67%
Jim Thome 15 35 42.86%
David Wright 12 30 40.00%
David Ortiz 13 35 37.14%
Matt Holiday 13 36 36.11%"
.
.
.
David Wright is another good bet to decline. Hit Tracker also tracks "lucky" homers--those which left the yard only because of wind, weather and other factors beyond the batter's control. (Yup, Hit Tracker also notes those factors for all homers.) Wright had 10 and only one other batter in MLB had more than seven.

A "just enougher" in a pitcher's park is not a "just enougher" in a hitter's park. How many of Wright's "just enoughers" came in pitcher's parks like Shea, Florida, Atlanta, Washington, and how many came in a hitter's park like Philly?

That's just one example.

Others,

"The two National League teams with the fewest homers last year--the Giants and Nationals--actually had quite a bit less power than their numbers appear"

And the Nationals played in an extreme pitchers park. They will also be moving to a new park.

"Maybe the most impressive team total is the Phillies. They had the second-most homers in baseball last year despite getting screwed on the borderline blasts."

Extreme hitter's park.

by rfloh on Feb 25, 2008 10:38 PM PST reply actions 0 recs

Re: Cheap Home Run Article - Hardball Times

yeah, the park factors aren't accounted for, but at the same time is hard to quantify.

As a fantasy tool, this has some use though, because most of these players will be playing in the same parks again next year and thus might not be so lucky.

Frandsen for 3B (til July 08)

by NeifiChicken on Feb 25, 2008 11:21 PM PST reply actions 0 recs

If that is the case

he needs to provide context.

How did these players and teams do in 2006? In 2005? Over their careers, for players?

For all we know, these players could have been "lucky" or "unlucky" throughout their careers.

Just citing a player's one year numbers, then the league average, is like saying that league average BABIP is 300, player X had a 389 BABIP. Ergo player X is due to decline, back to a league average BABIP.

That is not the case.

by rfloh on Feb 25, 2008 11:53 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Re: If that is the case

I agree, but from what I can tell, the info isn't quite available for previous years. I was looking at the 2006 charts, and it looks like it might be "available" but not organized into catagories like '07 is. Maybe they'll do it for '06, or maybe this will just be a tool for '07 on.
The other thing I wonder about: how many "almost" home runs were hit? What players hit a lot of balls high on walls, or got robbed by the wind? I'm admittedly too lazy to go through all the data myself.

The 2008 San Francisco Giants: Years of neglected rebuilding, continued.

by jasomack on Feb 26, 2008 12:33 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Re: If that is the case

When I see that a player hit for a high or low BABIP, I tend to think they will regress not to the league average, but to their own personal average. If the player doesn't have much of a track record, I tend to use .300 -- particularly if his line drive rate isn't in synch with a much higher or lower level.

But I can tell you that if I see that a player has a .389 BABIP, I feel fairly confident that his batting average will decline the following year. .389 is rather unsustainable for most players.

I agree with you that it is possible for a player to be either "lucky" or "unlucky" over his entire career. But the longer his career, the less likely that is to be the case.

Why do we so often say that we can't learn from certain things because there are exceptions to the rule? If the rule applies most of the time, isn't that better than merely guessing?

by sharksrog on Feb 26, 2008 12:44 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Yes, the guy who had the 389

BABIP in 2007, Ichiro is almost certainly going to decline. His career BABIP is 359.

But, the issue is "tend to think they will regress not to the league average, but to their own personal average. "

That's my point. Simply using the league average is lazy analysis.

Thing is, I am NOT saying that a player is "lucky" or "unlucky" over his career. I am actually arguing the opposite. I am arguing for skill, instead of luck, provided the sample is large enough.

"Why do we so often say that we can't learn from certain things because there are exceptions to the rule? If the rule applies most of the time, isn't that better than merely guessing?"

Err, I'm not saying that. I'm saying that he needs to provide more context. MORE STATS.

The Ichiro BABIP that I brought up, was to provide an example of why just comparing a player's average with league average is not enough.

by rfloh on Feb 26, 2008 7:28 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Re: Cheap Home Run Article - Hardball Times

When I looked at mlb.com for the hit chart of Aaron Rowand in home games last season, I was quite pleased to see that few of his home runs there appeared to be balls that wouldn't have gone out at AT&T.

Of the 17 homers he hit at home, only the two to right-center field appeared to me to be balls that almost certainly wouldn't have gone out at AT&T.

Perhaps there were more -- but when I looked right after the Giants acquired Aaron, only those two stood out.

by sharksrog on Feb 26, 2008 12:37 AM PST reply actions 0 recs

Re: Cheap Home Run Article - Hardball Times

Yeah, I agree, most analyses about Rowand just blindly assumes bandbox at Philly = power shortage in SF.

I've been doing this comparision for a while, starting with when we got Winn, and when I did it for Rowand, like you, I found basically the same thing, that most of his homers at home would have been homers in SF.

So 20+ homers still seem to be possible for Rowand in 2008.

The only thing I'm not sure is how much the environment plays a role in how far the ball goes, i.e. does being so near the bay affects the ball's travel here relative to Philly.

Hoping tk's recovery is faster than Emmanuel Burriss [BA's Giants fastest baserunner 2008] going from first to third!

by obsessivegiantscompulsive on Feb 26, 2008 9:18 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs